planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:48 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 6:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 11:29 am
Posts: 561
I just read this on the Autocar website:

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/moto ... eam-mooted

It would be good to see the Brabham name back in F1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 6:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:11 am
Posts: 872
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:53 pm
Posts: 1344
Location: Canada
owenmahamilton wrote:
It would be good to see the Brabham name back in F1.

:thumbup: :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 7:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 4983
Location: Mumbai, India
I think the deal will go through. Both owners of Force India are facing financial hurdles & the continuity of the team in the long term seems in jeopardy.

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 9:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9380
Location: Ireland
UnlikeUday wrote:
I think the deal will go through. Both owners of Force India are facing financial hurdles & the continuity of the team in the long term seems in jeopardy.

Financial hurdles. And being out of jail hurdles

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 9:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 3767
I think "Brabham" and pink dont suit each other for some reason


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 9:32 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1239
I'd love to see the Brabham team back iin F1. I have little to no interest seeing a 100% unrelated team using this historic name. I felt the same way about Lotus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 9:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 11:29 am
Posts: 561
nixxxon wrote:
I think "Brabham" and pink dont suit each other for some reason


When Damon Hill drove for them the car was pink and blue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 4983
Location: Mumbai, India
BWT & many other sponsors have tied up with Force India which proves about the sponsors' confidence in the team as whole. The entire sponsor money may not be enough to sustain Force India through the oncoming seasons but who knows.

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 12:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 202
Herb Tarlik wrote:
I'd love to see the Brabham team back iin F1. I have little to no interest seeing a 100% unrelated team using this historic name. I felt the same way about Lotus.


If it's brought back by the Brabham family with them involved in the running them it surely is truly Brabham, unlike the two lotus efforts (though I was happier with the first one)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:57 am
Posts: 907
Location: Brazil
dompclarke wrote:
If it's brought back by the Brabham family with them involved in the running them it surely is truly Brabham, unlike the two lotus efforts (though I was happier with the first one)


It seems from the news that David's involvement will only go as far as licensing the name, which isn't too bad considering Brabham doesn't have any of the legal problems Lotus did.

Licensing the name is easy money for David at this point, and well worth spending resources on, if the return will be much bigger.

Brabham had a somewhat troubled history despite their longetivity, with Jack himself giving up on the team and Tauranac leaving after being displeased with the way Bernie ran things. Furthermore, when Bernie sold the team to concentrate full time on the FOCA, the team had some major debt and was quickly collapsing. It's really unfair that Bernie went on to become one of the richest men in the world while others were left with Brabham's mess and the team itself suffered as a result.

I'd be fine with seeing Brabham back on the grid after the removal of Bernie.

_________________
Image

"Ask any racer, any real racer... It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." (Dominic Toretto, "The Fast and The Furious")


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:11 am
Posts: 872
nixxxon wrote:
I think "Brabham" and pink dont suit each other for some reason


That's subjective, but considering how few cars have been pink in the history of F1, it's worth noting that Brabham was precisely one of those few cars that used a pink livery.

Image
Source: Flickr


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 10:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4145
So, a family inheritance in the form of the known name will be sold for commercial purposes, and they will put sticker "Brabham" on the car. No, it does not have anything to do with the old Martini and Parmalat Brabhams. That era is gone. It would be awkward putting thte Brabham name again the the scheme, 'cause it will have no connection to that what once Brabham really was.

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 10:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4202
Location: Michigan, USA
Lt. Drebin wrote:
So, a family inheritance in the form of the known name will be sold for commercial purposes, and they will put sticker "Brabham" on the car. No, it does not have anything to do with the old Martini and Parmalat Brabhams. That era is gone. It would be awkward putting thte Brabham name again the the scheme, 'cause it will have no connection to that what once Brabham really was.

... isn't this project still headed by David Brabham? I don't give a damn about Martini or Parmalat - they were the sponsors. David is a former F1 driver and very successful in several forms of endurance racing. If he's still involved with the project, it's still the real Brabham - there will be a very direct connection, since I'm going to assume David Brabham knew his father fairly well.

David Brabham, the son of three-time World Champion Sir Jack Brabham, is a former Formula 1 driver and Le Mans winner, and also won the Bathurst 1000 in Australia and was twice American Le Mans Series champion. In recent years he has been quietly working on securing all the necessary Brabham trademarks, with what he calls Project Brabham. He is not denying that there is a project.

"Brabham is a brand with more than 69 years of racing heritage and it is our intention to see the name back on track," he said. "Since Project Brabham was launched, we have received a lot of enquiries from different parties who have expressed an interest in licensing the name and we are evaluating a number of options. We have no further comment."


If you don't consider that having anything to do with the real Brabham team, then Williams is the only team that has anything to do with its actual heritage. The other historical teams are all headed by people with no direct connection to their founders.

