Hugely Dissapointed With McLaren

[internetf1fan]

Will the rest of the top teams handicap themselves so that the smaller teams like Lotus, Virgin will be more competitive? Already HRT is in danger of going out of F1. I don't see FOTA doing anything to help them even though HRT and the restof the smaller teams quitting would be bad for the sport.

And how this make any sense if you previously said that F1 is about the survival of fittest? What point you argue?
Besides, many things like agreement on engine prices etc, came thru communication of manufacturers that is helped by FOTA.

It's called a counter example. People here claim that FOTA agreed to ditch KERS for cost reasons and for the good of the sport and yet they are still spending tons more than the smaller teams who are less competitive and teams like HRT are already in the danger of going out of F1.

So tell me, what are FOTA doing for HRT and the good of the sport? Nothing, so all these arguments about FOTA being for the good of the sport and KERS should have been ditched are all rubbish.

McLaren could have stuck with KERS and absolutely NOTHING would have changed. The big teams would still have been spending tons more than smaller teams and smaller teams would still be struggling, exactly like what's going on now, apart from the fact that McLaren is slightly less competitive for nothing in return.

[autogyro]

McLaren is on the way down and Ron Dennis is the only one to blame.

[Giblet]

Nothing would have changed?

Youre just not being rational. You still think the tiny advantage that kers might have added was worth turfing fota. This is why your base argument is wrong. You actually think kers in it's 80 hp vein would allow them to dominate.

Red bull had no kers last year and nearly won the championship. Brawn had no kers and did win.

Why do you think kers is a magic bullet? News flash: it's not.

[timbo]

It's called a counter example. People here claim that FOTA agreed to ditch KERS for cost reasons and for the good of the sport and yet they are still spending tons more than the smaller teams who are less competitive and teams like HRT are already in the danger of going out of F1.

So tell me, what are FOTA doing for HRT and the good of the sport? Nothing, so all these arguments about FOTA being for the good of the sport and KERS should have been ditched are all rubbish.

McLaren could have stuck with KERS and absolutely NOTHING would have changed. The big teams would still have been spending tons more than smaller teams and smaller teams would still be struggling, exactly like what's going on now, apart from the fact that McLaren is slightly less competitive for nothing in return.

OK, but what about competition between HRT, Lotus and Virgin?
If somebody has KERS between them it would place others on back foot. So they ALL HAVE to have KERS and spend money on it. Is it a good thing for new teams?
Next years KERS is set to be back as a solution that would be low cost.
The main reason teams want KERS back is because it is marketable.

[autogyro]

It's called a counter example. People here claim that FOTA agreed to ditch KERS for cost reasons and for the good of the sport and yet they are still spending tons more than the smaller teams who are less competitive and teams like HRT are already in the danger of going out of F1.

So tell me, what are FOTA doing for HRT and the good of the sport? Nothing, so all these arguments about FOTA being for the good of the sport and KERS should have been ditched are all rubbish.

McLaren could have stuck with KERS and absolutely NOTHING would have changed. The big teams would still have been spending tons more than smaller teams and smaller teams would still be struggling, exactly like what's going on now, apart from the fact that McLaren is slightly less competitive for nothing in return.

OK, but what about competition between HRT, Lotus and Virgin?
If somebody has KERS between them it would place others on back foot. So they ALL HAVE to have KERS and spend money on it. Is it a good thing for new teams?
Next years KERS is set to be back as a solution that would be low cost.
The main reason teams want KERS back is because it is marketable.

Exactly Timbo, the sooner Teams took their heads out of their a---' and stopped trying to maintain the motor head ic image, the sooner they will recognise the huge financial potential of being involved with outside companies prepared to develop Kers and the associated hybrid technology.
It realy is the 'shock and awe' brrrm brrm attitude that is holding everything up.
I am involved with just this and you would not believe the depth of the obsolete mind set I have to deal with.

[segedunum]

I'm curious why you snipped out the first bit of my post.

You listed a number of teams that didn't prove anything at all.

Wait, no I'm not. Look, I know you've got a thing against McLaren, so I won't argue the point with you.

I'm simply not bothered in the slightest by adhominem responses where McLaren are concerned because there is a large amount of emotion involved in accepting current difficulties and the difficulties ahead. You might as well say "I don't like what you wrote and I'm upset".

