FORUMula1.com

[spankyham]

I don't believe there is any serious effort being put in by Ferrari to the rest of this season.

Limited P/U development + Limited testing = Limited chance at success.

Correction, not "limited" development, it is "ZERO" performance development. I know you get it, but at the end of the day we are not allowed to do anything to improve our PU performance.

[sagi58]

Correction, not "limited" development, it is "ZERO" performance development. I know you get it, but at the end of the day we are not allowed to do anything to improve our PU performance.

Maybe I don't get it... I was under the impression that "some things" can still be worked on... no?

[spankyham]

Correction, not "limited" development, it is "ZERO" performance development. I know you get it, but at the end of the day we are not allowed to do anything to improve our PU performance.

Maybe I don't get it... I was under the impression that "some things" can still be worked on... no?

Absolutely nothing can be done to in any way to improve the performance of the PU. You can make changes to improve reliability but not performance.

Let me give you a really good comparison. In 2003, McLaren brought clearly the best car to the first race. They were a long way ahead of Ferrari. Just like Mercedes were at the start of this year. Well done to McLaren, they prepared the best car to start the season. But, in 2003, as in every other year in F1's history, in fact, as in every other year of Grand Prix history, other teams were allowed to catch up. By the 3rd or 4th race, Ferrari created a new PU (engine) the 052. The new engine made Ferrari competitive.

The history of Formula 1 is littered with cases where teams, through in season work and development, have overcome a deficit to make the rest of the races throughout the year a real competition. Sadly that cannot happen this year. No team is allowed to challenge the advantage Mercedes had at the first race.

[sagi58]

...Absolutely nothing can be done to in any way to improve the performance of the PU. You can make changes to improve reliability but not performance...

OK!! That's where I was confused ((although I am sure someone else pointed that out to me??))!!

Dumb Question: Doesn't improving reliability also help win races? Doesn't it also improve the
car's performance, if drivers don't have to nurse their cars? Doesn't that make it another unfair
advantage to the team who has a bullet and now can improve its aim??

Yes... that's more than one question!! But, they all stem from the same source!!

[sagi58]

And, another question:

Didn't the FIA consider the possibility of inadvertently giving only one team such a huge advantage?

And, considering that now they have proof of how this rule is actually unfair, should they not sit
down and have a rethink about what can and can't be developed over the course of the season?

Otherwise, we may have more of these seasons where the only competition is between drivers.
In which case, I'd bet pretty much anything on Ferrari changing their 1-2 driver philosophy!! After
all, if they have the luxury of being the only team on the grid to have the WCC served to them on a
silver platter at the first race and the WDC is guaranteed to be won by one of their drivers, why not??

[spankyham]

...Absolutely nothing can be done to in any way to improve the performance of the PU. You can make changes to improve reliability but not performance...

OK!! That's where I was confused ((although I am sure someone else pointed that out to me??))!!

Dumb Question: Doesn't improving reliability also help win races? Doesn't it also improve the
car's performance, if drivers don't have to nurse their cars? Doesn't that make it another unfair
advantage to the team who has a bullet and now can improve its aim??

Yes... that's more than one question!! But, they all stem from the same source!!

The rule is the rule, but that shouldn't prevent fair minded people from pointing out how stupid it is. Just as they do with the ridiculous double points for the last race rule.

[spankyham]

And, another question:

Didn't the FIA consider ....

I've highlighted the problem

[sagi58]

The rule is the rule, but that shouldn't prevent fair minded people from pointing out how stupid it is. Just as they do with the ridiculous double points for the last race rule.

Bravo!! I guess it's easier to swallow such a ridiculous rule, when it benefits your favourite driver/team!!
I'm sure I wouldn't be as upset, as I am now, if it was Alonso/Kimi/Ferrari way up there and completely untouchable in the winner's circle!!

Hey, at least, I'm honest about it!!

[sagi58]

And, another question:

Didn't the FIA consider ....

I've highlighted the problem

D'ya think that dementia is setting in?? Or are there too many cooks spoiling the broth??

[Ferrari man 009]

I still think a better idea would be to say to the teams we want to cut costs, but in return we'll open the rulebook. So less rules/restrictions on what you can/cant do on the cars and unlimited development BUT you have a budget of £100m for the car and £50m for personnel such as drivers and staff. The figures could be tweaked but I just wonder if F1 would be more exciting if there were less restrictions (without risking safety) but a budget cap. Therefore making teams think and maybe having to sacrifice one advantage to gain elsewhere.

[spankyham]

I still think a better idea would be to say to the teams we want to cut costs, but in return we'll open the rulebook.

Give the man a cigar. The only thing I'd add to this is get rid of the gimmicks.

So less rules/restrictions on what you can/cant do on the cars and unlimited development BUT you have a budget of £100m for the car and £50m for personnel such as drivers and staff. The figures could be tweaked but I just wonder if F1 would be more exciting if there were less restrictions (without risking safety) but a budget cap. Therefore making teams think and maybe having to sacrifice one advantage to gain elsewhere.

Personally I don't agree with budget caps as an effective method of reducing costs. I'd much prefer mechanisms that reduce or remove elements that are costly and don't add to the spectacle. E.g. the cost of creating and testing the tub is huge - love or loath customer cars allowing these will greatly reduce costs for lower rank teams.

[Ferrari man 009]

But a budget cap in return for technical freedom including development would be good and would make teams prioritise one thing over another (do you do all your testing early in the season or leave some for later?, how much money do you spend building the original car and how much is kept back for developments? etc...)

[spankyham]

The biggest problem with budget caps is they are unenforceable. It would be so easy to cheat.

I completely agree on freeing up the rules, that would be a change to the right direction.

[spankyham]

Happy birthday Nando

[sagi58]