What would be your choice?

[Daiboy]

Eddie, your so losing this battle mate...!!!!

[Yoong Montoya]

As much as I like Minardi and privateer teams, they do go bust eventually. If Bernie Eccelstone wants to save Minardi, he should buy it himself. We can't live in the past forever I'm afraid.

I'd rather have Minardi than 3 car teams from Williams and McLaren, but Minardi can't survive forever.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by Daiboy
Eddie, your so losing this battle mate...!!!!

This is not about winning or losing. I just can't understand how people want more competition in one hand, and in the other save Minardi at all costs.

Like I have said before, Minardi isn't providing the competition. Never have, never will have.

[ASCII Man]

Things aren't always black and white, NGE.

[NiceGuyEddie]

And why is that? Don't be too shy to back up an argument.

I can tell you, 1 Williams and 1 McLaren would add more to the competition than 2 Minardi's ever can.

Everybody keeps talking about a wide spectrum, but a wide spectrum will always be standing in the way of competition. The narrower the spectrum, the bigger the competition. Why do you think the rules are designed to nivilate the technical differences between the team? How can you on one hand want to make the field tighter in order to ensure more competition, yet on the other want to save a team who have never contributed anything to competition, rather than adding two cars, very much capable or stirring things up in the upper-midgrid field??

[Sodemo]

If Minardi did pull out, wouldn't the entire grid have to field 3 cars?
Why are people saying just Williams and Mclaren would field a 3rd car? Surely its in all team owner's interest to run 3 cars if so desired?

Would Flavio be happy with just 2 of his own cars running against 3 Williams and Mclarens?
I can't believe they will make 2 teams run a 3rd car and not the others.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by The Monster
If Minardi did pull out, wouldn't the entire grid have to field 3 cars?
Why are people saying just Williams and Mclaren would field a 3rd car? Surely its in all team owner's interest to run 3 cars if so desired?

From reading the article, I understand that both Williams and McLaren rather field 1 extra car than hand out money to Minardi.

When its agreed up on that the third car of a team that finishes within the points, only scores for the driverchampionship, not for the constructorschampionship, it should be do able to let teams run three cars if so desired.

Don't forget that to the early nineties on, teams were allowed to run only 1 car. It's nothing new to run different numbers of cars.

Penske ran 3 cars during their Indy-campagne, while rival Newman-Haas had two. Nobody complained about that.

[RWC]

Save minardi until the rules are changed to make it easy for cheap teams to survive.Why for example are teams required to build their own cars??????!!!!!!
That is complete idiocy max and bernie!!!!!!
and there are heaps of other things that should be changed too

[gttouring]

if we are going to save minardi let's bring back Arrows! jordan will always find some cash, if just enough, and minardi well, some how- but arrows were so beautiful and bloody fast down the straights if they coulds get there corners just right, Arrows could be worth watching, i always felt they were...

[golem]

Eddie, so what you're basically saying is that F1 needs to be: Manufacturer reliant and thereby, subject to their whims which change on the advice of an advertising head and a corporate restructure due to shareholder grumblings, is that it?

I personally think that the fact Minardi's 40million became an amount needed to barely show up is a sign the costs have GOT to come down, otherwise the whole show will indeed end up purely subject to the big manufacturers. And that's always been a recipe for disaster.

Also eddie, when you raise the stakes to 3 car teams it becomes a huuuge problem to attract new entries. You need 3 drivers, 3 cars, a damn big budget just making numbers. No, I think F1 needs and I mean needs desperately to be dragged back into some kind of reality. As it is, the heights they have hit are stupidly out of touch with the rest of the racing world and the racing isn't any better, nor are the cars all that technologically better as I've stated before. Sure, they have alot of advances and tricks but they're now all specific to the regulations and the cars. They're very much limited in their road applications.

I can't see how letting manufacturers keep this up can be good for the FIA, who also need the money to run the other leagues, or motorsport in general, by destroying another sport as they've done in the past.

But I'm just a naysayer, a doomsday 'sky is falling' type. It'll never happen to F1. Not like touring cars. V8 supercars, group A, Transam (I think?) and a few other categories they got involved in. I mean, it's F1. They obviously must respect it's importance.

[Mekola]

I voted for save Minardi too.
For the drivers it will be better that top teams could add a third car but, will they want to put it on the grid? Also the third driver could be used a #3 driver, and teams could made blocking strategies between drivers #2 (Barrich... ) and #3 (Mass...) to let #1 (Michael von Trips -revenger overrevenged-) driver to ensure victory, with no risks for him!
In the other way, last two seasons demonstrated if you're a talented driver you could shone in a Minardi. Alonso did it, Webber the same, and not only for scoring points.

[Mekola]

Three cars... More competition or strategy complication??? Eventual third car in a race sounds good (to promote the tester), but...
It isn't the Golden Era, it could be another one in terms of big marques but isn't in the sense of the 30s. But much I though about these who wants the cuspide of high-tech and the excellence of all costs looks at that era to refer what F1 they want.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by golem
Eddie, so what you're basically saying is that F1 needs to be: Manufacturer reliant and thereby, subject to their whims which change on the advice of an advertising head and a corporate restructure due to shareholder grumblings, is that it?

F1 is participant-reliant. Every sport is participant reliant. Modernday F1 is perfect for manufacturers to compete. You can't blame them for wanting to get something out of it in terms of commercialinterests. God knows they do pay enough.

Thinking of F1's future in terms of small, 'participating is more important than winning', is a view which is stuck in romantic outlook on the past. Lets face it, those days are gone. Even when we would have 11 privateers lined up against 1 or 2 manufacturers, the manufacturers will always win. Unless those privateers have succeeded in landing manufacturer-alliances as McLaren and Williams have. Be honest here, the only difference between Minardi and McLaren/Williams is that the latter have managed to succeed in the sport, and are therefor still in it for the win.

Be that as it may, manufacturers will always dominate the sport where privateers are concerned. The future of F1 does not lie with the privateers. The sport has moved on and has reached new levels of professionalism, has reached new technical levels, and yes, as a consequence, has reached new financial levels. When privateers can't keep up, than thats a natural concequence as well.

The financial level of Formula 1 is dictated by the economic situation, because thats what determines the budgets competitors are willing to spend. The economic situation applies to everyone. And yes, others are richer than others. So?

Moreover, I wouldn't say a manufacturers come and go as it pleases them. If Formula 1 stays a series in which an ultimate technical level is combined with serious racing, than there definatly will be a commercial need to stay in F1. Minardi can't provide either one of em and never has provided us with either one of em. The need for an underdog is no valid argument, because there will always be a team that finishes last.

Besides, history shows that manufacturers come and go and come back again. There has never been a lack of manufacturerteams. When teams go, new ones step in.

Be that as it may. Bernie is trying to tie the manufacturers down untill 2015 in a new Concorde Agreement. Will that satisfy you? It will at least take care of the problem.

If there will be rules that can maximise the budgets, even than Minardi will be in trouble. I don't think the maximum will be set at anything Minardi can afford, so they will remain on their existence minimum, trying to making ends meet year in year out. But even so, budgettary rules are rules for the future. If the come too late for Minardi, than Minardi needs to call it a day, for Formula 1 is not about charity, far from it. Not if you want to keep the competition pure.

If people feel the absence of Minardi presents us with a quantity-problem, than the offer of McLaren and Williams to fill that gap up with their cars, should be welcomed.

[alfasud]

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
Moreover, I wouldn't say a manufacturers come and go as it pleases them. If Formula 1 stays a series in which an ultimate technical level is combined with serious racing, than there definatly will be a commercial need to stay in F1. Minardi can't provide either one of em and never has provided us with either one of em. The need for an underdog is no valid argument, because there will always be a team that finishes last.

Besides, history shows that manufacturers come and go and come back again. There has never been a lack of manufacturerteams. When teams go, new ones step in.

In that case there would be no need for anyone to run a third car..... not with all these teams rushing to step forward to fill the gap!

So what if Minardi and Jordan leave..... maybe Sauber next? Will Jaguar/Ford want to be the major manufacturer running last in the world championship? Will Ford increase it's budget to run a third car, or will it decide to increase the WRC budget and bring the Jaguar name back to Le Mans?

Minardi has been running in F1 for longer than BMW or Toyota. Yes I'm sure these manufacturers could fund another car. They could also do like Toyota and Honda in CART and leave when it suits them.

I don't say fund Minardi at *all* costs, but if the distribution of F1 income can be done in a way to save the smaller teams and prevent F1 being totally manufacturer dominated, then that's what should be done.

As for Frank Williams, I think he would quickly change his point of view, if BMW built their own car and he found himself standing in line for customer Cosworth engines (note: it's just an expression - I know he wouldn't be standing).

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by alfasud
In that case there would be no need for anyone to run a third car..... not with all these teams rushing to step forward to fill the gap!

So what if Minardi and Jordan leave..... maybe Sauber next? Will Jaguar/Ford want to be the major manufacturer running last in the world championship? Will Ford increase it's budget to run a third car, or will it decide to increase the WRC budget and bring the Jaguar name back to Le Mans?

Minardi has been running in F1 for longer than BMW or Toyota. Yes I'm sure these manufacturers could fund another car. They could also do like Toyota and Honda in CART and leave when it suits them.

I don't say fund Minardi at *all* costs, but if the distribution of F1 income can be done in a way to save the smaller teams and prevent F1 being totally manufacturer dominated, then that's what should be done.

As for Frank Williams, I think he would quickly change his point of view, if BMW built their own car and he found himself standing in line for customer Cosworth engines (note: it's just an expression - I know he wouldn't be standing).

Minardi longer in F1 than BMW? Yet BMW powered the Brabhams and now the Williams´. In both occasions fairly succesful, more succesful than Minardi has been or ever will be.

Its simple. Manufacturers leave when their interests are no longer protected, privateers leave when they can no longer afford it. The only way a privateer can get some long-livety is by getting an exclusive engine-deal from a...manufacturer.

Its a simple law of economics. The more participants quite, the more interesting it gets to join. If Ford leaves the premissis, than Volkswagen/Audi would probably want to reconsider. There is a lot of money to be made in F1, but as in any economic market, you have to spend some to get some.

Be that as it may, people talk about preventing F1 from being manufacturer dominated. Well, wake up and smell the roses, F1 already is manufacturer dominated. Just look at grid positions. Who is running the show? Minardi? Jordan? Sauber perhaps? No, not really.

If you want an all privateershow, or a show that is run by the privateers, then you´re opting for F1 on a lower level.

So, if GPWC does get substantial and the manufacturers leave F1 to start up their own series (talk about commitment for running in a raceseries. I can´t see any privateers looking elsewhere when F1 is no longer the place for them), F1 as we know it, is dead. It will be limited to privateers and the money and technical level will be elsewhere.

A raceseries with a high technical and financial level, can provide exciting races, just as a series with a low technical level can. And a low level series can provide boring races just as well. The fact that 2002 was boring, was because of the domination of one competitor, not because of the financial standard. Domination of one competitor can always happen. Just a matter of getting it right, or just better than everyone else.

[Mekola]

Pardon. Bernie at first wants the manufacturers. Mind 1989, when there was 20 team entries but only 4 fully provided by high-fly manufacturer engines (how a surprise, there are the top four teams what won in that season), and the rest supported by smaller manufacturers or customer engines (Lamborghini, Yamaha, Cosworths, Judds). Around the first 90s, Bernie increased the exigence of teams because he don't want improvisators on the grid, item that was no matter in the past (don't think only at Andrea Moda and Life, there were the LEC, the Connew, the Scarab, the German privateers in 1952-53, and much more). 1996 was the deadline of the underdogs as we know it at that moment. Minardi (ocassionally with Tyrrell, later Arrows, later Prost), was the underdog since then.
We know that Bernie must built a quality exigence to atract all major manufacturers to the F1, but the fact for what he made it it's gone.
The VAG group and GM, the only manufacturers who are out of the F1 business, are out and with no interest to come in because they know it will be too difficult and must spend too much to compete in some middle level. That could be one reason because now the F1 thinks to get down the costs.
But you forgot the other main fact that come to interest to all F1 fans: [blink]DRIVERS[/blink]. Less cars means less drivers and with that it could be decrease the interest of spectators of some regions.
At least you see about you a crude ultra-neo-liberal mind; in your point of view, there is no need of the FIA to put the rules to the F1 in the favour of the sport (as in the world life the States must put rules to companies in the favour of economics in general).

[Mekola]

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
Minardi longer in F1 than BMW? Yet BMW powered the Brabhams and now the Williams´. In both occasions fairly succesful, more succesful than Minardi has been or ever will be.

Minardi first entry at F1 was as team Everest in 1976, who entered a privateer Ferrari #36 driven by Giancarlo Martini at non-Championship races at Imola and Brands Hatch. That was five years before the first BMW F1 involvement at Brabham in 1981 (racing since 1982) to 1987.

[NiceGuyEddie]

But you forgot the other main fact that come to interest to all F1 fans: [blink]DRIVERS[/blink]. Less cars means less drivers and with that it could be decrease the interest of spectators of some regions.

no no, nobody is talking about less cars. Replacing the two Minardi's with 1 extra McLaren and 1 extra Williams, does NOT constitute less cars.

Besides, wouldnt you think the richer the team, the more capable they'll be to put a car on the grid, and even a competitive car? Money is more of a guarantee of presence on the grid then no money at all.

Some of you are wrapped up in the idea that privateers equals sport and sport equals exciting races. Hows that? Purely because they are in a chronic need of money, rather trying to make ends meet than actuall competing during the season?

I say, money equals a competitive team, equals sport, equals exciting races. No money means per definition a lack of competitivenesss and therefor no contribution to the sport itself. So what if the big players are making money while competing? At least they are competing or having a fair shot at actually competing.

We all agree that F1 should be about competition. Minardi has never contributed to anything close to competition.