JJ 0 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 (edited) I haven't been following Formula 1 over the past few years. What the hell brought this on? This might be a Jimbo's telly moment too. Edited June 7, 2009 by Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I haven't been following Formula 1 over the past few years. What the hell brought this on? This might be a Jimbo's telly moment too. Throwing their toys out of the pram because they can't spend the money they want to under the proposed new regs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7169 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Haha. They were already huffed that they are shit this year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 they won't leave - how else would they sell their over priced product to the punters????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinofbeans 91 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 i hope they do leave. pretty much everyone ITK about F1 has stated the governing body had a silent T on the end (they are called the FIA for those that don't know). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Meh, bike racing is much better anyway (it's actually racing for a start). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3508 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 If so it will signal the end for Toyota as well. They have been just looking for an excuse for the last couple of seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 They're calling the FIA's bluff.... and I think the FIA will blink first. I'm no Ferrari fan but I totally support them on this. F1 was created as a machine for rich blokes to spunk as much money as they wanted on fast cars. Putting a budget cap on it will remove the very ethos of the sport. There are other formulae which they can apply this to - F1 should be left as it is. For one thing it's the developmental workshop for road vehicles. If the budgets are capped, there'll be less development on the track and therefore less development in automative engineering full stop. The FIA have already changed their stance by suggesting a two-tiered championship as a compromise - tighter technical regulations for those who don't conform to the budget caps than those who do. This would leave us in an absolutely ridiculous situation of 10 cars fighting for one championship and 10 for another. What doesn't seem to be widely reported is that this isn't just the opinion of Ferrari - it's of all the FOTA teams which is everyone. Ferrari are just making the first move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 (edited) They're calling the FIA's bluff.... and I think the FIA will blink first. I'm no Ferrari fan but I totally support them on this. F1 was created as a machine for rich blokes to spunk as much money as they wanted on fast cars. Putting a budget cap on it will remove the very ethos of the sport. There are other formulae which they can apply this to - F1 should be left as it is. For one thing it's the developmental workshop for road vehicles. If the budgets are capped, there'll be less development on the track and therefore less development in automative engineering full stop. The FIA have already changed their stance by suggesting a two-tiered championship as a compromise - tighter technical regulations for those who don't conform to the budget caps than those who do. This would leave us in an absolutely ridiculous situation of 10 cars fighting for one championship and 10 for another. What doesn't seem to be widely reported is that this isn't just the opinion of Ferrari - it's of all the FOTA teams which is everyone. Ferrari are just making the first move. It's not really a very good "ethos" though is it? (and it's not true anyway now, it's pretty much out of reach almost any individual) They'd be better off getting rid of all regulations going that way (nor does Fop suspect F1 will be the driving force behind this century's automotive industry - not unless they limit them all to Nano's ). Or as Fop thinks allowing wheel spikes (and possibly mini-guns) on the cars. Edited May 13, 2009 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 They're calling the FIA's bluff.... and I think the FIA will blink first. I'm no Ferrari fan but I totally support them on this. F1 was created as a machine for rich blokes to spunk as much money as they wanted on fast cars. Putting a budget cap on it will remove the very ethos of the sport. There are other formulae which they can apply this to - F1 should be left as it is. For one thing it's the developmental workshop for road vehicles. If the budgets are capped, there'll be less development on the track and therefore less development in automative engineering full stop. The FIA have already changed their stance by suggesting a two-tiered championship as a compromise - tighter technical regulations for those who don't conform to the budget caps than those who do. This would leave us in an absolutely ridiculous situation of 10 cars fighting for one championship and 10 for another. What doesn't seem to be widely reported is that this isn't just the opinion of Ferrari - it's of all the FOTA teams which is everyone. Ferrari are just making the first move. It's not really a very good "ethos" though is it? (and it's not true anyway now, it's pretty much out of reach almost any individual) They'd be better off getting rid of all regulations going that way (nor does Fop suspect F1 will be the driving force behind this century's automotive industry - not unless they limit them all to Nano's ). Or as Fop thinks allowing wheel spikes (and possibly mini-guns) on the cars. Why not? It's worked for almost 60 years... As for being out of reach of almost anyone, Brawn had totally disproved that theory this season. They're working on a minimal budget (around the figure the FIA wants to bring in) yet they're still comfortably beating the teams who throw money into the sport (Ferrari, Toyota). The advantage is techincal ability, not financing. Teams should be allowed to spend what they like - if the FIA are so concerned about costs, why did they hike the entry fee and superlicence costs this winter by a record amount? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 They're calling the FIA's bluff.... and I think the FIA will blink first. I'm no Ferrari fan but I totally support them on this. F1 was created as a machine for rich blokes to spunk as much money as they wanted on fast cars. Putting a budget cap on it will remove the very ethos of the sport. There are other formulae which they can apply this to - F1 should be left as it is. For one thing it's the developmental workshop for road vehicles. If the budgets are capped, there'll be less development on the track and therefore less development in automative engineering full stop. The FIA have already changed their stance by suggesting a two-tiered championship as a compromise - tighter technical regulations for those who don't conform to the budget caps than those who do. This would leave us in an absolutely ridiculous situation of 10 cars fighting for one championship and 10 for another. What doesn't seem to be widely reported is that this isn't just the opinion of Ferrari - it's of all the FOTA teams which is everyone. Ferrari are just making the first move. It's not really a very good "ethos" though is it? (and it's not true anyway now, it's pretty much out of reach almost any individual) They'd be better off getting rid of all regulations going that way (nor does Fop suspect F1 will be the driving force behind this century's automotive industry - not unless they limit them all to Nano's ). Or as Fop thinks allowing wheel spikes (and possibly mini-guns) on the cars. Why not? It's worked for almost 60 years... As for being out of reach of almost anyone, Brawn had totally disproved that theory this season. They're working on a minimal budget (around the figure the FIA wants to bring in) yet they're still comfortably beating the teams who throw money into the sport (Ferrari, Toyota). The advantage is techincal ability, not financing. Teams should be allowed to spend what they like - if the FIA are so concerned about costs, why did they hike the entry fee and superlicence costs this winter by a record amount? Haven't they just basically got lucky with a technical loophole? Or at least got away with something most other teams thought was against the regulations and therefore got a big step up this season with most of the rest playing catch up? That can happen once (or maybe even twice), but its not going to be the case all the time or even the majority of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46027 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Everything about Formula One is boring as fuck. Even the scandal and controversy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Onion 0 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 (edited) Quite agree. Chuck a packet of Skittles down the bog, flush, watch them go round. Hardly any discernible difference at all. Edited for wrong ket Edited May 13, 2009 by Big Onion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonatine 11542 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Quite agree. Chuck a packet of Skittles down the bog, flush, watch them go round. Hardly any discernible difference at all. Edited for wrong ket Ket Proper old skool term Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 They're calling the FIA's bluff.... and I think the FIA will blink first. I'm no Ferrari fan but I totally support them on this. F1 was created as a machine for rich blokes to spunk as much money as they wanted on fast cars. Putting a budget cap on it will remove the very ethos of the sport. There are other formulae which they can apply this to - F1 should be left as it is. For one thing it's the developmental workshop for road vehicles. If the budgets are capped, there'll be less development on the track and therefore less development in automative engineering full stop. The FIA have already changed their stance by suggesting a two-tiered championship as a compromise - tighter technical regulations for those who don't conform to the budget caps than those who do. This would leave us in an absolutely ridiculous situation of 10 cars fighting for one championship and 10 for another. What doesn't seem to be widely reported is that this isn't just the opinion of Ferrari - it's of all the FOTA teams which is everyone. Ferrari are just making the first move. It's not really a very good "ethos" though is it? (and it's not true anyway now, it's pretty much out of reach almost any individual) They'd be better off getting rid of all regulations going that way (nor does Fop suspect F1 will be the driving force behind this century's automotive industry - not unless they limit them all to Nano's ). Or as Fop thinks allowing wheel spikes (and possibly mini-guns) on the cars. Why not? It's worked for almost 60 years... As for being out of reach of almost anyone, Brawn had totally disproved that theory this season. They're working on a minimal budget (around the figure the FIA wants to bring in) yet they're still comfortably beating the teams who throw money into the sport (Ferrari, Toyota). The advantage is techincal ability, not financing. Teams should be allowed to spend what they like - if the FIA are so concerned about costs, why did they hike the entry fee and superlicence costs this winter by a record amount? Haven't they just basically got lucky with a technical loophole? Or at least got away with something most other teams thought was against the regulations and therefore got a big step up this season with most of the rest playing catch up? That can happen once (or maybe even twice), but its not going to be the case all the time or even the majority of the time. Got lucky? Nope, they've engineered their car around one particular innovation which has shown to be a success. Only like the Wings, Ground Effect, Turbos, Raised