F1 should have full grids again – Mansell

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Nigel Mansell calls for F1 grids to increase back to full size.

Social media

Comment of the day

Many of you reckon John Surtees deserves greater recognition than a CBE:

Congratulations to John Surtees on gaining his CBE. My only disappointment is that it is not a knighthood, the man is a living legend!

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Dsob and Michael Hu!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

The new year kicked off with the non-championship South African Grand Prix on this day 45 years ago. Mike Spence won in a Lotus 33 at the East London circuit.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

36 comments on “F1 should have full grids again – Mansell”

  1. Also Jim Clark Won the First world Championship Round of 1968 and his 25th and last gp on this Day in Maybe the prettiest GP Car ever- the british Racing Green lotus 49 with Red Shell and Name logos

    1. A very pretty car.

      1. But less so after this

        1. Actually i Love that They crashed it. In a Strange Way. Kinda Shows the car is still Alive

  2. Jack Brabham: Only driver to win the world championship in a car they built. Knighthood.

    Jackie Stewart: Triple world champion. One of the most successful drivers ever. Knighthood.

    Stirling Moss: Not a world champion but often considered one of the greatest drivers of all time. Knighthood.

    Frank Williams: Built a team from scratch and led them to success. Knighthood.

    John Surtees: Only person to be world champion on two and four wheels. No Knighthood?

    1. The reason for that was that Surtees didn’t do much for British motor racing and its industry as Moss, Stewart, Williams, or Brabham did.

      Moss was a very famous celebrity in Britain in the 50’s and onwards. If people in Britain at the time thought of motor racing, Moss was the first who came to mind- and this was also the case in Europe and other parts of the world. He did his considerable bit for Britain’s image.

      Stewart was not only a great F1 champion, but he was also, like Moss, very famous, and he also did a lot for the motor racing industry- in addition to contributing to making motor racing safer hence making it being a more serious and attractive business for professionals outside of racing, his efforts also created jobs.

      From an industry standpoint (in terms of creating jobs, revolutionizing the industry and launching careers), Brabham and Williams (especially Williams) were also responsible for that. I think knighthoods don’t have to do with singular achievements- it isn’t that simple. You have to do something to help the country’s economic progression- and that is what those 4 did.

      Sure, Surtees’s achievements were great, and probably never will be repeated- but he was a low-key sort of character, and he achieved a lot for himself, but not much for his country. He wasn’t as famous as Jim Clark, Stewart or Graham Hill.

      1. And what did Bradley Wiggins do for British cycling for him to be awarded a knighthood?

        Irrespective of whether or not Surtees has done much for British motor racing, the man did something that has never and probably will never be done again in the history of motorsports. It’s an insult that people who are far less deserving are immediately being bestowed such honours.

      2. I don’t understand that reasoning, how does Surtees not qualify – he also had a racing team in the ’70s, plus he’s been an ambassador of Racing Steps Foundation for years and through that helps a lot of young drivers getting their careers kick off. I don’t get how being low-key (if you can consider him that) even has anything to do with it.

        1. Yes, I forgot about Surtees’s F1 team- but they didn’t have much success. When Jackie Stewart started his F1 team, he was somewhat successful- before he sold it to Ford, and opened up more jobs.

    2. I agree Surtees before Wiggins.

      What about Ron?

      I fear they’ll wait till some years after he’s retired for Sir Lewis Hamilton. Pity – that would be web-melting right now :)

      1. @lockup, Ron Dennis was awarded a CBE back in the year 2000 for his contribution towards motorsport, so he has already received an honours from the government. However, giving him an additional award, such as a knighthood, would almost certainly raise questions in the press about why he was being given the award now.

        Ron Dennis is a major donor to the Conservative Party (the personal donations he has made to the party over the past decade have come to over £150,000) and, during the 2015 General Election, he also actively campaigned on their behalf. If he were to be given an award, I suspect that there would be quite a few questions over whether it was really being awarded on merit, or if it was down to the Tories giving him a personal favour for bankrolling their campaign.

        1. Hmmm, well being a party donor should make it more likely, apparently! I don’t see why Frank should have one and not Ron. Ron after all is building a prestigious manufacturing business as well as the F1 exploits.

  3. Happy New Year to everyone at F1Fanatic! May 2016 be a joyous year for you all! Hopefully much better than the terrible 2015.

