PDA

View Full Version : what will happen if f1 do lose 2 teams



CNR
17th April 2008, 13:30
will they run with 18 cars 9 teams

a few years back there was talk about 2 top teams running a 3rd car and not geting any points for that car.

Powered by Cosworth
17th April 2008, 13:55
They need to get rid of the silly and long process of entering a team in F1.

If you have 2 cars which meet all regulations, and pay a certain amount of money, you're in. Bring back 107% and see what happens.

woody2goody
17th April 2008, 17:36
This seems like a good shout, I mean the more cars the better. Have a limit of either 107% or 30 cars if there are that many.

JSH
17th April 2008, 17:59
Doesn't Bernie guaruntee a minumum grid of 20 cars?

Which means he would presumably have to pay a penalty to ...umm... someone.... if it's less than 20.??

Nikki Katz
17th April 2008, 18:18
I thought that the minimum amount was 18 cars. My understanding was that the compulsory 3rd car talk came about when it looked like Jaguar, Jordan and Minardi would all pull out, leaving 7 teams.

philipbain
17th April 2008, 18:30
To be honest I doubt we'll lose 2 teams, we may lose 1, i'm sure Torro Rosso will find a buyer and I understand that Gerhard Berger is keen to stay at Torro Rosso so it'll maintain some continuity of ownership, at least in part.

jso1985
17th April 2008, 21:00
I understand the minimun is 20 cars. in case of having 9 teams, the two top teams will have to line-up a 3rd car, or at least I think it was written that way in the last Concorde agreement
bus as philipbain posted, I doubt we will lose other team than Super Aguri

Powered by Cosworth
17th April 2008, 21:29
Thinking about it, look at all the outfits that wanted the Prodrive place then missed out.

Now there is two places opening up where they could simply buy the teams entry then put their original plans in place. I don't think we'll lose both SA and STR

Hawkmoon
17th April 2008, 23:34
Super Aguri are finished. Stick a fork in them, they're done.

As for STR, I think they'll stick around. They have the old Minardi factory to use when they have to construct their own car next year. So even if they don't find a buyer I think they'll be around in the short term.

I'm pretty sure the minimum is 20 cars. If we do drop to 18 I can't see Ferrari and BMW or McLaren being happy about fielding a third car. I think that that third car is going to very heavy on data collection equipment as there is no point in a team fielding a third car that doesn't help them in the Constructors Championship.

jens
18th April 2008, 00:55
If we see less than 10 teams, then how'll Bernie guarantee 20 cars without demanding 3rd cars from other teams? With all his money he'll create his own team. :p :

Valve Bounce
18th April 2008, 01:00
Thinking about it, look at all the outfits that wanted the Prodrive place then missed out.

Now there is two places opening up where they could simply buy the teams entry then put their original plans in place. I don't think we'll lose both SA and STR

You havn't been paying attention to the customer car discussions, have you?

Hawkmoon
18th April 2008, 02:33
If we see less than 10 teams, then how'll Bernie guarantee 20 cars without demanding 3rd cars from other teams? With all his money he'll create his own team. :p :

That's entirely possible. Bernie put money into Minardi from time to time to keep them going. It's not entirely impossible that he won't do the same thing again with Super Aguri or if not them then Torro Rosso.

Powered by Cosworth
18th April 2008, 06:34
You havn't been paying attention to the customer car discussions, have you?

I can't imagine every potential entry for Prodrives spot planned on using a customer car too :confused:

Valve Bounce
18th April 2008, 06:38
I can't imagine every potential entry for Prodrives spot planned on using a customer car too :confused:

Well, yeah!! they are queueing up and knocking on Bernie's door with zillions in their pockets, ready to design their own car, build their own wind tunnel, and race like the wind.

wmcot
18th April 2008, 06:59
Now might be a good time to bargain with Bernie about entering a team in F1. You could always use the threat of him having to prop up the grid with his own money (ala Minardi.) Then again, some manufacturers may not be against running a third car with the limits on testing.

Something will have to give and my bet is that Bernie somehow "talks" the manufacturers into allowing customer cars. I see that happening before the three-car-teams option takes place.

Valve Bounce
18th April 2008, 07:06
Now might be a good time to bargain with Bernie about entering a team in F1. You could always use the threat of him having to prop up the grid with his own money (ala Minardi.) Then again, some manufacturers may not be against running a third car with the limits on testing.

Something will have to give and my bet is that Bernie somehow "talks" the manufacturers into allowing customer cars. I see that happening before the three-car-teams option takes place.

A two tier funding system will have to be worked to compensate the manufacturers, with the customer car teams sharing less from Bernie's TV rights.

wmcot
18th April 2008, 07:15
A two tier funding system will have to be worked to compensate the manufacturers, with the customer car teams sharing less from Bernie's TV rights.

So Bernie will make a bit more on TV revenue...and he would be against this???

leopard
18th April 2008, 08:23
Relating to question of this thread, probably it may cause unemployment rate increased. :)

SGWilko
18th April 2008, 10:36
Thinking about it, look at all the outfits that wanted the Prodrive place then missed out.

Now there is two places opening up where they could simply buy the teams entry then put their original plans in place. I don't think we'll lose both SA and STR

Why buy into a team that is geared up to run customer chassis, and has little facilities/structure/resources to facilitate producing its own chassis?

Valve Bounce
18th April 2008, 12:47
"With regulations set to come in to force insisting on teams designing and constructing their own chassis from 2009 onwards, Suzuki set about looking for alternative backers to give the team full independent status."

Quite honestly, I cannot see anyone stumping mountains of cash to build new cars by the start of next year.

Both Torro Rosso and Super Aguri will rapidly lose value if this happens as the teams will be totally uncompetitive next year because not only their current chassis will be outlawed, but last year's chassis will also be outlawed. They will not be able to find sponsors, let alone buyers. I don't know where Force India fits into this equation as they don't have a competitive car now, and by next year the gap to the remaining manufacturers will be much, much greater.
This will hurt Bernie as he will be left with insufficient cars for the grid.

This is something that Bernie should think of resolving this week, not later in the year.

SGWilko
18th April 2008, 12:52
"With regulations set to come in to force insisting on teams designing and constructing their own chassis from 2009 onwards, Suzuki set about looking for alternative backers to give the team full independent status."

Both Torro Rosso and Super Aguri will rapidly lose value if this happens as the teams will be totally uncompetitive next year because not only their current chassis will be outlawed, but last year's chassis will also be outlawed. They will not be able to find sponsors, let alone buyers. I don't know where Force India fits into this equation as they don't have a competitive car now, and in two years time, the gap to the remaining manufacturers will be much, much greater.
This will hurt Bernie as he will be left with insufficient cars for the grid.

Depends on how many rupees or whatever ViJay throws at Mike G, and if the 2009 regulation really do prove to be a leveller of performance.

The top teams always seem to float to the top though.......

SGWilko
18th April 2008, 12:54
Lets say then, that F1 loses SA, then STR. If FI follow, the manufacturers have a strong bargaining position then to 'get what they want' financially from BCE......

Valve Bounce
18th April 2008, 12:55
Depends on how many rupees or whatever ViJay throws at Mike G, and if the 2009 regulation really do prove to be a leveller of performance.

The top teams always seem to float to the top though.......

Yes!! but what cars will Super Aguri and Torro Rosso be able to race even if they did find sponsors? And Vijay cannot just throw zillions of rupees at Mike G and expect a decent car in such time - although I doubt he'd do that.

Indeed, this is a sad day for F1. :(

Valve Bounce
18th April 2008, 12:56
Lets say then, that F1 loses SA, then STR. If FI follow, the manufacturers have a strong bargaining position then to 'get what they want' financially from BCE......

Do you mean run three car teams? :confused:

SGWilko
18th April 2008, 13:10
Do you mean run three car teams? :confused:

3 car teams is a requirement that was part of the Concorde agreement, as I understand it, this no longer exists, and will not do so until the Force India arbitration is over, Williams threatened Legal Action on customer teams is fully withdrawn, and the Memorandum of Understanding is adopted by all.

So, could Bernie make any team run 3 cars if need be?

The Manufacturers could threaten to naff off unless their palms are crossed with oodles of stinking dirty BCE cash, and Bernie would cream his pants if that happened. Max would be laughed out if he tried any of his rule forcing moves now, so he'll be feck all use to Bernie.

So yes, this is indeed a very bad time for F1, especially in todays global credit crisis. Who's gonna put up the scarcely available cash to buy a backmarker team now?

Valve Bounce
18th April 2008, 13:23
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that if Torro Rosso and Super Aguri are forced to pull out, Force India will be running a farce all on their own - and I'm willing to bet my sig on that.

Tazio
18th April 2008, 15:14
I guess you can count out Porsche, and Volkswagon filling the void!
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66708

Car makers Porsche and Volkswagen have ruled out entering Formula One, saying high costs and a sex scandal involving motorsport chief Max Mosley made the sport unattractive to them.

"300 million euros a year - that is just burning money," Volkswagen chairman Ferdinand Piech told German news magazine Stern on Friday.

Garry Walker
18th April 2008, 16:35
This seems like a good shout, I mean the more cars the better. Have a limit of either 107% or 30 cars if there are that many.

Really?
I for one would have no pleasure in having 10 super aguris on track, blocking the leaders when they come to lap them. Only serious teams in f1, please.

ShiftingGears
19th April 2008, 01:13
Really?
I for one would have no pleasure in having 10 super aguris on track, blocking the leaders when they come to lap them. Only serious teams in f1, please.

More teams for the backmarkers to race. Nothing bad about that.

Tazio
19th April 2008, 01:37
I like 22 cars! 24 would be a good number! Over 26 is conjested IMHO

Valve Bounce
19th April 2008, 02:56
If customer cars were allowed, you'd easily have 24 cars on the grid, and they would all be fairly competitive. Prodrive were on the brink of using customer McLarens. Unfortunately, there is an Indian fly in the ointment right now.

millencolin
19th April 2008, 08:21
Can stoddy afford to come back? Please Please Pllllllllllllease may this lead to the return of Paul Stoddart

*prepares to be shot down by others* :p :

Valve Bounce
19th April 2008, 09:30
Can stoddy afford to come back? Please Please Pllllllllllllease may this lead to the return of Paul Stoddart

*prepares to be shot down by others* :p :
Not without customer cars, I reckon.

jens
19th April 2008, 11:36
I agree with those, who say that we need a rule change and customer cars. Sure some don't like the idea ("if you are not able to construct an F1 car, you don't deserve to be in F1"), but time goes by and we have to adaptable in the changing world. What's the current situation? Due to high technology building an F1 car from zero is harder than ever before. Therefore teams prefer to buy other teams to join F1 instead of creating a new one. The last three pure newcomers have been Super Aguri (2006), Toyota (2002) and Stewart (1997). And out of them even Super Aguri didn't construct its own F1 car, but used an old Arrows (2006) and an old Honda (2007) and tried to develop them with their limited facilities.

Toyota is a good example, how hard creating a totally new team is nowadays. They announced their decision to join F1 in 1999 and started to create a team and building infrastructure in Cologne. By the way, they completed it by 2002, so even for their debut season everything wasn't totally ready for proper work! Toyota first thought to join in 2001, but realized it was too early. In 2000 their first primal team started to construct a totally immature new TF101, which was tested heavily in 2001. Recall tests from summer 2001. I remember that Toyota tested at Silverstone after F1 race had been held there and their new car was full 10 (!) seconds slower than the top! Considering that I think they did a good job to reduce the gap down to 2 seconds by the time they started racing at Grand Prix's in 2002. We can say that at the moment newcomers (also car manufactureres) are not ready for such challenge - first prepare for 2-3 seasons to actually create an F1 car, which is half-competitive and then try to reach the top, which is even harder.

Back to customer cars then. To give an advantage for those, who construct their own chassises, I think such rule could be implemented that customer teams can't purchase newest model, but have to use at least a one-year-old car. That would help new teams a lot anyway and if in a few years' time they are ready, they could start developing their own cars (probably you won't win in outdated cars, so developing is important).

Tazio
20th April 2008, 01:41
I agree with those, who say that we need a rule change and customer cars. Sure some don't like the idea ("if you are not able to construct an F1 car, you don't deserve to be in F1"), but time goes by and we have to adaptable in the changing world. What's the current situation? Due to high technology building an F1 car from zero is harder than ever before. Therefore teams prefer to buy other teams to join F1 instead of creating a new one. The last three pure newcomers have been Super Aguri (2006), Toyota (2002) and Stewart (1997). And out of them even Super Aguri didn't construct its own F1 car, but used an old Arrows (2006) and an old Honda (2007) and tried to develop them with their limited facilities.

Toyota is a good example, how hard creating a totally new team is nowadays. They announced their decision to join F1 in 1999 and started to create a team and building infrastructure in Cologne. By the way, they completed it by 2002, so even for their debut season everything wasn't totally ready for proper work! Toyota first thought to join in 2001, but realized it was too early. In 2000 their first primal team started to construct a totally immature new TF101, which was tested heavily in 2001. Recall tests from summer 2001. I remember that Toyota tested at Silverstone after F1 race had been held there and their new car was full 10 (!) seconds slower than the top! Considering that I think they did a good job to reduce the gap down to 2 seconds by the time they started racing at Grand Prix's in 2002. We can say that at the moment newcomers (also car manufactureres) are not ready for such challenge - first prepare for 2-3 seasons to actually create an F1 car, which is half-competitive and then try to reach the top, which is even harder.

Back to customer cars then. To give an advantage for those, who construct their own chassises, I think such rule could be implemented that customer teams can't purchase newest model, but have to use at least a one-year-old car. That would help new teams a lot anyway and if in a few years' time they are ready, they could start developing their own cars (probably you won't win in outdated cars, so developing is important)..

Valve Bounce
20th April 2008, 03:04
I think that jens has just about explained the difficulty of setting up a new team and making it competitive. I think I'll just bookmark that post so that whenever anyone wants to know why we need customer cars and how easy it is to set up a successful F1 team from scratch, I'll just refer them to this post.

Garry Walker
20th April 2008, 15:41
More teams for the backmarkers to race. Nothing bad about that.

I really don`t care about backmarkers. The only time I pay attention to SA is when leaders come to lap them and they waste time.

Garry Walker
20th April 2008, 15:43
Not without customer cars, I reckon.

Customer cars would be an embarrassement to F1, I hope this idea will get killed.

jso1985
20th April 2008, 20:28
agree, if you can't build your own car, then go to other series, GP2 and IndyCar need new teams also

Tazio
20th April 2008, 20:44
It is the number one concept in the formula that defines Formula 1 :rolleyes:

Valve Bounce
21st April 2008, 00:11
I would refer those who have not read the post #34 above to check it out as jens has set out his reasoning for customer cars and the difficulty of setting up a new team to design their own cars very well.

aryan
21st April 2008, 05:02
I think that jens has just about explained the difficulty of setting up a new team and making it competitive. I think I'll just bookmark that post so that whenever anyone wants to know why we need customer cars and how easy it is to set up a successful F1 team from scratch, I'll just refer them to this post.

And my question to Jens, and you, is why should F1 be easy? Who says entering F1 should be a piece of cake? That you can just buy all the parts off the market and be among the top teams?

Jens has very well explained that is hard, but when I look at the evidence, it seems however hard it is, a new team seems to enter every couple of years and one of the teams goes bust every couple of years, and this pattern has held true for the past 2 decades.

If it ain't broke...

SGWilko
21st April 2008, 09:07
And my question to Jens, and you, is why should F1 be easy? Who says entering F1 should be a piece of cake? That you can just buy all the parts off the market and be among the top teams?

Jens has very well explained that is hard, but when I look at the evidence, it seems however hard it is, a new team seems to enter every couple of years and one of the teams goes bust every couple of years, and this pattern has held true for the past 2 decades.

If it ain't broke...

Everything is easy if you know all the answers. In F1 the answers come courtesy of oodles of dosh, and the right people/philosophy.

So, to try to enter a team on a sensible (i daren't say limited :eek :) budget is suicide, unless you have access to a customer chassis and a decent engine.

BMW is a classic example, the team they bought were good, but perennial midfielders, as they had budgetary constraints - look at 'em now.

Ranger
21st April 2008, 10:26
Everything is easy if you know all the answers. In F1 the answers come courtesy of oodles of dosh, and the right people/philosophy.

So, to try to enter a team on a sensible (i daren't say limited :eek :) budget is suicide, unless you have access to a customer chassis and a decent engine.

BMW is a classic example, the team they bought were good, but perennial midfielders, as they had budgetary constraints - look at 'em now.

I'll agree with that.

Under current regulations, there will not be a decent self-sufficient 12th team on the grid.

As a matter of fact, there won't even be a decent self-sufficient 11th team on the grid next year!

The only winning/almost winning new teams of the last decade (BMW and Renault) inherited the headquarters and technical wizardry of existing decently successful teams.

The other route is the Toyota route, spending squillions and 3 years getting into F1 and then another 4 years making the car good. But in today's economic climate, who else except the #1 manufacturer in the world would do that?


And my question to Jens, and you, is why should F1 be easy? Who says entering F1 should be a piece of cake? That you can just buy all the parts off the market and be among the top teams?
Likewise, who says it should cost billions just to create a new team?

Who says that buying existing F1 teams, headquarters and personnel should be the only sensible way to enter F1? Because at the moment, it is.

Valve Bounce
21st April 2008, 10:28
And my question to Jens, and you, is why should F1 be easy? Who says entering F1 should be a piece of cake? That you can just buy all the parts off the market and be among the top teams?

Jens has very well explained that is hard, but when I look at the evidence, it seems however hard it is, a new team seems to enter every couple of years and one of the teams goes bust every couple of years, and this pattern has held true for the past 2 decades.

If it ain't broke...

Ask me again when we are left with 7 teams in F1. :(

SGWilko
21st April 2008, 12:14
Ask me again when we are left with 7 teams in F1. :(

Now would be an extremely convenient time for the GPMA to re-assess the possibility of a breakaway series.

That'd kill F1 as it is now, Bernie would have spent all that cash on Trade Marks and Copyrights for something that no longer exists.

The Manufacturers would then be running a platignum series that they can regulate how they see fit....

Valve Bounce
21st April 2008, 12:38
Now would be an extremely convenient time for the GPMA to re-assess the possibility of a breakaway series.

That'd kill F1 as it is now, Bernie would have spent all that cash on Trade Marks and Copyrights for something that no longer exists.

The Manufacturers would then be running a platignum series that they can regulate how they see fit....

They tried that - it didn't work when Ferrari pulled out; it won't work without Ferrari.

SGWilko
21st April 2008, 12:45
They tried that - it didn't work when Ferrari pulled out; it won't work without Ferrari.

As much as Ferrari like winning at all costs - Indy is as good an example as any, the novelty of thrashing around with a bunch of losers in a series vacated by the big manufacturers would soon wear off.

They'd clamour to join the new series.

The notion that F1 IS Ferrari is a little dated.

What happens when oil runs out, is the prancing horse gonna make very quick battery cars?

No, F1 is leaning towards renewables - it has to or it will not survive, and Ferrari will follow the money, as sure as oil is finite.

jens
21st April 2008, 15:50
And my question to Jens, and you, is why should F1 be easy? Who says entering F1 should be a piece of cake? That you can just buy all the parts off the market and be among the top teams?



In my view actually the key issue in this topic is not about the 'easiness' of F1, but about the future of Formula One. Okay, we'll lose Super Aguri. Maybe it really isn't such big deal (wouldn't change the process of races much), but the bigger concern is that what will happen if the car manufacturers pull out!? Sooner or later they (or at least some of them) will do this. No car manufacturer (okay, except Ferrari - but they get hardly any support from Fiat anyway) has stayed in the series forever and if a company's economical situation gets suddenly worse, they might cut costs sooner than anyone expects (recall PSA's sudden departure from WRC, when they announced it in late 2004 quite unexpectadly).

What will be the solution? How will we see new teams in F1? To prevent such catastrophic situation, customer cars could be a solution to avoid F1 falling into a possible crisis. One might suggest that maybe newcomers will buy all that infrastructure of former factory teams, but their facilities are a lot more expensive than those private teams that have been sold recently (Jordan/Midland etc were sold for about 100M $ or a bit less if I remember correctly). By the way, car manufacturers may not sell their factories, but start using it for the development work in other series. No-one bought Alfa Romeo and Renault, when they pulled out after 1985. I really am worried about the day, when for example Toyota and Renault announce - that's it, we have had enough of Formula One.

ioan
21st April 2008, 17:21
They'd clamour to join the new series.

First there would have to be a new series!


The notion that F1 IS Ferrari is a little dated.

Really?!
Ferrari were always there and whomever you will ask will tell you that the red F1 car is a Ferrari.
Let's see for the others:
McLaren - at the moment are the biggest liars and cheaters of F1
BMW Sauber - never won a GP
Toyota - idem
Renault - they were in and out of F1 and no one thinks F1 when they see a Renault
Williams - they have racing heritage, however they do not have a continuously on the top image as Ferrari
Honda - they were in and out of F1
RBR, STR, Force India, SAF1 - no need to comment



What happens when oil runs out, is the prancing horse gonna make very quick battery cars?

Why not? Or H2 fueled ones maybe!



No, F1 is leaning towards renewables - it has to or it will not survive,

And what has this to do with the manufacturers creating a breakaway series?!



...and Ferrari will follow the money...

Ferrari aren't in F1 for the money. They are in F1 because F1 and Ferrari are closely associated in people's minds.
Do you think they spend 400 millions a year for the measly 100 millions they get back from Bernie's TV money?!
Ferrari makes money selling fast cars that people associate with F1, that's why they are in F1 since the beginning.

xtlm
21st April 2008, 19:16
why is there a 2 car per team limit?

SGWilko
21st April 2008, 20:38
First there would have to be a new series!

Correct, that was a theoretical point....




Really?!
Ferrari were always there and whomever you will ask will tell you that the red F1 car is a Ferrari. Not always as Ferrari they weren't. And the first ever recorded motor vehicle race was won by........ a Renault IIRC.

Let's see for the others:
McLaren - at the moment are the biggest liars and cheaters of F1 Shock horror, you're still spurting that line out........

BMW Sauber - never won a GP
Toyota - idem
Renault - they were in and out of F1 and no one thinks F1 when they see a Renault
Williams - they have racing heritage, however they do not have a continuously on the top image as Ferrari
Honda - they were in and out of F1
RBR, STR, Force India, SAF1 - no need to comment I could quote Voltaire at this point......




Why not? Or H2 fueled ones maybe! oh, and without oil, how do you extract the H2 from either water or the atmosphere?




And what has this to do with the manufacturers creating a breakaway series?! I think most manufacturers already build or have a vested interest in hybrid/other motive powered vehicles, do Ferrari? They [the manufacterers] could run a series with a better thought out energy recovery philosophy than the KERS brief.





Ferrari aren't in F1 for the money. They are in F1 because F1 and Ferrari are closely associated in people's minds. If the circuits didn't pay Enzo in the 'good ole days', he didn't let his team race, and he had the gonads to request a big wad of cash.....

Do you think they spend 400 millions a year for the measly 100 millions they get back from Bernie's TV money?!
Ferrari makes money selling fast cars that people associate with F1, that's why they are in F1 since the beginning. It's not just the TV money, cancer sticks see to it that Ferrari are doing very nicely thanks very much.

And, wasn't it 'tother way round, he sold motor cars to finance the racing? CMIIAW

:D

PSfan
22nd April 2008, 22:16
Sorry for taking this thread in another Direction, but I really don't think that the threat of losing Super Aguri, and Toro Rosso are directly caused by the regs preventing customer teams. In Aguri's case, its because of lack of money and sponsors. And In the case of Toro Rosso, I thought I read somewhere that it was because DM (not gonna bother trying to spell his name, maybe just call him Mr. Redbull :p : ) Will no longer be able to own multiple teams. Keep in mind, the concorde didn't allow customer cars last year or this, and both teams feel they where legal, A shame other scandels took precedent, and they didn't clear this up sooner.

After all, I believe the Concorde has 2 strong provisions that prevent customer cars A) The team must have the intelectual property rights, and B) the team can't run cars manufactured by another competeing team. Both provisions can easily be circumvented, and we are left with the "spirit of the rules" argument which has no traction because no one protested Toro Rosso when they where using Red Bull cars their first year in.

That said, because I feel that "customer cars" rules are currently un-enforceable, the best solution is to make them legal, but regulated. I would like to see a provision that prevents a team from buying cars from the same team 3 years in a row, so if Prodrive entered, then they could run Macs for 2 years, and then be forced to get their cars from someone else.

SGWilko
23rd April 2008, 12:36
Sorry for taking this thread in another Direction, but I really don't think that the threat of losing Super Aguri, and Toro Rosso are directly caused by the regs preventing customer teams. In Aguri's case, its because of lack of money and sponsors. And In the case of Toro Rosso, I thought I read somewhere that it was because DM (not gonna bother trying to spell his name, maybe just call him Mr. Redbull :p : ) Will no longer be able to own multiple teams. Keep in mind, the concorde didn't allow customer cars last year or this, and both teams feel they where legal, A shame other scandels took precedent, and they didn't clear this up sooner.

After all, I believe the Concorde has 2 strong provisions that prevent customer cars A) The team must have the intelectual property rights, and B) the team can't run cars manufactured by another competeing team. Both provisions can easily be circumvented, and we are left with the "spirit of the rules" argument which has no traction because no one protested Toro Rosso when they where using Red Bull cars their first year in.

That said, because I feel that "customer cars" rules are currently un-enforceable, the best solution is to make them legal, but regulated. I would like to see a provision that prevents a team from buying cars from the same team 3 years in a row, so if Prodrive entered, then they could run Macs for 2 years, and then be forced to get their cars from someone else.

The Concorde Agreement was due to be renewed in......... '08.

It hasn't been, because no one can agree on customer cars, and the allocation of money.

Are they not racing under the adopted MOU that the teams signed?

And I thought my kids' bedroom was in a mess.... ;)

CNR
23rd April 2008, 13:04
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=34557



In contrast, according to the latest financial results of the UK-based F1 teams, the best-performer of the bunch was which made a pre-tax profit of just 514,000. This was followed by which broke even and the four others all made pre-tax losses ranging from 's 3.6 million loss to Williams' whopping 34.8 million loss. The two reasons for this are high costs and restricted revenues.
The deal that the manufacturers signed with F1's owners CVC several years ago has still not shown up on the teams' financial statements and, likewise, the cost-cutting of FIA president Max Mosley hasn't seemed to have much effect. With Mosley's mind on other matters at the moment it doesn't look likely that that will change soon.
It is against this backdrop that and are being sold. As Pitpass , Toro Rosso's latest results showed a pre-tax profit of 150,000 but the asking price is far higher. "80 million is a fixed price and not negotiable. That gets an entry into Formula 1, an excellent team and an excellent car, on which further development can be built," says Toro Rosso's half-owner Dietrich Mateschitz.
A price-tag of 80 million euros on half of the team would give Toro Rosso an overall valuation of a massive 130 million. This is approximately the same amount paid for and double the amount Renault paid for Benetton - unlike Toro Rosso, both these teams had full manufacturing facilities complete with windtunnels with the latter of course also being a two-time world champion to boot. Toro Rosso would be at the highest end of the spectrum of F1 deals even at half the sale price given its limited infrastructure

ioan
23rd April 2008, 15:11
Not always as Ferrari they weren't. And the first ever recorded motor vehicle race was won by........ a Renault IIRC.

I'm afraid that wasn't a F1 race! :p :

aryan
23rd April 2008, 16:06
Ask me again when we are left with 7 teams in F1. :(

What we need is to make sure that there is huge marketing potential in F1.

What we need is for manufacturers to see direct increase in their car sales based on success in F1 (which is not happening right now).

What F1 needs is a good marketting strategy for US and for merging markets.

Then, you'll see the likes of GM, Ford, Porshce, VW, and who-knows-who-else in the sport.

And there will always be a space for specialiesed engineering teams like Cosworth and Williams to be involved and to partner these manufacturers.

As much as I like to see a 30 gird car, customer cars is not the answer, it is in effect earsing the question...

aryan
23rd April 2008, 16:11
Listen guys, if customer cars are intoruced, there will be no justification for the existence of the likes of Williams and Force India (Read: Jordan) and Red Bull (Read: Stewart). Even the likes of Renault may find it hard to justify building their own chassis.

We'll end up with 2 or max 3 teams building their cars and everyone else will be customers...

Believe me when I say none of us would like that for F1.

Valve Bounce
25th April 2008, 01:45
Listen guys, if customer cars are intoruced, there will be no justification for the existence of the likes of Williams and Force India (Read: Jordan) and Red Bull (Read: Stewart). Even the likes of Renault may find it hard to justify building their own chassis.

We'll end up with 2 or max 3 teams building their cars and everyone else will be customers...

Believe me when I say none of us would like that for F1.

They could have a two tier system where the constructors are vying for the WCC, and get more money than the Customer teams who can only vie for the WDC. That seems fair enough to me; but Bernie must pour more cash into F1 or his cash cows will starve and wilt.

truefan72
25th April 2008, 03:59
They could have a two tier system where the constructors are vying for the WCC, and get more money than the Customer teams who can only vie for the WDC. That seems fair enough to me; but Bernie must pour more cash into F1 or his cash cows will starve and wilt.

hmmm, no thanks, good idea though,

i've really come around to the no customer cars theory.

I do wish though that they provide a better revenue sharing system making it somewhat of a worthwhile endeavor for an outfit to remain in F1.

Things such as travel money, should simply be appropriated equally amongst all the teams. The big teams would/should not have an issue with that.

Prize money should remain the same.

for the top racing series in the world, the business seems to be conducted in a secretive and hugely lopsided manner.

PSfan
29th April 2008, 00:16
Listen guys, if customer cars are intoruced, there will be no justification for the existence of the likes of Williams

Well, William's hypocritical view on customer cars has already been brought up in discussions, Their existence started in 1978 as a 1 car "customer" team. Follow that up with them being a supplier to a 1 off team for the Brands Hatch race in 1980 (either a supplier or running a 2nd team using year old cars...) And you get my meaning... Really hard to respect their stance on the customer car issue based on their history.

And even if new rules and regulations that make it even harder to bypass the current stipulations in the concorde are created, I still don't believe it impossible to circumvent them. For example, if they managed to re-word it so that "Every team must design and construct their own chassis" as rumored. Whats there to prevent Red Bull from restructuring again. This time (provided they haven't done this already) regulate Red Bull LTD. from the chassis designers to being a consulting firm? Both Red Bull racing would require their own token "chief designer" but would both work very closely with Newey at Red Bull LTD. As for the construction aspect. Red Bull LTD. could also own the manufacturing facilities and equipment and rent it out to both teams. Red Bull Racing personel could construct their cars during the day, and Toro Rosso personel at night (or whatever system they wish to incorperate) And thats assuming that Toro Rosso aren't building their own cars in Italy already.

A Super Aguri solution would be even simpler, Aguri just has to sell a small chunk of his team to Honda R&D (Tochigi) and the cars would have to be constructed by Tochigi, or in the old Arrows facility.

I think the best way is to allow customer cars, but regulate the crap out of them...

SGWilko
29th April 2008, 07:31
Well, William's hypocritical view on customer cars has already been brought up in discussions, Their existence started in 1978 as a 1 car "customer" team. Follow that up with them being a supplier to a 1 off team for the Brands Hatch race in 1980 (either a supplier or running a 2nd team using year old cars...) And you get my meaning... Really hard to respect their stance on the customer car issue based on their history.

And even if new rules and regulations that make it even harder to bypass the current stipulations in the concorde are created, I still don't believe it impossible to circumvent them. For example, if they managed to re-word it so that "Every team must design and construct their own chassis" as rumored. Whats there to prevent Red Bull from restructuring again. This time (provided they haven't done this already) regulate Red Bull LTD. from the chassis designers to being a consulting firm? Both Red Bull racing would require their own token "chief designer" but would both work very closely with Newey at Red Bull LTD. As for the construction aspect. Red Bull LTD. could also own the manufacturing facilities and equipment and rent it out to both teams. Red Bull Racing personel could construct their cars during the day, and Toro Rosso personel at night (or whatever system they wish to incorperate) And thats assuming that Toro Rosso aren't building their own cars in Italy already.

A Super Aguri solution would be even simpler, Aguri just has to sell a small chunk of his team to Honda R&D (Tochigi) and the cars would have to be constructed by Tochigi, or in the old Arrows facility.

I think the best way is to allow customer cars, but regulate the crap out of them...

1978? This being the same 70's when cars were built on metal subframes, which you could 'almost'knock together in your back yard, carbon fibre was yet to be pioneered by McLaren, when wind tunnels were used for aircraft not racing cars, you didn't need to have cash reserves the equivalent of luxemberg's annual GDP, and supplying/ using another teams chassis was not the exception....

I doin't think Sir Frank will be losing any sleep as a result of the ill informed pop at his teams' moral stance in your post....

:dozey:

CNR
1st May 2008, 01:00
INTERVIEW-Motor racing-A1 boss scraps plan to buy F1 team

http://uk.reuters.com/article/motorSportsNews/idUKL3002152520080430?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

"I then made way for Vijay to buy Spyker because (F1 supremo) Bernie (Ecclestone) needed India and I said 'Fine, I'll make way and look more favourably at Toro Rosso', which had a similar agreement (with Ferrari)," continued the South African businessman.

"I sat with Toro Rosso and when we were close to a deal, F1 changed the rules: No customer cars. When they changed the rules, I was through.

Tazio
1st May 2008, 02:19
:rolleyes:

Valve Bounce
1st May 2008, 04:42
I just read that Bernie is worth in excess of 10 billion dollars. I wonder why he doesn't fund a couple of the struggling teams - he could name one Bernie 1 and the other Bernie 2.

PSfan
1st May 2008, 05:10
1978? This being the same 70's when cars were built on metal subframes, which you could 'almost'knock together in your back yard, carbon fibre was yet to be pioneered by McLaren, when wind tunnels were used for aircraft not racing cars, you didn't need to have cash reserves the equivalent of luxemberg's annual GDP, and supplying/ using another teams chassis was not the exception....

I doin't think Sir Frank will be losing any sleep as a result of the ill informed pop at his teams' moral stance in your post....

:dozey:

Apologies, 1977...

And that is in reference to the current "Williams F1" racing team, which raced a March chassis' in 1977. When someone suggests that there would be no justification for Williams existence if they allowed costumer cars, I just think thats short sighted based on the fact that Williams F1 existance began as a customer, and includes being both a buyer and supplier.

No doubt having a starting grid that include 4 Ferrari cars, and 4 McLerans when there is only 8 points paying positions could be very damaging to the sport.

As I have stated from the get go, under the right circumstances (regulations) customer cars would be great for the sport. I don't think top 3 teams should be eligible to supply a customer teams. I would prefer if customer teams only had "limited" use of a car design (Maintain the "can't have a car constructed by a current competitor" aspect, which would allow a team to "rent" a design for one year, and have a 3rd party (lola, dallara etc...)build, and still be eligible to contructors points. Also any colaboration between "customer car" and supplier end after the first practice of the first race. I'm sure the regulations would be difficult to enforce, but if they can make sure the McLeran isn't a Ferrari, I'm sure they can come up with something...

PSfan
1st May 2008, 05:27
INTERVIEW-Motor racing-A1 boss scraps plan to buy F1 team

http://uk.reuters.com/article/motorSportsNews/idUKL3002152520080430?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

Good read, if the guy wants to get into F1's top 10 the lazy way, then F1 doesn't want him. Customer cars should be for the minnows. Though I do respect his scheme to reward his a1gp champions with an F1 ride.

CNR
5th May 2008, 01:35
F1: Toro Rosso Looking For Partner Not Sell Out ?
http://www.paddocktalk.com/news/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=83002



It is almost permanently rumoured that the Faenza based squad is on the market, and in March Red Bull magnate Dietrich Mateschitz announced that he is looking to dispose of his 50 per cent share.
Former grand prix winner Berger, however, wants to stay in the paddock, and Motorsport Aktuell reports that he recently met with potential partners both in Bahrain and Duba