874 replies to this topic

[Kodza]

Whatisvalis

Posted Today, 03:04

Ted covering rumblings of a new team.

 

https://youtu.be/yLeW3jOJ9Kw?t=12m

 

 

AustinF1

Posted Today, 04:23

Whatisvalis, on 11 Jun 2017 - 03:04, said:

Ted covering rumblings of a new team.

 

https://youtu.be/yLeW3jOJ9Kw?t=12m

Interesting....

 

 

It looks they are comming and my opinion is - yes, we desperately need them.

Present number of F1 cars at the track is so low.

We need 3 new teams.

Any further rumors anyone?

Whats ForumPeople thinks?

[GoldenColt]

Yes, we need them "comming"...

 

20 cars are not enough cars imho.

[RedBaron]

If they're of the level of Haas or above then yes, if they're at the level of Manor (as well as they did to survive), Caterham or HRT then no we do not. For their own good and for Formula 1.

[Lotus53B]

We need a more even distribution of funds for the teams more

Edited by Lotus53B, 11 June 2017 - 11:39.

[Risil]

I'm going to withhold judgement until the new teams arrive, find success and/or close down.

[ckolcz]

We need a more even distribution of funds for the teams more

Pretty much this. Then more people should at least consider entering the sport.

Edited by juliuscaesar, 11 June 2017 - 11:55.

[f1paul]

The more the merrier! (unless they're like HRT)

[Kodza]

If they're of the level of Haas or above then yes, if they're at the level of Manor (as well as they did to survive), Caterham or HRT then no we do not. For their own good and for Formula 1.

 

I do understand you, but I do disagree.

This way Minardi never will be in and Alonso, and not just him, will be without chance to enter as new, young and unconfirmed driver.

No, we need teams, whatever level they are.

 

What is wrong if some teams stops?

Idea is to open doors and new teams can come when slot/s open.

[Seanspeed]

Two more reasonably competitive teams would be great. 

 

Wouldn't want more than that.  Huge grids are messy and the more competition out there, the harder it is for any individual team to do well.  

 

They do need to be somewhat competitive(at least current Sauber level), though.  Hopeless backmarkers dont really add to the sport much at all.  

Edited by Seanspeed, 11 June 2017 - 11:59.

[GoldenColt]

People belittling HRT should keep in mind that they finished ahead of Virgin/Marussia in 2010 and 2011.

[sopa]

We need them if the money distribution is extended from top 10 teams to at least top 12.

 

Because unless you are tied to a manufacturer like Haas and get off to a good start, you are pretty much doomed. Because it is incredibly hard to break into the existing top 10 and if you don't do that, you are chronically underfunded and will likely fold soon anyway.

 

So yeah, good idea but only if the revenue system was fixed.

[EthanM]

HRT / Caterham and Virgin and its 120938129083 subsequent names all entered under Mosley's epicfail "budgetcapped f1" grandiose plans. With business plans and funding that reflected that financial reality. So they were pretty much destined to fail since there was no budget cap. Anybody entering now will have to make a business plan to tackle real f1 and secure relevant funding, I doubt they 'll let anybody in hoping to race on a shoestring.

[pdac]

Until more than 10 teams are given a slice of the prize fund - No, no more teams as someone will fold with a couple of years and it's almost certainly going to be the new entrant(s).

[Laster]

I don't believe there was anything definitive said to state new F1 teams are coming judging by Ted's comments when Ross Brawn was asked about this.

To answer the question though - More F1 teams aren't needed, but they would most certainly be welcome. A better distribution of the prize money has to happen, and any team that enters should perform as well as Haas has done. No HRT, Caterham, and Marussia like performance where they're completely cut adrift of the midfield. A 26 car field is ideal in my mind, but I want every team to at least challenge for the occasional point across the course of an entire season.

[Hati]

There was a team available for purchase this year and nobody was interested. And yet now there is magically several new arrivals. I don't think so.

 

I would like to get back the time when there were more drivers than places in the grid. 30 drivers and last six or eight of them battle on Friday for place in qualifying.

[KWSN - DSM]

Any team capable of fielding cars meeting the 107% rule are welcome.

 

[RedBaron]

I do understand you, but I do disagree.

This way Minardi never will be in and Alonso, and not just him, will be without chance to enter as new, young and unconfirmed driver.

No, we need teams, whatever level they are.

 

What is wrong if some teams stops?

Idea is to open doors and new teams can come when slot/s open.

 

I was referring to their financial situations.

 

Not just from the team itself but Formula 1 needs to support new teams.

 

We don't want a repeat of the 3 teams we lost ever again, it was embarrassing and unacceptable. 

[Kodza]

There was a team available for purchase this year and nobody was interested. And yet now there is magically several new arrivals. I don't think so.

 

I would like to get back the time when there were more drivers than places in the grid. 30 drivers and last six or eight of them battle on Friday for place in qualifying.

First sentence is wrong.

There WAS buyers, but sellers trying to trick buyers and as they are not stupid to buy hot air, team goes down.

 

Second sentece is sensible.

More cars and more drivers makes buz. And that can be very good for F1.

 

Any team capable of fielding cars meeting the 107% rule are welcome.

 

I'll undersign that.

 

I was referring to their financial situations.

 

Not just from the team itself but Formula 1 needs to support new teams.

 

We don't want a repeat of the 3 teams we lost ever again, it was embarrassing and unacceptable. 

Why strugling companies are unacceptable?

If that is truth in business there will be 20% of existing companies only, others are strugling.

No, we need more teams, even if they are not at the level of RedBull.

[FullThrottleF1]

Nothing serious probably just Stefan GP.

[Pontlieue]

I was referring to their financial situations.

 

Not just from the team itself but Formula 1 needs to support new teams.

 

We don't want a repeat of the 3 teams we lost ever again, it was embarrassing and unacceptable. 

This "embarassing and unacceptable" situation was normal in F1 for almost 50 years.

[pacificquay]

3 new teams are needed, the grid should be 26 cars

[V8 Fireworks]

Whatisvalis

Posted Today, 03:04

Ted covering rumblings of a new team.

 

https://youtu.be/yLeW3jOJ9Kw?t=12m

 

 

AustinF1

Posted Today, 04:23

Whatisvalis, on 11 Jun 2017 - 03:04, said:

Interesting....

 

 

It looks they are comming and my opinion is - yes, we desperately need them.

Present number of F1 cars at the track is so low.

We need 3 new teams.

 

 

Only if they extend FOM payments to 13th place -- else the teams beyond 10th will just keep going bankrupt!!

[derstatic]

24 cars would be great but we will also need to make sure existing teams can survive. As of today Sauber is lagging slightly but they are not terrible in the way Manor, Caterham or HRT was. All teams today are doing a good job and should be on the grid. The cost of being competitive needs to come down and FOM payments need to go to all teams.

[RedBaron]

Why strugling companies are unacceptable?

If that is truth in business there will be 20% of existing companies only, others are strugling.

No, we need more teams, even if they are not at the level of RedBull.

 

Well that would never ever happen. No struggling company would ever decide to start a Formula 1 team.

 

If you read my previous post you'll see I agree with your last statement, you've maybe misunderstood my point.

 

I'm not saying we only let Red Bull's and Mercedes capable teams into Formula 1, of course not.

 

I said they need to be Haas or better, we don't need to fill the back of the grid with teams that miles off the pace with linger financial clouds constantly questioning if they'll last the season. Teams need support in the form of fair distribution of prize funds and possibly a tie up with an existing team.

 

This "embarassing and unacceptable" situation was normal in F1 for almost 50 years.

 

Plenty of small budgeted teams raced for more than the length of time than Caterham, Manor and HRT combined in the past.

Edited by RedBaron, 11 June 2017 - 14:44.

[ArrowsLivery]

Yes there should be 26 cars on the grid.

[Bleu]

People belittling HRT should keep in mind that they finished ahead of Virgin/Marussia in 2010 and 2011.

The order between those those teams came much to who was luckiest in the race with most top teams DNFing

 

2010 HRT beat Virgin with 3 14th places against 2.

- Australia 15 cars finished (other HRT was 15th)
- Monaco 15 cars classified (Lotus was 15th, Chandhok/Trulli collision late in the race)
- Korea 15 cars finished (other HRT was 15th)

Virgin had double DNF in each.

 

When Virgin had 14th places, Virgin cars were 15th and 16th.

 

In 2011 Canadian GP was the decider. It was the only race of the season where best HRT was better than best Virgin. At least one Virgin was classified every race, HRT had three missing, Australia, Malaysia and Italy.

[Kodza]

Nothing serious probably just Stefan GP.

?

Why you think Stefan GP isn't serious? My infos differs entirely.

Stefan was serious and proper, but circumstancies are against him (and not just him anyway).

Check facts. It's different story.

 

 

Yes there should be 26 cars on the grid.

 

 

Right.

There is lot of ForumPeople who think that only very well funded companies should enter. Perhaps big car manufacturers.

How realistic it is?

Williams in that case couldn't start.

No way for McLaren. Sauber is village racer from Swiss, so not eligible.

Jordan, no way! Small team without proper sponsors. Minardi explaind already. And so on,..

We should come to sense. ONLY small teams are realistic.

Formula 1 is back to '80s. Stop dreaming about new billions to be invested just to start new F1 team.

New teams, new blood. Fresh start = More interesting races. More seats for new drivers.

[Seanspeed]

Any team capable of fielding cars meeting the 107% rule are welcome.

 

I feel like the 107% rule was useful when we had a potential 30+ cars vying for grid positions and had actual competition at the back end of the grid.  

 

But now?  I think we should move that down to 105% and cap entrants to 12 teams.  If you're more than 4 seconds off the pace, you're not really racing anybody and just wasting space.  

 

Maybe things could be reconsidered if they ever got the balls to try and implement a cost cap.  

Edited by Seanspeed, 11 June 2017 - 15:18.

[KWSN - DSM]

I feel like the 107% rule was useful when we had a potential 30+ cars vying for grid positions and had actual competition at the back end of the grid.  

 

But now?  I think we should move that down to 105% and cap entrants to 12 teams.  If you're more than 4 seconds off the pace, you're not really racing anybody and just wasting space.  

 

Maybe things could be reconsidered if they ever got the balls to try and implement a cost cap.  

 

107% or  105% what ever the percentage is, any team meeting that are welcome - I do not agree with a cap on teams, if 30 teams can all meet 105% then a starting field of 26 cars will be qualified out of those.

 

[statman]

26-28 cars would be great.

 

I'm old enough to remember pre-qualifying. I loved it when so many teams were around. All those obscure exotic names, multitude of different engines. But maybe that's just nostalgia.

[ArrowsLivery]

Ted brought it up because Horner said Red Bull lost a few members of their team. I wonder if those people were poached by FOM/Brawn for their research on more raceable cars instead of a new F1 entry? 

[SonJR]

If they're of the level of Haas or above then yes, if they're at the level of Manor (as well as they did to survive), Caterham or HRT then no we do not. For their own good and for Formula 1.

 

Surely any team (and particularly, the investors behind it) will seriously consider the Haas approach instead of 'going it alone'.

It just doesn't seem sensible, unless you're a car manufacturer or the like, to not tie up with a larger operation to a significant extent.

 

With Mercedes and Ferrari having shown a willingness to for the right price - be it financial or in terms of driver placement - work extensively with smaller outfits and the tech branches of Williams and McLaren being similarly inclined, it seems like there's options aplenty.

 

Edited by SonJR, 11 June 2017 - 16:37.

[William Hunt]

I disagree that we 'don't need teams of the level of Manor, HRT or Caterham
F1 history is full with small but colourful teams.
I as a fan want to see as many cars as possible on track

And especially let's not forget that many of those small teams gave very talented drivers, people like Alonso or Ricciardo even, their first crack at F1

[pdac]

I disagree that we 'don't need teams of the level of Manor, HRT or Caterham
F1 history is full with small but colourful teams.
I as a fan want to see as many cars as possible on track

And especially let's not forget that many of those small teams gave very talented drivers, people like Alonso or Ricciardo even, their first crack at F1

 

The history of F1 prior to it turning into a multi-multi-million dollar business.

[William Hunt]

it's very strange though that if a new team is poaching staff from Red Bull that nothing about the identity of the new team has leaked in the press

[HuddersfieldTerrier1986]

The more the merrier (as long as they're not a stupid amount of time off the pace, eg if there's 13 teams and the 13th quickest team is constantly 5+secs off the 12th quickest team then I'd say get rid, but otherwise, let them stay). Certainly 20 cars seems low.

[JHSingo]

I'm amazed anyone would want to enter F1 right now, given the expense, the unfair distribution of fees and the fact that unless you've got one of Mrs May's "magic money trees" handy, you haven't got a hope in hell's chance of actually winning.

[Fastcake]

107% or  105% what ever the percentage is, any team meeting that are welcome - I do not agree with a cap on teams, if 30 teams can all meet 105% then a starting field of 26 cars will be qualified out of those.

 

 

I don't think it's viable now to have more entrants than starting positions. The base costs of building an operation capable of producing competitive cars, that can actually qualify for the race, have reached a level that no one will be willing to make the investment needed without a guaranteed start. And even cost caps aren't going to get it down to a level where it's worth a punt. It's also hard enough to get sponsors nowadays for the bigger teams, for someone who can't reliably make the grid it will be impossible, which blocks off any outside assistance.

 

I'll be happy enough just to see a full grid of 26 cars, but that will need a new financial settlement.

[RedBaron]

I disagree that we 'don't need teams of the level of Manor, HRT or Caterham
F1 history is full with small but colourful teams.
I as a fan want to see as many cars as possible on track
And especially let's not forget that many of those small teams gave very talented drivers, people like Alonso or Ricciardo even, their first crack at F1

We do need teams like that but they don't survive in F1 anymore. That's the reality. We just recently lost all 3 new teams, they never really got on their feet.

So they need support and it should co-op with another team, just like Haas.

[KWSN - DSM]

I don't think it's viable now to have more entrants than starting positions. The base costs of building an operation capable of producing competitive cars, that can actually qualify for the race, have reached a level that no one will be willing to make the investment needed without a guaranteed start. And even cost caps aren't going to get it down to a level where it's worth a punt. It's also hard enough to get sponsors nowadays for the bigger teams, for someone who can't reliably make the grid it will be impossible, which blocks off any outside assistance.

 

I'll be happy enough just to see a full grid of 26 cars, but that will need a new financial settlement.

 

I am not necessarily disagreeing that the financial viability could and most likely would be an issue, question being asked do we need more to which I say as many as possible within the confines of a 107, 105 or 103% rule, then which ever teams make it make, and those who do not do not. I am conceptually against a limit on how many teams can take part of the championships.

 

Anyone entering the sport now would do so fully aware how what the financial rewards or lag of same are, possibly in the future we will see a different distribution however I do not think we will ever see a same amount to everyone, there will be haves and have not's as there have always been.

 

Red Bull were once Stewart racing.

Force India was once Jordan, once Midland and once Spyker.

Toro Rosso was once Minardi

 

Small teams are not by definition designed to disappear.

 

[William Hunt]

We do need teams like that but they don't survive in F1 anymore. That's the reality. We just recently lost all 3 new teams, they never really got on their feet.

So they need support and it should co-op with another team, just like Haas.

 

Look at how long teams survived in the past. Zakspeed, Rial, AGS, Toleman (sold to Benetton), Onyx, Wolf.... they weren't along that long but that's okay, what we need is new teams often coming in and that some dissapear after a couple of years is oké if there is a steady flow of new entrants, that's how it used to be

[Ruusperi]

Nothing is sadder than non-full grid. And nothing is more delightful than small team getting points (Minardi, Manor). So I really hope we will have 26 car grid by 2020 - permanently.

[RedBaron]

Look at how long teams survived in the past. Zakspeed, Rial, AGS, Toleman (sold to Benetton), Onyx, Wolf.... they weren't along that long but that's okay, what we need is new teams often coming in and that some dissapear after a couple of years is oké if there is a steady flow of new entrants, that's how it used to be

Different times unfortunately.

It's far too expensive now to just give it a go for a few years.

Too many jobs on the line.

Too many suppliers left without payments being made when you go bankrupt.

It just doesn't work in the modern era of Formula 1.

[HistoryFan]

I don't think we'll see a new team in the next 2-3 years.

Who should that be?

[William Hunt]

what we urgently need is a budget cap and a fair distribution of money system

[KWSN - DSM]

Cap will never happen, fair(er) will come.

 

[William Hunt]

strange that no-one speculates about the identity of the new team who is poaching staff from Red Bull

[Tenmantaylor]

F1 would be better with closer to 30 cars IMO.

[Tenmantaylor]

strange that no-one speculates about the identity of the new team who is poaching staff from Red Bull

 

VAG finally making moves?

[Arundo]

More teams are always good, but as Ted says noone bought Manor stuff or the entry so this would not be happening anytime soon i guess.