|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
4 Jan 2006, 12:53 (Ref:1494771) | #1 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 739
|
Independents in F1
Independent team, why do people (even F1 season review on ITV) think there are no true independents in F1?
What about; Williams - Owned by the people who began it Red Bull 1 & 2 - owned by one very rich man but still one person, you could argue Red Bull is a company but then so was Paul Stoddards Minardi Midland - Again one mans team Suzuki - one mans dream not sure if it is or not with Honda support still using an old arrows whichever way you look at it Not: Ferrari - Fiat McLaren - Merc Renault - um Renualt BMW - BMW Honda Am I wrong? |
||
|
4 Jan 2006, 13:01 (Ref:1494774) | #2 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,345
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Do it in the streets! |
4 Jan 2006, 13:09 (Ref:1494781) | #3 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 739
|
Why would an independent buy one?
In the context I am looking at is how alot of people refer to them today and how the loss of Minardi and Jordan was seen as a lose of the independent teams. If you go for outside assistance then Suzuki has to be independent in a way ex-arrows car being there new one even if heavily modified. If I remember correctly many of the team use Lola for aero parts, brembo for brakes etc... so is this independent? Anyway as I said I would class a true independent as a personal team rather than a team run by a company e.g. the BMW is a manufacturer whereas Sauber was not. For arguements sake then who is a true 'non-manufacter supported team'. e.g. one where the engine is a buy in not a tie-in |
||
|
4 Jan 2006, 13:30 (Ref:1494796) | #4 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,345
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Do it in the streets! |
4 Jan 2006, 13:33 (Ref:1494801) | #5 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,000
|
Essentially you're right - there are 5 manufacturer-owned teams, and two more with heavy manufacturer support (Aguri and Red Bull), although Midland may get a lot of help from Toyota. It is still a slightly different thing from the days of buying off-the-shelf cars and bolting an engine on, but that's progress I suppose.
|
||
|
4 Jan 2006, 18:10 (Ref:1494941) | #6 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,349
|
As the rules have changed (ruling out off the shelf buying) so has the definition of an independent within F1.
Williams and Red Bull Rosso (although they are helped by daddy RBR) are probably the only independents left in the paddock as every other team is either backed or helped substantially by a giant of the auto industry. |
||
|
4 Jan 2006, 18:31 (Ref:1494966) | #7 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,188
|
I guess the definition of 'independent' would be a team that does not have seemingly infinite resources to call on.
Williams, Redbull and Midland are all far from being the independent type teams of the past, the type of team that seemed to scrape by from season to season with no real certainty that the money was going to arrive for them to compete the following season (or even race in some cases). |
||
|
4 Jan 2006, 19:04 (Ref:1494983) | #8 | |
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 338
|
I much prefer Silk Cut's definition of an independent to chappelli's - who said an independent team had to scrape by?
|
|
|
4 Jan 2006, 19:20 (Ref:1494994) | #9 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,760
|
I would say Aguri, Mclaren and Williams are the only ones I could settle for calling independents. Mclaren is getting ever more borderline, but I'll let it pass for the time being. Aguri I will provisionally classify as independent until we get a truer impression of how it will be operating, but it is entirely possible I will shift it elsewhere in time.
The others are either outright manufacturers, or else owned by enormous non-motorsport coporations with vast resources; IMHO, neither case can reasonably be classified as "independent". |
||
|
4 Jan 2006, 20:46 (Ref:1495050) | #10 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,721
|
We're really stretching the definition of "independent" here. Red Bull and STR are owned by an entrepreneur - a rich one, sure, but with no ties to the motor industry. Looks independent to me.
|
||
__________________
Interviewer: "Will the McLaren F1 be your answer to the Ferrari F40?" Gordon Murray: "Hmm... I don't think we have anyone at McLaren who can weld that badly..." |
4 Jan 2006, 21:16 (Ref:1495071) | #11 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,188
|
I didn't say they had to scrape by, I said a team that does not have seemingly infinite cash resource. i.e their survival being dependent on external sponsorship. Minardi, Jordan, Arrows and the list goes on are all fairly good recent examples of teams who were certainly not "flush".
So despite being owned, and for the most part funded by exactly the same person (the only real difference being where they buy their engines) only one of the two Red Bull teams are considered "independent"???? Williams I'd say are probably the closest at the moment to the "independent" scenario. Although, personally I'm thinking a years grace between a full big time works team to true "independent" status is probably fair. |
||
|
4 Jan 2006, 21:22 (Ref:1495072) | #12 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,606
|
Independent would mean "Privateer in F1" ? That by definition is a team not owned by manufacturers, in that case: Williams, RBR, Midland and Suzuki.
McLaren's case, correct if I'm wrong, it's that Mercedes has 49% of their shares...so it's not a privateer. |
||
__________________
Show me a man who won't give it to his woman An' I'll show you somebody who will |
4 Jan 2006, 23:03 (Ref:1495144) | #13 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 377
|
That's right Bononi, and one more thng...podex perfectus es. (you are a great guy)...
|
||
__________________
I'm semi evil, i'm quasi evil. I am the Diet Coke of evil. just one calorie, not evil enough. |
4 Jan 2006, 23:59 (Ref:1495161) | #14 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,527
|
independant of whar though? Le Mans gives a perfect example of the murky waters - TVR, Morgan & Spyker are all works teams, but they do not stand a chance against even the private porsche entries.
|
||
|
5 Jan 2006, 00:08 (Ref:1495166) | #15 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,276
|
Well, you can be a works team and be crap at it. See Ferrari in 1980, or 1992, or other famous seasons.
