Toyota boss says F1 in very good shape

...<snip>....Howett also reckons the sport is very strong financially despite Super Aguri's demise.

"Obviously the loss of Super Aguri was a shame but in general Formula One is commercially very strong; we have some of the biggest corporations in the world involved and the global reach is greater than all other sporting events, with the exception of quadrennial events such as World Cup football and the Olympics," he added.

"Formula One may not be perfect, it certainly can be improved, but it has plenty of reasons to be positive. Perhaps more focus should be placed on this."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67466

When one looks at CART and Champ Car, in the days when they had Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, Ford all battling each other as suppliers to privateers, it was vibrant. When they went down to the single manufacturer Ford engines, it just was a symptom of a declining series.


I enjoyed the days when manufacturers supplied engines to privateers in F1. It was a boutique specialist series with Ferrari really being the sole "factory" team having their own complete chassis, aero, and engine.

Although nostalgic, I don't think we'll ever go back to that Golden era and Pandora's Box has been opened with the horse having left the barn.

Manufacturer teams with their own complete cars have become the majority rather than the rare instance.

I don't know what "partnerships" can arise between manufacturers and privateers but we see Williams and RBR putting up a good template on how to survive.

The criteria to build your own chassis from scratch is what will scare privateers out in terms of cost development and need for expertise.

You can't just parachute in and hang a shingle and race.

If we are to have privateers, then there has to be a "loophole" or compromise from Williams' and Kolles hard stance on customer cars in that chassis criteria - perhaps there can be a middle ground for that ?

hairy_scotsman - 16 May 2008 11:49 AM

Keeptobaccoinf1 - 16 May 2008 11:44 AM

hairy_scotsman - 16 May 2008 11:29 AM

With cost-control being a bit of an oxymoron,(Teams with money will spend it..I've heard Steve Matchett elaborate on this and I agree) and the current environment of not allowing customer cars, only the teams that have the F1 infrastructure of manufacturing a car will be in F1. And the only way someone new (VW, Porsche-Audi) will come in, is to take over and existing team. This doesnt allow for expansion of F1 teams, but merely a zero-sum game of contestants.

Sounds pretty ominous.

Think about it, There are only 7-9 facilities worldwide that are capabile of manufacturing a F1 car. Some of those are dependent on having engines supplied to them. And a new team having to invest all that money into a infrastructure, even if they came out with a well performing car, would not recoup those costs for 10yrs or more. Its just to expensive to startup like that, therefore, the only realisitc way to get in is to take over an existing facility. Thus, limiting the number of teams..unless the demand for such facilities reaches a point where building a new facility can be a viable alternative to the "market rate" for an existing one....

Yes. Sounds very ominous. Seriously.

Sounds to me like the clock is ticking for the series.

Is that an overreaction?

I realize that it's possible that all of these facilities could keep changing hands and continue running into the future...but what are the odds?

Excellent post -- How long can this high-wire act continue at these prices? We've weathered (for now..) threats from Carlos Ghosen that Renault may pull out of F1, if costs cannot be justified (these very threats may have been partially responsible for Alonso scurrying off to Mclaren.) Recent threats to Toyota F1 from the motherland Factory. Once agin.. how long can F1 continue this high wire act; When American Racing's recent past has shown that the manufacterer's can be fickle. Not only CART but Nascar. This is the reason that Nascar has the COT car; to guard against the exodus of the manufacterer's --(happened to Nascar once already) When the Carmakers either get 'bored' or a racing series no longer serves their interest or the interest of the latest CEO. In my opinon. The best sport has always been modeled not after 'Battle of the Titans '-- although interesting -- even more intersting is The model of David vs. Goliath.

Go RedBull/ STR!

Man, does Nick Fry enjoy rubbing salt in wounds or what? Just my opinion --But this guy didn't waste any time in revealing his true agenda? Did he? And I must say, (at least it is my opionion once again)-- that these recent comments make it appear as if he was likely complicite in the demise of Super Aguri. (at least being in accord with their financial orphanage, and subsequent whitering on the vine).
Doesn't sound as if he were very sympathetic to their plight at all, now does it?

Mach5m - 17 May 2008 12:40 AM

Man, does Nick Fry enjoy rubbing salt in wounds or what? Just my opinion --But this guy didn't waste any time in revealing his true agenda? Did he? And I must say, (at least it is my opionion once again)-- that these recent comments make it appear as if he was likely complicite in the demise of Super Aguri. (at least being in accord with their financial orphanage, and subsequent whitering on the vine).
Doesn't sound as if he were very sympathetic to their plight at all, now does it?

Yea he appears goofy but he's really coming of as a snake within the press.

bythebay - 16 May 2008 06:50 AM

r60man - 16 May 2008 06:06 AM

Here is a stupid question. Is there a rule that limits teams to 2 cars? I mean if Red Bull wanted to field 4 cars instead of two and dissolve Toro Rosso could they do that legally?

Just asking.

