Vettel to replace Alonso at Ferrari
Discussion
Exige77 said:
F1 is much harder than Sports cars.
VW could easily spend Billions and come away with nothing. See Toyota / BMW.
All of which means that you haven't been paying any attention to endurance racing over the years. Toyota have been trying to win LeMans for over a quarter of a century now without success. So have Nissan. A few quid has been spent...VW could easily spend Billions and come away with nothing. See Toyota / BMW.
Conversely - an energy drinks company bought a failing F1 team (originally founded in the late 90s) with no real history of success 9 years ago. They now have 4 drivers and constructors world championships. Note that in sports cars, all factory teams build the entire car including drivetrain. Only Ferrari did this in F1 until Mercedes bought a championship winning team for 2010 that used engines made by the subsidiary that it bought in 2001.
The only regard in which F1 is harder is that objectively you have to spend a hell of a lot more money to get to the sharp end, and finding that kind of money is rather tricky. Even the mid field runners need to find over $120m/year just to stay in the game now...
Edited by DiscoColin on Tuesday 28th October 19:23
DiscoColin said:
Exige77 said:
F1 is much harder than Sports cars.
VW could easily spend Billions and come away with nothing. See Toyota / BMW.
All of which means that you haven't been paying any attention to endurance racing over the years. Toyota have been trying to win LeMans for over a quarter of a century now without success. So have Nissan. A few quid has been spent...VW could easily spend Billions and come away with nothing. See Toyota / BMW.
Conversely - an energy drinks company bought a failing F1 team (originally founded in the late 90s) with no real history of success 9 years ago. They now have 4 drivers and constructors world championships. Note that in sports cars, all factory teams build the entire car including drivetrain. Only Ferrari did this in F1 until Mercedes bought a championship winning team for 2010 that used engines made by the subsidiary that it bought in 2001.
The only regard in which F1 is harder is that objectively you have to spend a hell of a lot more money to get to the sharp end, and finding that kind of money is rather tricky. Even the mid field runners need to find over $120m/year just to stay in the game now...
Edited by DiscoColin on Tuesday 28th October 19:23
Maybe you haven't been paying attention.
DiscoColin said:
Exige77 said:
F1 is much harder than Sports cars.
VW could easily spend Billions and come away with nothing. See Toyota / BMW.
All of which means that you haven't been paying any attention to endurance racing over the years. Toyota have been trying to win LeMans for over a quarter of a century now without success. So have Nissan. A few quid has been spent...VW could easily spend Billions and come away with nothing. See Toyota / BMW.
Conversely - an energy drinks company bought a failing F1 team (originally founded in the late 90s) with no real history of success 9 years ago. They now have 4 drivers and constructors world championships. Note that in sports cars, all factory teams build the entire car including drivetrain. Only Ferrari did this in F1 until Mercedes bought a championship winning team for 2010 that used engines made by the subsidiary that it bought in 2001.
The only regard in which F1 is harder is that objectively you have to spend a hell of a lot more money to get to the sharp end, and finding that kind of money is rather tricky. Even the mid field runners need to find over $120m/year just to stay in the game now...
Edited by DiscoColin on Tuesday 28th October 19:23
Maybe you haven't been paying attention.
Exige77 said:
Toyota spent "considerably" more in F1 in a short time than Endurance racing.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention.
I don't think it's just the money, either. It's the consistent level of competition. F1 is always the pinnacle and always attractive. Interest in LMP, sportscars etc waxes and wanes. Then there is the nature of the competition. Endurance racing tends to attract big manufacturers like Audi, Peugeot, Nissan etc... and Porsche. These manufacturers don't exist to go racing, they exist to sell road cars. So when they lose interest because they aren't winning or because a key stakeholder leaves the board or the FD sees too much red on the ledger, they just stop racing. In F1 the consistent top teams, the stalwarts, exist to race. When they have a bad season they can't just cancel the racing program, they only stop when they close the factory doors. So you get teams like McLaren and Williams, and in the past Lotus and Brabham and Tyrrell, who are keeping the level of competition high for decades, not just for the 5 year tenure of an enthusiastic company director. Ferrari fit into this group too. While they could probably now stop racing and survive on the road car business, the company was originally built to race. It's a part of who they are. They aren't a road car manufacturer with a passing interest in F1.Maybe you haven't been paying attention.
So there is always strong competition in F1 because there is a core of teams that are there for many, many years, have masses of experience, and for whom quitting is not a quick and easy solution to bad results. In endurance racing on the other hand, there are bursts of popularity, but between them there are periods when a newcomer really has to only beat one other team - who themselves may, after a long run of lonely success and facing rising bills to stay competitive in the face of a new challenger, be compelled to pull the plug and cash in on their success to sell road cars for a few years. Audi don't need to race. As soon as they feel they either aren't getting business value from it, or their board just lose interest in it, they just stop. McLaren, Williams etc don't have that choice. When Renault or Toyota or Honda or Mercedes turn up and throw a billion or two at the racing, all McLaren and Williams can do is throw everything they have at beating them, or making them spend so much that they win a few seasons then leave. Their survival depends on it.
Edited by kiseca on Wednesday 29th October 13:20
Just noticed that Fiat Chrysler boss has decided to let Ferrari go it alone and will begin selling it off pdq.
That's got to have some bearing on future driver's salaries, wider F1 development and running budgets, and so on.
Maybe the prancing horse is at the top of the slippery slope - the one Lotus slid down a couple of decades ago.
That's got to have some bearing on future driver's salaries, wider F1 development and running budgets, and so on.
Maybe the prancing horse is at the top of the slippery slope - the one Lotus slid down a couple of decades ago.
suffolk009 said:
Just noticed that Fiat Chrysler boss has decided to let Ferrari go it alone and will begin selling it off pdq.
That's got to have some bearing on future driver's salaries, wider F1 development and running budgets, and so on.
Maybe the prancing horse is at the top of the slippery slope - the one Lotus slid down a couple of decades ago.
That's crazy. Ferrari (road cars) have been a net contributor to the Fiat coffers, not a drain on it.That's got to have some bearing on future driver's salaries, wider F1 development and running budgets, and so on.
Maybe the prancing horse is at the top of the slippery slope - the one Lotus slid down a couple of decades ago.
Exige77 said:
DiscoColin said:
Exige77 said:
F1 is much harder than Sports cars.
VW could easily spend Billions and come away with nothing. See Toyota / BMW.
All of which means that you haven't been paying any attention to endurance racing over the years. Toyota have been trying to win LeMans for over a quarter of a century now without success. So have Nissan. A few quid has been spent...VW could easily spend Billions and come away with nothing. See Toyota / BMW.
Conversely - an energy drinks company bought a failing F1 team (originally founded in the late 90s) with no real history of success 9 years ago. They now have 4 drivers and constructors world championships. Note that in sports cars, all factory teams build the entire car including drivetrain. Only Ferrari did this in F1 until Mercedes bought a championship winning team for 2010 that used engines made by the subsidiary that it bought in 2001.
The only regard in which F1 is harder is that objectively you have to spend a hell of a lot more money to get to the sharp end, and finding that kind of money is rather tricky. Even the mid field runners need to find over $120m/year just to stay in the game now...
Edited by DiscoColin on Tuesday 28th October 19:23
Maybe you haven't been paying attention.
suffolk009 said:
Just noticed that Fiat Chrysler boss has decided to let Ferrari go it alone and will begin selling it off pdq.
That's got to have some bearing on future driver's salaries, wider F1 development and running budgets, and so on.
Maybe the prancing horse is at the top of the slippery slope - the one Lotus slid down a couple of decades ago.
I've just seen this myself:That's got to have some bearing on future driver's salaries, wider F1 development and running budgets, and so on.
Maybe the prancing horse is at the top of the slippery slope - the one Lotus slid down a couple of decades ago.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news/breaking-fiat-...
It is not a complete sell-off. It would appear that they are floating 10% of the shares and FCA will keep the remainder.
Or have I misread this?
