40 replies to this topic

[angst]

So, Max is still pursuing his idea of a relegation system for F1...

http://www.pitpass.c...es_art_id=30160

...how come nobody seems able to spot the glaringly obvious - ie that if it wasn't for the 'closed shop' set-up instilled by the CA then one wouldn't need to be considering such a cack handed 'solution'. There is, in there, the very seed of an idea that might be better.

He talks of reducing a teams entries to one. Well, perhaps, just perhaps, as there would potentially be two extra places on the grid (nothing wrong with 26 car grids), then space should be made available to single car teams.

It could be worked quite simply. Eighteen cars is, apparently, the minimum required to meet the contract requirements with the race organisors. Once past that point then single car teams could be allowed. Atm, there wouldn't be a problem anyway but..... for how long will Red Bull run two teams? Surely this would be a better way for bringing in new teams, especially with customer chassis availability.

[JForce]

Did Max screw your wife or something? Be honest. We won't judge.

[angst]

Originally posted by JForce
Did Max screw your wife or something? Be honest. We won't judge.

And that adds to the matter in hand..... how, exactly. Is Max your father or something?

[Lifew12]

It's who Max's Mum screwed thats the problem.

On topic, the relegation system would not work as, quite obviously, the minute a team 'went down' their sponsors would desert them. This is exactly what happened to Direxiv when Max rejected their (more viable than Prodrive....) entry.

The idea of single car teams should nto be discounted, and lets get back to a 26 car grid.

[angst]

Originally posted by JForce
Did Max screw your wife or something? Be honest. We won't judge.

And, further to my original response; what is it that was so objectionable about my initial post?

[angst]

Originally posted by Lifew12
It's who Max's Mum screwed thats the problem.

On topic, the relegation system would not work as, quite obviously, the minute a team 'went down' their sponsors would desert them. This is exactly what happened to Direxiv when Max rejected their (more viable than Prodrive....) entry.

The idea of single car teams should nto be discounted, and lets get back to a 26 car grid.

You've got to the heart of the matter with the sponsorship problems. It's a wholly unworkable idea. It makes absolutely no sense commercially... however, giving team the option to run just one car..... now that makes sense. How might Minardi have fared had they not had to run two cars. Their second driver in 2005 did not have the budget for a race drive, and was supposed to be the third driver on the team.....but then the second driver's budget disappeared and the requirement to run that second car must have put enormous financial strain on the team....

Maybe Red Bull might have been happy to have taken up the option of an extra race seat for Liuzzi, instead of him sharing second and (mostly) third car duties with Klien?

EDIT

Just thought I'd add this, as I can foresee some of the arguments against. The other teams might have objected.... so Max could just say, well you all have the option of running just the one car. How many of the manufacturer based teams would wish to reduce their chances of CC points (and therefore revenue) by doing so? It's a matter of realistic aims. The best thing that could have happened from Minardi's point of view is that they reduce their costs, but clearly their chances of scoring CC points is halved. There would have been one extra place on the grid (actually there might well be seen to have been five extra places on the grid, if not seven). As those race entries are free, why not open them up - on a race by race basis, if necessary. That would have allowed third entries from some teams, giving opportunities to development/test drivers. That could have increased the value of a test/third driver contract with the smaller teams, as there would be the possibility of a race start or two (or three...etc.). This could have been done with the race organisors, so that extra entries were made that might increase the gate receipts - local drivers......Bourdais might have had an apportunity this way, perhaps.

[wj_gibson]

Just to say that there have been single-car teams in the past. Never particularly good ones (Spirit; RAM; Coloni) but they have existed before.

[VoidNT]

"If there is a team that is consistently 11th or 12th for three, four or five years and there's a brilliant outfit that wants to come in, it can't be right not to let it. We need a mechanism."

I thought the mechanism does already exist? If your team isn't successful enough you can sell it to more 'brilliant outfit' and everybody will be happy. Seems like Max trying to gain more political (and financial?) power by getting a right to promote/relegate teams in F1.

From the other side, Max might be preparing to a new era in F1, when customer teams will heavily depend on their associate manufacturers. All 'independent' teams will become 'second' teams of manufacturers, every manufacturer will want to have such a junior team. In this case, there will be no room for junior teams of all manufacturers, the old mechanism of selling-buying the team will not work anymore and therefore relegation scheme in F1 could make sense.

[angst]

Originally posted by wj_gibson
Just to say that there have been single-car teams in the past. Never particularly good ones (Spirit; RAM; Coloni) but they have existed before.

....or, perhaps Wolf('77-'79), Renault (1977, '78), Ligier ('76-'78), Williams GPE('77-'78) as examples of single car teams that had success and/or moved on to two car teams. Or Ensign, Theodore, Osella etc. that didn't necessarily lead on to better things, but dd give some up and coming drivers their first chance (Piquet in the Ensign in '78 eg, Rosberg for Theodore in the same year). Or perhaps third cars that gave some stars in the making their break (Scheckter '73, Villeneuve '77, Mansell '80).

[Garagiste]

Why don't we let anybody that wants to enter turn up (after lodging entry, placing deposit etc.) and see if they are fast enough?
We could have a session to find out those most worthy of entry for the race and call it qualifying.

[WHITE]

Originally posted by angst
[B]So, Max is still pursuing his idea of a relegation system for F1...

http://www.pitpass.c...es_art_id=30160

I remember that one of the first threads that I started, more than one year ago, was about promotion/relegation !

[Lorran]

I think that Max's idea is quite brilliant. Its a sport and in proper sports competitions the best "sportsmen/persons/team" should be allowed into the competition.

The salient point missed by angst is that relegation will only occur when there is a potentially superior outfit wanting the position. For years Minardi bullshitted about the back of the grid with Paul Stoddard (who paid himself 5-10 million every year first and foremost out of Minardi's revenue) and never made a genuine effort to compete at the sharp end of the grid. If Spyker goes the same way and a team like Audi wants to enter then I believe that they should be given the chance without being held hostage for Spyker to cash in financially.

A good metaphor is the Olympics. Should the USA we guaranteed a spot in the final race or should they get there by entering a sufficiently fast competitor?

[Garagiste]

Of course the fastest should get in there, so why not have qualifying, just as in the Olympics you have heats? What if the "potentially" faster outfit turned out to be nothing of the sort? Why mess around relegating the last of the teams one year, when you can weed them out of the race via qualifying if they are truely the slowest?

[Lorran]

Because a qualifying free for all is too unstable. A genuine front runner team with many commercial commitments might have a minor technical problem and fail in qualifying thereby not being able to race and would lose millions of dollars.

The financial model of F1 is now too large and sophisticated to have race by race entry based on qualifying shootouts.

[VoidNT]

Originally posted by Lorran
I think that Max's idea is quite brilliant. Its a sport and in proper sports competitions the best "sportsmen/persons/team" should be allowed into the competition.

The salient point missed by angst is that relegation will only occur when there is a potentially superior outfit wanting the position. For years Minardi bullshitted about the back of the grid with Paul Stoddard...

That's the problem. Who will decide that the team is 'potentially superior'? By which criteria? As I understand, Max wants decide it by himself. With this, Mosley could threaten with relegation if Stoddard would continue to criticize the way Mosley works; and until Stoddard would be Max' ally, there could be no relegation danger for Minardi.

I have nothing against relegation mechanism, but it should be clearly defined and transparently executed (like in football). Which is not the way FIA doing things, sadly.

[Lorran]

I think that a fair way to decide on promotion of a "superior" team in place of a last place team would be by a vote of a three quarter majority of the existing teams.

[VoidNT]

Originally posted by Lorran
I think that a fair way to decide on promotion of a "superior" team in place of a last place team would be by a vote of a three quarter majority of the existing teams.

Do you really believe the teams' vote will be based on objective criteria but on on their own agendas?!

[Lorran]

Originally posted by VoidNT


Do you really believe the teams' vote will be based on objective criteria but on on their own agendas?!

I do acknowledge that there is a potential problem but regulations can be drafted to take account of this. For example: -

If a team is last two years in a row, that team can be limited to one car with three quarter majority of team votes.

If a team is last three years in a row, that team can be limited to one car with a majority vote.

If a team is last four years in a row, that team can be limited to one car by considered decision of the FIA.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Lorran
[B]I think that Max's idea is quite brilliant. Its a sport and in proper sports competitions the best "sportsmen/persons/team" should be allowed into the competition.

