What would be your choice?

[NiceGuyEddie]

...Meanwhile, with less than a week until the opening race of the 2003 season gets underway in Stoddart's home country, the Australian insists that Formula One would be facing ‘suicide' if his small team were allowed to fold. Dennis and Williams insist that they will run an extra car to make up the numbers if it comes to that, however Stoddart insists that to go below ten teams will only cheapen the show.

"Unfortunately, the problem with F1 is that certain people look too closely at their own little empire and refuse to see what's good for the sport,” he said. “I'm not one of them. To fall below 10 teams would be suicide for F1 because it will actually cheapen the product to an unacceptable level, to the point of driving fans and sponsors away."

Again, Stoddarts is playing the sympathy card, just because it plays into his own hands. He says 'F1 will die on a less than 10 grid' but what he really is saying is, 'give Minardi some money because otherwise we can't afford to run'. In that effect, I really don't think Paul is any different from Ron and Frank where the interests of their teams is concerned. I don't see that as a problem, because it is only natural for a teammanager/-owner, but at least Frank and Ron are somewhat honest about it. It's a bit too optimistic of Paul to assume that Minardi contributes anything to what F1 is supposed to be. They are making up the numbers, which is actually what he is saying all along. Should Minardi be saved at all costs, just because they need to make op the numbers?

Well, with Frank and Ron supplying the grid with both 1 extra car, the need for Minardi no longer exists.

Would you be willing to wave Minardi out when we got a McLaren and a Williams in its place?

What are the pro's and con's?

I would say, in that case, the avarage level of Formula 1 would be raised once more. Something that in itself is always in favour of anything what Formula 1 is about.

Secondly, both McLaren and Williams have provided far more spectacle over the past two decades than Minardi ever has. A Williams or McLaren can realisticly challenge for podiumfinishes and battle in upper-midfield. Far more than any Minardi could ever accomplish.

Against the issue would be the fact that McLaren and Williams would gain an unfair advantage in the constructorsseries. I suppose that could be solved by only allowing the first two cars (assuming that all three cars would finish in the points) can score for the constructorschampionship. I however do think that any third driver should be able to compete for the drivertitle on his own merit. So, when a driver finishes in the third Williams or McLaren, driverpoints are received, constructorspoints not.

All in all, I would be voting for a threecar topteam.

[enemy-ace]

I would only vote for 3 car teams if all the remaining teams ran 3 cars (the advantages for only 2 teams to run 3 cars are too great), otherwise I would rather see Minardi stay. Propping them up maybe, but saving them at all costs isn't acceptable.

[Miss Hardt]

Save Minardi, of course. Better than more domination.

[BootsOntheSide]

Defiantely save Mianrdi. Save the little guys, F1's conveyer belt of talent, the link to the glory days of close racing without corporate bloodsucking, the days when the tracks weren't sanitised Tilke monstrosities and the cars could actually be raced, with good drivers doing better than poor ones.

[Mr V]

Let Williams and McLaren have 3 cars, but ferrari would have to stick to 2

[Asp]

The problem with only partially running three teams will be, at least in the short term, how they decide to award points. Nominate drivers (ie. as in WRC) - but the teams may not be happy as all they'll gain is silverware (driver still earns points however); or make it top two cars home (which'll annoy all the other teams as they don't have that safety cushion is a car goes bang).

On the Minardi front, would F1 'die' without them? Doubt it.
Would it suffer? Of course, independents like Minardi, Jordan, and Sauber are par of the course for F1, and we don't want to make F1 entirely big manufacter based, as Boots says, the little guys add the atmosphere!

[Snrub]

It would be a hell of a lot cheaper for everyone to pay a few million to Minardi to keep them afloat.

[NiceGuyEddie]

The little guys add the atmosphere? How is that? When was the last time Minardi ever set a track on fire? Sure, Webber took two points in Melbourne. Thats nice, but hardly the reason F1 is what it is today.

I've said it again, from the outside we wouldnt know which cars are run by manufacturers, and which are not. In fact, what precisly is the difference? Jordan, Minardi and Sauber are the only teams not directly linked to manufacturers-support. So?

Whats the real problem? Manufacturers coming in and out F1 as they please? Sure, but privateers go broke eventually. You only need one manufacturer to drive costs up. So i'd rather have 1 manufacturer driving the costs up and 5 manaufacturers going along, then 10 privateers going broke as a concequence.

Be realistic. Minardi has no added value to F1. Never had, never will have. If Minardi would die, it will be placed along the names of Tyrrell, Brabham, Lotus, Cooper and so forth. F1 has outlived the most famous names, and I don't think Minardi is going to be the one that kills F1.

So, 10 team grids are the problem? McLaren and Williams are handing a solution. Sure, there will be the logistic problems, but those are of a practical nature, and thus very solvable.

What would the teams themselves want? I suspect an overall healthier grid by replacing two virtual non-contenders with two upper-midfield- or even toprunners.

Besides, how to sponsor Minardi? When is it enough? When Minardi succeeds in merely surviving? That would imply that heir budget needs to be raised to the minimum which is needed to exist. But, where does that minimum lie? And how will it make Minardi a better value than a Williams and a McLaren?

[Epsilon]

Keep Minardi for sure. Everybody loves an underdog.

[x_dt]

The more teams the better (more variety). If Williams or McLaren run 3 cars and one of them gains the initiative (over Ferrari as well as everyone else) then it raises the prospect of one team monopolising the podium (as happened with Penske in CART in 1994 when they had 3 cars).

[Jordi]

First keep Minardi. If it's not possible, then we'll talk...

[BootsOntheSide]

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
The little guys add the atmosphere? How is that? When was the last time Minardi ever set a track on fire? Sure, Webber took two points in Melbourne. Thats nice, but hardly the reason F1 is what it is today.

I've said it again, from the outside we wouldnt know which cars are run by manufacturers, and which are not. In fact, what precisly is the difference? Jordan, Minardi and Sauber are the only teams not directly linked to manufacturers-support. So?

Whats the real problem? Manufacturers coming in and out F1 as they please? Sure, but privateers go broke eventually. You only need one manufacturer to drive costs up. So i'd rather have 1 manufacturer driving the costs up and 5 manaufacturers going along, then 10 privateers going broke as a concequence.

Be realistic. Minardi has no added value to F1. Never had, never will have. If Minardi would die, it will be placed along the names of Tyrrell, Brabham, Lotus, Cooper and so forth. F1 has outlived the most famous names, and I don't think Minardi is going to be the one that kills F1.

So, 10 team grids are the problem? McLaren and Williams are handing a solution. Sure, there will be the logistic problems, but those are of a practical nature, and thus very solvable.

What would the teams themselves want? I suspect an overall healthier grid by replacing two virtual non-contenders with two upper-midfield- or even toprunners.

Besides, how to sponsor Minardi? When is it enough? When Minardi succeeds in merely surviving? That would imply that heir budget needs to be raised to the minimum which is needed to exist. But, where does that minimum lie? And how will it make Minardi a better value than a Williams and a McLaren?

I don't like what F1 is today - its becoming soulless and profit-orientated. Webber's finish at Minardi was one of the most popular moments of the year, because it was so human - we all love to see a little guy beat the odds.

Of course we know which teams are ran by manufacturers. We've all heard of names like Ferrari and Toyota, and BMW and Mercedes promotional literature adorns the cars and publicity.

One manufacturer driving the costs up - Toyota, no doubt over the enxt few years - is precisely what the new rules were designed to protect against. The big car companies simply can't afford to plough and endless stream of money in just to finish fourth. Ford have massive financial problems, and some day a suit at Ferrari will notice that they spend 1/3 of their takings on the F1 team, and decide to pull the team out. Small teams are the heart, soul and backbone of racing - incidents like Austria show that the manufacurers reprewsent other part so fthe body.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide
I don't like what F1 is today - its becoming soulless and profit-orientated. Webber's finish at Minardi was one of the most popular moments of the year, because it was so human - we all love to see a little guy beat the odds.

Of course we know which teams are ran by manufacturers. We've all heard of names like Ferrari and Toyota, and BMW and Mercedes promotional literature adorns the cars and publicity.

One manufacturer driving the costs up - Toyota, no doubt over the enxt few years - is precisely what the new rules were designed to protect against. The big car companies simply can't afford to plough and endless stream of money in just to finish fourth. Ford have massive financial problems, and some day a suit at Ferrari will notice that they spend 1/3 of their takings on the F1 team, and decide to pull the team out. Small teams are the heart, soul and backbone of racing - incidents like Austria show that the manufacurers reprewsent other part so fthe body.

Soulless? So now Schumachers joy isn't real? Montoya's joy after reaching a hotlap-record isn't real? Isn't professional sport about being succesful? About being good enough to actually fight for the goods (points)? Either win or loose, just good enough to have a fair shot?

And how would it be when Minardi finishes in the points every race? Surely the joy wouldn't be as big. So what exactly do you want? A downgrid team just because you need to feel happy once every 3 years when they actually score 1 or 2 points? Thats just silly. Of course its great to see Minardi grab some success, but surely no raison d' etre in itself.

Besides, there'll always be one team finishing last. You'll never loose your underdog. I watch the sport to see who's winning and who's challenging. I usually don't really care for who's losing. I never understood how that can be fun.

Of course we know what teams are manufactures. The point is, does it make any realistic difference? I think not. Even more so, manufactures are better equiped to provide the sporting spectacle. For instance, who is going to fight Ferrari's domination? I can tell you, it won't be Minardi. It will never be Minardi.

How can the new rules be designed to go against raising costs? If there is no maximum budget, the money will we spend. Perhaps it won't be spend on the development of new alloys or brakediscs or whatever, but its just plain naive to believe it'll mean that the rich teams won't spend their budgets.

And how can you state the manufacturers will drive prices up, yet at the same time stating that they're in financial trouble? A privateer in financial trouble won't compete, as we all have witnessed. Privateers have left just as easy as manufacturers have left. Only upside for the manufacturers is, they have a bigger chance of returning and actually contributing in the fight for victory.

Small teams the backbone? I beg to differ. What if those small teams get succesful? Get bigger? See their budgets grow as a consequence per definition?. That is a no-win situation. If they are small, they will never make the sport (seriously, who is talking about Minardi's performances (or lack there of) during a season?), if they're big they're in it for the money.

Austria has got nothing to do with the difference between manufactures and privateers. We could go the boxingway: staging pre-ordained fights, just to make it look exciting and spectacular. I'm obviously the only one in thanking Ferrari not to fool me and take my intelligence seriously. Which is exactly what they wouldn't have done if they made it look like Michael had to battle Rubens. And I don't believe you are naive enough to have bought that. I never understood the Indy-rattle either. I for one wasn't even paying attention to Ferrari let alone which of their two drivers was going to take it. And I'm a fan of the team!

Anyway....

I truly believe the Frank Williamses or Ron Dennisses of this world are much more attached to the heart and soul of Formula 1, than Paul Stoddart ever will be. The mere fact that they actually helped Formula 1 in reaching its stature of the pinnacle of motorsport and were very succesful, doesn't make them any less than Paul Stoddart, nor does that make their respective teams any less than Minardi. I think its rather unrealistic to state the contrary.

If Minardi's only forte is some romantic view of the historic amateurism, then you are looking at the past when you should be looking at the future. Perhaps Minardi's present level could have gotten em somewhere 5 years ago, but if thats true, than they're just 5 years too late, aren't they?

[Daiboy]

I totally agree with Bootsontheside. And i think it is wrong to say that by our continued support of minardi, and the other more (colour full) smaller teams, that we are not looking to the future. The current state of F1, in terms of the monopoly the Manufactures have on it at the mo, means that we need teams like Minardi to stay involved. We live in the past because it was good, and we look to the future hoping it will be a damn site better than the present.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by Daiboy
I totally agree with Bootsontheside. And i think it is wrong to say that by our continued support of minardi, and the other more (colour full) smaller teams, that we are not looking to the future. The current state of F1, in terms of the monopoly the Manufactures have on it at the mo, means that we need teams like Minardi to stay involved. We live in the past because it was good, and we look to the future hoping it will be a damn site better than the present.

How can there be a monopoly when they are fighting against eachother? Ferrari's domination is unfortunate for the sport, but is in no way a sign of any strucural manufacturers-monopoly.

A few years ago the FIA introduced the entryfee to keep Formula 1 clear of teams like Andrea Moda and Forti. Not to say that Minardi is on their level, but it means that the FIA thinks the teams have to fulfill some kind of minimum standard. At the moment, Minardi isn't contributing in a sporting way, nor does it seem financially able.

The only problem it could lead to, is smaller grids. Now, in my book, 18 cars wouldn't be a problem at all. In 2002, we had 19 car grids. Were those races any different from those in which 20 cars started? No, they weren't. Sure, six cars is maybe too little, but I think the grid can miss 1 or 2 teams before it really starts to hurt.

Anyway, if you insist on the idea that the F1 grid should not go below 10 teams, than Williams and McLaren have provided a solution. Both are privateers I might add. Only difference with Minardi is, success and manufacturerdeals. However, I'll let you in on a little secret: Paul Stoddart would sign a deal like that rather today than tomorrow.

With McLaren and Williams providing each one car, we wouldn't need Minardi, and I haven't heard a single valid argument to keep them running at all costs, just to make up the numbers.

The stature of F1 demands to have their grid fielded by the best racingteams in the world. It isn't about a large spectrum in which there is place for poor, unsuccesful teams, just because there is some psychological need for underdogs. When the two Minardi's are replaced with one Williams and one McLaren, the overall F1 grid will be at a higher level. Surely, an extra McLaren and an extra Williams will present more threat than any Minardi ever could have.

It's the wide spectrum of teamabillity which kills competition in the first place. Essential for competition is a close range of abillity. For example, of teams had succeeded in building a car close to the abillities of a F2002, then and only then, we had a battle on our hands.

The smaller the range between abillities, the bigger the battle.

Sounds logical enough for me, to seriously consider not to sponsor Minardi and getting a Williams and a McLaren in their place.

[Smokey 6 litre]

SAVE MINARDI,
sport is about competition,
and williams and mclaren runniung three would bring more competition,
BUT,
i voted to save minardi,
if you get to the point where there are a few teams with similar car that would get very boring,
motorsport is about constant development of carm
more teams adds to that development and the speed of it.
SAVE MINARDI.

[f1manoz]

I'd rather save Minardi than let corporate machines run more cars.

[Snrub]

MS's joy is far less substantial than Mark Webber's 5th place. Children love to win regardless of how. If they win by cheating they are equally as happy as winning by their own merrit. Any normal person would tire of having the deck stack in his favour. MS should be the first person to say "What are we doing? This isn't drivers racing. Let's change the rules." Instead he finds joy in being unchallanged.

The likes of Frank Williams and Ove Anderson suck the fun out of F1. They don't have fun racing. The rod up their @sses has a rod up it's @ss. For most teams and drivers F1 becomes a job; punch in, punch out.

Minardi goes out their every weekend knowing they will not come close to winning. They obviously do it for different reasons than Frank Williams or they'd have given up by now.

[steve nielsen]

Just think about it, Arrows gone, Tyrrell gone Ligier gone, and now maybe Minardi??

is F1 a sport or a very expensive commercial for car manufacturers??

I think it still is a sport and the small teams need help to keep it that way.

F1 with only 7 teams and 21 cars(that's without the 3 private teams:Minardi,Jordan and Sauber) would'nt be very interesting anyway, the best thing for a motorsport is to have as many different cars/teams as possible.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by Smokey 6 litre
SAVE MINARDI,
sport is about competition,
and williams and mclaren runniung three would bring more competition,
BUT,
i voted to save minardi,
if you get to the point where there are a few teams with similar car that would get very boring,
motorsport is about constant development of carm
more teams adds to that development and the speed of it.
SAVE MINARDI.

Am I misreading, or are you contradicting yourself?

How has Minardi and teams like Minardi ever contributed to competition? Running at the back, getting lapped, does not constitute taking part in competition.

Similar teams with a similar car would get boring? Not at all. If similar teams have a similar car, than you'd have a battle on your hands. Per definition even. How in the world can that be boring?

Motorsport is about constant development of cars you say. Indeed, but surely, if you'd want that to happen, you'd have to look for manufacturers to pull it off. Minardi is not about developing. It's about merely keeping up with it, and doing a bad job at that.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by Snrub

The likes of Frank Williams and Ove Anderson suck the fun out of F1. They don't have fun racing. The rod up their @sses has a rod up it's @ss. For most teams and drivers F1 becomes a job; punch in, punch out.

Minardi goes out their every weekend knowing they will not come close to winning. They obviously do it for different reasons than Frank Williams or they'd have given up by now.

Ohw come on. How could you take yourself seriously? Isn't Frank Williams the personification of a teamowner running fuel thru is vaines rather than blood? I suppose you know how Williams started out. Has success changed the man? I don't think so. Professional sport is never 'fun'. Its business. Its business because it costs a hel of a lot of money. It will always be expensive to compete in F1. It will always be expensive to compete in any professional sport. Pure, unadulterated fun is for amateurs.

And what good does an amateur do in a field of professionals?

Since when do we need to celebrate the contenders that are just there to make up the numbers? That are just entering just for the hell of it. Lord knows they're not in it for the win. Not even for trying to go for the win. They seem to know that themselves even. Explain to me, what is the fun in that?

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by steve nielsen

F1 with only 7 teams and 21 cars(that's without the 3 private teams:Minardi,Jordan and Sauber) would'nt be very interesting anyway, the best thing for a motorsport is to have as many different cars/teams as possible.

Care to elborate on that?

You are talking about quantity prevaling over quality. In my theory, 10 very good cars, cars within very close technical range amongst eachother, give a better chance of close racing, than 20 cars, very widely ranged in ability. In a wide range, the same team will always win, the same team will always take second, the same team will always be third and so forth.

In 2002 we could always predict Ferrari to win and Minardi to come last, if they made it that far. In midfield whoever, predictions were as impossible as ever.

Everybody talks about wanting to have close racing, yet everone wants to grid to be as big as possible, with a range of abillities as wide as possible. Isn't it clear that those two don't mix?

[Gt_R]

The pot calling da kettle black...

Stoddart shouldn't make himself seem as the goody guys. Afterall, all team managers are the ultimate selfish guys who are just after success and victory.

I'd be choosing having Minardi over seeing teams run three cars.

Why?

Firstly, there is no point in having the top 8 positions filled by only 3 teams. It's killing the sports. What we need is variety, and considering that top teams have already dominate the top spots, this idea would worsen the situation.

Secondly, if Mclaren and Williams are to field 3 car teams, this would have to be applied across the board to make the championship fair. Say if Mclaren and Williams run 3 cars, Jaguar and Jordan run 2, it is unfair as it gives the former 2 a higher possibility to achieve better results (ie reliability issues), even if only 2 of their 3 cars are counted for results.

However, to apply 3 cars per team rule to everyone, it would only increase operation cost to the smaller teams. They would need more funds to build and race the cars, yet harder to get results, and this would in term cause them to pack up over time.

True..having a Minardi won't really make much difference to the top standings... but having less teams run three cars would only make the whole championship even more dull.

I'd choose having Minardi than 3 Mclarens or Williams...only if i really need to choose.

[Snrub]

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie Ohw come on. How could you take yourself seriously? Isn't Frank Williams the personification of a teamowner running fuel thru is vaines rather than blood? I suppose you know how Williams started out. Has success changed the man? I don't think so. Professional sport is never 'fun'. Its business. Its business because it costs a hel of a lot of money. It will always be expensive to compete in F1. It will always be expensive to compete in any professional sport. Pure, unadulterated fun is for amateurs.

I'm not questioning Frank's ability or dedication. Seriously though, how much money does Frank personally pull in? What about the shareholders? Racing for contenders is not exactly a profitable business. Racing became treated like a business because it was expensive. It makes sense to run it "like a business" in that it doesn't hemerage money. If I was planning on making money, I certainly wouldn't put my money in stock for a racing team. High risk, zero returns. For a guy like Frank, he probably draws a nice salary, but it likely has little return when compared to the capital invested and the effort and talent required. People don't like it when you badmouth Frank, but I lost a lot of respect for the man after HHF went to Jordan.

Since when do we need to celebrate the contenders that are just there to make up the numbers? That are just entering just for the hell of it. Lord knows they're not in it for the win. Not even for trying to go for the win. They seem to know that themselves even. Explain to me, what is the fun in that?

They obviously like racing and trying to achieve some sort of success. Clearly for Minardi they are not measuring success purely by victory. Last year it was far more interesting to see who Webber could get by with a lesser car then it was to see MS continue his masterbation of victory.

[Valve Bounce]

I voted for Minardi - and having read some of your posts, NGE, I'm not even going to argue with you.