planetf1.com

Which according you would make F1 more interesting?
1. Resource Restriction
(with Budget Cap included)
2. Unlimited Money

And WHY?

_________________
Loading Quote.......
--------------------
PF1 Pick 10
Aus13: 2nd
Chi13: 3rd

There should be three options:

1. Unlimited investment
2. Resource restrictment (which is what we have now)
3. Budget cap

The resource restrictment means a limited number of hours in the wind tunnel, for example.
A budget cap would mean no more than £150million per year (for example - and £150million is a fair cap, in my opinion), and this would be my option, as it allows teams to innovate and the midfield to win.

@Fifthace: Sorry yea. What I meant was the resource restriction included the budget cap also

_________________
Loading Quote.......
--------------------
PF1 Pick 10
Aus13: 2nd
Chi13: 3rd

Resource restriction. Fair play.

@fifthace: Thanks got it edited.

_________________
Loading Quote.......
--------------------
PF1 Pick 10
Aus13: 2nd
Chi13: 3rd

personally I think the restrictions on engines should be lifted, maybe not completely, but enough to allow innovation. Because the teams can't tinker with the power source they have no option but to focus almost all their efforts on getting the maximum out of the aero. Shaving tenths here or there wouldn't have such an impact if the opposition could counter with better power innovation.

It depends who's implementing it. If its just a FOTA agreement the Redbull and Ferrari would continue to abuse it.

_________________

Purely for economic climate reasons …I'd like unlimited spending …if there's money available, then spend it, look at the jobs that have been lost in all the surrounding industries. IMO it could fuel economic growth worldwide?

I'd like to see a budget cap put in place by FIA, but allow testing again. As suggested earlier, €150mil is a fair amount, this would take into account the €100mil(ish) 1st place WCC prize money plus a workable amount for smaller teams. It's just up to teams how to spend the money then, hiring a wind tunnel or track testing etc

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

Toyota had a budget almost the same with Ferrari at the time where there's unlimited money but what they really achieve?

Brawn GP was one of the teams with lowest budget in 2009 that they had to cut half of their drivers' salary and they are just wow.

Restricted resources produces fabulous thinking engineer that seek precision.

IMO tht RRA along with the budget cap would actually be good for all irrespective of the market conditions. Personally I would like to see the return of Privateers backed by auto companies. This would level the cost for all the teams thereby allowing progress even amongst the lower teams as well. I would love to have proper team owners like Enzo Ferrari, Ron Dennis, Frank Williams, Christian Horner, Vijay Mallya etc, who are racers at heart and everything else is just secondary to them

_________________
Loading Quote.......
--------------------
PF1 Pick 10
Aus13: 2nd
Chi13: 3rd

just an idea to think about: an inverted budget cap - hence a minimum budget available to prevent a field crowded by pay-drivers...

i might be biased at the moment but i think it's just not good for the sport that drivers do anything to hold on to their cockpit - not limited to pay-drivers: aging veterans should also leave for good and make room for young talents... maybe a third car or customer-spec cars could be a solution for the problem as well... like: a team below a specified budget line is only allowed to use customer cars as that would be cheaper than building their own from scratch...

might be a quite controversial approach, but what do you guys think?

toyota simply did a lot wrong i guess... they didn't expect F1 to be as complex as it is IMHO...

regarding brawn i have to disagree in parts... yes, 2009 they had probably one of the tightest budgets - but that was the time they didn't really go wow anymore. the car was developed during almost the whole year of 2012, focusing on new regulations while still backed by honda - during the year they built upon that DDD-effect... mercedes nowadays is still struggling due to almost one year on thight budget while being brawnGP...

Brawn was run on a budget how ever the car was reportedly the most expensive ever built.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

UNLIMITED MONEY would make of great and innovative cars, but the one with the most money will win and F1 will be boring

Problem is that only a few teams will be able to spend silly sums of money, whereas the rest will be restricted by what they can gain from sponsors...

...and you'll end up with a two tier system like MotoGP has become (where Yamaha, Honda and Ducati spends silly sums of money, and the rest spend what they can get their hands on just trying to keep up)


To me, I think budget cap would be the way to go (with a flexibility margin allowed to take into account repairs/breakdowns, etc)


If teams have to include all resources inside that cap (personnel, factory spend, etc) then everyone would be on a level playing field.


Do you then spend your money on wind-tunnel testing, or maybe have a few more people to help build something...

There are a lot of options between unlimited spending a budget cap. Poll is slightly silly.

_________________

Could you list those options we'd all like to read about it

_________________
Loading Quote.......
--------------------
PF1 Pick 10
Aus13: 2nd
Chi13: 3rd

When we say unlimited money are we talking about an idealised world where money is no object or just having no restrictions on spending? If it's the latter then I am strongly opposed. We had this arrangement in the early 2000s and it nearly killed the sport, as well as producing some of the dullest F1 seasons in history.

I think what would make F1 more interesting would be entirely focussing on the tyres every race and preserving them. Everyone starts the race with two sets of tyres. They race to the finish and the one who has best preserved their tyres by driving at 90% the whole way through gets the points.

Oh, wait. THey already do this.

there will always be "have's" and "have not's" in any form of racing. no matter if you put a spending cap in place or not. it's far to late to stop the teams from building wind tunnels and spending huge amounts of money on them every year.
part of racing has always been finding the proper funding. then using it wisely. i don't recall ferrari or mclaren crying about how much they spent when they were spending the most. it may be that red bull is spending more now, and they want to complain now ??
if you or i had billions, why shouldn't we be allowed to spend it how we wanted on f1 ?

Not quite frue, Williams were pretty successfull without the money that Ferrari and Macca had at their disposal, i voted unlimited money, it was much better in the baccy days.

_________________

i look at this in terms of football

my local league is the A-league and i never have a clue who is going to win, it has a salary cap and at the start of each season any team can finish any place from season to season

then there is the spanish league

2 teams can win that or the scottish league, 1 team can win that

i know which is way more interesting to me.......sorry to bore you with football talk

What we have now. Resource restrictions - wind tunnel time limits, testing limits, forced staff holidays, use requirements for engines and gearboxes, "spec" engines, design area limitations, exhaust outlet position requirements, etc. Expanding or reducing these factors = controlling spending in crucial areas, without imposing an actual budget cap.

_________________

I would say a high budget cap. Maybe about £125 Million.