Rule 58b Changed Third driver ruling

Mr A Pie · 14 Apr 2005, 16:10 (Ref:1278140)

Klien as third driver for Red Bull

ASCII Man · 14 Apr 2005, 16:17 (Ref:1278146)

Any links to a source or news article would be nice...

Mr A Pie · 14 Apr 2005, 16:19 (Ref:1278148)

not released yet sorry....soon

nick_andrews · 14 Apr 2005, 16:20 (Ref:1278149)

www.autosport-atlas.com its on there

Kicking-back · 14 Apr 2005, 17:13 (Ref:1278181)

Yes.

The rule is that any driver with a superlicence can now be the Friday third man - regardless of how many races he's done.

A sensible change.

One I called for on this forum a few days ago

BootsOntheSide · 14 Apr 2005, 17:32 (Ref:1278197)

What a lousy rule change. The big teams pressuring the FIA into making a change purely to suit them. This will just lead to teams who can afford to gainign an extra advantage, with smaller teams losing out even more.

Does this set a precedent that whenever a team doesn't like a rule, all it needs to do is complain? Why didn't this get sorted out before the season anyway - RBR knew all along what their plans were.

Mr A Pie · 14 Apr 2005, 17:38 (Ref:1278200)

lousy, maybe.... I think only for probables like Bjorn or Justin W....
in the long term pretty good I think.

Marbot · 14 Apr 2005, 18:03 (Ref:1278223)

I think the rule would have been changed anyway,it just needed a push.

Kicking-back · 14 Apr 2005, 18:09 (Ref:1278232)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

What a lousy rule change. The big teams pressuring the FIA into making a change purely to suit them. This will just lead to teams who can afford to gainign an extra advantage, with smaller teams losing out even more.

I disagree.

The "big teams" aren't in Friday testing - as the top 4 from last years constructors are excluded.

maximus · 14 Apr 2005, 18:19 (Ref:1278243)

RBR were reported to be pushing for a change, I wouldn't call them a big team. This is good IMO as I thought the rule was unfair, but the timing is rather conveniant in RBRs case.

Marbot · 14 Apr 2005, 18:28 (Ref:1278250)

I hope this doesn't start another "Hakkinen to drive for Mclaren" thread.

Kicking-back · 14 Apr 2005, 18:45 (Ref:1278259)

It won't - Hakkinen was eligible to be a Friday tester even with the old rule in place

BootsOntheSide · 14 Apr 2005, 18:47 (Ref:1278262)

McLaren and Toyota are the two biggest spenders in F1, and they are both in Firday testing.

Kicking-back · 14 Apr 2005, 18:54 (Ref:1278264)

Yes, but that's irrelevant - they did not finish in the top four last season.

Ron would rather have won the title last year and had no third car this year!

Marbot · 14 Apr 2005, 18:54 (Ref:1278265)

Toyota now have the option of having "Olly" as a Friday tester.

BootsOntheSide · 14 Apr 2005, 19:17 (Ref:1278284)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Yes, but that's irrelevant - they did not finish in the top four last season.

Ron would rather have won the title last year and had no third car this year!

They're a lot bigger than the teams who don't have the option of running experienced third drivers though. The original rule was bad enough - effectively shutting out drivers who did half a season as a replacement while allowing really experienced drivers back in at their expense - but this is even worse.

McLaren should be proud. They've got the best Technology Centre in F1, and the fifth best car as well, all on the same massive budget....

Don K · 14 Apr 2005, 20:56 (Ref:1278362)

Sounds fishy to me.

---------

As far as I understood, RBR contracted 2 drivers to share the 2nd race seat, knowing that the current rule would not allow them to use their "first second driver" to act as "second friday test driver" as soon as their "second second driver" would take over the second race seat.

And *just* at the moment they needed, the rule gets changed ...

---------

Sounds to me as if the (real) decission to change that rule was made a couple of months ago, and announcement delayed until today.

I wonder how many drivers missed out on a friday test contract because the rule change was not anounced right away.

Mosport67 · 14 Apr 2005, 21:23 (Ref:1278389)

I think McNish and Wilson both missed out on potential test contracts at one point due to this rule. I think the change though is a good one.

**Adam43** · 14 Apr 2005, 22:04 (Ref:1278413)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don K

Sounds fishy to me.

They knew the situation and lobbied to get it changed. Everyone agreed. just now. I can't see any conspiracy here, or indeed and reason o have a conspiracy. Any other team could have lobbied whenever they wanted.

Silk Cut Jaguar · 14 Apr 2005, 23:00 (Ref:1278430)

I don't think it is letting in experienced guys at the expense of rookies at all. Look at this way.

McLaren already have 4 drivers contracted, both testers were eligible for Friday from the start.

Toyota already have 4 drivers contracted and can now use Panis if they want too.

Sauber don't test on Friday so no rookie is missing out there.

Red Bull already have 3 drivers contracted, ok it could be argued their GP2 drivers are missing out but they would have been second choice behind Klien anyway.

Minardi/Jordan run whoever brings money, generally rookies.

No rookies are missing out, the teams have had their driver pecking orders for a long time. If I was a team boss I'd prefer a driver who understood how to setup an F1 car rather than some highly regarded rookie fresh from GP2, it's not cheap to run the third entry so I can't blame RBR for wanting their money's worth.

Rick · 15 Apr 2005, 02:38 (Ref:1278477)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Ron would rather have won the title last year and had no third car this year!

Agreed, but I wonder if he would have preferred to come 4th?
I thought when they introduced this the driver rule was a trade off so as not to be too much of an advantage. Obviously Ferrari, Williams et al don't see the 3rd car as that much of an advantage.

Gt_R · 15 Apr 2005, 07:11 (Ref:1278592)

When they were introducing the 3rd driver for Friday scheme, Mr Ron wasn't very pleased, and among the team owners, iirc he's the one that insist the most that the 3rd driver shouldn't have too much race-experience in recent years. Hence this regulation against having drivers doing more than 6 races in past 2 years. He thinks that an experienced driver would give those who run a third car too huge an advantage.

I'm quite surprised with this sudden rule change which went about without much fuss. If there should be any changes, i'd rather see the whole 3rd driver thing scrapped or open to all teams. I've held this stand right from the start... the whole 3rd driver thing is initiated to help smaller teams close the performance gap to the huge teams...but it's a laugh when it gives a direct edge over a direct championship rival. Strangely, Mclaren didn't manage to capitalise on this advantage to gain a headstart, while last year, we already see how BAR benefitted from it, and now Toyota.

DannyG · 15 Apr 2005, 11:08 (Ref:1278795)

The whole idea of allowing lower placed teams to run a third car/driver on the fridays was to try and get them more competative, so the more experienced the driver, the quicker they should rise to the top.........theoreticly.

Having said that, i think give it time and we will see the third car rule abused. Does 4th really mean that much more than 5th when it decides if you get the advantage of running a 3rd car on Friday during the next year? What if Ferrari cannot get the 2005 car sorted or are troubled with reliability for many more races this year and end up coming 5th. Who would like to see them have a 3rd car with a top driver offering feedback?

Dog Faced Boy · 15 Apr 2005, 11:21 (Ref:1278804)

I think it stinks that they put a stupid rule like that in place, only to change it after just over a year. If I was Mcnish or Wilson I would be quite irrate.

As it should have been in the first place it will now be down to the team what type of driver best suits their needs.

**Spudgun** · 15 Apr 2005, 12:02 (Ref:1278832)

I think it was a stupid rule and I'm glad that it has been changed, but the manner in which it has been done I don't quite like.

I mean, if RBR were even considering alternating Klien and Liuzzi during the off-season then shouldn't they have lobbied it back then? Everyone knew that it was a distinct possibility erring on more than likely that they were going to swap drivers.

It's only my opinon of course, but I think it makes a slight mockery of the rule-making process. "Oh, this rule doesn't suit us anymore so we'll just get it changed mid-season." To the casual observer it just makes the FIA look weak.

I don't really buy the experience reason to the rule being there in the first place since long term test drivers like Wurz and De La Rosa haven't raced for a while, but they have plenty of experience, just not recent racecraft experience which you don't need in Friday Practice. In fact they've probably done more miles in the cars than the race drivers have, yet under the now defunct rules they were eligible to run.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
F1 third driver rule	David1234	Formula One	4	21 Sep 2005 09:01
Driver sharing & the engine rule	bigjon	Formula One	24	18 Jan 2005 03:00
Coulthard starting to get grumpy (Friday driver rule)	006_007	Formula One	30	21 May 2004 09:23
Driver rule change could trigger line up changes	SJ Spode	Rallying & Rallycross	6	6 Mar 2003 16:48
One driver - one engine rule pushed through by FIA	MrTTraces	Formula One	1	20 Mar 2002 20:43