View Single Post
Old 8 Sep 2017, 21:32 (Ref:3765508)   #15
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,861
Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWill2073 View Post
Yeah, it's those unearned bonuses that got me thinking about this in the first place. Those teams won't want to give away those bonuses, so why not give more engineering/design leeway to lower budgeted teams so maybe they can bring more radical designs to the track and close (not eliminate) the gap amd create the random odd result potentially?
My concern with that approach is that it just says... The system is screwed up, so let's screw it up in an even larger way in an attempt to generate a different outcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chillibowl View Post
some what similar to Max Mosely's voluntary budget cap suggestion from a few years back...teams that were willing to stay below the voluntary cap would be rewarded with greater technical freedom. of course the top teams were obviously against this.
To be honest I never felt the scenario you describe above was ever a serious idea other than to try to scare the top teams who enjoy large advantages that are negotiated into the their Concorde agreement into concessions. Basically... You can keep the money, but we will adjust the rules so the smaller teams can beat you.

As you point out, they don't like this and use their real and/or perceived clout to effectively veto such ideas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chillibowl View Post
personal opinion, i am not adverse to a two tiered F1...actually i think we already have that so why not organize it in a more interesting way then the straight customer car/low cost solution path the sport is currently on.
I am generally not a fan of a two tier system because it (IMHO) avoids trying to implement fundamental fixes to the system (granted, so far those fixes have been impossible to implement). But if a two tier system was used, it should be as fair as possible vs. the likely outcome which will be...

1. Top teams who will continue to win
2. Everyone else who might not have such a large gap to the front as before, but... still a measurable gap.

Nothing is likely to change until the grip the larger teams have is broken. I don't see anything significant happening until the current Concorde agreements expire. And then... it becomes a question of who will blink first... The big teams or the new series owners.

Richard
Richard C is offline  
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
Quote