69 replies to this topic

[uechtel]

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.

 

I did not say that Penske ran the team, they only built the car.

 

David Hodges: "The development work was lead by Geoff Ferris in the Penske factory at Poole, where the HR 100 was also built."

[uechtel]

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.

Mosley started to work full time for FOCA in 1978, that is what I wanted to point to. The ATS deal had nothing to do with the FISA war, like as you say this was much later. But I would not wonder too much if the transfer of FOCA membership to ATS would have been "an exception" under FOCA´s own regulations.

[Charlieman]

Mosley started to work full time for FOCA in 1978, that is what I wanted to point to. The ATS deal had nothing to do with the FISA war, like as you say this was much later. But I would not wonder too much if the transfer of FOCA membership to ATS would have been "an exception" under FOCA´s own regulations.

 

 

Mosley started to work full time for FOCA in 1978, that is what I wanted to point to. The ATS deal had nothing to do with the FISA war, like as you say this was much later. But I would not wonder too much if the transfer of FOCA membership to ATS would have been "an exception" under FOCA´s own regulations.

Sorry, mate but you have to separate F1CA from FOCA. 

Edited by Charlieman, 04 December 2014 - 19:18.

[D-Type]

Sorry, mate but you have to separate F1CA from FOCA. 

Why?  The organisation named the Formula One (or 1) Constructors' Association was originally abbreviated to F1CA until someone pointed out the "fica" is a rude word in some languages so the association changed its acronym to FOCA.  So F1CA and FOCA are simply the same organisation at different times.

Edited by D-Type, 04 December 2014 - 21:44.

[uechtel]

According to http://8w.forix.com/...n-timeline.html the renaming happened for 1978 when Mosley became the organisation´s legal advisor, so I don´t see where I mismatch something?

[Vitesse2]

John Blunsden in The Times used the acronym F1CA until 1977, switching to FOCA in 1978 although - presumably due to the paper's style guide - whenever the full name was printed it was always as 'Formula One Constructors Association' rather than 'Formula 1 Constructors Association'.

[Esminetz]

Well, you should see this:

In 1976 as a part of CSI existed a Formula 1 Working Group, in which there was a places for F1 Constructors, F1 Drivers and for F1 Sponsors:
http://archive.motor...iautomobile-fia

This Working Group was even in 1975:
http://archive.motor...ntinental-notes

This Working Group was created on May 10 1975:
http://hemeroteca.mu...01750/pdf.html#

You must understand that this Working Group is not the same as the current Formula One Commission. Actually it is the same thing, because the Working Group was reformed in the Commission in 1979 (Autosport, September 6, 1979, page 2), but they have different functions and authority. Nevertheless, the competitors had an impact on the sports authority.

Besides, the competitors had a place in CSI in the past. Automobil-Revue Zeitung of December 21 1967, on page 11, writes about the creation of the "London Committee" in CSI, with 5 members: Colin Chapman from the F1CA, Rob Walker from the private owners, Jo Bonnier from GPDA, one member from the organizers and one from CSI. I believe that the members of the Committee had the right to attend the meetings of CSI, but I don't know about any decisions of the Committee. Maybe, it has to do with the cancellation of article about the national colors in the Sporting Code in the same month...

Edited by Esminetz, 05 December 2014 - 11:35.

[HistoryFan]

Very interesting, thank you!

[Charlieman]

Why?  The organisation named the Formula One (or 1) Constructors' Association was originally abbreviated to F1CA until someone pointed out the "fica" is a rude word in some languages so the association changed its acronym to FOCA.  So F1CA and FOCA are simply the same organisation at different times.

You're right of course that FOCA is the successor organisation to F1CA. We don't know, owing to F1 privacy, whether it was just a name change or something more. The Forix site, linked above, gives us some clues.

 

In the case of ATS, ATS bought and raced the Penske PC4 car in 1977. In January 1978, ATS raced a new car, the ATS HS1, essentially the PC4 tweaked by Robin Herd (borrowed from March as part of the ATS/March membership deal). We can conclude that the ATS/March deal was finalised some time in 1977, and that F1CA approved it.

 

Aside from pedantry, does it matter whether the organisation was called F1CA or FOCA when ATS became a manufacturer? I think it matters because FOCA and/or FIA applied different rules in 1992 to the Scuderia Coloni/Andrea Moda Formula deal; Andrea Moda Formula were judged to be a new team.

[D-Type]

Exactly, date matters not the acronym being used.

[uechtel]

In the case of ATS, ATS bought and raced the Penske PC4 car in 1977. In January 1978, ATS raced a new car, the ATS HS1, essentially the PC4 tweaked by Robin Herd (borrowed from March as part of the ATS/March membership deal). We can conclude that the ATS/March deal was finalised some time in 1977, and that F1CA approved it.

 

 

That is exactly what I wanted to point two. With Mosley´s double role as member of March and F1CA/FOCA representative this is a little bit like when in a football game the referee is at the same time player for one of the teams.

 

Aside from pedantry, does it matter whether the organisation was called F1CA or FOCA when ATS became a manufacturer? I think it matters because FOCA and/or FIA applied different rules in 1992 to the Scuderia Coloni/Andrea Moda Formula deal; Andrea Moda Formula were judged to be a new team.

 

Really, I don´t think you can conclude back from events after 1981. So far I do not see any reason why in 1977/78 it would matter whether you were a "new team" or not. What obviously did matter was, whether you were a F1CA/FOCA member or not, because it meant that you had some advantages concerning the acceptance from organizers, starting money, travel costs etc., and this probably depended also on your merits from the previous season. But still you could, like ATS in 1977, just buy a car and participate as an independent "privateer" without F1CA/FOCA membership.

 

But 1981 was a really fundamental change, as F1 was no longer just a collection of technical regulations for Grand Prix cars, but was turned into a "product", a closed series exclusively for FOCA members. That meant that FOCA was now in the position to set up the regulations for their own purpose. For example new teams were obliged to pay a deposit in order to make sure, that they would take part seriously in the complete series and not only in selected races. Even then there seems to have been always space for negotiations like Haas-Lola and Zakspeed in 1985 or also AGS and Coloni being allowed to make some occasional "test runs" in 1986/87. In case of Andrea Moda this seriosity was obviously doubted from beginning (in fact they were later excluded exactly for this reason), so that may have been the cause why FOCA was not so conciliatory to them.

 

But to turn this rule into a mighty weapon they had to combine it with another new regulation, that every team had to design their own car. In fact this was a definition of what is regarded to be a "team" from the legal side. So while de-facto the operations at the track could still be done by teams like Larrousse or Dallara, the entry had to be made under the name of the manufaturer (didn´t Larrousse in particular loose all his points from 1990 just because of that?). So in case of Andrea Moda the FOCA insisted, that they had only bought the cars (like ATS with Penske in 1977) but not Coloni´s FOCA membership (unlike ATS with March in 1978). So Andrea Moda was regarded as a new team and with the consequence, that they would not only have to pay the "entrance fee" into Formula 1 but also that by using former Coloni chassis they were infringing the rule, that no team was allowed to use "customer" cars that were made by some other manufacturer.

 

But nothing of this was relevant in 1978, the change came only in 1981, so no direct connection to the F1CA/FOCA renaming.

[Michael Ferner]

    

That is exactly what I wanted to point two. With Mosley´s double role as member of March and F1CA/FOCA representative this is a little bit like when in a football game the referee is at the same time player for one of the teams.

 

 

Not at all. FOCA was never "referee", just lobbyist.

 

 

EDIT: not my fault that the quote is wrongly assigned - "new improved software" at work, again!

Edited by Michael Ferner, 09 December 2014 - 13:07.

[uechtel]

 

    

 

 

 

Not at all. FOCA was never "referee", just lobbyist.

 

 

Also when it is about selling/buying FOCA membership?

[Charlieman]

Really, I don´t think you can conclude back from events after 1981. So far I do not see any reason why in 1977/78 it would matter whether you were a "new team" or not. What obviously did matter was, whether you were a F1CA/FOCA member or not, because it meant that you had some advantages concerning the acceptance from organizers, starting money, travel costs etc., and this probably depended also on your merits from the previous season. But still you could, like ATS in 1977, just buy a car and participate as an independent "privateer" without F1CA/FOCA membership.

Regarding events after 1981, I'll return to the point shortly.

 

It mattered whether you were a "new team" in 1977/78 because, on my understanding, you couldn't join F1CA unless you had participated in the previous season as a manufacturer and met a minimum performance qualification (a sixth place or higher). In those years, the F1 season started with races in South America, South Africa and the USA; F1CA membership allowed financially poor teams like Ensign to attend those races.

 

ATS couldn't have been a member in 1977 because they were a team racing a purchased car. As a new manufacturer in 1978, ATS didn't qualify for F1CA membership on their own merit so the team purchased March's seat and benefits. ATS entered two cars at every race except Japan (no entry, explanation anyone?) and scored zero points in the season after a promising start. That results score would have pushed ATS out of FOCA (for the new name now applied) and in 1979 ATS entered a single car, scoring points. In 1980, ATS were back in FOCA and submitted two entries. 

 

For ATS , F1CA/FOCA membership = two cars, and non-membership = one car (with occasional guests). It would be wrong to conclude too much from the behaviour of ATS/Gunter Schmid, but membership was not a minor financial consideration in those days. 

 

***

Who else bought a F1CA membership at the time? Frank Williams Racing Cars became Walter Wolf Racing, but Walter Wolf acquired the entire entity including the factory. Wolf bought more than a piece of paper.

 

One interesting thing about the ATS/March deal, as uechtel notes, is that March sold some intellectual property and consulting time, bundled with F1CA membership. A few months later, Max Mosley (ex-March) became an employee of F1CA (or was it FOCA yet?), the organisation which had approved the deal which set him free.

[Charlieman]

Really, I don´t think you can conclude back from events after 1981...

 

But 1981 was a really fundamental change, as F1 was no longer just a collection of technical regulations for Grand Prix cars, but was turned into a "product", a closed series exclusively for FOCA members. That meant that FOCA was now in the position to set up the regulations for their own purpose. 

