Todt could bring back the 107 Rule.

[Dare]

Rom and me just might invoke the
107 rule too,if we can figure out
the mathematical formula

[judy]

I think this goes to the FIA picking teams willing to use the Cosworth engine. Not that it's a bad engine, but there were a couple of teams I would expect to be stronger than HRT who refused to sign on to Cosworth power and didn't get the entry.
I think this goes to the FIA picking teams willing to use the Cosworth engine. Not that it's a bad engine, but there were a couple of teams I would expect to be stronger than HRT who refused to sign on to Cosworth power and didn't get the entry.

I don't see the rational to select only teams who are willing to use the Cosworth engine, unless the motive behind this is to approve only weak teams to join F1.

I remembered Cosworth engine was last used in F1 during the 2006 season and at that time only the back markers were using this engine. From 2007 onwards, nobody wants to use this engine anymore.I am not an engineer, therefore I can't comment if this engine is bad. However based on the fact that the cars that used this engine in 2006 were struggling on the track, I doubt that this engine is comparable to others like Ferrari, Renault, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota and Honda.

Why did FIA made the selection based on teams who are willing to use the Cosworth engine rather than selecting the best teams with strong financial backing? This is clearly a step backward and we fans are forced the see boring races where the backmarkers are more than 5 sec behind (per lap). I am not surprise with all this politics of Max and Todt who are only interested to see F1 dominated by 1 or 2 big teams while the rest consist of weak teams with limited potential to improve.

I think F1 was quite exciting in 2009 where all the teams are rather competitive and the gap between the the teams are less than 2 sec but we are now moving backwards to the ancient days when the gap were more than 5 sec. 

[cosworth151]

The FIA forced Cosworth out in 2007 by braking there own rules on how many other teams a constructor (in the case, Ferrari) could supply. Cosworth had one of the strongest engines out there at the time. The rev limits were also aimed directly at Cosworth, since they were turning in excess of 21,000.

[judy]

Cosworth 151, If Cosworth had one of the strongest engine (no offence in relation to your name), then why were the teams using this engine in 2005 struggling as back- markers in 2006? I remembered that Ferrari were allowed to supply engines to 2 teams whereas all other manufacturers were only allowed to supply to one other team.

Then why did FIA approved only new teams who are willing to use Cosworth engine to join F1 for 2010 season. Is this to make up for the 3 years when Cosworth were forced out of F1? 

[cosworth151]

Would Ferrari use a non-Ferrari engine? Would BMW? Mercedes? Renault? The privateers, who are always underfunded, used Cosworths. RBR and Jordan did quite well with them. In fact, Jordan won with them. It was only after Jordan switched to Toy that they hit the skids.

Cosworth is second only to Ferrari in all-time wins for an engine builder, and Ferrari has a 17 year head start. Ferrari only passed them after they were forced out.

As Toy, Honda and BMW have proven, F1 needs a stable source of engines. Depending on manufacturers whims about being in the sport is a recipe for disaster.

[judy]

Thanks for the info on Cosworth engine, Cosworth 151. I can see the rational of bringing back Cosworth as a stable source of engine but there are other approach of doing this rather than setting the criteria that all the new teams must use Cosworth engine at the expense of not selecting the best teams. For example they can limit the number of teams that each engine manufacturer can supply.

I think if the new teams choose to use Ferrari or Mercedes engine, they should be allowed to, as long as the supplier does not exceed the limit in terms of the number of teams using their engines. If a new engine manufacturer is interested to compete in F1, I think they should be allowed too (this would make F1 even more competitive), therefore setting the criteria of approving only teams using the Cosworth engine is not logic. I still think the criteria should be selecting only new teams with strong financial backing. In F1, it is a fact that you need money to improve and stay competitive. I would be boring to see back markers struggling 5 sec behind.

[Jericoke]

Thanks for the info on Cosworth engine, Cosworth 151. I can see the rational of bringing back Cosworth as a stable source of engine but there are other approach of doing this rather than setting the criteria that all the new teams must use Cosworth engine at the expense of not selecting the best teams. For example they can limit the number of teams that each engine manufacturer can supply.

I think if the new teams choose to use Ferrari or Mercedes engine, they should be allowed to, as long as the supplier does not exceed the limit in terms of the number of teams using their engines. If a new engine manufacturer is interested to compete in F1, I think they should be allowed too (this would make F1 even more competitive), therefore setting the criteria of approving only teams using the Cosworth engine is not logic. I still think the criteria should be selecting only new teams with strong financial backing. In F1, it is a fact that you need money to improve and stay competitive. I would be boring to see back markers struggling 5 sec behind.

The FIA was pushing for a single engine supplier as a cost cutting measure.  Since Ferrari, Mercedes et al aren't interested in leaving the sport, the FIA tried to force them out by forcing teams to use Cosworth.

Hopefully that sort of thing left the sport with Max.

[Alianora La Canta]

How's this for an easy way of putting a maximum lap time requirement in F1?

If any F1 car laps slower than any GP2 car(s) in qualifying, then the GP2 car(s) and its/their driver(s) get(s) to race instead of the slower F1 car. The only exception would be if it rained in Q1 of F1's session, in which case the inclement weather will be presumed to be responsible. OK, this will mean the GP2 calender must expand to 19 races (whether that's by extending the current two versions or by adding extra mini-series) but it would make getting 26 cars of a certain standard easy to obtain and bring back a tradition...

Personally, I think prevention is better than cure; all the slow/unreliable teams are newcomers. I would want the FIA to introduce a "check-in" procedure giving deadlines for such things as car design, construction, crash-testing passes, the signing of drivers with valid Superlicences and successful race-length testing run completion. Missing a checkpoint would lead to your entry being given to the next reserve team on the list, provided the new team agrees. This also means much fewer wasted resources for teams that aren't good enough for F1. Any team that scored a point would be presumed to know what they were doing unless they missed the final checkpoint (which would be to complete a race distance in testing at competitive speed with one of its contracted race drivers by the end of the penultimate test of the pre-season - possibly checked by having non-championship Grands Prix at the end of every pre-season test), in which case they too could be replaced.

If the schedule was written properly, then any team complying with it should be able to perform to an acceptable standard in F1, thus removing the need for a 107% rule. But if anyone did slip through the net, my original idea's still available