Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut
This is not the way the real world works![/FONT][/COLOR]
|
Granted you have to think about it a little. Or just change the font
Quote:
|
The bigger teams will be far more adaptable and more able to find the resources necessary to rapidly move with the change!
|
Of course the bigger team will be more likely to get it right. That is obvious. I'm a little disapointed that you thought I missed that in my thoughts for the shake up. Or that I actually thought it was realistic in the conservative world of F1.
However if you don't change the rules there is less chance of any innovation upsetting the status quo.
The big teams are always more likely to do better. What you end up with is the following.
Under consistent rules: The big teams get to the top and stay there because they will always have the resource to build the best car given time. The small teams get progressively closer, but never quite get there. Everything is developed and the best teams get so good that they are very consistent. Eventually everyone is consistent with the best teams at the top.
- As you said the lap time difference gets much smaller, but the opportunity to make up that lap time gets smaller too.
Constantly changing rules. Short notice rewards the initial thought process not continued development. Of course the big teams have more resource and are more likely to get it right first time, but there is an opportunity for the small team to steal a march.
- Bigger spread of lap times, more opportunity to make it (and more) up.
Any team that believes they are players, but lack the overall resource, should not fear this. There is opportunity for innovation to win.
Another way of looking at it is that under consistent rules the big teams keep the benefit of their resources into the next year. Under constant changing rule the big teams lose their paid for advantage every year.
If you don't have change then nothing will change!