What Grid Size Would You Want?

[SpawnyWhippet]

Sorry to break it to you Ginetta, but unless your dad lives in Moscow, it sounds to me like your dad isn't too well informed...

[beau1]

i would say that the maxinium we can go up to is 30 cars on the grid but there may be to many cars and would result to to amny backmarkers. Our Current number of 20 or 22 is to low.I think at the minimum we can have is 24. so the ideal would probably be 26.

[Mystery]

I think K-B probably hit the nail on the head when he said F1 is meant to be elitist. I think that's spot on - and very very sad. Not everyone can win but the big manufacturers who aren't winning semi-regularly, which lets be honest will be at least 3 of them, are not going to take long to get fed up and chuck their toys out the pram.

I want bigger fields, full of teams owned by enthusiasts, rather than businessmen. People who race for the love of it. Yes, I'm probably living in a dream world.......

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by Mystery

I want bigger fields, full of teams owned by enthusiasts, rather than businessmen. People who race for the love of it. Yes, I'm probably living in a dream world.......

How would they pay for it?


Anyway, there are plenty of places for people to race like that - F1 is about "the best"

[TEAM78]

as many teams as possible, just run a 110% rule on qualifying to make sure all the cars are competative on speed

[Ginetta]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Surely it depended how far away from the circuit he was staying.

About 50miles

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

How would they pay for it?


Anyway, there are plenty of places for people to race like that - F1 is about "the best"

Surely a combination of a reduction in entry bond and lower costs to get up and running would still mean we can have decent outfits entering.

Originally Posted by TEAM78

as many teams as possible, just run a 110% rule on qualifying to make sure all the cars are competative on speed

More cars won't necessarily mean more slower or poorer entrants?!

[Adam43]

There is an argument (the one used to justify the bond) that the bond keeps us having decent outfits.

[chunterer]

Yes Adam, but it's also proved the other way and frightened a few teams that might not have had a lot of money but would have had half decent engineering and drivers to bolster their chances?

Ie, BAR bought Tyrrell to get around this, otherwise we might have had 4 cars instead of 2?

Did Red Bull 'buy' Jaguar and Midland buy Jordan for similar reasons?

I'm not saying that if those teams had carried on under different owners they would have been competitive but it would have meant more cars, which i think is fundamental to appeal and success of any racing series

[Mystery]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

F1 is about "the best"

I wouldn't argue with that at all. A ban on pay drivers would be a great joy to me. I could just about live with 20 car grids if there's a slightest vague hint of possible overtaking and everyone on the grid is there on merit alone and nothing else.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Ie, BAR bought Tyrrell to get around this

i've always thought this was a strange assumption but maybe im wrong.

when BAR bought Tyrrell they bought everything including all of its assets and liabilities. that surely includes the bond which would have been considered an asset of Tyrrell's.
so either BAR pays for the bond itself or it got factored into the seeling price of Tyrrell, either way BAR still had to pay for it and ultimatly it wouldn't change the number of cars on the grid.

[Kicking-back]

The bond wouldn't have been an asset of Tyrrell's as Tyrrell never paid one

[Dutton]

Also, they only get payed on the first year of entry IIRC. So, even if there had been a bond, it would've meant increased income as opposed to cost.

[Louis B.]

As many as required for JV having a seat Sorry Dutton but, I could not resist, the temptation was too great.

It is difficult to answer your question as I don't see the point in having uncompetitive teams. Assuming there was enough money for everyone to be competitive, I would be happy with 24-26 cars. 20 is a bit short and I don't think that the current f1 tracks can withstand more than 30 cars on it at the same time (in the sense that we also want to see clear runs from time to time during the race).

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Louis B.

It is difficult to answer your question as I don't see the point in having uncompetitive teams.

Assuming that a competetive team is one that is capable of winning,then the current F1 grid are a sorry lot indeed.

[parabolica]

Louis B: "It is difficult to answer your question as I don't see the point in having uncompetitive teams."

So whats the answer....give the top 4 teams five cars each?????

I think most genuine fans are as interested in the battle for the lead as they are in the battle for the mid-field. And dont forget, lowly performing teams can become race-contenders. Just look at BAR in 99 and Toyota in 01, not to mention Benetton/Renault in 01-02. Only 4 years ago, Benetton Reanults were struggling to beat the Minardis on pace. Now here they are, WDC and constructors champions.

F1 is about the pinacle of motorsport, engineering perfection, and top-level profressional racing organisations (like Ferrari). However to the genuine fan, F1 is also about the 'battling' teams, the teams trying to make an ascent up the F1 ladder. Some make it quickly, like Sauber & jordan, only to fall back down again. Others spend gazillions trying, like Toyota. Some take their time but eventualy make it, like BAR & Renault. Others never make it, like Prost, Jaguar, Arrows, and others. F1 is about the teams, both successful and not. Some quickly forget, Ferrari spent many uncompetitive years in the mid-field (or even lower at times). Do any Ferrari fans remember the early 80s, the late 80s, and the mid-90s????

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by parabolica

Do any Ferrari fans remember the early 80s, the late 80s, and the mid-90s????

They should.....i do.

[SpawnyWhippet]

Reminds me of a unbelievable last few laps of the Dijon GP in 1979, when Arnoux and G Villeneuve were battling for second place behind Jabouille. In my opinion, the best battle for a position in F1 for a very long time. You can view it here, but quality is not brilliant.
http://www.globalserve.net/~trauttf/Gilles/Dijon79.mpeg

[TEAM78]

looks like 26 or 26 plus cars grid size is going to get the lions share

[Mystery]

Originally Posted by parabolica

Louis B: "It is difficult to answer your question as I don't see the point in having uncompetitive teams."

So whats the answer....give the top 4 teams five cars each?????

I think most genuine fans are as interested in the battle for the lead as they are in the battle for the mid-field. And dont forget, lowly performing teams can become race-contenders. Just look at BAR in 99 and Toyota in 01, not to mention Benetton/Renault in 01-02. Only 4 years ago, Benetton Reanults were struggling to beat the Minardis on pace. Now here they are, WDC and constructors champions.

F1 is about the pinacle of motorsport, engineering perfection, and top-level profressional racing organisations (like Ferrari). However to the genuine fan, F1 is also about the 'battling' teams, the teams trying to make an ascent up the F1 ladder. Some make it quickly, like Sauber & jordan, only to fall back down again. Others spend gazillions trying, like Toyota. Some take their time but eventualy make it, like BAR & Renault. Others never make it, like Prost, Jaguar, Arrows, and others. F1 is about the teams, both successful and not. Some quickly forget, Ferrari spent many uncompetitive years in the mid-field (or even lower at times). Do any Ferrari fans remember the early 80s, the late 80s, and the mid-90s????

Well said. There's always room for suprises and it's those "uncompetitive" teams that bring them. Without them Panis would never have won a GP. Irvine wouldn't have had the hilarous debut clash with Senna. de Cesaris wouldn't have nearly won a GP in Jordan's debut year etc etc etc. The sport of F1 lacks enough character as it is. Don't take away the back markers because it's their enthusiasm and character and heart that make up for the faceless, emotionless boredom presented by the top teams.

[Marbot]

Watched the above video.Most noticable difference is the cars ability to follow closely (nuff said).

[Louis B.]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Assuming that a competetive team is one that is capable of winning,then the current F1 grid are a sorry lot indeed.

I meant by that everyone able to score at least a point during the season. Parabolica's suggestion of having more than 2 cars per team would be fine with me.

[Dutton]

The racing in the Dijon clip is great, a shame it is abrdiged of course, but, you know, if similar racing occured in a GP these days there would endless howls of dangerous driving, cheating, penalites, and all sorts. Many people say they want "real racing", but the second someone gives a go they whine about it.

Anyway, back on topic.

I think the competitiveness question is one my main concerns with much larger grids, and indeed is my sticking point of ideally liking over 30 cars. I would rather 26 competitive machines than 26 competitive ones and 10 useless ones. By competitive I mean not 15 seconds a lap slower type thing. I don't think 5-6 seconds a lap, for instance, is particularly uncompetitive in the grander scheme of things in F1.

It is a tricky one.

I'd settle for 26 cars, but wouldn't complain if there were more :-).

[Marbot]

At least 40 cars and no blue flags.

[Dutton]

No blue flags. I'd be up for that.

Problem is, though, I wouldn't want active blocking.

Tricky.