Third Drivers rule a farce?

[Teretonga]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand the third driver at a GP rule in 2004 restricts those drivers to those who have had less than 6 GP's over the last two years.
If this is supposed to give the smaller teams a break, or encourage the employment of young potential aces, the rule is giving the top teams an advantage over most of the others. It's a farce.
For example McLaren (Wurz) Williams (Gene) and Ferrari (Badoer) all employ experience GP drivers who haven't had a six GP's in the last two years but a team like Jaguar can't employ Wilson as the third driver at a GP weekend?
What sort of garbage ruling is that?
If they wanted to think up a rule that might give the most dominant teams a distinct advantage they have done so, and at the same time precluded those teams that don't have experienced ex GP drivers on their payrole from employing someone who might be able to give them some sort of useful feedback on the weekend.
If this is the way F1 is going to be run it's time to switch it off. It sux.

[Super Tourer]

It's crazy IMO, another ill thought out rule.

There is a direct split between they way teams will approach Friday with their 3rd driver.

For Jordan and Minardi, it will be a pure money making exercise to sell the seat to 'local' drivers, hence they can run the 3rd car in a different livery.

For the mid-grid teams, it will be to test new parts/developments more cheaply as a substitiute for testing elsewhere.

For the front runners it's more time to pound around fine tuning the car.

For the latter two, you need an experienced test driver who can jump in and go, so to limit it to drivers with less than 6 GP's experience in two years is crazy, but hey - Williams, Ferrari and McLaren already have experienced test drivers who qualify to run as 3rd driver, under the new rules - funny that.

Yet, if this rule had stood a few years back, both Wurz and Gene would have been sat on the sidelines as you they couldn't have stepped from a race seat to a test seat, which if the rule stands, will mean that drivers who lose a drive cannot use their experience as a 3rd driver role.

What it will achieve is anybody's guess.

[PaulSands]

It's down to a certain team owner who felt that Renault gained too much from there brave step to go for Friday testing in '03

[climb]

When rules are set just for the pleasure of setting rules, this is the result; what's the matter with leaving teams free to hire as 3rd drivers whoever they want?

[frostblade]

You're right that the top 4 teams testers are allowed to run under the third driver rule (Montagny having done no GPs), however, the rule about running an extra driver on Friday only applies to the bottom 6 teams in the constructors championship from the previous year, so they aren't able to run their drivers on the Friday anyway.

[woodbine]

This is just another example of F1 shooting itself in the foot.

[John Abrahamsen]

Originally posted by PaulSands
It's down to a certain team owner who felt that Renault gained too much from there brave step to go for Friday testing in '03

Maybe so?

I don`t think that is the truth though. Maybe it is a way of bringing young guns into F1?

[jawa]

Nope. It's about a man in a grey sweater and a man in a red sweater ****ing all over Formula One... Fact!

[high contrast]

I think it's a good idea, we all know the 4 big bucks teams can afford to hire the best drivers available. Max was trying to narrow the gap between the 4 top teams whilst giving the 6 'also-ran' teams a chance to test young drivers who may (or may not) have backers who might become team sponsors whilst giving the local spectators a chance to see THEIR local hero drive around THEIR GP circuit.

However some '3rd drivers' are VERY experienced yet still fit within the 6 max GP rule...eg. Zonta and Davidson! Davidson has been quoted as saying it's his 'dream come true' to drive on all the world's great GP tracks (eg. Monaco) that otherwise he'd never get a chance to try, he also says he would prefer to be compared to more experienced drivers on the Friday not just novices.

I believe the 6 races rule will be challenged at the first meeting of the team principles (as it is possibly contary to EU/International employment rules?...any lawyers amongst us?

Thinking of Zonta and Davidson, these 2 drivers offer their respective teams a great advantage in that they know their teams and equipment so well that I'm sure their feed back, especially at the new circuits (China and Bahrain) will give Toyota and B.A.R. an initial advantage for first practice on Saturaday (assuming the weather and track conditions are similar!)

Also both Zonta and Davidson wont be shy about telling their respective teams 'race drivers' what THEY think, whereas a novice will be be less confident to do so!

I think it'll be very interesting, pity Fridays arn't televised.

[Smokey 6 litre]

Good intentions are the mother of all F**ck ups...another stupid rule for the sake of having a rule!

[high contrast]

Well that's killed that thread off!

[Bleu]

I just wonder is the rule that Ferrari, Williams, McLaren and Renault can't have third drivers at all or is it counted after every race. So if both Ferraris retire at Melbourne (so they won't be at top 4 after that) could they ran three cars at Sepang?

[ASCII Man]

Originally posted by Bleu
...So if both Ferraris retire at Melbourne (so they won't be at top 4 after that) could they ran three cars at Sepang?

Only Ferrari would probably be allowed to do that.

[Dutton]

It strikes me that al the changes that have been introduced thus far, followign the conclusion of the 2003 season, have been very much for the sake of changing rules: making it seem ever more "spiced", or however it may wish to be phrased now.

Perhaps they should re-think that one two, maybe F1 should be getting "relished" up?

We'll see, but it all seems a bit silly. I don't understand why they have felt the need to amalgamate the Friday and Saturday qualifying how they have (is it on the theory of giving Saturday race goers something more to see?). At a race I would prefer to have one on each day, and as a TV viewer most certainly do.

Oh, argghh, I have just remembered once more how we have hte beginning ofthe whole long-life parts thing, :-(... Grumphh. What about there plans of introducing ever more standardised parts for coming years, have htey come to fruitiion yet? Here's hoping not.

Still, ignoring these concerns, there is no reason to see things not improving over-all in F1 for next year. That is, here is hoping the competitiveness of the Top 4 will be more intense than last year, for that is ultimately better (stressful as it makes everything...).

Then, F1 being F1, there might be a big difference between them. We'll see.

There is much testing to go, and much speculation on the basis of not much in the waiting, :-).

[PaulSands]

Hey I've got an idea...lets switch the drivers round and have.....oh hang on yeah that was a cr*p idea last year and it's still a cr*p idea...should be a rule by March then

[high contrast]

Dutton...Seems BE felt the paying spectators (at the track) wern't getting value or proper entertainment on Saturdays.
Hope they are allowed in FOC then on Fridays!? hahaha

[PaulSands]

It's Sundays thats the problem...no F1 running till the race

[Red]

Originally posted by Dutton
It strikes me that al the changes that have been introduced thus far, followign the conclusion of the 2003 season, have been very much for the sake of changing rules: making it seem ever more "spiced", or however it may wish to be phrased now.

You can add the changes made for last season too.