> How would any attempt at artificial equalisation help make it more
> interesting? Surely that would be a complete turn-off. I can’t imagine
> having any interest atall myself….and that would be breaking a
> 46-year habit.

Maybe not for the "oldies" such as your self, but for the more casual fans,
that make up the big numbers in F1 closer racing is less boring. Again, I’m
not saying I’m for it myself. Yet anyway.

> Well, that explains it. You’re a newbie >.

Well, yes, and I am also only n my twenties. I did follow F1 before that
too, but on a way more casual basis.

> We all want to see close racing, but it has to *mean* something. If
> you know teams are being artificially handicapped, then it become
> meaningless. Who cares who wins under those circumstances? It’s just
> another ‘entertainment’. What could be duller?

Again, it may becoame meaningless too you, but you are probably a "dying
breed" in todays super comercial business of F1.

> Wouldn’t a better way be to plough more of the money which comes into
> F1 from TV rights back to the teams – and to distribute it more
> equitably – than is done at the moment. That would be equalising by
> raising standards, not by dumming down……but then of course it
> isn’t the sort of ‘instant-fix, instant-gratification’ solution people
> seem to expect these days.

I hear you, I hear you. Something like what is done in the NFL, where tv
money is shared. I’d also like all cars to forego their sponsorship deals,
and let F1 have all the rights, and distribute any income that way to.
Economic equalization is the only "sporting" way to amke the series closer.
But do you see that happening, with the big teams having so much more to say
than the little teams?

> >This more or less reflects my opinion – opposed in principle,
> >convinceable in practice only if it is absolutely needed.

> How can artificiality ever be ‘needed’. What is needed is for Williams
> and McLaren to do a better job.

OK, you said ever, so let me be hypothetical for a moment. Would F1 survive
if the next 5 years were repeats of this one, or even getting more polarised
and with more distance between the competitors? I am already convinced, that
my interest is at a point where, if the first couple of races turns out like
the continuation of this season, that I will probably not bother watching.
Well at least not as I did, where I said a side the time to watch. Then I
will only watch if I’m not doing anything else. I cannot remember a season
as boring as this, in the 7-8 years I have been following F1. However, in
the future, if/when people are comparing to the records Ferrari and MS set
this year, I can say I saw that, but seriously, I would rather have seen
exciting and close racing.

Joakim

>"David Betts" <dav…@motorsport.org.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:buv1ru8f08l92qmfqrii0qehij3semp9q2@4ax.com…

>> How can artificiality ever be ‘needed’. What is needed is for Williams
>> and McLaren to do a better job.

>OK, you said ever, so let me be hypothetical for a moment. Would F1 survive
>if the next 5 years were repeats of this one, or even getting more polarised
>and with more distance between the competitors?

How would any attempt at artificial equalisation help make it more
interesting? Surely that would be a complete turn-off. I can’t imagine
having any interest atall myself….and that would be breaking a
46-year habit.

> I am already convinced, that
>my interest is at a point where, if the first couple of races turns out like
>the continuation of this season, that I will probably not bother watching.
>Well at least not as I did, where I said a side the time to watch. Then I
>will only watch if I’m not doing anything else. I cannot remember a season
>as boring as this, in the 7-8 years I have been following F1.

Well, that explains it. You’re a newbie >.

> However, in
>the future, if/when people are comparing to the records Ferrari and MS set
>this year, I can say I saw that, but seriously, I would rather have seen
>exciting and close racing.

We all want to see close racing, but it has to *mean* something. If
you know teams are being artificially handicapped, then it become
meaningless. Who cares who wins under those circumstances? It’s just
another ‘entertainment’. What could be duller?

Wouldn’t a better way be to plough more of the money which comes into
F1 from TV rights back to the teams – and to distribute it more
equitably – than is done at the moment. That would be equalising by
raising standards, not by dumming down……but then of course it
isn’t the sort of ‘instant-fix, instant-gratification’ solution people
seem to expect these days.

David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)

"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" – Frank Gardner

British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

Jackson) wrote:
>David Betts <dav…@motorsport.org.uk> writes:

>> This is such a strong argument against the proposal. Suppose we have
>> success ballast next year and Ferrari is once again in a position to
>> dominate and control the races. Doesn’t it seem logical that
>> Schumacher would spend the first half of the season picking up
>> reasonable points, but not building up a huge ballast disadvantage by
>> winning all the races….then take advantage later.

>May I respectfully disagree?  Imagine your team has an advantage at the
>beginning of the season.  You have two choices:

> Can you really believe, after Austria 2002, that Ferrari would
>forego points they could win *now* (scenario A) even if they thought
>scenario B *might* turn out to be an advantage?  Would they *really*
>leave points on the table even if a later advantage were probable,
>given that it is far from certain?

I’m sure you’re right, but there would inevitably by some sandbagging
at some point or other in the season. Anyway, it’s just such a horrid,
phoney idea. I’m simply not in favour of artifiially ‘equalising’ the
races. Not only do I hate it in principle, but I don’t even believe it
will work.

>GrandPrix.com had this to say today:

>    Williams did say that in principle he and his partner Patrick Head are
>    opposed to the idea of weight penalties in F1, despite some reports
>    that the team is in favour of the handicapping system. Our
>    understanding is that if such a move is deemed to be absolutely
>    necessary for the future of the sport, he would consider voting for it
>    but at the moment he is not convinced that it is what is needed.

Old quotes. They lifted them from Autosport <g>. Ferrari and McLaren
are implacably opposed…and good for them. Ferrai are saying they may
well pull out and seek to demonstrate their technical superiority
elsewhere.

>This more or less reflects my opinion – opposed in principle,
>convinceable in practice only if it is absolutely needed.

How can artificiality ever be ‘needed’. What is needed is for Williams
and McLaren to do a better job.

>This is
>different from being opposed *on* principle, which some people are.  I
>accept that, and there’s really no arguing against that position.  But
>I do not accept that the concept is fatally flawed – or at least I
>haven’t seen a practical argument I find convincing.

Other than the fact, of course, that it against the entire ethos of
F1.

David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)

"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" – Frank Gardner

British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

David Betts <dav…@motorsport.org.uk> writes:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:48:27 GMT, "Paul Harman"
> <chatter…@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:

> >There’s an interesting strategic side to it though. Wins early in the season
> >would penalise you (assuming the ballast accumulates according to total
> >points score over the season, rather than say results from the last handful
> >of races). So what does a team do? Go out and build a comfortable lead at
> >the start of the season and try to grimly hand on to it as their cars get
> >relatively slower… or ‘pretend’ to be slow at the start and risk not being
> >as successful as they expected late in the season?

> This is such a strong argument against the proposal. Suppose we have
> success ballast next year and Ferrari is once again in a position to
> dominate and control the races. Doesn’t it seem logical that
> Schumacher would spend the first half of the season picking up
> reasonable points, but not building up a huge ballast disadvantage by
> winning all the races….then take advantage later.

May I respectfully disagree?  Imagine your team has an advantage at the
beginning of the season.  You have two choices:

- Use the existing advantage to win early.  Weight is added.  After
  some (one or more) events the field is levelled.  Let’s be generous
  and assume the field is actually tilted the other way.  Now the
  opposition begins to win.  Let’s be generous and assume a new
  dominant team emerges (as opposed to a whole pack of contenders
  splitting the available wins).  Weight is added to *them*.  Let’s be
  generous and say that they manage to pull level on points.  Now the
  two teams have the *same* weight penalty on points.  Let’s be
  generous and say that your advantage at the beginning of the season
  has been negated by [both teams] running at a higher weight.  But
  *you’ve* been running at a higher weight longer, so have gained more
  relevant development time.  You can hardly say you are now at a
  disadvantage for the rest of the season; you *might* be, but it isn’t
  certain (and to me looks somewhat improbable).

- Give up the existing advantage by stroking.  Weight is added to your
  opponents.  At some point you calculate that *now* is the time to
  exploit your advantage.  You start to win, draw level with the leader
  on points, and approach the next race at the same (higher) weight,
  against an opponent who has been running at that weight longer than
  you have.

Can you really say that the second scenario is advantaged over the
first?  Can you really believe, after Austria 2002, that Ferrari would
forego points they could win *now* (scenario A) even if they thought
scenario B *might* turn out to be an advantage?  Would they *really*
leave points on the table even if a later advantage were probable,
given that it is far from certain?

GrandPrix.com had this to say today:

    Williams did say that in principle he and his partner Patrick Head are
    opposed to the idea of weight penalties in F1, despite some reports
    that the team is in favour of the handicapping system. Our
    understanding is that if such a move is deemed to be absolutely
    necessary for the future of the sport, he would consider voting for it
    but at the moment he is not convinced that it is what is needed.

This more or less reflects my opinion – opposed in principle,
convinceable in practice only if it is absolutely needed.  This is
different from being opposed *on* principle, which some people are.  I
accept that, and there’s really no arguing against that position.  But
I do not accept that the concept is fatally flawed – or at least I
haven’t seen a practical argument I find convincing.

–
Mark Jackson – http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
    How can anyone be expected to govern a country with two
    hundred and forty-six cheeses?  - Charles de Gaulle

Fully agree with your message. A personal opinion about:

> I do not accept that the concept is fatally flawed – or at least I
> haven’t seen a practical argument I find convincing.

It’s one of the points that I could live with if I had to. Still I’m
wondering about these two minor points:

a) cars would be built to accomodate additional weight once it is known
how the ballast would be added to the car; the richer teams could test
more extensively; I’d expect a heavy Ferrari to still be better than a
light Minardi;

b) would there not be a risk that cars could be weakened in some areas
when designers would start including ballast in their thoughts?
Similarly, how would additional ballast affect safety? More crash
testing under different weights would be needed which would put an
additonal burden on the teams.

Guy

—————————————————————
http://www.solforum.com   Racing forum

> I still believe that the ballast could be made to work. Despite my
> devil’s-advocating here I don’t actually like the idea. I’m sure that there
> would be outrage for a couple of races, but then the usual teams would find
> a way to work with/around the ballast and would continue to dominate.

Depends to an extent on how one can use it. I thought that when
Barrichello hit the wall at Indy and they lifted the car, to my unwashed
eye its front end was hanging WAY lower than the back end.

Guy

—————————————————————
http://www.solforum.com   Racing forum

<chatter…@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
>There’s an interesting strategic side to it though. Wins early in the season
>would penalise you (assuming the ballast accumulates according to total
>points score over the season, rather than say results from the last handful
>of races). So what does a team do? Go out and build a comfortable lead at
>the start of the season and try to grimly hand on to it as their cars get
>relatively slower… or ‘pretend’ to be slow at the start and risk not being
>as successful as they expected late in the season?

This is such a strong argument against the proposal. Suppose we have
success ballast next year and Ferrari is once again in a position to
dominate and control the races. Doesn’t it seem logical that
Schumacher would spend the first half of the season picking up
reasonable points, but not building up a huge ballast disadvantage by
winning all the races….then take advantage later.

>I’d expect that kind of thing would be fascinating… for the kind of people
>who think F1 championships should be settled whilst stationary in the pits,
>rather than by drivers actually overtaking each other and driving the
>cars };*P

It might look like there was more of a battle for the championship
between the two Ferrari drivers if Rubens was allowed an early-season
advantage. but we’d all know who was going to be the champion in the
end.

Basically, it would be a phoney battle, so why should anybody get
excited about it?

David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)

"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" – Frank Gardner

British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg

>Paul Harman wrote:

>> From: "David Betts" <dav…@motorsport.org.uk>

>>> There is only one seriously dangerous proposal in the nine, and that
>>> is success ballast. It does scare me that the idea has even been
>>> mentioned. It would, of course, kill F1 stone dead.

>> Would it? It just makes it harder for a dominant team to pull out a huge
>> lead. I don’t see it quite as penalising success.

>I would have to agree with David.  I can’t see it as anything but penalizing
>success.

Apparently Luca di Montezemolo is suggesting it would be a
deal-breaker for Ferrari. If success ballast was imposed, they would
look for another series in which to prove their technical superiority.

David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)

"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" – Frank Gardner

British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg

> Paul Harman <chatter…@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
> > Perhaps if it were rearranged so that the amount of ballast added
> > were based on the lead each driver had over the car behind at the
> > end of the last race, divided by their average speed over that race.

> In that case you would see a parade at the end of each race, with
> each driver letting the following driver getting as closer as
> confortably possible.

Which differs from the 2002 season in what way, exactly? };*P    But yes, I
realised that one last night when I was AFK.

I still believe that the ballast could be made to work. Despite my
devil’s-advocating here I don’t actually like the idea. I’m sure that there
would be outrage for a couple of races, but then the usual teams would find
a way to work with/around the ballast and would continue to dominate.

There’s an interesting strategic side to it though. Wins early in the season
would penalise you (assuming the ballast accumulates according to total
points score over the season, rather than say results from the last handful
of races). So what does a team do? Go out and build a comfortable lead at
the start of the season and try to grimly hand on to it as their cars get
relatively slower… or ‘pretend’ to be slow at the start and risk not being
as successful as they expected late in the season?

I’d expect that kind of thing would be fascinating… for the kind of people
who think F1 championships should be settled whilst stationary in the pits,
rather than by drivers actually overtaking each other and driving the
cars };*P

    Paul