Official 2012 Formula One Discussion Thread
Evolved Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 0
From: Rhode Island
Red Bull: What gives?
Red Bull has, of late, been improving steadily...Some R saying they R projected to win...so what is it that has resulted in this recent improvement?...Well, it seems that the developement and deployment of their new aero devise coupled with their own new Double DRS is correlated with these improved race results...of course, when asked whether these upgrades have made the difference in improved performance, Horner's RB says , "Oh they R no magic bullet"(http://www.yallaf1.com/2012/10/08/re...silver-bullet/) ...yeah, right
...when a team principle says such and such has no "real advantage, they R lying or should I say, more diplomatically, mis-speaking. For they hope such disclaimers will delay the other teams, i.e., those that can afford it, from copying them.
This issue of adding new innovations, while part and parcel of F1, costs money, lots of money...the smaller teams do not have the funds to do same, so they will always B behind. My point is FIA has embrassed the issue of "cost cutting" by eliminating testing and some other minor cost savings things but allowing these costly innovations to the car to continue throughout the season. IMHO opinion, this is rediculous...such a policy keeps those teams that have money at the top while the lower teams will always remain floundering behind. If the FIA is really interested in saving money, have all the cars fixed in terms of design at the start of the season but allow testing for set up to extract the best out of the car's fixed design on each track...cutting down on the location of venues and limiting the number of races would also save a large amount of $$ as well...were I am going is more parity is needed between teams and a real cost and innovation (set time to develop car design=off season) caps are needed...the last two years has brought significant parity bc of the new tires but once the teams have determined how to handle same, the performance difference between the teams will again occur...unless something is done, we will C only those teams that have the big bucks be at the top with the smaller teams being non-competitive...so this situation begs the question: Why have the lower funded teams even race?...they will never win, never have a chance of winning and R only carcasses for the so called "upper teams" to pick the bones (e.g., new drivers) of the lower teams...what I am suggesting is not IROC cars but a fixed design with the flexibility of adjustments in set up all season long...by so doing, funding differences between teams will B reduced resulting in a more competitive field...I am ranting again and, yes, nothing is going to change but I feel better now
Later, Ken
...when a team principle says such and such has no "real advantage, they R lying or should I say, more diplomatically, mis-speaking. For they hope such disclaimers will delay the other teams, i.e., those that can afford it, from copying them.This issue of adding new innovations, while part and parcel of F1, costs money, lots of money...the smaller teams do not have the funds to do same, so they will always B behind. My point is FIA has embrassed the issue of "cost cutting" by eliminating testing and some other minor cost savings things but allowing these costly innovations to the car to continue throughout the season. IMHO opinion, this is rediculous...such a policy keeps those teams that have money at the top while the lower teams will always remain floundering behind. If the FIA is really interested in saving money, have all the cars fixed in terms of design at the start of the season but allow testing for set up to extract the best out of the car's fixed design on each track...cutting down on the location of venues and limiting the number of races would also save a large amount of $$ as well...were I am going is more parity is needed between teams and a real cost and innovation (set time to develop car design=off season) caps are needed...the last two years has brought significant parity bc of the new tires but once the teams have determined how to handle same, the performance difference between the teams will again occur...unless something is done, we will C only those teams that have the big bucks be at the top with the smaller teams being non-competitive...so this situation begs the question: Why have the lower funded teams even race?...they will never win, never have a chance of winning and R only carcasses for the so called "upper teams" to pick the bones (e.g., new drivers) of the lower teams...what I am suggesting is not IROC cars but a fixed design with the flexibility of adjustments in set up all season long...by so doing, funding differences between teams will B reduced resulting in a more competitive field...I am ranting again and, yes, nothing is going to change but I feel better now
Later, Ken
Ken,
I don't agree with your idea. While spending is an issue, that is not the correct way to tackle the problem. Think about it, if a car's aero design was fixed through out the season, the team that shows up with the best aero packaged car at the start of the season would essentially win the constructor's title.
Other teams that showed up with cars that lacked down force would essentially be screwed. Teams like Ferrari wouldn't be able to claw their way back up to the front runners. Setup can only do so much, it can't make up for a large disparity in aero performance. And the races would get even more boring. If they all had the same chassis, then F1 would essentially become Indy car racing ....
Bottom line, racing is a "monkey see monkey do" business. If one team has a particular item that gives it a significant advantage the other teams will be quick to copy them in order to catch up. It's the innovation that keeps F1 exciting.
IMHO, the best way to have cost controls is to have a budget spending cap that all the teams agree on. That way even the middle tier teams have a shot at keeping up with the big boys. Upgrades would have to be strategically planned within budget constraints. Perhaps also have a minimum budget cap to keep back markers like HRT and Marussia out. Have the cap revised every year at the end of the season to adjust for inflation and other realizations.
I don't agree with your idea. While spending is an issue, that is not the correct way to tackle the problem. Think about it, if a car's aero design was fixed through out the season, the team that shows up with the best aero packaged car at the start of the season would essentially win the constructor's title.
Other teams that showed up with cars that lacked down force would essentially be screwed. Teams like Ferrari wouldn't be able to claw their way back up to the front runners. Setup can only do so much, it can't make up for a large disparity in aero performance. And the races would get even more boring. If they all had the same chassis, then F1 would essentially become Indy car racing ....
Bottom line, racing is a "monkey see monkey do" business. If one team has a particular item that gives it a significant advantage the other teams will be quick to copy them in order to catch up. It's the innovation that keeps F1 exciting.
IMHO, the best way to have cost controls is to have a budget spending cap that all the teams agree on. That way even the middle tier teams have a shot at keeping up with the big boys. Upgrades would have to be strategically planned within budget constraints. Perhaps also have a minimum budget cap to keep back markers like HRT and Marussia out. Have the cap revised every year at the end of the season to adjust for inflation and other realizations.
I agree with DaWorstPlaya, restricting design throughout the season would pretty much kill what F1 is all about.
A spending cap really would be the best way to go, as then the team with the best engineers would theoretically be in the best position to win. However, given the complexities of corporate finances/ownership and the associated differences in accounting regulations for various countries makes policing a budget cap virtually impossible. In theory the teams would not only have to agree on being policed (i.e., financial audits), but would probably also have to agree on how to structure their accounting. Something that I'm sure would cause problems with a team like Ferrari, who are not only a car manufacturer in addition to an F1 team, but are also owned by Fiat.
l8r)
A spending cap really would be the best way to go, as then the team with the best engineers would theoretically be in the best position to win. However, given the complexities of corporate finances/ownership and the associated differences in accounting regulations for various countries makes policing a budget cap virtually impossible. In theory the teams would not only have to agree on being policed (i.e., financial audits), but would probably also have to agree on how to structure their accounting. Something that I'm sure would cause problems with a team like Ferrari, who are not only a car manufacturer in addition to an F1 team, but are also owned by Fiat.
l8r)
Evolved Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 0
From: Rhode Island
^^Well, after reading both Da Worst's and Lud's points, I like UR ideas...some cap has got to B implimented so everybody has a shot. Right now, the big bucks win which is confined to 4-5 teams...the rest R lost before they even get started...I wonder how big the howls of "NO,NO" would eminate from Ferrari, McLaren and RB if someone proposed a specific, verifiable budget cap...the sound would B deafining!
Later, Ken
Later, Ken
Actually I'm not sure you'd get a lot of complaining from Ferrari or RB if someone figured out a way to enforce a budget cap w/out exposing sensitive financial information. At the end of they day I'm sure every F1 team would like it to be a profitable venture, so if there's a way to cap spending to X dollars, but have the revenues unchanged, then I don't think any teams would be opposed to that (they'd still complain, but they wouldn't sabotage it).
l8r)
l8r)
Evolved Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 0
From: Rhode Island
Bernie: How out of it is this guy?
Bernie has developed a explanation as to why Grosjean is the #1 crash boy...he may have an eyesight problem...this from Bernie: "It seems to me that he is a very fast driver but seems to have trouble in seeing what is around him. A lot of what has happened to him this season has involved not being able to react to things happening in his peripheral vision...That could be the problem. If it was up to me, I would have him stand down for a grand prix, send him for every test and be sure that his eyesight was ok...It could be that simple,” ...yeah, a huh... but it also could B that he just out and out sucks just like Maldenado and Petrov..that said, having him "stand down for a GP" is the best part, no, the only part of his systhesis that holds any water.
Later, Ken
...this from Bernie: "It seems to me that he is a very fast driver but seems to have trouble in seeing what is around him. A lot of what has happened to him this season has involved not being able to react to things happening in his peripheral vision...That could be the problem. If it was up to me, I would have him stand down for a grand prix, send him for every test and be sure that his eyesight was ok...It could be that simple,” ...yeah, a huh... but it also could B that he just out and out sucks just like Maldenado and Petrov..that said, having him "stand down for a GP" is the best part, no, the only part of his systhesis that holds any water.Later, Ken
Evolved Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 1
From: 10,000 frozen lakes
Ken,
I don't agree with your idea. While spending is an issue, that is not the correct way to tackle the problem. Think about it, if a car's aero design was fixed through out the season, the team that shows up with the best aero packaged car at the start of the season would essentially win the constructor's title.
Other teams that showed up with cars that lacked down force would essentially be screwed. Teams like Ferrari wouldn't be able to claw their way back up to the front runners. Setup can only do so much, it can't make up for a large disparity in aero performance. And the races would get even more boring. If they all had the same chassis, then F1 would essentially become Indy car racing ....
Bottom line, racing is a "monkey see monkey do" business. If one team has a particular item that gives it a significant advantage the other teams will be quick to copy them in order to catch up. It's the innovation that keeps F1 exciting.
IMHO, the best way to have cost controls is to have a budget spending cap that all the teams agree on. That way even the middle tier teams have a shot at keeping up with the big boys. Upgrades would have to be strategically planned within budget constraints. Perhaps also have a minimum budget cap to keep back markers like HRT and Marussia out. Have the cap revised every year at the end of the season to adjust for inflation and other realizations.
I don't agree with your idea. While spending is an issue, that is not the correct way to tackle the problem. Think about it, if a car's aero design was fixed through out the season, the team that shows up with the best aero packaged car at the start of the season would essentially win the constructor's title.
Other teams that showed up with cars that lacked down force would essentially be screwed. Teams like Ferrari wouldn't be able to claw their way back up to the front runners. Setup can only do so much, it can't make up for a large disparity in aero performance. And the races would get even more boring. If they all had the same chassis, then F1 would essentially become Indy car racing ....
Bottom line, racing is a "monkey see monkey do" business. If one team has a particular item that gives it a significant advantage the other teams will be quick to copy them in order to catch up. It's the innovation that keeps F1 exciting.
IMHO, the best way to have cost controls is to have a budget spending cap that all the teams agree on. That way even the middle tier teams have a shot at keeping up with the big boys. Upgrades would have to be strategically planned within budget constraints. Perhaps also have a minimum budget cap to keep back markers like HRT and Marussia out. Have the cap revised every year at the end of the season to adjust for inflation and other realizations.
I agree with DaWorstPlaya, restricting design throughout the season would pretty much kill what F1 is all about.
A spending cap really would be the best way to go, as then the team with the best engineers would theoretically be in the best position to win. However, given the complexities of corporate finances/ownership and the associated differences in accounting regulations for various countries makes policing a budget cap virtually impossible. In theory the teams would not only have to agree on being policed (i.e., financial audits), but would probably also have to agree on how to structure their accounting. Something that I'm sure would cause problems with a team like Ferrari, who are not only a car manufacturer in addition to an F1 team, but are also owned by Fiat.
l8r)
A spending cap really would be the best way to go, as then the team with the best engineers would theoretically be in the best position to win. However, given the complexities of corporate finances/ownership and the associated differences in accounting regulations for various countries makes policing a budget cap virtually impossible. In theory the teams would not only have to agree on being policed (i.e., financial audits), but would probably also have to agree on how to structure their accounting. Something that I'm sure would cause problems with a team like Ferrari, who are not only a car manufacturer in addition to an F1 team, but are also owned by Fiat.
l8r)
I watched most of P1 last night before I passed out... Gonna watch P2 when i get done work today. I always forget how fast some of the corners are in Korea, you need some serious attachments to whip around there the way they do.
Evolving Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
From: Canada
The track is awesome, location is the worst on the calendar, I think I saw 2 spectators today....
Evolved Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 1
From: 10,000 frozen lakes
Evolved Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 1
From: 10,000 frozen lakes
All Red Bull front row. I was hoping Seb would get pole, but the main thing is that Alonso is behind him. Pretty surprising to see Jenson not make Q3. Should be a good race tomorrow. It would be great to see Seb win and take the lead in points and also see Lewis and Mark tighten things up a bit.
Really disappointed to hear F1 is moving to NBC in the future, Speed has and does a great job IMO. I just hope NBC won't screw it up and ruin the coverage of a sport I have grown to love.
As for quali, glad to see Weber get the pole over Seb. Hopefully Kimi will be able to move up
from 5th on the grid.
As for quali, glad to see Weber get the pole over Seb. Hopefully Kimi will be able to move up
from 5th on the grid.