- to have attempted to qualify at at least 2 Grands Prix and
- to have scored 6 points or fewer under pre-2003 points systems
The problem with this is that there was more than one way of distributing points before 2003: The 10/9-6-4-3-2-1 system and its predecessor the 8-6-4-3-2 system, the difference here being that the latter system did not award points for 6th place, whereas the former system did. The phrasing of the driver criteria is simple as it refers only to positions. Rephrasing the team criteria in a similar manner would look rather confusing because there are more permutations for scoring seven pre-2003 points than for scoring three like in the driver criteria.
There is also the famous Osella example where Jo Gartner finished in a points-paying position but wasn't awarded points because only one car was officially entered by the team for the season. How this is considered will make the difference between reject and non-reject status. I think, despite how interesting an Osella profile would certainly be, that it would be better to consider them unrejectified and stick with a criterion based more on finishing positions than on points, as F1 pointscoring is a little complicated.
This new criterion I propose is:
- to have scored 6 points or fewer under the 1991-2002 scoring system, assuming every car could have scored points
This should remove the ambiguity of the previous criteria. Onto the next problem: How to define a team. F1 has a long and complicated history of teams and constructors. The current definition of a team follows these guidelines:
- includes teams attempting to enter F1 as a constructor
- includes privateer teams entering F1 in partnership with a chassis-maker
- does not include privateer teams utilising customer chassis
- does not include constructors supplying customer chassis to teams
Sounds simple, right? If only. Just as there is crossover between the terms "team" and "constructor", there is crossover between what apparently can and cannot be included. Theodore, for example, entered F1 as a constructor, but also previously took part as a privateer team using a customer Ensign chassis. To complicate things further, they scored two points as a constructor, which in theory should warrant inclusion as a reject team, but prior to building their own chassis they scored five points with the Ensign, which adds up to seven points total and in theory it could be argued that they have unrejectified themselves.
A more complicated example is Frank Williams Racing Cars, which ran customer chassis from 1969-72 (1970 being something of an exception, as they were effectively a works De Tomaso effort), introducing their own car - dubbed the Politoys FX3 in deference to their main backer - during the 1972 season. For 1973, with backing now coming from Iso and Marboro, a new car was introduced bearing the Iso-Marlboro name. In 1975 the Williams name first appeared as a constructor, which for 1976 became Wolf-Williams, reflecting the new ownership of Walter Wolf. However, for the whole 1969-75 period the team owner was Frank Williams. Politoys, Iso-Marlboro and Williams (1975 only, if one separates it from the modern team a la Lotus) would all be eligible for profiles if counted separately, but at the same time it would make little sense to profile them, as they are all chapters in the story of the same team.
In most cases, it does of course make sense to take the chassis name as being indicative of a new and separate team. It is generally agreed that Tyrrell and BAR are different entities, with a change in ownership leading to a change in team name. Same goes for Jordan-Midland-Spyker-Force India, or for Minardi-Toro Rosso. There was some overlap with Midland taking over Jordan and keeping the old name for the 2005 season, but the switch was made to Midland in time for 2006. A similar thing happened during the '06 season when Spyker took over. The constructor name was still "MF1" until the end of the season, officially becoming "Spyker" in 2007.
Complications also begin to arise when you get to the infamous Larrousse example, or even their contemporaries BMS Scuderia Italia. Larrousse competed quite successfully with a Lola chassis from 1987-91, easily escaping reject status. 1992-94 are a problem, with the Venturi and in-house Larrousse chassis each scoring less than the required seven points to escape reject status. Similarly, Scuderia Italia would have unrejectified themselves easily with the Dallara chassis, but scored zilch with a Lola. In both cases it was quite obviously the same team with the same owners, the chassis name being the only difference.
However, a line must be drawn and I have the following proposed criteria:
- includes teams attempting to enter F1 as a constructor at some point in their lifetime
- includes privateer teams entering F1 in partnership with a chassis-maker
- does not include privateer teams only utilising customer chassis
- does not include constructors supplying customer chassis to teams
This way, Theodore are unrejectified, as are Larrousse, whether it's 1987-91 or 1992-94.
On a further note I would also like to propose reducing the two Grands Prix threshold for a reject team to one Grand Prix, specifically:
- to have participated in at least one official World Championship session
This would allow for entries such as Bugatti and Stebro to be profiled, also fully allowing for MasterCard Lola, as they only made one proper attempt at qualifying for a race.
Thoughts? Comments? Anyone have any better ways of removing ambiguities? Have I missed something that would complicate things even further? Or should we not bother making a fuss about it and simply judge teams on a case-by-case basis?
