Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfhound
Where would active suspension lead us. If you have wheelspin on one corner you could put more load into that tyre to prevent it, hey presto traction control, similar things under braking.
|
where would it lead....
That is the question.
The top six teams vetoed a cost cap so they want to be able to spend and develop whatever they can to remain dominant, although rumour has it that two of them are struggling financially.
Four of the other five want a cost cap...so do not want escalating cost ideas.
Active suspension will only work as a cost cutting measure if it is restricted in what is permitted so the present idea may sound good but the proof will be in the delivery of the rules and the strength of the FIA to lead and, if necessary, dictate what will be allowed and not allowed.
If F1 is entertainment in the form of a planet wide open wheel series then cost containment to ensure broad participation is essential.
If it is a technical lab for manufacturers let it be open technically but you are always going to have what sports car racing has, a small group of battling manufacturers who come and go at will while the rest of the field races around in lesser categories making up the places to fight for the crumbs.
If it is just for an 'in group' of teams lead by Bernie from back in the 70's and 80's then keep the present structures and allow them to dictate what you think the appropriate policy should be. That is what we currently have so if that's what you want let it be.
Is it healthy?
I don't think so but I am not sure Todt is a strong enough individual with enough vision to lead in any other way.
The strategy group suits Bernie but it is not an effective or useful way to lead F1 into the future.
That's just my opinion, but unless F1 has a clearer vision of what it is to be and where it needs to go to be healthy and remain a financially healthy sporting culture sometime soon something will crash and burn.
So active suspension may be a regulatory way to reduce cost significantly but that will require a strong hand of restriction on what it can and cannot do. That will not please the guys who want a technological laboratory in a public amphitheatre but that WILL be too expensive, unless the development is channelled in a particular direction at the expense of everything else.
Example: If you had restricted GP2 regulations but allowed hybrid engines, OR, if you had GP2 cars but allowed some free ranging active suspension.
Otherwise you may go back to the 1930's with two or three companies with techno cars and the rest of the field running a GP2 derivative just to fill the field.
The reality is, there is just not enough money to go round the way it used to be. Its all TOO expensive now and the rest of the world is not going to fund it for you.