63 replies to this topic

[B3ndy]

So according to AS today:

 

 

During discussions between teams and Ecclestone at the Brazilian Grand Prix, one idea put forward was for a two-tier F1 to be created in the future.

 

As well as the usual constructors, the grid could be filled with upgraded GP2-type single-make cars, which would be run by customer teams.

 

Now this is immediately controversial, however I like it!

 

This year I started to get into the WEC, I've sort of been on the fence about the mixing of classes for a while but realised that I've never really sat down and properly watched a race. When LeMans rocked up this year I was absorbed, fascinating racing with multiple battles and winners. I loved both cheering for the Porsche and OAK in LPM2 brilliant.

 

So my views on mixing the grid up have changed, and maybe this is a great way to get more cars and drivers on the grid.

[rammsteinfan]

I love the idea. But I would keep 8 F1 teams: FI, Merc, Ferrari, RBR, STR, Williams, Lotus and Mclaren, while loosing Sauber. And then a Super GP2 or maybe the road version of the DW12 for talents. There should be limited development with the Super GP2 cars. Let's say they get a basic GP2 car and they can develop it into a faster car with a max budget of around 20 million. The SGP2 Champion team should be promoted to the F1 series and getting 50 million/season for 2 seasons so they can try and race against the lower tier F1 cars. While the worst F1 team should be demoted to SuperGP2. The SGP2 should be around 5-8s slower a lap then the fastest F1 car, While using the same engine formula but then from Cosworth or Ford or something. Or even better the SGP should get costumer F1 car, They should be able to develop it. Give them a Ford engine or something and race. The main point should be that the max budget should be around 20-40 million for a season. Also drivers are only allowed to race 2 seasons in the SGP2 class.

 

In my vision there would be a promotion/demoting system. Let's say Arden wins the GP2 series, they promote to SGP2, they win SGP2, move up to F1. Lotus finishes last in F1, Demote to SGP2, They finish last in SGP2, Back to GP2. But then what to do with Ferrari or Merc when they finish last? They wouldn't run a SGP2 with a Cosworth or Ford engine. Would you allow them to use a restricted F1 engine or what...

[HeidfeldsBeard]

I love the idea. But I would keep 8 F1 teams: FI, Merc, Ferrari, RBR, STR, Williams, Lotus and Mclaren, while loosing Sauber. And then a Super GP2 or maybe the road version of the DW12 for talents. There should be limited development with the Super GP2 cars. Let's say they get a basic GP2 car and they can develop it into a faster car with a max budget of around 20 million. The SGP2 Champion team should be promoted to the F1 series and getting 50 million/season for 2 seasons so they can try and race against the lower tier F1 cars. While the worst F1 team should be demoted to SuperGP2. The SGP2 should be around 5-8s slower a lap then the fastest F1 car, While using the same engine formula but then from Cosworth or Ford or something. Or even better the SGP should get costumer F1 car, They should be able to develop it. Give them a Ford engine or something and race. The main point should be that the max budget should be around 20-40 million for a season. Also drivers are only allowed to race 2 seasons in the SGP2 class.

 

In my vision there would be a promotion/demoting system. Let's say Arden wins the GP2 series, they promote to SGP2, they win SGP2, move up to F1. Lotus finishes last in F1, Demote to SGP2, They finish last in SGP2, Back to GP2. But then what to do with Ferrari or Merc when they finish last? They wouldn't run a SGP2 with a Cosworth or Ford engine. Would you allow them to use a restricted F1 engine or what...

 

Won't work I'm afraid.

 

The teams would not agree to a promotion/relegation scenario - try telling a Lotus or a Williams that because they finished last they have to quarter their budget, leave a load of highly skilled staff idle/redundant because they can't build their own car and run around 4 or 5 laps down in a second class race.

Edited by HeidfeldsBeard, 13 November 2014 - 13:28.

[Sash1]

If I want to watch GP2, I watch GP2.

[Burai]

Won't work I'm afraid.

 

The teams would not agree to a promotion/relegation scenario - try telling a Lotus or a Williams that because they finished last they have to quarter their budget, leave a load of highly skilled staff idle/redundant because they can't build their own car and run around 4 or 5 laps down in a second class race.

 

And once they'd been promoted again, they'd have to try to replace all of the staff they let go 12 months before, find sponsors and somehow develop an F1 car in a couple of months.

 

Utter nonsense.

[johnmhinds]

The solution to poorly funded back markers isn't to create more of them...

 

F1 needs more F1 teams, not half F1/half GP2 teams.

[taran]

Silly idea....

 

Because it takes 200+ staff and proper facilities to race in F1 premier league while SGP2 would typically require far less staff an facilities.

So if you move up, you'd need to hire more staff and acquire facilities and suffer through a few transitional years while the team going down the ladder needs to shed staff and either can't afford the facilities anymore or has a huge advantage over the other SGP2 teams....

 

And since racing teams like to plan years in advance, it will never fly....even if other sports have a similar system.

[ExFlagMan]

I look forward to the furore on here when the leaders come up to lap a bunch of scrapping 'spec' cars and one of the favourites gets delayed/taken out. At current speed differential such a scenario could occur 4-5 times a race. What laffs we will have...

[redreni]

I wouldn't poo-poo the idea out of hand. It should be used to fill vacancies, not as an option for existing constructors. SGP2-class cars should not be eligible for F1 WDC or WCC points, and the SGP2 class should be strictly for spec GP2 cars running to a GP2 regulations, with performance breaks to make the cars faster, mostly on the aero side. It should be easy and cheap to make spec cars that are within a couple or three seconds a lap of F1 without spending a lot of money on development. F1 has gone to a lot of trouble to regulate to cut downforce, so allowing the SGP2 cars to run to more favourable aero regs should allow them to close the gap.

 

EDIT: The performance equalisation of the LMP2 and Daytona Prototype cars for this season's United Sportscar Championship should serve as a cautionary tale, though - don't assume that in making GP2 cars faster, no problems will be created - for example would they switch to F1 rubber? If yes, has that been thought through? Would they be able to get heat in the tyres? Would their aero characteristics change? If not, can the GP2 rubber handle the increased cornering speeds? What happens when F1 and GP2 cars crash into each other?

 

I would say, though, that it is a desperate, sticking plaster solution which only helps make up the numbers. You couldn't have F1 cars and souped-up GP2 cars competing, for all sorts of reasons which have already been pointed out. And the teams running spec GP2 cars in F1 Grands Prix would not necessarily constitute particularly effective proving grounds for drivers, designers or engineers.

Edited by redreni, 13 November 2014 - 13:55.

[K20a]

If I want to watch GP2, I watch GP2.

Nail. Hammer. Head.

[Scotracer]

No. I hate it in MotoGP and we can't do it here either.

[ExFlagMan]

Not sure it would be that attractive to drivers either - why pay the same money to run around at the back of an F1 race rather than be fighting for wins/podiums in GP2.

[stewie]

I presume this has got something to do with Bernie/CVC owning the GP2 series?

Man, F1 is getting ****ed up, good job I've lined up Indycars as a series I watch as much as F1...

[LeMans86]

No. I hate it in MotoGP and we can't do it here either.

We might end up with something like that. If they sign up for a cheaper (maybe even downtuned Cosworth?) V8, and some other standard parts, they get softer tyres in return to offset the disadvantage..

[superden]

Utter t*ss.

[Nathan]

Garagistas running year old grand prix cars is really the answer.  No need for a separate class.  Does it not make sense to double the shelf life of hundreds of millions of dollars/pounds/euros of other wise useless R&D?  Customer teams can still perform upgrades.  They can still compete.  I'm sure the constructors can manage to justify expansion with a profit, while the customer teams can contract their overhead and cost to race. 

Edited by Nathan, 13 November 2014 - 14:29.

[Risil]

Strange diversionary tactic. If the problem is the expensive engines, why not let them build their own cars and just run GP2 engines?

Edited by Risil, 13 November 2014 - 14:33.

[maverick69]

Don't want to sound like I'm banging a drum - but I posted this in another thread:

 

 A "pooled" car (say from Dallara) with a common PU and drivetrain, common suspension pickups and other ancillaries, but no aero package may be very attractive. With some subtle rule changes it would also sit just on the right side of a "customer car".

 

The thing is folks: You have to ask how this would cock up your entertainment on a Sunday afternoon? IMHO it wouldn't. You'd still have the more established teams up the front..... with their Gucci parts and nice hospitality. And then you'd have the smaller teams at the back going mental for the scraps. Hell.... It would potentially make that aspect of the sport more exciting!

 

And don't forget or realise that Red Bull have been doing this with Toro Rosso for a long time....... Despite all of the bullshit spouting from CH and co......... 

[FullThrottleF1]

I like your idea Maverick. That should happen. Let them build their own aero. If the want to build their own cars they should be allowed.

[HeidfeldsBeard]

Garagistas running year old grand prix cars is really the answer.  No need for a separate class.  Does it not make sense to double the shelf life of hundreds of millions of dollars/pounds/euros of other wise useless R&D?  Customer teams can still perform upgrades.  They can still compete.  I'm sure the constructors can manage to justify expansion with a profit, while the customer teams can contract their overhead and cost to race. 

 

It's better than (Not so) Super GP2 for sure.

 

But then how do you decide which 'year-old' grand prix cars to run? In the hypothetical situation that this was to happen next season everyone would be bidding for Mercedes cars as they would surely be quick enough for the top 10 next season. And when that happens how will the Ferraris, Williams, Mclarens feel about their own produced cars being trumped by a 'Garagista' on 1/4 of their budget with a customer car?

[maverick69]

It's better than (Not so) Super GP2 for sure.

 

But then how do you decide which 'year-old' grand prix cars to run? In the hypothetical situation that this was to happen next season everyone would be bidding for Mercedes cars as they would surely be quick enough for the top 10 next season. And when that happens how will the Ferraris, Williams, Mclarens feel about their own produced cars being trumped by a 'Garagista' on 1/4 of their budget with a customer car?

 

Red Bull felt that in 2008. The RB4 with a Ferrari engine was a gem.......

[FullThrottleF1]

Not to forget Super Aguri beating Honda for most of 2007.

[B3ndy]

Don't want to sound like I'm banging a drum - but I posted this in another thread:

 

 A "pooled" car (say from Dallara) with a common PU and drivetrain, common suspension pickups and other ancillaries, but no aero package may be very attractive. With some subtle rule changes it would also sit just on the right side of a "customer car".

 

The thing is folks: You have to ask how this would cock up your entertainment on a Sunday afternoon? IMHO it wouldn't. You'd still have the more established teams up the front..... with their Gucci parts and nice hospitality. And then you'd have the smaller teams at the back going mental for the scraps. Hell.... It would potentially make that aspect of the sport more exciting!

 

And don't forget or realise that Red Bull have been doing this with Toro Rosso for a long time....... Despite all of the bullshit spouting from CH and co......... 

 

I liked that the first time I read it, second time around and with the context of this thread I think it makes more sense. 

 

I don't want to get into a discussion about cost again, we've done that to death and this is a Super GP2 thread. However wouldn't it make sense for some of the smaller teams to pool resources? You mentioned hospitality but it could be extended further.

Regarding two tier, I'm still firmly of the belief this could work, as it does in other classes.

[maverick69]

Not to forget Super Aguri beating Honda for most of 2007.

Yep. That was an old Arrows!

 

It can be done very well without diluting this apparent "purity" of F1.

 

Although I struggle with the concept of Bernie, CVC....... and pure. 

[johnmhinds]

Don't want to sound like I'm banging a drum - but I posted this in another thread:

A "pooled" car (say from Dallara) with a common PU and drivetrain, common suspension pickups and other ancillaries, but no aero package may be very attractive. With some subtle rule changes it would also sit just on the right side of a "customer car".

The thing is folks: You have to ask how this would cock up your entertainment on a Sunday afternoon? IMHO it wouldn't. You'd still have the more established teams up the front..... with their Gucci parts and nice hospitality. And then you'd have the smaller teams at the back going mental for the scraps. Hell.... It would potentially make that aspect of the sport more exciting!

And don't forget or realise that Red Bull have been doing this with Toro Rosso for a long time....... Despite all of the bullshit spouting from CH and co.........

The Torro Rosso budget is still $100million+ though?

If you think following the Torro Rosso model is going to make F1 cheaper why hasn't it worked for Torro Rosso themselves?

[Nathan]

Everyone would be bidding for a Mercedes.  Would a rule say a constructor can only provide year old cars to one customer team?  Drastic regulation changes from year to year would create complexity.

 

You would think the risk of being beaten by your customer would be good motivation for a constructor.  Such occurrences could help customers grow into becoming constructors themselves.  It would allow a team like Ferrari to run a junior driver in a customer car.  Again, does it look good on the sport to spend hundreds of millions each year designing race cars that are only useable for one year.  Is that sound?

[David1976]

Super GP2 says it all.

 

Keep F1 as F1 and GP2 as GP2.  Anything less dilutes F1.  In fact I'd be staggered if anyone saw this as a good thing.

[maverick69]

I liked that the first time I read it, second time around and with the context of this thread I think it makes more sense. 

 

I don't want to get into a discussion about cost again, we've done that to death and this is a Super GP2 thread. However wouldn't it make sense for some of the smaller teams to pool resources? You mentioned hospitality but it could be extended further.

Regarding two tier, I'm still firmly of the belief this could work, as it does in other classes.

 

Basically, this is what Mosley was going on about. And it worked initially despite it being chopped down to basic levels between 2009-13. The Xtrac was and is a great gearbox. It just suffered with hydraulic reliability to start with. The Cosworth V8 was a great bit of kit. I was told that it was only 20 bhp down on the Merc - despite certain reliability aspects having to be adhered to. It did like a bit of a drink though...... But right there you had a drive-train that was reasonably competitive. It was only when the FIA decided that they wouldn't route the exhausts out in to the central section - that it opened up a massive arms race in getting the optimal code into the Mac ECU. Everything then went mad....... Along with Red Bull (allegedly) using KERS to sap torque rather than deploy it......... 

 

So to summarise: When you have to agree with Spanky....... You know that something has gone very wrong..........

Edited by maverick69, 13 November 2014 - 15:09.

[redreni]

Not sure it would be that attractive to drivers either - why pay the same money to run around at the back of an F1 race rather than be fighting for wins/podiums in GP2.

 

The same reason GT drivers compete in multi-class events and series as well as GT-only ones, I guess. To try to win their class.

[maverick69]

The Torro Rosso budget is still $100million+ though?

If you think following the Torro Rosso model is going to make F1 cheaper why hasn't it worked for Torro Rosso themselves?

 

Forget what is being banded about - TR have spent less than any team on the grid bar Marussia (although Marussia got paid a lot for JB from Ferrari).

 

Go visit their shed. You'll laugh! The bulk of the work is done through Red Bull Technologies. 

Edited by maverick69, 13 November 2014 - 15:08.

[FullThrottleF1]

Have you been to the TR factory Mav?

[johnmhinds]

Forget what is being banded about - TR have spent less than any team on the grid bar Marussia (although Marussia got paid a lot for JB from Ferrari).

Go visit their shed. You'll laugh! The bulk of the work is done through Red Bull Technologies.

Offsetting the R&D costs onto Red Bull isn't lowering the costs of running the team, someone is still paying those bills, it still costs Torro Rosso the same amount to race as Force India and Sauber.

[maverick69]

Have you been to the TR factory Mav?

I have.

 

It's very clean and well run - but very limited in its ultimate output.

 

Without RBT - I'd say they'd struggle to put an F1 car together at the level that they currently do.......

 

Some very bright sparks there though. They're also very lean by nature..... which is odd for an F1 team with some decent backing.........

[maverick69]

Offsetting the R&D costs onto Red Bull isn't lowering the costs of running the team, someone is still paying those bills, it still costs Torro Rosso the same amount to race as Force India and Sauber.

 True to a degree........ But you have duplication and economy of scale. 

 

Also; Red Bull as a wider business pay for the drivers and many of the junior engineers as a function of the RBT pool. Honda are now doing the same with McLaren I believe.

 

"The place to be"........

[johnmhinds]

 True to a degree........ But you have duplication and economy of scale. 

 

Also; Red Bull as a wider business pay for the drivers and many of the junior engineers as a function of the RBT pool. Honda are now doing the same with McLaren I believe.

 

"The place to be"........

 

But how is that model going to work for anyone else?

 

It's not like ART and DAMS can move up from GP2 to F1 and have someone like Mercedes or McLaren do all their R&D for them for free.

Edited by johnmhinds, 13 November 2014 - 15:37.

[superden]

People poo-poo customer cars or teams using old chassis. Bernie moots the idea of a 'Super GP2' category. People say how much better it would be to use old chassis or customer cars because Super GP2 is a sh*t idea. Bernie gets what he wants all along.

Basic politics, certainly not rocket science.

Edited by superden, 13 November 2014 - 15:47.

[maverick69]

But how is that model going to work for anyone else?

 

It's not like ART and DAMS can move up from GP2 to F1 and have someone like Mercedes or McLaren do all their R&D for them for free.

 

TR get a sponsorship (or as they like to call it - a bursary) from RB. They then give that back to RB. I don't see how a team paying for said technical assistance wouldn't work - even if the sponsor was auxiliary. FI did it with McLaren with great success in 2009....... and it's still going to this day (albeit Mac will have been told to pack it in from the beast from the east). 

 

My ideal solution would be to give the "pooled car" contract to a historical, established team...... Like team Willy. Because even the most hardened race fan likes to see Willy do well 

[Lennat]

IF it were to happen, three criteria would have to be met, as I see it:

 

1. The cars should be perceived as (at least close to) proper F1 cars.

 

2. It could not be a full blown spec thing, in order to keep as much of the F1 spirit as possible.

 

3. It would somehow have to be MUCH cheaper than now. 

 

My solution: Make a spec tub, as some have suggested, and allow Indycar style aero kits, which the teams have to make themselves. I know aero is expensive, but it would make it MUCH more credible in my book to keep a bit of a constructor thing going on. It would also be better than having to artificially make a spec aero kit more competitive in relation to the ever improving full blown constructors. Let Cosworth or similar make a V6 that is similar to the other engines, but get rid of the ERS and allow some extra fuel to ALMOST make up for it. Make sure that it's CLOSE to the other engines all things taken into account. They wouldn't have o take any risks construction wise, hence it would be cheap. Depending on the level of the chassis and how much more fuel it would need, you might wanna lower the minimum weight a bit as well (which would be super easy without the heavy ERS).

 

The result would be slightly interesting cars that still looked and sounded pretty much the same as the other cars, and allowed the teams running them to make a real difference themselves.

[Kraken]

What's the point? Surely 12 cars run by teams with any of them capable of finishing on the podium is better than 20+ with the rest being miles off the pace and in a different race.

 

Apart from the human cost I'm not missing Caterham or Marussia in the slightest.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I like to think I'm open minded about the F1 rules package, but surely this is way way worse for the 'spirit of F1' than just dividing the money more evenly?

[Atreiu]

Different categories race together at Le Mans and it works, so I won't immediately dismiss the notion. But with FIA, FOM et all being as they are, any quick fix can become permanent and in time become an even worse problem.

[Collective]

Different categories race together at Le Mans and it works, so I won't immediately dismiss the notion. But with FIA, FOM et all being as they are, any quick fix can become permanent and in time become an even worse problem.

When I feel like watching Le Mans, what I do is I watch Le Mans. 

 

This idea is utter nonsense of the highest order.

Edited by Collective, 13 November 2014 - 16:13.

[chipmcdonald]

Is it not clear the regulations making the technical side of the cars more and more homogenous, point to ultimately a "GP1" supplanting Formula 1?

[DampMongoose]

If too many F1 teams go we'll have a repeat of 1952 & '53!

[Retrofly]

I've never liked multiclass championships.

[blackhand2010]

If this is the answer to "save" F1, then the wrong questions are being asked...

[DampMongoose]

Sounds like Bernie prodding Sauber and the struggling outfits towards GP2 instead.  Once they make the switch he'll say it was a **** idea to run them together and he'll end up with the 10 or so teams he wanted all along.

[discover23]

What if Super GP2 turns out to be faster than F1. Is possible..

Edited by discover23, 13 November 2014 - 16:59.

[ExFlagMan]

Even worse if Super GP2 turned out to be faster down the straights but slower round the corners.
Seems like a recipe for even more performance arguments than is prevalent in the BTCC, which is a single class category but with different car types (FW drive v RW drive). Then you end up with the ultimate scenario of weight based balancing as in the DTM (yawn).

[Fatgadget]

If anything this will go some way to put a sock in the noisy brigade who been clamouring for strident V8s!