The problem being that they are slow and that they break down often. I have a few crazy ideas. 1. A new team has to develop the car for a year before they can enter a race. They build the car to next years formula and get to test the hell out of it. 2. GP2 is the same formula as F1. They get to qualify for the F1 race somehow. Either the winner of the GP2 race gets in, or qualifying is for both F1 and GP2 to get into the F1 race. 3. Customer cars. (Matchett's idea)They get to use a customer car for the first year. They may get to develop next years car at the same time which would have to be their own chassis. (my idea) 4.They get way more testing time the first year. Hell, unlimited. What are some of your ideas?
It seems the 107% rule isn't tight enough. From what I read here, everyone is around 104% max. Make it 103%?
I don't think there is a back marker problem. What happened today could have happened with a sick car just as easily. In fact, it happens MORE OFTEN with a sick car. The guy behind is responsible for not running into the guy ahead. That's the solution. Back markers add flavor and interest to the races. They add challenges to the drivers and strategies. And, they add their own fan base. I'm a die hard Ferrari fan but I was also a big Jordan fan, Minardi fan, and Super Aguri fan (loved those guys!). I'm warming up to Lotus. If you want the top 6 cars running, just look at the Michelin Indy race fiasco a few years ago. Wow... wasn't that exciting! However, I do think the testing ban is just plain stupid.
The problem is, the FIA itself. The FIA, IMO did not do any proper background checks on team that gained it's approval (USF1 and Hispania). The thing is, with the testing ban, it's virtually impossible for smaller teams to keep on developing the cars. Someone suggested that the teams stay back after Sunday's race, and use Monday and a testing day. Makes sense to me. There's no extra costs to carry the cars/equipment to tests location, since they're already there at a particular track. Then, i think the FIA should also conduct a shoot-out test to see which team is actually fast enough to be in the big league here. Doesn't mean that just because they have the FIA's approval, they're already prepared to race around with the bigger teams. Last, but not least, i think the inclusion of so many small uncompetitive teams, is the way they used to cover up the fact some manufacturers left the sport in the past 2 years.
I agree that the slower cars that make up the Grid also can add to the excitement of the race. I think that the 107% rule is fine. I also think the blue flag should be shown to slower cars whether they are fighting for position or not. Also the slower car should hold it's line. But at the end of the day it is up to the overtaking driver to ensure it is safe to pass.
Lets say Lewis was in 3rd place, Massa in second and Alonso in first. Lets also say Alonso and Lewis were fighting for the WDC. All Massa needs to do is to brake early to take Lewis out. Maybe not enough to cause a car doing a somersault like with Webber but enough to take out a front wing. It seems very unlikely but we've seen what teams are willing to do to win with Renault a few years back. The FIA looks at telemetry in instances like this for a reason.
The top 4 teams spend near as makes no difference 2 billion per year to race in F1. The bottom four teams spend less than 200M. You will never have a fix as long as that financial divide exists.
Spot on. Saying that disabled cars pose a bigger risk is (looking for a polite way of saying) nonsense. If a car is so slow that it poses a threat it doesn't belong on track period. Makes no difference why. Face it, these chicanes are there for Max's political reasons only. Time to admit the mistake and stop risking lives.
How about "don't run into the back of someone when trying to pass for position"? There's no backmarker problem.
There are two ways to fix the back marker problem A) make the faster cars slower. This dé rigor in NASCAR and other racing venues--it stinks. B) do not allow cars more than one second off the pace in qualifying to run in the race. But there are additional things that can be done C) ignore the problem because back markers provide opportunities for passing (if only themselves). D) invert the F1 to teams payout schedule so the lesser teams have the $$$ to advance their positions.
There is no backmarker problem. There have always been slow cars... there will always be slow cars. If we only want cars fast enough not to get lapped, then at some point we will be DQ'ing the Ferraris and Williams and McLarens because they have all had years that they were not fast enough to stay on the lead lap reliably. The solution is just to make passing a backmarker predictable. Have them stay on the racing line. Simple.
Exactly! It's not as if Webber didn't see Kovalainen - it was more that he was trying to draft him for too long (to gain an advantage) before going past and got caught out by Kovalainen's braking point, which was sooner than his own. With Webber drafting him, Kovalainen didn't know which way to go to get out of the way. It's not so much a problem with the back-markers, it's more a problem with the front-runners trying to exploit the back-markers (e.g. drafting them for too long before moving out to pass) for their own advantage... sometimes the front-runners are caught out and things go wrong. All the best, Andrew.
Mike, there is no question that at some point the speed differential becomes a safety issue. The question is where. I contend that given yesterday's events (particularly realizing how much worse that accident could have been) we've crossed that line. Your results may differ.
This! When Mark "it wasn't my fault" Webber is saying he doesn't blame the other guy, you know it was his fault Not crashing into cars in front of you is a good start!
+2 I don't know who drew the line at 107% in the murky past, but it seems like a reasonable number to me - Slow guys get lapped say every 10-20 laps - The front runners have the benefit of blue flags etc and should be able to handle it without any issues. Cheers, Ian
Problem or not, I'd like to see the new teams more up to speed and more reliable on race day. That's why I like the idea of giving a new team a year to develop the car. I'm generalizing, but the new teams aren't even finishing the races.(27 DNFs so far) What's the point of having them in the race when they clearly aren't ready? Obviously there are tons of problems with this idea, but if we can get the new teams faster and more reliable from the start, it is better for F1 in the long run. I actually didn't start this thread because of the Webber incident. Heikki's braking point was way sooner than Webber's. Webber wanted a draft. The two don't mix. F1 will always have back markers, I love the underdog passing a front runner, but this year they seem unprepared. Maybe the minimum budget should be higher.
I quoted wrong in my post. It was a response to a driver being responsible for not hitting the person in front. It's simply not that easy as there will be incentive to cause car wrecks by the driver in front when a WDC is being decided. If the telemetry shows that the driver in front brake checked then the responsibility should be on the front driver.
Whats troubling is the acceptance of team rivalries at 3 different levels as in top, mid and back marker. Yes, it is a driver's job not to run into other cars but F1 is not ALMS. *Flame suit on*. In certain forms of oval racing that will remain nameless, cars must lap at a certain race pace relative to the leader. If a car can't keep pace they must pit to rectify the problem or park it and go home.
Personal best laps from top 3 & bottom 3 Finishers. 1. J. BUTTON 1:38.766 (107% is 1:45.679) 2. M. SCHUMACHER 1:38.968 3. S. VETTEL 1:39.141 20. L. DI GRASSI 1:42.414 21. B. SENNA 1:42.927 22. K. CHANDHOK 1:43.820
