46 replies to this topic

[Montoya1]

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/56107

[Ivan]

I think it's a bit of a Catch-22 really. The smaller teams will need some help to stay alive so it's a good idea for them to be able to buy it. But, maybe there should be a time limit on the teams that buy the chassis of 2 years or so and they have to have their own by the 3rd year of operation. This way the teams can save some money building their team.

[Paul Parker]

It seems to me that most F1 teams now and indeed going back many years are just filling out the grids and whether or not they use last year's works cars or variations thereof will make no difference at all to race results (except in truly exceptional circumstances).

These teams might just as well fill up a skip with £50 notes or 100 dollar bills and set fire to it (indeed they, or rather their main sponsor(s) already are metaphorically speaking) as they will never win anything except by default, no matter how hard they try.

Theissen's point about manufacturers running second string teams by proxy might be true but for how much longer can the lesser teams go on turning up to be thrashed and still attract major financial backing. Personally I believe that the efficacy of TV/media advertising/marketing is something of a myth and not nearly as productive as it claims. Rather it is an industry supporting some seriously heavy duty, hard core salaries, egos and expenditure that might otherwise end up going to the taxman.

[Ivan]

Paul,
That late paragraph is a great point!

[ensign14]

Seems to me Grand Prix racing did OK with customer cars for a fairly long time. Like 1928 to 1980, for example.

[KWSN - DSM]

F1 like (almost) everything else is cyclic.

We will see manufactures with A teams and B teams, as soon as that becomes to much of a problem, the FIA will open the field again and anyone willing to go F1 racing can.

Some manufactures will get tired of spending billions of Usd, and not winning despite their spending. They will then leave and some "little" team will become a bigger team, some of the current teams will disappear, some new ones will come about.

No he is not correct, not in the short term and not in the long term.

[united]

Theissen is right.

I think 2+2 formula (one car design for two teams - like RBR and STR) can hinder BMW from creating its own super team. Once McLaren, Ferrari or Honda start selling its cars to independent teams, core teams will get twice as much data about chassis with substantially less expenses. Even if the teams sell a year old chassis it is a clear threat for BMW as proxy team may very well interfere in Championship fight just like Norberto Fontana allegedly interfered in Jerez’97.

[KWSN - DSM]

Both Sauber and Ferrari have denied anything happend.

BMW have the same chance as all other teams to create a B team, which so far only Honda have done.

Prodrive will likely become one, however they will also later become a regular team, this is the ways of F1 theese years.

He is not correct.

[Sakae]

Dr. Theissen read my (several) posts on this subject from about six months ago, and finally he agrees with me, that not everything is kosher with this stupid arrangement. In some circles it's called cheating, yet at some others unfair advantage.

[MrAerodynamicist]

I's not cheating when the rules have been written to allow it (as per '08)

[v@sh]

Theissen is right for once...who actually here wants to see 4 cars a team, even if 2 cars are painted in a different livery??

It'll feel more and more like a spec series (even though it partly is already with less restrictions compared to other formulaes). What happened to the notion that being in F1 is to build your own chassis and parts, to get to the top because you earn it, not by buying your way there. Who wants to see Button drive away from the rest of the field while Rubens/Sato/Davidson are holding up the rest of the field.

You put yourself in the position of the teams who actually have made it to the top in the sense that they've hired and create the best chassis/the best drivers, only for other teams who should be much lower on the grid fight against you just because they bought the chassis from another team. Its like your own hard work has gone to waste. No wonder Williams and the like are angry about Super Aguri and Toro Rosso using their sister chassis.

If you were in the same position, I'd think most of you would be of the same boat. Whether it be cheating or not.

[Sakae]

You are confused, as you do not differentiate equality against imbalance. While I cannot comment on benefits of testing and running x amount of cars by every team, I am darn sure that it is bad politics on the track while some teams running 2 cars, and some others running the same and associated (perhaps unopposing) two teams in addition. That's the concern, and that's not an equal playing field.

[MPea3]

He's right if you agree with and desire a manufacturer driven sport. I think it's a mistake to think that just befcause a number of manufacturers have jumped on the bandwagon, that it will remain that way. The day that F1 is no longer an effective way for them to market their product, they'll be gone.

[Sakae]

Imagine, that F1 would be composed only from teams like Wlliams, and Saubers, etc. The minute they cannot find advertising money becase the show is not effective way to market the product, they all will be gone, manufacturers or not. If the show gets bad, TV ratings would drop too, and it's over.