I, personally, think it would be neat to see the Brabham name back on a competitive car, as long as the Brabhams are actually involved. I didn't approve of the fake Lotus team, since that venture had no approval or involvement from anyone having to do with the actual Lotus team. This isn't the same.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 12:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5712
Location: Nebraska, USA
I am with Herb and the LT. on this. Better to let the Brabham name rest in peace rather than selling it for licensing rights so someone can buy and instant fanbase and perceived credibility. I suppose, as with Lotus, they would try to claim the Brabham victories as theirs as well. I haven't seen anything yet that shows David Brabham's involvement other than the licensing of his father's name. That appears to be his "project". Perhaps Black Jack would have approved of this so-called project, but I prefer to think not.

69 years of racing heritage is a bit of a stretch as I see it. They haven't been active, other that David's driving" since the early 90s unless I am missing something... that is about a quarter of a century ago.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:57 am
Posts: 907
Location: Brazil
Blake wrote:
I am with Herb and the LT. on this. Better to let the Brabham name rest in peace rather than selling it for licensing rights so someone can buy and instant fanbase and perceived credibility. I suppose, as with Lotus, they would try to claim the Brabham victories as theirs as well. I haven't seen anything yet that shows David Brabham's involvement other than the licensing of his father's name. That appears to be his "project". Perhaps Black Jack would have approved of this so-called project, but I prefer to think not.

69 years of racing heritage is a bit of a stretch as I see it. They haven't been active, other that David's driving" since the early 90s unless I am missing something... that is about a quarter of a century ago.


It does seem David is after the easy money that licensing will bring, but I don't really care about it, because resurrecting lost names is common practice in motorsport. We've seen Ligier prototypes in Le Mans in recent years, and that name was killed more than 20 years ago when Alain Prost bought the F1 team and rebranded it.

Heck, we even see it in road cars... The best known example is probably Bugatti, which had been dead for over 30 years until Romano Artioli decided to bring it back, then he went bankrupt and the Volkswagen group acquired the rights and built a Bugatti-branded car which was nothing more than a vanity project from Ferdinand Piëch, as the tech in the car is all Volkswagen.

Is it bad? You be the judge. I'm personally indifferent to it.

_________________
Image

"Ask any racer, any real racer... It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." (Dominic Toretto, "The Fast and The Furious")


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 7:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1740
Blake wrote:
I am with Herb and the LT. on this. Better to let the Brabham name rest in peace rather than selling it for licensing rights so someone can buy and instant fanbase and perceived credibility. I suppose, as with Lotus, they would try to claim the Brabham victories as theirs as well. I haven't seen anything yet that shows David Brabham's involvement other than the licensing of his father's name. That appears to be his "project". Perhaps Black Jack would have approved of this so-called project, but I prefer to think not.

69 years of racing heritage is a bit of a stretch as I see it. They haven't been active, other that David's driving" since the early 90s unless I am missing something... that is about a quarter of a century ago.


Confused me for a bit Blake. We rarely agree. Then I realised it wasn't me you were agreeing with ;)

But actually, I do agree. This sounds as though it will not really be anything to do with Brabham. And not even really anything to do with "Project Brabham" as I know it, the attempt to get into Le Mans for which I contributed to a couple of years ago when they opened their crowdsourcing.

Why not just come up with an original name? Or stick with Force India?

But then I guess you could have an issue with Mercedes. Yes the parent company may be the same (to my limited knowledge of the company) as in the 1950's, but really anyone actually involved in the racing team are not in the slightest related.

_________________
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 9:08 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1239
Exediron wrote:


If you don't consider that having anything to do with the real Brabham team, then Williams is the only team that has anything to do with its actual heritage. The other historical teams are all headed by people with no direct connection to their founders.


Any new Brabham team will have nothing to do with the original team founded by Sir Jack. That his son can apparently license his name does not change this.

Sure, Bruce McLaren has not been part of the McLaren team since the very early '70s. That does not take away from the fact that today's McLaren team is a dire t descendant from that team. Even with the Ron Dennis buyout of McLaren there was continuity from the old team to the new. Original team members will always come and go. Ferrari today is very much the historical Ferrari from the past 65 years.

Exediron wrote:


I, personally, think it would be neat to see the Brabham name back on a competitive car, as long as the Brabhams are actually involved. I didn't approve of the fake Lotus team, since that venture had no approval or involvement from anyone having to do with the actual Lotus team. This isn't the same.


Is having David Brabham cashing the check that he got from selling his father's name "involved"? I dont think so. I can't see how anyone would see this being different from the resurrection of Lotus.

I was against bringing that name back into F1 and I'm against this Brabham news as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 9:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 1995
Location: England
Seems like he would be licensing the name in order to promote the creation of a 'Brabham' sportscar..... seems a whole lot more credible than either of the 'Lotus' efforts in the recent past, and unlike the JPS paintjob that was an easy win for that team at the time, any Brabham team would be hard pressed to trade solely on a livery (Parmalat is long gone, Martini have a new home... maybe they can paint a fan on the rear wing? lol).

Seems fairly win/win to me. Mallaya and Subrata get to offload the team for a fair few quid that they can spend on fighting their rather more pressing battles, F1 gets a 'known' name back, with a team under it that clearly knows what it is doing, and David Brabham makes a few quid and gets to promote whatever it is he is attempting to come up with.

_________________
http://tsatr.mooo.com
The Sun and The Rain - The reluctant runner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 9:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3199
Just out of interest, we see manufacturers come and go all the time so why can't private names come and go?. Do they really have to be the exact same original owner,factory,mechanics etc.?

If I won 1 trillion in the lottery, bought Mercedes and called it Tyrrell would that be more acceptable just because you could trace it back to Tyrrell even though I've got nothing to do with Tyrrell whatsoever?.

Just interested in the thought process, not being funny.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 10:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4202
Location: Michigan, USA
Lotus49 wrote:
If I won 1 trillion in the lottery, bought Mercedes and called it Tyrrell would that be more acceptable just because you could trace it back to Tyrrell even though I've got nothing to do with Tyrrell whatsoever?.

Just interested in the thought process, not being funny.

As I understand it, no. I believe the argument is that because Ken Tyrrell wouldn't be involved, no Tyrrell team could possibly be legitimate.

How this doesn't mean that Ferrari is illegitimate is another question, since the actual Ferrari family has next to nothing to do with the running of the team. It's essentially just Fiat using the appeal of the name to sell cars, isn't it? Same story with McLaren. Williams I suppose gets a pass, since they don't sell cars and Claire is still running the team directly.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 11:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 59
Lotus49 wrote:
Just out of interest, we see manufacturers come and go all the time so why can't private names come and go?. Do they really have to be the exact same original owner,factory,mechanics etc.?

If I won 1 trillion in the lottery, bought Mercedes and called it Tyrrell would that be more acceptable just because you could trace it back to Tyrrell even though I've got nothing to do with Tyrrell whatsoever?.

Just interested in the thought process, not being funny.


I don't know if you deliberately did it and I missed the joke, but buying Mercedes and renaming it Tyrrell would just be giving the name back to the original owner

Mercedes was Brawn, which was Honda, which was BAR, which was Tyrrell. So IMO that would be acceptable. The history's there


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 12:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:57 am
Posts: 907
Location: Brazil
Exediron wrote:
As I understand it, no. I believe the argument is that because Ken Tyrrell wouldn't be involved, no Tyrrell team could possibly be legitimate.

How this doesn't mean that Ferrari is illegitimate is another question, since the actual Ferrari family has next to nothing to do with the running of the team. It's essentially just Fiat using the appeal of the name to sell cars, isn't it? Same story with McLaren. Williams I suppose gets a pass, since they don't sell cars and Claire is still running the team directly.


They say it's because Ferrari and McLaren have existed continuously, unlike Team Lotus (dead and buried in 1994) and Brabham (dead and buried in 1992).

However, Ferrari is no longer the same as before, and hasn't been since the Montezemolo days at the very least. Piero Ferrari (son of Enzo with his mistress) is a member of the board, but the one who calls the shots there nowadays is Sergio Marchionne.

Likewise, the Lamborghini family hasn't been involved with Automobili Lamborghini since the 70s. Doesn't matter that the cars are still built in Sant'Agata de Bolognese... Ownership is different, goals are different, marketing is different. Ferruccio didn't want people to race his cars, but now Lamborghini has a variety of race cars in activity.

People seem to forget that Jack Brabham didn't want to continue running the team, which led to Bernie Ecclestone's takeover. From that moment, Brabham became just another name on the grid and was no longer linked to Jack. The infrastructure of the team remained the same, but the spirit was gone already.

_________________
Image

"Ask any racer, any real racer... It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." (Dominic Toretto, "The Fast and The Furious")


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 1:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3199
bradtheboywonder wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Just out of interest, we see manufacturers come and go all the time so why can't private names come and go?. Do they really have to be the exact same original owner,factory,mechanics etc.?

If I won 1 trillion in the lottery, bought Mercedes and called it Tyrrell would that be more acceptable just because you could trace it back to Tyrrell even though I've got nothing to do with Tyrrell whatsoever?.

Just interested in the thought process, not being funny.


I don't know if you deliberately did it and I missed the joke, but buying Mercedes and renaming it Tyrrell would just be giving the name back to the original owner

Mercedes was Brawn, which was Honda, which was BAR, which was Tyrrell. So IMO that would be acceptable. The history's there


But am I, a random trillionaire with no links to Tyrrell, the original owner just because I buy the team that bought the team that bought the team that bought the team from the original owner?.

There was definitely no joke I'm just interested because I can remember my own strange feelings about the Team Lotus revival. I could never settle on what I actually felt about it because everything I thought felt contradictory in some way.

