Two tier Formula 1

[Derek Smith]

This season has given us some thrilling racing at the front but most of the entertainment came not from the top three makes of cars but from the rest of the field.

We’ve had multiple ‘winners’ from the best of the rest, with all by Williams putting someone on the mythical top step. It has been thoroughly entertaining.

Autosport did a bit this week on the B Series. Instead of fulsome praise about the entertainment, it was highly critical of the F1 organisation. As it quite rightly pointed out, most teams are merely a ‘little me’ of one of the top teams. The only one that is any way independent is Williams, and they are dismissed out of hand as not even in the B team.

It makes for depressing reading. More to the point, the logic seems irrefutable.

I thought there was hope for F1 given how competitive and exciting the B Series is; it could be a model for the new owners perhaps? But no, it seems. Far from being a restricted cost series, it is part of the problem.

No real answer is provided, other than they need to do something different.

[sparta6]

An extra 10 Constructors points awarded at season end, if the team qualifies as being truly independent.

[andburg]

you get the same winners from the same teams in spec series, all this about F1 being 2 tier is just bluster.

[Eric Mc]

We actually had that in the years 1987/88 when we had 1.5 litre turbo cars running with 3.5 litre normally aspirated cars.

[HarryFlatters]

Eric Mc said:

We actually had that in the years 1987/88 when we had 1.5 litre turbo cars running with 3.5 litre normally aspirated cars.

Was just about to post the same.

[sgtBerbatov]

HarryFlatters said:

Eric Mc said:

We actually had that in the years 1987/88 when we had 1.5 litre turbo cars running with 3.5 litre normally aspirated cars.

Was just about to post the same.

Sometimes it gave good racing, Leyton House got on the podium with a V8 one of those years didn't they?

[Eric Mc]

On rare occasions the normally aspirated cars had a chance. It was usually dependent on the circuit and/or the weather.

Mansell did really well in the 1988 British GP in his 3.5 litre Williams by dodging about looking for puddles to cool his overheating tyres.

[slipstream 1985]

Forgeting of course that red bull are not a manufaturer backed team (yet) so would be classed as one of the B grid teams and have got wins podiums etc. Also we have a manufacturer backed team in the B team "grid" in the form of Renault.

[thegreenhell]

Red Bull have the budget of the major manufacturers. There were reports in the past week or two of the most recent accounts of Mercedes and Red Bull, and the spending was almost identical, both over £300M for 2017.

[Derek Smith]

thegreenhell said:

Red Bull have the budget of the major manufacturers. There were reports in the past week or two of the most recent accounts of Mercedes and Red Bull, and the spending was almost identical, both over £300M for 2017.

It is budget that the article focused on. Renault is a case in point, or rather the case.

The 3.5 and 1.5 seasons are not the same as it was temporary and was brought about by a change in regs.

The point of the article was that the separation between the top teams and the also-rans is a feature of the way things are organised. There is a basic unfairness. RB has TR to support them and the same with Ferrari and other teams. There seems to be no end in sight. Williams is independent.

[DanielSan]

Mclaren are independent also, not just Williams. And they're both doing appallingly. Teams still being independent is a noble idea, but when it comes to cost it's more effective to buy in huge parts of the car rather than design and manufacture everything.

What do we want in F1? More teams and better racing, or some nonsense about the good old days and teams being independent but being in no way competitive?

[Derek Smith]

DanielSan said:

Mclaren are independent also, not just Williams. And they're both doing appallingly. Teams still being independent is a noble idea, but when it comes to cost it's more effective to buy in huge parts of the car rather than design and manufacture everything.

What do we want in F1? More teams and better racing, or some nonsense about the good old days and teams being independent but being in no way competitive?

It is not about what I wanted. It is about what a columnist in Autosport was concerned about, and that's nothing to do with the 'good old days'.

The point is that this season the battle of the B teams has been thrilling, with a 'winner' from every team apart from Williams. It appears, on the face of it, highly competitive but it hides a worrying trend.

What do we want in F1? I can't say for anyone but myself. I'd like 26 competitive cars on the grid, with fast newcomers being able to challenge the top teams. At the moment we have cars in the top 6 being relegated to the back of the grid and yet getting to 6th position in a few laps. Or at least some form of level playing field to encourage new entrants. $100m to Ferrari for being Ferrari. It's not fair, merely giving into threats.

