Is a level playing field worth losing historic teams?

[Manoah2u]

Mercedes were in F1 briefly in the mid-50s, they're not "recent newcomers". Indeed, Mercedes have been involved in racing at least as long as the Ferrari team. Mercedes have just as much right to "historic status" as anyone.

this is just plain wrong.all of it, actually

Mercedes only have entered F1 since 2010 after taking over already existing brawn, so they're actually newcomers.
They like to throw themselves into a historic status but it is simply not true since after that brief stint in the 50's, they were gone for half a century.

Ferrari is the only actual historic team that has been in F1 ever since their F1 'start'. Same goes for Mclaren since the 70's. Both of those have been around right up untill now.

Mercedes has not, Mercedes only has been in F1 as an engine supplier since the 1994 powering Sauber, and then powering Mclaren since 1995 and then their first win with Mclaren wasn't before Australia 1997.

That means Mercedes only has been in F1 as an engine supplier for 23 years now, hardly worth being called historic.
Renault for that matter entered in 1977 with the Renault RS01 untill 1986 when it ran with Tyrell. Then it was abscent in 1987 and 1988, to return in 1989 with Williams and as a Rebadged engine in 1998 (As playlife and mecachrome, like Tag Heuer now for RedBull) , 1999 and 2000, to then in 2001 in it's official name, to in 2002 be it's own team again. That means that since 1989 untill now they have been constantly in F1, and before that since 1977 untill 1986. that's 9 years plus 28 years equals 37 years, making Renault more 'heritage' or 'classic' than actually Mercedes itself.

As a Works team, Renault is far longer in F1 than Mercedes : only 7 years since 2010 and 2 seasons in the 50's, equalling 9 years for Mercedes and compared to Renault as a total sum gives them 1977-1985 plus 2002-2010 and 2016 untill now equals 18 years. that means Renault has double the heritage in F1 than Mercedes itself.


Mercedes AMG F1 team in all it's assets is much more Tyrrell than it is Mercedes if you'd look at it from that point of view.

Labeling Mercedes as a historic team is fully and factually wrong in all of it's aspects.

[Just_a_fan]

Labeling Mercedes as a historic team is fully and factually wrong in all of it's aspects.

I said they've been in racing as long as Ferrari and that's true. They've won championships in Grands Prix (before Ferrari even existed as a manufacturer), Formula One, Sports Cars, Touring Cars. They've won sprint races and endurance races including Le Mans. They've built cars and they've supplied engines. Motorsport history is littered with Mercedes' involvement and success.

Anyone with even a modicum of interest in motorsport knows about Mercedes' involvement over the decades. If that isn't "historic" then I don't know what is.

[marmer]

Labeling Mercedes as a historic team is fully and factually wrong in all of it's aspects.

I said they've been in racing as long as Ferrari and that's true. They've won championships in Grands Prix (before Ferrari even existed as a manufacturer), Formula One, Sports Cars, Touring Cars. They've won sprint races and endurance races including Le Mans. They've built cars and they've supplied engines. Motorsport history is littered with Mercedes' involvement and success.

Anyone with even a modicum of interest in motorsport knows about Mercedes' involvement over the decades. If that isn't "historic" then I don't know what is.

yes but f1 lives in its own little bubble they even try and ignore f2 and gp3

[Manoah2u]

Labeling Mercedes as a historic team is fully and factually wrong in all of it's aspects.

I said they've been in racing as long as Ferrari and that's true. They've won championships in Grands Prix (before Ferrari even existed as a manufacturer), Formula One, Sports Cars, Touring Cars. They've won sprint races and endurance races including Le Mans. They've built cars and they've supplied engines. Motorsport history is littered with Mercedes' involvement and success.

Anyone with even a modicum of interest in motorsport knows about Mercedes' involvement over the decades. If that isn't "historic" then I don't know what is.

We're talking here F1, not other sports.
If we're going that route, then we can take Renault back even further too, all the way to the 50's through their Alpine devision (Renault's AMG if you may).
Offcourse Mercedes goes back even to the Silver Arrows but it makes no sense in claimig motor racing in itself being heritage enough to earn special status in F1.

We're talking F1, not motor racing in general.

That would mean that if Audi would take over Haas (for whatever reason, whatever team actually) that they're entitled a special status because like Mercedes they also competed as Auto Union in the 30's? come on.

[Just_a_fan]

So it's just about protecting your beloved Ferrari, eh? They get all that extra money and a veto and still can't beat an "upstart team". Hardly worth considering a special case, really.

[bauc]

I want to believe that what makes Mercedes, Ferrari, Mclaren or Redbull or any other team what they are is the people, the talent, the courage to do things other would only dream off... not the money invested to buy the best people and the best technology in order to win. F1 must find a way to make the best idea win, not the most expensive one

[Manoah2u]

So it's just about protecting your beloved Ferrari, eh? They get all that extra money and a veto and still can't beat an "upstart team". Hardly worth considering a special case, really.

I just completely explained in posts above that Ferrari being entitled historic status is rediculous and i actually burned them to the ground for it. are you really that short-sighted and can only see hear and read your own thoughts instead of actually reading what was posted in this very thread???

[Manoah2u]

I want to believe that what makes Mercedes, Ferrari, Mclaren or Redbull or any other team what they are is the people, the talent, the courage to do things other would only dream off... not the money invested to buy the best people and the best technology in order to win. F1 must find a way to make the best idea win, not the most expensive one

Teams like currently Renault again have been essentially that which is 'enstone'. So if you may, it's 'Team Enstone F1 Racing'. The people working there have been responsible for Genii Lotus' recent success (not the actual real lotus), they have been responsible for Renault's former run [ING Renault], they have been getting titles with Alonso, they have been responsible for Benetton's success with Michael Schumacher. Which before that, was Toleman (then based in oxfordshire), which team introduced the legendary Ayrton Senna into F1. Toleman was the founder of the team so if any, Renault F1 team today is Toleman grown into a successfull F1 team if you'd look at it from that angle.

And then there are teams like RedBull which was jaguar before, which was Stewart GP before. Which you could - not saying that is the right way though - translate in RedBull being RedBull Stewart GP Racing turned successfull.

And then we have Sahara Force India, which was Spyker, which was Midland, which was Jordan GP. Thus, the pink cars of today essentially are the spiritual heritage of the yellow jordan's of eddie.

just like Toro Rosso essentially is Minardi, and again, Mercedes actually is Tyrrell.

The only teams in 2017 around that are from it's 'original' founders and not a team that went through several owners turning it from name to name to brand to brand and are essentially in it's unaltered state are Ferrari, Mclaren, Williams, Sauber and Haas in that order. Haas shouldn't necceserally be included like that because they're too fresh in itself though.

And even though Renault founded it's own F1 team in the 70's (afaik), that actual team is long gone.

[santos]

The business of F1 won't make the same Money without Ferrari, Mclaren, Mercedes and Red Bull. Tell me, would you be interested to watch a race without these teams as much as you have now? It's like saying let's make a Champions League without Real Madrid, Barça, Man United, Bayern... Who want's to watch Rosemborg vs. Maribor?
So, the Money can't be splitted equally.

[Just_a_fan]

can you actually read, for the love of god?

i just completely explained in posts above that Ferrari being entitled historic status is rediculous and i actually burned them to the ground for it. are you really that short-sighted and can only see hear and read your own thoughts instead of actually reading what was posted in this very thread???

Yes, I can read, spell and have a discussion without resorting to invective.

I have now come to realise that when you say "historic" you mean "continuous". A rather narrow definition in my opinion.

[Just_a_fan]

The business of F1 won't make the same Money without Ferrari, Mclaren, Mercedes and Red Bull. Tell me, would you be interested to watch a race without these teams as much as you have now?

Liberty want to make F1 more about the drivers and about individuals, less about teams.

Let's face it, most "fans" support a driver and they support them whatever team they're in.

[marmer]

can you actually read, for the love of god?

i just completely explained in posts above that Ferrari being entitled historic status is rediculous and i actually burned them to the ground for it. are you really that short-sighted and can only see hear and read your own thoughts instead of actually reading what was posted in this very thread???

Yes, I can read, spell and have a discussion without resorting to invective.

I have now come to realise that when you say "historic" you mean "continuous". A rather narrow definition in my opinion.

Continuous is far more important. Does F1 exist as it is now due to Mercedes racing in the 50s no they have no real impact. Yes they have raced in other series throughout history but none of that impacts formula 1. It's not even like the current Mercedes is based from one of the touring car teams they bought brawn which was honda and something else before that. Mercedes have raced in F1 but have had no real impact in its history until recently. Even that is only 4 season as a winner something redbull has also done and they are just a drinks company.

[Phil]

F1 is bigger than one team.

*devils advocate mode*

But is it, if that one team brings most/majority of the interest to the sport? Perhaps one should ask where the sport would be today if not for Ferraris continued participation throughout the years. Maybe, F1 would have died long ago or disappeared in a small niche section.

I'm in no way a fan of Ferrari, or a supporter of unequal distribution of money/funds. There is a point to be made however that when the sport relies on some "big players" to stay in the sport and offer their continued support, that they are also ensuring the survival of the smaller fishes by securing the "pond", even if they may be earning less.

Two years ago, we were arguing about equal distribution of engines within an engine-dominated formula. RedBull "threw the toys out of the pram" back then because they didn't have a competitive engine and also threatened to leave the sport. Back then, most were fed-up with the arrogance of RB, saying the sport would be better of without them. Few considered what would have happened (to the sport, short term and long term) if they did. The same applies to Ferrari somewhat. Yes, the amount of money they get does seem excessive and I am in no way judging the fairness of it, but there is a fine trade-off between losing such a big "brand" that attracts millions of fans and keeping them at an expense.

I also think in light of this discussion, we should use the right definition. The "historic" payment is nothing other than securing that that team stays within the sport. It's a binding agreement. The sport is interested in keeping this team within the sport, so how much are they willing to pay for it? Rather than discussing if such a payment is fair, perhaps the question should rather be, how much is Ferrari staying in F1 worth?

The same question would be relevant to other teams too.

[PlatinumZealot]

Mercedes were in F1 briefly in the mid-50s, they're not "recent newcomers". Indeed, Mercedes have been involved in racing at least as long as the Ferrari team. Mercedes have just as much right to "historic status" as anyone.

Yes, I know. But they were not respected as such on their return as full team in 2010.

[graham.reeds]

The business of F1 won't make the same Money without Ferrari, Mclaren, Mercedes and Red Bull. Tell me, would you be interested to watch a race without these teams as much as you have now? It's like saying let's make a Champions League without Real Madrid, Barça, Man United, Bayern... Who want's to watch Rosemborg vs. Maribor?
So, the Money can't be splitted equally.

The money shouldn't be split equally.

However you should not come third and still earn more than the championship winners.

Also what makes a team historic? Surely all teams should be equally eligible for a payment depending on their length of participation, from Haas to Ferrari.

Ferrari has been in F1 for 50 years and they get $100m or $2 per year. So pay the other teams $2m per year, so Williams would get $80m, etc. to Haas who would get $6m for their time.

It does get complicated for some of the teams troubled heritage.

Also people lamented the loss of Lotus but F1 trundled on.