The point is, that argument which presents manufacturers as an unsecured risk is rather foolish. They are all in the same pot. It is true however, that there is marketing exhaustion of a product, and that's where marketing people earn their money. It doesn't however follows, that automaker must leave the ship. Mercedes has a long pedgree in racing, and still interested...

[KWSN - DSM]

Mercedes also had a gap of some +30 years where they did not participate, and had it not been for Sauber and their exploits in Group C there is no telling what they would or would not have done.

The argument of Thiessen is flawed, anyone using an example of 4 car teams is relating to a theoretical, and non-legal manner in which to run a F1 team, why should we not just look at it as a manner in which F1 can actually become cheaper for the "little" teams, without them losing position relative to where they are now??

Of the Manufacturers currently in F1.

Honda
BMW
Toyota
Renault
Ferrari
Mercedes

Only one of them have stayed with F1 throughout, if 6 years from now neither Toyota nor Honda have won more than the odd Grand Prix, do you really think they will continue their involvement? There can only be one WDC and WCC each season, eventually one of the manufacturers wil have to admit they can not do it, and they will leave as an entrant, and become an engine supplier only.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by v@sh
Theissen is right for once...who actually here wants to see 4 cars a team, even if 2 cars are painted in a different livery??

Why not? It's hardly a new concept, after all. From the very beginnings of the sport through to the late 1970's it was far from unusual for teams to run cars built by others, and the practice has seen the formation of teams such as Ferrari and Williams, for instance, plus many more that have come and gone in the past.

The fact remains that f1 is a very, very expensive sport and, while i'm certain that cost cutting will not occur, at least not to the degree the powers that be want it to, if the ability to buy a chassis from somewhere else is there, it can only help the smaller teams to survive, and hopefully prosper.

Should the grid fall, however, and dip below (i believe) 18 entries, the grid has to be made up by entries from the 'bigger' teams to satisfy the promoters contracts, so we would end up with three or four car teams anyhow.

let it happen, open up the grid, bring on the 'new' Frank Williams's, Rond Dennis's, Ken Tyrrell's and so on - and maybe Thiessen would be better off directing some of that budget into buying a Renault and painting it white.

[MrAerodynamicist]

Originally posted by MiPe
You are confused, as you do not differentiate equality against imbalance. While I cannot comment on benefits of testing and running x amount of cars by every team, I am darn sure that it is bad politics on the track while some teams running 2 cars, and some others running the same and associated (perhaps unopposing) two teams in addition. That's the concern, and that's not an equal playing field.

Politically (ie. votes under the concord agreement) and on-track, that's been going on to a degree for ages already anyway as a ramification of certain customer engines.

[Sakae]

While I am uncertain of details, my understanding is, that in stake is more than just customer' engines. There is a lot of copy-like body constructions as well, therefore it all opens door to discussion, whether any development related data could be collected, and passed along in meaningful way in shortest possible time (like before race). Imagine that while BMW would have two cars to practice and tuning will be based on two sources, whereas Toyota would have four cars in four different configurations to collect data for base decision on strategy optimization. I am fully cognizant of the practical problems associated with data evaluation; however there are several distinct parameters that could be compared without much bias and noise from other sources. And while I have not spoken with Dr. Theissen (I wish), that is what he is probably concerned about. To overcome, if Toyota is being permitted to run four cars, why then let them all do the same? That seems to me to be a reasonable suggestion, under the circumstances.


On personal note – I would rather introduce a bylaw forbidding anyone to be involved in any way in more than two cars. Reasons – Williams and alike cannot afford it, and it would put them into disadvantage.

[KWSN - DSM]

The new rage on this board are the trendline analysis.

So here are the result of the first race of the 1997, 1987, 1977, 1967 and 1957 F1 season.

Seems that F1 have survived losing a lot of teams and engine manufactures before, and that the sport did not falter when only a few engines were available, of when a team could buy cars of the shelf.

Maybe that is just me.