  4. ‘I’ve only ever done it once,’ he says, ‘when Bernie Ecclestone asked me and I did it for obvious reasons. But it didn’t work out too well; the guy couldn’t drive.’

    who’s he talking about?

  5. If Mansell only could understand how
    much more expensive F1 is and how appallingly badly the funds are distributed now compared to when he was racing- even with inflation adjusted- no one would ever consider starting an F1 team. It’s just not an attractive proposition- unless you do what Dietrich Mateschitz did and buy an existing team, of course (in his case, 2 teams).

    1. Well, we’ve had 4 new teams get approval in the last 6 or so years, all of which started from scratch, and the FIA has rejected about 8 other tenders, including 2 recently for 2016/7. It’s not that people don’t want to start teams, it’s that the FIA is more strict on who can. Gone are the days of teams who couldn’t even make qualifying and bought their chassis from bigger teams. F1 could easily field 26 cars if the FIA was willing to have a bunch of terrible backmarkers… like the ‘good old’ days.

  6. The first page that I ended up visiting in the new year:F1F. Thank you @keithcollantine for the hard work. This is a fantastic cummunity and I enjoy reading the mews as well as discussing with you guys

    Happy new year for everybody

    Greetings from Portugal. And lets have an amazing 2016 F1 season

    1. @johnmilk

      The first page that I ended up visiting in the new year:F1F.

      That’s what I like to hear! And you’re welcome of course :-)

      1. @keithcollantine Yes, a big thanks for making F1 so much more enjoyable. Thanks also for selecting one of my comments for the COTD. I hope this year is enjoyable and successful for you.
        And of course, Happy New Year to All from New Zealand.

  7. A very happy New Year everyone !

  8. The current pay out structure fixes F1 to be for 10 teams only. The 11th team in constructors championship basically gets no money at all from the prize money. So it is going to be interesting what will happen to the team that will be last next year.

    Happy new year to all!

    1. @skylien, actually, it doesn’t look like it will make a significant difference in terms of prize money.

      The way that the system works is that FOM award money based on the finishing position over the previous three years – if a team has managed to finish in the top 10 twice in the previous three years, they are entitled to Column 2 revenue payments.

      Now, it is likely that Haas will be offered a one off bonus payment in 2016 as a new entrant to compensate them for the fact that they haven’t yet earned any revenue from TV rights (as happened back in 2010 when the new entrants all received a small bonus payment) – so irrespective of where they finish in 2016, they probably will receive a payment from FOM that is larger than the standard payment for finishing in 11th place.

      All other teams, even Manor, have finished in the top 10 at least twice in the past three years and are therefore guaranteed a Column 2 payment for 2016 at least. They might receive slightly less if they finished in 11th as they might lose some of the bonus payments, but they will still receive a reasonably substantial prize fund payout.

      1. Don’t know another comment from me, is not up yet, I guess because of a link in it.

        Doesn’t matter, my main point is that even considering this point (that the last 3 years are considered and you ‘only’ need to be 2 times in the top ten), this doesn’t change much actually, or does it?

        I mean this at best means if we are lucky, there are 11 teams throughout the years, but a twelve team, or even a thirteenth are not likely to come or stay. So ok F1 is basically fixed to 10-11 teams with this pay structure (and I might add those expensive PUs).

  9. Agreed, I think top 6 teams should be required to field 3 cars up to the 26 start limit. Third cars reserved for a rookie of no morethan 2 years of F1 experience. So all those GP2 champs have a place to go for 2 years. Then they are either good enough or not.

    We need young aspiring talents in F1 in top machinery. Imagine this rule was in place and Mercedes had Verstapen in third car?

    Secondly constructor points should be given all the way to last place for all finishers. Thus retiring the car would be a disadvantage for all but last place. Teams with 3 cars, their top 2 would count.

    And presto we haz everything fixed.. Grid wise.

