GPWizard F1 Forum

F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Dare on July 02, 2014, 01:16:40 PM

Title: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Dare on July 02, 2014, 01:16:40 PM
Just think with this no Jordon,no Minardi,no Hesketh,
we get the drift Bernis.

http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/9368626/Bernie-Wants-Eight-Teams-Three-Cars
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: J.Clark on July 02, 2014, 01:40:53 PM
 >:D Bernie!

I don't think it would be better for Formula 1.
I don't think it would be good for the teams.
I don't think it would be good for the drivers.
I don't think the majority of the fans would like it either - I would not, that is for certain.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: cosworth151 on July 02, 2014, 02:18:26 PM
If not for Jordan, there would be no Force India. Williams & McLaren were once small teams, too.

Another well thought out idea you've got there, Bernie.  |-(
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: monty on July 02, 2014, 02:55:14 PM
You have to remember that Bernie believes that everyone wants to have total control, like him. Therefore, he probably assumes that with just a few teams and legal team orders the result can be determined before the race even starts.  :fool:
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Jericoke on July 02, 2014, 03:15:08 PM
I'm not opposed to the idea per se.

The number of people willing to invest in F1 on a level that can compete with Ferrari and McLaren is very small and notoriously fickle.  Since pulling Ferrari and McLaren down to a level where Caterham can compete with them just isn't going to happen, having fewer teams, with more drivers, should put on a better spectacle.

I'd prefer a system where teams are allowed 1/2/3 car teams as their budget allows. 

On one hand, I appreciate the history of the sport growing small teams into current mega corporations.  On the other hand, all sports are like.  You can't have a dozen guys in matching shirts show up and joing the English Premier League.  They need to be prepared to compete at the top level.  Formula One is at a point where they need to make sure every team is prepared to compete at the top level.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Scott on July 02, 2014, 04:29:48 PM
Formula One is at a point where they need to make sure every team is prepared to compete at the top level.

Then they need to make sure the rules allow everyone a chance to win, and more importantly, to make money.  Start by pooling all the FOM money (TV, track ads and race fees) and divide it equally between the teams at the end of the year (less a fixed amount for CVC to manage their debt and a little bit of profit).  The winning teams will instead benefit by being able to sell stickers on their cars for more. 

Then, map out a regulation change schedule that is financially realistic and is projected at least 5yrs ahead so the teams can properly budget and plan for the next steps.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Irisado on July 02, 2014, 04:33:25 PM
Scott, I like your idea :).

Another fatuous suggestion from Ecclestone.  He has raised similarly ill conceived ideas about three car teams before, and they have never gone anywhere.  This idea too will fall at the first hurdle.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Jericoke on July 02, 2014, 08:26:27 PM
Formula One is at a point where they need to make sure every team is prepared to compete at the top level.

Then they need to make sure the rules allow everyone a chance to win, and more importantly, to make money.  Start by pooling all the FOM money (TV, track ads and race fees) and divide it equally between the teams at the end of the year (less a fixed amount for CVC to manage their debt and a little bit of profit).  The winning teams will instead benefit by being able to sell stickers on their cars for more. 

Then, map out a regulation change schedule that is financially realistic and is projected at least 5yrs ahead so the teams can properly budget and plan for the next steps.

That is the unmentioned plank in the 'other sports' platform isn't it?  Do major European leagues engage in revenue sharing or is that an American thing?

But still, I don't want someone showing up in F1 so they can have a slice of the F1 pie.  Fernedes wasn't prepared to race with the big boys, but he wasn't in it for the money either.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: lkjohnson1950 on July 03, 2014, 01:23:19 AM
Fernandes says he came in after being assured budgets would be capped. While it still didn't make good financial sense, with the cap he could afford it. Without the cap it's just too much. Can't blame him really.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: John S on July 03, 2014, 11:11:42 AM

What's with all this levelling talk.  :o  Formula 1 has always been best car wins with the better, or designated, driver in the car having a run at the WDC. There are so so many racing series out there that have artificially enforced equality but F1 ain't one of them.  :nono:

What has kept F1 special and at the top is the 'only the best will do' mentality. Now whether that's the best designers, best ideas, best tech, best engines, best drivers or the best funding surely it's all the same.

Whilst I have great sympathy for the mid and rear end teams and think it should be possible to come up with a sensible cost cap - I'm doubtful that it will ever be achieved though.

I also agree that the spoils could be divided more equally from the FOM's teams pot. However I am not at all in favour of giving all teams an equal part of F1 income, that way lies madness - teams can turn up with dogs of cars (like some of them do now) and still be assured of their place on the grid next year as they can easily afford the cost of keeping the team going.

Taking Premier league Football in the UK, as an example of revenues generated directly from the sport being shared more evenly amongst the teams, we find that the big threat to underperforming teams is relegation to a lower league at the end of the season.

F1 has no such scheme to replace under achievers, so until something is in place to keep all the teams on their toes IMHO dividing the spoils equally seems a blind alley, if we wish to maintain a really competitive environment.   

 
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Scott on July 03, 2014, 11:30:37 AM
I also agree that the spoils could be divided more equally from the FOM's teams pot. However I am not at all in favour of giving all teams an equal part of F1 income, that way lies madness - teams can turn up with dogs of cars (like some of them do now) and still be assured of their place on the grid next year as they can easily afford the cost of keeping the team going.
I'm not sure that's fair John.  Of course a team running on a budget a fraction of the front runners will not be able to produce a car near their time, but heck, building a car from scratch and then lining up only 3sec back from one of those front runners is quite an achievement.  I don't see anyone sitting in lawn chairs around the garage waiting for the race to start.  I haven't heard of any of the back markers actually making a profit except for perhaps Williams who have enough non-F1 interests to keep the company in the black, and after this year won't be called a back marker for a while.  If they show up with dogs, then it is a reflection of the pitiful state that F1 finds itself in, no fault of the team who brings the dog.

