Comments on: Budget caps for F1 in 2010

By: kids party ideas

kids party ideas — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 18:25:52 +0000

The right way to organise your precious party would be to hire a church hall somewhere.

By: DC

DC — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:26:15 +0000

FIA 2018 regulation change.

A: To expand on our brazilian trophy program all car body parts will be constructed of no less than 45% recycled pop bottles.

B: Any team that retains 20 or more of the original milk float subframe, Or can prove that the car is still used to deliver dairy products between races will be allowed to have 2 team crew to push start from the grid.

C: To preserve our European fan base All F1 teams must retain their orignal name and logo’s, Teams keeping a small office, staffed by at least 2 people in their original country will be allowed to change batteries mid race.

By: jrg

jrg — Sun, 24 May 2009 22:38:13 +0000

I think the budget cap is bad, mostly due to the two specs of cars that will result and the intrusion into team finances. Let teams spend as much as they want. Penalties for premature component failure seems good and provides some cost savings, but this is an expensive sport and makes a lot of money. That all feeds the spectacle.

I would like to see fewer rules, and rules more about the effects of the car, not their specifications.

Instead of detailed engine specs just limit the amount of fuel used in each race. Use the fuel in anything you want but once its gone its gone and you don’t finish.

Instead of detailed areo specs just have a set of rectangular shapes that can not be exceeded (as is used already) and the wheel attachment points. But add a set of specs on the turbulence produced. So as long as the car stays within the physical constraints and the resulting air flow is inside the spec, make it any shape you want.

I’d let them use any tire compound or construction as long as its in the size spec. If they can make it all the way on one set of tires and be faster then the guy that takes the time to pit to put on new ones, let them do it. Same for fuel I’d say. I’m not sure about banning it. now teams don’t have to refuel, other than you have the free time during the at least one demanded tire change so why run with the extra weight. Personally I think the pit/fuel/tire strategy does add a lot to the sport. I very much like the technical aspects of F1 and that sort of bleeds over into the strategy aspects which I like too. It was better with two tire suppliers too.

By: mertyazan

mertyazan — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:28:40 +0000

I’m only angry for after 2010 no refuelling in the race.Why don’t they asking us ,formula 1 fans.A couple year before they forbidden tire change and all us sought very bad results.Some beauty of f1 race is pit stops .tire change & refuelling and refuelling strategies.Why they are playing with rules contuniously.Best of the rules at Schumacher times.Qualifiynig sessions alot better than now.point system also a lot better.

By: Chaz

Chaz — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:06:16 +0000

This is going to be a veritable walk through a mine field to try sort out.

Another big question (and perhaps an article in the making) is – “How the heck do you reduce your teams budget from $400m plus dollars to $42m”. This may sound silly but I imagine its far more complicated than it sounds…

By: GeorgeK

GeorgeK — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:46:58 +0000

“I wonder if some tme this year we’ll see the announcement of the FOTA Grand Prix World Championship, with its first season commencing in 2010?”

Someone once said a little revolution is a good thing. To that I would add sometimes major revolution is essential to survival. This will truly test the mettle of FOTA and their will to control what rightfully should be their sport, not Max’s.

As an aside does anyone have a clue as to what the teams travel costs for a season are? Has to be in the extreme with all the fly away races.

By: Bigbadderboom

Bigbadderboom — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:49:17 +0000

What we are witnessing as most of us know is a power struggle between the FIA and FOTA, When you consider the amount of revenue created by the f1 circus inc Tv Rights, track revenue, branding and all other commercial revenue streams a £30 million caps seems ridiculous. Everybody is aware that the kind of money toyota was throwing around is no longer sustainable, but we are going from one extreme to another, F1 should be inventive, glamorous and the pinnacle of motor sport, perhaps as GeorgeK said earlier its just a starting point in a negotiting process.

Personally I am beggining to think that FOTA should throw their toys out of the pram and demand parity for the teams. F1 should be far mor self regulating and muppets like Mosley should stick to what he knows……and we all know what that is!!!!!

This all stinks to me fo Max trying to get a new mechanism in place for him and the FIA to continue medaling in formula 1 issues.

Are we beggining to witness the demise of our sport?

By: agnes

agnes — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:02:15 +0000

Dear Friends,
I am not novice in F1 subject but I really have problem with understanding “the principal technical freedoms:

1. A more aerodynamically efficient (but standard) under body.
2. Movable wings.
3. An engine which is not subject to a rev limit or a development freeze.”
- what does each of these points really mean, is it so vague as I think????
I would be grateful for bringing more clarity :=))

By: Aquatic Mammal

Aquatic Mammal — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:17:17 +0000

The idea is that all the teams will be forced one way or another to go for the budget capped ‘innovative’ scheme, then Max will enforce his catch all clause and restrict their design freedom.

Now is the time, FOTA. Break away.

By: matt

matt — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:56:04 +0000

I don’t see how it encourages better engineering. F1′s so competitive now that the engineering is already in constant development and it’s very clever as it is. Restricting the guidelines will make it more difficult and after a point will surely just limit the new developments for the top teams.