Home  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides Veloce Books  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Single Seater Racing > Formula One

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 21 Apr 2018, 09:34 (Ref:3816762)   #1
ASCII Man
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
ASCII Man should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridASCII Man should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridASCII Man should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridASCII Man should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
<sigh>

Lower costs, more entrants, more competition.

But that's a concept too hard to grasp.
ASCII Man is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Apr 2018, 10:02 (Ref:3816768)   #2
Oldtony
Veteran
 
Oldtony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Australia
Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 1,723
Oldtony should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridOldtony should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridOldtony should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridOldtony should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASCII Man View Post
<sigh>

Lower costs, more entrants, more competition.

But that's a concept too hard to grasp.
It would seem that there is potential for at least 2 less entrants ( Ferrari & Merc) if the boards of those companies cannot see justification for putting their R&D budgets into F1. And if they go where do the power units come from?
I grasp the cost cutting concept you mention but it is still aiming at dumber slower cars.
Oldtony is offline  
__________________
Geting old is mandatory, acting old is optional.
Quote
Old 21 Apr 2018, 11:52 (Ref:3816786)   #3
ASCII Man
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
ASCII Man should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridASCII Man should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridASCII Man should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridASCII Man should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldtony View Post
It would seem that there is potential for at least 2 less entrants ( Ferrari & Merc) if the boards of those companies cannot see justification for putting their R&D budgets into F1.
That is exactly what F1 needs, to cut loose from the stranglehold these two manufacturers have on F1 and finally make a rule set that benefits the sport.

Longer braking distances through perhaps steel brake discs, a vast reduction in wake turbulence possibly through a greater use of ground effect, etc. ...
Having the cars designed AROUND the safety device, instead of plopping something on the existing designs like they have stubbornly done in the past.

There are a multitude of ways to improve the sport, but the only thing truly needed is that whoever is making those decisions decides to grow a pair and stand up to manufacturer extortion.
ASCII Man is offline  
Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? Marbot Formula One 51 27 Sep 2009 17:19
F1 future rule changes TheNewBob Formula One 57 20 Dec 2006 09:19
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] AMT Formula One 74 12 Nov 2002 16:09
Future Tourer Future Crash Test Australasian Touring Cars. 13 17 Jul 2002 23:01


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:36.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2021 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2021-2022 Grant MacDonald. All Rights Reserved.