F1 has rejected Andretti's entry bid
Discussion
realjv said:
Sandpit Steve said:
realjv said:
I would imagine the domestic US sports leagues like the NFL will not be too keen on congress and co taking too closer look at F1's "anti competitive" practices given that they themselves operate as a literal cartel. F1 is big, Liberty are big but the NFL is where the serious lobbying power rests.
The difference is that the other sports leagues play by their own written rules - and F1 don’t. They say they will allow up to 12 teams, but then act as a cartel of 10 when #11 wants to join in the party on the agreed terms. Whilst I disagree with the conclusion they came to I'm pretty sure they are on fairly solid ground as it will be difficult to prove otherwise.
This isn't (now) about who is right (in a court of law), but about how big and expensive a fight Liberty want about it. The additional threat of a resumption of EU competition action is a further lever.
"Nice sport. Be a shame if somebody broke it..."
realjv said:
I would imagine the domestic US sports leagues like the NFL will not be too keen on congress and co taking too closer look at F1's "anti competitive" practices given that they themselves operate as a literal cartel. F1 is big, Liberty are big but the NFL is where the serious lobbying power rests.
The USA major sports have their franchise systems covered by specific US law. This allows them to have control over where teams can be based and a restriction on any other team establishing themselves within a certain distance from the city or state in question. A great fun film to watch, which gives some info on this is on Netflix, called "the battered b
ds of baseball".
MustangGT said:
One other thing occurs to me:
Pit space. Is there room for one or two more teams in the pit area? Or, would all the teams have to shrink a bit?
The street circuits could easily add one more garage/hospitality to the space taken up for the F1 pits, it's not like many of them have a big support race timetable, and all the permanent circuits they go to regularly host races with more than 20 cars in the grid. Pit space. Is there room for one or two more teams in the pit area? Or, would all the teams have to shrink a bit?
MustangGT said:
One other thing occurs to me:
Pit space. Is there room for one or two more teams in the pit area? Or, would all the teams have to shrink a bit?
My understanding is that the contracts with the circuits say they need to be able to support a full field of F1 teams (up to 12).Pit space. Is there room for one or two more teams in the pit area? Or, would all the teams have to shrink a bit?
In practice, there's probably a few circuits that would struggle if extra teams joined ... but the fact that Brad Pitt and the F1 film production have been setting up as a "11th team" and a number of races last year shows that it's far from an insurmountable problem.
It feels to me like one of those things the teams are making out to be a problem (or much more of a problem) to avoid being honest about the fact that no turkey is ever going to vote for Christmas, and no F1 team is going to vote to make their life harder.
Some Gump said:
richhead said:
this is why F1 is a failing model, manufacturers have all moved or are looking at sportscars, and trust me the tech is not a mile from f1 levels, in some places ahead.The idea that you can build what you like aslong as it conforms fo a few points is attractive, F1 is way to restrictive.
.
What class is that?.
Hyoercar?
Dpi en francais?
Neither allow you to build what you like, or anything remotely close..
Lmp1 is what f1 could have been, but that party is over. Pity, it was awesome for a few years.
F1 cars all look the same, hypercars dont.
Some are better in the fast bits, some in the slow bits, some go further on fuel etc.
richhead said:
Lmp1 was quite restrictive actually, hypercar is way more open, just look at the grid, every manufacture has gone a slightly different way, and all have strengths and weakness , its way more innovative, all you basically need to do is make an amount of power using any energy and have an aero package that fits in a window, how you do that is mainly up to you.. And then B.O.P is used to level the playing field, so you still have racing, so team work/stratagy/ drivers can make a real differance.
F1 cars all look the same, hypercars dont.
Some are better in the fast bits, some in the slow bits, some go further on fuel etc.
Yes, but BOP is just handicapping by another name, which so many on this thread don't want to see. Many involved with Hypercars, however, seem to think it is (a) a very effective cost control mechanism, and (b) allows real creativity and individuality, whilst (c) maintaining close racing.F1 cars all look the same, hypercars dont.
Some are better in the fast bits, some in the slow bits, some go further on fuel etc.
And just look at the full grids and interesting cars we see as a result. The best driver / car / team / setup / durability package *on the day* will most likely win; nobody is "hobbled" by the system, but there seems to be genuine racing and fan interest.
F1 fans by and large don't care if the Red Bull has been made a touch slower by a BOP mechanism. They care about decent racing, the chance of an underdog victory, and a sense of fairness. BOP / handicapping doesn't make things unfair, or make a fast car slower than a slow car; it simply bunches up the field more, and introduces more uncertainty, peril and excitement.
All good in my book.
skwdenyer said:
Yes, but BOP is just handicapping by another name, which so many on this thread don't want to see. Many involved with Hypercars, however, seem to think it is (a) a very effective cost control mechanism, and (b) allows real creativity and individuality, whilst (c) maintaining close racing.
And just look at the full grids and interesting cars we see as a result. The best driver / car / team / setup / durability package *on the day* will most likely win; nobody is "hobbled" by the system, but there seems to be genuine racing and fan interest.
F1 fans by and large don't care if the Red Bull has been made a touch slower by a BOP mechanism. They care about decent racing, the chance of an underdog victory, and a sense of fairness. BOP / handicapping doesn't make things unfair, or make a fast car slower than a slow car; it simply bunches up the field more, and introduces more uncertainty, peril and excitement.
All good in my book.
My point entirely, its not a perfect way of doing it, but the aco are trying to promote racing, and look how the manufactures have responded., i may be biased as i help run one.And just look at the full grids and interesting cars we see as a result. The best driver / car / team / setup / durability package *on the day* will most likely win; nobody is "hobbled" by the system, but there seems to be genuine racing and fan interest.
F1 fans by and large don't care if the Red Bull has been made a touch slower by a BOP mechanism. They care about decent racing, the chance of an underdog victory, and a sense of fairness. BOP / handicapping doesn't make things unfair, or make a fast car slower than a slow car; it simply bunches up the field more, and introduces more uncertainty, peril and excitement.
All good in my book.
Blib said:
Wasn't the BOP advantage given to Ferrari at LeMans '23 suspiciously advantageous?
Ive heard some say that, the reality is that other teams, including ours didnt perform as well as ferrari, plus its a seriously good car with some super quick drivers, and unlike the F1 team, they seem to understand stratagy732NM said:
coppice said:
Yes indeed . Jim Clark managed to win several Grands Prix on the same set of Dunlops.
Forester1965 said:
The current tyres are poor because they overheat too easily and when they do they're ruined for the session.
For whatever commercial reasons it was decided to stick with Pirelli and the status quo, which I think was the wrong idea from a racing POV.
Pirelli make the tyres they are asked to make. They could make a completely different usage profile if requested.For whatever commercial reasons it was decided to stick with Pirelli and the status quo, which I think was the wrong idea from a racing POV.
MustangGT said:
Blib said:
coppice said:
And how much more impressive it'd be if Pirelli made tyres that could last for a race, as doubtless they could .Hard compound with much lower grip you say ? Result . A better advert than drivers moaning about ...err...deg after ten minutes' use.
Aren't they specifically instructed to produce exactly what they provide? 732NM said:
Pirelli make the tyres they are asked to make. They could make a completely different usage profile if requested.
The inference was the FIA could've allowed an additional supplier, rather than blaming Pirelli for the tyre specification. I can appreciate how it could've been read that way, though. RichB said:
Regarding tyres, I would prefer to go back to having two, or more, manufacturers supplying tyres, to cause some competition among manufacturers. And, do away the contrived requirement to use two different compounds during the race. Tyre selection would still be part of the strategy but not the overriding thing teams worry about.
I don't think a tyre war would work these days with no testing, as you'd just get half the teams lumbered with second rate tyres for a whole season. It would just be a lottery as to whether your team chose the right one at the beginning of the season. I don't think the teams would enjoy writing off a $150 million season due to a component that's entirely out of their control but has a major impact on their performance.The only way I could see it working is if teams were allowed to select between tyre suppliers on a race by race basis, perhaps after FP1, with that session dedicated to running each car in a team on a different tyre to find which one was best suited to that event. But then they'll all just choose the same one as each other so we'd end up shipping twice as many tyres to every race for no reason with half of them going unused.
thegreenhell said:
RichB said:
Regarding tyres, I would prefer to go back to having two, or more, manufacturers supplying tyres, to cause some competition among manufacturers. And, do away the contrived requirement to use two different compounds during the race. Tyre selection would still be part of the strategy but not the overriding thing teams worry about.
I don't think a tyre war would work these days with no testing, as you'd just get half the teams lumbered with second rate tyres for a whole season. It would just be a lottery as to whether your team chose the right one at the beginning of the season. I don't think the teams would enjoy writing off a $150 million season due to a component that's entirely out of their control but has a major impact on their performance.The only way I could see it working is if teams were allowed to select between tyre suppliers on a race by race basis, perhaps after FP1, with that session dedicated to running each car in a team on a different tyre to find which one was best suited to that event. But then they'll all just choose the same one as each other so we'd end up shipping twice as many tyres to every race for no reason with half of them going unused.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff