A slight hitch on the return trip from Barcelona means I landed in my native Manchester rather than London, where I live. My brother picked me up from the airport and I promised him a shout-out in return, so here you go Ratboy…
I’ll make the trek down south later today. I should be speaking to McLaren duo Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button in the afternoon so keep an eye out for their thoughts on the site later today. Here’s the round-up:
Links
“SGP would like to re-confirm its desire and, importantly, its ability to compete in the whole of the FIA 2010 Formula One World Championship. It recognises that this can only happen with the consent of the FIA and the FOM, but has faith that the Formula One ‘family’ will make the correct decision in the end.”
The watering down of Formula 1 (Doctorvee)
“I am all for new and privateer teams coming into F1. But it should be a proper process, and not rushed and contrived like the situation this year.”
USF1 Asks For Delay Until 2011 (Speed)
“Team principals Ken Anderson and Chad Hurley have offered to post a ‘substantial, seven-figure’ surety bond as proof of their intentions to race next year.”
Mark Webber has a new web site.
Comment of the day
Hairs has an interesting thought on why Jenson Button switched teams:
Mercedes’ variable reports about their issues and speed are a good reminder of something Button said about his move to McLaren: "I moved here because it would give me a better chance of retaining my World Title". At the time, and given his comments about being less motivated staying in the same team, most people put this down to him being energised by the new environment and having to beat Lewis – his best racing last year happened when he faced into the abyss at Brazil and had a massive gulf to fill, after all.
Facing Lewis across Lewis’ garage is a similar sort of abyss. But so far, Red Bull and Brawn (Mercedes) have had reliability problems and performance mysteries that they haven’t been able to pin down, just like last year. Jenson has seen the inside of the Brawn team for many years now – at their worst, and at their best. At their best they were world champions, but did he see in their inability to solve the tyre problems last year the limits of the team’s abilities, even under Ross? Whereas across the paddock McLaren were grinding away at a much worse car, and solving problems on a weekly basis.
I think Schumacher is going to find his new team are lacking the instinct that Ferrari under Todt and McLaren have of getting the most out of all parts of the F1 operation. And perhaps that’s also why Davidson’s test role wasn’t renewed.
Hairs
Happy birthday!
Happy birthday to Jose Arellano!
On this day in F1
Shadow started their last Grand Prix at Kyalami in South Africa 30 years ago today. The team attended the four races after it but drivers Dave Kennedy and Geoff Lees were unable to qualify for either of them.
They are best remembered for the row which began when several of their staff including designer Tony Southgate left to form the new Arrows team in 1978. Shadow took their rivals to court claiming the new Arrows A1 designed by Southgate infringed on Shadow’s copyright. The high court agreed, forcing Arrows to change their design.
Shadow disappeared in 1980 but Arrows kept going until 2002. However, while Shadow can lay claim to a single Grand Prix victory – Alan Jones’s at the Osterreichring in 1977 – Arrows amassed 291 starts without winning a single race. Only Minardi managed to log more Grand Prix starts without ever winning one.
S Hughes
1st March 2010, 0:28
Looking forward to your interview with Lewis. Say hello to him from me – one of his thousands of ardent fans.
sato113
1st March 2010, 0:38
where’s the pictures from 28th feb test?
sato113
1st March 2010, 0:44
nevermind! it just popped up.
rfs
1st March 2010, 0:39
Just saw this in doctorvee’s article:
“Motorsport journalist Nigel Roebuck recounts a meeting with Max Mosley:
He did actually say at one point — and he meant it, he wasn’t being facetious — we were talking about the spectators and he said, “Would they miss the noise, Nigel, do you think?”
I couldn’t believe he was asking the question. I said, “Max, the noise is half of it.”
And then he said, “I always find when I’m watching the race on television, the engine noise is such a distraction. I can’t hear what the commentator’s saying sometimes.”
And he wasn’t being facetious. It did strike me then — it does worry me. You know, “you and Bernie are the most powerful people in motor racing, and you’re not actually sure of the answer to that question. In which case, you’ve missed the point entirely.””
Oh dear.
Icthyes
1st March 2010, 0:47
Lunatics, asylum
Patrickl
1st March 2010, 10:09
Several times I’ve been able to find one of these clean FIA feeds with no commentary over it yet. Those are just absolute bliss. All you hear is the sound of the cars and the occasional radio message.
Of course the sound of the cars on the track is a lot more impressive. If not painful at times :)
Red Andy
1st March 2010, 11:51
To be fair to Max, he did say on a few occasions that if F1 were to change the engine formula, they would have to make sure that they still sounded similar to how they do now. Obviously he took what Roebuck said on board.
Icthyes
1st March 2010, 0:49
The delay until next year for USF1 is the only sensible way to go. It’s a shame that they’ll then end up being a year behind everyone else, as they don’t have the finances Zoran Stefanovic does, who a month or two ago claimed the team would test throughout 2010 if it did not get a spot on the grid.
I think USF1 will end up kicking themselves they haven’t merged with Stefan or Campos, that is assuming they ever get onto the grid.
steph
1st March 2010, 9:09
I don’t really see the point in a merger if I’m honest. USF1 don’t have that many funds now nor much of a car and their in Charlotte. A merger might be good for them but the only team it may possibly benefit is Stefan GP so they can try to buy their win into a slot.
steph
1st March 2010, 9:10
Scratch that I meant they will ahve funds because of Hurley but they need more than just him if they want longevity
manatcna
1st March 2010, 1:20
If they couldn’t make it this year, why would they think 2011 will be any different?
sato113
1st March 2010, 8:46
they would have built the car.
LAK
1st March 2010, 2:56
Very exciting that you’ll interview JB & Lewis! :D Hope you have a memorable chat!
DC
1st March 2010, 6:07
“Team principal Chad Hurley”
What? Since when did he become a principal? I thought he was just the prime investor. Is Windsor out?
Prisoner Monkeys
1st March 2010, 7:55
If Hurley is bailing them out like this, it makes sense for him to be a team principal. He takes on a lot more liability within the team if things go bacdly, but at the same time he gets a lot more control.
DC
1st March 2010, 8:03
Investors tend to stick with losers and throw good money after bad in the hopes they will finally get a return. If these reports are accurate, I get the feeling Hurley is doing exactly this.
dsob
1st March 2010, 13:12
It may make sense for Hurley to become a team principal, but where was the official announcement? Did I miss it? Or did Speed tV overstep themselves in their report?
Ned Flanders
1st March 2010, 13:25
Does Chad Hurley really want to be an F1 team principal? I doubt it. I bet he seriously regrets getting involved in this team now
Prisoner Monkeys
1st March 2010, 7:54
I wonder how the FIA is going to respond to this. First USF1 wanted to miss four races without any significant fines. Now they want miss all nineteen races, not be subject to any fines due to their lack of racing this season, and have the FIA hold their spot by paying what looks suspiciously like a bribe. It just keeps getting more and more pathetic.
maciek
1st March 2010, 8:23
Pathetic – unfortunately, yes. Bribe – not so much; a bond is basically a refundable deposit you leave as guarantee that you’ll be back.
If they have secured Hurley’s backing now, and it seems that way, and they have a whole year to prepare a car with big money in place, than it makes all the sense in the world that they want to retain the guarantee of a spot next year. Which doesn’t mean it’s ‘good’ or ‘right’, just that it makes sense for them. Actually I’m guessing that Hurley will pour the money in when, and only when, there is a guarantee that they’ll have a spot next year.
Anyhoo, yes it’s all bad, ridiculous and ludicrous joke but ultimately I think blame is with the FIA for their handling of the whole process since last year.
dsob
1st March 2010, 13:29
Well certainly FiA needs to tweak their application and selection process. I’m getting old and memory fails me…when last did FiA have open applications like this? I know it’s been a while. Seems they forgot how to do it properly.
On the other hand, even had they selected the absolute best teams, changing up the regulations and such thru late September(or even later?) hardly gives any new team the best chance at success, as they, in most cases, simply don’t have the depth of resources to cope with such changes, unlike established teams which can be a bit more flexible.
Even with more depth and flexibility, look how many established teams got caught out on the 2009 season, due to late changes and unclear rules.
I agree with the view that FiA needs to solidify the rules for any season well in advance and then stick with it. This would give much needed stability in F1, something we have not seen for many a year. Far too long did Mosley change things up, seemingly on a whim at times, and leave everyone swinging in the wind.
maciek
1st March 2010, 16:43
Well put.
Calum
1st March 2010, 8:04
In his F3000 days Lewis Hamilton raced for Manor Motorsports. Is this the same Manor that was supposed to be in F1 this year, before the name of the team was changed to Virgin F1?
Hairs
1st March 2010, 8:27
Yes it is.
BasCB
1st March 2010, 8:34
Yes, that is exactly the same Manor and running the team is John Booth.
This does give hime some credibility for running the team, doesn’t it?
Tim
1st March 2010, 8:41
Lewis Hamilton never raced in F3000 – that series wound up at the end of 2004 and was replaced by GP2.
Hamilton did, however, race for Manor in Formula Renault and his first year in the F3 Euroseries. He switched to the dominant ART (then ASM) team for his second, title-winning year in 2005 and stayed with the team in GP2.
Manor is the team running Virgin GP – John Booth is team principal of both.
Calum
1st March 2010, 16:47
I meant Formula 3, years 2003,04&05
GeeMac
1st March 2010, 8:15
“However, while Shadow can lay claim to a single Grand Prix victory – Alan Jones’s at the Osterreichring in 1977 – Arrows amassed 291 starts without winning a single race. Only Minardi managed to log more Grand Prix starts without ever winning one.”
Minardi never came as close to winning as Arrows did though, remember Hungary 1997 when Damon Hill would have won but for a mechanical problem in the last few laps? His pass on MS’s Ferrari still gives me goose bumps when I see it!
Leon
1st March 2010, 8:47
I hate to say this with my record of almost total
disapproval of Ecclestone and his malodorous FOM/CVC
bloodsuckers but on the subject of USF1 he’s been
telling us the truth for months. He told us
unequivocally in December that USF1 were’t going to
make the grid in 2010 and instead switched his
considerable powers to influence F1 events to the
cause of Stefan GP.
USF1 would have been very good for F1 simply
because it would have helped modify negative sentiment
most motorsport fans in the US feel towards F1.
But the writing is on the wall.
And FIA now has some very stingy political nettles
to grasp. FIA will appear to be utterly out of
touch and lacking any backbone if the do not, quietly
but firmly, tell USF1 to go away and come back only when they’ve got a bullet-proof 3 year business
plan and can show they are capable of hitting the
ground running. Neither of which conditions appear
to have been evidence from the day they gained FIA
approval.
F1Yankee
1st March 2010, 9:33
“…negative sentiment
most motorsport fans in the US feel towards F1.”
i’m 100% sure you’ve got that backwards.
maciek
1st March 2010, 10:02
“FIA will appear to be utterly out of
touch and lacking any backbone if the do not, quietly
but firmly, tell USF1 to go away and come back only when they’ve got a bullet-proof 3 year business
plan and can show they are capable of hitting the
ground running”
Yeah, but that should apply to Campos as well, and to Stefan GP, and to any and all new teams – not just USF1.
dsob
1st March 2010, 13:50
Yup, uh huh. What he said.
Pete
1st March 2010, 13:22
I’ve become more convinced that the entry selection interview went like this: “Will you buy Cosworth engines?”
dsob
1st March 2010, 13:52
Oh, my………HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA… .. oh my yes. I’m beginning to think the same thing
roflmao
Plink Plonk Plunk
1st March 2010, 9:35
Whats the deal with Campos? I thought since Adrian was bought out their new investor was gonna turn things about and things were ok. Now I’m quietly seeing that they too wont make it this year. Or is it just Bahrain?
Patrickl
1st March 2010, 10:23
I hope they give USF1 that extension. I doubt they will, but still.
I don’t agree with much of that DoctorVee article, but I do agree with the title in the sense that new teams shouldn’t be rushed so much. If they want, give them a year to prepare and get a good car ready. Not fling something together and have hydraulic fluids leaking all over the place.
USF1 really seem to want to be in it for the long haul. They got the deal, let FIA accept that they ran into some trouble and see it through.
BasCB
1st March 2010, 10:33
I suppose, that I agree with you.
Especially as the budget cap and technical regulations changed constantly up to about September, making it hard to really get things done in time.
On the other hand, Lola already had something prepared before even making their bid and Manor/Virgin did serious design work on the car before they were granted an entry.
USF1 does have some serious management issues to address, as well as get the money on the table.
Yes, give them a year to sort it out, have a car ready to test maybe come November (testing with rookies). They should be bound to the testing limits (max. 15.000 km and some full 20 days) unto the start of the 2011 season.
Then they can take on the other teams on track with the disadvantage of being new to it.
But what to do with StefanGP? I would like Villeneuve on the grid, and the Toyota built car etc. But does he have the capacity to make it in the long run?
Pete
1st March 2010, 13:25
I agree. I want to see USF1 do what USF1 said it was going to do. Mainly be a platform to showcase US Formula 1 technology and US native (if not born) drivers. Sadly, with the current leadership at the team, I don’t think this can happen even if they get a year to work on it.
dsob
1st March 2010, 13:45
As to Manor doing serious design work even before gaining an approved entry—an engineer proficient in computational fluid dynamics, the necessary software, a computer and the electricity to run it doesn’t really cost that much. They could do what appears to be tons of design work for almost no money.
But I do agree with your point that USF1 has serious management issues. Obviously neither Windsor nor Anderson have any real organizational or administrative skills. Despite Anderson’s admittedly impressive resume in motorsport, and Windsor’s knowledge of F1, neither seemed to have what it takes to dot all the “i”s and cross all the “t”s.
As to giving them a year to sort it out, I must say I disagree. They should have had their structure sorted before making an entry. Their poor business planning should not keep another more capable team from making the grid.
As to StefanGP..did they not withdraw their entry before the selection process was completed? Let them wait until FiA opens up applications again, say I. Just as I think USF1 should be required to forfeit their entry and wait for another time.
This is big business, not kindergarten. They need to do it right, or not do it at all.
BasCB
1st March 2010, 14:02
Today I read an article http://adamcooperf1.com/2010/03/01/us-f1-had-signed-rossiter-as-well-as-lopez-but-still-the-sums-didnt-add-up/ , claiming Rossiter had allready been signed to them as early as December as well, bringing another 8 milion $!
That, combined with what the “insider” claimed (designs being on Andersons table from September/October and not being worked on) looks really unbelievable to me.
So they had designs in the autumn, 2 drivers with serious money signed in December/January but still didn’t get things going.
If Hurley can really get this going, he is an exceptionally good manager, fully worthy of being on the Grid!
It is hard to believe, that will happen though, so I am getting very close to agreeing with you.
dsob
1st March 2010, 14:15
I’m sorry, but I just don’t consider Cooper a good reporter. “Sources clain”…”it is widely reported” … “it is said” … okay, WHAT is the source, WHO reported it, WHO said it ???
This is all stuff of yellow journalism. I trust it at the same level as I trust my ex-wife when she calls and says “no no really there’s nothing, I just want to talk”. Yeah.
Strangely enough, though, his reports do seem to be close to the mark on this subject.
But if Hurley really wanted an F1 team to play with, like Branson bought himself, one has to think Hurley would have put in the necessary funds or simply bought out Windsor/Anderson long before this. So I wonder if he can, or is even willing to, rescue the effort now with an infusion of cash.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
1st March 2010, 14:31
I don’t agree – sometimes it’s necessary to keep sources secret. Indeed, sometimes you can’t even disclose if you have a source or not.
Of course if someone attributes a bunch of stuff to an anonymous source and it turns out to be bogus, that’s a different matter.
PJA
1st March 2010, 12:18
Ideally I would have the F1 rules signed off a year before the start of the season they apply to and no major changes to the rules, such as engine size, for a few years, and any new teams would be granted their place a year in advance as well.
So they would have a year to get ready under stable regulations, not what happened last year with the new teams applying to enter F1 under the budget cap and then finding out there would be no cap.
With the current restrictions in testing I would give new teams extra testing time.
I would then have a deadline day, say a month before the start of the new season when they would have to have a car ready to race so we aren’t faced with the current situation of not knowing which teams will line up on the grid for the first race.
dsob
1st March 2010, 14:03
We know for certain 11 teams will line up. Considering that F1 ran for years with just 10 teams, 11 would seem to be quite enough.
While I’d like to see 13 teams and a 26-car grid again, it isn’t an absolute necessity. So the question of who will line up really is already answered, and who might fill grid slots 23 thru 26 at this point is moot. It really doesn’t matter.
OMG, I’m starting to sound like Bernie. Oh dear, you don’t suppose he might be right about some of these things, do you?
Plink Plonk Plunk
1st March 2010, 15:28
Nobody wanted USF1 to succeed more than me. But come on. They had 2 drivers both bringing $8m each, Hurley’s $, been working on the team for years and this is what were left with.
Something is just way too wrong here. Like I said, I wanted them to succeed but I dont agree with letting them bond for 2010 and come back next year. Im a man that always honors my commitments and when I cant, I expect reprocussions. I think the FIA should send USF1 packing.
Although F1 fanatics around the world know USF1 isn’t a purely USA team, most people around the world dont. Certainly the casual or non-fan doesnt know this. USF1 has really screwed the pootch on this one.
LewisC
1st March 2010, 10:57
Hang on… if USF1 have got seven figures to put up a surety bond, why the hell didn’t they spend that money on, I don’t know, maybe building a damn car?
steph
1st March 2010, 12:37
True but there has been a period where everything just seemed to come to a halt for them. If decisive action was taken sooner and funds obtained then maybe this could be different. However, now they’re massively behind schedule and there’s no way a car would be built in time meaning that they would miss the races anyway and possibly lose their grid spot anyway. Money is just being ploughed in to try and salvage something.
Plink Plonk Plunk
1st March 2010, 15:42
‘Hang on… if USF1 have got seven figures to put up a surety bond, why the hell didn’t they spend that money on, I don’t know, maybe building a damn car?’
A valid point in theory. However, I think thay actually had plenty of money at some point. $16m in paid drivers, plus Hurley’s money and the odd sponsors. So I dont think having enough cash was their initial problem.
I believe that what killed the team is that they just wern’t organised enough. That article from the insider saying Anderson did approve things for months.
It looks like once their lack of organisation finaly caught up to them that is when they had financial problems as the people backing their 2 paid drivers said ‘wait a minute, your way behind schedule’. So they witheld their payments. Then USF1 struggled with money.
I suspect there was enough cash, at minimum promised to the team, from sponsors and the drivers. It all fell apart when they got behind schedule and the cash stoped comming in.
Too bad really.
Kanyima
1st March 2010, 11:10
Maciek, could you repost that video if you have the link please?
I remember seeing it but couldn’t watch it on my Blackberry. I thought I would catch it later but forgot which thread it is under.
Anyone remember this back in the day?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHVv8uz_n78
maciek
1st March 2010, 11:24
@Kanyima
the reply button seems to be glitchy – the video’s here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPqm7RjgtVY&feature=player_embedded
Kanyima
1st March 2010, 21:22
Cheers, dude.
Hilarious!!!
Ed
1st March 2010, 13:01
Not sure if you saw it or not, but Webber now has a Twitter feed, as advertised on his website
http://twitter.com/aussiegrit
Oliver
1st March 2010, 13:20
I think Button’s move to Mclaren was because of their Pedigree.
As for USF1’a bond, well it will be a bad precedent as bonds have already been done away with, besides there were other qualified entries at the time USF1’s entry was chosen, so it is only logical that another team be given the slot. Painful as it is, they have to go and try again maybe in 5years time.
BasCB
1st March 2010, 14:21
This sounds something alike the 1997 Lola Mastercard, in a twisted form. Lola wanted to enter 1 year later, but their sponsor wanted to be faster.
USF1 had to enter this year, but their plans got mixed up and now they are thinking of joining next year!
Bring on the applicants for an entry next year (USF1, StefanGP, Lola, Espilon Euskali – or whatever they are called, maybe even Prodrive and others as well).
– No “have to buy cosworth” backroom deals
– information on the “how to run this” part
– financial prognosis and planning
– leave the rules as they are as bidding starts.
– references / experience and preferably connection with established teams in lower disciplines for driver development.
dsob
1st March 2010, 14:28
Commenting on the Comment of the Day:
I agree with most of what Hairs had to say.
But I believe Button’s move to McLaren was less a move TO McLaren and more a move AWAY from Brawn…and for all the reasons Hairs mentioned.
But McLaren weren’t the only team to steadily improve their cars throughout the season.
I believe that if Red Bull had offered Button a seat, he would have gone there as well, and teamed with Vettel.
I also believe that if the season had been three races or so longer, we would have a different WDC, and we’d all be singing Deutschland Uber Alles.
Peter
1st March 2010, 14:58
All this issues of teams that wnat to enter F1 could be fixed by 1 new rule: If you want to enter F1 season you must be present at the final test session before the season. Tyre manufacturer should provide every team present during that session.
This way Steafn could have tested and entered. USF1 and Campos could have avoided so much media attention by just showing up (or not).
In the ten things to look forward too there is the last item of less political issues. But Stefan GP entry, USF1 and Campos non entry is already a huge political issue.
Lee
1st March 2010, 15:00
Just seen that RBR have been puting stickers on rear bodywork of car to disguise where exhaust exits really are on their car. They are only team to have the exits on the floor of the car, another Newey masterstoke?
inc0mmunicado
1st March 2010, 18:42
This totally one-ups Ferrari putting up those barricades in front of the McLaren observers! How will this affect the diffusers?
rampante
1st March 2010, 15:26
Off topic here but I thought I would post this link to the Retro motor show in Torino. I know ‘s in Italian but the images more than speak for themselves.
http://www.blogf1.it/2010/03/01/automotoretro-di-torino-il-nostro-reportage/
steph90
1st March 2010, 15:50
Thank you very much for the link Rampante. Some very beautiful images and cars there. I’m in awe of what the drivers had to cope with even just a decade or so ago when it was much more dangerous.
I like how it is in Italy and on an Italian site too. It’s more fitting. Mind when I was visiting Rome for the first time I bought an Italian book despite not being able to understand any of it. I liked having a tiny bit of the culture even if my parents thought I was mad!
steph
1st March 2010, 19:51
I’m hoping you check your replies Rampante as you are the only one I can think of who may know this.
Anyway, I’ve been wondering when and why did Ferrari lose the yellow team uniforms? I remember Todt at Spa 98 in a yellow jacket with a stopwatch or pad or something in his hand…I think.
I apologise for my ignorance, this was bbefore I really started paying attention to F1 but I still should know.
rampante
1st March 2010, 21:40
Steph, The yellow uniforms have been used at various times in the Ferrari history. I think but not 100% sure that they stoped in 1999. They also used them in the late 60’s and mid 50’s. The full red only really came with the huge phillip morris cash when the red of the car changed closer to the malboro colours. They sill have the Scuderia rosso and rosso corsa(malboro) on road cars. Hope that helps.
rampante
1st March 2010, 21:46
The yellow comes from the original badge and is known as giallo(yellow) fly.
steph
1st March 2010, 22:07
Thanks Rampante. That has been a wonderful help and a nice education :D
Dougie
1st March 2010, 16:58
Ken Anderson back in June 2009 – “Everyone here at US F1 Team is honored to have been granted entry into the FIA Formula One World Championship,” said Team Principal Ken Anderson. “Peter Windsor and I have been working on this project day-in and day-out for much of the last two and a half years and we’re just humbled and completely honored to have been chosen as one of only three new teams for 2010.”
Quoted from their own website … http://www.usgpe.com/news/us-f1-team-granted-entry-into-2010-fia-formula-one-world-championship.html
I say… if they’ve been planning this now for well over 3 years, and Lotus have shown what can be done in less than 6 months, what difference is another year going to make… Game over!
USF1, you’ve had your chance, move over and let someone else in.
Salty
1st March 2010, 20:36
Totally agree. Very sad blah, blah, blah, but really, complete mismanagement. Why should anyone expect any better were they offered a slot for 2011. There is no way they are going to get any serious financial support for 2011 now anyway.
BBC is reporting on Eddie Jordan’s latest sounding off.
http://bit.ly/9Pb6PD
Love him or hate him, EJ was right about Schumacher’s comeback way before anyone else. Anyway, he says StefanF1 WILL be at Bahrain and JV will be in one race seat with a pay driver taking up the second slot. A fifth World Champ in 2010 then? Just about anything seems possible this season. Bring back Hakkinen I say ;)
Chaz
3rd March 2010, 18:55
Oh dear more USF1 bad news…