2024 Season - News and Rumours

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I think this is all just the sad destination we have arrived at with respect to team names becoming another commodity that can be sold to sponsors. Key info from that same Motorsports article linked above...



I bolded the interesting bit. The actual team identity doesn't matter anymore. It looks to just be "RB" (clearly an abbreviation/initials from "Racing Bull"). The name of the team is basically for sale. We (fans) focus on continuity of teams already and create nicknames to help define that continuity such as "The Enstone Team". Is this going to just get worse? That outside of a few big players that will keep their legacy name front and center the names stop meaning anything?

BWT Alpine F1 Team
Aston Martin Aramco F1 Team
Scuderia Ferrari
MoneyGram Haas F1 Team
Stake F1 Team Kick Sauber
McLaren F1 Team
Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team
Visa Cash App RB
Oracle Red Bull Racing
Williams Racing

I think those are the 2024 names? I can imagine McLaren and Williams haven't followed suite only because no sponsor has met their rate card demands for team naming rights just yet. Ferrari doesn't do it out of pride. Mercedes and Aston Martin at least puts their name first. And even then isn't really "Aston Martin" F1 a badging effort and not really "Aston Martin" but rather Racing Point/Stroll F1? And even Alpine is a branding exercise within Renault as AMG is within Mercedes.

Richard

Is it really any different to Elf Team Tyrrell, Gold Leaf Team Lotus, Marlboro B.R.M, Yardley McLaren? When Lotus were sponsored by John Plater Special, the team was simply known as JPS.

[chillibowl]

in fairness though, some of those names in red are actual technical partners as well as sponsors so there is a difference imo.

but to the larger point, indeed the names have always been up for sale in some form or another...its just happens to be App culture consumer product heavy these days.

arguably this is still better than the cig culture heavy old days but oddly less elegant for some reason. those cig companies really knew how to spin a luxurious image.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

in fairness though, some of those names in red are actual technical partners as well as sponsors so there is a difference imo.

Which do you view as technical partners, how much contribution do they really make and how much of that contribution is really a marketing exercise in disguise?

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Is it really any different to Elf Team Tyrrell, Gold Leaf Team Lotus, Marlboro B.R.M, Yardley McLaren? When Lotus were sponsored by John Plater Special, the team was simply known as JPS.

My point is that the names such as "Lotus", "McLaren", etc. are being pushed further into the background. To the point of being something like "RB" in the case of Torro Rosso and potentially eventually being non-existent.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Which do you view as technical partners, how much contribution do they really make and how much of that contribution is really a marketing exercise in disguise?

Richard

fair question...i can only assume that the fuel partners and data processing companies are providing tangible and necessary services so Petronas, Oracle, and possibly Aramco...creating lubricants that better affect cooling or computer systems to power team data centres for example and the like.

although that is not to say that those contributions are not outweighed by the marketing benefits.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

fair question...i can only assume that the fuel partners and data processing companies are providing tangible and necessary services so Petronas, Oracle, and possibly Aramco...creating lubricants that better affect cooling or computer systems to power team data centres for example and the like.

although that is not to say that those contributions are not outweighed by the marketing benefits.

Its not my area of expertise, but I can imagine that becoming a technical partner might be a financially advantageous way to get your name on an F1 car. If you are making high end mechanical watches, there is not much you can do to aid the team technically. But if you have your own cloud service and other data analytics tools then you can trade usage of those services for marketing exposure. So for example Red Bull might run some of their IT solution on Oracle Cloud and use Oracle tooling as part of their sponsorship deal. As Oracle is trading their own goods and services for the marketing exposure they can be more flexible on how they set pricing for those services (meaning their actual cost is lower, but they might price it to the team at a value above their cost, but still at a deal for the teams). This can even go to smaller items in the teams. I think DeWalt is a sponsor for McLaren. So you will see black/yellow tooling in use in the garage. But other teams may use same or similar tools (such as blower cooling for brake ducts in garage) that are modified commercial products but with the branding scrubbed off as they are not sponsors. Plus teams may be more free to pick what they want to use while as McLaren is using DeWalt as they are a "partner" and use of the equipment is part of the deal.

I imagine the most impactful technical partners are those in the space of fuel and lubricants in which there is absolutely a need for "custom solutions" for the teams. The are what I would call true technical partners.

In the end, my point is that sponsors (even technical partners) come and go. And we may be seeing an erosion of any type of "team branding" or "team identity" as naming rights move closer and closer to 100% full team naming rights. For example... what is to stop a team like Alpha Tauri to dropping the "RB" part of their name and just being named 100% whatever a sponsor wants. They could be "Louis Vuitton F1" one year and "Nike F1" the next with no indication of who the core team is or was in the past (i.e. Torro Rosso, Minardi, etc.) Team's that have a "brand" of their own "McLaren", "Williams" that is rooted in a garagista past may keep those for a while. But look at something like Sauber. They are probably going to sink under the surface as a legacy name in the near future (probably Audi will be something like "Audi F1" and not "Audi Sauber F1", but who knows).

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard C

...what is to stop a team like Alpha Tauri to dropping the "RB" part of their name and just being named 100% whatever a sponsor wants. They could be "Louis Vuitton F1" one year and "Nike F1" the next with no indication of who the core team is or was in the past (i.e. Torro Rosso, Minardi, etc.)...

i may not be remembering this correctly, but in the Bernie days, wouldnt he just say if you changed your name like that then say goodbye to your previous year's prize money?

not sure if thats still a rule but kind of recall some issues with the FI/RP/AM name change over tho.

but of course someone like LV or Nike could always kick in an extra 20m or whatever to make up for it if they really wanted some sort exclusive name deal...so yeah nothing to stop it other than money!

#TeamCashGrab

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard C

My point is that the names such as "Lotus", "McLaren", etc. are being pushed further into the background. To the point of being something like "RB" in the case of Torro Rosso and potentially eventually being non-existent.

Richard

Apart from Visa Cash App RB, the other constructor's names feature prominently, with the sponsors name followed by the constructor's as they have always done.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Apart from Visa Cash App RB, the other constructor's names feature prominently, with the sponsors name followed by the constructor's as they have always done.

I am not saying we are there yet. I am just calling out what is likely to be a future trend. That the situation with TR and it's impending name change is likely not insignificant. Time will tell.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

All this name changing is just evolution really, because historically the team was originally Minardi, then Stoddart before he subsequently sold it to Mateschitz and it was rebranded again, this time as Toro Rosso.

Maybe it should be called the Faenza team?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Maybe it should be called the Faenza team?

Or maybe MK2?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

All this name changing is just evolution really, because historically the team was originally Minardi, then Stoddart before he subsequently sold it to Mateschitz and it was rebranded again, this time as Toro Rosso.

Maybe it should be called the Faenza team?

I forgot about the Stoddart step. As to Faenza team... Is that potentially ending as well? Isn't Red Bull trying to grow the Milton Keynes staff and shrink the operation at Faenza? And I think I read something somewhere that some of the Faenza staff is not interested in the move? So they are having to back fill new positions and the implication that some of the Faenza staff is leaving the team???

Richard

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I forgot about the Stoddart step. As to Faenza team... Is that potentially ending as well? Isn't Red Bull trying to grow the Milton Keynes staff and shrink the operation at Faenza? And I think I read something somewhere that some of the Faenza staff is not interested in the move? So they are having to back fill new positions and the implication that some of the Faenza staff is leaving the team???

Richard

The team has been split between Bicester and Faenza in recent years anyway.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by peebee2

The team has been split between Bicester and Faenza in recent years anyway.

Yes, but has it not been a stated goal as part of the team restructuring is to shift more to the UK operations? To work much closer to and with RBR?

Richard

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Yes, but has it not been a stated goal as part of the team restructuring is to shift more to the UK operations? To work much closer to and with RBR?

Richard

Yes, and the move has faced much justifiable criticism from others on the grid.

Marko has publicly stated that they want to benefit from owning to teams, and consolidating aero (at a time when wind tunnel hours are a control measure) as a cost saving measure (at a time when there are budget caps) brings the claim of sporting exclusivity between the teams into question.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Yes, and the move has faced much justifiable criticism from others on the grid.

Marko has publicly stated that they want to benefit from owning to teams, and consolidating aero (at a time when wind tunnel hours are a control measure) as a cost saving measure (at a time when there are budget caps) brings the claim of sporting exclusivity between the teams into question.

Yes, by claiming they want to do something in the future, just maybe he’s deflecting from what they’ve done in the past and are doing right now. :wink:

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by peebee2

The team has been split between Bicester and Faenza in recent years anyway.

I believe that the Bicester facility is closing (I've heard that the lease on the building is up now) which was another factor/excuse used in the move to Milton Keynes.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I believe that the Bicester facility is closing (I've heard that the lease on the building is up now) which was another factor/excuse used in the move to Milton Keynes.

And it’s too small.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Yes, and the move has faced much justifiable criticism from others on the grid.

Marko has publicly stated that they want to benefit from owning to teams, and consolidating aero (at a time when wind tunnel hours are a control measure) as a cost saving measure (at a time when there are budget caps) brings the claim of sporting exclusivity between the teams into question.

People seem to be focussed on the two Red Bull teams benefitting from sharing of parts and development time, but it may be more to do with the CapEx opening limits. If RB1 spends their CapEx on one item and RB2 spends theirs on something else and both teams use both facilities, there is going to be a big benefit for them. A benefit that would not be available to all the other F1 teams, so that is why they are squealing.

[chillibowl]

Someone’s always pushing the limit! With only 10 teams and a reluctance to allow in new teams, perhaps more effort should be spent enforcing the independence of each constructor? At least to the extent that is still possible?

Maybe the other teams are right to be talking about this.

[MaxLL]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i suppose the prevailing logic would be the more popular or attention around a team the more sponsors/the more money the team can extract from sponsors and in sports, all things being equal, money translates into performance.

does that logic still hold true in the cap era and/or with teams who may already be operating at the upper end of the cap...interesting question?

Yes, it is. Such a question: can a team with more money show better results because of more money? I think not. What do you think?

[MaxLL]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

People seem to be focussed on the two Red Bull teams benefitting from sharing of parts and development time, but it may be more to do with the CapEx opening limits. If RB1 spends their CapEx on one item and RB2 spends theirs on something else and both teams use both facilities, there is going to be a big benefit for them. A benefit that would not be available to all the other F1 teams, so that is why they are squealing.

I guess it's not very fair to have two teams under the same brand..... Why is that even allowed?

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by MaxLL

Yes, it is. Such a question: can a team with more money show better results because of more money? I think not. What do you think?

Why do you think that?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by MaxLL

Yes, it is. Such a question: can a team with more money show better results because of more money? I think not. What do you think?

I like the motto (sometimes attributed to the golfer Gary Player)... "The harder I practice, the luckier I get."

In motorsports I think there is an equivalent... "The more money I have, the luckier I get."

There are many factors to success in F1. Funding absolutely matters. It doesn't guarantee success (i.e. Toyota), but if you are behind on the funding side, you are handicapped against your peers and fighting uphill.

Originally Posted by MaxLL

I guess it's not very fair to have two teams under the same brand..... Why is that even allowed?

I assume you are really talking about multiple teams under the same ownership? Limiting "branding" to one team makes no sense. If a sponsor wants their name on multiple cars, then why not?

Richard

[P38 in workshop]

Originally Posted by MaxLL

Yes, it is. Such a question: can a team with more money show better results because of more money? I think not. What do you think?

Look at Ferrari's results over the last forty years or so for an answer.