Are Road Car Manufacturers Irrelevant to F1?

[Kimbers]

Article Here:

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/carracing/CAR-Racing/Why-Audi-Thinks-F1-Is-Irrelevant/

Now to open the discussion:

In light of so many manufacturers leaving the sport and it causing financial hardships to some of these what are your thoughts?

Why is it Ferrari have been the only really successful OEM (Road Car Manufacturer) in the last 20 years (Take note that Mclaren aren't included as they only make very limited numbers of road cars). IS Rallying and Lemans a better platform for an OEM?

What do you think about Group Lotus going in, what are your reasoned arguements? Is the cost prohibitive if they decided to run the team themselves rather than Sponsor an established team? (This is a genuine question and not trying to rehash old arguements).

Is the above article only true for Audi because the whole group is soooo massive and doesn't need it to market its cars, like Lotus may?

I found the article interesting and thought provoking, but I also found myself disagreeing with F1 being irrelevant to road cars. I think its also a good marketing tool, unless you are spending £200 million a year and doing what Toyota did (nothing).

Is it right for Group Lotus? for me I'm unsure and will watch that space with interest.

Your thoughts?

[comem47]

Of course you know in the Chapman era the reverse was true. The cars were only there to supplement the money needed to be in F1. F1 was what mattered. Now that ACBC is gone I guess I don't know except it is long standing deep rooted in the history.

Edited May 25, 2011 by comem47

[rogerch]

It's Monty Burnie's Flying Circus's.

Even the current tyres have no influence on road tyre development. The rules themselves prevent pioneering development. I quite enjoyed last weekends race, but you knew even if Lewis could catch Vetel he wasn't going to be able to pass him. Someone tell me the relevance of the current aero packages. As to why GL have spent so much of their "working" capitol sponsoring Renault ? well you know my opinion.

[USAndretti42]

Why would you have known that Hamilton wouldn't have been able to pass Vettel, even if he had caught him? There was plenty of passing going on. Hamilton is god at overtaking. He would have had the DRS to help. He was on a different stage of his tyre life up until the last stint so that could have helped. Anyway, we will never know if could have or not and it's not what Kimbers asked.

Is F1 relevant to F1? Probably as much as it has ever been, I think. Williams is busy developing the new Jaguar supercar. Talking of Jaguar, I think they may still be using the Cosworth casting process for their engine crankcases and cylinder head castings. Flappy-paddle gearshifts are pretty common. More and more cars use underbody aerodynamics to reduce lift/increase downforce and, I'm sure, all manufacturers are now aware of it and taking it into account in their design processes. The use of carbon-fibre, reinforced plastics as structural elements is moving down market, in part, thanks to the help of and F1 team making road cars. Remember that an innovation inspired by F1 will take 5 to 7 years at least to make it onto a road car because of the long lead times for new cars.

Regarding the manufacturers pulling out, Toyota and Honda were spending shed loads of cash and getting embarrassing results. BMW, after a good year, also found their results going downhill and there was all the nastiness over the budget cap and a breakaway series. Mercedes have increased their involvement and Renault wants to supply a fourth team.

I'm not sure about Audi. They bought Cosworth off Vickers in 1998 and told everyone on the racing side that they weren't interested in F1 so this article isn't saying anything that is new. The Le Mans series has had the attraction of being a fairly high-profile series without too much manufacturer competition in the top class. For example, after years of claiming they wanted someone to come and compete with them in P1 in the ALMS, as soon as Honda announced they were entering P1, Audi withdrew to Europe. I don't think they could deal with struggling in F1.

[simonb]

What do you think about Group Lotus going in, what are your reasoned arguements? Is the cost prohibitive if they decided to run the team themselves rather than Sponsor an established team? (This is a genuine question and not trying to rehash old arguements).

I do wonder if Bahar simply lifted a proposed plan in FIAT and translated it into English - the new era range would make as much (or more) sense branded Alfa / Maserati / Ferrari. Either that or Group is being fattened up for the market, and throwing a bit of heritage behind it adds value.

Not sure that racing cars add that much to road cars, but at least closed wheel cars can carry some styling clues, and specialist manufacturers like Aston Martin / Ferrari / Lotus can enter cars that look like road going models

I guess Infiniti will be helped in it's worldwide roll out as "Nissan premium brand" with the rebrand of Red Bulls Renault engine - interesting strategy by Renault there - drop the winner, and get left with Lotus & Lotus

[rogerch]

Trevor did you watch the same race I did, apart from the first lap (where DRS is not available) I don't recall seeing any passing of note in the DRS zone.

[AntonyPeacock]

I guess Infiniti will be helped in it's worldwide roll out as "Nissan premium brand" with the rebrand of Red Bulls Renault engine - interesting strategy by Renault there - drop the winner, and get left with Lotus & Lotus

The plan was to re-brand the Renault engine in the Red Bull to Infiniti, but that never happened, Infiniti just became a sponsor of Red Bull instead

[Advantage]

Which safety devices have crossed over from F1 to road cars? Or is it one of those situations where the road cars have influenced F1?

[rogerch]

Yes, I seem to recall my father fitting seat belts well before they became mandatory in F!. He also pioneered the passenger side air bag, in the form of my mother.

[Nelly]

My thoughts - 2 very different questions here:

1) Effect on brand (& sales) - like you mentioned Toyota and Honda spent millions in F1 and I don't think it did anything for them in this respect. They are not sporty brands anyway, and I don't think this made them sexier just because they were in F1. Ferarri however, F1 is their natural home IMO and I don't think them not being in F1 would make their cars any less desirable - most of us would have one if we could. But somehow they should be in F1, its completely right.

Someone like Renault - who have their own "Renaultsport" brand - I think works well because they market this alongside the F1 activities and I reckon the same would be true of Lotus. What link did a Honda or Toyota have with F1? I would even say the same for Jaguar when they were in F1.

How being in F1 actually translates into sales I don't know without any figures but it certainly helps your kudos if you product is remotely sporty to start with.

2) Effect on road cars - Not much impact from what I can see and to me this is a dummy justification for being in F1 - with the exception of Ferarri as their road cars are more or less rac cars. I would love to know if any of what Toyota learnt in F1 is on my brothers Verso. Generally, its all about marketing to me and another form of advertising.

At the end of the day if your cars are desirable then being in F1 I don't think makes any difference (Aston & Lambo as 2 examples).

Edited May 26, 2011 by Nelly9000

[lrg_machine]

The rules themselves prevent pioneering development.

Not true! it's because of some of the rules the teams have to come up with new ideas to make the cars faster, more aerodynamically slippy etc. Usually things aren't banned from the race until a team sticks their developments on the car and suddenly have an advantage.

[Bibs]

LRGP partner with Boeing for their CFD and as a result the Boeing Dreamliner will be 1.5% more fuel efficient due to the aerodynamic enhancements the F1 team has helped with. As was mentioned on our recent trip to the factory, F1 has more in common with aeronautics than automotive.

On the whole, F1 is a marketing channel nowadays, the old saying of 'Win on Sunday, sell on Monday' still holds true. Perhaps Aston & Lambo would sell more cars if they were in F1, who knows?

[rogerch]

Not true! it's because of some of the rules the teams have to come up with new ideas to make the cars faster, more aerodynamically slippy etc. Usually things aren't banned from the race until a team sticks their developments on the car and suddenly have an advantage.

Perhaps you can suggest how it was that just about all manufacturers came up with a V10 as the best option, before Mosley decided to save everyone money by stipulating they all had to change to V8's. Now we are all going to change to 1,5 4 cylinders, why ? which is the best solution, performance, reliability, economy, emissions ? is a straight 4, could it be a V4, or maybe a V6, even a straight 5, I don't know, but the one thing I do know is we are never going to find out from F1.

That's my objection, this is not leading edger technology, this is not pioneering concepts, it's a strangled merry go round.

Please don't tell me it cannot be afforded, it could be accommodated 4 times over from the aero and consequential budget.

[erioshi]

I would have voted "not relevant to either marketing or technology", but the "produces no useful technology" prevents me from casting that vote.

I tried the simple thought exercise of removing F1 from motorsport as it exists today, and the end result seemed to be no significant impact. The manufacturers in F1 would simply move to other venues to achieve the same market saturation, and new automotive technologies would still be advanced through other racing series and slowly find their way down the chain to road cars.

I personally suspect that technology advancement would be better served by restricting available fuel and other resources and then giving the teams more leeway in meeting those challenges. As you might suspect, I'm not much of a fan of the current rules package; if you're going to make a spec series, equalize all the cars and make the whole thing be about the drivers. If it is about the cars and technology then open the rules up to the point where "innovation" doesn't equate to finding new ways to game an overly restrictive rules package. Accept the differing levels of performance and then let the engineers shine by innovating wildly all season to close the gap.

[fmxa]

Yes

[rocket63]

Manufacturers should stick to Sports car racing and stay away from F1. It is their participation that has driven up costs disproportionately.

I see no direct association to road cars and even if it did, who cares.

[lrg_machine]

this is not leading edger technology, this is not pioneering concepts

Sorry Roger, but you're talking out of your bottom if you think that motorsport not just F1 isn't the leading edge of automotive technology.

Just because it hasn't filtered down into my daily driver doesn't mean what they are doing is irrelevant.

I don't want to have to pump hot oil through my engine for a few hours every morning before I can start the car on my driveway, but that just how I feel.

I'm not saying the rules are good or bad but you can't deny, without them, the team with the most money wins all the races, and 800 horsepower from a 2.4 litre normally aspirated engine... pretty f..kin' impressive if you ask me.

[MPx]

My thoughts - 2 very different questions here:

1) Effect on brand (& sales) - like you mentioned Toyota and Honda spent millions in F1 and I don't think it did anything for them in this respect. They are not sporty brands anyway, and I don't think this made them sexier just because they were in F1.

Interesting that Neil. I agree, but only understand it about Toyota - they've had the odd rally success but not really a racing company. But Honda, they really are. Their road cars aren't that special (even the NSX) but their bikes are (they dominated MotoGP, 500s, 250s, even 125s, World and British Superbike etc for years at a time)....and their F1 boats look quite tastey too but we'll have to let Tony tell us if they were actually any good. The point is they are a racing company with proven pedigree in a competitions department. But they really didn't do themselves any favours by being in F1 - it just cost them loads and they never won anything - so sort of had the opposite effect of what was required - but it was never clear to me why they weren't better at it. Was it cos their F1 team were UK based and always run by a mid-pack group of the great and the good of the UK F1 scene rather than their own engineers in Japland? They are famous for being bigger than "names" in the sport and have let loads of top riders go who could have helped bring more success but who wouldn't bow their head to the Honda name. Ross Brawn (top man, not mid-pack) seemed to be able to make the old Honda work quite well, quite quickly, when he got involved.

So I dont think being in F1 is a great marketing coo - unless simply putting the name on a television screen is considered great marketing. But I do think that more people (not just fans) notice the winners - so being the manufacturer name of the winning car, that could be good and I suspect would have had a positive influence on Honda had they achieved it.

[rogerch]

Sorry Roger, but you're talking out of your bottom if you think that motorsport not just F1 isn't the leading edge of automotive technology.

Just because it hasn't filtered down into my daily driver doesn't mean what they are doing is irrelevant.

I don't want to have to pump hot oil through my engine for a few hours every morning before I can start the car on my driveway, but that just how I feel.

I'm not saying the rules are good or bad but you can't deny, without them, the team with the most money wins all the races, and 800 horsepower from a 2.4 litre normally aspirated engine... pretty f..kin' impressive if you ask me.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even a wrong one.

[NedaSay]

If F1 was relevant a lot more road car manufacturer wold want to be involved in it! The truth is probably that F1 has been irrelevant to road car manufacturing since the mid nineties! F1 has become too stringent, edging ever closer to what is a spec series! in the mid eighties you were able to spot the differences in F1 by just having a quick look at them! Try doing this today good luck!

Today only Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari are involved Now if I focus on mass market that leaves only Renault and Mercedes! And again Renault decided to stay only in an engine builder role!

However F1 is still today the motorsport which has the best coverage! Therefore if I work for car manufacturer and I have a so so global marketing budget then I'm tempted to sell it to my board: I could sell the value connected to the sport, the improvement of the Brand DNA, great incentive program inside the company, for the same budget or less than a meaningful global ad budget!

In the case of Group Lotus it's very simple, if you play your cards right F1 will generate millions in airtime and your partner will pay for your advertizing if you have any partners that is. Well it would have and I think it still would but they can't maximize it cause they share the brand with Team Lotus!

[chandrew]

From a sponsorship perspective (and I guess all F1 is sponsorship of some sort as I doubt you'd invest that sort of money in the hope of a better financial return) there are 2 likely benefits:

1) Branding: Brand positioning / Brand recognition

2) Entertainment

For (1) the brand associations from F1 has to be true to the manufacturer's brand positioning. This is true of Ferrari, in fact my view is that they've woven their product offering around the F1 attributes - note silly buttons all over the steering wheels; massively fast (but un-involving?) gearboxes. The same could not be said of Toyota. Maybe F1 gave Toyota some glamour but it didn't fit the overall brand profile (attributes such as reliability, fuel-efficiency).

For (2) I could also build a much stronger case for using F1 sponsor entertainment for Ferrari customers (or maybe top end SLS Merc ones) than I could Renault or Toyota or probably even BMW.

Given how Lotus are positioning the new cars I reckon you could make a good case for both (1) and (2).

As for technology transfer it's not that easy to deduce. Certainly there is transfer, but a lot of that will come through component manufacturers who drive lots of the innovation in cars anyway. Harder to quantify is the knowledge / ways-of-working based transfer of having car engineers exposed to F1 practices.

What I hope is the plan for the Lotus motorsport sponsorships is twofold: (1) a gradual integration of all motorsport engineering knowledge, so F1 can share knowledge with endurance racing, Indy and the other GP series. (2) over time moving from sponsorship to more engineering involvement. If we look at plans for Indy we can see that in action. I fully expect over time a similar pattern in F1. Personally I think this way of getting involved (getting involved with top teams) is a smart way of getting involved and far less distracting for the overall Group.

[Sport 160]

Today only Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari are involved ...

You're forgetting Mclaren (production car manufacturer), Wiliams (co-developing the new Jag/Williams hybrid), Caterham (part of the same empire as Team Lotus) and another car company with F1 involvement whose name escapes me.

[simonb]

Dont forget that Mercedes and Renault also sell trucks

Friend of mine was in Mercedes VIP hospitality every British Grand Prix. He had an old G Wagen, but not a Mercedes company car (dont think there was one in the company). Every year he bought a few dozen tractor units though.....

[AntonyPeacock]

You're forgetting Mclaren (production car manufacturer), Wiliams (co-developing the new Jag/Williams hybrid), Caterham (part of the same empire as Team Lotus) and another car company with F1 involvement whose name escapes me.

Marussia, they are in partnership with Virgin, and now own 40% of the team

Dont forget that Mercedes and Renault also sell trucks

Although Renault Trucks is actually owned by Volvo Group and not Renault itself

[NedaSay]

Ok I should have made it specific since you guys are so precise! Mass Market Road Car Manufacturer!

McLaren targets 15000 car sales a year which is about the same as Ferrari, it is also Lotus long term target!

Caterham moves more or less 3000 units per year!

I've never seen a Williams in the street except for a rocking but purely marketing hook up with a Renault Clio.

I've heard about Marussia and even saw their showcars but their cars haven't been homologated yet!