|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
2 Mar 2010, 02:54 (Ref:2643079) | #926 | |||||
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 46
|
Quote:
Quote:
And really, we're getting far afield from my basic point, which is simply this: people are acting as if Lola or Prodrive were somehow much more dependable choices than USF1. The fact remains, both teams were previously awarded entries and neither group successfully made it to the grid. Quote:
|
|||||
|
2 Mar 2010, 03:11 (Ref:2643085) | #927 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,761
|
||
|
2 Mar 2010, 03:30 (Ref:2643092) | #928 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,143
|
Quote:
http://www.f1rejects.com/teams/lola/profile.html |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
2 Mar 2010, 03:45 (Ref:2643096) | #929 | |||||
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 46
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
|
2 Mar 2010, 03:59 (Ref:2643101) | #930 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,143
|
Quote:
"But despite all this reference to wind tunnel work, the amazing thing was that the T97/30 never actually saw a wind tunnel - there was just not the time." , or this bit, "In addition, there were gremlins with the gearbox, but the biggest problem lay with the aerodynamics. The car just could not generate enough mechanical or aerodynamic grip, and could therefore not get the tyres up to temperature. Amazingly, the drivers reported that the car had too much drag in a straight line, compromising their top speed, but the same package then in turn could not generate enough downforce going through the turns, thereby compromising cornering speed as well. The T97/30 was fundamentally flawed, and the lack of wind-tunnel time had made it even more of a joke. That's why MasterCard pulled out because thanks to them the car was a complete lemon due to no wind tunnel testing. |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
2 Mar 2010, 04:16 (Ref:2643108) | #931 | |||
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 46
|
Quote:
1) The sponsorship wasn't providing an adequate budget in the first place. The team collapsed under debt after one round of the championship. 2) You are arguing against a point I never made. Again, here is my point: Lola had an entry and couldn't make the grid. You can make all the excuses for them that you want, and the excuses are generally quite legitimate. The reality remains: Lola and Prodrive have both had entries and failed to make the grid. There is nothing in Lola's previous failure to make the grid that tells me they were a great bet to make it in 2010. |
|||
|
2 Mar 2010, 04:21 (Ref:2643110) | #932 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,143
|
Lola got the car to Australia a year earlier than planned and is just wasn't competative, due to no time for wind tunnel testing. USF1 haven't even got a car, just an incomplete chassis like the Falcon Indy Car project, that was also overseen by Ken Anderson.
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
2 Mar 2010, 04:41 (Ref:2643112) | #933 | |||
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 46
|
Quote:
USF1 consists of a rented building, a tub that may be left over from an IndyCar failure, and a few guys who may or may not be building a toaster. The FIA looked at proposals from both teams and decided USF1 looked better. |
|||
|
2 Mar 2010, 04:50 (Ref:2643119) | #934 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,143
|
I'm not arguing about Lola being passed over in favor of USF1, I was merely pointing out that Lola's previous failure was down to the timetable being changed and thus no wind tunnel testing; the result a non competative car. Your argument for their failure was there was no sponsor money/the sponsor pulling out, you never included any of the other factors.
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
2 Mar 2010, 05:04 (Ref:2643121) | #935 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,760
|
Use Thursdays.
Two practice sessions. Fastest 26 drivers are allowed to take part in the rest of the weekend (although each team can only have two drivers progress: the team can decide which two progress). Each team can run as many drivers as they wish in these sessions, but only two chassis may be used. I know the CA makes it impossible, and all that, but it is all so simple. All the problems of whether a team is able to compete, or what not, are defined by natural selection. They are either able to get in or they are not. Last edited by Dutton; 2 Mar 2010 at 05:15. |
||
__________________
"The world is my country, and science is my religion." - Christian Huygens: 17th century Dutch astronomer. |
2 Mar 2010, 06:04 (Ref:2643141) | #936 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 924
|
i really was hoping for a strong USF1 team, and was genuinely pleased when they were awarded the entry slot to this year's championship.
However, i now wish the FIA would pull the pin on this entry and award it to Stefan GP. as soon as possible. there is nothing unique about USF1's position this year - with a sponsor supposedly pulling out (let's call them ScapegoatCorp), and there is no guarantee that (should the FIA grant a 1 year extension) the same thing wouldnt occur next year as well... and what do we do then? grant another year? Simply put, the failings do not all lie at the feet of ScapegoatCorp... There is no car, as far as i know (correct if wrong) the basic crash tests have not been satisfied, they have reportedly lied to their driver lineup about their advancement, and the wheels have totally fallen off the organisation. Either through poor planning, poor management or poor direction, they have nothing to show. this is not solely a sponsor failing, there are obviously major flaws elsewhere in this outfit. They're not just short of money, they've got no car, they've got no engines, they've got no drivers anymore. There's very little to salvage... i wonder if anyone knows the terms of the contract USF1 have with the FIA for their entry, and what constitutes grounds for termination of that contract? Do they have to wait until USF1 dont show for 3 races? Do USF1 have to denounce their entry? I'm guessing the FIA have to be careful of their grounds for terminating the contract, as they dont want to trigger an exit for Campos as well, who are reportedly back on track to racing this year, but may miss the first race. |
||
|
2 Mar 2010, 06:09 (Ref:2643144) | #937 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,607
|
What proof do we have though that StefanGP can have an entry for 2011? What's their pedigree?
|
||
|
2 Mar 2010, 06:12 (Ref:2643146) | #938 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,760
|
I am sure the FIA will have a catch-all get-out clause which allows them to terminate the entry at their discretion, should they so desire. I am sure they have the same for allowing entries.