I was just wondering why we would find that more acceptable just because that's what it was called 20yrs ago. We don't refer to Merc as Tyrrell, we don't add their history to their current stats, I've no idea if anyone from Tyrrell is still there and we don't even think of them as anything to do with them really but if a random billionaire with zero ties rocks up with a Tyrrell sticker and stuck it on the car then we'd all be like "Yeah that's Tyrrell".

Would they get all the history Merc,BAR etc. couldn't claim even though it's as much Mercedes now as it ever was Tyrrell?. Do I get all Mercedes stats too?. It's interesting.

I can't get it to sit right in my head that a Brahbam bringing back a Brahbam can't be a Brahbam because there is no historical or business/building continuation. That they are somehow not allowed to come and go but Renault for example can.

If Mercedes leave in 2021 but come back in 2040 but can only start from scratch or buy somewhere other than where they are now do they get the history?. Is it more ok?.

I think if Brahbam was still on the grid in a Mercedes/Tyrrell type way I'd be more inclined to think it's got nothing to do with Brahbam but that team folded. Surely that means it can be brought back?. That it's a Brahbam doing it makes it even more palatable you would think.

I think(I think!) private teams, as long as they've got permission should be able to come and go if they want to as much as anyone else. I think it only doesn't make sense if the "old" team is still on the grid and traceable back.

I'm just interested in people's thought process as much as the actual thought I guess. As Exediron's post infers, there seems to be some that wouldn't think of Tyrrell in that regard either by some thought process and it brings up other questions then about other teams and their links to their original set up.

Lot of bloody questions there, sorry, but it's an interesting situation. :lol:

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 2:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5712
Location: Nebraska, USA
Exediron wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
If I won 1 trillion in the lottery, bought Mercedes and called it Tyrrell would that be more acceptable just because you could trace it back to Tyrrell even though I've got nothing to do with Tyrrell whatsoever?.

Just interested in the thought process, not being funny.

As I understand it, no. I believe the argument is that because Ken Tyrrell wouldn't be involved, no Tyrrell team could possibly be legitimate.

How this doesn't mean that Ferrari is illegitimate is another question, since the actual Ferrari family has next to nothing to do with the running of the team. It's essentially just Fiat using the appeal of the name to sell cars, isn't it? Same story with McLaren. Williams I suppose gets a pass, since they don't sell cars and Claire is still running the team directly.


Actually, I think you will find that Fiat does not own Ferrari, it was spun off a couple of years ago. Ferrari is now on the NASDAQ stock exchange today listed as RACE... and the stocks are doing quite well by the way.

Also, there is still a Ferrari involved with the Ferrari company, Enzo's son, Piero owns a significant percentage and is Vice-Chairman of Ferrari SPa. So, if we we want to get nit-picky, that is an issue that can be put to rest. BTW, with the claim that Luca was not "Ferrari", one should remember who first hired Luca... hint, it wasn't Jean Todt.

i am somewhat surprised to see this "argument" fed by the idea that McLaren and Ferrari are not a continuation of the original companies. To use that as a justification for a bunch of millionaires buying a treasured name from F1's past and trying to bank off it, is rather disgusting to me. I hated it when they tried to do it with Lotus, and won't be impressed if it is done to the Brabham name. How can any of you be happy with it? I obviously do not understand. I do understand that people die... Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, McLaren, Brabham, Lotus... and on and on. However, some of the companies keep going, some do not. Those who do, carry on the name... and I guess those who give it up.. sell it.

Someone brought up the fact that some street cars have done the same, and I can tell that I find most of them to be a joke as well. A cartoonish revival of the Stutz name, Deusenburg, and a few others... I didn't care for them either.

And then we have the Mercedes issue... At least Mercedes did not have to go out and buy a name when they came back to F1 I think that it is safe to say that they owned all along.

Anyway, if some of you want to legitimize a Brabham F1 team, as you did a Lotus F1 team, that is your prerogative. I may be an old fart living in the past, so be it.... I won't be on Welcome back Brabham tour....

;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Last edited by Blake on Sat May 06, 2017 3:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 3:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 59
Lotus49 wrote:
bradtheboywonder wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Just out of interest, we see manufacturers come and go all the time so why can't private names come and go?. Do they really have to be the exact same original owner,factory,mechanics etc.?

If I won 1 trillion in the lottery, bought Mercedes and called it Tyrrell would that be more acceptable just because you could trace it back to Tyrrell even though I've got nothing to do with Tyrrell whatsoever?.

Just interested in the thought process, not being funny.


I don't know if you deliberately did it and I missed the joke, but buying Mercedes and renaming it Tyrrell would just be giving the name back to the original owner

Mercedes was Brawn, which was Honda, which was BAR, which was Tyrrell. So IMO that would be acceptable. The history's there


But am I, a random trillionaire with no links to Tyrrell, the original owner just because I buy the team that bought the team that bought the team that bought the team from the original owner?.

