planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:00 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:20 pm
Posts: 214
26, Plus Qualifying, Plus Pre-Qualifying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am
Posts: 1903
moby wrote:
mas wrote:
I just would like the top teams to be allowed to field three cars even if only the fastest two of theirs in any race are allowed to score in the WCC points. This really would free up the logjam for the fastest drivers where they literally have to wait years before getting competitive drives.

sorry, reply in wrong post

Not really as that does imply an expansion to at least 23-26 if you assume 3-6 teams will want to field another car to maximize their WCC chances by having a spare in each race. I am just giving a valid reason to expand the grid without having new teams join. Seriously how much better would the races be with one more Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull in each race ? I think 26-30 would be ideal as a total number.

_________________
Kimi: "Come on, get the McLaren out of the way!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1600
mas wrote:
I just would like the top teams to be allowed to field three cars even if only the fastest two of theirs in any race are allowed to score in the WCC points. This really would free up the logjam for the fastest drivers where they literally have to wait years before getting competitive drives.


Then Ferrari would field Vettel with Räikkönen and Massa ...
;-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12287
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
mas wrote:
I just would like the top teams to be allowed to field three cars even if only the fastest two of theirs in any race are allowed to score in the WCC points. This really would free up the logjam for the fastest drivers where they literally have to wait years before getting competitive drives.


Then Ferrari would field Vettel with Räikkönen and Massa ...
;-)


Not sure, what's Luca Badoer up to?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1812
26.

And reduce the barriers to entry. If you can build a car to the regulations, even if only one, you should be allowed to turn up and have a crack. We have the 107% rule to stop unsafe cars qualifying.

_________________
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7766
mas wrote:
moby wrote:
mas wrote:
I just would like the top teams to be allowed to field three cars even if only the fastest two of theirs in any race are allowed to score in the WCC points. This really would free up the logjam for the fastest drivers where they literally have to wait years before getting competitive drives.

sorry, reply in wrong post

Not really as that does imply an expansion to at least 23-26 if you assume 3-6 teams will want to field another car to maximize their WCC chances by having a spare in each race. I am just giving a valid reason to expand the grid without having new teams join. Seriously how much better would the races be with one more Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull in each race ? I think 26-30 would be ideal as a total number.


No, my reply was in the wrong post. :D

I posted something here that was supposed to go somewhere else. It was completely unrelated to your post, it was not a smartarse reply to you :nod:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1096
mas wrote:
I just would like the top teams to be allowed to field three cars even if only the fastest two of theirs in any race are allowed to score in the WCC points. This really would free up the logjam for the fastest drivers where they literally have to wait years before getting competitive drives.


I regret I disagree.

If this was allowed, then the top teams would be even stronger against any 2 car team because of the simple fact that data generated by 3 cars is definitely more productive than data from 2 cars. Basically, any opportunity to score ANY points over a season diminishes to almost zero. Then what? Sponsors leave, the teams do not get that end of year payout, no more money.

And could you imagine the forum meltdown if (for example) the third car of a team competing against (for example) Lewis Hamilton takes him out of the race and he loses the WDC? Third car, not racing for points, just here to support my team mates ...

Image
https://media.giphy.com/media/FrajBDPikVqBG/giphy.gif

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1231
Herb wrote:
26.

And reduce the barriers to entry. If you can build a car to the regulations, even if only one, you should be allowed to turn up and have a crack. We have the 107% rule to stop unsafe cars qualifying.

Thinking of it, it was probably the introduction of the 107% rule that once and for all killed the "build a car and have a crack" mentality that meant big grids and necessitated pre-qualifying. If you were allowed to drive round 3-6 seconds of the pace on a minimal budget, either out of racing spirit or as a mobile billboard, people probably still would.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4269
Fun little video on backmarkers/blue flags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdZ6w3PrVJI


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:25 pm
Posts: 387
Colinjb wrote:
26, Plus Qualifying, Plus Pre-Qualifying.

Screw any pre-qualifying.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 85
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
bradtheboywonder wrote:
Mayhem, on your point, what about a NASCAR style finals series? So have a championship to determine a top 6 (For example) and those top 6 then fight it out in a finals series to determine the champion?


