Arrows F1

[Scott]

I give Dieter a bit more credit than that.  Torro Rosso, or Minardi as you prefer they are called would not exist today were it not for Red Bull's purchase and money infusion.  I would prefer that a couple of the other backmarkers were really farm teams for Mclaren or Ferrari than constantly going in and out of receivership and changing ownership and/or management every year or so.

I was thrilled when Vettel won Monza in the pouring rain in the Torro Rosso.  It is probably what propelled him to the Mother team a year or so earlier than was scheduled.  I've lost my keen on him, mostly because of his out of car antics, but it was a historic moment in F1, even more so now that he has 3 WDC to his name.

Almost all the teams are marketing exercises these days. 

[cosworth151]

It was also the old Super Aguri factory if my memory isn't playing tricks.

Arrows was Milton Keynes based originally if I recall correctly, before Walkinshaw moved it to Leafield.

I recall it that way, too. Wasn't their old Milton Keynes facility later home to Stewart/Jaguar/RBR?

[Irisado]

I give Dieter a bit more credit than that.  Torro Rosso, or Minardi as you prefer they are called would not exist today were it not for Red Bull's purchase and money infusion.  I would prefer that a couple of the other backmarkers were really farm teams for Mclaren or Ferrari than constantly going in and out of receivership and changing ownership and/or management every year or so.

Yes, and no.

When Paul Stoddart sold the team, he did so because it was the first offer he had received which would allow the team to be run better financially than was possible under his ownership, and because the jobs at Faenza would be guaranteed.

What makes me angry is that Red Bull swept away all the Minardi heritage, and insulted everyone's intelligence by pretending to maintain its Italian roots by naming it with such a crass translation.  Why they couldn't just keep it as Minardi, keep Giancarlo on the staff as a driver consultant as Paul Stoddart had done, and just become the title sponsor with input on driver choice, I don't know.  I have no time whatsoever for the way in which Franz Tost runs the team, and Gerhard Berger was extremely disparaging about Minardi when he was in charge, so I have plenty of reasons to be irritated about what Red Bull did to my favourite team.

Almost all the teams are marketing exercises these days. 

I don't agree with that.  While they're all, by necessity, very heavily into marketing, none of the other teams is treated solely as a marketing exercise in the same way in which Toro Rosso is, in my view.  All it's there for is to act as a driver proving ground for Red Bull, and a corporate exercise for the drink.  The main team is about more than that, in my view, in that it's trying to promote a racing heritage of excellence.  Where's that heritage at Toro Rosso?  Minardi had it, and Red Bull binned it.  End of story from my perspective.

I recall it that way, too. Wasn't their old Milton Keynes facility later home to Stewart/Jaguar/RBR?

I'm pretty sure that Stewart used the old Milton Keynes base, and so did Jaguar when they took over.  Are Red Bull still based there?  I don't really keep tabs on what they do.

It is funny how much the old Arrows facilities still influence modern F1 teams.  At least that part of the Arrows legacy lives on.

[Scott]

Romantics aside, there wasn't much value to the Minardi name when RB bought it.  They were a team that tried to beat the 107% rule, not really race with the other teams.  Stoddard did his best to keep them on the grid, but he didn't have the means to keep them there any longer.  So what if they are a proving ground for RB drivers?  I suppose Horner is pretty pleased he can place a driver of interest in STR instead of having to pay heavily to place them somewhere else with no guarantee they will come back to the fold if they turn out to impress.  This way the driver contracts never leave his office.

Keeping the Minardi name after the previous decade's results would have taken value from the Red Bull name, not added to it.  What on earth would they gain by keeping the name?  As well, what is the point of keeping on Giancarlo?  He sold the company years ago.  If there is no useful place for him in the company, then why?  I don't see Jackie Stewart being given a consulting role at Red Bull, or back at Jag.  Why isn't Craig Pollock hanging out at the Mercedes garage?  After all it is what remains of BAR. 

I'm no fan of Tost or Berger either, but they have nothing to do with why STR does or doesn't have any Minardi heritage.  They are/were employees, and really just answer to Marko.  You want to put someone in your sights for how things are run at STR, it is him.  Dieter's too busy running a business.

