Whatever happened to Formula Three?

But F3 is not dead in the water. Gerhard has got what he wanted, a strong European Championship, it is dead in the water as a British Championship. After the new F4, European F3 should be the next step or GP3, one of Bernies ideas as GP2 was. There are plenty of drivers out there with these huge budgets so it seems, but not to want to compete in the UK. Many say why spend so much to race on circuits like oulton or snett which they will never race on again, yet the euro series takes place on many GP tracks. A modern young driver argument, sadly.

Look on the bright side chaps. We were there. We saw it at its best. We remember it at its best. With our feet up, at home, in relaxed comfort away from the traffic jams, time pressures and costs, we can replay it all absolutely its best in our memories. We know it is not as good as it once was, nor as good as it could be, nor will ever be again, so why worry about the present? One-chassis alleged championships for kids? Stuff 'em...

It's not our loss - it's the loss of those who follow in our wheel tracks. Aaah - no, that's not fair on them is it? I see the problem now.

To the barricades!

DCN

Look on the bright side chaps. We were there. We saw it at its best. We remember it at its best. With our feet up, at home, in relaxed comfort away from the traffic jams, time pressures and costs, we can replay it all absolutely at its best in our memories. We know it is not as good as it once was, nor as good as it could be, nor will ever be again, so why worry about the present? One-chassis alleged championships for kids? Stuff 'em...

It's not our loss - it's the loss of those who follow in our wheel tracks. Aaah - no, that's not fair on them is it? I see the problem now.

To the barricades!

DCN

Edited by Doug Nye, 06 February 2013 - 08:27.

Just read the headline in the new "Motorsport Aktuell", that Gerhard Berger has the task to get some order into the "formula chaos". The new idea shall be F1 - F2 - F3 - F4. Whow, how on earth could they come to such a sensational idea?

For me for a long time world had been quite in order. There was the official hierarchy of F1, F2, F3 (plus some odd 'unofficial' Formulas like F5000, FFord, Formula V etc, but still with quite open technical variety), but then they introduced F3000! I never understood that. It was de facto still Formula 2, only under a different name. In Britain the national F3000 series even ran as Formula 2 for a while, but then what should have been named Formula 2 became the GP 2 series, accompanied by the GP 3, while the name Formula 2 was given to one of the many single-make series. What a mess! This is how to destroy brands!

Apparently the reason for the name F3000 was that Ecclestone & co. had a lot of sponsors who were interested in motor racing but without F1 budgets and they did not want to be involved with something called Formula 2 because it sounded like it was second rate.

Those of us who understand the logical progression of F1, F2 , F3 & FFord (sounds a bit like F4!) find that strange but we aren't in charge of large advertising budgets.

You also have to remember that F2 was struggling due to the domination of Honda, it was felt that the only way to revive it was by levelling the engines and the new name was to help with the break.

The whole thing these days is wrong, winning the Formula Car Manufacturer Whatever championship is meaningless because the level of competition is divided over too many series.
The fact that one person or manufacturer can dominate even the top level series (rallys, Le-Mans, F1 etc) for many years is also a sign that they aren't really competitive.

Even the standards for entry into F1 have been dumbed right down, you used to have to place well in a major championship now you only have to drive a few hundred miles on your own (and bring a suitable amount of money) - but that might reflect the idea that with simulator training they can teach almost anyone to drive a modern F1 car!

Apparently the reason for the name F3000 was that Ecclestone & co. had a lot of sponsors who were interested in motor racing but without F1 budgets and they did not want to be involved with something called Formula 2 because it sounded like it was second rate.

and there were a good number of reasons to prolong the life of the Cosworth DFV so readily available...

and there were a good number of reasons to prolong the life of the Cosworth DFV so readily available...

Yes !

And another thing we dont understand, we common people mourning the dying F3, all around Europe.........is:
Bernie Ecclestone just brought a Dassault Falcon 7X ( N999BE ), well this thing consume a lot of airline gasoline.
The bill is expensive.

Maybe we'll need also a Formula Ford made by Dallara- Renault-Pirelli.

Now it comes to my mind, also during the Jim Clark's era, his team manager Colin Chapman,
needed a private airplane, in order to keep the pace of his businness time schedule..............

Well they say history and fashion are full of returns.

Ciao to all.

and there were a good number of reasons to prolong the life of the Cosworth DFV so readily available...

No problem with that, I think it was a quite reasonable decision to do that. But the point is still, you don´t need a new Formula name when you just want to change the regulations within a formula. Without a real problem Formula 2 couald have been defined for 3.0 l V8 engines in 1985. For example in 1965 and 1966 in Formula 1 there was the switch from 1.5 l to 3.0 l, but nevertheless it was still called Formula 1 and so it was clear for everybody that it was still the top category.

Edited by uechtel, 06 February 2013 - 12:16.

Yes, Simon but what's the Thrust of your argument?...

I was onto it like a Bloodhound...

Don't forget
BCE and whoever he sold it to own "Formula 1" in all its marketable forms. But "Formula 2" and "Formula 3" still belong tho the FIA. Hence the market-driven need to create
"Formula 3000", "GP2", "GP3", etc. And who owns those brands?

Don't forget
BCE and whoever he sold it to own "Formula 1" in all its marketable forms. But "Formula 2" and "Formula 3" still belong tho the FIA. Hence the market-driven need to create
"Formula 3000", "GP2", "GP3", etc. And who owns those brands?

I always wonder, how it's possible to sell, to buy, Formula 1 ???
Even if Flavio Briatore said the contrary, it's not a factory.

The FIA still own Formula 2 and Formula 3....... well surely they are not going to preserve the investment.

MonzaDriver.

I always wonder, how it's possible to sell, to buy, Formula 1 ???
Even if Flavio Briatore said the contrary, it's not a factory.

The FIA still own Formula 2 and Formula 3....... well surely they are not going to preserve the investment.

MonzaDriver.

I often wondered that as there have been 'Formula 1' power boats,' Formula 1' stock cars and probably several more vicarious uses of the term (French Motel chain?) for many more years than BCE has been in control of things. How does one trade-mark something other people have already used for decades?

I often wondered that as there have been 'Formula 1' power boats,' Formula 1' stock cars and probably several more vicarious uses of the term (French Motel chain?) for many more years than BCE has been in control of things. How does one trade-mark something other people have already used for decades?

F1 is a trademark but as for Formula 1, I'm uncertain. I'm sure this was discussed before on TNF with oil or tyre & other companies wanting to add Grand Prix, F1 or Formula 1 etc.

Edited by mfd, 06 February 2013 - 14:25.

F1 is a trademark but as for Formula 1, I'm uncertain. I'm sure this was discussed before on TNF with oil or tyre & other companies wanting to add Grand Prix, F1 or Formula 1 etc.

If I am not wrong the trademark is Formula 1 and they have had problems with F1, even if is the other way round,
that's not important.
About trademark..............
When they sell or buy the Monza Grand Prix they also paid the rights to the Monza municipality ???
It was there long before Ecclestone was born. Long before the very first race ( 1922 )
We need Ensign 14.

MonzaDriver.

F1 is a trademark but as for Formula 1, I'm uncertain. I'm sure this was discussed before on TNF with oil or tyre & other companies wanting to add Grand Prix, F1 or Formula 1 etc.

Even the terms F1, F2 and F3 have all been used in other spheres continuously since at least the 1960s.

There is a further motor sporting parallel - Jordan could not call it's first F1 car a "911" because of Porsche. But Peugeot offers 907s and 908s - were the Porsche legal dept. being a bit slack there or have Peugeot being paying a royalty for the terms?
And what happens when Peugeot wants to offer a '917'....?

No problem with that, I think it was a quite reasonable decision to do that. But the point is still, you don´t need a new Formula name when you just want to change the regulations within a formula. Without a real problem Formula 2 couald have been defined for 3.0 l V8 engines in 1985. For example in 1965 and 1966 in Formula 1 there was the switch from 1.5 l to 3.0 l, but nevertheless it was still called Formula 1 and so it was clear for everybody that it was still the top category.

We are looking at this as enthusiasts who are interested in the details such as engine size, but a sponsor can't rely on us buying their products they want the wider audience who might not be aware that the engine size has increased or whatever but they can be attracted to a new series with a bigger (= better to sponsors) sounding name - look at razors each new one has one more blade than the last one, they do the same job but they need to sell you something new and improved.

Also F1 was doing alright when it went from 1.5 to 3.0l but when F2 went to F3000 it wasn't doing well and people didn't want to be associated with the old series - F3 was probably a more important series at the time.
Sponsors might not believe you when you say last years series was rubbish but this years will be much better - they hear it all the time and not just about their own products!

Even the terms F1, F2 and F3 have all been used in other spheres continuously since at least the 1960s.

There is a further motor sporting parallel - Jordan could not call it's first F1 car a "911" because of Porsche. But Peugeot offers 907s and 908s - were the Porsche legal dept. being a bit slack there or have Peugeot being paying a royalty for the terms?
And what happens when Peugeot wants to offer a '917'....?

Supposedly Porsche weren't allowed to call the 911 a 901 as originally intended, because of Peugeot having protected 3 digit numbers with a 0 in the middle for automobile use.
But they didn't stop Bristol using the same system and the 904, 906, 907 & 908 seem to have slipped through (possibly because they didn't really count as road cars)!

The whole issue of protecting numbers and names is a bit silly, for starters if you do it from a country that doesn't care you can do what you like.
You also need to be registering something pretty specific (e.g. the shape of a 911 or Cobra or the style of lettering/logoes) and well identified which means there are plenty of loop holes.
And they need to keep up with paying the renewal fees.

