Thread: Rules Future Rule Changes
View Single Post
Old 17 May 2019, 10:42 (Ref:3904324)   #3564
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,798
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!
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Mallett View Post
Actually your analogy ignores the business requirements that a team faces. Your winning house may look good but if the other one, less expensive, does the job then that should be the winner since it saves money for the shareholders. I'm not suggesting you are wrong per se but you ignore the reality of business which is to get the lowest cost result. I think it is wrong and value driven solutions would be preferable but reality is all based on cost.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Mallett View Post
AFAIK they don't have a safety budget imposed on them so they aren't stealing anything.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Mallett View Post
sorry that really is a naive approach. Again the reality of business is cost driven. Who would have thought that VW, Mercedes and other respected businesses would fudge emission tests? Never gonna happen.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Mallett View Post
Heve to agree to disagree. If a power unit costs 20m euros you can buyt ten V8s for the same price. Surely a reliable V8 and we know reliability is vastly improved on previous years, will be a better proposition and as it costs less to procure these it means more teams would be encouraged to enter.
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.

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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Mallett View Post
Ok as I said I disagree with the philosophy. I want to see more accessible rules whereby you can spend what you like but the componentry isn't so sophisticated you need twenty engineers per driver.

Normally aspirated or tubocharged engines (for ease stick with turbocharged); lighter chassis, and the cars must fit into an overall box. Whatever you do inside that box is free but open wheels of a specific size are mandatory.
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
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