Jump to content


Photo

F1 expence


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 rdmotorsport

rdmotorsport
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 15 August 2006 - 12:21

after we have seen the demise of various former quality grand prix teams over the years usually for financial resons could i suggest to return to the old format of being able to enter a team/car without having to be a manufacturer?

I appreciate Bernie s thoughts on this but up the front you will still have a works Ferraris,McLarens etc as before but when the privateers arrived if the car and driver combinations was quick enough to qualify it added to the grid

I remember and knew many good teams such as John McDonalds RAM outfit to which the preperation of the cars was as good as any works team and many more non works outfits.

It allowed some very talented drivers to make thier mark in GP and considering I do not beleive of late all the finest drivers are presently in GP again for financial reasons.

I appreciate they can be a down side cars arriving that should not grace a GP I beleive the DYWA attempted this sometime ago ,I also remember a non too pleased Bernie at the british GP when brian Henton arrived in the paddock with his F1 March on the back of what resembled a ex RAC break down truck but it managed to get hidden around the back of the paddock although bh was a capable driver and qualified some weird and wonderful machines.

I would like to have your opinion on this and perhaps ideas who should be driving in a non works team.

Rodney Dodson.

Advertisement

#2 ian senior

ian senior
  • Member

  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 15 August 2006 - 13:04

Originally posted by rdmotorsport

I remember and knew many good teams such as John McDonalds RAM outfit to which the preperation of the cars was as good as any works team and many more non works outfits.


I appreciate they can be a down side cars arriving that should not grace a GP I beleive the DYWA attempted this sometime ago ,I also remember a non too pleased Bernie at the british GP when brian Henton arrived in the paddock with his F1 March on the back of what resembled a ex RAC break down truck but it managed to get hidden around the back of the paddock although bh was a capable driver and qualified some weird and wonderful machines.



Rodney Dodson.


The only thing that should ever matter is the ability of a team, or even an individual, to bring a well-prepared and competitive racing car to a meeting. Everything else - flash transporters, motorhomes/portable buildings, banks of computers, marble floors - is complete frippery, and expense that you don't really need. Can you imagine Bernie's reaction if we had a modern day Bob Anderson, who turned up with a decent car but carried on the back of an ex-builder's truck? Even if the car and driver were well in with a chance of qualifying and putting up a decent show in the race, it wouldn't be allowed.

#3 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 15,359 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 15 August 2006 - 13:48

Such individuals would not be able to afford the bond they have to post let alone the 16 blokes needed to start a modern GP car.

It's about time they were made to have on-board starters that actually worked!

:wave:

#4 LOTI

LOTI
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: August 04

Posted 15 August 2006 - 15:22

Ah no.... but even if won't let non members of the concorde agreement club in, how about letting teams run a third car in their home grand prix, they could get start money but maybe not points but it would let test or what have been third drivers a chance to show how good they are and also give the mid to back of the field teams a little extra income.
Loti

#5 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 15,359 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 15 August 2006 - 15:57

Originally posted by LOTI
Ah no.... but even if won't let non members of the concorde agreement club in, how about letting teams run a third car in their home grand prix, they could get start money but maybe not points but it would let test or what have been third drivers a chance to show how good they are and also give the mid to back of the field teams a little extra income.
Loti


Why not let any team that wants to run a third car at EVERY Grand Prix?

It would rather limit the races that three cars could be run if you left it to their 'home' race.

#6 Bjorn Kjer

Bjorn Kjer
  • Member

  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 15 August 2006 - 16:48

:( We can all dream as much as we like , its NOT gonna be different the way we want. Next name to fall is Mclaren , Mercedes owns 40% and will take over the whole team in short time Italian GP?)
says Auto , Motor & Sport (ARD/ZDF/RTL news).

