Well, isn't this interesting...

[veeten]

A possible 11th entry, by Ottmar Szafnauer, no less...
Check it out on autosport.com...

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by veeten

A possible 11th entry, by Ottmar Szafnauer, no less...
Check it out on autosport.com...

Article here - despite the headline, it sounds like a very, very long way from being a reality. Might be an attempt made however & I'm with you V10, it could be very interesting.

[S griffin]

F1 needs to start encouraging more teams to join. After the Andretti saga, they need to drop this elitist attitude. I wish Otmar the best. It's only in the planning stage atm, so hopefully more we will hear more in good time

[flatlandsman]

If a company with massive history in F1 and a manufacturer on board as well as decades running teams in various areas cannot get in, (I think they will eventually) I doubt this one gets even remotely close sadly.

[ChrisA]

I think the FIA will limit the entry list to 12 teams, purely on safety grounds. 24 cars going into the first corner could cause mayhem, sometimes does with 20 cars. I love to go back to the 70's when we had pre-qualification.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by S griffin

F1 needs to start encouraging more teams to join. After the Andretti saga, they need to drop this elitist attitude. I wish Otmar the best. It's only in the planning stage atm, so hopefully more we will hear more in good time

I think you should stop with the 'elitist' thing. The reason is purely financial in that the ten teams wish to keep the whole pot to themselves rather than they think they are better than anyone else.
I agree with your view that there should be more teams and I think twelve would be the correct balance between 'more to enjoy' and 'safety'. I too would like to see Andretti and one other up there on the grid.

Re. the 24 cars in to the first corner thing could be alleviated by giving a slightly larger gap between the (staggered) rows on the grid.

[Adam43]

So greed masquerading as elitism?

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by Adam43

So greed masquerading as elitism?

I can't even give them that. It's greed masquerading as ........ greed.

[chillibowl]

obviously with this sport and the players in it one cannot discount the level of greed involved...but on the other hand, given the amount of improvement we have seen by the teams this year, the seeming success of the cap rules, the narrowing gap between lap times during quali sessions, the number of different winners and teams at the sharp end this season etc.

i dont think we can completely discount the desire to maintain this level of increasing competitiveness across the 10 existing teams as also being a factor in their desire to maintain the current number of teams.

add 1-2 teams, add 2-4 drivers, change rules whether it be length of grid or i assume also to the quali format, the risk of more SC/VSC periods, existing teams having to supply those new team, dilution of staff across more teams only to see new entries flounder at the back for years...

what exactly would be the sporting reason to add more teams?

[flatlandsman]

The simple fact is they have got what they want this year at Liberty, the domination has been taken apart,you have consistently different winners and the product is going to therefore go from strength to strength, no team worth their salt wants ANYBODY else to have a piece of that pie. I wouldn't if I was involved.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

obviously with this sport and the players in it one cannot discount the level of greed involved...but on the other hand, given the amount of improvement we have seen by the teams this year, the seeming success of the cap rules, the narrowing gap between lap times during quali sessions, the number of different winners and teams at the sharp end this season etc.

i dont think we can completely discount the desire to maintain this level of increasing competitiveness across the 10 existing teams as also being a factor in their desire to maintain the current number of teams.

add 1-2 teams, add 2-4 drivers, change rules whether it be length of grid or i assume also to the quali format, the risk of more SC/VSC periods, existing teams having to supply those new team, dilution of staff across more teams only to see new entries flounder at the back for years...

what exactly would be the sporting reason to add more teams?

More drivers... more opportunities to see people have a go, at least get on the grid instead of reserve driver status.

The convergence is not because of the limit on entries.
It's simply an evolution of design around a fixed set of rules.
It has always been that way.

More safety cars/vsc periods makes for more variety, more upsets, more unpredictable results, even if adding 4 cars would automatically make more interventions necessary.
Statically you would say yes it would, but not necessarily.
Sunday at spa was completely intervention free so would adding 4 cars automatically mean more problems? No.

There are a number of rules and procedures that over the years have added to the interventionist procedures. Things like more awareness of safety etc, and a greater social call for more intervention in dangerous situations plus insurance.
You could have 26, and that limit only came about because of the limitations of Monaco and later on because of pit lane length and space etc.

I would happily go back to prequalifying but who could afford to NOT qualify these days?

[GTRMagic]

7 winners in the season so far isn’t a bad watch…

[flatlandsman]

From what was going on last two years this is exactly my point, I have no idea if the racing is any good as I do not watch, I merely keep up with basics and news, but this basic aspect will keep the sport in the limelight

[Tourer]

Not sure if this is best here or in the Andretti thread, but I found this part of the latest Job Saward blog to be really interesting, talking about Ollie Oakes taking on the TP role at Alpine:

It is not surprising in that Oakes has ambitions in Formula 1 and it might even be the first sign of the team being sold – as Oakes has the backing for an F1 team, which was going to be called Hitech, from a very wealthy Kazakh called Vladimir Kim, who is one of the wealthiest man in Kazakhstan. That did not happen but there is an ongoing legal action between Oakes and the FIA regarding the rejection. This is all being done through an arbitration process which is private and confidential, which means that we will probably never find out who won and who lost, nor what it cost either party.

Whilst Andretti has been making a lot of noise, at least one of the other rejected entries has not gone away and has "gone legal". Maybe the FIA President's about turn on new teams (he now believes they should buy an existing team) is as much to do with this arbitration as anything else?

[S griffin]

Guess we’ll never know the answer given that Oakes is now running Alpine.

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

have no idea if the racing is any good as I do not watch

this is brand new information

[chunterer]

The Oakes hire is very likely linked to the exit of Alpine's ownership.

Alpine leaving would not be a disaster for F1 as it's only 2 cars worth of engine supply...

If the Mercedes board suddenly changed policy then that would be very awkward.
But I think Toto has worked quite hsrd over thevyears to ensure the Beackley lot are not indelibly linked to Daimler Benz board decisions abd would quickly 'reformm' as 'Imeos Team Petronas' or something with a supply of Brixworth rebadged engines.

As for the customers though what would they do?!

[veeten]

Which sounds like they want to have a similar situation like Red Bull Racing. Eying Alpine as a "B-team" to move their "next up" competitors onto the F1 grid. Ferrari already does that to Haas, with Bearman, so why not.

This is why new teams are necessary, independent teams that will not be turned into "errand boys" for the manufacturers.

[chillibowl]

sorry for the delayed response...i'll apologize by making it long!

Originally Posted by Teretonga

More drivers... more opportunities to see people have a go, at least get on the grid instead of reserve driver status.

for sure more seats means more drivers but for me it doesnt follow that more will lead to a better field overall.

granted, is the optimal number 20 or can it be slightly higher at 22? thats a fluid question at best...all i can say is that if at 20 they struggle to find a full 20 at the current standard, then that risk surely also continues to grow past 20.

so while 22 may not be enough to tip the scales (obviously the sport has survived with more than 20) not everyone deserves to get a chance and often times even those who get chances, for one reason or another (usually because back marker teams are not a great place to showcase or grow talent), fail to make the most of it.

that is the nature of competition.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

The convergence is not because of the limit on entries.
It's simply an evolution of design around a fixed set of rules.
It has always been that way.

fair point there but surely this current development cycle has also been aided by the budget and CapEx limits.

for sure though, we will see what happens as the cap faces its next challenge in the form of the 2026 changes. but for that reason alone, i think there is a logic to keeping the recipe the same. change now risks ruining what seems, imo at least, an operational and financial framework that actually is working.

and for what, a new team to which no one can have any loyalty to. to see something new simply because its new?

for me not so much.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

More safety cars/vsc periods makes for more variety, more upsets, more unpredictable results, even if adding 4 cars would automatically make more interventions necessary.
Statically you would say yes it would, but not necessarily.
Sunday at spa was completely intervention free so would adding 4 cars automatically mean more problems? No.

fair but you are also using a race grid with 10 fixed competitors as your example!

new teams or at least the last few from scratch new teams, tend to be underfunded and underprepared. to me that suggests that yes they could cause more on track disruptions.

although, we would have to look at the last expansion period and compare it to now to see if that period had more interventions...

but im not going to do that my myself therefore i must concede to you on this point.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

There are a number of rules and procedures that over the years have added to the interventionist procedures. Things like more awareness of safety etc, and a greater social call for more intervention in dangerous situations plus insurance.

and i must concede to you on this as well...new teams, new people, new ideas, new ways of doing things etc. that is something valuable we would get from new teams.

Super Aguri's double diffuser solution, for example, can be seen as a brilliant idea that was borne out of the necessity of a small team trying to compete against larger ones.

so while things look great right now, i cannot argue against the possibility that keeping things a closed shop could easily also lead to stagnation. this above all else may be enough to get me to switch sides on this one.

i guess the one concern then i would have about new teams is whether or not they are customer teams or not. as the small number of suppliers take on more customers, as more teams develop towards a the same design direction, well then that sort of convergence could also lead to stagnation!

Haas was great but they were, as much as allowed, a Ferrari clone.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

You could have 26, and that limit only came about because of the limitations of Monaco and later on because of pit lane length and space etc.

I would happily go back to prequalifying but who could afford to NOT qualify these days?

and thats where i get flipped back around...not really for any of the above concerns but rather to open things up that much would inevitably attract those with money, more hedge funds, more corporate backed entities...

for me that would also be the sport feeding its base greed so i guess for me its more about sticking with the greed i know.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

The simple fact is they have got what they want this year at Liberty, the domination has been taken apart,you have consistently different winners and the product is going to therefore go from strength to strength, no team worth their salt wants ANYBODY else to have a piece of that pie. I wouldn't if I was involved.

True. Andretti Autosport and USF1 Mk2 are perfectly welcome to start a breakaway Grand Prix series.