From: nomail@hotmail.com
On 2/10/26 10:32 AM, Mark wrote:
> Edmund wrote:
>> On 2/9/26 10:37 PM, Geoff wrote:
>>>
>>> Because of the potential extreme disparity of car performance across the
>>> field.
>>
>> Potential you say, right!
>> For starters, its kind of the whole idea of racing between different
>> manufacturers to show that their design is better/faster then the
>> others. Nothing wrong if the best will win.
>> I can imagine that different designs have both different advantages and
>> disadvantages, could be that one suits certain tracks better then others
>> and visa versa.
>> F1 should be the top of technical innovations and and be designed by
>> technicians instead of a bunch of elderly bureaucrats.
>> As we speak some road cars are in certain area’s way more advanced then
F1.
>
> This comes up every few years and it's simple: what kind of F1 do you
> want?
It's pretty obvious what I want.
>
> F1 has always been about both the drivers and the constructors. Drivers
> (to a large extent) have an upper limit. In any generation - certainly
> recently - the difference between the best and the worst is relatively
> small (particularly the best few) and it's things like consistency and
> mental preparedness that often distinguishes the good from the great.
> That's all pretty tight margins.
>
> The other part has been the cars where I'd made two arguments.
>
> 1. An unregulated, non-formula competition would allow unconstrained
> development which could move much faster than development of drivers.
> Not only would I argue that weakening the regulations would move it more
> towards being a constructors' competition, I would go so far as to say
> it would rendered the WDC irrelevent. And that's fine if what you want
> is a pure technology competition. Some would like that (you seem to)
> others would hate it.
Correct, drivers are insignificant anyway.
>
> 2. Any move in that direction would decisively shift (even further) the
> advantage to the bigger, better-funded teams. Again, you could argue
> "what's the problem with that" but that (just as with the other
> regulations) has been fought against with things like cost caps and
> penalties on excessive engine and gearbox changes.
It is said that cost cap regulations resulted in more expensive products
and there is no way to police the spent money.
>
> We could go around this argument for the millionth time, but the outcome
> is always the same: Removal of restrictions (or the formula itself)
> completely changes the competition and is likely to (even more) lead to
> processions.
No it isn't at all, ( your assumption is as good as mine ) and no one is
for removal of ( all) restrictions, I am merely advocating to give the
designers the change to do their job.
>
> And the fans have been clear (over the decades I've watched) they don't
> like the same car and/or driver* constantly winning. They want (but
> rarely get) close competition. What you're arguing is completely out of
> step with that.
No, it is the opposite.
>
> * Every dominant driver - from Schumacher through Prost, Senna,
> Schumacher, Vettel, Hamilton and most recently Verstappen - split the
> fans, particularly when there are contiguous runs. If the car is
> significantly better than the field (which in your scenario it
> could/would be), you could well get a dominant driver...but as they
> only need to beat their teammate you could have an inferior driver
> (compared to the other teams' drivers) winning year after year. As was
> alleged with most of the drivers above...but is rarely "just" the car.
It is mostly about the car and the preferred driver in that team.
--
Once an organization gains any influence, it will be corrupted from both
within and without.
Edmund
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
