isnt that tag quite steep by brundle because remember that FIA will give new teams financial support of £6.25m with free transportation of two chassis and 10,000 kg (22,049 lbs) of freight to each race also 20 air tickets (economy class) for each round trip for events held outside Europe.


http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/4/9290.html

No more than 1 or 2. (Due to GFC-era.)

Previously even midpack teams like Jordan, BAR etc each constructed up to 7 chassis, similarly for Ferrari etc.

They do indeed build as many as seven or eight. Brawn managed to do 2009 with just three ... not that too many teams will be trying to repeat that feat.

Why not? Surely using as few cars (survival cells in reality)as possible is a cost effective measure. And it even produced the WDC and WCC in 2009.

IMHO the budget cap is a complete red herring. There is nothing to stop them operating within the proposed budget cap limits, if it's actually possible. It might affect their competiveness, but then I don't have high expectations there anyway.

Couple of things.

"Cash Burn" is venture-capitalist-speak. Standard jargon for discussing the funding requirement for a project before the income starts to come back in and the thing starts to pay off. The funding requirement depends on how long and how deep the cashflow hole is. The Burn Rate is actually the rate that the VCs have to keep supplying funds (in the form of real money) to keep things going.
However, in this case its probably just being used to mean "expenditure". (Sounds good though.)


If you are spending £1m (say $1 2/3) each week on average, thats £52m a year, that's almost $87m a year.
Virgin at about half that, Ferrari and Mclaren well over double that ... yes, sounds like a reasonable round-number for an average operating budget.
However - if you are additionally putting in place all the infrastructure, all the capital equipment, with all the setup costs - you need an even bigger budget. And, even if you lease, rent, outsource and do everything you can to reduce the rate you are spending cash while starting up a new team from scratch, then I expect there are still going to be plenty weeks when the cash burn is going to have to be rather more than £1m ...

I'd say every team would try to emulate the feat. What's the downside to not breaking your chassis's?

Maybe even more so with the addition of this into the 2010 Sporting Regulations:

DFV and WDH, interesting points you make, cheers.

As far as numbers of cars build, Brawn were indeed doing very well to get away with three for the season.

Needs to be noted that they didn't have any significant accidents all year, which is quite amazing.

If memory serves Button was taken out at Spa and Barrichello hit the wall in Singapore qualifying, but that's it.

Trouble comes when a chassis is written off.

Webber did this in qualifying at Suzuka didn't he?

Making a founder's son 'lead designer' has made me give up. What are the odds the most suitable person would be in the family? It's a terrible sign. It means they can't attract the right people and are self-indulgent.

Plus the PR movies that don't show a car or a sponsor. They seem to be showing everything they can, but those vital things are not there.

If they come up with a big sponsor, then everything is possible of course, but it would have to be a new sponsor for 10's of milliions, and anyone would be mad to chuck that at them now.

The teams are only allowed two race cars during a race weekend. A race car is defined as a survival cell with engine and suspension and some other parts attached. The teams are obviously (or with all the restrictions in place maybe not so obviously anymore) allowed spare parts and can have spare survival cells etc. with them. When a survival cell is written off the team has to assemble the car from the ground up, so quite a big job for the team during a race weekend. But as far as I know teams have done that in the past, or?

Yep, Red Bull Racing did it with Webber's car last year.

McLaren did it with Hamilton's after Bahrain qualifying last year and (I think) Nurburgring 2007.

IIRC the team must declare to the FIA a full list of all the new parts that the car needed.

In the case of Hamilton's at Bahrain it was:

1 x Tub
2 x Upper Wishbones
2 x Lower Wishbones
/// entire car ///

The only thing which was original was the engine I think.

In my view you are drawing conclusions on thin evidence.

I agree that having your son as lead designer (and what does the title lead designer constitute?) validates some questions. One of those questions should be what his responsibilities are within the team (lead designer of what)? Another question should be what his experience and skills are? Without knowing that it's jumping to conclusions to say he is there because of nepotism.

