Legal cars

[seppefan]

Whi has the FIA not spoken out about the use of other peoples designs. Are they really going to wait until the first race and leave it to Spyker, Williams, Mclaren etc to protest the Toro Rosso and Super Aguri. Seems rather crazy to not sort it now or is this the ususal politics at play.

[ioan]

Whi has the FIA not spoken out about the use of other peoples designs. Are they really going to wait until the first race and leave it to Spyker, Williams, Mclaren etc to protest the Toro Rosso and Super Aguri. Seems rather crazy to not sort it now or is this the ususal politics at play.

Given the rules the moves of Torro Rosso and Super Aguri are perfectly legal, as Max Mosley declared, so what should the FIA do? Shoot themselves in the foot again?

[seppefan]

Given the rules the moves of Torro Rosso and Super Aguri are perfectly legal, as Max Mosley declared, so what should the FIA do? Shoot themselves in the foot again?

But we know they are last years cars. Come on. Mosley should do something rather than let the Australian GP be screwed up.

[ioan]

But we know they are last years cars. Come on. Mosley should do something rather than let the Australian GP be screwed up.

No those are not last years cars, it's all about several teams running this years cars, with some differences, because those teams were smart enough to develop these cars through a third party. That's all.

[harsha]

i for one am not complaining if the races become more competitive...although it might look unfair to the other teams............ :)

[Gannex]

Frank Williams, speaking to The Guardian, said that he's adamantly opposed to chassis buying, does not believe that Super Aguri or Scuderia Toro Rosso are within the rules in using chassis which they did not design and build themselves, and will definitely take the matter to arbitration. He goes on to say that, even in 2008, it is far from clear that it will be legal to run a chassis that the team itself did not design and build. Formula One, he says, is supposed to be a constructor's competition; how can it be that, if some of the teams are not in fact constructors?

I find this completely convincing but, sadly, the question is not whether teams OUGHT to be allowed to use cars they have simply gone out and bought, but whether they ARE allowed to do so, under the rules as written. It is a legal question, unfortunately, not a question of policy, and Gerhard Berger claims that he has lawyered the question to death, and concluded firmly that Toro Rosso's arrangements for 2007 will pass muster before any judge.

There is no good outcome to this dispute, as I see it. If the Williams arbitration claim wins, the season will be completely ruined by the exclusion of two teams. If it doesn't, we will see Formula 1 slip further away from being a genuine contest of engineering prowess, see companies like Williams Grand Prix Engineering struggle to remain a viable business model, and witness the beginning of the end of F1 as we know it.

[Schnell]

Who 'constructed' the Arrows chassis?

[ioan]

Frank Williams, speaking to The Guardian, said that he's adamantly opposed to chassis buying, does not believe that Super Aguri or Scuderia Toro Rosso are within the rules in using chassis which they did not design and build themselves, and will definitely take the matter to arbitration. He goes on to say that, even in 2008, it is far from clear that it will be legal to run a chassis that the team itself did not design and build. Formula One, he says, is supposed to be a constructor's competition; how can it be that, if some of the teams are not in fact constructors?

I find this completely convincing but, sadly, the question is not whether teams OUGHT to be allowed to use cars they have simply gone out and bought, but whether they ARE allowed to do so, under the rules as written. It is a legal question, unfortunately, not a question of policy, and Gerhard Berger claims that he has lawyered the question to death, and concluded firmly that Toro Rosso's arrangements for 2007 will pass muster before any judge.

There is no good outcome to this dispute, as I see it. If the Williams arbitration claim wins, the season will be completely ruined by the exclusion of two teams. If it doesn't, we will see Formula 1 slip further away from being a genuine contest of engineering prowess, see companies like Williams Grand Prix Engineering struggle to remain a viable business model, and witness the beginning of the end of F1 as we know it.

FW is trying to do his best to intimidate them but honestly he knows he has no chance in court. Sad but true he might be afraid that even with that new Toyota engine his team might be on that last position by the end of the year, given that the other small teams are powered by Ferrari and Honda this year.

BTW, there are very few, if any, teams that build their chassis themselves, they might do the conception but they rarely build them.

[Dazz9908]

FW is trying to do his best to intimidate them but honestly he knows he has no chance in court. Sad but true he might be afraid that even with that new Toyota engine his team might be on that last position by the end of the year, given that the other small teams are powered by Ferrari and Honda this year.
It's all about Rule Interpretation. They want clarity on the matter. As I understand it Chassis sharing not allowed until '08. Very Ken Tyrrellesk (RIP Ken).
SAguri may get away with it being an old Chassis, But STR may not. it's is rumored that this year car is the same as this years RBR. My understanding of the rules no same chassis can be raced by two teams at the same time. At least not to '08.


