FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Rivers]

I agree with McLaren Fan in this one.

It will be good next year with 26 cars on grid so no need to complicate things any more.

[kerc]

I think it's a stupid idea.

[Gilles 27]

It's not stupid, nor is it new to F1. I think teams should be rewarded for continual participation in F1. Williams, Ferrari and McLaren should be able to run a third car imo. They have earned it.

[darwin dali]

It's not stupid, nor is it new to F1. I think teams should be rewarded for continual participation in F1. Williams, Ferrari and McLaren should be able to run a third car imo. They have earned it.

On what basis?

[Gilles 27]

Well plenty of spineless car companies and publicity hungry corporate ventures have come and gone as they pleased and those teams have stayed the course. The problem with three car teams is firstly a practical one as with so any teams, grids would be huge. This can be solved by only permitting a small number of teams to run three cars. The other problem seems to be that it would afford a monopoly to the teams allowed to three cars but I think this is earned given the teams continual participation in the sport.
I thing that F1 does not pay enough attention to its heritage and rewarding teams for continual participation is one way of ensuring that the traditional teams do not go the way of Lotus, Brabham etc.

[darwin dali]

Well plenty of spineless car companies and publicity hungry corporate ventures have come and gone as they pleased and those teams have stayed the course. The problem with three car teams is firstly a practical one as with so any teams, grids would be huge. This can be solved by only permitting a small number of teams to run three cars. The other problem seems to be that it would afford a monopoly to the teams allowed to three cars but I think this is earned given the teams continual participation in the sport.
I thing that F1 does not pay enough attention to its heritage and rewarding teams for continual participation is one way of ensuring that the traditional teams do not go the way of Lotus, Brabham etc.

So, you're proposing an Indian-style caste system, eh?

[racechick]

Well plenty of spineless car companies and publicity hungry corporate ventures have come and gone as they pleased and those teams have stayed the course. The problem with three car teams is firstly a practical one as with so any teams, grids would be huge. This can be solved by only permitting a small number of teams to run three cars. The other problem seems to be that it would afford a monopoly to the teams allowed to three cars but I think this is earned given the teams continual participation in the sport.
I thing that F1 does not pay enough attention to its heritage and rewarding teams for continual participation is one way of ensuring that the traditional teams do not go the way of Lotus, Brabham etc.

There has to be a level playing field. That has always been a gripe of mine in the past when favours were given and blind eyes turned. If some teams have three cars it will not be a level playing field they will have an advantage.
You are right about respecting motor racing heritage but not by favouring certain teams. Heritage will be respected far more by ensuring fair competition.

[kerc]

It is stupid.

It's like saying the New York Yankees can play with double the amount of fielders because of their history. Or that the Lakers can play with eight guys on the court instead of five.

[Gilles 27]

yes bit there is no history of the Yankees fielding more players than the opposition. Lotus, Ferrari, Matra and others have fielded more than 3 cars in the past and it didn't make much difference to the WDC. I agree with Luca in that I'd much rather see more competitive cars on the grid than no-hopers. It means there are more top seats available to quick young drivers. Atm, there are more potentially race winning or championship contending drivers than there are decent cars.

[kerc]

yes bit there is no history of the Yankees fielding more players than the opposition. Lotus, Ferrari, Matra and others have fielded more than 3 cars in the past and it didn't make much difference to the WDC. I agree with Luca in that I'd much rather see more competitive cars on the grid than no-hopers. It means there are more top seats available to quick young drivers. Atm, there are more potentially race winning or championship contending drivers than there are decent cars.

So basically they want to create a closed club. Good recipe for destroying Formula 1.

[darwin dali]

yes bit there is no history of the Yankees fielding more players than the opposition. Lotus, Ferrari, Matra and others have fielded more than 3 cars in the past and it didn't make much difference to the WDC. I agree with Luca in that I'd much rather see more competitive cars on the grid than no-hopers. It means there are more top seats available to quick young drivers. Atm, there are more potentially race winning or championship contending drivers than there are decent cars.

So basically they want to create a closed club. Good recipe for destroying Formula 1.

It's already a two or even three tier bunch as it is - to cement such a structure would be really bad.

[Gilles 27]

I think a two or three tier bunch is inevitable with the current points system. At least with more cars in those teams, more top drivers would have the chance to drive in top cars. i think people put too much emphasis on the WCC, it is not what F1 was designed to focus on. The focus on the WCC has been engineered by the sponsors and companies participating in F1 to create interest in their products just like the tire wars before the single make tire rule came in.
F1 was originally conceived as a test of driver skill and that should be the priority. More top cars means more drivers on the front-running pace and that would be a good thing imo

[McLaren Fan]

I think some people hold double standards on here, albeit unwittingly. They were quick to criticise Ferrari's close relationship with the FIA and Ecclestone (and rightly so), but are now speaking in favour of a similar system, which would ensure the ancien régime maintains its stranglehold on Formula One. The historic teams (i.e., Ferrari, McLaren, and Williams) are already in a questionable position, by getting extra prize money under the terms of the Concorde Agreement.

And, from a personal point of view, I believe success should also be assessed qualitatively. Any successes of McLaren which came about by the team getting special favours would be seriously cheapened, and perhaps even invalid. We cannot loose sight of the fundamental ethos of sport.

[darwin dali]

I think some people hold double standards on here, albeit unwittingly. They were quick to criticise Ferrari's close relationship with the FIA and Ecclestone (and rightly so), but are now speaking in favour of a similar system, which would ensure the ancien régime maintains its stranglehold on Formula One. The historic teams (i.e., Ferrari, McLaren, and Williams) are already in a questionable position, by getting extra prize money under the terms of the Concorde Agreement.

And, from a personal point of view, I believe success should also be assessed qualitatively. Any successes of McLaren which came about by the team getting special favours would be seriously cheapened, and perhaps even invalid. We cannot loose sight of the fundamental ethos of sport.

Yup!

[Gilles 27]

You never heard me complaining about the Concorde agreement favours granted to Ferrari and Williams...