Where to for Caterham?

[Zen]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Caterham are, on average, about 3 seconds slower than the top teams in qualifying. They are 1 second slower than Williams are in qualfying, and they have a race winning car. These are stats that Minardi could only dream of. So, with regard to 'actual' car performance, there is no real comparison.

Where to for Caterham? Zero points team

Says more about Caterham when the forum is concentrating on Minardi Its 3 years in and they have not had a smell of a point thats not a record I want to defend at the expense of a great little team

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Zen

[B] Its 3 years in and they have not had a smell of a point thats not a record I want to defend at the expense of a great little team

Minardi didn't score a point in their first three seasons, either. In those seasons the cars were retired from 71 out of 80 GP starts.

That's not a good car by any stretch of the imagination!

Caterham, this season, have failed to finish a race just 4 times in 16 races. As team Lotus, 22 times in two seasons (19 races per season).

[Supertec]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Minardi didn't score a point in their first three seasons, either. In those seasons the cars were retired from 71 out of 80 GP starts.

That's not a good car by any stretch of the imagination!

Caterham, this season, have failed to finish a race just 4 times in 16 races. As team Lotus, 22 times in two seasons (19 races per season).

No one has ever said the Minardi car was good its the team that was good and even with their car Minardi had an 8th in their first season if F1 scored down to tenth like now they would have been in the points..They finished 7th & 8th in the championship when do you think Caterham will achieve that. If F1 still scored just to 6th Caterham would never ever pick up a point. By their own admission Caterham have not lived up to expectation or their own hype. They have as much F1 experience in their team as any other on the grid why cant they convert that into points. Even Marrusia are ahead in the championship..well well

[kipper]

Originally Posted by Supertec

Minardi had an 8th in their first season

In a race in which only eight cars finished

[Zen]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Minardi didn't score a point in their first three seasons, either. In those seasons the cars were retired from 71 out of 80 GP starts.

That's not a good car by any stretch of the imagination!

Caterham, this season, have failed to finish a race just 4 times in 16 races. As team Lotus, 22 times in two seasons (19 races per season).

No points for just finishing a race one or two laps down, you have to finish top ten to score points. Caterham should be called a touring car team because they just tour round, F1 teams compete and score points

[JohnSSC]

In the spirit of this thread, perhaps we could discuss Alex Yoong vs Narain Kathikeyan...

It was actually amusing to read through this. Here is my bottom line: If you are in F1 (or any series) you should be in it to compete. If you cannot compete, you should not be in it.

Having the extra 6 cars on the grid means what exactly to the enjoyment of the racing? Is there an increase in the competitive aspects? Does Martin Whitmarsh lay awake at night wondering what those crafty lads at HRT will think of next? Does Stefano Domenicali wonder when Marussia will pick up the phone and hire Peter Windsor, who will bring his many secrets from USF1 to bear on the team?

If these teams had any sense two of them would merge and then buy out the remaining team just to spare us the unendurable excitement of speculating over Narain beating the 107% rule again this week...

[Born Racer]

Karthikeyan's the standout "non-F1 driver", but I've seen him ahead of de la Rosa on a few occasions so he's no Deletraz.

Neither of the "new" teams are progressing as well as they should in my armchair opinion.

[Supertec]

[QUOTE=JohnSSC;3154592]In the spirit of this thread, perhaps we could discuss Alex Yoong vs Narain Kathikeyan...

Poor old Alex Yoong F1's worst ever driver..........He ironically is in charge of Caterhams young driver program ...good luck with that

[Supertec]

[QUOTE=JohnSSC;3154592]In the spirit of this thread, perhaps we could discuss Alex Yoong vs Narain Kathikeyan...

Narain Kathikeyan on the other hand in a good car would destroy some inflated ego's further up the grid.. good charger

[Hawkwood]

While I disagree with you on Yoong being F1's worst ever driver (he's nowhere near deserving of that dubious accolade), I do agree with you on Karthikeyan. He is better than almost everyone gives him credit for.
Only once this season has Narain been outside 107% if I recall, in Australia, when his much higher rated teammate also failed. Neither drivers fault, the car just wasn't ready.

[AussieTimmeh]

Surely this isn't surprising when the whole F1 championship and racing itself is geared to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

1. On a racing level, we make the cars qualify so we can put the slow ones at the back to make sure they have a harder time of earning points, and the fast ones up the front so they can just drive away to fight for the wins.

2. On a championship level, we give the teams that did the best the most amount of reward cash, to ensure they stay up the front, and the teams who perform the least well get the least cash, to ensure they continue to struggle.

3. On a sponsor level, the teams at the rear get stuff all TV time, so they struggle to get any large cashed-up sponsors. This means they cannot afford super designers.

While there are good arguments for why we do all these things, is it any surprise that they are still at the rear when they face a more up-hill battle than the front teams?

[JohnSSC]

Originally Posted by AussieTimmeh

Surely this isn't surprising when the whole F1 championship and racing itself is geared to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

1. On a racing level, we make the cars qualify so we can put the slow ones at the back to make sure they have a harder time of earning points, and the fast ones up the front so they can just drive away to fight for the wins.

2. On a championship level, we give the teams that did the best the most amount of reward cash, to ensure they stay up the front, and the teams who perform the least well get the least cash, to ensure they continue to struggle.

3. On a sponsor level, the teams at the rear get stuff all TV time, so they struggle to get any large cashed-up sponsors. This means they cannot afford super designers.

While there are good arguments for why we do all these things, is it any surprise that they are still at the rear when they face a more up-hill battle than the front teams?

Seriously?

Is not the whole point to racing determining the order of finish from fastest to slowest? Has the purse ever been richer for those finishing at the bottom than those who finished at the top? Further, since this is the system that is (and has been) in place wouldn't it make sense that when entering the competition one would have a plan to compete and NOT finish dead last (or nearly) each race?

We watch races to see who will win. Racers race to see who will win.

[OZ_HCR32]

Originally Posted by JohnSSC

If these teams had any sense two of them would merge and then buy out the remaining team just to spare us the unendurable excitement of speculating over Narain beating the 107% rule again this week...

I disagree. I think there needs to be room fro development. New to teams to develop, their young engineers and mechanics to develop. Nature of sport is always going to mean someone wins and someone comes last.

I enjoy watching the racing back in the field, though producers rarely cover it when they do its good, fun racing.

There were times in F1 where the top 10 was covered by what the enture F1 grid is covered by on some weekends.

More than the teams being at fault. I think the lack of testing means old, steady hands and rent a seat drivers are holding station well past what they should and we are not seeing enough real talent given enough seat time to shine. I really want to see a wet race before the year is out as the STR pilots have looked pretty good in wet practices and wonder if that form could translate into race pace or they are simply pushing more than other teams in wet practice sessions.

Anyway...I am keen to see what Caterham are doing for next season...hopefully with rules largely staying put they can tweak a little closer to the top teams who are approaching the development wall

[AussieTimmeh]

Originally Posted by JohnSSC

Seriously?

Is not the whole point to racing determining the order of finish from fastest to slowest? Has the purse ever been richer for those finishing at the bottom than those who finished at the top? Further, since this is the system that is (and has been) in place wouldn't it make sense that when entering the competition one would have a plan to compete and NOT finish dead last (or nearly) each race?

We watch races to see who will win. Racers race to see who will win.

Did you forget to read this line in my post? If so, you missed the whole point of it!

Originally Posted by AussieTimmeh

While there are good arguments for why we do all these things, is it any surprise that they are still at the rear when they face a more up-hill battle than the front teams?

If you can't get it the second time round, then don't worry about it.

[JohnSSC]

I got it the first time around, actually.

It does not change my point that if you get into F1, or any series, then you should do so with a a goal to compete and a plan to do so.

RBR is a good example of this. They took advantage of an opportunity to enter F1 and had a good plan with sufficient funding to carry out the plan. Sauber took advantage of BMW leaving and with a sound strategy are now competing for podiums.

So no, there is no surprise that teams which are underfunded with poor development plans are not able to compete.

[Zen]

Where to for Caterham ?

Where to for Kovalainen ?

[bella]

you're treading a very fine line between trolling and acceptable posting.

so what would people do if they were in charge of caterham at this point? would you keep trying to get that all-important 12th place finish in a race, or would you start focussing on 2013?

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by bella

so what would people do if they were in charge of caterham at this point? would you keep trying to get that all-important 12th place finish in a race, or would you start focussing on 2013?

Getting a 12th place relies on others non-finishing - even allowing for odd weather Caterham won't get a 12th on pace alone so they need either some rather unlikely unreliability issues for those ahead or a multi-car pile up that removes a large portion of the grid. Neither of those are something that Caterham can rely on so realistically they're better off looking ahead to next year and if they luck into something this year then it's a bonus.

[OZ_HCR32]

Brazil can bring crazy race results, though I doubt Abu Dhabi or US GP will bring any real surprises with weather or retirements.

If I was Caterham since the 2013 rules are similar I would be pushing on with development as fast as I can to try and bag a lucky result. Brazil first lap and mixed bag of weather could bring a surprise.

[Nicholosophy]

The 11th and 12th team in the constructor's championship get no money out of the year, so it's no wonder they are not going to improve much. Dead last, no one wanting to sponsor the car, drivers who are past their prime or paying for the drive and no money to develop anything. Even if there was no testing limits I doubt HRT could afford to go out and test. Marussia probably could manage a couple of tests but how does that help them?

It isn't in the interest of F1 to have two or three teams at the back of the field significantly slower and not improving. It also isn't in the interest of F1 for the new teams to fold.

I'd suggest that 11th and 12th places in the constructor's championship should be getting something. Maybe not money. Maybe the ability to run additional young driver tests during the year - I can imagine drivers lining up to pay to drive an F1 car. Maybe the ability to run experienced drivers at the tests.

If it was a spec series like V8s or IndyCars then they should just live with it and learn to be better. But they can't buy a car off a sheft. They need money and/or the ability to develop their car to a higher standard to attract sponsorship.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by NickoGP

The 11th and 12th team in the constructor's championship get no money out of the year, so it's no wonder they are not going to improve much. Dead last, no one wanting to sponsor the car, drivers who are past their prime or paying for the drive and no money to develop anything. Even if there was no testing limits I doubt HRT could afford to go out and test. Marussia probably could manage a couple of tests but how does that help them?

It isn't in the interest of F1 to have two or three teams at the back of the field significantly slower and not improving. It also isn't in the interest of F1 for the new teams to fold.

I'd suggest that 11th and 12th places in the constructor's championship should be getting something. Maybe not money. Maybe the ability to run additional young driver tests during the year - I can imagine drivers lining up to pay to drive an F1 car. Maybe the ability to run experienced drivers at the tests. If it was a spec series like V8s or IndyCars then they should just live with it and learn to be better. But they can't buy a car off a sheft. They need money and/or the ability to develop their car to a higher standard to attract sponsorship.

I think that's a great idea. As a earlier posters have pointed out, the whole F1championship is geared up to benefit the successful teams (and rightly so), which has the unfortunate downside of penalising those at the other end. This suggestion would give the back of the grid an advantage (I know, some will say an unfair one), and a possibility to move up higher. (Then, to negate any supposed unfairness of this, the new '
back of the grid' teams get the advantage the following season, and so-on).

[JohnSSC]

No one is being "rewarded" or "penalised." Teams that have been successful in F1 do not automatically stay successful (see Williams) just because they are at the forward end of the grid.

New teams coming into F1 need to have a plan and the appropriate backing before they arrive. Just like a team being promoted to the EPL or the Championship needs to have a plan and the appropriate backing to stay in the EPL or the Championship. They don't get to play 12 men in each game. They don't get to do things that the established teams do not get to do.

While I can appreciate the thought behind the ideas put forward here, the bottom line for me is that the "solution" is to have a more rigorous vetting process that ensures that new teams have solid backing instead a lot of the smoke and mirrors used in the past (see USF1).

I got tired of hearing that gasbag Peter Windsor going on about the "new" approaches being taken by USF1 and lauding the major technological advances in his elegantly crafted releases regarding their new fax machine or the poster of Jim Clark in his office. Same goes for HRT, Marussia and Caterham. It is not McLaren's fault these teams don't have the resources to compete. They should of thought of that before getting into the game.

[Paradise City]

Oh no, yuck. If they are slow coaches, they deserve to be slow coaches. No 'special' favours to them! In my view the slow coaches add character to the back of the grid.

Caterham have Renault powerplants. They really should be doing better than they are doing. I'm expecting 2013 to be their year.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Caterham have Renault powerplants. They really should be doing better than they are doing.

Which goes to show how important aero performance is - that's where the 'new' teams are losing out. Engines are not the problem. To improve the aero they need more wind tunnel time, better cfd and more/better design staff - and that all costs money.

[Zen]

more/better design staff - and that all costs money.[/QUOTE]

It would be interesting if at the end of the season all the teams were made to disclose their complete seasons expenditure, I'm sure it would throw up some surprises and would not follow the points table top to bottom