But as to your other point, since most people don't understand the financial arrangement - McLaren auto means income for the team

Where? The automotive company is eating large amounts of investment and capital and hasn't even started. The relationship is currently the other way round. It provides no income that benefits the racing team whatsoever, and won't for a very, very long time, if ever. Where do you get this strange idea from?

They're a separate company, and as far as the team is concerned, they're a sponsor, just like Mercedes.

Errrr, no. They are part of the same group and are subject to the same financial pressures. The success of McLaren Automotive depends very much on the name of the McLaren racing team and the success that they have like every racing team before them - except McLaren are doing things the opposte way on.

And with 3,000 pre-orders already in their pocket, I don't think they'll have much trouble paying their bills.

That's a very optimistic appraisal of the situation given the current state of the automotive industry and that the MP4-12C hsn't been announced as available yet. It will be interesting to see whether those 'pre-orders' materialise into revenue and ultimately profit, but until they do........

.............

Do you really think McLaren did all this without being sure of their success? You think Ron Dennis just woke up one morning and said, "Screw it, we're going it alone!

Wishing for success and saying "They must have thought things through!" does not bring it I'm afraid. I pissed into the wind once and wished that I could draw a smiley face in the snow. Alas, I got wet pants.

I think McLaren will be fine. You can think otherwise, should you want, but all of the evidence is against you.

I'm afraid not, but whatever. Like I said, there's a bit of a reluctance to see facts in the face regarding what McLaren are taking on.

[Pup]

Seg, I'm sorry, but you're wrong here. McLaren auto is a completely separate entity, so there is no possible way that they can be a financial drain on the team, even if they were to go belly up. They are paying the team annually for the right to the McLaren name, so they are in essence a sponsor, like any other. The team has made no investment in the auto company, so there is no capital to 'use up'. All the financing is coming from outside. But even that is irrelevant, since the team isn't in need of additional capital investment anyway.

Sorry to hear about your urinary troubles.

[segedunum]

Seg, I'm sorry, but it's obvious that you have no clue what you're talking about.

There's no need to be sorry for drowning under your own denial. That whole "Ron Dennis thought of this, so he must be sure of success!" nonsense is about as far as it gets when trying to rationalise what is going on.

McLaren auto is a completely separate entity, so there is no possible way that they can be a financial drain on the team, even if they were to go belly up. They are paying the team annually for the right to the McLaren name, so they are in essence a sponsor, like any other. The team has made no investment in the auto company, so there is no capital to 'use up'.

While this strictly speaking (from a legal perspective) might well be true, in reality this is pure fantasy - apart from both being part of the McLaren Group. If this was truly the case then the McLaren racing team could have continued their relationship with Mercedes completely independently of what McLaren Automotive were doing and not lost their investment, which could be anywhere up to 100 million. They will also lose their engines in a few years and will have to source engines from wherever McLaren Automotive gets their engines from because no other company will logically supply them. That all has a massive effect on McLaren Racing. McLaren Automotive also trades on the McLaren racing name and how successful that name is so they need it to be, regardless of who pays for it.

To say that these two entities do not depend on each other is just not true, regardless of the financial and legal gymnastics that take place to say that they're separate.

But who's kidding who, right?

Well, quite.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Seg, I'm sorry, but you're wrong here. McLaren auto is a completely separate entity, so there is no possible way that they can be a financial drain on the team, even if they were to go belly up. They are paying the team annually for the right to the McLaren name, so they are in essence a sponsor, like any other. The team has made no investment in the auto company, so there is no capital to 'use up'. All the financing is coming from outside. But even that is irrelevant, since the team isn't in need of additional capital investment anyway.

Pup, it is abundantly clear you are a fan of McLaren. This isn't a criticism, its a compliment. But to deny that there will not be any adverse effect with Mercedes leaving along with their no questions asked 80 million per season, engines, and some tech help, then you are sorely mistaken.
You mentioned McLaren's abiltiy to retain sponsors and poach other teams sponsors for the same fee with less exposure. Do you think this will happen when the results dont go their way?
Mobil not going with Mercedes had nothing to do with McLaren at all. Mercedes got a bumper 30 million per season deal with PETRONAS, a rival of Mobil's.

[internetf1fan]

Nothing would have changed?

Youre just not being rational. You still think the tiny advantage that kers might have added was worth turfing fota. This is why your base argument is wrong. You actually think kers in it's 80 hp vein would allow them to dominate.

Red bull had no kers last year and nearly won the championship. Brawn had no kers and did win.

Why do you think kers is a magic bullet? News flash: it's not.

KERS WOULD have been the magic bullet.

1) McLaren was one of the teams that managed to get KERS right. When they did get it right, they were regularly beating RBRs. You cannot deny the advantages KERS gave at starts and overtaking once they sorted out the issues. Carrying on KERS onto 2010 would have given then a year advantage on RBR. And it would have forced RBR to either invest money into KERS losing R&D in other areas, or once implemented, they would have had intial trouble getting it right, which would have put them on the back foot.

2) Power output was to be doubled for 2010 regulations. Making it even more invaluable in a season where track position is king. They would have made mince meat of everyone at race starts as well as overtaking/defending with the help of KERS + Fduct.

All your arguments seem to based on "it would not be worth turfing FOTA". But you don't substantiate your claims. What exactly has McLaren gained from joining FOTA? What would they lose if they turfed FOTA?

They would lose nothing, and be more competitive.

[timbo]

1) McLaren was one of the teams that managed to get KERS right. When they did get it right, they were regularly beating RBRs. You cannot deny the advantages KERS gave at starts and overtaking once they sorted out the issues. Carrying on KERS onto 2010 would have given then a year advantage on RBR. And it would have forced RBR to either invest money into KERS losing R&D in other areas, or once implemented, they would have had intial trouble getting it right, which would have put them on the back foot.

They improved their aero. That was the key to results, not KERS. This year, they already have one of the longest cars, packaging KERS would make things even more complicated.

2) Power output was to be doubled for 2010 regulations. Making it even more invaluable in a season where track position is king. They would have made mince meat of everyone at race starts as well as overtaking/defending with the help of KERS + Fduct.

KERS is till permitted. It's power output is the same as @ 2009.

All your arguments seem to based on "it would not be worth turfing FOTA". But you don't substantiate your claims. What exactly has McLaren gained from joining FOTA? What would they lose if they turfed FOTA?

They would lose nothing, and be more competitive.

They would effectively loose their ability to vote on future regulations. If FOTA would come to an agreement which doesn't suit McLaren, McLaren would always be outvoted. When they are in FOTA they have the means to convince others and come to mutual agreement.

[Pup]

Seg, I'm sorry, but you're wrong here. McLaren auto is a completely separate entity, so there is no possible way that they can be a financial drain on the team, even if they were to go belly up. They are paying the team annually for the right to the McLaren name, so they are in essence a sponsor, like any other. The team has made no investment in the auto company, so there is no capital to 'use up'. All the financing is coming from outside. But even that is irrelevant, since the team isn't in need of additional capital investment anyway.

Pup, it is abundantly clear you are a fan of McLaren. This isn't a criticism, its a compliment. But to deny that there will not be any adverse effect with Mercedes leaving along with their no questions asked 80 million per season, engines, and some tech help, then you are sorely mistaken.
You mentioned McLaren's abiltiy to retain sponsors and poach other teams sponsors for the same fee with less exposure. Do you think this will happen when the results dont go their way?
Mobil not going with Mercedes had nothing to do with McLaren at all. Mercedes got a bumper 30 million per season deal with PETRONAS, a rival of Mobil's.

I think that at worst, these things are question marks.

First, the question isn't what were Mercedes paying McLaren - a figure we can only guess upon. The real question is what would they have paid, considering the budget limits and general reluctance at Merc to continue a large sponsorship. Again, we don't know what that number is, but we know that they put Brawn on a pretty tight budget.

Secondly, we know that the team runs a profit, as we've seen that they can pay off considerable debt in short periods; i.e., the fine and the MTC.

Third, we know that their racing budgets have decreased since that time, and that their income from FOM has increased substantially. .

Fourth, we know that McLaren auto will be paying them sponsorship.

OK, so I haven't put figures to anything, because personally I don't believe any of the numbers we see published on team budgets, etc. But when I consider those points, I don't see gloom and doom. What I see is a well run business that makes well-considered financial decisions, and I can assume that they've put actual numbers to those points, and the math has come out in their favor.

As for the success bit, speaking as a McLaren fan, I'm wondering when exactly those results will go their way.

[Giblet]

Thanks Timbo. My points would have been similar. The 2009 mclaren had a fundamental weight distro/aero center design flaw that took a long time to correct. Anyone who thinks it was just kers getting done right is uninformed and lacking base knowledge the majority of people in this forum retain.

Internetf1fan: there is no such thing as magic bullets. Rbr is also capable of putting kers on their cars. Chew that for a bit and see what you come up with. You asked me what fota does? I already told you more than once. It's working to keep costs down so we still have a viable field in f1. Out of control finances tanked the world economy, and the economy of the sport is intrinsically tied to it. Mclaren can not race if there is no f1.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I think that at worst, these things are question marks.

First, the question isn't what were Mercedes paying McLaren - a figure we can only guess upon. The real question is what would they have paid, considering the budget limits and general reluctance at Merc to continue a large sponsorship. Again, we don't know what that number is, but we know that they put Brawn on a pretty tight budget.

Secondly, we know that the team runs a profit, as we've seen that they can pay off considerable debt in short periods; i.e., the fine and the MTC.

Third, we know that their racing budgets have decreased since that time, and that their income from FOM has increased substantially. .

Fourth, we know that McLaren auto will be paying them sponsorship.

OK, so I haven't put figures to anything, because personally I don't believe any of the numbers we see published on team budgets, etc. But when I consider those points, I don't see gloom and doom. What I see is a well run business that makes well-considered financial decisions, and I can assume that they've put actual numbers to those points, and the math has come out in their favor.

As for the success bit, speaking as a McLaren fan, I'm wondering when exactly those results will go their way.

I feel reality will soon hit at Woking. Ferrari are felling it now and McLaren will certainly be feeling it soon.
The MTC is still hugely leveraged by the banks, Im going on 2009 figures stating they owe in the region of £150 million on that alone.
And they didnt "pay" their fine in so much as they just didnt recieve any FIA money for a year(£100 million).Mercedes picked up half the slack for that year too, good benefactors they be
They also paid Mercedes 200 million for its stake in McLaren. However even though a "substantial" amount was paid off a couple of months ago, Haug still says most of this is still outstanding.
In conjunction with the 40 or so new dealerships and MP4-12C development and tooling costs, McLaren need it to work or face tough times ahead.

We also know that McLaren received £80 million per annum from Mercedes because Daimler release this in their end of year reports. HPE(merc engines) in brixworth sets them back a further £48 million(2009 and KERS excluded).

Mercedes could "own" a team for a one off £80 million and retain all the sponsorship and get 100% exposure. Which is why they are doing it....

The cost cap couldnt have come at a better time for Mclaren and if they play it right then it could be the making of them, but alot of friends have come to the not outlandish conclusion that McLaren have perhaps bitten off too much in one go.
Time will tell and I wish them the luck....because I fear they are going to need it.

[internetf1fan]

Internetf1fan: there is no such thing as magic bullets. Rbr is also capable of putting kers on their cars. Chew that for a bit and see what you come up with. You asked me what fota does? I already told you more than once. It's working to keep costs down so we still have a viable field in f1. Out of control finances tanked the world economy, and the economy of the sport is intrinsically tied to it. Mclaren can not race if there is no f1.

Yes RBR would be capable of putting KERS in their car, but they would face the same balance problems that McLaren and other KERS teams faced in 2009. Out of those teams in 2009 only McLaren and Ferrari (to an extent) figured out how to make the car weight distro make with KERS.

That's what I mean by McLaren being able to make KERS work. They were able to use the advantages of KERS without any of the disadvantages. If RBR tries to put KERs in their car, they would be a year behind in terms of understanding the issues that KERS brings.

If KERS implementation so so easy, why do you think only McLaren and Ferrari were able to run it while BMW and Renault dismissed as it played too many problems with their cars balance. I beleive RBR would also face the same problems initally.

As for you comments about FOTA keeping the costs down. That's obviously rubbish. The top teams are still spending tons more than the small teams who are obviously struggling to be competitive and already teams like HRT and in threat of going out of F1. What is FOTA doing about this? What is FOTA doing to make the smaller teams more competitive and keep them in F1 for the "good of the sport"? If they are pro cutting costs, why were they so against Max's budget cap ideas?