Grand Prix Rejects

Toyota's withdrawal only served to give me th ammunition I needed: maufacturers are bad for Formula One. They drive up costs because they can spend more. They develop new technologies, but these take years to make it to production cars. They have a very limited shelf-life; BMW lasted three years. Honda lasted two. Toyota made it to eight. Spyker barely made one. And they cause trouble: the espionage controversy, the Singapore investigations, the KERS debacle and so on can all be laid at the feet or manufacturer (or, in the case of McLaren, manufacture-backed) teams. And teams like Honda and Toyota were in Formula One as a marketing exercise. They wanted the image that came with the world's premiere motorsports championship.

Now, look at some of the achievements of privateer teams: Brawn won both titles in its maiden season when, by rights, the team should not have existed at the start of the season. Williams have been in the sport for thirty years and have seven drivers' and nine cnstructors' titles. Jordan went from newcomer to championship contender in just eight years. Minardi never won a race in twenty years, but gained a fanbase as the resident underdog. Tyrrell had over four hundred and sixty starts to their name in three decades of racing, netted three drivers' championships along the way and were associated with the likes of Stewart, Pironi, Alesi and Scheckter.

Formula One's greatest achievements lie in the hands of the privateer teams. The sport's greatest embarrassments lie at the feet of the manufacturers. The difference is that the private teams exist purely as racing teams. If you look at Toyota, they couldn't get started on their plans for the new season until their budgets were approved in a boardroom half a world away by men who never attended a race in their life. When Williams submitted and unconditional entry to the FIA this season, Sir Frank said that he did it because by refusing to enter in protest, Williams were going against their sole purpose as a racing team. If they weren't racing, they didn't exist. Force India did the same as Williams in submitting an unconditional entry, but they too were a private entity. In fact, the breakaway series was led by the manufacturers: Luca di Motezemolo, President of FOTA? Ferrari's man. John Howett, Vice-President? Toyota. The teams met to discuss things firstly on Flavio Briatore's private yacht and later at Enstone - both of them associated with Renault. Under the manufacturers, a breakaway series would have failed. Costs would have skyrocketed because the car companies can spend more. The racing would reach new heights in boredom as the manufacturer teams would be more interested in the image or developing new technologies than in actually racing.

There are exceptions, of course. Ferrari is the most famous manufacturer in the world - but even they started as a racing team, and as a manufacturer, they are not without contorversy as fans believe the FIA is biased towards them. And there have been utter failures of private teams: Arrows, Prost, Midland. But they only ever hurt themselves; they never did the kind of damage that Renault managed in fixing the SIngaporean Grand Prix. So sell the manufacturer teams! Have Toyota taken over by Aguri Suzuki or Dave Richards. Have ART Grand Prix or Henri Pescarolo buy the Renault team. Keep the sport competitive by having the championship fought out by teams who exist solely for the purpose of racing. If the manufacturers want those new technolgoies or marketing image, they should be able to get it from supplying the teams.

I agree in principle, and I maintain that budget caps would have been good for F1, and managed the same result. However, I note that such measures effectively turn F1 on its head, from the corporate-oriented buggers to the 3p-an-10-inches-of-shoe-string teams in a shed.

What I mean is there is a lot of stuff going on around F1 (not just the Kings of Leon concerts, mind) that'll have to go. Think about it. was all the "F1 Rocks" shenanigan a way to extend the appeal of F1 beyond the fans and try to keep manufacturers in? It would be back-to-the-basics. Most fans want that. Do the people in F1 want that? Maybe the added bonus is not having to see Naomi Campbell cuddling with Bernie during the races.

My biggest worry is engines supply. No, I don't think the return of unreliability is A Good Thing. And neither is a Cosworth monopoly.

CarlosFerreira wrote:My biggest worry is engines supply. No, I don't think the return of unreliability is A Good Thing. And neither is a Cosworth monopoly.

Funnily enough the so called golden age of F1 was characterized by above two things.

CarlosFerreira wrote:My biggest worry is engines supply. No, I don't think the return of unreliability is A Good Thing. And neither is a Cosworth monopoly.

