69 replies to this topic

[HistoryFan]

Today there are a lot of discussions about the prize money in F1 and the strategy group. Teams have very much influence and power nowadays in Grand Prix history. I want to try to figure out, how that came over the years and how it was in former days.

 

It is very difficult to research that topic because that are not really hard facts to research but it are more tendencies over years and developments over years which could not be captured by one fix point.So I hope there will be many users with their big knowledge interested in this topic.

 

Some points by me.

 

Today there are discussions about prize money which is not very fair. In former days the organisers of Grand Prix races spent start and price money. Were there any cases in the past that some big and popular teams got more start money for Grand Prix races that little teams? This system with teams were paid from the Grand Prix organisers was existing until the second Concorde Agreement in 1987 I think.

 

I don't know how much influence the team had in former days but since 1974 the influence was getting stronger when the FOCA was etablished. There was a FISA-FOCA war in the late 70s until the early 80s and with Ecclestone on the top of FOCA the power of the teams was increasing. Ecclestone got the comerical rights for F1 in 1987 and since 1999 he was selling shares for getting more money.

 

In 2004 150 Mio Dollars prize money was paid for the teams, with the first once getting 22 Mio and the last one 11 Mio (that was fair!)

 

There were a lot of attempts for brake-away series, the first in 2001 when the GPWC was founded by the automobile engine suppliers. That was because of they wanted more money from Ecclestone and they feared that F1 races could just be seen in pay TV after Kirch Media was buying some F1 shares. Ecclestone was paying Ferrari 100 Mio Dollars to withdraw from GPWC and so in 2005 the GPCW los influence. A very similar case was in 2009 with FOTA (founded by F1 teams), Ecclestone also bought out the teams from FOTA and the teams got individual contracts with Ecclestone. That's why there is a not very fair prize money system today.

 

But why have the teams so much power in F1? I think because F1 is so expensive and there are no teams who could join F1 if some teams withdraw. But why was it different before 1974? Because it was less expensive?

 

What do you think about that topic?

[Richard Jenkins]

FOCA wasn't established in 1974. It wasn't even FOCA until around 1978. It was F1CA and was established in the winter of 1963 with Colin Chapman being the visionary behind it, and Andrew Ferguson being in charge until Bernie came along.

 

So you have to go back to about 1964 if you are looking at teams as a collective unit.

[D-Type]

The assertion that "the teams have so much power in F1" is fundamentally flawed.  The power lies in the hands of Bernie Ecclestone and the banks he sold out to.

 

The steps by which the power moved from race organisers and the FIA to a teams organisation (FiCA and FOCA) and then to Bernie Ecclestone's Formula 1 ~ company are documented to some extent.  For example in The Power Brokers by Alan Henry, The Piranha Club by Timothy Collings, and The Power Game by Ivan Rendall and in various Bernie Ecclestone biographies.  There are also some websites which ahve published some information, but sometimes with little provenance.  But, as you say, this is not the full story.  The teams, race organisers, national clubs and the FIA have all allowed Bernie Ecclestone and the companies he controls to become all-powerful.  A man who can avoid going to jail for bribery-related offences and other financial mismanagement by paying a large sum of money can exert a lot of control over what is and what is not published. 

[HistoryFan]

The assertion that "the teams have so much power in F1" is fundamentally flawed.  The power lies in the hands of Bernie Ecclestone and the banks he sold out to.

 

The steps by which the power moved from race organisers and the FIA to a teams organisation (FiCA and FOCA) and then to Bernie Ecclestone's Formula 1 ~ company are documented to some extent.  For example in The Power Brokers by Alan Henry, The Piranha Club by Timothy Collings, and The Power Game by Ivan Rendall and in various Bernie Ecclestone biographies.  There are also some websites which ahve published some information, but sometimes with little provenance.  But, as you say, this is not the full story.  The teams, race organisers, national clubs and the FIA have all allowed Bernie Ecclestone and the companies he controls to become all-powerful.  A man who can avoid going to jail for bribery-related offences and other financial mismanagement by paying a large sum of money can exert a lot of control over what is and what is not published. 

 

Thank you both. But why did they allow Ecclestone to get that power? Ecclestone got F1CA boss in 1972. Why has Ferguson left for Ecclestone?

 

And I think today Ecclestone isn't that much powerful that in the past. I think the teams are very powerful as they show today with voting against all rules that make sense in the current crises.

 

 

[D-Type]

Thank you both. But why did they allow Ecclestone to get that power? Ecclestone got F1CA boss in 1972. Why has Ferguson left for Ecclestone?

 

And I think today Ecclestone isn't that much powerful that in the past. I think the teams are very powerful as they show today with voting against all rules that make sense in the current crises.

The teams were interested in racing not in financial negotiation which they viewed as a necessary evil.  They were happy to let Bernie negotiate deals on their behalf since as a result they were better off and didn't have the hassle - they ignored the fact that Bernie was even better off.

 

I can't remember how Bernie manouvered himself in to replace Ferguson, it's in one of the books I mentioned.

 

Bernie still pulls the strings - just look at hiow he neutralised FOTA.

 

The questions to ask are

(a)  What happens when Bernie has to give up when age catches up with him?

(b)  What happens if a slump means the banking group cease to make a good return on their investment?

[HistoryFan]

The problem is that the teams are not one opinion in many things and so Ecclestone has an easy game...

[RStock]

If you take the time to read through this (all 8 articles) a lot of your questions will be answered.

 

http://www.forix.com...n-timeline.html

[Michael Ferner]

Today there are discussions about prize money which is not very fair. In former days the organisers of Grand Prix races spent start and price money. Were there any cases in the past that some big and popular teams got more start money for Grand Prix races that little teams? This system with teams were paid from the Grand Prix organisers was existing until the second Concorde Agreement in 1987 I think.

Until the mid-seventies, every team/entrant did its own negotiating about appearance deals, as the prize money itself wasn't really important because there wasn't much of it in the first place. It was one of Ecclestone's first achievements and a major feather in his cap that he established a formalized system to distribute the overall purse in a fair way, including starting money, and that became an important factor when the Concorde Agreement of 1981 fixed the entry list for every Grand Prix. Before that, teams had the negotiating power to withdraw from a race, now this was no longer necessary or even possible, and hence Ecclestone was able to sell a consistent product to the race promoters, and with FIA backing!

I am not exactly sure when this system was introduced, but I very clearly recall reading about it in a 1980 German magazine, with a detailed table of how the system worked. It was very clever, and of benefit to both the teams and Ecclestone himself as the man to negotiate terms with the national clubs which held the rights to the races, and very soon Ecclestone offered an all-inclusive service, i.e. he promoted the races themselves for the clubs. Basically, everybody was happy to be relieved from the financial burdens and risks, as neither teams nor clubs were really led by trained businessmen. They all did it for the love of the sport, and it was Bernie who realized that there was real money to be made.

[Doug Nye]

Through the early years of 'Formula 1' in the 1940s-early '60s the 'political power' of 'GP teams' was very limited, in that Mr Ferrari had his faction of long-cultivated veteran FIA and CSI chums to be manipulated whenever necessary and in effect none of the other teams - with one exception - had very much clout at all. That exception was of course Mercedes-Benz who - while larded with postwar German apologist sensitivities - had technological and financial muscle which out-gunned all other interested manufacturers, and which schmoozed the governing authorities as much as their national experiences would permit, without truly 'wielding power' because they were then very wary of being thought to do so.

Into the early 1960s Ferrari retained its dominant position of insider influence within the FIA and CSI, influence against which the more numerous British-based teams railed without ever cultivating its own delegates to plant at the core of government and to fight their partisan corner more effectively. Andrew Ferguson's F1CA - later changed to FOCA because F1CA looks very rude in some Continental languages - really built upon increasing British domination of F1 race results, initially to secure for its leading teams at least the same financial deals as Ferrari had formerly finessed only for itself.

Ferrari remained the most political, and the most manipulative, force within Formula 1 while its mainly British rivals were all essentially Racers, not fixers. Come 1973 and Andrew's retirement from running F1CA/FOCA it was Bernie's offer of relieving his fellow team owners from the responsibility by taking it on himself that they gratefully accepted. He proved to be fixer first and Racer second - instead of always fighting Paris (and later Geneva) authority a Brit emerged who would become the weevil on the inside of the FIA fruit - Max Mosley - and the politicians and profiteers prevailed while the Racers got on with what they did best...

Of course Porsche and Ford - and Renault and Fiat - were major players who had their own influence upon FIA/CSI shennanigans, but their interests were not confined to Formula 1 apart from a period in which Renault-influenced delegates and officials called many shots. In recent years Mercedes-Benz has re-emerged in a new guise - old apologist sensitivities much diminished by the long passage of time since WW2 and the Nazi period - and the company's influence, and its willingness to flex its muscles, has become extremely influential.

DCN

Edited by Doug Nye, 01 December 2014 - 11:12.

[uechtel]

Today there are discussions about prize money which is not very fair. In former days the organisers of Grand Prix races spent start and price money. Were there any cases in the past that some big and popular teams got more start money for Grand Prix races that little teams? This system with teams were paid from the Grand Prix organisers was existing until the second Concorde Agreement in 1987 I think.

 

 

What is fair, what is unfair? To give everybody the same or to favour those who have the greater achievements? I think this depends very much on your personal position in the game...

 

Of course teams like Ferrari could demand more money from the organisers. That is probably why the minor events like Chimay were more or less limited to privateers while the big races like the French, Belgian and Dutch GP could afford for a long time to accept only factory team entries. With famous teams you could attract more spectators, but also the other way round, if you had more spectators you could afford more famous teams. So this developed some kind of balance.

 

 

There were a lot of attempts for brake-away series, the first in 2001 when the GPWC was founded by the automobile engine suppliers. That was because of they wanted more money from Ecclestone and they feared that F1 races could just be seen in pay TV after Kirch Media was buying some F1 shares. Ecclestone was paying Ferrari 100 Mio Dollars to withdraw from GPWC and so in 2005 the GPCW los influence. A very similar case was in 2009 with FOTA (founded by F1 teams), Ecclestone also bought out the teams from FOTA and the teams got individual contracts with Ecclestone. That's why there is a not very fair prize money system today.

 

But why have the teams so much power in F1? I think because F1 is so expensive and there are no teams who could join F1 if some teams withdraw. But why was it different before 1974? Because it was less expensive?

 

Maybe the FOCA got their strong position because they had realized, that if you are not one of the stars you are stronger if you work together rather than on your own. So Bernie formed them into a 'product' that could be sold as a whole and everybody who did not accept his conditions was out.
 

[uechtel]

The teams, race organisers, national clubs and the FIA have all allowed Bernie Ecclestone and the companies he controls to become all-powerful.. 

Well, at least some of them have obviously tried to fight against that, but lost.

 

 

Thank you both. But why did they allow Ecclestone to get that power? Ecclestone got F1CA boss in 1972. Why has Ferguson left for Ecclestone?

 

And I think today Ecclestone isn't that much powerful that in the past. I think the teams are very powerful as they show today with voting against all rules that make sense in the current crises.

 

Do you have an example for a team voting against something which would be a benefit for themselves? There are many players in the game with different interests. So you would have to define the expression "makes sense" more precisely. Sense for whom?

 

 

[uechtel]

There were a lot of attempts for brake-away series, the first in 2001 when the GPWC was founded by the automobile engine suppliers. That was because of they wanted more money from Ecclestone and they feared that F1 races could just be seen in pay TV after Kirch Media was buying some F1 shares. Ecclestone was paying Ferrari 100 Mio Dollars to withdraw from GPWC and so in 2005 the GPCW los influence. A very similar case was in 2009 with FOTA (founded by F1 teams), Ecclestone also bought out the teams from FOTA and the teams got individual contracts with Ecclestone. That's why there is a not very fair prize money system today.

 

 

I think the first attempt for a break-away series was the Intercontinental Formula in the early sixties. Not so obviously for economical reasons, but in effect also a fight of the 'garagists' against the establishment. 

[HistoryFan]

What is fair, what is unfair? To give everybody the same or to favour those who have the greater achievements? I think this depends very much on your personal position in the game...

 

Fair is when all teams had a chance to survive and with just 9 teams left there's something unfair going on. Of course the high costs on the one hand, but also the prize money is very, very unfair. Of course there should be a difference between Ferrari and Marussia, but not that big one I think. But that's a different topic.
 

[HistoryFan]

Well, at least some of them have obviously tried to fight against that, but lost.

 

Very interesting - who fight against that?

 

[HistoryFan]

Do you have an example for a team voting against something which would be a benefit for themselves? There are many players in the game with different interests. So you would have to define the expression "makes sense" more precisely. Sense for whom?

 

make sense for the sport. It must be possible for real race teams to compete in F1. Today teams like Williams or Jordan would never join F1 (now such teams are called Carlin or ART) - and that is not very healthy for the sport.

 

[HistoryFan]

I think the first attempt for a break-away series was the Intercontinental Formula in the early sixties. Not so obviously for economical reasons, but in effect also a fight of the 'garagists' against the establishment. 

 

Wow!!!   Never heard of this. I found two threads about this topic here:

 

http://forums.autosp...onship-of-1961/

 

http://forums.autosp...?hl=Formula 366

 

but there are two questions left for me:

1) Why couldn't the IC Formula survive? Because they hadn't the support from Ferrari and the US teams were not that much interested as they expected?

 

2) Were there any more such plans or real breakaways?

 

[uechtel]

Until the mid-seventies, every team/entrant did its own negotiating about appearance deals, as the prize money itself wasn't really important because there wasn't much of it in the first place. It was one of Ecclestone's first achievements and a major feather in his cap that he established a formalized system to distribute the overall purse in a fair way, including starting money, and that became an important factor when the Concorde Agreement of 1981 fixed the entry list for every Grand Prix. Before that, teams had the negotiating power to withdraw from a race, now this was no longer necessary or even possible, and hence Ecclestone was able to sell a consistent product to the race promoters, and with FIA backing!

I am not exactly sure when this system was introduced, but I very clearly recall reading about it in a 1980 German magazine, with a detailed table of how the system worked. It was very clever, and of benefit to both the teams and Ecclestone himself as the man to negotiate terms with the national clubs which held the rights to the races, and very soon Ecclestone offered an all-inclusive service, i.e. he promoted the races themselves for the clubs. Basically, everybody was happy to be relieved from the financial burdens and risks, as neither teams nor clubs were really led by trained businessmen. They all did it for the love of the sport, and it was Bernie who realized that there was real money to be made.

