Originally Posted by Powder
I know it sucks but it is true....
Not in F1. It's a different racing format marketing to a very
Originally Posted by Powder
...What sponsor is going to pay millions of $$$$ for their Toyota-powered car to run 8th place?....
You want the complete list?
They've got three more new teams in the field for the 2010 season, bringing the total to 13, 26 cars on the start grid (and could possibly go to 14 and 28). Plus, two additional teams made application but there was no room for them on the grid. They've got teams standing in line, champing at the bit for the opportunity to advertise that they compete in F1. And all
the new teams are being forced by FIA to run untested Cosworth motors. The new teams' chances of success are slim to none, and Slim's on holiday in Vegas.
...Sure, ideally, the slower engine builders would spend $$$$$ to "catch up" to the faster guys but that is not always going to happen...
Excuse me being blunt but you really
don't know what you're talking about. The engines designs are frozen. Have been since the '07 season and can't be altered until 2012. The whole point of the OP -- which you've obviously already lost sight of -- is that the slow teams asked to be allowed to spend $$$$$ to "catch up" but FIA's response was to offer to force the fast teams to slow down.
Not that that could ever come remotely close to working.
First, FIA very nearly committed suicide earlier this season by trying to force mandatory budget constraints on the teams to even out the competition. Some things they just won't tolerate. I have no doubt that "racing welfare" is on that list, too.
Second, you're advocating a dramatic change to the character of the sport -- a sport whose birthright is showcasing bleeding edge automotive technology -- because the same teams keep losing. Somebody has to lose. That's why they call it a "competition."
Third, the sport simply is not now in straits so dire as to make necessary anything that drastic. It's just a couple of teams whining because they're slower than everyone else, which is true to course for F1. If there were no engine freeze rule in effect, they'd have no one to complain to (or blame) but themselves.
Fourth, most of the teams entering F1 know they'll never be great. Nonetheless, they're willing to bear the cost in order to be seen among the great. Sort of a case of "better to lose the World Series to the Yankees than to win it against the Padres".
Fifth, F1 always has had engine "eras." There's been a Honda era, a couple of Renault eras, a couple of Alfa Romeo eras, a couple of Ford eras and several Ferrari eras. They come and they go and the sponsors prefer it this way. Winners attract fans. Eras attract lots
of fans. It's one means of expanding the fan base.
Sixth, F1 always has abided by the principle of survival of the fittest. Some of the greatest marques in automotive history have passed from F1: Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Porsche and, starting next year, BMW, to name but four. No one doctored the rules so they could hang one. It would be abandoning a bedrock principle of the sport to slow down the fastest to preserve the slowest. They don't do it.
Seventh, the only constant in F1 is Ferrari. Ferrari S.p.A. does not advertise. Not one red cent. They race F1 instead. The linchpin of their corporate culture is showcasing their automotive manufacturing prowess in campaigning two Formula One cars. I guarantee Ferrari will not submit to racing welfare, and Ferrari is the one team F1 can't afford to lose.
Eighth, F1 has been in business just about three times as long as the World Superbike series. They haven't survived this long by handicapping the successful and I doubt they'll start now.
And ninth, FIA knows the faster teams will never agree to this "solution." That's exactly why they suggested it.