#7 Stoatspeed

Stoatspeed
  • Member

  • 235 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 15 August 2006 - 17:16

Alternate title for the thread - "Demise of the Garagistes"!
Basically, "Formula Bernie" has an arcane set of provisions (bond, not allowed to use someone else's chassis, motorhome has to cost more than Ken Tyrell's budget for taking the Wee Scot to the WDC ... oh, I might have made that one up!) which are all guaranteed to keep out exactly the kind of entry Rodney craves.
This thread, and so many others on TNF, remind us that the "sport" of Grand Prix racing was so much more enjoyable when anyone with a bit of cash, a few good blokes, a decent toolbox, and a Transit van could go out for a day or two in the Midlands and South of England and pick up 80% of the parts needed to build a mid-field F1 car of their own in a small workshop. Why was this enjoyable? - maybe the possibility that on any given weekend, one of the outsiders would get it all together and mix it with the big boys.
Sadly, the "sport" is now "business" and the "big boys" go along with The (Little) Owner to keep it elitist and hard to get in ... they do not want to run the risk that a privateer gives them a bloody nose in front of their hospitality guests. If we wind the clock back 30 years, I'd put money on someone like Paul Stoddart putting together a giant-killing team and having one hell of a good time while doing it .... but the cars would have to be something like the GP Masters spec, and that isn't fancy enough for the GPMA/Concorde club.
OK, I'll stow the soap box and go back to doing the rain dance for Turkey, Monza ..... adds to the possibility that the superstars will do something more stupid than one of the underdogs ...

The new rallying cry for TNF F1 old farts ? ... "Vive les Garagistes!"

Dave

#8 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 15 August 2006 - 18:09

Well having worked for "the wee one" for seven years, and having seen the inside workings of FOM/FIA, I personally think between them, they have ruined it all. The romance has been beaten out of it! What are the chances of another Lord Hesketh (funnily enough the man who actually came up with the idea of FOCA, and therefore FOM, and gave it to Bernie) or David Purley?? competing because they want to, not because the they want to win at all costs. BCE has homoginised the sport into an easily managed package, so he can keep control, with circuits of a uniform length so he only had to take a set amount of cameras to each event (length of glass optic cable) and in making that package, he's taken all the fun and interest out of it, it is no longer racing but a very pricey engineering exercise. Peter Connew couldn't go into that garage now, which I think is a shame :cry:

#9 rdmotorsport

rdmotorsport
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 15 August 2006 - 20:02

Dear F1steveuk,

Thanks for your reply and comments and yes BE as "boxed things off" nicely do not get me wrong he brought GP in to the forfront as a spectacle for television and other media but I still think he could relax things and let true interest creep back in let us remember dave Purley leading the belgium Gp at a wet Zolder and did not a F Williams Esq. return to the sport with a 2nd hand March for Patrick Neve?
In the past Be as always tried to assist me when he could so come on BE let us have fun again.
Rodney Dodson.

#10 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 15 August 2006 - 20:40

Don't get me wrong, I liked Bernie, but what I don't understand is the pandering to this "celeb" culture that has sprung up. Witness F1 and F1 Business magazines, pages of " Mr and Lady whoever in the paddock at........" I suppose there in lies the problem, to maintain F1 as is, costs, and that comes from the corperate sector.

But I have fond memories of sitting in an edit suite making a programme on aerodynamics. I'm just putting together the Lotus 78/79 story, and in walks BCE, and on seeing the 79 " says, "look at that, beautiful, let the tape run I'd like to see it again, bloody Chapman!!!" It was the first time he had ever appeared to me as someome interested in the history of the sport, but I wonder if he wants to see "fun" in it again, it's business now!!

#11 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 16 August 2006 - 18:05

What are the chances of another Lord Hesketh (funnily enough the man who actually came up with the idea of FOCA, and therefore FOM, and gave it to Bernie) or David Purley??


This bit of information is certainly a revelation to me, so please, pray tell, speak more of how Hesketh "came up with the idea of FOCA," since at least one inquiring mind is eager to know.....

#12 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 16 August 2006 - 19:16

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps


This bit of information is certainly a revelation to me, so please, pray tell, speak more of how Hesketh "came up with the idea of FOCA," since at least one inquiring mind is eager to know.....


I believe circa 1973/74 BCE and his Lordship were discussing how the start money etc could be shared around in an effort to help the smaller teams. Lord H told me that he said to BCE, "we should all get together, take the money, set up the TV so we get the money and share it out, I haven't got time, so why don't you do it?" And he did!!! I think at Brabham's Addlestone "factory". FOCA begat FOA, FOM etc etc I'm sure BCE see's it differently!!

