planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:01 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
 Post subject: Teams in f1 are a joke
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 104
Sorry couldn't think of appropriate title but what Iam trying to say is, the way these small teams enter the championship for 1-2 seasons and fold. I understand formula one is an expensive cut throat industry, but they way they keep popping up and folding under different names is a joke, this is formula one the pinacle of motorsport and these teams are killing it. They should have to go through a thorough finacial investigation to proove they can afford running costs for at least 5yrs and not just thro a hole heep of cash to Bernie to get a slot only to realize the money they gave him they need to build the car, there for fold. You expect this in maybe champcar,gp2 and so on but IMO definatly not f1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:50 am
Posts: 76
I think you have a narrative in your head about what F1 is that doesn't align with its reality. F1 has almost always had backmarker teams that pop up and disappear. If anything, there's been more consistency with teams in the last 10 years than there has been in any other decade. Go look at the teams that came and went in the 70s, 80, and 90s, and you'll see teams that don't make it 10 races, never mind 10 seasons.

Sport is survival of the fittest, the weak are weeded out, while the strong survive. Not everyone can be strong as only one team can win at any given race, therefore you will always have backmarkers. If you're weak but can get stronger, you survive, if you're weak and only get weaker, as compared to the rest of the pack, you're weeded out. The only way you can ever know if you're strong or weak is by competing, therefore teams like HRT are as much the life-blood of the sport as Ferrari and Macca.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:13 pm
Posts: 831
Location: Scotland
HRT, Virgin & Lotus entered when it was proposed a 40m budget cap was to be introduced. This never happened & made it almost impossible for the teams. But if all new teams didn't enter we'd have 9 teams which would mean Ferrari etc could run 3 cars thus probably ruining the WCC forever & making it even harder for minnows. Also with crap teams, Alonso & Webber may not be as good as they are

_________________
Close doesn't count


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 1770
Location: Belgium
Rocket_Red wrote:
HRT, Virgin & Lotus entered when it was proposed a 40m budget cap was to be introduced. This never happened & made it almost impossible for the teams. But if all new teams didn't enter we'd have 9 teams which would mean Ferrari etc could run 3 cars thus probably ruining the WCC forever & making it even harder for minnows. Also with crap teams, Alonso & Webber may not be as good as they are


Indeed but you have to say that the bottom 3 hardly made much progress in 3 years time. However I didn't expect HRT to last that long. BUt you can also blame FIA's selection system at the time.

_________________
F1 fan since 1989
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:05 pm
Posts: 2326
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Chriso wrote:
Sorry couldn't think of appropriate title but what Iam trying to say is, the way these small teams enter the championship for 1-2 seasons and fold. I understand formula one is an expensive cut throat industry, but they way they keep popping up and folding under different names is a joke, this is formula one the pinacle of motorsport and these teams are killing it. They should have to go through a thorough finacial investigation to proove they can afford running costs for at least 5yrs and not just thro a hole heep of cash to Bernie to get a slot only to realize the money they gave him they need to build the car, there for fold. You expect this in maybe champcar,gp2 and so on but IMO definatly not f1

What makes you think there are any better teams willing to enter F1? I'm sure if some big car manufacturer or other big company had the interest to invest in F1, then they would. HRT for example just came along because nobody else did. Well, there was this USF1 that failed and then there was talk of that StefanGP but is there any reason to believe either of those could've done any better?

_________________
On question about his donuts at the end of the 2007 Belgium Grand Prix, his reply was: “I lost it!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:08 am
Posts: 780
Location: Derby
Hrt did have the money to carry on the investment group behind them just decided they didn't want to anymore so pulled out which effectively left hrt penniless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1699
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
froze wrote:
Chriso wrote:
Sorry couldn't think of appropriate title but what Iam trying to say is, the way these small teams enter the championship for 1-2 seasons and fold. I understand formula one is an expensive cut throat industry, but they way they keep popping up and folding under different names is a joke, this is formula one the pinacle of motorsport and these teams are killing it. They should have to go through a thorough finacial investigation to proove they can afford running costs for at least 5yrs and not just thro a hole heep of cash to Bernie to get a slot only to realize the money they gave him they need to build the car, there for fold. You expect this in maybe champcar,gp2 and so on but IMO definatly not f1

What makes you think there are any better teams willing to enter F1? I'm sure if some big car manufacturer or other big company had the interest to invest in F1, then they would. HRT for example just came along because nobody else did. Well, there was this USF1 that failed and then there was talk of that StefanGP but is there any reason to believe either of those could've done any better?

