The F1 thread

chillidoggy

It has to be a constructors points deduction. Fining them is counter-productive. And if they haven't got any points, then it will mean they're not in the running anyway, so it won't matter. Works for me!

stickyfiddle

chillidoggy said:

It has to be a constructors points deduction. Fining them is counter-productive. And if they haven't got any points, then it will mean they're not in the running anyway, so it won't matter. Works for me!

Exactly. And if it's supposed to be punishment for engineering failures it's not fair to fuck up the driver's results as well.

Fretwired

chillidoggy said:

It has to be a constructors points deduction. Fining them is counter-productive. And if they haven't got any points, then it will mean they're not in the running anyway, so it won't matter. Works for me!

Brawn's idea is that the fines are shared out with the teams at the bottom to help them become more competitive, or pay for their failed engines. I think this is what he favours.

stickyfiddle

Fretwired said:

chillidoggy said:

It has to be a constructors points deduction. Fining them is counter-productive. And if they haven't got any points, then it will mean they're not in the running anyway, so it won't matter. Works for me!

Brawn's idea is that the fines are shared out with the teams at the bottom to help them become more competitive, or pay for their failed engines. I think this is what he favours.

Conveniently circumventing the issue of the top teams getting paid far too much while the backmarkers get fuck all, without necessarily reducing the current payments

Fretwired

stickyfiddle said:

Fretwired said:

chillidoggy said:

It has to be a constructors points deduction. Fining them is counter-productive. And if they haven't got any points, then it will mean they're not in the running anyway, so it won't matter. Works for me!

Brawn's idea is that the fines are shared out with the teams at the bottom to help them become more competitive, or pay for their failed engines. I think this is what he favours.

Conveniently circumventing the issue of the top teams getting paid far too much while the backmarkers get fuck all, without necessarily reducing the current payments

Why should the backmarkers get as much as the likes of Ferrari? Look at the crowds with their Ferrari flags or British flags with Hamilton's name and you see who the fans follow.

sinbaadi

The back markers get a lot considering how little they actually add.  There would soon be complaints if the top teams were handicapped to the point of actual parity with all teams.

chillidoggy

Fretwired said:

stickyfiddle said:

Fretwired said:

chillidoggy said:

It has to be a constructors points deduction. Fining them is counter-productive. And if they haven't got any points, then it will mean they're not in the running anyway, so it won't matter. Works for me!

Brawn's idea is that the fines are shared out with the teams at the bottom to help them become more competitive, or pay for their failed engines. I think this is what he favours.

Conveniently circumventing the issue of the top teams getting paid far too much while the backmarkers get fuck all, without necessarily reducing the current payments

Why should the backmarkers get as much as the likes of Ferrari? Look at the crowds with their Ferrari flags or British flags with Hamilton's name and you see who the fans follow.

Perhaps we should put Corbyn in charge.

stickyfiddle

@Fretwired because you need them for winning to mean anything. We've already lost Manor, Lotus/Caterham and HRT in the last 5 years and almost lost Sauber and Williams too. There's no glory in winning a race with only 14 cars. There's also the issue of pay drivers and new talent. We don't have the Alonsos and Webber's coming in trough Minardi any more, because the current equivalent (Sauber & Williams I guess) can't afford to take a fast young driver when there's someone average waving $10m+ in their faces

Obviously the winners should get a bigger prize than the guy at the back, none's disputing that, but F1 is at least as much as entertainment medium as it is a sport, and by definition it's extremely expensive to enter, so making sure it's sustainable is essential.

chillidoggy

Wiz.

It's the unfairness of it all that niggles me, too. F1 is a complete show, and if the backmarkers and midfielders can't afford to turn up, the fans would be watching a two-horse race. Christ, if it were subject to any financial regulation, they'd probably all be in court for unfair business practices and subsidies!

chillidoggy

Alonso 5th! Blimey! TBH I reckon the Mercs are doing their usual sandbagging, I can't see they're that far behind. And Gasly in front of Sainz, that's gotta hurt.

FP2 times:

1    Sebastian Vettel    Ferrari    1:31.261 (SS)
2    Kimi Raikkonen    Ferrari    1:31.865    0.604    (SS)
3    Daniel Ricciardo    Red Bull    1:32.099    0.838     (SS)
4    Max Verstappen    Red Bull    1:32.109    0.848    (SS)
5    Fernando Alonso    McLaren    1:32.564    1.303    (SS)
6    Lewis Hamilton    Mercedes    1:32.677    1.416 (SS)    
7    Valtteri Bottas    Mercedes    1:32.720    1.459    (SS)
8    Sergio Perez    Force India    1:32.862    1.601    (SS)
9    Nico Hulkenberg    Renault Sport    1:33.060    1.799    (SS)
10    Esteban Ocon    Force India    1:33.096    1.835    (SS)
11    Jolyon Palmer    Renault Sport    1:33.381    2.12    (SS)
12    Felipe Massa    Williams    1:33.394    2.133    (SS)
13    Stoffel Vandoorne    McLaren    1:33.673    2.412    (SS)
14    Lance Stroll    Williams    1:33.818    2.557    (SS)
15    Pierre Gasly    Toro Rosso    1:34.043    2.782    (SS)
16    Carlos Sainz    Toro Rosso    1:34.104    2.843    (SS)
17    Romain Grosjean    Haas    1:34.118    2.857    (S)
18    Kevin Magnussen    Haas    1:34.343    3.082    (SS)
19    Pascal Wehrlein    Sauber    1:35.246    3.985    (SS)
20    Marcus Ericsson    Sauber    1:35.697    4.436   (SS)

boogieman

Just seen Grosjean's crash in practice. Sheeeeyut ! That could have been so bad.  

Fretwired

stickyfiddle said:

@Fretwired because you need them for winning to mean anything. We've already lost Manor, Lotus/Caterham and HRT in the last 5 years and almost lost Sauber and Williams too. There's no glory in winning a race with only 14 cars. There's also the issue of pay drivers and new talent. We don't have the Alonsos and Webber's coming in trough Minardi any more, because the current equivalent (Sauber & Williams I guess) can't afford to take a fast young driver when there's someone average waving $10m+ in their faces

Obviously the winners should get a bigger prize than the guy at the back, none's disputing that, but F1 is at least as much as entertainment medium as it is a sport, and by definition it's extremely expensive to enter, so making sure it's sustainable is essential.

I disagree. The problem is the little teams were poor from top to bottom. Caterham would never have got anywhere even if they had cash. Williams had cash for years and a Merc engine but were terrible. Haas on the other hand is how you run a small team. The FIA should should look to get the likes of Jaguar, Porsche and other manufacturers on board with simpler cheaper engine regs, lots of noise and speed. The days of the buccaneer teams are over. I'd rather watch 14 competitive cars as on the TV you only ever see the back makers when their being overtaken so on TV it would make no difference.

Fretwired

chillidoggy said:

Alonso 5th! Blimey! TBH I reckon the Mercs are doing their usual sandbagging, I can't see they're that far behind.

Ricciardo said of Mercedes: "I could see fuel coming out of the fuel tank, so I think they were quite heavy today. I don't know if it's legit or they are playing some games."

chillidoggy

You can't say that Caterham wouldn't have got anywhere even if they had cash, that's not true, because, as demonstrated by the richest teams, they've got the money, and they can pay the top money for staff and drivers, and where are they? That's right, at the top of the pile. Apart from McLaren, which, in hindsight, made a disastrous decision on engine choice. But as a general rule, the ones with the most money are up at the top.

As for Haas, yeah, they've done kind of OK, I think Grosjean's a decent driver too, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Ferrari has a financial hand in their operation somewhere along the line. Remove the Ferrari connection, and they'll disappear down the bottom of the pile. I can't prove that, though, it's just a feeling I get.

How many times has the FIA tried to clamp down on costs, and failed dismally? History is littered with such incidences. They try to cut back, and the teams figure out a way round it, so nothing changes. What's the answer? Dunno, but unless the FIA can kerb expenditure in some way and make it stick, maybe with Jag and Porsche engines as Fret says, then I reckon it'll be business as usual.

stickyfiddle

It's not about giving the little guys enough cash that they start winning, it's about giving them enough cash that they aren't constantly at risk of going under.

Having more manufacturers is essential, but soon as you lose the privateers, one of the big guys has to finish last, and they don't like that one bit - it's why Toyota and Honda both quit last time.

chillidoggy

Good points.

If they even out the cash distribution more, then perhaps the field will tighten up somewhat, and provide better entertainment. It's one of the reasons I quite like the one-make series: the racing is much closer, although once again, the teams which have the resources can tend to be at the top.

