Prospective new teams for the FIA F1 World Championship.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

The FIA seem to want..

Let's hope that no-one will be that naive again.

The focus from Liberty and the teams on any new entrant adding value to F1 is not a bad thing IMHO as it is likely to mean that any prospective new entrant is examined much more closely and hopefully that means if they come in, they actually turn up to begin with and then stay.

It's also good that the cost cap is now in place - even though it has its difficulties and complications, it does in fact mean that any new team can plan more effectively, as the actual cost of going racing is known. Manor was a a good example of team that came in based on a promised cost cap that didn't happen at the time. Having the cost cap actually in place makes a big difference.

Between the closer examination of feasibility and the cost cap in place, it is more likely to today that any new team(s) will be stable and part of the sport for some time to come.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Alan52

It’s Liberty who are taking their orders from the existing teams not the FIA.
It is pretty obvious that the FIA wants to increase the size of the grid,the existing teams are against it regardless and that Liberty has come down on the side of the existing teams.Even if their own interests are served better by adding new well resourced teams.

I know where Liberty stands regardimg the teams interests but afaiac it's the FIA who should hold the ultimate position over new entrants. It's their championship regardless of Concorde agreements etc. If the FIA do mot agree to accept any new entries then they will be ceding power to the manufacturers.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Alan52

It’s Liberty who are taking their orders from the existing teams not the FIA.
It is pretty obvious that the FIA wants to increase the size of the grid,the existing teams are against it regardless and that Liberty has come down on the side of the existing teams.Even if their own interests are served better by adding new well resourced teams.

If it is against their own interests then why?

On reflection it may be because they have been told it will be more complicated dealing with say 12 teams rather than ten.
They may also have been told that the franchise system as practiced in ball sports like baseball and basketball and the NFL will add the most value to the sport but this isn't a realistic view.

The ball sports are all national sports in the American context, not international sports and follow a long history of traditional games played through the population from childhood.
The top end is simply the culmination of the 'American dream' to make it as a professional sports person.

F1 is a niche sport and international in nature. The sport had a massive following in 2012 but according the companies that measure this sort of thing they had lost 110 million followers by 2016-16.

We had the so called Mercedes domination from 2013-20 but that changed in 2021 with a great battle for the championship.
Now we have a set of regulations that may actually give us the most single dominant half decade the sport has ever had.

The ten teams we have seemed to have a shake up earlier in this year but by the mid year break it was very much a predictable order.
A year is simply a dominant team getting it right but if no one can really mount a reasonable challenge across a two or three year period then you are looking at the basis of a long term dominance. that may extend for half a decade or more.
That was said to be the reason for the willingness to look the other way over issues in 2021 when Red Bull began their fight back but what we have now is even a more complete dominance.

Its why you always need to be careful about you wish for.
Allowing the sport to expand a little by a team or two adds new blood to the mix.
Keeping people out is a surefire way to build resentment amongst other people in the motorsport business and amongst long term fans.

If the present model collapses or major players like some OEM's vacate, the whole model may collapse and then they will be fighting over the crumbs.

There is always a danger that the following could evaporate very quickly and very easily in a major recession.

[P38 in workshop]

Two posts with which I wholeheartedly agree.If the potential new teams can raise the entry fee and convince the FIA that they have the finance for a realistic entry,let them in.We have,in the UK at least, several college courses turning out motorsport engineers and not a huge range of places for them to go now that the likes of March,Reynard and Lola have faded away.Supply of personnel shouldn't be a problem,drivers likewise and with the attention created by Drive to Survive I would have thought sponsorship opportunities are out there.


From Liberty's point of view there is hardly any extra administering to do as adding a couple of extra names to a mailing list is about the extent of it.Ok,maybe a bit of an over simplification,but the processes won't really change.The risk of non-qualifiers spoiling the display of the sponsor's brand names isn't an issue with two more teams as there won't be non-qualifiers.I can imagine that in the Bernie era he would have said to the objectors "what makes you believe you can't beat a new outfit?". Then relied on embarrassment to demolish the objection.

