[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Your analogy starts out from the wrong position. It assumes at the end that the bridge will meet a given spec. That is completely wrong. F1 expects a VERY minimal spec and that is the safety requirements. Which clearly can be achieved for little money (when looking at the scope of the total capped budget)

A better example would be if you were running a reality TV show about home remodeling. You pick three identical apartments, give the designers the same amount of money, let them have at it. In the end a panel of judges votes on who does the best job. Receipts must be kept during the remodel. You will be able to rank them first to last. Cost capped F1 is pretty much the same thing.

The goal is to not make a specific product and hope it comes in under budget, but to see who makes the best product within a fixed budget.

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.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think this can be proven to be false. Especially with respect to teams funding development by skimping on required safety. I don't think it happens today, so why would it happen in the future. Ask any group inside a team if they could use more money. The answer will always be "yes". So why are they not stealing it from the safety budget today?

AFAIK they don't have a safety budget imposed on them so they aren't stealing anything.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

So the cost cap clearly sets the budget, but clearly that means you have to spend less money. I guess by definition that means spending less money than they would normally. It DOES mean lesser solutions. Or at least lesser somewhere, but not safety (as the car would not pass safety tests and inspections). It is likely to result in less than currently stellar reliability that we see today. All of which... gasp... might bring a level of unpredictability to the sport and in a less contrived way (i.e. DRS and tires that are engineered to perform badly).

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.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Please explain how creating tighter technical regulations (such as simpler power units) will reduce overall budgets. It may shift spending around, but it's unlikely to shrink them. I may put it in my signature line as I say it enough... "Budgets are based upon the perceived prestige of the series and your ability to source funding, not by the complexity of the technical regulations." I would say the only exception to this rule is if the regulations are EXTREMELY tight so as that nearly any budget to improve things is very deep into the realm of diminishing returns. NASCAR has relatively tight technical regulations and a desire by the rule makers to keep it "low tech". Budgets for those teams were only as limited by how much funding they could get and they always found ways to spend the money.

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.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

So teams run under budgets today. I expect there is some flexibility and potential for the budget to grow if needed, but broadly speaking the team operates on a value that is known at the start of the season. So why are teams not running out of money and not being able to attend the last races today? Maybe because they actually operate against their budget and plan ahead? That includes development over the span of the season as well as some contingency funding set aside for emergency purposes.
Richard

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.