View Single Post
Old 5 Jul 2002, 04:14 (Ref:327471)   #1
Valve Bounce
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Australia
Home :)
Posts: 7,491
Valve Bounce has been held in scrutiny for further testing
Lessons from Minardi, Prost and now Arrows

Minardi were lucky in that Paul Stoddart came along when they went broke. Then Prost went broke and nobody came along; now it's Arrows turn. So what are the lessons from this sad turn of affairs. It was clear that Prost went as far as he could financially to make Prost competitive with customer Ferrari engines. That sent him broke. Tom Walkinshaw followed the same route with Cosworths and now he is broke, or should I say he is financial in a negative degree.
I have said repeatedly that going the electronics route would be extremely expensive, as teams not only have to develop their cars along with the black box capabilities to run the car, but it requires immense testing mileage to make all the components work together. OK some have argued that F1 should be the technological pinacle of engineering development - and I have disagreed with this concept all along. We the F1 fans gain nothing from this huge expenditure. We cannot see the effects of such electronics gadgetry.
If the present system continues, it is not inconceivable that only 4 teams will survive this monetary firestorm: Ferrari, Williams, McLaren and Renault. That's an 8 car grid. You might throw Toyota into this, but the way the economy is heading in Japan, I have my doubts.
The question is: are we at the infancy of the development of the engine management system and all the other things the blackbox controls? How much further testing is involved to develop this to the nth degree?
So what is the answer? The floor is now open for discussion.

Valve[img]http://www.**************************/smilies/bouncy.gif[/img]

Last edited by Valve Bounce; 5 Jul 2002 at 04:21.
Valve Bounce is offline  
Quote