2 cars per team unless the field count drops too low and then the Concorde Agreement kicks in to cause teams to field a 3rd car. I say, eliminate the 2 car/team rule and make it 3/team

that would make it even harder and more expensive for new teams to be lured into the sport though. why should toyota only spend 300 million a year when they can field a 3 car team and spend 450 million? the problem with F1 is the money. the sport had a "limitless" development guideline for so long when it came to spending money and using parts. if you wanted to replace an engine after every practice and qualifying you could. you can see how that would add up. the same can be said for a 3rd car. some teams have had rumors flowting around about leaving the sport for a few years now (honda, toyota) but they are both japanese companies and its a double edged sword. stay in and wait for the other to pull out to say you win, or leave and save your money. forcing teams to spend more when they arent even a top finishing team just means MORE bad results for the money. i would like the FIA to create some sort of entrance package to help new teams out if they decide to join. perhaps no 2 week engine and transmission rule for a team their first season, as well as their fees cut in half the first 2 seasons to help assure them they are wanted there and to give them the time to develop without throwing money away to do so.

stefmeister - 16 May 2008 10:16 AM

I completely disagree with Nick Fry, F1 should encourage manufacturer's to enter but should also remain viable for small privateer teams which have always been the backbone of F1.

As we've seen since the 50's when the championship was started, the manufacturer's have come & gone, the only one thats remained in F1 has been Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, Renault & Honda have all come & gone in the past, sometimes more than once. Everytime the big manufacturer's have left its been the small privateers that have taken there spots.

Lets use this scenario, were down to 10 teams/20 cars now Super Aguri have gone, STR are looking very questionable for next year so we could be down to 9 teams/18 cars. There were some reports from Japan over the winter that Toyota bosses will not continue supporting the F1 program unless they start winning in the next few years, if they go its 8 teams/16 cars.

Point been if things continue & we lost the privateer teams, what happens if the manufacturer's start to lose intrest in F1 & leave like they have in the past?

As to letting the run 3 cars, do we really want an all Ferrari or McLaren podium at every race? Letting them run 3 cars could kill the few remaining small teams such as Williams as the points would be dominated by the big 3-4 teams (Ferrari, McLaren, BMW & Renault).

About 99% agreed, except that yes, I would indeed like to see an all Ferrari podium.

What little Nicky forgets is that is the privateers that MADE the sport. The biggest name in F1 started as a privateer against the factory Alfas. Their nemesis, the blasted Pewter Army, started off as a privateer team by the great Bruce McLaren. Team Willy, on the podium of most successful teams, another privateer. Lotus, a factory effort? HAH! No longer around, but one of the most innovative teams, ever. And definitely creator of the most beautiful F1 car, the Lotus 49.

Nick, go back to being a corporate marketing puppet and get out of F1. Oh, I forgot. F1 is also now a corporate marketing puppet...

At some point the manufacturers are going to get tired of pouring money without results. With privateers they are there whether its to win or to lose. I think that getting rid of the customer car was a bad idea and we went from a potential 24 cars at the start of the season to now where we only have 20 cars on the grid.

Unless there is some real, viable way to contain costs (and I'm not sure that can actually happen), I can't see more manufacturers get involved. Most of the ones that have been mentioned have basically said "no, we're not stupid enough to through away money on F1". As mentioned before, see IMSA GTP in the 1990's (and AOWR in the '00s to some extent) for what happens when manufacturers drive privateers out, then decide they've spent enough money. I wonder if Ferrari could field 18 cars to field a grid....

Hondanisti - 17 May 2008 12:07 AM

You can't just parachute in and hang a shingle and race.

If we are to have privateers, then there has to be a "loophole" or compromise from Williams' and Kolles hard stance on customer cars in that chassis criteria - perhaps there can be a middle ground for that ?

If customer teams were allowed I believe we could say goodbye to privateers entirely. Williams and Kolles are fairly happy competing against other teams who are also building their own chassis even if they're not doing well, at least it's fair as in being under the same rules and conditions (though of course budgets differ, but Honda and Toyota spend as much as the big two and they're not even close either), but have 4 new teams for example, one running Ferraris, one running McLarens, one running Renaults, one running BMWs for less effort and money then the privateers and manufacturers are spending, and not bulding their own chassis, it becomes increasingly unattractive, as it would, I believe to the midfield and backmarker manufacturer teams like Toyota and Honda.

If we were to have say four more teams, those are the likely chassis that would be purchased and run. This gives even more money to the top teams not to mention a possible source of technical information to develop future cars.

Furthermore, if the FIA decrees that a chassis manufacturer can only sell one set of cars to another team, the incentive to be a customer team when the top chassis are unavailable to you is rather dented. The "I could do well, maybe even podium on occasion if I can buy a McLaren" idea would be killed if the situation was "all that's available to me is a Honda?" Then there's the conception that you'd only get to buy lesser versions of the manufacturer chassis, which is again, an incentive killer, if you're interested in winning.

Now of course, Toyota and Honda aren't winning, nor are Red Bull or Force India or Williams, but all of them are working and developing their chassis to be more competitive under the same set of rules as those that are defeating them. Even if they never achieve the goal of a winning a championship or more than a single race in a season if customer cars are introduced I wouldn't be surprised to see all of these teams gone in short order.

If customer cars end up being so crippled and the teams badly run then the others could stay, and we'd have more backmarkers.

Now wasn't it the privateers who drove the costs of F1 up anyway? A team by the name of Williams if I remember correctly, had rather large budgets in the early 90s and objected to the ban on active suspension that his team and other privateers like Benetton and McLaren could afford but others could not. We saw teams like Simtek enter the sport and exit in short order at a time when the sport was not manufacturer dominated.