2014 - F1

Steve · Oct 21, 2014

For the Lego fans: Williams FW14B

Crashton · Oct 21, 2014

Needs a Lego Nigel in there.

Nathan · Oct 21, 2014

Crashton said: ↑

Needs a Lego Nigel in there.
Click to expand...

Crashton · Oct 21, 2014

Well I'll be damned, a Lego Nigel.

Steve · Oct 21, 2014

If you haven't noticed, Bernie is claiming the schedule will go over 20 races by the 2016 season. Here are a few of Joe Saward's thoughts.

More races in F1? (joesaward.wordpress.com)

October 21, 2014

Reports that the Formula 1 World Championship could go over 20 events in the future should be treated with a certain amount of caution. While the Formula One group has a deal with the FIA that allows for a maximum of 25 races a year this was primarily a negotiating ploy that allowed the FIA to see the possibility of additional fees for each race. There are legal contracts in place between the Formula One group and all the signatory teams that mean that team consent is required if the number of races is to exceed 20, although there are believed to be clauses that allow for â€œextra eventsâ€ if certain stipulations are met regarding the costs and the benefits. To get all the teams to agree to more races at a time when so many of them are struggling is going to be difficult. It is fair to say that the teams are already stretched in terms of logistics and to do more races would require very considerable extra cost, as they would need to employ more people and overlapping crews. There are, quite simply, limits to what individuals can do. Already most teams report that the turnover of staff is much higher than it used to be because of the stresses and strains of travel and many people do only a few years and then return to a more normal life.

There is, as a result, very considerable resistance to the idea of more races because the expense of doing more is by no means certain to be covered by the prize money gained. Sponsors are currently not interested in paying more and thus it is doubtful that the expansion that Bernie Ecclestone seeks will become a reality. It is not just the teams that need to be taken into consideration but also the TV companies, as they too have heavy costs as a result of all the transportation.

The fact that this is being proposed is not primarily because it serves F1 to have more events, but rather because it drives higher profits, which the owners wish to do as they try to find a buyer willing to pay the price they want for the rights holding company.
Click to expand...

mrntd · Oct 22, 2014

Bernie is always talking about another race some where. One is to keep pressure on the existing races to get more money out of them. Second is to look at back up plans should an existing race say that's too much. Finally, because it keeps him in the press.

mrntd · Oct 22, 2014

Steve said: ↑

For the Lego fans: Williams FW14B

Click to expand...

That's a lot more detailed than my Lego Ferrari. Looks like the same scale.

ScottinBend · Oct 22, 2014

I've got a Tamiya 1/12 model of that with Nigel's signature on the box. Got it at the CART race in Portland the year he won the title.

Steve · Oct 23, 2014

Has anyone been paying attention to the developing Caterham F1 saga? It's turning rather soap opera-esque, the latest spin being Tony Fernandes and the new owners arguing over who currently owns the team and is therefore responsible for dealing with the financial issues and resulting turmoil.

Long story short, looks like Caterham might not make it to Austin...and that's just one tip of the iceberg.

Zapski · Oct 23, 2014

Steve said: ↑

Has anyone been paying attention to the developing Caterham F1 saga? It's turning rather soap opera-esque, the latest spin being Tony Fernandes and the new owners arguing over who currently owns the team and is therefore responsible for dealing with the financial issues and resulting turmoil.

Long story short, looks like Caterham might not make it to Austin...and that's just one tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...

I've seen conflicting stories about how concerned Bernie is. On the one hand he's quoted as saying â€œI think itâ€™s better they go. I donâ€™t want people going around with begging bowls.â€ and on the other he's saying "I'd rather not lose the team...."

Typical two faced troll, methinks.

In any event, it'd be a shame to see them go. Not that they've had a great deal of success, but I can't help rooting for the underdog sometimes.

Angib · Oct 23, 2014

Crashton said: ↑

Well I'll be damned, a Lego Nigel.
Click to expand...

