Should the new teams have been admitted in 2009?

[raymondu999]

Hey all.

We're now 2-3rds-ish over the season. In retrospect, shouldn't the new teams have been introduced last year? I mean, then their only disadvantage would be inexperience (but some ARE experienced) in managing teams/designing a chassis. Regarding ideas etc, people like Nick Wirth/Mike Gascoyne should be able to produce ideas that are "on the pace" in terms of aero, no? As everyone is looking at their own creativity to try and create a faster aero package anyways?

Thoughts please.

Just to clarify, what I meant is, admitted to start racing in 2009, rather than admitted to start racing in 2010, when everyone was starting with a clean-sheet design.

[flynfrog]

I think there should be no deciding on what teams gets in and what one doesn't. Define grid size and let them try to qualify the car.

[WhiteBlue]

The admittance of new teams was a significant break through. For the first time in years F1 did something to fight the reduction of the grid. The new teams wasn't the only thing that happened. F1 also got the safety net of an independent engine supplier and avoided being in the hands of just three manufacturers without alternative. Finally the teams made a legally binding commitment to stop the spending race that had been ongoing for a decade and had ruined many teams before. Without the RRA not only would not have seen the new teams compete but Williams, Sauber and Renault would probably have been in danger to fold this year. As it stands now I'm not afraid any more that F1 will collaps or degenerate to satellite teams of Ferrari and McLaren. So my answer to the question is a clear yes. And I appreciate the other measures by FiA and FOTA as well.

[piast9]

I don't understand why do you ash such question? Why wouldn't they be allowed? Of course, they lack the pace but on the other hand it looks like this because of very competitive grid when established teams are concerned. Years ago it was not uncommon that the 3rd or 4th finisher was a lap down. And this year I think in most cases even the new teams would be within the 107% qualification limit. New teams learned their lesson and their cars for 2010 will be better.

[Confused_Andy]

Its a good thing, healthy grid, new blood in the sport, new stories and obviouslly new teams to support.

Its been good seeing them fight it out this season in a little race of their own and hopefully next year they'll be midfield at least.

[raymondu999]

Just to clarify, what I meant is, admitted to start racing in 2009, rather than admitted to start racing in 2010, when everyone was starting with a clean-sheet design.

[Giblet]

@raymondu999 - I think it's better that they can look to the other teams and draw off their designs and experience from 2009. It's possible with a clean sheet that the new teams might have gotten very lost, but it could have created an opportunity for the right squad. If a team like Virgin or Lotus showed up with a DDD in 2009 when others dropped the ball, that would have been interesting.

an aside...

Lotus and Virgin are occasionally posting fast laps within a few seconds of the leaders. Some of their results better the gap that Minardi had as an established team for some of their worse seasons.

Two of the new teams are not doing as badly as many think when their resources and lack of testing are considered.

[Dukeage]

Few teams are very good out of the box anyway, bearing in mind the short amount of development time Lotus have had their pace is a great achievement. These teams are less of the pace than - say - Minardi in 2001/2002.

[marcush.]

looking back to the real startups in the past decades there were:

Jordan(1991-2005)13points
Sauber(1993-)12points
forti corse(1995)0points
MasterCard lola(1997)0points
Stewart GP(1997-1999)6points
BAR(1999-2005)0points
Toyota(2001-2009)2002 2points/2001 testing only
Super Aguri(2005-2008)0points

Lotus
HRT
Virgin

We can say , jordan and sauber made sensational debuts to F1 both coming in and instantly fighting for points ,Stewart GP could have been as well if they had not
decided for that carbonfibre gearbox.
But ,no matter how much testing ,money or infrastructure available from 1997 all new startups were tailenders in their first season it seems f1 was just getting too complicated for coming in and scoring instantly as Jordan and Sauber showed only 5 or 6 years earlier.
As things got a lot more profesional in the last years i feel the newcomers are doing quite well ..in fact i´m a bit disappointed by Lotus as this is really a Gascoyne show all F1 people ...two top F1 drivers..why did Gascoyne not push to get the Toyota????
the would have scored points with that car for sure.

[xpensive]

...

As things got a lot more profesional in the last years i feel the newcomers are doing quite well ..in fact i´m a bit disappointed by Lotus as this is really a Gascoyne show all F1 people ...two top F1 drivers..why did Gascoyne not push to get the Toyota????
the would have scored points with that car for sure.

Beacause the Toyota was designed after he was fired from the Cologne-team of course!

[marcush.]

good point exp
he made a few quid in the process too ,instead of having everyone saying. oh that toyota chassis did boost their effort big time..

[gridwalker]

Returning to the point of the original post, the political landscape in 2008 (when new entry applications would have to be lodged for 2009) was completely different to how it was last year.

Virtually all of the teams at that point were either run by manufacturers directly, had manufacturer support or were being backed as a promotional vehicle for a major corporation with access to hundreds of millions of dollars per anum : there was no way that any of the new teams would have been willing or able to try and lodge a competitive entry ... there is no way that they could have gotten the budget together.

The majority of the F1 community seemed to be in denial about the state of the sport's finances until the Honda pull out, which seemed to be a call to action for the sport. Unfortunately, the unilateral method that the FIA then followed simply excaserbated the political tensions whilst the FIA and FOTA duked it out : the idea of cost-capped new teams was introduced as a wildcard to force the FOTA teams into reassessing their position.

They simply couldn't have been introduced a year earlier as the political will wasn't there to make it happen, nor were the incentives in place to draw in teams that lacked the major clout of the manufacturers. If Honda and Toyota had difficulty affording their F1 projects, what hope would new startups have had?

Simply put, the new teams were invited into the sport as a result of the FIA hedging their bets in case of a FOTA pull out or a mass withdrawal of PR-sensitive manufacturers : the conditions precipitating this had not quite manifested in 2008.

[747heavy]

....why did Gascoyne not push to get the Toyota????
the would have scored points with that car for sure.

Ego perhaps

and not sure if you could have integrated the Cosworth engine that easy into the rear end.
but it would have bought a new team a lot of time, to get their organisation up and running to do so, so they could concentrate on the race engineering and operational side of things for the first part of the season.

[marcush.]

747 h ,we speak the same language (!)..i was a bit more sarcastic speculating Gascoyne was happy to have his guys under enourmous workload@ say 100€ per hour that must have filled his pocket a bit..

[747heavy]

747 h ,we speak the same language (!)..i was a bit more sarcastic speculating Gascoyne was happy to have his guys under enourmous workload@ say 100€ per hour that must have filled his pocket a bit..

you have to have your priorities right - NO!?!
first things first
let´s make hey as long as the sun shines

P.S. : in regards to your first question, I think we do.