Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

Teams that are in F1 foremost for racing


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

Poll: Teams that are in F1 foremost for racing (122 member(s) have cast votes)

Which teams are in F1 foremost for racing

  1. Red Bull (29 votes [5.14%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.14%

  2. Ferrari (70 votes [12.41%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 12.41%

  3. McLaren (79 votes [14.01%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 14.01%

  4. Lotus (32 votes [5.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.67%

  5. Mercedes (20 votes [3.55%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.55%

  6. Sauber (76 votes [13.48%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 13.48%

  7. Force India (39 votes [6.91%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.91%

  8. Williams (92 votes [16.31%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 16.31%

  9. Toro Rosso (19 votes [3.37%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.37%

  10. Caterham (41 votes [7.27%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.27%

  11. Marussia (38 votes [6.74%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.74%

  12. Renault (engine manufacturer) (17 votes [3.01%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.01%

  13. All are for other reasons (12 votes [2.13%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 2.13%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 August

August
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 29 October 2013 - 19:26

There has been threads about people's opinion on RBR and many people seem to think RBR are in F1 for PR, not for racing, and that's why RBR are disliked. But what do you think are teams that are in F1 foremost for racing. (I also included Renault as an engine manufacturer in the poll.)

 

Williams and Sauber are obvious cases. Privateers whose business' essence is racing.

 

Ferrari used to be F1 foremost for racing but I'm not so sure anymore. If Ferrari were still owned by Enzo, for sure racing would be their priority. But they are owned by Fiat, and I believe Fiat's aim in F1 is to promote Ferrari's road cars. On the other hand, it would be hard to imagine Ferrari leaving top-tier racing. I believe racing is still the priority for most people in Ferrari's board. And leaving top-tier racing would be a massive PR loss for Ferrari, their image is so much based on F1.

 

McLaren is somewhere between Williams/Sauber and Ferrari. They have their road car business. But I see it as a way to strengthen their brand as well as the finances of the group. Racing is still their priority. Of course, that can change if their road car business becomes larger. F1 would become more and more of a marketing tool. But like in Ferrari's case, leaving racing would be a PR loss for a brand that's so strongly associated with F1.

 

For car manufacturers, like Mercedes and Renault, it's natural to be involved in motorsports. Renault doesn't have the reputation of a sporty brand in my eyes, their presence feels more like aiming to present their excellence, hoping to boost sales. On the other hand, motorsports are a part of Mercedes image. Presence in top-level racing is important to keep up that reputation. On the other hand, I don't think presence in F1 is as necessary for them as it is for Ferrari. I think they might be in Le Mans if they weren't in F1. And I don't think racing is their priority, it's just a marketing tool.

 

And of course Caterham and Marussia are car brands, but those teams seem to aim for more brand awareness for those car brands.

 

Then there are Lotus and Force India. Lotus seems to be in investment for Genii Capital and it was an attempt to get more brand awareness for Lotus Cars. And I don't know what to think about Force India. It seems a bit like Mallya's toy, a way to get an own F1 team. But Mallya is a businessman and Sahara is a conglomerate company, so it may just be an investment for them.

 

I also want to have a word about Pirelli here. F1 is a way to keep up the motorsports image for tyre manufacturers. But with no tyre war you can't say a tyre manufacturer is in for racing, especially when they aren't trying to make the best tyres possible but what the FIA wants.


Edited by August, 29 October 2013 - 19:27.


Advertisement

#2 Vepe1995

Vepe1995
  • Member

  • 104 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 29 October 2013 - 19:50

On the top are ofcourse Williams and Sauber.

 

Then Caterham, because while it's a car manufacturer, it's a small one and the team started as an attempt to bring back Lotus to F1. Caterham is joined by Marussia for similar reasons.

 

McLaren and Ferrari are somewhere between those four, because they still have that feeling of pure race team, even though they can use F1 for promoting their road cars.

 

I also voted for Force India, but it's very low on the list, because, for me, it seems like a billionaire's toy, a hobby.

 

As for the rest... Red Bull (and Toro Rosso) seem to be only a marketing tool for Red Bull (the drink). The current Lotus just seems to be... Well, I don't know... Mercedes, well, I feel they use F1 as a marketing tool as well.



#3 sosidge

sosidge
  • Member

  • 1,631 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 29 October 2013 - 19:51

Newsflash - None of the cars run without sponsorship, all the cars are run for the sake of PR.



#4 SpartanChas

SpartanChas
  • Member

  • 734 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 29 October 2013 - 19:52

Well they all are. The Red Bull teams and Mercedes are the only debateable ones.

 

McLaren, Williams, Sauber, Force India, Caterham, Marussia and Ferrari obviously are.

 

Lotus the F1 team has absolutely nothing to do with Lotus the road car company. 


Edited by SpartanChas, 29 October 2013 - 19:53.


#5 Vepe1995

Vepe1995
  • Member

  • 104 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 29 October 2013 - 19:53

Newsflash - None of the cars run without sponsorship, all the cars are run for the sake of PR.

 

I believe you didn't understand what was asked. Ofcourse they need sponsorship, but the question is why they are in F1. Is Mercedes in F1 for the same reason as Williams? I would say no.



#6 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 1,316 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 29 October 2013 - 19:57

Well they all are. The Red Bull teams and Mercedes are the only debateable ones.

 

How many energy drink brands have their own junior program, two formula 1 teams and is pretty succesfull at it? You don't buy two teams for PR. Someone at Red Bull is very much into racing. 



#7 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,509 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 29 October 2013 - 20:00

I believe you didn't understand what was asked. 

I believe that you didn't understand sosidge's point.

 

They are all there to sell something or other.



#8 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,661 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 29 October 2013 - 20:06

Every freaking one of them. Even Renault as an engine supplier. 



#9 Vepe1995

Vepe1995
  • Member

  • 104 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 29 October 2013 - 20:12

I believe that you didn't understand sosidge's point.

 

They are all there to sell something or other.

 

Could be...

 

But anyways I feel there is still a difference... Some teams are there to sell something, and others are "forced" to sell something...



#10 KavB

KavB
  • Member

  • 1,079 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 29 October 2013 - 20:15

Force India ranks highly for me. It may be a billionaire's toy, but that's exactly why they are about the racing. If Mallya's passion is F1 then that basically sums up he's doing this for fun, for the passion of racing.

 

Plus they always go for the best drivers available to them unlike in recent years with the other midfield teams, Sauber and Williams. 



#11 Sin

Sin
  • Member

  • 1,949 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 29 October 2013 - 20:22

all of them.... you don't have to forget the history of some teams...



#12 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 1,316 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 29 October 2013 - 20:22

Plus they always go for the best drivers available to them unlike in recent years with the other midfield teams, Sauber and Williams. 

How do Sutil and Di Resta fit in this picture?



#13 Miggeex

Miggeex
  • Member

  • 467 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 29 October 2013 - 20:23

No matter how rich and greedy etc. the owners might be, most of them have chosen F1 as their way to market their brand, because they love racing and they want to make their money by doing the thing they love.



#14 Nobody

Nobody
  • Member

  • 1,410 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 29 October 2013 - 22:29

How many times have Ferrari, McLaren & Williams been renamed or 'branded over'?

 

Thought as much...


Edited by Nobody, 29 October 2013 - 22:29.


#15 sosidge

sosidge
  • Member

  • 1,631 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 29 October 2013 - 22:36

How many times have Ferrari, McLaren & Williams been renamed or 'branded over'?

 

Thought as much...

 

Considering their sponsors have regularly been part of their official team name, and at times the first part of it, more often than you are implying...



#16 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,368 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 29 October 2013 - 23:24

 

Ferrari used to be F1 foremost for racing but I'm not so sure anymore. If Ferrari were still owned by Enzo, for sure racing would be their priority. But they are owned by Fiat, and I believe Fiat's aim in F1 is to promote Ferrari's road cars. On the other hand, it would be hard to imagine Ferrari leaving top-tier racing. I believe racing is still the priority for most people in Ferrari's board. And leaving top-tier racing would be a massive PR loss for Ferrari, their image is so much based on F1.

 

 

Fiat owned 90% of the Ferrari shares already since 1969, so if you make the connection between Fiat ownership and promoting road car sales it's a bit easy to say that went that way from the moment The Old Man is no longer amongst us. 

 

I would say that Enzo raced cars to sell his road cars and sold road cars for the possibility to race, but I think the first thing came first for obvious and completely legimate reasons. Remember that his sportcar/prototype campaign was often pushed to the detriment of the F1 effort (e.g. in 1966, 1967 and 1970) and part of the reason behind that was the stronger connection between success in that kind of racing and the selling of fast road cars (the Ferrari 365 'Daytona'..... named after his 1-2-3 1967 Daytona success).

Top-tier reacing is indeed essential to Ferrari but, strange as it may sound to current ears, in the 1960s that meant first and foremost winning the 24h Le Mans race against the likes of Ford and Porsche - and partly because of the connection with their road car sale.


Edited by scheivlak, 29 October 2013 - 23:27.


#17 Nobody

Nobody
  • Member

  • 1,410 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 30 October 2013 - 00:26

I forgot Sauber as well



#18 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 30 October 2013 - 00:30

I don't think any of them are in it 100% for the promotion, it's a sliding scale. 

 

At one end the garagistes - Frank, Ron, Peter Sauber, and at the other Mercedes and Genii.

 

I'd say Red Bull are half and half.  Dietrich doesn't have to do anything, and if he was solely interested in sales he'd be running Lewis and Kimi...  :cat:



#19 Kingshark

Kingshark
  • Member

  • 2,944 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 30 October 2013 - 01:43

Williams & Sauber are obviously here foremost for racing.

 

Same goes with Caterham and Marussia.

 

Lotus F1 has nothing to do with Lotus cars, so they belong in the same breathe as the four teams above.

 

Force India is partially for racing, and partially for Mallya's self-promotion.

 

McLaren & Ferrari are somewhat in between. They can be used to promote their sports cars, although their primary goal in F1 is still for the racing itself.

 

Red Bull and Toro Rosso are here for self-promotion of the brand, and self-promotion of the brand only.

 

Mercedes I am undecided on.



Advertisement

#20 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 3,451 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 30 October 2013 - 02:36

I voted Williams and Sauber only. All of the rest have a commercial agenda outside of F1 to fulfil. 



#21 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,407 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 October 2013 - 02:50

They are all in it for the racing.  What kind of dumbcluck company would buy race cars to sell sodas or cars?  For the price of participation, you could have a sustained global sales campaign for years on end.  Not to mention the greatly reduced risks.  Ask Toyota & BMW...



#22 Brother Fox

Brother Fox
  • Member

  • 4,855 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 30 October 2013 - 02:52


Red Bull and Toro Rosso are here for self-promotion of the brand, and self-promotion of the brand only.

 

If this were true, it would be a lot easier and cheaper to just throw a bucket of cash at Mclaren for a paint job and naming rights (ie Red Bull Mclaren Mercedes)



#23 paulogman

paulogman
  • Member

  • 1,877 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 30 October 2013 - 03:13

I'm biased as a williams fan.

they seem to be in it for the racing, but then I remember they have a flourishing engineering concern doing all kinds of work for other companies outside f1 and I think that the f1 team is more of a marketing and pr exercise than any other team.

so there you go

they are and aren't....



#24 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 5,305 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 30 October 2013 - 03:16

I always vote first and look later for results on these polls, looks like my 3 picks are on the money.
Williams, Ferrari and Mclaren

#25 Kingshark

Kingshark
  • Member

  • 2,944 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 30 October 2013 - 05:09

If this were true, it would be a lot easier and cheaper to just throw a bucket of cash at Mclaren for a paint job and naming rights (ie Red Bull Mclaren Mercedes)

 

Then Red Bull would not get the constructors prize money, nor all the sponsorship money they receive from Infinity, Gillette, Pepe jeans, Pirelli, Geox, AT&T, etc...



#26 Brother Fox

Brother Fox
  • Member

  • 4,855 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 30 October 2013 - 05:26

well if they're trying to make money from racing ... id call that a racing team



#27 garagetinkerer

garagetinkerer
  • Member

  • 2,457 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 30 October 2013 - 06:46

While RBR may be "a drinks company" (a lot like to say this), but there's a lot more to them than that. They have been involved with motorsport for a fair bit and are a sponsor for a whole load of sports (and related activities). This much was pointed out by another member here in another thread, and i think the voting reflects that most don't grasp that bit about them, and their team(s) in F1.

 

I think pretty much everyone is involved mostly for the game... except Mercedes. Their sales last few years in some regions were down compared to BMW (who recently enough quit their F1 venture).

 

Everyone though, will be spending as much to only get whatever all they could get out of investing as much as they do... especially leading teams.



#28 handel

handel
  • Member

  • 415 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 30 October 2013 - 07:12

If you banned sponsorship tomorrow and you could only paint the car one solid colour, and cost caps were introduced to make racing affordable based on the prize money doled out, who would still be there?

 

I would seriously doubt that RBR, Caterham & Marrussia would be. However someone like FI would be I believe as although it's Mallya's toy, the fact that he likes to 'play' at losing millions with an F1 team is a clear indicator of their motivation.



#29 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 30 October 2013 - 08:46

Red Bull Racing = Jaguar Racing F1 Team = Stewart Grand Prix

They did not came to be because of Red Bull.

 

Whoever pays the bills is irrelevant to Red Bull Racing being as much a racing team as Sauber and Williams.

It saddens me to see so many ill-informed Formula One watchers here.


Edited by mnmracer, 30 October 2013 - 08:47.


#30 LuckyStrike1

LuckyStrike1
  • Member

  • 5,563 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 30 October 2013 - 08:52

ALL. OF. THEM. 

 

NONE. OF. THEM. 

 

Possibly one of the weirdest questions ever on this bulletin board. 



#31 fastwriter

fastwriter
  • Member

  • 173 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 30 October 2013 - 10:06

If you banned sponsorship tomorrow and you could only paint the car one solid colour, and cost caps were introduced to make racing affordable based on the prize money doled out, who would still be there?

 

 

Nobody


Edited by fastwriter, 30 October 2013 - 10:07.


#32 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,115 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 30 October 2013 - 11:38

All the teams are there for racing and racing foremost.

 

They have different avenues of achieving funding for their endeavors, however they are all there for racing. Now that they are closed franchise I do not see any team falling of the field without being replaced, so if Red Bull decide in 2016 that enough is enough, they will pull the sponsorship find a buyer and the team will be renamed accordingly. Somewhere there is a thread dealing with the genesis of each team, some of them stem from a time when anyone could actually enter the sport so something like:

 

Ferrari

McLaren

Williams

Marrusia

Caterham

Tyrrell ==> BAR ==> Honda ==> Brawn ==> Mercedes

Sauber ==> BMW ==> Sauber

Minardi ==> Toro Rosso

Jordan ==> Midland ==> Spyker ==> Force India

Stewart ==> Jaguar ==> Red Bull

Toleman ==> Benetton ==> Reanult ==> Lotus

 

I know that HRT did fall of a cliff, but that was the worst possible time economically someone 'just' needs to buy a license and we are up running again.

 

All teams are there for racing, all sponsors are there for PR.

 

:cool:



#33 KavB

KavB
  • Member

  • 1,079 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 30 October 2013 - 11:47

How do Sutil and Di Resta fit in this picture?

They obviously aren't in the position to attract drivers like Kimi, Lewis or even Nico Rosberg. Ferrari were rumoured to offer a discount on engines if they had taken Bianchi but they thought Sutil was the right choice for now. Di Resta and Sutil were the best drivers available to them, just as Hulkenberg was the best driver available for the 2012 season. 



#34 Spillage

Spillage
  • Member

  • 893 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 30 October 2013 - 11:52

I remember reading somewhere that Mateschitz always wanted to own an F1 team, but perhaps I am wrong about that. Certainly though, with all the sponsorship they do for different categories they aren't lacking in commitment; I find it difficult to believe they're winning back everything they put in.



#35 maximilian

maximilian
  • Member

  • 395 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 October 2013 - 12:34

Ferrari - NO. They are a manufacturer, and definitely make sure they push their street car sales.

McLaren - NO. They now also push their street car sales and numerous other business interests.

Williams - Maybe, but they have a bunch of other business interests as well, so their intents aren't 100% pure anymore

Marussia - NO. They are a manufacturer, and definitely make sure they push their street car sales.

Caterham - NO. Tony F wanted to get into the car business from the beginning (supposedly taking over Lotus, which failed), and this is his vehicle to do so.

Mercedes - NO.  You kidding me?  It's all about selling cars.

Sauber - YES. They are true privateers (post-BMW), who really don't seem to have much other purpose than racing.

Red Bull / Toro Rosso: NO.  Obvious marketing vehicle.

Force India - YES. They are true privateers, who really don't seem to have much other purpose than racing - and Vijay refuses paydrivers. For me, the purest racing team.

Lotus - Not originally, because Lotus Cars was involved, and there still is an obvious link with them. Also owned by an "investment" group, so I fail to see a pure interest in racing - Lotus is more of a business tool than anything.  So NO.



#36 MikeV1987

MikeV1987
  • Member

  • 1,418 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 30 October 2013 - 13:31

You can use the "they are only in it for PR" for just about every team on the grid, saying that some care about racing more than others is unfair tbh. The way this forum has been going lately, it makes me think this thread is just going to lead to a anti-Red bull shit storm.


Edited by MikeV1987, 30 October 2013 - 13:42.


#37 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 30 October 2013 - 13:46

I appreciate all manufacturers and sponsors for using Formula 1 to market themselves. One doesn't use Formula 1 without having passion for racing, RBR, Merc, et al compete with the dream to succeed, even Marrussia and Caterham have thesame dream.

And we all dream we could be there as well.



#38 chrisj

chrisj
  • Member

  • 578 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 30 October 2013 - 13:47

I think it's bulls**t to say Williams and Sauber are in F1 for racing more than other teams. It's a business for every single one of them, and if they didn't see enough of a return on their investment, they'd leave. Simple as that. If they were only in it for racing, they could all do karting or club events around England all summer long.



#39 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,422 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 30 October 2013 - 14:39

 

Force India - YES. They are true privateers, who really don't seem to have much other purpose than racing - and Vijay refuses paydrivers. For me, the purest racing team.

 

 

Should be:

Force Inda - NO. Obvious marketing vehicle (for Vijay's companies).



Advertisement

#40 sheogorath

sheogorath
  • Member

  • 300 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 30 October 2013 - 15:59

No matter how rich and greedy etc. the owners might be, most of them have chosen F1 as their way to market their brand, because they love racing and they want to make their money by doing the thing they love.

I doubt Mateschitz loves racing. Otherwise, he also loves X-trial, parachuting, acrobatic planes and whatever else Red Bull sponsors or has a team in

 

And that would be complete bullcrap.



#41 tifosi

tifosi
  • Member

  • 13,266 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 30 October 2013 - 16:05

 But they are owned by Fiat, and I believe Fiat's aim in F1 is to promote Ferrari's road cars.

 

  I question whether 90% of the people who own Ferrari road cars have even heard of F1, at least in the US.



#42 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 30 October 2013 - 16:11

  I question whether 90% of the people who own Ferrari road cars have even heard of F1, at least in the US.

You could question 90% of the people in the US who drink Red Bull, buy Mercedes road cars, etc., etc. have heard of F1. That's got nothing to do with marketing and everything to do with F1 in the US.



#43 SpartanChas

SpartanChas
  • Member

  • 734 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 30 October 2013 - 16:39

I doubt Mateschitz loves racing. Otherwise, he also loves X-trial, parachuting, acrobatic planes and whatever else Red Bull sponsors or has a team in

 

And that would be complete bullcrap.

 

Should be:

Force India - NO. Obvious marketing vehicle (for Vijay's companies).

 

There have got to be easier ways to promote a brand than to buy a backmarker (Spyker) or struggling (Jaguar) F1 team and turn it around.



#44 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,752 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 30 October 2013 - 17:07

If Mercedes is in it for selling cars, Ferrari is as well. And, as some posters have already said, Ferrari was probably never in F1 just for the "sport", as much as the image of Enzo has been romanticized.

 

People have been trying to discredit Red Bull in F1, especially since they are dominating, but it has to be taken into account that they have achieved great success in a wide range of other sports, either by competing directly or sponsoring certain athletes. I think that they have done a particularly admirable job not only in promoting but also in helping to push the limits, especially of extreme sports. I wouldn't be surprised if their company mission and culture include something about this. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised either if they, as a company, don't come on top of the likes of FIAT and McLaren, just as on the race track.



#45 August

August
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 30 October 2013 - 17:25

My bad, I realised I included Renault as an engine manufacturer in the poll but not Cosworth. I think Cosworth is in F1 for the love of the sport but selling engines is also a business for them.

 

I'm biased as a williams fan.

they seem to be in it for the racing, but then I remember they have a flourishing engineering concern doing all kinds of work for other companies outside f1 and I think that the f1 team is more of a marketing and pr exercise than any other team.

so there you go

they are and aren't....

 

I think Williams is still foremost a racing team. But to improve their finances, they use their technical expertise and offer engineering services.

 

And I think that's so far the case with McLaren and their road car business. But if the group's chairman changes to a businessman, I think they become more of a car manufacturer that promotes themselves by competing in F1.

 

And in Williams' case, if Frank were replaced as the chairman by a businessman, for sure it would be more like Lotus, a team that's an invesment for some investors.



#46 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 887 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 30 October 2013 - 17:38

My own arbitrary (and not necessarily straight) line in the sand:

 

There are owners who started racing, learned about running a team in the lower ranks, built upon their own successes, and finally got into F1.

 

Williams

Sauber

McLaren

Ferarri

 

Then there are owners who let other people do all of that, and bought them out.

 

Red Bull : Bought Paul Stewarts hard work

Toro Rosso:  Bought Giancarlo Minardi's hard work

Force India:  Bought Eddie Jordan's hard work

Mercedes:  Bought Ken Tyrell's hard work

Marussia:  Bought John Manor's hard work

Lotus:  Bought Ted Toleman's hard work

Caterham:  Bought Litespeed's hard work

 

I'm not saying that the second group doesn't love racing, but I have no love for those teams.



#47 FerrariV12

FerrariV12
  • Member

  • 345 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 30 October 2013 - 17:39

If Mercedes is in it for selling cars, Ferrari is as well. And, as some posters have already said, Ferrari was probably never in F1 just for the "sport", as much as the image of Enzo has been romanticized.

....

 

Even if we can't say for certain the often repeated line that "Ferrari sold road cars to fund its racing, [other manufacturers] went racing to sell their road cars" is 100% true, it is a fact that Scuderia Ferrari existed before Ferrari had any road cars to advertise.

 

Of course that was then, and I don't doubt that their priorities may have shifted slightly over the decades, especially once Fiat got involved - or even before (I remember seeing an interview, think it was with John Surtees, that F1 took a back seat for Ferrari every year until after Le Mans was over - which of course was more relevant to showcasing their road-going equipment)

 

I apply the same logic to McLaren and Williams with their more recent diversification, I can't read the minds of Ron Dennis or Frank Williams but if I had to guess I'd say they went into other ventures to strengthen their companies finances for the benefit of their racing teams, as opposed to going into supercars and hybrid power for the hell of it and keeping the pre-existing team around just to promote them.



#48 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 887 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 30 October 2013 - 17:40

 Ferrari was probably never in F1 just for the "sport", as much as the image of Enzo has been romanticized.

 

 

 

Enzo started Scuderia Ferrari as a racing team in 1929.  Didn't start building road cars as Ferrari S.p.A until 1947.  I don't think he was using racing to sell road cars when he started.


Edited by Frank Tuesday, 30 October 2013 - 17:44.


#49 stillOrange

stillOrange
  • Member

  • 925 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 30 October 2013 - 17:45

What's Williams stock market floatation? Can't be anywhere 50%?
Or should I ask, how much ownership is still in Frank's hands? He might be there for racing, other shareholders are most likely there to make money from the investment they made.

#50 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 30 October 2013 - 18:31

I think there's a danger of confusing where the money comes from with the people - engineers, designers, race directors etc - who actually compete.

 

All of the guys who work in the teams to build and run the cars are in it 100% for the racing. It's also their job.

 

Does it matter that much if the money is pumped in by a soft drink maker, a car maker, or a wealthy privateer? The person with the money doesn't build the car, they just pay the people that do. We all know that behind the current Mercedes and Lotus teams are the Brackley and Enstone team of BAR/Honda and Benneton/Renault days.