Edited by Derek Smith on Wednesday 29th October 16:39
Derek Smith said:
suffolk009 said:
Just noticed that Fiat Chrysler boss has decided to let Ferrari go it alone and will begin selling it off pdq.
That's got to have some bearing on future driver's salaries, wider F1 development and running budgets, and so on.
Maybe the prancing horse is at the top of the slippery slope - the one Lotus slid down a couple of decades ago.
I've just seen this myself:That's got to have some bearing on future driver's salaries, wider F1 development and running budgets, and so on.
Maybe the prancing horse is at the top of the slippery slope - the one Lotus slid down a couple of decades ago.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news/breaking-fiat-...
It is not a complete sell-off. It would appear that they are floating 10% of the shares and FCA will keep the remainder.
Or have I misread this?
Edited by Derek Smith on Wednesday 29th October 16:39
MartG said:
But he did say the new aero man (Newey's assistant at RB?) has made some big changes to the front wing, and that it will be at Abu Dhabi.
Exige77 said:
DiscoColin said:
Exige77 said:
F1 is much harder than Sports cars.
VW could easily spend Billions and come away with nothing. See Toyota / BMW.
All of which means that you haven't been paying any attention to endurance racing over the years. Toyota have been trying to win LeMans for over a quarter of a century now without success. So have Nissan. A few quid has been spent...VW could easily spend Billions and come away with nothing. See Toyota / BMW.
Conversely - an energy drinks company bought a failing F1 team (originally founded in the late 90s) with no real history of success 9 years ago. They now have 4 drivers and constructors world championships. Note that in sports cars, all factory teams build the entire car including drivetrain. Only Ferrari did this in F1 until Mercedes bought a championship winning team for 2010 that used engines made by the subsidiary that it bought in 2001.
The only regard in which F1 is harder is that objectively you have to spend a hell of a lot more money to get to the sharp end, and finding that kind of money is rather tricky. Even the mid field runners need to find over $120m/year just to stay in the game now...
Maybe you haven't been paying attention.
The Toyota example is of course interesting in that the operation that 'failed' in F1 was the same team in the same factory that had failed to secure LeMans. In the year that the plug was pulled they had 5 podiums. With Glock and Trulli. If you look at the active drivers at the time against who they were putting in the cars they still did better than they should have.
Europa1 said:
I'm not sure I'd agree that the team now known as Red Bull had "no real success" prior to Red Bull taking ownership - as Stewart they were starting to punch above their weight. As Jaguar I would agree they massively underachieved.
In their first season : 26 retirements. In their second only 20 retirements. A win and 3 other podiums in their third season was credible, but they were a de-facto full factory team (for Ford) and were fielding Herbert and Barrichello. 4th sounds good, but if you analyse the season it wasn't exactly stellar. Or even close. Then they became Jaguar, the competition stepped up and they collapsed. For me they weren't heading anywhere but to disbandment until the energy drink took them over. I think that we will have to agree to disagree on this one.It is success relative to the back of the current grid, maybe. But in terms of the history books they are less successful than Hesketh, March, Porsche, Shadow, Wolf, ... So you consider all of those to have had genuine success as teams in F1 - right?
[That is Porsche strictly as a team in their own right, not as just engine supplier of course - at which they had a few very successful seasons]
Just looking at the F1 roundups this morning. The general feeling seems to be that Alonso is refusing to go without getting a big severance cheque. Further speculation is that Ferrari are unwilling to pay him off because they know he wants to leave.
I suppose their reasoning is that if they have to pay him for 2015 anyway then why release him. (just make him turn up and sit in his big red chair at the back of the garage for all the race weekends).
I understand Ferrari's position, if you're going to have to pay him then why let the competition benefit.
If this speculation is all true then it appears Alonso has been played for a chump.
I suppose their reasoning is that if they have to pay him for 2015 anyway then why release him. (just make him turn up and sit in his big red chair at the back of the garage for all the race weekends).
I understand Ferrari's position, if you're going to have to pay him then why let the competition benefit.
If this speculation is all true then it appears Alonso has been played for a chump.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff