captainmorgan wrote:Is it just me, or have all the technologically restrictive rules served only to make F1 more boring than it has to be? I used to think otherwise, but I'm considering the possibility that all the great years in F1 were when teams were allowed to innovate freely, or at least temporarily.
The primary reason for modern restrictions are claimed to be reducing costs, but have they actually been effective? Take a look at Super Aguri. They barely made it to the grid, and as admirable as it is, they are still a joke, and will be for at least a season. The low tier teams are always going to underperform, at best serving as feeder teams, reducing to on-track training sessions during each race.
For the past however many seasons, every race is really 2 or 3 separate races for each tier, you have your Ferraris, Saubers, and Minardis, with promotion/demotions from each tier directly tied to manufacturer spending.
Engine durability rules have proven to be a sham. I don't know how much, but manufacturers are still spending enormous amounts of money on engine research and testing. I'll admit, for a short while until the actual race in Sepang, Williams Cosworth actually seemed to be the counter-example, but how long will they be able to keep ahead of the big spenders?
Tires? I don't even know where to start
I don't know about everyone, but I suspect that many of you, including myself, are interested in Formula 1 for the technology. What do you think would happen if F1 regulations were simplified to just 2.4L, only? Unlimited engines per weekend, including Qualifying specials. Unlimited aero,
4+2n wheels, etc? Same safety regulations, crash testing.
In order to keep it competitive, cars of podium winners (or maybe multiple repeat podium winners) get locked in parc ferme for a number of races, and are afterwards reverse engineered in public? Or maybe allowed to be reverse engineered by the bottom 5 teams.
This is because I think cost restrictions are a joke. There will always be someone who wants to race at the top level. Even if there are no car manufacturers left, someone will be off their rocker enough to pay whats necessary. In a sick way, Toyota proves my point. Budgets don't determine performance and cost-based regulations inhibit innovation.
F1 needs to be curb of diminishing return spending, you only need maybe 100 million to make a F1 team, but all the extra 2-3 or even 400 million are just chasing the the shadow of some theoretical gain, that does a)nothing to improve the competition and b) kills off all the team that can't spend that kind of money. GPMA may be fine and dandy, but they'll turn their head from the sport the moment they can't justify their astronomical spending. The teams themselves cannot spend nearly that much. The fact that while the idea of having the competiton catch up to the leader should be the proper way of going about things, but when they are not on even the same page of financial footing it is no longer a valid comparison. While I agree that the use of a fixed engine formula such as the current fixed layout 2.4 liter V8 is too restrctive on the design freedom, leaving it all free will just means the richest team that can spend the most money will have the best chance(not necessarily THE best, but chances wise yes) to get the best equipment. Aero rule NEEDS to be limited, and this is by far the most rediculous area of development in F1 that serves no purpose whatsoever to push the envelop of automotive technology. F1 as it is is already too specialised, last time I checked there are no openwheel, single seat car that drives on the road, all the little bits and pieces that they add on here and there are just there for that particular car to go some fractions of a tenth of the second, theoretically, faster on ONE track(they already make a different rear wing for each track...). And all that money spend in windtunnel 24 hours a day, 365 days a year are for that sole purpose. It is the pinnicle of the automotive technology for absolutely nothing.....
My ideal F1 rules would be:
Cost Restriction: a must, this require somesort of openbook accounting practice, and some teams maybe be get away by some amount through shady accounting, but not by an order of magnitude or something.
Engine: Displacement and breathing method(normally aspirated or turbo...etc). Layout leave for free, with incentive to run alternative fuel. The last part might need to introduce some sort of equivelency formula.
Tire: Spec. You want to know who build the best car, you need to have they run on the same page. Again, a special tire for a special car does nothing to improve the technology as a whole. But training the proper engineers to utilize a given tire to a car, is an artform in itself, and with real world implication.
Aero: Can be 2 way. Either have a homologated parts, like FIA's purposal for the engine freeze. This will encourage the return of adjustable aero parts, and it again will train the engineers to adapt, not spending ungodly amount of time and money in the windtunnel. Or make 3 sets of bodywork, for low, medium and high downforce track.
To help out the smaller teams who may still not be able to spend at the limit(say 150 or 200 million), allow teams to collaberate on the development, so they can pool their resources together to make 1 good car, instead of 2 bad ones.
IMO this will bring F1 as a racing series back in line with racing, where people adjust the car at the track to suit the track, not make a car to suit the track, which means 18 different configuration for 18 tracks....and with a cost restriction you make sure the winner is the one that does the best job, not spend the best money....
