2018 F1 Constructor development/techFormula 1 

That seems to be a parent shell, looking at the value in intangibles I suspect it's for holding trademarks and patents. As you'll see from the other filings at Companies House there are only 150 shares divided between the three directors. The big money (and they definitely have that) will be spread across sub-companies in other territories.

If they actually had the amount of money they claim to have, FI wouldn't continually call rubbish when the team has been linked to this group and the subsequent purchase. Others have never heard of them prior to this and found it quite strange that a unknown company especially in the drinks business would out of the aether show up and save the day.

Maybe they had enough for the 30 mil injection, but I'd really like to hear from FI on this, rather than a random tweet in the night, that claims sabotage from several sources. When in reality it's not, it's groups or people looking for what they're owed and no longer going to wait. Also considering the news of how FI were seeking to be put in administration so over the summer break they could be bought by Lawrence Stroll, I find it even more strange the claim. Why would FI accept something that would take them off their planned course? Why does it see this drinks group doesn't understand how Administration works? They claim a normal practice "sabatoge", strange.
 
If they actually had the amount of money they claim to have, FI wouldn't continually call rubbish when the team has been linked to this group and the subsequent purchase.

You could be right - although it's worth pointing out that they were "leading a consortium bid" according to the reports from earlier this year.

One has to wonder where all the sponsorship money is actually coming from if that's genuinely the only balance sheet. The cycling, motorcycling and football teams must be costing something and be getting paid by somebody. I also wouldn't call them "unheard of", you can buy their product in hotels and the like, whether or not that's a crap distribution plan or some attempt at an appearance of exclusivity I just don't know.

I give it a week before Colin Kolles comes out of the woodwork yet again :D
 
You could be right - although it's worth pointing out that they were "leading a consortium bid" according to the reports from earlier this year.

One has to wonder where all the sponsorship money is actually coming from if that's genuinely the only balance sheet. The cycling, motorcycling and football teams must be costing something and be getting paid by somebody. I also wouldn't call them "unheard of", you can buy their product in hotels and the like, whether or not that's a crap distribution plan or some attempt at an appearance of exclusivity I just don't know.

I give it a week before Colin Kolles comes out of the woodwork yet again :D

On there website they claim to have a lot of supporters, most of them racing. Yet I can't find a single car they support with even minimal advertising. My issues with it, is when serious investors show up they do it either one of two ways, anonymously and it's told months later. Or the other way it seems is trying to do it quietly but the documentation of it all is far more public. BWT reminds me of this, the McLaren injection from a certain Canadian as well. And even Lawrence Stroll story.

This story has continually been jump started it seems by Rich Energy Limited and that's why I have a hard time believing it especially when a group run by a very dodgy leader some would say, didn't jump on this before leaving the group. And again they post this tasteless tweet in the manner they did makes it seem more strange. They could possibly be telling the truth but I want both side before I say one way or the other. I'm simply saying it is strange and the stuff shown doesn't help them thus far.
 
Perez has reported that he was asked to take action by the team in order to 'fend off a winding-up order from another creditor'. BBC. It seems that the 'other creditor' may well be Mallya's own operating company with an outstanding £159m.

The article also notes that the Rich Energy offer of £30m was 'rejected by a judge'. That may shed some light on the whole Rich Energy thing... drinks company with a leader whose reputation is being called into doubt. Right up Mallya's street :D
 
Perez has reported that he was asked to take action by the team in order to 'fend off a winding-up order from another creditor'. BBC. It seems that the 'other creditor' may well be Mallya's own operating company with an outstanding £159m.

The article also notes that the Rich Energy offer of £30m was 'rejected by a judge'. That may shed some light on the whole Rich Energy thing... drinks company with a leader whose reputation is being called into doubt. Right up Mallya's street :D
So, team wants to ged rid of Mallya?
Also, tbh, I don't really know what going into administration means. Is it like seizing unpaid property and selling it to the highest bidder? What happens to other creditors then?
 
adb
So, team wants to ged rid of Mallya?

Certainly, it seems he's virtually bankrupt anyway.

adb
Also, tbh, I don't really know what going into administration means. Is it like seizing unpaid property and selling it to the highest bidder? What happens to other creditors then?

If the team can be sold as a 'going concern' (ie a company that has the staff and resources required to continue operations) then the Administrators will make sure that happens. If no buyer can be found to keep them in business then they will be 'liquidated', that's the phase where assets are sold off to settle debts in an arbitrary order.
 
So right now they're gonna do all they can to at least keep the same staff if someone else buys the team. Kind of like what happened to the Enstone Lotus team becoming Renault?I don't know if they went into adminstration but the idea that a team/factory name changes over the years but the factory stays the same.
 
So right now they're gonna do all they can to at least keep the same staff if someone else buys the team. Kind of like what happened to the Enstone Lotus team becoming Renault?I don't know if they went into adminstration but the idea that a team/factory name changes over the years but the factory stays the same.

That's pretty much it, yes.
 
Are there any teams on the grid other than Williams, Ferrari, and Haas that are actually they're own thing from the ground up and not just an old team bought up? I started watching in 2011 and don't know the history of the teams so intricately. I know Red Bull used to be something else. Sauber has been around forever but has it always had the same owners? What about Toro Rosso?
 
Are there any teams on the grid other than Williams, Ferrari, and Haas that are actually they're own thing from the ground up and not just an old team bought up? I started watching in 2011 and don't know the history of the teams so intricately. I know Red Bull used to be something else. Sauber has been around forever but has it always had the same owners? What about Toro Rosso?
McLaren?
Didn’t Toro Rosso used to be Minardi?

Also wasn’t Haas was built up of former team members from Lotus and Caterham etc??
 
Oh yea McLaren. Totally forgettable this year :lol:

I don't know about Haas, maybe someone can help us out with that
 
Here's a quick rundown of the current teams that have remained unchanged:

The racing division of Ferrari was founded in 1929 as the racing team for Alfa Romeo. As an F1 constructor, they started in the same year the championship began in 1950, despite having built their first race car in 1939.

Haas' F1 adventure started in 2016.

McLaren was founded in 1963. Their first F1 GP was in 1966.

Williams' first GP as a constructor was in 1978. As a team it started a year earlier with a custom March 761.


In terms of their past iterations as F1 constructor teams, starting from their first GP, here's how the rest of the current field plays out:

Stewart (1997 - 1999) > Jaguar (2000 - 2004) > Red Bull (2005 - present)
Minardi (1985 - 2005) > Toro Rosso (2006 - present)
Jordan (1991 - 2005) > Midland (2006) > Spyker (2007) > Force India (2008 - present)
Sauber (1993 - 2005) > BMW Sauber > (2006 - 2009) > Sauber (2010 - 2017) > Alfa Romeo Sauber (present)
Toleman (1981 - 1985) > Benetton (1986 - 2001) > Renault (2002 - 2010) > Lotus Renault > (2011 - 2015) > Renault (2016 - present)
Tyrrell (1968 - 1998) > B.A.R. (1999 - 2005) > Honda (2006 - 2008) > Brawn (2009) > Mercedes (2010 - present)

Mercedes as an F1 constructor actually first raced in 1954, but they withdrew from the world of motorsport in 1955 after the infamous Le Mans 24hrs crash which killed Pierre Levegh and more than 80 spectators.

Renault as an F1 constructor actually first raced in 1977, but in 1985 major financial problems emerged and the company could no longer justify the large expenses needed to maintain the racing team's competitiveness. It reduced its role in F1 to just an engine supplier in 1986 before leaving entirely at the end of that year. In 2000, Renault bought Benetton but didn't return as a constructor until 2002.
 
Last edited:
McLaren?
Didn’t Toro Rosso used to be Minardi?

Also wasn’t Haas was built up of former team members from Lotus and Caterham etc??

No Haas was their own thing and didn't buy any dead teams, members jumping ship are just that. The list @Carbon_6 nicely put forth is those teams who bought other teams, basically infrastructure of all sorts and at times even their cars.

I would say however, Sauber are a weird one, where yes BMW bought them and kept Sauber in the name, then sold it back to Peter Sauber (bit more complicated than that). And like I've said prior is now owned by Longbow and Pascal Picci, the actual Alfa Romeo title sponsorship doesn't own them like BMW did. Sauber is the only constructor that I can think of that started as its own group, sold to a manufacture, and then sold back to the original creator.
 
Last edited:
The whole Renault/Lotus affair was weird too. And complex.

Renault was poised to scale back its operations to being only an engine supplier (again) in 2011, instead resorting to a tie-up deal with Lotus Cars for a 25% stake in the team. The deal was done at the end of 2010, with a sponsorship deal from Lotus penned to last until at least 2017. The team would be rebranded as Lotus Renault GP, though the chassis would still be called a Renault, and the livery would be a inspired by the classic black and gold John Player Special sponsorship last used when Renault and Lotus joined forces in the 1980s.

However, a Malaysian-backed team that entered F1 in 2010 led by Tony Fernandes (creator of Air Asia), ran as Lotus Racing, a result of Group Lotus (owner of Lotus Cars) giving permission to use the name. During the season however Group Lotus, with agreement from parent company Proton, terminated the agreement due to what it described as "flagrant and persistent breaches of the licence by the team". Not long afterwards, a statement from Fernandes made it known that he had acquired Team Lotus Ventures Ltd. (a company owned by David Hunt since 1994 after the original Lotus team stopped racing in F1), claiming full ownership of the rights to the Team Lotus brand and its heritage, as such rebranding his team as Team Lotus for 2011. On a side note, the team also announced towards the end of 2010 that a deal had been reached where Red Bull Technologies would give them a supply of gearbox and hydraulic systems from 2011. Another deal was confirmed whereby Renault would supply engines for the next two years.

In response, Lotus Cars launched legal action against the team claiming Fernandes had no rights to the name because Hunt was never in a position to sell it. Proton stated that Group Lotus owned all rights to the Lotus name in the automotive sector, F1 included, and that Fernandes had no rights to use the brand in the 2011 season. Fernandes did however state that the team would go to court if necessary to protect the brand name.

So, on the eve of the 2011 season, the situation arose where there would be two F1 teams known as Lotus powered by Renault engines racing against each other. They would've looked pretty much the same as well had Fernandes not decided at the last minute to abandon running JPS-inspired livery, and sticking with the team's original green/yellow paint scheme. A statement from the Chapman family expressed their support for Group Lotus in the dispute and declaration that the Team Lotus name should not be used in the sport. With the season well under way by this point, the whole affair ended up going to the High Court in London, but not over the use of the name itself, rather the termination of the contract between Fernandes and Group Lotus.

The court ruling confirmed that Fernandes was the owner of the name, and that his team could still use the Team Lotus name and the Team Lotus logo, but not "Lotus" on its own. That was still the sole right of Group Lotus, who could therefore enter F1 using "Lotus" for a team name, the black and gold livery, and the Lotus logo. Damages were paid after Team Lotus were found to be in breach of the licensing agreement made with Group Lotus, which had seen the team compete as Lotus Racing during 2010. As such, both teams completed 2011 using their respective Lotus monikers.

Ahead of the 2012 season, Team Lotus was rebranded as Caterham F1 after the acquisition by Fernandes of Caterham Cars, who then formed the Caterham Group. By the end of 2014, the team entered administration and didn't race at the US GP. Through crowdfunding however (a first in F1's history), Caterham were able to race in the season ending Abu Dhabi GP and end of season testing at the same venue, before folding altogether on the eve of the 2015 season.
 

I mean if you say so.

They don't look all that different from the 2014 front wings some cars had, and passing that season wasn't all that much better than now

2014-Ferrari-F1-Car-Sound.jpg

cf9dec8f15d28b0afc69c1057c1bf540.jpg
 
The difference being that the new wings are designed for the air to run under the tyre not over.

This should in Theory reduce turbulance, until teams start to ruin that with front wing development.
 
The difference being that the new wings are designed for the air to run under the tyre not over.

This should in Theory reduce turbulance, until teams start to ruin that with front wing development.

You have the idea wrong, the idea is to run the air in-wash rather than out-wash around the the tire. Which is what cause the tire life to fade in the first place when following in dirty air, however since the wing still yields a complexity seen in other past wings that doesn't mean it will fix performance. And in reality may just shift the problem.
 
I mean if you say so.

They don't look all that different from the 2014 front wings some cars had, and passing that season wasn't all that much better than now

2014-Ferrari-F1-Car-Sound.jpg

cf9dec8f15d28b0afc69c1057c1bf540.jpg
Those cars aren’t as wide as a 2018 car, and the new wings are 200mm wider next year...it looks pretty huge in the photo of the Williams.
 
Those cars aren’t as wide as a 2018 car, and the new wings are 200mm wider next year...it looks pretty huge in the photo of the Williams.

I'm not talking about the width, the width isn't the only change. Yes these wings aren't as long, but they are the last time the FIA tried to change regs to simplify and increase downforce on cars for the sake of passing. At that time it meant decreasing the width of the wings making it more simplified element wise as well. That was the point.

All the FIA has said is that they want to limit out-wash effect which they deem is the biggest issue, widen the wing which will possibly help create more wheel turbulence. Have less elements on the front wing. Other than difference in span the 2014 is the closest modern example to this, because between 2014 to now the wings got increasingly complicated. The only other example I can think of with simplified wings is 2009.

front_wing_endplate_in_out_wash_f60_vs_f2008.jpg

Here is a helpful understanding of the in-wash and out-wash. There are other ways to achieve this that are more aerodynamic like the angle of incidence between the "root" and "tip" however since this isn't exactly like an airfoil it's harder to break down.

