donskar wrote:... Want an instant cost-cutting measure? Eliminate or postpone KERS for the time being.
Apparently Max Mosley has changed his mind too, realizing that this kind of spending will end with three or four teams competing. I just hope that he has advisors good enough to change the aerodynamic rules to make three-shifts work in a full-scale rolling-ground windtunnel redundant. Multi MW blowers on full song for 24 hours year around?
WhiteBlue wrote:I do not denie that the situation of BMW has an influence on my thinking. They have fewer resources than McLaren/Merc and Ferrari and have focused them earlier on the 2009 car. If they had not done that they may have had a chance for the title this years for the consistency they were showing. You cannot punish them by changing the rules at this stage. Besides most of the money is already spend. Our friend Luca is just looking at building or leasing another very expensive wind tunnel. To cut such wastefullness would do much more good than cutting or delaying energy saving technologies.
xpensive wrote:This is exactly what i mean timbo, as most upgrades during the season these days are done for aerodynamic reasons, why not simply limit the benefit from wasting endless working hours in a power-gobbling full-scale rolling windtunnel?
For 2009 FIA has tried to put an end to all the ridicilous tack-ons to the body-work developed in the wind-tunnel, while I am sure a flat-bottom rule should be even more efficient to limit that sort of useless spending.
timbo wrote:... I think wind-tunnel is not VERY expensive compared to KERS. Even Sauber in its pre-BMW days could build one that considered very sofisticated and was major plus for BMW, when they wanted to purchase them. One thing with windtunnel is that once you build it - you use it and that's all. KERS require redesign of the whole car with braking, cooling, weight destribution - everything that needs to be sorted out. Besides, I bet if team would want to sell its windtunnel there would be many of potential buyers, while with KERS technology it is still a question whether F1 could offer anything useful on that side.
However, I believe that the major point to cut expenses would be to limit on going development. Like team can only alter aero-package four times a year and suspension, cooling ec twice. Look at what differentiated most rich teams with smaller ones - last year Spyker altered their package only a few times, this year with FI they introduced something new almost every race, just like others do.
It just amazes me why we are not discussing this! This is the major point of expences, every year teams effectively develop a car TWICE, as cars on Brazil are very, very different to Australia...
Metar wrote:So, you mean Force India could simply ask Sutil to slowly inch around the track for a season on the same engine in the same chassis while paying him five cents per race, and earn an amazing 215 points for driving the slowest car ever, and 60 points for the driver's championship? Something smells fishy here.
Alonso holds the record of a whole season, including a championship, in a single R26 chassis - but that deserves respect, not points. Money-bonuses, perhaps (though the real bonus already comes with not having to produce a new backup chassis). But points for that stuff? Almost as bad as the medal system, if not worse - it'll reward sucking, as far as racing is concerned, more than being, say, a competitive midfield team.
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 7 guests