I admit wholeheartedly I am assuming the above, but I would be very surprised if reality was different. In the same way governments have such a clause in any Acts they enact. Using the clause could, indeed likely would, cause a huge PR nightmare, so, well, they rarely (if ever) do, but the clause(s) exist... |
||
__________________
"The world is my country, and science is my religion." - Christian Huygens: 17th century Dutch astronomer. |
2 Mar 2010, 08:46 (Ref:2643193) | #939 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,986
|
Quote:
The principals involved with Lola today have nothing to do with those involved in Lola 13 years ago. If Lola's failure back then predicated its chances of a place on the 2010 grid, that would be very bizarre indeed... and would lead me to draw serious question marks over the FIA 'evaluation process' for prospective teams. |
||
|
2 Mar 2010, 09:12 (Ref:2643202) | #940 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 115
|
Quote:
|
||
|
2 Mar 2010, 09:48 (Ref:2643212) | #941 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 162
|
I guess the FIA and maybe Ecclestone/FOM wanted an American team to increase awareness in the US. imo they didn't look at heritage or racing pedegree at all.
|
||
__________________
<blank> |
2 Mar 2010, 10:01 (Ref:2643215) | #942 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 15,697
|
I thought I actually read somewhere a while back that Lola actually got as far down the road as designing and building a tub by Autumn, before their entry was snubbed. Now that's a damn sight further than any of the lot we've got now managed to do at that stage.
|
||
__________________
"Double Kidney Guv'nah?" "No thanks George they're still wavin a white flag!" |
2 Mar 2010, 10:21 (Ref:2643216) | #943 | |||
Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 94
|
If memory serves me correctly, I think Martin Birrane did take on some of the debts. and I do believe, like yourself that Lola is a far better bet than USF1
John Quote:
|
|||
|
2 Mar 2010, 11:05 (Ref:2643225) | #944 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,097
|
Now that it's clear that "Team Falcon" a/k/a USF1 are going to pull another Falcon i.e. don't make it to the races due to not having a car, why don't they just withdraw quietly? They won't get any TV money if they don't show up anyway so they cannot pay that to there creditors. Effectively, there is no use in staying in the series apart from further bad publicity.
Looking at it now, it is surprising that the FIA neither allowed in ProDrive (who had the sponsors but not the car and a track record of already not showing up once) nor Lola (who already had almost a car of their own, but no funding and a track record of early withdrawal when former owner Eric Broadley's credit card limit was reached at their previous attempt). Dave Richards could have assembled the people to build him a car with more ease than USF1 because he knows the technical people from his previous involvements in the series and ProDrive are based in GB. Dubai's troubles with the financial crisis may not have helped this team, though. And Lola, they would have been a better bet than Campos because even if they would still have no sponsorship in place, at least they wouldn't have to buy their car but had built it in house. Colin Kolles has reportedly said that there was nothing in the Campos Meta garage. Sure, the perspective of having US American involvement in F1 again was tempting for the FIA. But Anderson didn't turn out to be a Revson, to say the least. |
|
|
2 Mar 2010, 12:21 (Ref:2643244) | #945 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,742
|
Quote:
Of course Lola were a better prospect than US F1, that was easily apparent from the outset. I just think it was more than being the best team - they couldn't just include 3 new British teams because the teams from other countries would accuse Mosley of being biased towards the Brits |
|||
__________________
F1 fans - over-reacting about everything since forever |
2 Mar 2010, 12:37 (Ref:2643248) | #946 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,147
|
I think what people have to remember is that Prodrive were indeed awarded a grid slot for 2008, they then had their plans scuppered by indecision over the direction of chassis rules. I believe their original plan was to use a customer chassis for the first 1-2 years before switching over to constructing their own in the 3rd year.
However, back to my original point. Prodrive were awarded a slot on the grid, so therefore the FIA must have deemed them a "fit and worthy" candidate for F1, so when they re-applied in 2009 and they were turned down, that effectively meant that USF1, Campos and Manor were all better options than a team that had already been granted an entry 2 years earlier... |
||
|
2 Mar 2010, 12:45 (Ref:2643253) | #947 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,742
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
F1 fans - over-reacting about everything since forever |
2 Mar 2010, 12:51 (Ref:2643263) | #948 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 115
|
Quote:
|
||
|
2 Mar 2010, 12:57 (Ref:2643268) | #949 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,742
|
The stupid thing is the best non-British bid (and arguably the best bid of all from a facilities and team members POV) was seemingly rejected because of the engine in the back. But then that was the political situation of the time
|
||
__________________
F1 fans - over-reacting about everything since forever |
2 Mar 2010, 13:10 (Ref:2643275) | #950 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,147
|
Quote:
Again, the new 2010 teams had their "goalposts" moved also by the FIA when the budget cap was scrapped. So in both instances, the 2008 entry and the 2010 had the rules for entry blurred by the governing body and FOTA. |
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
US F1, Campos Grand Prix and Manor F1 - The silence is deafening | Wrex | Formula One | 289 | 13 Oct 2009 01:11 |
late 1949 F1 GPs & TATRA's F1 Cars | hyphen | Motorsport History | 21 | 12 Jan 2003 13:10 |
F1 2000 versus F1 '97 (Championship Edition) | Minardi fan | Virtual Racers | 7 | 26 Jun 2000 23:33 |