BTW, there are very few, if any, teams that build their chassis themselves, they might do the conception but they rarely build them. That's right, by the machanics down at the service station and Ferrari get their chassis from Fiat's production line, a derivative of the Uno.

all Major teams do build it themselves, with contracted supplied components shipped in.
McLaren use to have their chassis made by Hercules Industries but is all in house. Only the small teams these days get external help these days. too many Secrets/R&D/Money invested risking leaking knowledge out to others.

[Dazz9908]

http://formula-1.updatesport.com/news/article/1170063048/formula_one/F1headlines/New-Toro-Rosso-facing-delay/view.html
STR finding hard to adapt the RBR RB3 to the Ferrari Engine, seaming designed for the Renault motor. Sometimes the easy way out is not the easy way out.
Sucked in!! Gerhard.

[Dazz9908]

BTW, there are very few, if any, teams that build their chassis themselves, they might do the conception but they rarely build them.
As Written in your Sig, Please back this up with substance!

[Mickey T]

BTW, there are very few, if any, teams that build their chassis themselves, they might do the conception but they rarely build them.

I don't believe you. Name the ones who don't.

i can categorically tell you Williams does and McLaren does, because i've seen them either coming out of or going into autoclaves on site.

[jens]

Frank has a good reason to fight against it as STR/SA are likely to threat his 8th spot in WCC.

Anyway, I feel a bit sorry to Spyker. I mean, unlike STR and Aguri they are really trying to build up a team by themselves, not just mooching on #1 teams. Therefore Spyker is more sympathetic to me and hope they can surprise somehow, although things are going that way that last position in the WCC becomes more inevitable as time goes by...

[Valve Bounce]

No those are not last years cars, it's all about several teams running this years cars, with some differences, because those teams were smart enough to develop these cars through a third party. That's all.


I think this is th ecrix of the argument. Jaguar did it by registering their chassis development as FORD, and Honda are doing a lot of their design work through Toshigi.

I am sure if any other team wanted to do this, there are many ways to register a separate company to do some of the R&D.

[Hawkmoon]

Formula One, he says, is supposed to be a constructor's competition; how can it be that, if some of the teams are not in fact constructors?

Interesting statement from a man who started his team with customer Wolf chassis (or something like that). :dozey:

If Formula One wants to remain viable then customer chassis are essential. It's also nothing new as F1 has had customer chassis since the beginning.

I don't, however, think that F1 needs relationships like the ones between Red Bull/Toro Rosso and Honda/Super Aguri. In these cases we have more than just a supplier/customer relationship. Red Bull and Honda are effectively running 4 car teams. Is it really any different from say Ferrari or McLaren running 4 cars under the works banner?

Prodrive will be a true privateer team with a customer chassis. Super Aguri and Toro Rosso are little more than divisions of their bigger brothers.

[Valve Bounce]

Except that Super Aguri was formed to give Taku a drive in the face of very hostile Japanese reaction to his being fired by Honda. I felt initially that Torro Sorro was formed as extra advertisement benefits for Red Bull and an American driver development excercise , but they now have a really good engine and maybe they have become a team to make Williams their target. Who knows?

[wmcot]

Perhaps 4 car teams are the way to go if we want to see a full grid. The teams could then be limited to only counting the first 2 cars' points in the WCC or something similar. That way, Williams and Spyker won't have to contend with 4 Hondas and 4 Red Bulls.

Personally, I hope Williams have a super car this year and that Spyker develops a real competitor!

[Hawkmoon]

Except that Super Aguri was formed to give Taku a drive in the face of very hostile Japanese reaction to his being fired by Honda. I felt initially that Torro Sorro was formed as extra advertisement benefits for Red Bull and an American driver development excercise , but they now have a really good engine and maybe they have become a team to make Williams their target. Who knows?

The reason for the creation of the teams is largely irrelevant when you consider their relationship with the parent team. It goes beyond supplier/customer into a grey area that could cause all kinds of bad press.

Think about about it. Button leads the championship and Webber needs to win the last round to take it off him. Webber comes up to lap Davidson's Super Aguri whilst leading the GP.....

Does F1 really need the kind of press a tangle between Webber and Davidson could cause? To make it worse, Webber is only leading the race because Liuzzi in the Toro Rosso moved over for him allowing Webber to get ahead of Button in the pit stops.

The relationship between the teams is too close in my opinion. A few years a go people on this board where crying foul about the Ferrari/Sauber relationship and that was only an engine deal. I'm surprised little objection has been raised to the situation we have now.

[Narr]

Perhaps 4 car teams are the way to go if we want to see a full grid. The teams could then be limited to only counting the first 2 cars' points in the WCC or something similar. That way, Williams and Spyker won't have to contend with 4 Hondas and 4 Red Bulls.

