99 replies to this topic

[lustigson]

Edit: the thread title was changed to include “factory F1 teams”.

 

In the very interesting topic that Nemo1965 started, I stumbled upon two related posts:

 

5. Red Bull is not considered a British team. It is not even considered as a real F1-team.

 

My own personal view on Red Bull is that they are basically a modern day Benetton** - they exist to market a non-automotive business but have had more than enough longevity and success (the former being more important IMO) to deserve respect.

 

My reply was:

 

At the risk of going waaaayyyyy off-topic, I posted a thread on Twitter, replying to the anti-Andrettti-Cadillac sentiments in the paddock, suggesting that it is as much an F1 team as all the others are (or are not).

 

I thought I’d share my thoughts here, too, and elaborate on it somewhat.

 

From Twitter: I was intrigued by the naysayers in F1 regarding the Andretti and Cadillac bit. As if it's not a factory effort. Well, it isn't... but the thing is, there are no proper OEM or factory teams in F1 anymore.

1. Red Bull:
   • Specialist racing team and race car builder (founded as Stewart in 1997)
   • Specialist power train builder (based on Honda IP), collaboration with Ford (from 2026)
   • Owned by auto manufacturer Ford and branded Jaguar (2000-2004)
   • Owned and branded by main sponsor (since 2005)
   • Factory team (Renault, Honda) and customer engines (Cosworth, Ferrari, Renault)
2. Ferrari:
   • Specialist racing team (since 1929) racing Alfa Romeo cars
   • Building its own race cars and engines (since 1947)
   • Owned by auto manufacturer FIAT (since 1969), publicly traded (since 2015)
3. Mercedes:
   • Not the same entity as Mercedes factory team (1954-1955)!
   • Specialist racing team (founded as Tyrrell in 1958) and race car builder (since 1970)
   • Subsequently owned by British American Tobacco, Honda, and Ross Brawn
   • Factory team (Yamaha, Honda) and customer engines (Ford, Renault, Honda, Ilmor)
   • Specialist power train builder with its roots in Ilmor Engineering (since 1993)
   • Owned by Mercedes, Ineos and Toto Wolff (all 33%)
   • Branded by one of the owners
4. Alpine/Renault:
   • Not the same entity as Renault factory team (1977-1985)!
   • Specialist racing team (founded as Toleman in 1981)
   • Subsequently owned by Benetton, Renault, GenII, and Renault again
   • Power trains manufactured by specialist company Mecachrome (since 1989)
   • Owned by auto manufacturer Renault and branded after sport marque Alpine
5. McLaren:
   • Specialist racing team (founded in 1966)
   • Buy-out by Project 4 (Ron Dennis) and Marlboro in 1980
   • Building its own road cars (since 1995)
   • Helped design and fund TAG-branded Porsche-built engines (1984-1987)
   • Factory team (Honda, Peugeot, Mercedes) and customer engines (Ford, Renault, Mercedes)
6. Alfa Romeo/Sauber:
   • Not the same entity as Alfa Romeo factory team (1950-1951, 1979-1985)!
   • Specialist racing team (founded in 1970; in Formula 1 since 1993)
   • Owned by BMW (2005-2009) and Audi (partly in 2023; factory team from 2026)
   • Buy-out by investor Longbow Finance (2016)
   • Factory team (Mercedes, Ford, BMW, Audi) and customer engines (Ferrari)
   • Ironically an alliance with Red Bull and Ford (1995-1996)
7. Aston Martin:
   • Not the same entity as Aston Martin (1959-1960)!
   • Specialist racing team (founded as Jordan in 1991)
   • Subsequently owned by Midland, Spyker, Force India, and Racing Point
   • Factory team (Yamaha, Peugeot), customer engines (Ford, Hart, Mugen, Honda, Toyota, Ferrari, Mercedes
   • Branded by conglomerate that also owns luxury auto manufacturer Aston Martin
8. Haas:
   • Odd one, being a quasi-customer team of Ferrari (founded 2016)
   • Race car design and manufacturing outsourced to Dallara (since 2016)
   • Owned by CMC machining company Haas and branded as such
9. AlphaTauri:
   • Specialist racing team (founded as Minardi in 1979) and race car builder (since 1985)
   • Bought out by Red Bull (2006), branded after clothing brand AlphaTauri (2020)
   • Effectively customer team of Red Bull (2006-2009)
   • Quasi factory team (Honda), and customer engines (Motori Moderni, Ford, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Hart, Asiatech (ex-Peugeot), Cosworth)
10. Williams:
    • Specialist racing team (since 1977) and race car builder (since 1978)
    • Majority owned by founder Frank Williams, partly publicly traded (since 2011)
    • Buy-out by investors Dorilton Capital (2020)
    • Factory team (Honda, Renault, BMW) and customer engines (Ford, Judd, Mecachrome/Supertec, Cosworth, Toyota, Renault, Mercedes)
11. Andretti:
    • Specialist racing team (founded as Forsythe Racing in 1981)
    • Branded by main sponsor Cadillac (from 2026 (?))
    • Customer engines (Renault, from 2026)

Hope I don’t have too many errors in the overview. Curious for your thoughts.

 

Edit: the thread title was changed to include “factory F1 teams”.

Edited by lustigson, 13 March 2023 - 14:14.

[Nathan]

Looks like Andretti needs to buy a team.  Would be very F1 of him.

