True to this.


And see after several races, I could imagine there might be some starting to suggest the USF1 was not successful as Toyota was. I am recalling the numbers of article published on Grandprix.com taking theme on TOYTA F1's German operation. Joe Saward's crit was not abot the money they are spending, but the decision to place factory outside the Britain.

USF1 has such logistic issue as well. But from what I learned about their gear box lay out I am thinking that this NEW operation has some ball behind the operation to do something new and hit out the regime, the status quo of Britain based Formula One.

And with little or no succes it seems...

I will however take a note of how my comments are perceived and try to be even more diplomatic in my posts (so that the doubters don't feel so sore for being questioned...)

Anyway, moving on to USF1...

according to this
http://www.carburando.com/A-UN-PASO-DE-LA-...271AA9790EF.htm


usf1 plans to do crash test on february 15th. that means realistically they will only have chance to make the final test at barcelona.

also it says that they will build another chassis for the february 15 crash test. so i guess they will test their type 1 chassis at barber without crash testing it.

If they are unlucky, they might get an unintentional crash test.

They say that they will start a three day test on the 19th. It looks like that is the last possible date to start a three day test program at Barber. The Indy cars are testing 23-25 and then NESBA have the track 27-28.

What are these other indicators? Most of these so called indicators seem to be based on conjecture, assumptions and hyperbole. While little is said when some of the other new teams encounter these same issues it's the harbinger of death for USF1. Then when someone calls them on it they get all defensive claim to be being bashed.

There is a car, there is funding. Lopez has been a done deal for the last month or so. Nothing to see here. I think that thing that chaps the hide of some posters here that an F1 car can be built somewhere else besides Britain or Maranello. Particularly when it's in the middle of stock car country. That indeed is a delightful irony.

And those are not assumptions or hyperboles?

i think most teams produce a bare chassis just for crash testing

How F1 journalism works..

NobleF1 on Twitter, 1:21 PM Jan 10th:
US F1 tells me it is on course to be in Bahrain - so ignore reports from Italy claiming it asked the FIA if it could skip the first races

Autosport magazine, Thursday, 21 January:



So it seems there might have been more to that 'Gazetta story after all.

Autosport has a source close to Ecclestone, probably Ecclestone off the record, saying USF1 tried to get out of the first four races.

I smell Bernie all over this. He has been the first to cast doubts about the team and seems to have an agenda. Just IMHO.

yep it makes lot of sense now and the speed article also added that usf1 is heavily time constrained.

I have now convinced myself, and myself only ( ), that Ecclestone has a beef with USF1... and let's face it, anyone looking to invest millions into this venture, be it drivers or sponsors, would try to go to the bottom of such a hunch..

I think Bernie has taken a disliking to USF1 and Campos and is refusing financial management support.

So, in other words, it's Bernie's fault.

It takes two to tango...

USF1 started off on the wrong foot from the very beginning, Bernie didn't want them to use that name..

Not that I'm convinced that they asked to skip races, but it does sound as if they're struggling with the time limitations. It could be that they were waiting on funding or, maybe, starting from nothing as they are, they underestimated how many hours they needed, especially where they have outsourced some of the work. Outsourcing leaves them tied to other's schedules. Regardless, it seems pretty clear that they're wishing there were a few more weeks available (meanwhile, Campos are wishing there was a bit more money available...). Methinks there's many hours of overtime in store at USF1 headquarters leading up to Melbourne.

I think right now that they'll be there, along with the other newbies, feeling ready or not, because at this point a no-show would cost all of them too much.

IMO it's simply Bernie undermining them.. I also don't believe USF1 would have asked the 'F1 supremo' to skip a couple of races.. thats FIA business..

Bernie would seemingly be giving USF1 a hell of a hard time to convince sponsors/drivers to commit..

Perhaps requesting the races off would be FIA business, but the most significant/potentially damaging aspect would be the money involved in making/missing the races.

Good point, Bernie might have been the first step in the process... it would mean Windsor is telling porkies, which would hardly be surprising.

Even then, it looks like Ecclestone would have said 'no' to such plans, AND leaked the story to the press..