[S griffin]

I do hope we have one or two more teams joining. There's plenty of opportunites for more drivers and aspiring engineers and the like to join if so. A lot of teams have fallen away, but that's life. F1 has got enough exposure

Having only 10 teams just does not feel right. It a shame all the same some teams couldn't stay. Having at least a 22 car grid would be better, although there is always the risk they are not quick enough

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Two posts with which I wholeheartedly agree.If the potential new teams can raise the entry fee and convince the FIA that they have the finance for a realistic entry,let them in.We have,in the UK at least, several college courses turning out motorsport engineers and not a huge range of places for them to go now that the likes of March,Reynard and Lola have faded away.Supply of personnel shouldn't be a problem,drivers likewise and with the attention created by Drive to Survive I would have thought sponsorship opportunities are out there.


From Liberty's point of view there is hardly any extra administering to do as adding a couple of extra names to a mailing list is about the extent of it.Ok,maybe a bit of an over simplification,but the processes won't really change.The risk of non-qualifiers spoiling the display of the sponsor's brand names isn't an issue with two more teams as there won't be non-qualifiers.I can imagine that in the Bernie era he would have said to the objectors "what makes you believe you can't beat a new outfit?". Then relied on embarrassment to demolish the objection.

But are most of them kicking the tires willing to do the full season? Indy and Nascar can get multiple sponsors on the car with different events drawing more or less buy-in. F1 teams are stuck with their livery for the season are they not? Harder to be drawing cash from 4 smaller deals over requiring the full season chit from entry.

[bathurst77]

Im all in favour of more teams, bigger grid, prequalifying, even customer cars.
Maybe have a 2nd tier entry that races in the same race as a "Privateer class"

CHeaper entry fee, option of customer cars (or buy one of last years top cars), single car teams, maybe any team or any driver cant do the entire season, and a smaller prize pool, compulsory pre-qualify each race, have to make a set laptime and if there are more than a couple of cars doing pre-qually only the top 2 or so get to race. Maybe a european based privateer might choose to just race in europe, same for mid east USA or asian based team. maybe a "privateers cup" award for top privateer at years end.(not each round)


Have a sunset clause in their contract, a team can race as privateer for no more than 3 years, then go all in or go home and let others have a go.

End result interesting event on friday prequal, bigger grids, and a cheap way for new teams to enter and new drivers and crew etc to get a start.

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

Im all in favour of more teams, bigger grid, prequalifying, even customer cars.
Maybe have a 2nd tier entry that races in the same race as a "Privateer class"

CHeaper entry fee, option of customer cars (or buy one of last years top cars), single car teams, maybe any team or any driver cant do the entire season, and a smaller prize pool, compulsory pre-qualify each race, have to make a set laptime and if there are more than a couple of cars doing pre-qually only the top 2 or so get to race. Maybe a european based privateer might choose to just race in europe, same for mid east USA or asian based team. maybe a "privateers cup" award for top privateer at years end.(not each round)


Have a sunset clause in their contract, a team can race as privateer for no more than 3 years, then go all in or go home and let others have a go.

End result interesting event on friday prequal, bigger grids, and a cheap way for new teams to enter and new drivers and crew etc to get a start.

F1 is too expensive both to start a team and run it to make this even close to viable.At one stage in the late 80’s they were up to around 34 entries for 26 grid slots.
There were a bunch of cars that trekked around the world to fall over at prequalifying and not able to join the 30 cars practicing for those 26 grid slots.
Those teams that missed out on getting into races fell over pretty quickly.
There is at least one of the prospective entrants that will start better resourced than Haas or Williams.That is the standard new teams need to show they are at.

[broadrun96]

Yeah, prequalifying as an idea is just over, done and dusted. It's hard enough to get Bump Day racing at Indy and that's for a single Indycar race that's in the range of 2 million to run and been reported even less to run a meh effort. And I don't think the series would be able to convince everyone to approve local teams popping up and finding teams, drivers and funds for that single event.

I would understand the addition of customer cars but say you get a year like this year and a driver who gets a Red Bull car would be at an advantage. OK, probably not really an advantage because would a serious effort with a top driver be running a customer or building a car? And would a team buying from Red Bull get a 23 or 22 final draft car? But then what happens when the regs change, do they have to run a car for 2 years to get the year old or do they get the engine allowance like Toro Rosso did with the V10s a while back? Just lots of things to ponder and wonde how the angry teams would be

[bathurst77]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

I would understand the addition of customer cars but say you get a year like this year and a driver who gets a Red Bull car would be at an advantage. OK, probably not really an advantage because would a serious effort with a top driver be running a customer or building a car? And would a team buying from Red Bull get a 23 or 22 final draft car? But then what happens when the regs change, do they have to run a car for 2 years to get the year old or do they get the engine allowance like Toro Rosso did with the V10s a while back?

All good question, but all questions that have been answered in the past in this and other series.

[S griffin]

I think there is no problem having one or two other teams. We’ve had more than 20 cars before and we can again. Other series manage fine, so can F1

[bathurst77]

I think I have seen a pattern on this (and similar sites)
People complain that the series needs fixing, isnt as good as it could be, but whenever anyone comes up with an idea, instead of exploring it maybe modifying or adding to it, others just quickly jump up to say "no cant be done, no good, kill that"

So basically scream they want change, but not THAT change.

I like to come up with ideas and most of them are pie in the sky, but some I think have some merit, maybe with much tweaking.
This is a forum for discussing ideas, lets dream and discuss and not just moan, its not our $$ on the line.

About 5 years ago I suggested on here, going back to some form of ground effects, and maybe qualifying points and fastest lap points. I was howled down.
hmmmm

Now Im suggesting customer cars and a low cost entry class in the race, also suggested a 3rd car with different drivers doing a few races each. Both ideas have been soundly condemned. The main point of condemnation is no body would want to enter under that framework, it costs too much for a chance of little return (tell every gambler that). Yet, in many other professional motor sports categories right now, there are wild cards and customer teams and pre qualifying, and "Privateer/am" classes, and there has been many of these done very successfully in F1 in the past.

"We cant try that! Nobody would want to - its too expensive"
So, you can speak authoritatively for every motor sport business and billionaire in the world? Surely its up to the businesses and the sports owners to decide if they think its worth the $$ . We cant try because iit might fail?

It actually would be fairly low cost (In motor sport terms, compared to full F1)

Start with much lower entry fees in return for various restrictions such as must prequalify, no single driver can do more than xx races per year. or something. Prequalifying means no total donkey carts or terrible driver will get in everyones way come the main game

They can buy a car from RBR/Merc/Williams and an engine from whomever will cut them a deal. (or build their own)
The seller gets income they would not have had to offset budget cap.
Sure last years redbull might be pretty dear, but last years haas or williams would be getable.

Maybe they dont get the "upgrades" that the main team designs over the year, and its up to them to see if it can be improved. Maybe "passing on" upgrades mid year to the B team is banned, or maybe thats a up to each team when making the deal. Nobody might want last years williams or haas. but if the deal was "we will sell/lease it and we will continue to improve it for you" where Horner says "here it is, go away and race" (and of course for a much bigger price). And maybe RBR plain dont want to sell last years car as its too good! Market forces would decide how much a customer car costs.

Remember its not much more expensive to build 4 or 6 cars than 2. The cost is R&D & Testing, so maybe RBR wouuld sell their current car (or a close relation). And if last years car was now useless they could get some money for it.

Or maybe a new Lola or Ilmore will start up building cars or engines for others but not entering themselves.

A new team could buy a customer car and engine much cheaper than open a factory, buy all that expensive plant tools employ designers engineers hire wind tunnels etc to run around the back for a few years. Few teams ever come in and win from the get go. (Braun did under special circumstances)


The new team could get pay drivers, maybe a handful, each doing only a few races.
(A young local driver will find it hard to scrape up the cost of doing a full year in one of the current 20 cars, but 1 or a handful of races in a "privateer class" car could be do able) If that driver does like George did at Williams, and gets results much better than the car deserves, it would be great for his career and sponsors.

The team could get a rotating string of sponsors, Telstra Australia, VB and Jetstar for Aussie race, Target. Kmart etc for American legs. Companies who cant see any value in paying an F1 team to run their logos in Azerbijan or Qatar (not a huge market for Canadian beer in Abu Dhabi) etc but know millions of their local potential customers will watch the home GP and maybe nearby countries. Especially if a local promising talent is in the car that weekend. It wouuld get heaps of Media coverage on that countries build up to the race, even if it doesnt go past Friday.
A PR dream for not huge $$$ and easy money for the entrant.

Sure the new team knows it is in "class B" and has a good chance of being a no show on sunday and if they do start will run mid to low places, but so does every start up team right now at full cost. And every "AM/Silver/B class" team in other series such as at Lemans. Yet the teams still do it.

If the Privateer team embarrasses the main string back markers, well.. thats sports. The A team needs to sort it out, and in a few years maybe they will be relegated or the B team be given some way of bidding for an A license.

If some team really wants to jump into the top class head first ala HAAS etc, this wont stop them, just gives them thechoice of doing that or a few years to test the water and get a feel before really backing the tip truck full of cash in.

Im not saying this is brilliant perfect cant fail, I am saying there are loads of Cassandras here complaining the sport is broken and needs fixing, but every proposal by others is shut down without any constructive input. Maybe they are the ones throwing their teddies?

[bathurst77]

"F1 is too expensive both to start a team and run it to make this even close to viable. At one stage in the late 80’s they were up to around 34 entries for 26 grid slots."

It is too expensive to make viable... but in the some sentence, years ago it was done succesfully.

F1 was expensive then. its expensive now. The costs are much higher, the returns are much higher.. inflation. Remember you only need a few billionaires or companies in the world to want to give it a go. 3 in a world of 8 billion people.
I can think of a few who think its financially viable to race each other to the moon and Mars.

Hollywood invests over 100million in a movie or tv series that tanks. Apple invested millions in the Newton, Pippin.. then they hit ipod iphone ipad... microsfot windows phone, Ford had Edsel. leyland had P76 Business is like that and f1 iis advertising entertainment sports business

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

"F1 is too expensive both to start a team and run it to make this even close to viable. At one stage in the late 80’s they were up to around 34 entries for 26 grid slots."

It is too expensive to make viable... but in the some sentence, years ago it was done succesfully.

F1 was expensive then. its expensive now. The costs are much higher, the returns are much higher.. inflation. Remember you only need a few billionaires or companies in the world to want to give it a go. 3 in a world of 8 billion people.
I can think of a few who think its financially viable to race each other to the moon and Mars.

Hollywood invests over 100million in a movie or tv series that tanks. Apple invested millions in the Newton, Pippin.. then they hit ipod iphone ipad... microsfot windows phone, Ford had Edsel. leyland had P76 Business is like that and f1 iis advertising entertainment sports business

But it wasn’t successful.Those teams that hardly ever qualified for races went to the wall very quickly.
Also FYI regarding your comments about Le Mans /WEC being open entry.Just not true.The WEC teams are signed up and have to commit to whole season.The extra cars on the grid at Le Mans are regular competitors in other series and either qualify or are invited to Le Mans with race start guaranteed.
F1 doesn’t need a B Class.What it needs is a preparedness to accept entries from teams that have equal or greater resources than the current entrants.
Also the cost of the current hybrid F1 car is so great teams had to abandon the notion of spare cars.You underestimate the cost of building and running them.
Customer cars?No thanks.Wrong series.

[Mike Harte]

Alan52, I don't know if I misunderstood what you meant but spare cars that were taken to race meetings were banned by the FIA many, many years before the hybrid era started. I do believe that teams are currently permitted to have spare tub/s with them to give them the possibility of building a replacement car in the event of a serious incident during practice or qualifying.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

"F1 is too expensive both to start a team and run it to make this even close to viable. At one stage in the late 80’s they were up to around 34 entries for 26 grid slots."

It is too expensive to make viable... but in the some sentence, years ago it was done succesfully.

F1 was expensive then. its expensive now. The costs are much higher, the returns are much higher.. inflation. Remember you only need a few billionaires or companies in the world to want to give it a go. 3 in a world of 8 billion people.
I can think of a few who think its financially viable to race each other to the moon and Mars.

Hollywood invests over 100million in a movie or tv series that tanks. Apple invested millions in the Newton, Pippin.. then they hit ipod iphone ipad... microsfot windows phone, Ford had Edsel. leyland had P76 Business is like that and f1 iis advertising entertainment sports business

Was it the same costs relative inflation though? I'm gonna guess not at all even close to as expensive even adjusted for inflation from the garagistas and prequali races as now.

Your argument for space race is baseless at its root. They are NOT doing it for personal glory and loss, they want government contracts that are the background for the work and the source of future repayment.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

About 5 years ago I suggested on here, going back to some form of ground effects, and maybe qualifying points and fastest lap points. I was howled down.
hmmmm

I thought the consensus was that some ground effects would be good round here? I was certainly quite up for it, IIRC.

I didn’t like the qualifying points or fastest lap points. Not enough to howl I wouldn't have thought. Although noted the previous existence of the later. Still think they’re crap though.

[S griffin]

I prefer a point for FL than I do over the sprint points. For some reason that means more to me

[bjohnsonsmith]

From 1950-'59, an extra point for fastest lap was awarded, so it is historically in keeping.

[S griffin]

Although the difference in the 50s was it wasn’t restricted to the top 10 or whatever

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Although the difference in the 50s was it wasn’t restricted to the top 10 or whatever

Points were only awarded to the top 5 finishers.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Although the difference in the 50s was it wasn’t restricted to the top 10 or whatever

Based on grid size and reliability it really didn’t need to be.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

I think I have seen a pattern on this (and similar sites)
People complain that the series needs fixing, isnt as good as it could be, but whenever anyone comes up with an idea, instead of exploring it maybe modifying or adding to it, others just quickly jump up to say "no cant be done, no good, kill that"

So basically scream they want change, but not THAT change.

You can never get everyone to agree to some ideas. So there will always be someone saying "no". I do feel that on the whole, I am one of those who say "no" more often than "that is a great idea". I actually feel bad about that on a regular basis. But I also feel I can't just go along with ideas that I feel are very much unworkable. Maybe I just need to keep my mouth shut!

My viewpoint is that many ideas put forward here are some version of how F1 has worked previously. For example you called out pre-qualifying and to be fair people are not just saying "no, that will not work", but have provided very specific feedback as to why it wouldn't.

Teretonga made a comment recently in the wheel arch thread about "changing the parameters". If I understand his meaning correctly, it is that while we think about trying to adjust solutions, it really is the environment that the problems live within that must change first. Talking about the best or worst way to fly in the air is fine and all until you realize your audience are all fish.

I think that calling out the parameters that F1 is driven by (the environment that F1 lives within) should be the foundation of any discussion. In my opinion there are a few drivers (parameters) that rule F1 today...

1. It is predominantly a business (FOM)
2. The sport is on the back side of the maturity curve.

The first item has been discussed ad nauseam. In short, many ideas tossed out are effectively non-starters for financial or business reasons. Pre-qualifying for example. Nobody is going to fund a team that may not race. I mean sure, maybe some billionaire somewhere is willing to burn money for vanity purposes, but that is not a sustainable or sane business model.

The second item is one I think doesn't get discussed enough here. Things like automobiles and aircraft are both young enough that we can sort of see their early history within the lifespan of members of this forum. Well clearly not ALL the way back, but both were still maturing VERY quickly during the lives of members here. But today they are very mature.

"State of the Art" can be achieved by a VERY small group of people on a VERY small budget... when the technology in question is on the beginning of the maturity curve. The Wright brothers can be two guys working in a bicycle shop to achieve powered flight. 1950/60's F1 teams might have had only dozens of employees and be able to win championships.

Because the topic at hand was so immature, you could be top of your game with very few people and a relatively small budget. It would say that success in immature areas was driven by passion and a level of knowledge that could existing within the brains one or a handful people.

Today, that is impossible because things like flight and F1 are significantly more mature. And I think some fans have a hard time understanding that. They look in the rear view mirror, but forget what all has changed as time moves forward. So structural concepts (i.e. how teams might work) that harken back to those days are mostly demonstrably unrealistic.

Back to the point about "parameters". Substantial change would require a substantial change in the parameters that drive F1 today. IMHO, it would need a significant reduction in the level of commercialization plus a much less focus on technology to implement many of the ideas put forward that are echo's of past solutions.

Originally Posted by bathurst77

About 5 years ago I suggested on here, going back to some form of ground effects, and maybe qualifying points and fastest lap points. I was howled down.
hmmmm

As mentioned above, I think that probably was not universally shot down. While people here can't agree on technical solutions (no wings!, bigger wings!, smaller tires!, bigger tires!, etc.), there probably was a group who supported ground effects. I know I felt it was a good idea. I don't know if I commented on it one way or another five years ago.

Similarly I have been a proponent for the return of active suspension. I think a few have maybe agreed with me, but in general most have not or have voiced no opinions on the topic. Be it a good or awful idea, expect no consensus on stuff like this.

Originally Posted by bathurst77

Now Im suggesting customer cars and a low cost entry class in the race, also suggested a 3rd car with different drivers doing a few races each. Both ideas have been soundly condemned. The main point of condemnation is no body would want to enter under that framework, it costs too much for a chance of little return (tell every gambler that). Yet, in many other professional motor sports categories right now, there are wild cards and customer teams and pre qualifying, and "Privateer/am" classes, and there has been many of these done very successfully in F1 in the past.

Two thoughts... First, you do call out what the criticisms are. So people do provide details on why they think it will not work. I find that many ideas that people put forward lack similar arguments as to why they think it should work. Or better yet, if there is criticism, they don't provide counter arguments to the negative feedback. I have put forward criticism to concepts and I think my feedback is well reasons, but more often than not, those criticism are not addressed and instead the original ideas is just repeated, but more forcefully as if "why" it will work is self evident.

My opinion on your comments is that it speaks again to the topic of parameters. You talk about things like "Privateer" and customer teams working in other series. Other series are not "Constructor Championships" which is why the topic of customer cars dies in F1. If you want customers cars, then provide a framework of how the constructor championship would be addressed. Plus frankly the others series that might include stuff like Pro/Am concepts, and "gentleman racers" and teams that are passion projects (more power to them) are much smaller and has a much smaller level of commercialization that exists within F1. It's like trying to take ideas out of grass roots racing series and expect them to work "as is" at the very pinnacle of the sport. The parameters have to change before some of those solutions can work.

Richard

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Points were only awarded to the top 5 finishers.

I know that, I never said anything about points finishers and I think you know what I actually meant

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I know that, I never said anything about points finishers and I think you know what I actually meant

I wasn't aware that you knew that, which is why I mentioned it, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.