Lola and Prodrive put in bids, but the FIA refused as neither wanted to use the Cosworth lump. Max was trying to get his universal engine forced onto the grid, hence he picked 3 [well, 4, but USF1 never made it...] weak teams rather than those with established motorsport pedigree.

_________________
Copper Masked Sunrise
http://www.justgiving.com/CIN-Mystery-P ... 00b9467dcb
https://www.facebook.com/BadExcusesBand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
What about slow teams or teams that come and go is "killing" the sport? Seems its doing just fine to me.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Tufty wrote:
Lola and Prodrive put in bids, but the FIA refused as neither wanted to use the Cosworth lump. Max was trying to get his universal engine forced onto the grid, hence he picked 3 [well, 4, but USF1 never made it...] weak teams rather than those with established motorsport pedigree.



Prodrive didn't have their own chassis though. They wanted to be a McLaren customer.


I agree to an extent with that decision as it would have opened up the rules for the likes of Torro Rosso to use Red Bull gear. I don't think anyone would want to see Torro Rosso at the sharp end jumping out of RBRs way and getting in everyone elses.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:53 pm
Posts: 409
Amon wrote:
Indeed but you have to say that the bottom 3 hardly made much progress in 3 years time. However I didn't expect HRT to last that long. BUt you can also blame FIA's selection system at the time.

You do realise that they've gained a couple of seconds on the field? Which is astonishing considering that they each entered the sport on the understanding of a £40million (actually it was probably Euros or Dollars wasn't it, I can't remember) budget cap and that they still have less money than every other team; that this time 3 years ago they still didn't even exist, except in someone's mind, they had no past data or designs to work from, or a factory to work in, or employees to work in it, or even any letterhead; that the intricacies involved in the game of F1 have moved on beyond all recognition since the last clean sheet of paper, start up teams came along back in the mid '90's, and that they have been shooting at an ever moving goal, seeing as the rest of the field is continually improving too.

Their achievements have generally been massively underrated.

All competitions have "back markers", as such all competitions have participants that fall by the wayside over time. That's merely part of the nature of any competitions.

_________________
"you can never be too paranoid"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1699
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
Johnston wrote:
Tufty wrote:
Lola and Prodrive put in bids, but the FIA refused as neither wanted to use the Cosworth lump. Max was trying to get his universal engine forced onto the grid, hence he picked 3 [well, 4, but USF1 never made it...] weak teams rather than those with established motorsport pedigree.



Prodrive didn't have their own chassis though. They wanted to be a McLaren customer.


I agree to an extent with that decision as it would have opened up the rules for the likes of Torro Rosso to use Red Bull gear. I don't think anyone would want to see Torro Rosso at the sharp end jumping out of RBRs way and getting in everyone elses.

I was under the impression Prodrive submitted a seperate bid for 2010, after their McLaren customer bid for 2008.

_________________
Copper Masked Sunrise
http://www.justgiving.com/CIN-Mystery-P ... 00b9467dcb
https://www.facebook.com/BadExcusesBand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:43 pm
Posts: 2928
And the same doesn't happen in the Premier League, or the NFL, NHL, NBA, or any professional sporting organization?

And many teams with deep pockets, such as Benetton, Toyota, BMW, and Maserati, just for example chose to leave. Then there are numerous small teams that have contributed to the history of this wonderful sport, such as Jordan, Hesketh, and Toleman. Remember Toleman? Let me see, who was it that got his start in Formula One in a Toleman? This guy.

Image

And who gave some unknown shunter a chance?

Image

And once upon a time there was this small team

Image

That eventually went on to become this:

Image

Change is necessary for anything to survive and grow. Some teams prosper and win, some fall by the wayside.

All three of these drivers started out in smaller teams, Raikkonen in Sauber, Alonso in Minardi, and Schumacher in Jordan.

Image

Small teams contribute substantially to the great history of Formula One. It's sad to see them come and go, but change is necessary for any organization to survive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:21 pm
Posts: 1712
Here here ^^

Personally I love following backmarker teams. I'm sure it isn't much fun for the poor employees who don't know whether they're coming or going but their stories are sometimes as fascinating as the world championship itself, if not more so. I always watched Q1 to see which of HRT or Virgin would qualify higher up, which was more 2-sided than people make out. You have the likes of Glock, Super Pedro and Heikki move to these teams with the hope of building them up then a new rookie (Pic, D'Ambrosio, Petrov) comes and shows them up on occasion, or in Heikki's case throughout a season.

HRT managed the best part of 60 races at a reasonable pace which is something to be proud of. I'd rate them above the likes of Pacific, Forti, Osella etc in the scheme of things.

_________________
Official Kamui Kobayashi Fanboy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:39 am
Posts: 1309
Also the budget cap had effectively been scrapped in favour of the Resource Restriction Agreement by the time 'Lotus Racing' joined, hadn't it? They took Toyota's old spot and weren't chosen at the same time as Campos Meta, Manor and US F1. It's also the reason, along with their sponsorship pulling power, why they look in the best financial shape of the class of 2010.

_________________
"We can not drive slower, just to make the races more exciting." Alain Prost


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:00 pm
Posts: 172
Location: DFW, Texas
I'm among those who don't have a problem with the current back markers. There will always be back markers, but I truly believe both Caterham and Marussia are trying to close ground on the midfield teams.

HRT had become a different story this year. It didn't take long on Friday in Austin to note the difference between the HRTs and the other 2 back markers. They obviously didn't sound like they belonged as the went through the T3-T6 section. The Caterhams and Marussias didn't have the pace of the others, but they belonged on the same track IMO. And, if you have no Caterhams and Marurssias, how long before the Toro Rosso doesn't belong. Take away the Toros, and the next team up the ladder is noticably off the top few teams. Doesn't take long and you're down to a handful of 'super teams,' I for one don't want that.

I could be wrong, but I get the feeling that Caterham and Marussia are really trying, getting sponsors, and trying to develop cars, that I do think will score points this year with Caterhams likely having more testing than they did last year and Marussia having KERs. IMO, they just add another story line of interest for the 2013 season beyond the 3 super cars fight, the changes at Mercedes, Perez's debut in the Mclaren, intriguing FI/Sauber competition (especially if its true FI is switching to Ferrari in 2014, meaning one more cross over connection) and if Williams can take another step forward from the awful 2011 car towards being competitive again.

The other thing with adding a very tough screening process is.... IMO it makes it that much harder to attract new teams to F1 should some current teams go away. That would be unfortunate, some teams show up on the grid, and go away in a few years leaving no mark, but others do, either through innovation, giving chances to inexperienced or unknown technical folk who to have good ideas, as well as provide seats that keep some drivers we'd like to see remain on the grid, a place for a few pay drivers to get their F1 kick without occupying a seat that should go to a better driver, and a place for young drivers to get experience and maybe open eyes (I guarantee you if any of the young drivers at Caterham or Marussia start scoring points on a regular if not weekly basis, they will among the hot commodities in the next silly season.)

So I'd rather have it be in situation where a team can pay the price of entry, put together a car and see how quickly they can progress and if its worth further investment or get out if its not, so long as they can make the 107% requirement. And if not, they can cut their losses and sell or close up shop without taking extended losses just because they wanted to take their shot at it. They could be the next Forti... or they could become the next Force India... of just possibly they could end up being the next Stewart which hung around long enough under several names to eventually evolve into RBR. Had there not been a Stewart with some infrastructure in place as a base, perhaps Jaguar doesn't take the flier it took and isn't around to be sold to RBR.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:39 am
Posts: 1309
You say be the next Force India or Stewart. Okay, you're right that Stewart became Jaguar then Red Bull and 3x WDC and WCC. I'm assuming you mean Force India being constantly in the midfield otherwise it doesn't make sense. FI were originally Jordan which rose up, then started to slip back, sold to Midland, then Spyker and now Force India.

While Force India have been making improvements from Spyker, they haven't come close to Jordan's high. Or we're you talking about their financial insecurity recently?

_________________
"We can not drive slower, just to make the races more exciting." Alain Prost


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 6:00 pm
Posts: 605
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
And the same doesn't happen in the Premier League, or the NFL, NHL, NBA, or any professional sporting organization?

And many teams with deep pockets, such as Benetton, Toyota, BMW, and Maserati, just for example chose to leave. Then there are numerous small teams that have contributed to the history of this wonderful sport, such as Jordan, Hesketh, and Toleman. Remember Toleman? Let me see, who was it that got his start in Formula One in a Toleman? This guy.

Image

And who gave some unknown shunter a chance?

Image

And once upon a time there was this small team

Image

That eventually went on to become this:

Image

Change is necessary for anything to survive and grow. Some teams prosper and win, some fall by the wayside.

All three of these drivers started out in smaller teams, Raikkonen in Sauber, Alonso in Minardi, and Schumacher in Jordan.

Image

Small teams contribute substantially to the great history of Formula One. It's sad to see them come and go, but change is necessary for any organization to survive.



:thumbup:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 3076
scuderia_stevie wrote:
You say be the next Force India or Stewart. Okay, you're right that Stewart became Jaguar then Red Bull and 3x WDC and WCC. I'm assuming you mean Force India being constantly in the midfield otherwise it doesn't make sense. FI were originally Jordan which rose up, then started to slip back, sold to Midland, then Spyker and now Force India.

While Force India have been making improvements from Spyker, they haven't come close to Jordan's high. Or we're you talking about their financial insecurity recently?

Let's for a second forget about any former incarnations of Force India and look at them as a team:

'08 - 10th 0 points
'09 - 9th 13 points
'10 - 7th 68 points (new points)
'11 - 6th 69 points (new points)
'12 - 7th 109 points (new points)

Ok so in 2012 they finished 1 place lower than the previous year, but scored almost 60% more points! But that is demonstrating a team improving year on year from starting nowhere. I think it's good example really.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:39 am
Posts: 1309
minchy wrote:
scuderia_stevie wrote:
You say be the next Force India or Stewart. Okay, you're right that Stewart became Jaguar then Red Bull and 3x WDC and WCC. I'm assuming you mean Force India being constantly in the midfield otherwise it doesn't make sense. FI were originally Jordan which rose up, then started to slip back, sold to Midland, then Spyker and now Force India.

While Force India have been making improvements from Spyker, they haven't come close to Jordan's high. Or we're you talking about their financial insecurity recently?

Let's for a second forget about any former incarnations of Force India and look at them as a team:

'08 - 10th 0 points
'09 - 9th 13 points
'10 - 7th 68 points (new points)
'11 - 6th 69 points (new points)
'12 - 7th 109 points (new points)

Ok so in 2012 they finished 1 place lower than the previous year, but scored almost 60% more points! But that is demonstrating a team improving year on year from starting nowhere. I think it's good example really.

Good point, but I can't forget about previous incarnations. Just because a name, sponsor or some key personnel change, it's still the same team. Is Williams pre or post Newey era a different team (excusing the Williams that evolved into Walter Wolf Racing)? Yes the current Mercedes team is almost entirely made of personnel that weren't there when Tyrrell was formed from the remnants of Matra, or even when it was Matra, but it's still the same team.

That aside, FI have been making improvements since they took over, as I said, but I was questioning
@Z3RoadstarTXF1's meaning, especially as Mallaya's airline has had financial difficulty this year and concerns about FI's future involvement were questioned.

_________________
"We can not drive slower, just to make the races more exciting." Alain Prost


Last edited by scuderia_stevie on Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:00 pm
Posts: 172
Location: DFW, Texas
scuderia_stevie wrote:
You say be the next Force India or Stewart. Okay, you're right that Stewart became Jaguar then Red Bull and 3x WDC and WCC. I'm assuming you mean Force India being constantly in the midfield otherwise it doesn't make sense. FI were originally Jordan which rose up, then started to slip back, sold to Midland, then Spyker and now Force India.

While Force India have been making improvements from Spyker, they haven't come close to Jordan's high. Or we're you talking about their financial insecurity recently?


Yes, I'm meaning from the black hole the team was in when they had the Midland/Spyker period. (I doubt Midland/Spyker would have passed the type of stress test proposed so Jordan would have just died completely.)

And while there have been financial issues, the team is at a point where it would be a great jumping in point if it were put up for sale, it has developed over the recent years and if it needed to be sold, it would be a potential prize for the purchaser provided they don't come in and screw things up and set the progress in reverse. Should one of the Japanese manufacturers or BMW decide to re-enter, FI would be a nice infrastructure to start with with the likelihood of scoring midfield points right away and prize money at the end, which would be a nice launching point as opposed to having to take a beating right off and the image damage it would be for Toyota or Honda or BMW being a backmarker for a year or 2.

That's why I think there is value in still having a group that may not have that deep 5-year commitment pockets... if a group can keep a team afloat for a few transitional years while still making developments that may pay off for the next ownership or even the one after that, that's far better than closing up shop completely because there isn't a group with those endless cash reserves at that moment (unless it becomes so dysfunctional and starts plummeting backwards in terms of development and becomes a detriment to the rest of the field.)


Also meaning to use that as an example to I guess what is considered to be the problem by the OP, that underfunded teams are bad for the sport, or that underfunded backmarkers always remain that way and can't become a positive for the sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:39 am
Posts: 1309
Z3RoadstarTXF1 wrote:
scuderia_stevie wrote:
You say be the next Force India or Stewart. Okay, you're right that Stewart became Jaguar then Red Bull and 3x WDC and WCC. I'm assuming you mean Force India being constantly in the midfield otherwise it doesn't make sense. FI were originally Jordan which rose up, then started to slip back, sold to Midland, then Spyker and now Force India.

While Force India have been making improvements from Spyker, they haven't come close to Jordan's high. Or we're you talking about their financial insecurity recently?


Yes, I'm meaning from the black hole the team was in when they had the Midland/Spyker period. (I doubt Midland/Spyker would have passed the type of stress test proposed so Jordan would have just died completely.)

And while there have been financial issues, the team is at a point where it would be a great jumping in point if it were put up for sale, it has developed over the recent years and if it needed to be sold, it would be a potential prize for the purchaser provided they don't come in and screw things up and set the progress in reverse. Should one of the Japanese manufacturers or BMW decide to re-enter, FI would be a nice infrastructure to start with with the likelihood of scoring midfield points right away and prize money at the end, which would be a nice launching point as opposed to having to take a beating right off and the image damage it would be for Toyota or Honda or BMW being a backmarker for a year or 2.

That's why I think there is value in still having a group that may not have that deep 5-year commitment pockets... if a group can keep a team afloat for a few transitional years while still making developments that may pay off for the next ownership or even the one after that, that's far better than closing up shop completely because there isn't a group with those endless cash reserves at that moment (unless it becomes so dysfunctional and starts plummeting backwards in terms of development and becomes a detriment to the rest of the field.)


Also meaning to use that as an example to I guess what is considered to be the problem by the OP, that underfunded teams are bad for the sport, or that underfunded backmarkers always remain that way and can't become a positive for the sport.

Thank you, spot on clarification, however…

I'm not convinced at the moment was FI to be put up for sale they'd have a flood of potential buyers. I love the teams that come and go (although dispair that the wasted money could have at least gone to the FIA or Bernie's bulging pockets). I like turnover of teams, my favourite era watching since 1987-ish, was the early 90s, and then there were loads of teams folding a year or two after forming or going onto greater things (eg Jordan or Sauber).

For Bernie to say 10 teams is manageable is crap. I want a grid of 30 drivers and/or pre-qualifying. Okay, the backmarkers will often fail to qualify, but what's new? Bring in new regulations that encourage new teams while encouraging the front runners to continue to innovate and you're on to a winner (eg buying customer chassis). Keep it as is and watch teams fold as B€rnie wants.

_________________
"We can not drive slower, just to make the races more exciting." Alain Prost


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:00 pm
Posts: 172
Location: DFW, Texas
scuderia_stevie wrote:
Z3RoadstarTXF1 wrote:
I'm not convinced at the moment was FI to be put up for sale they'd have a flood of potential buyers. I love the teams that come and go (although dispair that the wasted money could have at least gone to the FIA or Bernie's bulging pockets). I like turnover of teams, my favourite era watching since 1987-ish, was the early 90s, and then there were loads of teams folding a year or two after forming or going onto greater things (eg Jordan or Sauber).

For Bernie to say 10 teams is manageable is crap. I want a grid of 30 drivers and/or pre-qualifying. Okay, the backmarkers will often fail to qualify, but what's new? Bring in new regulations that encourage new teams while encouraging the front runners to continue to innovate and you're on to a winner (eg buying customer chassis). Keep it as is and watch teams fold as B€rnie wants.


I don't know that FI would have a flood of buyers either, but they have become a good product if someone was looking to buy in (provided they didn't have to swallow too much debt) versus say HRT, which if that was the only choice, then a prospective new team would probably be just as well off starting from scratch. Yet they were both underfunded backmarkers at some point, which I think makes the case for such teams having a place. Some rise, some fail.

The other thing, I look at, which is why I don't agree with Bernie's desire to see another team go away... I look at the Caterhams and Marussias and see who is sponsoring those teams. I don't know the dollars they are paying to appear on their cars and equipment, but they are some very substantial companies, so there is support for them. They aren't like some of the Nascar or Indy cars running around without sponsorship. If there is enough sponsorship out there to make the bottom lines add up to the team principal's satisfaction, there's nothing wrong with them being on the grid so long as they are up to the 107% The one argument is they could spend that money elsewhere on other teams, but I think there is a point of diminishing returns if there are fewer cars as the placement may be such that a team isn't willing to pay X in return for Y because its sharing the livery and other advertising space with too many other sponsors or competing sponsors in their field. Or appearing on the rear wing of McLaren might cost X, which is more than a company wants to spend, and can only get onto the McLaren's barge board for that amount, so they'd rather pay that money to be on some else's rear wing or maybe cowl.

Though there are a few circuits, I don't care to see more than 20-24 cars on, namely the street circuits. But if the grid ranges from 10-15 teams with the bottom ones coming and going, I figure things will sort themselves out and the ones with something good will remain and make the sport stronger for what they've brought along.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 104
I totally agree, well to sum point I love the smaller teams but it's the in and out I don't like. Can't afford, they should looked better at it, how come Minardi lasted so long they didn't win a gp, could hardly score points, that's what I mean they need to stay put as f1 to me is the highest level of motorsport there for it must maintain this stature. As an old school viewr I realize teams come and go but with this crap of Kers and drs (artificial racing) just comes across as a tad unprofessional.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:54 pm
Posts: 439
Both sides of the coin are raising some good points.

F1 is not cheap, its the pinacle of motorsport so it should never change that attitude. Technlogy is not cheap, to run a team is very expensive.

Large Factory
Computers networked and access to software
People for the teams, back at the factory and even down to the cleaners is not cheap.
Materials and parts, F1 cars do not run normal car parts - they run extra stronge yet very light parts which are not massed produced.

When a team rents out an air tunnel that probably costs them 3K a day and when they need that for about 30 days a year you can imagine that adds up. They probably employ a total of 50-100 people earning at least 10K a year, the engineers who know their stuff probably earn 5 times that.

I completely agree that any team joining F1 should know all the above and have financial backing to last 5 years in F1, with advertisement agreements/paid drivers etc they could easily extend that to an additional 2-3 years. It does not make F1 look good when some teams are happy to just get within the Qualifying margin.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 104
Absolutly these teams should strive for higher goals, I know it's hard and not cheap but why head into f1 going ok goal is q3, why bother, plus I understand how back in the day you'll have like 30 cars and 10 wouldn't even qualify, this IMO is when the governing body should step in and allow extra funding for these teams. If Bernie wants more people to be intrested in the sport make sure the teams are there long enough so people know who they are. Like Lola in 1997 spent all the money producing the car getting to aus and then bining the whole plan. I don't know wat entirely happened there but that's my point, looks to lower class imo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1699
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
Chriso wrote:
Absolutly these teams should strive for higher goals, I know it's hard and not cheap but why head into f1 going ok goal is q3, why bother, plus I understand how back in the day you'll have like 30 cars and 10 wouldn't even qualify, this IMO is when the governing body should step in and allow extra funding for these teams. If Bernie wants more people to be intrested in the sport make sure the teams are there long enough so people know who they are. Like Lola in 1997 spent all the money producing the car getting to aus and then bining the whole plan. I don't know wat entirely happened there but that's my point, looks to lower class imo

They binned nothing. MasterCard screwed them over by backing out after the cars failed to qualify in Australia.

_________________
Copper Masked Sunrise
http://www.justgiving.com/CIN-Mystery-P ... 00b9467dcb
https://www.facebook.com/BadExcusesBand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 104
Ohh ok see that's wen Bernie should step in, but at the same time has to do wat he does, so how do u go about it, i think then sponsors have to sit down and have a hard look at themselves and see if there truly commited, I dunno make sign some crap stating if they pull out they will be liable for full team funding, that they would have initially provided, just sounds like wot MasterCard wanted and expected was a front row lock out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:00 pm
Posts: 172
Location: DFW, Texas
I'm guessing that most teams that enter F1, feel they have a plan that would allow them to make a go of it long-term, with fewer entering as the costs rose dramatically, making such a business plan harder to put together. But with the 3 back markers from the 2012 season, they can't really be faulted for planning poorly and not entering F1 with deep enough pockets, as they entered based on an economic situation that was later scrapped after they decided to join the grid. In that regards, I think it speaks to the strength of the sport that 2 of the 3 survived for a 4th season based on the fact that they joined with the idea there would be a spending cap, and it wasn't implemented.

But at the same time, I wouldn't want some rigid guidelines for allowing someone to build a new team or buy in.

If someone believes in themselves enough to pay what it costs for an entry fee or takeover of another team, then I applaud their faith in making a try. Brawn being an example. Even with the entry fee waived when Brawn GP took over the Honda operations, I'm guessing they didn't have the money to run an F1 operation for 5 years, but they had a belief that they could put something together because they were talented people who felt they could compete and succeed.

Ross Brawn and Nick Fry made the gamble pay off in a WDC and a WCC, and sale to Mercedes.

I'm guessing that the Brawn GP plan wasn't based on depth of pockets, but depth of skill and belief that they'd produce the results to continue on beyond that first season, which they've done.

That to me is a much more inspiring success than say a really large manufacturer joining and becoming a fixture. If some small outfit comes in and tries that approach, I think its a good story whether they succeed and go onto success on their own, or convert their success into a property that continues on.... or they fail because they gambled on their ability to turn longshot into success.

It is disappointing to see startups come and go in a few years, but I wouldn't want to close the door an outfit that wants to gamble that its talents can succeed inspite of tighter finances. The odds are against them, but still I love to see someone take a shot at their dreams, because if they should succeed its an even bigger triumph.

It does mean they could get no return on their investment, but all investments are a risk. Other than some very rich playboy wanting to have a team just to be his play thing, (and I expect such an individual foolishly throws away his money on many things, not just a race team) I expect all know the economics of F1, car development and the risks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 104
Couldn't agree more, and I know it's not cheap, but like the point that I made about Lola, something needs to be done to secure these teams for a certain time period, get reassessed after a certain time and if they havnt improoved, certain measures should be rakin by governing body, if this teams wishes to continue to operate. Maybe extra test days or extra bonus money for reaching certain targets. Maybe like a contract like ur basic loan over certain amount of yrs and have to proove your funding for how ever long your applying for e.g 2,3,5yrs and so on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 1182
Sorry OP but you're way off here on this.

To say they area joke is in and of itself the joke. F1 is a sport that is simply extremely expensive and even more difficult to be competitive in. These smaller upstart teams were always the bread and butter of the sport and is what Williams, McLaren, Lotus, Ferrari, Mercedes and every other successful team were. What probably hurt F1 teams the most was the ban on tobacco sponsorship which took with it the largest financial influx of money the sport has ever seen. Whilst I detest smoking, it was tobacco dollars that financed the sport into and through it's greatest periods because it afforded even the little guy a budget to allow them to build a car on par with the big boys. Ferrari still receives an influx of cash from Marlboro and it just adds to an already immense budget. The lowly teams like Marussia, Caterham and HRT struggled to acquire sponsorship though I wouldn't be surprised to learn some tobacco company out there might have funded their efforts were it not for the ban on open advertisement for tobacco. And while I'm happy to not have to smell the disgusting odor so much these days, the fact is that people know the risks and dangers associated with smoking for well over 30 years and they just DGAFF. My mom is one with failing health due to drinking and smoking most of her life and it seems nothing will get her to stop and she's one of the most intelligent and well read people many people will ever meet. Slapping tobacco branding on cars in a sport does absolutely NOTHING to influence anyone to smoke, just as Slapping Red Bull on a couple, I mean 4 cars does nothing to influence people to drink the stuff. Today corporations know how to market their products and have to have done splendidly well before even thinking of investing in a sport as expensive as F1 which is merely a larger stage for them to showcase their already established brands.

With all the disgusting things in and false claims by Red Bull, some will argue that there is no difference between them and Tobacco and I would't disagree. F1 is one of the biggest stages and a multitude of sponsors would be greatly beneficial to the sport and would/could certainly be vital to the development and survival of the small teams, who were outright lied to when they made their bid to enter the sport.

You may not care to see the Super Aguris, Caterhams, HRTs and Marussias of the sport, but when those little teams do amazing things, almost the entire fan base of the sport is cheering them on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXi1SROihSM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBRN-HRBRhs
and last but not least: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUda6Prr03c

^^^"That"^^^ IS what a small team can be if given the chance. Aguri however, just did everything right and made sure his team did so as well to maximum capacity.

Was a terrible shame how they were royally screwed by someone who is still in F1 today simply because he didn't like being beaten by a much smaller team with far fewer resources.

_________________
Second place is the first loser!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:06 pm
Posts: 547
The biggest joke in modern F1 is Toyota, all of that money and no win.

_________________
Jenson Button & Williams F1 Team supporter!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:14 pm
Posts: 2460
ashley313 wrote:
What about slow teams or teams that come and go is "killing" the sport? Seems its doing just fine to me.


Yeah, where's Morbidelli and Footwork.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:14 pm
Posts: 2460
the incubus wrote:

Was a terrible shame how they were royally screwed by someone who is still in F1 today simply because he didn't like being beaten by a much smaller team with far fewer resources.


Who?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 104
Did you read post correctly? I love these smaller teams all Iam saying is IMO something has to be done to save these teams from coming and going. As I think of the level f1 is everyone should know every team not just know bout Ferrari,mclaren and redbull.I loved when Prost gp came in and olivier pains was stirring a few big boys up, until his huge shunt in montreal that yr.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2129
Location: Perth, Australia
Chriso wrote:
Did you read post correctly? I love these smaller teams all Iam saying is IMO something has to be done to save these teams from coming and going. As I think of the level f1 is everyone should know every team not just know bout Ferrari,mclaren and redbull.I loved when Prost gp came in and olivier pains was stirring a few big boys up, until his huge shunt in montreal that yr.


Prost Grand Prix didn't "come in" in the fashion the teams this thread is complaining about did. They bought Ligier, who had been in the sport for 20 years. The 'new' teams we have now came in with nothing - they had to build their car from scratch and employ every one of their personnel in one go. Ligier had a fully-functioning factory and a base model for their car already designed when Prost came in.

Red Bull bought Jaguar, who were formally Stewart Grand Prix.
Lotus bought Bennetton, who were formally Toleman.
Mercedes bought Brawn, who were formally Honda, who bought BAR.
Sauber were even bought out by BMW, and re-purchased years later.
Force India bought Spyker, who bought Midland.
Red Bull/Toro Rosso bought Minardi.
Murussia bought Virgin, who bought Manor.
HRT bought Campos Meta.

Teams come and teams go very often in Formula One. In 2013, more than half of the teams on the grid will not be owned by the same company that they started as. Most of the teams I've stated have been long-standing because their modern counterparts started off with a solid platform. It's a lot easier to write an essay when you've got the evidence right in front of you.

_________________
Image
I also have one of these.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
Eva09 wrote:
ashley313 wrote:
What about slow teams or teams that come and go is "killing" the sport? Seems its doing just fine to me.


Yeah, where's Morbidelli and Footwork.

I wish I had been older when Footwork was around because I can think of so many fun jokes I would have liked to make :]

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
ashley313 wrote:
Eva09 wrote:
ashley313 wrote:
What about slow teams or teams that come and go is "killing" the sport? Seems its doing just fine to me.


Yeah, where's Morbidelli and Footwork.

I wish I had been older when Footwork was around because I can think of so many fun jokes I would have liked to make :]



It's a shame Horner wasn't around then ;)

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1235
Location: Sydney, Australia
Toby. wrote:
Chriso wrote:
Did you read post correctly? I love these smaller teams all Iam saying is IMO something has to be done to save these teams from coming and going. As I think of the level f1 is everyone should know every team not just know bout Ferrari,mclaren and redbull.I loved when Prost gp came in and olivier pains was stirring a few big boys up, until his huge shunt in montreal that yr.


Prost Grand Prix didn't "come in" in the fashion the teams this thread is complaining about did. They bought Ligier, who had been in the sport for 20 years. The 'new' teams we have now came in with nothing - they had to build their car from scratch and employ every one of their personnel in one go. Ligier had a fully-functioning factory and a base model for their car already designed when Prost came in.

Red Bull bought Jaguar, who were formally Stewart Grand Prix.
Lotus bought Bennetton, who were formally Toleman.
Mercedes bought Brawn, who were formally Honda, who bought BAR.
Sauber were even bought out by BMW, and re-purchased years later.
Force India bought Spyker, who bought Midland.
Red Bull/Toro Rosso bought Minardi.
Murussia bought Virgin, who bought Manor.
HRT bought Campos Meta.

Teams come and teams go very often in Formula One. In 2013, more than half of the teams on the grid will not be owned by the same company that they started as. Most of the teams I've stated have been long-standing because their modern counterparts started off with a solid platform. It's a lot easier to write an essay when you've got the evidence right in front of you.

Apart from Toby, I am surprised that no one else has mentioned Minardi. Without Paul Stoddart & Minardi we might not have Mark Webber & Fernando Alonso racing in F1 today let alone other drivers that got their chance before Stoddart bought Mindardi & since Red Bull bought the team from Stoddart & renamed it Toro Rosso :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 4808
Eva09 wrote:
the incubus wrote:

Was a terrible shame how they were royally screwed by someone who is still in F1 today simply because he didn't like being beaten by a much smaller team with far fewer resources.


Who?


Maybe he's referring to Fry?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:57 am
Posts: 6
Chriso wrote:
(...)They should have to go through a thorough finacial investigation to proove they can afford running costs for at least 5yrs and not just thro a hole heep of cash to Bernie to get a slot only to realize the money they gave him they need to build the car, there for fold (...)


This is a very very good point to analyze. As you said, considering F1 the top of the pyramid of motorsport, and I think I have the solution: we should only have 10 teams, and at least 8 of them should be permanent. The other 2 teams could be teams coming from GP2 or Indy.


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: Blake, evooo, purchville, sherm300m 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
[ Time : 0.177s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]