Parity in F1?

[JohnSSC]

There is a difference between "dumbing down" and being sensible.

Any series where you are spending $200 million per season just to have a chance to be halfway competitive is in serious trouble. I mean, are these teams spending it because they can or is it really necessary?

Additionally if Minardi spends $30 million and Ferrari $300 million, shouldn't Minardi be more than 4.5 seconds slower? I mean, ten times the outlay should buy me more than a 4 second per lap gap! I wonder how much is really spent on the cars.

Maybe I am ahead of my time or completely off base, but I cannot understand how no one else seems to think that this level of spending is not some sort of problem. There has to be a median level somewhere that would allow competition, innovation and easier access for new teams without having to somehow come up with $200 million plus to do it.

[BootsOntheSide]

My understanding of why Minardi are close to Ferrari despite the budget difference is that, because of the relatively tight rules, finding the extra split-seconds which make the difference is a very difficult and costly process. It requries lots of testing time, advanced devleopment technlogoy such as wind tunnels, and having a large team of experienced and knowledgabel designers and engineers. This, rather than the car itself, costs money.

I don't think any kind of budget cap is feasible, because teams would find ways around it. A better idea is to make some of the planned rule changes to reduce costs, then settle on some rules which encourage overtaking and bring dirver skill to the fore, and keep them for a while (this always closes the field in), and add a Privateers' Championship to allow peopel to enter without support form majhor car companies and be competitive on their own level.

[Kicking-back]

Quite right boots - thankfully those are the changes the FIA is proposing, lets hope the teams see sense.

[GP Racer]

Originally posted by JohnSSC
Additionally if Minardi spends $30 million and Ferrari $300 million, shouldn't Minardi be more than 4.5 seconds slower? I mean, ten times the outlay should buy me more than a 4 second per lap gap! I wonder how much is really spent on the cars.

That money and that 4.5 seconds, is the difference between a first place car, and a last place car that gets lapped numerous time a race.

[Teretonga]

Kirk and Boots are both correct. You can't cap F1 costs.

What you can do is bring in a range of restrictions which mean that those who have squillions of $$$ to spend are alot closer to the have nots, or to put it in reverse, those who do not have it will not be as disadvantaged as they are at present.

Cutting testing may not save that much as those that have heaps can still undertake computer simulations and the manufacturers could still hide f1 research in their own R&D budgets, which would still preserve the advantage.
The sponsorhip largesse is paid for by the sponsors, thats why they sponsor F1, to be seen to sponsor F1!

You could reduce all f1 testing to a third car on the Friday and Saturday at a race plus say six tests at specific circuits during the 'off season' but to get the teams to agree to it.... even if they did you would find them starting prototype programmes for Le Mans using 'two seater F1' cars (which in itself may not be a bad thing.) to get around the ban but all sorts of trickery is possible.
This doesn't include the suggestions for actually changing the regulations to eliminate wasteful and unecessary research costs but I do agree that we shouldn't regulate technological improvements too much. it is still the highest form of automative technology on the planet and that should stay.
I don't have a problem regulating to have a common wing front and rear because I don;t regard the aero research as automative technology. It may be fascinating but the costs are out of all proportion to the gains and it is this sort of gain that produces the boring racing (or lack of ability for the cars to actually run close together).

[Snrub]

Originally posted by GP Racer
Snrub please correct me if I'm wrong(I'm sure you will!), but doesn't parity equal "dumbed down" racing or contrived racing, two things that you criticise, for example, the IRL for?

Why would racing be contrived if the drivers aren't artificially forced into not being able to race due to equipment differences? Since you've brought up my comments regarding the IRL, creating a situation where like in the past the cars run flat out around an oval is contrieved and does not allow the driver to challange. I think it's pretty clear that when the racing changed, I changed what I said about IRL racing. I've also critisized the fact that Chevy powered cars are not at all competitive, which we can see is relevent to the F1 situation. One thing that I like about the IRL is that despite having two different chasis, they seem to be very close on performance and thus more drivers are competitive. I don't know how this chasis situation has occured for multiple years in the IRL, but perhaps F1 should mimic the IRL's regulation stratagy to some degree?

Bottom line: Do we want F1 to be special and creative because the cars are "technologically advanced" or do we want the racing series with the highest caliber of drivers tested against each other? Personally it's very clear and it's disgusting when even the drivers will freely admit that the car is a much larger factor than their abilities, as Button recently did. (I'm not disgusted at Button, simply the state of F1's lack of parity)

[GP Racer]

Originally posted by Snrub
Why would racing be contrived if the drivers aren't artificially forced into not being able to race due to equipment differences?

Personally it's very clear and it's disgusting when even the drivers will freely admit that the car is a much larger factor than their abilities, as Button recently did. (I'm not disgusted at Button, simply the state of F1's lack of parity)

But if you do artificially make the equipment similar, instead of having your best and brightest engineers do the very best they can to make the best car, than the racing is "manufactured" and contrived. It becomes artificial simply because the teams have been constrained. I also don't believe that manufacturers would stick around to long if there was artificially induced parity.

I don't believe that F1 was ever known to be a real drivers series. The manufacturers always played a huge role.

[Teretonga]

Um... I think F1 has always presumed to be a drivers series. Throughout the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties the drivers championship has always overshadowed the constructors championship in the public eye.

Yes, the fifties did have a major contest between Ferrari, Maserati and sometimes Mercedes Vanwall or Cooper, but it was a drivers championship. The current era is probably the most prolific as a manufacturers championship (as oppossed to the 70's and 80's when numbers of constructors built chassis and used other's engines.)

[johnh875]

True, the drivers championship has always had a higher profile but I don't think there has ever been a substitute for having a competitive car, with a few notable exceptions of course.

Teretonga you raise some interesting suggestions in your previous post, I agree with banning testing during the season and expand the track time at race meetings as a strong possibility to reduce costs. However teams will still do "off-track" testing by other means so it is not foolproof.

Now the control wing idea, that is something worth looking at in my opinion.