[bibliophagos]

[*]Specialist power train builder (based on Honda IP), collaboration with Ford (from 2026)

I keep reading 'based on Honda IP' on this forum and on social media. What is this based on? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I dont remember reading anywhere in the reporting at the time that Honda sold, leased or gave any IP away to RB. The engine now in development is, AFAIK, a pure RBPT effort, the engines currently in use are still maintained and assembled by Honda. So why does everyone keep saying that the RBPT engine of '26 onward is based on Honda IP? If Honda is going to enter as a PT manufacturer themselves, it would be curious to say the least if they handed over any IP. Is there a source for this?

Edited by bibliophagos, 12 March 2023 - 19:37.

[Sterzo]

A definition would be welcome. What do you mean by an old school F1 team?

[GreenMachine]

No, there are not, the world keeps moving on, who knew?

[New Britain]

I keep reading 'based on Honda IP' on this forum and on social media. What is this based on? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I dont remember reading anywhere in the reporting at the time that Honda sold, leased or gave any IP away to RB. The engine now in development is, AFAIK, a pure RBPT effort, the engines currently in use are still maintained and assembled by Honda. So why does everyone keep saying that the RBPT engine of '26 onward is based on Honda IP? If Honda is going to enter as a PT manufacturer themselves, it would be curious to say the least if they handed over any IP. Is there a source for this?

 

Unless I misunderstand, I believe that they are using Honda IP:

 

'Honda and Red Bull have announced an extension to their power unit support deal that will see them continue their relationship until the end of 2025.

'Honda withdrew from Formula 1 at the end of 2021, having powered Red Bull’s Max Verstappen to his maiden Formula 1 World Championship. Red Bull Powertrains – a new company set up by the Austrian outfit – then took over the Honda engine IP, but with help from the Japanese company under a support agreement. They are currently leading both championships with Red Bull, while the power units also power the AlphaTauri team.

'The technical partnership with Honda was initially only to last until the end of 2023 but will now run until the end of 2025, when a brand-new set of power unit regulations are set to come into play.'

 

https://www.formula1...mxNlWnB2ST.html

 

Red Bull have many talented people, but it would be extraordinary if they could have started from scratch and designed and built a race-winning PU in a matter of months!

I thought the idea was that Honda were continuing their involvement specifically because they wanted to protect their IP.

[Joseki]

Is this a thread for old people to tell each other how "back it the days we had REAL Formula 1 teams I tell you"?

[PayasYouRace]

A definition would be welcome. What do you mean by an old school F1 team?

 

Five men in a shed with a Coventry-Climax four-pot in the corner.

[Fastcake]

An old school F1 team, I would describe that as an independent racing team whose sole purpose is to race cars and pay their way through results, owned and run by the same people. The last echo of that was lost when Frank Williams and the family sold up.

I guess if Mercedes ever packed up and left, Toto Wolff (being the only team principal and owner left) could become a garagiste, if perhaps not one anyone of old would have recognised.

[YamahaV10]

Red Bull is 100% an old school style race team. Just replace Red Bull with a big tobacco company. The team principal is also CEO and he came from the low ranks of racing. He's not some x hedge fund guy or something. 

 

Ferrari is also an old school team. Because its arrangement is basically the same as it was from the beginning.  

[New Britain]

Red Bull is 100% an old school style race team. Just replace Red Bull with a big tobacco company. The team principal is also CEO and he came from the low ranks of racing. He's not some x hedge fund guy or something. 

 

Ferrari is also an old school team. Because its arrangement is basically the same as it was from the beginning.  

I'd have to disagree. Red Bull Racing exists to market Red Bull canned energy drinks.

Now that F1 is pretty much self-funding for every team, Red Bull might stick at it for many more seasons, but their raison d'être was not the same as Ferrari's, McLaren's, Williams's, or Sauber's.

If Red Bull is 100% an old school style racing team, you'd have to say that Red Bull is also an old school football team, an old school ice hockey team, and an old-school events promoter.  

[New Britain]

An old school F1 team, I would describe that as an independent racing team whose sole purpose is to race cars and pay their way through results, owned and run by the same people. The last echo of that was lost when Frank Williams and the family sold up.

I guess if Mercedes ever packed up and left, Toto Wolff (being the only team principal and owner left) could become a garagiste, if perhaps not one anyone of old would have recognised.

Supposedly the game plan is for Ineos, which now owns 33% of Merc F1, to up its stake to 70%.

[baddog]

Yes things change over time, and there are different types of teams who's owners fund them for different purposes. In practical fact it tends to make little difference. Sure RB own RBR for 'marketing' purposes (though its also in some ways a 'hobby' for the owners using marketing as an excuse. like Stroll with AMR is) Can anyone seriously say that the actual team RBR are less functionally engaged in F1 than Mclaren? Or Ferrari?

 

If RB ever decided to divest from RBR then you would likely see a sale or a management takeover, as has happened with countless other team ownerships.

 

I don't see why a deal is being made of it.

[YamahaV10]

I'd have to disagree. Red Bull Racing exists to market Red Bull canned energy drinks.

Now that F1 is pretty much self-funding for every team, Red Bull might stick at it for many more seasons, but their raison d'être was not the same as Ferrari's, McLaren's, Williams's, or Sauber's.

If Red Bull is 100% an old school style racing team, you'd have to say that Red Bull is also an old school football team, an old school ice hockey team, and an old-school events promoter.

 

Look at Christian Horner and Helmut Marko's life history and tell me that Red Bull isn't an old school racing team.    Red Bull is just a sponsor. 

Edited by YamahaV10, 13 March 2023 - 01:58.

[bibliophagos]

Unless I misunderstand, I believe that they are using Honda IP:

 

'Honda and Red Bull have announced an extension to their power unit support deal that will see them continue their relationship until the end of 2025.

'Honda withdrew from Formula 1 at the end of 2021, having powered Red Bull’s Max Verstappen to his maiden Formula 1 World Championship. Red Bull Powertrains – a new company set up by the Austrian outfit – then took over the Honda engine IP, but with help from the Japanese company under a support agreement. They are currently leading both championships with Red Bull, while the power units also power the AlphaTauri team.

'The technical partnership with Honda was initially only to last until the end of 2023 but will now run until the end of 2025, when a brand-new set of power unit regulations are set to come into play.'

 

https://www.formula1...mxNlWnB2ST.html

 

Red Bull have many talented people, but it would be extraordinary if they could have started from scratch and designed and built a race-winning PU in a matter of months!

I thought the idea was that Honda were continuing their involvement specifically because they wanted to protect their IP.

This is quite OT, sorry about bringing it up here and I'll let it go after this, but in my understanding RBPT doesn't have anything to do with the current engines. They're 100% Honda engines, built and serviced by Honda, whatever the badge says. Of course Red Bull didn't build a complete engine from scratch in a couple of months, you're absolutely right, because they didn't have to: Honda builds the engines. So I don't think there was any transfer of IP to RBPT in the end, even if that was originally planned. RBPT is AFAIA currently focussing on building a new engine for the 2026 regulations, without any input from Honda (the company).

[loki]

There never were...

[kumo7]

In the very interesting topic that Nemo1965 started, I stumbled upon two related posts:

 

 

 

My reply was:

 

 

I thought I’d share my thoughts here, too, and elaborate on it somewhat.

 

From Twitter: I was intrigued by the naysayers in F1 regarding the Andretti and Cadillac bit. As if it's not a factory effort. Well, it isn't... but the thing is, there are no proper OEM or factory teams in F1 anymore.

1. Red Bull:
   • Specialist racing team and race car builder (founded as Stewart in 1997)
   • Specialist power train builder (based on Honda IP), collaboration with Ford (from 2026)
   • Owned by auto manufacturer Ford and branded Jaguar (2000-2004)
   • Owned and branded by main sponsor (since 2005)
   • Factory team (Renault, Honda) and customer engines (Cosworth, Ferrari, Renault)
2. Ferrari:
   • Specialist racing team (since 1929) racing Alfa Romeo cars
   • Building its own race cars and engines (since 1947)
   • Owned by auto manufacturer FIAT (since 1969), publicly traded (since 2015)
3. Mercedes:
   • Not the same entity as Mercedes factory team (1954-1955)!
   • Specialist racing team (founded as Tyrrell in 1958) and race car builder (since 1970)
   • Subsequently owned by British American Tobacco, Honda, and Ross Brawn
   • Factory team (Yamaha, Honda) and customer engines (Ford, Renault, Honda, Ilmor)
   • Specialist power train builder with its roots in Ilmor Engineering (since 1993)
   • Owned by Mercedes, Ineos and Toto Wolff (all 33%)
   • Branded by one of the owners
4. Alpine/Renault:
   • Not the same entity as Renault factory team (1977-1985)!
   • Specialist racing team (founded as Toleman in 1981)
   • Subsequently owned by Benetton, Renault, GenII, and Renault again
   • Power trains manufactured by specialist company Mecachrome (since 1989)
   • Owned by auto manufacturer Renault and branded after sport marque Alpine
5. McLaren:
   • Specialist racing team (founded in 1966)
   • Buy-out by Project 4 (Ron Dennis) and Marlboro in 1980
   • Building its own road cars (since 1995)
   • Helped design and fund TAG-branded Porsche-built engines (1984-1987)
   • Factory team (Honda, Peugeot, Mercedes) and customer engines (Ford, Renault, Mercedes)
6. Alfa Romeo/Sauber:
   • Not the same entity as Alfa Romeo factory team (1950-1951, 1979-1985)!
   • Specialist racing team (founded in 1970; in Formula 1 since 1993)
   • Owned by BMW (2005-2009) and Audi (partly in 2023; factory team from 2026)
   • Buy-out by investor Longbow Finance (2016)
   • Factory team (Mercedes, Ford, BMW, Audi) and customer engines (Ferrari)
   • Ironically an alliance with Red Bull and Ford (1995-1996)
7. Aston Martin:
   • Not the same entity as Aston Martin (1959-1960)!
   • Specialist racing team (founded as Jordan in 1991)
   • Subsequently owned by Midland, Spyker, Force India, and Racing Point
   • Factory team (Yamaha, Peugeot), customer engines (Ford, Hart, Mugen, Honda, Toyota, Ferrari, Mercedes
   • Branded by conglomerate that also owns luxury auto manufacturer Aston Martin
8. Haas:
   • Odd one, being a quasi-customer team of Ferrari (founded 2016)
   • Race car design and manufacturing outsourced to Dallara (since 2016)
   • Owned by CMC machining company Haas and branded as such
9. AlphaTauri:
   • Specialist racing team (founded as Minardi in 1979) and race car builder (since 1985)
   • Bought out by Red Bull (2006), branded after clothing brand AlphaTauri (2020)
   • Effectively customer team of Red Bull (2006-2009)
   • Quasi factory team (Honda), and customer engines (Motori Moderni, Ford, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Hart, Asiatech (ex-Peugeot), Cosworth)
10. Williams:
    • Specialist racing team (since 1977) and race car builder (since 1978)
    • Majority owned by founder Frank Williams, partly publicly traded (since 2011)
    • Buy-out by investors Dorilton Capital (2020)
    • Factory team (Honda, Renault, BMW) and customer engines (Ford, Judd, Mecachrome/Supertec, Cosworth, Toyota, Renault, Mercedes)
11. Andretti:
    • Specialist racing team (founded as Forsythe Racing in 1981)
    • Branded by main sponsor Cadillac (from 2026 (?))
    • Customer engines (Renault, from 2026)

Hope I don’t have too many errors in the overview. Curious for your thoughts.

 

Edit: the thread title should’ve stated “factory F1 teams” or something along those line.

 

Looks like a short history lesson instead of the "build" of a F1 racing team. 

What is "old school" to begin with? Is it James Hunt teaming up with Heskes and go racing; Enzo Ferrari, or Soichiro Honda, kicking the but of his company to go racing; or Brabam or McLaren coming over the ocean to go racing, or ex-racer like Frank Williams starting his own team?

Or else, a racing team that only consists of the boss, the engineers and logistic team, time keeper that do not have any of the marketing stuff? 

 

As opposed to this "old school," what is the typical "non-old school" organization? 

 

Sorry, I am lost. Please state facts, rules, and conclusion...  But by taking the RedBull as an example, I come too short in knowing the fact on how the team was conceived, organized and run.

Edited by kumo7, 13 March 2023 - 07:01.

[RedRabbit]

I'd have to disagree. Red Bull Racing exists to market Red Bull canned energy drinks.
Now that F1 is pretty much self-funding for every team, Red Bull might stick at it for many more seasons, but their raison d'être was not the same as Ferrari's, McLaren's, Williams's, or Sauber's.
If Red Bull is 100% an old school style racing team, you'd have to say that Red Bull is also an old school football team, an old school ice hockey team, and an old-school events promoter.

Selling Red Bull energy drinks was merely a means to an end for an extreme sports enthusiast.

Dietrich Mateschitz is no different to Enzo Ferrari in that regard. Both needed a way to fund their passions.

It's not coincidence that Red Bull are heavily involved in every single extreme sports discipline around the world, and heavily invest in all types of motorsport.

They don't need F1 to increase sales.

They're a proper racing team, run purely by racers. Christian Horner and Helmet Marko have more racing history and pedigree than any other team management.

[MikeTekRacing]

Selling Red Bull energy drinks was merely a means to an end for an extreme sports enthusiast.

Dietrich Mateschitz is no different to Enzo Ferrari in that regard. Both needed a way to fund their passions.

It's not coincidence that Red Bull are heavily involved in every single extreme sports discipline around the world, and heavily invest in all types of motorsport.

They don't need F1 to increase sales.

They're a proper racing team, run purely by racers. Christian Horner and Helmet Marko have more racing history and pedigree than any other team management.

This is so not widely known.

For people who don’t know how Horner ended up at Red Bull Racing and what his racing history is this is a good video https://youtu.be/eqDcX4tB8io

[Nemo1965]

This is quite interesting. A question. Imagine that sponsoring would be forbidden in F1 - except when you pay directly to FOM and/or Liberty. All teams get the same digital panels as McLaren has, and the FOM distributes all the sponsormoney to all the teams, always based on the results of the previous season or perhaps the previous race. 

 

- Which teambosses and teams would not leave F1 but stay if possible, because they love racing more than money? (Those would be the real F1-teams in my mind).

- Which drivers would stay in F1 when their salaries would be cut severely (I think: all of them)

[New Britain]

Look at Christian Horner and Helmut Marko's life history and tell me that Red Bull isn't an old school racing team.    Red Bull is just a sponsor. 

Except the 'sponsor' owns the team. As new owners they went out and hired racing people to operate the racing team for them, of course - they weren't going to have people from the Red Bull drinks plant in Austria on a Formula One pit-wall.

[lustigson]

Is this a thread for old people to tell each other how "back it the days we had REAL Formula 1 teams I tell you"?

 

An old school F1 team, I would describe that as an independent racing team whose sole purpose is to race cars and pay their way through results, owned and run by the same people. The last echo of that was lost when Frank Williams and the family sold up.

I guess if Mercedes ever packed up and left, Toto Wolff (being the only team principal and owner left) could become a garagiste, if perhaps not one anyone of old would have recognised.

 

Looks like a short history lesson instead of the "build" of a F1 racing team. 

What is "old school" to begin with? Is it James Hunt teaming up with Heskes and go racing; Enzo Ferrari, or Soichiro Honda, kicking the but of his company to go racing; or Brabam or McLaren coming over the ocean to go racing, or ex-racer like Frank Williams starting his own team?

Or else, a racing team that only consists of the boss, the engineers and logistic team, time keeper that do not have any of the marketing stuff? 

 

As opposed to this "old school," what is the typical "non-old school" organization? 

 

Sorry, I am lost. Please state facts, rules, and conclusion...  But by taking the RedBull as an example, I come too short in knowing the fact on how the team was conceived, organized and run.

 

I'm sorry, I used the wrong phrase in the thread title, and forgot to add a little more context to my opening post. 

 

The trigger for me to look at the current F1 teams again from a different perspective, was when Andretti/Cadillac was frowned upon in the F1 paddock as not begin a serious factory effort. That got me thinking: what is an old school factory team, then, and how many does F1 still have?

 

Judging from the list, there aren't many proper, old-fashioned factory teams like the 50s' Mercedes, the 60s' Honda and Porsche, and the 70s-80s' Renault, and 00s' Toyota teams. Even the current Mercedes and Alpine/Renault teams aren't factory teams in that sense.

 

It's all fine by me, though. I'd even say that, having more independent racing teams is better for the sport than having 'proper' factory teams that pull the plug for various reasons every once in a while.

Edited by lustigson, 13 March 2023 - 07:53.

[azza200]

Old school F1 teams like Jordan, Stewart GP, Minardi etc 

[New Britain]

Selling Red Bull energy drinks was merely a means to an end for an extreme sports enthusiast.

Dietrich Mateschitz is no different to Enzo Ferrari in that regard. Both needed a way to fund their passions.

It's not coincidence that Red Bull are heavily involved in every single extreme sports discipline around the world, and heavily invest in all types of motorsport.

They don't need F1 to increase sales.

They're a proper racing team, run purely by racers. Christian Horner and Helmet Marko have more racing history and pedigree than any other team management.

I have put in bold the key part of your post. Ferrari, McLaren, and Williams did not 'invest' in motor sport. They raced because they felt they had to do it. They were deeply engaged, hands-on owners. It was not to them a side business.

The fact that Red Bull are involved in so many kinds of 'extreme' or high intensity sports demonstrates that for Red Bull motor racing was not the be-all and end-all. I seriously doubt whether, if they had had almost unlimited money at their disposal, Enzo Ferrari would have organised a cliff diving competition or Frank Williams would have started an ice hockey team.

 

We always heard about Dietrich Mateschitz's passion for motor sport (and other fast-paced sports), which was fair enough, but my understanding is that Red Bull has always been controlled by the Yoovidhya family who own 51%, with Mateschitz owning just 49%. If so, until the point when F1 became self-funding, which was only recently, the position that Red Bull were paying many millions per year to have a Formula One team out of sheer passion for the sport itself, and not for marketing purposes, would be arguing that Yoovidhya had exactly the same passion as Mateschitz and was happy to spend millions of his own money every year on racing for its own sake. That is theoretically possible, although I am unaware of any evidence for it.

[KeithD68]

Frank Williams was the last, alas there are none left, F1 is all corporate

[kumo7]

This is so not widely known.

For people who don’t know how Horner ended up at Red Bull Racing and what his racing history is this is a good video https://youtu.be/eqDcX4tB8io

 

2/3of it are know to me, but the other 1/3, racer Horner, thank you for this troy telling. 

[kumo7]

I'm sorry, I used the wrong phrase in the thread title, and forgot to add a little more context to my opening post. 

 

The trigger for me to look at the current F1 teams again from a different perspective, was when Andretti/Cadillac was frowned upon in the F1 paddock as not begin a serious factory effort. That got me thinking: what is an old school factory team, then, and how many does F1 still have?

 

Judging from the list, there aren't many proper, old-fashioned factory teams like the 50s' Mercedes, the 60s' Honda and Porsche, and the 70s-80s' Renault, and 00s' Toyota teams. Even the current Mercedes and Alpine/Renault teams aren't factory teams in that sense.

 

It's all fine by me, though. I'd even say that, having more independent racing teams is better for the sport than having 'proper' factory teams that pull the plug for various reasons every once in a while.

 

For me, "old School" pointed "garagista". 

But like Alfa being replaced by Ferrari things happens. Ferrari could be a works team, but Ferrari started the race team before road-car division. Some said Enzo did no care too much  bout the luxury aspects of the road-cars.

RedBull in spirit is an old school, if you ask me, but the process of purchasing an existing team does not belongs to this old school, that went through the difficulty of finding funding and fighting on.

Frank William's team was the old school to me.

Current teams, like Ferrari, Mercedes, Red-Bull, Sauber-Alfa Romeo, Aston Martin, Alfa Tauri, Williams, Alpine, Haas, all went though this purchasing and reorganizing the team, so they are not. McLaren even if it had big changes twice, at least, with Dennis in 1980 and then by Brown, it remains as the same team... or am I biased?

Edited by kumo7, 13 March 2023 - 09:45.

[Nemo1965]

Frank Williams was the last, alas there are none left, F1 is all corporate

 

This is an understandable viewpoint, but I think it doesn't really reflect how humans during their lives WANT to do things. There's this romantic idea of 'talents' who do the things they do 'because it is in their hearts'. There are some musicians, tennisplayers, racing drivers etcetera who are like that. But many more of them (I think most) started doing not because of the intrinsic value of it, but because of extrinsic stuff like…money. Or girls. 9 out of 10 famous musicians from the 70's I ever saw interviewed said they started bands because they wanted to meet girls. And to get free drugs. Most of the younger artists coming up state blandly they want to become famous.

 

But you know what? After doing something for money, you usually grow a passion. Richard Williams always admitted he chose tennis for his daughters because he saw the biggest chance of them getting rich. For his daughters it grew into a passion. The reasons you started with it - obeying your father, Ferrari wanting to sell race-cars - slowly fade to the background. The activity itself becomes the goal. 

 

If I look at Red Bull, I see a group of racers, just as the people at Williams. Some other teams - I'm not so sure. Toto Wolff has really disappointed me the last couple of years, because I thought he was a racer. My impression is even that he developed diametrically to what I describe above. He got into racing because of the racing but has turned to the Dark Side (that of power and money.)

Edited by Nemo1965, 13 March 2023 - 09:43.

[lustigson]

If I look at Red Bull, I see a group of racers, just as the people at Williams.

 

Exactly this. My argument is that, while F1 is indeed way more corporate than the 60s or 70s, and even more professional than the 90s and 00s, at their core, F1 teams are specialist organisations, and not so much factory efforts, anymore. And I think this is a good thing, even though it's not as loud and smelly as in the old days.

Edited by lustigson, 13 March 2023 - 09:49.

[BRG]

. Christian Horner and Helmet Marko have more racing history and pedigree than any other team management.

Zak Brown of McLaren was a professional racing driver before he set up United Autosport with Tony Dean, an important sport racer team.  I would say his pedigree is every bit as good as Horner's.  

