1st or 80th?

[Brogan]

Just to confuse the issue, Autosport has it differently again.

Sauber they have as a continuation of the team from '93.
Ditto for Mercedes from '54.
HRT is a new team.

As usual it's Lotus that's causing the problem. Autosport have them down as the same as the original team from '58.

http://f12010.autosport.com/

 

[cider_and_toast]

One of F1's most evocative names returns to the grid, and while the new team's claims to be carrying on in the tradition of Clark and Chapman might not extend much beyond the colour scheme, it's still a team worthy of respect.

When you read that quote from Autosport it makes you wonder why then are they counting Team Lotus' history in the reckoning of the new team?? The one contradicts the other?

As for BMW Sauber, That's another strange one. Autosport has it that the only results that count are those where the team was just plain old Sauber however, BMW kept the Sauber name during their years of team ownership so surely while the ownership of the team changed hands the team was essentialy still the same outfit?

 

[Brogan]

One of F1's most evocative names returns to the grid, and while the new team's claims to be carrying on in the tradition of Clark and Chapman might not extend much beyond the colour scheme, it's still a team worthy of respect.

When you read that quote from Autosport it makes you wonder why then are they counting Team Lotus' history in the reckoning of the new team?? The one contradicts the other?

I was going to comment on that.
As you say, the quote is out of context with what they've done with linking the 2 teams.

As for BMW Sauber, That's another strange one. Autosport has it that the only results that count are those where the team was just plain old Sauber however, BMW kept the Sauber name during their years of team ownership so surely while the ownership of the team changed hands the team was essentialy still the same outfit?

I think the reason for this is all based on the chassis.
The new (old) Sauber team has the chassis as C29 which is the same naming convention as the original Sauber team.
When BMW owned it they called the chassis the F1.06 - F1.09.

 

[cider_and_toast]

The new (old) Sauber team has the chassis as C29 which is the same naming convention as the original Sauber team.
When BMW owned it they called the chassis the F1.06 - F1.09.

And just to muddy the waters even further, Lotus have continued with the numbering convention of both Group Lotus and the former Team Lotus with the T (short for "Type" I presume?) 127.

Right, I'm off down the wig shop

 

[cider_and_toast]

Re: Lotus Renault

I'm still not making Nu-Team Lotus a continuation of Team Lotus though

Just out of interest, Why's that then mate ?

 

[Brogan]

Re: Lotus Renault

I'm still not making Nu-Team Lotus a continuation of Team Lotus though

Just out of interest, Why's that then mate ?

Actually I wasn't being serious when I said that.
We do need to re-open the debate though because it gets complicated now.

If next year's team is to be a continuation of the original Lotus then surely the current one needs to be also?
But for reasons already discussed, that was decided against as only the name was being used really.

If the current team isn't included then we have a weird situation with the same team being part of original Lotus and not.

 

[F1Yorkshire]

Its not just a case of someone buying a team name, Proton are one of the companies behind Lotus Racing and they own Lotus Cars.

Lotus may no longer be owned by the Chapman family but it is the same for any of the major teams. Ferrari are still Ferrari even though they were taken over by Fiat. The owners of McLaren have changed but the teams history remains.

From the start, Tony Fernandez has said that this is a continuation of the original Team Lotus racing team and renaming the team next year is just the next step in the process.

If we were talking about the proposed Litespeed entry I would then say it is a completely new team.

 

[Brogan]

I know it's Wikepedia but they still have the current Lotus team as a separate entity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_constructors

 

[F1Yorkshire]

Formula1.com also has them as a new team but they include Renault and Sauber as a continuation of the previous teams. There are a lot of contradictions going on here and it will be more confusing still if they race under the Team Lotus name next year.

Famous name returns to F1 for first time since '94 with all-new, UK-based team backed by Malaysian consortium including carmakers Proton, Group Lotus owners.

http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams/194/

 

[Brogan]

Formula1.com also has them as a new team but they include Renault and Sauber as a continuation of the previous teams. There are a lot of contradictions going on here and it will be more confusing still if they race under the Team Lotus name next year.

Hence the problem

Currently we have them defined as follows:

• Mercedes 1954 - 1955, 2010 - present
  
  Team Lotus 1958 - 1994
  Lotus Racing 2010 - present
  
  Renault 1977 - 1985
  Renault 2002 - present
  
  Sauber 1993 - 2005, 2009 - present
  
  BMW 2006 - 2009

So Lotus and Renault are different but Sauber and Mercedes are the same.
BMW are a completely separate team to Sauber as the chassis model naming was different.
But using that criteria then both Renault teams should be the same as the chassis naming convention is the same.

There's no reason why we can't re-open the debate though.

 

[teabagyokel]

I believe that the key to the whole affair should be the gap between entries. If there is a gap between entries (not Brabham 1988 though) then they are different teams.

Despite changes of owners, McLaren and Ferrari have consistently entered. I would say we have:

Team Lotus 1958-1994
Lotus (Malaysia) 2010-

Sauber 1993-
(due to Sauber's 'comeback' I'd treat BMW Sauber like BMW Williams)

Équipe Renault 1977-1985
Renault F1 2002-

Mercedes-Benz 1954-55
Mercedes GP 2010-

Equally, I'd make a distinction between Alfa Romeo 1950-51 and 1979-85 as well as Honda 1964-68 and 2006-08.

 

[Brogan]

I believe that the key to the whole affair should be the gap between entries. If there is a gap between entries (not Brabham 1988 though) then they are different teams.

I'm not sure that's a defining criteria TBY.

It essentially comes down to team ownership, the official entrant name and the chassis numbering.

As far as the F1 site is concerned, I know this doesn't make much sense but I wouldn't take any notice of the data on there.
When we originally created the database, of all the sources we used it was the least accurate.

 

[teabagyokel]

I believe that the key to the whole affair should be the gap between entries. If there is a gap between entries (not Brabham 1988 though) then they are different teams.

I'm not sure that's a defining criteria TBY.

It essentially comes down to team ownership, the official entrant name and the chassis numbering.

As far as the F1 site is concerned, I know this doesn't make much sense but I wouldn't take any notice of the data on there.
When we originally created the database, of all the sources we used it was the least accurate.

I just think if Mercedes spend 45 years out of the sport then its not the same team, really.

 

[Brogan]

I just think if Mercedes spend 45 years out of the sport then its not the same team, really.

I agree to a certain extent but all the signs are that it is the same team due to the criteria I mentioned.
However, this thread is for discussing these issues so all debate and viewpoints are welcomed.

Apart from the teams already mentioned (including the ones mentioned by TBY), are there any others which potentially could have troublesome histories when it comes to continuation/ownership?

I'll post the full list here as to how they are entered into the database and then we can thrash it out once and for all.

 

[F1Yorkshire]

This list on wikipedia is a good starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fo ... nstructors

One team with troublesome ownership issues is Williams.

Frank Williams Racing Cars 1972 - 1976
Williams Grand Prix Engineering 1977 - Present

Wiki has them as two seperate entries even though they were owned and managed by the same person.

 

[Brogan]

We also have Williams as separate teams as prior to 1978 they were a customer team.

I'll include that field in the data also when I pull it all from the database.

 

[cider_and_toast]

I'm pretty sure I read an interview with Mike Gascgoyne just after the launch of the new car that said it wasn't trying to be the original Lotus but hoped the team would operate in the same spirit. That seemed to me to put the nail in the coffin for the team being a continuation.

This new development, though I'm delighted by it, does complicate the issue even further. On the face of it, if you look at what they will have from the start of the 2011 season, I really can't see how the team is anything other than a direct continuation of Lotus Grand Prix circa 1994/5.

The original Team Lotus shares were sold by the Chapman Family and Fred Bushall to Peter Windsor in 1990 and had long been seperate from Group Lotus prior to that. David Hunt purchased the team assets in late 1994 and almost managed to put something together for 1995 prior to signing a deal to run the Lotus name on Pacific GP cars in order to try and keep the name alive while he looked for further sponsors. It is these assets and history that are now owned by Lotus F1 Racing. So they own the name, the badge, the rights to the teams GP cars, the team history, they are based in Norfolk and have firm links with Group Lotus. That's about as original as you can get.

I think, as silly as it sounds, that from 2011 Team Lotus will be back on the grid and the team that existed for 2010 while the same team is a seperate statistical entry. Much in the same way that Honda > Brawn > Mercedes is pretty much the exact same team over three seasons but three different entries.

To cap it all and further muddy the waters, Autosport in their recent article on Williams' return to the points claimed that while 5 season without a win is a long time for Williams', Lotus haven't won a GP since 1988. Once again suggesting that Autosport consider Team Lotus and Lotus F1 Racing to be one and the same thing.

 

[Galahad]

This old chestnut eh?

We have to draw a line between constructors and teams. When Stirling Moss won in his private Lotus, Lotus got the constructors championship points, despite it having little to do with them as merely the suppliers of the car. It is only right that the database also credits Rob Walker Racing with the victory though.

On this principle I would have to consider Mercedes 1954-55 and Mercedes 2010- as being the same constructor. Stuttgart were the owners, they commissioned the building of the cars. Are they the same team? In my view, not; Mercedes 2010 is the same team as BAR/Honda/Brawn (we can argue later about Tyrrell).

When it comes to Lotus, I would - unlike Bro - include everything together in the constructor record in a similar way, though the "Team" name is clearly differentiated as being Lotus Racing rather than Team Lotus (yet). What to do if the team is known as Team Lotus next season I'm not sure; I don't think there's a directly comparable precedent.

 

[Brogan]

I think you've just introduced another variable there G, which is the constructor element.

So not only do we need to look at the team connection, we also need to look at the constructor connection.

This is going to need some sort of table to ensure we get it all correct otherwise it means the database won't be accurate.

 

[Galahad]

I think you've just introduced another variable there G, which is the constructor element.

So not only do we need to look at the team connection, we also need to look at the constructor connection.

This is going to need some sort of table to ensure we get it all correct otherwise it means the database won't be accurate.

I think - I could be wrong - that when we first did the tables that this was taken care of? Each record had separate team and constructor references. So if you look up Rob Walker Racing, for example, you get the complete statistics covering the results achieved with both Cooper and Lotus cars.