At the time of the tender and awarding of slots, Toyota had not announced their departure, so buying their car was not an option.

Even more of a problem then

Can we please stop with this nonsense

Where is the proof that any team HAD to have a Cosworth? To the contrary there is in fact the court case that N-Tecnology lost (even had to pay court expenditures for the FIA) over this alleged requirement to use the Cosworth engine.

When the tender was out the FIA had a few requirements, one of them was that the applicants had a signed engine supply deal. Later some of the applicants have told us that they tried to get signed deals with the existing manufacturers but no one would sign a deal with the new teams. They gave positive signals but was not prepared to sign any deals. In hindsight it probably makes sense why neither BMW or Toyota would sign anything as a signed supply deal could be grounds for a legal case against the manufacturer when they later in 2009 withdrew from F1. And we know that Mercedes could not sign anything without the consent of McLaren (just look at RedBull).

So, the new teams could only get a binding deal with Cosworth as the others where not prepared to sign anything at that time. And Sauber was free to use the Ferrari engine when they got Toyota's vacant grid spot. One might argue that it was an advantage for Cosworth since they where prepared to sign deals but if a new team could get a signed supply deal from Toyota that would also be OK (as N-Tecnology's lost court case shows). That the new team that had signed a deal with Toyota or BMW would be in trouble now is another matter...

And, Toyota withdrew from F1 a long time after the new team tender was closed so that situation does not really relate to any so called "Cosworth mandate".

To sum up:

1: New applicants had to have a signed engine supply deal
2: Only Cosworth was willing to sign deals with the new applicants
3: N-Tecnology took the FIA to court and lost as the court did not find any proof of a requirement to use a specific engine

OK, how about this

If you want to take part in next year's racing you must build and lap one of the current year's circuits at 107% (or whatever) the time of the pole team in the previous year

So for example, let's say you want to race in 2011.

You then have to build a car in 2010 that can run round Barcelona at 107% before the end of Dec 31st

This ensures that you have a factory, resources and team to cope with the now, the soon to be ex F1 environment

It's then up to you if you test or improve on this chassis early or late in the season

The earlier you prove this concept the more time you have to develop your chassis for the next year

Sure, that might be a struggle to build a chassis for 2010 and another for 2011 but if all you do is build a car for 2010 then at least it shows commitment, at least it shows you are capable of building and racing a car

So you go into 2011 with a car at least at 107% of last year's winner, maybe better

But at least you have a car...



The other options are having to upfront $50M deposit as per what we used to have or sucking up the spiel from (cut rude words) from people like KA and PW


Edit: Transition in regulations changes would be accomodated by agreed dispensations of one kind or another (Viz Torro Rosso previously using detuned 3L motahs)

Actually. It becomes more and more clear to me that motor sport is a complete mess. How many classes are there? Is there any sport that exists in so many variations? It is no wonder it becomes expensive and inbreed. Maybe Max had a point after all, maybe his ideas about standard "motor sport engine" and so on was not so far off? Main problem is that he was so disconnected from reality that he could not see that what he tried to do was something that needed at least four times more time than he gave it. Ok, it was probably not his idea in the first place, but do we really need Formula BMW, Formula Renault, Formula Nissan, Formula Ford, Formula Atlantic, Formula One, Formula Two, Formula Gp2, Formula A1GP, Formula IndyCar, Formula... and then we can spend the rest of the week listing the tin top series. It's quite silly.

If there are enough people wanting to compete in the various classes, then yes they are needed. If you start to get rid of them then you are simply reducing the oppurtunities for drivers.

How would the opportunities be reduced? For sure, winning a world title might be harder but just having more people run the same class does not atomatically reduce the opportunities. At the moment motor sport is as if there was one field of athletes competing 98m distance, another run 100 meters, a third run 112 meters and so on. It would not add much to the popularity of the sport.

Get rid of a series and thats 20+ driving oppurtunities that have been lost.

No, don't get rid of series. Get rid of series that use different cars, and replace them with similar series with all similar cars. Have 5, 6 maybe even 10 levels of "specs". Have racers start at the lowest/lower level, and climb up to the highest. Talent will rise quickly, non-talent, even with money, will drop-off at levels before the top, so no ride-buyers anymore at top-level. Lower levels with very strict specs, how higher the level, how more 'open' the spec. Organize it as is done in Soccer, Hockey and many other sports.
Probably not possible, but one can dream, right?

