The Official F1 2019 silly season *contains speculation*

[kambites]

The problem isn't number of cars on the grid, it's allowing the richer teams more track-time and the development advantage that would bring. That's obviously not really an issue in Indycar. The poorer teams would be pretty much forced to take on pay drivers to cover the extra cost of running a third car, leaving a large number of F1 seats essentially open to the highest bidder.

[thegreenhell]

Sam993 said:

Kraken said:

Three car teams would destroy F1 unless they made massive changes basically leading to a two tier championship. Look at the mess WEC has got itself into trying to match up works teams with huge budgets to private teams.

Or look at IndyCar where 3+ cars teams aren't something unusual and where racing is closer and more exciting than all other single seater series combined. Obviously the number of cars would be an issue if all teams were to run 3 cars but since teams like Williams couldn't afford it that would mean maybe 4-5 additional cars on the grid? Not the end of the world.

Indycar is completely different to F1. None of them are manufacturer teams, so all the cars are largely equal regardless of which team is running them. In F1 you'd get the big manufacturer teams fielding extra cars, which would just push the smaller teams even further back down the grid and make them less competitive. The smaller teams would thus be scoring fewer points, be less attractive to sponsors, and more likely to go bust. We would eventually be left with only the three or four big teams each fielding multiple cars, with no independents. This is not the recipe for a healthy, competitive series.

[Sam993]

thegreenhell said:

Sam993 said:

Kraken said:

Three car teams would destroy F1 unless they made massive changes basically leading to a two tier championship. Look at the mess WEC has got itself into trying to match up works teams with huge budgets to private teams.

Or look at IndyCar where 3+ cars teams aren't something unusual and where racing is closer and more exciting than all other single seater series combined. Obviously the number of cars would be an issue if all teams were to run 3 cars but since teams like Williams couldn't afford it that would mean maybe 4-5 additional cars on the grid? Not the end of the world.

Indycar is completely different to F1. None of them are manufacturer teams, so all the cars are largely equal regardless of which team is running them. In F1 you'd get the big manufacturer teams fielding extra cars, which would just push the smaller teams even further back down the grid and make them less competitive. The smaller teams would thus be scoring fewer points, be less attractive to sponsors, and more likely to go bust. We would eventually be left with only the three or four big teams each fielding multiple cars, with no independents. This is not the recipe for a healthy, competitive series.

Penske and Andretti are very much "manufacturer teams". They are not branded as Chevy or Honda but they are the main focus of both. As for the smaller teams getting shafted if there were 3 teams, I agree that's why it would need some sort of workaround, maybe points awarded only to first 2 cars for teams that have 3 cars.

[Steamer]

DanielSan said:

And Toto now saying he wouldn’t release Ocon if it meant he could be in the grid next year because he’s going to be a future champion. Have an option on his contract then rather than stopping him driving another car completely!

That was quite an interesting and candid interview - What was the bit about the paddock turning 'Anti-Toto' all about?.. seemed a bit of an odd thing to say, is he just feeling the pressure a bit?

[dunc_sx]

Sam993 said:

[As for the smaller teams getting shafted if there were 3 teams, I agree that's why it would need some sort of workaround, maybe points awarded only to first 2 cars for teams that have 3 cars.

Still getting more test time (during race weekends) to give an advantage over smaller teams.

[Kraken]

Sam993 said:

Or look at IndyCar where 3+ cars teams aren't something unusual and where racing is closer and more exciting than all other single seater series combined. Obviously the number of cars would be an issue if all teams were to run 3 cars but since teams like Williams couldn't afford it that would mean maybe 4-5 additional cars on the grid? Not the end of the world.

IndyCar is a spec series. Massive difference to a series where each team designs and builds its own car.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Kraken said:

IndyCar is a spec series. Massive difference to a series where each team designs and builds its own car.

Exactly.

If you allow teams to run 3 cars, what will happen is the big teams will do so, the small teams will not be able to afford to, and you're effectively reintroducing testing via the back door for the big teams. The result would be the gulf between the big teams and the small teams would grow even more.