This is how the 2010 grid will break down:

Mercedes teams: McLaren, Brawn and Force India
Ferrari teams: Ferrari, Sauber and Toro Rosso
Renault teams: Renault and Red Bull
Cosworth teams: Williams, Campos, Manor, USF1 and Lotus

Okay, so they hold about half of the grid. But it's not a complete monopoly. And I suspect that the new teams will eventually drift away from Cosworth.

But even if there were no manufacturers, that doesn't mean they cannot supply engines.

My worry as expressed in another trend is:
- Small racing teams do not have the financial strength even to make the FIA intended budget cap;
- Manufacturers are not good, agreed, but they are better than the hacks that are coming into F-1, I still prefer Toyota to the Lotus heretic ripoff.

I don't believe a budget cap would ever work. I am not an accountant and I have thought about a couple of loopholes in that strategy, so I wonder what would an expert accountant do to circumvent that regulation...

Brawn have to be ever praised for their feat. It was extraordinary, unique and inspiring, but they inherited a package from a manufacturer! If you believe Alexander Wurz, the 001 car cost about USD 1 billion!

Benetton... sound a lot better than Renault, doesn't it?

Actually Toleman would sound even better!

rffp wrote:- Small racing teams do not have the financial strength even to make the FIA intended budget cap

Campos have the smallest budget, with forty-eight million (Euros, dollars or pounds; I'm not sure), which is three million more than the proposed budget cap. And if there are no manufacturers, costs will come down.

Captain Hammer wrote:

rffp wrote:- Small racing teams do not have the financial strength even to make the FIA intended budget cap

Campos have the smallest budget, with forty-eight million (Euros, dollars or pounds; I'm not sure), which is three million more than the proposed budget cap. And if there are no manufacturers, costs will come down.

In general, I would agree with you, but I don't think the guys in Maranello are prone to cut their costs to the level of Campos.

Captain Hammer wrote:

rffp wrote:- Small racing teams do not have the financial strength even to make the FIA intended budget cap

Campos have the smallest budget, with forty-eight million (Euros, dollars or pounds; I'm not sure), which is three million more than the proposed budget cap. And if there are no manufacturers, costs will come down.

As things stand there is no incentive for Ferrari or McLaren to cut costs. We could be facing another decade of two teams way out front.

Captain Hammer wrote:

rffp wrote:- Small racing teams do not have the financial strength even to make the FIA intended budget cap

Campos have the smallest budget, with forty-eight million (Euros, dollars or pounds; I'm not sure), which is three million more than the proposed budget cap. And if there are no manufacturers, costs will come down.

They won't come down as much as you'd like to think. Yes, the smaller teams such as Campos et al will be able to scrape by on lose change (in F1 terms at least), but people like Mclaren and Ferrari will continue to piss away money as long as their sponsers keep coughing up the dough.

I remember someone (possibly Briatore) saying that if you gave an F1 team shopping carts, and £100 million, they'd manage to spend £100 million fixing up the shopping cart. As long as there are a couple of very rich or well sponsered teams on the grid, budgets won't go down unless artificially capped, and we don't want that

Captain Hammer wrote:

CarlosFerreira wrote:My biggest worry is engines supply. No, I don't think the return of unreliability is A Good Thing. And neither is a Cosworth monopoly.

This is how the 2010 grid will break down:

Mercedes teams: McLaren, Brawn and Force India
Ferrari teams: Ferrari, Sauber and Toro Rosso
Renault teams: Renault and Red Bull
Cosworth teams: Williams, Campos, Manor, USF1 and Lotus

Okay, so they hold about half of the grid. But it's not a complete monopoly. And I suspect that the new teams will eventually drift away from Cosworth.

But even if there were no manufacturers, that doesn't mean they cannot supply engines.

And don't forget that engines are now equalised as much as possible, so it's nothing like as important as it was in the 80s and 90s. F1 is quietly drifting towards being a single engine formula, albeit with different badges. There's no way Williams would've signed up with Cosworth unless they knew it would be competitive.

Privateer teams tend to stay in F1 because that is their business. Thats why they exist. Manufacturers only see it as another publicity stunt, another plaything

noisebox wrote:There's no way Williams would've signed up with Cosworth unless they knew it would be competitive.

Judging from past experience, I somewhat doubt that. Here's hoping that I'm wrong though.

