Jump to content


Photo

Apparently two new teams could be announced by FIA...


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 Suchmacher

Suchmacher
  • Member

  • 67 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 09:33

Hello guys,

first post so i'm a bit touched :)

Apparently some other new teams could be announced shortly by FIA after BMW pullout.
Who of the existing ones is about to do the same?
Any more news?

http://www.grandprix...ns/ns21720.html


Advertisement

#2 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 20 August 2009 - 09:36

I don't think two new teams is even possible, regulations state max grid is 26 cars and we already have 24 confirmed. Unless obviously somebody else we don't know about is pulling out of F1

#3 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,782 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 09:38

This can only mean one thing, when thinking about the current quali format...


Pre-qualifying.

#4 Brawn BGP 001

Brawn BGP 001
  • Member

  • 2,597 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 09:40

I think Espilon will get the 13th spot, they seem the best prepared.

#5 Suchmacher

Suchmacher
  • Member

  • 67 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 09:47

Well nobody of you though about something else going on....if the teams are 13 and the slot available is only 1 it could be that another team other than BMW is going to pull out even if it has signed the CA.
Maybe run out of money and ready to sell the team to somebody else?

#6 danr

danr
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 20 August 2009 - 09:54

Well nobody of you though about something else going on....if the teams are 13 and the slot available is only 1 it could be that another team other than BMW is going to pull out even if it has signed the CA.
Maybe run out of money and ready to sell the team to somebody else?


Perhaps Toro Rosso

I thought Red Bull had to sell Toro Rosso by the end of this year? Or was it next?

#7 slideways

slideways
  • Member

  • 3,254 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 09:57

It was for 2010 but they seem to have skipped around that, mainly because they have kept the second team as ... a second team. If we were seeing 1,2,3,4's by Red Bull it would be a different story.

#8 Suchmacher

Suchmacher
  • Member

  • 67 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 10:00

What about Force India or Williams?

#9 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,782 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 10:02

What about Force India or Williams?


Extremely unlikely that they'll pull out from what represents their only source of income and work.

#10 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 20 August 2009 - 10:08

Extremely unlikely that they'll pull out from what represents their only source of income and work.

True for Williams, not true for FI ... Beer/Airline is VJ's main source of income, and the airline aint doing exactly great these days

#11 Suchmacher

Suchmacher
  • Member

  • 67 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 10:11

Right...he is not doing good at all in this crisis climate..

#12 dank

dank
  • Member

  • 5,191 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 20 August 2009 - 10:14

Perhaps Toro Rosso

I thought Red Bull had to sell Toro Rosso by the end of this year? Or was it next?


Toro Rosso are employing lots of staff at the moment and now have a facility in Bicester. Dietrich Mateschitz seems happy with funding them as a Red Bull 'B-Team' as it ties in with the Red Bull youthful, adventurous, image so I doubt it'll be them.

#13 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 10:20

Perhaps Toro Rosso

I thought Red Bull had to sell Toro Rosso by the end of this year? Or was it next?

They were going to be sold, but Mateschitz said he couldn't commit to selling the team (probably because of the breakaway and the FIA's insistence that both Red Bull teams had committed until 2012. Epsilon Euskadi claimed they had been talking with Mateschitz to buy the team.

Edited by Captain Tightpants, 20 August 2009 - 10:20.


#14 dank

dank
  • Member

  • 5,191 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 20 August 2009 - 10:22

They were going to be sold, but Mateschitz said he couldn't commit to selling the team (probably because of the breakaway and the FIA's insistence that both Red Bull teams had committed until 2012. Epsilon Euskadi claimed they had been talking with Mateschitz to buy the team.


There's no business sense in him selling them no more. Especially with the budget capping coming into place over the next couple of years, where Mateschitz will probably be paying the same for two teams, what he has been paying for one in the past.

#15 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 10:38

Well, it just seems to me of late that he seems less and less interested in throwing money at Toro Rosso.

#16 katmen

katmen
  • Member

  • 571 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 August 2009 - 10:56

and what about renault replacement? OR Stefan gp because EU implications?

#17 Snap Matt

Snap Matt
  • Member

  • 1,157 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 11:00

This can only mean one thing, when thinking about the current quali format...


