Litespeed GP

[czt]

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/05/ ... ump-to-f1/

Didn't see this one coming, partnership with Gascoyne!

[Scotracer]

So we lose Ferrari, Mclaren, Renault, Red Bull & Toro Rosso and have them replaced Litespeed, Lola, Prodrive & USGPE.

Oh joy.

[sdimm]

So we lose Ferrari, Mclaren, Renault, Red Bull & Toro Rosso and have them replaced Litespeed, Lola, Prodrive & USGPE.

Oh joy.

They should respect the teams that have given so much to the sport already insted of just favoring the new guys..

[alex1015]

I was told VERY reliably that there is still more to come from Litespeed...

Ideally I'd hope we don't lose the manufactures or end up splitting the series into two ala CART/IRL and Grand-Am/ALMS so hopefully a compromise can be reached. I just hope budget caps can be increased to a reasonable figure like ~$150mil and that the new cap won't include any salaries, not just drivers excluded.

[spacepig]

I just hope budget caps can be increased to a reasonable figure like ~$150mil and that the new cap won't include any salaries, not just drivers excluded.

Uh, so you get $150MM to cover utilities and cost of materials? Salaries represent probably over 75% of the total budget. If you exclude them from the cap, the cap is meaningless. Everybody would fit under your proposed cap right now without making any changes.

[donskar]

From the MGI web site:

Welcome to the MGI Group
Many people come to us through a single experience. As guests aboard a MGI yacht or plane or looking for advise in managing assets they enjoy first hand our attention to detail and exceptional standards. From that one contact, many long and happy relationships grow. That is why it's so important to us that we think and act as a cohesive team, with one approach and one outstanding service.


The company was founded in Oxford in 2001 by Mike Gascoyne, one of the top names in the highly exclusive business of F1. It was his meticulous eye for detail and personal attention to the needs of his clients that shaped the philosophy of the company and promoted the values and principles that are still upheld to this day. Today, Mike Gascoyne is the Chairman of the successful MGI Group, bringing MGI Aviation, MGI Yachting services and MGI Taverns under one roof.

Core Services
Charter
Charter is a significant part of our operation and our commitment to providing first-class charter service is absolute. Our highly experienced and multilingual staff is dedicated to providing a quality of service unsurpassed by our competitors. As with all MGI Group services, your charter is organised and specifically tailored to your personal requirements.

We specialize in exclusive corporate getaways and highly personalized luxury vacations for you and your family. You can therefore concentrate on enjoying yourself and leave the rest to us. You're in good hands.


Asset Management
The MGI Group offers highly experienced plane and yacht management divisions offering expertise in both operational and technical aspects. All personnel in the division are suitably qualified according to their responsibilities.

I remain open to being convinced they are for real.

[scarbs]

Oh they’re real alright. I met Gascoyne in China, MGI is his company (his bag even had his MGI business card slotted into it). He uses it as an umbrella for several ventures, largely the plane and yacht business which are his Millionaires toys, which he leases out to help cover costs.

If you are starting a budget F1 team, Gascoyne is an ideal candidate as the start up Tech director. He’s used to getting things set up in an orderly fashion, he used to small budgets and prioritising. But mainly as he is available and has recent F1 experience and (dare I say it) data, albeit in his head as to what loads, weights and stiffness’s parts need to be targeted at.

If I were to start an F1 business, I’d be looking at Lola, Dallara, Formtech (the ex Aguri operation) as partners or buying Toro Rosso…

[axle]

Torro Rosso's sale...

Thinking along those lines, is the business devalued from the £80m RedBull wants for it with the new budget announcement? Or is it a better a proposition as it gets you bang up-to-date tech from the go?

I do honestly wish "budget" teams could just buy a 1 year old chassis (from the independents) and race that.

[scarbs]

Red Bulls price for STR went down last year any way c£60m and I guess is even less now. The £30-40m budget is only a operating costs (less driver, marketing and engine), the capital cost to set up a factory with a 7 poster, autoclave and machinery would be significant.

I think the dated car idea is a solid one, if only the rules were stable year on year…

[axle]

Red Bulls price for STR went down last year any way c£60m and I guess is even less now. The £30-40m budget is only a operating costs (less driver, marketing and engine), the capital cost to set up a factory with a 7 poster, autoclave and machinery would be significant.

Ahh hadn't heard about the price drop - do you think it will sell if the budget cap stays? Then again, people might have a Ferrari F1 business they can buy instead!

I think the dated car idea is a solid one, if only the rules were stable year on year…

w000t!

[gridwalker]

Dated cars are a reasonable idea, however the FIA are becoming much more insistent on teams being manufacturers : hence Torro Rosso's announcement that they will become a fully fledged manufacturer next season.

Ironically, the biggest opponent of customer cars is Williams, who also happen to be one of the strongest proponents of cost capping. The teams who are currently threatening to pull out weren't the ones who were opposed to customer cars, however the greatest advocate of cost capping ALSO happens to be dead set against the simplest way of reducing overall costs.

This underlines the problems with finding a regulation system that satisfies all of the teams' vested interests. Whichever way you restructure the sport, somebody is going to cry foul.

Maybe if Williams actually made a chassis that somebody else wanted to buy then there wouldn't be such an issue.

[axle]

Dated cars are a reasonable idea, however the FIA are becoming much more insistent on teams being manufacturers : hence Torro Rosso's announcement that they will become a fully fledged manufacturer next season.

Ironically, the biggest opponent of customer cars is Williams, who also happen to be one of the strongest proponents of cost capping. The teams who are currently threatening to pull out weren't the ones who were opposed to customer cars, however the greatest advocate of cost capping ALSO happens to be dead set against the simplest way of reducing overall costs.

This underlines the problems with finding a regulation system that satisfies all of the teams' vested interests. Whichever way you restructure the sport, somebody is going to cry foul.

Maybe if Williams actually made a chassis that somebody else wanted to buy then there wouldn't be such an issue.

That's why I made a point of saying independents only can sell their chassis'. This gives the true racing independents a new revenue stream to take on the manufacturers. I'd take a Williams chassis over the BMW/Renault/McLaren right now

[gridwalker]

Dated cars are a reasonable idea, however the FIA are becoming much more insistent on teams being manufacturers : hence Torro Rosso's announcement that they will become a fully fledged manufacturer next season.

Ironically, the biggest opponent of customer cars is Williams, who also happen to be one of the strongest proponents of cost capping. The teams who are currently threatening to pull out weren't the ones who were opposed to customer cars, however the greatest advocate of cost capping ALSO happens to be dead set against the simplest way of reducing overall costs.

This underlines the problems with finding a regulation system that satisfies all of the teams' vested interests. Whichever way you restructure the sport, somebody is going to cry foul.

Maybe if Williams actually made a chassis that somebody else wanted to buy then there wouldn't be such an issue.

That's why I made a point of saying independents only can sell their chassis'. This gives the true racing independents a new revenue stream to take on the manufacturers. I'd take a Williams chassis over the BMW/Renault/McLaren right now

That's a fair point, though I don't know how many people would have seen that coming last season, when the supply deals would have needed to have been made.

[ESPImperium]

I think theres a massive argument for customer chassis as a major idea for cost capping. BUT the thing is there would need to be a new regulation regarging engine mounting points and such, making that standardised, then they can choose what ever engine supplyer and marry it to any chassis with relitve ease. BUT id make it also that a team can only purchace 3 chassis in a row, giving them sufficent time to become a full manufacturer.

I think there needs to ge a meeting of minds here, cost capping, customer cars and various other aspects of the deal.

Just hope theres enough room on the grid for all the teams that are currently here and the teams that want to be on the grid.

[axle]

I think theres a massive argument for customer chassis as a major idea for cost capping. BUT the thing is there would need to be a new regulation regarging engine mounting points and such, making that standardised, then they can choose what ever engine supplyer and marry it to any chassis with relitve ease. BUT id make it also that a team can only purchace 3 chassis in a row, giving them sufficent time to become a full manufacturer.

I think there needs to ge a meeting of minds here, cost capping, customer cars and various other aspects of the deal.

Just hope theres enough room on the grid for all the teams that are currently here and the teams that want to be on the grid.

I agree mainly - in fact let me think of some other rules...
I'd like to see (this is off the cuff not fully analysed);

A) New team buys the blueprints/IP to a year old car...then you're on your own.
B) Each constructor team can only sell to one other team (that is present on the grid - ie team leaves and the constructor can sell again).
C) FOM give cash incentives to use the chassis from an independent - and NO help to those choosing a manufacturers one unless all independents chassis' are taken under B).
D) All non-constructors to use the Cosworth spec engine.
E) All engines/chassis' to be made interchangable, same mount points (not the same suspension pickups etc literally bolting it into the chassis the same.)
F) Non-constructors to use share the wind tunnel facilities with their supplying constructor, keeping the wind tunnels fully utilised and not wasting the massive investment.
G) If the non-constructor team fails to become a full constructor by the end of year 1 then they can keep with what they have or buy the next chassis up from a DIFFERENT constructor...stopping 1 team becoming the B Team of another.
H) Non-constructors must become full constructors at the end of year 2 or face repaying all FOM/TV money accrued to date.

I'm not asking for someone to pick holes in these ideas, I'm not saying OMG you're all nuts if you don't do it my way - I'm just throwing ideas out there...