When Mattel paid a fortune for the exclusive rights to Ferrari models they might have been surprised to find out that they didn't apply to older cars (of course some people with more money than sense paid their so called royalty) the only thing that people had to be wary of was replicating the Ferrari badge and lettering which are protected.

Bernie's ownership of the term Formula 1 is ridiculous since he came along after it had been coined and who did he buy it from?
What he has is the rights (given to him for next to nothing by a chum) to run events for what the FIA describe as Formula 1 cars - but the authority of such a self elected body itself has to be questionable.
He might well have protected some logos and lettering and various website names etc and anything that might be seen to be passing itself off as a Formula 1 car race, but the idea that someone has to pay him if they want to call their pet rabbit (or cheap hotel chain) Formula 1 is ridiculous.
Even within racing his protection must be limited since Formula 1 stock cars are presumably allowed to use the name since it is a completely different type of event and vehicle, rather than because they have used the name for longer than him.

Edit: Peter was were quicker than me with your response, so my post refers to the previous posting

You are probably right with your explanation. At least it confirms me that it was better, that I did never get into the marketing business...

Even the terms F1, F2 and F3 have all been used in other spheres continuously since at least the 1960s.

There is a further motor sporting parallel - Jordan could not call it's first F1 car a "911" because of Porsche. But Peugeot offers 907s and 908s - were the Porsche legal dept. being a bit slack there or have Peugeot being paying a royalty for the terms?
And what happens when Peugeot wants to offer a '917'....?

It was just the other way round. The 911 was born as 901, but the naumber had to be changed has Peugeot had "reserved" three digit combinations with a "0" in the middle.

It´s absolutely silly in my opinion that you can have a "name right" on numbers or everyday words. I do understand patents on inventions to protect ideas, but how creative is it to chose some number as a name for your product. Sorry, absolutely stupid. Hey, I should go to the office and claim name rights for the use of the digit "1" in any number and also any word containing the letter "e"...

With the Porsche 904, 906, 907 and 908, maybe it is because they were no real "market contrahents" for the Peugeot prioduction cars?

Ah I just read in wikipedia, that it affected also these models, so that is why the 904 was rechristened as Carrera GTS and the 906 as Carrera 6, as at least in theory these two models would be legal for use in open traffic. The 907 and 908 were regarded to be racecar while Peugeot´s claim did only cover road-going cars, so no problem with these.

Edited by uechtel, 06 February 2013 - 15:28.

I had only just started watching racing when in 1964 the structure of formula racing was rationalised with the introduction of a new Formula 2 and Formula 3, to sit underneath F1. All very simple and straightforward. Everyone knew where they stood and it was easy for competitor and spectator alike to understand the hierarchy of single-seat racing. F3 was was obviously a starting point for any ambitious driver.

Co-incidentally, at about the same time as I started to enjoy racing I also got into football. This was another sport which at professional level had a hierarchy that was easy to understand. Four divisions with promotion and relegation between each. Simple and straightforward and even easy for non-football fans to understand. In fact in the late 60s you could have a made a reasonable comparison with motor racing with the 4 divisions of single-seat racing being F1,2,3 and Ford. However, whilst the structure of league football hasn't fundamentally changed since then, we all know the same cannot be said of motor sport.

Now whilst "comparisons can be odious" and motor racing is self-evidently a very different sport from football, I think there is a lesson to be learned. Football retains a huge following and one of its attractions is that it is still very simple to understand what is going in terms of league structure, and where your team sits in that structure. This also provides continuity of history in the game.

However, it is evident from reading this thread that many of us can no longer easily grasp the significance of F3 ( or sadly even care anymore) . And, imagine what it must be like for an outsider looking in. How do you get a handle on what is going on and what role each formula plays. Consequently it makes marketing the sport very difficult with the attendant problem of attracting and keeping new fans. It is not surprising that only one or two classes of racing attract spectators to the circuits in any number. I believe that any sport that has a large spectator appeal tends to be a sport that is basically simple to follow, not just in terms of the game itself, but the significance any one game has in relation to the overall picture.

Incidentally, it is probably not entirely co-incidental that whilst I still follow football quite closely and attend several games each season, my interest in contemporary motor racing, apart from Grand Prix, has dwindled to little more than a cursory glance at Autosport (courtesy of WH Smith)

Further, it seems Ecclestone - or who for him - can obscure any clip with "F1" or "Formula 1" content on Youtube, any time.

I think that is because there is a clause included with your ticket to an F1 event that says something like all videos and photos taken by you belong to Bernie.
Since it is a private event and so on it is presumably legal for them to impose such rules.
That means they could have the right to stop you sharing your own videos etc of events that you have paid a fortune to attend.

As for sharing clips from TV, films or commerical videos etc. they are simply breaches of copyright for which the owner has paid and unlike many other outfits Bernie's takes the time to check youtube etc for such breaches.
If the copyright holder posted the clips I don't think they would remove them - unless the terms of their copyright agreement forbid such use.

And what happens when Peugeot wants to offer a '917'....?

They'd better make it fast and unruly