[thegreenhell]

Sam993 said:

thegreenhell said:

Sam993 said:

Kraken said:

Three car teams would destroy F1 unless they made massive changes basically leading to a two tier championship. Look at the mess WEC has got itself into trying to match up works teams with huge budgets to private teams.

Or look at IndyCar where 3+ cars teams aren't something unusual and where racing is closer and more exciting than all other single seater series combined. Obviously the number of cars would be an issue if all teams were to run 3 cars but since teams like Williams couldn't afford it that would mean maybe 4-5 additional cars on the grid? Not the end of the world.

Indycar is completely different to F1. None of them are manufacturer teams, so all the cars are largely equal regardless of which team is running them. In F1 you'd get the big manufacturer teams fielding extra cars, which would just push the smaller teams even further back down the grid and make them less competitive. The smaller teams would thus be scoring fewer points, be less attractive to sponsors, and more likely to go bust. We would eventually be left with only the three or four big teams each fielding multiple cars, with no independents. This is not the recipe for a healthy, competitive series.

Penske and Andretti are very much "manufacturer teams". They are not branded as Chevy or Honda but they are the main focus of both. As for the smaller teams getting shafted if there were 3 teams, I agree that's why it would need some sort of workaround, maybe points awarded only to first 2 cars for teams that have 3 cars.

They all use the same Dallara chassis with the same aero bits. There simply isn't the same difference in equipment between the front and back of the grid that there is in F1.

F1 does not need bigger teams, it needs more teams, and preferably also an independent engine supplier to give more freedom and choice.

[Chuggaboom]

thegreenhell said:

We would eventually be left with only the three or four big teams each fielding multiple cars, with no independents. This is not the recipe for a healthy, competitive series.

Which pretty much what what happened to BTCC when Alfa Romao where allowed aero bits, all the other teams wanted aero too of course, so with wind tunnel testing etc etc costs rocketed, then teams inc some manufacturers walked.

[Vaud]

Interesting point from Joe Saward:

"And, of course, there will need to be money from the Strolls to purchase Lance's freedom from his Williams contract. Normally these things are for five years and Lance has done only two, so the pay-off will need to be well into the double-digit millions."

So maybe Williams will be ok next year for budget despite losing Martini.

[thegreenhell]

Pascal Wehrlein will no longer be supported by Mercedes after this year when Merc pull out of DTM. He's been seen touting himself around the paddock looking for a drive in F1 next year.

[The Moose]

ELUSIVEJIM said:

The idea of 3 cars teams sounds great but as many have stated it would kill the lower teams off.

But also I very much doubt you would see a team like Mercedes having Hamilton, Bottas and another top driver in the team.

It would be another rear gunner looking after number one.

IMO it would land up with more Strolls on the grid rather than the proper talent being given the chance.

Shame when so much talent is sidelined by money.

Why not have an optional 3rd and 4th car for the team. Only the top 2 finishers from each team are given points.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

The Moose said:

Why not have an optional 3rd and 4th car for the team. Only the top 2 finishers from each team are given points.

That still doesn't address the issue that the extra car(s) would be gathering valuable extra telemetry data. The teams operating such cars could try all sorts of testing-related setups and parts that would directly benefit the development of the cars. Also, more than 2 cars is a greater chance of getting into the points, which again penalises the teams who can't afford to run extra cars.

I just don't think it is a good idea.

[thegreenhell]

The Moose said:

Why not have an optional 3rd and 4th car for the team. Only the top 2 finishers from each team are given points.

Because even if they don't score points they are still pushing other cars further back down the placings, which makes them look bad even if it doesn't cost them points.
Because it gives them more tactical options to disrupt the races of other the teams, and the ability to sacrifice the race of a non-points scorer with no penalty.
Because it gives the top teams (the ones who need it least) the most track time for setup, race prep, tyre testing, and telemetry data.
Because a front-running manufacturer team should be the pinnacle for a driver to aspire to at the peak of their career, not an entry point into F1 for a promising teenager.

[andburg]

The Moose said:

ELUSIVEJIM said:

The idea of 3 cars teams sounds great but as many have stated it would kill the lower teams off.

But also I very much doubt you would see a team like Mercedes having Hamilton, Bottas and another top driver in the team.

It would be another rear gunner looking after number one.

IMO it would land up with more Strolls on the grid rather than the proper talent being given the chance.

Shame when so much talent is sidelined by money.

Why not have an optional 3rd and 4th car for the team. Only the top 2 finishers from each team are given points.

problem is, if the third car cant score points it could end up being used as a roadblock to help cars 1 and 2, the driver would not be racing for himself.

3 cars is the cheapest solution as it requires no extra development like a second team would and minimal extra spares.
You could reduce cost of a second team by sharing components like Ferrari/HAAS but that would only be accepted if the midfield were closer to the front. Currently there is too much of a gap between Merc/Fer/RBR to the rest, look how quickly HAAS have moved ahead of established teams.The other teams would not support this.

If rules were stable you could possibly do something ala MotoGP by allowing cars which were 1/2 years old to be ran by independants and restrict their development but same issues with true constructors. Regs change so quickly these days its just not feasible

[Sam993]

thegreenhell said:

F1 does not need bigger teams, it needs more teams, and preferably also an independent engine supplier to give more freedom and choice.

The time of true independents is gone forever. The only way F1 will get more teams is if they are manufacturer backed/closely linked, which will still yield the same outcome, more testing time for manufacturers - Haas and Ferrari are doing pretty well this year, I wonder if it was only Haas that gained from the collaboration and additional development time. I don't think so. Honda sucked balls during their McLaren comeback days mainly because they didn't have enough data to base their development off of and to compare against.

Also 3 teams would add some difficult to manage spice into the mix where team orders wouldn't be as easy to execute, Hamilton would have to deal with Ocon and Bottas to establish himself, rather than simply use Bottas as a "butler" from day one.

[Sam993]

andburg said:

problem is, if the third car cant score points it could end up being used as a roadblock to help cars 1 and 2, the driver would not be racing for himself.

Not score manufacturer's championship points, driver points would still be as per who finished where.

[hairyben]

Kraken said:

Vettel has always been error prone. It's just that a lot of the time it's not so obvious as it's early in the season, when he's walking the title or out of contention.

hes great at winning from the front in the fastest car, which isn't necessarily as feint praise as it sounds, but the thing is he never really has been much cop at hacking it wheel to wheel, something most of the pundits seem to be blinded by the 4xWDC to.


Here's a thought that occurred to me though, Kimi at sauber not making a whole lotta sense to me or many others, but it does put a very reliable driver in an immediately accesible place should ferrari want one at any point hmm?

[Vaud]

hairyben said:

hes great at winning from the front in the fastest car, which isn't necessarily as feint praise as it sounds, but the thing is he never really has been much cop at hacking it wheel to wheel, something most of the pundits seem to be blinded by the 4xWDC to.


Here's a thought that occurred to me though, Kimi at sauber not making a whole lotta sense to me or many others, but it does put a very reliable driver in an immediately accesible place should ferrari want one at any point hmm?

Or more simply - he still wants to race and it's one for the few seats left?

[glazbagun]

hairyben said:

hes great at winning from the front in the fastest car, which isn't necessarily as feint praise as it sounds, but the thing is he never really has been much cop at hacking it wheel to wheel, something most of the pundits seem to be blinded by the 4xWDC to.


Here's a thought that occurred to me though, Kimi at sauber not making a whole lotta sense to me or many others, but it does put a very reliable driver in an immediately accesible place should ferrari want one at any point hmm?

So he can come back and be solid #2 behind LeClerc should they get a Ham/Alonso situation?

I think it's clear that Kimi likes racing for its own sake unlike maybe Hill or Rosberg who seemed to lose their joy. So if Kimi can stay fast enough he'd be a great asset to many a team. It's probably more fun being away from the pressure cooker at Ferrari, too. If all you wanted to do was go racing every weekend, you could do a lot worse than mid-level F1, which is where most of the racing seems to happen these days.