And I stopped watching NASCAR when they went to the playoff format.

Personally, I want to see a lot of cars battling all over the track. I am not interested in time trials or processional racing. I tune in to watch a competition, not an exhibition.

But that's one major problem, different fans have different desires. Some desire what is basically a time trial, with minimal traffic or competition. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just that it doesn't tingle my fuzzies. So what Formula One will be like ten years from now is open to speculation, but changes are coming.

A lot of the racing hard/passing/traffic issues that seem to get in the way at Formula One have been solved in other series. Tire manufacturers can build more durable tires that are forgiving on how hot they run. Indycar has more underbody generated downforce, and they can run closer and battle harder. A lot of the "problems" within Formula One are self-generated, because a lack of forethough and inability to properly think things through has painted the sport into a corner.

Fortunately Liberty bought the sport in time, and they are presently researching how to improve the sport and bring in more fans. So who knows what will come to pass, but I expect good things.

Additionally, if Formula One could attract 30 entrants, this will signal that the sport is much healthier and attractive for teams to get into the sport.


Found myself agreeing with every paragraph you wrote. I'm not a fan of a playoff series either, just thought it sounded like Mayhems cup of tea.

I'm keen to see what Liberty can and will do to make the sport more enticing. One idea the V8 Supercars are doing that I like is having wild card entrants at specific events. So drivers in the 2nd tier comp get a chance to race as wild cards in select events. They get support from a top tier team, but the running on the day is up to them. It would only really work in F1 though if/when they allow Customer teams but.

So it would be like a Prema Racing getting their hands on a customer Haas chasis and Ferrari engine, and having their drivers run at say Monaco, Silverstone, Spa and Monza.

I think it would be a good way to boost numbers, as well as giving lower tier drivers and teams a taste of F1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:25 pm
Posts: 387
wolfticket wrote:
Herb wrote:
26.

And reduce the barriers to entry. If you can build a car to the regulations, even if only one, you should be allowed to turn up and have a crack. We have the 107% rule to stop unsafe cars qualifying.

Thinking of it, it was probably the introduction of the 107% rule that once and for all killed the "build a car and have a crack" mentality that meant big grids and necessitated pre-qualifying. If you were allowed to drive round 3-6 seconds of the pace on a minimal budget, either out of racing spirit or as a mobile billboard, people probably still would.


Having ineffective power plants are what put cars over 107%. Remember Williams started their existence as one of the back markers and worked themselves to be WCC & WDC and also worked their way back to mid-pack runners. McLaren's experience with Honda shows what happens when a perennial front runner gets the wrong power unit in the car. By the way on a 1:40 lap time the 107% time is 7 seconds back. F1 is trying to reign in the costs of competition, lowering the bar to the Old Boys Club will assist in the effort.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 235
I'd like to see 26 cars on the grid.

I also think it would be cool to give each car a letter A - Z instead of the driver numbers!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7766
mmi16 wrote:
wolfticket wrote:
Herb wrote:
26.

And reduce the barriers to entry. If you can build a car to the regulations, even if only one, you should be allowed to turn up and have a crack. We have the 107% rule to stop unsafe cars qualifying.

Thinking of it, it was probably the introduction of the 107% rule that once and for all killed the "build a car and have a crack" mentality that meant big grids and necessitated pre-qualifying. If you were allowed to drive round 3-6 seconds of the pace on a minimal budget, either out of racing spirit or as a mobile billboard, people probably still would.


Having ineffective power plants are what put cars over 107%. Remember Williams started their existence as one of the back markers and worked themselves to be WCC & WDC and also worked their way back to mid-pack runners. McLaren's experience with Honda shows what happens when a perennial front runner gets the wrong power unit in the car. By the way on a 1:40 lap time the 107% time is 7 seconds back. F1 is trying to reign in the costs of competition, lowering the bar to the Old Boys Club will assist in the effort.


Manor had a Merc engine and Sauber a Ferrari engine. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 445
bradtheboywonder wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
bradtheboywonder wrote:
Mayhem, on your point, what about a NASCAR style finals series? So have a championship to determine a top 6 (For example) and those top 6 then fight it out in a finals series to determine the champion?


And I stopped watching NASCAR when they went to the playoff format.