There was definitely no joke I'm just interested because I can remember my own strange feelings about the Team Lotus revival. I could never settle on what I actually felt about it because everything I thought felt contradictory in some way.

I was just wondering why we would find that more acceptable just because that's what it was called 20yrs ago. We don't refer to Merc as Tyrrell, we don't add their history to their current stats, I've no idea if anyone from Tyrrell is still there and we don't even think of them as anything to do with them really but if a random billionaire with zero ties rocks up with a Tyrrell sticker and stuck it on the car then we'd all be like "Yeah that's Tyrrell".

Would they get all the history Merc,BAR etc. couldn't claim even though it's as much Mercedes now as it ever was Tyrrell?. Do I get all Mercedes stats too?. It's interesting.

I can't get it to sit right in my head that a Brahbam bringing back a Brahbam can't be a Brahbam because there is no historical or business/building continuation. That they are somehow not allowed to come and go but Renault for example can.

If Mercedes leave in 2021 but come back in 2040 but can only start from scratch or buy somewhere other than where they are now do they get the history?. Is it more ok?.

I think if Brahbam was still on the grid in a Mercedes/Tyrrell type way I'd be more inclined to think it's got nothing to do with Brahbam but that team folded. Surely that means it can be brought back?. That it's a Brahbam doing it makes it even more palatable you would think.

I think(I think!) private teams, as long as they've got permission should be able to come and go if they want to as much as anyone else. I think it only doesn't make sense if the "old" team is still on the grid and traceable back.

I'm just interested in people's thought process as much as the actual thought I guess. As Exediron's post infers, there seems to be some that wouldn't think of Tyrrell in that regard either by some thought process and it brings up other questions then about other teams and their links to their original set up.

Lot of bloody questions there, sorry, but it's an interesting situation. :lol:


Yeah it's a good point, and I'm trying to develop my thoughts as I go. I like to see both sides along the argument before I make my choice.

Now if you spent your trillion dollars, and bought Toyota, then bought FI and renamed it Toyota, would you get the Toyota history? In that case, I feel like the answer is no, because I see that as a marketing ploy.. yet if Toyota today bought FI I would say yes... similar to why Mercedes gets to continue their history when they bought Brawn.

The Brabham case, I say yes, because the name is owned by the Brabham family, so I feel it's different. In my head I feel if the family can choose and approve the investors, then it's more acceptable. Plus I'm sure David will be getting his hands dirty in the team somehow.

The Lotus debarcle, that's a no, because of the whole Proton relationship. The Chapmans didn't have any say (From what I know) and I see that as a matketing ploy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 4:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4202
Location: Michigan, USA
Blake wrote:
Actually, I think you will find that Fiat does not own Ferrari, it was spun off a couple of years ago. Ferrari is now on the NASDAQ stock exchange today listed as RACE... and the stocks are doing quite well by the way.

Also, there is still a Ferrari involved with the Ferrari company, Enzo's son, Piero owns a significant percentage and is Vice-Chairman of Ferrari SPa. So, if we we want to get nit-picky, that is an issue that can be put to rest. BTW, with the claim that Luca was not "Ferrari", one should remember who first hired Luca... hint, it wasn't Jean Todt.

That may well be true about the spinoff, but the CEO of Ferrari is still the same person as the CEO of Fiat. I don't see them as being independently run, and I see little if any influence from Piero in the actual decision-making of the company. Luca was another story; under Luca, I felt that there was significantly more direct connection to the history of Ferrari.

As for McLaren, I (and many other Macca fans) feel that with Ron gone, it's not the same team it was. It's still McLaren, but something has definitely changed, and I'm not sure I like someone with no connection to McLaren's heritage like Zak Brown trying so hard to appeal to fans by going back to the way things were before Ron. In a very real way, Ron was McLaren more than McLaren himself was.

Blake wrote:
i am somewhat surprised to see this "argument" fed by the idea that McLaren and Ferrari are not a continuation of the original companies. To use that as a justification for a bunch of millionaires buying a treasured name from F1's past and trying to bank off it, is rather disgusting to me. I hated it when they tried to do it with Lotus, and won't be impressed if it is done to the Brabham name. How can any of you be happy with it? I obviously do not understand. I do understand that people die... Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, McLaren, Brabham, Lotus... and on and on. However, some of the companies keep going, some do not. Those who do, carry on the name... and I guess those who give it up.. sell it.

Clearly, we do in fact see the issue quite differently. I don't see any need for continuity as long as the name has a claim to legitimacy, whereas it seems you feel if the team ceases to exist it should stay that way. I fully agree that if David Brabham is not actually involved in the team in any way beyond selling the name that it isn't legitimate. However, unlike you and several others that's not the way I'm interpreting the news just yet. I think we should wait to see what (if anything) actually happens before we leap to the assumption that David is just selling the name and will have nothing to do with the team.

Blake wrote:
And then we have the Mercedes issue... At least Mercedes did not have to go out and buy a name when they came back to F1 I think that it is safe to say that they owned all along.

I honestly can't see any issue with Mercedes. Mercedes is still Mercedes - it's not reasonable to say that after pulling out of F1 they can never return.

Blake wrote:
Anyway, if some of you want to legitimize a Brabham F1 team, as you did a Lotus F1 team, that is your prerogative. I may be an old fart living in the past, so be it.... I won't be on Welcome back Brabham tour....

I didn't legitimize Enstone-Lotus or Caterham-Lotus, because they weren't legitimate. There was truly no connection to the original Lotus team in any way, shape or form that I'm aware of. I see this possible project as distinct from those, whereas clearly you do not. We'll see - maybe you're right. If it's just a name and Brabham has nothing to do with the team, I'll happily denounce it with the rest of you.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 7:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4418
McLaren, Ferrari, Williams, and Sauber are the only teams that have the kind of continuity that some seem to be expecting for historic names to live on.

If you feel David needs to build a team up from scratch in order for it to be a legitimate successor to the name, do you also feel the Mercedes shouldn't count their legacy from the 50's in regard to the current team? Because what they've done is really no different, it respect to being an F1 constructor, than what Brabham is doing.

Mercedes left the sport flat out. Later they bought out Illmore as an engine builder and then finally bought a team that has no history related to them as a constructor prior to the purchase. If they get to claim the laurels of the factory team from the early days simply by putting up the money, why can't David Brabham do the same?

The impression I got from the article linked in the OP is that this isn't simply David licensing out rights he has already held, but actively sought out getting the rights for himself in order to make sure that once his project is under way nobody can try to capitalize off any success he has or cause legal hassles in any other way.

The whole Lotus F1 vs Lotus Racing thing a few years ago was a farce but I think this is perfectly fine.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 9:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20199
RaggedMan wrote:
McLaren, Ferrari, Williams, and Sauber are the only teams that have the kind of continuity that some seem to be expecting for historic names to live on.

If you feel David needs to build a team up from scratch in order for it to be a legitimate successor to the name, do you also feel the Mercedes shouldn't count their legacy from the 50's in regard to the current team? Because what they've done is really no different, it respect to being an F1 constructor, than what Brabham is doing.

Mercedes left the sport flat out. Later they bought out Illmore as an engine builder and then finally bought a team that has no history related to them as a constructor prior to the purchase. If they get to claim the laurels of the factory team from the early days simply by putting up the money, why can't David Brabham do the same?

The impression I got from the article linked in the OP is that this isn't simply David licensing out rights he has already held, but actively sought out getting the rights for himself in order to make sure that once his project is under way nobody can try to capitalize off any success he has or cause legal hassles in any other way.

The whole Lotus F1 vs Lotus Racing thing a few years ago was a farce but I think this is perfectly fine.

It's funny, I've never really considered Sauber as a "historic" team like the first three you mentioned, but to be fair to them they have been around in F1 since 1993 so I suppose they have earned it.

As far as Mercedes goes, in terms of the current team I don't really count their pedigree before 2010, certainly not in terms of the team (as opposed to being a supplier). To me they are a wholly different entity and there is no continuity with the past. Lotus is the same. They may trade on the glory JPS days but the reality is they only share a name and nothing else. Same for Brabham if this goes ahead. The team that won titles with Piquet at the helm has no connection with Force India today. David may have the name but otherwise what is the connection? They've been out of the sport for far too long to be able to claim any real link.

Ferrari, McLaren, Williams: these are the teams that can claim a true legacy from the past. Individuals come and go, but the teams have a direct and continuous racing link to their glory days and as far as I'm concerned are the only teams on the current grid who may do so. Even saying that, McLaren with Ron gone have lost something as to all intent and purposes he was McLaren.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 11:56 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1239
Blake wrote:


i am somewhat surprised to see this "argument" fed by the idea that McLaren and Ferrari are not a continuation of the original companies. To use that as a justification for a bunch of millionaires buying a treasured name from F1's past and trying to bank off it, is rather disgusting to me.


Very well said. I share your disgust at this fake revival of Brabham.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:57 am
Posts: 907
Location: Brazil
Exediron wrote:
That may well be true about the spinoff, but the CEO of Ferrari is still the same person as the CEO of Fiat. I don't see them as being independently run, and I see little if any influence from Piero in the actual decision-making of the company. Luca was another story; under Luca, I felt that there was significantly more direct connection to the history of Ferrari.


In fact, the new Alfa Romeo Giulia uses an engine derived from a Ferrari car. They won't say it out loud, but the specifications are very similar.

Even small things such as Marchionne wanting to increase production go against Enzo's wishes and what the company once stood for. Ferrari used to build cars in small quantities to make them more exclusive. Luca continued that trend.

Exediron wrote:
As for McLaren, I (and many other Macca fans) feel that with Ron gone, it's not the same team it was. It's still McLaren, but something has definitely changed, and I'm not sure I like someone with no connection to McLaren's heritage like Zak Brown trying so hard to appeal to fans by going back to the way things were before Ron. In a very real way, Ron was McLaren more than McLaren himself was.


This is because McLaren's biggest successes were in the Ron Dennis era. McLaren had won titles before but Bruce had already died by that point and the McLaren from the 70s already raced in characteristic Marlboro livery, which links it to what happened after (the merger with Project 4).

I think the only name that shouldn't be ressurrected is Lotus, because that team really died when Colin Chapman himself died, and the period after was just them running on borrowed time, despite their short period of sustained competitiveness. The spirit of Team Lotus goes completely against what F1 has become today, where every slight advantage is banned unless you're a big enough gun to tip the scales in your favor. Even Frank Williams' way of doing things is anachronistic, which is why it's a miracle he's still around, but that's probably more the sport's fault than his.

_________________
Image

"Ask any racer, any real racer... It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." (Dominic Toretto, "The Fast and The Furious")


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:45 am
Posts: 484
Location: Michigan, USA
There's not enough information yet for me to know how I feel about this. If it is actually David Brabham essentially resurrecting the team, and he is going to have a large amount of involvement in it, I don't see anything wrong with him reviving his father's team name or even claiming their history -- certainly that's no worse than Mercedes' re-entry into the sport. If, on the other hand, it turns out to be the same sort of deal as the two "Lotus" teams that sprang up recently, I don't think it should happen and hope that it doesn't; those didn't have any sort of connection to the original team whatsoever, and therefore should'n't've used the name, and if it is only the Brabham name being sold here than this would be little different (still slightly different, as at least the name would be sold by somebody with a real connection to the original team -- but that's not enough for me to feel good about it).

It'll be interesting to see, assuming these rumours have weight to them, which it is.

_________________
Top Three: 5 wins, 15 podiums | 2016: 9th [6th] | 2017: 15th [6th]
Pick 10: 1 win, 3 podiums | 2016: 22nd | 2017: 25th
F1 Oracle: 5 wins | 2016: 6th | 2017: 5th
Group Pick'em: 2 wins, 4 podiums | 2016: 14th | 2017: 12th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 59
Remmirath wrote:
There's not enough information yet for me to know how I feel about this. If it is actually David Brabham essentially resurrecting the team, and he is going to have a large amount of involvement in it, I don't see anything wrong with him reviving his father's team name or even claiming their history -- certainly that's no worse than Mercedes' re-entry into the sport. If, on the other hand, it turns out to be the same sort of deal as the two "Lotus" teams that sprang up recently, I don't think it should happen and hope that it doesn't; those didn't have any sort of connection to the original team whatsoever, and therefore should'n't've used the name, and if it is only the Brabham name being sold here than this would be little different (still slightly different, as at least the name would be sold by somebody with a real connection to the original team -- but that's not enough for me to feel good about it).

It'll be interesting to see, assuming these rumours have weight to them, which it is.


That's how I see it too. I feel since the Brabham family is involved, the transition is more comparable to Mercedes and not Lotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 12:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:57 am
Posts: 907
Location: Brazil
bradtheboywonder wrote:
That's how I see it too. I feel since the Brabham family is involved, the transition is more comparable to Mercedes and not Lotus


IMO it would be justice. Bernie drove the team into the ground after their short-lived success in the early 80s. It's fair that they get another shot at it, especially now that Bernie was ousted from F1.

_________________
Image

"Ask any racer, any real racer... It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." (Dominic Toretto, "The Fast and The Furious")


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3199
bradtheboywonder wrote:
Remmirath wrote:
There's not enough information yet for me to know how I feel about this. If it is actually David Brabham essentially resurrecting the team, and he is going to have a large amount of involvement in it, I don't see anything wrong with him reviving his father's team name or even claiming their history -- certainly that's no worse than Mercedes' re-entry into the sport. If, on the other hand, it turns out to be the same sort of deal as the two "Lotus" teams that sprang up recently, I don't think it should happen and hope that it doesn't; those didn't have any sort of connection to the original team whatsoever, and therefore should'n't've used the name, and if it is only the Brabham name being sold here than this would be little different (still slightly different, as at least the name would be sold by somebody with a real connection to the original team -- but that's not enough for me to feel good about it).

It'll be interesting to see, assuming these rumours have weight to them, which it is.


That's how I see it too. I feel since the Brabham family is involved, the transition is more comparable to Mercedes and not Lotus


I didn't want to quote my big long post but you raised good points. I think as long as David is involved I'm where you are on this one.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 3:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:04 am
Posts: 1757
Lets see. Joe has been calling for Force India demise for last 2 years sighting troubles of the owners. I dont think VJM will want to sell F1 team even with the legal troubles he is facing back home and Sahara will get nothing by selling as amount wont help with massive payments they are due back home.
But its possibility. I will wait for May 17 hearing in UK before giving any weight to possibility of Brabham even being able to buy/license the name to this team.
UK financial crime laws are on VJM's side as both countries see financial crimes very differently.

As much as I would love to see Brabham name in F1, I dont like this idea for 2 reasons.

First, Force India with its current management and technical structure has done wonderful job of running the team. No midfield team has managed to be as consistent as them.

Second if someone does shell out big bucks to license the Brabham name, and then buy the Force India team which wont be cheap affair, how much resources will they have left to invest in the team the following year? Unless its party with close to billion US$ to spend, it will cause significant damage to the team as the new team might have to do cutbacks during the running year.

As much as everyone loves to hate on FI owners, IMHO they have done wonderful job running that team and I would like to see them continue as Force India.

Brabham can buy likes of Sauber which will be cheaper and welcome change from their current management which is stuck in the rut since Peter retired. Not entirely their fault, but they seriously lack resources and could use a new ownership.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 9:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:35 pm
Posts: 288
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Exediron wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
So, a family inheritance in the form of the known name will be sold for commercial purposes, and they will put sticker "Brabham" on the car. No, it does not have anything to do with the old Martini and Parmalat Brabhams. That era is gone. It would be awkward putting thte Brabham name again the the scheme, 'cause it will have no connection to that what once Brabham really was.

... isn't this project still headed by David Brabham? I don't give a damn about Martini or Parmalat - they were the sponsors. David is a former F1 driver and very successful in several forms of endurance racing. If he's still involved with the project, it's still the real Brabham - there will be a very direct connection, since I'm going to assume David Brabham knew his father fairly well.

David Brabham, the son of three-time World Champion Sir Jack Brabham, is a former Formula 1 driver and Le Mans winner, and also won the Bathurst 1000 in Australia and was twice American Le Mans Series champion. In recent years he has been quietly working on securing all the necessary Brabham trademarks, with what he calls Project Brabham. He is not denying that there is a project.

"Brabham is a brand with more than 69 years of racing heritage and it is our intention to see the name back on track," he said. "Since Project Brabham was launched, we have received a lot of enquiries from different parties who have expressed an interest in licensing the name and we are evaluating a number of options. We have no further comment."


If you don't consider that having anything to do with the real Brabham team, then Williams is the only team that has anything to do with its actual heritage. The other historical teams are all headed by people with no direct connection to their founders.

I, personally, think it would be neat to see the Brabham name back on a competitive car, as long as the Brabhams are actually involved. I didn't approve of the fake Lotus team, since that venture had no approval or involvement from anyone having to do with the actual Lotus team. This isn't the same.


🖒 Not a bad resume there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 6:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7701
Blake wrote:
I am with Herb and the LT. on this. Better to let the Brabham name rest in peace rather than selling it for licensing rights so someone can buy and instant fanbase and perceived credibility. I suppose, as with Lotus, they would try to claim the Brabham victories as theirs as well. I haven't seen anything yet that shows David Brabham's involvement other than the licensing of his father's name. That appears to be his "project". Perhaps Black Jack would have approved of this so-called project, but I prefer to think not.

69 years of racing heritage is a bit of a stretch as I see it. They haven't been active, other that David's driving" since the early 90s unless I am missing something... that is about a quarter of a century ago.

David Brabham won Le Mans in 2009. :)

I don't know what makes team "true", but we easily give a free pass to all manufactures, even though often the only thing they really do is building their own engine, delegating design to some factory in UK. Why Brabham cannot do the same? I mean the Brabham resurrection is different from Renault or Mercedes or McLaren, but some people here are still stretching the definition of true team to suit their agenda. Mercedes or Renault had no continuity. McLaren, maybe had, but when Ron Dennis bought it, only name was carried over. What was stopping Ron from using his own team for the team? I'm more interested whether this serious project with solid funding and business plan like Bugatti. VW is using the brand to build very high quality cars and I don't see many people crying out loud that the Bugatti has nothing in common with the old Bugatti. If the new Brabham can find its own niche and be successful, I will be happy.

_________________
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5712
Location: Nebraska, USA
Unless I am missing something, there is nothing that suggests that David Brabham will have anything to do with the F1 team he might sell his name too, only to a sports car that might be his "project" The selling of the name creating the financials to allow his project to go forward.


Judging by some of what I am seeing here, Chevrolet, Ford, Mercedes, and more car companies need to give up their names as the original owners have died. that is baloney. Ferrari has evolved, Mclaren has evolved... that is continuation.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 11:43 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1239
dizlexik wrote:
McLaren, maybe had, but when Ron Dennis bought it, only name was carried over.


Is this true?

Did Ron Dennis close down the McLaren factory?

Did Ron Dennis fire all the staff?

Can you confirm that when Ron Dennis bought McLaren that the ONLY thing he purchased was the name McLaren?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Black_Flag_11, Herb Tarlik and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group