The Not So New Teams


Valued Member
Timo Glock was at 104.9% of the pole time at the 2010 Bahrain Grand Prix, front of the back grid of new teams. Two years later, in Melbourne, Heikki Kovalainen was at 104.4% of the pole time.

Two years later.

Back then Glock was two seconds down on the other Q1 drop-out, Jaime Alguersuari. Today Kovalainen was about a second down on Kimi Raikkonen's Lotus (and a further tenth from the next soft-tyred runner, Felipe Massa). This on a much shorter circuit than Bahrain's "endurance" layout.

Virgin/Marussia have most probably gone relatively backwards since that 2010 d├ębut, and HRT have yet again failed to qualify for the opener (having been saved by the lack of a 107% rule in 2010).

Caterham, admittedly, have made some progress in the last two years, but they're still 2.5 seconds down on the best Q1 lap - of Kamui Kobayashi's Sauber, a car unlikely to be in title contention. However, that is still a meagre return on two entire years of planning.

The question has to be asked, will these three projects ever see any return for their investors, and will any of them ever make their way on to the back of midfield in qualifying? Andhow long will it take for us to stop referring to 'new' teams? Only when their performance is good enough, I'm afraid, and I'm sad to say it appears they'll be 'new' teams for yet another season.
I just can't not refer to them as the new teams, though in 2011 I was expecting Caterham escape the other two and start mixing it with the mid-tablers, and that would have forced me to change the "new teams" tag.

As teabagyokel says, until they do something to alter their status they'll remain "new teams" for a third year at least, even though other teams are only a year or two older!
I entirely blame the testing ban the most recent brand new team I remember was Stewart, and they were in the midfield within three years. Bernie may not be too far off with his idea of letting them use customer cars whilst they develop their own.
Top Bottom