#13 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 17 August 2006 - 04:33

Oh, so the F1CA (Formula 1 Constructors Association) whose presence was announced to the world back in January 1964 has/had nothing to do with FOCA? Knowing now that FOCA sprang from the brows of Hesketh & Ecclestone in the 1973/74 timeframe will allow me to go back and eliminate any references of the F1CA from all the various sources I have in my research files and correct the historical record. Always learning something new here.
:)

#14 Eric McLoughlin

Eric McLoughlin
  • Member

  • 1,623 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 17 August 2006 - 07:24

The history of this orgnaisation does indeed go back beyond the 1973/74 timeframe.

Hopwever, I think the point that is being made is that it began to evolve into the commercially driven operation it was later to become sometime around the mid 70s. It certainly changed dramatically and acquired more commercial clout once Bernie took hold of the reins.

#15 eldougo

eldougo
  • Member

  • 9,197 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 17 August 2006 - 09:40

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
Oh, so the F1CA (Formula 1 Constructors Association) whose presence was announced to the world back in January 1964 has/had nothing to do with FOCA? Knowing now that FOCA sprang from the brows of Hesketh & Ecclestone in the 1973/74 timeframe will allow me to go back and eliminate any references of the F1CA from all the various sources I have in my research files and correct the historical record. Always learning something new here.
:)



:up: Good one Don ,Me thinks it another one of these people trying to rewrite f1 history.

#16 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 17 August 2006 - 10:14

Originally posted by eldougo



:up: Good one Don ,Me thinks it another one of these people trying to rewrite f1 history.


Well I assure you I am not trying to re write history. As the archivist and race result librarian for FOM, I could take offence to that statement!! But wont.

I was indeed alluding to the commercial exploitation. As far as I am aware the F1CA was not created to distribute funds, however gained, FOCA certainly was, as well as representing ALL F1 constructors at meetings etc. I have no reason to doubt Lord H (maybe BCE!!) who has always be 100% correct with me.

#17 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 17 August 2006 - 17:08

Well I assure you I am not trying to re write history. As the archivist and race result librarian for FOM, I could take offence to that statement!! But wont.

I was indeed alluding to the commercial exploitation. As far as I am aware the F1CA was not created to distribute funds, however gained, FOCA certainly was, as well as representing ALL F1 constructors at meetings etc. I have no reason to doubt Lord H (maybe BCE!!) who has always be 100% correct with me.


So, just to make sure that I have this straight, FOCA has nothing to do with F1CA? Yes? No? Maybe? Sorta?

#18 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 17 August 2006 - 20:00

Not as far as I am aware, but one could ask the question, is the FIA anything to do with FISA, as headed by Balestre, or the CSI as headed by Baumgartner? I have never made a study of either "family tree". But I can't help it's a loaded question!!!;)

#19 canon1753

canon1753
  • Member

  • 619 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 17 August 2006 - 20:55

Originally posted by f1steveuk
. Peter Connew couldn't go into that garage now, which I think is a shame :cry:


Amen.

Advertisement

#20 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 18 August 2006 - 03:59

Originally posted by winston smith
Not as far as I am aware, but one could ask the question, is the FIA anything to do with FISA, as headed by Balestre, or the CSI as headed by Baumgartner? I have never made a study of either "family tree". But I can't help it's a loaded question!!!;)


You have got to be kidding me..... Are you serious? I mean really, truly serious? You mean you don't have a clue about the F1CA and its "commercial" activities during the Sixties up to the point where it somehow morphed into the Hesketh/Ecclestone FOCA? I would strongly suggest that "family trees" mean something since things rarely string forth as you seem to be suggest.

"Loaded question?" Hell yes it is! It just seems incredible that FOM, FOCA, FUBAR or whatever other "F" word that the organization has, feels it can just ignore what it wishes and, literally, re-write what gets passed off as "history," especially if no one questions it. I sense that is utterly no level of curiosity in may have preceded events before a certain date -- Before Ecclestone, in other words.

Yes, you may take offense.

#21 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 7,464 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 18 August 2006 - 05:23

Originally posted by f1steveuk
Peter Connew couldn't go into that garage now, which I think is a shame :cry:

Not so very different from Germany 1972 then.

#22 LOTI

LOTI
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: August 04

Posted 18 August 2006 - 09:27

What an interesting job! F1steveuk. Please could you tell us what FISA, FOCA and what ever they change into were doing in the 60. All I can remember is the usual business about start money. The 70s thing, I believe is to do with television rights, up until then, coverage had been maybe two or three races a year, British, Monaco and another GPs with Raymond Baxter and John Bolster. Bubbles [Horsley] told of a meeting where Bernie offered ? [something] in exchange for money up front but since none had any money to spend on non car related stuff it didn't happen. Could this have been to buy the rights from the FIA?
Loti

#23 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 18 August 2006 - 15:37

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps


You have got to be kidding me..... Are you serious? I mean really, truly serious? You mean you don't have a clue about the F1CA and its "commercial" activities during the Sixties up to the point where it somehow morphed into the Hesketh/Ecclestone FOCA? I would strongly suggest that "family trees" mean something since things rarely string forth as you seem to be suggest.

"Loaded question?" Hell yes it is! It just seems incredible that FOM, FOCA, FUBAR or whatever other "F" word that the organization has, feels it can just ignore what it wishes and, literally, re-write what gets passed off as "history," especially if no one questions it. I sense that is utterly no level of curiosity in may have preceded events before a certain date -- Before Ecclestone, in other words.

Yes, you may take offense.


OK offense taken!

But Don, you have hit the nail on the head, as far as BCE is concerned, nothing did exist before himself and FOM, witness the arguments about film footage pre and post 1982. As far as BCE is concerned, it's his, regardless he had nothing to do with the filming, the company that filmed it or what the subject matter was, "it's F1, it's his" but I stress, my last wish would be to rewrite history, I like it 100% accurate, warts and all!!

#24 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 18 August 2006 - 17:50

But Don, you have hit the nail on the head, as far as BCE is concerned, nothing did exist before himself and FOM, witness the arguments about film footage pre and post 1982. As far as BCE is concerned, it's his, regardless he had nothing to do with the filming, the company that filmed it or what the subject matter was, "it's F1, it's his" but I stress, my last wish would be to rewrite history, I like it 100% accurate, warts and all!! [/B]


Rewrite history by daring to acknowledge that the F1CA and the commercial side of "formula 1" actually predated Ecclestone's involvement? How is that possible?

So, are you simply another Winston Smith and letting Big Brother -- or Little Bernie in this case -- continue to perpetuate a myth that in future years will become the "Truth" and accepted at some point because no one inside the emperor's empire raised the bullshit flag and told that not only was he wrong, he is not correct.

As you may have gathered, I just find this just amazing and utterly difficult to comprehend.

If this is the Party Line and you are totally obligated to following that line and defending if you wish to keep your position, please accept my heartfelt apologies and sympathy. But if there are those at FOM who realize that Ecclestone is that delusional, are they equipped with tissue paper spines and dare not point out minor problems with his thinking that everything not only revolves around him, but is as he says it is -- or was -- regardless of what may have actually happened?

If you think you are in danger of "rewriting history," you have already lost any chance of finding any warts much less "accuracy."

#25 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 18 August 2006 - 19:15

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps


Rewrite history by daring to acknowledge that the F1CA and the commercial side of "formula 1" actually predated Ecclestone's involvement? How is that possible?

So, are you simply another Winston Smith and letting Big Brother -- or Little Bernie in this case -- continue to perpetuate a myth that in future years will become the "Truth" and accepted at some point because no one inside the emperor's empire raised the bullshit flag and told that not only was he wrong, he is not correct.

As you may have gathered, I just find this just amazing and utterly difficult to comprehend.

If this is the Party Line and you are totally obligated to following that line and defending if you wish to keep your position, please accept my heartfelt apologies and sympathy. But if there are those at FOM who realize that Ecclestone is that delusional, are they equipped with tissue paper spines and dare not point out minor problems with his thinking that everything not only revolves around him, but is as he says it is -- or was -- regardless of what may have actually happened?

If you think you are in danger of "rewriting history," you have already lost any chance of finding any warts much less "accuracy."


