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?

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?You do not understand the meaning of independent in this context.All teams are required to build or have built their own cars.A independent would be one buying from another team.Last successful one was Rob Walker around 1970.

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

Why would an independent buy one?

Cheaper to buy last years car than design a new one? Some manufacturer teams also used to sell their latest model to the likes of Rob Walker-brought in money and made sense for the buyer who knew he was getting a proven model.

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.

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.

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).

I much prefer Silk Cut's definition of an independent to chappelli's - who said an independent team had to scrape by?

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".

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.

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.

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.

That's right Bononi, and one more thng...podex perfectus es. (you are a great guy)...

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.

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.

You do not understand the meaning of independent in this context.All teams are required to build or have built their own cars.A independent would be one buying from another team.Last successful one was Rob Walker around 1970.

I think you're in the ten-ring with this. Rob Walker was (probably) the last of the rich 'gentlemen racer/owners. All that followed have been the commercialization of F1 as it evolved from sport to business. IMHO.

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.

Red Bull - (Ferarri Support and owned by billionaire)
Ferrari support. They pay for the engines. They pay for support. Like Sauber did.

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.
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.

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 :-)

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.