I personally like this idea, Miggins. It is similar to something I was "banging on about" (to quote a sceptic) a few years ago. Of course, the argument against it (which I do not think is as significant as appears to some*) is that all teams will do the same thing and adopt similar strategies, and that this will make for more predictable racing. *The reason I think this argument is flawed is that there are differences in chassis design as well as driving styles, which will tend to show different tyre usage. Therefore, so long as the differences between tyres is kept within a tight bracket, I actually think it could increase the intrigue, rather than detract from it!
Yes. Too right. It just goes to show that sometimes it is possible to bend over backwards too far. They should have offered a little more resistance to the whims of an FIA which itself should have offered a little more resistance to a largely impatient, predominantly ignorant audience.
The problem with that Miggins is that the teams will moan if they feel the allocations are too soft/too hard. And they won't just feel hard done by for two races, it will be the entire season.
That would be their own fault. They can moan at themselves. Only problem is, it would be something else for McLaren to get completely wrong.
I think something has to change, because currently Pirelli have a large amount of control over the direction of the championships. If they'd gone softer on allocations more frequently, Kimi/Alonso'd be much closer to the top, but by going harder, Vettel and the Mercs are favoured. If they keep this conservative trend up for the rest of the season, they've handed RB the titles. I'm not convinced it's necessarily wilful bias, but when you've got the current constructors champions, and the huge Mercedes brand, making negative comments about your company, it's going to play on the mind a bit, even if it's only subconsciously.
They should make the teams choose, pick 2 choices and the highest 2 get used. Keep the majority happy? Unlikely
Is someone forgetting Ferrari ? … BLS: your idea is both philanthropic and interesting, but I cannot ever see it working…
It's a bit different, in that Merc supply engines (or will in the future) to those teams rather than actually fund them. Any vote could be skewed when almost 20% of the cars are owned by one group. Granted, that doesent mean that suppliers can't put pressure on teams also...
I think the whole tyre choice for the next 2 GP's is a big F U to the teams who wouldn't let Pirelli change the design, they've basically said "we're being moaned at right left and centre, your stopping us changing them and so we're looking bad publicly so stick these Hards up your coanda and smoke 'em"
Doesn't that (highlighted in bold) make the Ferrari test illegal irrespective of how many years old the car is? It seems like it all boils down to who was actually in charge of/running the test, was it Pirelli or the team
No because of article 22.1: 22.1 Track testing shall be considered any track running time not part of an Event undertaken by a competitor entered in the Championship, using cars which conform substantially with the current Formula One Technical Regulations in addition to those from the previous or subsequent year.
Hang on... Ferrari used the 2011 car right? By those rules that's also illegal. Edit: That reads to me as the previous 2 years... as usual though, it's as clear as mud. Edit 2: Naah... read it again and got it that time
Actually, the text that SpacePhoenix has put in bold raises an interesting question that could be exploited. If you're allowed a 1 day test if you're wanting to use a driver who hasn't raced in the last two years, you could use this to get a lot of extra testing, which could be particularly helpful if you're struggling, but aren't short of money, and the talent of your drivers is questionable anyway. (I'm thinking perhaps Caterham in this scenario). You announce a driver change, and bring in someone who's previously tested, but never raced, so you get your one day test, presumably at somewhere like Jerez where the teams are already comfortable. Said new driver completes a single race, then you dump him and announce you've found another newbie. Rinse and repeat, for an extra 17 days testing in a year. As a team, you only need 1 driver to do well, so you keep someone decent in the first car (*cough* Kovalainen *cough*), and rotate the driver in the second seat. There's bound to be wealthy lower-formula drivers prepared to pay to do a test and a single race, so you might even be able to offset some of the costs. Looking into super-licenses, you'd get those for any driver with 5 podiums in F3, F2 (?), GP2, or who's finished strongly in Indycar. I bet there's probably a few drivers you could use who already fulfil that.
