Too many formulas, or not enough drivers? (2005 remake)

[AMT]

"Now, wouldn't it be nice if you could build a Formula 2 car, too."

OK, time to wheel out my hobby-horse again. Formula 2 should be based on Formula 3. Formula 3 should have around 280-300bhp (no problem with 2-litre 4 cylinder stock-block engines) and Formula 2 should have around 320-340bhp (using the same basic engines but with free electronics and different restrictors or rev-limit) and maybe free tyres. F3 would be basically a national series, whereas F2 would be an FIA international series. The basic Tech Regs should be the same for both Formulas, so that the design, aero development and crash-testing that the manufacturer invests in could be amortized over more cars. Ultimate power numbers are no guide at all to the spectator appeal of a Formula, or to its value as a learning exercise for the driver or team.

I've been banging on about this since the introduction of F3000, but unfortunately those with the power are not interested in the future of motor-racing outside of F1. What they maybe don't understand (or possibly don't care about) is that F1 without F Ford and F3, and similar categories that represent a genuine challenge for driver and team, is like a tree without roots.

I must go and lie down now...

Andy

[Kicking-back]

F2 with 340 bhp?

Surely the fact it will actually have 600 will make it more relevant to drivers learning the ropes for F1.

[cybersdorf]

Why not just deregulate F3.

[courageous]

The ladder idea of working your way up in motorsport is a nice idea, but it's never really been like that.

For example:

Short oval Hot Rods - Pickups - ASCAR - Le Mans - F1.
OR
Dirt tracks - Infiniti Pro - Indycar - Champ Car - F1.

Nobody has done these routes all the way through, but the individual steps are common enough.

[AMT]

By deregulating F3 I assume you mean changing the engine regulations. I think the 4-cylinder, 2-litre, production-based requirement is currently a good, stable basis for racing, because most car manufacturers have an engine in this class, whether they be premium brands like Mercedes or mass-market ones like Opel. Moderate involvement in engine promotion and development is always welcome in F3, and it would be hard to find another similar common demoninator.

And talking of common denominators, F3 is a good example of one, when you're talking about drivers in F1, or in any other high-level series that uses professional drivers. That's not coincidental. And the fact that drivers fresh from F3 (with 250bhp) can and do adapt very quickly to F1 shows how unimportant bhp numbers are in that regard. IMO it's more a question of responsiveness, in terms of chassis and engine, and in that respect F3 is more like F1 than is, say, Nissan World Series or F3000.

My argument is that, for the health of circuit racing in general, F3 and F2 need to be open formulas, but economically viable formulas, and the best way to achieve that is to enable manufacturers to spread their investment over as wide a market as possible.

Andy

[cybersdorf]

Originally Posted by AMT

By deregulating F3 I assume you mean changing the engine regulations.

Engine, aero, whatever. Super-F3, if you see what I mean.

No not change the engines much, just "unrestrict" them.

[AMT]

That's pretty much exactly what I said Cybers. There are problems with the existing F3 regs - antique gearboxes, not enough power for the grip, and unnecessary homologation of components are a few - but the concept is good overall. And F2 should be a derestricted version of that. And both must be free-chassis formulas, because you need "natural selection" to help it keep pace with the rest of genuine competitive racing - DTM, GT, LM Prototypes, F1. Imagine how far behind in development a one-make formula falls during its lifespan compared to these.

[Kicking-back]

Arguably.

But given that F3 level the drivers are paying to race, having wide disparity in equipment only gives them excuses - "I didn't have a Dallara". One-make is better for so-called "ladder" formulae.

[cybersdorf]

Originally Posted by AMT

...genuine competitive racing - DTM, [...] F1

[AMT]

See this link for a status report on the chaos:
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14019.html

[Mathias]

Andy is saying some very sensible things here...,

Which is probably why no-one's listening. Honestly, sometimes I really despair of the moghuls of motorsport.

[cybersdorf]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Arguably.

But given that F3 level the drivers are paying to race, having wide disparity in equipment only gives them excuses - "I didn't have a Dallara". One-make is better for so-called "ladder" formulae.

And then they get to F1, and their excuse is "I didn't have a Ferrari" - so formulate and equalise F1 even more than what it is now?

And: why does F3 necessarily have to be a feeder series? Why does everything "below" F1 have to be "feeder series"?

[Kicking-back]

Well, I don't imagine there's much merit in being a career F3 driver.

[JJ Jet Plane]

I dunno KB – ask Warren Hughes, Max Angelelli, Joao de Oliveira and Richard Antinucci about that!

[cybersdorf]

"Career F1 wannabee" definitely sounds better, right? If you don't make it into F1 this year, spend another 5 years in feeder series like GP2, 3, 4, and kid your sponsors and yourself into believing you are still a future F1 star. Until the money runs out.

Why was it possible for Formula 2 to exist in its own right?

[Russfeld]

tobacco paid for most of it

[AMT]

The way it works at the moment, F1 is a malign influence on the rest of motor racing. It sucks up huge amounts of money, the bulk of which disappears into the pockets of individuals instead of trickling down through the sport. So outside of these individuals it's becoming more and more difficult to maintain professional motorsport, with the result that it becomes more and more reliant on big-corporation promotional efforts like FBMW, F Renault, F Nissan World Series et al. These are cheapskate imitations of real motor racing, and are inevitably short-term because they will only last until the policy or internal politics of those big corporations cause them to turn off the life-support. It's nothing like F3, which has managed to be self-sustaining for 50 years or so.

However, F1 is, and should be, the aspirational summit of motor racing, degraded though it is currently. But of the aspirants only a tiny fraction will make it, and those that do aren't necessarily those that deserve to: contrast Tom Kristensen and Eddie Irvine. By far the majority of professional drivers are not in F1, and the bulk of motor racing that punters pay to see is not F1, so the "lower" formulas deserve a bit of respect and TLC, not the chaos that rules at the moment.

[cybersdorf]

I agree 100%, esp. with this:

Originally Posted by AMT

These are cheapskate imitations of real motor racing

[Alfonso de Orleans]

OK, so what is the last step before F1? If you managed a driver and you had a decent, but not unlimited budget, where would you put him (her)? Where do you honestly think he will use the year properly (learning tracks, race against top drivers, be noticed) and then be ready to make the step if he has the talent? Only one category please, and why did you choose it?

[Kicking-back]

GP2.

Two races per weekend, F1 environment, most professional teams, seems to be managed well, best selection of tracks to learn and will attract the best drivers.

[Mackmot]

I agree but F2 was better.