Jump to content


Photo

Ecclestone puts financial pressure on new F1 teams


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#1 brabham bt50

brabham bt50
  • Member

  • 327 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 08 January 2010 - 12:16

Ecclestone has put financial pressure on new F1 teams for 2010, according to an article in the Autosport magazine.
F1's 4 new squads must demonstrate financial stability and ensure they have enough money to complete
the 2010 season or face the possibility of punitive fines or financial penalties if they do not, from the sport's autorities.
Stefan Grand Prix is ready to take the place of any failing team. Ecclestone is to introduce a system of punitive fines
for any team that fails to appear at a race. This is besides the articles laid down in the Concorde Agreement.

This threat could call the bluff of any team that is struggling to raise its running budget. If one of the new F1 teams is
to fall by the wayside, Ecclestone is keen for it to happen sooner rather than later. I have in mind the Ecclestone
December 2009 remark about 24 cars on the F1 grid in 2010 in relation to this information

For now, I think Campos, USF1 and Lotus ( Petronas has gone to Mercedes GP ), but especially Campos and
USF1 are in danger.

What is your opinion ?

Advertisement

#2 korzeniow

korzeniow
  • Member

  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 January 2010 - 12:18

Why USf1 is in danger?

#3 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 08 January 2010 - 12:21

What is your opinion ?

I think it's completely reasonable. Bernie Ecclestone and FOM are providing a lot of financial support to the new teams as part of an initiative to make it easier for teams to join the sport. If you were in his shoes, wouldn't you want some guarantee that your money was not going to go to waste on a team that withdrew after four or five races?

#4 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 08 January 2010 - 12:21

1. FIA asked for the smaller teams.
2. FIA said the costs IS lower.

I say let the teams go bust, but give no fine. But restrict the freedom of FIA.

#5 brabham bt50

brabham bt50
  • Member

  • 327 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 08 January 2010 - 12:21

Why USf1 is in danger?


It has yet to sign a sponsor ( paying ) and a driver, and it is January 8th 2010.

#6 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 January 2010 - 12:28

F1's 4 new squads must demonstrate financial stability and ensure they have enough money to complete
the 2010 season or face the possibility of punitive fines or financial penalties if they do not, from the sport's autorities.


Nothing new... it's even in the regs when a team applies to compete. There's no provision for a team going there to run one race, or afew ones..

#7 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,273 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 08 January 2010 - 12:35

Well, they'll certainly be in a lot greater financial trouble if they have to pay out to Bernie.

Just let them skip the odd race if they are in trouble.

#8 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 08 January 2010 - 12:48

Let them skip? I do not think so.

As long as a team enrolled and accepted to take part they MUST continue until they are not able to.


...



Or are we talking about the same thing?

Edited by One, 08 January 2010 - 12:49.


#9 Sausage

Sausage
  • Member

  • 1,805 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 08 January 2010 - 12:51

It's kind of sad isn't it? When it was anounced the grid would be increased and F1 would become cheaper they had this bidding and the FIA said they made a big investigation and everything to ensure that only the best and financially stable got into F1. But now the time is here for them to actually come in and now there is a lot of doubt even by Bernie and Co. So either it was a dumb idea in the first place or the investigations were quite terrible.

Oh well maybe it'll turn out alright when it gets going

#10 Garagiste

Garagiste
  • Member

  • 3,796 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 08 January 2010 - 12:52

A bit of off season non-news I think. I'd have imagined this was tightened up after the embarrassing spectacle of Arrows turning up and doing one qualy lap so as to have "competed" in the GP.

#11 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 08 January 2010 - 12:53

or the investigations were quite terrible.




:rolleyes:

... FIA favored to make a protege...

#12 korzeniow

korzeniow
  • Member

  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 January 2010 - 12:57

It has yet to sign a sponsor ( paying ) and a driver, and it is January 8th 2010.


