[Team] US F1

[JeremySmith]

They tried hard and it did not come to fruition for the time being..

It's important to give the benefit of the doubt and easy to make the call when not in the middle of the mess...

I know what I said earlier in this thread I still stand by that...

[madman16]

No matter what the real reasons for the collapse were, from the outside looking in, not knowing all the facts. What happened has been a complete embarrassment.

They were the first to announce their intentions long before anyone else, payed their cash to race (maybe they thought that's all they had to do?) and everything looked good.

I thought some of the people behind the project were held in fairly high regard, but since that first announcement things just got progressively worse.

Tell me again why they passed on Prodrive and Lola???

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by madman16

Tell me again why they passed on Prodrive and Lola???

Or rather what due dilligence did the FIA do on all of the new entrants that earmarked USF1 for selection over these two. I think its the answer to that question that's most intriguing.

[rustyfan]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Or rather what due dilligence did the FIA do on all of the new entrants that earmarked USF1 for selection over these two.

The answer is in the name of the team.

[TWK]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

They tried hard and it did not come to fruition for the time being..

Who tried hard? The guys on the floor, yes. But the former TV guy who couldn't be bothered to spend time at the shop? The goofball that stood in the way of every bit of progress on the design and build, nitpicking and delaying, contributing nothing of any value? The same "manager" that got the same result (NIL) in his last car build project?

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

It's important to give the benefit of the doubt

Why give fools a break, when all they do is ruin the lives of their employees, who have families to feed?

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

and easy to make the call when not in the middle of the mess...

Then why did so many get this wrong? Besides, if you are a MANAGER, you are PAID TO GET IT RIGHT. (Especially if you give yourself a bloated title, like "Vice President.")

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I know what I said earlier in this thread I still stand by that...

Ok.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by madman16

No matter what the real reasons for the collapse were, from the outside looking in, not knowing all the facts. What happened has been a complete embarrassment.

They were the first to announce their intentions long before anyone else, payed their cash to race (maybe they thought that's all they had to do?) and everything looked good.

I thought some of the people behind the project were held in fairly high regard, but since that first announcement things just got progressively worse.

Tell me again why they passed on Prodrive and Lola???

I'm not entirely sure. I believe they passed on Prodrive straight away because they weren't going to play ball and use Cosworth engines, but I think Lola did state they were going to use Cossies, so who knows why their bid was turned down.

[nobster]

maybe Prodrive were passed on because they should have entered before ( 2008 )

hopefully the same will then be applied to USF1 for next year - thanks but no thanks mr Anderson / Windsor!

[DanShenise]

If they were starting a corner bakery, small pub, or any other small business I would have given them the benefit of the doubt. They applied and were accepted to compete in the world's most prestigious form of motor sport. They were required to manage and staff up accordingly. They didn't, and ought to be considered failures. Its the big leagues, not some small business. This falls directly on the principals.

Being overly forgiving of gross mismanagement and failure is the only problem I see here.

[JohnSSC]

Sad to say but from jump I thought this had no chance. The shame of it is that Windsor was such a blowhard about this team representing American this or American that. He has tainted the people here who are fully capable of building a competitive F1 program under the appropriate funding and most importantly, leadership.

The people who bought into this by taking jobs with USF1 are the ones who will really suffer. that's the shame of it and neither Anderson nor Windsor had enough between their legs to go in front of their employees and tell them so. It is not even cowardly to do what they did. It is shameful. Windsor will go on to write a book, deliver commentaries and otherwise make a fine living out of the debacle. Anderson will go back to doing whatever the heck he was doing.

And all the while people will be losing their homes, trying to sort out their lives and trying to figure out how to carry on with USF1 on their CV's.

[JeremySmith]

From the first interview with SPEED TV I got the feeling this team was not real, and would not make it to the grid..

Your right it is a terrible state of affairs for all the folks that are now out of work, shameful that Anderson and Windsor were not upfront with them..

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

From the first interview with SPEED TV I got the feeling this team was not real, and would not make it to the grid

Agreed Jeremy I felt the same way too at the time and like many others voiced my opinion here and elsewhere. Aside from the personalities involved, the entire concept made no sense... and still doesn't. Hopefully the FIA take a close inward look at their due dillegence programme and make some sensible changes for the future in terms of the new team admission assessment.

[dyewat808]

Originally Posted by rustyfan

The answer is in the name of the team.

How cynical. But probably true.

[JagtechOhio]

A bit more on the denouement of operations at USF1 from tonight's Gordon Kirby article on the F1 season opener...last two parahraphs. Apologies if the news is not fresh, the article is.

I still maintain the belief that Windsor (and Hurley) fell victim to Anderson's sales pitch: blame Mr. Windsor for the foolishness of his trust if you wish, but I don't think the label of "bad actor" belongs on his suit.

http://www.gordonkirby.com/categorie..._is_no225.html

[Last2LiftOff]

None of USF1's workforce was paid for January and February and many of them have received bills for hotel rooms or temporary housing that were supposed to have been paid by USF1.

