According to James Allen: http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/01/deal...-shows-in-2010/



I'm guessing if they miss more than 3 races then they are thrown off the calendar. I hope though, that the new guys don't aim for Round 4 as their Round 1 so they effectively get a month longer... hopefully they all still 'aim' for Bahrain.

Sounds like a growing circus to me.

Will Team X be at the next race? Or the one after that? Or the fly-aways?

Hardly the strict corporate sport we've seen for at least the past ten years.

Wasn't there a rumour USGP requested something along those lines?

Early 90s all over again

That is worrying.

Will they be barred from points as has happened for "part-timers" in the past? I think the last time someone missed out on points was 1986 when the second Larrousse was only entered for a few end-of-season races and Dalmas nicked a fifth at Australia.

There was, but Windbag and more importantly, the FIA have denied this.

I'm more concerned about Campos now, what good could Tony Texiera do if he's taken over the team. (Still a Rumour at this point)

Yup. Not sure if this is good or bad though.

seems ok to me, virtualy every other series has some people who cant do a full season for whatever reason

Sounds to me that some of the teams won't be on the grid until the European rounds (if at all). The FIA have done a cracking job in making sure the right people got the slots.

Thats fine for a lower series, but not something that should apply to the "pinniacle" of motor sport.

just throw theese jokes of new f1 teams out, and allow the big ones a third car this is getting humiliating

I think its likely that the teams involved are USF1 and Campos. I cant see Richard Branson allowing Virgin to miss a race (lost advertising) and I think Lotus are pretty sound too.

Surely the sponsors of the new teams won't be to happy if the team with there name on it doesn't turn up for a race. They would want a portion of there sponsorship money back so I can't see how it would pay a team not to turn up no matter how bad the car was.

I'm struggling to beleive it. What would be the point? F1 has strict rules these days on entry to maintain the image. Amateurs not allowed sort of thing. Max wouldn't have it....

Not sure it's a case of turning up with a bad car, more not having a car at all.

James Allen has offerd no proof and uses terms such as appears and maybe, so why are some taking it as written in stone when even JA has not said that?

Will be USF1 and Campos both of wich i will be suprised if i see at round 1. The other new teams are just about ready to run.

Exactly. If this is true, I have no problem with it at all.

Because he is a reliable source of info and doesn't normally print something if there isn't any truth to it.

Having a third car would be an even bigger joke

Why let the new teams potentially miss 3 races during the season when you have Stefan GP sitting in the wings ready to race the full season, it would seem to be an odd decision if true.

then have less cars, and stop the humiliation

So how is that "new team bidding to ensure only the most profesional teams get into F1" working out for you FIA?

So what is all the fuss about this new rule????? i donot see what difference it makes

My money says there will be a number of teams in 2010 where
it will be very difficult to ascertain as to whether they are at the race or not at the race

Because this is F1, the supposedly premier motorsport in the world and not some mickey mouse series. There should be no doubts over how many teams will be at any particular race. Afterall, the FIA did tell us that through their bidding process and due diligence they had found the best possible entrants, despite the fact that many of us cannort understand why certain teams were excluded, and doubted the credentials of some of the winners.

Yet many other top series (NASCAR, Indycar, (A)LMS, etc) have variable entries. Usually it's just the backmarkers but sometimes even frontrunners can't make every race (the Le Mans series) being a great example of this.

Exactly. I'd personally allow them to miss the first race if they could prove that they cannot physically compete (not just skipping it for some development time or money saving). If they miss the second race, they should be kicked out *if* there are other teams to replace them. Stefan GP seem to be ready to do this.

But are they ready to race the entire season? Stefan GP seem dodgier than all the accepted new teams.

My idea what's the point getting all worked up about this when it might be nothing more than a false rumour

Guess, I should have said: My money says there will be a number of teams in 2010 where
it will be very difficult to ascertain as to whether they REALLY are at the race or not at the race (as in I doubt whether their presence or absence will be much noticed by most folks)

the indy500,le mans, daytona, dakar all draw one off, or limited set of events

I've got no problem with this at all. F1 is entertainment for me, not my life. Sure if it has 10 cars it will be less entertainment, but F1 cars don’t make on track passes anyways so it will be less cars in the procession at fly away races like Yabba Dabba Dhabi that’s all.

It would be an enormous disaster for F1 if this was allowed, I cannot believe it will
become effective, this rumour from JA

Why ?
Have a max of 3, as many teams as poss. and pre qualify on Friday am
Give all drivers and teams a chance just like they used to.

That's all fine to say, but why do you think it would be a disaster?

A disaster would be 6 cars running around - like Indy '05, that was a disaster.

I think this is a fine idea. I think that new teams should be allowed to enter the series in a graduated manner. The first year, they are required to enter a minimum of one car at 75% of the events, or two cars at 50% of the events. The second year, one car at 100% of the events or two cars at 75% of the events, and in the third year, two cars in 100% of the events. The events must be declared at the start of the season. This will allow teams to start with smaller budgets, while still providing an avenue into F1. This will also promote teams to grow into better teams.

Personally, I'd rather have one new team make it to their fifth year than five new teams to fold in their first. The world economy won't allow the high dollar teams entering the sport as we've become accustomed to this past decade.

But they are individual events in themselves. F1 is not the same.

That's a good idea Frank. Much too sensible for the likes of the FIA, or this forum.

I agree with you totally. I'd rather the new teams miss the first three races if it means they can be here for the long haul. It would be tremendously unfair after all of the investment they've put in to be shown the door forever just because they've missed Bahrain. And let's not forget that Toyota missed their entire first season because someone forgot to check that they weren't allowed to build a V12 engine, yet the FIA never shut the door on them completely.

We need to bear in mind that the new teams were working to an incredibly tight schedule and had the $40m budget cap yanked from underneath them. The rules they have now aren't the same rules they signed up for, so with that in mind, it's fair to cut them a bit of slack. 3 races seems like a good compromise to me.

Toyota missed a season because the FIA pulled the rug from under them and changed the engine rules. Wasn't a case of anyone forgetting anything.

I don't think this is a major issue from a sporting/image point of view but I worry that a team who skips winter testing and the first few races will miss it's biggest chance to score some points. By the 4th round most teams will have managed to sort out any design/reliability issues with their first collection of updates and the opportunity for smaller outfits to take advantage will be missed.

erm the indy500 and daytona are in a series... and le mans is linked to ALMS and LMS aswell

for a fully new team, actully planning a season must be really intimidating, with the travel and shipping etc etc. i guess say 40staff on average to each gp, and a couple of other events for a total of say, 23 events. thats 920 international trips to organise , and all the gear needed to move about...

fairly sure all but red bulls team started with a limited event schedual...

I agree. I think the rules are too strict about minimum of two entries, maximum of two entries, etc.

I think it's OK to have a max of three and a minimum of zero per race. Look at some of the past seasons when there would be local one-shot entries at some races.

I also think the teams should be allowed to run different liveries for their cars.

But then again, to echo some sentiments in this thread, makes too much sense for the FIA to do.

They are in a series, but considered an event in their own right.

I can't remember any team starting with a limited event schedule.

If they teams don't make it then I think it's another failing of the FIA under MM that their procedures and due diligence are so poor.

Zakspeed in 1985. There were a few others that had toe-in-water starts, like Coloni, AGS and Beatrice-Haas-Ford. Otherwise they had to make the start, come hell or high water; Scuderia Italia even entered an F3000 Dallara to avoid the swingeing fine.

Long time ago then.

most of the current teams go back quite along time i think, im thinking of the 50's through to the 70's

There have been many new teams since then and I can't remember any in the last 20 years that started with a limited schedule.

I can't remember any of them having less than a year to prepare for entering F1 from scratch either. Apart from Mastercard Lola. And, yeah, that didn't work out so great.

I think you'd have a point if there were fully prepared teams beating down the FIA's door to enter the sport and the manufacturers hadn't all scarpered en masse and there wasn't an economic crisis going on. Slack will have to be cut for everyone, new and established teams alike.