FORUMula1.com

[What's Burning?]

It's impossible to police budget caps.

[Jabberwocky]

Especially with the new engine regs.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

[NHcheese]

Jenson was 4th quickest. Perz 7th.

[CookinFlat6]

The thing is that it has been neer impossible to implement any kind of workable spending cap at FIA level that can be administered and policed, and things like the RRA get torpedoed by teams like RBR who complain that the manufacturers have more scope for getting round it by using their subsidiaries.

The ban on testing is something that is easy to implement and police (not withstanding the tyre aspect) The ban on testing was meant to encourage more use of CFD technology as a leveler (though of course some have better windtunnels and equipment)

The testing ban is not perfect but its the same for all and save the smaller teams a ton of money, other wise the top teams would test themselves silly and there would be a 2 or 3 tier championship

IMHO Ferrari stand to benefit the most from any increase in testing, they have their own facilities and the money.

The tyres are a different story, and thats why talk of extra testing resurfaced

[Jabberwocky]

I remember watching some sort of racing and one of the rules was that anyone could buy your car for 2000 euros. So yes you could of spent 5 million on it but you had to sell it for 2k...

Maybe all engines should cost a certain amount etc

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

[LewEngBridewell]

Jenson was 4th quickest. Perz 7th.

What they've struggled with in the past couple of events, is turning a strong FP session into decent pace on the Saturday. Hopefully, they'll sort it this time.

[CookinFlat6]

Jenson was 4th quickest. Perz 7th.

What they've struggled with in the past couple of events, is turning a strong FP session into decent pace on the Saturday. Hopefully, they'll sort it this time.

What Button has struggled with in the past couple of events

Sergio has shown the pace when it matters, in q3

[sagi58]

But if every team had an extra 20 million they would all spend an extra 20 million so nothing would change. Just the teams would spend an extra combined 220 million

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

The question is, what would they spend it on? Salaries? Engine development? Travelling?
So... maybe the rule would be that they need to spend that "extra" on testing??

why is it you want more testing so badly?

I say give the teams a hard budget cap, and let each do what they want with it. If ones want to go out testing every day for a month, so be it. That just means it'll come out of the budget for something else. If another just wants to stick to a couple weekends, that's cool too.

It's not that I want it "so badly" so much as I recognize that it's essential to success in pretty well any sport!!
You wouldn't have a baseball player go up to bat, without extra batting practice, a basketball player who hadn't
run up and down a court to practice lay-ups in between games, nor would a hockey player be on the ice, if he
didn't lace up skates to practice slapping a puck around! It wouldn't be acceptable for these sportsment to use
electronics to hone their skills, why is using a simulator acceptable for an F1 driver??

You see, I'm not looking at testing as being "just" about the car...

[sagi58]

It's impossible to police budget caps.

Bravo!!

Anyone who has "studied" accounting can come up with a number of creative methods to "budget"!!

[sagi58]

...The testing ban is not perfect but its the same for all and save the smaller teams a ton of money, other wise the top teams would test themselves silly and there would be a 2 or 3 tier championship...

Unlike the past four years where the championship has been waged on a "level" playing field?

[spankyham]

It is patently stupid to stop teams/players in any sport practicing. The argument that a team/player practices more and harder than others is equally stupid.

If F1 is too expensive for a team then what the hell were they thinking when they got in it? And what the hell were the powers-that-be thinking when they let teams in that clearly didn't have the resources or plans to compete at that level.

If F1 wants to remain the pinnacle of motor sport then restraints need to be removed, not added.

Some of the greatest innovations in F1, and the ability of teams to leapfrog from mid to front-runner have come during the era of zero spending and practice restrictions - because creativity was not restricted as it is now.

We've gone through 4 years of the most prescriptive regulations and testing limitations and it has delivered exactly the opposite of what those who argue for these constraints say they are supposed to achieve. We now have the most predictable outcomes knowing there is zero chance that's its going to change.

[Roth]

Red Bull have made a mockery of it. Otherwise it's worked well, with fluctuating team fortunes between half the grid. Take them out of the equation and it's been nip and tuck. The start of '12 was gripping then descended into tedium, as has this year.

[CookinFlat6]

So the chain of events as I see it;

Teams want costs cut and are promised big changes
New teams entering are promised the budget would be 60 mill capped
A RRA is agreed amongst the teams as part of the process
Williams are committed and fight to make the FIA keep to its word, losing their CEO in the process
Merc and others stick to the agreement
RBR refuse to play ball and outspend their way to titles
RBR repeatedly go without sanction for rule breaches
Horner is put forward as Bernie replacement

Did I miss anything out?

[CookinFlat6]

But if every team had an extra 20 million they would all spend an extra 20 million so nothing would change. Just the teams would spend an extra combined 220 million

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

The question is, what would they spend it on? Salaries? Engine development? Travelling?
So... maybe the rule would be that they need to spend that "extra" on testing??

why is it you want more testing so badly?

I say give the teams a hard budget cap, and let each do what they want with it. If ones want to go out testing every day for a month, so be it. That just means it'll come out of the budget for something else. If another just wants to stick to a couple weekends, that's cool too.

It's not that I want it "so badly" so much as I recognize that it's essential to success in pretty well any sport!!
You wouldn't have a baseball player go up to bat, without extra batting practice, a basketball player who hadn't
run up and down a court to practice lay-ups in between games, nor would a hockey player be on the ice, if he
didn't lace up skates to practice slapping a puck around! It wouldn't be acceptable for these sportsment to use
electronics to hone their skills, why is using a simulator acceptable for an F1 driver??

You see, I'm not looking at testing as being "just" about the car...

Thats what the 3 practice sessions are about. To practice at the track in question.

[CookinFlat6]

It's impossible to police budget caps.

Bravo!!

Anyone who has "studied" accounting can come up with a number of creative methods to "budget"!!

So you admit its impossible to police a mandated (non voluntary) budget cap, and you admit that most of the grid would disappear if costs increase, yet you want the one area costs have been able to be implemented across the board removed?

If no unlimited testing where does the costs/benefit slope peak? 2, 3, 10, 20 extra sessions?

Whats wrong with the 3 practice sessions that already exist. What would 3 extra practice sessions prove, Ferrari would want more because their only chance is to outspend teams like Lotus. If Lotus can live with the 3 FPs, why cant Ferrari beat them on track despite poaching their drivers and engineers?

can Ferrari only win by having 365 testing sessions when Lotus can only afford 36?

Hmmn, doesnt bode well for 2014