Ferrari vs STR vs Spyker

STR and Spyker have about 1/10 of the Ferrari budget to work with. That limits the engineering that goes into the cars. Engines are identical.

 

Ferrari engines don't come cheap, but that's true for any engine. You can't really save much there.

RBR does better as they have a lot more money to play with. Has nothing to do with the engine. In fact they were slated for the Ferrari engine, but in the last moment "dumped" them onto their B team (STR).
The real issue is $: Spyker doesn't have the funds to run a F1 team. They have barely enough cash to finance their own car manufacturing programme. Toro Rosso doesn't have any sponsors (look at the car) besides Red Bull and Red Bull only contributes 50% of the team's operating budget, the rest comes directly from Mr. Berger's pocket. They need to fundamentally change their finance/sponsorship structure if they want to survive.

F1 is expensive. You need a minimum of $ 100 million, better 200 million to play.

 

Yes, they all use the 056 engine that Ferrari runs.

Like everyone else has said, it's a matter of funding and experience. STR and Spyker don't have the budget or the experience to compete with the likes of Ferrari, McCheaters, BMW, Williams, etc. Maybe one day...

 

Thereby hangs a tale ... and a possible lawsuit.

Spyker has filed complaint with the FIA because you're supposed to build your own F1 car, and the STR and Aguri machines are essentially last year's model from their parent teams (RBR and Honda).

Last year, Aguri were running a museum piece Jordan chassis, just to fill out the field to 20 cars.

 

RBR and Honda already put a lot of testing and development into those cars -- giving STR and Aguri quite a budget head-start over a team like Spyker who are trying to do it by the rules with a minimal budget.

This is supposed to be a manufacturer's series. I don't even much like seeing teams that don't make street cars, much less a team that doesn't build its own race car.

That's why I'll always be rooting for Ferrari, Toyota, Renault, or Honda (and BMW when they stop using the Sauber chassis) to beat the "synthetic" teams like McLaren, Williams, or RedBull.

But it's pretty clear that FIA doesn't give a rip about tradition. That mass damper system Renault had was brilliant. I wonder, with a bit of development, whether it might have found its way onto street cars -- if the FIA hadn't pulled the plug on it.

FIA keeps talking about "controlling costs". But in a manufacturer's series, it's not what you spend, it's what technology you get for your money. Except FIA is more worried about keeping the price of the cars down so more synthetic teams can join the field .... of teams paying the FIA to be there.

Look up "Concorde Agreement".

 

Look what they've done for WRC.

They *are* evil.

 

Correction, they were running the old ARROWS chassis. Next year they'll be building their own chassis.

FWIW the series isn't a (road car) manufacturer series. It's always been a F1 manufactures series. Your so called "synthetic" teams are the ones who've made F1 what it is. They've been manufacturing F1 cars for a long, long time. Just because they haven't been designing and building their own engines doesn't mean you should discount their contribution to the sport.

 

^^^ Exactly! The only reason Ferrari even has road cars is because of F1. Enzo needed somethig to finance his racing.

 

Colin Chapman was probably the most influential designer in F1 and all his cars were powered by 3rd party power.

 

Yeah but that doesn't stop Williams. They have a tiny budget compared to Toyota, but they're embarrassing Them by outscoring Toyota in the very first year of utilizing their engines. This makes Williams look very resourceful, and Toyota very incompetent.

 

Oh, right -- the one without the pit babes.

I guess you don't remember the days of Alfa, Maserati, Mercedes (on their own), Auto Union, Bentley, Jaguar.

Oh, wait: those are the teams that made F1 what it used to be. I can go along with the non-mfr teams having made F1 what it *is* now. Although Bernie/Max and the FIA have a lot to do with what it's becoming.

 

They came and went as many expect the current crop of manufacturers will do. It's been the privateers that have slogged through the good and bad times. I do know my F1 history and while I wasn't around for Auto Union, Bentley or Maser I do remember the Alfa in the 80s. Where are they now? Oh, yea gone like all the others. McLaren and Williams are still around.

Anything post war is all privateers with manufacturers other than Ferrari simply dipping their toes in.

Agreed.

 

ferrari uses the shell oil and fuel and both STR and spyker dont....dont know if this has anything to do with the loss of speed but could be a combination of this and chassis. i only pump gas at shell just because thats what ferrari uses and i drive a 350z.

 

Car manufacturers come _and_ go. Why would "synthetic" teams like Williams or McLaren have a marketing agenda to acheive?

- Renault bought the Benetton team (1995 WCC) in 2000 and was renamed Renault F1 in 2002. The base is in Enstone, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.

- The BAR F1 team became the Honda F1 team for the 2006 season with a base in Brackley, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom.

- McLaren Group's McLaren Automotive built the McLaren F1 and worked with Mercedes-Benz on the SLR McLaren.

What were you saying now?

Wouldn't sports car racing have a bigger connection with road cars than F1?

 

I can play that game, too.

It might, if the manufacturers weren't writing the rules. Sports car racing is organized around specific classes. SCCA GT2 is virtually written for the 911s. GT1 is being rewritten around anyone they can get to play.

And sports car racing is based off what they're building now, not what they'll be building in the future. F1 goes through a lot of experimental technology. The stuff that works might find its way to street cars. The stuff that doesn't gets dropped.

F1 used to be the advanced R&D segment of the leading sports cars manufacturers. No other series has gotten close to fulfilling that role. F1 is dropping that role. What does that say for the future of sports cars?

Who writes the specs for future car technologies, now? Government bureaucrats?

 

In fact the idea as applied to car suspension was originally used on the Citroen 2CV nearly 60 years ago! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuned_mass_damper

ian

 

As Honda crows about its earth livery, Audi is developing diesel tech with its partners to benefit road cars.

http://www.speedtv.com/commentary/36287/

Porsche is benefiting from suspension uprights (RSR to road) check Setember, 2007 issue of Excellence

Yes, it is true there is old tech in sports cars. It's still nice to see Chevrolet find dry-sump engine lubrication and finally use it in a Corvette (the new Z06).

Some of the experimental tech in F1:

http://motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=226598

I'd hope the future of sports cars is a light one. I'm glad to see Ferrari and Jaguar using aluminum in their chassis (XKR isn't a sports car though).

The LMGT2 class isn't written for 911s. It is sad that the regs in LMP1 favor diesels. Audi first talked with the ACO several years ago about diesels in LMP.

I'm not happy about the european pedestrian safety regs:

http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-117530-16&type=LinksDossier

http://www.walk.com.au/pedestriancouncil/Page.asp?PageID=607

http://www.safetyresearch.net/Library/SRS037.pdf

Le Mans-style racing, imo, tests speed along with durability. Now if they only got rid of more ballast.

What is so bad about a team in F1 that doesn't make road cars?

 

Not much. For me it just doesn't give me anything to identify with. I only want a roadcar of a team that is in F1.

At least Spyker makes road cars. Albeit very expensive ones.

 

but why would Spyker be in F1 for the long term? haven't they targeted 2008 podiums?