I'm certain the big teams, with their little also-rans using the same engine, gearbox and floors, do not cheat by testing their bits in windtunnels as such. It means that the teams at the bottom have little hope to get on terms.

You suggest that McLaren are performing appallingly. Compared to whom? They have a driver who is 4th in the B class. That gives a clue as to the problem the independents suffer. The mighty McL with Alonso are in a separate race.

[entropy]

What makes a team independent and not B-team? You mention Williams but they have Merc PU (but their own transmission) and Merc affilliated drivers - had Bottas, George Russel next year.

I've not read the Autosport article but it did made me think on this and its a complex issue.

F1 hasn't really recovered from tobacco sponsorship, sponsorship has gone down and more difficult and so drivers have to come up with more money unless you're in a driver programme/acadamy. Because of the struggles of sponsorship the issue over prize money and dividing it up becomes a bigger issue by the year.

The rulebook is tighter and made the cars closer in performance which significantly impacted the midfield.

To compete in F1 you need strong R&D infrastructure - or have access to it.

Rather than wondering about independent teams really the issue is 'how do you invest in F1'?

[sparta6]

DanielSan said:

What do we want in F1? More teams and better racing, or some nonsense about the good old days and teams being independent but being in no way competitive?

F1 needs to make it financially viable for independent engine suppliers such as Judd and Cosworth.

Williams and other independents were competitive IIRC

[ukaskew]

5 years and 7 months (or 114 grand prix) since a team outside the current top 3 won a race, and no signs that will let up.

My knowledge of F1 history isn't strong but trawling through results I can't find a period anything like that.

A lot of people enjoy sport for the upsets, for the underdogs doing the impossible etc. F1 is one of very, very few sports where that basically doesn't happen full stop.

Edited by ukaskew on Friday 19th October 19:58

[entropy]

Peter Windsor advocating the Haas/Dallara model:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wz5xJHIfqI

[turbomoped]

It seems to be thought of as the norm that we have a few dominant teams and a lot of others scuttling about behind due to it historically being that way but this is modern F1 where even the last team is spending nearly £100 million.
I would expect some glory for that outlay.
Back in the early days you could run your Hesketh team as a wealthy enthusiast getting a big day out for yourself and your fellow top hats till the money ran out and have some good memories.
Maybe Stroll snr deserves a lot of respect for sinking some of his fortune in but he may just be clever enought to benefit in a mike ashley fashion.

[DanielSan]

sparta6 said:

F1 needs to make it financially viable for independent engine suppliers such as Judd and Cosworth.

Williams and other independents were competitive IIRC

F1 was financially viable for other engine constructors then they decided to go down this nonsensical hybrid route purely in an aim to look green, and in return we got a formula that's made the sport more expensive than it ever has been.

But the FIA won't back down from this now and go back to a more simple engine formula.

[EDLT]

DanielSan said:

sparta6 said:

F1 needs to make it financially viable for independent engine suppliers such as Judd and Cosworth.

Williams and other independents were competitive IIRC

F1 was financially viable for other engine constructors then they decided to go down this nonsensical hybrid route purely in an aim to look green, and in return we got a formula that's made the sport more expensive than it ever has been.

But the FIA won't back down from this now and go back to a more simple engine formula.

The same happened with LMP1, the hybrids were so expensive nobody could compete. So they've come up with a solution where everyone still has to use hybrids but aimed it towards manufacturers who are going to inflate the cost of racing until they all drop out again.

[StevieBee]

ukaskew said:

5 years and 7 months (or 114 grand prix) since a team outside the current top 3 won a race, and no signs that will let up.

My knowledge of F1 history isn't strong but trawling through results I can't find a period anything like that.

McLaren would have won every race one year were it not for a Williams punting Senna off.

Ferrari dominated the early 00s.

Williams in the 90s.

Lotus in the 60s and 70's

The most diverse season of the modern era was 2012 when six different drivers / teams won the opening six races but other than that, it is has normally always been a case of a dominant few teams prevailing.

Although today the sport is dominated by a few, the gap between the first and last places is probably the shortest it has ever been. It was not that long ago that the tail enders would finish a race five or six or more laps behind.