McLaren is reportedly looking to end its sponsorship of UCI WorldTour team Bahrain-McLaren just a year and a half after it entered the sport.
The team, which is run by Rod Ellingworth and signed Mark Cavendish on a one-year deal for this season, is currently looking for a replacement sponsor, reports Cyclingnews.com.
The automotive group, which is majority-owned by Bahrain’s sovereign wealth fund, originally took a 50 per cent stake in the team, then known as Bahrain-Merida, in December 2018.
It took over title sponsorship of the UCI WorldTour outfit from the start of last season, with the team renamed Bahrain-McLaren, although Merida continues as bike sponsor.
Due to financial pressures brought about by the coronavirus pandemic, however, McLaren Group, which has announced 1,200 job cuts, was forced to take out a £150 million loan from the National Bank of Bahrain.
The bank is 44 per cent owned by Mumtalakat Holding Co, the same sovereign wealth fund entity that owns McLaren Group.
Confirmation of the loan announced days before the delayed start to the Formula 1 season, and the group has said that it wants to focus on that sport going forward.
A McLaren Group spokesman said: “We are working closely with Team Bahrain-McLaren to prepare for the resumption of cycling.
“As with all our activities, we continuously work to evaluate brand fit and reach with global audiences.”
The cycling team’s management company is owned by Prince Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa, a member of the Bahraini royal family, who is reportedly prepared to continue to finance the team next year if no replacement sponsor can be found.
14 thoughts on “McLaren reportedly looking to end UCI WorldTour team sponsorship”
Forbes did a good piece on
Forbes did a good piece on why McLaren have their financial problems due to Covid19 https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2020/06/23/the-real-reason-mclaren-is-considering-selling-a-stake-in-its-f1-team/ I dont know that the cycling team consumes vast amounts of their money,obviously it’s due diligence for them to review where they are spending that money but ultimately the association promotes the brand which promotes car sales,whether its value for their money though only they can decide
The 1,200 job cuts are
The 1,200 job cuts are unfortunate for those individuals but perhaps that is a sign they were overstaffed and spent lots of money too eagerly when times were good. They wouldn’t be the first to do that.
The rarified atmosphere of F1 racing and the construction and sale of extremely expensive supercars are neither predictable or reliable operations. I’d prefer that they switched to building e-bikes, e-motorbikes and, I suppose, electric cars (but boringly practical ones instead of p3nis extensions for rich men).
tbf they do produce hybrid
tbf they do produce hybrid sports cars and intend to increase the amount they make, I dont think theyll ever make practical cars or diversify into other areas themselves, but its their battery technology which currently powers Formula E,and that stuff will end up in boring practical cars,ebikes,emotorbikes of the worlds automotive manufacturers.
It’s something if their
It’s something if their battery technology powers Formula E, though motorsport, especially F1, continues to be a huge source of fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions.
And the trickle-down effect of motor racing developed technology to normal everyday vehicles is wildly exaggerated IMHO. Companies like Nissan, Toyota and others have been making real world road-going vehicles powered by batteries for some time.
There’s less fuel used in one
There’s less fuel used in one season of F1 than it takes to fill one jumbo jet
But they fill multiple Jumbo
But they fill multiple Jumbo Jets every race, let alone all of those (tax free) private jets and helicopters.
They still would if the
They still would if the engines were electric. How much fossil fuel is burnt in a season of bicycle racing – support cars, caravan, shipping of equipment, team bus, private jets, helicopter cameras etc etc
They all pack up and fly to
They all pack up and fly to some races so your point isn’t a good one
My point is motorsport is the
My point is motorsport is the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to tackling climate change, when the post I responded to claimed that “motorsport, especially F1, continues to be a huge source of fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions.”
By around a factor of three
By around a factor of three as well, the amount of Fuel a 747 burns is staggering, let alone the A380 or 777
Nissan and Toyota have been
Nissan and Toyota have been heavily involved in other motorsports categories that also use hybrid power such as world endurance cars that compete at le man etc.
Mercedes F1 team have already made a commitment to being carbon neutral by (I think) the end of 2021, and as others have said, the travel of vast numbers of fans for other sports (especially football) let alone all of the teams etc will vastly outweigh the two dozen trucks and flights that get taken each year for F1.
It’s a shame Mclaren are looking to leave the sport already, although it felt a little like it was the Bahranian royal family using one of the brands it owns as the sponsor, kind of like Mitchelton Scott.
The thing is, believe it or
The thing is, believe it or not, F1 is now an engine efficiency formula. Mercedes’ latest powerplant has a thermal efficiency of over 50%, which isn’t being shouted about loudly enough IMO. That’s near-enough the same as the gas-fired power station that provides most of the juice to an electric car.
The aerodynamic aspect of F1 might have little to no application to a road car, but some of the mechanical innovations certainly do.
Regarding the indirect emissions of F1 and motorsports in general – we’re talking about a very niche sport, with only a handful of events per year. I would have thought that moving football fans and players around produces orders of magnitude more CO2 than all motorsports combined.
srchar wrote:
It is far smaller than football for sure but this article isn’t about football.
Teams, organisers, fans and other associated people all fly around the world between events. They also hold testing days in between races and use very significant resources in R&D before a vehicle even turns a wheel. Much of this is as relevant to the average person’s car as Chris Froome’s Dogma is to someone riding to work on a 3-speed roadster with basket and chainguard. Even less so, as Froomey’s frame is probably a stock item, not a one-off while Di2 does not compare with the estimated £70,000-£100,000 cost of a single steering wheel (source).
Motorsport glamourises speed and outright performance above all else. McLaren sell those knob cars to people who think that they can drive on the roads like Hamilton drives on the track. But there are also millions more in less powerful cars that like to behave the same way.
It’s the same with MotoGP and rallying, both sports I’ve followed in the past. The manufacturers rely on wannabes trying to emulate their heroes by buying ‘sporty’ looking products and upgrades. And that is why on Sunday mornings the Shrewsbury bypass sounds like Donington Park (even though noisy pipes hardly make any difference to performance, they’re only used by wankers) and locals and cyclists complain about close passes and excessive speed through villages.
So how much fuel does each these idiots waste compared to driving/riding sensibly? A heck of a lot. And while I’d dearly love pro cycle sport to cut its carbon footprint, motorsport has such wide-ranging detrimental effects on the environment beyond the high octane fuel used in the cars themselves.
I had heard that rallying has
I had heard that rallying has a more direct to public effect and trickle down in tech than F1.