1997

McLaren-Mercedes

Ferrari

McLaren-Mercedes

Benetton-Renault

Prost-Mugen Honda

Sauber-Petronas

Prost-Mugen Honda

Williams-Renault

Minardi-Hart

Arrows-Yamaha

Stewart-Ford

Tyrrell-Ford

Stewart-Ford

Benetton-Renault

Minardi-Hart

Jordan-Peugeot

Tyrrell-Ford

Jordan-Peugeot

Ferrari

Williams-Renault

Sauber-Petronas

Arrows-Yamaha

Lola-Ford

Lola-Ford



1987

McLaren-TAG Porche

Williams-Honda

McLaren-TAG Porche

Ferrari

Benetton-Cosworth

Williams-Honda

Lotus-Honda

Ferrari

Zakspeed

Tyrrell-Cosworth

Tyrrell-Cosworth

AGS-Cosworth

Arrows-Megatron

Lotus-Honda

Brabham-BMW

Brabham-BMW

Arrows-Megatron

Osella-Alfa Romeo

Minardi-Motori Moderni

Zakspeed

Benetton-Cosworth

Minardi-Motori Moderni

March-Cosworth



1977

Wolf-Cosworth

Brabham-Alfa Romeo

Ferrari

Copersucar-Cosworth

Lotus-Cosworth

Ensign-Cosworth

Surtees-Cosworth

March-Cosworth

Shadow-Cosworth

Brabham-Alfa Romeo

March-Cosworth

Ligier-Matra

Tyrrell-Cosworth

McLaren-Cosworth

McLaren-Cosworth

Tyrrell-Cosworth

Copersucar-Cosworth

Ferrari

Surtees-Cosworth

Shadow-Cosworth

Lotus-Cosworth



1967

Cooper-Maserati

Cooper-Climax

Honda

Brabham-Repco

Brabham-Climax

Brabham-Repco

Brabham-Climax

Brabham-Climax

LDS-Climax

Lotus-BRM

Eagle-Climax

Cooper-Maserati

Cooper-Maserati

BRM

Cooper-Maserati

Lotus-BRM

Lotus-BRM

BRM



1957

Maserati

Maserati

Maserati

Maserati

Lancia

Portago

Lancia

Lancia

Trips

Maserati

Maserati

Portago

Maserati

Lancia

Lancia

Lancia

Lancia

[Sakae]

Times have changed, and perhaps one legitimate discussion evolves around rulling balance among teams in terms of what constitutes fair competition, whereas another could involve (again balanced and proportional) muti-teams support by large sized automakers. Current problem on the grid is, as I understand it, that there is no balance, and one or two teams have unfair advantage compared to other teams.

I was one of the people who had mistakenly underestimated contribution of the third car on the track just before the race, because I didn't think it would matter (much). It had however appeared, maybe because of combination of circumstance and difficulties with overtaking on some tracks, that third car provided enough information (especially on tires), which the other cars didn't have. I am not convinved that I want to the same or some version of it again this year.

[KWSN - DSM]

I do not agree that the 3rd car meant a lot to the teams who had it. Ferrari, McLaren and Renault did not in 2006, yet finished 1, 2 and 3 in the WCC.

The alleged or inferred help of some teams towards others is nothing but the ususal conspiracy drivel, that we have in various versions the past +10 seasons.

Yes times change, which is why I am not worried at all over the future of F1. Like I have never been worried in the past.

[Dudley]

If you can sell engines, why not chassis?

And complaints about the death of independant teams coming from a man who is responsible for buying one of them and changing it into a manufacturer team is a bit rich.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
I do not agree that the 3rd car meant a lot to the teams who had it. Ferrari, McLaren and Renault did not in 2006, yet finished 1, 2 and 3 in the WCC.

The alleged or inferred help of some teams towards others is nothing but the ususal conspiracy drivel, that we have in various versions the past +10 seasons.

Yes times change, which is why I am not worried at all over the future of F1. Like I have never been worried in the past.

Even if it helps less than 0.1 sec per lap it will have significant consequences. It is not a lot, but at the end of season it might have been decisive. Specially McLaren, they would have had plenty to do with a tenth. A couple wins etc...

[Limits]

Theissen is always wrong. I have no clue what he has said, but he is always wrong.

No, seriously, I am not fond of this "build your own chassi" thing, because what matters is the cars. The chassi, the engine, the electronics, the electronics, the electronics, the electronics and... one more thing... what was it? Yes! The tyres!

FIA has now more or less standardized everything except the chassis, but still the tech regs are basically a blueprint for a legal chassis. So. Why making a fuz about that now? Buy one, steal one, build one - I don't care. Put a quick car with a quick driver on the grid and win! I don't give a **** if the team have their own carbon fibre moulding garage and a dog that farts titanium hubcaps or whatever - I want a independent team that does their job on the track.

But that is the problem. Independet. Dependencies. These teams that Thiessen talks about will be dependent. Just as Sauber was on Ferrari, Red Bull on Ferrari, Toro Rosso on Red Bull, Super Aguri on Honda and Spyker on... I don't know. But if they try to be independant they will end up like their ancestor, Minardi.

I doubt that F1, as it looks right now and is supposed to look until 2010, have any room for independant teams. Among other things, a truly independant team would mess up the political balance. No one would want that to happen. No one that is part of the political balance I mean.

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by micra_k10

Even if it helps less than 0.1 sec per lap it will have significant consequences. It is not a lot, but at the end of season it might have been decisive. Specially McLaren, they would have had plenty to do with a tenth. A couple wins etc...

The rules are the same for all teams, they knew that were they among the top 5. Then they would not have the benefit of a Friday driver. We have had countless discussions of the unfair practiise of Ferrari testing too much, and not being willing to cut down on testing. Now all teams have agreed on testing limts, so we start other arguments of the fairness and lag of fairness in rules agreed by all involved.

All teams can sell the cars, alle manufacturers can sell their engines. Some manufactures have been selling engines for a long time, but mostly that have been used against them (that would be Ferrari), yet Mercedes have for season after season stated they would be interested in supplying another team and nothing cam of it. Toyota and Honda eventhough newcomers as teams in their own right, have supplied other teams, Renault will do so from 2007 only. BMW pulled their engine deal before time from an independant team, and set up their own shop. And now they of all do not want to have the lessor teams exsist??

All the teams would rather be in the top 5 and not have a Friday driver, than be in the end 5 and have one.

[KWSN - DSM]

Here is the same list with those entities, that are still involved.

1997

McLaren-Mercedes

Ferrari

McLaren-Mercedes

Benetton-Renault * I leave that as the Benneton is the Renault team

Williams * Other engine

Benetton-Renault

Ferrari

Williams



1987

McLaren * Other engine

Williams * Other engine

McLaren * Other engine

Ferrari

Williams * Other engine

Ferrari



1977

Ferrari

McLaren * Other engine

McLaren * Other engine

Ferrari



1967

Honda



1957

[Dudley]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
Here is the same list with those entities, that are still involved.

1997

McLaren-Mercedes

Ferrari

McLaren-Mercedes

Benetton-Renault * I leave that as the Benneton is the Renault team

Williams * Other engine

Benetton-Renault

Ferrari

Williams



1987

McLaren * Other engine

Williams * Other engine

McLaren * Other engine

Ferrari

Williams * Other engine

Ferrari



1977

Ferrari

McLaren * Other engine

McLaren * Other engine

Ferrari



1967

Honda



1957

Although Ferrari were running those Lancias in 1957 I believe and did run the majority of the 1967 season.

[Sakae]

No one says that third car is a way of the future, however it seemed as on occassions third car was a good help in prep for the racing weekend. If it wasn't, people would have stopped wasting their money, and invested in better simulators instead.

This time around its again different, as attested by BMW' decision not to built second wind tunnel, yet regardless of that, there is nothing better than direct data collected in support of set-up just before the race.

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by Dudley


Although Ferrari were running those Lancias in 1957 I believe and did run the majority of the 1967 season.

Yes they did, and yes they did. The initial list is how the first race of the season in the selected years looked.

The point remain that what is in F1 now, will not be here in 10 years, which makes what Thiessen say incorrect.

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by MiPe
No one says that third car is a way of the future, however it seemed as on occassions third car was a good help in prep for the racing weekend. If it wasn't, people would have stopped wasting their money, and invested in better simulators instead.

This time around its again different, as attested by BMW' decision not to built second wind tunnel, yet regardless of that, there is nothing better than direct data collected in support of set-up just before the race.

I think your arguments stary from the initial idea of the thread, but for what it is worth I disagree.

[WACKO]

Originally posted by Paul Parker
Theissen's point about manufacturers running second string teams by proxy might be true but for how much longer can the lesser teams go on turning up to be thrashed and still attract major financial backing. Personally I believe that the efficacy of TV/media advertising/marketing is something of a myth and not nearly as productive as it claims. Rather it is an industry supporting some seriously heavy duty, hard core salaries, egos and expenditure that might otherwise end up going to the taxman.