Here is a non out-wash 2009 wing, Brawn and Toyota were really they only teams running it and it is another part of what played into Brawn's success.

car_photo_300564.jpg


But as you can see here this is still an out-wash wing, all the FIA has done to limit the out-wash effect is stop end plate tunnels and vertical vortex generators, which is a big deal. Doesn't mean improvement though

(test wing with clear out-wash endplate)
racefansdotnet-20180731-095718-10.jpg
 
Last edited:
Steiner was asked whether the team had decided to switch its focus to its car for next year.

We decided. We are doing the ’19 car. We have to because otherwise you fall too far behind. And also when you look at our car now in the midfield we are quite solid so it’s no point to keep on working on this one because we have to look at the future.

We make developments and we will bring them to the car in the next races. They are smaller ones. In the windtunnel we are developing the ’19 car.
 
I decided to make a mock-up of what the cars might look like as far as proportions go. Just took the upcoming wheel and tire sizes and did a few simple fractions and scaled accordingly. I hadn't seen anything online that took the front tire width and rear tire diameter changes into account. I saw an article that stated the rear tires would increase diameter to 700-720mm. This image shows the 720mm size rear, which is what I hope they go with. I just eyeballed the changes in wing sizes.


It could grow on me if they keep the rear wheels as deep as they are(reminds me of classic Lotus, or Group C cars), but I doubt they will. :( Hopefully they use those fancy wheels that are flat halfway to center, like the ones the Rebellion prototypes are running. I know the front wings will be simplified, but I only cared about proportions, and my photoshop skills are limited. So please don't mind any ugly bits you might notice.

What do you guys think? Do the taller rear tires help soften the blow?
 
I decided to make a mock-up of what the cars might look like as far as proportions go. Just took the upcoming wheel and tire sizes and did a few simple fractions and scaled accordingly. I hadn't seen anything online that took the front tire width and rear tire diameter changes into account. I saw an article that stated the rear tires would increase diameter to 700-720mm. This image shows the 720mm size rear, which is what I hope they go with. I just eyeballed the changes in wing sizes.

No images?

The tyres are currently 670-680mm (different types have different diameters) so 700-720 (obviously an increase of 3 and 4 cm) won't really be that noticeable... what I find jarring are the 18" hubs. I'll get over it I guess :D

It's a good move for the sport, the performance of the cars is reaching the edge of the envelope for such tall sidewalls.
 
What impact will 18" wheels have on the drivers' bodies? As it stands the only real suspension I see on the cars is the sidewalls (which flex a lot during heavy kerb-riding, etc.). Will the added stiffness of a lower profile tire require loosening of the very minimal suspension on the cars, or are we expecting not much of a change? I know open-wheel cars can be rough on drivers when too much of that impact is transmitted.
 
What impact will 18" wheels have on the drivers' bodies? As it stands the only real suspension I see on the cars is the sidewalls (which flex a lot during heavy kerb-riding, etc.). Will the added stiffness of a lower profile tire require loosening of the very minimal suspension on the cars, or are we expecting not much of a change? I know open-wheel cars can be rough on drivers when too much of that impact is transmitted.
You can design & build the best F1 the world has ever seen but, if it doesn't use the four rubber thingies making contact with the racetrack well, you may as well have designed an expensive trolley.

All the teams have been using this size of tyre since Adam was a boy. sure, there have been different manufacturers & numerous constructions/compounds in that time but, most of those tyres will have inherent characteristics that have to be catered to when setting up a Formula One.

IMO, I'm expecting the new 18'' tyres to shuffle the pack as much as anything we've seen recently & I'll be interested to see which teams get their heads around it the best.
It won't see Sauber as the 'car to have' all of a sudden simply because they don't have the resources (read people & money) to make it happen but, the mid-pack could look very different.
 
What impact will 18" wheels have on the drivers' bodies? As it stands the only real suspension I see on the cars is the sidewalls (which flex a lot during heavy kerb-riding, etc.). Will the added stiffness of a lower profile tire require loosening of the very minimal suspension on the cars, or are we expecting not much of a change?

I would expect some changes to suspension geometry. Back in the day, Colin Chapman applied sophisticated geometry and engineering to suspension design, and came up with unequal length and non-parallel upper and lower links to achieve superior cornering to other cars of the day. Today's F1 cars pretty much have parallel and equal length suspension links, which may lead to adverse camber on the tires when allowed to roll on softer springs through longer arcs.
 
Back