planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:26 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
 Post subject: USF1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:21 pm
Posts: 1710
Back in 2010 there was a hopeless operation called USF1 that gained an entry for the season but never made the grid. Throughout their existence and especially after the middle of January 2010, news was pretty quiet and they folded on April 1st.

I've just come across this interview with Ken Anderson (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81831) which says some pretty interesting stuff. For one he says they were 100% on track until January 15th when an investor pulled out. That lack of money slowed the operation down pretty heavily and put them a while behind schedule, which they were never going to recover from before the start of the season. But he says he offered the FIA a large amount of money in the form of a bond as a promise that they'd make the start of the 2011 season. He repeatedly says that wouldn't have been that difficult, they had other sources of money lined up and Chad Hurley of Youtube was pumping the cash in too. Yet the FIA still refused them entry to the 2011 grid, and as a result the team was wound up.

From what I know, Toyota were in a similar situation in 2001 and deferred their entry in 2002, in exchange for a large sum of money. Anderson mentions Super Aguri doing a similar thing too. If they had all this money and some pretty extensive facilities developed, why did the FIA not allow them another go in 2011 when HRT managed to drag their heels for 3 seasons? Clearly funding wasn't the issue, just some ballsed up scheduling that put them behind.

Or maybe I'm just gullible and Anderson lied a lot in that interview. Them folding did allow Sauber to return to the sport, thus keeping Kobayashi around for a few years and introducing Perez and now Gutierrez. So it wasn't all bad. It's just a bit of a strange story that I never really understood.

_________________
Official Kamui Kobayashi Fanboy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 6970
Location: London
Toyota didn't defer a year due to lack of money though. It was because they didn't think their car was up to the job and wanted a whole year for development. Proved to be a good choice since the original development was reported to be as much as 11 seconds off the pace in Salo's hands and he was no slouch.

As for Super Aguri I don't remember them trying to enter in 2005. Just 2006 and actually making it with far less money and resources than USF1 ever had.

USF1 was a farce. Anderson was a farce and Peter Windsor is only just clawing back his reputation now. The whole thing was a joke. HRT may have been the butt of everyone's jokes in recent years but at least they made it, they had a complete car ready for their first race. USF1 didn't and they weren't want for money, even Anderson admits as much. They should have been on the grid but weren't because they cocked up everything and because of that I'm glad they never got another chance. One could have understood if it was budget issues, but to behave t he budget and still completely screw up your production line is idiotic.

That we got Sauber back makes me even more glad. They have shown what a small team with not much cash can do and how professional they can be.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1699
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
I was under the impression that many outside the team were already aware money wasn't going into the team. It was only the team themselves who maintained otherwise. USF1 have nobody to blame but themselves for the mess they ended up in.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:39 am
Posts: 1309
Volantary wrote:
Back in 2010 there was a hopeless operation called USF1 that gained an entry for the season but never made the grid. Throughout their existence and especially after the middle of January 2010, news was pretty quiet and they folded on April 1st.

I've just come across this interview with Ken Anderson (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81831) which says some pretty interesting stuff. For one he says they were 100% on track until January 15th when an investor pulled out. That lack of money slowed the operation down pretty heavily and put them a while behind schedule, which they were never going to recover from before the start of the season. But he says he offered the FIA a large amount of money in the form of a bond as a promise that they'd make the start of the 2011 season. He repeatedly says that wouldn't have been that difficult, they had other sources of money lined up and Chad Hurley of Youtube was pumping the cash in too. Yet the FIA still refused them entry to the 2011 grid, and as a result the team was wound up.

From what I know, Toyota were in a similar situation in 2001 and deferred their entry in 2002, in exchange for a large sum of money. Anderson mentions Super Aguri doing a similar thing too. If they had all this money and some pretty extensive facilities developed, why did the FIA not allow them another go in 2011 when HRT managed to drag their heels for 3 seasons? Clearly funding wasn't the issue, just some ballsed up scheduling that put them behind.

Or maybe I'm just gullible and Anderson lied a lot in that interview. Them folding did allow Sauber to return to the sport, thus keeping Kobayashi around for a few years and introducing Perez and now Gutierrez. So it wasn't all bad. It's just a bit of a strange story that I never really understood.

Sauber effectively adopted the BMW Sauber places, hence they kept that name officially for 2010 to pick up the Concorde cash (had they dropped the BMW, not sure whether only without all other teams' permission or it was just plain too late, they'd have lost FOM funding due to being a new team). They were granted entry relatively late, but not at the expense of USF1.

Toyota left and that gave 1Malaysia (aka Lotus Racing/Team Lotus/Caterham) another shot having failed in the initial bidding. Stefan GP were hoping to enter if USF1 or Campos Meta/Hispania failed to make it, even flying out (or at least planning to, I forget) to the first race in case. Remember, we were supposed to have 13 teams in 2010, but only 12 turned up. Next year, down to 11.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 6970
Location: London
scuderia_stevie wrote:
Volantary wrote:
Back in 2010 there was a hopeless operation called USF1 that gained an entry for the season but never made the grid. Throughout their existence and especially after the middle of January 2010, news was pretty quiet and they folded on April 1st.

I've just come across this interview with Ken Anderson (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81831) which says some pretty interesting stuff. For one he says they were 100% on track until January 15th when an investor pulled out. That lack of money slowed the operation down pretty heavily and put them a while behind schedule, which they were never going to recover from before the start of the season. But he says he offered the FIA a large amount of money in the form of a bond as a promise that they'd make the start of the 2011 season. He repeatedly says that wouldn't have been that difficult, they had other sources of money lined up and Chad Hurley of Youtube was pumping the cash in too. Yet the FIA still refused them entry to the 2011 grid, and as a result the team was wound up.

From what I know, Toyota were in a similar situation in 2001 and deferred their entry in 2002, in exchange for a large sum of money. Anderson mentions Super Aguri doing a similar thing too. If they had all this money and some pretty extensive facilities developed, why did the FIA not allow them another go in 2011 when HRT managed to drag their heels for 3 seasons? Clearly funding wasn't the issue, just some ballsed up scheduling that put them behind.

Or maybe I'm just gullible and Anderson lied a lot in that interview. Them folding did allow Sauber to return to the sport, thus keeping Kobayashi around for a few years and introducing Perez and now Gutierrez. So it wasn't all bad. It's just a bit of a strange story that I never really understood.

Sauber effectively adopted the BMW Sauber places, hence they kept that name officially for 2010 to pick up the Concorde cash (had they dropped the BMW, not sure whether only without all other teams' permission or it was just plain too late, they'd have lost FOM funding due to being a new team). They were granted entry relatively late, but not at the expense of USF1.

Toyota left and that gave 1Malaysia (aka Lotus Racing/Team Lotus/Caterham) another shot having failed in the initial bidding. Stefan GP were hoping to enter if USF1 or Campos Meta/Hispania failed to make it, even flying out (or at least planning to, I forget) to the first race in case. Remember, we were supposed to have 13 teams in 2010, but only 12 turned up. Next year, down to 11.

Sauber had to wait until USF1 officially pulled out I thought?

BMW and Toyota left, HRT (Campos), Caterham and Virgin joined along with USF1. So we went from 10 teams to 12 teams, the 13th slot was forgotten about. Then USF1 screwed up, Sauber got their slot. Stefan were a bit of a joke themselves anyway and that's why they weren't given a slot in the first place.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:54 pm
Posts: 371
Location: York, United Kingdom.
Interesting interview, I liked the idea at the time, I belived they signed Jose Maria Lopez and Chandhok until he left for Campos (then Hispania/HRT). I do reckon they'd be battling with Hispania though.

_________________
Lewis Hamilton - 2008 World Drivers Champion! Mercedes - 23 Grand Prix wins.

PF1 Pick 10 - currently 61st :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:45 pm
Posts: 61
Laura23 wrote:
scuderia_stevie wrote:
Volantary wrote:
Back in 2010 there was a hopeless operation called USF1 that gained an entry for the season but never made the grid. Throughout their existence and especially after the middle of January 2010, news was pretty quiet and they folded on April 1st.

I've just come across this interview with Ken Anderson (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81831) which says some pretty interesting stuff. For one he says they were 100% on track until January 15th when an investor pulled out. That lack of money slowed the operation down pretty heavily and put them a while behind schedule, which they were never going to recover from before the start of the season. But he says he offered the FIA a large amount of money in the form of a bond as a promise that they'd make the start of the 2011 season. He repeatedly says that wouldn't have been that difficult, they had other sources of money lined up and Chad Hurley of Youtube was pumping the cash in too. Yet the FIA still refused them entry to the 2011 grid, and as a result the team was wound up.

From what I know, Toyota were in a similar situation in 2001 and deferred their entry in 2002, in exchange for a large sum of money. Anderson mentions Super Aguri doing a similar thing too. If they had all this money and some pretty extensive facilities developed, why did the FIA not allow them another go in 2011 when HRT managed to drag their heels for 3 seasons? Clearly funding wasn't the issue, just some ballsed up scheduling that put them behind.

Or maybe I'm just gullible and Anderson lied a lot in that interview. Them folding did allow Sauber to return to the sport, thus keeping Kobayashi around for a few years and introducing Perez and now Gutierrez. So it wasn't all bad. It's just a bit of a strange story that I never really understood.

Sauber effectively adopted the BMW Sauber places, hence they kept that name officially for 2010 to pick up the Concorde cash (had they dropped the BMW, not sure whether only without all other teams' permission or it was just plain too late, they'd have lost FOM funding due to being a new team). They were granted entry relatively late, but not at the expense of USF1.

Toyota left and that gave 1Malaysia (aka Lotus Racing/Team Lotus/Caterham) another shot having failed in the initial bidding. Stefan GP were hoping to enter if USF1 or Campos Meta/Hispania failed to make it, even flying out (or at least planning to, I forget) to the first race in case. Remember, we were supposed to have 13 teams in 2010, but only 12 turned up. Next year, down to 11.

Sauber had to wait until USF1 officially pulled out I thought?

BMW and Toyota left, HRT (Campos), Caterham and Virgin joined along with USF1. So we went from 10 teams to 12 teams, the 13th slot was forgotten about. Then USF1 screwed up, Sauber got their slot. Stefan were a bit of a joke themselves anyway and that's why they weren't given a slot in the first place.

The original idea was for 13 teams, with three being selected to add to the ten teams in 2009. That was Manor (Virgin/Marussia), USF1 and Campos Meta (Hispania/HRT). Then, as scuderia stevie said, BMW left and what is now Caterham took their spot (in September I believe). Then in November Toyota pulled out and Sauber stepped in to replace them (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/12/03/s ... 2010-grid/). USF1 didn't shut down until a couple of weeks before the start of the season.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:20 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 4484
Laura23 wrote:
scuderia_stevie wrote:
Volantary wrote:
Back in 2010 there was a hopeless operation called USF1 that gained an entry for the season but never made the grid. Throughout their existence and especially after the middle of January 2010, news was pretty quiet and they folded on April 1st.

I've just come across this interview with Ken Anderson (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81831) which says some pretty interesting stuff. For one he says they were 100% on track until January 15th when an investor pulled out. That lack of money slowed the operation down pretty heavily and put them a while behind schedule, which they were never going to recover from before the start of the season. But he says he offered the FIA a large amount of money in the form of a bond as a promise that they'd make the start of the 2011 season. He repeatedly says that wouldn't have been that difficult, they had other sources of money lined up and Chad Hurley of Youtube was pumping the cash in too. Yet the FIA still refused them entry to the 2011 grid, and as a result the team was wound up.

From what I know, Toyota were in a similar situation in 2001 and deferred their entry in 2002, in exchange for a large sum of money. Anderson mentions Super Aguri doing a similar thing too. If they had all this money and some pretty extensive facilities developed, why did the FIA not allow them another go in 2011 when HRT managed to drag their heels for 3 seasons? Clearly funding wasn't the issue, just some ballsed up scheduling that put them behind.

Or maybe I'm just gullible and Anderson lied a lot in that interview. Them folding did allow Sauber to return to the sport, thus keeping Kobayashi around for a few years and introducing Perez and now Gutierrez. So it wasn't all bad. It's just a bit of a strange story that I never really understood.

Sauber effectively adopted the BMW Sauber places, hence they kept that name officially for 2010 to pick up the Concorde cash (had they dropped the BMW, not sure whether only without all other teams' permission or it was just plain too late, they'd have lost FOM funding due to being a new team). They were granted entry relatively late, but not at the expense of USF1.

Toyota left and that gave 1Malaysia (aka Lotus Racing/Team Lotus/Caterham) another shot having failed in the initial bidding. Stefan GP were hoping to enter if USF1 or Campos Meta/Hispania failed to make it, even flying out (or at least planning to, I forget) to the first race in case. Remember, we were supposed to have 13 teams in 2010, but only 12 turned up. Next year, down to 11.

Sauber had to wait until USF1 officially pulled out I thought?

BMW and Toyota left, HRT (Campos), Caterham and Virgin joined along with USF1. So we went from 10 teams to 12 teams, the 13th slot was forgotten about. Then USF1 screwed up, Sauber got their slot. Stefan were a bit of a joke themselves anyway and that's why they weren't given a slot in the first place.


No the USF1 only announced in Feb that they weren't going to make it and Sauber had there place already sewn up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 4:14 pm
Posts: 1740
Location: South Yorkshire
Kind of funny that they folded officially on April 1st.

_________________
Jenson Button Fan.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 1182
USF1 only didn't happen because of Ken Anderson. Bottom Line. Peter simply chose the wrong person to go into this venture with. If you've read the whole story and were lucky enough have learned some of the inside info, you might see things as I and a few others do. The team was right on schedule with everything until Anderson turned into an egomaniacal dictator and then everything went down the crapper. He wanted to have the utmost control of everything regardless of how incorrect he was and he drove the company right into the ground.

I sincerely hope that Peter eventually realizes his dream of owning and fielding his own F1 team, and I truly hope it is a US based team.

_________________
Second place is the first loser!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
Regardless of who was at fault in the USF1 fiasco, I think the reason they were not given any liberties with regards to deferring their entry had something to do with the fact that the FIA Presidency had changed. Mosley was President throughout the bidding process and awarded the entries, amidst a few ruminations about it not being a clean process, plus the fact that when the teams were bidding they did so on the understanding that there would be a two-tiered rule system. Todt had taken over the Presidency by the beginning of the 2010 season and his team of people have proven to be far more straight-laced and conservative. It's just my opinion, but I do think there would have been a greater chance of the team being allowed a 2011 slot had Mosley been President, even if only because he would have wanted to save face about the bidding process.

I think it's quite hard to apportion blame in terms of who is responsible for the fiasco that ensued. All of the new teams were bidding on the understanding that there would be a two-tiered system whereby teams either had no budget cap but restrictive regulations or adhered to a budget cap but were allowed more innovation. IIRC the possibility of customer cars was also in the mix. AFAIK the teams were chosen based on this system eventuating. Then FOTA came up with the breakaway series bargaining tool and that changed the entire complexion of the situation. All the new teams were then thrust into circumstances where they likely had to spend more and options such as customer cars were not available to them. This is before even getting to the questionmarks surrounding the bidding process where there were suggestions that the most viable operations were not chosen in favour of people who were regarded as closer to Mosley and Ecclestone. Despite my distaste for how slow they are, I do have sympathy for the new teams and admiration for HRT and Marussia actually making it to the grid that year. How much USF1 were affected by those circumstances is hard to say, but I believe it would all have had an impact.

Having said that I have no tolerance for either Windsor or Anderson in that situation. They were equally in charge and therefore the responsibility falls to both of them. Their joint refusal to accept reality - that the operation was not going to succeed - at an earlier date to satisfy some emotional or ego-driven desire to be in charge of an F1 team did a lot of harm to the employees who had put their faith in them. I have no sympathy or empathy for Windsor who is still a very wealthy man when they failed to pay out a lot of the employees involved and kept them hanging for weeks longer than they should have working without pay on the promise that it would all work out. Their reputations were justifiably damaged and I'd hope that anyone would think twice before trusting them again.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:18 am
Posts: 679
Laura23 wrote:
Toyota didn't defer a year due to lack of money though. It was because they didn't think their car was up to the job and wanted a whole year for development. Proved to be a good choice since the original development was reported to be as much as 11 seconds off the pace in Salo's hands and he was no slouch.

As for Super Aguri I don't remember them trying to enter in 2005. Just 2006 and actually making it with far less money and resources than USF1 ever had.

USF1 was a farce. Anderson was a farce and Peter Windsor is only just clawing back his reputation now. The whole thing was a joke. HRT may have been the butt of everyone's jokes in recent years but at least they made it, they had a complete car ready for their first race. USF1 didn't and they weren't want for money, even Anderson admits as much. They should have been on the grid but weren't because they cocked up everything and because of that I'm glad they never got another chance. One could have understood if it was budget issues, but to behave t he budget and still completely screw up your production line is idiotic.

That we got Sauber back makes me even more glad. They have shown what a small team with not much cash can do and how professional they can be.


I don't think anyone ever joked about HRT. Or at least I never noticed. The drivers, yes but hard to make a joke on any team that shows up on race day. They have my fullest respect. I watched them at Austin and I must say, I was very impressed with the livery overall. It's very beautiful in fact. The bronze/golden lettering and trim is highly reflective. Almost as much as the McLarens.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1699
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
HRT were criticised a lot, at least on this forum, over the past 3 years. Not so much in the way of jokes, perhaps, but they were certainly perceived as such.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:39 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Kansas City, USA
the incubus wrote:
USF1 only didn't happen because of Ken Anderson. Bottom Line. Peter simply chose the wrong person to go into this venture with. If you've read the whole story and were lucky enough have learned some of the inside info, you might see things as I and a few others do. The team was right on schedule with everything until Anderson turned into an egomaniacal dictator and then everything went down the crapper. He wanted to have the utmost control of everything regardless of how incorrect he was and he drove the company right into the ground.

I sincerely hope that Peter eventually realizes his dream of owning and fielding his own F1 team, and I truly hope it is a US based team.


Agree! Total BS from Ken Anderson. I followed USF1's progress quite a bit (even applied for an internship on their website) and from the sources I've read, the reason they failed was because Ken Anderson had to approve everything in the design process and didn't do this in a punctual time. I also felt that there wasn't any clear communication among the different key people. Even though it was Peter Windsor and Ken Anderson who started the team, Peter didn't seem to be anywhere near the operations and he seemed to think everything was normal even when the press started talking about issues. We didn't really hear from Anderson until the team wasn't going to make the grid for sure.

I really feel bad for the engineers that worked on the car because they did make some decent progress. I was pretty stoked about the YouTube videos showing the progress. A lot of them moved to Charlotte with their families and also read somewhere that they didn't get paid and was promised the money when the team made it to the grid/completed their first race.

What a shame...

_________________
Kimi Raikkonen / Red Bull Racing / Lotus F1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:49 pm
Posts: 191
The Speed TV "progress report" from early 2010, in which it was revealed that Ken Anderson's barely-cohate son Jason was working in the design team in a barely-lit office, were a very clear sign that something wasn't quite right. Indeed, the video in question was uploaded on Jan 12th. According to Ken Anderson, a major sponsor pulled out on Jan 15th. I can't help but feel these two events are not unrelated. The "drawing office" in the video constitutes a single desk in which Jason Anderson appears to be simulating the CPD of the car. This suggests that the concept of the car was still being worked on around the same time that everyone else was launching their full vehicles, and worked on by someone unable to answer basic questions to an interviewer.

I always thought the real aim was to set up a skeleton of a Formula One team that could be sold to someone else at a time when it appeared as though all the places on the grid were taken and that therefore anyone else looking to join (such as Lola or Prodrive) would have to buy one of the new teams.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 3150
Did not follow this so closely, but was there not a problem a car not being available to be approved for the first stages? Crash etc?

_________________
I have nothing to offer but blood, oil, gears, and sweat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:39 am
Posts: 1309
enchantment25 wrote:
Laura23 wrote:
scuderia_stevie wrote:
Volantary wrote:
Back in 2010 there was a hopeless operation called USF1 that gained an entry for the season but never made the grid. Throughout their existence and especially after the middle of January 2010, news was pretty quiet and they folded on April 1st.

I've just come across this interview with Ken Anderson (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81831) which says some pretty interesting stuff. For one he says they were 100% on track until January 15th when an investor pulled out. That lack of money slowed the operation down pretty heavily and put them a while behind schedule, which they were never going to recover from before the start of the season. But he says he offered the FIA a large amount of money in the form of a bond as a promise that they'd make the start of the 2011 season. He repeatedly says that wouldn't have been that difficult, they had other sources of money lined up and Chad Hurley of Youtube was pumping the cash in too. Yet the FIA still refused them entry to the 2011 grid, and as a result the team was wound up.

From what I know, Toyota were in a similar situation in 2001 and deferred their entry in 2002, in exchange for a large sum of money. Anderson mentions Super Aguri doing a similar thing too. If they had all this money and some pretty extensive facilities developed, why did the FIA not allow them another go in 2011 when HRT managed to drag their heels for 3 seasons? Clearly funding wasn't the issue, just some ballsed up scheduling that put them behind.

Or maybe I'm just gullible and Anderson lied a lot in that interview. Them folding did allow Sauber to return to the sport, thus keeping Kobayashi around for a few years and introducing Perez and now Gutierrez. So it wasn't all bad. It's just a bit of a strange story that I never really understood.

Sauber effectively adopted the BMW Sauber places, hence they kept that name officially for 2010 to pick up the Concorde cash (had they dropped the BMW, not sure whether only without all other teams' permission or it was just plain too late, they'd have lost FOM funding due to being a new team). They were granted entry relatively late, but not at the expense of USF1.

Toyota left and that gave 1Malaysia (aka Lotus Racing/Team Lotus/Caterham) another shot having failed in the initial bidding. Stefan GP were hoping to enter if USF1 or Campos Meta/Hispania failed to make it, even flying out (or at least planning to, I forget) to the first race in case. Remember, we were supposed to have 13 teams in 2010, but only 12 turned up. Next year, down to 11.

Sauber had to wait until USF1 officially pulled out I thought?

BMW and Toyota left, HRT (Campos), Caterham and Virgin joined along with USF1. So we went from 10 teams to 12 teams, the 13th slot was forgotten about. Then USF1 screwed up, Sauber got their slot. Stefan were a bit of a joke themselves anyway and that's why they weren't given a slot in the first place.

The original idea was for 13 teams, with three being selected to add to the ten teams in 2009. That was Manor (Virgin/Marussia), USF1 and Campos Meta (Hispania/HRT). Then, as scuderia stevie said, BMW left and what is now Caterham took their spot (in September I believe). Then in November Toyota pulled out and Sauber stepped in to replace them (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/12/03/s ... 2010-grid/). USF1 didn't shut down until a couple of weeks before the start of the season.

For some reason I thought BMW and Toyota pulled out the other way around. As soon as I read your reply, it all came flooding back.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 6970
Location: London
Cozz wrote:
Laura23 wrote:
Toyota didn't defer a year due to lack of money though. It was because they didn't think their car was up to the job and wanted a whole year for development. Proved to be a good choice since the original development was reported to be as much as 11 seconds off the pace in Salo's hands and he was no slouch.

As for Super Aguri I don't remember them trying to enter in 2005. Just 2006 and actually making it with far less money and resources than USF1 ever had.

USF1 was a farce. Anderson was a farce and Peter Windsor is only just clawing back his reputation now. The whole thing was a joke. HRT may have been the butt of everyone's jokes in recent years but at least they made it, they had a complete car ready for their first race. USF1 didn't and they weren't want for money, even Anderson admits as much. They should have been on the grid but weren't because they cocked up everything and because of that I'm glad they never got another chance. One could have understood if it was budget issues, but to behave t he budget and still completely screw up your production line is idiotic.

That we got Sauber back makes me even more glad. They have shown what a small team with not much cash can do and how professional they can be.


I don't think anyone ever joked about HRT. Or at least I never noticed. The drivers, yes but hard to make a joke on any team that shows up on race day. They have my fullest respect. I watched them at Austin and I must say, I was very impressed with the livery overall. It's very beautiful in fact. The bronze/golden lettering and trim is highly reflective. Almost as much as the McLarens.

Back in 2010/early 2011 HRT were kicked into pretty heavily on here. Then they beat Marussia again in 2011 and I think people started seeing they really were a team of triers doing their best with a very bad budget and a two year old car.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 2564
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
Tufty wrote:
HRT were criticised a lot, at least on this forum, over the past 3 years. Not so much in the way of jokes, perhaps, but they were certainly perceived as such.

I reckon HRT got the stick they did because they weren't racers, not because they were useless. The team was cobbled together by investment bankers and the like, with the aim of establishing it and then selling it at a profit. That's why I never liked them. They may have been staffed by racers but making money isn't a popular reason for going racing.

_________________
I went skating on your name,
And by tracing it twice,
I fell through the ice,
of Alice


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:31 pm
Posts: 317
At least we ended up with this funny little cartoon series as a result

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJTynvakZok

Still makes me laugh even a couple of years later.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:28 pm
Posts: 200
Location: b. c. canada
F1 needs an american entry in F1. A series that touts itself as a world championship needs one of the biggest countries involved in it. A big step was getting a proper circut and austin certainly filled that bill. It was to bad that usf1 wasn't able to get their project off the ground.

The big question that needs to be answered is why is there so little interest by manufactures in the u.s. to be involved in F1? Do they think that there is little to be gained by being involved? Just because we are big fans of F1 is it maybe not as important as we think it is? Does american manufactures being involved in nascar fill their needs? Will maybe the success of austin change some minds? Would having a driver in the series help? Seems the teams can get drivers from other countries (with money) rides, but in north america getting money to drive in F1 is very hard to do. Being a fan of robert wickens it was a disapointment to see him not get a ride while drivers he beat got in.

USF1 had the right idea with investers such as you tube but had the wrong people running the project.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
GoOnJenson wrote:
At least we ended up with this funny little cartoon series as a result

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJTynvakZok

Still makes me laugh even a couple of years later.


:lol: :lol:

http://youtu.be/9-E7KSEZhp0

Love that one.

Edit the USF1 youtube channel is still live.

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:21 pm
Posts: 1710
Laura23 wrote:
Cozz wrote:
Laura23 wrote:
Toyota didn't defer a year due to lack of money though. It was because they didn't think their car was up to the job and wanted a whole year for development. Proved to be a good choice since the original development was reported to be as much as 11 seconds off the pace in Salo's hands and he was no slouch.

As for Super Aguri I don't remember them trying to enter in 2005. Just 2006 and actually making it with far less money and resources than USF1 ever had.

USF1 was a farce. Anderson was a farce and Peter Windsor is only just clawing back his reputation now. The whole thing was a joke. HRT may have been the butt of everyone's jokes in recent years but at least they made it, they had a complete car ready for their first race. USF1 didn't and they weren't want for money, even Anderson admits as much. They should have been on the grid but weren't because they cocked up everything and because of that I'm glad they never got another chance. One could have understood if it was budget issues, but to behave t he budget and still completely screw up your production line is idiotic.

That we got Sauber back makes me even more glad. They have shown what a small team with not much cash can do and how professional they can be.


I don't think anyone ever joked about HRT. Or at least I never noticed. The drivers, yes but hard to make a joke on any team that shows up on race day. They have my fullest respect. I watched them at Austin and I must say, I was very impressed with the livery overall. It's very beautiful in fact. The bronze/golden lettering and trim is highly reflective. Almost as much as the McLarens.

Back in 2010/early 2011 HRT were kicked into pretty heavily on here. Then they beat Marussia again in 2011 and I think people started seeing they really were a team of triers doing their best with a very bad budget and a two year old car.


As soon as Ricciardo and Liuzzi (two strong drivers relative to those that preceded them) started outqualifying Virgin I started giving them my respect. I was supporting Super Pedro all throughout this year and thought the team did a pretty good job, aside from keeping Narain for a full season.

_________________
Official Kamui Kobayashi Fanboy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:44 pm
Posts: 708
spiritone wrote:
F1 needs an american entry in F1 . A series that touts itself as a world championship needs one of the biggest countries involved in it.


