2009 Budget Cap

[Rollo]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64743

How the hell is this even possible to police?

When you have an organisation like Ferrari who exists in principle as an F1 team, every cost the whole organisation incurs is part of that budget.

For manufacturers like Renault, Toyota and BMW, aren't they just inclined to consolidate all of their expenses back into the R&D budget for the company? What happens to other R&D items which would be passed in the other direction, from the road divisions to the F1 team? How about "generic" R&D items which may or may not specifically be costed?

Grant that the spirit of the ruling might be to lower spiralling costs, but I don't see how this is a) workable or b) possible to administer, let alone enforce.

[gloomyDAY]

I don't see a problem with budget caps. Have you ever heard of the honor system? :p

I'm not sure that it's impossible to enforce. Just have the teams set-up an account with the budget limit and monitor their expenses. 2009 is going to be a steep learning curve, but eventually a solution can be found.

[tinchote]

If it were that easy to police the income/expenses of a company, many scares in the stock market wouldn't exist :mark:

[gloomyDAY]

If it were that easy to police the income/expenses of a company, many scares in the stock market wouldn't exist :mark: Quite simplistic what I put in my post. Just an idea! :)

[Knock-on]

This proposal has the opportunity for more loop holes than a knitted jumper.

So, engine development is not included. What's wrong with putting 1000 hours of wind tunnel time down to evaluating engine performance and cooling under a variety of different aerodynamical situations?

And why a 5 year freeze on engine development. Does that mean that the back teams with no option for introducing a more competitive powerplant will be consigned to the back until 2013?

It just makes no sense :(

[ArrowsFA1]

This proposal has the opportunity for more loop holes than a knitted jumper.
Seems to be the way Max's FIA likes things :dozey:

[Sleeper]

This proposal has the opportunity for more loop holes than a knitted jumper.

So, engine development is not included. What's wrong with putting 1000 hours of wind tunnel time down to evaluating engine performance and cooling under a variety of different aerodynamical situations?

And why a 5 year freeze on engine development. Does that mean that the back teams with no option for introducing a more competitive powerplant will be consigned to the back until 2013?

It just makes no sense :(
Well, considering we had a 10 year engine freez already, having it nocked down to five is a small improvment.

Considering they are still trying to work out the details of this, I'm going to save my comments until we know what they intend to do about it.

The I'll lambast them.

[ioan]

This proposal has the opportunity for more loop holes than a knitted jumper.

So, engine development is not included. What's wrong with putting 1000 hours of wind tunnel time down to evaluating engine performance and cooling under a variety of different aerodynamical situations?

And why a 5 year freeze on engine development. Does that mean that the back teams with no option for introducing a more competitive powerplant will be consigned to the back until 2013?

It just makes no sense :(

Why should they do "1000 hours of wind tunnel time down to evaluating engine performance and cooling under a variety of different aerodynamical situations" if there is "a 5 year freeze on engine development" ??? :p :

[jjanicke]

Why should they do "1000 hours of wind tunnel time down to evaluating engine performance and cooling under a variety of different aerodynamical situations" if there is "a 5 year freeze on engine development" ??? :p :

I think there's a freeze on engine performance development, not reliability. New components can be added, after FIA scrutineering.