Prospective new teams for the FIA F1 World Championship.

[P38 in workshop]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Seems the current teams are trying to find any excuse not to let new teams in:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/wo...sues/10492792/

I mean come on, we've had 22 cars on the grid as recently as 2016. Didn't seem to make it any more dangerous

They made space in the pits and on the grid for a fictional team as part of the Brad Pitt film,currently in production,Also,many of the circuits in use were able to cope in the days when 40 cars showed up for prequalifying.


If Toto wishes to be seen as a sporting figure,rather than a businessman trying to limit the amount of opposition facing his organisation,then perhaps he would like to see the cars made 10% smaller to create some space.

[S griffin]

We also managed to fit 12 teams in the paddock in 2010-12. As I said, just trying to find excuses to keep new teams out.

[chillibowl]

if SFW was still with us and was the one lamenting new customer teams and the blurring of the definition of constructors instead of Toto or Horner or Vasseur, would we be more willing to accept the arguments against dilution and integrity of the current 10 teams?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

if SFW was still with us and was the one lamenting new customer teams and the blurring of the definition of constructors instead of Toto or Horner or Vasseur, would we be more willing to accept the arguments against dilution and integrity of the current 10 teams?

I have a different take. Might he welcome new teams that were more on a level playing field (act like full constructors) and lament the customer/junior teams who are dependent upon/benefit from a senior team? Williams was always trying to be full full package, in a world of more and more (potentially) better funded junior teams.

I see the problem here as being less about how many teams in total, than about how many junior teams.

Richard

[Adam43]

Think of the extra pressure on the sign writers for the pit garages too. Also I’m not sure they’ve got enough distinct colours for the TV graphics left. Thinking about that, twenty cars splits nicely into two screens of ten for showing the results. It’s impossible to have any more teams.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Think of the extra pressure on the sign writers for the pit garages too. Also I’m not sure they’ve got enough distinct colours for the TV graphics left. Thinking about that, twenty cars splits nicely into two screens of ten for showing the results. It’s impossible to have any more teams.

Nailed it, design aesthetic first and foremost, 2 screens of 11 is just uncouth.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Think of the extra pressure on the sign writers for the pit garages too. Also I’m not sure they’ve got enough distinct colours for the TV graphics left. Thinking about that, twenty cars splits nicely into two screens of ten for showing the results. It’s impossible to have any more teams.

With 2 additional teams, 24 cars splits into 2 screens of 12.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I see the problem here as being less about how many teams in total, than about how many junior teams.

i do feel that if this more about the creation of junior teams then with would other team principles who would be against it.

for RB, Merc, and Ferrari, the 3 main suppliers in F1 (ignoring Renault naturally: rotate junior teams and all the parts, expertise, driver/staff placements would be the ones to benefit the most from a greater number of customer entries. Horner, Toto, and Vasseur should be the ones leading the charge for for more customers no? instead tho they are on the other side...so the question for me is why?

obviously there is a lot more to all of this then what we see, but all things being equal im not convinced Horner, Toto, and Vasseur are working strictly from the point of view of protecting their own teams' self interests.

as crazy as it might sound, i think they are acting in what they see as protecting the future health of the sport. and to that end its about dilution of branding, appearance of eliteness, the risk of adding in non competitive squads, more cars more accidents more SC worse show, more questions about questionable investors, scandal etc etc.

for me i do very much think its about the number (and quality) of teams on the grid.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

With 2 additional teams, 24 cars splits into 2 screens of 12.

Madness. Can’t be done.

[Tourer]

Michael Andretti "probably used the wrong word" - now more conciliatory toward the position of the existing teams.

If his team get in, he was always going to have to be a bit more conciliatory to maintain some semblance of cooperation within the paddock - might be a sign that he feels they are looking good to be added to the grid.

[S griffin]

To be fair he wasn't far wrong. He is definitely showing more humbleness than the teams who have opposed him and I don't blame him for wanting to fight his corner

Although maybe this is a sign he is going to be accepted as you say

[Tourer]

FIA defending its continued work on expanding the grid. Not quite sure why Ben Sulayem felt the need to come out with that just now but assumed when I read it that there'd been some (non public) further pushback within F1 & the teams.

Confirmation from F1 / Liberty that not all points agreed with FIA - but they're working on it. Domenicali suggesting that all could be worked out and announced as early as September.

[P38 in workshop]

Is there some reason why the FIA can't accept new entries and then leave Liberty to deal with the financial fallout?I have no doubt at all that the objections from existing teams are motivated by fear of loss of profit,and I use the word because with the spending restriction in place,they can't use the surplus funds to develop a faster car.I would be amazed if a new team could materialise and score points in their first season and so they would have to be enormously well funded to find an entry fee,pay personnel and get a factory established.That alone would be a big handicap and the anti-dilution fee is a nonsense as far as competition is concerned-if you don't know how to beat a bunch of newbies,maybe its time to move on.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Is there some reason why the FIA can't accept new entries and then leave Liberty to deal with the financial fallout?I have no doubt at all that the objections from existing teams are motivated by fear of loss of profit,and I use the word because with the spending restriction in place,they can't use the surplus funds to develop a faster car.I would be amazed if a new team could materialise and score points in their first season and so they would have to be enormously well funded to find an entry fee,pay personnel and get a factory established.That alone would be a big handicap and the anti-dilution fee is a nonsense as far as competition is concerned-if you don't know how to beat a bunch of newbies,maybe its time to move on.

The Concorde Agreement is a contract between the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the Formula One teams and the Formula One Group which dictates the terms by which the teams compete in races, and how the television revenues and prize money is shared.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Think of the extra pressure on the sign writers for the pit garages too. Also I’m not sure they’ve got enough distinct colours for the TV graphics left. Thinking about that, twenty cars splits nicely into two screens of ten for showing the results. It’s impossible to have any more teams.

I feel like your trademark subtle sarcasm has flown under the radar here.

Well, first and foremost, I can only echo the disappointment felt by many about a lack of willingness for teams to embrace more competition. If it's about a reduced slice of the pie, that argument should be redundant if there's a cost cap anyway. As long as teams have enough and comfortably have the means to spend up to the cap, there should be no issue.

From the sporting side, there should be a clearly-established due diligence process, which takes account of the ability to manage finances, have a clear personnel structure and demonstrates their ability to perform well within the rules.

That's a key point for me - it the sporting rules are well-conceived, why should a team fail miserably if it passes the due diligence? That's on those who run the sport to ensure b

[Adam43]

Subtle?

[Alan52]

Liberty either had a choice of siding with the existing teams to protect those teams finances or growing the series by allowing well resourced teams that would bring new manufacturers into the series.The latter would have to be of more long term benefit to Liberty.
That they have chosen to support the teams point of view against their own interests shows where the power is in that relationship.
I never thought I would say that the FIA would be the only people in the process looking out for what’s best for F1 but here we are.

[GTRMagic]

The FIA seem to want..

[Greem]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

The FIA seem to want..

Mmm, toast.

[Hawkwood]

Originally Posted by Alan52

I never thought I would say that the FIA would be the only people in the process looking out for what’s best for F1 but here we are.

weird isn't it.


I always think it's odd when a governing body harms the sport they're supposed to look after, rather than encouraging growth - see rugby union and especially cricket.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Hawkwood

weird isn't it.


I always think it's odd when a governing body harms the sport they're supposed to look after, rather than encouraging growth - see rugby union and especially cricket.

Yep, it doesn't smell or sit right.

Perhaps cow towimg to the existing manufacturer entrants will come back to haunt the FIA when 2 or 3 of them pull out in the future, leaving the entry depleted and some teams without an engine supply

[Teretonga]

Anyone with a general knowledge of the history of F1 since 1950 knows the healthiest era came when anyone who wanted a go could roll up, unload a car and compete with others for a spot on the grid,

When the grid filled up even with more entries then could be accommodated, we had a pre-qualifying arrangement.
but it was never a closed shop until now.

so regardkess of what CH, TW, ZB, FV and anyone else thinks of this 'closed shop' arrangement it defies the traditional history of F1.

No one in the past ever worried about the 'image' of the sport or the size of the pit lane.
It was open competition.
And those who want to protect 'their space' and their piece of the cake may find that the result is a shrinking piece of cake and that 'their space' on the field of play shrinks to the size of a goal box and all their energy is tied up in trying to stop their sport from scoring an own goal.

[Alan52]

[QUOTE=GTRMagic;4171567]The FIA seem to want..

[img]https://i.ibb.co/WWk3WTQ

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

The FIA seem to want..

I think you’ve got this the wrong way around.Up until this decision it is Liberty who have been accused of pushing for the Americanisation of F1.
Now by siding with the existing teams against their own self interest Liberty have become subservient to Toto,Christian et al.
The FIA seemingly set up a transparent process to evaluate prospective entrants but it has become apparent no matter who they are and what they might add the existing teams will block them.

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Yep, it doesn't smell or sit right.

Perhaps cow towimg to the existing manufacturer entrants will come back to haunt the FIA when 2 or 3 of them pull out in the future, leaving the entry depleted and some teams without an engine supply

It’s Liberty who are taking their orders from the existing teams not the FIA.
It is pretty obvious that the FIA wants to increase the size of the grid,the existing teams are against it regardless and that Liberty has come down on the side of the existing teams.Even if their own interests are served better by adding new well resourced teams.