Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest
Whereas teams always lack resources, cars will divergent if regulations do not provide an absolute point of perfection. In fact, the above imply there would be an absolute point of perfection.
|
How on earth can you ensure that one or more of the technologies allowed does not provide a loophole/point of perfection that means all of the cars will be built the same way?
Or do you suggest that if a loophole/point of perfection is found (and there will be one) that the rules are changed again and again? Sound familiar?
And would Ferrari, for example, use an electric motor to power its car if it thought that was the best solution to use? Would Renault build a V12 petrol engine if it thought that was the best solution? Given their current marketing strategies, no they would not. Neither one would be in F1 if the rules didn't provide them with a reason for being there. So what do you do? That's right! compromise. V6 petrol engines with electrical assistance.
And to quote Martin Whitmarsh, again: "Nothing frightens off manufacturers more than there being too much variety". I guess he would know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest
There is a very simple solution for that: not allowing an absolute point of perfection to be created.
|
How would you ensure that does happen? Give examples. In fact, give a typical scenario as to what could happen in F1 if divergent governance were to be taken up in 2013.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest
Here is the footing of divergence government. If all teams would choose the same solution they would either be reducing their chances of winning or aiming at the then-existing absolute point of perfection.
|
If they choose the same solution it's because there is only one solution because designers are cleverer than rule makers, however clever they think that their rules may be.
If you have rules, any rules, however clever, you'll always have people who will find ways around them.