From an American F1 fan's perspective this may be true, and F1 would certainly benefit from US involvement - however F1 knows that it will never displace Nascar or Indycar no matter how much interest it can generate. Possibly the best way of attracting attention would be for one of the top Indycar drivers to switch to F1, but why would they? They already earn comparable money (if not more), are national icons with star status and have big reputations at stake (look at what happened to Bourdais).

In short it doesn't really make sense for F1 to have an American team unless there was significant investment, which would probably only come if someone with the standing of Hunter-Reay came to F1. It's no coincidence that all the current F1 teams, are based in Central and Western Europe - because F1 is essentially a European sport that has expanded its roots to attract investment. And where is the best place to attract investment? Emerging/Booming economies which do not have direct competition to F1, which is why we race in India, China, Malaysia, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi et al

_________________
Pick 10 Competition:
2013 - 10th Place
Winner of the Nico Hulkenberg Trophy and Mystic Eddie Jordan's Crystal Ball


Pick 10 Podiums:
1st Place: USA 2012, Japan 2013
3rd Place: China 2014


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 6970
Location: London
coulthards chin wrote:
spiritone wrote:
F1 needs an american entry in F1 . A series that touts itself as a world championship needs one of the biggest countries involved in it.


From an American F1 fan's perspective this may be true, and F1 would certainly benefit from US involvement - however F1 knows that it will never displace Nascar or Indycar no matter how much interest it can generate. Possibly the best way of attracting attention would be for one of the top Indycar drivers to switch to F1, but why would they? They already earn comparable money (if not more), are national icons with star status and have big reputations at stake (look at what happened to Bourdais).

In short it doesn't really make sense for F1 to have an American team unless there was significant investment, which would probably only come if someone with the standing of Hunter-Reay came to F1. It's no coincidence that all the current F1 teams, are based in Central and Western Europe - because F1 is essentially a European sport that has expanded its roots to attract investment. And where is the best place to attract investment? Emerging/Booming economies which do not have direct competition to F1, which is why we race in India, China, Malaysia, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi et al

This.

For F1 to succeed in America it may need American involvement but overall F1 doesn't need to succeed in America tbh. It's done just fine for the last 60+ years without an American team at the top, F1 doesn't need an American F1 team. America needs an American F1 team.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 152
Location: USA
Laura23 wrote:
coulthards chin wrote:
spiritone wrote:
F1 needs an american entry in F1 . A series that touts itself as a world championship needs one of the biggest countries involved in it.


From an American F1 fan's perspective this may be true, and F1 would certainly benefit from US involvement - however F1 knows that it will never displace Nascar or Indycar no matter how much interest it can generate. Possibly the best way of attracting attention would be for one of the top Indycar drivers to switch to F1, but why would they? They already earn comparable money (if not more), are national icons with star status and have big reputations at stake (look at what happened to Bourdais).

In short it doesn't really make sense for F1 to have an American team unless there was significant investment, which would probably only come if someone with the standing of Hunter-Reay came to F1. It's no coincidence that all the current F1 teams, are based in Central and Western Europe - because F1 is essentially a European sport that has expanded its roots to attract investment. And where is the best place to attract investment? Emerging/Booming economies which do not have direct competition to F1, which is why we race in India, China, Malaysia, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi et al

This.

For F1 to succeed in America it may need American involvement but overall F1 doesn't need to succeed in America tbh. It's done just fine for the last 60+ years without an American team at the top, F1 doesn't need an American F1 team. America needs an American F1 team.



F1 doesnt need any country. period. Look at France, Netherlands, South Africa, and others that had a GP but no longer. F1 is a global business, however the largest economy in the world is something the TEAMS all want to grow the business for the cars, drinks etc. Ferrari where the US is the largest market wants a US F1 presence big time as does MB and I am sure now Mclaren. Even though F1 has done fine without the US the question is how much better can it do with an F1 team and a larger following in the US? Look at NASCAR a 100% US based series that makes BILLIONS in revenue per year, just in 1 country. F1 in its best year could not do a BILLION in Revenue from one country like say the UK. So while F1 needs no county per se, US is the big 800 pound gorilla everyone wants in the room. A US Based F1 team helps all the teams and F1 in total be better draw for the US market.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 1182
^^^

Well said!

_________________
Second place is the first loser!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:00 pm
Posts: 172
Location: DFW, Texas
coulthards chin wrote:
In short it doesn't really make sense for F1 to have an American team unless there was significant investment, which would probably only come if someone with the standing of Hunter-Reay came to F1. It's no coincidence that all the current F1 teams, are based in Central and Western Europe - because F1 is essentially a European sport that has expanded its roots to attract investment. And where is the best place to attract investment? Emerging/Booming economies which do not have direct competition to F1, which is why we race in India, China, Malaysia, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi et al


Unfortunately, the best opportunity for U.S. open wheel drivers and teams to have made the switch was during the IRL/CART divorce when there was so much uncertainty that it might have been easier for a team to say.... "Bleh... we'll get away from this mess and try and develop ourselves as an F1 team."

As well as making sense for a successful driver to follow suit as the money paid out in the US open wheel industry was being watered down by the split.

Now with the reconciliation, I don't see that happening. It would probably take a highly-motivated, ultra-competitive team owner/principal to make such a switch, wanting to test himself and team against the world's best.

I guess its an easy fall back because of the name, but really the only individual I could currently see doing that with a combination of resources and fitting that criteria would be Michael Andretti. He did it once as a driver, the family is still familiar and fond of the F1 brand, and I'd say the feelings are reciprocated by F1. And he's still a relatively young man. (I can't see the other power teams in US open wheel, like the Penske or what ever the Newman-Haas brand now is, as they are generally older and I see less reason to toss aside a good and lucrative thing they have with Indy Car, just for another feather in their cap. Where is with Michael, he's at a point where he could make a true legacy by challenging F1 and finding success as an F1 team as opposed to a Penske or Newman-Haas which regardless of what success they might have, would still be known by their Indy Car legacy and could only end up tarnishing it if they weren't up to the F1 challenge.)

Even so, it would do little to unseat NASCAR in the US, or even make a noticeable ding in its popularity here. But a US-based team with a US personality (I don't make a US driver as a prerequisite as a Michael Andretti as out-front team principal may offset the need for having US drivers on the team, but with a faceless principal, then at least 1 seat would need to be filled with a US driver WITH personality who competes for podiums) would certainly draw more US sponsorship and advertising dollars which would be great for F1.

Such a US presence I would enjoy.... but I don't really know that the USF1 idea really moved the needle at all for me. I recognized Peter Windsor from F1 broadcasts, but there was nothing American about him. There were no drivers linked to the team that created any interest for me. I'd actually be more interested in seeing if they had anything and were going anywhere as I do with any new team moreso than because I was interested in them because of their moniker.

Ferrari, McLaren, the Red Bulls and Lotus (Renault) are far more interesting to me than anything that might enter from the US.

That said, I do realize I'm likely the exception to the rule when it comes to US fans, or maybe I should say US fans who aren't already very interested in F1. A USF1 might have grabbed a bit more attention from those with lukewarm to no interest currently.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 1182
wj_gibson wrote:
The Speed TV "progress report" from early 2010, in which it was revealed that Ken Anderson's barely-cohate son Jason was working in the design team in a barely-lit office, were a very clear sign that something wasn't quite right. Indeed, the video in question was uploaded on Jan 12th. According to Ken Anderson, a major sponsor pulled out on Jan 15th. I can't help but feel these two events are not unrelated. The "drawing office" in the video constitutes a single desk in which Jason Anderson appears to be simulating the CPD of the car. This suggests that the concept of the car was still being worked on around the same time that everyone else was launching their full vehicles, and worked on by someone unable to answer basic questions to an interviewer.

I always thought the real aim was to set up a skeleton of a Formula One team that could be sold to someone else at a time when it appeared as though all the places on the grid were taken and that therefore anyone else looking to join (such as Lola or Prodrive) would have to buy one of the new teams.

That's not right at all. Your perception that a "single old drawing on a screen in a dimly lit office space means they were in trouble" is just an assumption. I've work in the computer graphics field for over 20 years now and most graphics departments are dimly lit purposely because the perception among most designers/artists is that they can see better in the dark. Not true but that's the perception and that's likely why the space was dimly lit.

With USF1 Peter Windsor knew what he was doing and was indeed in it for the long haul rather than building up a frameworks to move for instant profits. Had that been the case he would not have resigned from his job at SPEED. His choice of partners is what did him in, but initially they started out on the right foot and were making excellent progress. It wasn't until the effort really got going that Anderson stepped in declaring his Supremo status that things went awry. He felt that because he was so successful and knew so much and had so much expertise with all things NASCAR, that meant it translated to F1, and it didn't. It was Anderson's totalitarian dictatorship approach ultimately proved catastrophic and that is precisely what killed USF1.

It is a rumor that all they had was a simple nose cone completed and the video below shows an almost complete tub for the crash test to be carried out and many thousands of components were in fact machined and ready to go into the cars. The head butting delayed their progress but had Anderson gotten out of the way, I think they would have at least had the chance to make it onto the grid by the 2nd or 3rd race of the year with their own car. HRT bought their chassis from Dallara so they were ahead of the curve from the start and merely had to drop in their drive train and electronics and go. Literally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&featu ... jwSFqvFKvU

_________________
Second place is the first loser!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 1182
Z3RoadstarTXF1 wrote:
Even so, it would do little to unseat NASCAR in the US, or even make a noticeable ding in its popularity here. But a US-based team with a US personality (I don't make a US driver as a prerequisite as a Michael Andretti as out-front team principal may offset the need for having US drivers on the team, but with a faceless principal, then at least 1 seat would need to be filled with a US driver WITH personality who competes for podiums) would certainly draw more US sponsorship and advertising dollars which would be great for F1.

One thing no one can argue against is that say if perhaps a US Formula 1 team were on the grid and say they won in stellar fashion, there would be headlines of epic proportions. So much so that the entire US racing fan base would take immediate notice to the point curiosities would be rather strongly peeked. It may not dethrone NASCRAP but it would prove popular among younger generations of fans who only came to find out about the spectacle that is F1 because of garnered successes cover widely and frequently by the media and could potentially earn many millions of IRL fans who don't know how much better open wheel racing can and should be.

I've also said the Andretti's would be the best candidates to build and field a US based team not only because of the heritage and successes associated with their name, but because of the allure for sponsorship in the biggest arena couple with such a name. As well I've said that it would likely be best and most feasible if they joined forces with Chip Ganassi as he too has strong sponsorship acquiring capabilities and knows how to run a team quite well. He's only a bit older than Michael and they both know each other and get along quite well. I think they could bring in a major US Manufacturer the likes of Ford or Chevy/GM to supply the power which would bring with it loads of additional funding. Adding up all the monies they could likely acquire together, they would have a real budget to allow them a real shot to be highly competitive in F1 in a relatively short amount of time.

_________________
Second place is the first loser!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
the incubus wrote:
wj_gibson wrote:
The Speed TV "progress report" from early 2010, in which it was revealed that Ken Anderson's barely-cohate son Jason was working in the design team in a barely-lit office, were a very clear sign that something wasn't quite right. Indeed, the video in question was uploaded on Jan 12th. According to Ken Anderson, a major sponsor pulled out on Jan 15th. I can't help but feel these two events are not unrelated. The "drawing office" in the video constitutes a single desk in which Jason Anderson appears to be simulating the CPD of the car. This suggests that the concept of the car was still being worked on around the same time that everyone else was launching their full vehicles, and worked on by someone unable to answer basic questions to an interviewer.

I always thought the real aim was to set up a skeleton of a Formula One team that could be sold to someone else at a time when it appeared as though all the places on the grid were taken and that therefore anyone else looking to join (such as Lola or Prodrive) would have to buy one of the new teams.

That's not right at all. Your perception that a "single old drawing on a screen in a dimly lit office space means they were in trouble" is just an assumption. I've work in the computer graphics field for over 20 years now and most graphics departments are dimly lit purposely because the perception among most designers/artists is that they can see better in the dark. Not true but that's the perception and that's likely why the space was dimly lit.

With USF1 Peter Windsor knew what he was doing and was indeed in it for the long haul rather than building up a frameworks to move for instant profits. Had that been the case he would not have resigned from his job at SPEED. His choice of partners is what did him in, but initially they started out on the right foot and were making excellent progress. It wasn't until the effort really got going that Anderson stepped in declaring his Supremo status that things went awry. He felt that because he was so successful and knew so much and had so much expertise with all things NASCAR, that meant it translated to F1, and it didn't. It was Anderson's totalitarian dictatorship approach ultimately proved catastrophic and that is precisely what killed USF1.

It is a rumor that all they had was a simple nose cone completed and the video below shows an almost complete tub for the crash test to be carried out and many thousands of components were in fact machined and ready to go into the cars. The head butting delayed their progress but had Anderson gotten out of the way, I think they would have at least had the chance to make it onto the grid by the 2nd or 3rd race of the year with their own car. HRT bought their chassis from Dallara so they were ahead of the curve from the start and merely had to drop in their drive train and electronics and go. Literally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&featu ... jwSFqvFKvU

When Autosport sent over Dieter Rencken in February IIRC he could find almost no evidence of the team. They were behind on payments to suppliers, some of whom had stopped supplying them and had not paid their employees for two weeks. That tub in the video was the only piece of evidence of any sort of Formula 1 car for a couple of months, and it's a solitary tub. Those are financial issues.

I'm not denying that Anderson may have had a dictatorial approach that meant things were behind where they should have been and that that put off potential investors. However what that still comes back to is that they didn't have the capital in the first place and were relying on being able to attract enough investors after the fact. It very likely wasn't a viable business plan to begin with and the problems with such a situation then came to fruition. I understand the approach of assuming investors will be attracted later on and that setting up in the US, particularly AFAIK in a motorsport rich area, they thought they had a good chance. But if you get to the point that they did above then that's way too borderline to begin with. It sounds very much as though they never had the money to make it all work and were relying entirely on attracting investors.

That business plan is Windsor's equal responsibility, not to mention that if they were partners he should have acted to curtail whatever negative impact that Anderson was having.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 152
Location: USA
kai_ wrote:
the incubus wrote:
wj_gibson wrote:
The Speed TV "progress report" from early 2010, in which it was revealed that Ken Anderson's barely-cohate son Jason was working in the design team in a barely-lit office, were a very clear sign that something wasn't quite right. Indeed, the video in question was uploaded on Jan 12th. According to Ken Anderson, a major sponsor pulled out on Jan 15th. I can't help but feel these two events are not unrelated. The "drawing office" in the video constitutes a single desk in which Jason Anderson appears to be simulating the CPD of the car. This suggests that the concept of the car was still being worked on around the same time that everyone else was launching their full vehicles, and worked on by someone unable to answer basic questions to an interviewer.

I always thought the real aim was to set up a skeleton of a Formula One team that could be sold to someone else at a time when it appeared as though all the places on the grid were taken and that therefore anyone else looking to join (such as Lola or Prodrive) would have to buy one of the new teams.

That's not right at all. Your perception that a "single old drawing on a screen in a dimly lit office space means they were in trouble" is just an assumption. I've work in the computer graphics field for over 20 years now and most graphics departments are dimly lit purposely because the perception among most designers/artists is that they can see better in the dark. Not true but that's the perception and that's likely why the space was dimly lit.

With USF1 Peter Windsor knew what he was doing and was indeed in it for the long haul rather than building up a frameworks to move for instant profits. Had that been the case he would not have resigned from his job at SPEED. His choice of partners is what did him in, but initially they started out on the right foot and were making excellent progress. It wasn't until the effort really got going that Anderson stepped in declaring his Supremo status that things went awry. He felt that because he was so successful and knew so much and had so much expertise with all things NASCAR, that meant it translated to F1, and it didn't. It was Anderson's totalitarian dictatorship approach ultimately proved catastrophic and that is precisely what killed USF1.

It is a rumor that all they had was a simple nose cone completed and the video below shows an almost complete tub for the crash test to be carried out and many thousands of components were in fact machined and ready to go into the cars. The head butting delayed their progress but had Anderson gotten out of the way, I think they would have at least had the chance to make it onto the grid by the 2nd or 3rd race of the year with their own car. HRT bought their chassis from Dallara so they were ahead of the curve from the start and merely had to drop in their drive train and electronics and go. Literally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&featu ... jwSFqvFKvU

When Autosport sent over Dieter Rencken in February IIRC he could find almost no evidence of the team. They were behind on payments to suppliers, some of whom had stopped supplying them and had not paid their employees for two weeks. That tub in the video was the only piece of evidence of any sort of Formula 1 car for a couple of months, and it's a solitary tub. Those are financial issues.

I'm not denying that Anderson may have had a dictatorial approach that meant things were behind where they should have been and that that put off potential investors. However what that still comes back to is that they didn't have the capital in the first place and were relying on being able to attract enough investors after the fact. It very likely wasn't a viable business plan to begin with and the problems with such a situation then came to fruition. I understand the approach of assuming investors will be attracted later on and that setting up in the US, particularly AFAIK in a motorsport rich area, they thought they had a good chance. But if you get to the point that they did above then that's way too borderline to begin with. It sounds very much as though they never had the money to make it all work and were relying entirely on attracting investors.

That business plan is Windsor's equal responsibility, not to mention that if they were partners he should have acted to curtail whatever negative impact that Anderson was having.




Windsor deserves much of the blame. It was his reputation that launched USF1 it was his F1 connections etc. This guy is a total fraud as far as I am concerned, he led everyone to think USF1 was on track writing his blogs etc. my opinion is Windsor is a total waste.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 1182
kai_ wrote:
the incubus wrote:
wj_gibson wrote:
The Speed TV "progress report" from early 2010, in which it was revealed that Ken Anderson's barely-cohate son Jason was working in the design team in a barely-lit office, were a very clear sign that something wasn't quite right. Indeed, the video in question was uploaded on Jan 12th. According to Ken Anderson, a major sponsor pulled out on Jan 15th. I can't help but feel these two events are not unrelated. The "drawing office" in the video constitutes a single desk in which Jason Anderson appears to be simulating the CPD of the car. This suggests that the concept of the car was still being worked on around the same time that everyone else was launching their full vehicles, and worked on by someone unable to answer basic questions to an interviewer.

I always thought the real aim was to set up a skeleton of a Formula One team that could be sold to someone else at a time when it appeared as though all the places on the grid were taken and that therefore anyone else looking to join (such as Lola or Prodrive) would have to buy one of the new teams.

That's not right at all. Your perception that a "single old drawing on a screen in a dimly lit office space means they were in trouble" is just an assumption. I've work in the computer graphics field for over 20 years now and most graphics departments are dimly lit purposely because the perception among most designers/artists is that they can see better in the dark. Not true but that's the perception and that's likely why the space was dimly lit.

With USF1 Peter Windsor knew what he was doing and was indeed in it for the long haul rather than building up a frameworks to move for instant profits. Had that been the case he would not have resigned from his job at SPEED. His choice of partners is what did him in, but initially they started out on the right foot and were making excellent progress. It wasn't until the effort really got going that Anderson stepped in declaring his Supremo status that things went awry. He felt that because he was so successful and knew so much and had so much expertise with all things NASCAR, that meant it translated to F1, and it didn't. It was Anderson's totalitarian dictatorship approach ultimately proved catastrophic and that is precisely what killed USF1.

It is a rumor that all they had was a simple nose cone completed and the video below shows an almost complete tub for the crash test to be carried out and many thousands of components were in fact machined and ready to go into the cars. The head butting delayed their progress but had Anderson gotten out of the way, I think they would have at least had the chance to make it onto the grid by the 2nd or 3rd race of the year with their own car. HRT bought their chassis from Dallara so they were ahead of the curve from the start and merely had to drop in their drive train and electronics and go. Literally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&featu ... jwSFqvFKvU

When Autosport sent over Dieter Rencken in February IIRC he could find almost no evidence of the team. They were behind on payments to suppliers, some of whom had stopped supplying them and had not paid their employees for two weeks. That tub in the video was the only piece of evidence of any sort of Formula 1 car for a couple of months, and it's a solitary tub. Those are financial issues.

I'm not denying that Anderson may have had a dictatorial approach that meant things were behind where they should have been and that that put off potential investors. However what that still comes back to is that they didn't have the capital in the first place and were relying on being able to attract enough investors after the fact. It very likely wasn't a viable business plan to begin with and the problems with such a situation then came to fruition. I understand the approach of assuming investors will be attracted later on and that setting up in the US, particularly AFAIK in a motorsport rich area, they thought they had a good chance. But if you get to the point that they did above then that's way too borderline to begin with. It sounds very much as though they never had the money to make it all work and were relying entirely on attracting investors.

That business plan is Windsor's equal responsibility, not to mention that if they were partners he should have acted to curtail whatever negative impact that Anderson was having.

That's not right either. They did indeed have some monies because the invested on a 2nd location to serve as their european headquarters and from what I read, the dropped a good chunk of change on it. All of it is money that should've been spent on the team and the cars. Surely they needed more money but they had enough to build at least one complete car. As well, they built 2 complete tubs. One seen in the video, the other crash tested to ensure they passed FIA safety standards which they did.

Peter fought with Anderson but Anderson owned all of the equipment and he was the one dulling out the money to pay for their facilities in Charlotte and in the end the conversations ended with Anderson having all the say. In Anderson's mind, Peter's connections in F1 meant nothing because he was supposedly footing the bill. People may say what they THINK happened and how Peter should have done things but if you've ever had a business partnership you'd know how many complexities exist in such a scenario. I did, and learned the hard way that there are only 3 people in life we can truly count on… Me, Myself and I. ;)

_________________
Second place is the first loser!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:52 pm
Posts: 9
This was a time when the best business plans suddenly lost financing in the US


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 1182
^^^ Excellent point!

_________________
Second place is the first loser!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 152
Location: USA
the incubus wrote:
^^^ Excellent point!

all excellent points however one can not discount what Windsor was selling. He had all the connections and was the one most to gain, he was a reporter and had minor/mid level positions in F1. Owning an F1 team would have put him with Luca, Bernie that was in my opinion what he was reaching for and in my opinion sold a bill of goods to Anderson. Now the economic times was tough and perhaps the google money never came in as expected and others but in the end the person who made USGP look bad was Windsor and he isnt even an american. Just goes to show you what you can try to do with other peoples money.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 6970
Location: London
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
the incubus wrote:
^^^ Excellent point!

all excellent points however one can not discount what Windsor was selling. He had all the connections and was the one most to gain, he was a reporter and had minor/mid level positions in F1. Owning an F1 team would have put him with Luca, Bernie that was in my opinion what he was reaching for and in my opinion sold a bill of goods to Anderson. Now the economic times was tough and perhaps the google money never came in as expected and others but in the end the person who made USGP look bad was Windsor and he isnt even an american. Just goes to show you what you can try to do with other peoples money.

Sounds like you are blaming the non American for the American team's failings just because he was non American tbh. Anderson was the one to mainly blame for the failures involved. Windsor was duped by Anderson himself and at least Windsor has tried to gain some credibility back within the paddock. Anderson hasn't because he didn't give a flying f*** about the operation once he realised he wouldn't make money out of it for a long time.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
the incubus wrote:
kai_ wrote:
When Autosport sent over Dieter Rencken in February IIRC he could find almost no evidence of the team. They were behind on payments to suppliers, some of whom had stopped supplying them and had not paid their employees for two weeks. That tub in the video was the only piece of evidence of any sort of Formula 1 car for a couple of months, and it's a solitary tub. Those are financial issues.

I'm not denying that Anderson may have had a dictatorial approach that meant things were behind where they should have been and that that put off potential investors. However what that still comes back to is that they didn't have the capital in the first place and were relying on being able to attract enough investors after the fact. It very likely wasn't a viable business plan to begin with and the problems with such a situation then came to fruition. I understand the approach of assuming investors will be attracted later on and that setting up in the US, particularly AFAIK in a motorsport rich area, they thought they had a good chance. But if you get to the point that they did above then that's way too borderline to begin with. It sounds very much as though they never had the money to make it all work and were relying entirely on attracting investors.

That business plan is Windsor's equal responsibility, not to mention that if they were partners he should have acted to curtail whatever negative impact that Anderson was having.

That's not right either. They did indeed have some monies because the invested on a 2nd location to serve as their european headquarters and from what I read, the dropped a good chunk of change on it. All of it is money that should've been spent on the team and the cars. Surely they needed more money but they had enough to build at least one complete car. As well, they built 2 complete tubs. One seen in the video, the other crash tested to ensure they passed FIA safety standards which they did.

Peter fought with Anderson but Anderson owned all of the equipment and he was the one dulling out the money to pay for their facilities in Charlotte and in the end the conversations ended with Anderson having all the say. In Anderson's mind, Peter's connections in F1 meant nothing because he was supposedly footing the bill. People may say what they THINK happened and how Peter should have done things but if you've ever had a business partnership you'd know how many complexities exist in such a scenario. I did, and learned the hard way that there are only 3 people in life we can truly count on… Me, Myself and I. ;)

I get the impression that you're saying that Windsor was an innocent victim who tried very hard to do everything right and stop Anderson from stuffing it all up and ultimately failed and that's what I'm disagreeing with. I don't feel that Windsor can be absolved of a portion of the responsibility. You talk about business partnerships and I do indeed know them well enough to know that there is never a situation where one person is completely innocent and the other completely guilty in any failure.

Windsor was not merely an employee of Anderson's or USF1 - he was involved with the original proposal to the FIA and business plan, which would have incorporated the structures, chain of command and authority. Now at the very least he therefore had a hand in assigning how much control Anderson had and what protections were in place to stop anyone becoming a dictator. Either he was silly enough to create a situation where Anderson had total control with no protection mechanisms or Anderson usurped the level of control he was supposed to have, which means that Windsor had options available to curtail what was going on.

I also maintain that when the ship was sinking Windsor did not do the right thing by the employees. If he thought that Anderson was making a meal of it then he should have ensured that the individuals who were genuinely innocent and got caught up in it all were properly informed and looked after. I appreciate that sometimes it is a delicate balancing act - that informing employees of what's going on can result in them leaving which might act in prevention to saving the company because potential investors can be put off. However, I believe that the priority is to allow people to make the choices that are right for their own lives. I also see no evidence in this situation that Windsor or Anderson even tried to do the right thing. Long before USF1 officially folded it was clear that things were going nowhere and hanging on at that point was merely selfish and egotistical.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 2:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 152
Location: USA
Laura23 wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
the incubus wrote:
^^^ Excellent point!

all excellent points however one can not discount what Windsor was selling. He had all the connections and was the one most to gain, he was a reporter and had minor/mid level positions in F1. Owning an F1 team would have put him with Luca, Bernie that was in my opinion what he was reaching for and in my opinion sold a bill of goods to Anderson. Now the economic times was tough and perhaps the google money never came in as expected and others but in the end the person who made USGP look bad was Windsor and he isnt even an american. Just goes to show you what you can try to do with other peoples money.

Sounds like you are blaming the non American for the American team's failings just because he was non American tbh. Anderson was the one to mainly blame for the failures involved. Windsor was duped by Anderson himself and at least Windsor has tried to gain some credibility back within the paddock. Anderson hasn't because he didn't give a flying f*** about the operation once he realised he wouldn't make money out of it for a long time.


Im stating my point that I think Windsor is to blame for the majority of the problems with USPGP he portrayed a different stance in my opinion and whatever issues the finances contributed Windsor should carry the lionshare of blame again in my opinion because he over sold what he can contribute.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USF1
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:17 pm
Posts: 857
If someone's going to dare combine the marks "US" and "F1" as the name of their business, they should make sure they have plenty of guaranteed financial backing before they ever call themselves that.


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: A2jdl, Arai_or_Nothing, Aspar, Benici, Black_Flag_11, Dark, inky38, Jeepkhana, Lotus49, mikeyg123, Mr-E, pubpokerplayer, Redfive, Toby. 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 : 0.180s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]