Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
F1 rebels sign up for 2008 series
- Thread starter iGav
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It was a scary thought, but I always hoped that it was pure bluff...as Warbrain said, the IRL/CART split was not good for US motorsport. If anything it divided an already small fanbase and stymied growth for open-wheel motor racing in the US, as two series competed for a market that was barely big enough for one.
I still don't like Max though...I wonder how much longer he'll be around.
I still don't like Max though...I wonder how much longer he'll be around.
Hopefully with all the teams onboard (provisionally of course) they might all start sitting down at the table and banging out some rule changes that actually make sense. 
Got to admit though... the small window for entries was a bit of a master stroke by Max.
Got to admit though... the small window for entries was a bit of a master stroke by Max.
Good to hear, the constant rule changes *every* season are getting beyond a joke, they need to sit down get a decent set of rules together then freeze them for a few years. Ive only just got my head around this new qualifying 'fuel credits' system, is it just me?
iGav said:Got to admit though... the small window for entries was a bit of a master stroke by Max.
If I was him I would have forced their hand too...now the threat is so much less it really isn't as much of a bargaining chip. Ferraris no longer dominant, Stoddart is gone and Super Aguri will tow the party line so I expect there to be much less dissent among the teams.
Well I think it's too late to save F1 unfortunately... The rules adopted the past few years have been absolutely terrible:
- Points attributed to the first 8 drivers? Out of 20 drivers? Is this NASCAR???
- And why that expensive barrier to entry for new teams? Sure, we had to deal with Coloni and Andrea Moda (remember them?), but something had to be said for teams that were participating for the passion of it (RIP Minardi) and not just advertising $$$. Why not allow everyone to participate and weed out the worst in pre-qualifications like they used to do? Now that would provide some entertainment outside of the race.
- We want slicks and competition between tire manufacturers, not big tanks running on rain tires!
- We want overtaking, not races decided in the pits! Ban refuelling.
- the engine durability rules are a joke
- You want to slow cars down to improve safety? Reduce engine capacity, not the number of cylinders, leave that out for teams to decide. I want to hear a 12-cylinder Ferrari again!
- don't introduce rules just to prevent a driver or a team from dominating, that's just making F1 an entertainment business, not a sport. But if you want fairer competition, use some sort of luxury tax (a la MLB) that would help smaller teams to compete.
F1 has become a farce that is a just reflection of the Society of the Spectacle (Guy Debord RIP) that we live in today, on the same level as the Apprentice or some other product-placement show made-for-TV.
I would have said "good riddance to the big car manufacturers and welcome back artisanal racing!", but that was not the fight that was being fought, just big businesses wanting a bigger piece of the pie.
I stopped watching a year ago, and not getting up again at 7 am any time soon.
- Points attributed to the first 8 drivers? Out of 20 drivers? Is this NASCAR???
- And why that expensive barrier to entry for new teams? Sure, we had to deal with Coloni and Andrea Moda (remember them?), but something had to be said for teams that were participating for the passion of it (RIP Minardi) and not just advertising $$$. Why not allow everyone to participate and weed out the worst in pre-qualifications like they used to do? Now that would provide some entertainment outside of the race.
- We want slicks and competition between tire manufacturers, not big tanks running on rain tires!
- We want overtaking, not races decided in the pits! Ban refuelling.
- the engine durability rules are a joke
- You want to slow cars down to improve safety? Reduce engine capacity, not the number of cylinders, leave that out for teams to decide. I want to hear a 12-cylinder Ferrari again!
- don't introduce rules just to prevent a driver or a team from dominating, that's just making F1 an entertainment business, not a sport. But if you want fairer competition, use some sort of luxury tax (a la MLB) that would help smaller teams to compete.
F1 has become a farce that is a just reflection of the Society of the Spectacle (Guy Debord RIP) that we live in today, on the same level as the Apprentice or some other product-placement show made-for-TV.
I would have said "good riddance to the big car manufacturers and welcome back artisanal racing!", but that was not the fight that was being fought, just big businesses wanting a bigger piece of the pie.
I stopped watching a year ago, and not getting up again at 7 am any time soon.
iGav said:Hopefully with all the teams onboard (provisionally of course) they might all start sitting down at the table and banging out some rule changes that actually make sense.
...like removing stupid fuel restrictions from the qualification session ;( current quali would be great (even better than 90's) if the race fuel would be decided after the session, like it used to be.
I want the fastest driver to get the pole position instead of pole given to the one that has chosen the shortest first stint. If the fastest driver got the best starting position, they could even give one extra championship point for it (and another extra point for the fastest lap in the race), and therefore be able to put the old point system back. I mean, 9-6-4-3-2-1 instead of giving ten for victory.
Also, if the two-race engine regulation should be a way to force teams to save money, then, IMO they should penalize the team for engine changes and not the driver. How hard it would be to for example take five team points away for each extra engine change? Penalising the driver sucks, as last year proved; we lost many good battles because Kimi was forced to start behind the pack due to team error. It would have been fair to let Kimi (and everyone else) keep the hard earned grid position and instead penalize the team that "had bad luck" as they said.
That said, I still think that drive-through penalty is a good one for speeding in the pit lane. It's up to the driver to limit the speed on time, so the driver should be penalised as well. They just will have to make sure there are no loopholes like with Schumi in Silverstone -- what's the point in a penalty, if one can "suffer" from it after crossing the finish lane?
Ok, enough ranting.
DrEasy said:
Yes! As I commented earlier, let the teams run the qualifying session with low fuel and then fill'em up for the race.
DrEasy said:
As I said, let them penalise the teams if team must make extra engine change. Penalising the driver is a joke.
DrEasy said:
Bingo! There are too many rules out there.
Malcster said:Ive only just got my head around this new qualifying 'fuel credits' system, is it just me?
The rule is a joke. Even the praised almighty Schumi commented that he lost a race because he lost the fuel from one qualifying lap. Why on earth is it so hard to see qualifying as a separate event from the race? It's just retarded to implement race strategies before seeing the starting grid.
Scrap the strategies, bring back the battle. Häkkinen is the last true Champion in the sport
Yikes, he doesn't know when to give up!
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=motorSportsNews&storyID=URI:urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060328:MTFH74698_2006-03-28_09-38-08_SP32168:1
If link goes bad, Stoddart is trying to come back in 2008 as European Minardi F1 team Limited!
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=motorSportsNews&storyID=URI:urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060328:MTFH74698_2006-03-28_09-38-08_SP32168:1
If link goes bad, Stoddart is trying to come back in 2008 as European Minardi F1 team Limited!
Malcster said:If link goes bad, Stoddart is trying to come back in 2008 as European Minardi F1 team Limited!
Crap. Stoddart was/is a tool, and he never seemed to stop whining. I'm sure that Max and Bernie will not make it easy for him to come back - I wonder where he'll find the money.
Re: qualifying; it seems to me that qualifying should be all about who can get the fastest lap - tires and fuel should not enter into the equation.
Except he got beaten in a straight fight in 2000JFreak said:Scrap the strategies, bring back the battle. Häkkinen is the last true Champion in the sport
DrEasy said:
You have some issues or something? Shouldn't the person that has the best average finish be crowned the champion? I'd say giving points to the top 10 would be nice. This 8 and 6 business is crazy... You have to fricken win every race to be a contender.... its a little crazy.
I do agree that the FIA has some crazy rules in place and qualifing is definatly messed to the extreme, but the points are fine....
Jedi128 said:
Many people think that the person who wins the most is the champ; usually most winning driver also has the best average finish too, but not always: in 1982 Keke Rosberg had the best average finish but only one victory. Now I'm not complaining as he was the first Finn to win the championship, but not everyone think that he deserved the title with only one victory. And also Kimi was close to get the 2003 title with only one victory, and he would have won it too, had the Nurburgring officials not pushed Schumi back to the race (which was a stunt that many thought would have been judged to be against the rules if it was anyone else but Schumi).
Sure, there are opinions. Mine is that the best points system so far is the 9-6-4-3-2-1 and it can only be made better by awarding extra points for the pole position and the fastest race lap.
Counterfit said:Except he got beaten in a straight fight in 2000
Correction: McLaren got beaten by Ferrari. Mika only had superior car in 1998, but after that, Ferrari was superior. In 1999 even the 2nd driver Irvine was close to take the title and losing to Schumi in 2000 when Ferrari was even better than the last year, I'd say Mika can be proud of the 2000 defeat.
(on the other hand, Mika might want to forget the 2001 season altogether. an unmotivated driver on an incompetitive car is always a disaster.)
Except it would have been perfectly within the rules had anyone else spun in that same spot, so such bitching and moaning is pretty stupid.JFreak said:
That would be ok if there were many more than 20 cars competing, right now it looks like kindergarden out there: almost everybody gets a point if they finish the race (although, granted, with better durability these days almost everybody does finish the race, making the points harder to reach). Why push if you're already in the points? Just wait till somebody drops. And since everybody thinks that way, Tragedy of the Commons takes over and we get this unbearable procession they call a race. I guess Prost was really ahead of his time with his cautious driving style...
You need to look at the REAL reason why the new rules have been adopted: it's all about providing exposure to the maximum number of advertisers, therefore as many teams as possible. It's not about rewarding the best (yet that would be the point of competition!). How about lining up all the participating drivers on the podium next year, that'll make the advertisers even happier!
JFreak hit it on the nail: Rosberg was considered, rightfully, a "lesser champion" for winning only a couple of races. Piquet's third crown was considered cheap as he simply played it safe and let Mansell take the "silly" risks. On the other hand, Rindt's posthumous title was the stuff of legends, as nobody could catch up to all the wins he had accumulated before his unfortunate death. Now that's a hero.
And yes JFreak, they should award a point for pole, and also one for the fastest lap in the race. It's not as crazy as you think: that was the case in the 50s, back when F1 was still a sport.
Indeed. Giving 8 points for 2nd place reminds me of MarioKartDrEasy said:
The tire war helped give us the ****** situation we have now.
I'd rather see drivers going all out as much as they can, rather than trying to keep their gas from running out. We'd end up having the same crappy races as we did last season with no tire changes, except instead of cars dropping out with shot tires, they'd pull off with nothing but fumes left.
Agreed. Race the engine that you qualify with. The previous GP shouldn't have any bearing on the current. (Excepting rule violations, such as causing an avoidable incident, or a major infraction in the car's design)
That's a good idea, even though it doesn't really help the MLB all that much. The Yankees aren't really going to spend less than $100m anytime soon. Well, not with A-Rod's contract anyway.
Of course, the next GP starts Saturday night for EDT, as did the previous GP.
For all the F1 rules that I don't agree with (and you folks know that's a lot), I'm glad that these teams signed up for 2008.
I'm a big believer in being able to do more working inside the system, and this is the perfect example. I really think that the only "rebellion" that might have a chance would be one that included Ferrari.
I don't know if everyone's ever heard the Middle East politics theory that "You can't have a war without Egypt and you can't have peace without Syria"? Personally, I think that you can't have an F1 rebellion without Ferrari and you can't have an F1 season without McLaren.
Now that the threat of a walkout is over (for this year), I can get back to worrying about the 3-year engine freeze and all the other Ludite-otic rules that are on the horizon.
(Oh, and I did some hard thinking: A ban on refueling would probably not solve all F1's problems. Most, maybe. But not all. )
I'm a big believer in being able to do more working inside the system, and this is the perfect example. I really think that the only "rebellion" that might have a chance would be one that included Ferrari.
I don't know if everyone's ever heard the Middle East politics theory that "You can't have a war without Egypt and you can't have peace without Syria"? Personally, I think that you can't have an F1 rebellion without Ferrari and you can't have an F1 season without McLaren.
Now that the threat of a walkout is over (for this year), I can get back to worrying about the 3-year engine freeze and all the other Ludite-otic rules that are on the horizon.
(Oh, and I did some hard thinking: A ban on refueling would probably not solve all F1's problems. Most, maybe. But not all.
)back in the good old days (when Adelaide held a GP) I don't recall the cars refueling. I also remember qualifiying being exciting with Mancel and senna going at it lap after lap.
Takumi
Takumi
True, but the idea here is that we want smaller teams to be able to spend more and survive. It shouldn't matter if a team dominates, if it allows smaller teams to participate.
Indeed, during the 80s refuelling was banned for security reasons (ask Verstappen if that was a bad reason). It did sometimes lead to silly race endings with cars running out of fuel in the last lap, but I'll have that kind of "excitement" over watching boring processions and refuelling pit-stops any time.Takumi said:
By the way, that last GP in Australia that I managed to catch "accidentally" (obviously I'm not entirely over F1 yet) was pretty exciting, so maybe not all hope is lost. Still hate those oval-style safety cars though, and I'm sure Alonso agrees. Another way to make the race look artificially close. If the viewer can't handle aggregate times let them watch IRL!
Well, there are times were it's necessary, like when track conditions (Brazil '03) or a massive accident (Monza '00, Indy '04) warrant. It's even more necessary on an oval than on a road course, but I think NASCAR's policy of pulling out if someone just spins cleanly, and doesn't even hit the wall or another car is just plain stupidDrEasy said: