planetf1.com

I've just heard that if any team can not attend any of the races then those races will be none championship, who wants to watch that, it's the equivalent of wanting to watch a pre season football friendly.

I'm not saying it should count as a points scoring round just why bother, the bottom line it seems not to lose money.

Any sources for this? Sounds like a good idea, but we need more info. As in, do they mean not attending because of outside circumstances (like the virus outbreak) or just because they didn't have enough spare parts? Because these are two very different things.

Siao7 wrote:Any sources for this? Sounds like a good idea, but we need more info. As in, do they mean not attending because of outside circumstances (like the virus outbreak) or just because they didn't have enough spare parts? Because these are two very different things.

Obviously it's because of the virus which the teams can't control, if a team is that cash strapped then that's their problem, I heard it came from Ross Brawn.

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:Any sources for this? Sounds like a good idea, but we need more info. As in, do they mean not attending because of outside circumstances (like the virus outbreak) or just because they didn't have enough spare parts? Because these are two very different things.

Obviously it's because of the virus which the teams can't control, if a team is that cash strapped then that's their problem, I heard it came from Ross Brawn.

I know, I was joking. But I would expect a link somehow. This could mean that Ferrari will probably miss most races after Australia?

Why not? Surely better to have a race than not even if it doesn't count toward the championship? What do you lose?

There is rules in place for non attendance and when a championship race becomes a non championship race. Just because a team can not make It due to the Corona virus. Doesn't mean the fia will make it a non championship race. There needs to be less than 12 cars for the race not to count towards the championship.

mikeyg123 wrote:Why not? Surely better to have a race than not even if it doesn't count toward the championship? What do you lose?

Horses for courses I suppose, I couldn't get excited about watching exhibition races were nothing counts, the win, the podium or the pole position.

wire2004 wrote:There is rules in place for non attendance and when a championship race becomes a non championship race. Just because a team can not make It due to the Corona virus. Doesn't mean the fia will make it a non championship race. There needs to be less than 12 cars for the race not to count towards the championship.

Fair enough this may well have been just the musings of Ross Brawn then who brought forward the idea of none championship races?

pokerman wrote:

wire2004 wrote:There is rules in place for non attendance and when a championship race becomes a non championship race. Just because a team can not make It due to the Corona virus. Doesn't mean the fia will make it a non championship race. There needs to be less than 12 cars for the race not to count towards the championship.

Fair enough this may well have been just the musings of Ross Brawn then who brought forward the idea of none championship races?

You got quotes or a link?

I think I saw this somewhere - I just can't find it again, anyway, I think there was a bit more nuance to it than you are making out.

Herb wrote:

pokerman wrote:

wire2004 wrote:There is rules in place for non attendance and when a championship race becomes a non championship race. Just because a team can not make It due to the Corona virus. Doesn't mean the fia will make it a non championship race. There needs to be less than 12 cars for the race not to count towards the championship.

Fair enough this may well have been just the musings of Ross Brawn then who brought forward the idea of none championship races?

You got quotes or a link?

I think I saw this somewhere - I just can't find it again, anyway, I think there was a bit more nuance to it than you are making out.

I will try and find it, it could be that I only half read it.

Finally found it - it was on the BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/51727401

Ross Brawn wrote:If a team is prevented from entering a country, we can't have a race.

Not a World Championship race, anyway, because that would be unfair.

and

Ross Brawn wrote:Obviously if a team makes its own choice not to go to a race, that's their decision.

But where a team is prevented from going to a race because of a decision of the country then it's difficult to have a fair competition.

See, its if the host country stops a team competing. If a team takes steps itself, there will just be a race without them.


Also - I will definitely watch a non-championship race, as will many others.

I wonder if things like engines would be taken out of the season's normal allocation. If not, would any team stick in a basically disposable engine in and give it full whack for the full race?

Herb wrote:Finally found it - it was on the BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/51727401

Ross Brawn wrote:If a team is prevented from entering a country, we can't have a race.

Not a World Championship race, anyway, because that would be unfair.

and

Ross Brawn wrote:Obviously if a team makes its own choice not to go to a race, that's their decision.

But where a team is prevented from going to a race because of a decision of the country then it's difficult to have a fair competition.

See, its if the host country stops a team competing. If a team takes steps itself, there will just be a race without them.


Also - I will definitely watch a non-championship race, as will many others.

I wonder if things like engines would be taken out of the season's normal allocation. If not, would any team stick in a basically disposable engine in and give it full whack for the full race?

Yeah I found it as well.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14853 ... oronavirus

It seems that Ross Brawn feels empowered to be able to re write the rule book judging by what I've read in this thread about the minimum number of cars required.

Could actually be quite interesting, if handled well, no point settling for second to bring home the points if there are no points.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:Could actually be quite interesting, if handled well, no point settling for second to bring home the points if there are no points.

Yes, the races themselves could be exciting. We often get the most entertaining races when the championship is over. Look how Hamilton and Mercedes treated Brazil last season. Taking low percentage shots in the hope of a win rather than an easy podium.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:Could actually be quite interesting, if handled well, no point settling for second to bring home the points if there are no points.

What good is the win if it doesn't appear on your career record?

pokerman wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:Could actually be quite interesting, if handled well, no point settling for second to bring home the points if there are no points.

What good is the win if it doesn't appear on your career record?

Not everybody cares about that!

pokerman wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:Could actually be quite interesting, if handled well, no point settling for second to bring home the points if there are no points.

What good is the win if it doesn't appear on your career record?

Is watching a race better or worse than watching no race?

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:Could actually be quite interesting, if handled well, no point settling for second to bring home the points if there are no points.

What good is the win if it doesn't appear on your career record?

Is watching a race better or worse than watching no race?

For me the race would be meaningless so why would I watch, also it's liable to be competing against another sporting event that actually has some meaning whether it be the likes of MotoGP or football.

Non...

DOLOMITE wrote:Non...

Is that a spelling correction?

pokerman wrote:

Herb wrote:Finally found it - it was on the BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/51727401

Ross Brawn wrote:If a team is prevented from entering a country, we can't have a race.

Not a World Championship race, anyway, because that would be unfair.

and

Ross Brawn wrote:Obviously if a team makes its own choice not to go to a race, that's their decision.

But where a team is prevented from going to a race because of a decision of the country then it's difficult to have a fair competition.

See, its if the host country stops a team competing. If a team takes steps itself, there will just be a race without them.


Also - I will definitely watch a non-championship race, as will many others.

I wonder if things like engines would be taken out of the season's normal allocation. If not, would any team stick in a basically disposable engine in and give it full whack for the full race?

Yeah I found it as well.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14853 ... oronavirus

It seems that Ross Brawn feels empowered to be able to re write the rule book judging by what I've read in this thread about the minimum number of cars required.

I imagine that the rule book would be a normal scenario, not force majore like a country not admitting Ferrari because they come from Italy for example.

pokerman wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:Non...

Is that a spelling correction?

It's a request for one!

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:Could actually be quite interesting, if handled well, no point settling for second to bring home the points if there are no points.

What good is the win if it doesn't appear on your career record?

Is watching a race better or worse than watching no race?

For me the race would be meaningless so why would I watch, also it's liable to be competing against another sporting event that actually has some meaning whether it be the likes of MotoGP or football.

And that's cool. I'm sure you won't be alone in that.

I enjoy the races in themselves so I would still watch. Seeing as you lose nothing from races being run even if you chose not to watch I don't understand why you would complain about it?

Oh, you'd watch.
Back in the day us old wrinklies turned up in their thousands for The International Trophy and The Race of Champions. I still remember 1975 and Tom Pryce winning in the snow. Counted for diddly-squat in terms of points but like beating The Stig it gave bragging rights.

Rule Book, haha. Everyone has a rule book around cancellation policies for general scenarios – even insurance/flights etc. Clearly Coronavirus is unique and in many cases will call for exceptions from the rules and we should not expect any less from the FIA. It is not surprising that they are setting specific rules based on this situation due to the high probability it will impact a good portion of the season.

I think with McLaren withdrawing but all the teams already there, surely the most likely outcome is a race but no specactors?

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Herb wrote:Finally found it - it was on the BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/51727401

Ross Brawn wrote:If a team is prevented from entering a country, we can't have a race.

Not a World Championship race, anyway, because that would be unfair.

and

Ross Brawn wrote:Obviously if a team makes its own choice not to go to a race, that's their decision.

But where a team is prevented from going to a race because of a decision of the country then it's difficult to have a fair competition.

See, its if the host country stops a team competing. If a team takes steps itself, there will just be a race without them.


Also - I will definitely watch a non-championship race, as will many others.

I wonder if things like engines would be taken out of the season's normal allocation. If not, would any team stick in a basically disposable engine in and give it full whack for the full race?

Yeah I found it as well.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14853 ... oronavirus

It seems that Ross Brawn feels empowered to be able to re write the rule book judging by what I've read in this thread about the minimum number of cars required.

I imagine that the rule book would be a normal scenario, not force majore like a country not admitting Ferrari because they come from Italy for example.

Now we have McLaren not competing, let's see what happens.

DOLOMITE wrote:

pokerman wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:Non...

Is that a spelling correction?

It's a request for one!

Is it correct with the hyphen?

pokerman wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:

pokerman wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:Non...

Is that a spelling correction?

It's a request for one!

Is it correct with the hyphen?

I'm saying yes, thank-you!

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:Could actually be quite interesting, if handled well, no point settling for second to bring home the points if there are no points.

What good is the win if it doesn't appear on your career record?

Is watching a race better or worse than watching no race?

For me the race would be meaningless so why would I watch, also it's liable to be competing against another sporting event that actually has some meaning whether it be the likes of MotoGP or football.

And that's cool. I'm sure you won't be alone in that.

