The edict that the ideal racing car would blow up as it crossed the finishing line was obviously an exaggeration. But it might be thought that such cars might be designed unhampered by rules and formulae. So why reject proven V10 for new V8 engines and let in the former to aid the ‘poorer’ teams when the last-season V10 is still reasonably competitive?
I am ignorant about finance but I wonder how shareholders in firms with F1 associations view the multiple millions which such racing costs. It may increase sales of road cars, but Ferraris are such high status machines that they would sell anyway, although perhaps the run of championships has provided a safeguard against new supercar rivals.
I hope that Renault’s challenge will improve sales of ordinary Renaults and that we may see more young people in models of this long-established make which was winning races before most of us were born, me included.
An example of results affecting sales cars is contained in reports that Japanese Honda dealers suffered cancelled orders after Takuma Sato had been removed from the F1 team using Honda engines, having ended the 2005 season with only one championship point.
As for the present system of qualifying for a GP, if many experts are confused, what do the paying spectators make of it? Surely each driver trying for a fastest lap should be given a clear circuit, not be hampered by a slow or broken-down car?