Giblet wrote:Um Honda and Nick Fry went above and beyond what they needed to, and Bernie helped 'float' SA for the last race.
Try blaming Max, he is the one who sets the rules, as in no customer cars, which is why they are gone now.
Well I would not blame Max for that. However I would jointly blame Max and Bernie who were so sure that they could strong arm the teams into accepting customer cars against the plain language of Concorde. Rightly so, Williams and Midland/Spyker/Force India resisted this. The first casualty was Prodrive. But think of this... Prodrive gets year old McLarens, races and finishes 3rd or 4th in the constructor's C'ship or even just in the driver's C'ship.... Is that right? You know sponsors could care less about the constructor's C'ship, they just want to get their decals on front running cars. Why would Coca-cola (or whomever) give a dime to make a team named "Team Coca-cola Force India" and run in last place when for a similar investment they could run in 3rd or 4th place regularly in "Team Coca-cola Prodrive" cars?
FW and Collin Kolles were right to threaten civil arbitration. Bernie and Max knew they couldn't defend their position in civil court either. Bernie made some gestures to change the distribution of the winnings but this was too little and would never amend the inequity. All this did was to allow the cars on the grid for the first few races of 2006 when the furor was great and real civil action was immanent. In essence Bernie said: "Trust me, I will make it right" but that was really impossible. I am surprised it lasted this long.
The complexities and inequity of a "third car" solution may weigh in favor of the teams winking at STR for a bit. However, should they even score more points than a few tolerable crumbs, then we will start to hear objections once again.
So the promises of a customer car era were made when there was uncertainty as to their ability to keep those promises. There is the place to assign blame.
It seems that going the Toyota route and building a team from scratch is what it will take for VW/Porsche/Audi or whomever. Williams' stock just went up!
There are better returns on investment to be had in LMP, DTM. And I remind you of my warning for F1... If the rules aren't loosened up to allow for more innovation, the LMP will transcend F1 as the pinnacle of technology in motorsport. Look at how much PR Audi is getting from their R-10 diesel cars. Not just winning, but for innovation and points with the greenies.
F1 spends enormous sums on finding a tenth of a tenth with a new wing flap. Who really cares that a "bridge front wing" is viewed as innovative? It has absolutely no marketing or R&D value to the automobile industry. If the FIA hadn't over reacted to the FW13, by now regular road cars would have highly developed active suspension, highly developed CVTs, perhaps Renault would have pioneered electro-magneto servo valves by now etc. Maybe even some revolutionary "six stroke" engines or rotary valved engines would have been researched. (poppet valves are horribly inefficient and represent the greatest opportunity for thermal gains) If F1 were to encourage innovation rather than strangle it, we would all be better off and F1 would have far more relevance to the average Joe. In other words, these are things that are a genuine advance to the automotive world, have great marketing PR value and represent a genuine overall contribution to mankind.
Last edited by gcdugas on Tue May 06, 2008 5:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1