Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
bhallg2k wrote:Those assumption aren't automatic. Ferrari, Mercedes and McLaren have gobs of money, but they're not always at the front. Lotus/Renault have never been at the top of the spending charts, and their success ebbs and flows just like the others.
R&D can take place on the back of a napkin, a wind tunnel, while someone is mowing their lawn, or on a two-thousand-billion peta-tera-giga-floppy supercomputer.
What tool is more necessary for originality? For refinement?
Aye. Unrestrict the regs, add in a budget cap. Let the ones who get best value for money win.
Yeah, love it. Open up the rules and let's see some weird cars on the track and some different approaches. I'll accept a budget cap if they do this. The time and effort spent on policing a budget cap with the teams would be far less then what they're spending now and we'd have the old F1 back - win/win.
Moseley proposed the idea that teams who adhered to a certain yearly budget cap would have virtually no restrictions placed upon their cars. Teams who did not abide by such a cap would be left to operate within the regulations as normal. The teams rejected this idea, because it would have essentially created two classes of F1 running concurrently.
I agreed with that rejection along the same grounds and also because I don't know how in the world anyone is ever supposed to police the budgets of teams who are often part of large, multinational conglomerates.
Search "Arthur Andersen" and "ENRON" for examples of how creative accounting can be both ruinous and very easy to hide.
Yes the auditing would be a terrible nightmare. But theoretically - if it was a universal budget cap then probably it would be agreed upon, given that it eliminates the 2-tiered argument.
I think Joe Saward recently tackled the issue of a budget cap briefly, and one tool he mentioned to verify everyone is on the up-and-up is forensic accounting. I don't know anything about it personally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_accounting
The other thing he mentioned, which in my opinion should not be underestimated, is the severe punishment in the court of public opinion if one were to be caught cheating. If Ferrari or anyone else were caught breaking the budget rules they'd be branded cheaters the world over. Talk about besmirching your reputation. That would go beyond Spygate or any other technical infringements, because everybody including the laymen would understand what it means to spend more than you're allowed.
Even the current RRA is a legal document prosecutable in court. Problem is as it is now, to my knowledge, there can be workarounds. People aren't breaking the RRA, legally speaking, but they're getting around it at times.
The RRA is, in fact, not legally binding. It's a gentleman's agreement and nothing more. That's why the teams want the FIA to police it.
There was once someone here who constantly harped on its legality, and I never found even a shred of evidence that would support his claim.
The idea of a budget cap is dandy, but the reality is something else entirely. I think that's why the FIA hasn't yet made any moves toward actively enforcing one. (At least, that's what's publicly known at this point. Who knows what's going on with any potential Concorde negotiations?)
I think there are simply too many workarounds and loopholes in any financially-based regulations for them to be effective. Salary (budget) caps only work within the three North American sports who employ them because the rules regarding the associations of teams are entirely different than those that bind F1 teams.
EDIT: The complicated subjects we've discussed within this thread and countless others is why things look the way they do in F1. Nothing is so cut-and-dry as to offer any immediate or obvious solutions.
bhallg2k wrote:The RRA is, in fact, not legally binding. It's a gentleman's agreement and nothing more. That's why the teams want the FIA to police it.
James Allen wrote:it’s important to remember that the RRA is a legally binding agreement which runs to 2017, so it is not as if Ferrari and Red Bull will be able to spend £100 million a year more
Yes, but the fact stands that, unlike what you and Schneider said, it's not legally prosecutable. Which it is. However I do agree that monetary punishment isn't enough.
We probably aren't going to solve the how's or why's in this forum, but it is good to see all sides. When I first asked the question "purist vs spectacle" we seem to be leaning towards keeping F1 innovative - but we don't how and we don't know if we can afford it.
So, without trying to solve the problems - would we prefer a more technical innovative race, where some may dominate from time to time, or do we dumb it down so it's always fair and competitive for every team?
Regardless of how one views the definition of what is and what isn't a penalty within the RRA, I think we've demonstrated very well the problems inherent to such a concept. A rule without a definitive penalty and implementation might as well not be a rule.
I'd just like to see people for whom F1 is their job take a comprehensive look at the game from top to bottom so that they can put forth ideas that would enable F1 to remain viable to itself and it's origins and to reality as it exists today.
Being a 'purist' myself, my dream, if they could sort themselves out, F1 should be something like this:
Renault - innovating engines and aero
BMW - power and traction
Toyota - economy and electric hybrid power
Audi - 4x4, handling, diesel
Porsche - handling and grip
Volvo - economy and reliability
Ford - power, straight line
Mercedes - precision and power
Honda - hybrid hydrogen and economy
GMH - power
Each marque approaching the problem of the fastest racetime differently. Diverse mix of fuels, power, driving style, each method has it's pros and cons. What a show this would be.
The cars & rules were different every year you mentioned. Maldonado caught a break. Hamilton should of started 1st if it weren't for the penalty. Raikkonen had the wrong strategy. Alonso had the wrong strategy. Vettel couldn't do Q3 due to a car problem & had a penalty and front wing problem. See Cam, lots of variables you can't control.
Cam wrote:
Fat_T0ny wrote:I don't understand want isn't being replicated? We don't race on the same track with all the same cars with all the same conditions, with robotic drivers.
Well, you do, to a point. Take these results:
FORMULA 1 GRAN PREMIO DE ESPAÑA
2012
1 - Williams-Renault
2 - Ferrari
3 - Lotus-Renault
I see, over a period of years, consistency - several drivers/teams/people all in the top few spots. They know how to get around the track. They know what to expect. Look at 2012 first place - WTF? Now I know this is what the spectacle wants, but that shouldn't happened - because of tyres??? If it was from a result of a technical development, cool - but it isn't. I'm not sure Williams can replicate that again and again.
Fat_T0ny wrote:The cars & rules were different every year you mentioned. Maldonado caught a break. Hamilton should of started 1st if it weren't for the penalty. Raikkonen had the wrong strategy. Alonso had the wrong strategy. Vettel couldn't do Q3 due to a car problem & had a penalty and front wing problem. See Cam, lots of variables you can't control
Maybe. I could keep going back through more races over the last couple of years, but I reckon there's a trend there. Over the past 5-6 years, I can't recall seeing a car come from back of the field to win a race. If Mick won, or Kimi, yep, I would not have mentioned a thing - as they (teams) have consistency.
