Why bother with Sauber, Caterham, et al

[dans79]

As long as those smaller teams are not impeding other new teams a chance of competing in F1, that should be fine.

Personally, I think they are impeding the better teams, heck even lotus is to an extent, with the constant compaints about costs. That is what really irritates me about the lesser teams, they seem to be complaining every other day about costs. F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor racing and technology, it's going to be expensive by it's very nature.

[beelsebob]

As long as those smaller teams are not impeding other new teams a chance of competing in F1, that should be fine.

Personally, I think they are impeding the better teams, heck even lotus is to an extent, with the constant compaints about costs. That is what really irritates me about the lesser teams, they seem to be complaining every other day about costs. F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor racing and technology, it's going to be expensive by it's very nature.

So what, you'd like to see F1 with only the two red bulls driving circuits until Vettel wins then?

Because that's where it ends if you decide to start saying "don't have enough money to compete? Leave" to teams.

[dans79]

So what, you'd like to see F1 with only the two red bulls driving circuits until Vettel wins then?

Because that's where it ends if you decide to start saying "don't have enough money to compete? Leave" to teams.

come on now, that's not going to happen. F1 has been around for a long time, and it did just fine without all kinds of crazy budgetary garbage. at-least it seems that way, maybe the press just didn't care as much back in the day.

If anything the current tightness of the rules has hurt the sport more than anything. It's the old Ninety Ninety rule, teams are dropping vast sums of money to squeeze an extra hundredth of a second out of the cars, because the rules have them so hamstrung.

[Just_a_fan]

Minardi haven't been gone for a decade and already it's been forgotten that they gave debuts to race winners and a double World Champion.

Not everyone has forgotten

[Richard]

Its part of every sport since leagues were first formed. There will always be a tensions between the top teams of any sport and those at the bottom facing relegation or bankruptcy. The league needs all teams, its the classic conflict between social/group needs and individual interests.

As it happens, the past few years seem to have seen a lot fewer teams go bust than we had in the past. Admittedly there is a smaller number of team competing (remember pre-qualification?) and those teams have to pass some sort of credibility test, unlike the old days when anyone turning up with car could have a go.

Also the three phase qualification aids the top teams because it gives them a clear track. The stricter blue flags and DRS also help the top teams pass slow cars without pausing for thought.

So I'd say the minnows are having the least drama in F1 history at the moment. In a way that's good because it provides some stability for young designers and drivers, even though it does deprive the public of the spectacle of wondering what elaborate ruses would be used to keep the cash going and cars on track.

[Sombrero]

Why bother with Sauber Caterham, et al ?

May be just because the next step is why bother with F-1 at all ?

[dans79]

I guess I just see it differently, from the rest of you. To me it's a competition and if you can't even come close to scoring points you are a hindrance to the other teams. I firmly believe that if the rules where more open and varied more from season to season we would see car manufactures return.

[beelsebob]

So what, you'd like to see F1 with only the two red bulls driving circuits until Vettel wins then?

Because that's where it ends if you decide to start saying "don't have enough money to compete? Leave" to teams.

come on now, that's not going to happen. F1 has been around for a long time, and it did just fine without all kinds of crazy budgetary garbage. at-least it seems that way, maybe the press just didn't care as much back in the day.

If anything the current tightness of the rules has hurt the sport more than anything. It's the old Ninety Ninety rule, teams are dropping vast sums of money to squeeze an extra hundredth of a second out of the cars, because the rules have them so hamstrung.

The problem is that the state of play has changed. It used to be that in order to compete at the highest level of the sport you simply needed to be able to manufacture a few flat surfaces, test them at different angles, and see which was best. That doesn't take a huge manufacturing effort, or a huge number of people. Now, if we had 100% unrestricted teams, you would have RedBull literally employing hundreds of people just to figure out what the perfect diffuser looks like, and manufacturing and testing a new one every hour. The cost difference between then and now is astronomical without the regulation. I honestly believe that if F1 were completely deregulated, you would immediately have everyone except for RedBull and possibly Ferrari in deep financial trouble, or lagging the leaders by several seconds. McLaren for example certainly do not have the cash to follow RedBull if that were the case.

[Richard]

I guess I just see it differently, from the rest of you. To me it's a competition and if you can't even come close to scoring points you are a hindrance to the other teams. I firmly believe that if the rules where more open and varied more from season to season we would see car manufactures return.

Competition is of more value when it is tougher, removing the minnows to give the top teams more room would make it less competitive. Its the same reason that most sports deliberately include minnows, otherwise tennis grand slams would only have 8 entries because the top 4 need a warm up round before the real compeititoin starts in the semi finals. I suppose golf tournaments would start with 10 players because the top order is bit more variable. As for the Olympics 100m, you only need Usain Bolt and the others need not turn up.

Out of interest where you would draw the line for not bothering? You mention scoring points, not so long ago points went to the top 6 places, now its the top 10.

[dans79]

The problem is that the state of play has changed. It used to be that in order to compete at the highest level of the sport you simply needed to be able to manufacture a few flat surfaces, test them at different angles, and see which was best. That doesn't take a huge manufacturing effort, or a huge number of people. Now, if we had 100% unrestricted teams, you would have RedBull literally employing hundreds of people just to figure out what the perfect diffuser looks like, and manufacturing and testing a new one every hour. The cost difference between then and now is astronomical without the regulation. I honestly believe that if F1 were completely deregulated, you would immediately have everyone except for RedBull and possibly Ferrari in deep financial trouble, or lagging the leaders by several seconds. McLaren for example certainly do not have the cash to follow RedBull if that were the case.

see I disagree, teams are spending vast sums of money, because they have only one avenue of performance gains, and that's aero. like I said earlier, it's the 90-90 rule. if they brought back refueling, kept the multiple tire compound rule, and then made cars start the race with whatever fuel they had left from qualifying I think we would see more interesting finishing results. Unfreezing the engine specifications, and making them more of a formula would mix things up as well. More manufactures would probably come back as well. Hell, just make more drastic changes to the rules between seasons would mix things up nicely.

Out of interest where you would draw the line for not bothering? You mention scoring points, not so long ago points went to the top 6 places, now its the top 10.

If F1 went back to refuling like I posted above, I'd break the season up into rounds. lets assume we actually have 22 races next season. break the season up to 11 rounds of 2 races each. If as a team you can't score x number of points in a given round your team sets the next round out.

If everything stayed as it is now, The easiest thing to do, would be to drop the 107% rule to like 101 or 102%

[flmkane]

Just my two cents on this topic.

I believe that smaller teams are vital to the sport, not only because they have the potential to develop into world beating teams in the futura (as demonstrated by Brawn and Red Bull), but also because because the aid in driver development and pioneer technologies that get adopted by teams in the future. For example, the Red Bull ramp exhaust was initially debuted by Sauber.

However, I dont think any cost control measure can be implemented to make the lives of smaller teams easier. It's one of the advantages of the bigger teams and they will exhert their considerable political strength to keep it such. Closing off avenues of technical innovation has been tried in the past decade, such as frozen engines and tyres, heavily restricted aero and windtunnel regulations. But that has proven to be futile, since the teams threw resources at perfecting minute details, to extract ever smaller performance gains.

Therefore, in my opinion, the solution is to attract sponsors and money to the smaller teams. There are three ways I think it can be done:

a) Loosen the regulations to attract the manufacturers back. Not only will you have more teams on the grid, you will also have more development and more suppliers of engines, gearboxes and KERS units to the smaller teams, thereby cutting cost and increasing the size of the grid

b) distribute a greater quantity of the TV broadcast money to the teams, instead of to CVC. Perhaps the current Concorde Agreement adresses this?

c) Encourage the development of technologies relevant to the outside world. Not just 'road relevant', but development in a an even broader sense. F1 is a great place for composite, electronics and fuel research. Such knowledge would be of beneficial even outiside of the automotive industry. Regulations need to be loosened to move F1 away from the aero dominated formula.

BONUS:
d) Get rid of Ecclestone. The guy is corrupt and out of touch with reality.

[Richard]

I think you'll find Ecclestone is more in touch with reality than any of us, that's why he's been able to exploit reality to generate considerably more influence and money than any of us could achieve.

[zorog]

Minardi haven't been gone for a decade and already it's been forgotten that they gave debuts to race winners and a double World Champion.

Not everyone has forgotten

Scuderia Toro Rosso is just Minardi with a differnt name

[beelsebob]

The problem is that the state of play has changed. It used to be that in order to compete at the highest level of the sport you simply needed to be able to manufacture a few flat surfaces, test them at different angles, and see which was best. That doesn't take a huge manufacturing effort, or a huge number of people. Now, if we had 100% unrestricted teams, you would have RedBull literally employing hundreds of people just to figure out what the perfect diffuser looks like, and manufacturing and testing a new one every hour. The cost difference between then and now is astronomical without the regulation. I honestly believe that if F1 were completely deregulated, you would immediately have everyone except for RedBull and possibly Ferrari in deep financial trouble, or lagging the leaders by several seconds. McLaren for example certainly do not have the cash to follow RedBull if that were the case.

see I disagree, teams are spending vast sums of money, because they have only one avenue of performance gains, and that's aero. like I said earlier, it's the 90-90 rule. if they brought back refueling, kept the multiple tire compound rule, and then made cars start the race with whatever fuel they had left from qualifying I think we would see more interesting finishing results. Unfreezing the engine specifications, and making them more of a formula would mix things up as well. More manufactures would probably come back as well. Hell, just make more drastic changes to the rules between seasons would mix things up nicely.

No, teams are spending vast sums of money because they can.

All your proposed changes would determine is what they spent those vast sums of money on. In fact, your proposed changes would lower the average cost of a second (as it would introduce new easy ways to gain a second). All that would mean is that the team with an extra million (or hundred million) would have even more time in hand than with the rules restricted.