Pre-qualifying.

It would add a bit more tension to Q1 if there were eight cars that merely qualified and the last two didn't even get to start. Probably wouldn't fit well within the cost-cutting regime though, shelling out all that money to get to the Grand Prix but not particpiating for the full three days...

Edited by Snap Matt, 20 August 2009 - 11:00.


#18 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,421 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 20 August 2009 - 11:19

Well, it just seems to me of late that he seems less and less interested in throwing money at Toro Rosso.


Seems like it BUT they have spent lots of money expanding their in-house carbon shops etc and they do have more or less latest spec RBR aero, so no lack of downforce. You would hope they that the race engineering and damper development side is not a major part of the cost of racing in F1, unlike NASCAR etc, so you would have to guess mainly it's the drivers at STR who are off the pace!? :confused:

#19 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,172 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 20 August 2009 - 11:23

So if the FIA wants 14 teams, why weren't 5 new teams given entry originally? Also, how does this fit with the 2010 rules that have just been released only catering for 26 cars at most?

Advertisement

#20 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 10,478 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 20 August 2009 - 11:24

So if the FIA wants 14 teams, why weren't 5 new teams given entry originally? Also, how does this fit with the 2010 rules that have just been released only catering for 26 cars at most?

I think some are speculating that another (existing) team may be offski.

#21 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 11:59

Seems like it BUT they have spent lots of money expanding their in-house carbon shops etc and they do have more or less latest spec RBR aero, so no lack of downforce. You would hope they that the race engineering and damper development side is not a major part of the cost of racing in F1, unlike NASCAR etc, so you would have to guess mainly it's the drivers at STR who are off the pace!? :confused:

Atually, it's the fact that Toro Rosso don't get upgrades until well after Red Bull do. Red Bull are essentially restricting their ability to compete, which makes them akin to a GP2 team used to give drivers a bit of experience before promoting them to racing for the parent team. t least when they were Minardi they were given an equal chance to compete.

As for the cars, both the RB5 and STR4 are built by the same group, the Red Bull Technology Centre, skirting around the customer chassis rules by having both teams the customers to a third party. One of the major reasons why the team was to be sold was because that loophle was - and still is, I believe - to be closed for 2010.

#22 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,767 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 20 August 2009 - 12:22

I think some are speculating that another (existing) team may be offski.

That would mean that, apart from BMW Sauber, an other team did not sign the new Concorde Agreement. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a new team. If, say, Toro Rosso didn't sign the CA either, their spot would be up for grabs, too. That is in a way unlikely, though, because without guaranteed income from FOM, STR is worth a lot less.

#23 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 10,478 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 20 August 2009 - 13:11

That would mean that, apart from BMW Sauber, an other team did not sign the new Concorde Agreement. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a new team. If, say, Toro Rosso didn't sign the CA either, their spot would be up for grabs, too. That is in a way unlikely, though, because without guaranteed income from FOM, STR is worth a lot less.

Maybe one of the existing teams is 'rebranding'...

#24 Ringo

Ringo
  • Member

  • 201 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 13:19

Or maybe Manor is being replaced... things have gone very quiet there of late.

#25 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 10,478 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 20 August 2009 - 13:34

Maybe one of the existing teams is 'rebranding'...

Renault > Briatore F1

#26 katmen

katmen
  • Member

  • 571 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 August 2009 - 13:37

Renault > Briatore F1

I think that this is very probable.

#27 Suchmacher

Suchmacher
  • Member

  • 67 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 13:47

Rumors are spreading about Renault pulling out and rebranding but nothing certain till now.
Anybody of you knows when is the announcement of the new teams is due by the FIA?

#28 bigginge

bigginge
  • Member

  • 558 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 14:06

Rumors are spreading about Renault pulling out and rebranding but nothing certain till now.


The thing is Renault have been 'pulling out of F1' since at least 2005 when Ghosn took over, and they've not gone yet. I'm sure they will go eventually, but I will wait for the press release :up:

#29 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,767 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 20 August 2009 - 14:08

Maybe one of the existing teams is 'rebranding'...

That could be, but that wouldn't make it a new signatory to the Concorde Agreement... unless, for argument's sake, Renault haven't signed the CA at all.

#30 dank

dank
  • Member

  • 5,191 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 20 August 2009 - 17:16

Or maybe Manor is being replaced... things have gone very quiet there of late.


Announcement due in the next few weeks regarding Richard Branson's involvement with them, making Virgin a title sponsor. So unlikely.

#31 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 17:22

Announcement due in the next few weeks regarding Richard Branson's involvement with them, making Virgin a title sponsor. So unlikely.

But the name of the team lodged with the FIA is Manor Grand Prix so if Virgin wanted to become the title sponsor it would have to change its name which would require the consent of the other teams (highly unlikely).

#32 Brawn BGP 001

Brawn BGP 001
  • Member

  • 2,597 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 17:26

But the name of the team lodged with the FIA is Manor Grand Prix so if Virgin wanted to become the title sponsor it would have to change its name which would require the consent of the other teams (highly unlikely).

Well we have "Red Bull Racing" already.

#33 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 17:30

Well we have "Red Bull Racing" already.

:confused:

#34 wewantourdarbyback

wewantourdarbyback
  • Member

  • 6,358 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 20 August 2009 - 17:42

Well we have "Red Bull Racing" already.

and?

#35 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 21 August 2009 - 00:13

But the name of the team lodged with the FIA is Manor Grand Prix so if Virgin wanted to become the title sponsor it would have to change its name which would require the consent of the other teams (highly unlikely).

The teams might have an issue if they wanted to go from Manor Grand Prix to Virgin Grand Prix. But if they renamed the team Virgin-Manor or Manor-Virgin or whatever, i would be no idferent that Renault beoming ING-Renault or McLaren becoming Vodafone-McLaren or Ferrari becoming Scuderia Ferrari Malboro or Williams becoming AT&T-Williams.

#36 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 August 2009 - 00:51

The teams might have an issue if they wanted to go from Manor Grand Prix to Virgin Grand Prix. But if they renamed the team Virgin-Manor or Manor-Virgin or whatever, i would be no idferent that Renault beoming ING-Renault or McLaren becoming Vodafone-McLaren or Ferrari becoming Scuderia Ferrari Malboro or Williams becoming AT&T-Williams.

Any change to include Virgin in Manor's name in any way will need the teams' approval and, given that FOTA is still displeased with the way Donnelly worked with Manor, there is zero chance that consent will be given. So acquiring a stake in Manor is yet another idiotic F1 decision from Virgin since they won't be able to even get their name in the title of the team as any owner/lead sponsor would normally be able to do.

#37 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 21 August 2009 - 00:56

Any change to include Virgin in Manor's name in any way will need the teams' approval and, given that FOTA is still displeased with the way Donnelly worked with Manor, there is zero chance that consent will be given. So acquiring a stake in Manor is yet another idiotic F1 decision from Virgin since they won't be able to even get their name in the title of the team as any owner/lead sponsor would normally be able to do.

FOTA's issue is with Donnelly, not Ricard Branson and Manor. I see no reason why they would object to it given that Branson was involved in the sport before Donnelly was involved with Manor, and denying Manor the right to intergrate the Virgin name would only drive a wedge between FOTA and Manor when FOTA are at the same time taking a line of supporting the new teams.

#38 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 August 2009 - 01:03

FOTA's issue is with Donnelly, not Ricard Branson and Manor. I see no reason why they would object to it given that Branson was involved in the sport before Donnelly was involved with Manor, and denying Manor the right to intergrate the Virgin name would only drive a wedge between FOTA and Manor when FOTA are at the same time taking a line of supporting the new teams.

:lol: :lol:
Given that Williams wouldn't even let Schumacher test for Ferrari, if you really think that FOTA will let Manor change its name you either know very very little about F1 politics or are (a good friend of) Marc Cutler/Richard Woods (both of which have made political gaffes which are enough to make anyone cringe :lol: ). In short, your response has precisely zero chance of being realised.

#39 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 21 August 2009 - 01:12

:lol: :lol:
Given that Williams wouldn't even let Schumacher test for Ferrari, if you really think that FOTA will let Manor change its name you either know very very little about F1 politics or are (a good friend of) Marc Cutler/Richard Woods (both of which have made political gaffes which are enough to make anyone cringe :lol: ). In short, your response has precisely zero chance of being realised.

I know it's difficult to operate on the assumption that you're wrong, but what are you going to do if every word you've said is wrong? Me, I know I'm going to have a massive I-told-you-so moment (I've even got an "I told you so" dance to go with it; you'll love it).

Advertisement

#40 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 August 2009 - 01:17

I know it's difficult to operate on the assumption that you're wrong, but what are you going to do if every word you've said is wrong? Me, I know I'm going to have a massive I-told-you-so moment (I've even got an "I told you so" dance to go with it; you'll love it).

If the Manor name change to Virgin goes before a FOTA vote and FOTA agrees to it I will definitely admit you were right. If FOTA votes against it (which anyone but the most ardent FIA supporter would accept is the most likely conclusion) then it will have been revealed to us all that you have the political aptitude of Richard Woods/Marc Cutler. FIA communications is effectively a syonym for warped view of reality.

#41 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 21 August 2009 - 01:29

You really want this war beween the FIA and FOTA to keep going, don't you?

And even if FOTA - or the other teams - block Virgin from becoming Manor's title sponsor, that doesn't stop Virgin from sponsoring them at all. They'll simply go from title sponsor to main sponsor. Besides, preventing Virgin from being the title sponsor by blocking the name change does nothing. If FOTA's dispute is with Donnelly - who may have introduced John Booth and Richard Branson to each other, but did not orchestrate the deal; someone close to him did - how exactly does blocking the name change affect him? It's a bit like saying "Okay, I have a problem with India, so I'm going to invade Pakistan!"

#42 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 August 2009 - 01:56

And even if FOTA - or the other teams - block Virgin from becoming Manor's title sponsor, that doesn't stop Virgin from sponsoring them at all. They'll simply go from title sponsor to main sponsor.

As I said above, yet another idiotic F1 decision from Virgin since they won't be able to even get their name in the title of the team as any owner/lead sponsor would normally be able to do.

Donnelly - who may have introduced John Booth and Richard Branson to each other, but did not orchestrate the deal; someone close to him did

Now we are getting to the bottom of this - it is evident from the statement above that either you are connected to Donnely (to know that he "did not orchestrate the deal") OR you make statements when you don't have the evidence to support them - i.e you are biased towards Donnely in this case. Some would say that these two options are actually one and the same :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Edited by mattorgen, 21 August 2009 - 02:06.


#43 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 21 August 2009 - 02:16

Actually, I'm just quoting an Autosport article (though I do confess it's from memory): namely, that Donnelly did not actually orchesrate the deal, only that he introduced Booth to Branson. Someone close to Donnelly did the actual deal, but I'm at a loss to explain how you think Donnelly - the object of FOTA's dispute - is hurt by this.

EDIT: And once again, I see you've successfully derailed a thread from its original subject with your semantics.

Edited by Captain Tightpants, 21 August 2009 - 02:16.


#44 wj_gibson

wj_gibson
  • Member

  • 2,130 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 21 August 2009 - 07:04

I can't help noticing that none of the new teams yet has a website.

#45 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 21 August 2009 - 07:08

Campos had one, but it was only available in Spanish. It's gone offline for the time being; if they make annoucements this weekend - I've heard they've decided not to for some reason - then it might go back up again.

#46 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 August 2009 - 14:51

Actually, I'm just quoting an Autosport article (though I do confess it's from memory): namely, that Donnelly did not actually orchesrate the deal, only that he introduced Booth to Branson. Someone close to Donnelly did the actual deal, but I'm at a loss to explain how you think Donnelly - the object of FOTA's dispute - is hurt by this.

EDIT: And once again, I see you've successfully derailed a thread from its original subject with your semantics.

In my best American accent 'whateverrr.'
I don't recall the Autosport article you refer to but that sounds like a good explanation. As for derailing the thread, I'm not the one that persisted with a presumption (that I want the FIA FOTA war to continue). I'm happy to wait and see whether your belief comes true that FOTA will agree to Manor changing its name - it will be a very good test of whether your view of F1 politics matches the real world.