Toyota Issues F1 Ultimatum: Get Better Or Get Out
Written by George Katinger · December 30, 2007
Two years to improve, or were done. At least that’s the way I interpret the message team principal Tadashi Yamashina’s been given.
crash.net: Toyota boss: I’ve been given two more years.
crash.net: Ralf: It just didn’t work out.
autosport.com: Honda expect to resume their 2006 form
Panasonic Toyota racing is entering its sixth year in F1 competition, and they have very little to show for their efforts. One theory as to their miserable performances has been the prototypical ‘Toyota Way’ of corporate management techniques. Essentially decision by committee consensus. Comments from Tadashi san:
“[For] Panasonic Toyota Racing to become stronger [though] it is more important to improve the level of organization in general rather than to rely on the power of one person,” he added.
“My job is to mobilize the resources to achieve that. I have been given two more years. So, we will work and fight to make sure we prove ourselves in the 2008 season.”
Team Racing team manager Richard Creagan seems to concur:
“Formula one is a very difficult business, I think as I said many times before we have to find a good balance between Formula 1 way and Toyota Way, which I believe gives us as an advantage over other team. I think all of us, at Panasonic Toyota team Racing aim to improve and I don’t think we never stop improving - this is a basic Toyota philosophy.
It will be very interesting to compare the next two seasons of Honda and Toyota. Honda has apparently shifted gears in their corporate control philosophy by placing their F1 team in the hands of Ross Brawn. Toyota will continue to apply the ‘Toyota Way’ as if the past five years results didn’t exist.
If I were a betting man I’d put my cash on Honda and prepare an F1 Sayonara ceremony for Toyota.
Comments
16 Responses to “Toyota Issues F1 Ultimatum: Get Better Or Get Out”
Got something to say?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Something that we here have talked about over the last couple of years, Toyota and Honda’a inability to produce a consistantly winning vehicle. Honda I think, may have made a change in the right direction, but we will see if the new team princple will be given Carte blanc.
Toyota! if you are paying attention;
You cannot win in F1 using committees, ever!
You have to change your complete phylisophy and not try things the “Toyota” way. You will fail, again.
First of all, you need a team princple that is a benovlant dictator, period.
Second, you need a driver that can diagnose a car.
Third, you need a fast and willing to learn rookie driver that can drive the wheels off of a car and listen to the older and wiser driver/leader and learn.
Forth; You as a Factory need to learn to sit back and stay the hell out of the Team’s way.
You cannot second guess the princple, you cannot force your way down the throut of the drivers, and you cannot buy your way into the winners circle in F1.
Let us just throw a couple of names out there;
Dave Richards: Team princple, did wonders with Prodrive and Honda (when he was allowed to run things HIS way. Toyota learn from history)
Micheal Schumacher: Lead driver, 7 World Championships, can tell you not only what is wrong with a car, but how to fix it. And still, I think, the best driver on the planet at doing just that. Let’s face it, you guys bought the wrong Schumacher. (Ralf)
And I think that your choice of Timo Glock is very good indeed. However, you need someone to teach him and coach him through the STEEP learning curve that is F1.
I thing the two Japanese Manufacturers will need to run those F-1 teams as Racing Teams and not car maker teams.My yen is on Honda.
My opinion is, we need two top level series, ala IRL/Chumpcar.
Wait, that wasn’t a joke, stop laughing.
If we were to separate the current teams into “factory” and “privateer” categories what would we have? Two championships with similar results. The Mclarens vs the Ferraris will still hold the most attention, but the Williams vs Force Indias will have a platform that will give them a chance at some headlines. It would also level the playing field for the independants and the factory teams. The factory teams should be allowed the unlimited development that F1 has always enjoyed and the privateer teams could be closer to the spec series F1 is turning into. A spec engine, ala-CART (just had to add that zinger), and possibly even chassis for privateers. Heck I even have a suggestion for names of the new series, how about F1 for factories and F2 for privateers.
Just look at the number of applications to run a “B” team for next season there were. We would have a full grid of privateers. Factory teams would be a little thin but isnt that what we have currently?
Now some of you na-sayers may bring up the little fact of we already have GP2. With F1/F2 races being held on the same day/same track, shortened F1 race(we all know that the race comes down to quali anyways) and an even shorter F2 race, the F2 teams would get the exposure they need to attract proper funding without the indignity of always being 10th place or lower every race.
Which series would produce better racing?
Probably F2, being a spec series and every driver wanting to move up to F1.
OK, maybe your right, mo ron has dipped into the sauce a little early this year. Happy New Year all.
Happy new year to you too mo and all our readers/commenter’s. I’ll remember you all with my first toast and beverage for 2008.
I like the two tier racing concept, my only change would be to race them simultaneously as they do at Lemans with different classes of vehicles. Another thought would be to change F1 to an unlimited “run what you brung” class, and keep F2 to the current rules. No more limits on tires, engines or aero. Make it wide open racing.
I have to be the fly in the ointment, here. I have always felt that running more than one spec during a race waters it down, and is even dangerous at times. I haven’t watched ALMS in a while because of this. I would rather watch one race with the LMP900 class and then another race with the GT2 class. But, that’s just me and I realize I’m a bit wierd.
As for Formula 1, I think the current setup with GP2 being a support race in perfect.
It was just a thought that had little thinking behind it.
But, like George, I yearn for the days of innovation. Going to the races to see the latest technology going at it with proven tech. 12 cylinders fighting head to head with 4 bangers, 6 wheels against 4.
Today, with all the eco weenies whining, is a perfect time for F1 to shine. No limit to technology, maybe a limit to the amount of fuel used for a particular distance would be a good incentive for the manufacturers to spend their bazillions on the sport. But that’s where the twin series would keep the small teams in the picture and fighting for wins against each other. Yet the manufacturers would have a showcase for their technology. How long do we expect them to stay in a spec series when their name is the only thing they contribute(ala- NASCAR)?
I really didnt expect anyone else to see the vision (hallucination?) and it was just a jab at state of affairs in US open wheel racing. But it is one solution other than the road now travelled.
I personally don’t find GP2 as interesting as it could be. Maybe if I lived in Europe it might be more relevent. I enjoy watching Atlantics when they come to Long Beach every year, but thats the extent of my interest.
If F1 were to reorganize to a similar profile to the one I proposed it would interest me to see Minardi, Williams, Sauber(without BMW’s help) and other great privateer teams duking it out again with chances of wins and with new up coming drivers that have everything to prove and nothing to lose. Again wishful thinking only, just a thought before thinking becomes a distant memory.
My feeling is the big guns would buck up for a 2nd team for the F2 spec series anyways, so it possibly could be a cash cow for the bernice and maxine show anyways. Just what we wanted to see, eh?
And none of these comments addresses the issue of Toyota or Honda becoming winners!
I had high hopes on Honda doing an about face. Until I read that Ross has started to toe the corporate line about cost cutting. Just recently in F1 magazine, Ross was quoted as saying that “Cost cutting should not be apart of F1″ and now he is going down that rabbit hole of “F1 must reduce costs to the teams”
What about the teams spending what they can produce from sponsers?
Isn’t the idea of racing, the sponsers throw money at the teams that are in the camera’s eye. Call it advertising.
But now? Oh no! They are not allowed to spend what they can get.
Too bad our government can’t do that, I may just be able to go racing more often with the money that I have to send to the Fed’s yearly.
Cost cutting indeed.
Sorry Vincent and George for hijacking your post.
So on that subject you are right about needing to have a supreme leader.
The Toyota way seems great for most business situations except racing.
Honda used to be one of my greatest nemesis when they powered Mclaren to multiple world championships. Yes maybe they need to refocus on their engine experience and leave the driving to someone else.
I just think Toyota, Honda and most other manufacturers are in F1 for the advertisement value instead of technology gain. So that’s where my post about the two series came from.
A simple answer from a simple mind.
Carry on everyone.
Mo Ron:
Reading your discussion about the “F1 / F2″ concept gave me a little thinking food.
Now I know that several teams are bi**hing about the cost of F1. And I know that Prodrive is getting held up by the “Constructor” problem. (not building his own cars).
Perhaps we can change a few things and make everyone happy.
Follow me through here as I work out my thoughts.
First of all, what makes a “Constructor”?
It is defined as, “someone that makes a complete something, be it a car, house, etc”
In F1 there are really only several “constructors”
Ferrari, Honda, Renault and Toyota.
These are the companies that make the complete car, Chassis and Engine.
Going by the Defination, Mclaren are not a constructor, nor are Williams.
Both companies outsource the engines.
So lets try this. The FIA allow several teams (the present constructors) produce tubs to be available for the purchase of other teams.
The FIA sets the standard for the impact testing of the tub (they do already) and the engine mounting points.
But allow the constructors to develop suspension pickup points. (center keel, no keel, twin keel, etc)
That would allow another team to get into F1 without the excessive cost of building a tub, crash testing a tub and then racing that tub.
But the purchaser of the tub is still responsible for the Aero, suspension, powerplant, cooling, etc.
That would also allow the present constructors to defer the costs of Tub construction and testing over a larger quanity.
The ‘Constructors” would have to be able to produce a good quanity of tubs, ensure quality control, and meet the FIA standards.
To add a little equality in there, the tubs are assigned to the seperate teams (including the constructors) by the FIA using a Pea-pick.
I.E. the tub numbers are put into a hat and pulled randomly.
That would provide an inscentive to the constructors to ensure equality in the tubs (no light weight specials intended for their own team) and at the same time ensure that the buyers are getting a decent product (no overweight tubs).
What do you think about that idea, Bernie?
Good idea Vincent.
Seems very similar to what is in the works for the near future, i.e. prodrive/b-teams.
But you didn’t address the main reason I proposed the twin series though. Which was the technology freeze currently in place. How long will manufacturers stay around if they cannot display their technical expertise?
Ford didn’t last very long in chumpcar when they were the only engine supplier, they were only there in name anyways, cossie.
So what could we do to bring back different types of engines? 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 cylinders. Vs, boxers, Ws. Turbos, blowers and weezers. 4 wheels against 6 wheels.
Different aero solutions, different size wheels and tyres.
Then throw in some challenging rules concerning fuel consumption. Give us some excitement to look forward to every year. Parity will be hard to regulate so I’ll leave that for you to ponder. But you get my drift, eh?
Again it was just a dream. I’m sure we’ll continue to get the same old semi-spec series with very predictable results. Ho hum, just another Ferrari benefit show.
The reason Max and the FIA have seized the initiative in stuffing competition regulations down F1’s collective throats is the competitors are unable to reach any form of agreement on any of the ideas mentioned in the last two comments.
The top teams are content to keep the status quo as long as they are winning and have the cash incomes, the small teams are powerless to effect change. As Paul Stoddart was told ,”Either find the money to run in F1 or get out”. He got out, along with Jordan, Midland, Spyker, and a host of others over the last 30 years.
I don’t think there is a shortage of intelligent alternatives available to F1 teams, there IS a shortage on ideas as to how to gain agreement between all the teams. Hence Max has the high ground.
Mo Ron, Good Questions.
However most of the Technology that is in F1 is not in the tub. We are talking engines, transmissions, fuel systems, brakes, suspensions, aero, etc.
All of those things would still be developed by the manufacturers and could be closer to road car ready (especially fuel management). Personally, I would remove the freeze on engine developement, maintain the spec tire, and go to a totally flat underbody. That would put the aero completely on the wings and upper body area, slow the cars down slightly, allow the teams to get the suspension to work with or without aero and make it easier to use one (or more) tub for the title.
It may even make the cars work better in trail and make for better passing. One of the problems that Ferrari had in 07 was their car lost a lot of effective aero when closing on another car. Part of their longer body / wheelbase? I think that they were relying on the tray to do more work after the plank and lost enough to make the car nervous. Kimi handled it, Felipe didn’t.
Get rid of that issue and there just might end up being a little more passing in race.
Thats why I earlier proposed replacing the bernice and maxine show with the irl/chumpcar bosses. Phoney George could sit atop the heap and look good. Kalkhoven (since he’ll never look good) could run the trenches.
At least we’ll get an F1 race in the states that way.
Then we could have all cars run cossies, a spec chassis, no attendance and huge wrecks on the ovals sure to be installed as “classic american racing venues”.
Gee, the maxine and bernice show isn’t looking so bad after all.
Some very interesting options that could be implemented very easily Vincent.
O.K., my vote has now changed for a new supreme leader, it’s now for Vincent.
The only question is…does he look as good as Phoney George?
You bring an entirely new definition to “Silly season” mo! Keep up the good work.
Why not let any team buy a tub from any where Vincent? It’s the beginning of a slippery slope to the spec series that mo warns about in his caustic ripping of the Tony and Kevin shows. There is a basic conflict between the concept of “constructors” and buying someone else’s equipment. The definition of a constructor has been to build your own car (chasis, brakes, etc.), with engines wherever you could source them. It’s been only within the last ten years where the constuctors have also become the engine manufacturers, with the exception of Ferrari.
The real problem with with the “B” team concept is the allocation of constructors prize monies and how it’s allocated. Frank Williams may be at a disadvantage racing against Prodrive if they are equipped in McLaren’s. Not to mention the additional testing feedback McLaren would receive from their “B” squad.
There is a HUGE difference between buying and using a tub vs buying and using a spec chassis.
It is still up to the teams to develop the wings, suspension, etc and find or build an engine. I agree having a spec chassis, with all the suspension, brakes, aero, etc the same is boring. But if the teams no longer have to spend the time and dollars (a very large amount of both) just to make the crash structure, then they would be able to spend more money and time into developing the actual running of the car.
How many times has a team had to delay the revealing of their car, because they failed the impact tests? I can think of several, including McLaren. Remove the whole safety constraints issue with a spec tub and only the tub. And allow the teams free hand in all other aspects of the car construction.
Just think, we may just get to hear a v12 or a v8 on the grid again.
I go to vintage events just to hear the Cosworths.
And thanks for the vote Mo Ron.
Cheers