How Toyota got it wrong

Mika Salo tests Toyota's prototype F1 car in 2001

Mika Salo tests Toyota's prototype F1 car in 2001

In the eight years Toyota spent in F1 there was little success and a great number of missed opportunities.

Sport has many examples of teams blessed with an abundance of resources which they proceed to squander. From day one money was no object for Toyota, yet their trio of pole positions and 13 podium finishes – with no wins – must be considered a complete and utter failure.

Toyota’s first board decision to enter F1 was taken in 1998, but it took until 2001 for them to get a working car on the track. Although they originally intended this to be their first season, the team decided it wasn’t sufficiently prepared, so they took their prototype to a range of F1 venues and ran race simulations including pit stops.

Former Ferrari driver Mika Salo was brought in to drive and was paired with a man previously thought to be one of the most promising young talents not to get an F1 driver – Allan McNish.

Driver decisions

The team expected little from their first full season of Formula 1, but the early signs were encouraging. Salo scored a point on their debut at Melbourne, partly thanks to the field being decimated by a huge accident at the first corner.

But in short order we became accustomed to a Toyota trait – they made some utterly baffling decisions, particularly when it came to hiring drivers. Salo and McNish were kicked out at the end of 2002 – in their place came the unremarkable Olivier Panis and Champ Car star Cristiano da Matta.

The sheer size of the team seemed to work against it. Being located in Cologne, Germany, made it difficult to attract experienced staff from other F1 teams, most of which are based in Britain. And when they did lure a big name – such as Mike Gascoyne – he quickly became frustrated by internal politics and left.

Toyota’s corporate culture also worked against the team – Ove Andersson had to step down as team principal in 2003 due to his age.

Probably the worst single decision the team made was hiring Ralf Schumacher on a multi-million dollar salary far in excess of what any other team would pay him. Jokes about whether they thought they’d hired the other Schumacher were impossible to avoid.

The good year

Schumacher got to drive the most competitive car to come out of Cologne, the 2005 TF105, but it was team mate Jarno Trulli who got the most out of the car to begin with, scoring three podiums in the first five races of 2005. This was the high point of Toyota’s time in F1.

Now in its fourth season, some indication of the team’s desperation to score results came as it scored its first two pole positions. Knowing it was doomed not to participate in the 2005 United States Grand Prix because of the Michelin tyre failures a very lightly-fuelled Trulli took pole position at Indianapolis, before joining the other Michelin-shod cars in withdrawing.

At home in Suzuka later that year the team did the same again, this time with Schumacher, who took pole position but came in for fuel seven laps earlier than any of the front runners and finished eighth.

Their vast resources seldom led to anything in the way of innovation and a succession of conventional cars rolled out of Cologne. At one stage accusations were levelled at the team that they had used confidential information from Ferrari to design their cars, but court proceedings brought in Italy were dropped and, unlike the notorious McLaren case, the FIA chose not to investigate.

After the peak of 2005 the team slumped badly during the next two seasons. But there was no let-up in the spending. Last year they were estimated to have a budget of almost $450m, and that was after Schumacher’s wage bill was replaced by Timo Glock’s more modest pay packet.

Toyota blushes were deeper and redder in 2007 when they began supplying engines to Williams and were beaten in the constructors’ championship by their customer team. After that Toyota foisted their up-and-coming but inexperienced rookie Kazuki Nakajima on the team and consequently out-scored Williams in 2008 and 2009.

Missed opportunities

Toyota started 2009 with a car arguably capable of challenging for wins. At Melbourne Trulli and Glock started at the back of the grid following a technical infringement, but still managed to finish third and fourth. They locked out the front row of the grid at Bahrain on light fuel loads – with more realistic strategies they could have qualified similarly well but might have kept Jenson Button behind.

After a competitive start to the season – partly thanks to being one of only three teams running the performance-enhancing ‘double diffusers’ – Toyota’s form varied wildly from track to track. But they never looked like convincing candidates for victory.

It is a truism that the team with the best car in F1 usually wins. But Toyota serve as a reminder that the team with the greatest wealth won’t necessarily build the best car. They spent eight years proving that over and over.

Toyota F1 drivers, 2002 to 2009

Mika Salo (2002)
Allan McNish (2002)
Olivier Panis (2003-5)
Cristiano da Matta (2003-4)
Jarno Trulli (2004-9)
Ricardo Zonta (2004)
Ralf Schumacher (2005-7)
Timo Glock (2008-9)
Kamui Kobayashi (2009)

Toyota F1 results

Races started: 139
Wins: 0
Pole postions: 3
Fastest laps: 3
Points: 278.5
Podiums: 13
Best championship result: 4th (2005)
Laps led: 66

Read more: Toyota quits F1 after eight winless years

Advert | Go Ad-free

93 comments on How Toyota got it wrong

  1. qazuhb said on 5th November 2009, 12:36

    When Alonso left McLaren, I really hoped he would go to Toyota. I think the Spanish’s stubborness and hunger for victory coupled with the Japs’ enourmous resources would have been a nearly foolproof recipe for success.

  2. David said on 5th November 2009, 13:22

    I’m very sorry about Toyota retirement.
    But on the other side I don’t feel really a good thing to have only big car constructors teams in formula 1. This is linked in my mind to boring races, similar cars and no real sport feeling, just business and “image” issues.
    I rather regret ’70 and ’80, with many “garagisti” (as Enzo Ferrari used to call them) against Ferrari and Renault: Cosworth engine, Hewland gearbox and so many great engineering solutions: Brabham, Williams, Lotus, Tyrrel…wings, ground effect, innovative sospension systems, six wheels cars.

  3. Ninad said on 5th November 2009, 13:35

    I think, they lost 2 win opportunities this year-
    Bahrain- They put hard tires in 2nd stint instead of preferred soft tires. And were simply slow after that and overtaken by Button and Vettel during pits.
    Spa- Car was good but at start Trulli lost his wing. He had more fuel and better pace than both Raikkonen and Fisichella.

    Plus races like Brazil where they lost podium and possibly lost chance of taking 3rd in Constructor’s title.

    BTW I think reason why big manufacturers are pulling out is more to do with success in Formula 1 and to a small extent financial crisis.
    Team like Force India are doing okay job with low budget than teams like Toyota, Honda and BMW can have much better budget.

    • Nitpicker said on 5th November 2009, 17:38

      It’s all about image and cost. The huge cost is worth it if you’re winning and getting yourself a great image (think of all the Renault advertisements and special edition cars after they won their championships).

      However if you have an embarrassing slump (Honda) or you couldn’t win a race if it was handed to you on a silver platter (Toyota) then your image is being dragged through the mud, the cost isn’t worth it and you scarper.

      Independent teams aren’t chasing PR or prestige for a range of road cars. They also aren’t suffering the huge losses that the manufacturers are. Their only business is racing and that is what they’ll continue to do. The fans should embrace the independents and not get caught up in the phoney ‘prestige’ of manufacturers.

  4. I am not surprised by Toyota`s decision. The main problem of Toyota was their managment. First you need a good top managment, (for example when Ferrari hired Jean Todt). Second, you need a leader driver (Michael Schumacher is a excellent pilot but in top of that is a leader in the team) and third you need good engineers.
    If you check Toyota`s record they took “old F1 engineers” for their first season, never hired top drivers and in top of that the managment keep pushing the technical staff. Look what happened to Mike Gayscone, the year he designed the Toyota`s car was their best year but he got tired of Toyota`s politics and leave. 2006`s car was a disaster.

  5. F1Outsider said on 5th November 2009, 14:05

    I won’t miss them. I think it’s bad for the sport that another manufacturer is leaving. But Toyota was always out of place in F1. Their street cars aren’t even remotely sporty so there’s no marketing potential there. It would always be a matter of time before they left. Even if they had won races and world championships, I’d bet they’d still be leaving now for having accomplished what they set out to do.

    I just fear for the Japanese grand prix and for Kobyashi. With no Japanese corporate involvement in F1 after 2010, I can see the Grand Prix being pulled off the schedule.

    Kobyashi seems promising, but he only did two races and every team up and down the paddock will think twice before hiring a Japanese driver because of all the awful drivers like Nakajima, Takuma Sato (not sooo bad), and the two or 3 back in 80’s and 90’s.

    I still think McLaren should pick him up right away as you can’t get much worse than Kovolainen… Well, maybe you can. But at least Kobyashi would be fun to watch!

    • Nitpicker said on 5th November 2009, 17:43

      I actually thought Toyota would keep plugging on forever, no matter what awful results they were getting.

      It would be great if Kobayashi got a drive next year. He looked feisty in Brazil and then composed and cunning in Abu Dhabi. However I doubt that teams would rule him out because he is Japanese, that is a very prejudicial statement for you to make. Regardless of nationality he is one of the more promising rookies we’ve seen this year.

  6. I know this post is not related to the article, but i was thinking that it’d be nice to have an article of how cars from all teams have grown all year. it will be nice to see Mclaren chassis from Melbourne to Abu dhabi …….

  7. My understanding is that Toyota didn’t just want to win in F1, they wanted to win on their own terms. That was the reason for their downfall.

    Toyota has a management philosophy called “The Toyota Way” (look it up on Wikipedia), which is intended to be a systematic way for people to continuously improve their work. It works wonderfully in car production and has also been successfully applied by other organisations in different sectors. But its success has mostly been in areas that are effectively production lines, e.g. making better road cars more efficiently or reducing hospital waiting times. But it obviously doesn’t work so well in a fast moving environment like F1.

    The Toyota Way is almost a religion at Toyota – after all, it has helped them to become one of the biggest car companies the world has ever seen. Toyota were therefore determind to use it to succeed in F1. I reckon this explains some of the dafter decisions made by the F1 team, particularly Mike Gascoyne’s sacking – Gascoyne has a clear way of working and had no time for the Toyota Way. When it came down to a choice between Gascoyne and The Toyota Way, Toyota picked the latter.

    Meanwhile Renault, an already successful racing team bought by the manufacturer, was given almost total freedom to be a racing team and took titles in 2005-06… The French company had already seen for itself how badly running an F1 team from head office worked.

  8. Well I hope they dont shut the whole thing down. They could go to AMLS/LeMans for a lot cheaper. That would be nice to see.

    • Nitpicker said on 5th November 2009, 17:47

      I wonder if they’ll bank-roll someone to run the team for next year, a la Honda’s “sale” to Ross Brawn and chums.

  9. Ronman said on 5th November 2009, 20:41

    Toyota blushes were deeper and redder in 2007 when they began supplying engines to Williams and were beaten in the constructors’ championship by their customer team. After that Toyota foisted their up-and-coming but inexperienced rookie Kazuki Nakajima on the team and consequently out-scored Williams in 2008 and 2009.

    Humm… I wonder if Nakajima’s job was in fact to squander points so that Williams doesn’t outscore them

  10. theRoswellite said on 5th November 2009, 20:54

    Toyota’s lack of success resulted primarily from:

    1) lack of design innovation (lack of design innovators?).
    2) Lack of a very TOP driver….as in mega-quick.

    IN SUMMARY: IDENTIFY TALENT, HIRE TALENT, STEP BACK, AND LET THEM BE TALENTED.

    (If success results ONLY from being #1, you’re unlikely to get there from being…an extremely competent…FOLLOWER.)

  11. Mike "the bike" Schumacher said on 5th November 2009, 22:52

    Yes trulli beat ralf in the first races in 05, but people seem to forget ralf beat him overall
    and an “unremarkable” panis, what are you talking about?
    The man won in a Ligier for god sake!
    He was just unfortunate never to have a good car. Likewise Salo, (except a few races for Ferrari when he almost won).

  12. Mahir C said on 6th November 2009, 0:02

    I was sad that Honda left last year(not now obviously, since it gave us brand new champion team). I could have been sad about BMW leaving if they hadnt tried that cheap trick that saying F1 wasnt relevant to sustainaible future yadayda. I would be properly sad if Renault goes away. I would rather see the name of a car company up there rather than a t-shirt or drink company. That said I am happy to see the back of Toyota, they wont be missed.

    Toyota lost because they were bland, just like their road cars. They were never terrible or superb. There wasnt anything on their car which was the best in the paddock. Average aero, average engine, average suspension etc. Much the same with their road cars. They even hired bland drivers so that it suits the rest of the team.

    Go to their wikipedia site, most of the stuff is about production system and management crap. Is this a car company we’re talking about? What did they bring to the automative world? They had no passion for racing and I’m not sure they have passion for cars either.

  13. Jay Menon said on 6th November 2009, 1:31

    It can be argued that the downfall of the big manufacturers could be down to too much involvement from the Corporate Headquarters, or could have been cultural differences that caused them to fall?

    Toyota’s failure could be a warning to teams that are starting from scratch. If you look at it,of the newer teams on the grid, Toyota is the only one that started scratch, everybody else was just bought over.

    It will interesting to see how the newbies work out next year.

  14. toyota shouldn’t have left, the should have restructured and become more agile.

    cut everything in half (budget and resources wise), keep timo glock and their new fast japanese driver, they are both cheap and fast.

    they should have analysed how the smaller teams were going to use their resources to compete, and then based their new model on a similar smaller more agile foundation and work from there.

    they could have build a base like the small teams are for the small teams budgets ($40m), and then used an easy $60M more to out-do them on technical resources and other key areas. $100m is affordable compared to their $450m

    they have a strong point scoring package already, using the current car as their base and re-structuring their resources around that to what smaller teams would have would put them leaps and bounds ahead of the smaller teams.

  15. wasiF1 said on 6th November 2009, 8:32

    Toyota had slipped many opportunity from their hand.
    Sadly they are leaving when they had probably one of the best driver they could ever had in their team.

    Feel bad for Kobayashi.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.