I think that is just a poor imitation of a Lego Nigel. A real Lego Nigel would have to have little Lego pieces to make up the dodgy 'tache, as obviously no Nigel can be authentic if he's 'tache-less.

mrntd · Oct 24, 2014

Caterham has been turned on to the administrators. It looks like the end for the team.

Now it looks like Murussia might not make the USGP either.

Zapski · Oct 24, 2014

Huh.

Caterham given permission to miss next two races - F1 Fanatic

Bernie Ecclestone has agreed to give Caterham a dispensation to miss the next two rounds of the championship while the administrators who own the team try to find a buyer for it.

Administrators Finbarr O’Connell and Henry Shinners of Smith and Williamson have agreed terms with Colin Kolles to take charge of 1 Malaysia Racing Team, which owns Caterham’s licence to compete in the world championship, as well as Caterham Sports Limited.

This means they are now able to sell Caterham’s F1 racing operation and championship entry as a going concern if a buyer can be found. Shinners said “Purchasing the assets would give the buyer ready access to F1 racing”.

“This includes the Formula One licence, the racing cars, the designs and intellectual property for current and future seasons plus the workforce and all of the technical support provided to the racing team by CSL from the Leafield Technical Centre,” he added.

Caterham can miss next week’s round in the USA and the race which takes place on the following weekend in Brazil. Ecclestone wants the team to participate in the season finale which takes place two weeks later in Abu Dhabi.

However staff at the British-based team’s factory in Leafield have been advised they do not need to return until the team has been sold.

O’Connell said the arrangement “gives us a much better chance of being able to reach a better conclusion for the racing team and its creditors”.

“This is a difficult situation which is not of our making,” he added. “We regret any personal impact on 1MRT’s employees. As administrators for CSL, we are seeking to maximise the outcome for its creditors and other stakeholders.”

With Caterham unlike to appear at the next two rounds, the F1 field will be reduced to 20 cars, assuming Marussia return to fielding two drivers.
Click to expand...

Zapski · Oct 25, 2014

No Marussia either at COTA.

BBC Sport - Marussia and Caterham to miss US Grand Prix - Bernie Ecclestone

Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone has said Caterham and Marussia will both miss the US Grand Prix next weekend.

Caterham are in administration and have also been granted permission to miss the Brazilian Grand Prix while Marussia are struggling financially.

Marussia driver Jules Bianchi remains in hospital having sustained serious head injuries in an accident at the Japanese Grand Prix on 5 October.

"Neither of those teams are going to go to America," Ecclestone told Reuters.

Marussia look likely to miss the Brazilian Grand Prix as well, due to the air transport for all the F1 team cars and freight being organised by Ecclestone's Formula One Management.

The races in Austin, Texas and Sao Paulo are back-to-back and the cars will be transported direct from the US to Brazil before returning to Europe.

Both Marussia and Caterham are based in Oxfordshire.
Click to expand...

Steve · Oct 25, 2014

If no Marussia then no Rossi, right? I assume they would have put him in the second car. So, no American driving on the US track and down to 18 cars overall.

This certainly won't improve last minute ticket sales.....

Steve · Oct 26, 2014

Steve · Oct 26, 2014

(note the source before reading)

Caterham dispute escalates (SniffPetrol.com)

Friday, October 24th, 2014

A war of words has broken out this week between the new and former owners of the beleaguered Caterham F1 team.

New buyers Engavest SA released a statement yesterday in which they said, ‘Oh my God, right, Tony Fernandes, right, he’s, like, such a liar and stuff. Has he been chattin’ about us, yea? Don’t believe what he say, right, cos Joanne, right, she heard that he was, like, slagging us off and **** at Shania Jackson’s party, right, and that’s just, like, so disrespectful, cuz he said we ain’t done things and we ain’t ain’t done them things, innit. Know wha’ I mean?’

