[ggiifdfalls]

Competition becomes more challenging when everyone else is as good as you.

The problem is that obviously everyone else isn't as good so may they should simply take their toys home.

[infarrelisam]

The best should win. This crap about engines is awful.

[Liaptoono]

The problem is that obviously everyone else isn't as good so may they should simply take their toys home.

Large fields > Small fields

[ElisasAUG]

And all this withing 40 millions?!

Why not simply buy some karts?

They did so since the 70's.
More than half of the F1 championship's life has been contested with aerodynamics as a big part of the sport.

I am part of the Gilles Villeneuve-Jacques Villeneuve school - I would like to see things change significantly but what is, is and there is no point getting bent out of shape over it.

[ElisasAUG]

The best should win. This crap about engines is awful.

Of course it is - it is the same old story of sacrificing the strong for the sake of weak.

Trying to bring the best down to the level of the others is always a losing proposition and that is why people like Adrian Newey and Mario Illien have left and want to leave the sport based on the direction of the current regulations.

[kSmica]

Of course it is - it is the same old story of sacrificing the strong for the sake of weak.

Trying to bring the best down to the level of the others is always a losing proposition and that is why people like Adrian Newey and Mario Illien have left and want to leave the sport based on the direction of the current regulations.

True, but again, F1 has to be entertaining. In the 21st century people have so many activities to choose from that F1 cannot afford to be predictable. Letting people develop their cars/engines without any limits will most likely lead to boredom, huge differences between cars and 1-2 cars that can win. Having said that, I think the people who write the regulations have a huge task, how to keep the engineers and public happy at the same time?

[ggiifdfalls]

True, but again, F1 has to be entertaining. In the 21st century people have so many activities to choose from that F1 cannot afford to be predictable. Letting people develop their cars/engines without any limits will most likely lead to boredom, huge differences between cars and 1-2 cars that can win. Having said that, I think the people who write the regulations have a huge task, how to keep the engineers and public happy at the same time?

That's the problem F1 isn't a real competition anymore now it's entertainment, show.

[anatmob]

The problem is that obviously everyone else isn't as good so may they should simply take their toys home.

Its not about being good, its about the spirit of the regulations and how they're interpreted.

Either the regulations are about freezing development with the exception of improving reliability, or they're about highly restricted development in the pursuit of performance.

Both Renault and Mercedes are absolutely correct. Mercedes is free to squeeze every last drop out of the engine, Renault is right in arguing that the regulations are there to stop development unless you have an absolute dud on your hands. In this case it isn't correct to lambast Renault's point of view.

The only way to stop this is for a total freeze on development after some degree of equalisation, otherwise companies like Mercedes will exploit the regs to hunt for more power. Whether we like it or not the days of having free spending and development on engines are over.

[ggiifdfalls]

The only way to stop this is for a total freeze on development after some degree of equalisation, otherwise companies like Mercedes will exploit the regs to hunt for more power. Whether we like it or not the days of having free spending and development on engines are over.

Who's to decide the degree of equalization and based on what?
And why is that some should benefit of equalization, which in fact means getting an artificial advantage over those who were smarter?

Why is that Mercedes and Ferrari were able to exploit the rules while other weren't? Maybe the others are lacking some intelligence? And why should the less intelligent and probably also lazier ones get the benefit of an equalization?

[anatmob]

Who's to decide the degree of equalization and based on what?
And why is that some should benefit of equalization, which in fact means getting an artificial advantage over those who were smarter?

Why is that Mercedes and Ferrari were able to exploit the rules while other weren't? Maybe the others are lacking some intelligence? And why should the less intelligent and probably also lazier ones get the benefit of an equalization?

You're missing the point here.

The regulations were imposed to cut engine development and cut costs. Several teams interpreted the rules and cut down their engine departments, only redesigning bits for reliability reasons as the regulations were clearly intended to do.

Merc and Ferrari carried on developing the bits they could do, against the spirit of the regulations but within the letter of the law.

Neither are right or wrong, neither are stupid or clever. None are lazy, these are teams and organisations, not people and your use of the word is inaccurate in that context.

Don't get me wrong, I think equalisation is a case of bolting the door once the horse has bolted. The regulations should be clarified and development freezes made much more stringent. Having not done that, the only option left for the FIA is to allow equalisation.

[forebirdo]

Following suggestions that there is a differential between the performance of engines used in Formula 1, the World Motor Sport Council has decided that should this be the case, and should the teams wish to eliminate this performance differential, they may be allowed to do so by reducing the performance of the more powerful engines. However, no engine upgrades will be allowed http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78776

My jaw has hit the floor.

So, what next. If a chassis has an advantage, are they going to hinder that as well.

F1 is getting sillier by the moment.

[Angeheade]

"It is always the danger of a freeze that you can freeze in a competitive advantage." No **** Sherlock

Engine freeze? Daft idea. Always was. Still is. Just part of Max's move towards F1 being a spec series. He'll have one team running all the cars next a la F2.

[wmtravelservice]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78776

My jaw has hit the floor.

So, what next. If a chassis has an advantage, are they going to hinder that as well.

F1 is getting sillier by the moment.

Wow!

What is this NASCAR? I remember Toyota had to de-tune their engines last year when Ford and Chevy couldn't match their power. Now they're going to do the same in Formula 1! I don't even understand the point of having different engines if they are all going to be the same spec.

