Jump to content


Photo

3rd car from top teams?


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#1 jez33

jez33
  • Member

  • 1,071 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 08 May 2008 - 12:43

So... with SA up in smoke now, what happens for next year? It is certainly a less exciting show now with only 10 teams, 20 cars... so what can they do to improve the situation?

It would obviously involve changes, but what of the idea for the bigger teams to run a 3rd car?

WCC points could be awarded to only the top 2 cars from each team so smaller ones don't get disadvantaged from earning tv money.

- Operational costs of a 3rd car could be offset by increased tv coverage of the 3rd car.
- Teams would benefit from reduced exposure to retirements.
- WDC would benefit enormously with the new permutations and possibilities (eg. 9 way title fight between each of the 3 drivers from Ferrari/McLaren/BMW)
- Race strategies would be interesting to say the least

There are some logistical issues with garages etc, but teams were already bringing the T car to race weekends not too long ago.

Advertisement

#2 woftam

woftam
  • Member

  • 1,073 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 08 May 2008 - 12:46

Originally posted by jez33
So... with SA up in smoke now, what happens for next year? It is certainly a less exciting show now with only 10 teams, 20 cars... so what can they do to improve the situation?

It would obviously involve changes, but what of the idea for the bigger teams to run a 3rd car?

WCC points could be awarded to only the top 2 cars from each team so smaller ones don't get disadvantaged from earning tv money.

- Operational costs of a 3rd car could be offset by increased tv coverage of the 3rd car.
- Teams would benefit from reduced exposure to retirements.
- WDC would benefit enormously with the new permutations and possibilities (eg. 9 way title fight between each of the 3 drivers from Ferrari/McLaren/BMW)
- Race strategies would be interesting to say the least

There are some logistical issues with garages etc, but teams were already bringing the T car to race weekends not too long ago.


Nah I'd much rather they try to bring a couple more manufacturers into the sport than going down a 3rd car route.
That 3rd car could be used tactically to screw another teams races.

#3 jez33

jez33
  • Member

  • 1,071 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 08 May 2008 - 12:48

Originally posted by woftam


Nah I'd much rather they try to bring a couple more manufacturers into the sport than going down a 3rd car route.
That 3rd car could be used tactically to screw another teams races.


But this is not financially viable given the setup and operational cost models in modern F1 without budget limits.

#4 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 08 May 2008 - 12:52

I think teams like Williams et al would be pissed at the thought of the top three teams locking out all the points 'paying' positions.

That said, I always thought there was a provision in the previous concorde that if the number of teams dropped below a certain threshold some teams would be compelled to provide extra cars.

But with that document now bunk, it's hard to see how they can mandate that now.

#5 StefanV

StefanV
  • Member

  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 08 May 2008 - 12:54

Originally posted by woftam


Nah I'd much rather they try to bring a couple more manufacturers into the sport than going down a 3rd car route.
That 3rd car could be used tactically to screw another teams races.

Exactly. A third car for some teams would ruin the sport completely. The cost for a third car, which I believe will not count in the WCC, will be huge and only way of getting some positive out of it is to use the third car as a) test car during practice and b) part of the tactics for the regular cars during the race. It can never be a fair option.
Unfortunately it might be a necessary one.

#6 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,905 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 08 May 2008 - 12:55

Id rather see winning cars than field fillers. And 'variety' is BS. So what if the Hondas and Toyotas are different, they aren't adding much.

Last year we had a 4 way title fight for most of the season between two teams. In theory the 2007 lineup could have been Schumacher/Raikkonen/Massa v Alonso/Hamilton/Montoya

That'd have been pretty sweet.

#7 jez33

jez33
  • Member

  • 1,071 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 08 May 2008 - 12:57

Originally posted by StefanV

Exactly. A third car for some teams would ruin the sport completely. The cost for a third car, which I believe will not count in the WCC, will be huge and only way of getting some positive out of it is to use the third car as a) test car during practice and b) part of the tactics for the regular cars during the race. It can never be a fair option.
Unfortunately it might be a necessary one.


No not necessarily.

If you pay points for the WDC but not WCC for the 3rd car then teams will be motivated to finish as high up as possible.

Originally posted by kar

I think teams like Williams et al would be pissed at the thought of the top three teams locking out all the points 'paying' positions.


They should build a faster car then.

#8 jez33

jez33
  • Member

  • 1,071 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 08 May 2008 - 12:58

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Id rather see winning cars than field fillers. And 'variety' is BS. So what if the Hondas and Toyotas are different, they aren't adding much.

Last year we had a 4 way title fight for most of the season between two teams. In theory the 2007 lineup could have been Schumacher/Raikkonen/Massa v Alonso/Hamilton/Montoya

That'd have been pretty sweet.


That would be awesome.

#9 lukywill

lukywill
  • Member

  • 6,660 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 08 May 2008 - 12:58

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Id rather see winning cars than field fillers. And 'variety' is BS. So what if the Hondas and Toyotas are different, they aren't adding much.

Last year we had a 4 way title fight for most of the season between two teams. In theory the 2007 lineup could have been Schumacher/Raikkonen/Massa v Alonso/Hamilton/Montoya

That'd have been pretty sweet.


or

Badoer/Raikkonen/Massa v Alonso/Hamilton/laRosa

#10 JonC

JonC
  • Member

  • 284 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 08 May 2008 - 13:08

I don't see the fuss - for three full seasons (2003,2004,2005) we had only 20 cars, so it is hardly a new phenomenon. Indeed when B-A-R were banned in 2005 we were down to 18 for a couple of races. And in 1996 we had 20 cars once Forti dropped out, 19 starters often as Lavaggi often failed to meet the 107% cutoff in the Minardi. So really for the last 12 years we have had between 20 and 22 cars.

Back in 2005 when we last had 20 cars, four of those were Minardis/Jordans which were not really as competitive as the other 16. We now have 20 cars but all 20 of those cars are genuinely competitive and capable of good results - it is incredibly close outside of the first three teams. Is that a bad thing? Of course it would be nice to have more cars, but they've got to be more than field fillers.

#11 StefanV

StefanV
  • Member

  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 08 May 2008 - 13:27

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Id rather see winning cars than field fillers. And 'variety' is BS. So what if the Hondas and Toyotas are different, they aren't adding much.

Last year we had a 4 way title fight for most of the season between two teams. In theory the 2007 lineup could have been Schumacher/Raikkonen/Massa v Alonso/Hamilton/Montoya

That'd have been pretty sweet.

It would not take long until it would be like in DTM - after a few races Mercedes and Audi have decided which of their drivers should go for the championship and from that day there is two drivers competing. I can not see why any team would like to have a three way internal fight instead of a team effort to bring home the trophies. If all teams had three cars maybe it would be different.

#12 StefanV

StefanV
  • Member

  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 08 May 2008 - 13:29

Originally posted by jez33

If you pay points for the WDC but not WCC for the 3rd car then teams will be motivated to finish as high up as possible.

So Badoer should go in there trying to steal points from Kimi? I do not see that happening. Should they hire Alonso and have him steal points from Kimi? I do not see that happen either, but it would be entertaining.

#13 jez33

jez33
  • Member

  • 1,071 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 08 May 2008 - 13:46

Originally posted by StefanV

So Badoer should go in there trying to steal points from Kimi? I do not see that happening. Should they hire Alonso and have him steal points from Kimi? I do not see that happen either, but it would be entertaining.


Why not.

If Kimi is good enough to beat him then he will.

#14 Crazy Ninja

Crazy Ninja
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 08 May 2008 - 14:03

Originally posted by JonC
I don't see the fuss - for three full seasons (2003,2004,2005) we had only 20 cars, so it is hardly a new phenomenon. Indeed when B-A-R were banned in 2005 we were down to 18 for a couple of races. And in 1996 we had 20 cars once Forti dropped out, 19 starters often as Lavaggi often failed to meet the 107% cutoff in the Minardi. So really for the last 12 years we have had between 20 and 22 cars.

Back in 2005 when we last had 20 cars, four of those were Minardis/Jordans which were not really as competitive as the other 16. We now have 20 cars but all 20 of those cars are genuinely competitive and capable of good results - it is incredibly close outside of the first three teams. Is that a bad thing? Of course it would be nice to have more cars, but they've got to be more than field fillers.


Exactly. Ive been watcing F1 consistently from 1997 onwards and there has only ever been a maximum of 22 cars at any given time. Most of the time they didnt add anything to the sport as they just cruised around 4 seconds a lap slower.

#15 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 836 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 08 May 2008 - 14:27

I think its a whole lot of fuss over nothing at this moment, as theyre still at the minimum limit with 20 cars. 2005 was the last time this was seriously brought up with Minardi looking tentative, but they were bought by Red Bull by years end and Super Aguri were on the 2006 grid.

Nevertheless, i dont particularly like the idea anyway. Regardless of if you disqualify the 3rd drivers from WCC points, theyre still cleaning up the drivers points. I'm interested in a little bit more than the sheer title fight between the drivers, especially if i support a driver who isnt driving a McLaren or Ferrari.

#16 jez33

jez33
  • Member

  • 1,071 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 08 May 2008 - 14:36

That's fine with the 20 car minimum, but STR are in the same boat as SA and if they don't find a buyer soon it'll be 9 teams.

#17 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,211 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 May 2008 - 15:04

The Concorde agreement specifies a minimum of 16 cars, so another 3 teams will have to go before the issue of 3rd cars comes up.

#18 StefanV

StefanV
  • Member

  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 08 May 2008 - 15:20

Originally posted by jez33


Why not.

If Kimi is good enough to beat him then he will.

I do not think the problem is with Kimi, the question is rather "Why should any team let their third car compete with the other two?"

In a perfect world I am sure it could happen, but I do not see any team hire a top driver for their third car since it is a temporary solution.

#19 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 08 May 2008 - 15:23

Originally posted by Clatter
The Concorde agreement specifies a minimum of 16 cars, so another 3 teams will have to go before the issue of 3rd cars comes up.

I thought it was 20 (see here) and (in answer to someone's earlier question) that it would be decided by ballot which teams they'd come from.

I also thought Concorde no longer applies, so this is something we won't be seeing.

Advertisement

#20 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,868 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 08 May 2008 - 15:24

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Id rather see winning cars than field fillers. And 'variety' is BS. So what if the Hondas and Toyotas are different, they aren't adding much.

Last year we had a 4 way title fight for most of the season between two teams. In theory the 2007 lineup could have been Schumacher/Raikkonen/Massa v Alonso/Hamilton/Montoya

That'd have been pretty sweet.


I agree, I mean did either of the SA cars make it onto the TV feed for the Spanish GP, beyond probably the first few minutes of Q1...

#21 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 08 May 2008 - 15:25

Originally posted by kar


That said, I always thought there was a provision in the previous concorde that if the number of teams dropped below a certain threshold some teams would be compelled to provide extra cars.

But with that document now bunk, it's hard to see how they can mandate that now.


There is, and far from being bunk, the agreement still stands as far as I know. Someone else mentions 16 cars - I though it was 18, but may well be wrong.

As it would not be that simple a task for any team to suddenly leap from running two cars to run three, it seems likely that the operation would be handled by a satellite team; Aguri Suzuki might like to run one for Honda.....

#22 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,211 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 May 2008 - 15:39

Originally posted by Gareth

I thought it was 20 (see here) and (in answer to someone's earlier question) that it would be decided by ballot which teams they'd come from.

I also thought Concorde no longer applies, so this is something we won't be seeing.


Take a look at this one. http://www.racefax.c...nt/concorde.php

10.4 is the relevant section.

#23 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 1,929 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 08 May 2008 - 15:43

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Id rather see winning cars than field fillers. And 'variety' is BS. So what if the Hondas and Toyotas are different, they aren't adding much.

Last year we had a 4 way title fight for most of the season between two teams. In theory the 2007 lineup could have been Schumacher/Raikkonen/Massa v Alonso/Hamilton/Montoya

That'd have been pretty sweet.


Excuse me. So you have no problem say just 12 or even 8 starters on the grid? :confused:

#24 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,868 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 08 May 2008 - 15:47

Originally posted by Fatgadget


Excuse me. So you have no problem say just 12 starters on the grid? :confused:


Whilst it wouldn't be ideal, it would be better to have 12 cars of equal competitveness, than 14, where the final 2 are woefully off the pace.

#25 Kooper

Kooper
  • Member

  • 2,189 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 08 May 2008 - 15:53

I'd rather have 18 1 car 'teams' than see any teams running 3 cars. If there had to be 2 or 3 3-car teams then I'd rather see the 3 lowest ranked WCC teams running young drivers rather than Ferrari, Mac & BMW. Let Bernie pay for it.

#26 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,905 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 08 May 2008 - 15:55

Originally posted by Fatgadget


Excuse me. So you have no problem say just 12 or even 8 starters on the grid? :confused:


We've got probably 7 teams that could run third cars. And Williams could probably survive so that'd give us about 23 entrants.

#27 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 08 May 2008 - 16:09

Originally posted by Clatter
Take a look at this one. http://www.racefax.c...nt/concorde.php

10.4 is the relevant section.

Cheers :up:

Haven't been able to look as my 30 day free subscription's expired (and I can't be bothere setting up a new hotmail), but trust what you say about the content. And I think the racefax document is far more acurate than the www.concordeagreement.com, so I think the 16 figure is the most likely to be correct.

Just goes to show how accurate Stoddart is!

#28 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,211 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 May 2008 - 16:15

Originally posted by Gareth

Cheers :up:

Haven't been able to look as my 30 day free subscription's expired (and I can't be bothere setting up a new hotmail), but trust what you say about the content. And I think the racefax document is far more acurate than the www.concordeagreement.com, so I think the 16 figure is the most likely to be correct.

Just goes to show how accurate Stoddart is!


PM your email if you want me to send you a copy.

#29 Johny Bravo

Johny Bravo
  • Member

  • 2,599 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 08 May 2008 - 16:23

Give a third Ferrari to The Michael. Now.

And let's make it a motogp like first 15 positions are in the points.

#30 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 1,929 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 08 May 2008 - 16:34

Has anyone advocating 3 car teams thought of the logistics of implementing this? How for example do you envisage executing pit stops.....fairly?

#31 prxty

prxty
  • Member

  • 427 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 08 May 2008 - 16:45

Originally posted by Gareth

Cheers :up:

Haven't been able to look as my 30 day free subscription's expired (and I can't be bothere setting up a new hotmail), but trust what you say about the content. And I think the racefax document is far more acurate than the www.concordeagreement.com, so I think the 16 figure is the most likely to be correct.

Just goes to show how accurate Stoddart is!

Don't you know the 10minutemail service? Awesome for this kind of things and quite easy.

#32 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,211 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 May 2008 - 16:49

Originally posted by Fatgadget
Has anyone advocating 3 car teams thought of the logistics of implementing this? How for example do you envisage executing pit stops.....fairly?


As the 3rd car is only there to make up the numbers, and is not eligible for points etc., I would expect the main cars to stop as normal, and any disadvantage to be heaped on the 3rd. Shouldnt really be a problem, after all we are only talking about 1 more lap of fuel.

#33 steveninthematrix

steveninthematrix
  • Member

  • 329 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 08 May 2008 - 16:50

for those who don't know...

a Formula 1 car uses around $3000 of consumables PER LAP...

so a 3rd car, is a lot more money, not 50% more obviously, but a lot more..


the teams would want to know they get more $ for that... but bernie has the new concorde agreement in place, so there...