For his part, Fernandes was quick to respond. ‘Oh my God, that is like so rude,’ he said in an official statement last night. ‘Engavest like totally owes me cash, yea? And they been, like, round at Kelly’s mum’s house saying I ain’t give ‘em nothing and that might be true, yea, but that is SO unfair cuz they still owes me for the team and the stuff and I like totally bought them a bottle of WKD from the offie before Jamie Preston’s party and they like never paid me back and ****.’

The argument resumes today, probably on the bench outside the chip shop.
Click to expand...

Zapski · Oct 27, 2014

Yikes. What a cluster f#$%^

F1 teams have written contracts to supply struggling rivals with a spare car, reveals Bernie Ecclestone | Daily Mail Online

Bernie Ecclestone has revealed that Formula One's teams have signed contracts agreeing to help competitors which get into financial trouble by supplying a car to them. It is a particularly pressing problem.

Sportsmail can reveal that the Marussia team notified London's High Court earlier this month that it intends to go into administration. It follows the collapse this week of F1's worst-performer Caterham.

Eleventh hour talks are underway to save it and Ecclestone says another team may have to step in by supplying it with a car. The controversial rule is written into the teams' contracts with Ecclestone and it forces them to field a third car if the grid slips below a threshold of 20 cars.

It was thought that the teams would run the third car themselves but in fact it would be supplied to ailing rivals to stop them from going under.

'They would supply a third car to someone else so if, for example, Sauber disappeared, a team could do a deal with Sauber. Ferrari could say, ''we will give you a car, all that goes with it, and we want you to put this sponsor on it. You have your own sponsors but we want you to include this one as well and we want you to take this driver''. The team wouldn't have to go under then would they? If Red Bull decided they would give a car to Caterham for example that could solve their problem.'

The reason for the clause is that Ecclestone's contracts with race organisers state that F1 'shall use its reasonable endeavours to ensure...that at least sixteen cars participate in the Event.'

If it slips below that F1 could breach its contracts and risk losing the Â£300 million in fees paid by race organisers. Setting the threshold at 20 cars gives Ecclestone a buffer and he may need it. Annual F1 team budgets are now around Â£140 million on average and although Red Bull has one of the biggest, smaller outfits are struggling to keep up.

On 7 October Manor Grand Prix Racing, the company which runs Marussia, filed a notice with the High Court saying that it intends to appoint an administrator. The team lies in ninth place with just two points and has made combined net losses of Â£140.6 million since joining F1 in 2010.

Ecclestone said on Saturday that he expects Marussia and Caterham will miss next weekend's United States Grand Prix. It will put the grid at 18 cars but Ecclestone added that this won't trigger the third car clause because the teams' F1 contracts allow them to miss two races each year.

'We don't have to introduce a third car at this stage because they can miss a couple of races. They lose any money they would have got for those races but they don't lose their position in the championship. I have no idea if Marussia are going to make it in the long run. It's better if they didn't have to go into administration.'

It is too late to prevent that happening to Caterham. Earlier this month bailiffs seized equipment from its factory in Oxfordshire and the team's 220 staff have been locked out of the building by the administrator since Thursday.

It languishes in 11th place, one behind Sauber which has failed to score any points this year despite having backing from sponsors owned by the world's richest man, Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim.

If a team received a rival's car it would not need to spend money on research and development, manufacturing or buying engines. These are the three biggest costs for F1 teams, far exceeding spending on staff and drivers which would continue to be covered by the outfit which receives the third car.

Marussia's latest company accounts are for 2012 and show that it spent Â£32 million on research and development which alone comes to 42% of its total Â£76.1 million costs. Manufacturing and engine expenses are estimated at a further Â£23 million. Wiping out these costs would transform bankrupt outfits into profitable ones which could attract investment and ultimately stand on their own two feet.

Some teams raced with three cars in the 1970s though this was because there was freedom to do so not because the grid had hit a threshold stipulated in contracts. Although the teams have signed up to supply third cars now, several of them, including Britain's Williams, have long opposed a similar scheme where outfits would sell customer cars to rivals.

'We don't believe customer cars and three car teams to be in the DNA of our sport,' says Williams' deputy team principal Claire Williams. I think a more important question is why are we having those conversations and that's because there is talk that teams are in financial difficulty at the moment. I think we need to be addressing the cost issues in Formula One in order to support the teams that we currently have.
Click to expand...

Zapski · Oct 27, 2014

And more of the cluster fallout.

FIA could change US GP qualifying format for 18-car entry | Adam Cooper's F1 Blog

The FIA has the option to change the format of qualifying to reflect the 18-car entry that it is expected in Austin next weekend, with both Caterham and Marussia failing to make the trip.

Currently six cars are eliminated in both Q1 and Q2. With an 18-car field that would mean that only two cars would be bumped out in Q1 – and with Sebastian Vettel having already stated that he will sit out qualifying due to a power unit change guaranteeing a pitlane start, in reality we could see only one car bumped in Austin.

However, the FIA Sporting Regulations include the provision for changing the number of cars that are eliminated. The numbers specifically referred to are eight for a 26-car entry, and seven for a 24 car entry. It follows that with an 18-car entry four cars would be bumped from Q1 and Q2.

The regulations refer to the size of the ‘championship’ entry rather than that for an individual race. However sources confirm that once the stewards have officially been notified that only 18 cars are in the Austin field they will have the option to decree that four cars are eliminated in Q1 and Q2.
Click to expand...

Steve · Oct 27, 2014

Misleading title; this is about more than just what happened to Caterham and Marussia.

The demise of Caterham and Marussia explained (MotorSportMagazine.com)

By Mark Hughes | 27 October 2014

With the news that both Caterham and Marussia will not make it to the US Grand Prix this weekend, what was always inevitable is now unfolding. The greedy commercial model upon which F1 is run is not sustainable and never has been; the self-interest of the big teams in refusing to ameliorate the worst implications of that on the rest of the grid has just hastened things along. Greed has ensured that the sport is now beginning to eat itself.

Formula 1 generates an income of around $1.5 billion each year, but a big chunk of that leaves the sport because it is owned by outside entities with no interest in it other than as a revenue generator. Yes, the big teams are guilty of having been irresponsible in inflating their size four and five-fold in the big money years of the late â€˜90s/early 2000s â€“ something that was never going to be sustainable.

But they are competitive entities and could not have been expected to stand by and not take advantage of the car manufacturing money that was then spilling into the sport while watching others leap ahead. They needed and continue to need cost caps imposed upon them to protect them from their own competitive greed.

Yet even without that and even with the pastâ€™s irresponsibly vast expansion in the sizes of teams, this could still be a self-financing sport. It absolutely generates enough money to make that possible, but only if the teams themselves owned it and distributed the proceeds equitably. But F1 was sold out many years ago. The commercial rights used to be held collectively by the teams, which were represented by Bernie Ecclestone. But one day, when the lease expired, Bernie re-applied for them himself â€“ and not as a representative of the teams. Again, the teams could be criticised here for they should not have made the assumption that Bernie would continue to act in their interests. Why should he, just because he had done in the past?

Bernie and his former team boss cohort Max Mosley had tried by force to take the commercial rights for the teams from the FIA in the 1980s and failed. But in the early 2000s they succeeded in doing it for Bernie by infiltration and stealth. When Max, as FIA President, signed over the rights to Bernie for a further 100 year term for just Â£360 million (about the same as for one yearâ€™s worth of NASCAR commercial rights), he effectively handed the keys of the sweet shop over to a sugarholic.

Ecclestone sold and re-sold those rights until CVC came along and paid $2.5 billion for a controlling interest in 2005. That netted Bernie an obscene profit and CVC subsequently a much bigger one. It has taken around $4 billion from the sport and raised a further $2 billion by selling chunks of its ownership â€“ and with the sport valued so much higher now than when it bought, it stands to gain further billions.

