F1 » Coulthard: New teams saga 'irresponsible' and 'degrades' F1

Thirteen-time grand prix-winner turned BBC pundit David Coulthard has backed the outspoken stance taken by Ferrari in arguing that the state of the F1 2010 newcomers 'degrades the sport', makes for 'a poor advertisement' and is 'plain irresponsible'

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest

CarCrazed - Unregistered

March 09, 2010 6:06 PM

Guys aren't you tired of debating the same thing every week? After the inevitable first shameful experience, that at least one of those new teams is going to suffer this weekend, are you going to keep beating the proverbial dead horse too?

What's done is done, let us learn from this and move on. It seems the FIA has learned a thing or two from the debacle, hope they don't forget soon


March 09, 2010 6:33 PM

Agree CarCrazy. Perhaps DC could throw a block on the new teams as he did drivers for years. Too bad he has NO power as a so called journalist. Personaly I wish all the nay sayers from Britian would chill out since we do have a race next week. Putting a damper on it at this point is silly, useless and perhaps detrimental. Let it play out folks and you all can fuss over the winter to heart's content.

fellainishair - Unregistered

March 09, 2010 7:46 PM

The point is DC DOES like, and deeply cares, about the F1 scene. Thats F1, as in Formula One, the pinnacle of motorsport, the home of the best. Not a place for underfunded, unproven makeweights touring round five seconds off the pace with bits failing on their cars left right and centre.

I personally believe there should be a 105% qualifying rule, and if the new teams can't hack it, tough. They are in with the big boys now, and irrespective of any excuses about budgets or little time, if they aren't up to it, F1 does not need them.

I personally enjoyed last season, where we had a grid of competitive cars.I'm not sure a return to the days of pointless backmarker teams is a step forward.


March 09, 2010 8:37 PM

cdf. usf1, campos and manor were all selected BEFORE any team withdrew (ex honda). after bmw announced withdrawal, lotus were selected, being first refusal! further, both virgin and lotus have both been running within the 107% time.

Alan D - Unregistered

March 10, 2010 12:03 AM

CDF, as Richard pointed out, the teams that turned up at testing were all within 107% of the fastest. Virgin's problem wasn't that it didn't get enough testing time. It was that they broke a wing and didn't have a replacement. Campos just didn't turn up. How would extra testing time help a team that does not use the main sessions?

Testing time is expensive. Even if the FIA/FOM pays for the track and all the marshalls and medics it needs to run testing, it is still expensive for the team to ship its cars and staff out to a test track.

And if they are not testing alongside the Ferraris and Mclarens, how do they know what percentage of the fastest time they are achieving?

Alan D - Unregistered

March 10, 2010 12:16 AM

I also wonder why you are using 107%. Yes I know all about the 107% rule that was once used but that doesn't mean 107% is some sort of scientifically calculated limit of acceptability. At Silverstone, a car running at 107% would be over six seconds off the pace of the leader. In 2009, most cars were within two seconds of the leader. If you put a car on the track that was 6 seconds off the pace of the leader then in today's F1 it would just be embarrassing. In race conditions, after one lap when the cars are spread out it would probably be 15 seconds or more behind the leader, and probably be lapped within 10 laps.


March 10, 2010 1:54 AM

But that's just it! THIS IS F1!!! The "pinnacle", not some lesser series, where teams can beg for extra testing time in order to get ready. If they were not going to be ready, they shouldn't have tendered to enter the series in the first place!

Crawling around at the back 5 seconds off the pace is no good to anyone. Maybe the FIA should draft in some GP2 teams and cars to fill in while these guys get their act together? At this rate, it seems like they would do a better job racing the big boys than the new F1 teams would!

Guys like Dave Richards will probably be shaking their heads at the extent of the FIA incompetence with this - and be secretly happy they're NOT a part of this debacle.

Ging - Unregistered

March 10, 2010 7:38 AM

Nothing like not giving anybody a chance, eh? Bunch of elitists those that are giving the new teams ****. That goes for pundits and those here. Last words from me: Good luck Lotus and Virgin, expect to see steady progress from you both.

By the way, I would have liked to have seen Prodrive and Lola on the grid. They could have brought a lot to the party.


March 10, 2010 9:17 AM

He should be more worried about the antics of some of the more established teams degrading F1. Spygate, liegate, crashgate, mosleygate and bernie's howlers are all bad for the sports image. Surely having new teams and an expanding grid is a good thing, with the exception of HRT who have carried no testing and could be a real danger.

Page 3 of 4
« 1 2 3 4  »

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2016 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.