I think you need to understand, I no longer work for BCE, and when I did, this did NOT form part of my job, I simply related something I had been told while in the "inner sanctum". I actually had a reputation inside FOM, for for being the one that would dare to say "no" to his nibs. Also I was simply stating my knowledge of the F1CA was limited, hence my remark "as far as I am aware". I haven't studied it, because I don't care for it, the commercial aspect leaves me cold, I like racing. I believe Lord Hesketh has stated publically, and in print the remark I quoted, so maybe you should contact him!!?? Remember this is the organisation that runs F1, and oversees the TV coverage, and the same organisation that when I pointed out to one channel director, "there is Phil Hill, Mario Andretti and Froilian Gonzales outide Ferrari, was greeted over com's by many many voices with, "WHO?"

#26 RDV

RDV
  • Member

  • 6,765 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 22 August 2006 - 11:04

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
Oh, so the F1CA (Formula 1 Constructors Association) whose presence was announced to the world back in January 1964 has/had nothing to do with FOCA? Knowing now that FOCA sprang from the brows of Hesketh & Ecclestone in the 1973/74 timeframe will allow me to go back and eliminate any references of the F1CA from all the various sources I have in my research files and correct the historical record. Always learning something new here.




What was F1CA morphed into FOCA because in Italian fica (as it can be read..) might be very pleasant and enjoyable , but does bring up some problems of, er.... respectability in polite company.

Name was changed after BE was appraised of faux-pas. I was at the meeting....

F1CA charter member #18

(edit =... and could we rename the thread, its expenSe , :rolleyes: )

#27 RDV

RDV
  • Member

  • 6,765 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 22 August 2006 - 11:18

ian senior-The only thing that should ever matter is the ability of a team, or even an individual, to bring a well-prepared and competitive racing car to a meeting. Everything else - flash transporters, motorhomes/portable buildings, banks of computers, marble floors - is complete frippery, and expense that you don't really need. Can you imagine Bernie's reaction if we had a modern day Bob Anderson, who turned up with a decent car but carried on the back of an ex-builder's truck? Even if the car and driver were well in with a chance of qualifying and putting up a decent show in the race, it wouldn't be allowed.



Sporting wise I feel the same, but...once you sell your soul to the devil, you dance to his tune... but seriously... given the money invested in motor-racing by major sponsors (besides manufacturers), it is difficult to see a company bringing guests and prospective customers to a greasy, drafty, gravelled paddock and expect them to be happy with chip butties and a mug of char...

all right for hardened anoraks and petrol heads, but not realy the menu for corporate entertainment. Ronzo was one of the first to see this, and the way he operated even back in Rondel days kept bringing in the money to go racing seriously... you are not insinuating he isn't a racer are you?

It was all taken from baseball, NFL football and NAscar... go and see their VIP instalations and you will understand what keeps the thing afloat... or you can go to Mallory Park for a clubbie or an ARCA race and see what racing would be like today...

#28 MonzaDriver

MonzaDriver
  • Member

  • 424 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 23 August 2006 - 13:25

Originally posted by f1steveuk
Don't get me wrong, I liked Bernie, but what I don't understand is the pandering to this "celeb" culture that has sprung up. Witness F1 and F1 Business magazines, pages of " Mr and Lady whoever in the paddock at........" I suppose there in lies the problem, to maintain F1 as is, costs, and that comes from the corperate sector.

But I have fond memories of sitting in an edit suite making a programme on aerodynamics. I'm just putting together the Lotus 78/79 story, and in walks BCE, and on seeing the 79 " says, "look at that, beautiful, let the tape run I'd like to see it again, bloody Chapman!!!" It was the first time he had ever appeared to me as someome interested in the history of the sport, but I wonder if he wants to see "fun" in it again, it's business now!!



Dear F1steveuk,
May I ask you What do you like in Bernie Ecclestone ?

MonzaDriver.

#29 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 23 August 2006 - 13:49

Originally posted by MonzaDriver



Dear F1steveuk,
May I ask you What do you like in Bernie Ecclestone ?

MonzaDriver.


Quite a lot actually! A very genourous man, and one who does a lot behind the scenes to help up and coming talent. A man who has sought out, restored and protects some very rare cars that would otherwise have dissapeared. And above all, a man who for 7 years, paid me to indulge in my hobby and passion as a job. But I do dislike aspects, like pandering to the corperate side, hiding his collection of cars where no one sees them, preventing certain areas of motor racing from developing by making it prohibitively exspensive, and sadly for engineering F1 to follow his interests and tastes :rolleyes:

Why Monza? Do you like or dislike him?

#30 Andrew Kitson

Andrew Kitson
  • Member

  • 2,535 posts
  • Joined: July 03

Posted 23 August 2006 - 14:11

I agree he is very generous - in my experience. Whenever I have asked for a paddock or photographer pass, from him directly, he has always helped out over the past 16 years or so. He always responds to letters, e-mails, faxes and often in person when he must have a million and one other things to attend to! BE has been very kind to me.

#31 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 23 August 2006 - 14:29

Originally posted by Andrew Kitson
I agree he is very generous - in my experience. Whenever I have asked for a paddock or photographer pass, from him directly, he has always helped out over the past 16 years or so. He always responds to letters, e-mails, faxes and often in person when he must have a million and one other things to attend to! BE has been very kind to me.


I seem to remember, he likes you too ;)

#32 MonzaDriver

MonzaDriver
  • Member

  • 424 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 23 August 2006 - 16:22

Originally posted by f1steveuk


Quite a lot actually! A very genourous man, and one who does a lot behind the scenes to help up and coming talent. A man who has sought out, restored and protects some very rare cars that would otherwise have dissapeared. And above all, a man who for 7 years, paid me to indulge in my hobby and passion as a job. But I do dislike aspects, like pandering to the corperate side, hiding his collection of cars where no one sees them, preventing certain areas of motor racing from developing by making it prohibitively exspensive, and sadly for engineering F1 to follow his interests and tastes :rolleyes:

Why Monza? Do you like or dislike him?


Well almost like you, there are aspects I like, and some that I dont like.
Witch I think is true for every person we know.
Now that you ask me to think about, and learning from your inside news........... those aspects are the same of yours.

I am Italian and I' ve renognized some " Italian way of speaking " in your reply.
Do you have Italian origin ?

MonzaDriver.

#33 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 23 August 2006 - 17:19

Originally posted by MonzaDriver


Well almost like you, there are aspects I like, and some that I dont like.
Witch I think is true for every person we know.
Now that you ask me to think about, and learning from your inside news........... those aspects are the same of yours.

I am Italian and I' ve renognized some " Italian way of speaking " in your reply.
Do you have Italian origin ?

MonzaDriver.


Sadly no, but I love the place and looked forward to Monza every year, those book shops behind the pits!!! Although I did nearly by a house in Corelone, Sicily, where a mate of mine, who used to do the pit lane interviews in F1, lives, but as far as I know 100% English.

You are so right, everyone has good and bad sides to them, I just think with Bernie he as lost track of why people love motor racing, it isn't ALL money! It gauled me so much to see a paddock full of people who where there because of the company they worked, or did work for, or their business was wanted (one woman once asked me, "do they HAVE to make all that noise") where the true "petrol head" was pressed against the fence straining for just a glimpse. I think that is SOOOOOO wrong.

#34 rdmotorsport

rdmotorsport
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 23 August 2006 - 18:27

considering I started all this and the replies and opinions have been exeptional I will have to come to the defence of BE although I still fel strongly F1 could be a better spectacle,more competative and less expensive with what I have previously said,however when I used to work in the sport BE would always offer good help,strong advice and was always at the end of a telephone. Rodney Dodson

#35 MonzaDriver

MonzaDriver
  • Member

  • 424 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 08:16

Everytime I read this thread I have the feeling that Bernie Ecclestone really is reading the Nostalgia Forum.

MonzaDriver.

#36 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 24 August 2006 - 09:05

Bernie Ecclestone is scarcely the spawn of the devil, a true-life product of the Omen walking in our midst. There is no question that he has been kind and generous to many, many people and stuck by them during thick and thin. However, his vision for formula one and his approach to life are often at odds with others. That he has power in the form of not only the money itself but the influence and control that money provides makes it easy for him to ensure that things go his way. Period.

Keep in mind that simply because you strongly disagree with someone necessarily means that person is a disagreeable or unpleasant sort of person. There has never been much doubt that if I -- and any number of others -- were to have the opportunity to spend time with Ecclestone that he would prove to be anything but the sort of person that one would walk away happy to have spent that time with him. I only spoke to him perhaps a few times in passing and he seemed a decent sort of person (or chap as we used to say). Focused, intense, driven -- yes, but also capable of a sparing a few minutes what were quite pleasant.

Ecclestone is almost too easy a target in some ways. However much one can disagree with his vision of how things should be, it is also important to remember that he is a complex person and simple is not living in the same world the rest of us inhabit.

It was my understanding that he is aware of TNF and did read RVM -- which was printed out by his daughter for him to read.

#37 petefenelon

petefenelon
  • Member

  • 4,815 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 31 August 2006 - 15:50

Originally posted by f1steveuk
Don't get me wrong, I liked Bernie, but what I don't understand is the pandering to this "celeb" culture that has sprung up. Witness F1 and F1 Business magazines, pages of " Mr and Lady whoever in the paddock at........" I suppose there in lies the problem, to maintain F1 as is, costs, and that comes from the corperate sector.

But I have fond memories of sitting in an edit suite making a programme on aerodynamics. I'm just putting together the Lotus 78/79 story, and in walks BCE, and on seeing the 79 " says, "look at that, beautiful, let the tape run I'd like to see it again, bloody Chapman!!!" It was the first time he had ever appeared to me as someome interested in the history of the sport, but I wonder if he wants to see "fun" in it again, it's business now!!


There was apparently a BCE quote from the Monaco historics a few years ago when someone asked him if he was enjoying it - he's rumoured to have said something along the lines of "Yes, it's just like it was before I f**ked everything up"!... and you don't have a collection of cars like his unless you're a real enthusiast.

Bernie's helped in the creation of a monster that's made him and a lot of other people very rich, but I'm sure there's a part of him that misses huddling around with the Colin Chapmans and Frank Williamses of this world plotting the next set of deals, and plotting scams with Gordon Murray and Charlie Whiting. And I think there's a massive part of him that misses racing (and doing business) with Jochen Rindt.


#38 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 31 August 2006 - 16:10

BCE is as Don says a complex character, and I think no book will ever do the subject justice, nor even scratch the surface. On asking him about paddle gear shifts etc, the response was "makes it too easy" and he was gone. On asking about Stuart Lewis-Evans, " what does a young bloke like you want to know about stuff like that!? Ah Stuart, those Connaughts, pile of crap, but Stuart in a Vanwall, things could have happened there, I remember, etc etc etc, " and I'm 2 hours late for my next meeting That said a lot to me. The fact he has kept everything, and I mean EVERYTHING from his involvement says a lot, but the thing that proves his complexity is this. As a boy I read of the FISA, FOCA war, and BCE's plans for his own championship, which to all intents and purposes he now has! Then after working at FOM for some two years I put on a special project, helping Clive Santo get a bronze bust of Jean Marie Balestre done for BCE to present to his old "foe" as a birthday present. On seeing the finished article, "perfect, looks just like the old @#%*, he'll love it, can't wait to see his face"

#39 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 31 August 2006 - 16:16

Then again, he may have all those cars simply because he is an investor and not necessarily an "enthusiast" in the sense that commonplace non-millionaires can relate to. Nor do I really think he "misses" the things alluded to very much, if at all. He lives in The Present and The Past is of importance only when it can be used as a commodity.

Advertisement

#40 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 01 September 2006 - 06:40

I agree to an extent, he certainly knows the value of every car he has, and when Schumacher drove his Ferrari (a 500 I think) at Silverstone, his comment was, "that adds a few noughts!!". And the hardest job was persauding him NOT to restore cars, I mean who in their right mind would restore Vanwall VW10 from it's near totally original state? But I have caught him wistfully looking at some old stuff with what appears to be nostaglia! He is a NOW man, but I feel he knows where he came from

#41 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,402 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 01 September 2006 - 17:39

The quote was from Sir Stirling Moss, Bernie said that to him at Monaco when they were watching an Historic race together.

Maybe Bernie's moody, two years ago he denied Donald Davidson (the Track Historian), Chris Economaki and Tom Carn-i-hey (Announcer Emeritus of the Speedway) credentials for the USGP.
I thought that was stupid and very rude. In fact, I was insulted, those are significant American racing journalists, etc.

#42 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 02 September 2006 - 07:45

This goes back to the complex character and engineering the sport to personal taste.

Incidents like being told not to allow any Minardi's to be filmed until Paul Stoddart had agreed with one of BCE's proposals. This happened again later with David Richards and BAR because the two had disagreed over something. That to me is WAY to much control!!