Andres125sx wrote:If I didn´t I wouldn´t bother to watch F1, because it has always been a 2-tier championship, at least in last decades
No it hasn't. But I guess that's where we have a general misunderstanding what a 2-tier championship actually
means.
The definition of 2 or multiple tiers has IMO nothing to do with larger differences in budget or performance, but more the ability of a team to actually compete on the same level.
Why? Because money can only bring you so far. How much money you require to be competitive depends on how open the sport is. If there are more possibilities, less restrictions, finding the best possible solution becomes more difficult because the possibilities are nigh endless. The clear opposite would be a spec series where there is no freedom at all and the cost as a result are controlled because spending more is akin to throwing money out the window. And money doesn't build cars - it's only a means of resources. Ultimately, you need engineers and know-how. Sure, better engineers are more expensive, but one that cost double will not result in half the lap time. Over the last decades, we've had teams with higher budgets, better facilities opposed to lower teams with fewer resources. This has created a performance differential, no doubt, but it never stopped a team to copy what other more sophisticated teams pioneered and catch up. This difference in budget hasn't caused time gaps of multiple seconds - at times the difference were only tenths between midfield teams and the highest performing ones. What teams lacked in resources, they could make up with ingenuity at times and successfully so. I point out the 2012 Sauber that contested for podium(s), nearly a win too.
It also allowed teams like RedBull that started in the midfield to rise through the field. Mercedes too (speaking purely prior to 2014). And Brawn in 2009. Yes, Brawn had a ridiculously high budget, but it wasn't that budget that ultimately brought them their success, it was ingenuity of the double diffuser. Another example is Renault too.
Having A-spec and B-spec engines is what would create a 2-tier championship. It effectively means that those on a B-spec engine would not match the performance of those with A-spec engines irregardless what ingenuity, creativity, money or resources they come up with - because in this formula, the engine is the predominant performance differentiator.
Andres125sx wrote:Sorry but...
2013 WCC:
1- Red Bull Racing.......596
2- Mercedes............. 360
3- Ferrari.................354
4- Lotus-Renault.........315
5- McLaren-Mercedes...117
6- Force India-Merc......77
7- Sauber-Ferrari.........57
8- Toro Rosso-Ferrari....33
9- Williams-Renault.......5
10- Marusia-Cosworth.....0
11- CAterham-Renault....0
4th in the championship got more points than the 7 teams below togheter. It was same as always, four top teams on a different league than the rest
Err Andres - what you're seeing here is the simple and obvious result on how the point distribution is. Let me remind you of the point scoring mechanism we have in place: 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1. And then you can multiple that by 2, because we have two car teams. So in effect, the difference between a 1-2 is a mighty 43 points vs potential 0. That's a 43-times difference in points. Therefore, it's only logical that the disparity in points between a front-running team and a middle team is
not linear. Under the old point system 10-8-6-4-2-1 this was less pronounced (but still not linear), as the difference between 1-2 (18 points) and not scoring was smaller. This has
nothing to do with 2-tier or multiple tiers etc however.
I'll point you to the top bit of this reply where I made a few examples of teams in the midfield that progressed to become winning teams since the last decade. Or midfield teams challenging for podiums and nearly wins. That includes Lotus, Sauber and others. I'll say it again - a real 2 tier championship with A-spec and B-spec engines makes this rather impossible of happening (under a engine dominated formula) and is
anti-competitive.
Andres wrote:I commented it because you said the formula is not interesting enough for manufacturers and the fact Honda is here proves the contrary. If no more manufacturers comes in after Honda´s problems is because of the rules limiting develpment, not because of the formula is not interesting
I never said
interesting - I said
attractive. And the point encompassed the new formula in its entirety which also include the rules. It's interesting, yes, but it's not attractive. It may have seemed attractive leading up to 2014 when Honda decided to join, but is has gone down as a result of the realization on how difficult it is to compete with an engine under these restrictive rules, the complexity of these power units as a whole and lack of testing etc.
