Thread: Rules Future Rule Changes
View Single Post
Old 17 May 2019, 11:20 (Ref:3904332)   #3566
Peter Mallett
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
 
Peter Mallett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
England
Here and there
Posts: 37,262
Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto View Post
Peter,

We fundamentally disagree. My complaint in this back and forth is that I feel you are not countering where I try to pick apart your proposal and point out holes in your logic, but just restate your ideas.


You can't change the rules of the game to fit your world view. Even today, the "business" of F1 is not about saving money for shareholders. It's about showing value.

The goal of both my analogy and an F1 team is to win the game/championship. If we view it from a team business perspective (which must be done), then they can remain profitable and show value for the shareholders. Note that the cost cap system does not limit revenue and profit. Not to mention there are a number of exceptions on spending, such as hospitality. So sponsorship, or any other sources of revenue can be large and growing. No different than today.
Ok I accept that bit but then it isn't a cost cap. Either you are permitted to earn/spend a certain amount or you aren't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto View Post
Of course they have a safety budget. Those that design and build the cars don't take up a collection to fund things like design and construction of mandated crash structures. Those items come out of the budget today. Do they have a line item in the budget? I expect some do as some exist for nothing but safety purposes (i.e. the side impact crush structures), others may live within other components such as the cockpit/safety cell.
Again yes but it is a self imposed budget not based upon someone's idea of permitted expenditure so not a "cost cap" as it were.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto View Post
See comments above. Business and the world is more complicated than being solely "cost" based. By your measure the best business is no business as the cost would be zero.
Oh dear. Believe me I'm involved in a very large business and I can tell you it all comes down to lowest cost.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto View Post
I broadly agree with you regarding the power units as it comes as a fixed cost for teams with no real options for them to reduce that cost. And I believe they are trying to tweak the technical regulations to make them cheaper to produce, but the viability of that approach is for another discussion. Especially as it mostly lives outside of the cost capped system.
Yes agreed yet again! But the sad thing is the cost is set by the manufacturers who are quite possibly turning a massive profit on each unit they sell. I'm all for profit because it makes the world work but frankly the eye watering costs of a PU just beggar belief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto View Post
But my point was not about fixed cost items. It is about variable cost items in which teams decide how much they want to spend. So you missed my point. Even today, with large budgets, teams have to make decisions as to where they spend their money. Teams with less funding just spend less. Look at Williams vs Mercedes today. Williams is clearly spending less. It is a "lesser" solution (per my original post/point). Imagine a field full of lesser solutions similar to Williams today. On the surface that sounds bad given how down they are compared to Mercedes, but if that level of spending and performance was the norm...would we notice?
I like your thinking and of course we wouldn't notice. However the reason for Williams being where it is may not be simply cost. That said going back to my point re the PUs it may be that they have reallocated personnel from chassis dynamics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto View Post
This doesn't explain why spending will not be reallocated elsewhere. Some technology is outright banned today, so the money is spent where it can be spent.

Reread what you typed above. You want them to spend what they want, but as to not need twenty engineers per driver. What if the teams have the money for twenty engineers per driver and feels that many gives them an edge? Why wouldn't they have twenty engineers per driver?

Richard
Nothing wrong with having as many people as you want in a team but my point was that the necessity for twenty people per driver is driven by the need for technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto View Post
Actually, let me restate that. I suspect we fundamentally agree on what we want, but disagree on how we think the world works.

I want....

* Open rules so that technology can run wild and amaze us.
* The best drivers racing hammer and tongs with fans watching slack jawed
* I want the cars to be beautiful, objects of desire and on posters hung upon the walls of today's youth.
* I want things to be like the best parts of our memory of years past.

I want all of those and more. However, years of experience as an informed fan and living in the world of business and technology tells me... Those are conflicting goals and unrealistic for a slew of reasons, most of which are driven by basic economics.

Richard
Ok using your list:

I do not want technology to amaze me. It's bland and boring. I want drivers having to work hard and thus amaze me.

Slack jawed fans? Hmmm. But I agree.

Again we agree about the cars and if you pick up my point in reply to Midgetman I want the same.

FWIW I'm currently involved in a multi billion euro operation and believe me technology only comes in to play if it can be got cheaply or paid for by someone else. Shareholders can be bloody difficult.
Peter Mallett is offline  
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead.
Quote