2012 Random F1 Discussion

phil1993 · PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:00 pm

RtN wrote:

phil1993 wrote:

Someone inside the Mercedes-Force India group is going to get unhappily shafted.

Well, that's nothing new for them. Fisichella would have been booted for Liuzzi if he hadn't gotten the Ferrari seat. Liuzzi was booted for Di Resta. Sutil was booted for the Hulk.

The number of talented drivers does make me ponder the advantages of three car teams/more teams and pre-qualifying.

Schumacher is the one who has complicated everything; not many people would have expected him to continue in 2013. His and Mercedes's upturn in fortune has thrown a spanner into the works.

I still think that the driver market is either going to remain static or go crazy this year, rather than in the middle.

Tobias · PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:12 pm

3 team cars of which only 2 per team can compete in the race. That'd be fun! For 2013:

Red Bull: Vettel / Webber / Hamilton
McLaren: Button / di Resta / ???
Ferrari: Alonso / Massa / Perez
Mercdes: Rosberg / Schumacher / Hulkenberg

let the fun begin ...

NVirkkula · PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:42 pm

What's that? Massa for 2013?!

kals · PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:43 pm

Screw the three car teams. Either allow customer cars, let big teams run satallite operations or just allow a couple more teams on the grid.

ellis · PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:40 am

HRT are still tarting up an old car which was never finished too. Granted they aren't at the front, but they make the 107%. Old cars will work fine, agreed.

codename_47 · PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:09 am

Fish88 wrote:

Why would he need a manager if his relationship is already good enough to gain a seat for next year?

Probably Anthony wanted him to go for a team who were paying more money (bigger % cut for him) and Paul wanted to go to a team with a better chance of winning...

Philthy82 · PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:26 am

So who does Anthony still manage?

RtN · PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:39 am

No-one, unless he picked up a junior driver while nobody was looking.

This might be a good idea for him to get that F1 testing project off the ground.

micha · PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:32 am

Scotty wrote:

That's why we need some form of cost cutting measures. Not debilitating $40m caps like they had the big blews about a while back, just something that opens up the spread. Allow teams to sell their blueprints to the previous years technology so teams can run 1 year old cars in the sport, like STR/RBR used to do. Ferrari could have a B team that ran a 2011 spec car. It's not going to be quick, but it's developing 2 drivers and giving their more data. Super Aguri were able to use a 4 year old Arrows for half a season, it can't be that hard to retrofit a previous car to the rules.

This post is sooo good I wish I could like it more than once.....

Tobias · PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:35 am

I completely agree with Scotty's post and thanking him once is simply not good enough.

For me, an extra addition would be that the A-team is always locked in for the race automatically. The customer teams have to battle it out for an extra 10 available places on the grid.

Mika Kimi · PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:38 am

RtN wrote:

No-one, unless he picked up a junior driver while nobody was looking.

This might be a good idea for him to get that F1 testing project off the ground.

I believe he's the manager of Nyck de Vries.

Our country's next hope.

micha · PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:03 am

Tobias wrote:

I completely agree with Scotty's post and thanking him once is simply not good enough.

For me, an extra addition would be that the A-team is always locked in for the race automatically. The customer teams have to battle it out for an extra 10 available places on the grid.

I'd like to add the rule that engine mount to chassis must be universal. If you have cash, buy Ferrari tub with Mercedes engine if you want. Or McLaren Tub with Cosworth engine.....whatever rocks your boat.

Not sure if the engine mounts are already universal or not. But I wouldn't be surprised if they varied per supplier.

aerogi · PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:21 pm

the idea of 1 year old cars is not bad.

but won't work if there are significant changes to the rulebook. Especially if new rules are written to make the cars (a lot) slower.

We need a manufacturer like March back in the 70s, were anyone could buy a chassis from.

Perhaps A manufacturer like Sauber or Williams could take up that role.

Shaddix · PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:25 pm

In my opinion 1 team that can suply 1 client-team would be the best option.

And I like the idea of universal engine mouths that Micha brought up too.

micha · PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:29 pm

IMHO this would be a dream rule change:

- Allow customer cars as mentioned by Scotty
- Force universal engine mounts
- Allow 1-car teams and/or different sponsor per car. (Would either save costs or increase income)
- Allow teams to miss up to 5 weekends without penalty (big teams will be there, small teams could opt to skip far away races).
- Limit pitboxes per team (no need for 10 pitboxes for 2 cars).
- Remove teamlimit of 13.
- reintroduce pre-qualifying. (survival of the fittest).

Tobias · PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:35 pm

micha wrote:

IMHO this would be a dream rule change:

- reintroduce pre-qualifying. (survival of the fittest).

agreed, but having drivers like Alonso not qualified because of a technical glitch is unacceptable. Not only to the fans who drive hundreds of miles to see him race, but also to the spectators in general.

Cheeveer · PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:00 pm

Tobias wrote:

micha wrote:

IMHO this would be a dream rule change:

- reintroduce pre-qualifying. (survival of the fittest).

agreed, but having drivers like Alonso not qualified because of a technical glitch is unacceptable. Not only to the fans who drive hundreds of miles to see him race, but also to the spectators in general.

Sounds like you have no idea over how the old pre-qualifying rules worked...

Tobias · PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:31 pm

oh, i do, but survival of the fittest to me implies that all cars must make it through pre-qualifying. Whether you are Ferrari, HRT, Caterham, McLaren ...

micha · PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:33 pm

no no. I meant that in the past people used the excuse to not have many teams that some wont qualify and thus fold. Well tough luck, survival of the fittest.

Tobias · PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:58 pm

oh, and also one of my own favourite ideas ...

Bring back Sunday morning warm-up, but only for the cars that qualified outside the top 10 (thus allowing the midfield to close the gap to the front-runners - in theory).

TBK-Light.com

2012 Random F1 Discussion

Who is online