Jump to content


Photo

Hypothesis: The Crisis looming at the end of 2008.


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Slyder

Slyder
  • Member

  • 5,453 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 18 August 2009 - 03:10

Had to ask a question.

When the crisis became full blown back in late August/September 2008, wouldn't have it been reasonable (if it had been possible) to convene an F1 commission and order a complete freeze in development and have had the 2010 regulations and new cars on hold and have the teams run with 2008 cars for the 2009 season only allowing select developments in the aero side and parts of the engine, but not touch the car's integral design itself or the engine block. Slick tires would be allowed however, because my logic would be that grooved tyres, since no one else uses them but F1 are and should be obviously more expensive. So the introduction of slick tires would aid the problem regarding cost saving measures.

Would these types of measures would've helped save costs at all in F1, or would it have needed a more bigger overhaul?

At least I believe this is the least that they could've done...

Advertisement

#2 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 843 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 18 August 2009 - 04:28

I dont think it wouldve saved much. I dont think Brawn wouldve made the grid for instance if they knew they still had to use their 2008 car with some minor updates.

#3 optics

optics
  • Member

  • 50 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 18 August 2009 - 07:08

Had to ask a question.

When the crisis became full blown back in late August/September 2008, wouldn't have it been reasonable (if it had been possible) to convene an F1 commission and order a complete freeze in development and have had the 2010 regulations and new cars on hold and have the teams run with 2008 cars for the 2009 season only allowing select developments in the aero side and parts of the engine, but not touch the car's integral design itself or the engine block. Slick tires would be allowed however, because my logic would be that grooved tyres, since no one else uses them but F1 are and should be obviously more expensive. So the introduction of slick tires would aid the problem regarding cost saving measures.

Would these types of measures would've helped save costs at all in F1, or would it have needed a more bigger overhaul?

At least I believe this is the least that they could've done...

I'm not sure all the team members working back in the factories would have considered it was reasonable.


#4 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 18 August 2009 - 10:48

Had to ask a question.

When the crisis became full blown back in late August/September 2008, wouldn't have it been reasonable (if it had been possible) to convene an F1 commission and order a complete freeze in development and have had the 2010 regulations and new cars on hold and have the teams run with 2008 cars for the 2009 season only allowing select developments in the aero side and parts of the engine, but not touch the car's integral design itself or the engine block. Slick tires would be allowed however, because my logic would be that grooved tyres, since no one else uses them but F1 are and should be obviously more expensive. So the introduction of slick tires would aid the problem regarding cost saving measures.

Would these types of measures would've helped save costs at all in F1, or would it have needed a more bigger overhaul?

At least I believe this is the least that they could've done...


You're assuming Mosley was interested in finding a reasonable solution. On 12th December 2008 Mosley, the WMSC and FOTA had all agreed on a sensible way forward. Mosley pulled the rug from under everyone on 17th March 2009 -

http://www.guardian....crisis-timeline

This was never about securing a stable future for the sport, it was Mosley's clumsy attempt to break up the FOTA power base and secure himself another term in the process. Fortunately he failed on both fronts.

#5 Witt

Witt
  • Member

  • 3,306 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 18 August 2009 - 11:08

Sounds similar to something CART did in the late 90s. It kinda helped kill the series. F1 is a competition, not a display. The teams can choose NOT to spend the money if they want to save their pennys.

#6 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 18 August 2009 - 11:59

There is no real cost savings in GP racing.
All the measures usually failed mid to long term, and I'm talking about all the measures took since 1906.
It was the world wars, great depression and post war realities that where the only effective cost saving measures, but only short to mid term.
The low cost late 50s to mid-late 60s saw the highest number of fatalities (drivers+ spectators+marshals+ mechanic) since the 1920s.
This prompted politicians from several countries to consider banning open wheel racing and sports-prototype.





#7 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 18 August 2009 - 16:57

This was never about securing a stable future for the sport, it was Mosley's clumsy attempt to break up the FOTA power base and secure himself another term in the process. Fortunately he failed on both fronts.

Indeed. Mosley has repeatedly shown that he will introduce measures which increase costs dramatically even though they are being suggested under the guise of cost-cutting. My personal favourite from the vast number of examples out there is the shift from a V10 to a V8 when using a rev-restricted V10 would have saved the F1 teams collectively in excess of US$1 billion.

#8 JarnoA

JarnoA
  • Member

  • 752 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 18 August 2009 - 19:22

What a great idea. Wouldn't it be great if the same 2 teams could dominate for years with no chance of anyone else winning. :rolleyes:

#9 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,760 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 18 August 2009 - 19:22

The low cost late 50s to mid-late 60s saw the highest number of fatalities (drivers+ spectators+marshals+ mechanic) since the 1920s.


Surely the #1 reason for that was the increasing speeds, rather than a smaller amount of money spent in safety measures?

#10 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 18 August 2009 - 19:30

Surely the #1 reason for that was the increasing speeds, rather than a smaller amount of money spent in safety measures?

I agree but could it not be said that if more money had been spent on safety measures then this would have countered the risk from increasing speeds?

#11 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,760 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 18 August 2009 - 19:50

People didn't give two shits about safety either way in that era, doubt the money would be spent in it!

#12 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 18 August 2009 - 20:16

People didn't give two shits about safety either way in that era, doubt the money would be spent in it!

True!