2023 Italian Grand Prix - Monza, Sep 01 - 03

[chrisc90]

Why do people think that a larger cost cap would help teams close the gap to RB?

I don’t think it would, it would have the opposite effect.
How many of the smaller teams don’t fully spend the budget at the minute? I bet there is 2 or 3 of them.

A lower cap nerfs the top teams and the ‘big spenders’. Don’t forget, that better staff talent brings a higher wage - so those better designers at top teams means a marginally lower budget to start. Then wage increase and inflation will knock it down aswell.

However - Monza topic here.

The lower cap nerfs the top teams - which are the ones that would have a chance of competing with Red Bull. Reducing the cap each year locks in Red Bull's advantage because lap time improvements cost money - you can't catch up without spending.

Catch 22. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

I was just about to post in the 2022 budget cap about moving the above posts about the reduction in cost cap going forward and the effects it might have on the playing field - but as I hit submit the post was locked. Possibly a new thread for the discussion of the cap going forwards and would tidy this one up with the moved posts.

[dialtone]

Why do people think that a larger cost cap would help teams close the gap to RB?

copying is easier than innovating but can't really copy if you can't spend. And on rule change, if you pick the wrong phylosophy you really can only fix it in 1 year if you just give up on yours immediately.

If this didn't already happen with engine tokens already one would have hope, but really this is how it works.

[AR3-GP]

Why do people think that a larger cost cap would help teams close the gap to RB?

copying is easier than innovating but can't really copy if you can't spend. And on rule change, if you pick the wrong phylosophy you really can only fix it in 1 year if you just give up on yours immediately.

That would be a big help to mixing up the grid. It would give the smaller teams some chance in the spotlight.

[Just_a_fan]

copying is easier than innovating

And copying never gets you ahead, only - at the very best - level. But the team you have copied are also moving forward so you can never beat the opposition by simply copying.

[Big Tea]

copying is easier than innovating

And copying never gets you ahead, only - at the very best - level. But the team you have copied are also moving forward so you can never beat the opposition by simply copying.

But if you get level sooner, not having spent as much resource at the original, you are still in a good position, as long as you understand how what you copy works and can develop from there

[Cs98]

Why do people think that a larger cost cap would help teams close the gap to RB?

copying is easier than innovating but can't really copy if you can't spend. And on rule change, if you pick the wrong phylosophy you really can only fix it in 1 year if you just give up on yours immediately.

If this didn't already happen with engine tokens already one would have hope, but really this is how it works.

Eh, what? Innovation is more expensive and difficult than copying. There's a reason we have several teams on the grid who are more or less copying the RB concept instead of innovating, and quite successfully I might add.

It seems to me this whole argument is just an admission that certain big teams cannot truly innovate without massively outspending the competition.

And on rule change, if you pick the wrong phylosophy you really can only fix it in 1 year if you just give up on yours immediately.

It's almost as if you need to know what you are doing when you are picking your car philosophy. The cream rises to the top. Instead of a spending war where 70% of the grid is instantly excluded from participating.

[Just_a_fan]

copying is easier than innovating

And copying never gets you ahead, only - at the very best - level. But the team you have copied are also moving forward so you can never beat the opposition by simply copying.

But if you get level sooner, not having spent as much resource at the original, you are still in a good position, as long as you understand how what you copy works and can develop from there

And that's a key issue - understanding it means either studying it (that's taking up resource) or being lucky and figuring it out intuitively. And if you could do the latter then you'd probably have done it in the first place.

And even if you do understand it, the other team is still months ahead because you're copying something they've been developing (and will have a development path in progress) for months.

[Big Tea]

And copying never gets you ahead, only - at the very best - level. But the team you have copied are also moving forward so you can never beat the opposition by simply copying.

But if you get level sooner, not having spent as much resource at the original, you are still in a good position, as long as you understand how what you copy works and can develop from there

And that's a key issue - understanding it means either studying it (that's taking up resource) or being lucky and figuring it out intuitively. And if you could do the latter then you'd probably have done it in the first place.

And even if you do understand it, the other team is still months ahead because you're copying something they've been developing (and will have a development path in progress) for months.

The ideal would be copy it and get someone from the design team to use spare tunnel time to get in front.
This will not happen often though. If an engineer has spent the full total resource in one team, there is nothing stopping him using lots more if he switches teams is there, s its the team allocated the quota, not the person?
I bet some have considered this

[dialtone]

Why do people think that a larger cost cap would help teams close the gap to RB?

copying is easier than innovating but can't really copy if you can't spend. And on rule change, if you pick the wrong phylosophy you really can only fix it in 1 year if you just give up on yours immediately.

If this didn't already happen with engine tokens already one would have hope, but really this is how it works.

Eh, what? Innovation is more expensive and difficult than copying. There's a reason we have several teams on the grid who are more or less copying the RB concept instead of innovating, and quite successfully I might add.

It seems to me this whole argument is just an admission that certain big teams cannot truly innovate without massively outspending the competition.

Maybe re-read what I wrote because you are arguing against me while I say the same.

And every team copies so step down than high chair. Or should Ferrari be the only team with semi-auto gearbox?

And on rule change, if you pick the wrong phylosophy you really can only fix it in 1 year if you just give up on yours immediately.

It's almost as if you need to know what you are doing when you are picking your car philosophy. The cream rises to the top. Instead of a spending war where 70% of the grid is instantly excluded from participating.

Again... Step down the high chair and be more humble, you speak like you did the innovation work in f1.

[dialtone]

And copying never gets you ahead, only - at the very best - level. But the team you have copied are also moving forward so you can never beat the opposition by simply copying.

But if you get level sooner, not having spent as much resource at the original, you are still in a good position, as long as you understand how what you copy works and can develop from there

And that's a key issue - understanding it means either studying it (that's taking up resource) or being lucky and figuring it out intuitively. And if you could do the latter then you'd probably have done it in the first place.

And even if you do understand it, the other team is still months ahead because you're copying something they've been developing (and will have a development path in progress) for months.

It's still a net positive for whoever copies.

Bigger teams understand or will end up understanding the concept fairly quickly, they've been copying from one another for years and personnel moves around.

You end up with achieving a good reset point faster and then you can start your own search for optimal development.

If you fail the search the grid is closer together anyway, if you succeed you might even win or make the title fight interesting.

So copying is healthy but you mostly can't because you have no money to do so unless you just give up on your concept right away.

[AR3-GP]

Racing point "copied" the W10 very effectively. They were probably the 2nd quickest car in much of 2020.

[Cs98]

Maybe re-read what I wrote because you are arguing against me while I say the same.

And every team copies so step down than high chair. Or should Ferrari be the only team with semi-auto gearbox?

And on rule change, if you pick the wrong phylosophy you really can only fix it in 1 year if you just give up on yours immediately.

It's almost as if you need to know what you are doing when you are picking your car philosophy. The cream rises to the top. Instead of a spending war where 70% of the grid is instantly excluded from participating.

Again... Step down the high chair and be more humble, you speak like you did the innovation work in f1.

You stated teams can't copy without spending. But copying is rampant in this cost cap era. They can clearly afford to copy. That was my disagreement with the first quote, I could've put it better.

If some of the big teams are not efficient enough to be competitive in an equal spend environment that is very much their problem. Having engineers compete with roughly equal resources is much more sporting than having a wallet size competition. It also opens up the competition to more than three teams and makes all teams more financially viable. Now if you actually have an argument for why an equal spend environment is unfair please present that. Because all I'm getting currently is sour grapes, not arguments.

[dialtone]

Maybe re-read what I wrote because you are arguing against me while I say the same.

And every team copies so step down than high chair. Or should Ferrari be the only team with semi-auto gearbox?

It's almost as if you need to know what you are doing when you are picking your car philosophy. The cream rises to the top. Instead of a spending war where 70% of the grid is instantly excluded from participating.

Again... Step down the high chair and be more humble, you speak like you did the innovation work in f1.

You stated teams can't copy without spending. But copying is rampant in this cost cap era. They can clearly afford to copy. That was my disagreement with the first quote, I could've put it better.

If some of the big teams are not efficient enough to be competitive in an equal spend environment that is very much their problem. Having engineers compete with roughly equal resources is much more sporting than having a wallet size competition. It also opens up the competition to more than three teams and makes all teams more financially viable. Now if you actually have an argument for why an equal spend environment is unfair please present that. Because all I'm getting currently is sour grapes, not arguments.

It certainly isn't in the interest of the sport to have dominant periods.

First year of budget cap and there's one team that is the most dominant ever, or at least in over 50 years. I'm not so sure it's a random occurrence, again the same happened with engine tokens and when scrapped everyone caught up to Merc within a few years.

Never made any fairness argument, this is a business AND a sport.

It's not that hard to understand... If you cap my spend I will be forced to spend more time before I catch up to you. In an uncapped environment I could redesign the entire car and copy in-season, in a cap I can't. Meanwhile the leading car will develop a bit slower but still develops plenty.

I have zero interest in your judgement of competence or incompetence of other teams. These arguments are useless at best, and every team said the same when it was their turn to dominate. Furthermore, once again, the engine token nonsense shows it's totally false, there is a way to allow competition that levels off and eventually caps development of the engine. Capping development from day 1 of new rules doesn't work.

[AR3-GP]

Maybe re-read what I wrote because you are arguing against me while I say the same.

And every team copies so step down than high chair. Or should Ferrari be the only team with semi-auto gearbox?



Again... Step down the high chair and be more humble, you speak like you did the innovation work in f1.

You stated teams can't copy without spending. But copying is rampant in this cost cap era. They can clearly afford to copy. That was my disagreement with the first quote, I could've put it better.

If some of the big teams are not efficient enough to be competitive in an equal spend environment that is very much their problem. Having engineers compete with roughly equal resources is much more sporting than having a wallet size competition. It also opens up the competition to more than three teams and makes all teams more financially viable. Now if you actually have an argument for why an equal spend environment is unfair please present that. Because all I'm getting currently is sour grapes, not arguments.

It certainly isn't in the interest of the sport to have dominant periods.

First year of budget cap and there's one team that is the most dominant ever, or at least in over 50 years. I'm not so sure it's a random occurrence, again the same happened with engine tokens and when scrapped everyone caught up to Merc within a few years.

Never made any fairness argument, this is a business AND a sport.

It's not that hard to understand... If you cap my spend I will be forced to spend more time before I catch up to you. In an uncapped environment I could redesign the entire car and copy in-season, in a cap I can't. Meanwhile the leading car will develop a bit slower but still develops plenty.

I have zero interest in your judgement of competence or incompetence of other teams. These arguments are useless at best, and every team said the same when it was their turn to dominate. Furthermore, once again, the engine token nonsense shows it's totally false, there is a way to allow competition that levels off and eventually caps development of the engine. Capping development from day 1 of new rules doesn't work.

Ferrari had unlimited spending between 2009 and 2020 and never won a title. The cost cap isn't the issue. Furthermore, a discussion surrounding the competence of a team is important imo. The cost cap is just stalking horse now.

[dialtone]

You stated teams can't copy without spending. But copying is rampant in this cost cap era. They can clearly afford to copy. That was my disagreement with the first quote, I could've put it better.

If some of the big teams are not efficient enough to be competitive in an equal spend environment that is very much their problem. Having engineers compete with roughly equal resources is much more sporting than having a wallet size competition. It also opens up the competition to more than three teams and makes all teams more financially viable. Now if you actually have an argument for why an equal spend environment is unfair please present that. Because all I'm getting currently is sour grapes, not arguments.

It certainly isn't in the interest of the sport to have dominant periods.

First year of budget cap and there's one team that is the most dominant ever, or at least in over 50 years. I'm not so sure it's a random occurrence, again the same happened with engine tokens and when scrapped everyone caught up to Merc within a few years.

Never made any fairness argument, this is a business AND a sport.

It's not that hard to understand... If you cap my spend I will be forced to spend more time before I catch up to you. In an uncapped environment I could redesign the entire car and copy in-season, in a cap I can't. Meanwhile the leading car will develop a bit slower but still develops plenty.

I have zero interest in your judgement of competence or incompetence of other teams. These arguments are useless at best, and every team said the same when it was their turn to dominate. Furthermore, once again, the engine token nonsense shows it's totally false, there is a way to allow competition that levels off and eventually caps development of the engine. Capping development from day 1 of new rules doesn't work.

Ferrari had unlimited spending between 2009 and 2020 and never won a title. The cost cap isn't the issue.

Respond on the merit not what you think is that I’m thinking. I have no expectation that Ferrari would win a championship if this was changed, they have other problems.