[ggiifdfalls]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78776

My jaw has hit the floor.

So, what next. If a chassis has an advantage, are they going to hinder that as well.

F1 is getting sillier by the moment.

I told you that communism is coming to F1.

[ggiifdfalls]

"It is always the danger of a freeze that you can freeze in a competitive advantage."

No **** Sherlock That was a good one!

[cialesxtr]

This is getting worse and worse. It's bad enough trying to achieve "equalisation" by allowing selective manufacturers to develop their engines to catch up or whatever, but pegging back the best engines because their rivals can't catch up, bless them, well words fail me.

Whatever happened to top level motorsport being a technical competition? Like, you know, for the last 100+ years.

What next? Should Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea start the Premier League on minus points for being too good, or made to play with 10 players? Or should Usain Bolt be made to run with lead in his shoes to make the 100 metres more "equal"?

Maybe "Joe Public" doesn't care about the technical ins and outs, but people who actually watch F1, do.

[ggiifdfalls]

Maybe "Joe Public" doesn't care about the technical ins and outs, but people who actually watch F1, do.

We are way to insignificant.
Take a look to the F1 related message boards, like this one here for example, and you'll see that 90% of the people doesn't give a rat's a$s about technology, they are all about drivers, personalities, helmet designs and car liveries.

I don't know if there are 10 people in the F1 forum who are interested about the technical details of the F1 cars. And sadly we are talking about people who follow F1 closely. What should one expect from those who only turn their TV on every 2 weeks or even rarer to watch colored cars zipping by.

F1 is marketed as a show now and the technical aspects are kept under lid for exactly that reason, not to scare away the occasional viewer. Some people still believe that F1 stands for the pinnacle of automotive technology but truth is that Le Mans prototypes are way above, almost any modern supercar it's way ahead in technology used and there were and maybe still are times when DTM and ETCC cars were making use of better technology than f1 does now.

[cialesxtr]

Don't get me wrong drivers and personalities are important, I would say they are as important as the technical side. Possibly a little more so, but even if you say hypothetically that the "human" side makes up 60% of the equation, that's still a 40% shortfall in interestingness (for want of a better made-up word) when the technical side is completely emasculated. IMHO of course

And yes you need to find a balance which is hard, nobody wants to see the advent of robot cars where the driver is literally a passenger, and since like the A-bomb you can't uninvent aerodynamics, driver aids and so on.

But still, I think what all reasonable technically-minded F1 fans want is for the governing body to draw up technical rules saying what the teams can and can't do, however restrictive or unrestrictive that might be, and then let the designers and engineers go mad within that framework. But things like development freezes and common parts are a whole different kettle of fish to saying "the bottom of the car must be flat within a certain area", "the rear wing cannot be x number of millimetres wide" or "systems that take the control of the throttle away from the driver are not permitted".

It is at this point that supporters of such measures, will trot out the "cost cutting" excuse (which, despite the financial crisis only being approx two years old, is becoming more and more worn-thin and tiresome than Bono and Bob Geldof's rants).

But motor racing has survived worse times before. In fact history shows that in the past, in times of a bleak economy, or even worse (like say, the aftermath of a World War or two), motor racing got back on its feet by adopting an open, Formula Libre style approach, competitors bringing anything they could get their hands on and having some fun (which any sport is supposed to be, professional or not!), the exact opposite of the ever increasing standardisation and equalisation we have today.

[ggiifdfalls]

Don't get me wrong drivers and personalities are important, I would say they are as important as the technical side. Possibly a little more so, but even if you say hypothetically that the "human" side makes up 60% of the equation, that's still a 40% shortfall in interestingness (for want of a better made-up word) when the technical side is completely emasculated. IMHO of course

As far as I'm concerned I watched F1 mainly (like 85-90%) for the technology involved.
Nowadays we get to see plenty of pictures of the internals of the cars, things that we couldn't even dream about 20 years ago and were still scarce 10 years ago. However in the same time the technical side started being restricted and standardized to the point where IMO it lost 50% of it's appeal.
I'm still as interested as I ever was but I get a better kick from looking to the internals of a LeMans prototype nowadays than with a F1 car.

I really couldn't care less about who wins the championship or if there are more than 3 overtaking moves per race as long as I know that the cars that compete are against state of art automotive technology representatives not some dumbed down restricted, standardized and frozen mixes of aluminum and carbon fiber.

[kSmica]

As far as I'm concerned I watched F1 mainly (like 85-90%) for the technology involved.
Nowadays we get to see plenty of pictures of the internals of the cars, things that we couldn't even dream about 20 years ago and were still scarce 10 years ago. However in the same time the technical side started being restricted and standardized to the point where IMO it lost 50% of it's appeal.
I'm still as interested as I ever was but I get a better kick from looking to the internals of a LeMans prototype nowadays than with a F1 car.

I really couldn't care less about who wins the championship or if there are more than 3 overtaking moves per race as long as I know that the cars that compete are against state of art automotive technology representatives not some dumbed down restricted, standardized and frozen mixes of aluminum and carbon fiber.

I used to think that way also but this standard F1 has somehow won me over, I just love what Force India did in the last two races, that would not have happened with free regulations. I've said here that I support the engine freeze but maybe that should be lifted if the regulations guaranteed somewhat competitive engines for the whole field. Those minus 100bhp Ford ED V8 days should never return.