Jump to content


Photo

BMW, Honda 80s versus BMW, Honda 2006


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 7,825 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 03 August 2012 - 14:17

In the 80s many car companies built own F1 engines, like Honda, Alfa Romeo, BMW and Porsche.

In the last years there were also many car companies in F1, like Toyota, Honda, BMW and Ford - but all with own racing teams! In the 80s there were no own racing teams, they supported teams like McLaren or Williams.

Why is there a difference between the 80s and the last years?

My opinion: The rules are very regulated that there are not allowed many various engine concepts. So there is not that big challenge on the engine side, engines are not as important as in the 80s. So they had to build also chassis.

Advertisement

#2 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 03 August 2012 - 14:28

I think it was more a shift in business. If you're going to spend all that money on something, you might as well own it. 'Equity' became a sponsorship buzzword as the 2000s progressed.

British American Tobacco took that approach and gradually sold shares in the teams to Honda until it was fully Honda.

On the other hand, you are then on the hook for expenses when you pull out, when Honda did. Whereas someone like ING or a normal engine supplier can just leave and isn't responsible for what happens afterwards.

That all said I'm surprised people like Ford/Cosworth, Honda, Toyota, and BMW didn't stay in F1 with their engines. Particularly the latter manufacturers with the engine freeze. The engines were still useful, just sell them to teams. Which is basically what Renault does.

#3 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,542 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 03 August 2012 - 19:04

If you're going to spend all that money on something, you might as well own it.


Err, yes. Recall that McLaren teased Mercedes, and that when Honda gifted Brawn an F1 team, Mercedes were quick to sweep in. Given that Mercedes and McLaren have different long term interests, it was a logical happening.

Returning to history, manufacturers dip into F1 with their own chassis if they feel that other categories (the FIA/DTM version of super saloons or Le Mans style sports prototype racing) do not meet their marketing requirements. F1 has never been the be all and end all of motor sport; you don't have to be a rallying historian to recall when it was the subject of mass advertising campaigns for volume car manufacturers.


#4 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 9,699 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 04 August 2012 - 15:36

There can only be one winner of a race or a championship. If a manufacturer doesn't win they are better off not being there at all.

Think about it: Have Toyota benefited in any way from their involvement in Formula 1? The lack of success won't have increased sales.

They might gain a marginal benefit from the increased exposure of the brand but trackside advertising would be more cost effective. The only possible benefit lies in training their engineers to make decisions themselves under tight time constraints.

Surely the Renault approach must be cost effective - a race is won by a Red Bull-Renault, a Lotus-Renault or a Williams-Renault while it is lost by a Red Bull, Lotus or Williams.

And current TV coverage which always mentions the drivers and rarely mentions the cars and even then hardly ever mentions the engines.

Edited by D-Type, 05 August 2012 - 16:04.


#5 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 05 August 2012 - 12:48

I dont know that Renault get that much, if any, credit for those teams winning. Though it gives them the ability to shout about it in advertisements. The main beneficiary is Infiniti(a subdivision of Renault-Nissan) via their Red Bull involvement.

#6 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,898 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 05 August 2012 - 20:21

I dont know that Renault get that much, if any, credit for those teams winning. Though it gives them the ability to shout about it in advertisements. The main beneficiary is Infiniti(a subdivision of Renault-Nissan) via their Red Bull involvement.

I haven't seen any use of the Infiniti link for promotion or marketing. But that is just in the UK where the Infiniti brand isn't used. Are they using RBR successes to promote Infiniti in other markets?

#7 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 2,823 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 05 August 2012 - 21:29

I haven't seen any use of the Infiniti link for promotion or marketing. But that is just in the UK where the Infiniti brand isn't used. Are they using RBR successes to promote Infiniti in other markets?

Have you looked at Infiniti's UK website recently? http://www.infiniti....?cmp=google_ppc

#8 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 05 August 2012 - 22:39

I haven't seen any use of the Infiniti link for promotion or marketing. But that is just in the UK where the Infiniti brand isn't used. Are they using RBR successes to promote Infiniti in other markets?


I saw a print ad in the (I think)Times a few weeks ago, but that may have been a Brit GP thing. They run some Vettel-Infiniti ads in America from time to time, mainly around race broadcasts.

#9 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 2,823 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 06 August 2012 - 09:10

Have you looked at Infiniti's UK website recently? http://www.infiniti....?cmp=google_ppc

Here's another example of Infiniti not using the Red Bull link! http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

#10 FredF1

FredF1
  • Member

  • 2,284 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:36

I saw a print ad in the (I think)Times a few weeks ago, but that may have been a Brit GP thing. They run some Vettel-Infiniti ads in America from time to time, mainly around race broadcasts.



British Eurosport were running the advert in almost every break during their coverage of the Tour de France.