So how do you feel about 14 cars?

[zako85]

Today with 15 cars for most of the race it was rather lacking...

I can't believe that Sunday's race was somehow lacking because of the 4 missing back marker cars. What did you miss of them? Perhaps those 12 seconds of TV time granted to those, or their function of an obstacle for other cars to go around? Let's face the reality. F1 has been a 9 team sport for the last 5 seasons. The three new back marker teams added nothing to the sport. They only made the Q1 session of qualifying really boring.

[zako85]

Today with 15 cars for most of the race it was rather lacking...

Did you even see the race? Would you have enjoyed it significantly more with four more loser cars driving somewhere in the back?

I have to say that it's pretty striking just how small the gap really is in terms of performance between the fastest teams and the slowest, despite a huge gulf in the level of resources they respectively have to throw at the problem.

This statement is quite meaningless. Who are you to judge how much let's say a third of a second over a lap should cost the teams? Why shouldn't this cost say tens of millions in budget? The rules of the FIA have really set the baseline lap times for all teams and all those fractions of second above the baseline do cost the millions in resources. And Mercedes cars are something like a full second ahead of the rest of field. The field is not close at all. No one can catch the Mercedes cars right now. Then you have a tight midfield, and then a bunch of cars that can never catch the midfield (I speak of Marussia or Caterham). Inside the field, the cars powered by engines other than Mercedes are certainly at a huge disadvantage.

[journeyman racer]

I can see zako's pov, for his own interest. But I suspect he's only meaning as far as the race at the front is concerned. In this context, he might even be satisfied with a little as 6 cars then. It hard to articulate, but there's just something not right about F1 having a small field. There are too numerous to mention, maybe even some I can't think of, but here's some anyway.

Leading drivers making their way through backmarkers is not a "skill" as such. But there is a knack to it, which highlights driver's abilities, or shows a strength. Being a good river is not all about what happens in qualifying. Which to some, seems like the be all, end all of a driver's ability.

It adds value to finishing postions. It used to be a big moment for a smaller team to get at least a point.

It creates a bridging level, between classes like GP2, FR3.5 and so on. It's all very well leading runners, title winners in the smaller classes, getting a drive in a bigger team. But some could benefit from a year or two, or there, from running at the rear of F1, before they become a "complete" driver.

With smaller fields, it creates an appearance that it's not a serious, genuine competition, or that it's not really that big of a deal. I see this happening with the view of race fans here about Bathurst. As good as the finish might've been this year. A growing number of fans here see it becoming less and less of a significant race, due to there being 25 cars racing. Compare that to the 50+ the B12h will get, that race is starting to gain a presence here. Similar can happen with F1 over time.

It's not all about what's happening at the front.

[Duncan]

Did you even see the race? Would you have enjoyed it significantly more with four more loser cars driving somewhere in the back?

Umm, yes, I saw the race. From the bleachers at turn 12.

And yes, it would have been significantly better with more cars. There's a lot more going on than you necessarily see on TV, which tends to focus on the guys up front at the expense of whatever is happening further down the field.

And, BTW, not only were Caterham and Marussia not there, but Force India and half of Sauber were gone pretty early on. The remaining cars further down the order were fighting tooth and nail the whole race, and really put on a great show. It would have been great to have more of that. Caterham and Marussia fighting amongst themselves would have been a significant additional element.

For sure, the stuff happening up front is important and exciting, but it's not everything that's going on.

This statement is quite meaningless. Who are you to judge how much let's say a third of a second over a lap should cost the teams? Why shouldn't this cost say tens of millions in budget? The rules of the FIA have really set the baseline lap times for all teams and all those fractions of second above the baseline do cost the millions in resources. And Mercedes cars are something like a full second ahead of the rest of field. The field is not close at all. No one can catch the Mercedes cars right now. Then you have a tight midfield, and then a bunch of cars that can never catch the midfield (I speak of Marussia or Caterham). Inside the field, the cars powered by engines other than Mercedes are certainly at a huge disadvantage.

Compared to other series? There's almost nothing in it. Earlier in the weekend were Ferrari and Porsche races over much shorter race distances (like 20 minutes to half an hour) and the different cars were much more strung out in that time than you would ever see in an F1 race, even though they're all driving the same car (or two classes in the Ferrari challenge case). It's pretty remarkable to me that all of the F1 teams are as close as they are building their own cars on vastly different budgets.

[Duncan]

It's not all about what's happening at the front.

Exactly...

[Doc Austin]

It's easy to lose interest in things when you know it could fall apart. I remember when champcar got down to 15-16 cars, and even those were falling apart because they were so old and worn out. Everyone knew it was just a matter of time, and it got too sad to watch. I don't think Formula One is going to go away, but if the grid shrinks any more people could start turning it off. It's hard to sell something as important if you can't get enough people to compete.

More equal distribution of funds will help, but it's still going to be so expensive that teams will falter. They need to cut down the expense or they are going to have this kind of crisis again. Teams have always come and gone, and it always revolves around money. I think the current crisis was exacerbated by everyone having to throw out everything they had and start over with all new cars this year That, and these cars are so complicated that it would be hard to believe they are not substantially more expensive than what we had before.

OTOH, Indycars are very inexpensive comparatively and they are scratching around for entires. I think the whole world is just dead broke.

[schmenke]

Not sure I understand all this recent talk about redistribution of teams' revenue? The most recent Concorde agreement had been signed by all teams, including Caterham and Marussia, several months ago and establishes the revenue distribution scheme until, I believe, 2020.

[Doc Austin]

Not sure I understand all this recent talk about redistribution of teams' revenue? The most recent Concorde agreement had been signed by all teams, including Caterham and Marussia, several months ago and establishes the revenue distribution scheme until, I believe, 2020.

It's like professional athletes wanting to re-negotiate their contracts when they have a year or two left. What's wrong with honoring the current contract?

OTOH, this is different because if you don't have the money to run the car, what else can you do?

[Storm]

OTOH, Indycars are very inexpensive comparatively and they are scratching around for entires. I think the whole world is just dead broke.

Not really. They are just spending the money elsewhere

[Doc Austin]

Not really. They are just spending the money elsewhere

Perhaps. In the US, cars have become uncool. The econazis have convinced everyone that cars are polluting the planet and burning resources. Besides, today's kids (tomorrow's fans) would rather keep their noses buried in their cell phones than get laid, so I don't have much hope for racing to survive in this country, at least not at anywhere near the levels we have seen.