More Teams!

[zako85]

At this point I am inclined to concede that they need to allow the customer chassis teams, but with one condition. Any team finishing in top 4 should not be allowed to sell a chassis to customers. This would allow teams like Sauber to make a little revenue by selling its chassis to customers, and the customers will have a real chance to break into Q2 or even score points, without going bankrupt.

[Mark]

I think we need more engine suppliers before we need new teams tbh.

[Firstgear]

With the old reg's, the engine was pretty much 'regulated' out of the design equation. Virtually everything was restricted, from max rpm's to angle of the V, so there was no real incentive for anyone to try to outdo another team by using a different engine.
Hopefully the new era with turbo & ERS & maximum fuel amounts will change that. Maybe we'll see more interested parties trying to out design each other - if the regulations allow designers the freedom to design.

[N4D13]

Just because they're looking for new entrants, doesn't mean they'll find any (suckers) that qualify.
The article also mentions something else - almost all teams are struggling financially. This points to a bigger problem within F1.
Ferrari & Lotus finished 3rd & 4th in the constructors. Ferrari can afford to hire two of the most sought after drivers, and Lotus has to go with a pay driver to survive. The pay system is flawed. I think the special treatment of Ferrari needs to end, and the money needs to be spread out more evenly. I'm not saying all teams get equal prize money - but the scales need to be adjusted towards the back a little more.

I think that your argument is flawed. While there's little to defend the idea that Ferrari should get special treatment or the fact that there should be such a harsh money distribution, you are leaving out the fact that Ferrari is a powerful, worldwide-known brand that sells lots of expensive cars a year and has other sources of income such as Corsa Clienti, while that is certainly not the case with Lotus. So I suppose that Ferrari's example, and to a lesser extent Mercedes' and McLaren's, would not be the best to illustrate your point.

[DazzlaF1]

Great news, Id like to see the money more evenly spread out though to help the grid survive because the more teams and cars on the grid, the more drivers in the lower categories get chaces in the sport.

Secondly though, if there is more than one good candidate, give out two spots on the grid, after all, the rules permit a maximum of 13 teams and 26 cars and fans would love to see that again

[Firstgear]

Just because they're looking for new entrants, doesn't mean they'll find any (suckers) that qualify.
The article also mentions something else - almost all teams are struggling financially. This points to a bigger problem within F1.
Ferrari & Lotus finished 3rd & 4th in the constructors. Ferrari can afford to hire two of the most sought after drivers, and Lotus has to go with a pay driver to survive. The pay system is flawed. I think the special treatment of Ferrari needs to end, and the money needs to be spread out more evenly. I'm not saying all teams get equal prize money - but the scales need to be adjusted towards the back a little more.

I think that your argument is flawed. While there's little to defend the idea that Ferrari should get special treatment or the fact that there should be such a harsh money distribution, you are leaving out the fact that Ferrari is a powerful, worldwide-known brand that sells lots of expensive cars a year and has other sources of income such as Corsa Clienti, while that is certainly not the case with Lotus. So I suppose that Ferrari's example, and to a lesser extent Mercedes' and McLaren's, would not be the best to illustrate your point.

I guess I was making the assumption that Ferrari would base their financial decision making in a way that would make the F1 portion of the company either profitable, or at least not a financial drain, on the company as a whole. What you seem to be saying is that they'd be willing to pour some (maybe a lot) of the profits of the whole company to prop up the F1 component. I don't think I would agree with that, but I don't really know either way. I would imagine the F1 component would run deficits in some years but try to be profitable overall. I also don't think a company like Mercedes would get into F1 to lose money either.

[zako85]

With the old reg's, the engine was pretty much 'regulated' out of the design equation. Virtually everything was restricted, from max rpm's to angle of the V, so there was no real incentive for anyone to try to outdo another team by using a different engine.
Hopefully the new era with turbo & ERS & maximum fuel amounts will change that. Maybe we'll see more interested parties trying to out design each other - if the regulations allow designers the freedom to design.

The new engines are also fairly regulated. The engine configuration is fixed. Max RPM is restricted. Fuel flow, etc. Mounting points. But the rumor is that the engineers are saying that there is still a lot of freedom. Being new engines, it will be a while before all engines reach an optimal combination of power, fuel economy, and reliability. The engine development will be eventually frozen again though.

[TheFamousEccles]

Can't see Ferrari wearing an even playing field, in terms of revenues distribution and favouritism, mores the pity. Sometimes I wish someone would call their bluff and send them packing. The threats that get trotted out periodically to break away from F1 if the FIA don't cave to their demands are tedious.

[schmenke]

Can't see Ferrari wearing an even playing field, in terms of revenues distribution and favouritism, mores the pity. Sometimes I wish someone would call their bluff and send them packing. The threats that get trotted out periodically to break away from F1 if the FIA don't cave to their demands are tedious.

Won't happen. The Concorde Agreement was just re-signed, sealing in the revenue distribution for the next 6 years.

[Mark]

With the old reg's, the engine was pretty much 'regulated' out of the design equation. Virtually everything was restricted, from max rpm's to angle of the V, so there was no real incentive for anyone to try to outdo another team by using a different engine.
Hopefully the new era with turbo & ERS & maximum fuel amounts will change that. Maybe we'll see more interested parties trying to out design each other - if the regulations allow designers the freedom to design.

There is also the issue that the engines were 'homologated' several years ago, so that changes for the sake of performance were banned.