POBRatings wrote:
In some ways Venekor's proposal sounds good: a higher quality field with fewer slow packages for the front-runners to lap/crash into(ahem Piquet snr, A Senna and MSC)!
When I wrote my 1993 analytical book I used a quote from Stirling Moss; he was asked about early nineties F1 racing: "Of course the standard of the midfield is so much higher now, which of course puts more pressure on the front-runners." I analysed this from several aspects, but found that none of the packages behind the top two or three (usually) have any effect on the top results at all. They are just traffic to be lapped. So Venekor is correct.
However we have to remember that such teams as Maserati, Ferrari, BRM, Vanwall, Cooper through to Renault,Williams and Red Bull started as backmarkers. By reducing the field to fewer teams means that the losses (financial retirements) may not be replaceable.
It is too easy to slam backmarkers; Patrick Head admitted to once scornfully asking one of his engineers after they watched a backmarker team struggling with obvious problems "Why on earth do they bother racing?" Years later he realised and admitted he was wrong, that it was because they love racing. He and Frank started like that too. And Enzo Ferrari , Charles and John Cooper, Jack Brabham and Bruce McLaren....
Excellent post.
I'd add that diminishing the number of teams also diminishes the number of places for drivers. A lot of the standout drivers got their chance in the backmarker teams and worked their way up.
It's rare for a driver to be extraordinary when they first get into an F1 car (such as Hamilton) and even the standout drivers take years to reach their best because experience is such a necessary part of development and reaching potential. With less places on the grid either the sport would be very closed off with barely any opportunities for new drivers or the turnover would be much higher as teams gave drivers even less opportunity to prove themselves meaning we'd possibly never see the best of some of the best drivers.
The other part to this is that it has been proven that lower disciplines are not necessarily indicative of F1 performance and it's only once a driver is in the sport and has a chance over a couple of years that we see how good they are going to be in F1. There's every chance we'd not get to see the drivers who are best at F1 because they'd be booted out before a judgement could be made.
IMO also driver development programs of the teams could become even more significant, which would mean that for a driver to make it to F1 at all they'd have to be noticed and nurtured from a young age. That in turn would limit the path to getting to F1 and the pool from which F1 drivers are drawn. At the moment there is a mix of ways to get to the sport: through a driver development program for one of the main teams, by competing in lower disciplines and being a standout and having some potential a lot of financial backing. That increases the pool from which F1 drivers are drawn.
And that brings me back to the thread topic. F1 does have a wide pool from which it draws drivers and unless a driver is a standout the career is likely to be fairly limited. Once they've had two to three years in the sport if they haven't shone then not getting a further go is the rule rather than the exception. Some of those midfield drivers will have longer careers than others and it might not be due to how good they are on track but how much they offer from a development perspective, how well they integrate with a team, just circumstances or finances. Of the drivers who have been axed at the end of 2012 - Kovalainen, Petrov, Kobayashi, Senna - I think they fall into that category.
So long as the best are not being passed over I don't see it as a problem in terms of the sport. It's only IMO when a Vettel, Hamilton or Alonso-type driver misses out that I think the sport is in trouble.