I think it's probably a good thing in the long run to have racing teams rather than car-promoting teams running in Formula 1 *providing* we don't spend the next ten years watching all the races being won by Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso. One of the good things about the last couple of years is the unpredictability of the team success. The races could have been won by anyone, judging on the great variety of second places that were taken. But it would generally be fantastic to see gutsy racing teams coming back into the sport.

noisebox wrote:As things stand there is no incentive for Ferrari or McLaren to cut costs. We could be facing another decade of two teams way out front.

Bingo! Somebody give that man a beer.

Captain Hammer wrote:Toyota's withdrawal only served to give me th ammunition I needed: maufacturers are bad for Formula One. They drive up costs because they can spend more. They develop new technologies, but these take years to make it to production cars. They have a very limited shelf-life; BMW lasted three years. Honda lasted two. Toyota made it to eight. Spyker barely made one. And they cause trouble: the espionage controversy, the Singapore investigations, the KERS debacle and so on can all be laid at the feet or manufacturer (or, in the case of McLaren, manufacture-backed) teams. And teams like Honda and Toyota were in Formula One as a marketing exercise. They wanted the image that came with the world's premiere motorsports championship.

Now, look at some of the achievements of privateer teams: Brawn won both titles in its maiden season when, by rights, the team should not have existed at the start of the season. Williams have been in the sport for thirty years and have seven drivers' and nine cnstructors' titles. Jordan went from newcomer to championship contender in just eight years. Minardi never won a race in twenty years, but gained a fanbase as the resident underdog. Tyrrell had over four hundred and sixty starts to their name in three decades of racing, netted three drivers' championships along the way and were associated with the likes of Stewart, Pironi, Alesi and Scheckter.

Formula One's greatest achievements lie in the hands of the privateer teams. The sport's greatest embarrassments lie at the feet of the manufacturers. The difference is that the private teams exist purely as racing teams. If you look at Toyota, they couldn't get started on their plans for the new season until their budgets were approved in a boardroom half a world away by men who never attended a race in their life. When Williams submitted and unconditional entry to the FIA this season, Sir Frank said that he did it because by refusing to enter in protest, Williams were going against their sole purpose as a racing team. If they weren't racing, they didn't exist. Force India did the same as Williams in submitting an unconditional entry, but they too were a private entity. In fact, the breakaway series was led by the manufacturers: Luca di Motezemolo, President of FOTA? Ferrari's man. John Howett, Vice-President? Toyota. The teams met to discuss things firstly on Flavio Briatore's private yacht and later at Enstone - both of them associated with Renault. Under the manufacturers, a breakaway series would have failed. Costs would have skyrocketed because the car companies can spend more. The racing would reach new heights in boredom as the manufacturer teams would be more interested in the image or developing new technologies than in actually racing.

There are exceptions, of course. Ferrari is the most famous manufacturer in the world - but even they started as a racing team, and as a manufacturer, they are not without contorversy as fans believe the FIA is biased towards them. And there have been utter failures of private teams: Arrows, Prost, Midland. But they only ever hurt themselves; they never did the kind of damage that Renault managed in fixing the SIngaporean Grand Prix. So sell the manufacturer teams! Have Toyota taken over by Aguri Suzuki or Dave Richards. Have ART Grand Prix or Henri Pescarolo buy the Renault team. Keep the sport competitive by having the championship fought out by teams who exist solely for the purpose of racing. If the manufacturers want those new technolgoies or marketing image, they should be able to get it from supplying the teams.

I agree. In the end, as they are leaving the ship massively (lets way what it will come to Mercedes if there's nothing to compete against in terms of manufacturers) they only leave a lot of trouble. The budget cap hysteria, the full commitment on impending small teams to enter Why in the hell they made a point on filling a place in the concorde agreement and then leaving because of the crisis?. What didn't they see in april-june about the crisis that have seen now? Believe me, I have a master in finance, and theres nothing new under the sun, or even better, now, there are better expectations about economy than in april-june.

The rest, i.e. if they performed well or bad it's unimportant here, they could have been last and, in the end, it would have been better. Just imagine, for a second, that Toyota would have proved all of us, by winning the WC, that the only way to win it and to stay in the top was spending the sum they did... Ferrari did it, previously, but they were Ferrari and they were just from the beginning, sometimes forcing rules as you say.

But, in the end, I think they were to fill a place in a matter of simbiosis. At the beggining of 1990's economical downturn was killing small and midfield privateers as flies: Larrouse, Leyton house-March, Tyrrell, Dallara, Osella, Lotus! not to name the inglorious small teams that all of you, along with me, could name it without omitting one, like a mantra. They all were leaving behind a trail of debts about seven figures each every time they were facing bankrupcy. F1 was about to be something silly or inviable. Then the constructors came in. At first they started gaining places as engine manufacturers, then some of them, according to their needs, started to fill places in the grid by their own right... and money. May we remember that, in order to sanitise F1, there was a 48 million initial deposit? Well, the likes of Bernie and Max, imposed it, thus preventing any other small team to appear, and in the event of they appearing, they were a lamb among lions (I remember, for now, of Stewart, then Jordan, then Sauber, and before what was left of Tyrrell-BAR, and also Arrows and Prost).

It was a covenant, they all live from that, and we can't accuse them.... why would we? who dosen't want to win money, or spend it, on their own right. I accept it was boring, I accept that F1 was becoming even more boring every year (except for the last two when randomness hit them all) at the point they had to add some bizarre rules the way of a roman circus feature; forcing drivers to use tyres they would have not chose to it's the most ridicule of them all. But there were more, as limiting the amount of fuel, grooving tyres, the reverse system at qualifiyng, etc. But they don't care and they shouldn't, Why they would? If I i don't like F1 the way it's now Imust just stop watching it. That's all.

Long live to privateers, but let's try to put everything under a wide perspective.

noisebox wrote:As things stand there is no incentive for Ferrari or McLaren to cut costs. We could be facing another decade of two teams way out front.

Perhaps, but what do you want to do to solve that? That's the way things go: they're the better financed, they have the better staff, the better drivers. It was always like this, just like in football, with teams such as Manchester Utd., Real Madrid, Inter Milan and so on dominating the scene; still, people considers football exciting. However, we must remember they're not gods; they stuff up at times, just like this year. And, while perhaps they will be the frontrunners, that does not impede us to see some good fights and scraps, just like in 1990 with McLaren (Senna/Berger) and Ferrari (Prost/Mansell). It's just a problem concerning F1 cars, as was discussed in another thread, and, even to some extent, the dullness of certain circuits (cough, cough...Hungaroring...cough, cough). We must have some faith nevertheless. It's the sport we love.

Captain Hammer wrote: utter failures of private teams: Arrows.

Why? They were competitive at times (1981, 1987, 1988 and even 2001 I'd say) and have some good results under its name.

Phoenix wrote:

Captain Hammer wrote: utter failures of private teams: Arrows.

Why? They were competitive at times (1981, 1987, 1988 and even 2001 I'd say) and have some good results under its name.

I think he might have had Tom Walkinshaw's Arrows in mind when he wrote that.

Phoenix wrote:Why? They were competitive at times (1981, 1987, 1988 and even 2001 I'd say) and have some good results under its name.

Don't you mean 2000, they were slow in 2001.

redbulljack14 wrote:

Phoenix wrote:Why? They were competitive at times (1981, 1987, 1988 and even 2001 I'd say) and have some good results under its name.

Don't you mean 2000, they were slow in 2001.

In 1989 they almost won two races with Derek Warwick, in Brazil and in Canada. But then to actually see a Warwick-Arrows winning combination defies all the laws of probability!

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

Phoenix wrote:

Captain Hammer wrote: utter failures of private teams: Arrows.

Why? They were competitive at times (1981, 1987, 1988 and even 2001 I'd say) and have some good results under its name.

I think he might have had Tom Walkinshaw's Arrows in mind when he wrote that.

I did indeed. There's a user-submitted article on the main site about the Walkinshaw years and the mistakes he made, like being uanble to keep a consistent driver lineup, doing deals with a Nigerian prince who had none of the money he claimed to and so on.

Captain Hammer wrote:doing deals with a Nigerian prince who had none of the money he claimed to and so on.

This'll be the same Nigerian prince who keeps e-mailing me.

Phoenix wrote:

noisebox wrote:As things stand there is no incentive for Ferrari or McLaren to cut costs. We could be facing another decade of two teams way out front.

Perhaps, but what do you want to do to solve that? That's the way things go: they're the better financed, they have the better staff, the better drivers. It was always like this, just like in football, with teams such as Manchester Utd., Real Madrid, Inter Milan and so on dominating the scene; still, people considers football exciting. However, we must remember they're not gods; they stuff up at times, just like this year. And, while perhaps they will be the frontrunners, that does not impede us to see some good fights and scraps, just like in 1990 with McLaren (Senna/Berger) and Ferrari (Prost/Mansell). It's just a problem concerning F1 cars, as was discussed in another thread, and, even to some extent, the dullness of certain circuits (cough, cough...Hungaroring...cough, cough). We must have some faith nevertheless. It's the sport we love.

You're absolutely right on all of that.

I guess it comes down to how sport should be run in general. In football there is a promotion and relegation structure which means that in theory my local team (Bury) could go through the divisions and win the Premier League, of course it aint gonna happen, but that's part of the magic of football. Having said that the Champions League has distorted the top level of football, with the huge prize money effectively locking down the top four places in the English Premier League.

As I've said elsewhere F1 is effectively a franchise sport, and the model for running such a sport well has to be the NFL. There are 28 (I think) franchises and all are treated equally, revenue is divided between the teams, and at the start of each season the weakest teams from the year before have the pick of the best up and coming players. Why couldn't F1 be run in a similar way, instead of dodgy under the table deals with Ferrari to stop them throwing their toys out of the pram?

noisebox wrote:

Phoenix wrote:

noisebox wrote:As things stand there is no incentive for Ferrari or McLaren to cut costs. We could be facing another decade of two teams way out front.

Perhaps, but what do you want to do to solve that? That's the way things go: they're the better financed, they have the better staff, the better drivers. It was always like this, just like in football, with teams such as Manchester Utd., Real Madrid, Inter Milan and so on dominating the scene; still, people considers football exciting. However, we must remember they're not gods; they stuff up at times, just like this year. And, while perhaps they will be the frontrunners, that does not impede us to see some good fights and scraps, just like in 1990 with McLaren (Senna/Berger) and Ferrari (Prost/Mansell). It's just a problem concerning F1 cars, as was discussed in another thread, and, even to some extent, the dullness of certain circuits (cough, cough...Hungaroring...cough, cough). We must have some faith nevertheless. It's the sport we love.

You're absolutely right on all of that.

I guess it comes down to how sport should be run in general. In football there is a promotion and relegation structure which means that in theory my local team (Bury) could go through the divisions and win the Premier League, of course it aint gonna happen, but that's part of the magic of football. Having said that the Champions League has distorted the top level of football, with the huge prize money effectively locking down the top four places in the English Premier League.

As I've said elsewhere F1 is effectively a franchise sport, and the model for running such a sport well has to be the NFL. There are 28 (I think) franchises and all are treated equally, revenue is divided between the teams, and at the start of each season the weakest teams from the year before have the pick of the best up and coming players. Why couldn't F1 be run in a similar way, instead of dodgy under the table deals with Ferrari to stop them throwing their toys out of the pram?

There's 32 teams. The NFL works quite well for the NFL. I don't think that it would apply effectively to Formula One though. There's way too many distinct people in Formula One that couldn't be controlled under a salary cap. The NFL doesn't have that problem. If you're not getting paid by the team as a player, you don't get to play. In Formula One, there are so many behind-the-scenes people that exist that it would be impossible for the FIA to administrate all of them. Plus, manufacturer teams could have their road car divisions spend extra money developing the technology for their F1 cars, under the auspices of shared technology, and all of the people would be paid by the road car division and not count against the salary cap. It's not a bad thought, but it's just infeasible.

Captain Hammer wrote:Toyota's withdrawal only served to give me th ammunition I needed: maufacturers are bad for Formula One. They drive up costs because they can spend more. They develop new technologies, but these take years to make it to production cars. They have a very limited shelf-life; BMW lasted three years. Honda lasted two. Toyota made it to eight. Spyker barely made one. And they cause trouble: the espionage controversy, the Singapore investigations, the KERS debacle and so on can all be laid at the feet or manufacturer (or, in the case of McLaren, manufacture-backed) teams. And teams like Honda and Toyota were in Formula One as a marketing exercise. They wanted the image that came with the world's premiere motorsports championship.

Now, look at some of the achievements of privateer teams: Brawn won both titles in its maiden season when, by rights, the team should not have existed at the start of the season. Williams have been in the sport for thirty years and have seven drivers' and nine cnstructors' titles. Jordan went from newcomer to championship contender in just eight years. Minardi never won a race in twenty years, but gained a fanbase as the resident underdog. Tyrrell had over four hundred and sixty starts to their name in three decades of racing, netted three drivers' championships along the way and were associated with the likes of Stewart, Pironi, Alesi and Scheckter.

Formula One's greatest achievements lie in the hands of the privateer teams. The sport's greatest embarrassments lie at the feet of the manufacturers. The difference is that the private teams exist purely as racing teams. If you look at Toyota, they couldn't get started on their plans for the new season until their budgets were approved in a boardroom half a world away by men who never attended a race in their life. When Williams submitted and unconditional entry to the FIA this season, Sir Frank said that he did it because by refusing to enter in protest, Williams were going against their sole purpose as a racing team. If they weren't racing, they didn't exist. Force India did the same as Williams in submitting an unconditional entry, but they too were a private entity. In fact, the breakaway series was led by the manufacturers: Luca di Motezemolo, President of FOTA? Ferrari's man. John Howett, Vice-President? Toyota. The teams met to discuss things firstly on Flavio Briatore's private yacht and later at Enstone - both of them associated with Renault. Under the manufacturers, a breakaway series would have failed. Costs would have skyrocketed because the car companies can spend more. The racing would reach new heights in boredom as the manufacturer teams would be more interested in the image or developing new technologies than in actually racing.

There are exceptions, of course. Ferrari is the most famous manufacturer in the world - but even they started as a racing team, and as a manufacturer, they are not without contorversy as fans believe the FIA is biased towards them. And there have been utter failures of private teams: Arrows, Prost, Midland. But they only ever hurt themselves; they never did the kind of damage that Renault managed in fixing the SIngaporean Grand Prix. So sell the manufacturer teams! Have Toyota taken over by Aguri Suzuki or Dave Richards. Have ART Grand Prix or Henri Pescarolo buy the Renault team. Keep the sport competitive by having the championship fought out by teams who exist solely for the purpose of racing. If the manufacturers want those new technolgoies or marketing image, they should be able to get it from supplying the teams.

In the entire history of this forum I don't think I've ever agreed with the Captain more. Cheers mate!

noisebox wrote:

Phoenix wrote:

noisebox wrote:As things stand there is no incentive for Ferrari or McLaren to cut costs. We could be facing another decade of two teams way out front.

Perhaps, but what do you want to do to solve that? That's the way things go: they're the better financed, they have the better staff, the better drivers. It was always like this, just like in football, with teams such as Manchester Utd., Real Madrid, Inter Milan and so on dominating the scene; still, people considers football exciting. However, we must remember they're not gods; they stuff up at times, just like this year. And, while perhaps they will be the frontrunners, that does not impede us to see some good fights and scraps, just like in 1990 with McLaren (Senna/Berger) and Ferrari (Prost/Mansell). It's just a problem concerning F1 cars, as was discussed in another thread, and, even to some extent, the dullness of certain circuits (cough, cough...Hungaroring...cough, cough). We must have some faith nevertheless. It's the sport we love.

You're absolutely right on all of that.

I guess it comes down to how sport should be run in general. In football there is a promotion and relegation structure which means that in theory my local team (Bury) could go through the divisions and win the Premier League, of course it aint gonna happen, but that's part of the magic of football. Having said that the Champions League has distorted the top level of football, with the huge prize money effectively locking down the top four places in the English Premier League.

As I've said elsewhere F1 is effectively a franchise sport, and the model for running such a sport well has to be the NFL. There are 28 (I think) franchises and all are treated equally, revenue is divided between the teams, and at the start of each season the weakest teams from the year before have the pick of the best up and coming players. Why couldn't F1 be run in a similar way, instead of dodgy under the table deals with Ferrari to stop them throwing their toys out of the pram?

On paper, it's a very good idea. We'd see Alonso and Hamilton in Toro Rosso, and Grosjean and Alguersuari in McLaren, for instance (if I understood correctly your idea), and giving them a similar budget. But it would be near-impossible to implant this; I imagine Ferrai and Mr.Montezemolo crying out loudly and making menaces about leaving the championship...

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

Phoenix wrote:

Captain Hammer wrote: utter failures of private teams: Arrows.

Why? They were competitive at times (1981, 1987, 1988 and even 2001 I'd say) and have some good results under its name.

I think he might have had Tom Walkinshaw's Arrows in mind when he wrote that.

OK, I was thinking about Arrows in general. I've read the article in fact; it can be even also applied for real life

[quote="rffp]
In 1989 they almost won two races with Derek Warwick, in Brazil and in Canada. But then to actually see a Warwick-Arrows winning combination defies all the laws of probability![/quote]

I didn't know that, but what I certainly knew is that Eddie Cheever failed to qualify for two races, so it wasn't a very special season for Arrows though.

Phoenix wrote:I didn't know that, but what I certainly knew is that Eddie Cheever failed to qualify for two races, so it wasn't a very special season for Arrows though.

Eddie Cheever had a horrible pace in qualifying in 1989, but still managed some decent races. Derek Warwick qualified well the whole season and raced pretty well too.
In Brazil, they screwed his pit stop making him lose almost 20 s, and he finished 5th but only 17 s behind Mansell.
In Canada, he was among the front-runners and even led 4 laps in the race, but then Arrows was unreliable and he had to retire. If not he would inherit the lead from Senna near the end.

Arrows were my favorite team from 2000 until they went bust - I remember being very upset when I realised they were pulling out . I never realised how much of a mess the team was though until I read the article about them on the main website. I'd give anything to see those orange cars on the grid again though...

rffp wrote:Eddie Cheever had a horrible pace in qualifying in 1989

Just for the sake of curiosity I've informed myself about and his best qualification position of the season was 16th, 'nuff said...

Enrique Bernoldi wrote:Arrows were my favorite team from 2000 until they went bust - I remember being very upset when I realised they were pulling out . I never realised how much of a mess the team was though until I read the article about them on the main website. I'd give anything to see those orange cars on the grid again though...

The Orange Arrows, were indeed rather pretty cars. I particularly found the 2002 car aesthetically pleasing, and was also very sad to see them leave, but unless Walkinshaw sold up they were never going to survive the 'manufacturer-era'

Valrys wrote:

Enrique Bernoldi wrote:Arrows were my favorite team from 2000 until they went bust - I remember being very upset when I realised they were pulling out . I never realised how much of a mess the team was though until I read the article about them on the main website. I'd give anything to see those orange cars on the grid again though...

The Orange Arrows, were indeed rather pretty cars. I particularly found the 2002 car aesthetically pleasing, and was also very sad to see them leave, but unless Walkinshaw sold up they were never going to survive the 'manufacturer-era'

Heck, I still have an Orange Arrows sweathshirt from back in the day...
Infact, I found a place where you can still buy some Orange Arrows gear!!! Cooooool...
http://stores.shop.ebay.co.uk/motorsport-merchandise-store__W0QQ_sidZ168255780?_nkw=arrows
Heck, this place is a haven for Reject merch! Minardi, Super Aguri, Spyker, Jaguar...
*I am in no way affiliated with Motorsport Merchandise Ltd.

kostas22 wrote:

Valrys wrote:

Enrique Bernoldi wrote:Arrows were my favorite team from 2000 until they went bust - I remember being very upset when I realised they were pulling out . I never realised how much of a mess the team was though until I read the article about them on the main website. I'd give anything to see those orange cars on the grid again though...

The Orange Arrows, were indeed rather pretty cars. I particularly found the 2002 car aesthetically pleasing, and was also very sad to see them leave, but unless Walkinshaw sold up they were never going to survive the 'manufacturer-era'

Heck, I still have an Orange Arrows sweathshirt from back in the day...
Infact, I found a place where you can still buy some Orange Arrows gear!!! Cooooool...
http://stores.shop.ebay.co.uk/motorsport-merchandise-store__W0QQ_sidZ168255780?_nkw=arrows
Heck, this place is a haven for Reject merch! Minardi, Super Aguri, Spyker, Jaguar...
*I am in no way affiliated with Motorsport Merchandise Ltd.

Nice find! Now, if only I had a spare few quid.....

kostas22 wrote:

Valrys wrote:

Enrique Bernoldi wrote:Arrows were my favorite team from 2000 until they went bust - I remember being very upset when I realised they were pulling out . I never realised how much of a mess the team was though until I read the article about them on the main website. I'd give anything to see those orange cars on the grid again though...

The Orange Arrows, were indeed rather pretty cars. I particularly found the 2002 car aesthetically pleasing, and was also very sad to see them leave, but unless Walkinshaw sold up they were never going to survive the 'manufacturer-era'

Heck, I still have an Orange Arrows sweathshirt from back in the day...
Infact, I found a place where you can still buy some Orange Arrows gear!!! Cooooool...
http://stores.shop.ebay.co.uk/motorsport-merchandise-store__W0QQ_sidZ168255780?_nkw=arrows
Heck, this place is a haven for Reject merch! Minardi, Super Aguri, Spyker, Jaguar...
*I am in no way affiliated with Motorsport Merchandise Ltd.

Each time over the past few years that I have been to Brands Hatch, whether it be A1 GP or BTCC or whatever, there has normally been a stand selling an almost identical range of merchandise near Paddock Hill grandstand...

CarlosFerreira wrote:My biggest worry is engines supply. No, I don't think the return of unreliability is A Good Thing. And neither is a Cosworth monopoly.

Ferrari engines- Ferrari, Toro Rosso, Qadbak Sauber
Mercedes engines- Mclaren, Brawn GP, Force India
Renault engines- Renault, Red Bull
Cosworth engines- Williams, Manor, Campos, US F1

Only 2 teams are remaining.
Lotus- They still have engine option open, but most likely Cosworth.
Whoever buys Toyota- Most likely Cosworth.

If Renault pulls out then, either Renault may decide to stay in as engine supplier or Red Bull will have to pick different one.

Actually Mercedes were wanting to supply a 4th team with their engines but no idea what happened to their plans.

Cosworth are out from engine freeze and can update their engines untill mid 2010.
As FIA have already said all engines will be equalised for power. So engine reliability and fuel economy will be very important factor.

Nin13 wrote:Whoever buys Toyota- Most likely Cosworth.

Apparently Toyota will not be sold. The fatory will be closed, but one hundred and fifty workers will be kept on and moved to a new racing project, possibly Le Mans.

Captain Hammer wrote:

Nin13 wrote:Whoever buys Toyota- Most likely Cosworth.

Apparently Toyota will not be sold. The fatory will be closed, but one hundred and fifty workers will be kept on and moved to a new racing project, possibly Le Mans.

Or a replacement for the Corolla S2000, WRC comeback perhaps?

kostas22 wrote:

Captain Hammer wrote:

Nin13 wrote:Whoever buys Toyota- Most likely Cosworth.

Apparently Toyota will not be sold. The fatory will be closed, but one hundred and fifty workers will be kept on and moved to a new racing project, possibly Le Mans.

Or a replacement for the Corolla S2000, WRC comeback perhaps?

Perhaps. Whatever the case, there will only be a maximum of thirteen teams in 2010.

What we need is a return to the era in which manufacturers were doing the right thing:
Williams-Honda.
McLaren-Honda.
Williams-Renault.
Brabham-BMW.
Don't those sound illustrious? Privately own teams, working in association with manufacturers supplying engines and technology, a strong and powerful bond, which not only makes teams competitive, but also, should the manufacturers suddenly decide to pull out, the teams won't be left at their merit and will be able to survive. It's so simple! Manufacturers can also supply a number of other teams with customer engines, to gain even more data or something, or just for teams to have a competitive engine at an affordable price. If Cosworth makes their engines competitive then, there will also be a cheap option for poor teams, or a plan B for teams who lose engine contracts. This is the way it should be. This way, Formula One teams will be strong and healthy. McLaren-Mercedes are the only ones doing it right at this time (and Brawn-Mercedes, from next year on).

I have an example where more manufacturers means better racing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCij9mYIokA
Toyota, Vauxhall, BMW, Ford, Peugeot, Nissan, Mazda all there.
Yes, I know I already posted this in another thread and yes, its like this because the cars are completely different.
I think what it does prove though is it's not the manufacturers causing the problems, its the rule makers. If they don't ban double diffusers etc. the racing won't be any better next year either.