+1. As I've said before, the principle of the USF1 concept was admirable if not a bit ambitious, but it's execution was dreadful.
Pretty simple: You're either a factory team (Renault, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda, BMW, Ferrari) or an independent. Somebody always has to buy the engine from a factory. PS: I'm not using $$$ as the differentiator. Nobody knows real numbers and even if we would have full access to e.g. Ferraris or McLaren or Mercedes' files, we probably couldn't pinpoint it as a lot of it is mixed and jumbled together. PPS: Lets not try to portray F1 more mysterious than it is. For the most part it is a pretty straight forward sport and business. The failure of USF1 had nothing to do with political intrigues or anything like that. It had everything to do with failure to manage properly.
So its a matter of who signs the checks? If that's the distinction I'm not sure that its all that meaningful.
Disney?, after all, this last effort has turned out to be a bit Mickey Mouse!. In all seriousness though, you're absolutely right, I believe the whole USF1 fiasco has caused major damage to the image of F1 in the USA and has set back any possible return for a US GP, possibly by decades.
Huh? It depends on who runs the show: A car manufacturer or an independent company. Frank Williams, Ron Dennis, Mateschitz, Brawn, Peter Sauber are not employees of a car manufacturer but every bit as independent as Anderson/Windsor were. WAITAMINUTE! What exactly are you saying there? The failure of USF1 has caused damage to the image of F1 in the US? The failure of USF1 has possibly caused some damage to US's reputation regarding F1 within Europe. Which doesn't really matter, since nobody took a nation of NASCAR fanatics serious. (that was a joke, relax) However I don't see how US Americans (and thanks to Wiener Pinzor we now have to explicitly put that US in front of Americans as otherwise he'd weasel out by saying Americans includes South and Central America) would see F1 in a more negative light. Unless they are totally blind and xenophobic and can't see that the failure of USF1 was USF1's fault alone. And if they don't see that, who cares!
So Ross Brawn has a meaningfully reduced role now that Mercedes has its name on the car? I hope not. If so Mercedes cheated itself.
I was referring to Brawn as in 2009 not to the corporate Brawn who I'm pretty sure has a somewhat reduced role now. Yes. That's the corporate way. And we saw some evidence of that in the whole hoopla over whether they could or could not afford MS' salary and how they eventually paid for that. He now has to report to e.g. Union demands and that will affect the performance of the race team.
Interesting. How often have we seen a unique entity absorbed by a large business that ends up destroying the very characteristics that made it special (and valuable) in the first place? Sorry for the digression
Lol It is interesting to notice the shift in advertisements on Speed TV if the race airs very late at night.
Is it (presumably) all about permanently increasing the fuel flow to the piston? If so, I wonder about the permanent part...
sorry Andreas, missed this post last night (to be fair, it was late where I live! ). The point I was trying to make was that this whole USF1 debacle will have put off a lot of people in the USA who may have contemplated getting involved in F1 at some point in the future as it kind of reinforces the view that there is not enough interest in the US to start with and it gives the impression that the effort required to join F1, may not be worth the end rewards. Had USF1 worked out as had been originally envisaged, I think a lot more companies and people in the USA would have become interested in joining the F1 fraternity. As it stands, it now looks like too big a gamble for anyone else to take (As VIZSLA did point out).
Ok, I get your point. Now. I'm not too worried though: For the casual observers F1 might look like an impenetrable European fortress. But people seriously considering it, realize that USF1 was a half baked thing from the beginning and won't take that as significant indicator. If anything all the talk on the chat boards might have shown them that people actually care and would like to see a US team in F1. However it remains my belief that a US team gets sponsors, which are US companies looking for global exposure (as opposed to US wide exposure). And for them F1 maintains its attraction as it is the most watched sport on the planet.
US sponsors are already in F1 (AT&T) and have no need for a home grown team. After this fiasco they'll have even less interest in an American team.
Who, other than McDonalds (who have obviously chosen Nasscrap) do you think would have any real reason to become the primary sponsor of a F1 team? I do agree with you that there are a number of companies that should consider secondary sponsorship, and would get some benefit. Maybe if tobacco ads were no longer outlawed......
I had read somewhere years ago, that when it was thought Philip Morris Tobacco were going to be forced out of sponsoring Ferrari, both McDonalds and Coca Cola had showed an interest in taking over the title sponsorship.
Neither is Filet Mignon nor Mouton Rothschild, makes no difference to me. Marlboro wasn't quite a Brisago either, wasn't it?
