planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:17 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:39 am
Posts: 772
I am wondering if Mercedes should setup a 'B' team for Estaban Ocon and George Russell for next season and it would a six month project be possible?

There are some very good people in the world of motorsport and I reckon it could be possible. in my view they should do this instead of the three car idea which is some thing I'm not keen on. So what do you guys think of a Mercedes B team?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2953
Location: UK
Without a complete customer car to give them, it is impossible. I think the deadline for entries for next season has passed as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:39 am
Posts: 772
j man wrote:
Without a complete customer car to give them, it is impossible. I think the deadline for entries for next season has passed as well.


Thank you, its a shame though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2651
Location: England
I dont think its totally beyond the realm of possibility that they both end up at Williams, though by the way Wolff has been on this week, it sounds like the game is up for Ocon as far as 2019 is concerned.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Final positon: 1st | 3 Podiums | 2 Wins
2018 Pick 10 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5607
Short answer: Yes. Mercedes have greater resources than any other F1 business entity. They should invest in a B-Team. It would not only benefit them; it would benefit the sport. Williams would do well to secure this position as it would help them to survive until the new Concord Agreement is signed (they are hanging by their finger nails). B-Team status might seem like a slap in the face for an organization with their pedigree but the fact is that their last title was 20 years ago and they have to deal with where they stand today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2061
Honestly, I don't see the problem regarding Ocon. Merceces can just buy him a seat at Williams, what is Wolff's problem really?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4538
I don't see how it will benefit the sport, if this team would always be an extension of the main one. Like, you can not overtake, the drivers are used as the buttlers to the A team, sometimes a bit of a dirty move to the competitors... I don't no like.

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2953
Location: UK
Lt. Drebin wrote:
I don't see how it will benefit the sport, if this team would always be an extension of the main one. Like, you can not overtake, the drivers are used as the buttlers to the A team, sometimes a bit of a dirty move to the competitors... I don't no like.

I agree, I don't like this proliferation of B teams that wave their parent teams' cars past without a moment's hesitation. It's not good for the sport and effectively creates a 2-tier series. I dislike the idea of three-car teams for the same reason, you'd only get more collusion and team orders and less competition.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 182
Like it or not, it’s already a 2 tier series. I think they should, and follow the Hass model. It’s a good strategy to get more teams on the grid, and more opportunities for talented youngsters


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1467
Location: Far side of Koozebane
No,no 1000 times no.

I've always been against the TR/RB collaboration. I'm against the Ferrari/Sauber collaboration & i'll be against a Merc/B team collaboration. It'll just be another nail in the coffin of the sport.

A few things are really starting to irritate about these types of discussions.

1. People are saying that things like closed cockpits & rear wheels are against the DNA of the sport and if the sport goes down that road then as far as they're concerned F1 will cease to be F1. Well how about a sport where approx only 33% of entrants stand any chance of winning a single race let alone championships not due to good management or luck but due to deliberate manipulation of the sports regulations in their favour. To me that's stands much more in contrast to the sports DNA than closed cockpits or wheels.

2. People have lauded YDP's as great for getting young talent into the sport where otherwise it might have missed out. I agree to a certain extent but it seems now, since we have a example where an affiliation to a YDP looks like, in the short term anyway, it's going to work against a driver, we're now discussing ways to cater for this situation. The problem is plain to see here people. Ocon is only the first example. Others will follow. We're seeing 17, 18 & 19 yr olds starting F1. These guy's theoretically have what, a 15 - 20 yr career ahead of them? We'll get to a stage where we have an oversupply of kids from YDP's waiting to get into F1. What then? Do we start to talk about C,D, & E teams just to give these kids a go? How about 4,5 or 6 car teams just so every one gets a turn.

3. People talk about how making Williams a Merc B team will be great for them because they're struggling. Well, one reason they're struggling, in fact it's probably the main reason, is that the jelly backs at the FIA, along with Ecclestone, kowtowed to the manufacturer teams and threw teams like Williams & Macca out the window. Instead of people pushing for relegating Williams to "support team" status, how about people start jumping up and down and demanding the governing bodies start dictating terms to the manufacturer teams and tell them that if they don't like a fair and level playing field for everyone, especially when it comes to the engine regs and prize money distribution, then p1ss off.

There will always be only so many seats available and they'll always be an oversupply of talent wanting those seats. The same goes for all sport and pretty much everything in life as well. Just because some-one deserves something has never meant they'll get it. Getting a drive in F1 has never been based solely on talent. Money, timing, luck, marketability, management, "who you know", "who you are", "what your last name is". These are all factors that have played a part in drivers making it to F1 from the day dot.

I'm not sure if this is just part of the " Everyone gets to live their dream, everyone wins a prize & everyone gets a turn" society we seem to be evolving in to but to me, the one thing the sport has not suffered from was lack of available driving talent. If Ocon misses out on a F1 career, yes it'll be disappointing, but you know what, life's not fair. We all have our disappointments in life to deal with and we all have our hard luck stories. Get over it & move on.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 6949
Location: Mumbai, India
I had read an article FIA would be keeping an eye on close alliances between teams i.e. supposed B teams. In 2019, Red Bull & Toro Rosso are going to work even more closely together by sharing chassis / suspension parts. So how do we define a team is a B team & just about a B team? Is there a loop hole here? Isn't Haas being accused of being last year's Ferrari!

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23911
I'm pretty sure i read an article not too long ago where Toto dismissed the idea of spending another €100M+ on a customer team. The economics don't make sense for them


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:17 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Sheffield, England
Jezza13 wrote:
No,no 1000 times no.

I've always been against the TR/RB collaboration. I'm against the Ferrari/Sauber collaboration & i'll be against a Merc/B team collaboration. It'll just be another nail in the coffin of the sport.

A few things are really starting to irritate about these types of discussions.

1. People are saying that things like closed cockpits & rear wheels are against the DNA of the sport and if the sport goes down that road then as far as they're concerned F1 will cease to be F1. Well how about a sport where approx only 33% of entrants stand any chance of winning a single race let alone championships not due to good management or luck but due to deliberate manipulation of the sports regulations in their favour. To me that's stands much more in contrast to the sports DNA than closed cockpits or wheels.

2. People have lauded YDP's as great for getting young talent into the sport where otherwise it might have missed out. I agree to a certain extent but it seems now, since we have a example where an affiliation to a YDP looks like, in the short term anyway, it's going to work against a driver, we're now discussing ways to cater for this situation. The problem is plain to see here people. Ocon is only the first example. Others will follow. We're seeing 17, 18 & 19 yr olds starting F1. These guy's theoretically have what, a 15 - 20 yr career ahead of them? We'll get to a stage where we have an oversupply of kids from YDP's waiting to get into F1. What then? Do we start to talk about C,D, & E teams just to give these kids a go? How about 4,5 or 6 car teams just so every one gets a turn.

3. People talk about how making Williams a Merc B team will be great for them because they're struggling. Well, one reason they're struggling, in fact it's probably the main reason, is that the jelly backs at the FIA, along with Ecclestone, kowtowed to the manufacturer teams and threw teams like Williams & Macca out the window. Instead of people pushing for relegating Williams to "support team" status, how about people start jumping up and down and demanding the governing bodies start dictating terms to the manufacturer teams and tell them that if they don't like a fair and level playing field for everyone, especially when it comes to the engine regs and prize money distribution, then p1ss off.

There will always be only so many seats available and they'll always be an oversupply of talent wanting those seats. The same goes for all sport and pretty much everything in life as well. Just because some-one deserves something has never meant they'll get it. Getting a drive in F1 has never been based solely on talent. Money, timing, luck, marketability, management, "who you know", "who you are", "what your last name is". These are all factors that have played a part in drivers making it to F1 from the day dot.

I'm not sure if this is just part of the " Everyone gets to live their dream, everyone wins a prize & everyone gets a turn" society we seem to be evolving in to but to me, the one thing the sport has not suffered from was lack of available driving talent. If Ocon misses out on a F1 career, yes it'll be disappointing, but you know what, life's not fair. We all have our disappointments in life to deal with and we all have our hard luck stories. Get over it & move on.


Don’t often post but couldn’t agree more with this well worded response!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:36 am
Posts: 2861
Nah, not yet, they just need to commit to promoting drivers from their programs to the works team. Once they do that, then a b team might be useful to enhance their YDP.

Hotshotting a team because they neglected to think of where theyd put the drivers would probably end in disaster.

_________________
Warning: The above post may contain sarcasm.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 4:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5607
j man wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
I don't see how it will benefit the sport, if this team would always be an extension of the main one. Like, you can not overtake, the drivers are used as the buttlers to the A team, sometimes a bit of a dirty move to the competitors... I don't no like.

I agree, I don't like this proliferation of B teams that wave their parent teams' cars past without a moment's hesitation. It's not good for the sport and effectively creates a 2-tier series. I dislike the idea of three-car teams for the same reason, you'd only get more collusion and team orders and less competition.

I think you guys are missing the big picture here. These B-teams, at least in the short run, might be the most viable path to getting more teams on the grid (or preventing existing teams from disappearing). Worrying about them moving out of the way seems a bit wide of the mark. For the most part, they don't move out of the way and the bottom line is that they are not really fighting against those top teams anyway. It's exceedingly rare that a Toro Rosso driver would have to keep a Red Bull behind them as part of their actual race strategy because usually they are racing different cars at a different pace.

Honestly, whatever will get more teams on the grid and open up more seats for talented drivers, I support. I'm not going to kid myself to think that F1 will ever be a place where any team can win. The gap from front to back is actually smaller now than it's ever been! At Monza there was 1.5 seconds from first place to last place in Q1!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 3525
sandman1347 wrote:
j man wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
I don't see how it will benefit the sport, if this team would always be an extension of the main one. Like, you can not overtake, the drivers are used as the buttlers to the A team, sometimes a bit of a dirty move to the competitors... I don't no like.

I agree, I don't like this proliferation of B teams that wave their parent teams' cars past without a moment's hesitation. It's not good for the sport and effectively creates a 2-tier series. I dislike the idea of three-car teams for the same reason, you'd only get more collusion and team orders and less competition.

I think you guys are missing the big picture here. These B-teams, at least in the short run, might be the most viable path to getting more teams on the grid (or preventing existing teams from disappearing). Worrying about them moving out of the way seems a bit wide of the mark. For the most part, they don't move out of the way and the bottom line is that they are not really fighting against those top teams anyway. It's exceedingly rare that a Toro Rosso driver would have to keep a Red Bull behind them as part of their actual race strategy because usually they are racing different cars at a different pace.

Honestly, whatever will get more teams on the grid and open up more seats for talented drivers, I support. I'm not going to kid myself to think that F1 will ever be a place where any team can win. The gap from front to back is actually smaller now than it's ever been! At Monza there was 1.5 seconds from first place to last place in Q1!

In fairness some races in 2008 saw the entire field covered by a second.

_________________
AlienTurnedHuman wrote:
Eurytus probably thought he was God. At least until he was banned. Which means if he was God, it makes me very scared of PF1-Mod.

Please report forum problems to us, via PM/Feedback Thread. Screenshots will also help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14262
sandman1347 wrote:
j man wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
I don't see how it will benefit the sport, if this team would always be an extension of the main one. Like, you can not overtake, the drivers are used as the buttlers to the A team, sometimes a bit of a dirty move to the competitors... I don't no like.

I agree, I don't like this proliferation of B teams that wave their parent teams' cars past without a moment's hesitation. It's not good for the sport and effectively creates a 2-tier series. I dislike the idea of three-car teams for the same reason, you'd only get more collusion and team orders and less competition.

I think you guys are missing the big picture here. These B-teams, at least in the short run, might be the most viable path to getting more teams on the grid (or preventing existing teams from disappearing). Worrying about them moving out of the way seems a bit wide of the mark. For the most part, they don't move out of the way and the bottom line is that they are not really fighting against those top teams anyway. It's exceedingly rare that a Toro Rosso driver would have to keep a Red Bull behind them as part of their actual race strategy because usually they are racing different cars at a different pace.