There will always be a niche of new evolving companies being interested in joining an F1 team and whilst not having the luxury budgets of the mammoth multi-nationals, there will be a support for smaller teams, but they will need to play it clever and distinguish from others. Aguri does so with the Japanese niche, Spyker currently attracts a lot of Dutch companies (I would hope they will take on a more international approach just for the sake of becoming as competitive as possible). The real problem however is when teams are punching above their weight with regard to their demands and the amount of fixed costs they have to bare. Jordan GP had a very tough time in 2002 when it became apparent that the team had grown too fast to sustain. The sponsorship market went into a decline and the team was forced to get rid of staff, which destabilised the operation in the process and virtually wasted the top form they appeared to be in only a few months earlier.

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by Dudley


Although Ferrari were running those Lancias in 1957 I believe and did run the majority of the 1967 season.

The Ferraris that ran in 1957 ("801") were an evolution of the Lancia cars, not more or less completely the same car anymore as in 1956.
Ferrari did run the entire 1967 season (they were even at several non-championship races in Britain) except for the SA GP, when they concentrated fully on the Daytona 24hours sportscar race.
Of course McLaren was there as well in 1967; a few races with the 2.0 BRM V8 and a few promising races at the end with the 3.0 BRM V12.
And halfway 1977 the Renault turbo made its debut!

Also in 1977 Frank Williams entered a privateer March for Belgian Patrick Neve for half the season.

[Limits]

Here is what I think has happened:

Mario: -"Boss, can I have another team?"
BMW Boss: -"Another team?"
M -"Yes, another F1 team, so that the first one can win"
B -"You wanted to part with Williams so that you could win, was that not enough?"
M -"No, not really, the othe..."
B -"Stop it! Maybe it is simply so that you can not win?"
M -"I am sure I can, but now Hond..."
B -"Excuses, excuses. Win with what you have or I will spray your cat blue"
M -"I will find a way"

[black magic]

despite all the cries that the sport is too expensive what real evidence is there?

jordan, minardi and others have gone. replaced by bigger spending red bull, hionda 2nd team and midland all with seemingly bigger budgets.

the major manufacturers are seriously in financial difficulty yet their f1 programmes ahve so far remained untouched witht eh exception of that money glug hole called jaguar(ford)

one wonders what will happen if the private equity firms start to get more involved(heaven help us as that will really be a problem due tot eh leveraging going on)

A1 gp has started and so far survived. most motor racing sports including f1 still enjoy enormous television and track side patronage.

if its too expensive where is the evidence?

I'll predict like others here that sooner or later the likes of toyota, renault, +/- honda will be gone. leaving mclaren and ferrari as the bacbone yet again with some concerns over the viability of williams. but looking around the world with the increasing number sof individuals with silly persoanl wealth like the ellisons, gates etc. who knows - maybe we will again see the privateers involved.

I think f1 has different issues to solve. 1 the cost of attending a gp and the spectacle when you get there(watching races in front of empty grandstands looks kinda flat after a while. 2 the so far failure to convey to the television audience the sheer majic of those engines and the sensation of speed that can only be witnessed in person. get that into living rooms and then the marketing is largely solved.

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by Limits
Here is what I think has happened:

Mario: -"Boss, can I have another team?"
BMW Boss: -"Another team?"
M -"Yes, another F1 team, so that the first one can win"
B -"You wanted to part with Williams so that you could win, was that not enough?"
M -"No, not really, the othe..."
B -"Stop it! Maybe it is simply so that you can not win?"
M -"I am sure I can, but now Hond..."
B -"Excuses, excuses. Win with what you have or I will spray your cat blue"
M -"I will find a way"

[Melbourne Park]

I don't see anything wrong with multiple chassis, engines, electronic systems, brakes etc being used. Heck the teams now all have to use the same tyres.

Its allowed now for teams to use anything (which is legal) made by an outside company.

All a team has to do is incorporate the chassis department as another business, a separate legal person, and anyone could use those chassis, quite legally.

[Sakae]

I don't want to see the identical cars (Indy League) style to form F1 grid. EVER. The issue however is, whether customer's cars are in fact under one team race strategy, which my be in disadvantage to other teams.

I can envision a scenario, especially when points are close, when running little of "innocent" interference (by making a car 50% wider on the track in a right moment) can change a score board placement. That cannot be good.