As for marketing, I thought it was a nice touch giving a nod to the Italian heritage of the team by naming it Torro Rosso (and I liked the livery better than the mother team to boot).  Red Bull makes their money selling drinks.  Arguably even the RBR is a marketing exercise, just that they've figured out how to win as well.  What's so wrong with that?  I would love it if some real blue chip companies (McDonalds, Coke, Apple) would walk in and gobble up some of the other struggling teams and paint the walls in gold, hire the best of the best and go racing.  Maybe they'll stick around a bit longer than some of the car manufacturers.  It would be a lot less painful than reading about how Force India is nervous about bringing their cars and equipment to India because some other arm of Malya's company has liens against it and they want to sieze the cars until he pays.

[Irisado]

Romantics aside, there wasn't much value to the Minardi name when RB bought it.  They were a team that tried to beat the 107% rule, not really race with the other teams.

That's not the case.  Look through their results for every Formula 1 season, and you can see there was a lot more to the team than that.  You can also consult Forza Minardi for more detailed background.

Keeping the Minardi name after the previous decade's results would have taken value from the Red Bull name, not added to it.  What on earth would they gain by keeping the name?  As well, what is the point of keeping on Giancarlo?  He sold the company years ago.  If there is no useful place for him in the company, then why?  I don't see Jackie Stewart being given a consulting role at Red Bull, or back at Jag.  Why isn't Craig Pollock hanging out at the Mercedes garage?  After all it is what remains of BAR.

There was no point in doing so if he himself didn't consider himself of any more use, but was he asked?  If he was, that's fair enough, but I got the impression that he was just pushed aside by the broom.

I disagree about the name.  There's a lot of heritage tied up with the name, and, let's not forget that with the investment brought by Red Bull, they would easily have made the team more attractive with its previous name.  The name was never the issue, nor was the ability of the employees, it was cash. 

I'm no fan of Tost or Berger either, but they have nothing to do with why STR does or doesn't have any Minardi heritage.  They are/were employees, and really just answer to Marko.  You want to put someone in your sights for how things are run at STR, it is him.  Dieter's too busy running a business.

I don't blame him personally.

I'm also more than happy to blame Marko whenever possible .

As for marketing, I thought it was a nice touch giving a nod to the Italian heritage of the team by naming it Torro Rosso (and I liked the livery better than the mother team to boot).  Red Bull makes their money selling drinks.  Arguably even the RBR is a marketing exercise, just that they've figured out how to win as well.  What's so wrong with that?  I would love it if some real blue chip companies (McDonalds, Coke, Apple) would walk in and gobble up some of the other struggling teams and paint the walls in gold, hire the best of the best and go racing.  Maybe they'll stick around a bit longer than some of the car manufacturers.  It would be a lot less painful than reading about how Force India is nervous about bringing their cars and equipment to India because some other arm of Malya's company has liens against it and they want to sieze the cars until he pays.

I disagree completely.

It was anything but a nice touch.  It was condescending and patronising to the extreme.  The message was basically, 'we're destroying as much of the team's history as possible, but don't worry we'll give you a rubbish translation to make sure that you can sound Italian'.

As for the rest, I would cease to watch Formula 1 if it became a playground for multinational food and drink companies, rather than a motor manufacturer, and independent team, led sport.  Macdonald's F1 sounds like the stuff of nightmares to me.  May it never come to pass.

Edit - I don't mean any of that to come across perhaps as strongly as it sounds, just to be clear .

This whole issue goes wider than Minardi though, and ties back in with Arrows, what befell Prost, and more recently Hispania.  The independents need and deserve more help from the FIA, and Ecclestone than they receive.  The grid needs diversity, and it's dangerously close to losing that which it (F1) had managed to add post 2009.

[Scott]

That's not the case.  Look through their results for every Formula 1 season, and you can see there was a lot more to the team than that.  You can also consult Forza Minardi for more detailed background.

12 points in their last 10 years??  I also disagree completely that RB should have kept the Minardi name.  Not everyone loved them. 

I disagree completely.

Wouldn't be any fun here if you (and others) didn't.  I don't care how the cars are painted, nor who pays the bills.  As long as we have the best drivers driving the best race cars in the world.  If that means Alonso driving with a Ronald MacDonald helmet, count me in.   

[Irisado]

12 points in their last 10 years??  I also disagree completely that RB should have kept the Minardi name.  Not everyone loved them.

That's 12 more points than a whole host of other independent teams managed in times when it was easier to score.  They'd also have scored more points had the current scoring system been being used.  With the budget they had you couldn't expect more, which is why I keep saying that this was a finance problem, not a name or personnel problem.