It's a stupid idea, whichever way one looks at it, hence i've not reproduced the rest of your post.

Picture this - after five years of the relegation/promotion process (relegate to what, where? promote from what, where? The mind boggles!) Ferrari find themselves going down.

Think about that for a minute, and answer these questions honestly:

Would that be good for F1?
Would the fans appreciate it?
Would Ferrari's many sponsors and commercial partners be happy?
Would the team stay involved?

Apply that to Toyota, Honda, BMW, Mercedes, Renault, or McLaren, Williams, Red Bull, Vodaphone, AT&t, Intel, 02, etc etc etc.

can you honestly answer yes to any of those?

Thats why it is among the most ludicrous of Max's ideas (along with his 'driver rotation' one) and will never be a viable option.

If you want more teams to have a chance, as someones said, increase the number of participants, and some won;t qualify.

[Garagiste]

Originally posted by Lorran
Because a qualifying free for all is too unstable. A genuine front runner team with many commercial commitments might have a minor technical problem and fail in qualifying thereby not being able to race and would lose millions of dollars.

The financial model of F1 is now too large and sophisticated to have race by race entry based on qualifying shootouts.

So to use your olympics analogy again, if the USA runner loses a shoe in the heats and trails in last, he should still have a place in the final, because there's so much at stake financially?
If a front running team cocks it up that badly, then they aren't quick enough that weekend, so tough. That's how it ought to work, IMO - you won't get a bunch of "Wide Awake Club" half-@rsed outfits any more, because as you say it's too darned expensive.
I don't like the idea of relegation because it would stifle growth of teams. Would you be developing next year's car (which might turn out to punch above it's weight) if you were in last place and stood to get the boot from the championship? Come to that would you enter in the first place under those conditions?

[Calorus]

Originally posted by Garagiste


So to use your olympics analogy again, if the USA runner loses a shoe in the heats and trails in last, he should still have a place in the final, because there's so much at stake financially?
If a front running team cocks it up that badly, then they aren't quick enough that weekend, so tough. That's how it ought to work, IMO - you won't get a bunch of "Wide Awake Club" half-@rsed outfits any more, because as you say it's too darned expensive.
I don't like the idea of relegation because it would stifle growth of teams. Would you be developing next year's car (which might turn out to punch above it's weight) if you were in last place and stood to get the boot from the championship? Come to that would you enter in the first place under those conditions?

Precisely, it would bring back the banker laps, for a start - and actually with multiple race engines, Friday quali would have a purpose - every one would run just fast enough to get a lap on the board, everyone else would get sent home. In fact this is exactly why the system fell down - bring back too many cars for the grid and you can bring back everything that was good about qualifying to begin with.

[Lorran]

Originally posted by Lifew12


It's a stupid idea, whichever way one looks at it, hence i've not reproduced the rest of your post.

Picture this - after five years of the relegation/promotion process (relegate to what, where? promote from what, where? The mind boggles!) Ferrari find themselves going down.

Think about that for a minute, and answer these questions honestly:

Would that be good for F1?
Would the fans appreciate it?
Would Ferrari's many sponsors and commercial partners be happy?
Would the team stay involved?

Apply that to Toyota, Honda, BMW, Mercedes, Renault, or McLaren, Williams, Red Bull, Vodaphone, AT&t, Intel, 02, etc etc etc.

can you honestly answer yes to any of those?

Thats why it is among the most ludicrous of Max's ideas (along with his 'driver rotation' one) and will never be a viable option.

If you want more teams to have a chance, as someones said, increase the number of participants, and some won;t qualify.

I see that you feel strongly about your position. I think that actually its stupid for you to dismiss the "idea" as stupid but that's just my opinion.

We can agree to disagree.

[FrankB]

Originally posted by Lorran
Because a qualifying free for all is too unstable. A genuine front runner team with many commercial commitments might have a minor technical problem and fail in qualifying thereby not being able to race and would lose millions of dollars.

Is that vastly different to having a technical problem on race day that prevents a car getting away from the grid, or perhaps failing to make it on to the grid at all. The only difference that I can see is that the sponsors will get more TV screen time if a problem occurred on raceday rather than during a qualifying session... but still not as much as they would as a front running team competing for the lead of the race.

[Lorran]

Originally posted by FrankB


Is that vastly different to having a technical problem on race day that prevents a car getting away from the grid, or perhaps failing to make it on to the grid at all. The only difference that I can see is that the sponsors will get more TV screen time if a problem occurred on raceday rather than during a qualifying session... but still not as much as they would as a front running team competing for the lead of the race.

I see your point. However, consider this as well... If there was a system of free for all qualifying, how much harder would it be for the bottom teams to get sponsorship? Poor teams would have no chance at all and would eventually be completely squeezed out of the sport. At least with Max's idea the bottom teams could leapfrog one another and not face relegation. When a team is guaranteed a spot on the grid it would be easier for them to make commercial agreements and then to grow from there.

[Calorus]

Originally posted by Lorran


I see your point. However, consider this as well... If there was a system of free for all qualifying, how much harder would it be for the bottom teams to get sponsorship? Poor teams would have no chance at all and would eventually be completely squeezed out of the sport. At least with Max's idea the bottom teams could leapfrog one another and not face relegation. When a team is guaranteed a spot on the grid it would be easier for them to make commercial agreements and then to grow from there.

Yes, but if a team makes the neccessary investment, they ensure themselves a place on the grid with their performance - also preventing for the while at least the bollocks with talentless pay drivers.

Meaning that in the same way as Toyota spend a year driving around in circles by themselves, only to join the end of the grid, they could have turned up on a few race weekends and actually had a benchmark.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Lorran


I see your point. However, consider this as well... If there was a system of free for all qualifying, how much harder would it be for the bottom teams to get sponsorship? Poor teams would have no chance at all and would eventually be completely squeezed out of the sport. At least with Max's idea the bottom teams could leapfrog one another and not face relegation. When a team is guaranteed a spot on the grid it would be easier for them to make commercial agreements and then to grow from there.

But they are not guaranteed anything, are they, beyond the time of relegation! No sponsor is going to look at a team who may not be in the sport next year, as no sponsor wants to be allied to failure.

And i'm sorry, but the idea should be dismissed as stupid, by all, despite your objections.

I'll add another little problem - where are the teams, the ' promoted' ones, going to come from? Who are they? How can they afford it?

Who has the resource, financial and otherwise, to prepare and construct an F1 level facility on the promise that they MIGHT get promoted to the big time (only, of course, to be hanging on tenterhooks in case they get relgated a year later, or whatever!)

Think back to March, when Max invited allcomers to his new 'affordable' F1 - how many of the eleven entries he recieved were actually, truly, able to summon up the wherewithal to go ahead?

In case you don't know, the answer is three, at most, and more truthfully two.

What makes you think, with costs NOT tumbling as Max promised, and unlikely to, that there would suddenly be teams clamouring to get into F1?

No, the idea gets more stupid the more we look into it.

[qwazy]

It could never work without lower budgets, financial stability and regulation stability.

Pro sports in the U.S. (I dont know how the economic structure of soccer/futball works) are able to prosper because the make-up of the sport is untouched and has been untouched for decades. There arent increasing, outlandish budgets because teams and owners know how much is required to do it right.

Also, the sports have salary caps to maintain economic integrity (aside from baseball, where you can pay your players what you want). And even in Major League Baseball, they have revenue sharing so that the smaller teams have a chance to invest in good players.

A team being promoted into F1 will be at a disadvantage. If it's done on a yearly basis, how long will a promoted team have to set up their operation? They'll have to find finances, build up personel, get production going, etc.

The only way a promotion/relegation system would work is if EVERY series in the world runs F1 cars, or something incredibly close. With that, they'd be able to make the jump and the jump would be a bit easier since they're already using similiar equipment. You cant race a GP2/ChampCar/F3 car in F1 right now. Plain and simple.

Formula 1, as much as we all love it, has structural issues, glaring issues. And until the very foundation of how the sport is run, we'll have issues.

[Dudley]

Originally posted by Lorran
I think that Max's idea is quite brilliant. Its a sport and in proper sports competitions the best "sportsmen/persons/team" should be allowed into the competition.

The salient point missed by angst is that relegation will only occur when there is a potentially superior outfit wanting the position. For years Minardi bullshitted about the back of the grid with Paul Stoddard (who paid himself 5-10 million every year first and foremost out of Minardi's revenue) and never made a genuine effort to compete at the sharp end of the grid. If Spyker goes the same way and a team like Audi wants to enter then I believe that they should be given the chance without being held hostage for Spyker to cash in financially.

A good metaphor is the Olympics. Should the USA we guaranteed a spot in the final race or should they get there by entering a sufficiently fast competitor?

Actually by 2002 Minardi were breaking even and by 2003 Stoddy was able to take money from the team.

Also, there is a limitation in an olympic final because there's 8 lanes. The limitation in F1 is entirely artificial. Audi should be allowed to enter, but if more than 26 turn up, Audi, Spyker and indeed everyone else should have to qualify.

Which is much like the olympics. The olympics don't say "only 12 countries", they say "Every country can bring 3 people. But only the quickest 8 will be in the final".

[flyboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wj_gibson
[B]Just to say that there have been single-car teams in the past. Never particularly good ones.... Rob Walker and Stirling Moss come to mind. Also Walker and Siefert.

[angst]

Originally posted by Garagiste
Why don't we let anybody that wants to enter turn up (after lodging entry, placing deposit etc.) and see if they are fast enough?
We could have a session to find out those most worthy of entry for the race and call it qualifying.

Precisely. That is what I meant when I said the 'solution' put forward by Max is totally unecessary. If you want to promote the best teams into F1, while weeding out the 'chaff' then just free up entry. Only the top ten teams (iirc) receive revenue payments. Given that, they should be the only teams commited to guaranteeing two entries. That way you have your minimum field easily covered. Any other teams should be allowed to enter on an ad-hoc basis - maybe with some sort of incentive to enter a full season with two cars.

That way the best teams will get their cars on the grid and will earn revenue, and the less competent teams will find it difficult to continue and.... fade away. It's too damn expensive to consider a bunch of no-hopes getting involved - there is absolutely no reason to do so. This is a competition, surely. So let them compete - that, surely , is the basis of promoting excellence.

[Paste]

Originally posted by JForce
Did Max screw your wife or something? Be honest. We won't judge.

Similar to how JV got it on with yours, huh?

[mikko-ville]

Originally posted by angst
So, Max is still pursuing his idea of a relegation system for F1...

Funnily enough that was pretty much your idea too in about year ago, but now that Max agrees with you it's no longer good idea ;)

Originally posted by angst 16-Nov-05
On a two year cycle the bottom team (aggregate CC positions) are up for 'relegation' and provided that another constructor pays the $48million bond they will take one of the two 'guaranteed' entries.

[angst]

Originally posted by mikko-ville


Funnily enough that was pretty much your idea too in about year ago, but now that Max agrees with you it's no longer good idea ;)

Very dishonest of you. I was talking about trying to work out how to get the teams to agree (as well as Bernie) to allow more teams. Those teams that are 'relegated' were not relegated from F1, they merely lost their guaranteed starting places. Within the context of the old boys club it seemed possibly the most acceptable compromise. Given a clean sheet I'd rather not have guaranteed race start slots (and that is, essentially, why the teams will remain limited in numbers - because the teams hold too much power and will not accept competition). Qualifying please. And, please, don't misrepresent my views and distort them in such a way again - maybe you should look for work with a tabloid?

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by mikko-ville


.... but now that Max agrees with you it's no longer good idea ;)

Actually that would be a good, and safe, way to make decisions; if max says its good, disagree with it.

After all, he has yet to get anything right.

[angst]

There is, perhaps, one possible outcome that might make relegation a/promotion a plausible proposition. It would require, obviously, that the equipment used be (virtually) the same. Max is talking of having to drop European races in order to expand the calendar into areas that make Bernie loadsa money...... er.. I mean open the World Championship to new countries and make it truly a World Championship. How about 'regional' F1 Championships and/or a lesser International F1 series.

Think of the benefits. It would allow teams to move into F1, allow drivers to move on from GP2 (how many years coud one be expected to hang around there) without their only option being a move to the States (not suggesting this is necessarily a bad thing, btw), allow the teams/manufacturers to 'blood' their development drivers without the full glare of the WDC campaign, would open a market for the F1 teams' older cars and manufacturer engines, would allow more tracks to host races (perhaps at a much lower cost), would offer the chance for new tracks to be tested before making their full WDC bow.

Just a thought.

[Ceejay]

posted by Lifew12:
It's a stupid idea, whichever way one looks at it, hence i've not reproduced the rest of your post.

Unnecessarily dismissive of you (Lifew12), perhaps you don’t understand what Max is trying to achieve and are using the thread as a typical Max bash.

Max is not saying the bottom team will be relegated, he is saying that teams who regularly finish at the bottom of the CC due to lack of investment could be reduced to one-car entrants. This will allow additional teams to join F1 as one-car entrants initially, to compete against the other one-car entrants for the prize of a two-car entry in the future. This is all very plausible in my opinion, and would benefit F1 in the future.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Ceejay

Unnecessarily dismissive of you (Lifew12), perhaps you don’t understand what Max is trying to achieve and are using the thread as a typical Max bash.

Max is not saying the bottom team will be relegated, he is saying that teams who regularly finish at the bottom of the CC due to lack of investment could be reduced to one-car entrants. This will allow additional teams to join F1 as one-car entrants initially, to compete against the other one-car entrants for the prize of a two-car entry in the future. This is all very plausible in my opinion, and would benefit F1 in the future.

Great idea. A team with two cars that can't get investment is reduced to one car, and becomes an even LESS attractive sponsorship proposition as it now gets less air time. Yes, thats really going to help.

How would that benefit F1, or those teams affected, in any way whatsoeverer?

Far from unnecessarily dismissive, and worthy of a typical Max bash. Believe me, when the guy comes up with something sensible I won't bash it. Honestly.

[Dudley]

It's destroyable in seconds.

You can only ever make this decision at the end of a year. So after the last race.


Just when is this "superiour" team going to design a chassis on the "off chance" of being successful.

Even if you're buying a chassis it takes a minimum of 6 months to set up an F1 team even if you can buy in everything like aguri did. Aguri themselves are proof of this. $80 million from Honda, a chassis bought in and an engine for free and they still pottered about considerably further behind than Minardi were the season before.

You simply can't find the sponsership to compete in the 3 months between seasons. Aguri had longer than that, a ready built factory to move into, massive support from Honda, Takuma Sato and a near free ready built chassis and they still only raised about $12million in commercial sponsership, some 1/4 of what Minardi had in 2005.

It's just unworkable in a sport that works as far ahead as F1.

Now it COULD possibly work between GP2 and the regional F3000 series...

[Ceejay]

posted by Lifew12:
How would that benefit F1, or those teams affected, in any way whatsoeverer?

It will benefit F1 by relegating uncompetitive teams who can’t raise the finance to compete to a satisfactory level.

I believe that single car teams offer a good solution to the rising cost of starting out in F1. Rob Walker ran a single car customer Lotus/Climax for Stirling Moss very successfully. John Surtees ran a customer McLaren M7C/Cosworth for a time before he produced his own chassis. Neither of these teams competed at the back of the grid.

Next year customer cars will be legal and single car teams would undoubtedly reduce the initial starting costs. Perhaps we may even see the end of the “pay driver” era.

[Dudley]

Being able to buy a chassis and engine and run would be the start of a pay driver uber-era.

Virtually every driver back then was a "Gentlemen driver" which would be the polite term for "Pay driver".

[angst]

Originally posted by Dudley
Being able to buy a chassis and engine and run would be the start of a pay driver uber-era.

Virtually every driver back then was a "Gentlemen driver" which would be the polite term for "Pay driver".

Eeerm... I don't think so. There was no sponsorship per sé, available on the cars then. The likes of Jo Siffert, Graham Hill, Jim Clark, Dan Gurney, Jack Brabham, John Surtees, Jackie Stewart, Denny Hulme etc. etc. would hardly fit the description of 'gentleman driver' (certainly not in the way you mean it) nor pay driver.

Being able to buy a chassis and engine and run would.... just not be feasible. One would need a professional racing team to run the things - a very professional racing team. It would be no more or less apay driver era than it is now.