McLaren-Mercedes, 1995-97.

[Richard]

Was Schumacher racing for McLaren in 95-97? Did Petronas sponsor McLaren then too?

Oh, I see the usual protagonists have reverted to type.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Look at my previous post richard, it was the parallel choices that they faced in 1995-2009.

Conversation evolves, and this thread was created so as not to pollute the Mercedes GP thread. If there where to be another thread created it would seem overkill in my eyes.


@Xpensive.
Schumachers contract is indeed 21 million euros....over 3 years, bring the total per annum to 7 million.

[Pierce89]

In isolation probably.

But when viewed with perspective, Mercedes hand was forced by McLaren. So Mercedes had options available.

Quit: Not when Stuttgart has the appetite it does for F1, nor in this era where teams could in future end up making money instead of spending it just by participation. Nor with an engine freeze till 2014 and a competitive engine that requires minimal development costs.

Continue the McLaren arrangement: Not when they are propping up an on road rivals coffers to the tune of 80 million a season plus engines. This would not wash with anyone, least of all Stuttgart.

Go it alone: A championship winning team with full factory facilities made available at £100 million(a snip considering the cost of starting from scratch).


When you consider that Mercedes stake in McLaren translated into 200 million, they could afford to leave and take the risk making money in the process.
The McLaren arrangement will mean they retain high visibility and an affiliation with the team in exchange for free engines until 2015(or thereabouts).

So Mercedes have in effect not changed anything with McLaren other than they arent pumping 80 million a year into it. Until 2014 at least.

And by that time my money is on Mercedes having gone full circle into a competitive team, earning all the praise and prize money(or criticisms as they are recieving here )rather than having McLaren take the headlines.
Of course they could end up failing and selling out, but not until we can see what the Benz V6 turbo can do and wether Zetsches protege(a staunch supporter of Mercedes F1 involvement).

Excuse the lengthy post but it is relevant when comparing Mercedes to McLaren of 1995-7, as they were in a similar position with Sauber jumping to the big time boys McLaren.

If I read this right, you think that by 2014 Merc will have passed Macca up as one of the big three? (or four). They'll need to bulid longer than that to overtake the depth of talent in the top

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

That's not how it came across when I read or wrote it.

The entire point of the post is that mercedes are actually in a very similar position currently to what they were at this same gestation point in the McLaren-Mercedes partnership.

[xpensive]

I fail to follow your reasoning JET, at this very stage of the McLaren-Marcedes partnership they had scored eight podiums?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

1995 McLaren Mercedes finished 4th equal to that of Mercedes first year in 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_MP4/10


1996 McLaren Mercedes finished 4th, currently equal to that Mercedes currently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_MP4/11


My reasoning is backed up by factual data, and not conjecture hyperbole. Podiums mean less when the competition is weaker.
And at this point in time Mercedes have 3 supremely sorted teams ahead of them.
McLaren at this point only had Ferrari and Williams in similar positions. Bennetton Renault cannot be held up as a team comparable to the triumvirate Mercedes currently have to tend with.

[munudeges]

Its a bit of a lopsided argument you are making. First of Mercedes didnt recieve a single penny from McLaren on top of the 80 million they gave them every year. Not from sponsors or prize money.

It's not lopsided at all because you only need to look at those who have already discovered it made no financial sense.

I'm afraid it costs an awful lot more than 80 million to run a Formula 1 team, along with the time and resources required and the extensive liabilities you take on. The fact is that regardless of sponsors they will need to pump in a huge amount of their own money every single year for several years and they need to start winning before they can even think about getting that back. It's just not the business of Mercedes or any other manufacturer to run teams, which is why the rest have all pulled out.

Thats around 85 million before Mercedes even needs to start thinking of burning the 80 million it gave McLaren every year.

They got an already winning Formula 1 team that promoted them very well and where they took on none of the liabilities and associated costs of running their own team. That was cheap. They're going to have to spend well over double that amount to get to where they absolutely need to be and it will cost them a hell of a lot more then McLaren ever did.

Mercedes bought into Brawn because they thought they were going to win on the cheap. That is not the case and it remains to be seen how long they will keep that up. Your maths is very much out of kilter.

[munudeges]

Alas JET, as usual you paint over what you just don't want to see.

From 1995 to 1997 the point being made is that McLaren Mercedes showed clear progress with a steady increase in points year after year and a steady increase in podiums and then winning in their third year. The current Mercedes team is still the thick end of two seconds a lap away two years in and no progress has been made.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Im sorry to say you are dismissing the facts here and going off onto some tangent.

Mercedes earn around 80 million conservatively from sponsors and prize money. They also have a further 80 million that would otherwise have been spent on McLaren.

160 Million budget....BINGO!

Now since teams have reduced in size, 250 million per annum budgets are history. The RRA and glide path reduction size(no more 600 plus technical teams...350 imposed limit) Mercedes are still within or bordering on their previous budget remit.

So McLaren achieved more podiums in an era of of higher attritional races due to more car failures. The playing ground has become far more competitive now than it has been 15 years ago, any blind man and his donkey can tell you that. In fact its also backed up by facts if you care to have a look at the failure rates of if 95-97 to that of 2010-2011.

And Mercedes did not buy the team that designed the BGP001, as half that technical department had already gone by the time Mercedes arrived. Unless of course you can point me to the info(factual and statistical please mate) that says otherwise?

The facts here is that their position in the constructors still matches that of McLaren. 4th and 4th in their first 2 seasons.

And my maths is perfectly up to scratch, but thank you for your concern

[timbo]

I fail to follow your reasoning JET, at this very stage of the McLaren-Marcedes partnership they had scored eight podiums?

Overall reliability is MUCH better than in 1995-1997, so a podium is much harder to get. You had much more different teams getting a podium than in recent two years.

[munudeges]

I'm afraid not JET, but if you choose to believe this is some fantastic bargain as looney Norbert probably portrayed it to Merc then that is naturally up to you.

It is colossally expensive to run a team and even more expensive to get it to win, which is why so many manufacturers have gone the way of the dodo before. They're going to need to spend a hell of a lot more than double what they put into McLaren I can guarantee you that, with all the liabilities and risks owning a team entails. Merc probably thought they could spend less, but alas, that isn't the case. The RRA will make very little difference to all of that, which is probably why Ross Brawn has been whining about it.

The competitive current landscape of Formula 1 cuts no ice with Stuttgart. They need that team to win, and if it really has become that much more difficult to win why not stick with the avenue that was at least winning races? Either way, running that sad excuse of a team makes no logical sense especially when the rest of Mercedes as a manufacturer have had to cut costs dramatically since the team was taken over.

It's a case of selective amnaesia of 'certain' facts I'm afraid, and this 'fourth' mantra still comes up when the point of this thread is that they've shown no progression whatsoever and there are no signs to be optimistic that will change any time soon.

[xpensive]

I fail to follow your reasoning JET, at this very stage of the McLaren-Marcedes partnership they had scored eight podiums?

Overall reliability is MUCH better than in 1995-1997, so a podium is much harder to get. You had much more different teams getting a podium than in recent two years.

I still don't get this reasoning, if podiums were easier in the nineties, it must have been so for everyone, no?

And if podiums are more difficult today, it should by the same logic be equally harder for every team involved?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I fail to follow your reasoning JET, at this very stage of the McLaren-Marcedes partnership they had scored eight podiums?

Overall reliability is MUCH better than in 1995-1997, so a podium is much harder to get. You had much more different teams getting a podium than in recent two years.

Precisely my point Timbo.

And munudeges, I find you once again belittling the facts. You provide none and go off on more tangents forming an endless wormhole.
"Mercedes are spending more than double" than with their time with McLaren is founded in nothing but your guess work.
I provide figures at the very least.
So Im afraid I'm now out when it comes to responding to you on this thread.

[timbo]

I still don't get this reasoning, if podiums were easier in the nineties, it must have been so for everyone, no?

And if podiums are more difficult today, it should by the same logic be equally harder for every team involved?

And it is 1995 -- 8 teams got podium finishes, 2010 -- 5 teams got podium finishes.
If you have 4th fastest car and nobody ahead has problems, your best hope is 7th place.

[xpensive]

True, but that could also be seen as there was eight teams to beat in 1995, while only five in 2010, correct?