I enjoy the races in themselves so I would still watch. Seeing as you lose nothing from races being run even if you chose not to watch I don't understand why you would complain about it?

Maybe there could be better alternatives like introducing dropped rounds so everyone has to have a non scoring round for the rounds some teams have to miss, still a slight disadvantage to the team missing the round completely.

In the situation we have now if the race goes ahead it becomes a risk and reward situation, why risk the health of everyone at the circuit for a meaningless non scoring race?

The health issues are that bad that McLaren have had to pull out, how can a exhibition race be justified?

and surely we're now looking at a non-WDC race "behind closed doors"...

I appreciate that McLaren are withdrawing rather than being excluded but they are doing this primarily in the interests of the public and other teams, not themselves. so Non-WDC seems fair.

and the teams are already out there and the circuit ready to use, so may as well race, but it's going to be increasingly hard to justify allowing the crowds .

painless wrote:Oh, you'd watch.
Back in the day us old wrinklies turned up in their thousands for The International Trophy and The Race of Champions. I still remember 1975 and Tom Pryce winning in the snow. Counted for diddly-squat in terms of points but like beating The Stig it gave bragging rights.

Like I said not if there was an alternative sporting event I could watch, I like a lot of different sports.

I'm a big Hamilton fan but him winning a meaningless race, meh it counts for nothing.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: What good is the win if it doesn't appear on your career record?

Is watching a race better or worse than watching no race?

For me the race would be meaningless so why would I watch, also it's liable to be competing against another sporting event that actually has some meaning whether it be the likes of MotoGP or football.

And that's cool. I'm sure you won't be alone in that.

I enjoy the races in themselves so I would still watch. Seeing as you lose nothing from races being run even if you chose not to watch I don't understand why you would complain about it?

Maybe there could be better alternatives like introducing dropped rounds so everyone has to have a non scoring round for the rounds some teams have to miss, still a slight disadvantage to the team missing the round completely.

In the situation we have now if the race goes ahead it becomes a risk and reward situation, why risk the health of everyone at the circuit for a meaningless non scoring race?

The health issues are that bad that McLaren have had to pull out, how can a exhibition race be justified?

Well it's too late now. The damage has done. May as well run the race behind close doors.

DOLOMITE wrote:

pokerman wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:

pokerman wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:Non...

Is that a spelling correction?

It's a request for one!

Is it correct with the hyphen?

I'm saying yes, thank-you!

I'm quite a good speller but grammar wouldn't be my forte.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote: Is watching a race better or worse than watching no race?

For me the race would be meaningless so why would I watch, also it's liable to be competing against another sporting event that actually has some meaning whether it be the likes of MotoGP or football.

And that's cool. I'm sure you won't be alone in that.

I enjoy the races in themselves so I would still watch. Seeing as you lose nothing from races being run even if you chose not to watch I don't understand why you would complain about it?

Maybe there could be better alternatives like introducing dropped rounds so everyone has to have a non scoring round for the rounds some teams have to miss, still a slight disadvantage to the team missing the round completely.

In the situation we have now if the race goes ahead it becomes a risk and reward situation, why risk the health of everyone at the circuit for a meaningless non scoring race?

The health issues are that bad that McLaren have had to pull out, how can a exhibition race be justified?

Well it's too late now. The damage has done. May as well run the race behind close doors.

Yeah that would cover the health aspect of it.

pokerman wrote:

painless wrote:Oh, you'd watch.
Back in the day us old wrinklies turned up in their thousands for The International Trophy and The Race of Champions. I still remember 1975 and Tom Pryce winning in the snow. Counted for diddly-squat in terms of points but like beating The Stig it gave bragging rights.

Like I said not if there was an alternative sporting event I could watch, I like a lot of different sports.

I'm a big Hamilton fan but him winning a meaningless race, meh it counts for nothing.

Really? It's all about the result? So if you found out after that Hamilton had won a non-WDC race in Oz after a race-long battle with Verstappen and Russel managed to get on the podium from a last place grid slot, you wouldn't bother seeking out a re-run to watch?

It’s the first race, it’s a test race, a none championship race during the mid or late season wouldn’t be that great. The first race is completely different. I assume you watched and followed none of testing Poker?

BBC Reporting its cancelled....

DOLOMITE wrote:

pokerman wrote:

painless wrote:Oh, you'd watch.
Back in the day us old wrinklies turned up in their thousands for The International Trophy and The Race of Champions. I still remember 1975 and Tom Pryce winning in the snow. Counted for diddly-squat in terms of points but like beating The Stig it gave bragging rights.

Like I said not if there was an alternative sporting event I could watch, I like a lot of different sports.

I'm a big Hamilton fan but him winning a meaningless race, meh it counts for nothing.

Really? It's all about the result? So if you found out after that Hamilton had won a non-WDC race in Oz after a race-long battle with Verstappen and Russel managed to get on the podium from a last place grid slot, you wouldn't bother seeking out a re-run to watch?

No it wouldn't bother me, it would be just an exhibition race and it's not adding to Hamilton's stats.