Force India on the edge
Discussion
DanielSan said:
It’s a dumb f
k move by Williams, what’s going to happen if they need to ask for an early payment of funds are right later in the year? Bare in mind it needs ALL teams to agree to the money being released Force India can now hang them out to dry if they choose to...
Teams have had early payments or loans from Bernie for years and the other teams have always chosen not to veto it purely on the grounds of knowing they could need the same thing in a few months. Williams next year are currently a team with no title sponsor and who knows what 2 drivers in the car. Flush with cash they aren’t likely to be come next April...
Williams have papa Stroll as a bank...k move by Williams, what’s going to happen if they need to ask for an early payment of funds are right later in the year? Bare in mind it needs ALL teams to agree to the money being released Force India can now hang them out to dry if they choose to... Teams have had early payments or loans from Bernie for years and the other teams have always chosen not to veto it purely on the grounds of knowing they could need the same thing in a few months. Williams next year are currently a team with no title sponsor and who knows what 2 drivers in the car. Flush with cash they aren’t likely to be come next April...
I remember someone last year arguing that lance stroll would do well because 'daddy won't want jnr in a bad car - that went well as logic
Daddy Stroll is a very wealthy man. But he isn't F1 team wealthy.
People ascribe magic powers to his bank balance that it doesn't possess - I also think people over estimate how much he will chuck at his sons hobby
Daddy Stroll is a very wealthy man. But he isn't F1 team wealthy.
People ascribe magic powers to his bank balance that it doesn't possess - I also think people over estimate how much he will chuck at his sons hobby
Vocal Minority said:
I remember someone last year arguing that lance stroll would do well because 'daddy won't want jnr in a bad car - that went well as logic
Daddy Stroll is a very wealthy man. But he isn't F1 team wealthy.
People ascribe magic powers to his bank balance that it doesn't possess - I also think people over estimate how much he will chuck at his sons hobby
I mean a bank, as in willing to loan to Williams or act as security - not a magic money tree of free cash.Daddy Stroll is a very wealthy man. But he isn't F1 team wealthy.
People ascribe magic powers to his bank balance that it doesn't possess - I also think people over estimate how much he will chuck at his sons hobby
cuprabob said:
I agree but that won't happen until the regs change. Look at the mess Honda got into considering the resources at their disposal.
It's almost as if those who had input to the regulations wanted to keep out minor engine manufacturers. The regs need to change of course, and not only for engines. The talk of cutting costs has been nonsensical. It seems that most reg changes are there to keep costs up and penalise lesser teams. We see HAAS with last year's Ferrari. What chance do other teams, those with little in the way of resources, stand?
Changing regs costs. So why keep changing?
If engine specs were simplified the likely outcome would be cheaper engine, more engine manufacturers, more teams, more racing. If the aero was simplified to, say, a plank at the front and one at the rear we'd probably get cheaper cars, more teams, more racing, and closer racing.
What it would not mean is that teams at the top currently would be struggling. They'd still be winning but there'd be more excitement. Keep the regs standard for five years and the gap would close. All three well-funded teams would be at the top but they'd be close. The mid field would be closer still and those at the back would have to improve or be replaced.
Vocal Minority said:
Vaud said:
I mean a bank, as in willing to loan to Williams or act as security - not a magic money tree of free cash.
Ah I see what you mean, like a pay day loan to survive - gotcha
Derek Smith said:
It's almost as if those who had input to the regulations wanted to keep out minor engine manufacturers.
The regs need to change of course, and not only for engines. The talk of cutting costs has been nonsensical. It seems that most reg changes are there to keep costs up and penalise lesser teams. We see HAAS with last year's Ferrari. What chance do other teams, those with little in the way of resources, stand?
Changing regs costs. So why keep changing?
If engine specs were simplified the likely outcome would be cheaper engine, more engine manufacturers, more teams, more racing. If the aero was simplified to, say, a plank at the front and one at the rear we'd probably get cheaper cars, more teams, more racing, and closer racing.
What it would not mean is that teams at the top currently would be struggling. They'd still be winning but there'd be more excitement. Keep the regs standard for five years and the gap would close. All three well-funded teams would be at the top but they'd be close. The mid field would be closer still and those at the back would have to improve or be replaced.
It seems that, outside of manufacturers and billionaire owners, only the Haas business model is viable with the current costs/income distribution. Bad news for FI, Williams, Sauber. The regs need to change of course, and not only for engines. The talk of cutting costs has been nonsensical. It seems that most reg changes are there to keep costs up and penalise lesser teams. We see HAAS with last year's Ferrari. What chance do other teams, those with little in the way of resources, stand?
Changing regs costs. So why keep changing?
If engine specs were simplified the likely outcome would be cheaper engine, more engine manufacturers, more teams, more racing. If the aero was simplified to, say, a plank at the front and one at the rear we'd probably get cheaper cars, more teams, more racing, and closer racing.
What it would not mean is that teams at the top currently would be struggling. They'd still be winning but there'd be more excitement. Keep the regs standard for five years and the gap would close. All three well-funded teams would be at the top but they'd be close. The mid field would be closer still and those at the back would have to improve or be replaced.
It helps to explain the woeful Williams drivers this year.
AndStilliRise said:
MitchT said:
ELUSIVEJIM said:
But if you try and cost cut or change anything the big teams take a hissy fit and threaten to leave.
Let them! If F1 is being made almost uninhabitable for all but a couple of exceptionally rich teams then who'd follow suit if they left 'cause they weren't getting their way? Noone I suspect 'cause the teams left behind would be far better off.ELUSIVEJIM said:
Can F1 then survive if Ferrari and Mercedes were to pull out??
I suspect it would thrive. Without their stranglehold it would enable useful changes to be introduced that the "big two" have vetoed making the sport wholly more accessible and creating a much greater competition. If Mercedes and Ferrari want to have a two make series in tumbleweedland then let them!If I were a car mechanic I would prefer to work on a Ferrari than a BMW as I know the engineering would be better.
ks. Want me to tell you who makes some of Ferraris (and others) F1 bits and pieces in the UK?Force India have history of having played hardball with Marussia, which ought to be considered when criticising Williams. The idea that FW would be softer is equally unlikely.
Given Force India's success on track, that their finances require propping up is perhaps more to do with their owners and lead sponsor.
How long have FI been getting advances of FOM money? Do any other teams?
Given Force India's success on track, that their finances require propping up is perhaps more to do with their owners and lead sponsor.
How long have FI been getting advances of FOM money? Do any other teams?
Leithen said:
Force India have history of having played hardball with Marussia, which ought to be considered when criticising Williams. The idea that FW would be softer is equally unlikely.
Given Force India's success on track, that their finances require propping up is perhaps more to do with their owners and lead sponsor.
How long have FI been getting advances of FOM money? Do any other teams?
It’s a pretty regular thing for teams to get advanced payments. All the teams usually agree to it though. Given Force India's success on track, that their finances require propping up is perhaps more to do with their owners and lead sponsor.
How long have FI been getting advances of FOM money? Do any other teams?
And to be fair I can’t really blame FI for not wanting Marussia to bring a year old car, the team as a whole were just a shambles. They had no place on the F1 grid. Likewise Caterham and HRT. It was like going back to the early 90’s with teams like Forti and Andrea Moda.
DanielSan said:
It’s a pretty regular thing for teams to get advanced payments. All the teams usually agree to it though.
And to be fair I can’t really blame FI for not wanting Marussia to bring a year old car, the team as a whole were just a shambles. They had no place on the F1 grid. Likewise Caterham and HRT. It was like going back to the early 90’s with teams like Forti and Andrea Moda.
I disagree. The 90s were different times. At the moment we have a 107% qualification rule. That should be enough to eliminate the rubbish. If it is not, then change it. I don't think it should be down to the teams on an individual applicant basis. They should be involved in setting the standards as they have a massive investment in the sport. If a team reaches the set conditions then it is in. And to be fair I can’t really blame FI for not wanting Marussia to bring a year old car, the team as a whole were just a shambles. They had no place on the F1 grid. Likewise Caterham and HRT. It was like going back to the early 90’s with teams like Forti and Andrea Moda.
Derek Smith said:
I disagree. The 90s were different times. At the moment we have a 107% qualification rule. That should be enough to eliminate the rubbish. If it is not, then change it. I don't think it should be down to the teams on an individual applicant basis. They should be involved in setting the standards as they have a massive investment in the sport. If a team reaches the set conditions then it is in.
Interestingly the107% rule only applied once last year.Piginapoke said:
If FI goes bust, the pot is split among 9 teams not 10, so more for Williams.
If I recall, FI veto'd Marussia from using a year old chassis before they folded, so what goes around comes around.
Very true. I lost a lot of respect for Fernley when they did that. I’m assuming they’ll be wanting mercedes to extend engine credit. I wonder whether we’ll see Wehrlein in the car for Fridays?If I recall, FI veto'd Marussia from using a year old chassis before they folded, so what goes around comes around.
Leithen said:
Force India have history of having played hardball with Marussia, which ought to be considered when criticising Williams. The idea that FW would be softer is equally unlikely.
Given Force India's success on track, that their finances require propping up is perhaps more to do with their owners and lead sponsor.
How long have FI been getting advances of FOM money? Do any other teams?
Ironic, your comments...Frank Williams was a regular beneficiary of ‘advances’ from the previous regime. I think you’d be surprised just how little it cost either lead sponsor of these teams to have the car painted in their colours. Philip Morris they ain’t. Given Force India's success on track, that their finances require propping up is perhaps more to do with their owners and lead sponsor.
How long have FI been getting advances of FOM money? Do any other teams?
rubystone said:
Ironic, your comments...Frank Williams was a regular beneficiary of ‘advances’ from the previous regime. I think you’d be surprised just how little it cost either lead sponsor of these teams to have the car painted in their colours. Philip Morris they ain’t.
$15m a year according to the F1 little black book?DanielSan said:
And to be fair I can’t really blame FI for not wanting Marussia to bring a year old car, the team as a whole were just a shambles. They had no place on the F1 grid. Likewise Caterham and HRT. It was like going back to the early 90’s with teams like Forti and Andrea Moda.
Utter crap. Speaking as someone who worked with both HRT and Caterham I know that neither of them was anything like Forti or Andrea Moda and it's an insult to a lot of people that you made that comparison, even if it is based on ignorance.DanielSan said:
And to be fair I can’t really blame FI for not wanting Marussia to bring a year old car, the team as a whole were just a shambles. They had no place on the F1 grid. Likewise Caterham and HRT. It was like going back to the early 90’s with teams like Forti and Andrea Moda.
Manor (Marussia), HRT and Caterham committed to F1 on the basis of the cost cap announced by Max Mosley and os built their business plans on this, only for the cost cap to ultimately be scrapped but only after the three new teams had committed.They thus started with both their hands and feet tied behind their backs. The fact that they lasted as long as they did is nothing short of miraculous and from the various reports I read, Manor in particular was a sleeping giant that had the propensity to progress forward.
Might I suggest a read of Perry McCarthy's excellent 'Flat Out Flat Broke' book in which he describes vividly the shambles that was Andrea Moda and then consider how such a team would even be considered for F1 let alone given a garage in the pit lane today.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff