Lets have your views

CS||nuTs said:
Yes.Whats wrong with that? Madrid pay Ronaldo something like 35m a year yet,the FIA propose running a team of 400 people,plus develop 2 racing cars on 40m.Who is the crazy one?
Click to expand...

AcidHell2 said:
I don't think so, teams spend every penny they can get. New rules won't suddenly bring in new money, unless it opens up avenues.
Click to expand...

love the disparity in views!

There is no way that F1 should be trying to run top teams on 40m. It's just crazy and should never have been thought about let alone suggested. There is quite obviously enough money in F1 that is going to "the wrong" people that it could be going to the teams.

If you were making it up would you just unrestrict everything? Literally there are 20 races in a season and whoever wins wins. What you spend, what your car is made of and stuff is just secondary? So you might end up with one team running on a fuel cell with 6 wheels and another on diesel and another with a 6 litre v12 petrol and another with a car 15ft wide. In your ideal formula would it really be that open?

As a fan all I want is to be entertained and I hope that that means my favourite driver wins or at least does well. I love the idea of the cars all being the same so that its purely down to the driver. But on the flip side I love the idea of a bunch of dudes in a shed smoking pipes inventing a flange detachment spangle to get an extra 10th and no one else having it.

Making budgets unlimited wouldn't change anything probably, that RB are fastest with not the largest budget (4th highest I read) is testament that spending more doesn't equal more wins. I dread to think what someone like Newey would dream up with a few less restrictions.

And going to bed at 2:10? I bet the macca team are still up trying to claw you back!
 
Last edited:
I would like.
Standard floor\front and rear wings for everyone.
Only teams that are in the Car\Engine business can enter F1(what's the use of a constructors champ to anyone else)

Less safty car...All F1 Stewards to be X-F1 drivers.A cap on what a team can spend and it MUST be provable.
No team orders+ loads more :) I hope I get my two invites to Mcalren TC for this months FOTA
 
deuse said:
I would like.

Only teams that are in the Car\Engine business can enter F1(what's the use of a constructors champ to anyone else)
Click to expand...

On that basis the only teams in this years competition would be Ferrari, Renault, and Mercedes. Possibly McLaren but their new car isn't on sale yet and Team Lotus only just bought Caterham. No Williams? No RBR? no Force India? No Sauber?

F1 should be about winning a race for peanuts or for millions. A prerequisite shouldn't surely be that you have to be making cars to enter. Some of the best teams and championships in history would never have happened if that were the case. The "garagistas" would never have been allowed into the sport and it would have severely hindered innovation and advancement.

I know it's your opinion but still it seems daft to me.
 
Todge said:
love the disparity in views!

P
Click to expand...

:confused: they aren't different.
CS||nuTs is saying 40mill is rediculuse (I agree)
Mine was in response to you saying would teams spend more. I'm saying they spend every penny they can get. The fact they might save some money on employees or not shipping a third car around makes no difference. As that money will just be spent elsewhere. So derestricting some/all rules I don't think you would see an increase in spending. As they already spend their budget. It would just mean they would spend it where the most time is to be be made.
The only way for teams to spend more is to get more money in, if they derestricted kers, or used alternative energy, then more sponsors and manufacturers might be interested.
 
Last edited:
arknor said:
wow this is one huge RBR whine thread
Click to expand...

exactly, very telling also very presumptuous with not a small helping of arrogance.

Personally, I think the FIA are much better under Todt, I don't think they should mess with the rules at all, apart from getting rid of 'clever' tricks that give one team an advantage.

I started following F1 as a young engineer (many moons ago) because I admired the development of technology. Unfortunately technology and analysis has now outgrown F1 and F1 cannot market itself on the basis of being hi tech.

F1 need to market itself on the basis of the drivers.
 
Current F1 rules, + ground effect, - quali/race tyre rule, + more tyre manufacturers, + testing in season and out all done on non F1 race tracks (and countries, if possible).

I don't think there is anything seriously wrong with the current F1 rules. With a few tweaks, it could be improved.

However, the biggest thing a FOTA break away series would need is to be governed NOT by FOTA. At no point in the entire history of F1 have the teams demonstrated that they could work well together. A FOTA series governed by the teams would be a disaster.
 
