Brawn Wants to Experiment with Race Formats

I’ve thought about this for years and wondered why they never did it. There was talk a few years
ago about including third entires after the economic collapse which cut the grids pretty severely. The
time could be now.

F-1 should revive the notion of adding an additional (third car) entry per team at five or six events per year
at venues of the team's choice.

In this mode a couple of things are accomplished, first the grids will be fuller which will be important this year
with the loss of Manor, the grids are going to look really paltry at the starts. Imagine seeing three Ferraris at
the start of the Italian Grand Prix at Monza for example.

The addition of a third entry may give up-and-coming drivers a taste of actual competition rather than just doing
sim work/testing or perhaps a worthy driver who’s been shuffled out due to injury (or whatever) a real chance
to revive his career.

The third entry would only be eligible for manufactures' points and help team mates towards driver's points
championships.

And, who knows, if one or both team drivers drops out, the third driver may cause some real fireworks in final results.

Think about it Ross and get back to me.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/opinion-its-time-for-ross-brawn-to-save-f1-from-itself-878441/

 

Third cars would indeed be interesting.

I think let them score driver and constructor points, and let them race every event. However, you could stipulate that they would only be driven by rookies in their first season driving an F1 car and they couldn't buy their way into the seat. Then next year they have to find a permanent seat either in that team or another one. The third car seat, whatever happens, would be available for a new rookie next year. If the team couldn't find a free rookie they wanted to try, then they can just run two cars - so there's incentive to find someone.

In this way, more potential F1 champions might get their big breaks sooner and we'd constantly be improving the quality of the drivers on the grid.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

It's an all new ball game with Bernie gone. I say go ahead with three cars per team.

The down side would be a podium that is all Mercedes . . . .

 

There were GPs with even 6 Ferraris at the start so why not 3

 

Three car major teams would be the death of many of the minor teams, maybe as high up as Force India or Williams.

Do you really want only 4 teams competing?

 

3 cars?

That's like watching a cockblocking show rather than a race imho.

 

How will the FIA deal with costs which has been their mantra for so long (idiotic I know) & would the third car be just a test mule for new development work whereby the richer teams benefit the most.

First they need to share out the money evenly (never going to happen), ditch some of the stupid green and PC rules that govern F1.

F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle (tongue in cheek) of motorsport.

oh and BTW, bring back 20K rpm V12's

 

just allow all teams 3 "wild cards" per season, they can use a reserve driver, a retired driver, or a driver from another racing series. MotoGP does this all the time, sometimes with teams on test riders, sometimes a WSBK rider, and sometimes a local series rider. I get that driving an F1 car is far different from any other race car, but might make things interesting.

 

More equitable distribution of prize money, less restrictive engine regulations that are cheaper and more aurally pleasing (option for high rpm V8s, V10s or V12s would be great - and let the teams pick different options from one another if they want), greater aerodynamic freedom, and no fuel volume or flow restrictions.

Without caps on fuel volume or flow, it'll be less of an efficiency battle between engineers and more flat out racing between drivers.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

I've been saying this for years, plus get rid of ridiculous, artificial tire rules. F1 is supposed to be about maximizing performance. Why not develop a tire that will run consistently over an entire race? Get rid of artificially mandated pit stops. Racing should be about drivers, not tire changers.

 

Yep, like Monza 1961, or some GPs in the 50s, but then most of the grid was shared between Ferrari and Maserati clients.

 

3 or 4 manufacturers used to shared the grid back in the 50s when the championship started: Alfa, Maserati, Ferrari and Talbot. And many cars were entered by private teams too.

 

On top of the 10 teams entering 2 cars each at the moment, 4 wild car entries should be allowed at each GP to complement the grid up to 24 cars.

That's the system used in MotoGP. and it works OK.

Some teams could bring a third car to test a new driver, or single entry should be allowed to private teams to participate in a few GP each year.

 

I can see some downsides:

Costs to the teams would skyrocket

Lower level teams would get even fewer points and attention

It's possible that all you would see is one brand on the podium.

The use of teams working together to slow up other cars on the track to help another driver out another of their fellow would be exaggerated. The 3rd car could easily be some kind of blocker or pace setter.

I have another idea.

I am more in favor of a 3rd car in the pits that a race driver can switch into if it gets into an accident. It seems to me that too many races start with accidents and then there's 4 or 5 cars already gone.

If they had a back up car after a safety car or red flag, then more cars would be racing and more drivers could still get some points.

 

I agree.

Pit stops and mandatory tyre changes were introduced only in an attempt to spice up the show.

They make racing look artificial to me, and more about tactics than performance.

I am not interested in a pit crew championship.

 

The engine regulations currently prevent this--5 engines per season (4 this season).

This, also, increases costs as teams have to have a "spare" car.

 

First lap shunts are much rarer these days than previous years.

 

I'd think it to evolve like a bike/nordic ski peloton, where you have a designated champion on the team and a couple of support drivers who paceset/protect from crashes/compete for manufacturer glory. Not a positive development in the current era

 

Talking of bikes, how about introducing a few 'Prime' laps. where evryone goes balls- out for a lap in the middle of a race, the fastest getting bonus ponts and a good financial reward.

This would mean that those in a strong position in the race could consider engine reliability, and probably feather it, while those who have doubts about their own ability to finish the race in a useful position could go for some benefit.

Too many GPs evolve into a convoy and this could add a bit more action.

 

Cheaper than fielding 3 complete teams!

If you are Sauber, you might as well give up in F1. Imagine having 3 Ferrari's, 3 Mercs, 3 RB ahead of you each race with a smattering of a Renault, McLaren, or Toro Rosso.

You would never qualify farther up than 10th. NEVER.

 

Sorry, but it's just too NASCARish.

 

+1

 

A championship point for the fastest lap of the race might be interesting. No need to confine it to just a selected number of laps. At the moment it's only bragging rights, so it'd be neat for it to be actually worth something more than that.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

Trackside sprinklers

 

If a 'Prime' won't work, what about a wholesale simplification of the F1 regulations?

Those with a vested interest immediately try to stifle innovation by others, especially the smaller teams without any real political clout. What is wrong with alternative engine configurations, provided they meet capacity criteria and weight limits. We also seem to condone 'artificial' tyre stops to alter the pace

I haven't seen a recent FIA Handbook but my 30 year old copy was about 2" thick. The current version must be moved by fork truck!

I wonder how Colin Chapman or John Cooper would have faired in this rule bound bureaucracy? I wonder what the late lamented DSJ (of 'Motor Spoert' fame) would have to say about current F1?