Formula 1 2015: General Discussion Thread

christy c

Zcott wrote: »

Martini are paying for it, though, they're Williams' title sponsor and the team is Williams Martini Racing.

Also Infiniti are in Red Bull's title but I don't think they get the same recognition. Perhaps it's the car in the full livery but Martini seem to get more bang for their buck

christy c

Infoanon wrote: »

Word on the street has always been that Martini got a very cheap deal...

I'd say so, it was perfect timing for them. Williams had a terrible year in 2013 and then had a huge change in fortunes.

Probably wouldn't be too hard to figure out how much Martini are paying. Both are listed companies

Mike Litoris

Anyone else read the criticism levelled at Rosberg, Vettle, Wolf and Arrivabene from Bernie? Some of it is pretty out there.


http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/12953351/nico-rosberg-maurizio-arrivabene-offer-two-very-different-responses-bernie-ecclestone-criticism

Joeseph Balls

Mike Litoris wrote: »

Anyone else read the criticism levelled at Rosberg, Vettle, Wolf and Arrivabene from Bernie? Some of it is pretty out there.


http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/12953351/nico-rosberg-maurizio-arrivabene-offer-two-very-different-responses-bernie-ecclestone-criticism

Didn't read your link but seen on twitter he said Vettel is bad for F1, lay people wouldnt recognise him on the street etc.

mickdw

Joeseph Balls wrote: »

Didn't read your link but seen on twitter he said Vettel is bad for F1, lay people wouldnt recognise him on the street etc.

Bernie cannot organise a race in germany with 4 time champion and current constructors champions being German and he blames someone other than himself. That's a bit rich

Myrddin

If you read the exact quote, you can understand where Bernie is coming from, & what he actually means. I don't agree with him per se, & don't agree with how he puts it - but at the end of the day he's a sports promoter saying the people in F1 could do more to promote the sport. People are who they are though, & to force faux-celebrity status on people who aren't comfortable with it is wrong. I loved Arrevabene's response, brilliant :pac:

Tea 1000

Myrddin wrote: »

If you read the exact quote, you can understand where Bernie is coming from, & what he actually means. I don't agree with him per se, & don't agree with how he puts it - but at the end of the day he's a sports promoter saying the people in F1 could do more to promote the sport. People are who they are though, & to force faux-celebrity status on people who aren't comfortable with it is wrong. I loved Arrevabene's response, brilliant :pac:

What could they do though? What could Wolf do for example? He's always ready to talk to the media and is more frank in his conversations than most. Vettel, Rosberg etc talk more than Raikonen for example, but aren't considered as "cool". And to criticise the new Ferrari man as not good for the sport... as if he is any worse than Jean Todt was! We nearly never heard from him when he was in Ferrari. But Bernie won't criticise his own, especially since he orchestrated his role so well. Vatanen didn't have a chance.
Bernie is an old man now who should just move on. The problem is people have too much faith in his abilities. They think it can't go on without him. They said the same about Apple and Steve Jobs, but the Apple share price still soars. Bernie should just go away.

Myrddin

Tea 1000 wrote: »

What could they do though?

Bernie, like any big sports promoters, loves the big draws in their sports. Ronnie O'Sullivan in Snooker, Mike Tyson in Boxing, Michael Schumacher in F1 & so on. These high profile, world renowned individuals become household names, & are followed by the media in what they say & do. This is good for promoting the sport, constantly having it in the media, in the minds of people, & gets people talking/attracts new fans. This is all promoter 101 stuff. What Bernie is saying is, nobody really cares what Nico Rosberg does, or Sebastian Vettel outside of staunch F1 fans...& in his eyes, they are too content to sit in the media background once the chequered flag drops.