Fretwired

chillidoggy said:

You can't say that Caterham wouldn't have got anywhere even if they had cash, that's not true, because, as demonstrated by the richest teams, they've got the money, and they can pay the top money for staff and drivers, and where are they? That's right, at the top of the pile. Apart from McLaren, which, in hindsight, made a disastrous decision on engine choice. But as a general rule, the ones with the most money are up at the top.

As for Haas, yeah, they've done kind of OK, I think Grosjean's a decent driver too, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Ferrari has a financial hand in their operation somewhere along the line. Remove the Ferrari connection, and they'll disappear down the bottom of the pile. I can't prove that, though, it's just a feeling I get.

How many times has the FIA tried to clamp down on costs, and failed dismally? History is littered with such incidences. They try to cut back, and the teams figure out a way round it, so nothing changes. What's the answer? Dunno, but unless the FIA can kerb expenditure in some way and make it stick, maybe with Jag and Porsche engines as Fret says, then I reckon it'll be business as usual.

I'd forget costs - create a spectacle and get car manufacturers on board. If you want privateers pay a company to supply a basic car, gearbox and engine for a budget price that works. The most useful thing they do is give drivers and engineers a chance. Caterham wouldn't have got too far as there's not enough engineering talent to go round (Ross Brawn's words, not mine). Haas basically have an old Ferrari but they are working on their own stuff in the USA. Mercedes estimate F1 generates over £400 million in car sales worldwide - that's why Audi is interested via Porsche. Hopefully Brawn will create a set of tech rules that mean Aston Martin and Porsche come on board as engine manufacturers/teams in their own right and hopefully Honda gets its act together.

Fretwired

stickyfiddle said:

It's not about giving the little guys enough cash that they start winning, it's about giving them enough cash that they aren't constantly at risk of going under.

Having more manufacturers is essential, but soon as you lose the privateers, one of the big guys has to finish last, and they don't like that one bit - it's why Toyota and Honda both quit last time.

It's nothing to do with coming last. It's about winning sometimes. I'd rather see 14 teams chasing for the championship rather than 2 teams winning everything. If Mercedes constantly finished 9 and 10 every race they'd quit. They are in it to win but would stay if there was close championship racing rather than the sprint from the front, tyre and fuel saving then a sprint at the end with the undercut being the only way to overtake a car on some tracks.

The reason Mercedes does well is the fact it has a massive resources in Germany doing 'research' that gets them around the budget constraints. Ferrari do the same thing.

chillidoggy

The thing is, if there's not enough talent to go round (and if Ross Brawn says so, who would disagree?), whoever has the cash gets the top people. Hence my point about Caterham. No money, no top people.

It's always all about money, whichever way you look at it. Maybe there are no fixes and the monster simply evolves year-on-year, which is what seems to have happened anyway.

What you're suggesting with a basic car, I see what you're saying but would that not create a two-tier system? Come to think of it, that's almost what we have now, so maybe they should have F1 as the primary event and an F1 Junior series as the secondary. Then you'd have your 14 cars in one race, and another 14 cars to watch racing later as a feeder series, with closer racing being the result, and the opportunity for those with the most talent to feed through.

Fretwired

chillidoggy said:

The thing is, if there's not enough talent to go round (and if Ross Brawn says so, who would disagree?), whoever has the cash gets the top people. Hence my point about Caterham. No money, no top people.

It's always all about money, whichever way you look at it. Maybe there are no fixes and the monster simply evolves year-on-year, which is what seems to have happened anyway.

What you're suggesting with a basic car, I see what you're saying but would that not create a two-tier system? Come to think of it, that's almost what we have now, so maybe they should have F1 as the primary event and an F1 Junior series as the secondary. Then you'd have your 14 cars in one race, and another 14 cars to watch racing later as a feeder series, with closer racing being the result, and the opportunity for those with the most talent to feed through.

Some good ideas in there. With the best will in the world Caterham could have had millions but they'd never have got Adrian Newey. Williams have been struggling. The idea of the basic car, gearbox and engine was smaller teams could pool resources to development it so they wouldn't need dedicated aero teams or spend cash on separate wind tunnel sessions.

Your idea of a twin series is a good one but they could all race together - chances are the junior series would probably be more entertaining if the cars are closely matched.