This would all still have been sustainable had not the economy collapsed a few years ago. But thatâ€™s what economies do. Thatâ€™s what it was always going to do someday, and why the teams should never have been allowed to get so big, and why the money should not have been leaving the sport to outside entities. But that would have needed an enlightened despot ruling with a rod of iron, forcing a ceiling on costs, allowing teams to take franchises in the sport, generally being a responsible guardian.

Perhaps realising the mistake of that 100-year deal (or maybe not), Max proposed that for 2010 teams that could operate on a budget cap of Â£40 million (at a time when the top teams were nudging Â£200 million) could enter under favourable technical terms. Neither the budget cap nor the technical favours ever transpired but three new teams (which later came to be known as Marussia, Caterham and HRT) were attracted to F1 under the initiative.

HRT went at the end of 2012 and now it looks like the end has come for the remaining two. But itâ€™s unlikely to stop there as the goose that keeps laying these golden eggs for the sportâ€™s owners is being slowly strangled. The big teams are too big to bring their spending down to a level appropriate for the money thatâ€™s left after the owners have had their share. But they have used their power over the smaller teams to insist they be paid more.

Effectively the cake is too small in the first place and then they have taken too much of what is left â€“ because they can. They have got the small teams to subsidise their unrealistic spending. And now the small teams are beginning to go out of business.

Donâ€™t let anyone ever say this couldnâ€™t have been foreseen. Itâ€™s been coming ever since that 100 year deal was announced 15 years ago.
Click to expand...

Forums

2014 - F1

Steve Administrator
Staff Member Articles Moderator

Crashton Club Coordinator

Nathan Founder

Crashton Club Coordinator

Steve Administrator
Staff Member Articles Moderator

mrntd Well-Known Member
Supporting Member

mrntd Well-Known Member
Supporting Member

ScottinBend Space Cowboy
Supporting Member

Steve Administrator
Staff Member Articles Moderator

Zapski Well-Known Member

Angib New Member

mrntd Well-Known Member
Supporting Member

Zapski Well-Known Member

Zapski Well-Known Member

Steve Administrator
Staff Member Articles Moderator

Steve Administrator
Staff Member Articles Moderator

Steve Administrator
Staff Member Articles Moderator

Zapski Well-Known Member

Zapski Well-Known Member

Steve Administrator
Staff Member Articles Moderator

Share This Page

Useful Searches

2014 - F1

Steve Administrator Staff Member Articles Moderator

Crashton Club Coordinator

Nathan Founder

Crashton Club Coordinator

Steve Administrator Staff Member Articles Moderator

mrntd Well-Known Member Supporting Member

mrntd Well-Known Member Supporting Member

ScottinBend Space Cowboy Supporting Member

Steve Administrator Staff Member Articles Moderator

Zapski Well-Known Member

Angib New Member

mrntd Well-Known Member Supporting Member

Zapski Well-Known Member

Zapski Well-Known Member

Steve Administrator Staff Member Articles Moderator

Steve Administrator Staff Member Articles Moderator

Steve Administrator Staff Member Articles Moderator

Zapski Well-Known Member

Zapski Well-Known Member

Steve Administrator Staff Member Articles Moderator

Share This Page

Steve Administrator
Staff Member Articles Moderator

Steve Administrator
Staff Member Articles Moderator

mrntd Well-Known Member
Supporting Member

mrntd Well-Known Member
Supporting Member

ScottinBend Space Cowboy
Supporting Member

Steve Administrator
Staff Member Articles Moderator

mrntd Well-Known Member
Supporting Member

Steve Administrator
Staff Member Articles Moderator

Steve Administrator
Staff Member Articles Moderator

Steve Administrator
Staff Member Articles Moderator

Steve Administrator
Staff Member Articles Moderator