CS||nuTs said:
Forget the 2013 1.6 turbo era, the big boys dont give a flying **** about it as they know it wont happen,if the FIA push for it [which they wont] they will be left wifh GP2 and made a laughing stock
Click to expand...

I simply cannot wait untill the 1.6 Turbo's are finalised and all 'the big boys' are forced to eat their words.

Anyone who thinks the FIA are more interested in keeping RBR, Ferrari, and Mercedes happy than mass market car manufacturers like Renault, Honda,, Toyota, Nissan, Audi, VW, Ford, Peugeot, etc etc etc are dilluded.

The FIA are on a 'green' mission. Keeping a couple of performance car makers happy who make not very green pristiege cars while ignoring the companies who actual make 'green' cars wont happen.

At the moment it looks like Renault vs. Ferrari/Merc in the engine argument. The FIA have to go with Renault, or their whole 'green' campaign will be exposed as a complete joke.
 
CS||nuTs said:
FIA make the rules,imagine if FOTA did breakaway [not beyond the realms of possibility trust me] What would you have us do?
Click to expand...


1. Keep F1 Free to view.
2. top teams and top drivers using top technology.
3. Some way to keep it as close as it is today between the top teams.
4. More consistancy with penalties.
 
I think its easy to write a perfect wish list, but don't think its quite as simple as that, otherwise it would have been done already.

Ground effect would be nice, but too quick in corners?
Cutting the aero.. already done several times, if no-ones noticed.
Only using old tracks, well thats fine but they need upgrading and don't put as much money in the pot as we do need a couple of races in the far east to keep the pennies coming in.
V6 like Whitmarsh said could be a good compromise.

My only real list would be like Taggs, making sure it is still free to watch and keep decisions consistent.
 
Get rid of all the "anti-racing" big brother type rules that have steadily crept in.

Bring back fuel stops.
No tyre restrictions (ie. having to use x compound).
Don't punish drivers for racing (ie. making contact overtaking or trying to defend position/weaving).
Stop bringing out the safety car under the guise of safety all the time in order to bunch up the pack.
Have a generic monocoque design that puts the emphasis on making overtaking easier rather than going fast in clean air.
Get rid of DRS or make it available at any time and to any driver.
 
Last edited:
Okay let me see..

* Restricted budget, but high enough to allow teams to develop cars properly
* In-season testing to be allowed perhaps every other month (only 'test' drivers allowed)
* Aero should be restricted in some regard, perhaps a measured maximum allowable downforce based on other specs of the vehicle.
* Much Less Tilke-Drones (deliberate use of Drone (on and on and on)).
* Reversed Grid (based on last race performance and qualifying) (points awarded for qualifying position)
* Racing Incidents to be just that, with less interference from the race stewards especially with the "will be investigated blah blah"
* No restriction to the engine types being run, if you can make it fit, use it.
* Alternative fuel sources made viable (NASCAR run 15% ethanol now)
 
AcidHell2 said:
:confused: they aren't different.
CS||nuTs is saying 40mill is rediculuse (I agree)
Mine was in response to you saying would teams spend more. I'm saying they spend every penny they can get. The fact they might save some money on employees or not shipping a third car around makes no difference. As that money will just be spent elsewhere. So derestricting some/all rules I don't think you would see an increase in spending. As they already spend their budget. It would just mean they would spend it where the most time is to be be made.
The only way for teams to spend more is to get more money in, if they derestricted kers, or used alternative energy, then more sponsors and manufacturers might be interested.
Click to expand...

No, I asked if there were less restrictions teams would spend more. You said you didn't think so, he said yes and why shouldn't we. That to me is different. He then went on to make a comparison that the budget cap wanted them to run a team for 40 million when a single footballer gets 35. The teams DON'T run at 40 million, it was a proposal that never went through and he was I think just highlighting how stupid the rule makers can be.

You are, I think, suggesting that the money that the teams are spending right now is the most they could spend, otherwise they would get more money and spend it. I think CS is suggesting that if they were allowed more freedom Mr Mateschitz would open his cheque book if required. The likes of Mercedes, Ferrari and even Renault could easily spend more money if they felt it worthwhile. It's obviously a problem for the likes of Williams and Sauber who don't have a sideline that can pump money in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom