Almost official: USF1 wouldn't race in 2010

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 52Paddy

Indeed :p :

---

This then calls for the 'F1rejects rejects'. organisations that were so useless they couldnt even qualify as an F1reject. USF1 right there, technically Mastercard Lola would be there aswell although they appear on F1 rejects), plus teams who planned to eneter but never did (Bravo, 'Pheonix' and DAMS for instance)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltimateDanGTR

plus teams who planned to eneter but never did (Bravo, 'Pheonix' and DAMS for instance)

---

Maybe take a bit of caution on this one though. I'm sure there have been a handful of teams who, against their own will or with very good reason, could not enter and didn't necessarily make an arse of themselves in the process. But I do like the idea of an F1rejects 'rejects' category :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint Devote

Oh please don't turn this into another Max bashing event!!!!

If Max were a CEO and he selected FOUR grass root ventures with two coming to fruition - on budget and on time with the caliber of people they have - and one failing and another uncertain with still another possible, he would be considered extremely successful.

In this modern world, where Western people believe that there can be guarantees and risk eliminated, the reality is not that.

---

I see this post got a lot of stick yet I agree completely with it.

Putting Anderson and Windsor's failure to one side, the FIA did all it could to ensure due diligence was done on vetting the new entries. Ultimately if a potential entry shows the FIA that not only does it have enough cash it also has already invested in infrastructure (as USF1 had done by the time it got vetted by the FIA) on what grounds can the FIA turn them down?

USF1 ultimately got caught in the age-old trap of sponsors wanting a complete car before committing money yet building that car requiring cash the team didn't have. Its a pity because as everyone knows F1 needs to get a break in the US and this failure doesn't do F1 any favours there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MOliscous

Has anyone else seen the USF1 article in Road & Track magazine? (The American Dream, April issue) Interesting timing. Maybe it's actually an "April fools" joke? With magazine lead times I'm sure it was not intended to be one, just looks like one now.

---

It was sad. I like Road & Track a lot, but they were pretty wrong on that one. I subscribe and when I got the issue I had already heard they were DOA on the internet. In retrospect, they will have to call it an April's Fool article, but I don't think it was intended to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint Devote

Max has done a fine job and instead of focusing on the failed F1 team, why not the successes named Virgin and Lotus?

---

Good example of the failure of Mosley's selection procedure is that the most promising team of all the new ones - Lotus - was accepted later, but not initially in June among others.

USF1 may have now been officially declared as "not appearing" for Bahrain and could face sanctions - up until now they've not actually broken any actual rules - so expect them to be formally thrown out of the Championship any time soon.

Re: jens

The Lotus entry which was ultimately accepted apparently has very little to do with the rejected Litespeed-Lotus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXO9M...eature=related

When I watched this, I couldn't resist - those guys made it closer to F1 than USF1 ever did. :D

When, as schoolkids, me and my mate played Frogger on a dual carriageway with a couple of cheapo r/c cars from Tandy, we made it closer to F1 than USF1 ever did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXO9M...eature=related

When I watched this, I couldn't resist - those guys made it closer to F1 than USF1 ever did. :D

---

Great find! :D