Personally, I want to see a lot of cars battling all over the track. I am not interested in time trials or processional racing. I tune in to watch a competition, not an exhibition.

But that's one major problem, different fans have different desires. Some desire what is basically a time trial, with minimal traffic or competition. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just that it doesn't tingle my fuzzies. So what Formula One will be like ten years from now is open to speculation, but changes are coming.

A lot of the racing hard/passing/traffic issues that seem to get in the way at Formula One have been solved in other series. Tire manufacturers can build more durable tires that are forgiving on how hot they run. Indycar has more underbody generated downforce, and they can run closer and battle harder. A lot of the "problems" within Formula One are self-generated, because a lack of forethough and inability to properly think things through has painted the sport into a corner.

Fortunately Liberty bought the sport in time, and they are presently researching how to improve the sport and bring in more fans. So who knows what will come to pass, but I expect good things.

Additionally, if Formula One could attract 30 entrants, this will signal that the sport is much healthier and attractive for teams to get into the sport.


Found myself agreeing with every paragraph you wrote. I'm not a fan of a playoff series either, just thought it sounded like Mayhems cup of tea.

I'm keen to see what Liberty can and will do to make the sport more enticing. One idea the V8 Supercars are doing that I like is having wild card entrants at specific events. So drivers in the 2nd tier comp get a chance to race as wild cards in select events. They get support from a top tier team, but the running on the day is up to them. It would only really work in F1 though if/when they allow Customer teams but.

So it would be like a Prema Racing getting their hands on a customer Haas chasis and Ferrari engine, and having their drivers run at say Monaco, Silverstone, Spa and Monza.

I think it would be a good way to boost numbers, as well as giving lower tier drivers and teams a taste of F1



My drivers championship race idea would put the top 10 of every race against each other in there own race. Just the best of that wkd versus each other. I can see how its similar to what nascar is doing but we forget nascars are "stock cars" running pretty identical specs up and down the field which is why races are processional / time trial style. Imo there traffic issue is due to cars being so similar and the fact that the tracks are ovals doesnt help the procession train from forming.

More cars in the current state of F1 would be an issue. Cars cant follow due to aero regs which would cause the procession train if more cars were added. New regs to allow cars to follow each other would have to be in place first or the quality of the racing would be worse.

To your wildcard idea, 2nd tier teams are already customer teams of top tier teams. Mercedes/ Ferrari/ Renault all have customer teams which they help.

_________________
PF1 pick 10
2016: 7th (1 win, 4 podiums)
Awards: Sergio perez trophy & Podium specialist
PF1 pick 3
2015: constructors 2nd, singles 5th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 85
Mayhem wrote:
To your wildcard idea, 2nd tier teams are already customer teams of top tier teams. Mercedes/ Ferrari/ Renault all have customer teams which they help.


Yeah I know that, but I meant that The top tier team provides a 2nd tier team a car for the weekend to race as a wild card in the top tier. It works in V8s because the top tier pass on their old cars to the 2nd tier, so if a T2 team bought last years chasis, it's still under the current regs and compliant. But F1s not like that, and it wouldn't be economical for a T2 team to build a car for a couple of races.

So yeah, F1 opens up Monaco, Silverstone, Spa and Monza up for 6 wild card spots. Teams express their interest for a maximum of 2 spots, and then the powers that be approve or reject them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am
Posts: 1903
mikeyg123 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
mas wrote:
I just would like the top teams to be allowed to field three cars even if only the fastest two of theirs in any race are allowed to score in the WCC points. This really would free up the logjam for the fastest drivers where they literally have to wait years before getting competitive drives.

Then Ferrari would field Vettel with Räikkönen and Massa ...
;-)

Not sure, what's Luca Badoer up to?

Hehe, back to the future ;). Seriously though it would mean that for next year Leclerc could join the Ferrari main team alongside Seb and Kimi and Giovanzi could go to Sauber. Wehrlein could be the third Mercedes driver and perhaps Alonso could be the third Red Bull driver, if he was prepared to take a paycut. See how more interesting the grid already looks for next year with both young and fast drivers getting better opportunities.

