Why is Caterham bothering with F1?
Discussion
Having watched the Malaysian GP yesterday I am still wondering why a grassroots motorsport manefacturer is bothering to spend money on an uncompetive team in F1.
Caterham is most famous for great trackday and weekend warrior cars like the Seven and all it's various versions. So it has a great reputation for motorsport at the other end of the spectum to F1. I don't see how having a formula 1 team gains them the exposure they need to increase sales of the seven.
I think Lotus and Caterham are now owned by the same business Proton, but at least Lotus has a race winning car thanks to Renault.
Lotus have a history in formula 1 of winning races so it may work for the brand but surly caterham having an uncompetive team does more harm than good?
Caterham is most famous for great trackday and weekend warrior cars like the Seven and all it's various versions. So it has a great reputation for motorsport at the other end of the spectum to F1. I don't see how having a formula 1 team gains them the exposure they need to increase sales of the seven.
I think Lotus and Caterham are now owned by the same business Proton, but at least Lotus has a race winning car thanks to Renault.
Lotus have a history in formula 1 of winning races so it may work for the brand but surly caterham having an uncompetive team does more harm than good?
I think having a car that fails to finish races damages the brand.
This can be either because of retirement or crashes, or most importantly engine failure damages reputations.
When Honda had the F1 team in the years before Ross Braun took over and Jenson Button was driving the cars were unreliable. The cars always seemed to break down. I think this carries over to the car manufacturer. I thought everyday Honda cars to be unreliable because I was watching a car covered in Honda sponsorship break down.
The global branding F1 promotes can also work the other way when the team fails in the championship.
Caterham to me, always represents grassroots racing not the unachievable that F1 is now.
This can be either because of retirement or crashes, or most importantly engine failure damages reputations.
When Honda had the F1 team in the years before Ross Braun took over and Jenson Button was driving the cars were unreliable. The cars always seemed to break down. I think this carries over to the car manufacturer. I thought everyday Honda cars to be unreliable because I was watching a car covered in Honda sponsorship break down.
The global branding F1 promotes can also work the other way when the team fails in the championship.
Caterham to me, always represents grassroots racing not the unachievable that F1 is now.
From the discussion it looks like there are the same old teams that have been in F1 just under different sponsorship names.
Williams have pretty stayed with the same name and their mid placed team. Last year Williams had quite a good car that finished races. Sauber have been in the game for yonks.
I did think Marussia and Caterham were completely new teams with Caterham new playboy owners flirting with F1 because they had money to burn.
Williams have pretty stayed with the same name and their mid placed team. Last year Williams had quite a good car that finished races. Sauber have been in the game for yonks.
I did think Marussia and Caterham were completely new teams with Caterham new playboy owners flirting with F1 because they had money to burn.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff