FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[f1usa]

A very good read with sound proposals. You may want to condense and confine thesis to Formula 1 and IRL, as any problems with NASCAR and other series are in a completely different league. Have you sent email links to Bernie, CVC, Jean Todt and WMSC members.

[f1usa]

After a post yesterday I visited Mr James Divergent Governance (DG) website and uncovered a disturbing fact, intent to patent ideas of DG. Failure to divulge facts about a patent in initial post doesn't pass the smell test. One usually seeks to get a patent granted for monetary gain, or is the concern for the sad state of affairs in Formula 1 reason for forum post, and contacting Cambridge University and Racecar Engineering Magazine. If Formula 1 or any other racing series world-wide were to use your ideas and if you were granted the patent, you now want a slice of the pie. Get Real !!!!!!!!!

[scotty]

Interesting reading and theories, but really, a quite unfeasible concept.

It is ridiculously overcomplicated - teams would spend crazy money calculating and implementing the optimum balance of the various trade offs (eg variable Power/Weight and COG/weight distribution combinations) you have come up with there. Can you imagine fans trying to get their head around all the rules? They wouldn't bother, and that would most likely just kill any series that tried to run with them. Then there is the issue of regulation - which organisers in their right mind would attempt to enforce all this? The same goes for any ideas of cost saving. As i said before, teams would just spend lots finding the optimum, or failing that there'd just be one team getting lucky and destroying everyone.

You allude to there being serious problems with F1 as it is now, when in actual fact we're just reaching the end of what is being widely regarded as one of the best F1 seasons for a hell of a long time...

[Richard James]

Thanks for your posts, and a couple of points have been raised that I think need addressing.

F1USA

Re; the patent. The original post did not hide the patent, it directed everybody to the web site that contained all of the info for Divergent Governance.
There are 2 reasons for the patent, the first is, of course I'd want to be included in the development of the system and paid for my input (is that a bad thing?)
Secondly, investors would not be interested in putting time and REAL effort into something such as Divergent Governance without there being sufficient reward for them. The patent makes it more likely that someone will pick this idea up and run with it.

Scotty

Teams currently spend millions on computer modelling and simulation within the current (convergent) frameworks and this system would not encourage any more modelling. A few people have said that the general public won't understand this concept, but the forum posts seem to prove otherwise, there appears to be a good understanding of the principle. As for the casual viewer, they do not understand much about the tech side anyway, hopefully all they would see is more mech variety and action.

This season has a good championship but the individual races are nothing to write home about (on the whole)

Yours

Rich

[FerrariFan63]

If you want the idea to gain traction, you need to have a short, to the point, summary of the idea. Having a document that you claim takes three hours to read and must be read from the start to the end is going to mean that only 0.1% of people will actually read it. And the others have no idea if your idea is any good or not.

Oh, and how can you know that the idea will be validated by Cambridge University? If they haven't evalutated it yet, how do you know what the result will be?