[F1fanaticBD]

If stat is the tool of measurement for the teams like Minardi/Torro Rosso you are missing the point completely Scott. The current system would have allowed much more point for them. And also many accomplished driver were breed there, Giancarlo Fisichella and Fernando Alonso being two of the most notable, before it became Torro Rosso and Vettel was added with them. So tell me Scott, the two of the greatest driver of this decade have spend fair amount of their initial days in this team, and between them they have 5 WDC.

Come on, as long as we have Ian to poke, I hardly care about difference of opinion and this sort of stuff to have fun in this forum.  Ian the Man (So does he think) 

[John S]

12 points in their last 10 years??  I also disagree completely that RB should have kept the Minardi name.  Not everyone loved them.

That's 12 more points than a whole host of other independent teams managed in times when it was easier to score.  They'd also have scored more points had the current scoring system been being used.  With the budget they had you couldn't expect more, which is why I keep saying that this was a finance problem, not a name or personnel problem.

In Minardi's time in F1 it was common for half the field to retire with either mechanical or driver (shunt or error) issues. If you factor in the new reliability alongside the modern scoring system then it's likely Minardi would be in the same position as Caterham, Marussia or HRT, i.e. nil points.
   
Just as comparing drivers from different eras is almost impossible, then so too is team performances, IMHO.
Under the original Minardi name they were perennial backmarkers,  there were certainly other teams with the same or even less funding competing with them most of that time, some with better some with worse results.

Their successor STR has seen consistently better results, even allowing for the new scoring system, than the previous incarnations ever did. You could argue that's from more money, better tech support, better reliability or less competition; - it's hard to know which.





 

[Irisado]

In Minardi's time in F1 it was common for half the field to retire with either mechanical or driver (shunt or error) issues. If you factor in the new reliability alongside the modern scoring system then it's likely Minardi would be in the same position as Caterham, Marussia or HRT, i.e. nil points.

I concede your point to a certain extent, but I maintain that they still would have been a cut above the new teams, as they would have seen some kind of additional investment either way through some sort of partnership/buyout were the team still in Formula 1 now.  They would, therefore, in my view, have been scoring a few points here and there.
   

Under the original Minardi name they were perennial backmarkers,  there were certainly other teams with the same or even less funding competing with them most of that time, some with better some with worse results.

I can't think of a team with the same level of funding which performed better.  I'll happily consider suggestions if anyone has any.

Their successor STR has seen consistently better results, even allowing for the new scoring system, than the previous incarnations ever did. You could argue that's from more money, better tech support, better reliability or less competition; - it's hard to know which.

More money easily.  That's the big difference in my view.

[Dare]

I like Minardi and I have a team jacket to prove it.Only
comment I ever got was a smirk with a guy sarcastically
saying Minardi.

Didn't Webber drive for them one year too.

[John S]

I can't think of a team with the same level of funding which performed better.  I'll happily consider suggestions if anyone has any.

Might I suggest Jordan Grand Prix. In their early days Jordan were always strapped for cash but consistently out performed Minardi.

The subsequent bigger budgets at Jordan were earned by results showing they were worth investing in. For me Minardi, even though we all loved their passion, never achieved that higher status.

 

[Dare]

I thought of Jordan too John.You can't say Eddie didn't have
a passion for F1 as well.Fisichella got the last win for Eddie and
Jordan was a stepping stone for Fisi's Sauber ride which lead to
Renault.

[Irisado]

Didn't Webber drive for them one year too.

His debut in 2002.  In fact, that fifth place on debut in Melbourne remained his best finish at his home race for a number of years.

Might I suggest Jordan Grand Prix. In their early days Jordan were always strapped for cash but consistently out performed Minardi.

The subsequent bigger budgets at Jordan were earned by results showing they were worth investing in. For me Minardi, even though we all loved their passion, never achieved that higher status.

Jordan had more sponsorship than Minardi in 1991 as far as I was aware.  De Cesaris brought a lot of funding, and they had a title sponsor in 7Up, so I don't think that the levels of funding were comparable.

After that, they then saved money by having free engines from Yamaha, and then investment from Sasol, and subsequently Total.

Minardi had to pay for their engines every single year they were in Formula 1, and that's before engine costs were cut, so that consumed a vast amount of their limited budget.

[lkjohnson1950]

No one would have used the Yamaha engines if they hadn't been free. They were the worst engine on the grid. It has always been a mystery to me how a company that produces such wonderful motorcycle engines, produced such a poor F1 engine.