#34 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,905 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 08 May 2008 - 17:08

They do plenty of mileage with defacto third cars in testing, which have no sponsor value.

#35 Johny Bravo

Johny Bravo
  • Member

  • 2,599 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 08 May 2008 - 17:17

I guess if we had for example The Michael in the 3rd Ferrari, Mika Hakkinen in the 3rd Mclaren, Juan-Pablo Montoya in the third BMW, the increase in viewing numbers [and thus ad-money] would pretty much cover about 100 times those $3000/lap costs.

Just my 2 cents.

#36 Johny Bravo

Johny Bravo
  • Member

  • 2,599 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 08 May 2008 - 17:20

Re: pit stop logistics.

Fuel one car for ideal stint length, one car 1 lap heavier, one car 1 lap lighter.

#37 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,776 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 08 May 2008 - 17:22

I'd like to see all teams using 3rd cars during the free practice sessions. I even see it as an alternative to allow them to reduce testing (expensive, generates no income, gets little of no coverage, misleading, etc...) even further. The more action on a GP weekend, the better for fans and spectators regardless if they are watching from the circuit or not.

It wouldn't cut costs, only relocate them, but at least we'd all have more to watch.

#38 Johny Bravo

Johny Bravo
  • Member

  • 2,599 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 08 May 2008 - 17:24

Originally posted by steveninthematrix
for those who don't know...

a Formula 1 car uses around $3000 of consumables PER LAP...

so a 3rd car, is a lot more money, not 50% more obviously, but a lot more..


the teams would want to know they get more $ for that... but bernie has the new concorde agreement in place, so there...


That makes roughly 3000x70x19 = 3.990.000 = $4M increase of costs / year.

1% of the top team's budget...

#39 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,211 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 May 2008 - 17:26

Originally posted by Atreiu
I'd like to see all teams using 3rd cars during the free practice sessions. I even see it as an alternative to allow them to reduce testing (expensive, generates no income, gets little of no coverage, misleading, etc...) even further. The more action on a GP weekend, the better for fans and spectators regardless if they are watching from the circuit or not.

It wouldn't cut costs, only relocate them, but at least we'd all have more to watch.


I'm all for that. :up:

Advertisement

#40 Johny Bravo

Johny Bravo
  • Member

  • 2,599 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 08 May 2008 - 17:27

Originally posted by Atreiu
I'd like to see all teams using 3rd cars during the free practice sessions. I even see it as an alternative to allow them to reduce testing (expensive, generates no income, gets little of no coverage, misleading, etc...) even further. The more action on a GP weekend, the better for fans and spectators regardless if they are watching from the circuit or not.

It wouldn't cut costs, only relocate them, but at least we'd all have more to watch.


We've already had 3rd drivers on Fridays. We all remember the Davidsons and de la Rosas topping the Friday timesheets with their unrestricted engines, pretty much useless.

Let'em compete on Sunday though.

#41 steveninthematrix

steveninthematrix
  • Member

  • 329 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 08 May 2008 - 17:28

Originally posted by Johny Bravo


That makes roughly 3000x70x19 = 3.990.000 = $4M increase of costs / year.

1% of the top team's budget...


yes, but they still need to build the car, and have the mechanics around the car, engineers per driver, etc etc...


it would be interesting if a journalist would pose that question to a top team manager , if they would say 'yeah, we'd love to have 3 cars'

#42 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 May 2008 - 17:31

Originally posted by Johny Bravo
I guess if we had for example The Michael in the 3rd Ferrari, Mika Hakkinen in the 3rd Mclaren, Juan-Pablo Montoya in the third BMW, the increase in viewing numbers [and thus ad-money] would pretty much cover about 100 times those $3000/lap costs.

Just my 2 cents.


Good point, they could make the 3rd driver have to be a GP master 40+ age combining the two formula :>...

