Driver values are based solely on the popularity of the drivers among all league players - i.e., the TS private league plus all other players in all other public and private leagues. When a certain driver is picked up by a large number of players his value will go up. When a driver is dropped by a large number of players his value will go down.

So, in a way, one driver going up will definitely make another driver go down because someone is likely being dropped to accomodate the new driver. These values will not remain constant but will react to the market for the drivers. For example, if the diffusers are held to be legal, the surge in value for the Brawn, Toy and Wil drivers will continue because players will start adding them more and more. This will cause the non-diffuser drivers to stay the same or go down if they are dropped. The same thing could happen to Ferrari and McLaren drivers if the diffusers are found to be illegal. Those who added Glock, Trulli and Rosberg may drop them and pick up Lewis, Kimi and Massa. This would cause Glock, Trulli and Rosberg to go down in value with a concomitant rise in value for Lewis, Kimi and Massa.

It is a pretty good system because it reflects the "market" for the drivers amongst league players rather than some arbitrary system based on someone's opinion or performance stats.

 

Oh, I see what you mean now. That's a good question. I haven't taken the time to add everyone's value up and compare to the beginning of the season. Seems to me like all the drivers values could go up with more users joining the league and picking them. Then again, I have noticed some players values decreasing considerably compared to the beginning of the season where nearly everyone was worth at least $6M and now several are under $6M or even $5M.

 

Here's what I'm sticking with for the time being: (yes, too lazy to screen cap and post)

Jenson Button Brawn GP 12.10m 221
Mark Webber Red Bull Racing 7.00m 91
Nico Rosberg AT&T Williams 8.70m 71
Rubens Barrichello Brawn GP 9.80m 101
Timo Glock Panasonic Toyota Racing 7.00m 121
Budget Remaining 0.40m 4
TEAM VALUE 45.00m 609

Worth 600 points last race with Webber and Rosberg barely producing.

 

With less than 24-hours until the diffuser ruling, we should all be keeping our ear to the ground for when the decision hits. First person to hear should post it up.

 

Sounds like a plan. I think this'll change driver values in a hurry!

 

Ahead of the ruling I've dumped my Brawn and Williams drivers from my team. I figure that if the difusers are ruled illegal, their values will drop dramaticly. If they are legal, values should stay pretty much the same and I can pick them back up for a .6 loss which I can live with. We'll see if my strategy works!!!

 

There's a man that understands the system! Good job brother. I used the same strategy.

 

Lets say for argument's sake that the diffusers are ruled to be legal. Brawn/Williams/Toyota continue on, business as usual. Everyone else is going to have to develop a diffuser of their own. Its obvious that some have started that development already. Don't rules exist that limit the amount of track testing, wind tunnel testing, money, etc that can be spent mid season? Wouldn't the other seven teams still be at a major disadvantage? How could they possibly redesign the aerodynamics of a F1 car with limited track/wind tunnel time?

Perhaps part of the ruling will allow for the other seven teams to have additional track/wind tunnel/funds for diffuser development that B/W/T will not be allowed to have?????

I think the ruling will be significant, but the effects of it will not be realized for a number of races. Time will only tell.

 

You make a good point about in-season testing, but I think most of these teams have the modeling/simulation software to have a good idea of what the changes will do before they actually make the part and fix it to the car. I still think all the other teams will be playing catch up with Brawn GP this weekend so I'm not quite ready to let go, but I'd definitely put more stake in the big teams in the very near future.

 

Brawn - We're not cheats

Team boss says diffuser design is "innovative"

Brickbats were hurled at the FIA's International Court of Appeal on Tuesday as Ross Brawn defended his team as innovators rather than cheats.

Brawn, whose Brawn GP outfit has risen from the ashes of Honda's withdrawal from Formula One to dominate the opening two races of the season, faced a grilling as the diffuser row was finally heard in Paris.

The QC representing Ferrari, one of four teams protesting the cars of Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams, even went so far as to describe Brawn - who helped mastermind the Scuderia's dominance of the sport when Michael Schumacher drove for them - as "a person of supreme arrogance".

However, F1's newest boss gave as good as he got - Brawn's personal submissions revealing criticisms of ex-Ferrari colleague Rory Byrne and Red Bull designer Adrian Newey.

Together with Renault and BMW Sauber, Ferrari and Red Bull squared up to Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams in a sitting, held in front of five judges, that lasted over eight hours.

Central to the debate was the 'double-decker' rear diffuser design used by Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams - more specifically two apertures employed in the aerodynamic device that assist airflow, so increasing downforce/grip and therefore speed.

Brawn denied his team's diffuser broke FIA rules, saying: "We didn't consider this to be a radical new design.

"It was an innovative approach of an existing idea, and Formula One is all about innovative design. It's a cornerstone and objective of the sport."

FIA technical director Charlie Whiting was also cross-examined, during which he and world motorsport's governing body were both accused of "getting it wrong, and not understanding the point".

Baffling

Ferrari's legal representative, Nigel Tozzi QC, did his best to tie Whiting up in knots with regard to the finer points of the regulations.

He argued that "the position of the FIA is totally baffling...we urge you to save the FIA from itself".

However, the complexities of F1's technical loopholes also seemed to baffle the judges - one of whom, Malta's Guido de Marco, occasionally nodded off.

Paul Harris, representing Brawn GP, noted: "What we have seen is a sideshow, irrelevancies, or to coin an English phrase, a red herring."

Brawn's assertion that the history of F1 is littered with such cases also took a twist when he made reference to a number of cars - including Ferraris - from recent years which could be construed as contrary to the regulations.

Williams CEO Adam Parr remarked: "I find it almost pleasurable to hear Ferrari say they have won 11 world championships (drivers' and constructors') with an illegal car."

Tozzi also attempted to use recent moves to cut costs in the sport against Brawn by citing a remark made recently by FIA president Max Mosley.

"It was he who said recently that costs must be reduced by limiting the opportunities for technical innovation," Tozzi said.

"If the appeal is dismissed then the claims by the FIA they want to make the sport more attractive and reduce costs will sound hollow."

Personal

On a more personal level, Tozzi said of Brawn that "only a person of supreme arrogance would think he is right when so many of his esteemed colleagues would disagree".

Brawn offered criticisms of his own, made in personal submissions, about Byrne and Newey, in which he claimed the appellants' case was "a vindictive response...that amounted to a fishing expedition".

Asked to withdraw his comment as it was claimed it served as a slight against former Ferrari designer Byrne - with whom he won five drivers' and six constructors' titles between 1999 and 2004 - Brawn said: "I have the highest regard for Mr Byrne.

"But we are on opposite sides in this argument, so I stand by my statements."

He also accused Newey of "being unethical and of bringing the sport into disrespute" after the latter had claimed in his own statement that the speed of Brawn GP's car was a safety concern.

Brawn rebutted: "The safety implication relating to a technical feature of the car is a bit below the belt."

But when asked to renounce his words, Brawn replied: "No.".

The judges will now deliberate on a ruling made by the stewards at the Australian Grand Prix that the Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams cars are indeed legal.

A verdict is due on Wednesday, although their full findings are not due to be revealed until either later this week or early next.

At stake are the race results in Melbourne and Malaysia as the judges have the power to overturn them, although such an eventuality is not expected.

Source: Skysports News