 

Toto Woolf was quite a respectable racer (and rally driver) before he became a manager.  And he married a racer.  So I would give him 75% marks in the 'old skool' stakes.

 

So that's 2.75 out of ten TPs that are 'old skool'...more than a quarter of them, in fact.

[pacificquay]

Exactly this. My argument is that, while F1 is indeed way more corporate than the 60s or 70s, and even more professional than the 90s and 00s, at their core, F1 teams are specialist organisations, and not so much factory efforts, anymore. And I think this is a good thing, even though it's not as loud and smelly as in the old days.

 

 

I think you've got this the wrong way - F1 has always been more about specialist racing organisations than about "factory efforts".

[lustigson]

I think you've got this the wrong way - F1 has always been more about specialist racing organisations than about "factory efforts".

 

Yes! That's exactly my point.

 

But it appeared that current F1 teams didn't think Andretti-Cadillac had the proper factory team vibe. While most current 'factory' F1 teams aren't old school factory efforts either, but rather specialist race teams (or garagistes, if that's your terminology).

[taran]

Yes things change over time, and there are different types of teams who's owners fund them for different purposes. In practical fact it tends to make little difference. Sure RB own RBR for 'marketing' purposes (though its also in some ways a 'hobby' for the owners using marketing as an excuse. like Stroll with AMR is) Can anyone seriously say that the actual team RBR are less functionally engaged in F1 than Mclaren? Or Ferrari?

 

If RB ever decided to divest from RBR then you would likely see a sale or a management takeover, as has happened with countless other team ownerships.

 

I don't see why a deal is being made of it.

 

It's called gatekeeping.

I am guilty of it too, at least in my mind. When an obscure band I have followed for years suddenly scores a hit and everybody knows it/sings it, I get annoyed rather than be happy for them.
Because they are my precious and I don't want to share.....

[Colbul1]

I think the question you are really asking here maybe when did the sport become a franchise system and that is easy, the signing of the last Concorde agreement.

[Nathan]

The sport changed when safety and electronics became paramount.  Until carbon fibre you could literally build a Formula-1 car out of sheet aluminum in a small workshop with equipment and skills that had been around for decades.   Come the mid 80's you started to need new avante garde equipment (computers, programmers, autoclaves) designed and operated by specialists in relatively new fields.  The guy that use to make the tub in the 70s was making brackets in the 90s.  As well the sport started travelling the world far more and drivers came to see their real value.  F1 grew up in the 80's, matured in the 90's and left the 50's-70's behind. Teams had to be run like legit businesses.

 

Being a 'racer' was no longer enough starting in the 80's (Ken, step forward).  'Racers' looking to run teams now have to also be businessmen because you have to manage so many people.

 

 

1994 Williams had less than 150 people, 20 years later it was several hundred, 30 years later its 700.  I think its no coincidence that Williams success declined in line with their workforce size going up.  

 

 

Frank Williams was the last, alas there are none left, F1 is all corporate

 

This is an unfortunate take.  Having motor raced and swung in such circles, a 'racer' is a hyper competitive individual who is always thinking about how to win. They want to feel better than their competition.  They are driven towards constant improvement, significant focus and winning.  Now, these are some of traits people used to win in business.  What is sad is that a person can no longer be a 'racer' because they were a successful business person first.  Ron Dennis gets a pass, Toto doesn't.  The only difference is Toto was a successful business man first so he gets the side eye. Both were cut from the same quarry of 'racer' stone, I'm quite sure.  I think really it's just the support for the underdog mentality and nostalgia creating this down trodden viewpoint.

 

 

 

 

RedBull in spirit is an old school, if you ask me, but the process of purchasing an existing team does not belongs to this old school, that went through the difficulty of finding funding and fighting on.

 

Who do you think had a rougher go getting to Formula 1 glory, Ron Dennis and Frank Williams, or Dietrich Mateschitz?  The latter had to first create a global business.  What makes you think turning a back-of-the-pack team into a dynasty is easy compared to starting a team? More people have started from scratch than created an F1 dynasty.

[pdac]

It's nice, sometimes, to lament about the 'old days'. But, really, does it actually matter what the pedigree or motivation of a team is? They are all doing pretty much he same thing. So they are pretty much the same when it comes to the contest. How they fund themselves makes not a jot of difference.

[kumo7]

 

Who do you think had a rougher go getting to Formula 1 glory, Ron Dennis and Frank Williams, or Dietrich Mateschitz?  The latter had to first create a global business.  What makes you think turning a back-of-the-pack team into a dynasty is easy compared to starting a team? More people have started from scratch than created an F1 dynasty.

 

Just because I stated something, it does not mean that I say it is easy or affirm start from the scratch method. 

I say you ask me because you place starting from scratch is the most respectful way to do things. I am not singing "my way", are you?

Edited by kumo7, 13 March 2023 - 15:14.

[Nemo1965]

It's nice, sometimes, to lament about the 'old days'. But, really, does it actually matter what the pedigree or motivation of a team is? They are all doing pretty much he same thing. So they are pretty much the same when it comes to the contest. How they fund themselves makes not a jot of difference.

I don't quite agree with you there. When Colin Chapman (not the greatest philantropist in the world) had attained the Ford Cosworth-engine for his cars, he could have hawked it for himself... and he had every right to do so, because originally it was created (and funded by Ford) for his team. Chapman never the less agreed to make the Ford Cosworth an open market-engine... as a businessman who had to win races to make money to race (not the other way round!) the businesssense would have been to keep the engine exclusively. But Chapman, the 'Flawed Genius', did not. Because that would have been bad for racing and F1. I don't know if Chapman saw clearly how good the engine would be good (probably the best ever, it turned out to be), but he must have had inkling about it. So Chapman made a decision against his own interests on two fields: he would win fewer races than he could have, hence have less money to race.

Now most of the F1-teams are trying to keep out Andretti-Cadillac. Because it would be bad for their business (the dilution of price-money, their investments, etcetera) and dear me, what if they turn out to be GOOD? Many posters have defended that business-decision on this Forum. These teams are choosing for their own interests, on both counts, in racing and in business. It seems to me there is a difference between the motivations of Chapman vs those teams I am talking about...

PS: I'm not just making a 'moral point' here. What I also mean to say is that teambosses also have to defend the interests of their investors now, or are investors in F1 themselves (see Toto Wolff). That gives them another impetus to 'vote' to the left or the right. And it shows.

Edited by Nemo1965, 13 March 2023 - 18:13.

[loki]

It's nice, sometimes, to lament about the 'old days'. But, really, does it actually matter what the pedigree or motivation of a team is? They are all doing pretty much he same thing. So they are pretty much the same when it comes to the contest. How they fund themselves makes not a jot of difference.

Indeed. I’d add that those in the paddock today as well as those that fund the teams are just as much racers as those that raced in the olden days.  It’s something you do because of passion.

[juicy sushi]

Look at Christian Horner and Helmut Marko's life history and tell me that Red Bull isn't an old school racing team.    Red Bull is just a sponsor. 

Horner and Marko might be racers, but the money is Red Bull, the decisions taken are ultimately Red Bull, and if Red Bull decided tomorrow that the team would cease to be in Formula 1 and instead go figure 8 racing, then that would be done.  Red Bull are not just a sponsor, they are the ownership and ultimate decision makers for the team.  

 

I think the definition articulated by Fastcake is correct.  The "old school" would have been teams racing for and surviving on prize money from results.  By which definition, while several teams were founded in the dying embers of that era, none of the teams in F1 currently really ever were "old school."  They always relied on some amount of revenue from sponsors/stakeholders to fund the team.  That doesn't question the passion of the individuals involved.  Frank Williams and Patrick Head were very much cut from the same cloth as Toto or Christian Horner.  And there is no difference between Mateschitz or the Benetton family, or Enzo Ferrari, really.  

 

It's basically an attempt to draw arbitrary lines around certain teams because of individual ideas of authenticity.  Very few people in F1 are there without a passion for the sport.  If they didn't have it, they certainly wouldn't be willing to put up with the ridiculous amount of unnecessary drama the paddock brings upon itself.

 

As to what is "factory," I think that is something slightly clearer.  Is the team under the control of and receives technical assistance from an automotive manufacturer who sells cars to the public?  If so, then they're a factory team.  If they are doing themselves without the technical assistance, and instead have to get that elsewhere, they are not a factory team.  To my mind, that means Red Bull are not a factory team, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[pdac]

I don't quite agree with you there. When Colin Chapman (not the greatest philantropist in the world) had attained the Ford Cosworth-engine for his cars, he could have hawked it for himself... and he had every right to do so, because originally it was created (and funded by Ford) for his team. Chapman never the less agreed to make the Ford Cosworth an open market-engine... as a businessman who had to win races to make money to race (not the other way round!) the businesssense would have been to keep the engine exclusively. But Chapman, the 'Flawed Genius', did not. Because that would have been bad for racing and F1. I don't know if Chapman saw clearly how good the engine would be good (probably the best ever, it turned out to be), but he must have had inkling about it. So Chapman made a decision against his own interests on two fields: he would win fewer races than he could have, hence have less money to race.

Now most of the F1-teams are trying to keep out Andretti-Cadillac. Because it would be bad for their business (the dilution of price-money, their investments, etcetera) and dear me, what if they turn out to be GOOD? Many posters have defended that business-decision on this Forum. These teams are choosing for their own interests, on both counts, in racing and in business. It seems to me there is a difference between the motivations of Chapman vs those teams I am talking about...

PS: I'm not just making a 'moral point' here. What I also mean to say is that teambosses also have to defend the interests of their investors now, or are investors in F1 themselves (see Toto Wolff). That gives them another impetus to 'vote' to the left or the right. And it shows.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with your 'moral point'. I was merely suggesting that time has moved on, things have irreversibly changed and now I don't see any relevance to the attempt to differentiate teams along these lines.

[New Britain]

Horner and Marko might be racers, but the money is Red Bull, the decisions taken are ultimately Red Bull, and if Red Bull decided tomorrow that the team would cease to be in Formula 1 and instead go figure 8 racing, then that would be done.  Red Bull are not just a sponsor, they are the ownership and ultimate decision makers for the team.  

 

I think the definition articulated by Fastcake is correct.  The "old school" would have been teams racing for and surviving on prize money from results.  By which definition, while several teams were founded in the dying embers of that era, none of the teams in F1 currently really ever were "old school."  They always relied on some amount of revenue from sponsors/stakeholders to fund the team.  That doesn't question the passion of the individuals involved.  Frank Williams and Patrick Head were very much cut from the same cloth as Toto or Christian Horner.  And there is no difference between Mateschitz or the Benetton family, or Enzo Ferrari, really.  

 

It's basically an attempt to draw arbitrary lines around certain teams because of individual ideas of authenticity.  Very few people in F1 are there without a passion for the sport.  If they didn't have it, they certainly wouldn't be willing to put up with the ridiculous amount of unnecessary drama the paddock brings upon itself.

 

As to what is "factory," I think that is something slightly clearer.  Is the team under the control of and receives technical assistance from an automotive manufacturer who sells cars to the public?  If so, then they're a factory team.  If they are doing themselves without the technical assistance, and instead have to get that elsewhere, they are not a factory team.  To my mind, that means Red Bull are not a factory team, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Your first paragraph is key here. If teams such as Williams, McLaren, or Sauber were not racing, their organisations would not exist. If Red Bull were to withdraw from F1 tomorrow, they would still be producing billions of cans of fizzy drinks every year; likewise, if Mercedes were to withdraw, they would still be selling a million road cars, Haas would still be making loads of CNC machines, et al.

 

Some people seem to be focusing on the fact that corporate team owners with marketing motives hire real racing people to run their racing teams for them. Finding the best qualified employees to manage your investment is something that any investor intends - it has nothing to do with your motivation for investing.

 

As we have seen in the last 18 months with the Andretti saga, the economics of F1 have changed massively, and that has implications for the ownership model. For reference, in only two decades the Premier League has gone from having no foreign owners to having 17 out of its 20 clubs owned by non-Britons, and something similar could evolve in the F1 ownership model as well. For the time being, however, and regardless of how much one might value the contributions of the people at the coalface for every team, there is no question that different team owners are in racing for different reasons.

[HP]

For me the question is, what should I care about?

 

F1 has grown financially, thanks to Bernie Ecclestone, into something that drew in investors. If they are manufacturers or plain money people or pure racers or whatever is to me of little importance. Everyone giving their best for their own success, sounds great. That's about how old and new teams work. Also when teams grow one persons success is just a smaller part of the success of a team, including managers and drivers. In older times one person mattered more than today. In the end however its more ore less the same.

 

IN old times you had to be very specific whom you'd choose for each position, these days there are more open slots for anyone to fit into. Frank and Claire Williams showed how keeping the name doesn't work necessary. Teams simply had to adapt to the new realities.

 

And IMO we fans need as well for the survival of the sport. However that doesn't mean we need to give up old habits. Just saying.

[revmeister]

Yes! That's exactly my point.

 

But it appeared that current F1 teams didn't think Andretti-Cadillac had the proper factory team vibe. While most current 'factory' F1 teams aren't old school factory efforts either, but rather specialist race teams (or garagistes, if that's your terminology).

Maybe some of the big teams in F1 don't really want to have Andretti rocking the boat with 'American attitudes'. And he will, if he gets a team.

[PayasYouRace]

Maybe some of the big teams in F1 don't really want to have Andretti rocking the boat with 'American attitudes'. And he will, if he gets a team.

Even though they already have that with Gene Haas and Zak Brown.

[Nathan]

When Colin Chapman (not the greatest philantropist in the world) had attained the Ford Cosworth-engine for his cars, he could have hawked it for himself... and he had every right to do so, because originally it was created (and funded by Ford) for his team. Chapman never the less agreed to make the Ford Cosworth an open market-engine.

 

Hmmmm...  He did hawk it for himself by starting with a 2 year exclusivity agreement.  Ford told (not asked) him 'no' within the year and he had to deal with it.  Unhappily, as Chapman would have.  I don't have Peter Warr's book handy to quote the time, but it wasn't as you paint it.  To think he was so philanthropic with competition is a huge leap.  You can also be sure if organizers asked Chapman (or Enzo, or Tyrrell) to take a 10% starting fee cut so the promoter could add more cars to the grid it wouldn't have gone well.

Edited by Nathan, 14 March 2023 - 12:57.

[Sterzo]

^ Walter Hayes of Ford is quoted on p166 of Graham Robson's book "Cosworth":

 

"At dinner, one evening, before the German GP [1967], I said to Colin Chapman 'You do realise, don't you, that we're going to have to let other people use this engine?' Colin, without any argument at all, said 'Yes, I can see that.'"

 

So, definitely Ford's decision. At a guess, Chapman had realised all along. After all, his objective had been to organise a replacement for Coventry Climax, and would have known Ford were unlikely to maintain an exclusive supply.

Edited by Sterzo, 14 March 2023 - 13:32.

[New Britain]

Hmmmm...  He did hawk it for himself by starting with a 2 year exclusivity agreement.  Ford told (not asked) him 'no' within the year and he had to deal with it.  Unhappily, as Chapman would have.  I don't have Peter Warr's book handy to quote the time, but it wasn't as you paint it.  To think he was so philanthropic with competition is a huge leap.  You can also be sure if organizers asked Chapman (or Enzo, or Tyrrell) to take a 10% starting fee cut so the promoter could add more cars to the grid it wouldn't have gone well.

Yes, but the crucial point regarding the $200m fee for new entrants is that all the existing teams agreed to it! For (eight of) them now, only three years later, to whine that it isn't enough - and needs to be bloody trebled - is simply complete bullshit. Disgraceful.

If this were something imposed upon them against their will, then maybe there would be a case to answer, but it was not that way at all.

[Alfisti]

You can soooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrta make an argument that RBR is closest to the old school race garages. Decisions are REALLY flat, Marco or Horner called up DM before he died, and **** got done. Very, very few decisionmakers compared to the shareholders and boards at other teams. 

[Collombin]

^ Walter Hayes of Ford is quoted on p166 of Graham Robson's book "Cosworth":

"At dinner, one evening, before the German GP [1967], I said to Colin Chapman 'You do realise, don't you, that we're going to have to let other people use this engine?' Colin, without any argument at all, said 'Yes, I can see that.'"

So, definitely Ford's decision. At a guess, Chapman had realised all along. After all, his objective had been to organise a replacement for Coventry Climax, and would have known Ford were unlikely to maintain an exclusive supply.

Yebbut there's a televised interview with Hayes in which he states that Chapman could have said no to letting others have the engine.