BS

 

A very considered response then

 

Yea - cos Brawn had unlimited funding didn't they...

 

Yea - cos Brawn had unlimited funding didn't they...
[/quote]
Not far off it and also a loophole in the aero regs. Yes, come 2009, Brawn had little money comparatively, but the 2009 car was designed with Honda millions.

The whole budget thing is difficult. The formula is that strict that its emphasis is on crazy spending to 'process' any pace from the car.

Lets face it, the key 'innovation' that has come from this engine regs change is a long shaft that seperates the turbo from the compressor.

The rules I don't like are the limits on fuel flow and ERS discharge. You should be given 100litres of fuel and allowed to use X amount of joules per race. How you sue them is at the limits of your tech and/or strategy

Active suspension need to be brought back. I don't think it's a driver aid, more of a performance aid and will allow cars to alter when following in the tow.

Which leads me to skirts/ground effect. Bring this back but limit the front wing to 4 elements and the rear wing to one element (all dimension limited).

Reduce tyre width by 25%

But here is the real kicker, and it's one non purists won't like:

When a car is on an out lap from the pits it will be allowed to take a 'shortcut' to negate some of the pitstop time.

You see, pitstops take too long so teams nurse the tyres, don't take risks, and play the conservative game.

by adding in a shortcut on teh out lap, you could reduce a pitstop from a 25 second loss to a 6-7 second loss. And since it was on an outlap, you'd never have any lap record set.

I really think this would make a big difference to the aggressiveness of the strategies.

 

Yea - cos Brawn had unlimited funding didn't they...
[/quote]

In fairness that brawn car was developed with a huge Honda budget. They just operated through the season on a limited budget.

The teams that entered were sold a bait and switch. Promised budget cuts where they hoped they could compete on innovation and instead left in a formula that requires enormous funds for aero research to even battle the midfield.

That they stuck at it as long as they did without the hope of competing is surprising.

F1 isn't a profitable sport it needs a huge financial backer who wants exposure like an auto company or drinks company.

If you can't attract that to fund your racing you are a lost cause.

 

Someone's got to be last. If Marussia, Caterham and Sauber all disappear, it'll be Torro Rosso, Force India, or maybe even McLaren bringing up the rear.

It needs a more even split of the money. Everybody knows it. Marussia and Caterham could probably operate on a 1/11th split of the F1 revenues without much sponsorship on top, and Red Bull, Ferrari, Mercedes would still have a lot more to spend and still be at the front.

 

Just get rid of the regulations, the regs make it uncompetitive because you are all competing on a (un)level playing field. If you had no regs, there would be more competition between the teams and throughout the grid. It would be like a class system. So you could actually still have winners at the bottom of the grid as well as at the top.

The additional advantage would be the return of 1000hp engines probably using the current technology but without the limitations. You could then have the excitement of some teams following the economical route and not doing fuel pit stops and some teams choosing speed to make up for it.

The mayhem would actually make for some proper interesting strategic and overtaking racing.

 

The constructers points/money thing has never seen fair to me...eouldnt it be better just shared between the teams

 

Please don't vote.

 

Toyota had nearly unlimited funding (it was a lot higher than anyone else).........That worked well for them