zac510 wrote:They whinged for years about the costs, threatened a breakaway and asked flat out for rule changes like this. They got them.
If they don't like it they can take their bat/ball and go home. Plenty more privateers that would like the place of a greedy manufacturer.
No this is untrue. Max unilaterally introduced the freeze upon the teams shortly after he made them foot the expense of going to the V8s. The teams didn't want the V8s and they didn't want the freeze.
This Marxist egalitarian freeze is 100% antithetical to the spirit of F1 and Max should be run out of town for it, not for his N@z! hookers. Supposedly it will be with us for ten years. Well it seems that with Renault rumbling and Toyota also there is no chance of that. Hopefully all this nonsense will be over next year when Max leaves.
Not only is the freeze bogus but the V8 rules are as well. V-angle spec'd at 90 degrees, bore centers spec'd, cam locations spec'd, CG spec'd, alloys spec'd, RPM spec'd, ECU spec'd, number of cylinders spec'd etc. etc. All this is bogus and against the spirit of F1.
I believe that the process for a manufacturer to apply for an engine component design change "for reliability" involves not only the FIA approving the change but also their fellow competitors approving the change. This article
makes it clear that all the other teams know what modifications their peers are applying for and why. The other teams can also say no to the request.
All this was foisted upon the teams against Concorde by Max abusing the "safety clause" to impose these regs. What does any of this have to do with safety? And where in Concorde is Max appointed King of budgets? If Ferrari want to spend ten trillion Euros chasing the title, then that is their business. If Honda says that is too much then they can do it for less or leave. If everyone left but Ferrari the cache and elan of the F1 title would suffer because we would essentially be reduced to a 20 car grid of all Ferrari powered cars in a kit car class. Teams will place a value upon the title and then act accordingly. It is good that they place a high value upon it. This is freedom and economics and technological development all aligning. It should be free to act upon whatever course it determines. If team "A" sees great value in a rotary engine development, and team "B" wants a thirsty V12 that accelerates like a dragster but is a turd in the bends, and team "C" wants a slower nimble light weight fuel-sipping V6 that corners like it is on rails and team "D" wants to develop a true CVT while team "E" wants to develop a 4WS AWD electro-motive racer with full regenerative potential then they all should be permitted to do so. And the driver's weight plus the ballast should be around 85 Kg so that heavier drivers aren't penalized. All driver ballast should be placed directly behind the driver seat at around 280mm above the floor to mimic the driver CG. After that there should be no more ballast allowed so the cars are designed to be light weight and well balanced apart from the crutch of ballast as it is used today. Let F1 be F1, not another spec racer series. With rules like this the manufacturers would also gain certain marketing value as brand "B" will be regarded as dragster quick while brand "C" will be regarded as a slalom-meister, brand "D" will be regarded as the handling AWD car, brand "A" will be the rotary king etc. Each approach will be esteemed by its philosophical adherents out in the public.
Death to Max's Marxist egalitarian spec racer notions!
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1