My comparison of March/ATS with the Scuderia Coloni/Andrea Moda Formula deal was not about fairness or equality. I was making the point that participation rules had changed substantially about what defined an entrant and a manufacturer. I provided the ammunition for your argument that FOCA and FIA expected more professional teams in the 1990s.

 

What makes it relevant to 1977/78? In 1977, Max Mosley worked for March, primarily managing their successful F2 team. In mid-1978, he appeared to be working with the rebels against the establishment. When the rebels became the establishment, Mosley forgot the sacrifices that his colleagues at March had made in the 1970s.

[Tim Murray]

As a new manufacturer in 1978, ATS didn't qualify for F1CA membership on their own merit so the team purchased March's seat and benefits. ATS entered two cars at every race except Japan (no entry, explanation anyone?)...

ATS entered two cars for every World Championship race in 1978. The Japanese GP didn't form part of the championship that year,

[Charlieman]

ATS entered two cars for every World Championship race in 1978. The Japanese GP didn't form part of the championship that year,

I thought, just for once, Wikpedia could be trusted for the racing record of ATS. I've learned... Thanks, Tim.

[Michael Ferner]

Quote:

Also when it is about selling/buying FOCA membership?

 

Again, FOCA was/is only lobby, so your comparison doesn't fit. If you must compare with football, try the manager of a team deciding who's fit to join the fan club.

 

 

Re Japan '78, the race was cancelled several weeks in advance. I don't know if they'd opened the entry list already.

[uechtel]

@Charlieman, finally I am gradually starting to understand your point.

 

But I am really not sure yet, whether F1CA/FOCA had to take their own rules too strictly in those days. Generally I have the impression that during the seventies many things in F1 were handled more pragmatically and as F1CA/FOCA was still rather kind of "lobby organisation" (means without constitutive role in Grand Prix racing) they were probably more free in their decisions than after 1981 when they had become de-facto the governing body of F1.

 

ATS couldn't have been a member in 1977 because they were a team racing a purchased car. As a new manufacturer in 1978, ATS didn't qualify for F1CA membership on their own merit so the team purchased March's seat and benefits. ATS entered two cars at every race except Japan (no entry, explanation anyone?) and scored zero points in the season after a promising start. That results score would have pushed ATS out of FOCA (for the new name now applied) and in 1979 ATS entered a single car, scoring points. In 1980, ATS were back in FOCA and submitted two entries. 

 

For ATS , F1CA/FOCA membership = two cars, and non-membership = one car (with occasional guests). It would be wrong to conclude too much from the behaviour of ATS/Gunter Schmid, but membership was not a minor financial consideration in those days. 

 

Ok, this is an interesting theory, nevertheless I am not sure whether you can really conclude that so simply. It may have been like you suggest, but maybe there were other factors. ATS scored a point in 1977 with the Penske, so maybe this helped. Also we don´t know whether each team scoring points would be automatically have the right to become member or whether there was still some kind of deciding process among the FOCA members. Also losing the member status does not seem so simple, because BRM for example did not score points already in 1975, nevertheless I think I can remember, that they lost their membership as late as during the 1977 season (correct me if I am wrong).

 

 

So maybe we have to look for other examples to verify your theory.

 

And I agree with you absolutely, FOCA membership was certainly very important for the teams on financial side. But it was different to post-1981, in so far as you could take part in Grand Prix racing nevertheless.

 

Who else bought a F1CA membership at the time? Frank Williams Racing Cars became Walter Wolf Racing, but Walter Wolf acquired the entire entity including the factory. Wolf bought more than a piece of paper.

 

 

 

The Williams-Wolf transition was in two steps, with the team entering under both names in 1976. Nevertheless, the press made up a big sensation when Scheckter won the very first race of the "new team" in 1977. So does this mean they had already F1CA membership in 1977 (bought together with the assets of Frank Williams Racing Cars) or only from 1978 onward? And they still did use only one car in 1978 and 1979 before the team made another identity change into Fittipaldi.
 

 

 

One interesting thing about the ATS/March deal, as uechtel notes, is that March sold some intellectual property and consulting time, bundled with F1CA membership. A few months later, Max Mosley (ex-March) became an employee of F1CA (or was it FOCA yet?), the organisation which had approved the deal which set him free.

;-)

 

[uechtel]

My comparison of March/ATS with the Scuderia Coloni/Andrea Moda Formula deal was not about fairness or equality. I was making the point that participation rules had changed substantially about what defined an entrant and a manufacturer. I provided the ammunition for your argument that FOCA and FIA expected more professional teams in the 1990s.

 

 

Ok, then we agree on that as well.

 

 

What makes it relevant to 1977/78? In 1977, Max Mosley worked for March, primarily managing their successful F2 team. In mid-1978, he appeared to be working with the rebels against the establishment. When the rebels became the establishment, Mosley forgot the sacrifices that his colleagues at March had made in the 1970s.

 

Isn´t that a common phenomen to watch at politicians?