 

In 1981 I think the FOCA did guarantee 18 cars from their members (plus the 12 cars from the FISA teams) which in return would get guaranteed participation in practise. That is why de Villota was excluded when ATS appeared on the stage at the Spamish GP.

 

Edit: Prize money - there seems to have been a fundemental difference between the European and the North American organisers, who usually were reported to prefer the prize money system. Means they paid hard dollars strictly according to the final results, even down to the last place (the first car to retire). That is the reason why the teams usually also placed entries for their T-cars there.

Edited by uechtel, 01 December 2014 - 15:44.

[Charlieman]

Through the early years of 'Formula 1' in the 1940s-early '60s the 'political power' of 'GP teams' was very limited, in that Mr Ferrari had his faction of long-cultivated veteran FIA and CSI chums to be manipulated whenever necessary and in effect none of the other teams - with one exception - had very much clout at all. 

Clarification about the word "through" sought, please. Ferrari were an important team in the mid 1950s, and they were exciting beginners in 1950 and earlier years. They were guaranteed decent start money but they were not expected to win before 1951. Enzo Ferrari didn't have political power owing to recent racing results.

 

Enzo Ferrari had been around for years prior to WWII, delivering some results for Alfa Romeo as team architect. If the Ferrari team had special privileges in, say the 1954 season, would they be a consequence of schmoozing in the 1930s or 1950s or both?

[uechtel]

Fair is when all teams had a chance to survive and with just 9 teams left there's something unfair going on. Of course the high costs on the one hand, but also the prize money is very, very unfair. Of course there should be a difference between Ferrari and Marussia, but not that big one I think. But that's a different topic.
 

 

 

It is not that I disagree with you about that the small teams should be kept in the game. But I would not use the term "unfair", as this would imply different rules for different teams. In my opinion it is the case, that the rules are the same and transparent, but to the benefit of those who are successful. Of course you can say you like it or you don´t.

 

Very interesting - who fight against that?
 

 

Ferrari, the FISA, Balestre, some of the organising clubs?

 

 

make sense for the sport. It must be possible for real race teams to compete in F1. Today teams like Williams or Jordan would never join F1 (now such teams are called Carlin or ART) - and that is not very healthy for the sport.
 

 

Perhaps this is the mistake. F1 is no sport anymore, but business. Simply a "product" among others. And just like everywhere else it is not the interest of every party involved to have long term interests. Everywhere around we see other traditional brands being sacrificed for short term profit, in many cases quite deliberately. Some may be some players may be perhaps quite content to have some quick gain and don´t care too much about what will happen after next year.

 

Mercedes gave good example for such behaviour when they won everything in 1954/55 and then stepped out immediately to rest on their laurels rather than to invest more money in the development of a new car only with the risk of being beaten. Who knows how they will behave now when they may have another chance for a few years of domination?
 

Edited by uechtel, 01 December 2014 - 15:55.

[Charlieman]

Why couldn't the IC Formula survive? Because they hadn't the support from Ferrari and the US teams were not that much interested as they expected?

I wouldn't presume to give a complete answer. But those tiny 1.5 litre F1 racers deliver a great spectacle today and yesterday. Holy mackerel, those cars change direction so fast.

 

If you wanted brute force, muscle man and possibly woman power, it was delivered by sports car racers (aka F1 drivers on "a day off", paying the mortgage). CanAm developed as the race series to earn money and develop arm muscles.

[Vitesse2]

Clarification about the word "through" sought, please. Ferrari were an important team in the mid 1950s, and they were exciting beginners in 1950 and earlier years. They were guaranteed decent start money but they were not expected to win before 1951. Enzo Ferrari didn't have political power owing to recent racing results.

 

Enzo Ferrari had been around for years prior to WWII, delivering some results for Alfa Romeo as team architect. If the Ferrari team had special privileges in, say the 1954 season, would they be a consequence of schmoozing in the 1930s or 1950s or both?

Enzo Ferrari was the only significant survivor of the 1930s team bosses: I don't think we can really call Tony Lago or Raymond Mays significant. By the end of 1946, Ettore Bugatti was dead, Ferdinand Porsche was still in prison in France, the remaining Maserati brothers were now mere employees of the Orsis and Ferrari's immediate successors at Alfa were either dead or fatally tainted by their Fascist connections, Feuereissen was at VW and Neubauer was officially persona non grata until 1950.

 

Most of the teams which were competing from 1946 onwards were new - including the revived Ferrari of course - but most of their bosses were new too. Add that to the composition of the early post-war CSI which - apart from the British and Swiss, whose representatives had died - was virtually identical to 1939, and you can see why Enzo came to prominence earlier than he might otherwise have done.

