No question about Aston Martin selling cars from the James Bond image, but then 007 and the american TV detectives drive cars that people can actually buy.

The most recent motorsport success has been that of Subaru (and Mitsubishi to a lesser extent) in rallying, again selling something close to that which was seen competing.

Ferrari is a little different to the other teams but they probably make more money out of selling Ferrari-branded goods than they do out of making cars.

Touring cars would be the way to do it, but anyone with half a brain knows that the touring cars bear no resemblance to anything one can buy, other than bloated body panels.

Honda still has massive involvement in Champ cars or whatever it's called nowadays, as well as in motorcycle racing of course. It seems that the US is the real target for Honda's sales these days (and that's where its greatest sales success has been) so involvement in F1 is a big waste of time in that regard.

They'll do well with their hybrids and the Clarity there as diseasel probably won't catch on, despite the best efforts of Aldi.

 

I'm taking this as a serious question, so am at risk of coming over as a fudd if it's not.

Surely the obvious answer is try not to spend more on developing your car, paying your staff, and travel costs than you bring in from sponsors, tv money and points revenue. Independent teams like Williams obviously don't run at a loss, neither I'm sure do Ferrari.

 

Actually not so in the case of Williams:

From the FT

[QUOTE]Adam Parr, Williams

 

 

Clarity racing to 'look forward' to then

Seriously though; some good points there and elsewhere in the thread, so thanks for all the input folks

So it looks like intangibles/halo effects are a thing of the past then. What a shame that the world is so sanitised these days and that everything HAS to be ONLY about the sums stacking up in the short term with glamourous good old-fashioned wreckless just-for-the-fun-of-it petrolheaded excess seemingly taking a hit in the process

98