Is this any surprise? A$$H*LE-ISM is in his DNA... his father was the leader of Britain's equivalent of the Fascist Party (explains his n*zi-themed sex scandal?)

↓↑report

Although I don't like Mosley,he is right when he is saying that budget caps will help innovation, not kill it, and that a return to the early 90s levels of spending is desireable, because small teams had a chance of competing if they were creative enough. The way F1 was run for the past 10 years, only the top budget teams had a chance reaching the podium. Unfortunatelly, this was not due to competency, but mindless spending to improve on the last 10th of a second.

The fact that the big teams are technically clueless can be seen clearly in the current season, when the change in aero requirements, completely overturned the rankings. Previously big teams looked good only because they had the money to buy the engineers most successful at exploiting the current regulations, and had the budget to get the competitive edge over the less wealthy teams, no matter how expensive and technically irrelevant that development was.

And another thing. Today's F1 cars have reached the human limits of driving fast on 4 wheels. Any faster cars would be unsafe and more boring to watch, because no overtaking is possible at even higher speeds. Although laps times might creep up a little over time, the hard limit of human reflexes was hit already. Look at what happened in Moto GP, they reached the same limit 10 years ago, not to mention endurance racing, where 40 years old records are still standing.

So why spending on faster cars? On a different set of racing rules the performance of F1 cars can be achieved on a tenth of the cost. In this respect a budget cap makes sense, and it will not require to force the teams into using the same engine/chassis. And at the same time innovation will be encouraged, because the small teams will have a shot at podium places, forcing everybody to look for original solutions instead of making tiny but enormously costly improvements to the same old ideas.

↓↑report

@ Dondonel

"Although I don't like Mosley,he is right when he is saying that budget caps will help innovation, not kill it, and that a return to the early 90s levels of spending is desireable, because small teams had a chance of competing if they were creative enough... "

Not true. Innovation is killed by poor rule enforcement. Like the mass dampers that were used for 2 years and then ruled illegal mid season because they were considered movable aerodynamic devices even thought they were not even in the airstream but hidden in the nose of the car.


"The fact that the big teams are technically clueless can be seen clearly in the current season, when the change in aero requirements, completely overturned the rankings. "

Not true, the big teams wrote the rule on the new diffusers with the intent of making the them single level to allow better overtaking and make it a better show. BMW even had written confirmation early on that they would not be legal. the small teams showed up at preseason testing with them, the big teams protested. the FIA said that they couldn't do anything until the first race, not even rule on if they would be allowed. After the first race, the FIA said that they had to review it and waited until after the third race to say that, yes, contrary to all they had been saying, they were now allowed because of bad verbiage in the writing of the rules. had the FIA just said back in the preseason that they would be allowed, Brawn and Ferrari would not be where they are today.

"And another thing. Today's F1 cars have reached the human limits of driving fast on 4 wheels. Any faster cars would be unsafe and more boring to watch, because no overtaking is possible at even higher speeds. Although laps times might creep up a little over time, the hard limit of human reflexes was hit already. Look at what happened in Moto GP, they reached the same limit 10 years ago, not to mention endurance racing, where 40 years old records are still standing"

More BS. The experts thought at one time that noone would ever be able to survive in a car going over 100 mph or that they could never break the sound barrier. What happened in MotoGP? They are faster now then ever in the turns and break later and less then ever with the 800's. It is the rules, not the riders that are slower.

"So why spending on faster cars? On a different set of racing rules the performance of F1 cars can be achieved on a tenth of the cost. In this respect a budget cap makes sense, and it will not require to force the teams into using the same engine/chassis. And at the same time innovation will be encouraged, because the small teams will have a shot at podium places, forcing everybody to look for original solutions instead of making tiny but enormously costly improvements to the same old ideas."

Never happen. You would think that it would be easy to enforce a ban on traction control since you could confiscate the ECU and read the code to tell if it was in use. The teams were so good at hiding the code in the computers that the FIA just gave up and made it legal. Now they have a common ECU provided by the FIA. think that the teams won't be able to hide costs all over the place? NASA $900 toilet seats will seem cheap. there is no way the FIAT or Toyota is going to allow the FIA or anyone else to go though their books looking for money spent on racing. Think that Mercedes doesn't have their own engineers and wind tunnel that can be used to test F1 cars off of the MaClaren books?

↓↑report

That's what I'm saying.

↓↑report

Hear, hear.

I was so glad to hear the split was finally going to happen, then FOTA (read: Ferrari) apparently lost their nerve and went crawling back to Bernie. Weak sauce, guys.

Call me when you've regrown your man-bits - meanwhile, I'll be watching the IRL and hoping they eventually figure out that there's a niche for real, low-cost, competitive, international open-wheel racing just waiting to be filled. If FOTA doesn't have the stones to do it, maybe the Hulmans do.

↓↑report