_________________
Kimi: "Come on, get the McLaren out of the way!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:47 pm
Posts: 2638
In an ideal world? I'd like to see at least an extra team, taking us up to 11, and perhaps even as many as 14 or 15 in total. However, I wouldn't want a situation like 2010 where you had three teams come in and they were all seconds off the next slowest team. I'd actually rather have 10 teams where even the slowest can still find their way out of Q1 (even if reaching the top 10 is still unrealistic).

Additionally, there would have to be some kind of deduction on the cost of being in F1. Part of the reason I'd like to see more teams is because every year, there are at least a couple of drivers who should be on the grid but are kept off it because of pay drivers. It's all good and well expanding the grid by three teams and providing more opportunities for those drivers, but if these new teams ultimately look for money over talent (again, not unlike 2010) then it doesn't really help. If we could have a grid of 13/14 teams and none of those teams had the pressure to take a driver because of financial reasons then that would be ideal, but it's difficult to imagine that'll ever be the case.

_________________
Cheering for: Massa, Hulkenberg, Vandoorne
Pick 10 | 1 win, 8 podiums
2017: 7th | 2016: 8th | 2015: 2nd | 2014: 15th | 2013: 17th | 2012: 11th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1550
Location: Miami, Florida
Mayhem wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zazu wrote:
Would anyone miss Haas?

Id rather see another big team join Ferrari, Red Bull, Merc and just have 8 cars racing than a 30 field grid

All the teams serve a purpose, not every team can win, how do young drivers get into F1 without teams like Haas, Sauber, STR or even Williams?



All teams absolutely serve a purpose,

But should the quality of the sport as a whole be deminished to purely be able to say we have a full grid line up of 26? Of Course not, higher numbers would make the sport more of a spectacle but in reality if only the same 2 guys would be the only ones fighting for the win adding more cars would just add more traffic. We think blue flags are a problem now. Let there be 8 more cars like manor or sauber even mclaren be on the grid and we will really have a parking lot.

Imo the sport would be far better if every car on the grid had the chance to actually challenge for the win. Yes thats what everyone races for on sunday but we all know who really has a shot at racing for a win and who is just driving fast around a track. Something that has been discussed a few times is 2 separate races a drivers championship race & constructors race...

It'll never happen but i for one would like to see a drivers champ race featuring only the points finishers of every race in a sprint style race every man for themself, no team orders, just drive. Reversed grid line up based on the top 10 of every race. Fastest cars in the back and every driver elbows out to win points for the drivers championship. Points are separate from constructors points.

Now on the constructors race same format we have now and teams work out whatever strategy they wish for the team. Teams get what they want as far as quality drivers working together for good of the team and then u take the leash off and let the drivers loose in the drivers championship race. The points earned here do not effect the drivers championship and finishing positions determine if you qualify for the drivers championship race that wkd.

Sorry but that's all I can focus on in your post.

Minardi, Super Aguri, Toleman, Ligier, Brabham, Tyrrell, Arrows, Benetton, Jordan, Leyton House, HRT, Caterham, Marrussia/Manor, and of course… Sauber.]

These were certainly not top tier teams but most of them at one point or another punched well above their weight and a few did so consistently and one went on to become a powerhouse team before being bout out by a manufacturer, and one of them was a race chassis manufacturer turned Racing Team and won the WDC 4 times and the WCC twice.

These teams ALL added their own flavor to the sport of F1 and the vast majority of them gave unknown drivers their first shot at the big time, some of whom went on to be among the very best the sport has ever seen. So while teams like Red Bull have their own private club for developing drivers, and others have begun to do the same, it isn't something that is paramount in order to find the best talent. The more teams F1 features, the more talent gets a shot at driving in the premier open wheel racing league. As well, being on these smaller teams teaches drivers how to deal with disappointments and struggles and it teaches them humility and builds character. Although, it isn't necessarily so with everyone, as Wherlin is one that teams are reluctant to sign because he's a bit too much of a primadonna for teams to look past and sign him.

As for how many would be perfect in F1, I prefer to look at how many TEAMS the sport can feature as opposed to how many cars. Right now at 10 there are simply too few teams and it would be ideal to have at least 14 teams and 16 might be perfect.

Tracks like Monaco not having enough pits for that many teams is nonsense because as Blinky stated, a 20x20 space is more than ample enough for each team to work. Drivers would just have to be more precise when entering and leaving their boxes.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 235
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Mayhem wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zazu wrote:
Would anyone miss Haas?

All teams absolutely serve a purpose,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F ... nstructors)

A list showing the 35 teams that have won in F1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4397
Location: Michigan, USA
Kev627 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Mayhem wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zazu wrote:
Would anyone miss Haas?

All teams absolutely serve a purpose,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F ... nstructors)

A list showing the 35 teams that have won in F1.

... and the point would be?

Just posting that link tells me nothing about the point you're attempting to use it to make.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 235
Exediron wrote:
A list showing the 35 teams that have won in F1.

... and the point would be?

Just posting that link tells me nothing about the point you're attempting to use it to make.[/quote]
It was just a link to show that many teams of varying sizes have won in F1, mega teams like Ferrari and the much smaller teams like Kuzma.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7766
Kev627 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
A list showing the 35 teams that have won in F1.

... and the point would be?

Just posting that link tells me nothing about the point you're attempting to use it to make.

It was just a link to show that many teams of varying sizes have won in F1, mega teams like Ferrari and the much smaller teams like Kuzma.[/quote]

I suppose if it is being said that only winners should be in F1 it is relevant. Look at Mclaren and Williams. They are 'also ran's' but have 17 constructors and 19 drivers championships between them ( Mclaren 8 and 12 drivers, Williams 9 and 7 drivers ) Do they get bombed out?

What about Brawn? they would have been discounted.

There is also the opportunity for a newcomer to but into an existing team and improve it, as Red Bull did. Maybe they would not have started from scratch with no running start. STR have been lower mid runners, but now Honda have joined up they could well be top end racers in a couple of years.

If you bomb out the lower 3 teams, they next 3 then become tail-enders, do they go then too?.


Edit Oops sorry messed up the quoting again


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:18 am
Posts: 18
20-22.

For every Minardi or Onyx who pull the occasional shock result, you end with a Fondmental or Andrea Moda or Lola who have no right being on the grid. There needs to be a threshold.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12287
BackwardsInFlames wrote:
20-22.

For every Minardi or Onyx who pull the occasional shock result, you end with a Fondmental or Andrea Moda or Lola who have no right being on the grid. There needs to be a threshold.


And how do they make the race less entertaining/Interesting?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7766
BackwardsInFlames wrote:
20-22.

For every Minardi or Onyx who pull the occasional shock result, you end with a Fondmental or Andrea Moda or Lola who have no right being on the grid. There needs to be a threshold.


What about Red Bull? 7th in the constructors 2005 and 2006, should they have been thrown out?
There is a threshold, 107% of the fastest car there. There is also a considerable threshold of just being able to get a car or team accepted. There are literally hundreds of racing teams, only very few of the very best even get to the last row of the grid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:45 pm
Posts: 961
Simple question, simple answer: 26.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12287
moby wrote:
BackwardsInFlames wrote:
20-22.

For every Minardi or Onyx who pull the occasional shock result, you end with a Fondmental or Andrea Moda or Lola who have no right being on the grid. There needs to be a threshold.


What about Red Bull? 7th in the constructors 2005 and 2006, should they have been thrown out?
There is a threshold, 107% of the fastest car there. There is also a considerable threshold of just being able to get a car or team accepted. There are literally hundreds of racing teams, only very few of the very best even get to the last row of the grid.


I think the current barriers to entry are absurd. IMO opinion if you can turn up with a car that gets within 107% you should be permitted to race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2236
I'm not so bothered about the number, 18 would still be 'enough'. I'd rather have 9 decent teams than 8 decent teams and 3-4 no hopers, they really add nothing to the show.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23695
ALESI wrote:
I'm not so bothered about the number, 18 would still be 'enough'. I'd rather have 9 decent teams than 8 decent teams and 3-4 no hopers, they really add nothing to the show.

That depends what you class as being a decent team, are Force India a decent team even if they have no hope of winning?