Honestly, whatever will get more teams on the grid and open up more seats for talented drivers, I support. I'm not going to kid myself to think that F1 will ever be a place where any team can win. The gap from front to back is actually smaller now than it's ever been! At Monza there was 1.5 seconds from first place to last place in Q1!


2009 almost any car on the grid could've won at some stage. I think the gaps are bigger now than they were ten years ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 182
Jezza13 wrote:
No,no 1000 times no.

I've always been against the TR/RB collaboration. I'm against the Ferrari/Sauber collaboration & i'll be against a Merc/B team collaboration. It'll just be another nail in the coffin of the sport.

A few things are really starting to irritate about these types of discussions.

1. People are saying that things like closed cockpits & rear wheels are against the DNA of the sport and if the sport goes down that road then as far as they're concerned F1 will cease to be F1. Well how about a sport where approx only 33% of entrants stand any chance of winning a single race let alone championships not due to good management or luck but due to deliberate manipulation of the sports regulations in their favour. To me that's stands much more in contrast to the sports DNA than closed cockpits or wheels.

2. People have lauded YDP's as great for getting young talent into the sport where otherwise it might have missed out. I agree to a certain extent but it seems now, since we have a example where an affiliation to a YDP looks like, in the short term anyway, it's going to work against a driver, we're now discussing ways to cater for this situation. The problem is plain to see here people. Ocon is only the first example. Others will follow. We're seeing 17, 18 & 19 yr olds starting F1. These guy's theoretically have what, a 15 - 20 yr career ahead of them? We'll get to a stage where we have an oversupply of kids from YDP's waiting to get into F1. What then? Do we start to talk about C,D, & E teams just to give these kids a go? How about 4,5 or 6 car teams just so every one gets a turn.

3. People talk about how making Williams a Merc B team will be great for them because they're struggling. Well, one reason they're struggling, in fact it's probably the main reason, is that the jelly backs at the FIA, along with Ecclestone, kowtowed to the manufacturer teams and threw teams like Williams & Macca out the window. Instead of people pushing for relegating Williams to "support team" status, how about people start jumping up and down and demanding the governing bodies start dictating terms to the manufacturer teams and tell them that if they don't like a fair and level playing field for everyone, especially when it comes to the engine regs and prize money distribution, then p1ss off.

There will always be only so many seats available and they'll always be an oversupply of talent wanting those seats. The same goes for all sport and pretty much everything in life as well. Just because some-one deserves something has never meant they'll get it. Getting a drive in F1 has never been based solely on talent. Money, timing, luck, marketability, management, "who you know", "who you are", "what your last name is". These are all factors that have played a part in drivers making it to F1 from the day dot.

I'm not sure if this is just part of the " Everyone gets to live their dream, everyone wins a prize & everyone gets a turn" society we seem to be evolving in to but to me, the one thing the sport has not suffered from was lack of available driving talent. If Ocon misses out on a F1 career, yes it'll be disappointing, but you know what, life's not fair. We all have our disappointments in life to deal with and we all have our hard luck stories. Get over it & move on.


Agree with most of your post. I think the lack of backmarker teams has created this monster, because F1 has become too expensive for these teams. If we still had Minardi, Jordan et al, my position would be different, but at the moment this is the only pathway into the sport.

I don’t think we’ll ever get back there. There’s not enough eccentric rich gazillionaires out there who have the money to splash out on an F1 team just for the sake of it, and give talented non-paying youngsters a crack.

And FTR, I don’t want to see Williams become the B Team. That would just break my heart and be the end of it for them. I’m still hanging onto hope that the engine reg changes will entice a new engine or 3, and Williams goes hard. Preferably they push for some sweet Porsche money.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:54 pm
Posts: 1471
Jezza13 wrote:
No,no 1000 times no.

I've always been against the TR/RB collaboration. I'm against the Ferrari/Sauber collaboration & i'll be against a Merc/B team collaboration. It'll just be another nail in the coffin of the sport.

A few things are really starting to irritate about these types of discussions.

1. People are saying that things like closed cockpits & rear wheels are against the DNA of the sport and if the sport goes down that road then as far as they're concerned F1 will cease to be F1. Well how about a sport where approx only 33% of entrants stand any chance of winning a single race let alone championships not due to good management or luck but due to deliberate manipulation of the sports regulations in their favour. To me that's stands much more in contrast to the sports DNA than closed cockpits or wheels.


This comment interests me.
> Yes. The halo is against what purists know formula 1 as and the DNA of the sport.
> I don't know how you get that the top 3 teams are winning due to manipulating the regs. Sorry. That's been happening for decades. Maybe Charlie whiting should write better regulations.
> you say that only about 33% of the drivers have a chance to win a race. Let's take a look back in history from 1985.
1985. 36 entrants 8 winners. 22%
1987. 32 entrants. 5 winners. 15%
1989 36 entrants. 3 winners. 8%
Since around 1994. We generally saw what we see now. Approx 20-30 (depending on injury) drivers and 5 winners. This gives us a basis of around 17% and 25%.

We are not seeing anything out of the ordinary racing wise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6205
Location: Michigan, USA
wire2004 wrote:
> Yes. The halo is against what purists know formula 1 as and the DNA of the sport.

'Purists' are people who believe their personal preferences are somehow more valid than anyone else's.

The DNA of the sport is the fastest race cars to complete a Grand Prix distance around a track with corners. The Halo is only against that insofar as it's dead weight. In that regard, the Halo is against the DNA of the sport while a full canopy would not be.

I venture to say that most 'purists' are not purists at all. They are traditionalists, who view their traditional outlook as more pure.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1368
Location: London
If I was cruel I might say somethign about Bottas already being the B team, but I'm not, so I wont.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:13 pm
Posts: 350
I think Ocon and Russell ought to try Indycar, WEC or FE if they cannot get a seat for 2019. The reason being, Lewis Hamilton is gonna be Mercedes no. 1 driver for quite a while yet, so they might as well be successful in lower series rather than end up like Hulkenberg, Perez, and Grosjean, enjoying the best part of a decade not winning anything in a Mercedes engined car and not progressing. They will get a chance in the future if they are fast and successful, if they get an F1 seat now, they might not still be around once LH retires.

Also, I think this trend of younger almost teenage drivers making it into F1 early is not necessarily a great thing unless you are so developed that you can get a race winning seat straight away.

Regardless of whether they get or don't get a seat next season, they certainly won't win any races.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:06 pm
Posts: 8
wire2004 wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
No,no 1000 times no.

I've always been against the TR/RB collaboration. I'm against the Ferrari/Sauber collaboration & i'll be against a Merc/B team collaboration. It'll just be another nail in the coffin of the sport.

A few things are really starting to irritate about these types of discussions.

1. People are saying that things like closed cockpits & rear wheels are against the DNA of the sport and if the sport goes down that road then as far as they're concerned F1 will cease to be F1. Well how about a sport where approx only 33% of entrants stand any chance of winning a single race let alone championships not due to good management or luck but due to deliberate manipulation of the sports regulations in their favour. To me that's stands much more in contrast to the sports DNA than closed cockpits or wheels.


This comment interests me.
> Yes. The halo is against what purists know formula 1 as and the DNA of the sport.
> I don't know how you get that the top 3 teams are winning due to manipulating the regs. Sorry. That's been happening for decades. Maybe Charlie whiting should write better regulations.
> you say that only about 33% of the drivers have a chance to win a race. Let's take a look back in history from 1985.
1985. 36 entrants 8 winners. 22%
1987. 32 entrants. 5 winners. 15%
1989 36 entrants. 3 winners. 8%
Since around 1994. We generally saw what we see now. Approx 20-30 (depending on injury) drivers and 5 winners. This gives us a basis of around 17% and 25%.

We are not seeing anything out of the ordinary racing wise.


I'm not too sure about your stats; I make it 6 winners in 1989 for example?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5607
StevoYZF wrote:
wire2004 wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
No,no 1000 times no.

I've always been against the TR/RB collaboration. I'm against the Ferrari/Sauber collaboration & i'll be against a Merc/B team collaboration. It'll just be another nail in the coffin of the sport.

A few things are really starting to irritate about these types of discussions.

1. People are saying that things like closed cockpits & rear wheels are against the DNA of the sport and if the sport goes down that road then as far as they're concerned F1 will cease to be F1. Well how about a sport where approx only 33% of entrants stand any chance of winning a single race let alone championships not due to good management or luck but due to deliberate manipulation of the sports regulations in their favour. To me that's stands much more in contrast to the sports DNA than closed cockpits or wheels.


This comment interests me.
> Yes. The halo is against what purists know formula 1 as and the DNA of the sport.
> I don't know how you get that the top 3 teams are winning due to manipulating the regs. Sorry. That's been happening for decades. Maybe Charlie whiting should write better regulations.
> you say that only about 33% of the drivers have a chance to win a race. Let's take a look back in history from 1985.
1985. 36 entrants 8 winners. 22%
1987. 32 entrants. 5 winners. 15%
1989 36 entrants. 3 winners. 8%
Since around 1994. We generally saw what we see now. Approx 20-30 (depending on injury) drivers and 5 winners. This gives us a basis of around 17% and 25%.

We are not seeing anything out of the ordinary racing wise.


I'm not too sure about your stats; I make it 6 winners in 1989 for example?

In his defense, he didn't even show 88' (a year with only 3 winners)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1467
Location: Far side of Koozebane
wire2004 wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
No,no 1000 times no.

I've always been against the TR/RB collaboration. I'm against the Ferrari/Sauber collaboration & i'll be against a Merc/B team collaboration. It'll just be another nail in the coffin of the sport.

A few things are really starting to irritate about these types of discussions.

1. People are saying that things like closed cockpits & rear wheels are against the DNA of the sport and if the sport goes down that road then as far as they're concerned F1 will cease to be F1. Well how about a sport where approx only 33% of entrants stand any chance of winning a single race let alone championships not due to good management or luck but due to deliberate manipulation of the sports regulations in their favour. To me that's stands much more in contrast to the sports DNA than closed cockpits or wheels.


This comment interests me.
> Yes. The halo is against what purists know formula 1 as and the DNA of the sport.
> I don't know how you get that the top 3 teams are winning due to manipulating the regs. Sorry. That's been happening for decades. Maybe Charlie whiting should write better regulations.
> you say that only about 33% of the drivers have a chance to win a race. Let's take a look back in history from 1985.
1985. 36 entrants 8 winners. 22%
1987. 32 entrants. 5 winners. 15%
1989 36 entrants. 3 winners. 8%
Since around 1994. We generally saw what we see now. Approx 20-30 (depending on injury) drivers and 5 winners. This gives us a basis of around 17% and 25%.

We are not seeing anything out of the ordinary racing wise.


Ok.

1. The Halo isn't a closed cockpit.

2. I was actually talking about manufacturer entrants, not drivers so as we currently have 10 teams and only Ferrari, Merc & RB have won a race this year, then yes, 33% is accurate. In fact, and this is one of my favourite stats, no-one outside these 3 teams, and therefor 6 drivers, have won a race since 17th March 2013. Over 5 yrs and 115 races ago. That's unheard of in the entire history of the sport and in itself is horribly out of the ordinary.

I can't be bothered to type an essay on this but suffice to say the stats you cited are wrong, even if you're citing drivers wins and not constructors. If you we're citing constructors, you're still wrong.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am
Posts: 868
if Merc set up Williams as their B team - yes - but they'd need to put in some resources and sort out ownership - not impossible


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am
Posts: 868
if Merc set up Williams as their B team - yes - but they'd need to put in some resources and sort out ownership - not impossible


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: No registered users 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group