Bernie I'd imagine would like Nico to be out there making his own voice heard, building up his own (Nico's) brand image, perhaps being controversial, not playing it safe, & just in general, doing more than he does. I did state in my original post, I didn't agree with Bernie on this - I don't think it's fair to expect people to be who they are not. If I were somehow in F1, I don't envisage I'd be all that interested in the media spotlight, like Lewis for example. I think I'd be happy to race, do my PR duty, & disappear for two weeks. It's wrong to expect people to do what they're not comfortable doing, & the way Bernie said it, is more than a little personal.

However, Nico's reply was good. He knows it wasn't personal, & is Bernie speaking as a promoter, and as a promoter, I do get where he is coming from. He's not wrong in what he says, people like Nico, are not good for business.

mickdw

Myrddin wrote: »

Bernie, like any big sports promoters, loves the big draws in their sports. Ronnie O'Sullivan in Snooker, Mike Tyson in Boxing, Michael Schumacher in F1 & so on. These high profile, world renowned individuals become household names, & are followed by the media in what they say & do. This is good for promoting the sport, constantly having it in the media, in the minds of people, & gets people talking/attracts new fans. This is all promoter 101 stuff. What Bernie is saying is, nobody really cares what Nico Rosberg does, or Sebastian Vettel outside of staunch F1 fans...& in his eyes, they are too content to sit in the media background once the chequered flag drops.

Bernie I'd imagine would like Nico to be out there making his own voice heard, building up his own (Nico's) brand image, perhaps being controversial, not playing it safe, & just in general, doing more than he does. I did state in my original post, I didn't agree with Bernie on this - I don't think it's fair to expect people to be who they are not. If I were somehow in F1, I don't envisage I'd be all that interested in the media spotlight, like Lewis for example. I think I'd be happy to race, do my PR duty, & disappear for two weeks. It's wrong to expect people to do what they're not comfortable doing, & the way Bernie said it, is more than a little personal.

However, Nico's reply was good. He knows it wasn't personal, & is Bernie speaking as a promoter, and as a promoter, I do get where he is coming from. He's not wrong in what he says, people like Nico, are not good for business.

I think Nico has the possibility of being very good for business. Remember monaco last year and remember clipping lewis rear tyre. He can play the perfect villain if that is what F1 needs. The problem is the rules have sanitised the sport and leaves little room now for a bad boy.
In general, knock wheels worth someone and your race is ruined by penalties. Not much room for characters anymore.
We are then left with Hamilton whose sulking off track is probably the only way to be a 'character' nowadays without getting fined for it.
Still he is comedy gold.
I think he must be on a hidden contract with Bernie to ensure there is something to talk about.
If a person was told to act the d1ck, you couldn't do it much better than he did after monaco never mind the fact that he was pretty much insisting on stopping for tyres himself so should have been shouldering some of the blame .

Myrddin

mickdw wrote: »

I think Nico has the possibility of being very good for business. Remember monaco last year and remember clipping lewis rear tyre. He can play the perfect villain if that is what F1 needs. The problem is the rules have sanitised the sport and leaves little room now for a bad boy.

Who said anything about F1 needing a 'bad boy' though? While admittedly, it'd be good for business (from a promoters/Bernie's perspective), but it doesn't have to be that angle. The only thing I would like to see them all do differently, is drop the robotic smile/pr scripts...it's so, so, so fake & everyone knows it. I'd much rather drivers spoke their minds, & I think that alone, would give Bernie what he wants. We'd hear much more about what drivers are saying, not what their PR managers want them to say. I think there'd be more controversy, and as such, stronger following of F1 than there might be now. However, there's brands to protect, so lets program the drivers with the safe replies & make them as predictable & sterile as possible.

mickdw

It takes abit of a loose cannon though to come out and say what they are really thinking.
No team in their right mind will allow drivers free reign with the media. You just cannot do it in a world where team survival is dependent on sponsors.
I dont mind the way the drivers talk tbh, you can usually read between the lines anyway. Button seems to do it reasonably well where you know if he is pissed or not but knows where to call a halt.