Well, that would be nice I suppose, but we'd need an international agreement regarding the specs of each of your theoretical theories. Given that mankind can't even agree which side of the road to drive on worldwide, I'd say the odds are pretty slim.

I really don't see the point. I can't see what would be achieved by dumping a series only to replace it with another. I quite like the fact there are a number of different series out there, it would be quite boring if they were all the same.

Possibly good mileage in a 'there are too many racing series' thread, but "USF1 Operation Closed down" is the topic here please.

I still would like to know how this team got their tender through the door. No financing finilized, no pay drivers lined up, no facility available, no machines, tools, computers, trained staff, etc. and under those conditions there would be 300+ personnel with a F1 car ready to compete in less than a year? Yeah, that "makes" sense, Max.

Sssshhh! MiPe.
It's called DUE DILIGENCE, it comes in several cosmetic flavours (cue the glossy advert), it costs a Front and a Rear Wing, it's carried out by Financial Guru's who nearly brought the World Economies to a standstill through Toxic Debt, they demand MILLIONS in bonuses to attract the right calibre of staff and the outgoing President of the FIA, Herr Mosley said so.
So just accept that we are all muppets and the old demi-gods can do as they please

Not necessarily. Not all series (in fact, most are not) are 20+ grids. Nor does it follow that killing the series removes the opportunities. The sponsors, teams and drivers will look elsewhere. I'd rather fewer series, but instead have 40+ grids full of well-supported entries. The variety of GT classes, touring car classes, and particularly feeder series for open wheel racing simply dillutes the sport by preventing concentration and deeper pools of talent. Instead of having a few, really strong series, you get multiple series with a few good cars and a load of crappy drivers and teams at the back. I don't see how that is a positive.

Yes this has always amazed me too. And bonafide race organizations were turned away, for this smoke & mirrors show. Go figure huh? Just another Mosely legacy I guess.

Simple: they put in an entry bid, just as everyone else did. And just like USF1, none of the tenders has their finances finalised, none of them had pay drivers lined up, Manor were the only ones with a facility (the actual Manor Road headquarters weren't big enough; I think they're operating out of Wirth Research), none of them had tools, or computers or anything else. The difference between USF1 and the three teams that are going to Bahrain is that the other teams managed to make something of their entry. USF1's problem isn't that they shouldn't have been there to begin with, it's that they were horrendously mis-managed.

A reason perhaps then to change tendering process.

I have seen claims like Windsor has had previous unsuccessful start-up teams or ideas too. Can anyone give a more elaborate overview about these?

Several years ago I bought his book Formula 1 Technology. My expectations were high, book was rather expensive, but also later proven as utter disappointment, because it was filled with superficialities, and hardly touched on the technology subject. This was first time I was put on guard every time Windsor spoke, or I came accross some of his articles, because trust into his know-how was not so much shattered, but suffered from macro-cracks. Dr. J. Palmer was/is far more (I thought) knowledgeable.



__________

I have found D. Sullivan's Theory of Speed far more entertaining, and interesting. Still have both books.

That was written by Peter Wright, former technical director of Lotus. Nice that you let it affect your opinion of a completely different guy though. With attention to detail like that, I hope you're not an engineer.

I must have goof up then. I thought it was Peter W. Its several years back when I had it last time in my hands, and open it. I am at work and cannot check right now, but if you are correct, then I need to apologize. Still, it has not changed my opinion of the book. Most embarrassing – for all those years I was associating Peter with it every time I heard him on Speed.


___________

Actually, I am an engineer. (For many years).

This must be a epic FAIL...

Reading a book written by a totally different guy and judging Peter Windsor based on that

I guess it's this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Formula-Technology-P...t/dp/0768002346

You're right, by the way, it's not a great book. Written for a relatively non-technical audience I would guess, which was an odd editorial choice for a book like that. I wouldn't let it affect your opinion of Peter Wright though (or Peter Windsor for that matter), as Wright is one of the great, relatively unknown and unsung F1 engineers. He was the guy who came up with underbody ground effects on the Lotus 78 (accidentally), then followed it up with the dominant 79.

My friends will die laughing, but I need to check it out tonight. My edition has red cover. Could be however the same book.

Yeah, it's Wright allright (some early edition 2001 or so).

You're forgetting Lola. Even though their entry bid was rejected, they built a chassis in the hopes of selling it to one of the new teams, which didn't happen. Given the whole Cosworth-is-compulsory thing, their chassis was likely designed with the Cosworth engine in mind (assuming that Cosworth had told the new teams the planned dimensions of the CA2010 engine).

doesn't look good for the americans !

from fia.com

So why couldn't USF1 get HP as a sponsor? Obviously, HP is a willing F1 sponsor, and has been for many years.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81992

But what can the FIA do? They can't fine them if they have no money?

Unless they sue Windsor and Anderson.

So for essentially the same offense Toyota is apparently not to be censured and USF1 is? I do realize that many things between Nov. and March occurred to separate the 2 teams but the point is they both signed the same agreement at the the same time and at this point the FIA have been looking at Toyota's legal issues for over 3 months. Small vote for fair play.

Well yes, but in my mind they should have at least got up and running and had a stable team before they tried that!

FIA will take action against US F1

http://adamcooperf1.com/2010/03/11/fia-wil...-against-us-f1/

Hopefully it will entail a ban of Anderson Windsor for at least 2 years. That way we won't even have to hear about their further pipe dreams of a 2011 bid.

As my lawyers once told me after a judgement in my favor or what I thought was a "victory" - restitution is a bitch.

Well I imagine the FIA will want to be more lenient w/ Toyota so they won't get pissed and never come back sometime in the future. USF1 not so much, I would work to keep them a non-viable option.

It's also possible USF1 deceived the FIA and drivers, something Yota didn't. It will be interesting to see what evidence/case they bring against them.

Toyota Motor Corporation is not Toyota Motorsport Gmb.

A ban is about the only thing the FIA could get at this point and even then depending on the out come of the Briatore case they may not even be able to enforce that. They could always deny them entry and at this point that's likely the only legal option left. I'd reckon there will be a Chapter 7 for USF1 in the coming weeks. Any fine would be discharged as unsecured debt and that is if the BK court recognized it as a legal debt at all. This is a contractual dispute between USF1 and the FIA and in a BK that's likely going to be discharged. The FIA can mount al the bluster they wish but in the end they are not a legally binding court under US law. All along the chances of USF1 being granted deferred entry were slim and none. And Slim just left the building.

I doubt the FIA plan to do much. They're just doing enough due diligence to ensure that USF1 can't make any claims to the 2011 entry spot.

I would also say that Brawn proved last year that a chassis can be adapted to house an engine it was not designed for, or the Sauber this year for that matter.

Too bad the FIA didn't do enough due diligence the first go around.

Due Diligence, perhaps?

Of course: they're in breach of contract. Sanctions are inevitable, perhaps a no-go on 2011 entry like Prodrive were denied last year.

They didn't use printers see -

It was one of their 'cost savings' ideas

According to Bob Varsha and the Speedtv boys, Windsor told them that the FIA has asked all parties to keep quiet about the whole affair for now.

How long 'for now' is who knows....if what Windsor is saying is true at all. One thing is certain if it is NOT true, Bernie will be happy to tell us.

Will FIA bring USF1 to French Court? or FIA WMSC?

And exactly what does the FIA hope to achieve? no USF1 entry for 2011? that's a given isn't it . To keep Windsor and Anderson from attending another GP? they can always pay their money and be a part of the crowd. There is nothing else to gain....nothing. There's no money; it was all from investor(s). Those, or that, investor(s) is not part of USF1. There's no monetary gain to be had there. These shell companies (Teams USF1, LLC) typically own nothing other than a couple computers or a car - which is leased so they don't own it either. Unless Hurley is the most unsophisticated investor in all of the US, Teams USF1, LLC owns zip/nada/nothing and assests totalling of a voided 2010 entry into the FIA F1 World Championship. The only way it has value is if they put voided entry on eBay......hmmmmmmmmmm they ahve enough for a 1/2 tank of gas for that soon to be repo'ed car. Anderson can now get out of town.

So everyone is staying quiet except the FIA?; this whole thing has been a cluster. US F1 needs to publicly state there intentions going forward.

There are no intentions to go forward. Their PR officer, officialy stated such a fact. Along with some poisoned darts aimed at Bernie.

Toyota WAS punished by FIA. And it wasn't even their fault actually. They were developing their own V12 engine they intended to use but in 2000 FIA's brilliant idea to freeze the engine to a V10 configuration left them with no option but to delay their entry 1 year since they had no engine. Toyota was fined $11m for doing so.