[Limits]

Originally posted by MiPe
I don't want to see the identical cars (Indy League) style to form F1 grid. EVER. The issue however is, whether customer's cars are in fact under one team race strategy, which my be in disadvantage to other teams.

I can envision a scenario, especially when points are close, when running little of "innocent" interference (by making a car 50% wider on the track in a right moment) can change a score board placement. That cannot be good.

Sure. But there is a difference between rules that forces everyone to drive the same chassis and rules that allowes them to do it. F1 should allow for that freedom. If you can not buy a winning chassi you have to build one, if you can not build one you have to buy one and hope you get a lucky win.

The scenario you describe is very likely to happen. It is very likely to have happened. Bridgestone ****ed Ron and McLaren in the title fight 2000 for instance. Not on track directly, but a team can be obstructed in many ways. How are you going to police it? FIA people at all factories looking at the CAD designs and manufactoring process? "Is this really your design, it says Ferrari in the drawing?"

Only way I see is to give the teams more freedom. To give the innovators more freedom. If there is freedom the big teams, the big guys can not block or direct the evolution of Formula One, because someone will invent something that throws everything off balance. Horrible thought. For those controlling the balance.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by Limits
Here is what I think has happened:

Mario: -"Boss, can I have another team?"
BMW Boss: -"Another team?"
M -"Yes, another F1 team, so that the first one can win"
B -"You wanted to part with Williams so that you could win, was that not enough?"
M -"No, not really, the othe..."
B -"Stop it! Maybe it is simply so that you can not win?"
M -"I am sure I can, but now Hond..."
B -"Excuses, excuses. Win with what you have or I will spray your cat blue"
M -"I will find a way"

I think it's rather case of Theissen being afraid of strong Aguri and other teams which may place their cars in front of BMW in future. Any interteamorders are banned and there would be serious penalties for that kind of stuff.

And I believe the independent customer teams realy dont like being playing a 2nd fiddle. They dont get all sponsors etc... to follow stuff like that.

I think it's fine aspect and certainly should be encouraged that anyone can build their own car in F1. But it doesnt need to be compulsory in my opinion.

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by MiPe
I don't want to see the identical cars (Indy League) style to form F1 grid. EVER. The issue however is, whether customer's cars are in fact under one team race strategy, which my be in disadvantage to other teams.

I can envision a scenario, especially when points are close, when running little of "innocent" interference (by making a car 50% wider on the track in a right moment) can change a score board placement. That cannot be good.

In other words:

"Watch out for the boogyman!!"

I would rather we argued something with a little more substance.

[Sakae]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM


In other words:

"Watch out for the boogyman!!"

I would rather we argued something with a little more substance.

Other than following one poster whole day and disagree with him on everything and anything whole evening, what else you had personally offered of substance? I cannot find anything from you which would be even remotedly related to concerns raised by BMW boss.

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by MiPe
Other than following one poster whole day and disagree with him on everything and anything whole evening, what else you had personally offered of substance? I cannot find anything from you which would be even remotedly related to concerns raised by BMW boss.

You can not??????????????

[angst]

Thiessen - " I want to have my cake and eat it". Or " This will really put pressure on the manufacturers to deliver".

Of course it suits Thiessen to have a number of independent teams who can't keep up with the spending of the manufacturers and yet have to design, develop and build their own cars. That way, even if BMW sucks compared to the other manufacturers they'll likely still finish 6th out of 12 teams. Jeez, if those smaller teams have access to more competitive machinery then BMW, should they perform badly, might suddenly find they struggle to be in the top ten.

He doesn't seem to question where these 12 teams capable of producing and designing their own cars are going to come from. Minardi and Jordan have had to sell up, Arrows went bust, so did Prost. Of the 'new' teams, Toro Rosso would be an untenable extra cost, were they forced to have a seperate design dept. to Red Bull in the longer term; Super Aguri would be unlikely to be a viable proposition were it not for Honda's input; the new Prodrive team (and the Direxiv team it beat to the twelfth spot) are seemingly to be a Mc-Merc 'b' team - would they be able (or willing) to enter if they needed to set up a new design dept.? We might be looking at 8 or 9 teams at most come 2008 were it not for the 'customer chassis' route.

His argument that it will come to 6+6 is a little askew as well. There are 6 manufacturers involved, yes. But I can't see Williams giving up their independence entirely, so there is one extra constructor. I can't see Red Bull putting together the technical team they have just so they can buy chassis from another team - so there's another. And Spyker are themselves a manufacturer of road cars (albeit on a small scale) and will want to differentiate themselves from their suppliers, so there's another. So, that's 9+3. Perhaps that's the problem, that 6 into 3 won't go. Perhaps if BMW had been a little more forthcoming in looking after the independent teams (by maybe supplying cheap engines, eh Mario?) he now sees as so vitally important then we wouldn't be where we are now.

In the current environment the customer chassis route is the only way F1 could ever have 12 teams. Mario has his head up his arse, and couldn't be more wrong if he tried.

[Dudley]

Originally posted by MiPe
I don't want to see the identical cars (Indy League) style to form F1 grid. EVER. The issue however is, whether customer's cars are in fact under one team race strategy, which my be in disadvantage to other teams.

I can envision a scenario, especially when points are close, when running little of "innocent" interference (by making a car 50% wider on the track in a right moment) can change a score board placement. That cannot be good.

That said, how would that be different to when all but 2 cars were running Cossies?

Of course it suits Thiessen to have a number of independent teams who can't keep up with the spending of the manufacturers and yet have to design, develop and build their own cars. That way, even if BMW sucks compared to the other manufacturers they'll likely still finish 6th out of 12 teams. Jeez, if those smaller teams have access to more competitive machinery then BMW, should they perform badly, might suddenly find they struggle to be in the top ten.

Except that there is only 1 real independant team left in F1 and their future is a touch murky.

So a sucky BMW suddenly find themselves 10th.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally posted by v@sh
You put yourself in the position of the teams who actually have made it to the top in the sense that they've hired and create the best chassis/the best drivers,

But that doesn't stop that team from firing their championship contending driver, losing their best tech director to richer team, Honda choosing consisting worse performed team to support, losing Mastercard sponsorship, losing Dutch Post sponsorship, losing DHL sponsorship, severe cuts to cigarette sponsorship, unability to find works engine.....

Originally posted by v@sh
only for other teams who should be much lower on the grid fight against you just because they bought the chassis from another team.

But the team stuffed themselves up anyway?

Originally posted by v@sh
You put yourself in the position of the teams who actually have made it to the top in the sense that they've hired and create the best chassis/the best drivers,

But that doesn't stop BMW from supplying half-assed revised year old engine, team from having a aero deptartment with schoolyard attitude to authority, HP from having major mis-direction by incorrect CEO, hiring driver with tendancy to run into others when carried a heap more fuel than their team-mate on pole etc.

Originally posted by v@sh
only for other teams who should be much lower on the grid fight against you just because they bought the chassis from another team.

But the team stuffed themselves up anyway?

Why should Super Aguri run their own car when they can get one that's better. Why should Minardi pinch their pennies on their 4-year old tubs with crude aero when a lucrative Red Bull team can regularly race strongly in the top 15. Ideally they would use the very same chassis used by the other team the earlier seasons..... what's the use of multi-million F1 cars being retired to the collections of private collectors when they are still quick race cars and on the pace on the next years grid?

[angst]

Originally posted by Dudley





Except that there is only 1 real independant team left in F1 and their future is a touch murky.

So a sucky BMW suddenly find themselves 10th.

That was, sort of, my argument. That the manufacturers have come in, outspent the independents so that the independents need manufacturer support if they are to be viable, the manufacturers on the whole decided instead to have one works team only or to ask for an exorbitant fee for a supply of engines. Combined with the tiny share of revenues the teams were getting, despite the profile of the sport (and the increased profit thereof) which has attracted the huge spend of the manufacturers this has squeezed the independent teams out of F1. Thiessen wants to have his cake and eat it - he doesn't seem capable of grasping the financial realities facing F1. Maybe this is where F1 is going to implode. Those involved in the running of the teams, feeding their own egos, may well be caught out by those realities - as the companies at boardroom level begin to question the economic realities (cost - return) the likes of Thiessen seems unable to comprehend.

[rgsuspsa]

As with sporting competitions in addition to F1, the mass audience, at the event or via television,
want excitement, drama, and a well told and understandable unfolding of the event.
Hardcore fans may want something else, but they do not shape the economy
of televised sporting events, including F1. Good competition, observable
by spectators is what shapes long term economics of sports, not the numbers
a given manufacturer of items used in the event, be it a soccer football, uniforms, or an F1 car.

rgsuspsa