#43 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 08 May 2008 - 17:33

So we might end up with three-car-teams, maybe four cars per team... It's time to make Formula One a one make series. The scope for development gets smaller and smaller for every year and the car looks more and more alike anyways. Who the hell, except the experts on this forum, can tell the difference between the cars anyway if the paint job is stripped off the cars? Not many, it's just a waste of money making crappy cars that instead could be used to promote the sport. A one make series would make the car manufacturers lose the incentive to run their own teams and they could instead be involved at a level where their withdrawal would not hurt the core of the sport - that is, the core of independent race teams that have racing as their core business - as engine suppliers and so on.

The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised to see both Williams and Force India go in the near future. And what's not to say that one or more (most probabbly the last team on the grid) of the manufacturers suddenly find F1 less attractive and decides to jump ship.

Motormedia

#44 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 1,929 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 08 May 2008 - 17:51

Originally posted by Clatter


As the 3rd car is only there to make up the numbers, and is not eligible for points etc., I would expect the main cars to stop as normal, and any disadvantage to be heaped on the 3rd. Shouldnt really be a problem, after all we are only talking about 1 more lap of fuel.


Doesn't that by implication mean defacto team orders? :confused:

#45 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,211 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 May 2008 - 18:01

Originally posted by Johny Bravo


We've already had 3rd drivers on Fridays. We all remember the Davidsons and de la Rosas topping the Friday timesheets with their unrestricted engines, pretty much useless.

Let'em compete on Sunday though.


That was still only 2 cars though. 3rd car + driver on the Friday would be good.

#46 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,211 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 May 2008 - 18:04

Originally posted by Fatgadget


Doesn't that by implication mean defacto team orders? :confused:


The concorde agreement states that if the 3rd car is required, it can't score points, podiums etc. etc. It is purely there to make up the numbers so that Bernie does not have to pay compensation for not having enough cars for the show.

#47 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 May 2008 - 18:30

TBH, I really can't see the problem with customer cars. Just so long as everyone has the opportunity to buy what they want. If Williams think that they can build a car that is faster than McLaren/Ferrari/BMW, then they should be free to do that. If they don't think they can, they should be free to buy a McLaren/Ferrari/BMW just so long as the rules state that everyone must get the same as who they are buying from, and any manufacturer is obliged to sell to anyone. Then it is up to how good the engineers can tune the car through the year.

#48 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,776 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 08 May 2008 - 19:11

Originally posted by Johny Bravo


We've already had 3rd drivers on Fridays. We all remember the Davidsons and de la Rosas topping the Friday timesheets with their unrestricted engines, pretty much useless.

Let'em compete on Sunday though.


Given the small field and current circumstances, I'd even admit experimenting with 3 or 4 car teams. But that would need to be very carefullt thought and planned before done.

#49 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 08 May 2008 - 19:15

Originally posted by Johny Bravo
Give a third Ferrari to The Michael. Now.


Michael had Ferrari available last year, but he choosed to retire.

#50 zarooch

zarooch
  • Member

  • 600 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 08 May 2008 - 20:26

old news but...

Let Red Bull race four cars - Mateschitz 26/04/08 09:49
-Looking ahead to the customer car ban-

Red Bull magnate Dietrich Mateschitz has proposed that each Formula One team be allowed to field four cars per Grand Prix in the near future.

The Austrian billionaire has openly put his 50 percent share in junior outfit Toro Rosso up for sale, as Formula One prepares to no longer condone 'customer cars' from 2010.

But in an effort to maintain the same number of Red Bull-branded cars on the grid, Mateschitz told an Austrian newspaper that an alternative would be to simply allow four RBRs to be entered at each race.

"My proposal is to allow four cars per team ," he said.

"If the regulations mean Toro Rosso can no longer utilise Red Bull technologies, then it makes no sense, " he is quoted as saying by Salzburger Nachrichten.

"We cannot build a second Milton Keynes in Faenza," Mateschitz added.

Source: GMM
© CAPSIS International



http://en.f1-live.co...426094921.shtml

:) :smoking: :up: