Your command of English, and the nuances thereof knocks many native speakers here into the proverbial "cocked hat"..... Doubt many even know what a "circumlocution" is! Anyway, latest on the 3rd car nonsense from some "insiders" via Autosport; Cheers, Ian Formula 1 figures warn third cars would be bad for the sport - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com
Sorry, when I use the dictionary I have normally no idea what of the five suggested translations is the most common one. I am quit sure that this all sounds very funny for a native Brit/American but what can I do?
*Absolutely* no need to apologize! I wasn't trying to be funny - Seriously - Your command of the language is *seriously* ahead of many who claim English as their first language! That it's your second makes it all the more impressive. Were many of us as eloquent life (at least here!) would be much improved. Cheers, Ian
You're welcome, & you too! I stuck with the Sky coverage thru the end of FP2 and they covered the entire team principals press conference. Was more interesting than the cars on track fer sure! I believe the FIA publishes the transcript soon, but in the meantime I'd note that the gap(s) between the "haves" (Toto & Eric) and the "have-nots" (Gerard, Monisha & VJ) seem to be as wide as ever. It's a tough nut to crack for sure, but as I've said before, based on what they said there is zero chance these guys can even agree on the color of the sky. I'll post the link as soon as it's up. Ian
Here we go; Formula 1® - The Official F1® Website - Headlines - FIA Friday press conference - United States It's pretty long - It's the complete transcript - But well worth a read if you're serious...... I even suspect this may be where the (BS, IMO) rumors of a boycott began. Cheers, Ian
I strongly believe that 3 car per team race will be way much more interesting. The majority of the F1 fans don't care about the small teams anyway not to mention that they cause most of the accidents on the grid.
Three car teams would be a disaster for F1. Assume the situation when Honda pulled out, a major team. What is left, now 15 cars on the grid? And consider if the BOD of Mercedes decided F1 was not in their best interests at the same time as another team or two pulled out. We have seen corporate control change, bean counters that do not understand motorsports. I like the small teams, as close to a Tyrrell, Brabham, Jordan, etc., we have today. F1 needs small teams and they also need to control the expense of the sport. And who would be the three car teams? Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes, McLaren? Is Williams one of those teams? Force India? The first four would give you a 12 car grid.......wow. After following F1 for over 40 years, it would be the reason to watch something else if they go to 3 car teams. Even NASCAR would be more interesting. My professional background is commercial real estate. Our company would lease office space in large class A buildings. Our philosophy was it was better to lease 12 floors to 30 different tenants that to only 8-10. It would be a big bite in the shorts if one of those large tenants left. Same applies to motorsports, especially one as expensive as F1.
I'm ok with 3 car teams. F1 had them before. In fact there were years with more than 3 cars from the same manufacturer. Heck like 10 years ago RB run 4 identical cars....
I think the small teams should go into a category that can afford to stay in for a long period of time. Like the GP2 which would cost the a fracture of what F1 does. Instead of coming in and out from F1 without any wins or accomplishments. Back in the day, there were only small teams. Ferrari was a small team so and Mercedes, McLaren etc. The reason these small teams got developed to something bigger is because the sport itself didn't require a huge expense in participation and development like it does today. The F1 throughout the years has changed a lot. We should accept that and based on that they should make any necessary changes as well.
I may be a bit simplistic in my view, but what's wrong with letting market forces sort this out? Guess who spends the money? The teams not Bernie. Yes, the new PUs are mighty pricey, but everything else (including the PUs) is team driven expense. No point bashing Bernie when the root cause lies with the teams themselves. At the end of the day, if the situation gets really really bad, as it seems to be doing, the teams themselves will work out how best to fix things. As for 3 car teams - I'm not a fan. More teams is good, small steps towards spec series is bad.
At the end of the Brazilian GP, Eddie Jordan believes that Eccleston had agreement from Ferrari and Red Bull to field third cars to maintain 20 cars on the grid. If they do this, do Ferrari and Red Bull have an advantage as constructors competing for titles? They would have an extra car scoring points! Even if only the top two cars score points, they have a safety net protecting against DNFs and even if only the top two cars score points for the WCC, they could still take points away from rivals by pursuing them further back with the third car. I could see the three car concept working if all the teams had three cars, but not if some are running two and some are running three. All the best, Andrew.
It can work if only the 2 best placed cars of a constructor can score points. Alternatively, a team fielding 3 cars could be made to designate 2 cars (or drivers) scoring points. Of course, you can't have a situation where some teams could have 3 scoring cars against 2 for the other teams. Having said that, giving an unfair advantage to some teams isn't alien to F1!
Even if only two of the cars score points: Therefore, your third car is an immense advantage even if exempt from scoring WCC points It can still be used to slow rival cars behind and let the point-scoring cars pull out a gap. Finishing 1-2-3 would keep rivals off the podium. Your team might only score WCC points for cars 1 and 2, but the third car prevented your rival from scoring the points for 3rd place. You could set up your third car for qualifying to then hold up your rivals and enable the race setup cars to catch them and go for overtakes earlier in the race. Unless all the teams have third cars and they all can score points, I just don't see it working. All the best, Andrew.
That may be because you are opposed to the idea. It's been done before, and it worked, without the paranoia, the plots, etc...
I don't understand how you don't see some teams having three cars and others having only two as problematic. I think it will make winning the WCC all but impossible without a third car if one of the leading teams has three cars. I like the sound of three car teams if all the running teams have three cars - so I'm not against the idea in that form. When was it last done? All the best, Andrew.
The scheme floated recently had third cars not only point ineligible but their finishing place wouldn't count. If MB were one two three the fourth place car would earn third place points.
I posted that before. Three car teams were common up to the 60s, and also very often teams would enter a 3rd car in their home GP, or organisers ask for some of their local drivers to be given a team third car. The US, Canada, Mexico, but also Italy often had a 3rd Lotus or a 3rd Ferrari, etc... Ferrari had a 3-car team for most of the 50s, and the early 60s too. The 1961 Italian GP had 5 Ferraris on the grid! In these days, only the first car of any constructor could score points, then it became the first 2 cars. It was never a problem. So, you worry that "winning the WCC all but impossible without a third car if one of the leading teams has three cars"/ But what happens now? Only the top teams have any chance of winning the WCC! I cannot see Marussia, Caterham, Sauber winning a WCC, do you? But strong teams like Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull, who actually are at the top could have a 3rd car each, IMHO. What do you prefer? 2 Caterhams and 2 Marussia playing mobile chicanes all seasons, or a third Ferrari, a third Red Bull, and third Mercedes and a third McLaren instead? To me it's a no brainer: I want to see competitive cars, not excuses. For most drivers, but not all, a seat in these uncompetitive cars if a kiss of death as far as their career goes. Plus, I am sick and tired of hearing team principals complaining about their cash flow problems. I don't care, I want to see good cars racing.
You may as well say: "Unless all the teams have the same budget, I just don't see it working". But that would be utopia, would it not?
Take the total points and divide by the number of cars. Is it so difficult? And let poor teams drive with one car only Today red bull has 4 cars. Is that not fair?
If all teams have the option to run three cars, I don't see a problem. The serious teams will run 3 and the other guys who never had a chance anyway will run 2. No big deal. Even if it's the big guys running 3 cars and the little guys running two, I still don't see the problem. 1st place + 2nd place is more points than 3rd + 4th + 5th. If one of the little guys suddenly had a Mercedes-like dominance, they'd still take the constructors championship with a bunch of 1-2 finishes. Now if we're just talking about current rumors of next year where only Ferrari and Red Bull will be fielding 3 cars, I can see your point a little more, but even so it wouldn't really bother me since I watch predominantly for the drivers and not the teams.
