44 replies to this topic

[Mauseri]

How far can we go that it can be considered the pinnacle of motor sport? Personally I think 16 cars can yet still produce good racing, but if only 12 then F1 can be considered dead definitely.

[Double Apex]

I would say 16 as well as the first 8 to finish receive points currently. Oddly you didn't include this as an option so I voted 18. It all depends a bit on the relative competitiveness of the competitors though.

[Clatter]

16, as thats the number in the Concorde agreement.

[Craven Morehead]

The two ferraris. wherever they go, others will appear.

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

More than what was originally in the WRC.

[giacomo]

F1 survived Indy 05 with six cars on the grid.

[4MEN]

3, to get to the podium.

[se7en_24]

Originally posted by giacomo
F1 survived Indy 05 with six cars on the grid.

You think it would have survived all season if the races were like Indy 05?

[giacomo]

Originally posted by se7en_24

You think it would have survived all season if the races were like Indy 05?

Did I say so?

[Smudger]

Originally posted by 4MEN
3, to get to the podium.

There was a race at Miramas in the 20s with only three cars starting (many entries didn't show). One broke down and another one had a lengthy pit stop. The crowd rioted...

The traditional minimum number for a good race has always been 16. But whether or not that holds in the days of a global audience holding remote controls is another matter.

[V8 Fireworks]

26+

Haven't they heard of NASCAR? Quantity is needed. One-car teams, and non-standardised liveries, and the cost to run a team should equal the cost of sponsorship. So that drivers themselve would be able to put together deals such as a one car Montoya Inc racing squad with a customer BMW and a yellow Juicy Fruit livery etc, on a budget of 12 million euros for the season, less than 30-40 employees needed, and able to score wins etc.

[Smudger]

Originally posted by V8 Fireworks
26+

Haven't they heard of NASCAR? Quantity is needed. One-car teams, and non-standardised liveries, and the cost to run a team should equal the cost of sponsorship. So that drivers themselve would be able to put together deals such as a one car Montoya Inc racing squad with a customer BMW and a yellow Juicy Fruit livery etc, on a budget of 12 million euros for the season, less than 30-40 employees needed, and able to score wins etc.

Just like the seventies!

[anbeck]

Originally posted by V8 Fireworks
26+

Haven't they heard of NASCAR? Quantity is needed. One-car teams, and non-standardised liveries, and the cost to run a team should equal the cost of sponsorship. So that drivers themselve would be able to put together deals such as a one car Montoya Inc racing squad with a customer BMW and a yellow Juicy Fruit livery etc, on a budget of 12 million euros for the season, less than 30-40 employees needed, and able to score wins etc.

Well, if that were a concept to my liking, I'd watch NASCAR.

Unfortunately it isn't.

[Smudger]

I don't think it's a bad idea, but needs adapting for F1 conditions. After all, it is pretty much what F1 was from 1950 to the Concorde Agreement.
The trouble with NASCAR is the artificial nature of the racing, in my view, but I haven't watched it for a few seasons. Long races in which no-one shows dominance can be boring too.

[lustigson]

I'd say 15 or 16, too. Anything less is hardly even a race.

[pingu666]

16

motogp with 16-18 or however many there was a sad sad sight...

[lukywill]

26

[panzani]

According to Luca, and to Bernie's last interviews, just a red one...

I would say something between 24-28 would be better, though.

[Smudger]

Originally posted by panzani
According to Luca, and to Bernie's last interviews, just a red one...

I would say something between 24-28 would be better, though.

Think about it. What would the first lap at Monaco be like with 28 cars? Before the Concorde agreement the limit was 20, and Indianapolis only allows 33.

Traditionally the longer circuits used to have more cars (the Nordschliefe for example, where a F2 race was traditionally run at the same time) the shorter circuits less. Now under the Concorde agreement there has to be the same number at every race which means that the maximum number has to be safe at the shortest, tightest circuits. That is why it was set at 26, which has often proved to be too many in early corner pile-ups. The races with 20 last season didn't seem empty.

[panzani]

I fully understand what yoiu're saying, Smudger, but perhaps the Micky Mouses [aka Tilke Mouses] circuits we have now could be enhanced as well to allow real racing, dunno. Perhaps you're right and I am wrong -- I am wrong many times, btw, even though this is unusual in BBs...;)

[Clatter]

Originally posted by Smudger


Think about it. What would the first lap at Monaco be like with 28 cars? Before the Concorde agreement the limit was 20, and Indianapolis only allows 33.

The limit at Monaco wasnt 20. They were running 26 cars there up to 95. The current limit of 24 cars in F1 is not for safety reasons, but because the limit was set to 12 teams, and this was set to protect the value of the existing teams at that time.

[Atreiu]

18, if the races are good enough.
26, ideally.

[panzani]

Exactly, Clatter. ^

[Smudger]

Originally posted by Clatter


The limit at Monaco wasnt 20. They were running 26 cars there up to 95. The current limit of 24 cars in F1 is not for safety reasons, but because the limit was set to 12 teams, and this was set to protect the value of the existing teams at that time.

I'm talking before the first agreements - probably by some years.

The historic teams thing is an example of simply codifying the circumstances which applied at the time of the agreement.

[Rob]

Originally posted by Smudger
I'm talking before the first agreements - probably by some years.

At Monaco it was 20 up until the 1987 race, which was the first to feature 26 starters to bring it into line with FISA regulations.

[Smudger]

Originally posted by panzani
I fully understand what yoiu're saying, Smudger, but perhaps the Micky Mouses [aka Tilke Mouses] circuits we have now could be enhanced as well to allow real racing, dunno. Perhaps you're right and I am wrong -- I am wrong many times, btw, even though this is unusual in BBs...;)

Yes - you aren't wrong - but the problem is always going to be that the 'best' circuits have a fast corner onto a long straight followed by a slow corner, so there will always be bunching on the first lap. Bang, a third of the grid gone by corner 3.

On the other hand I remember lots of races where there were only a few cars running half-way through and there would be long gaps in the action.

If we were to have longer races (not an option at the moment, but it would be nice) the problems may get worse, but bulletproof reliability means that smaller grids are not so important. So fewer, higher quality entrants?

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by Rob


At Monaco it was 20 up until the 1987 race, which was the first to feature 26 starters to bring it into line with FISA regulations.

And it was even a strict limit of 16 in the sixties.
Look who were the victims of that, often because the organisers safeguarded the old guard against new teams, youngsters or privateers:
http://forix.autospo...&r=19650002&c=3
http://forix.autospo...&r=19670002&c=3
http://forix.autospo...&r=19680003&c=3

Edit: Look who were the victims in 1970 -and how they qualified their **s off for nothing: http://forix.autospo...&r=19700003&c=3

[BlackCat]

supporting the 26 option

[indyracefan]

...IMO 18 to just survive, 22-24 would be optimum.

[anbeck]

How many people exactly misunderstand this rather simple question?

Of course, I would love to see 26 cars on the grid! But the question is: How many cars does F1 need to the grid to survive? [sic]

And obvisouly the answer cannot be 26, because F1 would be dead for a decade now. And that's why the 26 option isn't included!
I think 16 is the absolute minimum, but it wouldn't be healthy, just to keep it in a coma, but it wouldn't be sustainable, because one team pulls out and F1 would be effectively dead. 18 is the absolute minimum it needs to survive in the mid term. But I agree with many of the above and say that anything that doesn't have a 2 as the first digit is a shame, but I think to survive 16-18 could work, depending on the duration of the state.

[anbeck]

Originally posted by scheivlak

Edit: Look who were the victims in 1970 -and how they qualified their **s off for nothing: http://forix.autospo...&r=19700003&c=3

A bit OT, but could anybody shed light on the fact that drivers did not qualify, even though they had a time that was fast enough? And Hill even qualified without setting a time?

[Smudger]

Originally posted by anbeck


A bit OT, but could anybody shed light on the fact that drivers did not qualify, even though they had a time that was fast enough? And Hill even qualified without setting a time?

The point being made was that the organisers offered guaranteed places to some entrants and others were required to qualify for the few remaining places.
I think the ACO still carries on the same practice.

[Crazy Ninja]

A minimum of 18 but 24 would be awesome

[euverus]

24+

[GhostR]

Originally posted by micra_k10
How far can we go that it can be considered the pinnacle of motor sport? Personally I think 16 cars can yet still produce good racing, but if only 12 then F1 can be considered dead definitely.

Why are 20, 16, and 12 missing from the options? I know the polling on these forums allow enough slots to include them... Anyway, I'd 8 teams (16 cars) is the absolute minimum. Anything below that and it's on life support and will take a miracle to bring it back.

However, I think anything less than 20 on the grid is a bit of a nasty sign. After the highs of very nearly having a 24 car grid for the start of this year, until Prodrive via customer cars was killed and then the loss of Super Aguri after a handful of races, the prospect of only 18 for next year just doesn't sit well. Even if Honda is bought and starts the season, their long-term survival has to be in doubt. If the global recession gets any worse I think we could very easily see the likes of Toyota, Renault or Force India disappear from the grid as well, if not this year then next.

Honda pulling out and *not* being bought and surviving is a very, very bad sign. F1 can survive with 18, but it leaves the sport teetering on the edge. There's a definite possibility that by the end of the year the 2010 grid could be looking at having 5 or less teams. Taking a pessimistic scenario; one that, though unlikely, is still plausible:

1. Honda don't get bought.
2. Toyota announce 2009 as their last year. Team doesn't get bought.
3. Renault announce 2009 as their last year. Team doesn't get bought.
4. Force India folds as Mallya decides to focus on his business empire. Team doesn't get bought.
5. Mateschitz consolidates RBR and STR into a single team running just two cars.
6. Williams folds after losing their major sponsors and being unable to replace them.

Leaving 2010 with McLaren, Ferrari, BMW, RBR.

So: the extreme worst case leaves us with just four teams on the grid. From the pre-2008 hope of twelve ... it's a chilling thought, isn't it?

I very much doubt that will happen, and I hope to see step one of that sequence to not happen and the Honda team gets bought with a couple of serious bids left unfulfilled (and thus act as potential buyers should 2. or 3. happen). I hope that David Richards' comments in the press recently are designed to scare off potential competition and that he's actually very serious about picking up Honda.

I worry, though, that with the current global economic climate the pessimistic viewpoints are more likely to be accurate, and as such if I see only 18 cars on the grid for 2009 I'll be very worried.

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by giacomo
Did I say so?

You're not saying anything we didn't already know. Why bother to post at all?

[Poltergeistes]

I think even more scarey than the huge crises thats going on, what really keeps manufacs/teams/investors from F1 nowdays is just the fact that the chief is a crazy old midget also known as Bernie Ecclestone, that got too amused and used to taking all the money that comes in the sport, and shares it with the other crazy old nazi loving son-of-a-hittler also known as Max Mosley.

If you had the money, seriously, would you get into a business like F1? where to be competitive you have to nearly invest half a billion, and all to see the results of that investment coming to bernie? he gets to pick the tracks, the prices, the amount of that money you can have back, all of this done in the dark?

Not to mention your Get-In-The-Grid ticket, which includes a very old and secret ritual of initiation, in which lets just say, there will be hookers dressed as nazis sadomizing you.

Yes, this is by far, the best investment one could make, right after investing in AIG.


FIGHT FOTA, FIGHT!

[brakedistance]

After Indy 2005, I think we can safely say more than 6

[anbeck]

Originally posted by Poltergeistes

FIGHT FOTA, FIGHT!

I'm sorry, but I have my doubts over FOTA as well.
What do they want? A bigger share of the huge Ecclestone money. But that is not a solution, this money is part of the problem!

Just one example: Why won't we see any more races in Europe in 2-3 years, or even traditional American events? Because nobody here can pay for them. Why that? Because Bernie charges too much.
If the teams just want a bigger share of Bernie's blackmail attempts, that won't solve any of F1's problems.
The big teams really have a hard time getting the difference between spending less[i] and [i]earning more...

Well, at least Montezemolo spoke of reduced ticket prices, but I stay sceptical until I hold my cheaper ticket in my hands...

[Rinehart]

I'd say 16. And I'd rather have 16 that were all within half a second of each other than 36 spread by 5 seconds.

One thing I fear F1 could do is run two classes, race with say GP2 cars - I hope that doesn't happen.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by Rinehart
I'd say 16. And I'd rather have 16 that were all within half a second of each other than 36 spread by 5 seconds.

One thing I fear F1 could do is run two classes, race with say GP2 cars - I hope that doesn't happen.

The way things are going GP2 won't be far off F1 times so might be quite funny. Would be very difficult to claim F1 is the pinnacle if a GP2 runner were quicker.

[Sakae]

Originally posted by micra_k10
How far can we go that it can be considered the pinnacle of motor sport? Personally I think 16 cars can yet still produce good racing, but if only 12 then F1 can be considered dead definitely.

Your question is interesting, but hardly fair (and that's why I haven't voted). I am not sure who on the BB does, but I certainly have no special inside of formulae how the loot is being divided, and on what basis share of loot is being determined. (Forget the idiotic notion that they all should received the same. That's communist propaganda of yesterday). I gather that perfomers should get more to feed competetive spirit, and reward the success.

So, it boils down then to questions such as not only "how many", but also "who", which denotes a team of certain calibre and qualities.

Otherwise I have always thought that quality pack of twelwe (or 16?) cars is superior concept than bad twenty (or 22) with skimpish finances and diluted rewards.

[D.M.N.]

I liked the days when there were 13/14 teams.

[COUGAR508]

I would say 14 cars. In 1969, some of the races had grids of 13/14 cars, but that was before the age of saturation TV and media coverage...

As others have remarked, although it would be nice to have a large grid, the quality of the field is almost as important as the quantity.

Why not allow some teams to enter three cars at selected races?

[Poltergeistes]

Originally posted by anbeck


I'm sorry, but I have my doubts over FOTA as well.
What do they want? A bigger share of the huge Ecclestone money. But that is not a solution, this money is part of the problem!

Just one example: Why won't we see any more races in Europe in 2-3 years, or even traditional American events? Because nobody here can pay for them. Why that? Because Bernie charges too much.
If the teams just want a bigger share of Bernie's blackmail attempts, that won't solve any of F1's problems.
The big teams really have a hard time getting the difference between spending less[i] and [i]earning more...

Well, at least Montezemolo spoke of reduced ticket prices, but I stay sceptical until I hold my cheaper ticket in my hands...

I think that once they get rid of ecclestone, than there will be alot more possibilities than we can imagine, just remember the guy takes like half of everything, for what? what does he do? besides bad policies...

Even the calendar is a mess, if your talking about cutting costs as he often says, how is that you have to race in europe this week, in 2 weeks you go to asia, in 2 weeks back in europe, in 2 weeks off to south america, (the next season) 2 weeks later in the desert, i mean he does know the motion that the teams has to have in place to be packing up and going all around like that right?

Why not start down under, and make it's way around, that way they could cut costs that way too, when it's europe, just europe, althou these days it looks like he will get rid of any racing in the americas, and pretty soon the ones in western europe.

He will have so many races in the desert it's gonna become a rally.

And if you go to the official formula ticket store, its like a bad joke, "their special packages" that will have flight, hotel and ticket, won't cost less than us$5000, no wonder nobody goes. not only the tickets are at a crazy rate, but also the hotels when F1 is around as well.