They have working factory (seen on videos and photos) and confirmed this: http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/80776

Maby they have some delay but form me it seems that they wil racing in 2010 :)

#13 Simon Says

Simon Says
  • Member

  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 08 January 2010 - 12:58

Why doesn't Bernie allow other teams make F1 cars and sell them to small teams. I'm sure if USF1 had a Brawn or Red Bull car, they'd attract alot of sponsership. And it's a good way to let the big teams make some money in F1 to reduce costs.

#14 alfista

alfista
  • Member

  • 997 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 08 January 2010 - 16:17

Bernie wants to get rid of Max's legacy? If so, it's a positive sign. No-one needs new Andrea Modas.

#15 Demo.

Demo.
  • Member

  • 1,205 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 08 January 2010 - 16:32

Ecclestone has put financial pressure on new F1 teams for 2010, according to an article in the Autosport magazine.
F1's 4 new squads must demonstrate financial stability and ensure they have enough money to complete
the 2010 season or face the possibility of punitive fines or financial penalties if they do not, from the sport's autorities.
Stefan Grand Prix is ready to take the place of any failing team. Ecclestone is to introduce a system of punitive fines
for any team that fails to appear at a race. This is besides the articles laid down in the Concorde Agreement.

This threat could call the bluff of any team that is struggling to raise its running budget. If one of the new F1 teams is
to fall by the wayside, Ecclestone is keen for it to happen sooner rather than later. I have in mind the Ecclestone
December 2009 remark about 24 cars on the F1 grid in 2010 in relation to this information

For now, I think Campos, USF1 and Lotus ( Petronas has gone to Mercedes GP ), but especially Campos and
USF1 are in danger.

What is your opinion ?


the rules have always stated you sign up for a whole year not just part of it.
The teams agree to that when they apply and are accepted in
as per rule 13.2 of the sporting regulations
f) an undertaking by the applicant to participate in every Event with the number of cars and drivers
entered.

#16 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 08 January 2010 - 16:48

In my innocence I thought the contracts to compete were already signed, so one party wouldn't be able to just start adding extra terms. Though with Bernie...

#17 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 08 January 2010 - 16:57

In 1987 Ligier and Larrousse were fined by FIA(FISA) for failing to participate in the first race. Scuderia Italia brought a F3000 car to the first race of 1988 to avoid a fine.

It's not something new.

#18 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,717 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 08 January 2010 - 17:03

Bernie wants to get rid of Max's legacy? If so, it's a positive sign. No-one needs new Andrea Modas.

Awwww, I miss those sorts of teams.

And you never know where back-of-gridness might lead. Frank Williams was nicknamed Wanker for good reason, Nick Wirth's Simtek team is effectively back there now, and even some of the Life people ended up at Ferrari.

#19 Aubwi

Aubwi
  • Member

  • 452 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 08 January 2010 - 17:08

Terrible idea. I'd hate to see any of the new teams drop out mid-season, but this will also discourage other new teams from joining in the future.

Advertisement

#20 alfista

alfista
  • Member

  • 997 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 08 January 2010 - 19:14

Awwww, I miss those sorts of teams.

And you never know where back-of-gridness might lead. Frank Williams was nicknamed Wanker for good reason, Nick Wirth's Simtek team is effectively back there now, and even some of the Life people ended up at Ferrari.


That's all true but those teams simply stepped in and were not included after political maneuvres. If we had Prodrive and Lola instead of USF1 and Manor then I probably had another views.

Edited by alfista, 08 January 2010 - 19:15.


#21 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,683 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 January 2010 - 19:48

Why doesn't Bernie allow other teams make F1 cars and sell them to small teams. I'm sure if USF1 had a Brawn or Red Bull car, they'd attract alot of sponsership. And it's a good way to let the big teams make some money in F1 to reduce costs.


Because that has absolutely nothing to do with Bernie.

#22 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 08 January 2010 - 20:03

Why doesn't Bernie allow other teams make F1 cars and sell them to small teams. I'm sure if USF1 had a Brawn or Red Bull car, they'd attract alot of sponsership. And it's a good way to let the big teams make some money in F1 to reduce costs.




Concorde agreement and the FIA F1 WC.

#23 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,877 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 January 2010 - 21:21

A bit of off season non-news I think. I'd have imagined this was tightened up after the embarrassing spectacle of Arrows turning up and doing one qualy lap so as to have "competed" in the GP.


its far more likely that the arrows saga will repeat if the teams face huge fines for non apearence. personaly i think its the wrong way to go. and surely the finacial aid the new teams have got will be payed out over the course of the year ?

#24 Bouncing Pink Ball

Bouncing Pink Ball
  • Member

  • 733 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 08 January 2010 - 21:50

Much as I like the idea of new teams – it's always fun to see what they bring and what sort of potential they show – I think it's sensible to ensure they are prepared for the actual cost of racing a full season. If any are financially uncertain, now would be the time to make it known before it becomes embarrassing, not to mention monetarily ruinous, should the situation really be that dire for some.

Campos and USF1 seem the two most likely to stumble on the funding side but really, any of the newbies, plus a couple of the veteran teams, could find the money tight by mid season. What would be great for any of them would be to arrive with either, best case scenario, a terrific car or, barring that, a interesting team personality or story that grabs sponsor attention. Ironically, it's financially more secure Virgin that seem the best, thus far, at getting their names out there, much in the Red Bull-ish, in your face style. Now me, I kind of prefer the dignity of more businesslike teams but I can't help liking Virgin too, right now at least



#25 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 08 January 2010 - 22:32

Terrible idea. I'd hate to see any of the new teams drop out mid-season, but this will also discourage other new teams from joining in the future.

How will that discourage the new teams? Ecclestone is - for once - being perfectly reasonable. Like I said: what you you do differently in his postion? I think FOM is investing something like ten million dollars in each of the four new teams; that's forty million all up. Wouldn't you want peace of mind knowing that if you're investing in these teams, they'll stay in the sport?

I bet you didn't even read the article. You proably saw Ecclestone doing one thing, and so you were opposed to it on principle.

#26 brabham bt50

brabham bt50
  • Member

  • 327 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 08 January 2010 - 22:47

Campos is already for sale !!!!!!!!

According to the reliable ( Autosport editor/ part-time journalist ) Dieter Rencken.

http://www.motorspor...t_10010814.html

#27 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,683 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 09 January 2010 - 00:57

Campos is already for sale !!!!!!!!

According to the reliable ( Autosport editor/ part-time journalist ) Dieter Rencken.

http://www.motorspor...t_10010814.html


You would have thought that part of the due diligence by the FIA for the new teams was that they were financially viable. They really shouldnt be saying they don't have funding at this stage.

#28 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 09 January 2010 - 01:06

You would have thought that part of the due diligence by the FIA for the new teams was that they were financially viable. They really shouldnt be saying they don't have funding at this stage.

It was - but Campos were banking on a budget cap, and they were known to complain about it not going through. But I don' think they're up for sale because they still expect to be ready for the Feburary testing. My bet is that they're looking for some investment from someone like Barry Walsh or Tony Teixiera.

#29 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,683 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 09 January 2010 - 01:10

It was - but Campos were banking on a budget cap, and they were known to complain about it not going through. But I don' think they're up for sale because they still expect to be ready for the Feburary testing. My bet is that they're looking for some investment from someone like Barry Walsh or Tony Teixiera.


The budget cap, or lack of, doesnt change their current position, just their competiveness moving forward.

#30 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 09 January 2010 - 01:20

The budget cap, or lack of, doesnt change their current position, just their competiveness moving forward.

We don't even know if the team is actually up for sale or if Campos is just looking for investment. They've said overnight that they'll be ready for the first tests, and with those tests just three weeks away, it's getting to the point where if they were in serious financial trouble, they'd be admitting to it. This isn't the first time they've been believed to be in trouble - back when Campos made his deal with the Murcia govenrment, some English news sources suggested that this was because Dallara couldn't finish the car and that Campos were going to do it themselves with whatever they could get from local investors.Joe Saward seems to be much more realistic about it all:

There has also been talk of the two men [Adrian Campos and his partner Jose Ramon Carabante] selling a share in the company to secure the funding needed. One name that has been mentioned is that of Tony Teixeira, the former boss of A1GP, who seems to still have plenty of money to burn.

I'd say any cash that is imminently needed would actually be needed for future use, for stuff like aero upgrades over the course of a season. Because if the car isn't finished by now (short of the final touches), then it's not going to be finished at all.

#31 brabham bt50

brabham bt50
  • Member

  • 327 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 January 2010 - 12:52

That does sound very wrong for Campos, uncertainty, even before the start.

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/80780

#32 brabham bt50

brabham bt50
  • Member

  • 327 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 January 2010 - 13:17

The weakest of the 4 new teams is Campos, most likely to fall and not be on the F1 2010 starting grid

Adrian Campos has contacted several potential investors in the last few weeks to find the money to keep paying the bills to Dallara - the company that is building the chassis for the Spanish outfit - including Tony Teixeira and Ultimate's Brian Walsh, but hasn't been able to conclude a deal. With the construction of the second chassis and enough spare parts to go testing and racing looming, Campos needs to find a large amount of money as soon as possible or risk delaying the Italian company's work even further. According to sources close to Dallara payments have been delayed, with the company slowing down the development of the car and it's now certain Campos won't be able to attend the Valencia test at the start of February even if it finds all the money it needs to run the 2010 campaign quickly.

Today in article on Grand Prix.com

#33 JPW

JPW
  • Member

  • 3,335 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 10 January 2010 - 13:22

What's the news there, it's the same "news" that has been doing the rounds for days and why are you posting it over and over in so many threads?

#34 brabham bt50

brabham bt50
  • Member

  • 327 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 January 2010 - 13:58

What's the news there, it's the same "news" that has been doing the rounds for days and why are you posting it over and over in so many threads?


To me this

According to sources close to Dallara payments have been delayed, with the company slowing down the development of the car and it's now certain Campos won't be able to attend the Valencia test at the start of February even if it finds all the money it needs to run the 2010 campaign quickly.

is the first sign that things are not well over there at Campos, I think even very wrong. I have not seen this particular piece of news before, it is from an article today on GrandPrix.com.

#35 ferruccio

ferruccio
  • Member

  • 446 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 10 January 2010 - 14:32

It has yet to sign a sponsor ( paying ) and a driver, and it is January 8th 2010.


Neither does Lotus F1 and adding to that they've committed to pay their expensive drivers.

So apologies for not seeing the logic above


#36 brabham bt50

brabham bt50
  • Member

  • 327 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 January 2010 - 15:46

Neither does Lotus F1 and adding to that they've committed to pay their expensive drivers.

So apologies for not seeing the logic above


Lotus has government ( Malaysian ? ) backing.


#37 Tufty

Tufty
  • Member

  • 4,899 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 10 January 2010 - 18:43

Arrows 2002 ring any bells?

#38 ferruccio

ferruccio
  • Member

  • 446 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:14

Lotus has government ( Malaysian ? ) backing.


No they don't. The Malaysian govt are distancing themselves from the team because of the uproar from taxpayers from day 1! The team is privately funded by Tony Fernandes and his biz partners. No money from Lotus. No money from Proton and now no money from Petronas. And when Petronas announced the deal with Merc, Lotus F1 moaned that they now will look for sponsorship outside Malaysia DUH??!

They have yet to announce ANY sponsors. Thus the question I posed about USF1 and how they are judged and singled out to be weak.

#39 Zdeus

Zdeus
  • Member

  • 309 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 11 January 2010 - 09:54

How will that discourage the new teams? Ecclestone is - for once - being perfectly reasonable. Like I said: what you you do differently in his postion? I think FOM is investing something like ten million dollars in each of the four new teams; that's forty million all up. Wouldn't you want peace of mind knowing that if you're investing in these teams, they'll stay in the sport?

I bet you didn't even read the article. You proably saw Ecclestone doing one thing, and so you were opposed to it on principle.


I think Ecclestone is doing exactly what investors do. If an investor puts money in a start up , he/she wants to ensure that money is put to the right use and yields results. Otherwise what is to stop rouge people to take the money and run ?

This is standard investing practice and one used to protect investor interests.



Advertisement

#40 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 11 January 2010 - 09:58

I think Ecclestone is doing exactly what investors do. If an investor puts money in a start up , he/she wants to ensure that money is put to the right use and yields results. Otherwise what is to stop rouge people to take the money and run ?

Exactly. The problem is that with the anti-Ecclestone mentality, people are constructing it as The Continuing Tyranny of Mr. E, despite the fact that any sensible man - themselves included - would do exactly as he's doing.

#41 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 9,534 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 11 January 2010 - 10:00

So Max's grand plan to drive out the evil greedy manufacturer teams who were capable of raising budgets that would dwarf his proposed budget cap and instead invite in teams, after oh, a really detailed and fair tender process, who can't even raise a budget close to the proposed budget cap had it gone ahead. All to make F1 so much stronger, apparently.

What a frickin nonsense.



#42 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 11 January 2010 - 10:14

So Max's grand plan to drive out the evil greedy manufacturer teams who were capable of raising budgets that would dwarf his proposed budget cap and instead invite in teams, after oh, a really detailed and fair tender process, who can't even raise a budget close to the proposed budget cap had it gone ahead. All to make F1 so much stronger, apparently.

What a frickin nonsense.

Max wanted to end the rampant spending. Honda and Toyota were spending as much as four hundred million dollars and getting virtually no return on investment. The manufacturer arms war would have killed Formula 1 in the middle of an econoic crisis. That's why the budget cap was itroduced. And the new teams were selected the way they were because, at the time of the process, it was belieed the budget cap was going ahead.

And yes, the selection process was boh detailed and fair: potential teams had to submit a full assessment of how they inteded to fund themselves. A shortlist of five teams was selected and presented to Mosley, who ultiamtely chose the three who went on. It was impossible for Msley to have been the only man involved in the process are you are so plainly implying, since he was off dealing with FOTA at the time.

#43 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,717 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 11 January 2010 - 10:19

The problem with the whole thing is simply why there is franchising in the first place, teams ought to be allowed to pitch up and do their best. Just because Bernie's OCD can't stand an Andrea Moda does not mean that they should not be entitled to have a go. Like Minardi did way back when. They were an embarrassment for years, sub-Osella level, but clawed their way into the points. Literally no chance of a thematic successor like Carlin doing that as they have to comply with someone else's due diligence first.

But where can a junior team gain experience? Running a spec car in a spec formula? Hardly the best prep. Minardi and Osella built their own Formula 2 cars. They survived. Forti and Pacific did not. They died.

#44 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,273 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 11 January 2010 - 10:53

The problem with the whole thing is simply why there is franchising in the first place, teams ought to be allowed to pitch up and do their best. Just because Bernie's OCD can't stand an Andrea Moda does not mean that they should not be entitled to have a go. Like Minardi did way back when. They were an embarrassment for years, sub-Osella level, but clawed their way into the points. Literally no chance of a thematic successor like Carlin doing that as they have to comply with someone else's due diligence first.

But where can a junior team gain experience? Running a spec car in a spec formula? Hardly the best prep. Minardi and Osella built their own Formula 2 cars. They survived. Forti and Pacific did not. They died.


Agreed. If someone wants to have a go, let them have a go. F1 shouldn't be a private club for the elite. If a team has a car that is within the rules and a driver that has the correct license then why shouldn't they be allowed to try and qualify? I wish F1 could return to the open sport that we had before Max and Bernie started turning the sport into a club for the manufacturers. Why should there be franchises? Why not let anyone qualify and then let the 26 quickest race?

