Does Motor Sport Punish all the wrong people?

[Zip]

After looking at winning teams and teams that become extremely successful it seems they are the ones to be Punished.

For Example. Skylines were banned from Bathurst then followed by a complete blanket ban on anything that was Australian because Holdens and Fords were struggling against them too much.
Skylines got a heap of rules and regulations and restrictions put on them because they kept winning in the JPGT(I think thats the name of it)
Cars in the F1 like Ferrari and Renault get rules and regulations put on them when they are being successful.
And there have been all sorts thrown around in rally competitions

Thats just a few but there are heaps of examples out there.

Its done to keep the racing "Closer" But all it seems to doing is making the racing become boring.
They should stop punishing the teams that come up with new ideas and new ways to win.
It should be up to the other teams to close the gap and not be scared to in case they clamp down on rules.
I would like to see motor sport be like it was back in the 80s where F1 cars were pushing 1000BHP and the B spec rally cars were pushing 800BHP because it was up to teams to build the fastest and best car they could.
I would like to see them remove some of these regulations and stop punishing the winning teams for coming up with new ideas.
They might actually make some progress then and make racing closer and tighter and come up with new technology that can go into normal road going cars.

 

[Berger]

Cars in the F1 like Ferrari and Renault get rules and regulations put on them when they are being successful.

In F1 it wasnt just ferrari using that flexible rear wing, one of the back of the grid teams got caught using it a couple of GPs ago and disqualified as well.

Most teams have used the mass damper system, just the renault seems to rely on it a bit more, and as they are expected to be at the front of the grid and now they seem to be suffering a little, its an obvious scapegoat/crutch for them to lean on

The main reason for systems being banned was safety really, otherwise we would be having 1500 bhp cars with several turbochargers and weighing in at about a ton doing stupid speeds with really high danger.

 

[Zip]

In F1 it wasnt just ferrari using that flexible rear wing, one of the back of the grid teams got caught using it a couple of GPs ago and disqualified as well.

Most teams have used the mass damper system, just the renault seems to rely on it a bit more, and as they are expected to be at the front of the grid and now they seem to be suffering a little, its an obvious scapegoat/crutch for them to lean on

The main reason for systems being banned was safety really, otherwise we would be having 1500 bhp cars with several turbochargers and weighing in at about a ton doing stupid speeds with really high danger.

Back then it was dangerous but these days it might still be dangerous but they have better safety equipment and designs to help.

Im not just talking about F1 BTW

 

[DRZ]

The problem isnt the performance, its the money. Money makes or breaks teams in F1 these days and the more you win, the more money you get. IF that was allowed to continute it becomes a viscious circle whereby teams with the most money constantly win.

That can be addressed one of two ways: limit development so much that throwing money at it simply doesnt improve the cars (The F1 technical regulations are an attempt at that in my view) or make sure that anyone developing new stuff has to share that with the other competitiors.

Naturally most prefer to go with the former rather than the latter so their money isnt "wasted" so to speak.

Group B rallying was brought to an end because too many people died.

 

[Zip]

Group B rallying was brought to an end because too many people died.

I knew that, That had some really terrible crowd control


I would prefere them to share the things they make with each other because Motor sport is really becoming stale these days

 

[Jonny69]

Lemans has to be one of the worst for punishing the winners, especially if they are a non-French team

However, it does keep the racing a bit more fair when, as demonstrated by Audi at Lemans, you have one mega-budget team vs a lot of privateers on budgets under 10% of that of the big team. They simply can't compete when the big team wants to win the race with its financial muscle.

 

[Sone]

Nascar seems pretty bad for this aswell Seem to always side with GM although they bring little to the sport

 

[chrislusty]

Ferrair were punished in F1 at the end of 2004 season because none of the other teams could get close so they had to change the rules, it wasnt their fault that Mclaren, william renault etc couldnt make a better car.

It is sad that teams are punished for doing their job. but as said earlier it does come down to money.

 

[robbiemc]

I'd also love to see an our favourite motorsport go to 'unlimited' power and performance, but it's just too impractical to ever work.
Cost has already been mentioned as it would be financially crippling to try to keep up the 'big boys', this would then lead to just 2 or 3 teams having a massive advantage which would make things very dull indeed.

The main reason though would be safety, as the tracks would have to be massively redesigned to be able to cope with huge cornering speeds. Part of the cause of Ayrton Sennas death was that his car was running 'active suspension' which made the car run very low to the ground, and once that hits a slight imperfection it loses all grip and heads off to the barriers.
Currently F1 cars hit a massive 5g around some corners which is frightening levels of grip, so if add unlimited power to that, you've got the potential for a lot of problems.

Motorsport has to be competitive to be exciting, which is why many of the one make series are so good. We all know that having one or two cars routinely dominate make things very dull indeed, and making things unlimited just reinforces that.

As 'cool' an idea as it sounds, it just a teenagers fantasy I'm afraid.

 

[JRS]

Part of the cause of Ayrton Sennas death was that his car was running 'active suspension' which made the car run very low to the ground, and once that hits a slight imperfection it loses all grip and heads off to the barriers.

Bzzzzzt! Sorry, that's wrong, but thanks for playing.

Active ride was banned for '94 mid-way through '93 (in fact, the FIA was pretty sure it wasn't even within the '93 rules....). The Williams did ride too low - apparently, they hadn't gotten the hang of designing a car that didn't have TC/ABS/Active ride. The car did ground out in Tamburello, but it was mostly because the tyre pressures had dropped due to the safety car being out just after the start of the race.

They redesigned the car, and the FIA mandated that teams fit a plank underneath to make sure the cars weren't running too low.


***edit***

If he'd had active ride, he wouldn't have crashed. It would have compensated fpr the bumps and the heavy G-loading and kept the bottom of the car off the ground. Sad, but sometimes measures brought in to slow cars down and increase safety end up causing huge accidents before drivers and teams can adjust to the regulations.

 

[penski]

Indeedy.

I remember a good quote from Martin Brundle racing at Monaco - on the grid, one oh his front wheels malfunctioned and shot up in the air, leaving him on three wheels...But he still managed to lap around to the pits with the other three active units compensating

*n

 

[rpstewart]

Ahh active ride, those were the days. Not so much let's design a racing car, more let's design a plane with wheels.....

If you want to see what "unlimited" F1 would look like all you need to look at is what Gordon Murray came up with when asked by Motorsport to sketch one out. He came up with an open wheeled, closed cockpit hybrid powered by a 1200hp gas turbine. Full underbody aerodynamics with a pair of suction fans a-la Brabham's fan car except these would feather to provide aerodynamic braking. Internal jacks for pitstops complete with laser alignment in the pit box. Scary stuff seeing as it was all proven technology at the time (1999 or so).

I'll have a look about and see if there's a copy on t'internet otherwise I'll dig out the larticle when I get home.

 

[robbiemc]

Bzzzzzt! Sorry, that's wrong, but thanks for playing.

Active ride was banned for '94 mid-way through '93 (in fact, the FIA was pretty sure it wasn't even within the '93 rules....). The Williams did ride too low - apparently, they hadn't gotten the hang of designing a car that didn't have TC/ABS/Active ride. The car did ground out in Tamburello, but it was mostly because the tyre pressures had dropped due to the safety car being out just after the start of the race.

They redesigned the car, and the FIA mandated that teams fit a plank underneath to make sure the cars weren't running too low.


***edit***

If he'd had active ride, he wouldn't have crashed. It would have compensated fpr the bumps and the heavy G-loading and kept the bottom of the car off the ground. Sad, but sometimes measures brought in to slow cars down and increase safety end up causing huge accidents before drivers and teams can adjust to the regulations.

Ah you're right, yes I remember now. I recall watching the programme about it and remembered the car riding too low, but forgot about the tyre-pressure part, cheers for clearing that up.
Still, I think the main thrust of my post is valid!

 

[JRS]

Still, I think the main thrust of my post is valid!

If by that you mean that Senna's accident was caused by his car bottoming out then yes, it was valid Just not the reason.

I'm still a big believer in saying "Alright lads, here we have a rectangle painted on the ground. As long as your car fits inside it, and the engine is of a capacity that we set out, then it's legal. Have as many cylinders as you like, have as many wheels as you like. Just go nuts."

 

[Zip]

I'm still a big believer in saying "Alright lads, here we have a ractangle painted on the ground. As long as your car fits inside it, and the engine is of a capacity that we set out, then it's legal. Have as many cylinders as you like, have as many wheels as you like. Just go nuts."

JRS FOR F1 CHAIRMAN!!!!

 

[Memphis]

I'm still a big believer in saying "Alright lads, here we have a rectangle painted on the ground. As long as your car fits inside it, and the engine is of a capacity that we set out, then it's legal. Have as many cylinders as you like, have as many wheels as you like. Just go nuts."

While I agree in principle, you would then just kiss goodbye to all the privateer teams as they wouldn't not be competitive against the manufacturer backed entries.

 

[Zip]

While I agree in principle, you would then just kiss goodbye to all the privateer teams as they wouldn't not be competitive against the manufacturer backed entries.

TBH The Privater teams are hardly Competing, they are just back markers that are getting in the way of the Manufactures coming around to lap them

 

[Sone]

While I agree in principle, you would then just kiss goodbye to all the privateer teams as they wouldn't not be competitive against the manufacturer backed entries.

Privateer teams are nigh on dead, especially if Mercedes buy McLaren.

who do we have

renault
ferrari
honda
toyota
bmw

red bull are a huge corporate and can't be counted as privateers

so who do we have left:
williams
midland
super aguri

Super aguri may well become honda owned, i can't see a privateer team winning another championship

 

[Memphis]

Very true, however the rule changes for 2008 look to allow privateer teams back into the sport at a very affordable and competitive level.

If it was a technical free-for-all, the budgets would spiral out of control.

 

[JRS]

While I agree in principle, you would then just kiss goodbye to all the privateer teams as they wouldn't not be competitive against the manufacturer backed entries.

If it was a technical free-for-all, the budgets would spiral out of control.

So? F1 owes nobody a living, and if the privateers can't stand the heat they should vacate the cooking area. Besides, there could be a team like Jordan in 1991 who came into F1 with a designer who drew them a very effective car considering their budget.

The days of "buy a March chassis, a Cossie engine, and go racing" (and before that, buy a Cooper or Lotus and a Climax engine) are gone, but may well return under the rules coming in soon.