Personally, I hope Williams have a super car this year and that Spyker develops a real competitor!

There was a clause in the regs Max distributed just before Christmas for the 2008 season that would change the contructor's trophy to the engine.

It would become more like some championships so that a manufacturer could win purely on the number of entries; something I've got nothing against really.

[Schnell]

[quote="Hawkmoon"]

Think about about it. Button leads the championship and Webber needs to win the last round to take it off him. Webber comes up to lap Davidson's Super Aguri whilst leading the GP.....

QUOTE]

__________________________________________________ _____________

Doh! And there was me hoping it would be the otherway around! Mind you better to have to lap the new car once, than the old car 2, 3 or 4 times in a race!!!

[K-Pu]

One thing are customer chasis and another thing are STR/RB - SA/Honda relationships...

SA and STR cars are legal, nothing can be done about that because they don´t break the rules altough they will be running clones of their parent teams. I think the problem is quite simple... You won´t be designing your own chassis if your "best friend in the grid" offers you something better. Now the only thing you need is to get it through some bureucratic moves, and that´s it. Legal? Yes Good for sportsmanship? No.

As FW said, a constructors championship is a constructors championship, and teams should design their own pets. Customer chassis are another thing because there were no "parent teams". Now, with the unbeliveable amounts of money invested, the high proffesionalism and the big companies in the sport, privateer teams are becoming almost a relic of the past. If they want to be competitive they have to sign a deal with some monster company like Toyota, or they´ll end up at the bottom of the WCC, with no cash at all and bashed by the press. A money trouble again, you need a healthy credit card to be competitive...

I think FIA should say nothing about this issue, as Ioan said, it would be like shooting themselves again.

[Valve Bounce]

Think about about it. Button leads the championship and Webber needs to win the last round to take it off him. Webber comes up to lap Davidson's Super Aguri whilst leading the GP.....

QUOTE]

__________________________________________________ _____________

Doh! And there was me hoping it would be the otherway around! Mind you better to have to lap the new car once, than the old car 2, 3 or 4 times in a race!!!

I know what will happen: Davidson takes bunsen out and Webber's car blows up immedaitely afterwards, giving the title to Kimi.

[Gannex]

Hawkmoon, I take your point that chassis-buying is not new, and was the way Williams got into the sport. And I understand also the argument that allowing customer chassis to be used enables teams to field two cars for, maybe, eighty to a hundred million dollars per year. They'd never be able to do that, or so the argument goes, if they had to have an entire design and manufacturing operation up and running before they even got to the first grand prix. How are they going to get a wind-tunnel, even, on a hundred million dollar budget?

But those benefits all accrue to new entrants -- and no one denies they're important to the sport -- but what about the old entrants, Hawkmoon? What about the teams, like Spyker and Williams, who go about racing the old-fashioned way: conceiving, building and testing racing cars, doing little else, morning, noon and night? How are they going to compete with the manufacturers if the big boys are producing multiple chassis, with the economies of scale, and having them tested by customers at every race? It will become impossible.

You might answer that that is life, that Williams should be happy to compete with the newcomers, should leave the very front of the grid to the road-car manufacturers, and should take comfort from knowing that there is no shame in finishing behind massively funded teams like Honda, BMW and Toyota, just so long as you lead the independents, so long as you are the best of the rest.

The tragedy is that, with this chassis-sharing regime, Williams or Spyker cannot even compete for that dubious honour. How to beat newcomers, when, like Prodrive, they will be able to acquire a brilliant chassis by simply signing one fairly modest cheque? Williams or Spyker, to do the same thing, must mobilise an entire design and manufacturing operation and that's a lot harder than signing a contract, a lot less efficient, and, as time will surely prove, simply not viable as a way of going F1 racing. Unable to compete with the customer teams, Williams and Spyker will have to join them, dispense with their expensive wind-tunnels and design teams, get rid of their autoclaves and super-computers and simply go out of existence in all but name.

That's why I'm against chassis-sharing. It makes life easier for the new guys, and it makes life easier for the manufacturers, but it snuffs the life out of the independent fabricators, the garagistas, and they, to me, are the most important teams of all.

[Gannex]

Just to follow up on the politics, you'll remember that in the last few days Sir Frank Williams said that chassis-sharing is, in his view, illegal in 2007, and that it may still be so, even in 2008. Gerhard Berger contradicted Williams on the current 2007 position, and now, today, Dave Richards has come out with a very strong statement that there is absolutely no doubt in his mind that chassis-sharing will be legal in 2008, whatever Sir Frank might say.

Just on the basis of that, I'd say Williams's chances of winning the arbitration are weak. I cannot see Gerhard Berger and Dave Richards reading the regulations carefully, consulting the FIA and their own lawyers endlessly, and then getting it wrong. I think Williams know that they're likely to lose, but this is almost a point of principle with them, the last fight before the fall.

[ArrowsFA1]

That's why I'm against chassis-sharing. It makes life easier for the new guys, and it makes life easier for the manufacturers, but it snuffs the life out of the independent fabricators, the garagistas, and they, to me, are the most important teams of all.
I do agree with that Gannex, it does make it easier, but that's where I begin to be very unsure about this whole issue.

I'd like to see more cars on the grid. I don't like this 2x2 uniform grid we have now, even though it does match the pristine garages and motorhomes. More cars = more opportunities for drivers, engineers, team owners, sponsors etc.

As things stand it is impossible for a new team to finance an entry into F1, unlike the days when the likes of Frank Williams and Tom Wheatcroft could put together a team of a few people and buy a car to go racing with their driver. Jordan managed to climb the step-ladder to F1 through other series, as did Stewart, but the latter only did so with the help of Ford. Teams now competing in the likes of GP2 don't have a hope in hell of moving up to F1, and I think that's wrong. The step ladder should be there for teams as well as drivers.

The sums of money required to run a competitive F1 team are staggering, but if you can get your hands on that kind of money then all well and good. At the moment manufacturers finance the sport, and they are having an increasing say in how it is run. That's how it is now. I don't much like it, and have often expressed my concern about what happens when the marketing men pull the plug but until that happens perhaps F1 should be renamed FM - Formula Manufacturer.

The argument could go 'what's to stop Williams finding their own manufactuer deal' or 'maybe they shouldn't have lost the BMW deal. Spyker are, of course, already a car manufacturer!

It's at that point that I agree with your assessment that unless they join the manufacturers they don't stand a cat in hell's chance of beating them, and I, like you, see the garagistas as the most important teams of all. That includes the likes of McLaren who have morphed into Mercedes somewhere along the line.

Where am I :confused:

For as long as the manufacturers hold the purse strings they're nuts not to make the most of what Williams have in terms of facilities and experience. Perhaps Toyota will realise this.

Anyway, "customer cars" could be the way for the garagistas to rise again in time. When the marketing men stop writing cheques the manufacturers will wander away and we'll be left with those who really are there for racing, not marketing, reasons. More teams, drivers, engineers, team owners, sponsors etc.

I can continue my confused dream can't I? :crazy:

[Valve Bounce]

Frank can rabbit on endlessly and he may have a point. But in the final analysis, he is desperately fighting for the thousands of dollars by beating Super Aguri in the championship than coming dead last.

If Frank had a team capable of winning the championship, I don't think he'd give a damn about Super Aguri or Torro Sorro.

That's the sad state that Williams has finally degenerated to : fighting for the leftovers after the hounds have been fed. :(

[Dazz9908]

Question?
If a purchased Chassis scores points, who gets them in the Constructors Championship?, the Team who purchased it or the the Constructor who designed and built it?
Do they have to start a new Teams Championship as well?!

[Valve Bounce]

Question?
If a purchased Chassis scores points, who gets them in the Constructors Championship?, the Team who purchased it or the the Constructor who designed and built it?
Do they have to start a new Teams Championship as well?!

Well, this goes into a grey area if a team purchased part of a chassis, but installs differrent components for some of the car, and, of course, a different engine.

I tend to favour the buying of chassis/and even fully constructed cars by any team, and then the team goes racing.

Maybe Frank can sneak over to Ron and buy a chassis, and then he will have enough money left over not to have to rely on pay drivers.


OMIGOD!! I just cannot believe that Frank has gone from the halcyon days of firing drivers after they win championships to squabbling over leftovers. How times have changed. :(

I guess bunsen saw it coming.

[zoostation]

I guess bunsen saw it coming.

very, very true

you have to admit, jens seems to have made the right choice team wise =]

[Hawkmoon]

Let's take a look at how we got where we are today.

When I started following F1 in 1987 there were 18 to 20 teams and Ferrari were the only car maker with a works team. All the other manufacturers were simply engine suppliers.

20 years later we have 11 teams and only two are not works manufacturer teams or owned by global corporations.

I think we can blame/credit 3 groups of people for this transformation.

Firstly we have Bernie and his quest for more money. His efforts to grow Formula One into the biggest annual sporting series in the world was always going to bring in the manufacturers as F1 became the biggest and best way to show how good you were as a car maker. I can't fault Bernie in this as it is, after all, his job.

Secondly, we have Max and the FIA. By constantly changing the rules and regulations governing the sport, in the name of safety and entertainment, teams were forced to design and re-design their cars year on year. That's OK for the Ferraris of this world, who would have done it anyway, but how is a smaller team supposed to get ahead if they need to design a new car every six months?