    1. I don’t see why the points system should be changed, I prefer things like that to stay the same unless there is a good reason to change it. No points system is perfect, each has its advantages and disadvantages. I would prefer a more equal distribution of money than a change to the points system, I think that is far more important.
      Regarding cars without a defect retiring and still earning points, I don’t think it is something I have ever actually seen, or at least noticed. Maybe it happens a lot and the TV people just overlook it or don’t mention it, but I wasn’t aware of it happening. There was a case this year where a car with a defect did retire and earnt points. However, I don’t know if it would be possible to do such a thing because the pit lanes are before the finish line, so if you drove into the pits before passing the finish line then you would effectively let everyone behind you pass you, meaning you’d be classified as last and out of the points (unless there were sufficient cars crashed or retired that you just happened to be ahead of them, thus in the points).

    2. @jureo

      Third cars reserved for a rookie of no morethan 2 years of F1 experience.

      I detest over-regulation like this. Teams should be able to field whoever they please.

      1. But then what can Vandornes of this world do? F1 where a dominant GP2 champion cannot find a seat has a problem.

        I agree over-regulation is a big problem. For example Verstapen FIA response and regulations… Are a real example of things not to regulate at all.

        In any case whatever the rules and money distribution is… There should be 26 cars on the grid year on year. And way should be open for the best talents of world motosport to enter. Teams should not be more than 2 seconds appart in laptimes.

        Hell just today I watched 2004 USA GP, cars had poise, cars had drama and all overtakes were proper. No DRS no designed to degrade tires, drivers pushing all the time. Except “Lewis and Nico” of that day in “Mercedes” well up front dominating.

        Current state of overregulation does very little but complicate things more, without providing a solution to growing performance disparity.

        Regulations need more longterm vision, less kneejerk reactions.

        1. @jureo

          Regulations need more long-term vision, less knee-jerk reactions.

          I agree completely: not every slightly negative thing that happens in F1 must be immediately addressed by a change in the rules. That’s why I don’t agree with forcing teams to run an extra car which has to be given to an inexperienced driver.

        2. But then what can Vandornes of this world do? F1 where a dominant GP2 champion cannot find a seat has a problem.

          Unfortunately that is a problem, but I don’t think it is actually the problem of F1.
          World Heavyweight Boxing Champion Lennox Lewis once said “You don’t come into the ring with a right hook and a funny hair cut”. Obviously he won that fight, but boxing isn’t the point I want to make, rather, I believe he meant there is an expectation of skill required when you compete at the very top level of a sport, so when you get to compete with the World Champion in any sport then you should be able to take the fight to him (or her or them). If you don’t have that level of skill then you shouldn’t be there. The same applies to F1: F1 has a responsibility to provide top level racing, not to train people.
          When someone gets into the seat of an F1 car they should be ready to chase Lewis Hamilton around the track.
          There are a lot of young drivers in GP2 who are ready to race in the professional world, but can’t find seats, which would be immensely frustrating for the families of those involved. It is something those that run GP2 should think about. The original goal of GP2 was to be a feeder series to F1, but it is apparent F1 isn’t providing the seats, and there won’t be enough for years to come. Maybe GP2 needs to change its format and car so drivers who have done a year or two can easily move on to a career as a professional racing car driver in any motor racing series, not just F1.

    3. We need points for less places, this is the only way u motivate the driver to actually drive and try to overtake. First 6 system was perfect, but they demolished its sense with making the cars more reliable and punishing every contact on track. Im seriously not interested to see all the cars getting to the finish line. This actually makes poor teams even poorer because with everybody having great reliability they have absolutely no chance of scoring points.

      1. How does less point scoring positions promote backmarkers ever getting points?

  10. Does anyone know or have a BTCC Google+ calendar?

    1. Wrong article, sorry.

  11. That picture of the pack at the start is just beautifull. The F1 in its full glory of racing. Now we have useless tyres that last 1 lap when pushing, DRS which is totaly destroying the core of the sport and engine restrictions that makes no sense at all. We should have a grid consisting atleast 26 cars, no DRS, more tyre choice (wider tyres) and cars that would base more on the mechanical grip than on aerodynamics… Also no penalties for contacts while racing and normal sand off-track zones which would punish the drivers for their mistakes. No limitation on fuel and less electronics. U can cut costs, only if u simplify the basics of the sport.

    1. @proteus, cars such as the FW14B and its successor from 1993, the FW15C, are still considered to have the highest degree of electronic driver aids that have ever been fitted to an F1 car – going back to cars of that design would see a marked increase, not a decrease, in the amount of electronic devices fitted to the car.

    2. @proteus What I usually like most is almost every basic color is there…

Comments are closed.