Causes of the retirement of Honda, BMW and Toyota.

[hondafan37]

After more than 2 years of the retirement of Honda, BMW and Toyota.
Do you really think that the only reason for withdrawal was the crisis?
I think that the main reason for the retirement was the few possibilities of the engine technology development in the actually context.
The engine development freeze and the biggest rules limitations that impossibility the new technology introduction, for me was more important reason to retired that the crisis. The main factor in a actually F1 is the aerodynamic, and this factor not allow the brands show your technology.

[Knowlesy]

I think it was also related to the fact they persistently embarrassed themselves.

Toyota spending billions to finish at the back end of the points.

Honda swapping a sponsors livery for an atlas.

BMW closing the factory down as soon as they won a race in 2008.

Pathetic, each and every one of them.

[GolddustMini]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

I think it was also related to the fact they persistently embarrassed themselves.

Toyota spending billions to finish at the back end of the points.

Honda swapping a sponsors livery for an atlas.

BMW closing the factory down as soon as they won a race in 2008.

Pathetic, each and every one of them.

got to agree with this,

[Empty Box]

Only one that is a puzzler is BMW. Looked set in 08 as if they were going to really step it up (and they really did that year), then took a step in the wrong direction and ran away just as quickly. Perhaps if 09 wasn't as bad as it was for them they would still be around. Clearly, BMW doesn't like not dominating / competing for wins week in week out - in any form of racing.

Toyota wasted millions / billions and couldn't get results. Honda.... Well, once the BAR portion was dropped.... Honda followed the same path of Toyota. At one point, the Honda was one of the slowest cars in the field week in week out, all while having a healthy budge.

Toyota has a history of spending money and failing to get results. *cough cough GT-One cough cough* then running for cover.

[Marbot]

They all came into a series that was already being dominated by big budget teams running to regulations that were tighter than a ducks backside!

The Can-Am series was originally a series participated in by enthusiastic amateurs with little in the way of money. From that series motor racing got wings, ground effects and even a fan car well before they were ever heard of in F1!

However, all of that innovation was then to be stifled by the later participation of a big bucks Porsche team. The regulations had to get increasingly tighter in order to stop Porsche running away with everything. This once excellent series lasted just eight seasons (1966-1974).

Honda, Toyota and BMW had entered a series where technical regulations were already tight and were unlikely to be given much freedom. Unsurprisingly, they all came away disappointed.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

I think it was also related to the fact they persistently embarrassed themselves.

Toyota spending billions to finish at the back end of the points.

Honda swapping a sponsors livery for an atlas.

BMW closing the factory down as soon as they won a race in 2008.

Pathetic, each and every one of them.

I don't really care about the colour scheme of the Honda - it's pretty irrelevant to their performance after all, but the other points I agree with.

I find it amusing/sad that some people here are slagging HRT and Virgin who are doing almost as well as these guys on a fraction of the budget!

[Knowlesy]

Well the colour scheme was a handy visual summariser of Honda's second F1 stint: Cringeworthy, humiliating, awe inspiringly ****e.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JamesH

I find it amusing/sad that some people here are slagging HRT and Virgin who are doing almost as well as these guys on a fraction of the budget!

Indeed. See sig. v

90% of the performance of an F1 car comes from aerodynamics. Maybe it's people like Boeing that should be entering F1?

[Spritle]

I think they quit because they were all fortune tellers and realized that after 2+ years with no F1 involvement...

...it wouldn't matter one bit.

[tux]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

I think it was also related to the fact they persistently embarrassed themselves.

Toyota spending billions to finish at the back end of the points.

Honda swapping a sponsors livery for an atlas.

BMW closing the factory down as soon as they won a race in 2008.

Pathetic, each and every one of them.

Nail and head!

BMW had a real chance of the title but threw it down the drain, Toyota had everything you need to win titles but never built a wining car. Honda well... so much promise so little delivery, Bet they are gutted about not staying in another year though.

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Indeed. See sig. v

90% of the performance of an F1 car comes from aerodynamics. Maybe it's people like Boeing that should be entering F1?

Given his propensity for launching cars into the sky, they'd have a great candidate for a driver in Mark Webber.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

I think it was also related to the fact they persistently embarrassed themselves.

Toyota spending billions to finish at the back end of the points.

Honda swapping a sponsors livery for an atlas.

BMW closing the factory down as soon as they won a race in 2008.

Pathetic, each and every one of them.

I think you are right here, along with the fact they were embarrassing themselves with poor results, and they no longer believed that their marketing spend was achieving anything.
The other problem is that F1 had little or no entertainment value and it would have been difficult for any non F1 enthusiast on the company boards to become emotionally involved with the sport, or indeed believe that the viewership figures were anything but fantasy.

Politically correct and bureaucratic decision making also seems to fall flat in the world of F1. Look how long Gascoine lasted at Toyota when he tried to solve their problems.

Decision made.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by JamesH

I find it amusing/sad that some people here are slagging HRT and Virgin who are doing almost as well as these guys on a fraction of the budget!

I think you are either exaggerating what HRT are achieving, or down playing what Toyota et al. achieved.

While you can argue that the three teams here underachieved for their budget their cars were never hopelessly slow. Yes, that is down to budget, but HRT is not "doing almost as well".

[Knowlesy]

Honda managed to make a couple of woefully slow cars in 2007 and 2008. How on earth (wahey!) that happened I think we will never know.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

Honda managed to make a couple of woefully slow cars in 2007 and 2008. How on earth (wahey!) that happened I think we will never know.

It all went downhill after Geoff Willis left in 2005, having done much work on the 2006 chassis. No one of any note had any input in the following chassis.

[Pingguest]

The three manufactures left for a number of reasons:

• despite huge budgets they weren't successful;
• the Formula 1 regulations don't allow much (relevant) innovations;
• associated with the point above, the manufactures could no longer afford to spend millions on their Formula 1 project during the economic crisis;
• Max Mosley's presidency.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

[*] despite huge budgets they weren't successful;

Finally realising that correct technical personnel acquisition was more important than pennies. Red Bull 'bought' the right bloke.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

[*] the Formula 1 regulations don't allow much (relevant) innovations;

Going back to Can-Am. It was Porsche's massive spending in that series that made it necessary to introduce tighter regulations to rein in their advantage. But by then, the damage was already done.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

[*] associated with the point above, the manufactures could no longer afford to spend millions on their Formula 1 project during the economic crisis;

The same damage having been done, manufacturers still continued to come in and participate in a series dominated by teams that had already acquired what was necessary (best technical personnel) to keep them ahead of the game, and then gave them unlimited budgets to do with as they wished.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

[*] Max Mosley's presidency.[/list]

Ironically, he could have been a big help to them and F1. But they all jumped on the same Ferrari bandwagon back in 2009.

[ECW Dan Selby]

I still stand by what I felt in 2009:

The budget cap proposition should have gone ahead. You would have had some outrageous looking machines for 2010!

We can merely speculate.

Selby

[Marbot]

[ECW Dan Selby]

I'm thinking of starting to do some "What if?" columns on here.

Would anyone be interested?

This would be a fantastic topic. Perhaps some of the guys with some good technical insight on here could try to pieces together what some of the cars may have looked like for 2010..?

Selby

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

I still stand by what I felt in 2009:

The budget cap proposition should have gone ahead. You would have had some outrageous looking machines for 2010!

We can merely speculate.

Selby

The budget cap isn't the way to go. It would just be another restriction, although one difficult to enforce. I more believe in 'divergent governance'.

[ECW Dan Selby]

But there were two options from what I remember:

Technical freedom to a budget cap (35 million)

OR

Unlimited spending with restrictions.

It meant that the Ferrari's/McLaren's of the world could eek the best out of their restricted packages, with all the simulator work they could do in the world, using their sophisticated software to figure out the best way of getting a competitive package given their restraints.

Whereas the other guys would be counting every penny, choosing their direction wisely and trying to get the most out of that. I would love to see the looser/budget capped regs. Does anyone know where I could find them? Did they ever exist?

Selby

[ECW Dan Selby]

Here's an exert from an interview with Max in regards to the 2009 regs:

"What technical and other freedoms will the cost-capped teams have which are not available to the other teams?

MM: A different (but standard) under body, movable wings, no engine rev limit, no restriction on the number or type of updates, no homologation requirements, no limits on materials, testing, simulators, wind tunnels and so forth - most of the cost saving measures introduced over the last few years will not apply to these teams. However measures to save money during the race weekend, such as the ban on refuelling and the Saturday parc ferme, will apply to both categories of team. We are also thinking about a much bigger capacity KERS for the cost-capped teams. But all this must be covered by the £30 million - no exceptions and no free or subsidised outside help. Anything supplied by another team or an outside supplier will be included at its full commercial cost except for items supplied to all teams at subsidised rates under the single supplier arrangements negotiated by the FIA (e.g. for tyres), which allow all teams to benefit equally from reduced costs."

Very interesting, indeed. I can't help but feel it would have been a much better direction to go in.....? Comments, thoughts, opinions?

Here's a link to the full interview:
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns21249.html

Selby

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

Does anyone know where I could find them? Did they ever exist?

Selby

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/4/9290.html

Would have been good. The two tier part was later taken out.

[luke g28]

Definitely would have been a good direction to explore. All for it :S