Richard James wrote:Hi,
Feynman; Not sure what you found wrong with the cost section, was it the 'problem' or 'solution' that you jumped too? There are only two ways to reduce cost in motorsport; the first is to negate the value of winning (make the sport smaller and generate less money as a whole) or nullify the benefits of development (which parametric governance does). I think the problem may lie in jumping to a section without reading through, the website clearly states that the document must be read from front to back (carefully) or a lack of comprehension will result.
Without wishing to distract the thread, as briefly as I can:
The basic vibe was, for an example: Current control of engine output by specifying engine geometry leads to a money race. Solution: specify engine output parameters instead.
What? My heart sank.
Surely a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of competition and of F1 in particular.
Specify what paramters? OK limt measured power output on the dyno. All that same engine money diverts to shaving grams and making the same max power in a lighter block. OK now we must specify engine weight parameters. The money goes to producing that same max power but with better low-end torque, OK restict torque. So all the money now gets burned on producing the most drivable motor, the max parameter is limited by rule, so let's spend our money extending that power-band widthways, so now we have to parameterize and restrict power curves. Those very same millions will end-up being spent on producing that same power, in the same envelope, but with less fuel than your rivals.
While that may appeal to eco-FIA, it has done nothing to solve your money-race problem. The big fish still continue to furiously outspend the little ones.
And although you are loathe to admit it in your proposal, in reality you have unavoidably now built a spec engine, you had no choice, but took an incredibly long way round to get to it. A revolving door of ever-increasing parametric rulebook appendices. And all the while, the same monies being spent. The money will always squirt round the edges of whatever choice paramters you decide to specify ... it is the fundamental theory of F1.
To extremes. You could specify, parametrize and standardize every single aspect of every single component of an F1 car, save for, as a famous example, the wheel nuts ... guess what, Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull would immediately spend all their massive resource on wheelnut development, lighter, stronger, faster ... no expense spared in the search for any slight differentiating competitive advantage. Fancy new wheelnut-alloy development, all those eye-wateringly expensive windtunnel hours now spent on tuning airflow round the nut, the nut sprouting winglets and exotic quick release mechanisms, either way the bills still come in, and the money still goes out.
F1 exists to maximise every available parameter available to a team, and they will spend, never any less, and exactly as much money and resource as they are able to gather to pursue that maximum ... if marketing can raise 200million, 200million will be spent, and that is exactly how it should be.
That's why it always frustrates and drives old-fashioned 20th-century authoritarian types like Mosley mad, and exactly why we should delight in it, it plain refuses to be controlled ... it is beautiful, it is cosmic, the relentless evolutionary principle of competition, survival, innovation and invention, writ large in carbon fibre and titanium.
"To add speed, add lightness", and that probably should apply to divergent governenance.
It is ultimately freedom, not regulation, that drives diversity. Freedom is good, not bad, it's just a bit hectic, rough and scary sometimes. But that shouldn't distract you.
Any proposition seeking to increase diversity should relish and embrace the deranged development process and its gloriously reckless outputs, noisy kinetic sculptures, exploring the laws of physics and material-science, and powered by relentlessly burning hundreds and hundreds of millions of bits of paper.
So, as I said, in my opinion, Divergent Governance should not concern itself with F1 budgets, it is in reality of no concern to it; the competition, the market, the economy, the tv ratings will automatically look after the quantity of spend, and any regulatory framework of any flavour, even a bruteforce budgetcap, will do little to alter that (teams would soon employ expensively fancy accountants instead of expensive aerodynamicists)...
To maximise its efficiency, to maintain its focus, any new regulatory proposal should take care to concentrate its energy and focus solely on providing a creative framework that encourages diverse solutions to evolve and compete. Ignore the money.
