It's very clear, isn't it? Formula 1 is the top motor-sport category for four wheelers and this status is very much down to the sheer sophistication of technology that goes into these cars. So, when some one says that they are just going to go buy a Formula 1 car from another team and race it, it's just bullocks. Hey, go make your own car and race it. I'll support you even if you don't finish the race with your car. You've to take the challenge of engineering an F1 car. That's when you should be in F1. Look at last season's Spyker team. I applaud them for their efforts to race their own car; even if they were arguably the slowest cars for most of the season. In contrast, Super Aguri and Scuderia Toro Rosso were racing cars they bought off the shelves. With the 2006 race winning Honda, Super Aguri just about managed to get into the points and that too in a handful of races. What does it mean? The pace of development was far from enough. Is this what we want in F1? For the sake of having a full grid, we shouldn't compromise on the image of F1. If close racing is what is wanted, go watch A1 or GP2. They are series that are designed for just that. Not F1. No. F1 is for technology. Let the teams engineer close racing into F1 - using technology.
Add to feed readers:
You might want to see this too!
Love what you see here? Or loathe? Leave a word with Sriram