So the answer is:I see things not really changing much for a very, very long time. To the point where if F1 survives at all, it will be a far-removed version of what it is now. I think the cars and the technology have usurped the circuits. Poor Monaco, unable to provide a decent race for these monsters. Same for numerous other circuits. F1 has outgrown its play-spaces, but has nowhere else to play, so tries all sorts of KERS DRS penalties winglet logstraightsintoahairpin nonsense to try and force the issue.
I can't see the current style of circuit, wherever it is, working for F1 cars as they are today. The difference between cornering speeds and top speeds has dramatically reduced, unlike brakes technology and car reliability - hence there's just a minimal braking zone left to overtake. Reducing the quality of the brakes would help but I doubt it will happen. We are reduced to cheering DRS overtakes on 1.5km straights. UGH.
On the other hand, the coverage is amazing. Woooo look at that slo-mo, check out the helicopter zoom, see that again with in-depth analysis. It genuinely makes the show better, and a good thing too. Can you imagine the coverage from the 70s and 80s with the racing from today?? Jesus in a Jordan it doesn't bear thinking about.
There is something still to be thankful for, and we have a great crop of drivers; there's always hope. I don't quite know what for though, and wait with interest.
the rugby/6 nations the only 1 with sense
Not exactly. All club rugby is confined to pay per view with a handful of European Cup games on Channel 4.
All England Internationals except the six nations are on Sky. England Rugby tried to sign an exclusive deal for those as well but the other 6 nations teams threatened to boycott the series if they did.
Rugby has now decided they need more games on free to air.
+1Works for me Ruslan! Could have that all in place by Monza please?
Fiat/Nissan/Renault/Mitsubishi - one conglomerate?Fiat Chrysler, Renault in talks about partnership
Meanwhile, it has emerged that Ferrari bosses John Elkann and Louis Camilleri have approved an extra budget to completely redesign the front suspension of the SF90, bearing in mind that little has changed on their system for a couple of seasons while Red Bull and Mercedes have evolved their suspension systems.
That of course would not be possible with mandated budget imposed upon teams.
Are you suggesting they should pay one credit card balance with another one? Sound that way to me. Big word budget is list of items with estimated values. Nothing else. Contingencies built in are merely for unforeseen expenses, like a driver having an accident or two, or more, but hardly for major development like redesign of suspension. This suggested moving money around is in reality nothing more than short changing one area for benefit of something else. How that can be good?Of course it would. They would have to take the money from elsewhere in their budget and move it there. It is called trade-offs. Right now, I don't think Mercedes has had to make any trade-offs in what they spend on for years. Ferrari found that they had to keep increasing their budget to be competitive. I have not seen recent budget figures....but does Ferrari spend as much on F1 as Mercedes? I am not sure they do. I know they did not for the first couple of years of Mercedes dominance.
Proper method of decreasing cost of course was abundantly discussed in the past.
It is not however senseless imposition of budget upon teams.
It has? What is that...turn F1 into a spec series with extremely tightly regulated rules on development? Perhaps you mean cost control efforts like "tokens."
No and No on both counts. Current F1 is overregulated, and overrestricted. Get rid of it.
If you find that as consequence substantial number of well off teams will depart, then someone will have to make decision whether series is for automakers, or teams I like to call Tier 2.
Ruslan, as a prominent historian surely you must know clocks have no habit going backwards.On this we agree. Part of the reason I so strongly support a budget cap is that you can remove all the other restrictions (including on testing).
Those restrictions were put in for a reason. In most cases, it was an attempt to control cost without controlling the budget. Control the budget and you can get rid of all the cost control efforts.
With the exception of Ferrari, the series pretty much ran without major automakers from 1956 to 1976. That was not a bad 20+ years. On the other hand, it does appear that Renault has dug in for the long run and is not increasing their budget beyond bounds. They appear to be looking out to 2021. Ferrari is never going to leave F1. So the other two big spenders are Mercedes and Red Bull. Red Bull is not an automaker (they don't even make a good drink).
Ruslan, as a prominent historian surely you must know clocks have no habit going backwards.
We have to agree to disagree. What a preposterous cliche I am using here, but I do not know what else I can do to convince you, that organic decrease of cost is best methodology. (Organic denotes simplify car construction; stop building expensive space shuttle Discovery.) Liberty bought this series presumably with some debt, and someone will have to pay. Keeping happy automakers on the inside will be important factor in that puzzle. That's a safe bet.