Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

In summary: the FIA's record of choosing new teams


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#1 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 24 October 2014 - 10:58

From 2010:

 

USF1 - went bust before producing a car.  They did however produce a toaster.

 

Campos - went bust before producing a car.

 

Marussia - struggling on.

 

Caterham - replacement for failed choices, just about to go bust.

 

2014:

 

Haas - fingers crossed, it's looking OK at the moment.

 

Forza Rossa - failed in an attempt to poach the Caterhams.

 

 

It's not a particularly stellar record.  Either the FIA has ballsed up in its choices, or it has ballsed up in creating a level playing field.  Or both.

 

It says a lot when Stefan GP could not have done worse than those the FIA preferred...



Advertisement

#2 FullThrottleF1

FullThrottleF1
  • Member

  • 3,449 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:00

Stefan GP had a Toyota chassis for the 2010 season, who knows where they would be know.



#3 LuckyStrike1

LuckyStrike1
  • Member

  • 8,681 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:02

In bankruptcy. 



#4 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:08

I thought Campos became HRT?

 

And I'm not sure Stefan and Epsilon would have been much better. Ultimately these teams die mostly for financial reasons. Stefan may have had an interesting first year with that Toyota, but they would have needed to attract sponsorship. And *everyone* is struggling with that bit.



#5 FullThrottleF1

FullThrottleF1
  • Member

  • 3,449 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:11

Sometimes I just want F1 to die so I don't have to worry about it any more :(



#6 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:12

I thought Campos became HRT?

 

And I'm not sure Stefan and Epsilon would have been much better. Ultimately these teams die mostly for financial reasons. Stefan may have had an interesting first year with that Toyota, but they would have needed to attract sponsorship. And *everyone* is struggling with that bit.

 

It was IIRC a totally different entity.  Which also failed.

 

Had the promise to come down to a $40m cap worked, perhaps they would have been fine with attracting sponsorship. 



#7 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,883 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:24

Of course, historically, we had many, many teams which failed after not achieving anything.  

 

Off the top of my head*  -  Pacific, Coloni, Andrea Moda, Rebaque, ATS, Footwork, Venturi, Forti etc

 

*(F1 Rejects site is currently off line due to virus attack, but it list them all i, n their splendour - when it is working, which is kind of appropriate for the subject matter!)



#8 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 11,543 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:36

Well... at least the FIA is consistent in something.

#9 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,546 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:46

I still don't believe Stefen was actually a real attempt. Anyone remember the guys aerospace company, which turned out to be nothing more than a fake website based in a garage in Belgrade?

#10 Kristian

Kristian
  • Member

  • 4,365 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:59

I'm still flabbergasted Prodrive were not accepted for 2010, and jokers like US F1 were. 



#11 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,143 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 24 October 2014 - 12:04

However bad the FIA are at choosing, the teams are still failing, presumably after being intended to be a success.

 

I think its crystal clear that the structure of F1 offers a new private team virtually no chance of success. Therefore all the FIA are doing is choosing the next candidate to stand on the trapdoor...

 

At the very minimum you need a massive budget and works support because its looks obvious to me that a team HAS TO climb up from the bottom positions in the constructors table in order to earn enough income to sustain themselves.

 

The irony is that if a new team were to achieve this level of success, logically it would push an existing team down towards the trapdoor. Just look at Sauber v Marussia, it appears that they are fighting over 9th place prize money for the funds to remain in F1. 

 

Basically F1 has a terminal relegation system. All they need to do is rebalance the share of income. Bernie keeps going on that he doesn't want poor teams struggling. But its only the case because the rich teams are too rich. 

 

Complete goldfish bowl syndrome. 


Edited by Rinehart, 24 October 2014 - 12:10.


#12 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,143 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 24 October 2014 - 12:10

I'm still flabbergasted Prodrive were not accepted for 2010, and jokers like US F1 were. 

Prodrive's bid was contingent on the budget cap. 



#13 Kraken

Kraken
  • Member

  • 980 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 24 October 2014 - 12:14

Going to keep happening while F1 continues to operate with such absurd levels of personnel and costs. Not to mention the way the income is distributed.



#14 JHSingo

JHSingo
  • Member

  • 8,930 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 24 October 2014 - 12:29

Prodrive's bid was contingent on the budget cap. 

 

Weren't they all?

 

Pretty sure all assumed, or were given some guarantee, that there would be a cost cap of some sort. Then there wasn't, so they were all up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle.



#15 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 24 October 2014 - 12:29

FIA is not to blame here at all.

 

I think Fernandes gave it a fair shot and his defense I'd say that he counted on the FIA budget cap which never materialized.

 

I also would not put Kolles and his highly obscure backers with ulterior motives in the same league as Fernandes.

 

If anyone or anything is to blame it is the current business model of F1 (FOM/CVC) but also the Kolles and his backers. They clearly were not willing or able to provide what was needed. Why buy the team than? That's still the big question for me.



#16 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 24 October 2014 - 12:30

So many teams have come and failed even before there was any selection process. It's just very hard to find entries that can survive.



#17 FredF1

FredF1
  • Member

  • 2,284 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 24 October 2014 - 12:46

Weren't they all?

 

Pretty sure all assumed, or were given some guarantee, that there would be a cost cap of some sort. Then there wasn't, so they were all up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle.

 

 

And weren't there some issues between Bernie and Dave Richards about how F1 was run? Not that this would impact on Prodrive getting a grid slot of course. Dearie me no.



#18 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 24 October 2014 - 13:05

Of course, historically, we had many, many teams which failed after not achieving anything.  

 

Off the top of my head*  -  Pacific, Coloni, Andrea Moda, Rebaque, ATS, Footwork, Venturi, Forti etc

 

*(F1 Rejects site is currently off line due to virus attack, but it list them all i, n their splendour - when it is working, which is kind of appropriate for the subject matter!)

 

Many of them left some sort of legacy.  ATS for example was pretty much Rial as well; the teams you mentioned gave GP debuts to drivers like Nicola Larini and Gerhard Berger, and Rebaque was the first design job for John Barnard.  Others were always going to be hopeless but they weren't prevented from having a go by a protective franchise system.

 

And of course in that era you had back-of-grid specials like Williams and Enstone who went on to mighty things.



#19 ollebompa

ollebompa
  • Member

  • 791 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 24 October 2014 - 13:15

TBH I don't think there has been many proper attempts to start a team, so it's not like the FIA have had the cream of the crop to select from.



Advertisement

#20 FullThrottleF1

FullThrottleF1
  • Member

  • 3,449 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 24 October 2014 - 13:17

The last proper effort was Stewart in 1997.

#21 superden

superden
  • Member

  • 4,185 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 24 October 2014 - 13:17

These days its largely the astronomical costs involved and the turnaround time for achieving even modest success after debuting. Even grandees are struggling with finances, so a new, lower order team with no heritage to call on and limited TV coverage due to being 23rd/24th on the grid will struggle to maintain a remotely healthy/sustainable bank balance/debt.

No results, no money.
No money, no results.
No results, no money.
No money, no results.

The next thing you know, some Far East/Middle East consortium is trying to buy you for a few years in the spotlight, with the hope of making a return on the investment, even if the team goes bust in the process.

In the 21st century, F1 (like all sports) is full of people in it for the wrong reasons. F1 isn't averse to being conned either, they wouldn't be the only big business to be dazzled by a flashy presentation and a winning smile.

Edited by superden, 24 October 2014 - 13:20.


#22 ollebompa

ollebompa
  • Member

  • 791 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 24 October 2014 - 13:18

Toyota?



#23 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 24 October 2014 - 13:23

TBH I don't think there has been many proper attempts to start a team, so it's not like the FIA have had the cream of the crop to select from.

 

That's because the door was slammed shut.  Needing to lodge a $50m deposit before entry - which was bigger than most teams' annual budget at the time. 

 

Add to that the lower formulae becoming increasingly one make.  Enstone and Toro Rosso dipped a toe by building F2 cars before F1.  Sauber built sportscars.  Obviously Euskadi and Prodrive both built cars, and pitched for 2010, yet were mysteriously overlooked in favour of an American start-up that built less than me.



#24 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 5,907 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 24 October 2014 - 13:39

Had the promise to come down to a $40m cap worked, perhaps they would have been fine with attracting sponsorship. 

 

There's the core of the problems for the 2010 entrants.



#25 Mox

Mox
  • Member

  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 24 October 2014 - 14:38

Didn't I read somewhere, that Stefan GP is still on the shortlist of team that can enter 2016, along with Forza Rosso and Haas??



#26 FerrariV12

FerrariV12
  • Member

  • 934 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 24 October 2014 - 14:46

The problem isn't the choices themselves, but the fact that there is an off-track selection process to begin with.

 

In the past anyone capable of building a car to the regulations was allowed in - chancers were found out by the stopwatch rather than some FIA audit, while the Williamses, Tolemans, Minardis, Jordans, Saubers and Stewarts of the world were given a chance to establish themselves and still exist in some form to this day.

 

Even though its much harder to enter and survive in the sport as a tail ender these days than 20 years ago (maybe in today's climate Williams wouldn't have survived their early years of mediocrity before they got it right in the late 70s), but the principle should remain the same.



#27 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 24 October 2014 - 14:47

That's because the door was slammed shut.  Needing to lodge a $50m deposit before entry - which was bigger than most teams' annual budget at the time. 

 

 

 

Wasn't it a bond, and I think you may have even gotten interest? It was a bluff to see how serious you were really. Without the bond didn't we end up with USF1/Campos/HRT/Marussia/Caterham?



#28 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 24 October 2014 - 15:04

Wasn't it a bond, and I think you may have even gotten interest? It was a bluff to see how serious you were really. Without the bond didn't we end up with USF1/Campos/HRT/Marussia/Caterham?

 

It's a restrictive practice.  Why should someone need to get 2 years' budget just to get started?  Why not rock up with a home-built car and let the sport deal with it?  How come existing teams didn't need to post such a bond?  The whole thing was protectionism to the max.  Don't let anyone come in and out-race Minardi.  Like Jordan did with buttons. 

 

Without the bond we ended up with Lotus, Ferrari, Tyrrell, Brabham, McLaren, BRM, Vanwall, Cooper and so on and so forth.  With it, we ended up with nobody.  How is that a healthy sport?   



#29 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 24 October 2014 - 15:52

Because you're comparing completely different technical and commercial eras? You could buy a Cosworth and some tires in 2010 and go racing, but your chances of getting anywhere were far reduced from the 70s or early 80s. The shed-special era is long gone.



#30 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 9,223 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 24 October 2014 - 15:54

With it, we ended up with nobody.  How is that a healthy sport?   

 

Did Stewart narrowly make it in before the bond came into effect? I thought it came in for the 1997 season, but thinking about it the Lola shambles leads me to suspect I'm wrong.



#31 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 4,766 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 24 October 2014 - 17:00

 

Did Stewart narrowly make it in before the bond came into effect? I thought it came in for the 1997 season, but thinking about it the Lola shambles leads me to suspect I'm wrong.

 

I seem to recall Jackie having to struggle to get TV money out of FOM after their first year, probably based on his frosty relationship with Max and Bernie.

The $50M was part of a series of rule changes designed to bring in the manufacturers, like the mandatory V10 engines and limited grid slots. Then with all those blue chip names on the grid Bernie sold the whole thing for top dollar and everyone started moaning about the budgets soaring due to manufacturer spending.

#32 Apex

Apex
  • Member

  • 2,419 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 24 October 2014 - 17:21

Stewart joined before the bond was introduced. Toyota was the only team ever to pay the bond.



#33 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 24 October 2014 - 17:26

Wasn't the V10 thing also a response to the scare stories that Toyota were looking at V8s, V10s, or V12s? I don't remember if it was trying them all out or the hilarity of running different specs at different tracks.

 

Everyone had gone the V10 route even without the regulation. If you had a V8 it was because you were on a dusty old Cosworth you weren't paying much for.



#34 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 24 October 2014 - 17:36

Because you're comparing completely different technical and commercial eras? You could buy a Cosworth and some tires in 2010 and go racing, but your chances of getting anywhere were far reduced from the 70s or early 80s. The shed-special era is long gone.

 

If someone scraped together $50m of sponsorship in 2000, they would have been one of the best-funded teams at the back of the grid.  Yet that would not have been enough to go racing as they'd've needed another few mil just to build the car.  It was a franchise pure. 



#35 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 24 October 2014 - 17:51

My memory was that it was repaid, possibly even with interest. So there would have been ways to finance it.



#36 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 35,982 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 24 October 2014 - 18:04

Prodrive's bid was contingent on the budget cap. 

 

Prodrive withdrew themselves did they not?

 

:cool:



#37 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 12,037 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 24 October 2014 - 18:07

The issue isn't the FIA, it's that entering F1 is a poor business proposition and not very many people have the means or desire to do it.  With few exceptions, Prodrive and Stefan the most notable, there haven't been any entires that could have had a chance declined.  You can't recruit teams that aren't there.



#38 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,883 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 24 October 2014 - 18:17

The FIA shouldn't give the nod to teams that are new start-ups with no track record in motor racing.  It is teams like DAMS, ART, and so on that ought to be graduating to F1.  The fact that they don't suggests that they can see that it is a non-starter from a business POV.



#39 Knot

Knot
  • Member

  • 666 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 24 October 2014 - 18:27

Wasn't it a bond, and I think you may have even gotten interest? It was a bluff to see how serious you were really. Without the bond didn't we end up with USF1/Campos/HRT/Marussia/Caterham?

 

None of the new teams paid? It's intent was to weed out the pretenders. It was repaid to the entrant team over the course of their first year in competition.



Advertisement

#40 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 35,982 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 24 October 2014 - 18:38

The FIA should not select any team, re-open the franchise let all comers join only give them share of FOM money after season if they partook in all races. Sink or swim depending on how well you run a F1 team.

 

:cool:



#41 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,546 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 October 2014 - 18:41

The FIA shouldn't give the nod to teams that are new start-ups with no track record in motor racing.  It is teams like DAMS, ART, and so on that ought to be graduating to F1.  The fact that they don't suggests that they can see that it is a non-starter from a business POV.

 

But that's exactly what they did in 2010 with Campos and Manor. Both were experienced racing teams who entered F1 in partnership with established chassis manufacturers, and on paper there was no reason either effort should not have worked.

 

The FIA and Bernie have conspired other the years to make F1 virtually impossible to enter. Costs are clearly far too high, and the prize money is stupidly and unfairly skewed towards the already rich operations.



#42 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 24 October 2014 - 18:45

The FIA shouldn't give the nod to teams that are new start-ups with no track record in motor racing.  It is teams like DAMS, ART, and so on that ought to be graduating to F1.  The fact that they don't suggests that they can see that it is a non-starter from a business POV.

 

I think in modern F1 the financing is more important than the team. So when you hear Manor want to go into F1 you scratch your head. When you hear Branson/Virgin and Lloyds Development Capital are behind it you think "well, maybe".



#43 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 35,982 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 24 October 2014 - 18:45

But that's exactly what they did in 2010 with Campos and Manor. Both were experienced racing teams who entered F1 in partnership with established chassis manufacturers, and on paper there was no reason either effort should not have worked.

 

The FIA and Bernie have conspired other the years to make F1 virtually impossible to enter. Costs are clearly far too high, and the prize money is stupidly and unfairly skewed towards the already rich operations.

 

:up:



#44 BiH

BiH
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 24 October 2014 - 18:45

FIA  should go Moto GP route. 

 

Catheram, Marussia, HRT did nothing in 4 years. They can't even get within second of wounded Lotus.

 

If FIA decides to go three car route it will be horrendous for F1.

 

 

With rookies in third car you know they will just use him as test bench for new parts etc.

 

This will hurt Williams, Force India and even Mercedes if they run only two cars.



#45 wj_gibson

wj_gibson
  • Member

  • 3,919 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 24 October 2014 - 18:55

IIRC Prodrive were discounted after they signed a provisional engine deal with Renault, whereas Mosley wanted all the new teams to commit to Cosworth as a pre-condition for entry as part of his war on the manufacturers.

#46 wj_gibson

wj_gibson
  • Member

  • 3,919 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 24 October 2014 - 18:56

I also still think one of the most jaw-dropping things I have ever seen was Jason Anderson's car crash of an interview in one of the USF1 YouTube videos.

#47 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 7,934 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 24 October 2014 - 19:01

Didn't ART Grand Prix get an invitation not that long ago, but they declined. ? 

I think the meeting with ART who on paper ticked all the boxes, made them re assess the opening of places on the grid. - must have been 2011, when new teams were still wanted after the failure of USF1.

ART I believe alluded that yes they could afford it, but not competitively enough to be viable for any decent length of time. Like, why give up being at the front of one level, to be at the back at the next and then go bust?

 

There should have been a lesson there about the real costs and funding necesssary for a serious operation proposal. I'm sure I read someone saying that if ART couldn't do it, no one out there could. (at that time)



#48 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,546 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 October 2014 - 19:04

I also still think one of the most jaw-dropping things I have ever seen was Jason Anderson's car crash of an interview in one of the USF1 YouTube videos.

 

I still miss the USF1 animated series. :lol:



#49 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 4,766 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 24 October 2014 - 19:13

Wasn't the V10 thing also a response to the scare stories that Toyota were looking at V8s, V10s, or V12s? I don't remember if it was trying them all out or the hilarity of running different specs at different tracks.

 

Everyone had gone the V10 route even without the regulation. If you had a V8 it was because you were on a dusty old Cosworth you weren't paying much for.

 

As I recall there were rumours that Ferrari were developing a V12 that was much lighter and less thirsty than the previous generation which might make them a viable option again. As all the manufacturers had sunk a fortune into V10's they weren't too keen on having to go back to the drawing board if they proved to have an advantage so the FIA made V10's mandatory to remove the doubt.
 



#50 pathogen

pathogen
  • Member

  • 199 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 24 October 2014 - 19:25

Many of them left some sort of legacy.  ATS for example was pretty much Rial as well; the teams you mentioned gave GP debuts to drivers like Nicola Larini and Gerhard Berger, and Rebaque was the first design job for John Barnard.  Others were always going to be hopeless but they weren't prevented from having a go by a protective franchise system.

 

And of course in that era you had back-of-grid specials like Williams and Enstone who went on to mighty things.

Finally! Someone give us a clever perspective. Yes, the old model works, real private Teams works. Big names like McLaren, Williams or Ferrari start as private teams and were the forge of current show. Just remember  Senna in Toleman or Alonso in Minardi. Ecclestone desing a brothel and young fans are very happy. A shame