To be honest, I can listen to Button, Alonso, Kimi, Perez, Ricciardo, Grosjean. They dont generally talk too much crap or get too boring.
The others are either too corporate or simply boring. Paul Di Resta took the biscuit when he was in F1 in terms of being boring and I dont think it was anything to do with Media training.

PopePalpatine

Mike Litoris wrote: »

Anyone else read the criticism levelled at Rosberg, Vettle, Wolf and Arrivabene from Bernie? Some of it is pretty out there.


http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/12953351/nico-rosberg-maurizio-arrivabene-offer-two-very-different-responses-bernie-ecclestone-criticism

What's the chances that if Vettel has a better car in 2016 than Hamilton, that Hamilton "miraculously" wins that season? :rolleyes:

Myrddin

mickdw wrote: »

It takes abit of a loose cannon though to come out and say what they are really thinking.
No team in their right mind will allow drivers free reign with the media. You just cannot do it in a world where team survival is dependent on sponsors.
I dont mind the way the drivers talk tbh, you can usually read between the lines anyway. Button seems to do it reasonably well where you know if he is pissed or not but knows where to call a halt.

True to an extent alright, & indeed with long term career prospects depending, it can impede what a driver might say, based on what he/she wants to say. I don't think teams can really give free reign back as you said, but it'd be nice if certain drivers chose to at least, skirt the lines a bit more.

To be honest, I can listen to Button, Alonso, Kimi, Perez, Ricciardo, Grosjean. They dont generally talk too much crap or get too boring.
The others are either too corporate or simply boring. Paul Di Resta took the biscuit when he was in F1 in terms of being boring and I dont think it was anything to do with Media training.

The few you mention there are good examples of how it can be done without being a loose cannon. Drivers with real appeal, like Alonso, can afford to step out of line a little too I think. Have to say I didn't mind Di Resta all that much, I thought he towed the PR line a lot, but there was an honesty in him too which I liked. Rosberg at times is just awful to listen to, but at times, can shine through too.

Myrddin

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What's the chances that if Vettel has a better car in 2016 than Hamilton, that Hamilton "miraculously" wins that season? :rolleyes:

Despite the Ferrari/F1 love in?

Mike Litoris

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What's the chances that if Vettel has a better car in 2016 than Hamilton, that Hamilton "miraculously" wins that season? :rolleyes:

Schumacher and FIArrari (remember that ) got away with a lot during their reign. Business must have been great in those days! :pac:

Mike Litoris

Myrddin wrote: »

Despite the Ferrari/F1 love in?

That seemed to go out the window when they stopped winning everything. His comments about Arrivebenne are unusual to say the least though. Heroic, emotional leader with Ferrari fighting at the front again. Whats not to like?

Myrddin

Mike Litoris wrote: »

Heroic, emotional leader with Ferrari fighting at the front again. Whats not to like?

Indeed, I think he's been fantastic so far.

mickdw

Myrddin wrote: »

Indeed, I think he's been fantastic so far.

He has just walked in there and got lucky in terms of car performance. Seems good at handling drivers and of course being a media man, he can handle tv.
I still don't really know if the last guy matiachi was brilliant in doing a hatchet job on the dead wood in the team, turning it into an efficient operation then getting out of there again or was he completely out of his depth.
These jobs are all evolving into very didn't roles within different teams. I favour the Ross Brawn management structure. He was in charge and he was a technical person but a good manager and more than able to handle the politics too.
This ferrari guy is just a public relations man.

Myrddin

mickdw wrote: »

He has just walked in there and got lucky in terms of car performance. Seems good at handling drivers and of course being a media man, he can handle tv.

Oh without a doubt, this years Ferrari is not a product of one man, & certainly not a product of a team principle. He has got lucky in that he's arrived to find success & improvement on his doorstop. He seems to handle the team & the media quite well, is very open and honest which I live...and most of all, you can actually see he really loves what's happening in Ferrari. His fist pumping when Kimi overtook in Spain, his elate manner when Seb took the top step...that's all fantastic to see.

