With the exception of wet races and Ayrton Senna F1 hasn't ever been fair measurement of driver ability.

Also the Toleman in 84 wasn't a completely terrible car and neither was the Lotus's and Macca's he drove.

Quote from Intrepid :

????? This is F1 not athletics. I don't think there has EVER been a fair F1 race that purely rewards the best driver on the day. F1 is not really a sport as such but a competition between technicians and businessmen!

Yes of course.. but removal of pit stops would at least be a step towards that impossible ideal. IMO.

Edited to add- There is no such thing as winning 100% on merit even in Athletics.

Oh hang on - No refuelling = no "Race Fuel Load" Q3...?

either im missing something or there's nothing to stop mclaren or ferrari signing up for this in 2010 and then spending £600 million this year on developing everything they need for next season, dominate in 2010, sign for the unlimited budget in 2011 and develope their 2012 car with unlimited costs and then sign up for the extra freedom and dominate again in 2012

Quote from J@tko :

Oh hang on - No refuelling = no "Race Fuel Load" Q3...?

Hurrah!

Quote from tinvek :

either im missing something or there's nothing to stop mclaren or ferrari signing up for this in 2010 and then spending £600 million this year on developing everything they need for next season, dominate in 2010, sign for the unlimited budget in 2011 and develope their 2012 car with unlimited costs and then sign up for the extra freedom and dominate again in 2012

Other than the regulations that stop that you mean?

Quote from tristancliffe :

Hurrah!

Other than the regulations that stop that you mean?

havent seen them tris and i'd rather assumed there would be regs to prevent this sort of thing but it does make you wonder how well they will be able to police "creative accounting" with costs being differed, spread over accounting periods and possible even involving "subcontractors" who happen to run at a considerable loss whilst providing their services.

one thought that has struck me is that ever since i started watching F1 the rule makers have spent all their time trying to slow the cars down, so what will they do if the lower budget teams start to achieve speeds and cornering forces which are considered "unsafe" ? if they restrict the cars to slow them down they'll end up in a battle to balance the regs as they have to slow down the uncapped cars as well. also i'm not a lover of the movable wing idea, movable aero devices were banned for a very good reason, they fail ! and can have very serious consequences when they do fail. obviously modern tech is more reliable than late 60's tech but it would only take one serious accident resulting from a wing failure and they'll be rewritting the rules again

Quote from tinvek :

either im missing something or there's nothing to stop mclaren or ferrari signing up for this in 2010 and then spending £600 million this year on developing everything they need for next season, dominate in 2010, sign for the unlimited budget in 2011 and develope their 2012 car with unlimited costs and then sign up for the extra freedom and dominate again in 2012

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74949

Question "What measures are there to prevent teams spending money this year on a car that will compete under cost cap in 2010?"

FIA has everything covered... so it seems at least.

Quote from Intrepid :

F1 is not really a sport as such but a competition between technicians and businessmen!

and soon accountants.

Quote from deggis :

and soon accountants.

Don't forget the lawyers!