More cars means a bigger show and with a fairer distribution of the prize money why can't we have 13 reasonably competitive teams?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:25 pm
Posts: 387
The Elitists on he have no appreciation just how much work and effort go into putting cars on the grid. Not every (not ANY new team - Brawn was new in name only - a rebranded Honda with different power) team starts at the pointed end of the grid. The Elitists of this form bury their heads in the sand for most of the racing that actually takes place - BACK IN THE FIELD - some of the hotest battles are for 15th. Traffic is a function of every other race series, why not F1 - don't their drivers have the race craft to overtake a back marker without taking himself of the back marker out? Don't they have the race craft to overtake three back markers that are battling for their own positions?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23695
mmi16 wrote:
The Elitists on he have no appreciation just how much work and effort go into putting cars on the grid. Not every (not ANY new team - Brawn was new in name only - a rebranded Honda with different power) team starts at the pointed end of the grid. The Elitists of this form bury their heads in the sand for most of the racing that actually takes place - BACK IN THE FIELD - some of the hotest battles are for 15th. Traffic is a function of every other race series, why not F1 - don't their drivers have the race craft to overtake a back marker without taking himself of the back marker out? Don't they have the race craft to overtake three back markers that are battling for their own positions?

You talking about blue flags?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4269
mmi16 wrote:
The Elitists on he have no appreciation just how much work and effort go into putting cars on the grid. Not every (not ANY new team - Brawn was new in name only - a rebranded Honda with different power) team starts at the pointed end of the grid. The Elitists of this form bury their heads in the sand for most of the racing that actually takes place - BACK IN THE FIELD - some of the hotest battles are for 15th. Traffic is a function of every other race series, why not F1 - don't their drivers have the race craft to overtake a back marker without taking himself of the back marker out? Don't they have the race craft to overtake three back markers that are battling for their own positions?

There's no other racing series with enough aerodynamic downforce to achieve nearly 7 G through corners. There is a reality to running that kind of aero. No one is saying that traffic shouldn't be a part of F1. People are just pointing out the absurdity of removing the blue flag rules in modern F1.

BTW most other racing series don't allow backmarkers to get in the way either. In multi-class sports car races, GT cars don't get in the way of prototypes. This idea that people should just be oblivious to the battle for the actual WIN as they fight for 15th place is a joke.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 445
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Mayhem wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zazu wrote:
Would anyone miss Haas?

Id rather see another big team join Ferrari, Red Bull, Merc and just have 8 cars racing than a 30 field grid

All the teams serve a purpose, not every team can win, how do young drivers get into F1 without teams like Haas, Sauber, STR or even Williams?



All teams absolutely serve a purpose,

But should the quality of the sport as a whole be deminished to purely be able to say we have a full grid line up of 26?



Sorry but that's all I can focus on in your post.

Minardi, Super Aguri, Toleman, Ligier, Brabham, Tyrrell, Arrows, Benetton, Jordan, Leyton House, HRT, Caterham, Marrussia/Manor, and of course… Sauber.]

These were certainly not top tier teams but most of them at one point or another punched well above their weight and a few did so consistently and one went on to become a powerhouse team before being bout out by a manufacturer, and one of them was a race chassis manufacturer turned Racing Team and won the WDC 4 times and the WCC twice.


These teams ALL added their own flavor to the sport of F1 and the vast majority of them gave unknown drivers their first shot at the big time, some of whom went on to be among the very best the sport has ever seen. So while teams like Red Bull have their own private club for developing drivers, and others have begun to do the same, it isn't something that is paramount in order to find the best talent. The more teams F1 features, the more talent gets a shot at driving in the premier open wheel racing league. As well, being on these smaller teams teaches drivers how to deal with disappointments and struggles and it teaches them humility and builds character. Although, it isn't necessarily so with everyone, as Wherlin is one that teams are reluctant to sign because he's a bit too much of a primadonna for teams to look past and sign him.


As i stated above, agreed all teams have a purpose but the point i was making in relation to smaller teams is

Mayhem wrote:
higher numbers would make the sport more of a spectacle but in reality if only the same 2 guys would be the only ones fighting for the win adding more cars would just add more traffic. We think blue flags are a problem now. Let there be 8 more cars like manor or sauber even mclaren be on the grid and we will really have a parking lot.


Can smaller teams accomplish more then there given credit for absolutely. Anything can happen during a race. As the seasons goes on can a teams get better without a doubt. But the original post was about shear numbers and imo just adding cars to make a "quota" would be foolish.

_________________
PF1 pick 10
2016: 7th (1 win, 4 podiums)
Awards: Sergio perez trophy & Podium specialist
PF1 pick 3
2015: constructors 2nd, singles 5th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7766
Mayhem wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Mayhem wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zazu wrote:
Would anyone miss Haas?

Id rather see another big team join Ferrari, Red Bull, Merc and just have 8 cars racing than a 30 field grid

All the teams serve a purpose, not every team can win, how do young drivers get into F1 without teams like Haas, Sauber, STR or even Williams?



All teams absolutely serve a purpose,

But should the quality of the sport as a whole be deminished to purely be able to say we have a full grid line up of 26?



Sorry but that's all I can focus on in your post.

Minardi, Super Aguri, Toleman, Ligier, Brabham, Tyrrell, Arrows, Benetton, Jordan, Leyton House, HRT, Caterham, Marrussia/Manor, and of course… Sauber.]

These were certainly not top tier teams but most of them at one point or another punched well above their weight and a few did so consistently and one went on to become a powerhouse team before being bout out by a manufacturer, and one of them was a race chassis manufacturer turned Racing Team and won the WDC 4 times and the WCC twice.


These teams ALL added their own flavor to the sport of F1 and the vast majority of them gave unknown drivers their first shot at the big time, some of whom went on to be among the very best the sport has ever seen. So while teams like Red Bull have their own private club for developing drivers, and others have begun to do the same, it isn't something that is paramount in order to find the best talent. The more teams F1 features, the more talent gets a shot at driving in the premier open wheel racing league. As well, being on these smaller teams teaches drivers how to deal with disappointments and struggles and it teaches them humility and builds character. Although, it isn't necessarily so with everyone, as Wherlin is one that teams are reluctant to sign because he's a bit too much of a primadonna for teams to look past and sign him.


As i stated above, agreed all teams have a purpose but the point i was making in relation to smaller teams is

Mayhem wrote:
higher numbers would make the sport more of a spectacle but in reality if only the same 2 guys would be the only ones fighting for the win adding more cars would just add more traffic. We think blue flags are a problem now. Let there be 8 more cars like manor or sauber even mclaren be on the grid and we will really have a parking lot.


Can smaller teams accomplish more then there given credit for absolutely. Anything can happen during a race. As the seasons goes on can a teams get better without a doubt. But the original post was about shear numbers and imo just adding cars to make a "quota" would be foolish.


Also, the thing that came to mind when I read that list above, is what those teams morphed into and what they became and are today.

Super Aguri were unlucky with timing, Minardi were sold to Red Bull and became STR, Toleman became Benetton and a young German guy drove for them a couple of times.
Had they not been competing we would be rather short today

Brabham Tyrrell and Benetton do not belong in there as they were champions in their own right though, and Jordan had 4 wins and 19 podiums, so not sure about them :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1550
Location: Miami, Florida
All the teams I listed were purposely selected because none of them started out as a large team. Luckily, some of them got it more right than everyone else in a time when innovation and uniqueness was allowed, but none of them won or looked outright impressive from the very beginning with the exception of Brabham maybe.

In regards to Super Aguri, it had NOTHING to do with timing and EVERYTHING to do with A-holes being A-holes because they could and I have never heard of anyone getting screwed over to the degree they were, and that's what killed the team. If you ask me their timing was right on and the team came together like nothing else in the history of such a minuscule team, and they were moving in one direction and that was up. Such a shame with them. They really had their stuff together and had wiser heads thought better, they might still be in F1. Call me crazy but it's likely Honda really benefited from their additional data and ironically produced the car that won everything the following season.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7766
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
All the teams I listed were purposely selected because none of them started out as a large team. Luckily, some of them got it more right than everyone else in a time when innovation and uniqueness was allowed, but none of them won or looked outright impressive from the very beginning with the exception of Brabham maybe.

In regards to Super Aguri, it had NOTHING to do with timing and EVERYTHING to do with A-holes being A-holes because they could and I have never heard of anyone getting screwed over to the degree they were, and that's what killed the team. If you ask me their timing was right on and the team came together like nothing else in the history of such a minuscule team, and they were moving in one direction and that was up. Such a shame with them. They really had their stuff together and had wiser heads thought better, they might still be in F1. Call me crazy but it's likely Honda really benefited from their additional data and ironically produced the car that won everything the following season.



I think Super-Aguri had the bad luck to be in the game and advancing at the same time as the 'works' honda team had internal strife and political empire building otherwise they would have become the top Japanese team and probably still going. I seem to recall Brawn saying he used much of the stuff developed by them on his 'one hit wonder'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:25 pm
Posts: 387
pokerman wrote:
mmi16 wrote:
The Elitists on he have no appreciation just how much work and effort go into putting cars on the grid. Not every (not ANY new team - Brawn was new in name only - a rebranded Honda with different power) team starts at the pointed end of the grid. The Elitists of this form bury their heads in the sand for most of the racing that actually takes place - BACK IN THE FIELD - some of the hotest battles are for 15th. Traffic is a function of every other race series, why not F1 - don't their drivers have the race craft to overtake a back marker without taking himself of the back marker out? Don't they have the race craft to overtake three back markers that are battling for their own positions?

You talking about blue flags?


I am talking about those that believe only winners belong in F1 - MB, Ferrari & Red Bull - all the rest are perceived as unworthy of being in F1. The 6 cars that started at Indy in 2005 - WHAT A SHOW!

It takes many teams to make a series. 10 is much too few. Forget about 20 cars - you have 10 count them 10 teams in F1. How many TEAMS are in the various football leagues on the East Side of the Atlantic Ocean - I suspect it is a number that is greater than 10.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7766
mmi16 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mmi16 wrote:
The Elitists on he have no appreciation just how much work and effort go into putting cars on the grid. Not every (not ANY new team - Brawn was new in name only - a rebranded Honda with different power) team starts at the pointed end of the grid. The Elitists of this form bury their heads in the sand for most of the racing that actually takes place - BACK IN THE FIELD - some of the hotest battles are for 15th. Traffic is a function of every other race series, why not F1 - don't their drivers have the race craft to overtake a back marker without taking himself of the back marker out? Don't they have the race craft to overtake three back markers that are battling for their own positions?

You talking about blue flags?


I am talking about those that believe only winners belong in F1 - MB, Ferrari & Red Bull - all the rest are perceived as unworthy of being in F1. The 6 cars that started at Indy in 2005 - WHAT A SHOW!

It takes many teams to make a series. 10 is much too few. Forget about 20 cars - you have 10 count them 10 teams in F1. How many TEAMS are in the various football leagues on the East Side of the Atlantic Ocean - I suspect it is a number that is greater than 10.


Like only allowing Jamaica, USA and UK in the Olympic 100mtr final cos since 1980 only those teams have won.
Edit, oops, forgot Bailey. Him too then


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23695
mmi16 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mmi16 wrote:
The Elitists on he have no appreciation just how much work and effort go into putting cars on the grid. Not every (not ANY new team - Brawn was new in name only - a rebranded Honda with different power) team starts at the pointed end of the grid. The Elitists of this form bury their heads in the sand for most of the racing that actually takes place - BACK IN THE FIELD - some of the hotest battles are for 15th. Traffic is a function of every other race series, why not F1 - don't their drivers have the race craft to overtake a back marker without taking himself of the back marker out? Don't they have the race craft to overtake three back markers that are battling for their own positions?

You talking about blue flags?


I am talking about those that believe only winners belong in F1 - MB, Ferrari & Red Bull - all the rest are perceived as unworthy of being in F1. The 6 cars that started at Indy in 2005 - WHAT A SHOW!

It takes many teams to make a series. 10 is much too few. Forget about 20 cars - you have 10 count them 10 teams in F1. How many TEAMS are in the various football leagues on the East Side of the Atlantic Ocean - I suspect it is a number that is greater than 10.

Yeah I agree with that but allowing for a fact that 13 teams is the limit, but what's all this about the leaders battling against backmarker cars?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ennis, Fiki, Google Adsense [Bot], j man, Schumacher forever#1 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group