I think the 3 'new' teams; Campos / HRT, Virgin / Marussia, Lotus / Caterham, all suffered because they came in being sold the line of budget caps coming in, I don't think any of them had the budget to compete in the current set up. Which is much more a black mark against the FIA and the process that brought these three in (along with the stillborn USF1), than on any of these three teams themselves.rohit1594 wrote:I wonder just how much serious the owners of teams like Spyker (yes, they did score 1 point in the VERY WET 2007 Japanese GP at Fuji), Virgin, HRT, Caterham (and dare I say, even Marussia?) were about 'competing' in Formula 1 in the first place... By the looks of things, all they wanted to do, was to get media attention along with the big boys and 'pretend' that they belong to the pinnacle of motorsport. Financial issues, little or no development over the course of the season, pay drivers, ugly looking cars has become the hallmark of such teams!
... and in my opinion, it's becoming a bit irritating now! Frankly speaking, the FIA should not allow new teams into Formula 1 unless they have established some kind of a technical tie-up with a top manufacturer. I wonder how Haas F1 will fare...
I'm not sure that works, had that been the case, in recent years Williams would probably have been finishing behind all the other works teams, and most, if not all of the customers. They could well have given up making their own cars by now, lest they have lost all their sponsorship / good people / good drivers etc.rohit1594 wrote:Yes, I would not mind seeing a two-tier F1 Championship within the main series: One for the WDC and constructors championship (e.g. between Mercedes, RB, Williams, Ferrari & McLaren) and the other one between customer teams for the remaining "honour" positions, provided they are competitive enough.
No no, I wasn't suggesting that any one manufacturer supply all the customer cars. My bad! "Technical partnership" is the word I should have used. Like you said, the McLaren & Force India model is the way to go!ScottB wrote:I'm not sure that works, had that been the case, in recent years Williams would probably have been finishing behind all the other works teams, and most, if not all of the customers.rohit1594 wrote:Yes, I would not mind seeing a two-tier F1 Championship within the main series: One for the WDC and constructors championship (e.g. between Mercedes, RB, Williams, Ferrari & McLaren) and the other one between customer teams for the remaining "honour" positions, provided they are competitive enough.
How would you deal with, for example, next year every customer team would be lining up to buy a Merc car. Can one team be expected to supply have a grid with cars? If not, how do you determine who gets to pick what? Highest bidder just leads to the same situation among the current teams, of most cash wins. Works teams could face big drops in income if they have a desirable car to customers one year, but not the next, etc.
That's why I think having Mclaren / Force India style relationships is best, small teams get to learn while doing, big ones get to train up their more junior engineers etc.
Ah I see! Yes, I think it works because all teams would still be constructors, even if some are getting a little help along the way...rohit1594 wrote:No no, I wasn't suggesting that any one manufacturer supply all the customer cars. My bad! "Technical partnership" is the word I should have used. Like you said, the McLaren & Force India model is the way to go!ScottB wrote:I'm not sure that works, had that been the case, in recent years Williams would probably have been finishing behind all the other works teams, and most, if not all of the customers.rohit1594 wrote:Yes, I would not mind seeing a two-tier F1 Championship within the main series: One for the WDC and constructors championship (e.g. between Mercedes, RB, Williams, Ferrari & McLaren) and the other one between customer teams for the remaining "honour" positions, provided they are competitive enough.
How would you deal with, for example, next year every customer team would be lining up to buy a Merc car. Can one team be expected to supply have a grid with cars? If not, how do you determine who gets to pick what? Highest bidder just leads to the same situation among the current teams, of most cash wins. Works teams could face big drops in income if they have a desirable car to customers one year, but not the next, etc.
That's why I think having Mclaren / Force India style relationships is best, small teams get to learn while doing, big ones get to train up their more junior engineers etc.
Tony Fernandes has really screwed the new owners, from what I've seen. I really actually feel bad for the new investors. I think, what they were "sold" and what they actually received are two very different situations. But then again, they apparently haven't actually received anything yet.turbof1 wrote:Force India is probably the best example. Torro Rosso originally got the same chassis and aero as the mother team until it was outlawed.
Maybe there should be a rule that allows a new team to run a customer chassis from a big team for 2 or 3 years, to allow the team in the meanwhile set up a factory and personel.
Back on topic: the investment group claims to have paid Tony and that the latter is fully responsible for the current state of affairs. With just 1 week to go, this looks like a nightmare. Loosing out on the price money will devalue the team further, and whoever gets the team will be left with something almost worthless since the team will most likely be liquified to pay off some of the debts.
I don't know who is exactly at fault. I'm not going to take the word from a mysterious group just for granted. All we know for sure, is that one party is lying, the other party trying to cover his sweet *ss, but most importantly several hundred employees will pay the price by loosing their jobs. Neither Tony Fony or Group Mystique will be concerned about that, but rather who will be held responsible in court and who has to pay off the debts.Pierce89 wrote:Tony Fernandes has really screwed the new owners, from what I've seen. I really actually feel bad for the new investors. I think, what they were "sold" and what they actually received are two very different situations.turbof1 wrote:Force India is probably the best example. Torro Rosso originally got the same chassis and aero as the mother team until it was outlawed.
Maybe there should be a rule that allows a new team to run a customer chassis from a big team for 2 or 3 years, to allow the team in the meanwhile set up a factory and personel.
Back on topic: the investment group claims to have paid Tony and that the latter is fully responsible for the current state of affairs. With just 1 week to go, this looks like a nightmare. Loosing out on the price money will devalue the team further, and whoever gets the team will be left with something almost worthless since the team will most likely be liquified to pay off some of the debts.
the team was sold by Fernandes and the new owners would take on the debt. However, Fernandes sees the money that he invested in the team as being a debt to himself, and should be paid back. The new owners feel this was not clear during the sale, and is a substantial amount of money. This has meant that the team's debt is significantly larger than they believed, causing the financial difficulties.