26 cars lined up for 2010 & bile from Bernie

  • Thread starter Sureboss
  • 441 comments
  • 28,693 views
What ever happened to all that talk about each team being allowed to field 3 cars?, I thought that was a great idea and would certianly fill up grid slots for far less cash than having more individual teams.

Robin.
 
It was supposed to be a last-second measure in order to prevent an 18-car grid - it was never the prefered option for anyone. It'd mess a few things up - for example, would the 3rd car be allowed to score Constructor's points? And who'd want to see an all-Ferrari podium, other than the Tifosi? Or all-Brawn, for that matter?


As for the 26-car limit: There won't be a coin-flip or a "who's first to sign" - we'll probably just get pre-qualifying again. I, for one, welcome this. :P
 
Metar
As for the 26-car limit: There won't be a coin-flip or a "who's first to sign" - we'll probably just get pre-qualifying again. I, for one, welcome this. :P
Click to expand...
But would new teams be willing to go through that? Whichever way you cut it - euro, pounds, dollars, rubles - thirty million is a very high number, and with no guarantee that they'll make the grid, teams would be unwilling to invest, even in the optional budget cap.
 
It's either that, or nothing. The FIA could do it on a first-come-first-serve basis, but who knows? The last team to join might regret it anyway, with pre-qualifying as an option.

Pre-qualifying worked well throughout the '90s. Considering that these days, we already have knockout-qualifying in place, imagine this system: Another session, just before Q1, with the bottom 4 (or 5) teams, or "every team that scored no championship points last season assuming it's at least three-four teams", fighting for their right to participate in Q1 - only the bottom two are left out (26 on the grid), and perhaps more for Monaco.

While technically the modern tracks could host 14 teams (not sure about Monaco, though), I don't think the regulations will allow for that - safety reasons, probably.
 
Metar
It's either that, or nothing. The FIA could do it on a first-come-first-serve basis, but who knows? The last team to join might regret it anyway, with pre-qualifying as an option.
Click to expand...
I don't think you and I could simply announce that we're starting a Formula One team tomorrow and have the FIA agree to it over the weekend. If someone puts forth a proposal to join the grid, the FIA would be looking at it pretty seriously. After all, several factions - including Jean Alesi's Direxiv outfit and Paul Stoddart - put forth tenders to take the extra spot on offer for 2008, which ultimately went to Prodrive. Because the sport is so expensive these days, and because it's the highest level of competition across the board (ie not like the days of Simtek and Pacific), I should think the FIA would be able to pick and choose from those on offer if there's a spot available but too many applicants to fill it. For example, I think someone like Prodrive would have a better chance of joining the grid than Nick Wirth, simply because Dave Richards has been in the sort recently, knows what needs to be done to be competitive and so on, whereas Wirth was simply in freefall from Day One. True, Prodrive didn't join in 2008, but it wasn't a case of them simply deciding not to use their racing licence; their stillborn F1 project was a result of the row over customer chassis. Wirth's Simtek project was simply trouble from the very beginning, and there's nothing to indicate he could even do anything reasonable again. I mean, where's he been since Simtek? ALMS? Working on that split rear-wing design on behalf of the FIA?
 
And what better way to decide which team is best then on a race-to-race basis, with a shootout to decide which team is actually competitive, instead of which team-owner has the best creds? Otherwise, you end up with a system where only established team-owners or ex-managers can open up teams - rather than true "fresh faces".

Sure, the FIA will have to check if a team is actually capable of producing a safe, halfway-competitive car (the return of the 107% rule?) and have the finances to last the season - but other than that, there's no way the FIA could tell if a team will flop terribly, or produce the next BGP001 (or, to be fairer, the next Wolf).
 
Would you like to spend £30 million to find that your car is just is not quick enough to make the grid?

Strict limiting of teams to match the maximum number of starters is the only sensible option in this financial climate.
 
Considering these $30m (by now $50m or more) allow you more "play" than some of the $400m teams, yeah, I'd take that chance.
 
PJ-FFL
No source, but since F1 costs are dropping in 2010, Prodrive will most likely go for it.

EDIT: Please skip the criticism, ignore it and move on if it sounds like total crap to you
Click to expand...

You can't just post something like "Prodrive will definitely be in" without a source. You presented it as a fact, not as a matter of your own opinion. If you don't have a source, then don't try to present your opinion as a fact. There's no information so far about "Prodrive will definitely be in".
 
Not compulsory, but you'd be a sucker not to choose to adhere to it. The privateers will jump on the chance, of course - but the manufacturer-teams will have a hard time arguing against it:

  • Four wheel drive
  • No rev-limit, nor a limit on the number of engines, while the engine-cost itself is out of the budget!
  • Active aerodynamics at the front and rear wings, left and right can be changed separately, no driver-input required (ECU can control it automatically), no limit on number of changes.
  • Double the KERS power (60kW->120kW, 400kJ->800kJ), so either same power for double the time, or double the power for half the time (and anything between)
 
The official F1 website states that teams complying to the budget cap would be able to run a four wheel drive system, in-theory? Could anyone give an in-depth explanation of this?
 
As in, there's absolutely no guarantee they'll actually want that system. It means extra driveshafts and complicated front assemblies, so extra weight and aerodynamic compromises for a handling-benefit that is still unknown. Perhaps they'd rather spend that weight on the extra-powerful KERS system, or "pull an RBR" and work on extra-low CoG and better handling.
 
Designing a four wheel drive system - that won't eat into the budget cap much :rolleyes:. I can't understand where the powers that be are trying to take F1, surely there are more sensible ways to address the need for cost-cutting. You get unlimited engine revs, yet a push for lighter, more fuel efficient units all while having to adhere to a budget cap....
 
Last edited:
There is no indication of 4WD in the FIA statement. It's being made up by websites including the official F1 site!
 
Vaxen
Perhaps use KERS to drive the front wheels only?
Click to expand...

If anything, then front and rear - but yeah, that's basically what most teams will look into. Currently, energy is only harnessed from the rear axle, while the front one does the majority of the braking. Plus, with the front axle getting a temporary 80HP (80 rear, 80 front), it could help massively with acceleration off the line (and out of the corners) - but they'll have to consider the benefits tightly, compared to the disadvantages in handling of a heavier system.

And with just $40m to research...

Tired Tyres
There is no indication of 4WD in the FIA statement. It's being made up by websites including the official F1 site!
Click to expand...

Think again:

Code: 
9.1 Transmission types :
    No transmission system may permit more than two wheels to be driven.
    [B]This Article will not apply to Cost-Regulated Teams.[/B]
 
The thing I like most about these new regulations is that, in addition to encouraging new teams with a budget cap, a spec engine that is cheaper than anything else and so, on, FOM will pay new teams to enter; they'll get US$10 million each, plus free transport for their cars and equipment and air tickets will be supplied as well. It's obvious that FOM and the FIA are trying to encourage new teams by making it easy to enter the sport and supporting them long enough for them to ind their feet?

Who says the Bernie & Max Show is inherently bad?
 
I'm glad they aren't standardising anything beyond the engines (and even then its optional thank god for now). Its good to see they are trying at least to keep the whole point of F1 while at the same time reducing the costs massively. Whether these rules turn out to be good for the racing, well, time will tell.

All they need to fix now is Bernies rediculous fees towards circuits holding Grand Prix and sort out the British GP. Oh, and the FOM to go the full way and buy some HD cameras.
 
Ardius
All they need to fix now is Bernies rediculous fees towards circuits holding Grand Prix
Click to expand...
I think that's less a product of Bernie, and more a problem of simple economics. Let's say there are twenty available slots in the calendar, and with the seventeen races this year carrying over into 2010, there are just three spots left. You and a few other nations - we'll say India, South Korea, Russia, Argentina and Portugal, for argument's sake - are bidding to host a race in one of those three slots. India and South Korea are in, so it comes down to you, the Russian, the Argentinian and the Portugese for the final spot.

Normally, you'd pay a certain amount as an entry fee, but what happens when the Russians offer more? They clearly want their own race, and they're willing to pay for it. Bernie controls the supply of races - and so does commonsense; any more than about twenty is a bit insane, after about twenty-two you're dreaming - which means that he also controls the demand. The only way for you to be able to host a race is to out-bid the competition, but once you've agreed to pay fifty million a year for it, you're bound to that contract. And there's not much Ecclestone can do to stop that, because the fifty-two weeks in the year combined with the fact that everyone needs a rest every now and again means that there will only ever be a limited supply of empty slots on the calendar.
 
I wonder what a 4WD F1 car would look like. It would have to be very car-like rather than Formula-like. Would look very ugly as well.
 
PJ-FFL
I wonder what a 4WD F1 car would look like. It would have to be very car-like rather than Formula-like. Would look very ugly as well.
Click to expand...

It'd have a driveshaft at the front, but it'd still be an open wheeler. Why wouldn't it be an open wheeler?
 
Seriously. A driveshaft going through an already-quite-thick front assembly (so invisible to us), and the connecting halfshafts will be just one more "stick of carbon" in an already busy area, full of wishbones and torsion bars and steering-assemblies.

I very much doubt teams will actually use true, engine-driven 4WD, though. The driveshaft is a major pain in the ass, and quite literally - there's a driver, and his legs, to be placed between the engine and wheels, and as low as possible. That, plus the weight and complexity of such a system and the not-so-certain handling benefits will cause teams to think twice before testing such a system under the budget cap. Most will likely do with just a KERS-motor (and energy-collection device) at the front.
 
I can't find anything on the internet about it, but yesterday I heard on the radio that along with these new regulations they were banning in-race refueling, surely they can't be thinking of doing that. Has anybody heard anything about this?
 
Isn't that a bit dangerous, especially if there is a big crash. Also with the cars being so heavy, that is surely going to hurt the tires badly is it not. I don't see why this particular rule change is necessary, what does it add to F1.
 
Indeed, I fail to see the benefits either. The reason refueling was introduced in the first place was because it allowed the team to go faster over the distance. They have to stop and change tyres anyway (especially with the intentionally-defective Bridgestones we have these days).

This ban is meant to promote on-track passing, for two reasons: One being that different cars will handle differently with changing fuel-loads - one might be better than the others when full to the brim, but others might catch up on the lower fuel-loads - and that speed-differential is hoped to create more overtaking. The other reason is that once there's no refueling, drivers won't be able to out-strategize another driver and leapfrog in the pits, and will have to pass on the track - a rather silly idea, considering that, with current tyres, we'll still have to pit at least once per race, if not twice.
 
I am totally in favour of a ban of in race refueling. F1 has been a non stop race from the start to the finish, tyre changes excepted, for most of the years I've watched it. Refueling was reintroduced to assist the possibility of overtaking. It totally missed the point that it was difficult to overtake in the first place. It was not a solution.
 

Latest Posts

Back