The 2018 F1 driver transfer discussion/speculation threadFormula 1
- Thread starter EngieDiesel
- 735 comments
- 44,817 views
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Agreed, which is why I enjoy the new Alfa Romeo marketing, or the close relationship to get Haas running.
An ironic fact that never occured to me until a day or two ago is that except Alonso, every Scuderia driver in the past 15 or so years had their first race in a Sauber - even if they weren't always Ferrari Academy drivers. It's almost like Sauber and Ferrari generally look for the same root of traits in a driver, even at different stages of their careers. In other words, Sauber is a (sometimes) independent beginner's step on How-to-Ferrari.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
It's not off the cuff because I've provided figures prior in the appropriate thread from the respective motoring journalists.
Mercedes budget isn't 800 mil - 1 billion USD, so no I don't think it is 10x as big as Haas. I gave the low end figures for a team, and the reported figures of the cost of an F1 car in general. So trying to make a parallel on that even is somewhat dangerous because some teams very well may get away with building a car for less. Especially if they outsource it to a company to build the chassis for them.
You are also the one making the claim that there is this parallel without providing info as to where, hence the "off the cuff" figure of speech.
- 13,095
- United Kingdom
So only teams who can't afford them are allowed them? Remember that teams used to have spare, or "T-cars" that were removed in 2008 because everyone found them too expensive. The third car isn't going to happen unless the cars are made a lot cheaper, which won't happen because the teams with power are successful because they can outspend everyone else.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 6,293
- Canada
Not trying to shift the goal post. If anything, I should have been saying Daimler, not Merc.
The parent company of Ferrari (fiat?)....when Alfa Romeo teamed up with Sauber, that money came from the parent company, not out of Scuderia Ferrari’s team budget. I would assume that if there were to be a second Merc team, the budget for the team would come from Daimler direct, not as a slice from Petronas Mercedes AMG. So while Merc’s budget might only be 450mil, Daimler’s is far more. Gene Haas might be wealthy, but he doesn’t have Daimler money.
Edit: just a general thought, regarding 3 cars.
First, at Monza I believe, we heard that Alonso was basically out of parts, he had no spares. The Factory was making parts as fast as possible, and barely able to keep up. Wouldn’t a third car exacerbate this situation? If a big team like McLaren struggle to keep parts for two cars flowing, how is a team like Force India supposed to keep parts flowing for 3 cars?
Second, have we ever seen a series where teams run 3 cars out of the same pit stall? Imagine the double and triple stacking during a SC pit stop cycle lol.
Point system would definitely need to be redone, as it would be very likely to have the top 9 spots occupied by the same 3 teams...with 21 drivers fighting over 1 remaining point?? Cha right. I suppose with a 30 car grid, points down to 20th or something would be relatively easy to implement.
Last edited:
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,624
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
I'd go back to the top six getting points for drivers. I see no point at all in rewarding not being good enough. I'd give the teams points right down to 26th though. Four none qualifyers though. Tracks are not licenced to run more F1 cars if I recall, that will make Q1 really interesting.
- 13,095
- United Kingdom
No, reducing points back to the top 6 is a terrible idea. It was always terrible. Reducing the chance for midfield teams to score points will only make the championship worse. We don't want 4 teams with no points having to decide the order on countback. 8-10 is the ideal amount of positions to give points back to. It gives smaller teams a chance to score points, while not awarding points just for turning up, and it will only rarely give points out to cars that retired.
Out of all the problems in F1 at the moment, the points system is at the absolute bottom of stuff that needs changing.
Out of all the problems in F1 at the moment, the points system is at the absolute bottom of stuff that needs changing.
- 6,293
- Canada
I’ve never understood awarding teams/drivers no points, but then having to decide the final order on countback. So in actuality, they are scoring points for those non-points finishes, but we just don’t write those points down.
The points are a measuring device, not a reward. Having a system that awards zero points for certain places is like having a measuring tape that is 30’ long but only has markings up to 15’, with the other 15’ left blank.
The points are a measuring device, not a reward. Having a system that awards zero points for certain places is like having a measuring tape that is 30’ long but only has markings up to 15’, with the other 15’ left blank.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 6,293
- Canada
13th place is a better finish than 14th. Points are a simplified way of keeping track of that. Points are the measuring device, not a reward.
Points as a reward lol. Basically every sport that has a season consisting of multiple rounds uses points to keep track of position in overall season standings. The trophy at the end of the season is the reward, not the points themselves.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I'm becoming increasingly sure that you're unintentionally/deliberately misunderstanding the words that you're using.
You have literally described a measurement of finishing position (ie 13th and 14th) and then claimed it isn't a measurement. The fact that not all finishers get points illustrates that points are a reward, not a measurement. They don't work as a measurement (as you've pointed out) and they aren't one. A further illustration is the latest points scheme applied to finishers; 2nd place now takes more of a penalty than in the previous scheme. If, as you say, points are a measurement then that simply wouldn't be possible.
Points are awarded on a race-by-race basis, the race is a competition in its entirety. The CC/WDC are a different matter, you can't win those in any single race, only by adding up your rewards over an entire season.
- 6,293
- Canada
Omg lol.
Finishing 14th or 13th is not the measurement system for how the WDC or WCC is calculated. That’s a measurement for where you finish in the race, not where you finish in the season. It’s who has more 13th place finishes, who has more 14th place finishes, etc. which determines final results at the end of the season.
Points are a simplified way of demonstrating who has more higher rated finishes.
The measurement device is the points total, not how many points are assigned to each finishing position. You can still have points weighted more heavily for higher finishing positions in individual GP, and still use the total accumulation of points as the measuring device.
This must be one of your “it’s differwnt in the F1 universe”, just like your take on the term silly season. In every other sport that uses points to tally a finishing order at the end of a season, the points are a measuring device, not a reward.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
We're talking about F1 therefore that's the "universe" in whcih it's being pointed out to you that points are a reward and recorded place finishes are a measurement. It's like silly season, depending on the context (and you brought that up in an F1 context too) the meaning can be understood differently. I doubt anybody thought you were talking about the UK Parliament Summer Recess 'silly season'.
- 6,293
- Canada
See this is what I mean. “In F1, points are a reward.” No they’re not, they’re a measuring system, in every single sport that uses point systems.
You don’t get to make up some new definition of what points are just because it’s F1.
The trophies and champagne that get handed out for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, those are the rewards for finishing well. 4th through 20th don’t need rewards, they didn’t do anything worthy of a reward, unless we’re going to give out rewards for a good effort and for trying hard.
Just like with silly season. It’s a term that in any context, simply means the season in which contracts are discussed. Just because you put it in the F1 context, you don’t get to define it as being just the season in the middle of the summer when news is slow. In F1, silly season starts when contracts start getting discussed, and ends when the last seat is taken. It’s kind of a silly term, because in most sports now, that encompasses almost the whole season. F1 silly season is still ongoing, hence why Will Buxton discribed it as such in his Singapore preview, or perhaps you’d like to tell him he’s using the term incorrectly.
Perhaps you should ring up Anthony Davidson and tell him he’s wrong about points being a measuring device, and not a reward.
If points are a reward and not a measuring system, why do we tally them at the end of the season to see who wins? If the points are just a reward, then WDC should be decided by who has the most wins, not who has the most points.
- 30,054
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Points should be rewards, not participation ribbons. I'm content with points going down to 10th but it should not be extended further; the amount of points is another matter entirely.
Anyway, who's driving where next year again? I thought we had a dedicated "F1 points system" thread.
Anyway, who's driving where next year again? I thought we had a dedicated "F1 points system" thread.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
News suggests that Sainz is very happy with his two-year deal at McLaren. I hadn't realised that it was his first in F1.
- 6,293
- Canada
Wasn’t Perez supposed to have announced his 2019 plans by now? After the Singapore clash, does Ocon maybe have a shot at keeping his seat?
Seperate note but kind of related. A while back, there were rumours about Merc doing a deal with Williams similar to either the Haas or Sauber situation - that was when Stroll was involved with Williams. From what I’ve heard, that idea has been shelved, at least with Williams. Now that Stroll (Laurence) has his chips in RPFI....maybe he has interest in doing a deal with Merc, something involving more than just engines, in exchange for a seat for Ocon. From Laurence’s point of view, you get go-faster parts, and a fast driver (at the loss of a good driver in Checo, and the money brings).
I don’t want to see Checo out of F1, I think he’s pretty good, but I would really love to see Ocon keep his seat at RPFI. Perez could go to either Haas to replace Grosjean (who ill admit, has been much better that earlier in the season), or to Williams, who could benefit from both his driving and technical talents as well as his funding.
Seperate note but kind of related. A while back, there were rumours about Merc doing a deal with Williams similar to either the Haas or Sauber situation - that was when Stroll was involved with Williams. From what I’ve heard, that idea has been shelved, at least with Williams. Now that Stroll (Laurence) has his chips in RPFI....maybe he has interest in doing a deal with Merc, something involving more than just engines, in exchange for a seat for Ocon. From Laurence’s point of view, you get go-faster parts, and a fast driver (at the loss of a good driver in Checo, and the money brings).
I don’t want to see Checo out of F1, I think he’s pretty good, but I would really love to see Ocon keep his seat at RPFI. Perez could go to either Haas to replace Grosjean (who ill admit, has been much better that earlier in the season), or to Williams, who could benefit from both his driving and technical talents as well as his funding.
Similar threads
- Locked