Ouch. That's a fine how do you do.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Last2LiftOff

Ouch. That's a fine how do you do.

A terrible way to drop your staff in it, I think the bad for F1 thing has been overdone (three out of four aint bad overall) but you've gotta feel for people who are treated like that.

[Dutton]

Well, I am sure those employees would win court cases for their wages and not paying those bills (assuming everything has been recorded etc how they should be in business, but of course that is in serious question I imagine).

Having the money to be able to afford the luxury of the "justice" system is another matter, of course.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Dutton

Having the money to be able to afford the luxury of the "justice" system is another matter, of course.

No profit in winning a court case against someone who has no money.

[tony griffiths]

was it a limited company/icorpration ?

[Last2LiftOff]

Run to the court and pick-up a store of milk, while you're at it.

Originally Posted by tony griffiths

was it a limited company/incorporation ?

I think that's come-up in this thread once before Tony, but don't recall. Someone else might. I don't know about the good ole USA, but up here, to the embarrassment of some, an employee's lost wages are pretty far down on the list. That is, of course, if that's what you're on about.

[JagtechOhio]

Found this accidentally while researching another subject...a bit more news on the status of some good people and the folks they worked for:

http://paddocktalk.com/news/html/mod...opic=8&catid=0

[Amar7605]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

Found this accidentally while researching another subject...a bit more news on the status of some good people and the folks they worked for:

http://paddocktalk.com/news/html/mod...opic=8&catid=0

USF1 should've tried for the 2011 season anyways. I would think that building something as challenging as an F1 racer should take at least a year or so, but that's just my humble opinion.

[JagtechOhio]

Amar I don't know either, but taking the time to insure the financial stability sure is a necessity.

How you can start a business requiring massive capital investment without having an end game is nutz, IMHO.

[JagtechOhio]

I don't mean to be beating a dead horse, there isn't a lot about contemporary chassis construction that I understand and am hoping to get a clue or two.

If this subject has been covered in another series of posts, please direct me so as there isn't a lot of needless duplication.

So you want to build a composite tub, and you have decided that virtual modeling is accurate enough to eliminate the need for half-scale or full-scale wind tunnel testing.

And you create a buck, pull a mold, and cook your first tub. Did you do that purely as a "test run"? It wasn't done to create a full scale model, and you need one tub for crash testing and four more to start the season....and you need them pretty quick.

There's number one, out of the autoclave and looking like it is ready for assembly. So what happened? Was a material or processing flaw evident, or a design oversight apparent once the first tub is sitting there on the table?

Maybe the engine systems guy walks in and says, "Gee, that looks great, but how do we install the rear bulkhead?" And everybody looks at each other, sends one guy to Starbucks for more coffee, and runs back to the computer lab.

There was talk that the Falcon IndyCar had an un-reported but serious design flaw, and I read somewhere that it had been corrected. That project died when two tubs had been fabricated, and neither was ever crash tested or built into anything more than a mock-up.

Maybe that's what happened to the USF1 tub as well. If there were marginal deficiencies, they still could have finished the first tub and used that for the crash test, right? And made the required alterations to material, process or design and started building race car tubs.

Unless somebody screwed up, that is. Then what you have is a buck and a mold you can't use, and a "test tub" there is no sense in assembling. And you are running out of time, as fast as you are running out of money. There is no car to show a potential driver, or sponsor. Toast, straight from the toaster.

Anybody have some inside info on this? Or informed opinion? It's relevant to me, in that this whole plan of construction technique looks like such a major undertaking. When you have huge resources to acquire the super-computing power for the design work, and an experienced and large staff to get it done...well, obviously you can build a race car using the same method that USF1 tried.

Not so sure how well that works with ten guys in a bunker who have never built a tub before, however. At least not one that ever ran on a track.

Anderson built the Windshear facility, and F1 teams used it for testing. What is wrong with designing a full scale buck, mocking up bulkheads and suspension, and tunnel testing it? When you have your basics covered, pull a mold and start building tubs. Is that too simplistic an overview?

Right now, there are five design teams hoping to construct their new generation of IndyCar tubs. Dallara will have no problem executing the computer modeling and construction, and it's a safe bet that Lola and Swift have the assets and experience in place to do the same.

What about the little guy? Surely they can get the job done, but time would be one of the biggest obstacles for accomplishing the task through the virtual design route. Is that the only method that can be utilized to build a competitive and safe chassis today?

That's why the USF1 failure is a relevant question to me. Delta Wing and BAT say they can pull it off: the former is not a constructor, and claims they can sublet the manufacturing process from the design of their (yet to be completed) prototype. BAT is a team of experts who built winning chassis in the '80's and '90's: not a large manufacturer with contemporary experience. So I wonder in this day, whether the little guy has any shot at building a competitive race car.

Toasters, no problem.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

How you can start a business requiring massive capital investment without having an end game is nutz, IMHO.

If you are referring to Ken Anderson, he's either a complete incopetant, e.g. the failed Falcon Indy Car project, or he was a con artist. How much did he make out of the USF1 venture?

[Bononi]

Maybe he makes a living out of this... there are plenty people that does it.