Taking Premier league Football in the UK, as an example of revenues generated directly from the sport being shared more evenly amongst the teams, we find that the big threat to underperforming teams is relegation to a lower league at the end of the season.

F1 has no such scheme to replace under achievers, so until something is in place to keep all the teams on their toes IMHO dividing the spoils equally seems a blind alley, if we wish to maintain a really competitive environment.   

Perhaps that is really the answer then.  Create an environment where any team who wants to be in F1, must first create a team in GP2, and then earn their way forward by winning a WCC or if the winning team doesn't have the ability to move up, then look to the next, and so on. 

And, at the same time, penalize the last place team in F1 by demoting them to GP2 at the end of each season.  That would solve your hunger problem at the back of the field if you really think there is one.  The added benefit would be allowing previous year F1 cars to run GP2 if they want.

It would certainly sort out the playboys wanting an F1 team for fun...those guys could just show up and invest in a current team, which many would be quite open to.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Irisado on July 03, 2014, 02:17:02 PM
I also agree that the spoils could be divided more equally from the FOM's teams pot. However I am not at all in favour of giving all teams an equal part of F1 income, that way lies madness - teams can turn up with dogs of cars (like some of them do now) and still be assured of their place on the grid next year as they can easily afford the cost of keeping the team going.

When was the last time there was a genuinely awful car on the grid?  There are none this this year.  There haven't been for many years.  To find such cars you have to go all the way back to the early 1990s, when you had some really poor quality teams on the grid with cars which had no business in Formula 1 (Life and Andrea Moda spring to mind).

The current era isn't comparable.  What is a bad car now would have been good enough for mid grid, or even top ten back then, so I think that we need to have sense of perspective about this.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Jericoke on July 03, 2014, 02:36:15 PM
I also agree that the spoils could be divided more equally from the FOM's teams pot. However I am not at all in favour of giving all teams an equal part of F1 income, that way lies madness - teams can turn up with dogs of cars (like some of them do now) and still be assured of their place on the grid next year as they can easily afford the cost of keeping the team going.

When was the last time there was a genuinely awful car on the grid?  There are none this this year.  There haven't been for many years.  To find such cars you have to go all the way back to the early 1990s, when you had some really poor quality teams on the grid with cars which had no business in Formula 1 (Life and Andrea Moda spring to mind).

The current era isn't comparable.  What is a bad car now would have been good enough for mid grid, or even top ten back then, so I think that we need to have sense of perspective about this.

That's the point though:  currently in F1 is you want money, you have to race for it.

Suggesting that you get paid for just showing up will mean some people MIGHT do the bare minimum and take their share of the F1 pie.  If you don't think this is true, then watch a NASCAR race.  Teams get paid per lap completed.  Some cars will show up, and race enough laps to turn a profit and then pull off before they have to buy another set of tires or tank of fuel.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: cosworth151 on July 03, 2014, 02:51:32 PM
They even have a name for teams like that: Start & Park.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Irisado on July 04, 2014, 05:24:38 PM
That's the point though:  currently in F1 is you want money, you have to race for it.

Suggesting that you get paid for just showing up will mean some people MIGHT do the bare minimum and take their share of the F1 pie.  If you don't think this is true, then watch a NASCAR race.  Teams get paid per lap completed.  Some cars will show up, and race enough laps to turn a profit and then pull off before they have to buy another set of tires or tank of fuel.

The difference is that in Formula 1 costs are still so completely out of control that desperate measures need to be taken.  All the long life regulation of engines and gearboxes hasn't worked, and has made the show more boring, a budget cap is, apparently, unworkable, so what else remains other than to pay the teams a lot more money?

I'm not saying that they should be paid just for turning up, but they all need a much larger slice of the cake than they currently get.  When you look at the standard of modern Formula 1, you cannot honestly say that any of the teams currently on the grid doesn't deserve to be there, so why then the reluctance to give them more money?  Ecclestone is a serious roadblock to sensible reform, but the FIA doesn't exactly help either.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: John S on July 14, 2014, 11:55:52 AM


When was the last time there was a genuinely awful car on the grid?  There are none this this year. 

Really? How about the Caterham or Saubers this year? Should these teams really be paid as much from F1 as Marussia or FIF1 who have clearly upped their game on limited budgets this year.

Sorry if it offends but any team, with at least 2 seasons experience under their belts, with a car incapable of reaching the points, even when a lot of top runners drop out, must either have a dog of a car or be a second class team. Bad luck can't be an excuse with the length the seasons are now. 

   
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: cosworth151 on July 14, 2014, 12:31:21 PM
At the latest race, Silverstone, the slowest Sauber out qualified both of the Williams and both of the Ferraris.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: John S on July 14, 2014, 12:35:37 PM
At the latest race, Silverstone, the slowest Sauber out qualified both of the Williams and both of the Ferraris.

Ah, but they only flattered to deceive. There are no points for Quali - or even pole.  :P 

Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: monty on July 14, 2014, 12:45:50 PM
if you make it impossible for a small team to get involved in F1 and hopefully develop into a successful team then in my opinion the sport will stagnate.
If the situation basically limits the sport to 8 teams and 24 cars, team orders would control the overall competition. If one team was to pull out, it may only reduce the field by 3 cars but it would greatly reduce the effective 'competition'. I like underdog teams. Of course it is important that they are not so far off the pace that they create a danger to other cars but I think they should be encouraged.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Jericoke on July 14, 2014, 03:55:51 PM
if you make it impossible for a small team to get involved in F1 and hopefully develop into a successful team then in my opinion the sport will stagnate.
If the situation basically limits the sport to 8 teams and 24 cars, team orders would control the overall competition. If one team was to pull out, it may only reduce the field by 3 cars but it would greatly reduce the effective 'competition'. I like underdog teams. Of course it is important that they are not so far off the pace that they create a danger to other cars but I think they should be encouraged.