 

And by 1954 he had two WDCs ... not to mention friends at Fiat!

[D28]

 

 

Mercedes gave good example for such behaviour when they won everything in 1954/55 and then stepped out immediately to rest on their laurels rather than to invest more money in the development of a new car only with the risk of being beaten. Who knows how they will behave now when they may have another chance for a few years of domination?
 

Recent history would suggest they will act as they did in 1956. If actions of Honda, Toyota, BMW and Ford  are any indication, large auto corporations have a short attention span where F1 is involved. These firms gave up on fielding a whole F1 team for opposite reasons to Mercedes, but in both cases the accountant types won out over the sporting, engineering people. Only Fiat-Ferrari seems to be in F1 for the long haul.

[Charlieman]

Until the mid-seventies, every team/entrant did its own negotiating about appearance deals, as the prize money itself wasn't really important because there wasn't much of it in the first place. It was one of Ecclestone's first achievements and a major feather in his cap that he established a formalized system to distribute the overall purse in a fair way, including starting money, and that became an important factor when the Concorde Agreement of 1981 fixed the entry list for every Grand Prix.

I think that is about right. One of Bernie's big deals was that F1CA members didn't have to worry about transport. When there were two races at the start of the season in South America, and another shortly in South Africa, Bernie would get your cars, spares and crew there. It was a huge incentive to join his club.

 

To join F1CA, you had to build a car and win a point (sixth place) sometime in the season. Yeah, to join you must win a point.

[Charlieman]

Enzo Ferrari was the only significant survivor of the 1930s team bosses: I don't think we can really call Tony Lago or Raymond Mays significant. By the end of 1946, Ettore Bugatti was dead, Ferdinand Porsche was still in prison in France, the remaining Maserati brothers were now mere employees of the Orsis and Ferrari's immediate successors at Alfa were either dead or fatally tainted by their Fascist connections, Feuereissen was at VW and Neubauer was officially persona non grata until 1950.

 

Most of the teams which were competing from 1946 onwards were new - including the revived Ferrari of course - but most of their bosses were new too. Add that to the composition of the early post-war CSI which - apart from the British and Swiss, whose representatives had died - was virtually identical to 1939, and you can see why Enzo came to prominence earlier than he might otherwise have done.

 

And by 1954 he had two WDCs ... not to mention friends at Fiat!

I get it about Enzo. Ta.

 

Meanwhile the blazer wearers wore blazers.

[Roger Clark]

I think that is about right. One of Bernie's big deals was that F1CA members didn't have to worry about transport. When there were two races at the start of the season in South America, and another shortly in South Africa, Bernie would get your cars, spares and crew there. It was a huge incentive to join his club.

To join F1CA, you had to build a car and win a point (sixth place) sometime in the season. Yeah, to join you must win a point.

I don't think this is quite right as regards the 1960s. As early as 1963, before the formation of the F1CA, starting money was determined by the Monte Carlo scale. This divided the works teams into three goup: Cooper, Lotus and BRM being the highest paid, then Ferrari and Lola, then Brabham, ATS and Honda. It is interesting that Ferrari were not in the top group. Honda, of course, we're still over a year from entering Grand Prix racing. I don't know the position of private entrants, nor whether Parnell's Lolas took the place of the Bowmaker team in this respect. By the end of 1963, the Monte Carlo scale was replaced by the Mayfair scale which made separate provision for drivers and cars. The Mayfair scale was in place by the end of 1963 so must also have preceded the formation of the F1CA. The source of the is Peter Garnier's book 16 On The Grid.

Autosport reported the formation of the F1CA on 7th February 1964. It said that membership was open to "any company or organisation from any country fulfilling the following definition of a racing car constructor: (a) a constructor who builds all of his car completely or (b) builds a racing car without using a substantial number of parts from another constructor's product, and further © has completed one season of racing with such a product and (d) has had his application for membership approved by the individual members of the association." I can't recall having seen a criterion that a constructor had to have scored a championship point but that doesn't mean it wasn't so.

Incidentally, the F1CA was preceded by the Formula Junior Constructors Association, of which Andrew Ferguson was also secretary.

Edited by Roger Clark, 01 December 2014 - 17:35.

[kayemod]

Mercedes gave good example for such behaviour when they won everything in 1954/55 and then stepped out immediately to rest on their laurels rather than to invest more money in the development of a new car only with the risk of being beaten. Who knows how they will behave now when they may have another chance for a few years of domination?
 

 

There's another factor here, which I think was fundamental in the Mercedes decision to 'retire' after 1955, their part in the Le Mans disaster, which could have killed motor racing in Europe, don't forget that it caused the cancellation of four GPs in the aftermath. We now know that there was no single simple cause, but at the time it didn't reflect well on Mercedes and German participation in motor sport, especially in France. They were already on thin ice, there's a well-known photo of the MB streamliners arriving for the French GP in 1954, the expressions on the faces of the local inhabitants watching the scene speaks volumes, they weren't at all popular.

 

Only Fiat-Ferrari seems to be in F1 for the long haul.

 

A bit of a special case, normal commercial decisions don't apply. Ferrari don't advertise, their participation in F1, even as unsuccessful as it has been for much of the time is essential for their image. That's what sells their road cars, a massively profitable money making enterprise by automotive standards, despite the financial inducements they've been able to extract from Bernie, I'd say that Ferrari need F1 far more than F1 needs them.

[Charlieman]

I can't recall having seen a criterion that a constructor had to have scored a championship point but that doesn't mean it wasn't so.

That point mattered for teams like Ensign and ATS in the 1970s.

[Roger Clark]

That point mattered for teams like Ensign and ATS in the 1970s.

Apologies.  As you referred to F1CA, i thought you meant the 1960s.

[uechtel]

Recent history would suggest they will act as they did in 1956. If actions of Honda, Toyota, BMW and Ford  are any indication, large auto corporations have a short attention span where F1 is involved. These firms gave up on fielding a whole F1 team for opposite reasons to Mercedes, but in both cases the accountant types won out over the sporting, engineering people. Only Fiat-Ferrari seems to be in F1 for the long haul.

 

Yes, probably because Ferrari´s identity is probably made up by being a F1 team.

 

[uechtel]

There's another factor here, which I think was fundamental in the Mercedes decision to 'retire' after 1955, their part in the Le Mans disaster, which could have killed motor racing in Europe, don't forget that it caused the cancellation of four GPs in the aftermath. We now know that there was no single simple cause, but at the time it didn't reflect well on Mercedes and German participation in motor sport, especially in France. They were already on thin ice, there's a well-known photo of the MB streamliners arriving for the French GP in 1954, the expressions on the faces of the local inhabitants watching the scene speaks volumes, they weren't at all popular.

 

I thought the decision to retire was announced before the Le Mans disaster?

 

A bit of a special case, normal commercial decisions don't apply. Ferrari don't advertise, their participation in F1, even as unsuccessful as it has been for much of the time is essential for their image. That's what sells their road cars, a massively profitable money making enterprise by automotive standards, despite the financial inducements they've been able to extract from Bernie, I'd say that Ferrari need F1 far more than F1 needs them.

 

Exactly, and interestingly they are the only one who succeed with this business model, in spite of several others have tried the same. There is probably not much space at the very top and you need a loooong breath to get there. But also the other way round, what would F1 be without Ferrari, they are the link to tradition and continuity, otherwise it could be just "another series".

 

 

[uechtel]

That point mattered for teams like Ensign and ATS in the 1970s.

 

I always read that ATS bought out FOCA membership from the March team?

[Charlieman]

I always read that ATS bought out FOCA membership from the March team?

If ATS had bought out the March team at that period of time, it would have been under F1CA rules. In the end, ATS bought Penske under F1CA rules, but it didn't work out for them. ATS should have been better.

[Roger Clark]

I can't think of many large companies who entered Grand Prix Racing for sporting reasons.    They did it to sell cars, or in some cases for national prestige.  Vanwall might be an exception - they raced because of Tony Vandervell's obsession.  He didn't need to do it to sell bearings.  Ferrari also raced because of Enzo's passion but they weren't a large company in those days.  As Fiat's influence grew, and particularly after Enzo's death, Ferrari success on the track brought prestige to all Italian companies.

 

I don't think it's possible to compare the present day with the past in this respect because modern Formula 1 racing can be very profitable.  That may be changing, of course, but several companies have grown to be large and profitable solely through racing.  I don't think that has happened before.

[uechtel]

If ATS had bought out the March team at that period of time, it would have been under F1CA rules. In the end, ATS bought Penske under F1CA rules, but it didn't work out for them. ATS should have been better.

 

The story I read was that ATS didn´t buy Penske (means the team), but only the cars, while in case of March it was a complete "legal" takeover of FOCA membership, team base and also Robin Herd´s assistance in developing the Penske into the first proper ATS. Didn´t Penske later build also the Rebaque?

[Charlieman]

I don't think it's possible to compare the present day with the past in this respect because modern Formula 1 racing can be very profitable. 

A long time ago, within your memory, it was possible for a slick worded wizard to bamboozle buffoons who held sponsorship pots of money. Eddie Jordan has since become a TV commentator and F1 teams don't make any money. There may be a connection. Perhaps, maybe, even the great word wordsmiths can't convince sponsors to cough up for F1.

[Charlieman]

The story I read was that ATS didn´t buy Penske (means the team), but only the cars, while in case of March it was a complete "legal" takeover of FOCA membership, team base and also Robin Herd´s assistance in developing the Penske into the first proper ATS. Didn´t Penske later build also the Rebaque?

I suggested, in the other thread about GP management, that there is a book in this story. I didn't expect it to be so stupid.

 

ATS bought assets from Penske and March. ATS re-built Penske F1 cars; who needs a March? It does not make sense, unless you are Art Merzario who was rethinking the March, to make his own car. 

[uechtel]

I didn´t say they bought March chassis, only the team infrastructure, FOCA membership and the assistance of chief designer Robin Herd to upgrade the Penske chassis. Wouldn´t that make sense if in your first year you had bought only a couple of cars, but not a proper base neither infrastructure for operation?

[HistoryFan]

Perhaps this is the mistake. F1 is no sport anymore, but business.
 

 

But I don't think the business is very well doing for the future...

 

[HistoryFan]

I don't think this is quite right as regards the 1960s. As early as 1963, before the formation of the F1CA, starting money was determined by the Monte Carlo scale. This divided the works teams into three goup: Cooper, Lotus and BRM being the highest paid, then Ferrari and Lola, then Brabham, ATS and Honda. It is interesting that Ferrari were not in the top group. Honda, of course, we're still over a year from entering Grand Prix racing. I don't know the position of private entrants, nor whether Parnell's Lolas took the place of the Bowmaker team in this respect. By the end of 1963, the Monte Carlo scale was replaced by the Mayfair scale which made separate provision for drivers and cars. The Mayfair scale was in place by the end of 1963 so must also have preceded the formation of the F1CA. The source of the is Peter Garnier's book 16 On The Grid.
 

 

 

Thank you very. very much.

 

I found this about that topic:
http://books.google....e money&f=false
 

[D28]

I can't think of many large companies who entered Grand Prix Racing for sporting reasons.    They did it to sell cars, or in some cases for national prestige.  Vanwall might be an exception - they raced because of Tony Vandervell's obsession.  He didn't need to do it to sell bearings.  Ferrari also raced because of Enzo's passion but they weren't a large company in those days.  As Fiat's influence grew, and particularly after Enzo's death, Ferrari success on the track brought prestige to all Italian companies.

 

I don't think it's possible to compare the present day with the past in this respect because modern Formula 1 racing can be very profitable.  That may be changing, of course, but several companies have grown to be large and profitable solely through racing.  I don't think that has happened before.

 

Ford in the 1960s may also be an exception; they must have spent many millions on every imaginable branch of motor sport including F1.  Some of this would have been overkill, as they couldn't justify it just for marginal car sales.

 

The Le Mans quest was due to the obsession of main owner Henry Ford, to best Ferrari. Once they had achieved this twice, the factory teams were essentially terminated. They then won 2 more times with John Wyer,  on the cheap by comparison.

Edited by D28, 02 December 2014 - 02:32.

[Roger Clark]

I am sure that Ford went racing in the 60s for commercial reasons. They were a publicly quoted company and could not have spent that amount of money on one man's obsession, even if he was the majority shareholder. I don't think Ford made much direct financial contribution to JW Automotive, apart from equipment and intellectual property.

I also believe that Ford were more than satisfied with the return on their investment in racing, both in increased sales and in improved image.

[D28]

I am sure that Ford went racing in the 60s for commercial reasons. They were a publicly quoted company and could not have spent that amount of money on one man's obsession, even if he was the majority shareholder. I don't think Ford made much direct financial contribution to JW Automotive, apart from equipment and intellectual property.

I also believe that Ford were more than satisfied with the return on their investment in racing, both in increased sales and in improved image.

Right. My point is that Ford went beyond the point where marginal dollars on sponsorship equaled extra sales of automobiles. In N America they sponsored Indy, drag racing, rallying, NASCAR, SCCA Cobra and Shelby mustang programs, TransAm; this plus all the international racing. The accountants eventually reined in the budget after 1967, but for a while they really poured money into motor sport, all to the benefit of enthusiasts. I don't think we have seen such a program by a major corporation since.

[D-Type]

I always understood that Ford's involvement in motor sport was because they wanted to change their image to appeal to the younger generation as market research showed  the demograph of their customer base was mainly older folk.

Edited by D-Type, 03 December 2014 - 00:36.

[ensign14]

The story I read was that ATS didn´t buy Penske (means the team), but only the cars, while in case of March it was a complete "legal" takeover of FOCA membership, team base and also Robin Herd´s assistance in developing the Penske into the first proper ATS. Didn´t Penske later build also the Rebaque?

 

It makes sense, in that ATS took March's numbers from 1977 for 1978.

[john aston]

The factor which has driven change in F1 more than anything else is TV. GPs were shown on TV sporadically when I was a kid because the TV companies obviously recognised that significant numbers of people attended races and many more were interested in them. So the sporting dog wagged the TV tail. As years went by the TV and associated advertising became more and more influential to the extent where the sport became the tail and the TV and advertising became the dog ..Add in the Ecclestone effect where races are pimped around to the highest bidder (step forward that pillar of democracy and motor sport passion Bahrain) and most of the money  goes to feed the greedy maws of CVC and its employee Ecclestone .

 

Which was all sort of predictable when Max Mosley sold off the commercial rights to a 70 plus Ecclestone for 100 years at the price of £1.50.   

 

And it all started  because people like Ken Tyrrell and Colin Chapman agreed that they'd rather concentrate on ..err..winning races than buying air tickets to the next GP - Bernie gets a good deal for us ...

 

The saga is a disgrace and an illustration of the fact that the term  'benign dictator' is an oxymoron

[uechtel]

It makes sense, in that ATS took March's numbers from 1977 for 1978.

Confirmation from Mike Lawrence: "The Story of March":

"By the end of the year Max [Mosley] had had enough of struggling in F1 with no money and threw in the towel. [...]Then Günter Schmid of ATS came along with an offer to buy March´s FOCA membership and the assets of the F1 team, so that let me off the hook. It meant I could move on without leaving March in the lurch. [...] At the end of the season Robin [Herd] bought Max´s shares, paid off most of the convertible debentures, and so effectively became sole owner of the company. When March sold its F1 assets and FOCA membership to ATS, most of the F1 team members went with it, although some, like Mike Smith, soon realized that working under the volatile Günter Schmid was no fun at all and when, after the first couple of races, they had to make their minds up, they returned to March. ATS started the season not only with the assets of March but also with the excellent Penske PC4s, one of which had given John Watson his first win, for Penske pulled out of Formula One at the end of the season [of course Lawrence is a year late on that]. These were given a few tweaks by Robin, who stayed in touch with the team for the first few races, and entered as ATS HS1s."

[Charlieman]

Thanks for your research, uechtel. We can assume therefore that when March re-entered F1, they were adopted as newcomers? 

 

So what happened to Penske's licence? Did Team Penske race long enough, irrespective of winning a Grand Prix, to attain F1CA membership? 

[uechtel]

Thanks for your research, uechtel. We can assume therefore that when March re-entered F1, they were adopted as newcomers? 

 

So what happened to Penske's licence? Did Team Penske race long enough, irrespective of winning a Grand Prix, to attain F1CA membership? 

 

The name March came back in 1981, by then things had fully changed. On one hand it was obviously kind of "joint venture" with RAM, who had been already there in 1980 (at least the second half of the season). So if RAM had already been FOCA member, then they would have probably brought that into the cooperation.

 

But probably more important, if you look the 8W articles about the FISA-FOCA-war, which is linked further up in this thread, you read that into 1981 everything was changed. While the cars and teams seemed to be still the same, the character of F1 was changed completely. Until then you had a number of more or less independently organised races, after which the FIA calculated the outcome of the championship. That is why you did have such different habits of dealing with privateer teams, number of participants, qualifying formats etc. From 1981 F1 was changed from just a collection of technical regulations into a complete product, means F1 and the world championship now became one and the same. There were no independent Formula 1 races any more (maybe with the exception of a few events explicitly sanctioned by the FIA) neither were there independent teams. As far as I understand to participate from now on you had to be a FOCA member (or one of the FISA teams), drivers had to have a super license etc. So obviously RAM-March had to apply for a FOCA membership, which they were granted. I think this had basically nothing to do with the results of the previous season any more, but rather whether the existing members would you let join the club or not. As far as I remember, the results of the previous season did then only matter for the regulation, that the ten best teams would receive financial support for travelling to the overseas races.

 

Penske: I don´t know whether they had FOCA membership, as in their active period it was obviously still possible to operate independently. So maybe they did not even have applied. Or maybe they had retained it and were thinking of a comeback some day. Would fit to the fact, that the factory had not been closed down either, as it is reported, that the Rebaque had been built there in 1979.

 

Besides that, having slept a night over the issue, I had some interesting thoughts that maybe the deal between March and ATS could have been under special circumstances, regarding that one of the person involved would soon be the second important person in the FOCA organisation. So maybe they could do things others couldn´t, who knows.

Edited by uechtel, 04 December 2014 - 17:17.

[Charlieman]

Penske: Would fit to the fact, that the factory had not been closed down either, as it is reported, that the Rebaque had been built there in 1979.

Team Rebaque proclaimed to come from Leamington Spa, which is a long way from Penske in Poole, Dorsetshire. Assume that all of the Rebaques were maintained or built in the heartland of England -- Warwickshire, Oxfordshire, thereabouts.

[Charlieman]

Besides that, having slept a night over the issue, I had some interesting thoughts that maybe the deal between March and ATS could have been under special circumstances, regarding that one of the person involved would soon be the second important person in the FOCA organisation. 

Probably not. Max Mosley ran March's F2 team to raise money, to keep the business on the road, and he brought in money. Profit to March arrived from BMW in F2, and a smidge from other categories which kept people smiling and racing.

 

We also have to consider that the March/ATS deal closed somewhere about 1978. The first Concorde Agreement was agreed in 1981.