I'd understand "privateer" as being what Rob Walker was, and "independent" as to having no support from a manufacturer, like Williams, RBR, STR, Midland and Super Aguri are. We don't know how deep is Honda pushing into SA. |
||
__________________
"Many people depend on motor racing for their livelihood, to them it is a business. To me, it is a sport." -Jim Clark |
5 Jan 2006, 02:08 (Ref:1495200) | #16 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 575
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
5 Jan 2006, 09:27 (Ref:1495316) | #17 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 173
|
In my book, the only current true independents are Williams.
Ferarri - (works team) McLaren - (49% Mercedes-Benz) Renault - (works team) BMW - (works team) Honda - (works team) Midland - (Toyota support) Red Bull - (Ferarri Support and owned by billionaire) Super Aguri - (Honda Support) Torro Rosso - Borderline independents, but still get help from big brother) Toyota - (Works Team) Williams source their engines from non car manufacturer and have no manufacturer backing, which in my opinion, makes them independents. |
||
|
5 Jan 2006, 13:02 (Ref:1495506) | #18 | ||||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,600
|
Quote:
Owned by a billionaire? So? Was Hesketh not independent? I'm not sure whay money is related to this, other than it gets some people's back up! Surely we are talking non manufacturer in which case I agree with BSchneiderFan. Quote:
|
||||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
5 Jan 2006, 18:26 (Ref:1495753) | #19 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 739
|
Good news for more independents in today autosport mag that in 2008 FIA want the teams to be able to actually offically sell on parts. Slightly beside the point but nice to know.
Glad to see it not just me thinks there are independents in F1 still :-) |
||
|
6 Jan 2006, 16:22 (Ref:1496272) | #20 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 5,917
|
The difference between teams and the definition of the categories evolve and blurs quite a bit in modern era of F1.
IMHO, independent teams are (most usually) privately owned teams.. where racing is the core reason for the existence of the team and company. They are strongly independent, may not be completely, in terms of getting their resources and finances. Such teams are usually heavily reliant on sponsorship rather than from a parent company, and may produce their own car/engine/parts or outsource according to their ability. Manufacturer teams would be teams that are created/heavily supported financially by a car company. Racing is a side business of the company, for marketing purposes mainly and the team has to answer to the company in order to account for its existence. -Independent Williams > Frank and Head are fiercely committed to maintaining the independence of the team, refusing to sell to BMW and risk the short term competitiveness for the sake of keeping Williams independent. Minardi/Jordan > Bye bye Minardi/Jordan, but for all of Paul's other business, taking over and bossing Minardi keeps it an independent one, struggling but proud in its own existence. Too bad sold. Same for Jordan. =Manufacturer Honda > Racing is an important culture of Honda, and their engineers are heavily involved. But coming to F1 is still a marketing decision more than a sporting one. Toyota > Need we say more BMW > see Honda Mclaren Mercedes > Was independent until Mercedes took controlling stakes and have a great say over the team. Unfortunate really, considering that Mclaren and Ron almost made Mclaren a racing F1 team that produces road cars as an independent company. Now, Mercedes calls the shots more often than not, and SLR shows how Mclaren have to bend backwards to suit Mercedes. Others - Non-manufacturer Marketing teams. A new era maybe, but F1 used as a tool to push the parent company forward. Red Bull/STR > Close to independent teams in essence, but has the financial might of some manufacturers. Red Bull does sell cars, and the team is under the direct ownership of one man who owns his company. So technically, a privateer..but a bloody rich one too. Ferrari engine are paid for, not given. Midland > Corporate owned. But non-manufacturer backed. So again, like Red Bull, sits in the middle between traditional definitions of manufacturer and independence. Probably leans closer to manufacturer while Red Bull tend to lean more towards independence in spirit. F1 used to position Midland to a global audience. Ferrari > A manufacturer of cars no doubt. Fiat backed. But Ferrari is in a unique position. Fiat doesn't play as huge a role financially compared to other manufacturers. And Ferrari isn't a Fiat racing team like Toyota F1 or a Ferrari-Fiat like Mclaren-Mercedes. Ferrari existed like Williams is now, a racing team in the core. Ferrari's existence in F1 isn't a come-back to ride on a marketing wave, but to keep to the roots of the team. Cars are sold to sponsor the racing, not the other way around. Ferrari is independent in terms of own car and engines too as a self sufficient racing team. |
||
__________________
Alonso: "McLaren and Williams are also great racing teams, but Ferrari is the biggest one that you can go to." |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
btcc independents teams champiosnhip | Neil Adams | Touring Car Racing | 3 | 31 Mar 2005 17:01 |
Don't forget the Independents... | CJ2002 | Touring Car Racing | 10 | 25 Sep 2002 12:49 |
ETCC to launch independents cup | pink69 | Touring Car Racing | 1 | 2 Aug 2002 09:58 |
Independents Cup | JerH77 | Touring Car Racing | 11 | 9 Mar 2002 22:47 |
'Independents' in Touring Class? | hunttheshunt | Touring Car Racing | 7 | 6 Jan 2001 09:21 |