Stewart GP was a father and son project. Sauber has Peters son in a senior position within the team, Toyota is a family company as well as Ford and Porsche and I'm sure there are other examples as well.

Although not entirely comparable, J. Villeneuve, D. Hill, N. Rosberg, N. Piquet II are all sons of F1 drivers. I'm sure that even though their last name helped them, without any driving skills they would not have been given the opportunity to drive in F1.

The PR movies, as you call them, might have a good reason not to show sponsors or the car. For contractual reasons for instance. If they have a major sponsor or sponsorship from Argentina on the car, wouldn't that kind of give away information that maybe the team and sponsors want to unveil at another time?
And we have seen their tub, so at least we have photographic evidence of that. And we have people visiting the factory saying that they have seen the car.

In light of the above, why would a sponsor be mad for sponsoring USF1? For all we know, they might have had a major sponsor signed up for a long time already. And I suspect that a potential sponsor would get more information about the team and car than we do...

You might be right in everything you say, but I can't see that you have provided factual evidence to back it up. Obviously you are entitled to have your opinion. I'm just saying that your arguments would only be classified as hear say and not conclusie evidence. As you see I can make a argument for the opposite interpretation of the same points you make.

I feel sure that if Jason had a CV that included leading the design of a top open-wheel racecar then that would have been mentioned.

Yes they might have a major sponsor who didn't want publicity before a certain date, it just seems very unlikely.

I'm not saying it's impossible USF1 will take off, I've just stopped hoping for it. The concrete evidence is against it, and the evidence for is just promises about tomorrow - that's what typically precedes a failure.

So for me now if I get a surprise about it, it'll be a pleasant one. Meanwhile I'm just hoping the US gets a race back, but that's be after Bernie by the look of it.

Sorry DFV, but what solid evidence do you have for people (plural?) having said that they have seen an actual real race car? (As opposed to drawings, computer graphics, mock ups, etc.)

I know of PW's old friend Varsha saying something about "if its as fast as it looks" - but I don't recall anyone saying "I have seen the actual car, a raceworthy chassis, substantially complete".
Personally, I wouldn't expect Varsha to be the one to spoil things by saying "the car, as such, doesn't physically exist, yet".
And that "as fast as it looks" comment could quite likely only be based on seeing artwork on a computer screen.

I'm hoping to see the car testing soon. But I'm certainly not holding my breath.

Ok, I have just got to take what people have said. They have just referred to the car, not if it's completely finished (which is unlikely at this stage) or how well advanced it is. That was your statement. I just said that people have commented on seeing the car, I have not said it was finished or whatever. After all what team have a ready car at this stage just collecting dust until the first test?

We have Varsha's statement. And do you really believe that he would jeopardize his credibility as a race commentator on TV by making stuff like that up? I agree that he might not be as objectively critical as others, but I find it unlikely that he would lie about seeing the car (which is what I stated people had done). After all the truth will come out sooner or later if he was just making that stuff up. It would be like Martin Brundle saying that the Lotus car was looking good, when in reality it didn't exist...

Then we have Racecar Engineering who visited in December who also said that they had seen the car and commented that it had some new, not seen before, features. This was also at the same time that photos of the teams tub, with mock up engine and front was released.

My point is kind of also that we have seen just as many signs, if not even more, from USF1 than from Campos, Lotus and Virgin that they are pressing on with their car, or have the other teams shown more progress (verifiable)?

That was why I said that one of the questions is what his responsibilities are. Do we know that he is leading the design of the car? He is lead designer, but what of? For all we know, he might be lead designer of the teams uniforms Where I work, we have lot's of employees with the title senior engineer. However some of them are just recently employed. It's more to do with payment than it has to do with responsibilities in the organization.

Yes, it's a fair point but unless we KNOW his CV and responsibilities at USF1, it's just a unqualified guess to assume he is there because of nepotism.

Varsha's statement "If the car goes as good as it looks, it's going to be fast." is pretty ambiguous (possibly not deliberately). Had he said it back in September or October, we would all have assumed he was talking about the drawings. Now it is take as referring to a physical car. And even if he has seen the car. Is a "car" sat in the workshop on its wheels bodywork fitted and engine ticking over, or a chassis being fitted out with bulkheads.

I suppose that's the problem, until the team publish photos of each component, sceptics can question if they exist. while still drawing reasonably coherent argument from what has been published. Such as the Nose crash test, 2 months later than Lotus, and only preformed as a precursor to the FIA tests. Suggesting that the tub still hasn't passed some of the impact tests.
Arguing the other side relies on some degree of faith in the team. Trusting that there is more happening than we have been shown. Or that Jason Anderson got his job on merit. It's a little like arguing the existance of god. It may be true but requires faith, and we will only know for sure on judgement day. An atheist can use logic and observation.

So I think I've just argued that if USF1 turn up in Bahrain, I'm going to Hell?

Actually I see on the video he's called Design Director. Anyway we know almost nothing about him, I think with what we've seen of USF1's style it's a pretty solid guess that's because there's nothing to know. If he were a design engineer with any kind of impressive history we'd have been told all about it. So as signs go, it's a bad one.

No, there's hope for you (one of the basic principles of Christianity)

And a good summary of how we view or understand things differently.

Is not Mr.Windsor working today?

I know it's Sunday and here lazy europeans are ..... whatever europeans do but hard working.

Well, actually, nepotism sounds like the simplest explanation to me. Rather, anything else would be jumping to conclusions...


This is an internet forum - there's no burden of proof, on anyone. It is completely OK to speculate what seems likely to one, without presenting conclusive evidence.

But it should be perfectly OK to ask for the reasons why people make bold statements shouldn't it? After all it is a discussion forum...

And it also depends on how you want to be perceived by others. If you just make lot's of statements and can't, or won't, back anything up by facts or some kind of explanation, you will end up being considered less credible....

Someone said on this thread a few days ago that he had studied the teams composition and concluded that he had never known a new team with so little F1 engineering background. Making such a statement implies that he has made a qualitative comparison between USF1 and other new teams over the years. However he has not been prepared to back up his statement when asked about details of the engineering staff at USF1 (as he must have had access to those details should his statements be true). Do you think he will be considered credible when making similar statements in the future, or that we question his statements?

Someone also said that Varsha's comment about USF1 being the first F1 team to be started from scratch in decades was wrong and that he could think of quite a few other teams that had started from scratch (without naming them). In the end it ended up with Stewart GP in 1996 being the closest in the last 20 years and Varsha being quite correct after all. That is why we are having discusions, to question statements and learning more as we discuss and debate issues.

After all, what is the point of having a discussion if questions cannot be asked and statements being questioned?

Speculate all you like,feel free to say that USF1 will win WDC and WCC, but without a cogent argument and some reference to known facts, expect to have your opinion dismissed.

Other wise this statement would be considered useful:
"I have heard, that I know someone who met a bloke in that pub, who says that while he was working for NASA faking the moon landings, he discovered scientific evidence that you smell!"

Or would you prefer some burden of proof?

I think the Best Buy sponsorship rumours comes from this post in Barry Judge's blog last August (Barry Judge is CMO of BestBuy):

http://twitter.com/bestbuycmo/status/3156594760



http://twitter.com/BestBuyCMO

Not much to go on but he is Best Buy's Chief Marketing Officer. Obviously the answer to his own question could be that a partnership with USF1 won't help them at all... But if Best Buy is sponsoring USF1 and plan to do a official statement about their European branch early this year, it would make sense to wait with announcing their sponsorship until the launch of the car or similar occasion. But, this is just guesswork on my part.

Any thoughts, comments or ideas on this?

BTW, Best Buy's vice chairman is Brad Anderson so that would be one more Anderson on board

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Buy

the simplest answer to do with sponsorship may well be the date USF1 have decided contacts start from.
I understand most teams have contracts run from the 1st of jan to the end of the year but who is to say USF1 have not decided they will run from the unveiling of that years car until the last day before the unveiling of the new one.
After all that would make more sense than the Jan-Dec dates used now.
Do a team use the old car with old livery after the sponsorship deal ends but they need to do pr or they build a new shell at extra costs?

As regards the i have seen the car that sorry is very ambigous i ahve seen the cars of the 1950's dispite never seeing them in the flesh on on paper but i have said nothing incorrect in saying i have seen the cars (if they wanted to make it clear that they had seen the real car i am certain they would have used far clearer terminology.
Sorry it sounds like pr speak to make it look like they are further along than they are.
I am not saying that is a sign they defiantly will not make the start of the season just i do not believe they are as far along as some do.

I'm with you. USA economy seems to be sagging worse than most - the collapse of AMA motorcycle roadracing is sure, but far from the only sign of this. It's going to be extremely hard for the genuinely new teams to make it to the grid in Melbourne let alone make an impact. Virgin I guess will ensure "their team" will be there but beyond that, who knows? Campos based out of Spain still have a national thirst for F1 glory but the greater USA public is totally apathetic about things European.

I may have missed it..but when did AMA roadracing "collapse". March 3-5 is Daytona..or are you saying that is cancelled ??

Events
2010 Schedule


SELECT YEAR:

Daytona 200 by Honda
Round 1

Daytona 200 by Honda
Daytona International Speedway, Daytona Beach, FL

March 3 - 5
Suzuki Superbike Challenge
Round 2

Suzuki Superbike Challenge
Auto Club Speedway, Fontana, CA

March 26 - 28
Superbike Showdown
Round 3

Superbike Showdown
Road Atlanta, Braselton, GA

April 16 - 18
AMA Superbike Showdown
Round 4

AMA Superbike Showdown
Infineon Raceway, Sonoma, CA

May 14 - 16
AMA Superbike Doubleheader
Round 5

AMA Superbike Doubleheader
Road America, Elkhart Lake, WI

June 4 - 6
Super Cycle Weekend
Round 6

Super Cycle Weekend
Mid-Ohio Sports Car Course, Lexington, OH

July 16 - 18
Red Bull U.S. Grand Prix
Round 7

Red Bull U.S. Grand Prix
Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca, Monterey, CA

July 23 - 25
Suzuki Big Kahuna Nationals
Round 8

Suzuki Big Kahuna Nationals
Virginia International Raceway, Alton, VA

August 13 - 15
AMA Superbike Weekend
Round 9

AMA Superbike Weekend
New Jersey Motorsports Park, Millville, NJ

September 3 - 5
Superbike Classic
Round 10

Superbike Classic
Barber Motorsports Park, Birmingham, AL

September 24 - 26

Isn't it a bit weird at this point that there isn't much noise about who would fill the second seat? .. in that regard, and in general, it looks like USF1 are quite happy to let Pechito Lopez do the job with the hype and the media speculation.

Now let's be realistic for a second, that can't be a good sign.

Of course, you can choose to believe Windsor, and think USF1 has an happy problem on their hands, picking a driver out of their shortlist of 10 available ones.. but IMO that would mean you're more than the glass-half-full type of person, in fact IMO you're probably insane.

Would we still be considered insane if they show up in Bahrain with a full team and two drivers?

Depends.. (yes )

They should man up and admit they're auctioning the seats... plus, with all due respect to the Argentinian crowd, at best it is shaping up to be a team with sh*t drivers and a sh*t teamboss..

I know it's subjective but the other new teams all have some sort of proven asset confirmed already.. with USF1 it's a lot of 'bla bla bla' from the usual suspects..

I hope I'll be eating my words in some way though, that'd be funny.

He did, there was an article on Crash.net that Windsor admitted they were gonna end up having 2 pay-drivers instead of an American and a Veteran.

Yeah I've heard of that, but that's hardly setting the record straight... maybe I'm failing at being a hardcore fan, but I don't have crash.net bookmarked..

Hopefully Lopez will be confirmed, at long g'damn last, and we'll go from there..

Listerine, I think your allowed to repent on your deathbed, and be let into heaven, so aslong as you post, that you'll think they'll race in Bahrain, before practice starts, you'll be fine

If no driver can afford full season... then two drivers can pay & drive for half season. A win-win but more negotiations to get the deals done.

Martin Brundle made a good point at the weekend.

The new teams, like USF1, might make the first race but then burn through their cash so fast that they don't last until half season.

Another instance of Windsor being a cock on the PR front -

Windsor said more than once that they were turning down drivers who could bring in a huge amount of money and now he is scraping the bottom of the barrel desperately trying to find 2 drivers with some money to bring in

Brundle's comment about "cash burn" have been discussed and some points made during the weekend. One of my points was that with Brundle's burn rate it would mean that teams would use at least £10m during the 10 fly away races. For Virgin that would equate to around 25% of their total budget spent on just the 10 races. Leaving £30m, or less, to spend on the remaining 7 races and building the car, paychecks through the year, lease on buildings etc.

I also found this article on Racecar Engineering:

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/ca...budget-cap.html

If this is true, all teams must limit their operating budgets for 2010 and even more so for 2011. I suspect that Brundle's "burn rate" might be a bit higher than what is the real expenditure of some of the teams. But I might be completely wrong...

The largest component is salaries is it not? And we have seen that some of the USF1 employees (design director?) will not get the same as their McLaren equivalent, plus they have many less employees overall!

DFV, if you can't prove that USF1 will compete in the full 2010 F1 calendar, which you can't at the moment, you are in no position to argue for 50 pages that anyone who thinks they might not, lacks credibility. Sorry, but the future hasn't happened yet, we're all talking from a position of ignorance.

First of all, I'm not trying to prove that USF1 is going to make it to Bahrain and that I have proof of that. On the contrary, I have several times stated that I don't know if they will make it, but on the other hand nobody knows that they won't make it either.

Second of all, I am not arguing that anybody who claims that USF1 won't make it lacks credibility. Where did you get that from? Can you give me a quote where I have said that?

What I'm questioning, maybe poorly as English is only my second language, is when people claim stuff about USF1 (or other matters) as if it was a objective truth. If you just claim stuff and expect others to agree or believe what you say but without any facts to back it up or isn't prepared to back up your statements with sound reasoning, then I will question the credibility of such a statement.

Just like if I claimed that the landing on the moon was just a cover up and didn't happen. I would expect people to question that statement and if I didn't have any facts to back up my claim I would expect people to question my credibility when making similar statements in the future (with such a statement I might expect a lack of credibility no matter what I said to back it up...)

Your ability to communicate in English is as good as any or better than many native English speakers. I agree that statements made by some lack any sort of reasoning and in many cases and just schadenfreude due to whatever point of view the poster is attempting to convey. They be on the grid, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. There is evidence to suggest they are having a hard go, it's likely much more difficult than they thought. I would believe all the new teams to be in that position. Or at least operating to the extent in which their resources allow.

Being that English is your second language, understand that over the past 10 years or so, what you've described is more or less "American Debate". It's just back and forth with a sentence or two, no validation of truth. We were taught this by the tv and talk radio.

CAD images USF1 version 1 revealed.

You've just beat me to it.

Edit:
The Type 1 design with major components revealed
-
Cosworth CA2010 engine heads up very compact rear end - note how the exhaust exits are much further forward than in 2009 designs

So, that's what we know from the Type 1.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/imageBank/u/USF1a1.jpg

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/imageBank/u/USF13.jpg

By the way, those air intakes are huge ones.

We'll know in Jerez and in Barcelona, if the car is any good. I hope so.

New Picture of the USF1 Tub:

Are you listening Mr Schmidt of Auto Motor und Sport??? (He said the team was a joke and that it was laughable to set up a team in Charlotte...)

OK, that was just me being infantile...

As far as I know Racecar Engineering is a very reliable and, as the name implies, a technically inclined magazine. Their opinion should be listened to I would say. Just to repeat myself again, this is not a guarantee that the team will make it to Bahrain (as it seems some people believe that is what I'm saying when I argue the "other view" on the information we have on USF1).