F1 dicisive structure

Post 11 Oct 2003, 19:42

hi all,

I have been thinking about the structure of the organisation around Formula One. The fact that Ferrari holds off any regulations to limit testing is kind of egoistic. Of course they like to defend the advantage they have with their private circuits, but a proposal of 30 testdays and the testing session on fridays before the races is a very good one in my point of view.

Therefore, I think the structure of F1 should be changed, in a way that we have one vote per team, without a VETO for any team. A decisive vote for the FIA, and one for Bernie wouldn't be a bad idea either. I would also suggest to have things voted with a 2/3 or 3/4 majority. This way you can help F1 move to a next level, while now that is mostly prevented by Ferrari, who hold back the most important cost-cutting measures.

What do you guys think?

SpeedTech · Post 13 Oct 2003, 04:31

Tomba, the voting system works very well, its called democracy

You know as well as I do, in the formula 1 world, there is only on rule in F1 you need to follow to survive

"MONEY TALKS BULLSHIT WALKS"

Nothing anyone can do about it.

Post 13 Oct 2003, 19:09

do you seriously think it is ok now?
well then you are probably the only one on the whole planet

SpeedTech · Post 14 Oct 2003, 04:24

No actually I don't think its ok, I've just accepted it

Post 14 Oct 2003, 15:39

"laisser faire" is not a very good mentality though

NickT · Post 15 Oct 2003, 12:31

I think both Tomba and SpeedTech make good points, there is definitely room for improvement, but isn't money a big key to?

I would like to see the TV money get equally distributed amongst the teams. The rich would still get richer - commercially and fairs fair - but the poor would at least have a fighting chance to close the gap.

Technically, we do need rule stability to allow the lesser teams to close up over time, but I think it would be great to introduce standard wings, diffusers, brakes and tyres to put the emphasis back on the drivers. These are all possible and are easily policible. Removal of traction and launch control would be the ultimate change that would level the playing field and make the driver's abilities the major contribution to his success on the track.

What do you guys think?

Scuderia_Russ · Post 21 Jan 2004, 17:28

Removing gizmos would be a big step in the right direction,but i don't agree with introducing standard brakes or aerodynamic parts especially,as i suspect this would lead to every team producing a remarkably similar chassis and this just wouldn't be Formula One.The more variables,the better the racing,although the 'poorer' teams do get a rough deal,namely with t.v. money like you said...Toyata's budget for this season is reported to be $200m

Its phenominal the amount being pumped in! So hopefully one engine per weekend (etc) should help the 'minnows' a little.Fair play to Minardi especially...10/10 for effort,Stoddart in particular is just there for the love of the racing.

Shaun · Post 21 Jan 2004, 19:11

limiting testing would be a mess, as the bigger teams could develop more sophisticated simulation techniques, both physical and computational

Guest · Post 21 Jan 2004, 19:12

oh, and autosport puts toyotas budget at £200mill

Irvingthien · Post 23 Jan 2004, 12:30

limiting the amount of pit crews like cart would save tons of money...too.

Guest · Post 15 Feb 2004, 15:01

Each and every team is egoistic. Ferrari has an advantage and are willing to keep it. Williams en Mclaren were against a ban on launchcontrol, theirs is better then the Ferrari-one.

But on topic, a limit on tests won't help at all. They will spend more time in their windtunnels and workbenches, their racesimulators.... And in conclusion, costs are as high or even higher. Because of the extreme high competition, teams are willing to do everything in their power to win. You should regulate and win almost everything and then, in a ideal situation, cost may drop. But more probable is that teams find another way to test their stuff.
It's just a vicious circle.

Guest · Post 15 Feb 2004, 15:02

Irvingthien wrote:limiting the amount of pit crews like cart would save tons of money...too.

So they have less engineers to work on the car.

joseff · Post 16 Feb 2004, 11:01

Not engineers... pitcrews. It'll be like a CART pitstop, with only 6 ppl working on the car.

I agree this would make a better show. But how would it save money?

however I'm all for a "formula none" rulebook. Let's define a maximum & minimum size regulation for the cars, then regulate the engine. The rest are reg-free.

This is what they've done with touring cars, and they always provide good entertainment.

Scuderia_Russ · Post 16 Feb 2004, 11:13

On the one hand,free regs would give teams like Minardi and Jordan a free hand in building a car to possibly beat the likes of Ferrari,McLaren etc. through their own inginuity...but the money of the bigger teams would mean that they could implement such programs easier and more effectively than their poorer funded counterparts.So unless a smaller team had an amazing,world beating design i do not believe a great deal would change...due to yet that again,the 'old evil',money!

FerrariManiac · Post 16 Feb 2004, 15:01

If you cannot take the heat, leave..
That's the rule always in F1, happened with many occasions, I won't bother to even mention.

Ferrari so happens to have their own test tracks.
They have them cause they paid for them. They paid lots of money and they have a god given right because of that to use them.

The other team (and I mean Williams and McLaren) can either follow, or they cannot. That is not of Ferrari's concern.

And yes, It's Ferrari's right to leave the sport if for some reason they were tried to be forced to stop using their own resources.

However F1 without Ferrari will not be F1 no more.

As for cutting costs, Seriously, the solution is NOT on testing. It is on other things, and everyone knows it.