I don't have a problem with 'underdogs' joining the sport.  I have a problem with teams that aren't prepared to compete with Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull joining the sport.

The big American sports won't let a new team join, or even an owner take over an existing franchise, without demonstrating a commitment to competing at the top level.  I don't see why F1 should allow teams that aren't prepared to compete at the top level either. 

I think the key will be that owners aren't allowed to leave without selling the team to another vetted owner.  In some ways, this will make people think twice about owning an F1 team.  I don't see a fundamental problem with that though.  The era of fly by night garagistas is over.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Irisado on July 14, 2014, 04:15:12 PM
Really? How about the Caterham or Saubers this year?

They don't come anywhere near close.  When the slowest car on the grid is only 3-4 seconds off pole (and that's artificial because the circuit is cleaner for the front runners in Q3, which makes the disparity greater), you're not talking about awful cars.  Cars which are not that good, or average to mediocre, definitely, but awful, no.

Quote
Sorry if it offends but any team, with at least 2 seasons experience under their belts, with a car incapable of reaching the points, even when a lot of top runners drop out, must either have a dog of a car or be a second class team. Bad luck can't be an excuse with the length of the seasons are now.

No on all counts.  First, few front runners have dropped out this season.  Ferrari, for example have a 100 percent reliability record, McLaren have only suffered two failures, Ricciardo has finished all bar one race, and the Mercedes cars have only three DNFs between them.  Add in a very good finishing record for Force India too, and you start to see that the chances to score are very limited.

Note too that Sauber had a very good chance to score in Monaco, but Gutierrez threw it away.  Caterham could also have scored, but Kobayashi left the door open for Bianchi.

I'm afraid I can't see much evidence to back up your points John.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Scott on July 14, 2014, 05:25:23 PM
The way the sponsor pool has been getting shallower and shallower over the past few years has hurt the midfield long term teams the most.  They have lost valuable sponsors (Petronas from Sauber to Merc is a good example), and it has meant that they simply do not have the workforce, nor resources to put a car on the same level as a Ferrari, Merc or RBR. 

John, how can you expect them to do it simply with experience???  Even Mclaren has struggled the last couple of years and they HAVE the budget to compete with the other top teams.

As it has been said, the reliability of top runners is phenomenal, so there are far fewer of the back markers able to pick up a couple points by attrition, which is historically how they have done it.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: F1fanaticBD on July 14, 2014, 07:01:35 PM
I do think the backmarkers have improved tremendously, and they have always kept the development pace, very nicely. As the season progress the bigger teams start to get faster, but I could hardly recall many races when the backmarkers were facing the 107% regulation, which for me do show their ability to develop as the season progress. There has been always the talk of the backmarkers not getting enough times in the broadcast, which also makes the sponsors unhappy and shy away from the smaller team to bigger. But if the F1 broadcast system is upgraded to show multiple windows at a time, I think it would definitely help the teams to survive by being able to hold onto the sponsors.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: J.Clark on July 15, 2014, 12:05:52 PM
Ridding the grid of the small teams will not make the racing better.

Ridding the grid of the small teams will make it difficult for new drivers to get into the sport and bigger teams' race seats.

There are many things good for F1 that are made possible by only the small teams.

Look at the history and think about some of the now better teams have their roots.  Where did Mercedes for example start?
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Jericoke on July 15, 2014, 03:10:08 PM
Ridding the grid of the small teams will not make the racing better.

Ridding the grid of the small teams will make it difficult for new drivers to get into the sport and bigger teams' race seats.

There are many things good for F1 that are made possible by only the small teams.

Look at the history and think about some of the now better teams have their roots.  Where did Mercedes for example start?

24 race seats are 24 race seats.  They have to be filled.  If those 24 seats are backed by 'deep pocketed' teams, then they're less likely to be pay drivers taking them.  That would leave MORE room for up and coming drivers, not less.

I agree that at one time F1 needed the small teams to push innovation.  What innovations have small teams brought to the sport in the last 10 years?  Even if you count Williams and Sauber as 'small' teams, they haven't been at the forefront of innovation.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: lkjohnson1950 on July 15, 2014, 05:06:44 PM
Williams developed an innovative KERS system, only to have it outlawed by the FIA. Frankly, I don't think innovation is encouraged in F1 anymore, the rules are too restrictive.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Scott on July 15, 2014, 08:02:55 PM
Williams developed an innovative KERS system, only to have it outlawed by the FIA. Frankly, I don't think innovation is encouraged in F1 anymore, the rules are too restrictive.

Couldn't agree more Lonny.  The FIA seems intent on crafting the regulations so that there are so few chances for any innovation at all, and when something interesting slips through, like Williams revolutionary non-electrical KERS, they kill it off.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Jericoke on July 15, 2014, 08:13:50 PM
Williams developed an innovative KERS system, only to have it outlawed by the FIA. Frankly, I don't think innovation is encouraged in F1 anymore, the rules are too restrictive.

I will absolutely agree to that.  If F1 engineering is opened up, you'll find plenty of innovations coming from all corners of the sport, big and small.

As it stands, finding incremental solutions to common problems is expensive.  Finding a whole new way to race a car isn't expensive:  just risky.

F1 NEEDS the occasional odd ball car
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Scott on July 15, 2014, 08:22:59 PM
It was my understanding that it was a heavy flywheel spinning at F1 rpms, and how could they safely house it, kinda problem...safety, but at the time it sounded more like the big problem was that the other teams didn't think of it, so if it worked better than their electrical version, there would be a competition problem. |-( |-(
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: lkjohnson1950 on July 15, 2014, 11:34:47 PM
Porsche, a company known for their engineering, has been able to make it work quite well.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Scott on July 16, 2014, 05:30:27 PM
A timely link I came across today...the new Williams Advanced Engineering Centre has opened its doors.

http://www.pitpass.com/52029/Cameron-opens-Williams-Advanced-Engineering-facility-at-Grove
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Irisado on July 17, 2014, 07:56:29 PM
24 race seats are 24 race seats.  They have to be filled.  If those 24 seats are backed by 'deep pocketed' teams, then they're less likely to be pay drivers taking them.  That would leave MORE room for up and coming drivers, not less.

Yet the teams will always be smaller, regardless of who's backing them (look at Toro Rosso for an example), and are at the forefront of bringing on new driving talent, which in turn answers the point below.

Quote
I agree that at one time F1 needed the small teams to push innovation.  What innovations have small teams brought to the sport in the last 10 years?  Even if you count Williams and Sauber as 'small' teams, they haven't been at the forefront of innovation.

Williams has brought quite a few, and Sauber were the first team to actually pioneer a number of safety features on their car in the 1990s.  I particularly remember the high cockpit sides being employed by Sauber in 1995 before the rule was even introduced in 1996.  It's true that this isn't in the last ten years, but you cannot afford to innovate as a small team any more, because if you get it wrong, you will be in so much trouble it could jeopardise the future of the team.

What smaller teams do bring is the place for drivers to develop.  Look at the number of drivers who did their apprenticeship at small teams before moving on to drive for the top teams.  From the current grid we have Alonso (Minardi), Raikkonen (Sauber), Vettel (Toro Rosso), Button (Williams), Ricciardo (Toro Rosso), Rosberg (Williams), and Perez (I count him because he drove for McLaren last year; Sauber).  There are plenty more examples going back down the years.  Most débutantes don't have the luxury of jumping straight into a front running top team like Hamilton did.  Starting with a smaller team is usually the route which they take.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Jericoke on July 17, 2014, 08:55:54 PM
What smaller teams do bring is the place for drivers to develop.  Look at the number of drivers who did their apprenticeship at small teams before moving on to drive for the top teams.  From the current grid we have Alonso (Minardi), Raikkonen (Sauber), Vettel (Toro Rosso), Button (Williams), Ricciardo (Toro Rosso), Rosberg (Williams), and Perez (I count him because he drove for McLaren last year; Sauber).  There are plenty more examples going back down the years.  Most débutantes don't have the luxury of jumping straight into a front running top team like Hamilton did.  Starting with a smaller team is usually the route which they take.

That's what I was saying though.  So you're suggesting that F1 is better because Alonso drove for Minardi as a rookie instead of Ferrari?

F1 is not a 'development series'.  If a driver isn't ready to win, then let them drive in GP2, or Formula Renault or whatever. Drivers like Hamilton and Villeneuve have demonstrated that a good driver can win straight away.  Does anyone think that if Alonso, Kimi or Vettel had been in top three WCC car in their first season, they WOULDN'T have won races?

As far as I can tell, the only champion I've seen 'develop' in F1 is Button.  He was clearly not a competitive driver when he started but he learned.  I started watching F1 when Jacques Villeneuve joined the sport, and every champion I've seen since was someone who was clearly a champion forced to start racing in an inferior car.

I don't see how forcing champions to drive inferior cars is crucial to the future of the sport.  (I'm not suggesting that small teams are necessarily 'inferior' cars, but it's been a long time since Enstone won championships in a 'mid budget' car - acknowledging that Brawn's win was a big budget design run on a minnow budget)
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: John S on July 17, 2014, 09:40:12 PM


As far as I can tell, the only champion I've seen 'develop' in F1 is Button.  He was clearly not a competitive driver when he started but he learned.  I started watching F1 when Jacques Villeneuve joined the sport, and every champion I've seen since was someone who was clearly a champion forced to start racing in an inferior car.


Jeri you were making such a good argument and then you had to pick on poor old Jens.  :crazy:  In his Early career, indeed for most of it Jens never had a championship winning car, However that didn't stop him from finishing 8th in the WDC in his first and F1 debut year with Williams - a notable feat that many others would love to have achieved.  Alonso only achieved 23rd in his first full season 01, I know it was in a Minardi but Mark webber in his debut year 02 trumped Nando with 16th in the same Minardi team.  Now who you calling a slow starter?  :P



 
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Irisado on July 18, 2014, 04:19:00 PM
That's what I was saying though.  So you're suggesting that F1 is better because Alonso drove for Minardi as a rookie instead of Ferrari?

Yes.

Quote
F1 is not a 'development series'.  If a driver isn't ready to win, then let them drive in GP2, or Formula Renault or whatever.

No.  The pressure in Formula 1 is much more intense, the cars are significantly different, and there's a lot more to do other than just drive the car.  It's totally unrealistic for all drivers to come into Formula 1 and be ready to win straightaway.  Some can, but for others it takes time.  One size does not fit all.

Quote
Drivers like Hamilton and Villeneuve have demonstrated that a good driver can win straight away.  Does anyone think that if Alonso, Kimi or Vettel had been in top three WCC car in their first season, they WOULDN'T have won races?

Hamilton did not win his first race, neither did Villeneuve.  Furthermore, Villeneuve was a relatively ordinary driver flattered by a very good Williams in 1996 and 1997.  Once he drove for BAR his performances flatlined significantly, so he's not a good example to back up what you're trying to argue in my opinion.

They might have won races, but they could also have had a lot of accidents from the pressure of driving for a top team where the expectation was very high.  There's no way of knowing.  All I know is that Alonso, for example, was very grateful for his season at Minardi.  He's on the record regarding the benefits that it brought him.

My concern with your argument Jeri is that seem to be supporting the three car no small team concept advocated by Ecclestone.  If that's the case, I think that it's a fundamentally flawed argument.  Small teams who believe in racing and the sport as whole, rather than looking at the books all the time to justify their participation are the life blood of Formula 1.  Turning it into a manufacturer series of just a few teams and cars is a recipe for disaster, as has been seen in other forms of motorsport, and also from what happened at the end of 2009 when manufacturers all began jumping ship in quick succession.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Jericoke on July 18, 2014, 07:56:11 PM
That's what I was saying though.  So you're suggesting that F1 is better because Alonso drove for Minardi as a rookie instead of Ferrari?

Yes.

Quote
F1 is not a 'development series'.  If a driver isn't ready to win, then let them drive in GP2, or Formula Renault or whatever.

No.  The pressure in Formula 1 is much more intense, the cars are significantly different, and there's a lot more to do other than just drive the car.  It's totally unrealistic for all drivers to come into Formula 1 and be ready to win straightaway.  Some can, but for others it takes time.  One size does not fit all.

Quote
Drivers like Hamilton and Villeneuve have demonstrated that a good driver can win straight away.  Does anyone think that if Alonso, Kimi or Vettel had been in top three WCC car in their first season, they WOULDN'T have won races?

Hamilton did not win his first race, neither did Villeneuve.  Furthermore, Villeneuve was a relatively ordinary driver flattered by a very good Williams in 1996 and 1997.  Once he drove for BAR his performances flatlined significantly, so he's not a good example to back up what you're trying to argue in my opinion.

They might have won races, but they could also have had a lot of accidents from the pressure of driving for a top team where the expectation was very high.  There's no way of knowing.  All I know is that Alonso, for example, was very grateful for his season at Minardi.  He's on the record regarding the benefits that it brought him.

My concern with your argument Jeri is that seem to be supporting the three car no small team concept advocated by Ecclestone.  If that's the case, I think that it's a fundamentally flawed argument.  Small teams who believe in racing and the sport as whole, rather than looking at the books all the time to justify their participation are the life blood of Formula 1.  Turning it into a manufacturer series of just a few teams and cars is a recipe for disaster, as has been seen in other forms of motorsport, and also from what happened at the end of 2009 when manufacturers all began jumping ship in quick succession.

Jacques Villeneuve won races against the reigning world champion in identical cars, and then proceeded to make Heinz Herald Frentzen, who is a well regarded racer, look like a speed bump.  However, I understand not everyone shares my views on Jacques, and we shall leave it at that.

The point being that Villeneuve would never have been champion with Minardi, so what's the point of having Minardi in the sport if they're not comitting to winning?  We don't tolerate it in any other sport, why racing?

There WAS a time when the lifeblood of F1 was scrappy independant teams.  There was also a time that death was a regular outcome of F1 racing.  Sometimes the only way to get to the future is to get out of the past.

I would rather F1 be populated with 20 teams of dedicated racers willing to do whatever it takes to win.  We don't have 20 teams of dedicated racers willing to do whatever it takes to win.  We have debately 5.  The others are just happy to be there. 

The current system is skewed against small teams.  There is very little they can do to differentiate themselves from the large teams.  As long as that's the law of the land (and something Bernie has no control over), something must be done to ensure every single car has a chance of winning.  Bernie's suggestion that each car is backed by someone who can afford to race is a good one.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: lkjohnson1950 on July 19, 2014, 07:05:25 AM
Quote
The point being that Villeneuve would never have been champion with Minardi, so what's the point of having Minardi in the sport if they're not comitting to winning?  We don't tolerate it in any other sport, why racing?

Hmm, The Chicago Cubs? The Buffalo Bills? On the contrary, wcwry sport has teams that don't have the resources to compete with the Yankees or Patriots.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Scott on July 19, 2014, 08:38:37 PM
I don't think you can really say the back markers are just happy to be there, or at least not that they had that attitude going into the sport.  Now that they see the reality that they will never be able to have the funding and reward of the big teams, so in a sense now they are just happy to be there.  Making eight 3 car teams instead won't change anything.   There will still be have's and have-not's, and it will pretty soon appear that the last few teams will just be happy to be there...what then?  Six 4 car teams? 
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: John S on July 20, 2014, 09:51:31 AM

No on all counts.  First, few front runners have dropped out this season.  Ferrari, for example have a 100 percent reliability record, McLaren have only suffered two failures, Ricciardo has finished all bar one race, and the Mercedes cars have only three DNFs between them.  Add in a very good finishing record for Force India too, and you start to see that the chances to score are very limited.

Yeah a good point you make Irisado and after thinking about it a bit more I feel maybe it's the points scoring system at fault as well now we have so many cars routinely finishing races.

How about extending the points down to 12th place, just a shift of the current 25 to 1 should be possible without too much change. But then we could have Lucky Thirteenth, the car finishing in 13th would get an automatic upgrade to Q2 at the next race.   :D 

Not only would  an automatic pass to Q2 push 'dog' cars forward a bit at the next race, if they get that spot - no running in Q1 would mean saving tyres - it would also put more pressure on other teams as an extra place in the drop zone would be created. There's also a bonus for a front/mid running team who hit problems and end up 13th, again the tyre saving from not running Q1 could put them further forward at the next race.   ;)
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Scott on July 20, 2014, 11:46:52 AM
Actually, if there is no other solution to get the back markers working harder for their race places, run the points all the way to the back. 

Messing with Q I think would be a bad idea though.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Irisado on July 22, 2014, 05:39:28 PM
Jacques Villeneuve won races against the reigning world champion in identical cars, and then proceeded to make Heinz Herald Frentzen, who is a well regarded racer, look like a speed bump.  However, I understand not everyone shares my views on Jacques, and we shall leave it at that.

Frentzen didn't gel with Williams at all, and drove poorly as a result.  He was also very inconsistent, except in 1999.  Villeneuve almost threw away the 1997 title, despite having the best car, and ended up being outperformed too often by Olivier Panis and Jenson Button at BAR.  He was not a great driver Jeri.

Quote
The point being that Villeneuve would never have been champion with Minardi, so what's the point of having Minardi in the sport if they're not comitting to winning?  We don't tolerate it in any other sport, why racing?

Let me see, BTCC, lower level formulae of motor racing, all of these have smaller teams, and their presence is not questioned like it is in Formula 1.

Minardi were a superb team operating on a tiny budget who did a lot more for Formula 1 than many of the big bucks super teams, such as Toyota, Jaguar, Honda, and Toyota ever did.  The fact is that they, along with other smaller teams over the years, have lived to go racing.  They are passionate about the sport, about the competition, and are committed to it.  That's what they bring.

Without them, the sport would nothing.  It may as well be a game of monopoly, with manufacturers throwing around large sums of money and looking at profit margins and number of cars sold.  That's not Formula 1 or motor racing, that's board room politics.  I love the former and couldn't care less about the latter.  For me, that's the difference.  If there were no smaller teams in Formula 1, I'd stop watching.

Quote
There WAS a time when the lifeblood of F1 was scrappy independant teams.  There was also a time that death was a regular outcome of F1 racing.  Sometimes the only way to get to the future is to get out of the past.

You're comparing apples with oranges there.  Death of the competitors was a bad thing, universally accepted.  As I've explained above, small teams keep Formula 1 going through the good times and bad, while the manufacturers are only present when they can make money out of it.

Quote
I would rather F1 be populated with 20 teams of dedicated racers willing to do whatever it takes to win.

All the small teams which lasted for any reasonable period of time were dedicated racers.  Let's go back through history:  Minardi, Jordan (which became a small team), Super Aguri, Stewart, Arrows, Tyrrell, Prost, RAM, Osella, Onyx, Simtek, Pacific, Forti, Larrousse, heck even Coloni, all these teams were run by real racers.  Some did better than others, but the commitment was never wanting from any of them, and your refusal to recognise that is baffling.

Quote
The current system is skewed against small teams.  There is very little they can do to differentiate themselves from the large teams.  As long as that's the law of the land (and something Bernie has no control over), something must be done to ensure every single car has a chance of winning.  Bernie's suggestion that each car is backed by someone who can afford to race is a good one.

No, it's plain daft.  He knows that with the current costs of the sport that his suggestion is risible.  There's no way it's even practical.  It's more idealistic and fanciful than double points and medals, and that is saying something.



I think that the scoring system is okay as it is.  The problem is that the cars are too reliable, because of the rules.  Change the rules to make the cars less reliable, and the problem goes away.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Jericoke on July 22, 2014, 06:57:59 PM
Jacques Villeneuve won races against the reigning world champion in identical cars, and then proceeded to make Heinz Herald Frentzen, who is a well regarded racer, look like a speed bump.  However, I understand not everyone shares my views on Jacques, and we shall leave it at that.

Frentzen didn't gel with Williams at all, and drove poorly as a result.  He was also very inconsistent, except in 1999.  Villeneuve almost threw away the 1997 title, despite having the best car, and ended up being outperformed too often by Olivier Panis and Jenson Button at BAR.  He was not a great driver Jeri.

Indy 500 rookie of the year
Indy 500 champion
IndyCar series Champion
In 1998 the only F1 driver to podium twice without a Ferrari or Mercedes Engine.  The most points of any driver without a Ferrri or Mercedes Engine.  Still beat his teammate.
In 2000 Villeneuve outscored his teammate AND Jenson Button, whom this thread alleges was always a superior driver the day he joined F1, and didn't learn the craft (in a glaring counter example to my argument even!).
in 2001 Villeneuve outscored his teammate, and Button, again.
In 2002 Villeneuve outscored his teammate (in an embarassing effort all 'round)
2003 in his 8th F1 season, Villeneuve is outscored by a teammate for only the second time.

The BAR programme was an embarassment technically, as a business, and as a payday for Jacques Villeneuve.  (Oh wait, BAR was a privateer team, and obviously the life blood of the sport...)

I'm not claiming he's the greatest driver of all time, or even of his era.  My point was, and remains, that 'minnows' are not the only source of championship drivers.  The sport is not better because drivers 'cut their teeth' with underfunded teams.  (Shall we see make note of how fast Michael Shcumacher ditched Jordan once everyone belived a German could race F1 cars?)

Quote
Let me see, BTCC, lower level formulae of motor racing, all of these have smaller teams, and their presence is not questioned like it is in Formula 1.

Lower series are littered with people who love racing for the sake of racing.  If F1 was run by these people, then it would be a better show.

Quote
Minardi were a superb team operating on a tiny budget who did a lot more for Formula 1 than many of the big bucks super teams, such as Toyota, Jaguar, Honda, and Toyota ever did.  The fact is that they, along with other smaller teams over the years, have lived to go racing.  They are passionate about the sport, about the competition, and are committed to it.  That's what they bring.

I don't know what Minardi brought.  They had fans, but I doubt anyone started watching F1 because of Minardi, rather fans felt it easy to cheer for Minardi if their own team/driver wasn't doing anything spectacular.

Quote
Without them, the sport would nothing.  It may as well be a game of monopoly, with manufacturers throwing around large sums of money and looking at profit margins and number of cars sold.  That's not Formula 1 or motor racing, that's board room politics.  I love the former and couldn't care less about the latter.  For me, that's the difference.  If there were no smaller teams in Formula 1, I'd stop watching.

So what... do we post some sort of limit?  If Ferrari, McLaren or Mercedes make too much money they're disqualified from Grand Prix Racing?  It sucks that staunch racing organisations like Honda, Ford and Renault are publicly owned, and their shareholders don't like the perception that their money is being spent frivolously.

Quote
There WAS a time when the lifeblood of F1 was scrappy independant teams.  There was also a time that death was a regular outcome of F1 racing.  Sometimes the only way to get to the future is to get out of the past.

You're comparing apples with oranges there.  Death of the competitors was a bad thing, universally accepted.  As I've explained above, small teams keep Formula 1 going through the good times and bad, while the manufacturers are only present when they can make money out of it.
[/quote]

Making a fast car is easy.
Making a fast SAFE car is hard.  And expensive.

Quote
Quote
I would rather F1 be populated with 20 teams of dedicated racers willing to do whatever it takes to win.

All the small teams which lasted for any reasonable period of time were dedicated racers.  Let's go back through history:  Minardi, Jordan (which became a small team), Super Aguri, Stewart, Arrows, Tyrrell, Prost, RAM, Osella, Onyx, Simtek, Pacific, Forti, Larrousse, heck even Coloni, all these teams were run by real racers.  Some did better than others, but the commitment was never wanting from any of them, and your refusal to recognise that is baffling.

I'm talking about Marussia, Caterham, Toro Rosso and (reluctantly!!) Sauber ( :'( ).  The fact they're NOT in your list of 'real racers' is more telling than me not knowing about teams that quit being 'real racers' long before I started watching F1.

Quote
Quote
The current system is skewed against small teams.  There is very little they can do to differentiate themselves from the large teams.  As long as that's the law of the land (and something Bernie has no control over), something must be done to ensure every single car has a chance of winning.  Bernie's suggestion that each car is backed by someone who can afford to race is a good one.

No, it's plain daft.  He knows that with the current costs of the sport that his suggestion is risible.  There's no way it's even practical.  It's more idealistic and fanciful than double points and medals, and that is saying something.

I agree that the current structure of F1 makes it impossible for small teams to compete.  That's my whole point.  That's Bernie's whole point.  He says fewer teams is the solution.

I say, if the FIA is going to keep their current rules, then Bernie's idea is the best.

*I* say the best idea is to unleash the sport, let engineers build whatever engine they want.  Let aerodynamicists design any car they want.  THEN there's room for small scrappy teams with crazy ideas.

Bernie isn't the problem.  The FIA is the problem.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: lkjohnson1950 on July 23, 2014, 08:21:55 AM
Villenueve  was a good driver. Last year (2 ago?) he took a NASCAR Nationwide car that normally doesn't do well and dragged it to the front at Road America, very impressive. I think Bernie will find most teams are very reluctant to run 3 cars. That's a large increase in their budget that they aren't likely to appreciate. I think his idea would fall flat unless the FIA mandated 3 car teams.
Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: John S on July 23, 2014, 09:54:01 AM
Villenueve  was a good driver. Last year (2 ago?) he took a NASCAR Nationwide car that normally doesn't do well and dragged it to the front at Road America, very impressive. I think Bernie will find most teams are very reluctant to run 3 cars. That's a large increase in their budget that they aren't likely to appreciate. I think his idea would fall flat unless the FIA mandated 3 car teams.

Yeah I have to second that opinion of Jacques, :good: he very nearly won the WDC in his first season - I know it was in a superior car but he was still a complete novice in F1, unlike so many European drivers who at the time got to train in plenty of similar lower formula. American single seat racing has always been different in many ways to the European system and it's tough for drivers changing over - even though supposedly we speak the same language.  ;)

Unfortunately Jacques appears to be one of those drivers who can lose motivation easily, his spell at BAR may have been highly lucrative, but it was not his finest hour.

Title: Re: Bernie:8 teams with 3 cars
Post by: Irisado on July 24, 2014, 06:57:48 PM
Indy 500 rookie of the year
Indy 500 champion
IndyCar series Champion
In 1998 the only F1 driver to podium twice without a Ferrari or Mercedes Engine.  The most points of any driver without a Ferrri or Mercedes Engine.  Still beat his teammate.
In 2000 Villeneuve outscored his teammate AND Jenson Button, whom this thread alleges was always a superior driver the day he joined F1, and didn't learn the craft (in a glaring counter example to my argument even!).
in 2001 Villeneuve outscored his teammate, and Button, again.
In 2002 Villeneuve outscored his teammate (in an embarassing effort all 'round)
2003 in his 8th F1 season, Villeneuve is outscored by a teammate for only the second time.

The BAR programme was an embarassment technically, as a business, and as a payday for Jacques Villeneuve.  (Oh wait, BAR was a privateer team, and obviously the life blood of the sport...)

I'll start at the bottom with this.  BAR was never a privateer team.  It was a cigarette company multinational organisation with an enormous budget which it squandered spectacularly.  It was run by BAT tobacco's board.  That in no way meets the criteria for an independent or privateer team.

As for the all the Villeneuve stats.  Points scored glosses over so many things that went on.

Let's start with 1997:

He had the best car by miles, and almost lost the title.  He took pole by two seconds in the opening race of the season.  He should never have got himself into a situation where he was battling for the title at the final race.

The list of errors was lengthy:

Melbourne: Dreadful start off the line saw him caught up in a first corner accident.
Brazil: Goes off at the first corner at the start, but a red flag for other incidents allows him to restart from pole and win the race.
Monaco: Chooses to start on slick tyres in the rain and crashes out.  Yes, Frentzen made the same mistake, and Williams got the strategy wrong, but he has to take responsibility for his choice.  He was stubborn and didn't tow the line, so he could have said 'I'm starting on wets'.
Canada: Slides lazily into the wall at the chicane nose first on lap two, crashing out.
France: Mediocre performance all weekend and spins trying to pass Irvine at the last corner on the last lap, but does finish.
Britain: Would have been beaten by Hakkinen's McLaren had the Mercedes engine not failed with eight laps to go.
Germany: Qualifies very poorly, doesn't race much better, and spins off trying to pass Trulli's Prost.
Hungary: Would have lost to Hill's Arrows, but for the infamous failure of that 50p washer on the last lap.
Belgium: An indifferent performance in the wet.  Finishes only fifth, despite having taken pole.
Italy: Only fifth again, and as in Belgium, is beaten by Frentzen.
Luxembourg: Inherits victory after both McLarens suffer engine failures in the second half of the race.  They were miles ahead of him at the time too.
Japan: Excluded from the race, after only finishing fifth, for cumulative effect of yellow flag infringements from a number of practice sessions.  Careless.

So, that's 12 races where he either won thanks to luck, or didn't perform very well.  In a seventeen race season, and with the car advantage which he had that's not very impressive.

He drove very well to win in Argentina and Spain, especially the latter, where all the other Goodyear runners destroyed their tyres, but other than that, there was nothing noteworthy about his performances.

In 1998, I will agree with you that his two podiums were very good.  He arguably drove much better in 1998 than in 1997, but the Williams wasn't up to standard in terms of being a race winning car.  I'd thus argue that 1996 and 1998 were his two best years in F1.

Moving on to the BAR years.  I'm not interested in whether he outscored Button while they were driving different cars, that's an irrelevant comparison in my view.  What I am interested in is how Villeneuve performed at BAR as a whole and relative to Button when they were team mates.

Against Zonta, Villeneuve held the upper hand because BAR was his team (his manager was the team boss remember), and Zonta struggled a lot more to get to grips with Formula 1 than had been expected.

Against higher quality team mates the story is different.  Panis gave Jacques a very good run for his money.  Villeneuve outqualified him 11-6 and outraced him 5-2 (both BARs only finished seven races together) in 2001.  In 2002 those same figures were 10-7 (to Villeneuve) and 2-2 in the races.  This wasn't a bad performance by Villeneuve, but nor was it great.  He certainly wasn't demonstrating the level of class that many other champions have shown against solid team mates.

To the Button comparison then.  Button outqualified Villeneuve 8-6 and finished ahead of him 3-1 in the four races which they both finished together.  Not a disaster for Villeneuve, but nor was it a very good looking set of results either.

After that, he had an indifferent three race stint at Renault in 2004, and didn't do all that well driving for Sauber and BMW Sauber in 2005/6.

Now, I will say that, having looked at the statistics again that he did do better at BAR than I recalled, but for the amount of money his was paid, and the plaudits that were given to him by some in the media, he was disappointing.  Not as disappointing as some (R Schumacher and J P Montoya were much worse in that respect), but I still expected more from him.

I do, however, agree with a number of points that he made about Schumacher's start line chops in the early 2000s.  He was right about that.  I also admired his bravery.  He had some very big shunts, but was never afraid to keep pushing.

Quote
My point was, and remains, that 'minnows' are not the only source of championship drivers.

I agree that they are not the only source, but I disagree with this:

Quote
The sport is not better because drivers 'cut their teeth' with underfunded teams.

It is, because a lot of those drivers who have won races and championships would not have broken into Formula 1 without seats available in the lower half of the grid.  Top teams rarely take gambles, they like to see how a driver goes in smaller teams before signing him.

Quote
(Shall we see make note of how fast Michael Shcumacher ditched Jordan once everyone belived a German could race F1 cars?)

That arguably proves my point.  Jordan gambled on Schumacher when no top teams were interested.  He flew, Benetton got a wake up call, and snapped him up.  Benetton would not have put him in the car had they not seen his performance for Jordan.

Quote
If F1 was run by these people, then it would be a better show.

Agreed.

Quote
I don't know what Minardi brought.

Read my post again, I've explained it to you :P.  There's also a book written about Minardi, Forza Minardi.  See if you can hold of a copy.  It will tell you almost all you need to know.

Quote
They had fans, but I doubt anyone started watching F1 because of Minardi, rather fans felt it easy to cheer for Minardi if their own team/driver wasn't doing anything spectacular.

Minardi had fan clubs all over the place.  There were quite a few in the UK actually, so I'd venture to say that you may find yourself surprised.

Quote
So what... do we post some sort of limit?  If Ferrari, McLaren or Mercedes make too much money they're disqualified from Grand Prix Racing?

No.  Pay all the teams more television money and impose some kind of budget cap.  Yes, there are practical problems with it, but the current system is fundamentally flawed, and a radical rethink is needed.

Quote
Making a fast car is easy.
Making a fast SAFE car is hard.  And expensive.

Both of those objectives are expensive and hard, but making a safe car at least is universal, in that the same standards must be adhered to by all the teams.  If you don't have the money to spend on aero though, then you can't compete at the front of the grid.

Quote
I'm talking about Marussia, Caterham, Toro Rosso and (reluctantly!!) Sauber ( :'( ).  The fact they're NOT in your list of 'real racers' is more telling than me not knowing about teams that quit being 'real racers' long before I started watching F1.

I didn't put them in the list because I was referring to history not to the present.  You're thus reading something into my comment which simply wasn't there, so you're drawing an incorrect conclusion.

As for not knowing, if you don't know the history of the teams that I mentioned you could always ask, or indeed look them up :).

Quote
I agree that the current structure of F1 makes it impossible for small teams to compete.  That's my whole point.  That's Bernie's whole point.  He says fewer teams is the solution.

His solution is wrong.  I will tell you why.  Let's hypothetically remove all independents and small teams.  You'd have the following entrants: Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull, and possibly Lotus (do they still count as a corporate team?).  They field three cars each, assuming they can afford it (I doubt Lotus could, and McLaren aren't as well off as they used to be).  That's fifteen cars at most.

Say Mercedes have a bad year and decide that they're off because the board room doesn't want to play in F1 any more.  Not only do you lose three cars, you also lose their engines (Lotus have signed to use their engine remember).  This creates a massive problem.  You then end up with less diversity, less competition, and even less incentive for others to remain in the sport.  It's the law of diminishing returns.

Look at other series where grid numbers have fallen for any period of time.  F3000 was binned because of falling grid numbers.  The Super Touring era was scrapped for excessively high costs and falling grids.  Small grids dominated by a handful of manufacturers do not make for thriving racing series.  This has been demonstrated time and again.  For that reason, never mind anything else, Ecclestone's idea is poor.
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal
Menu Editor Pro 1.0 | Copyright 2013, Matthew Kerle