F1 2015 - Teams and Drivers - Who goes where?!

So, what do we think about Audi launching an F1 attack with Lotterer at the helm?

Was his paid for Caterham drive an information gathering experience for Audi? Are they planning on purchasing Caterham, or just simply getting some much needed f1 insider info to help with their own full team?

I have seen wilder rumours posted as fact, thats for sure :D
 
Last edited:
MissChief said:
If Alonso does take a year out then it could be true but until I see Audi (or some other VAG group entity) on an official FIA F1 Entry list I won't believe it.
Click to expand...

Alonso, best driver in F1, taking a year out? Has this ever happened?
Prost took 1 year out in 1992, though Prost wasn't the best (probably 2nd best, behind Senna). I don't recall the best driver in F1 ever taking a year out.

Alonso to join a brand new team (Audi) and essentially be at the back of the grid? Has this ever happened? Maybe a few decades ago the best driver may join a new team at the back of the grid, but not that I can remember. Did Graham Hill do this? Not sure.

As the hottest property in F1, Alonso will want to join a top team and go for the title in his 1st or 2nd year. He is also getting old - the last thing he will do is take a year's holiday or faff around with a back of the grid team.

The danger of taking a year out - when he returns, he may not be as good. MSc took 3 years out and when he returned he was average. Even when Prost returned after a year out, he was getting beaten by D.Hill towards the end of the season.

McLaren is virtually a done deal, though who knows....anything is possible in F1.
 
sunama said:
Alonso, best driver in F1, taking a year out? Has this ever happened?
Prost took 1 year out in 1992, though Prost wasn't the best (probably 2nd best, behind Senna). I don't recall the best driver in F1 ever taking a year out.

Alonso to join a brand new team (Audi) and essentially be at the back of the grid? Has this ever happened? Maybe a few decades ago the best driver may join a new team at the back of the grid, but not that I can remember. Did Graham Hill do this? Not sure.

As the hottest property in F1, Alonso will want to join a top team and go for the title in his 1st or 2nd year. He is also getting old - the last thing he will do is take a year's holiday or faff around with a back of the grid team.

The danger of taking a year out - when he returns, he may not be as good. MSc took 3 years out and when he returned he was average. Even when Prost returned after a year out, he was getting beaten by D.Hill towards the end of the season.

McLaren is virtually a done deal, though who knows....anything is possible in F1.
Click to expand...

He must know something about the Honda PU then, if he wants to win the title in his first or second year back with Macca :)
 
Just out of interest for the likes of Audi - is it actually cheaper to buy Caterham / Manor or create their own team from scratch?

(No dis-respect to any current team members, but surely majority of the team would be new, Audi may not necessarily want to be based in England and while I believe there is the new team entity vs existing team entity in regards to a bond being paid to FOM ( and any points gained/ position in the pit lane etc isn't going to make any different)
 
Better to buy from scratch IMO. If you take over an existing team (unless you're only taking their entry) You'll end up with their staff, their philosophy, their (in)competence. Start afresh and hire the best talent you can afford.

Also what facilities have Caterham and Marussia got? It's not like Sauber who have a world class wind tunnel.
 
al4x said:
I wouldn't mind a more manufacturer based f1.
Click to expand...

I would mind. Teams like McLaren and Williams and to an extent Red Bull exist purely to go racing. They're not at the mercy of a fickle board or recession or fluctuating share price. Manufacturers have always come in and gone away throughout history and have often landed teams they've been involved with struggling to survive or folding all together. I agree that the does need to be some manufacturer involvement as the costs are astronomical for engine development, especially for the new Turbo units but I don't want a F1 grid filled exclusively with manufacturers as they can easily leave. That's one of the reasons Williams lost Renault power as they wouldn't be bought out.
 
englishpremier said:
Better to buy from scratch IMO. If you take over an existing team (unless you're only taking their entry) You'll end up with their staff, their philosophy, their (in)competence. Start afresh and hire the best talent you can afford.

Also what facilities have Caterham and Marussia got? It's not like Sauber who have a world class wind tunnel.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I said in the Audi thread, I just don't know if its factually correct :)

MissChief said:
I would mind. Teams like McLaren and Williams and to an extent Red Bull exist purely to go racing. They're not at the mercy of a fickle board or recession or fluctuating share price. Manufacturers have always come in and gone away throughout history and have often landed teams they've been involved with struggling to survive or folding all together. I agree that the does need to be some manufacturer involvement as the costs are astronomical for engine development, especially for the new Turbo units but I don't want a F1 grid filled exclusively with manufacturers as they can easily leave. That's one of the reasons Williams lost Renault power as they wouldn't be bought out.
Click to expand...

Red Bull is all about marketing and nothing else.

You cant buy the headlines any other way that the team have generated over the last 4 years (and to a lesser extent even further back).

I agree about the private teams though - although one or two more manufacturers would be good (excluding Honda as they were a big disaster as a team entity lol)
 
Last edited:
al4x said:
I wouldn't mind a more manufacturer based f1.
Click to expand...

Really? A manufacturer based F1 is why were in this mess. F1 still hasn't recovered from the last time it nailed itself to the manufacturer teams mast.

F1 needs manufacturers, but as suppliers to teams, not owners.
 
Didn't they change the engines because manufacturers said they'd join then backed out at the last minute? It's probably been said a million times but it's hardly a smart move changing engines when teams could barely afford run with the V8s.
 
timmeh said:
Didn't they change the engines because manufacturers said they'd join then backed out at the last minute? It's probably been said a million times but it's hardly a smart move changing engines when teams could barely afford run with the V8s.
Click to expand...

They were queing out the door for the I4. The problem was Ferrari weren't in that queue, and the FIA buckled and switched to V6s, and the queue vanished.

The alternative was a single engine formula with the decade old V8s, which would have been worse.
 
The V6 was a bad choice, it's an engine format that's irrelevant to pretty much every car maker on the planet. But its kinda working. We have 4 engine makers next year (assuming F1 survives that long), whereas we could have had 2, or even 1. I'm not sure the I4s would have seen many more manufacturers.
 
sunama said:
2 years ago I stated that Merc will be the team to challenge RBR, as their team philosophy was clear - get rid of deadwood, hire the best and win at all costs. Brawn was dumped, as was MSc. New management was assembled and the results are clear to see.
Click to expand...

Sorry, are you insinuating Brawn is deadwood?
 
Yes, complete nonsense, Brawn oversaw the building and design of the current winning car, he left at the end of last year, he put together effectively the entire team top to bottom. The current management are overseeing what Brawn put together. Brawn wasn't gotten rid of and the current guys put together the team.

This years car, the development through this season(which has been significant and massive a couple races ago), getting Hamilton, rebuilding the team was all masterminded by Brawn.

It's a real shame he didn't stay for another year as he'll deserve pretty much more credit than any other single person in the team for the title this year. Had he been in charge this year and left end of season then he'd be more widely seen as the man behind Mercedes becoming the best team.

Brawn has made an incredible number of spot on decisions in the past 2-3 years to end up with the car/advantage they had this year.

I would also say, as I have in the past 18-24 months, that Mercedes were building up to a great 2014. Their budget dropped massively for 2009, and for 10-12 were significantly lower spending than their top rivals. they lost a huge number of people end of 2008 as a team, I can't remember the numbers but the spending dropped to what 1/3rd or something and probably half the team or more was let go. Merc took over in 2010 and they spent 3 years increasing the team/budget every year. It was last year their budget started to approach the big teams again and that they had finally staffed up to similar levels as the other big teams. This is the first year since 2009 when they had a full budget, full design team and everyone in place leading up to the start of the season.

They were building up to being one of the top couple of teams over 3 years and brawn has clearly brought in all the right people in all the right places.
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
The V6 was a bad choice, it's an engine format that's irrelevant to pretty much every car maker on the planet. But its kinda working. We have 4 engine makers next year (assuming F1 survives that long), whereas we could have had 2, or even 1. I'm not sure the I4s would have seen many more manufacturers.
Click to expand...

When they were considering inline four cylinder engines all the designers and teams said that an engine with that layout couldn't be used as a stressed member or part of the chassis structure and would need some sort of trellis or frame built to house the engine and then this frame would be bolted to the tub. This would then have also required the gearbox to be mounted to the frame, massively increasing complexity and cost for very little overall benefit. A V6 engine can be designed in such a way that it can be bolted to the tub and the gearbox attached directly to the engine as it is much wider than an inline four.
 
That argument doesn't fly with me. Both engines are 1.6, the V6s are not much bigger than the I4s would have been. And having to build a structure is hardly the end of the world. If the engine designers seriously thought building a frame to hold the engine was the most complicated bit of the new engines they were being rather silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom