New Rules - Discussion

DKGandBH · 17 Jan 2005, 21:35 (Ref:1203275)

Just a question,

Why should changes to the rules specifically benefit the lower funded teams ?

There has been a lot of "discussion" over the various rule changes (and voluntary restrictions) and how they should help the lower teams and restrict the higer funded teams.

This to me seems a but "ass backward" in that the lower funded teams should have to perform above their perceived level and get greater funding in the future, not give them an artificial performance gain...

DKGandBH

**Adam43** · 17 Jan 2005, 22:11 (Ref:1203306)

This sounds like one for Red, but not one for Paul Stoddart!

DKGandBH · 17 Jan 2005, 22:59 (Ref:1203336)

Adam, if you are inferring that I am a Ferrari Supporter and not a Paul Stoddart fan, then you would be partially correct...

I like Ferrari, but I don't like to see them dominate as they are, I just don't understand why they should effectively be penalised for excessive funding...

It is true that I don't like PS anymore. I used to, especially when he ponied up and saved Minardi. But now, it seems to me, that he did it more for the overall financial benefit, rather than trying to save the icon that Minardi was.

I still like seing a Minardi in front of another car, and that is what I am talking about...
If Minardi can beat any other team, I am happy, but I don't want this to happen solely due to regulation changes...

DKGandBH

Sodemo · 17 Jan 2005, 23:07 (Ref:1203341)

Can I just ask while this thread is still young, what happens with the tyres during 2005 if we get a dry / wet / dry race?

**Adam43** · 17 Jan 2005, 23:23 (Ref:1203353)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKGandBH

Adam, if you are inferring that I am a Ferrari Supporter and not a Paul Stoddart fan, then you would be partially correct...

I meant more that some of the things you say sound like our friend and 10 Tenths member Red would have said them, the opposite view being that of Paul Stoddarts.

bosch! · 17 Jan 2005, 23:49 (Ref:1203362)

Well its a sport and a Business. People dont want to watch a sport if the same team is going to win again and again and again with no competition.

Business dictates that you make money if you win and you win if you make money. If you dont win you get out. So poorly funded teams are in a vicious circle of not getting results and so getting less funding and getting worse results.

The only organisations that can aford not to adhere to this business rules are the large conglomerates that get into F1 for their own reasons, ie

Ford for prestige - Got fed up with loosing and bailed
Toyota - To Beat Honda willing to pour maybe $1 billion so far for no return
BAR - To push fags
Renault - to push cleos
Stodard - Odd one out, he did it because he loved the sport but has ended up spending all the money he made by being an airline tycoon, which is a shame, and still sits on the back of the grid.

The cost of competing has ruled out team ownership for sporting purposes but in order for the sport to function it still needs to be considered a sport and not a huge branding excersize. For that it needs fans and casual viewers, for that it needs competition for that it needs the playing field to be leveled off periodically.

DKGandBH · 18 Jan 2005, 00:19 (Ref:1203375)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bosch!

poorly funded teams are in a vicious circle of not getting results and so getting less funding and getting worse results.

I don't think that this necessarily so. If a poorly funded team were to beat a more funded team into say 8th position in the WCC, then this would be a result that in itself resulted in greater sponsorship

Quote:

Originally Posted by bosch!

Stodard - Odd one out, he did it because he loved the sport but has ended up spending all the money he made by being an airline tycoon, which is a shame.

As I have said elsewhere, I used to believe this, now not so much.

DKGandBH

GP Racer · 18 Jan 2005, 00:21 (Ref:1203376)

Unforunatly, the difference between the have's and the have nots, has gotten so big, that the only way to have something resembling competition is to unfairly penalize the big guys.

I'm not sure I agree with this strategy, but I can understand why F1, like so many other series and sports, would do this. It's called parity here in the States, and its about evening up the competition, thereby making it more exciting to more fans. It's worked wonders for NASCAR, the IRL, Grand Am and even the NFL(football). Without some changes, teams like Minardi, and Jordan will fall further and further behind, until they are a complete joke, and it would be glaringly obvious to all that they don't belong in F1 anymore. Actually, there pretty close now!

**Adam43** · 18 Jan 2005, 00:30 (Ref:1203379)

The odd thing is that the grid from front to rear is actually close in terms of times. The difference is that now everyone is consistent with it. Race pace is relative to Qualifying pace now, which wasn't always the case. Over a sprint stint there is less change in the relative performance of the cars pace. Everyone is so much more professional now that most teams have a race sussed and do it as quick as they can.

As for achieving 'parity'. When the fastest runners in the Olympics run with lead ballast to even things up I might get to considering that a good idea for F1.

Kirk · 18 Jan 2005, 00:36 (Ref:1203382)

The question of whether the new rules, specifically the V8 configuration, will help the lower funded teams has been debated before. Theoretically, in my view, initially the high budget teams will have the edge for the simple reason that they will have more resources to develop the new motor.... but after the transition, say a season or so, the playing field should even out somewhat as lower budget teams catch up. We may also get a few more engine suppliers involved which could increase competiton and lower costs. All in all, I think 5 years down the road, if we look back, we will conclude that the V8 did accomplish what was intended.

hgmonaro · 18 Jan 2005, 02:59 (Ref:1203448)

Once upon a time, a lowly team could invent something to jump them up the grid, maybe even to the front and attract interest in the team, maybe even sponsorship. The rules are now so strict that that can't happen.

DKGandBH · 18 Jan 2005, 04:34 (Ref:1203481)

HG...I totally agree with you !

I don't want "Parity" I want the flexability that the teams can come up with something new...

DKGandBH

Kicking-back · 18 Jan 2005, 08:08 (Ref:1203546)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKGandBH

It is true that I don't like PS anymore. I used to, especially when he ponied up and saved Minardi. But now, it seems to me, that he did it more for the overall financial benefit,

I really don't believe Paul Stoddard has profited from owning Minardi.

Quite the reverse, in fact.

Which makes him still being there all the more admirable.

bosch! · 18 Jan 2005, 08:54 (Ref:1203569)

Quote:

Originally Posted by hgmonaro

Once upon a time, a lowly team could invent something to jump them up the grid, maybe even to the front and attract interest in the team, maybe even sponsorship. The rules are now so strict that that can't happen.

Yes, like ground effect or the tyrell high nose. As most development is done by 1,000,000 mips of microchip monkeys working 24/7 all possibilities are covered and they are dealing with fine details of known solutions.

What was the last truly radical F1 inovation?

1200Datto27 · 18 Jan 2005, 09:36 (Ref:1203604)

The Walrus?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Mid Ohio Discussion	awegrzyn	Sportscar & GT Racing	15	11 May 2005 16:41
Surprised there's no discussion of LFS on here	Mik	Virtual Racers	24	24 Oct 2003 15:54