I wouldn't do anything at all. New teams are good for the sport.
What would stop a team from spending a year developing their car before they entered F1? I don't see why we need a rule for that.
Not when a new team is consistently 5 sec off the pace and openly admits to having no new money for upgrades. The FIA sanctions 27 other championships that would be a better fit for their budget.
If any and all entrants with sufficient money are allowed in regardless of capability F1 loses its raison d'etre.
The real back marker problem is that we don't get to see such spectacular accidents often enough. There should be more slow cars with drivers making wrong decisions behind blind corners. The way to fix that problem and the SC problem at the same time: Deploy the SC car but don't tell anybody.
Nothing personal but a few quick thoughts sprang to mind. #1 Development time is excellent but nothing compares to the actual experience. Witness Toyota, before entering F1 they tested for an entire year all over. Their first year was still nothing special aside from two sixth places. This was after 10+ tests and differing their entry a year and losing $10 million for it! Stewart, who was also an entirely new time fared about the same and they didn't have a limitless budget and massive testing. #2 GP2 is already a Dallara series and we have plenty of spec series in the world. The problem with making GP2 similar to F1 is cost. Developing and building a car takes serious money #3 It works for MotoGP! #4 Not bad either but still costs money and first year cars reach their development potential easily as many changes that are thought of late would require massive overhauls of homoligated and major components.
I think the way it works is Bernie give you the go ahead and you promise to be at the first race in 2011. I don't think you can get approved now to start the 2012 season and go make a car and test it for a year. I don't even think the 2012 formula is set yet. That would have to happen now also.
Bingo!!! Add Virgin to that list as well. They not only showed up with a car incapable of holding enough fuel to finish a race but also Branson was unaware that the top ten constructors actually get paid at the end of the year. Now I like the man, (Richard Branson) but the fact that he didn't know the pay structure to a sport he's invested millions in, 8 races into the season, is outright disgraceful. These teams shouldn't be in F1 yet (or GP2), not even close.
It's not about testing time so much as it is about money. The new teams are lucky to be able to get on a grid at all... I don't think any of them would be able to finance a whole year of car development without seeing any benefit (in ad/sponsorship sales or prize money from Bernie) before entering the sport. And those that are well funded like BMW/Toyota/Honda tend not to be at the very back anyway, even if they are brand new to the sport. So I'm not sure what a year of testing would accomplish.
Any team that comes into F1 is going to be around that far off. I don't know about you, but I like privateer teams in the sport. They have the right to play too.
I love privateers. I'm just trying to brainstorm ways to get them up to speed/reliability quicker. Sauber and McLaren started as privateers. Still are, I guess.
Sauber is an excellent example of how it should be done! They started in the 70's in FIA Euro Hill Climb and moved on to FIA World Sportscar Championship in the 80's. On F1 debut in '93 they routinely scored points and finished 7th in the WCC.
Provide an atmosphere where the major manufacturers of the world can participate without being in an arms race to see who can spend more money. Provide a points structure that rewards to last place so that the Genius who thought of going to F1 doesnt look like a complete moron at the end of the year board of directors meeting when asked "How did we do ?"
On the track sure. In the eyes of the public, sponsors, and people in giant corporations who control purse strings; No Or else we end up with Virgins and HRT's. Is that winning ?
Build a village where no-one starves. This is going to sound bad to many but steal Nascars playbook and follow it.
What folks need to do is go back in time and compare the differences in times between the first and last place cars, and they will see that today the difference is nowhere near what it used to be. It wasn't that long ago where a difference was 10-12 seconds.
This is it. At times, the Ferrari has been a backmarker. More times than one cares to admit. There is no backmarker problem. The sport needed new teams, some showed up to play, at some point, either they become midfield as did Force India, or they quit when the sponsor money stops. You can not have all front runners, nobody wins. Bringing in these new teams was a good idea for survival of F1. One of Molsely's better ideas. Remember the days when there were teams like Wolf, Sauber, Tyrrell, etc. Remember when Honda and Toyota were backmarkers but because they were large corporations, nobody cared?