Also, more conflict from Bernie:

On the official website, Campos and Virgin's new logos are shown. Lotus and USF1's logos however, aren't, because they have the word F1 in them. And USF1 on the site is simply known as US.

I'm not sure we should label it as conflict, because the same applies to Renault for instance.

The Renault team is called Renault F1 but is only named as Renault on Formula1.com

http://www.renaultf1.com

All factually based and publicly available information. An assumption with quite a bit of hyperbole would be for me to state unequivocally that USF1 will put a Texas sized arse whippin' on those nancy boys at Virgin.

Most of what you say is in place, there is no evidence for. Funding they had to demonstrate to the FIA in order to get the licence, but that's about it from your list and anyway they all had to meet the same standard. No announced drivers, only a rumour of one in talks. No sponsors announced, crash tests only partly completed, at best. If we take Lotus as a benchmark, they are much further along in terms of creating the image of a solid paddock presence right now. Two decent drivers and Gascoyne on board, 12 Feb launch date. There is no question at all that Lotus might still fail to get to the grid in Sakhir, and none of the new teams tick all of the boxes, but at this point in time they are demonstrably further along than USF1.

I accept it is entirely possible that USF1 might hit the grid and be more successful than any of the other new teams and even some of the established ones. I'd love to see it so please do not mistake me for a naysayer because I'm keen to see USF1 on the grid. I'd have been happy to see two North American drivers in the cockpit too, and I think for the sake of F1 as a truly international sport it needs to have teams which are based in many countries around the world.

Regarding what you see as a lack of criticism of other new startups; maybe you've not wandered through the Campos Meta thread?

Dieter rencken makes some comments on the new startups in his new column here (subscribers only). In it, he refers to USF1;
I think it's hard to argue with that assessment or his wish for more information. He raises issues about all the startups, so don't worry it's not a bash either.

isn't it the same case with Williams F1, too?

quick check, yes: http://www.williamsf1.com/

How do you know that the reason the logo isn't included is because of the use of the term F1? Perhaps they haven't yet provided a logo. Williams F1 is known simply as Williams, BWM-Sauber F1 as BMW-Sauber, etc. The issue with USF1 changing to US Grand Prix Engineering was that prior to entering the championship, they didn't have rights to use the term F1.

And Force India, and Red Bull, and BMW-Sauber.

USF1 is fine.

Bernie and Windsor understand what gets ratings in America, drama.

Having the team perceived as "up against a wall" and in "dire straights" is putting pieces in place for the reality TV series spin to come in the future.

In the USA, not one person in my office could tell me what USF1 is, let alone who Pachito Lopez is.

Its common knowledge that Bernies only love is money and this (a perceived doomsday threat) is a traditional revenue grower in the USA.

Rest assured, USF1 is on the podium after the first GP.

A team can't get all the equipment, buildings in two countries and pay the wages of those working without having capital. It's very obvious they are funded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. Hurley could fund the whole thing out of his pocket. Sponsors, that's where the pay drivers come in and besides, you as well as I don't have any idea what has been discussed at the sponsor level. They've got tubs layed up, parts coming out and a few contractors working on other bits. They've got transporters purchased and have paid the entry fee. They haven't homologated yet but neither have other teams. If you guys are dead set on believing they aren't going to make it that's your prerogative but this is what I would call another example of "their doomed" when other indicators say otherwise. It's ignoring what is happening and hyper focusing things that are either trivial or exaggerated to prove your point. I'm not saying that it's not going to be tough for them, but spinning every little thing and what I think misrepresenting what is really happening is hardly looking objectively at the situation.

Wait and see.

Its just far too perfect that they wish to replicate Brawn's against all odds story from last season and now the media and Bernie are acting their part out.

The way the outsourcing of the car worked, both Chip Ginassi Racing and Penske Racing, contributed to the car.

Essentially the USF1 guys took a car the two best american teams built and refined it.

Three teams in one.

I'm almost ready to say that USF1 will win a race this season, the more I think about it.

Looking objectively at the situation, what is up with those 'sources close to Ecclestone'?

If these people can convince Autosport to print such things, will they be able to negatively influence some other people coming to ask whether it's a good idea to join F1 through Peter Windsor's gig?

Those are legitimate questions...

put bluntly, is Ecclestone trying to throw a spanner in the works? is something like that completely out of the question when looking objectively at the situation?

What on earth did you put in your cereals?

lol

Wait and see.

I'm only concerned with their ability to develop the car in season.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them bring home a victory.

Fair enough, but your hope is based on stuff that don't even exist.. the 'three teams in one' thing, that's complete fantasy..

Predicting victory when then don't even have a real sponsor yet, no drivers and the [un]finished car hasn't been crash-tested. I predict no points and they don't finish the season.

I predict another 40 pages of silly claims from both sides and continued bickering!

Ganassi has never designed a car though

Sure they do testing to refine the IRL cars - but never built one.

Penske sure has, and was dominant in America at one point

Only 40?

Bernie said again at Modanna del Campiglio that he doesn't believe Campos and USF1 will be at the first race.

Campos I understand it's due to the association with Teixeira.

USF1 was several holes in his story.

But all-in-all, they disobey Bernie.

I know you were drunk last night but let's in the spirit of things take what you say seriously for a sec


Brawn 2009 = $100m Honda money, a state of the art fully equipped factory, a car that was developed from beginning of 2008, a 7 times WDC winning team boss and 9 times WCC winner in charge

USF1 2010 - scrambling around looking for pay drivers, a team boss who has won nothing and his geeky son, a factory that is still being built as we speak, a car that is still being put together and not even passed crash tests yet

Yes you really can compare the 2

What happened to starting testing at the beginning of Febuary???

USF1 Always missing deadlines

I think if they make Bahrain then they will turn up with an untested car. They keep pushing dates back and back and it doesnt look good.

Skip Barber test wont happen. No Joint tests. They are leavin it extremely late as no parts have past crash tests yet.

The car may not pass scrutineering at Bahrain. Luckily StefanGP will travel to Bahrain anyway.

Doing a "Lola", eh? That would be brave.

Yep, that's right. Same as for all the startup teams.

It's like you've not read what I said, seen the word 'basher' form in a mist of jumbled letters on the page, typed a bit and hit the submit button.

I WANT to see USF1 on the grid. I think F1 NEEDS a US based team and US interest. I think having teams based in different parts of the world is a GOOD THING for F1 as an international sport. But the only spinning going in is from those who think things are concrete and announced when they are patently not. I'm not saying it's significantly different for all the startups - they all have big question marks in place where we'd prefer to see formal announcements and photographs. That's about as objective as one can expect at this stage in the process isn't it?

The Autosport story adds credibility to the 'Gazetta story.

It's clear USF1 did ask Ecclestone to start the season four races late.

So either Ecclestone is lying or Peter Windsor is lying.

Their quotes go head to head.

Or both of them in different aspects... A mere possibility, tho...

"sources close to" Ecclestone told Autosport, not Ecclestone himself though, "sources close to" is standard journalism for We Are Making Stuff Up as I am sure Autosport have Bernie's direct line and mobile number so could ask him themselves

But both Bernie and Windsor are as bad as each other so I don't know who/what to believe

"Sources close to" is also standard practice when someone wants to go off the record.

You can report this, but don't quote me.

I really don't think Autosport would go around making stuff up. It isn't that kind of publication.

In fact, Jonathan Noble has (on more than one occassion) said that he is chasing a story but can't firm it up.

At least he is honest enough to say that. Others just report it and are wrong. Autosport puts huge weight on being accurate which makes it stand out from the crowd.

I think we can take that quote as being genuine.

Asking the FIA if you can start four races late, What are they thinking.....

They had this idea before the start of 2009 and are struggling to get a car ready, while Lotus found out they were included in September and are having no problems.

Either they turn up in Bahrain or Stefan GP gets the slot. Thats what Bernie should be telling them.

From Bernie's comments at the Ferrari snow press thing it appears he's taking quite a hard line.

But James Allen who is probably F1#s top written journo and certainly the best IMHO phoned the FIA the morning after the Italian story and he was told that the 4 races thing was wrong and further research from Allen showed that USF1 had booked several hotel rooms in Bahrain so its effectively

Allen v Noble
FIA v FOM
Windsor v Ecclestone