USF1 -- F1's All-American Challenger

[madtown77]

So much speculation. So few facts.

Well, that pretty much defines the last 121 pages...

[segedunum]

So much speculation. So few facts.

So much evidence, so much denial. They have no car. We certainly know that for a fact. Everything else is just a matter of working out why.

[Mr Alcatraz]

The speculation is that further funding from Chad is possible, but a situation where Peter & Ken would have to give their chairs over to someone competent.

I tend to agree. Windsor has always struck me as a bit of a snake-oil salesman. I had serious doubts from the time it was deemed "All American" Americans that really follow F1 arn't interested in the "USA" "USA" "USA" chant mentality. (at least this one's not) Of course I've thought in the the interest of fair disclosure, we should change the last two lines of our national anthem to:

Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave?
O'er the land of the gullible, and the home of the greedy. :-" [-X

At the light of that speculation, it does make more sense to finance a overhaul than to throw money at people that, alledgedly, don't really know what to do with it.

"They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind"


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YQ92NxmTXU[/youtube]

Sorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry

[nipo]

Maybe I am not following this closely enough, but didn't FIA say that teams can miss 3 matches and still keep the entry? Why am I reading an FIA press release in this thread, dated 10th Feb, that said teams must participate in all races?

Honestly, I'd love to see these guys who boast about transparency and only want to go on TV replaced with serious people who really want to go racing.

[The FOZ]

The phrase, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" sums up Hurley's position.

IF IF IF the situation with USF1 is as bad as rumors suggest, Hurley is faced with the decision of either doubling down on his investment, or cutting his losses and walking away.

If he's going to walk away, fair bet it's because he is very confident that USF1 is going down in flames. No amount of money or effort will save that bird.

If he's willing to put more $$$ into the project, he's going to do it knowing that it's not going to vanish like the first round of financing did. To that end, he can do one or more of these:

1) Money contingent upon meeting progress deadlines. More pressure on the project, may not actually help if they need money NOW.

2) Money in exchange for bringing his own people in to run the project. Big confidence hit on the guys running the show now.

3) Buying a car from someone else - short term gain (they make the grid by Bahrain), but at the cost of a huge credibility hit, and pretty much a guarantee that they stay back in the pack all season long - they would not have any development/R&D experience with that car, and their key people may or may not be able to incorporate their own innovations into that car.

4) Take a controlling interest in the business, then sell it, either as a whole, or in parts.

[PlatinumZealot]

[Fil]

i have a stronger and stronger feeling Chad Hurley is in this deal in much the same way as Virgin is with Manor..

He's there as a public figure to attract actual paying sponsors & technical partners by acting as a credible partner, but not actually investing any significant time or money into it.

That's why his public presence has been incredibly blasé about the whole trainwreck* thusfar.


His recent Twitter (Jan 27th)..

Q: JordanMCallaway: ...Also, I'm excited to see USF1 this year. Are you still involved? @Chad_Hurley
A: Chad Hurley: Yup, gave them some initial capital to get things started. We'll see what they can do!

Q: Sam_Piroton: hi chad, when will we see the new usf1 car? any comments on that?
A: Chad Hurley: Good question! It's crunch time for Ken and company.


Doesn't really sound like someone who's actively participating (time or $$-wise), or really caring that much..


*"trainwreck" implicitely implies a vehicle has been built to be involved in a wreck, i realise this isn't the most accurate description i could have chosen..

[Professor]

Maybe I am not following this closely enough, but didn't FIA say that teams can miss 3 matches and still keep the entry? Why am I reading an FIA press release in this thread, dated 10th Feb, that said teams must participate in all races?

Honestly, I'd love to see these guys who boast about transparency and only want to go on TV replaced with serious people who really want to go racing.

There are two provisions in the Concorde agreement that deal with this. Provision 4.xx? says that the teams must appear, undergo scrutineering, and attempt to compete in every race for the duration of their agreement. Some factors may be allowed to obviate this requirement, such as force majure (a fire in your shop, a hurricane, other natural disasters, etc).

Elsewhere, the Concorde agreement says in provision 13.xx?, "if a team has failed to participate in more than three events in the same FIA F1 Championship it is considered to have withdrawn from the championship."

Interpretation? I don't really know considering the FIA's obfuscation!

http://www.usf1formula1.com/

[nipo]

Maybe I am not following this closely enough, but didn't FIA say that teams can miss 3 matches and still keep the entry? Why am I reading an FIA press release in this thread, dated 10th Feb, that said teams must participate in all races?

Honestly, I'd love to see these guys who boast about transparency and only want to go on TV replaced with serious people who really want to go racing.

There are two provisions in the Concorde agreement that deal with this. Provision 4.xx? says that the teams must appear, undergo scrutineering, and attempt to compete in every race for the duration of their agreement. Some factors may be allowed to obviate this requirement, such as force majure (a fire in your shop, a hurricane, other natural disasters, etc).

Elsewhere, the Concorde agreement says in provision 13.xx?, "if a team has failed to participate in more than three events in the same FIA F1 Championship it is considered to have withdrawn from the championship."

Interpretation? I don't really know considering the FIA's obfuscation!

Thank you for the information.

If so, could something be deduced from the difference in wording? I am reading it like you must "attempt" to participate, but if your attempt failed, it is ok... until the 3rd time, when you will be excluded from the Championship. That said, it seems failing to participate 3 times won't really mean violation of the Agreement itself, but withdrawal from the season instead.

If my interpretation is correct, I would suppose the least USF1 have to do is to pass the crash test, bring their cars to Bahrain, and show that they are race-ready. Then, they can choose to walk away claiming a technical problem (or safety issue like the 2005 US GP). But obviously I cannot see why in such case they won't go ahead and just complete the race itself.

On the contrary, if they can't get their cars ready by the first GP, they wouldn't have "attempted" to race, and will consequently be considered to have broken the Concorde Agreement. The 3-race "grace period" doesn't seem to apply this way.

Does that make sense? Anyone?

[Professor]

The "attempt to race" criteria will be defined by the FIA. I read this as saying that a team must provide adequete proof of their intent to participate. Completed crash testing results would be an example, a business plan that includes expenditures and funding. And, a race weekend organizational chart that would communicate to the Clerk of Course the proper communications pathway had been established, and as a result, the team would ennunciate a race worthy organizational plan.

The FIA, in "their wisdom" could make any decision they wanted to because the rules are so vague that any point of view could be agreed.

Reading the sporting rules creates more questions than they answer.

[xpensive]

Looking at page one of this thread, most posters were somewhat sceptical at first, but all it took was some video-shots showing next to nothing, a mock-up engine and something vaguely resembling a tub, to make members of F1T completely taken by those clowns, two prats with no F1 credibility whatsoever?

I'll be molded to one of my notebooks to follow the final act of this farce and hopefully learn what it really was all about,
I'm leaning towards a "The producers" scenario again. But it could be just incompetent as well.

If they can miss three races or the entire season is totally irrelevant at this point, they don't have a car, period.

[nipo]

It also demands teams to "appear" and "undergo scrutineering" in addition to "attempt to complete" the race. I think without your cars you cannot reasonably fulfil these criteria.

Of course, that contradicts to what the "no penalty" claims have to offer, which in turn contradicts with the FIA statement yesterday, which is the reason I asked the question in the first place.

I suppose reading from the text doesn't really solve any problems, but now at least I get to know on paper it seems that it is impossible to abide by the Agreement without showing up with cars in the first race.

Thanks again for the info anyway.

Well, the facts are there and are up for interpretation - and it is quite clear that USF1 is in trouble. There is a saying in Chinese: The eyes search for excessive food when the stomach is actually too small, i.e. overestimation of abilities. I still remember how Peter Windsor was so excited about how his team will bring a completely new dimension to F1. Yeah, I know, we've got politcs and drama, now we've got comedy as well.

To me, USF1 is still a joke... :^o

[czt]

Quick poll - does anyone still reckon USF1 will show up: a) In Bahrain or b) At all?

[CMSMJ1]

to the poll - No and No.

Unless they magic a car out of the ether and get 2 of them to the gulf to try adn qualify then theya re dead and buried.

I hope they do it..but I think it is more than coincidence that the only 2 viable new entries are from the UK who has the resource and engineering availability to run with the projects.

Campos cannot afford to get Dallara to build a chassis
USF1 cannot afford to buy the engines even!

Madness...and a real shame - it would have been great to have the new teams.

[WhiteBlue]

i have a stronger and stronger feeling Chad Hurley is in this deal in much the same way as Virgin is with Manor..

He's there as a public figure to attract actual paying sponsors & technical partners by acting as a credible partner, but not actually investing any significant time or money into it.

That's why his public presence has been incredibly blasé about the whole trainwreck* thusfar.


His recent Twitter (Jan 27th)..

Q: JordanMCallaway: ...Also, I'm excited to see USF1 this year. Are you still involved? @Chad_Hurley
A: Chad Hurley: Yup, gave them some initial capital to get things started. We'll see what they can do!

Q: Sam_Piroton: hi chad, when will we see the new usf1 car? any comments on that?
A: Chad Hurley: Good question! It's crunch time for Ken and company.


Doesn't really sound like someone who's actively participating (time or $$-wise), or really caring that much..


*"trainwreck" implicitely implies a vehicle has been built to be involved in a wreck, i realise this isn't the most accurate description i could have chosen..

This sounds like a decent explanation. Initial capital would indicate that there is no intention to risk more than just that. Like going into the casino with nothing but a 100 € note and gambling it. If its blown its gone. If it wins you can make your next move even bigger.