I still don't really know if the last guy matiachi was brilliant in doing a hatchet job on the dead wood in the team, turning it into an efficient operation then getting out of there again or was he completely out of his depth.

I'd say Matiachi did exactly what he put in there to do, cut the dead wood as you say, but without guilt and without loyalty. He knew his tenure was going to be short, & he knew what had to be done & he done it. Ferrari needed a scapegoat, and he was it. To send Arevabene in to do that job, would have hurt his effectiveness at this point I think. A one man, stop gap wonder was needed, & Matiachi seemed to pull it off.

These jobs are all evolving into very didn't roles within different teams. I favour the Ross Brawn management structure. He was in charge and he was a technical person but a good manager and more than able to handle the politics too.
This ferrari guy is just a public relations man.

I think it's a little unfair to label Arrevabene as little more than a PR guy, without having intimate knowledge of what goes on in Ferrari. He seems to have the full support of the team, and for that, you need to exhibit strong leadership.

Tea 1000

Myrddin wrote: »

Bernie, like any big sports promoters, loves the big draws in their sports. Ronnie O'Sullivan in Snooker, Mike Tyson in Boxing, Michael Schumacher in F1 & so on. These high profile, world renowned individuals become household names, & are followed by the media in what they say & do. This is good for promoting the sport, constantly having it in the media, in the minds of people, & gets people talking/attracts new fans. This is all promoter 101 stuff. What Bernie is saying is, nobody really cares what Nico Rosberg does, or Sebastian Vettel outside of staunch F1 fans...& in his eyes, they are too content to sit in the media background once the chequered flag drops.

Bernie I'd imagine would like Nico to be out there making his own voice heard, building up his own (Nico's) brand image, perhaps being controversial, not playing it safe, & just in general, doing more than he does. I did state in my original post, I didn't agree with Bernie on this - I don't think it's fair to expect people to be who they are not. If I were somehow in F1, I don't envisage I'd be all that interested in the media spotlight, like Lewis for example. I think I'd be happy to race, do my PR duty, & disappear for two weeks. It's wrong to expect people to do what they're not comfortable doing, & the way Bernie said it, is more than a little personal.

However, Nico's reply was good. He knows it wasn't personal, & is Bernie speaking as a promoter, and as a promoter, I do get where he is coming from. He's not wrong in what he says, people like Nico, are not good for business.

I know what you're saying, and I know what Bernie meant alright, but I don't really agree fully. Schumacher never went off the PR script much and his private life was as private as Rosbergs. But everyone loved him as an up and comming, and loved to hate him as the constant winner, and then loved him again when the car wasn't as good any more and he had to earn the victories. But he was always polite and professional.
Characters like Kimi will always have a draw because of unique personalities and an ability to drive fast, but with others it's kind of hard to put a finger on what makes them popular. Sebastien Loeb is another. Very subdued character, but very popular.
Mike Tyson is a different ball game. Senna was different. So I think there's feck all Vettel or Rosberg can do about it. Rosberg can be a bit too boring, but Vettel has nearly all the ingredients, popularity just isn't there for him, probably because of Schumacher hang-over in Germany. If he came along in the same circumstances ten years later he'd probably be the next Schumacher.
If I were Rosberg, I'd have replied with "you're also bad for my business. I want a V10 that shakes the shít out of the Monaco windows and can lap this place in less than a minute, and you give me a 1.5 litre piece of crap that can't overtake once you get caught in someone's dirty air?"

Myrddin

Tea 1000 wrote: »

I know what you're saying, and I know what Bernie meant alright, but I don't really agree fully...

Indeed, good post there & I'd agree with it. It's often a mystery why some people attract popularity, over others who lead very similar lives. Just to reiterate again, I'm only saying I kinda get where Bernie is coming from as a promoter, I don't really agree with his sentiment though, certainly not how he put it (but again, you kinda have to cut through Bernie's often stern words to get to his real point).

I'd argue it's actually F1 that has become bad for itself as a business, far more than any lack of driver popularity. You have to ask, why were Schumacher, Senna, & all the greats actually popular to begin with? Would it be fair to say, because F1 allowed them to be? Did it allow drivers to be a bit controversial, without having to overly worry about their long term career, or what sponsors might think? Did it allow drivers to do their talking on the track more than today, rather than towing corporate lines? Did it allow them to make mistakes in the hunt for glory, without worrying about repair costs, penalty points, grid penalties & all manner of sterilising facets of todays world of F1? Honestly, I'd have to say, kinda, yeah.

I think F1 needs to address itself first, & by doing so, it might allow drivers to shine a bit brighter, and allow them to do what they do best...race. And that's what made guys like Schumacher & Senna popular, above all esle, they raced...hard.

ScumLord

I don't think what Bernie said was fair at all, it smacks of desperation. He wants F1 to be so popular that people are willing to spend crazy amounts of money to follow it and it's not going to happen. If he wants it to be popular people at least need to be able to watch it for free, I think many sports are going to have to swallow some humble pie and stop fleecing the fans with pay per view. This FIFA scandal should hopefully put the fear of god into the top brass. Fair play to the Americans for actually doing something about it.

Nico always struck me as a genuine enough guy in interviews, he doesn't strike me as a controversial person on or off camera, I get the impression he'd be the same kind of guy without cameras pointing at him, which is something I wouldn't say about Hamilton. The interview he did with the BBC after the Monaco win showed he was humble in victory and gave credit where credit was due to Hamilton, but was still gratuitous for the win.

Tea 1000

Myrddin wrote: »

I think F1 needs to address itself first, & by doing so, it might allow drivers to shine a bit brighter, and allow them to do what they do best...race. And that's what made guys like Schumacher & Senna popular, above all esle, they raced...hard.

This is more or less the sum up of it all though. F1 and excitement need to go hand in hand, like they used to. Like WRC used to. Kind of a "if you build it, they will come" malarky, if the machines are great and the rules and designs promote hard racing, then the racers will step up and become great! And the harder it is, generally, the more the cream will rise to the top, and the more often they'll make a balls of it too, which is also what we like seeing!

Myrddin

Myrddin wrote: »

Indeed, good post there & I'd agree with it. It's often a mystery why some people attract popularity, over others who lead very similar lives. Just to reiterate again, I'm only saying I kinda get where Bernie is coming from as a promoter, I don't really agree with his sentiment though, certainly not how he put it (but again, you kinda have to cut through Bernie's often stern words to get to his real point).

I'd argue it's actually F1 that has become bad for itself as a business, far more than any lack of driver popularity. You have to ask, why were Schumacher, Senna, & all the greats actually popular to begin with? Would it be fair to say, because F1 allowed them to be? Did it allow drivers to be a bit controversial, without having to overly worry about their long term career, or what sponsors might think? Did it allow drivers to do their talking on the track more than today, rather than towing corporate lines? Did it allow them to make mistakes in the hunt for glory, without worrying about repair costs, penalty points, grid penalties & all manner of sterilising facets of todays world of F1? Honestly, I'd have to say, kinda, yeah.

I think F1 needs to address itself first, & by doing so, it might allow drivers to shine a bit brighter, and allow them to do what they do best...race. And that's what made guys like Schumacher & Senna popular, above all esle, they raced...hard.

I dunno about that, from the late 80s on there were a lot of penalties for Senna and Schumi, some warranted, some perhaps not so much. It wasn't until Ferrari that that Schumacher got away with a lot more.

mickdw

I came across a clip on YouTube of Jean alesi in his jordan. Jesus, even watching it on my phone, the noise, the violence, the excitement of just watching the car going around was ten fold what it is now.
I didn't actually realise how far things have gone down hill. Its a joke now.

Jordan 199

F1 intro's.

I always preferred this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgiBkydMW8k

over this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mosBxj6n_po

Mike Litoris

I love the original.

AMKC

mickdw wrote: »

It takes abit of a loose cannon though to come out and say what they are really thinking.
No team in their right mind will allow drivers free reign with the media. You just cannot do it in a world where team survival is dependent on sponsors.
I dont mind the way the drivers talk tbh, you can usually read between the lines anyway. Button seems to do it reasonably well where you know if he is pissed or not but knows where to call a halt.

To be honest, I can listen to Button, Alonso, Kimi, Perez, Ricciardo, Grosjean. They dont generally talk too much crap or get too boring.
The others are either too corporate or simply boring. Paul Di Resta took the biscuit when he was in F1 in terms of being boring and I dont think it was anything to do with Media training.

Have to agree with you there about Paul Di Resta. I always thought he was overrated too. He was an ok driver but nothing special of fantastic.

Jordan 191

Jordan 191 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgiBkydMW8k

It's the only one.

Santan

if it was David Coulthard in a merc today would he be as good as Nico or better, he was a driver that was always for the most part of is career in a competitive car but never really challenged his team mates kind of like webber with vettel, or is that a bit harsh

Mike Litoris

Santan wrote: »

if it was David Coulthard in a merc today would he be as good as Nico or better, he was a driver that was always for the most part of is career in a competitive car but never really challenged his team mates kind of like webber with vettel, or is that a bit harsh

Not harsh. Who's better though, I dunno. Coulthard, when he drove a championship winning car, had stiffer competition from Ferrari/Schumacher so its hard to gauge. I don't think Webber was that great at all and wasn't as good as either imo.

AMKC

Mike Litoris wrote: »

Not harsh. Who's better though, I dunno. Coulthard, when he drove a championship winning car, had stiffer competition from Ferrari/Schumacher so its hard to gauge. I don't think Webber was that great at all and wasn't as good as either imo.

I don,t think Webber was that bad. I think he would have and should have won the drivers championship at least once. Maybe if he drove like he drove at the British GP in 2012 he would have won more. "Not bad for a no.2 two" Remember that quate he said. He was also unlucky too do. 2010 should have been his year except for Vettel crashing into him in Turkey and some other incident that I can,t remember now.

Zcott

Webber had the grit and the speed to succeed but never managed to hook it all up over the course of a season, which is where Vettel had the edge. I'd say he was similar to Coulthard in terms of ability and results. Good enough to be there and do the job but not going to dominate a season.

mickdw

Zcott wrote: »

Webber had the grit and the speed to succeed but never managed to hook it all up over the course of a season, which is where Vettel had the edge. I'd say he was similar to Coulthard in terms of ability and results. Good enough to be there and do the job but not going to dominate a season.

Wasnt webber in the running going into final race of 2010. There was nothing between himself and vettel at that stage and I think If webber had won that title, he could have won 2 or 3 being the champion in the team.

Myrddin

Webber had an unreal amount of bad luck/reliability issues in his last two seasons

Jordan 199

It was just over 20 years ago in 1995 when there was 13 teams in F1, and that was at the 1995 Monaco GP. Following the 1995 Monaco GP, Simtek were gone and Pacific were gone at the end of the season too.

This is the FIA entry list for the 1995 season. Larrousse were listed as a constructor but never took part due to lack of funds.

I'm wondering if we will ever see a full grid of cars (26) starting an F1 race again like in 1995.

Thidp

26 cars is the ideal number for me... it would be amazing to see it again.

But I really doubt that.

Zcott

If the FIA took cost control seriously, it's entirely possible. For sponsors it's a great platform and only getting bigger, but for any team to consider going to F1 there needs to be some cost control in place.

mickdw

Zcott wrote: »

If the FIA took cost control seriously, it's entirely possible. For sponsors it's a great platform and only getting bigger, but for any team to consider going to F1 there needs to be some cost control in place.

How do you prevent large businesses running research and development via branch companies and 'selling' that info into race team for reduced cost.
Realistically, you can't and add such you cannot control costs.
You have large car manufacturers with thousands of employees. How is it possible to control what these employees are working on? Is it all road car development? Are they working on other race series or working on f1 technology?

Myrddin

mickdw wrote: »

How do you prevent large businesses running research and development via branch companies and 'selling' that info into race team for reduced cost.
Realistically, you can't and add such you cannot control costs.
You have large car manufacturers with thousands of employees. How is it possible to control what these employees are working on? Is it all road car development? Are they working on other race series or working on f1 technology?

One way to potentially do it, or at least help to do it, is simplifying the cars. A simpler, cheaper F1 car is something smaller teams can do better with, while limiting what the top teams can do (ie the point of diminishing returns comes a lot quicker than it does today). Maybe tighten up on aero regs, & go back to ground effects to cut out a lot of the fluid dynamics spending?

mickdw

Myrddin wrote: »

One way to potentially do it, or at least help to do it, is simplifying the cars. A simpler, cheaper F1 car is something smaller teams can do better with, while limiting what the top teams can do (ie the point of diminishing returns comes a lot quicker than it does today). Maybe tighten up on aero regs, & go back to ground effects to cut out a lot of the fluid dynamics spending?

Imo that helps to make f1 cheaper to take part in meaning an easier in for small teams. That is a very different thing to a cost cap.
I don't see how you can cap the spending. No matter how much you simplify or tighten up rules, the big teams will find a way to spend if there is any gain top be made.

Sterling Archer

Not directly related to F1, but did anyone see the 2 big crashes in F3 today
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95696964&postcount=3798
2 big roll overs

Thidp

Wow, the first one is really scary.

Myrddin

mickdw wrote: »

Imo that helps to make f1 cheaper to take part in meaning an easier in for small teams. That is a very different thing to a cost cap.
I don't see how you can cap the spending. No matter how much you simplify or tighten up rules, the big teams will find a way to spend if there is any gain top be made.

I think a cheaper, simpler car design means the smaller teams can become much more competitive & can close the gap to the leaders a lot. Sure, the big teams will always be faster, but I'm suggesting the closing up of a the absolute gulf that exists between Mercedes & Manor for example. Sure, it's not a cost cap per se, but if the cars are made that bit simpler, the big teams are only buying tenths of seconds, not >7+ seconds a lap. As a result, a spending cap becomes less important, as the point of diminishing returns comes a lot, lot faster than it does today.

smellslikeshoes

Thidp wrote: »

Wow, the first one is really scary.

Thankfully those type of accidents scrub off speed really well.

Zcott

Sometimes when watching F3 it looks like they're really slow but when you see the forces of those accidents it just shows how quick they're really going. Frightening stuff, but great that both drivers were unharmed.

Firewalkwithme

Maldonator - The Movie

12 minutes of classic Pastor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9GtxYrMQcI

TheDoctor

Some ridiculous crashes in there.

The one where he hit the two Force Indias in one corner in Spa.
When he flipped the Sauber I think at the first corner in Bahrain

smellslikeshoes

Ferrari have used 3 engine upgrade tokens for this weekend, here's hoping we are in for another Canadian classic

mickdw

Myrddin wrote: »

I think a cheaper, simpler car design means the smaller teams can become much more competitive & can close the gap to the leaders a lot. Sure, the big teams will always be faster, but I'm suggesting the closing up of a the absolute gulf that exists between Mercedes & Manor for example. Sure, it's not a cost cap per se, but if the cars are made that bit simpler, the big teams are only buying tenths of seconds, not >7+ seconds a lap. As a result, a spending cap becomes less important, as the point of diminishing returns comes a lot, lot faster than it does today.

I agree with you. Change the rules to make it less costly to really compete but that is entirely different to a cost cap.
You cannot police a cost cap so anyone suggesting that it is the way forward is on the wrong track.