Nose, etc in the past. The others are playing catch up but then again Brawn took another step forward with the changes they made for Barcelona. As an aside, 'The Cock' has alluded to something on his blog (http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/) which the press are overlooking and which will mean that the FIA will back down: “The chairman of the Board of Directors (Montezemolo) was mandated to evaluate the most suitable ways and methods to protect the company’s interests.” This has several meanings in one. It means that they are looking into a legal challenge because they believe that ‘binding contractual obligations’ have been breached. These refer to a veto right which Ferrari negotiated into its deal when it broke ranks with the other manufacturers in early 2005 and signed up to stay in F1 until 2012. The breached contractual obligations he alludes to is that this veto states that Ferrari have to be in agreement with something the FIA want to push through in order for it to become legitmate. In short, if the FIA enforce the salary cap, they've broken their contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Got lucky? Nope, they've engineered their car around one particular innovation which has shown to be a success. Only like the Wings, Ground Effect, Turbos, Raised Nose, etc in the past. The others are playing catch up but then again Brawn took another step forward with the changes they made for Barcelona. Thought they identified a loose bit of technical specification and took advantage of it interpretation-wise? (not saying they did anything wrong, just saying that they got lucky and that it was a one time things irrespective of money, and it wouldn't happen again - the ruling was upheld for them, but again on purely technical terms, not really in the spirit of the rule - although again that is of course largely how F1 progresses) Do you really think it won't be closed/tightened up next season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3508 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Thought they identified a loose bit of technical specification and took advantage of it interpretation-wise? (not saying they did anything wrong, just saying that they got lucky and that it was a one time things irrespective of money, and it wouldn't happen again - the ruling was upheld for them, but again on purely technical terms, not really in the spirit of the rule - although again that is of course largely how F1 progresses) See Fop some days you hit on the truth purely by accident. If it wasn't for cars like the Cooper Climax (developing a mid-engine F1), the work of Colin Chapman/Lotus and a host of others who all took advantage of "the rules" then cost effective development would never happened. Motorsport at the highest level has always been about getting away with it - see Toyota and their mid 90s rally team if you still don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Thought they identified a loose bit of technical specification and took advantage of it interpretation-wise? (not saying they did anything wrong, just saying that they got lucky and that it was a one time things irrespective of money, and it wouldn't happen again - the ruling was upheld for them, but again on purely technical terms, not really in the spirit of the rule - although again that is of course largely how F1 progresses) See Fop some days you hit on the truth purely by accident. If it wasn't for cars like the Cooper Climax (developing a mid-engine F1), the work of Colin Chapman/Lotus and a host of others who all took advantage of "the rules" then cost effective development would never happened. Motorsport at the highest level has always been about getting away with it - see Toyota and their mid 90s rally team if you still don't get it. That's how it works, it no big secret. But to say Brawn has managed to disprove that money = winning F1 because they got lucky with it this season is silly, especially as they could have just as easily had the ruling go against them and been stripped of the point they've won with it. Either way the regulations will certainly be tightened up for next season, not allowing the same thing to happen again (although some thing else of course might). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3508 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) Thought they identified a loose bit of technical specification and took advantage of it interpretation-wise? (not saying they did anything wrong, just saying that they got lucky and that it was a one time things irrespective of money, and it wouldn't happen again - the ruling was upheld for them, but again on purely technical terms, not really in the spirit of the rule - although again that is of course largely how F1 progresses) See Fop some days you hit on the truth purely by accident. If it wasn't for cars like the Cooper Climax (developing a mid-engine F1), the work of Colin Chapman/Lotus and a host of others who all took advantage of "the rules" then cost effective development would never happened. Motorsport at the highest level has always been about getting away with it - see Toyota and their mid 90s rally team if you still don't get it. That's how it works, it no big secret. But to say Brawn has managed to disprove that money = winning F1 because they got lucky with it this season is silly, especially as they could have just as easily had the ruling go against them and been stripped of the point they've won with it. Either way the regulations will certainly be tightened up for next season, not allowing the same thing to happen again (although some thing else of course might). Your insight is amazing. Now shuuuush Chris. Edited May 14, 2009 by sammynb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Thought they identified a loose bit of technical specification and took advantage of it interpretation-wise? (not saying they did anything wrong, just saying that they got lucky and that it was a one time things irrespective of money, and it wouldn't happen again - the ruling was upheld for them, but again on purely technical terms, not really in the spirit of the rule - although again that is of course largely how F1 progresses) See Fop some days you hit on the truth purely by accident. If it wasn't for cars like the Cooper Climax (developing a mid-engine F1), the work of Colin Chapman/Lotus and a host of others who all took advantage of "the rules" then cost effective development would never happened. Motorsport at the highest level has always been about getting away with it - see Toyota and their mid 90s rally team if you still don't get it. That's how it works, it no big secret. But to say Brawn has managed to disprove that money = winning F1 because they got lucky with it this season is silly, especially as they could have just as easily had the ruling go against them and been stripped of the point they've won with it. Either way the regulations will certainly be tightened up for next season, not allowing the same thing to happen again (although some thing else of course might). Your insight is amazing. Seemingly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3508 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Thought they identified a loose bit of technical specification and took advantage of it interpretation-wise? (not saying they did anything wrong, just saying that they got lucky and that it was a one time things irrespective of money, and it wouldn't happen again - the ruling was upheld for them, but again on purely technical terms, not really in the spirit of the rule - although again that is of course largely how F1 progresses) See Fop some days you hit on the truth purely by accident. If it wasn't for cars like the Cooper Climax (developing a mid-engine F1), the work of Colin Chapman/Lotus and a host of others who all took advantage of "the rules" then cost effective development would never happened. Motorsport at the highest level has always been about getting away with it - see Toyota and their mid 90s rally team if you still don't get it. That's how it works, it no big secret. But to say Brawn has managed to disprove that money = winning F1 because they got lucky with it this season is silly, especially as they could have just as easily had the ruling go against them and been stripped of the point they've won with it. Either way the regulations will certainly be tightened up for next season, not allowing the same thing to happen again (although some thing else of course might). Your insight is amazing. Seemingly so. Oh I forgot Now shuuuush Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Wy aren't the wings allowed to go up and down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 But to say Brawn has managed to disprove that money = winning F1 because they got lucky with it this season is silly, especially as they could have just as easily had the ruling go against them and been stripped of the point they've won with it. You claimed that success in F1 was pretty much out of reach of anybody on the grounds of costs which I've suggested Brawn GP have challenged that belief. They didn't 'get lucky', they've got one of the best technical leaders the sport has ever seen. Ross didn't stumble on the rear wing accidentally you cretin, he developed the whole car around it using his own knowledge of aerodynamics. And how could they have easily had the ruling go against them? There was a big grey area in the technical regulations with regards to the rear diffuser. When Brawn became aware of the advantage that designing the the car this way and that the ruling could be interpreted in different manners, he asked the FIA and WMSC to clarify the ruling way back in April 2008. They never acted on his request and therefore he (and Toyota and Williams) pushed ahead with their designs. The others are bitter as the fundamental design of their cars (Renault, the engine - Red Bull, the rear suspension) currently prevents them being able to make use of this design. They can't possibly introduce the two-tier system. One of the 'advantages' they're offering to teams who accept the budget cap is flexible rear wings..... That will give them around a 2 second a lap advantage. Ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 But to say Brawn has managed to disprove that money = winning F1 because they got lucky with it this season is silly, especially as they could have just as easily had the ruling go against them and been stripped of the point they've won with it. You claimed that success in F1 was pretty much out of reach of anybody on the grounds of costs which I've suggested Brawn GP have challenged that belief. They didn't 'get lucky', they've got one of the best technical leaders the sport has ever seen. Ross didn't stumble on the rear wing accidentally you cretin, he developed the whole car around it using his own knowledge of aerodynamics. And how could they have easily had the ruling go against them? There was a big grey area in the technical regulations with regards to the rear diffuser. When Brawn became aware of the advantage that designing the the car this way and that the ruling could be interpreted in different manners, he asked the FIA and WMSC to clarify the ruling way back in April 2008. They never acted on his request and therefore he (and Toyota and Williams) pushed ahead with their designs. The others are bitter as the fundamental design of their cars (Renault, the engine - Red Bull, the rear suspension) currently prevents them being able to make use of this design. They can't possibly introduce the two-tier system. One of the 'advantages' they're offering to teams who accept the budget cap is flexible rear wings..... That will give them around a 2 second a lap advantage. Ridiculous. Will they repeat this next season though? And the season after that and after that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Wy aren't the wings allowed to go up and down? They are.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now