Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Just Do It!
Great idea, and not wishing to put a socialist (parity  ) spin on the whole concept, but why not pay out in reverse?
The reason for this is the winner clearly isn't struggling for funding on the "dollars in equals results out" theory. What it does mean is the guy who has a stack, and often there is more than at least one relatively innocent party involved, so they get additional funds to help the repairs along.
The car that finishes mid-pack gets budget assistance that may let them move forward if it used wisely, and the car that finishes last gets the biggest help because it probably needs it.
Going back a while, Ross Cadell pitched a concept on here that involved "taxing and redistributing" budgets over a certain dollar figure and sharing that among the teams who didn't reach the income cap.
This was arguably a novel and achievable idea that would have created a level playing field.
A level playing field is what V8 Supercars tries to seek through parity adjustments, and surely budgets and contingency funds make up a part of that. |
I don't think you inspire excellence by championing mediocrity.
Lets take the budgets for starters. If one could confiscate sponsorship funds over a certain amount for redistribution, then why would the teams that could source those funds bother with doing so as any excess funds would be taken from them? Doesn't make a lick of sense. I don't think it's either novel or achievable.
Second if there was an extreme financial result from finishing last then why put any effort in? Just run an old banger around for a few years with confiscated budgets from other teams, cashing in every weekend and then retire to the mountains or the beach. What a deal.
Life is unfair, motor racing is unfair. Life has ups and downs and so does motor racing. Having fair rules is great, but non-parity is what motor racing is about.