The effect of the RRA on 2012 design ...

[WhiteBlue]

@ wesley123
The economic situation of the previous recessions was different. F1 came from a very much lower cost basis in 1990. Then in 2000 it had a huge influx in capital when the automotive manufacturers took over. So the recession was not felt at all. Today that is much different as I have pointed out.

You basically say with many words that you don't care about the points I made and that you do not agree with the view of the FiA and FOTA. That is fine with me. Let's agree to disagree on the issue.

[horse]

I'm with WB on this one. For me, sport is about fair competition and providing a "level playing field" where the test is of human ingenuity, skill, or physical prouess. You see clear blurring of the fairness of sport by money in competitions such as the English Premier League and we've seen it in F1 with Ferarri's spending power in the 90s. I believe unlimited resources will never allow a fair chance to opposing dedicated teams of people in F1 and thus, recession or not, I will always be in favour of some kind of RRA.

[ESPImperium]

How could the RRA help the smaller teams be quicker, and also apise the likes of Ferrari who wants Testing and Red Bull who sees Mercedes and Ferrari having a an advantage with KERS?

I have no idea about the KERS, but the testing is what i posted earlier in the thread, whitch is essencially this;

* Tests last for 3 days tops
* Drivers must be development, reserve or test drivers
* No race drivers can step into the car
* 9 out of the 12 teams must be present or no test (Id make it all teams must attend personally)
* This means larger teams may have to pay smaller teams to attend.
* Tracks that are used must be non callander tracks that year
* 5 tests allowed in total per year
* Test distance limit each year limited to 18,000km.
* Pirelli must supply teams with 20 sets of developmental rubber for the 3 days testing.
* No race spec rubber for that year.

I have no idea on how id manage wind tunnels, CFD, straight line days, 100% wind tunnel days, telemetry resource, and any other thing thats going arround.

[WhiteBlue]

How could the RRA help the smaller teams be quicker, and also apise the likes of Ferrari who wants Testing and Red Bull who sees Mercedes and Ferrari having a an advantage with KERS?

A fair solution would not be so difficult. The turbo charger and the MGUH would be defined as a part of the engine. The MGUK and the energy storage would be part of the chassis.

The chassis RRA would basically stay similar except that every team must make their own MGUK and ES out of the chassis budget and resources and that an X% cut would be introduced which would would be used to increase the engine transfer price.

Engine makers would also get resource and budget restrictions. The transfer price would be the manufacturing + service charge + the X percent resource cut that was taken from the chassis budgets. Perhaps one could set X to 10%. Research and development cost may not be charged to customers. All teams must be supplied according to an engine maker duty formula.

[ESPImperium]

That is making sence.

And for the smaller teams, they get a power train supply for say €10m a season, and their MGUK wouldnt need to be in their budget.

What about tha manufacture of a spec MGUK and MGUH for all engines?

And make it that engine manufactures can only supply only one works team and one customer team, so this means Renault and Cosworth would be able to supply as many teams as they want as they would be engine only builders.

Would those proposals be decent enough?

[Pingguest]

Budget restrictions will reduce the need to specify very narrow technical rules in order to utilise diminishing returns. At least that was the thinking by the FiA and the teams in 2009. So the more successful a budget cap is the wider the technical rules can be opened in areas that are suitable for competition.

Formula 1 has not accomplished that thinking. Since the 2009 season the regulations have still been thickening and the budget restrictions have been just another boundary.
Ironically, the most effective measure for cost-saving has not been implemented yet: customer parts.

I do not agree. The competitiveness of smaller teams depends of their distance to the leading teams. If the leading teams spend unrestricted they will find it much harder to close the gap or even get ahead.

As the regulations still provide an absolute point of perfection and the number of resources is limited, the value of the resources increases.