I know exactly what will be used to counter this. Someone will say that it isn't financially feasible to run a team that will sometimes fail to qualify. It might look like that. But why put a rule in place to limit teams? If someone thinks they can do it then why not let them? If they are quick enough to qualify then they have earnt a spot in the race on merit. It should be a meritocracy. Reward success rather than rewarding those who sit on their laurels, knowing they have guaranteed grid positions.

#45 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 11 January 2010 - 11:01

The FIA can't just take anyone to the grid. There's only a limited number of grid spaces available, and there's usually more parties interested in a grid spacethan there are grid spaces to go around. In 2009, the FIA opened up three gird places and reveiced fifteen entries. In 2007, they opened up one space an received twenty-two prposals. What are they supposed to do in that position? Take a weak team, someone who will invariably struggle and constantly runs the risk of withdrawing on the grounds that everyone should have a go? Or should they grant those available grid positions to the teams who they feel will stand the best chance of success and will remain in the sport for years?

The answer is a no-brainer. Campos may not appear to be the strongest team right now, but they stand a better chance at success than the likes of myf1dream.com ...

#46 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,273 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 11 January 2010 - 11:03

The FIA can't just take anyone to the grid. There's only a limited number of grid spaces available, and there's usually more parties interested in a grid spacethan there are grid spaces to go around.


Qualifying. Let everyone qualify and the fastest 26 start the race. Simples.

#47 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 11 January 2010 - 11:07

Honda and Toyota were spending as much as four hundred million dollars and getting virtually no return on investment.


But that was their choice. Furthermore, to state they were getting 'virtually no return on investment' is wide of the mark.

The problem with the 'out with the manufacturers/in with the privateers' concept is obvious: sponsors are not interested in association with Campos, or USF1, they are interested in association with Mercedes Benz, McLaren, Ferrari et al.




#48 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,717 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 11 January 2010 - 11:09

The FIA can't just take anyone to the grid. There's only a limited number of grid spaces available, and there's usually more parties interested in a grid spacethan there are grid spaces to go around.

And whose fault's that? In the past teams had a go even when pre-qualifying was necessary. Why have we gone BACKward since 1989 in terms of circuit facilities?

#49 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 11 January 2010 - 11:11

Qualifying. Let everyone qualify and the fastest 26 start the race. Simples.

That would last all of one race. Spaonsors will not invest if there's no chance the teams they lend their names to cannot make it to the grid. It might have worked in the 1980s and 1990s, but that was at a time when you could spend five hundred thousand dollars and make it to the grid. Today, Campos are struggling with a budget nearly one hundred times greater than that.

But that was their choice. Furthermore, to state they were getting 'virtually no return on investment' is wide of the mark.

Yes, but things were getting out of control. Manufacturers would pour vast resources into teams in the hopes of getting points and race wins, but then withdrawing when nothing was happening. Manufacturers aren't really interested in racing: they're in Formula One for the image, or for the technology first. Racing comes second. But for teams like Williams and Brawn, racing is the entire point of their existence. If they're not racing, there is no point. I find it pretty telling that almost all manufacturers in the modern era back out after a few years, but privateer groups like Williams remain on the grid for decades.

Manufacturer spending would have killed the sport.

#50 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 9,534 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 11 January 2010 - 11:27

Max wanted to end the rampant spending. Honda and Toyota were spending as much as four hundred million dollars and getting virtually no return on investment. The manufacturer arms war would have killed Formula 1 in the middle of an econoic crisis. That's why the budget cap was itroduced. And the new teams were selected the way they were because, at the time of the process, it was belieed the budget cap was going ahead.


Max has ended the rampant spending by bringing in teams that can't raise enough money to compete, let alone the level of the budget cap. That is a nonsense.

I don't believe Campos or USF1 were a better proposal on paper, than Prodrive, sorry.