People keep saying they are now right on the back of the established teams but that first point still eludes them, have they (or any of the bottom 3) ever got higher than 13th?
The issue for them (apart from their outright pace - or lack of) is that reliability is generally very good so where in the past a Minardi could drive their ultimate race and be helped by attritionj - this is no longer the case.
I agree. And actually, I'd not include the word "possibly" in the first sentence: they are definitely worth keeping! When all's said and done, without little teams, there can be no big teams.Caterham are possibly worth keeping, they give STR a reason to exist, other than coming up with the next Red Bull star. Marussia and HRT are struggling a lot more, although with HRT finally setting up the base they want, will they potentially be better next year? I'm still for the extra teams, as it gives 6 more guys a seat in F1 (admittedly Karthikeyan really shouldn't be there, and arguably De La Rosa with his age is being counter intuitive to this line of thought) which the sport desperately needs with the lack of testing. Even testing isn't the same, unless during test sessions, between T drivers, at the end of the day there is a mini race, with tyres given by Pirelli just for this so it doesn't compromise the day's programme.
As above.I really thought the new teams would be good for F1 back in 2010, looking at it now though you have to wonder if they have actually brought anything extra to the grid?
For Caterham not to have scored just one point in three years is poor quite frankly and now i agree with what Coulthard said at the start of 2010 that it's better to have 18 cars than having 24 cars and a bunch of Micky Mouses at the back
This is a very, very good point, Smithers.The issue for them (apart from their outright pace - or lack of) is that reliability is generally very good so where in the past a Minardi could drive their ultimate race and be helped by attritionj - this is no longer the case.
I agree. And actually, I'd not include the word "possibly" in the first sentence: they are definitely worth keeping! When all's said and done, without little teams, there can be no big teams.
I agree. And actually, I'd not include the word "possibly" in the first sentence: they are definitely worth keeping! When all's said and done, without little teams, there can be no big teams.
As above.
The most important thing is that when a competition has fewer competitors, it is necessarily more vulnerable.
- If that's what DC said, I disagree with him on this â so long as the 107% rule is enforced where applicable.
- More cars makes a better spectacle (especially at track side but also for TV), thus helping generate greater public interest.
- More teams bring in more money to the whole sport, which adds longevity.
- More teams act as an insurance against others dropping out. Red Bull and Toro Rosso would seem unlikely to be in for the long haul; and Renault have a habit of quitting at short notice.
- The little teams provide a platform for another engine manufacturer, thus increasing diversity and adding further 'insurance' against other engine suppliers (especially Renault).
- Drivers: The little teams provide six additional race seats and provide extra avenues into F1 with an additional two slots apiece (on average) for test-drivers. This may seem unimportant, but it keeps the sport 'bigger' when more opportunities exist within.
- Personnel: Apply the point above (for drivers), to all of the other team personnel, who also find extra avenues into F1. It applies to race-engineers; mechanics; computer boffins; team principals; cooks; truck drivers; sponsors; and all other interested parties â real or potential.
- There are many other reasons but this is about to become tedious.
This is a very, very good point, Smithers.
TV:I'd have to disagree on most of those points Cosi. …
I would agree with the fact that it provides more interest for the track side spectators and they do give jobs to mechanics, but for TV. You see them periodically as they get lapped thats not entertainment, and I'm not convinced it really helps the drivers either. Looking at those who have debuted with those teams, Di Grassi, Chandhok, Senna, D'Ambrosio, Ricciardo. Has they really helped any of them? They may get drivers in to the sport but without any way to show their skills in such dreadful cars they don't tend to get anywhere. Virgin Racing may have destroyed the career of Timo Glock.
I don't see how they act as insurance anyway for a team dropping out, maybe financially for the sport, but in terms of us watching it. there would simply be Eight serious teams instead of Nine. While Caterham, Marussia and HRT continue to do nothing.
I realise that without them there would be no Cosworth in F1, but they all seem to be trying to ditch them as a scapegoat as soon as possible anyway.
...and they had the talent of Sato and Ide behind the wheel.