30 or 40 into 20

[Skeeter]

Bear with me...

As we all know there is a massive influx of new tracks coming into F1. Bernie seems to be adding at least 1 new venue a year, and we still have Mexico, Russia, Greece and Hong Kong on the cars at the moment. Obvisously these tracks are going to be added to the calendar at the expense of some of our old favourites.

However, why do we have to be limited to the number of tracks that match the number of races per season? What if we have a lot more sharing deals?

You wouldn't want a venue to be off the calendar for more than a year, but no reason they can't alternate. Imagine if tracks got together into groups of 3 and each one took 1 year off and then 2 years on. If every venue was in that kind of deal then it would mean we could have 30 venues used with 20 races a season with each track being used 2 our of every 3 years.

If you pushed it up to pairs, so each track alternates year on year with 1 other track (like the German races) then it could mean 40 venues used over 2 years.

Clearly you aren't going to get deals like this for every track, but if you get a few on this sort of arrangement there is no reason why F1 couldn't run a 20 race season, yet have 25 to 30 different venues that it goes too. Each year would also be slightly different to mix things up.

I know that given the choice between no British GP and a British GP 2 out of every 3 years alternating its year off with say Russia and Hong Kong, I'd rather have the setup that kept a British GP.

Sorry, long post, I did warn you

What do you think?

(I wonder how many people are going to click this thread thinking its about speed limits )

 

[Skeeter]

Its not 1 in 3, its 2 in 3 or 1 in 2. A venue would be off the calendar for 1 year at a time at most. The 3 track sharing would have 2 spots on the calendar, with 1 track sitting out each year.

It worked for Germany. Neither the Nurburgring or Hockenheim could afford a full time race, yet alternating has kept both of them on the calendar (for now).

 

[Skeeter]

The problem comes when tracks where nobody turns up are propped up by government money.

 

[Skeeter]

If the money works out, then it would be good to have a bit more variety in the circuits and make the teams work a bit harder to get the right set ups on tracks they aren't recently familiar with.

I think all testing should be done on tracks that they don't race on.

At the very least it takes F1 to places it wouldn't usually go to.

 

[Skeeter]

Yeah in theory you would want that, but it depends how many F1 spec tracks that aren't on the calendar are up to scratch still. But this could be sorted if they alternative and could give the circuits off that calendar that year a little income.

Classification for F1 testing is less strict than for F1 races. There's a lot of tracks that are classified for testing.