Team disparity concerns

[Richard]

You might not think it worthwhile, but the backmarkers obviously think it worthwhile. Otherwise they wouldn't be there and wouldn't be able to raise the cash to race.

Remember when the sport was so healthy and so many wanted to compete that they had to have pre qualification, and the 107% rule was enforced? Personally, I think more teams are better for the sport, they allow development of a broader pool of talent (engineers and drivers).

I also think the final two places should be given to two single car teams and split for EU and non-EU races. Then you could have the next Minardi or Jordan learning their trade with one car each on the EU circuits, and maybe Chinese or Indian teams doing the same on the Asian circuits. These teams would most likely be traditional customer teams, ie they would be allowed to buy engines, gearboxes, chassis from established teams.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

@ ESPI

Budgets really dont make up the 5 second difference at all.

Force India, Williams and Torro Rosso are operating at slightly higher levels to Virgin et al. The time drop off from these guys is massive when you think Force India has around half of what Red Bull have and still manage to be an average of 1.5 to 2 seconds off them.

My point is, what they are doing with 50% of the resources the top teams have is far better than what the bottom 3 are doing with the 40% of the resources the top guys have.

Lotus are the faster of the 3 teams and they are using other teams(Red Bulls) nous in certain areas.
In time we will see this being the norm, with top teams requiring added funds to justify the expense of development.
Another area of time loss, could just be experience. The back markers havent even had a full 2nd season yet, in time they will develop areas of strengths themselves that they can focus on and then get their weakest areas from other more prominent teams.

[Richard]

JET - That's simply a principle of diminishing returns.

Your analysis says that spending 50 units by FI gives a good return compared to 40 units. That's an extra 25% budget (ie 50/40), of course they should do a lot better! That 25% extra gives 1.5 second on track.

However the top teams spending 100 units, ie double the Force India budget, only gain another 1.5 seconds.

If I had £10m to spare, I could move Lotus 1 or 2 places up the grid, but investing that in FI might move them one place up (or maybe not), and investing that in McLaren or Ferrari wouldn't show any improvement on track. Personally, I'd rather spend the cash with Lotus and see some significant impact.

That's what makes the backmarkers interesting, it only take a couple of individuals or a talented diver to have a big impact.

[xpensive]

...
Couldn't disagree more. Going in reverse order here... to intentionally making a racing vehicle less safe is irresponsible and outrageous. What is that going to accomplish? With the deaths of Senna, Ratzenberger, Villeneuve, Donahue... how many people were jumping up and down lauding the excitement and thrill?

I think no matter how you cut or slice it, racing is and should always be beheld in a context of speed and certain danger, just like boxing is related to violence. Having said that, it doesn't mean accepting lethal accidents, just scary enough to make the drivers think twice before swerving and blocking making good racing impossible.

As for making the cars more difficult to drive, I firmly belive that the better driver gets relatively more rewarded driving a shitbox than an RB7, but that's me. Besides, when you think about it, even in the 70s, overtaking opportunities were most often produced by a driver-mistake, a missed gear or brake-point.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Richard,

Diminished returns affects the top teams, The further down the pecking order you go the more depressed this becomes.
Its no secret the final 0.5 seconds or so requires monumentally more effort than the preceding 2 seconds or so deficit. Witness historical precedent and countless engineers quotes for testimony to that.

By being 5 seconds behind, there are basic(basic in F1 terms ) elements that can be changed to great effect.
Being 2 seconds behind the midfield group with 20% less is far worse than being 2 seconds behind the leaders with 50% less.

We could even apportion some of this blame to the fact these guys entered on the premise of a 40 mill budget cap. But that is history now, so the question is do they have the appetite to continue on different terms? Thus far you have to say yes.
How will they get closer? By a combination of a stable technical department, technical partnerships(Mclaren, Red Bull etc), and a bit more investment.

Look at the transformation of Force India, from the Midland back markers to midfield runners and beating Williams. They havent exactly spent a fortune doing so.
Its the model that all the backarkers should be looking to replicate.