BBC Home

Explore the BBC

13 comments

user rating: 2 star

USF1 and Stefan Teams

Formula One
by TeamExcalibur (U14010127) 06 March 2010
comment on the article

I'll say nothing further on the former, escept to say, I told you so.

I am at a loss, however, to understand why Stefan was not allowed entry.
Ok, they haven't tested but aside from that, they are not only ready to race, but they are in Bahrain with a complete team, waiting to race.

All they actually need is tyres, which would be released to them as soon as they were admitted to the grid.

Thoughts, ladles and jellyspoons?

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own

posted Mar 6, 2010

Shame for them and for F1, Stefan GP had things ready for their F1 debut. However we have three new teams this year and that's fantastic!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

My understanding was that Lola was next in line and were told to be on standby to fill any place made by a team folding, Lola however pulled out because they didn't want to spend money on something that might not happen. All the other teams did the same except Stefan, so presuamably they shouls still have been next in line?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

no-FIAt-please

It is my understanding that they did apply at the appropriate time, and have fulfilled all requirements.
Hence my question, why are they not on the grid? <tea>

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Irrespective of whether they technically applied at the right time (which seems to be the entire reason for excluding them now) they have fulfilled every other criterion that ANY team could possibly do.
They are being blocked by legalistic technicalities.
To be fair to StefanF1, why? How many hundred of times have we seen other teams being allowed to get away with those?
Examples: drivers being allowed on the starting grid when not having set a qualfying time, or when outside the 107% of the pole-sitter's time, or continuiung to the end of the race after being black flagged, ... mostly commonplace technical infringements that happen routinely from the start to the end of the season and nobody bats an eyelid.

For their sheer endurance, ability and spirit (sadly lacking in F1 generally) I would welcome them on the grid even if they turned out to be total pigswill - they're more deserving than most.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Stefan GP should have been allowed, its foolish of FIA not to.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Strfan GP should not and will not be allowed to race for a very good reason.

http://www.totalf1.com/full_story/view/332472/Stefan_GP_finances_unveiled/

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

OK, thecatwhogotthemilk, read that, fair point.

But (and there always is a but) it only applies to its parent company, not to Stefan GP.
Stefan GP, the subsidiary, is a fully functioning complete team with funds, cars, drivers, technical staff and all the rest of the usual F1 hangers-on.

Whoever owns it is no more relevant than the same question is to Lotus, Virgin, Hispania, or for that matter to McLaren, Mercedes, Red Bull, Ferrari,...
Need I go on?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Well said roadie! <applause>

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 13, 2010

Should ethics be applied to F1 teams funding? What would you say if a Mexican drug cartel were behind an F1 team. Should we ignore the "parent" company's source of funds or question the legality of the F1 team. Just asking, not judging.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 13, 2010

Ok Mr Creosote good question.
1) Nobody but nobody questioned tobacco sponsorship of F1 years ago after I started getting interested. (I still to this day refer to McLaren as Marlboro McLaren and frequently refer to Gold Leaf Lotus or JPS Lotus for historical reasons because those were the teams' names at the time - and the colours were stunning too!).
2) If the legitimate business interests, with clean tax-paid legally-earned money happened to invest in F1 or a football/rugby/cricket/... club then that should not be a problem as long as the people concerned can pass the "fit and proper person" test, even if they also happened to be owned by the same people that owned illegal drug businesses.
Sorry, but that's life.

When "ethics", as tested by the courts of law, determines that a team that deliberately causes a crash ("Singaporegate") can get with it away scott-free then surely nobody can argue against a drug cartel financing a team or a driver.

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

  • 5 28.57%
    2 votes
  • 4
    0 votes
  • 3
    0 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1 71.43%
    5 votes

average rating:
2.14 from 7 votes