I can't think of another sport were the rules change so often. Fair enough, motor racing will always see technical development that needs governing, but the sporting regulations should be stable. Instead we have, what, 4 qualifying formats in as many years?

In defense of Max and Bernie, they were only doing their respective jobs. I may not agree with how they have executed their responsibilities but I think the best interests of the sport were never far from their minds.

The real culprit is the third group. Namely Frank Williams, Ron Dennis and the rest of the team owners. Whilst I don't want to see Williams fade into obscurity, I have little sympathy for Williams, just as I had little sympathy for Paul Stoddart and Eddie Jordan.

The reason? The team bosses spent the entire 90's bickering like school girls over everything. You couldn't get them to agree on what time of day it was. They all, and that includes my team, Ferrari, looked out for their own interests first and foremost and the sport be damned.

Why did the FIA introduce the infamous $48 million bond for new entrants? Ostensibly to stop any more Mastercard Lolas. But that wasn't the real reason. The real reason is that the bond kept the value of the existing teams high. Why pay $48 million plus the costs of setting up a team when you can spend $50 or $60 million on an existing team with all the infrastructure in place?

Another example of team boss greed was Ron Dennis refusing to allow Minardi to get their hands on Prost's TV money when Prost went out of business. It had little effect on McLaren but to Minardi it was a lot of money. How was that good for the sport?

As Valve said, if Williams were championship contenders I doubt we would be having this discussion. Did Sir Frank protest when Scuderia Italia were running Dallara chassis in the 80's and 90's? Scuderia Italia were neither the designer nor the constructor of that car. They were also no threat to Williams.

Whilst I have great respect for Sir Frank's achievements and don't want to see Williams die, Sir Frank helped to dig his team's own grave.

[Gannex]

The real culprit is the third group. Namely Frank Williams, Ron Dennis and the rest of the team owners. Whilst I don't want to see Williams fade into obscurity, I have little sympathy for Williams. . . The reason? The team bosses spent the entire 90's bickering like school girls over everything. You couldn't get them to agree on what time of day it was. They all, and that includes my team, Ferrari, looked out for their own interests first and foremost and the sport be damned.

Why did the FIA introduce the infamous $48 million bond for new entrants? Ostensibly to stop any more Mastercard Lolas. But that wasn't the real reason. The real reason is that the bond kept the value of the existing teams high. Why pay $48 million plus the costs of setting up a team when you can spend $50 or $60 million on an existing team with all the infrastructure in place?

Another example of team boss greed was Ron Dennis refusing to allow Minardi to get their hands on Prost's TV money when Prost went out of business. It had little effect on McLaren but to Minardi it was a lot of money. How was that good for the sport?. . . Whilst I have great respect for Sir Frank's achievements and don't want to see Williams die, Sir Frank helped to dig his team's own grave.
I am in shock. I have never heard anyone attack the Mother Theresa of Formula 1, the Nelson Mandela of motorsport, as you have, this evening. And I am so shocked that I hardly know what to say, except YOU ARE WRONG, Hawkmoon; you are wrong.

Your beef against Frank Williams seems to be his backing of the $48 m. bond requirement, and the refusal by team bosses generally to go along with the Minardi Benevolent Fund interpretation of the rules governing distribution of F1 TV revenues.

On the $48 m. bond requirement, you are right, it was supported by Williams, and very rightly so. Formula One is not a sport for beginners in motor racing. The bond was simply a device to make sure that entrants were properly funded. No one made any money off the bonds; all the interest was paid back to the bondholders. Your assertion that it was a device to exclude new entrants, or bolster the value of existing teams is just wrong, not true, a misunderstanding, though I will make no effort to disabuse you of it; I am too drunk.

When you criticise Williams and claim they have only themselves to blame for their slump because they were mean to Paul Stoddart, and did not give in to his constant requests for funding, well there you have me. Again, I cannot deny the charge. When Stoddart's tears broke out, as they did on a regular basis, Frank Williams's predominant emotion was not, it has to be admitted, pity, and especially was this the case after Stoddart accused Williams, in an internationally televised press conference, no less, of lying. That did tend to dampen the activity of Frank's sympathy glands just a little.

Other than that, Sir Frank Williams has acted in every way as the knight that he is. I can see no wrong in anything he has done. Especially after the number of vodkas I have currently imbibed. In fact I can't see much of anything, to be honest. So I will bid ye all good night.

[Dazz9908]

Well, this goes into a grey area if a team purchased part of a chassis, but installs differrent components for some of the car, and, of course, a different engine.

I tend to favour the buying of chassis/and even fully constructed cars by any team, and then the team goes racing.

Maybe Frank can sneak over to Ron and buy a chassis, and then he will have enough money left over not to have to rely on pay drivers.


OMIGOD!! I just cannot believe that Frank has gone from the halcyon days of firing drivers after they win championships to squabbling over leftovers. How times have changed. :(

I guess bunsen saw it coming.

Sad but true.

Williams are mirroring to Tyrrel's down fall. Hope the get it right this year!

[ArrowsFA1]

Williams are mirroring to Tyrrel's down fall...
If, and it's a very big IF in my view, that is true and Williams go the way of Tyrrell then F1 needs to take a damned close look at itself and change the way it's run.

I have no confidence in the long term committment of manufacturers to motorsport generally. At the moment F1 is good for them, and they've brought a lot of money into the sport, but they can (and do) take it away just as quickly.

If that happens what will we be left with if the likes of Williams have gone :confused:

[Hawkmoon]

I am in shock. I have never heard anyone attack the Mother Theresa of Formula 1, the Nelson Mandela of motorsport, as you have, this evening. And I am so shocked that I hardly know what to say, except YOU ARE WRONG, Hawkmoon; you are wrong.

Gannex my friend, let me elaborate and clarify what I mean to say.

I respect Sir Frank Williams more than just about anyone in F1 today. He and Patrick Head are pretty much the epitome of what racing in general and F1 in particular is, or should be, about. They are the last of their kind now that Mr Ferrari, Colin Chapman and Uncle Ken are no longer with us and Dennis sold out.

However, my respect for him doesn't mean I always agree with him. In the case of customer cars I disagree with his assertions that they have no place in F1. I find it a little hard to swallow coming from a man who got into F1 in the same way he is opposing now.


Your beef against Frank Williams seems to be his backing of the $48 m. bond requirement, and the refusal by team bosses generally to go along with the Minardi Benevolent Fund interpretation of the rules governing distribution of F1 TV revenues.

You misunderstand me. I was in no way supportive of Stoddart and his incessant bleating about money and fairness. I do not criticise Williams, or Dennis for that matter, for not caving in to Stoddart's demands.

However in the case of Prost's demise I think it was better for Minardi to get the extra money rather than distribute it to all the teams, even the stinking rich ones at the front of the grid.


On the $48 m. bond requirement, you are right, it was supported by Williams, and very rightly so. Formula One is not a sport for beginners in motor racing. The bond was simply a device to make sure that entrants were properly funded. No one made any money off the bonds; all the interest was paid back to the bondholders. Your assertion that it was a device to exclude new entrants, or bolster the value of existing teams is just wrong, not true, a misunderstanding, though I will make no effort to disabuse you of it; I am too drunk.

I disagree here, Gannex. How did the rise and fall of the likes of Pacific, Simtek and Lola really hurt Formula One?

I do not assert that anyone made any money from the bond itself but it was intended to act as a deterent and that's exactly what it achieved. It also had the ancilliary effect of keeping the value of existing franchises artificially high. How could it not?

$48 million just to sign the bloody entry form! It is for this reason that the team bosses fought to retain the bond, not for any altruistic 'good of the sport' reason. Jordan and Stoddart cashed in quite nicely, thank you very much.


When you criticise Williams and claim they have only themselves to blame for their slump because they were mean to Paul Stoddart, and did not give in to his constant requests for funding, well there you have me. Again, I cannot deny the charge. When Stoddart's tears broke out, as they did on a regular basis, Frank Williams's predominant emotion was not, it has to be admitted, pity, and especially was this the case after Stoddart accused Williams, in an internationally televised press conference, no less, of lying. That did tend to dampen the activity of Frank's sympathy glands just a little.

Again, I have no love for Stoddart and am glad he's gone. With the exception of one occasion, I think Williams and Dennis were right to ignore his whinging.

My assertion is that if Williams and the other team bosses had adopted a more collaborative approach rather than the combative one that existed throughout the 90's, F1 may be in a very different state. A state where smaller teams still have a place. Williams and Dennis opposed Mosely every step of the way and to Max's credit he saw the writing on the wall and tried to stop the manufacturer takeover of the sport. Sadly, he failed. If he'd had the support of Sir Frank and Ron, maybe we wouldn't have the manufactrer only series we have today.


Other than that, Sir Frank Williams has acted in every way as the knight that he is. I can see no wrong in anything he has done. Especially after the number of vodkas I have currently imbibed. In fact I can't see much of anything, to be honest. So I will bid ye all good night.

I do not single out Williams for criticism. Jean Todt has an equal share as do all the team owners/bosses of the time. The other team owners have all sold up or out.

Williams, to his credit, now stands alone. But as he stands at the edge of the abyss, gazing at the end, should he not look back and think, "Maybe if we had talked more and fought less, I wouldn't be at the end."

[Dazz9908]

If, and it's a very big IF in my view, that is true and Williams go the way of Tyrrell then F1 needs to take a damned close look at itself and change the way it's run.

A Very Big Look. Too many have fallen into nothing, Brabham, Lotus, Tyrrell. May wiliams be great once more!


I have no confidence in the long term committment of manufacturers to motorsport generally. At the moment F1 is good for them, and they've brought a lot of money into the sport, but they can (and do) take it away just as quickly.

If that happens what will we be left with if the likes of Williams have gone :confused:
Yes the Manufactures are only in for their for their own ends, they will go sometime into the future and pieces need to be picked up, Question Is who will be left to do so?!!! :(

[ioan]

Yes the Manufactures are only in for their for their own ends, they will go sometime into the future and pieces need to be picked up, Question Is who will be left to do so?!!! :(

RedBull picked up when Ford left, I can't see why we believe that if a manufacturer will want out there will be no one who would buy it's entry for the right price.

[ArrowsFA1]

I can't see why we believe that if a manufacturer will want out there will be no one who would buy it's entry for the right price.
The problem at the moment is that the sport is so dependent on he manufacturers. They are all there to be seen to be competing against their road car rivals. If Honda were to regularly beat Toyota, for example, then that gains them kudos in marketing and financial terms, but it raises questions in the Toyota boardroom as to the cost of going racing for little or no return.

How many individuals or GP2 teams, for example, could step up and take Toyota's place should they decide being beaten week in week out by Honda was not viable. Also would there be so much value in F1 for Honda without Toyota to beat?

F1 is a very wealthy house of cards at the moment.

[Hawkmoon]

The problem at the moment is that the sport is so dependent on he manufacturers. They are all there to be seen to be competing against their road car rivals. If Honda were to regularly beat Toyota, for example, then that gains them kudos in marketing and financial terms, but it raises questions in the Toyota boardroom as to the cost of going racing for little or no return.

How many individuals or GP2 teams, for example, could step up and take Toyota's place should they decide being beaten week in week out by Honda was not viable. Also would there be so much value in F1 for Honda without Toyota to beat?

F1 is a very wealthy house of cards at the moment.

You're exactly right Arrows and it's one of the reasons why I could never understand why people thought the GPMA/GPWC was a good idea.

Every single manufacturer in F1 today, with the exception of Ferrari and Toyota, has left the sport at least once before. The only reason Toyota haven't left is because it's their first attempt. The clock is ticking on Toyota F1, I'm sure.

Mosely has done a lot of things I disagree with but his attempts at resisting the manufacturer take over of the sport was the one thing I agreed with. I think Max saw the writing on the wall and knew the manufacturers couldn't be trusted to commit to the sport in the long term. That's corporate reality.

Replacing an engine supply is one thing. Replacing an enitire team? Another thing entirely.

[Dazz9908]

The problem at the moment is that the sport is so dependent on he manufacturers. They are all there to be seen to be competing against their road car rivals. If Honda were to regularly beat Toyota, for example, then that gains them kudos in marketing and financial terms, but it raises questions in the Toyota boardroom as to the cost of going racing for little or no return.

How many individuals or GP2 teams, for example, could step up and take Toyota's place should they decide being beaten week in week out by Honda was not viable. Also would there be so much value in F1 for Honda without Toyota to beat?

F1 is a very wealthy house of cards at the moment.
I would also add, traditional teams.
We have lost so many, IF the manufactures do pull out how many would have the money to buy existing traditional teams, we only have three left.
Ferrari Mclaren Williams.
No frank has lost ground he' once great team is first to face this possibility.
I believe tradition should be alive in f1 for it last the ages, or may go the way of the Dinosaurs.

[jens]

The position, where Williams currently is, is the team's own fault as well of course. 2003 marked the highlight of the relationship with BMW, when they nearly won the title and set a good position to move forward. But in 2004 Williams used a new front end, which was a failure. For 2005 they promoted Sam Michael to the status of technical director and that only deepened their problems. No wonder BMW lost faith in Williams's ability of making a competitive chassis. Frank & Co. have tried to be too conservative in modern F1, which has revenged them. For example in 2001 Honda offered Jordan to turn the team into a factory team. Eddie refused and the team's form started deteriorating. Frank also refused to give more participatory for BMW and the current situation is the result that such decision has put them. With indiviualism it's impossible to make a breakthrough in modern F1. Williams has performed under expectations for three consecutive seasons. I can't see a weapon that might pull them into a rise again, can you? Team Willy with its conservatism is not attractive for car manufacturers any more to make a strong relationship with them. Williams's only hope is that Toyota will sell its team and concentrate on the relationship with them - so this means Williams has to hope Toyota to perform badly enough not to continue with its own team. What longer Williams has to wait that happening that smaller are the chances to see this happening. And if it won't happen, Williams will inevitably join the group of Tyrrell, Lotus etc unless a miracle happens and most of the car manufacturers will leave F1 simultaneously. There are no other car manufacturers that are likely to join F1 in the next few years to pick up Team Willy. So Toyota is their very last hope.

2007 marks a very important year for Williams. They have to perform better (which is unlikely to happen though), otherwise all those current sponsors will lose their last faith in Williams and the team turns into a backmarker conclusively. The budgets of Jordan and Minardi in their last competing years were about 30-40 million $. Williams's budget is at the moment what? 150 million $? If they fail to threaten front-runners, team will become cheaper for sponsors, exactly what happened to Jordan (title sponsor B & H sponsored with smaller sums every year). And if not in 2007, then in 2008 SA, STR are likely to use the same chassis as their #1 teams. And Spyker - if their budget is big enough - will have a better year in 2008 than in 2007. Williams is likely to drop to the very back. And buying chassis from someone else is, I'm afraid, not a challenge for Frank & Co. Maybe the best recommendation for Williams is to sell the team before it's too late and the team has become cheaper than it's now?

[tinchote]

My goodness, this thread is depressing. If the first race was today, I'm not sure I would watch it :(

[Valve Bounce]

More than half the forum believes that F1 should be the pinacle of engineering excellence. That comes with spending squillions, and only the manyfacturers can afford it plus hire top drivers.

I have always maintained that F1 should be a venue where the best drivers race at very high speeds and bugger this pinacle nonsense.

Whenever you play the pinacle card, you are talking about big time expenses. All those fancy complicated wings and aero, black box and Trax, and auto gears, all that comes with incredible costs for R&D as well as manufacture, but it does not enhance the sport nor the spectacle of F1 one iota. Cut all that out, and the spectators would not even notice the difference; you would not be able to see the difference on the telly. It's all about money wins big time.

If you cut the cap on football teams, we'd get the same situation: the big spenders will win the flag every year, and the losers will disappear like the Oakland Raiders.

Frank simply hasn't the money anymore to run with the big boys, then we now have several teams who want to run on a much smaller budget but still be competitive by using chassis developed by other teams.

This is Catch 22, this is MASH, this is Groundhog Day. F1 has evolved itself into a money shredding machine and right now I see no way out of this blind maze.

[ArrowsFA1]

I have always maintained that F1 should be a venue where the best drivers race at very high speeds and bugger this pinacle nonsense.

Whenever you play the pinacle card, you are talking about big time expenses. All those fancy complicated wings and aero, black box and Trax, and auto gears, all that comes with incredible costs for R&D as well as manufacture, but it does not enhance the sport nor the spectacle of F1 one iota. Cut all that out, and the spectators would not even notice the difference; you would not be able to see the difference on the telly. It's all about money wins big time.
:up:

Gilles Villeneuve and Elio de Angelis were saying the same thing more than 20 years ago.

Gilles:
"People don't come to see how good aerodynamicists are. They come to see a battle, a spectacle, to feel stirred, excited. And at the moment they are being cheated. Is this a sport, or a game of downforce? If we went round corners 20mph slower, the public would barely notice it - particularly if we were cornering in nice powerslides. They'd like that..."
I don't have Elio's quote to hand, but it was a comment on the absurd amount of testing that F1 teams were doing away from race weekends "for what?" His view was that testing could be done during the race weekend and so what if the cars were a little slower, the order would still be the same and the spectators wouldn't notice any difference.

[ShiftingGears]

More than half the forum believes that F1 should be the pinacle of engineering excellence. That comes with spending squillions, and only the manyfacturers can afford it plus hire top drivers.

I have always maintained that F1 should be a venue where the best drivers race at very high speeds and bugger this pinacle nonsense.

Whenever you play the pinacle card, you are talking about big time expenses. All those fancy complicated wings and aero, black box and Trax, and auto gears, all that comes with incredible costs for R&D as well as manufacture, but it does not enhance the sport nor the spectacle of F1 one iota. Cut all that out, and the spectators would not even notice the difference; you would not be able to see the difference on the telly. It's all about money wins big time.

If you cut the cap on football teams, we'd get the same situation: the big spenders will win the flag every year, and the losers will disappear like the Oakland Raiders.

Frank simply hasn't the money anymore to run with the big boys, then we now have several teams who want to run on a much smaller budget but still be competitive by using chassis developed by other teams.

This is Catch 22, this is MASH, this is Groundhog Day. F1 has evolved itself into a money shredding machine and right now I see no way out of this blind maze.


Great post!!!!

[K-Pu]

And what can we learn of this thread?

Is F1 totally sold? True teams have no place there? Money rules more than ever? F1 might dissapear when some manufacturers decide to quit?

We (the fans) are still following F1 and at the same time we say F1 is bad, has enough problems to self-destroy and money is the only thing, not speed.

Depressing...