Archer Capital Gone

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by justracing

“We looked at things like the engine, no one on the side of the spectator bank cares about the internal workings of the engine.

I don't see anything wrong with this at all.

The trouble is that when a category engine is suggested, the Holden fans complain so much about their beloved GM vehicles having a Ford Coyote engine fitted to them. I don't understand why they are so offended!

If the rules require all the engines to perform all-but identically anyway, then who cares if they all use the same crate engine!?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

I don't see anything wrong with this at all.

The trouble is that when a category engine is suggested, the Holden fans complain so much about their beloved GM vehicles having a Ford Coyote engine fitted to them. I don't understand why they are so offended!

If the rules require all the engines to perform all-but identically anyway, then who cares if they all use the same crate engine!?

Use the Nissan motor...problem solved and they will both be unhappy.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Casper

Use the Nissan motor...problem solved and they will both be unhappy.

Genius!

[V8 Fireworks]

Mispost.

[Mixer]

Give me all the cars with the Erebus engine with the flat plane crank.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Tell that to Dicky Johnson.

The engineers designed the DJR Falcon in '92 in good faith on the basis that the rules did not prohibit using the engine as a stressed member of the chassis, only to be told this was not allowed at the last moment.

Which only shows that a new category wasn't run well at the outset, with the intent of keeping the cars (relatively) simple not covered well enough by those who wrote the rulebook at the time.

For sure there needs to be some capacity for good engineering but not the complete free-for-all that you were advocating in your earlier post.

I look at the example of HRT when it was dominating in the early noughties - rarely took the engines to the rev limit as they were built for flexibility, used 2-way dampers when the other leading teams used 4-way, used slightly older brake specs but good engineering and management had the team at the front consistently.

That to me is good engineering - taking what you have and making the absolute most out of it, rather than creating a spend-a-thon of new ideas because you can't get more out of what you already have.

[Tourer]

Resurrecting this thread as it seems the best sport to fit this article with Mr Adderton claiming to have shown interest in buying Supercars.

He claims that he didn't go ahead because the current structure is unworkable with the teams having the shareholding that they do - he mentions TC as an example of someone who ran a successful sports business as a benevolent "dictator".

Mr Adderton seems to be conveniently forgetting that when TC was in charge, the teams owned MORE of the company than they do now but TC was able to show them the path and be a genuine leader.

Perhaps Mr Adderton needs to put in the hard work as well if he wants to own it and run it - for sure there are a bunch of competitive team owners to win over but TC showed that it could be done - but it ain't easy.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Resurrecting this thread as it seems the best sport to fit this article with Mr Adderton claiming to have shown interest in buying Supercars.

He claims that he didn't go ahead because the current structure is unworkable with the teams having the shareholding that they do - he mentions TC as an example of someone who ran a successful sports business as a benevolent "dictator".

Mr Adderton seems to be conveniently forgetting that when TC was in charge, the teams owned MORE of the company than they do now but TC was able to show them the path and be a genuine leader.

Perhaps Mr Adderton needs to put in the hard work as well if he wants to own it and run it - for sure there are a bunch of competitive team owners to win over but TC showed that it could be done - but it ain't easy.

Why not just buy out the teams (35%?) share while he’s at it?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by one five five

Why not just buy out the teams (35%?) share while he’s at it?

Good point. Wouldn't surprise me if the teams had some kind of veto capacity in place for that though. Money talks of course but they'd also all be aware of Mr Adderton's *ahem* "unpredictable" tendencies so might not be keen to hand over their part of destiny control.

He could win them over with the right approach though - but it appears that he doesn't want to work at it.

[cavvy]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Good point. Wouldn't surprise me if the teams had some kind of veto capacity in place for that though. Money talks of course but they'd also all be aware of Mr Adderton's *ahem* "unpredictable" tendencies so might not be keen to hand over their part of destiny control.

He could win them over with the right approach though - but it appears that he doesn't want to work at it.

What worked for CochO is past its use by date ?

I would not be interested in running a team under the rules according to Adderton & nor would a series original in Gary Rogers.

Is trying to find a buyer for the unused RECs a financial measure?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by cavvy

What worked for CochO is past its use by date ?

Not sure that it would be. Cocho had 75% team ownership that he needed to convince - the teams only have a minority shareholding now. Regardless, to run the series successfully you need to engage / convince all stakeholders and Cocho did that successfully - quite why Mr Adderton doesn't think he can I don't know.

Originally Posted by cavvy

Is trying to find a buyer for the unused RECs a financial measure?

Presumably but it also fills out the field, has more in reserve if others decide to stop.

[Umai Naa]

Cocho was a leader. Everyone since has been not much more than a figurehead.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Cocho was a leader. Everyone since has been not much more than a figurehead.

Wasn’t Cochrane nothing more than a figurehead once the Archer sale went through, leading to him getting out after 18-odd months of Archer control?

[Just Do It!]

Originally Posted by one five five

Wasn’t Cochrane nothing more than a figurehead once the Archer sale went through, leading to him getting out after 18-odd months of Archer control?

Cochrane was a great leader - he made decisions and stood by them, and did make the odd adjustment after the "off the cuff" comment or decision.

Most of Tony's departure seemed to be driven by Archer trying to move to a more formal corporate structure.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Just Do It!

Most of Tony's departure seemed to be driven by Archer trying to move to a more formal corporate structure.

ie.... leaving Cochrane (and everyone in that role since) as little more than figureheads