bgiere

Audi is the brand that should carry on to F1. I cannot see how the Porshc name on an F1 car achieves anything...Audi OTOH has some opportunity to market itself and it just feels right that it be Audi...

Minok

I would not call BMW's exit humiliating. The sad thing is that BMW was improving and beginning to become competitive. The economic downturn put the squeeze on many major brands that sell consumer vehicles and the idiotic financial burden imposed by F1 doesn't help. F1 is focused on making money, and not quality racing. That is not a bad thing, since you do have to make money to justify doing it, but at this stage, the quest for profit is destroying what little remains of sport.

You don't have to be #1, and certainly anyone that joins with a new team will not be #1 any time soon... there is a learning curve in the sport. Being middle of the pack is not a bad thin.

However, it would be sweet if an Italian branded old rival for Ferrari came back in....

alexb76

Well, the biggest problem is that Bernie keeps 50% of the profits! So, almost ALL of the racing teams actually LOSE money competing. They are trying to re-negotiate the deal for 2013, so teams can keep 75% of the profits instead, if so, the winning teams can actually turn a profit and that will make it much easier for manufacturers to enter F1, such as VW/Audi/Porsche!

Kuhan

I think all the leading F1 teams make money or at least break even. Companies like McLaren and Williams have to since they don't have some big corporate parent to bankroll them. I don't know about Ferrari since the car sales were originally just to bankroll the racing but I doubt Fiat would tolerate that much and their cars are covered in high profile sponsors...

I bet Honda are kicking themselves after putting so much money into their programme and then quitting the year before the car that Honda developed, rebranded as Brawn, went on to win the championship. The reason Mercedes are rubbish this year is because Brawn did not spend much money in 2009 developing a car for 2010.

alexb76

I can't remember where I read it, but basically ALL have a negative cash flow, as far as F1 costs vs. F1 portion of profits is concerned, less for winning teams than losing teams. The difference is ALL made by the team sponsors, hence the back marker teams change drivers quite often as a new driver brings a new sponsor, etc... this will change if teams got more share of the F1 profits.

Kuhan

Yes, absolutely, I just consider the sponsorship as part of the income required to run a business. Without sponsorship none of the teams would be competing. And that's why Bernie is taking half the money - he creates a global arena for the sponsors to be seen and it's that global exposure that makes the sponsors willing to put in as much money as they do.

Even Ferrari needed Marlboro money to pay Schumachers salary... it's not just the back markers that need this!

It's the same with any pro sport - all sports teams have sponsors and they probably would not be profitable without them.

kosmo

god i hope they dont do it. waste of time and money.

Mike in CA

One thing to keep in mind is that we are looking at this from our provincial U.S. perspective; a country that hasn't even had a Grand Prix for the last 3 years. In other parts of the world an F1 race is a major event, not a two paragraph blurb on page 6 of the sports section.

F1 has already expanded big time in Asia, with India and Russia next on the list; not coincidentally from Porsche's standpoint, all growing markets for their products. We may be blase about Porsche winning on Sunday and selling on Monday, but globally, getting their name in front of a huge television audience on race day is gold, especially if they can be successful.

A big if, no doubt, but maybe worth the risk. I love watching F1. Practical issues aside, from my own selfish POV, it would definitely be even more interesting if there were a Porsche or two on the grid.

alexb76

We're getting an F1 track in Austin, aren't we?

I really don't understand the whole Austin deal... they couldn't spend the money to upgrade one of the existing facilities to F1 spec, they wanna do a brand new track? Totally doesn't make sense, unless some mogul in Austin is a crazy F1 fan and likes to sponsor a track... which I don't mind!

ADias

'We' ?!? Aren't you Canadian? You already have an F1 GP in Montreal. We (not you) will have Austin, and from the looks of it, it's a great design with a lot of elevation change.

Mike in CA

True about Austin, and welcome news after 3 years of no U.S. race. Still, F1 is still nowhere near as big in the States as it is elsewhere and Porsche's calculations about entering F1 may hinge much more on that, rather than whether it's a big deal with it's U.S. customers. If the general public is into racing in this country at all, it's with Snooze-CAR. F1 made be a parade on occasion, but a least it's a parade with interesting machinery.

alexb76

Sorry I offended your patriotism! Btw, HOW do you know where I am from? I could be living in Spain and post on this forum.

Yes, WE do have an F1 track in Montreal... one of the best on the schedule. Any new track in North America is welcome and I WOULD call OURS if I please for my own reasons that I do NOT have to explain to you.

PS. BTW, I wasn't questioning at all if Austin is a good track or not, just stating that since they can come up with fund to build a totally new track, they can potentially just upgrade another track to be on F1 schedule too

alexb76

Totally agreed, they also shot themselves in the foot with the Indy fiasco. I sure hope we get at least one more track in the States, for 3 total weekends in North America (including Montreal and Austin).

ADias

No offense to my patriotism taken. Just noted the ownership clause as interesting, as I do not consider the Circuit de Gilles Villeneuve ours. Should I?

I just have the habit of expecting that people in this forum are honest in their statements. Your location, says Vancouver, therefore I presumed you live in Canada and perhaps erroneously also assumed you are a Canadian - perhaps not.

Minok

True, but sponsorship money is part of the equation, a key part. The sponsors must all be approved to be seen on an F1 event. Remember, each time they race the German GP at Hockenheim, that giant Mobil 1 bottle on the entry way gets covered up and is hardly seen on the screen, and that bottle is a huge icon at the track... one of the features the track is known for. So sponsorship money is part of the cash flow.. you cannot exclude it.

Well, the US has to make its circuit work first. Elevation change is good. Austin has potential. We won't get anything cool like Spa, but its got potential. Korea looks horrible, by comparison.. its too flat, and what is with that walled design given they built it out in the open (I know they want to build a city around it to produce a street-course, but sheesh... that pit entry is pants)

Maybe a 3rd track in North America in Mexico would be wicked. There is big Mexican money in F1 teams already.