Prospective new teams for the FIA F1 World Championship.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

I'm pretty sure the FIA don't see it that way.Its their championship and they offloaded the day to day running of it.

You're right in theory, but in practice they know it's the exact opposite. The day to day running/officiating is what they do.

[chillibowl]

still needing to be convinced that this is a good idea...

how many feel like Alfa Romeo left the Sauber team in a better position to when they first branded in?

when i hear Cadillac badge, one of my many (cynical) questions is when is their IPO coming and should i call my broker now?

what will Porsche's involvement look like now that their IPO is done or now that their share price has been dropping since their IPO? how is AM's stock price doing?

not much success for the actual brands stemming from these these superficial branding arraignments right?

will these companies/brands leave once investors realize that linking their public branding to F1 is not having the effect they thought it would and then leave the sport with another back marker employing a fortunate (billionaire) son pay driver?

salty dog over here but we all lived through the last manu era with their unlimited money...and we all have issues with that right?

is there really that much hope for success now that the next round of the manu era involvement will come with them investing much much less money?

[chillibowl]

not serious but a little cartoon reminder of the USF1 entry!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJTynvakZok

re watched a bunch of these and while its all in jest, the issues they are poking fun at still seem relevant today.

[Tourer]

Doubts from existing teams all about greed according to Michael Andretti. Interesting method for winning friends and influencing people who need to agree to his team's entry being accepted.

Personally, I'd like to see Andretti (plus maybe 1 or 2 other suitably funded / setup teams) join F1 but I'm realistic enough to understand that there ARE commercial implications for existing teams & some accomodation needs to be reached. Existing teams have put in the hard yards, endured tough times, made difficult decisions & understandably don't want to have a new team (or teams) jump in when times are good, benefitting (at least partially) from the hard yards done by the existing teams and reducing existing team compensation without suitable payment.

I get the feeling from the article linked that Michael Andretti feels that he has some negotiating strength due to support from the FIA President and as a result is getting a bit "in your face" with the existing teams (at least in public) but approval from the FIA of itself won't get the team in.

It actually feels right now that the Andretti entry is more likely to unravel than was the case 3 or 4 months ago - but that's the problem with public posturing, there are going to be ups and downs.

Interesting times.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Some interesting comments from Michael Andretti, in this article from Skysports.

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12...cCt3YkMlvL2UDs

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Porsche is still declaring an intent to join the grid.

Panthera Asia F1 is another that has outlined plans for a few years now, and is targeting 2026.

In addition, I bet Ford would do more than just paint a team's cars if the conditions of entry are right..

At least one more Asian mnftr will come. Japanese, Korean.

Then there will be interest from privateer teams linking up with an engine supplier (existing, or new).

The likes of Merc and Red Bull have put people off in the recent past.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Some interesting comments from Michael Andretti, in this article from Skysports.

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12...cCt3YkMlvL2UDs

So, according to him it's the personal greed of the existing team owners that is encouraging them to fight the acceptance of the new Andretti team into Formula One.
Am I to assume then that Mr Andretti makes absolutely no financial gain from his current motorsport involvement and that he is not expecting this to increase (probably massively) if or when he can get into Formula One?
I would also like to see more teams in Formula One, but I would also like to see existing established teams who are currently struggling be able to improve their performance.
For me Williams are a case in point. Admittedly now under new ownership (so has less of a claim to the heritage of WGPE although a number of the original employees are still involved), but this team has played a huge part in the history of F 1 (certainly during my time of watching) and although I don't think that simply earns them the right to stay in the sport, for me it counts higher that having a famous father and being the last American to score points in the championship.

[crmalcolm]

Another take on the situation comes from Andrew Benson

Points I note in the article include:

'His [Andretti's] decision to base the team in America rather than Europe has also raised eyebrows, even if Andretti is planning what he describes as a European "satellite shop" that will deal with F1 and other categories in which the company is racing.

Andretti says his new facility in Fishers, Indiana, will be "one of the most advanced racing facilities in the world when it's completed".

But an existing F1 team boss described the plan to base the team in the US as "insane" and suggested that Andretti appeared not to have learned the lessons of his own brief flirtation with F1 as a driver.'


'Andretti turned up at the Miami Grand Prix last May and went round all the team principals asking them to sign a document saying they agreed to his entry to F1.

Only Alpine - whose parent company Renault have agreed to sell Andretti an engine - and McLaren, run by Andretti's long-time friend and occasional business partner Zak Brown, did so.

One senior figure describes this strategy as "naive." And it did not go down well with F1 president Stefano Domenicali, who is said to have pointed out to Andretti that this was not the way people went about things in F1, and not to try to bully him into supporting his bid.'

[Alan52]

The teams being able to block teams that can meet the financial requirements is cartel behaviour.
Joe Saward makes the point in his blog that if he doesn’t get an entry F1 will be dragged into litigation by people with very deep pockets and a very good legal case.
20 is not a magic number and the history of F1 rarely shows grids that small.Largely courtesy of Netflix the teams have found themselves with levels of income way more than they could have expected when they signed the last agreement.
Andretti is the first new team to show it has the resources to compete.Hopefully there will be one or two more.
No point in waiting for the teams at the bottom to catch up.There will always be teams at the bottom.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Alan52

The teams being able to block teams that can meet the financial requirements is cartel behaviour.
Joe Saward makes the point in his blog that if he doesn’t get an entry F1 will be dragged into litigation by people with very deep pockets and a very good legal case.
20 is not a magic number and the history of F1 rarely shows grids that small.Largely courtesy of Netflix the teams have found themselves with levels of income way more than they could have expected when they signed the last agreement.
Andretti is the first new team to show it has the resources to compete.Hopefully there will be one or two more.
No point in waiting for the teams at the bottom to catch up.There will always be teams at the bottom.

I agree..

Yet my logic would be to look to buy another team, even if it seems like the same amount of work.

If the requirement for the $200m anti-dilution payment is in place, if you could buy an existing operation, which already has people, processes, equipment, a shed, some drivers and engineers and other sorts, surely economically this is the easiest way forward?

Is there anything to really be gained by pitting the FIA against the Liberty mob? It will put the sport in the headlines, and equally would likely expose every payment made to everyone in the history of mankind

The question to be asked... where is Mr B.Ecclestone on this?
You might have thought someone with his unique perspective may have been able to help avoid an impending implosion

A question also.. what championship did an Andretti-affiliated team last win?

[P38 in workshop]

I'm finding t quite easy to navigate between the various self interested quotes that seep out from the teams and Liberty.Reading between the carefully crafted lines they all amount to the same thing in that the existing teams don't like the idea of receiving a slightly smaller slice of the Liberty pie.


As for the wisdom of being US based,it is perhaps both useful and not very wise at the same time.The wisdom angle comes down to the fact that there isn't a local pool of people with the up to date skills that are needed and it has often seemed difficult for the Sauber outfit to recruit for the same reason.For logistical reasons,a European base is a near essential as quite a lot of the races are nearby (still!) and for the flyaways,the freight flights load here.Organising serious airfreight from the central US will take quite a lot of effort and even more money-even for the movement of parts for car build time.


The point where an American HQ might be helpful could come if the matter of a supposed world championship refuses to accept an entry from one of the most successful motor racing families.Perhaps one of our American contributors could tell us about the extent to which anti-trust laws might apply.I know very little about the detail they contain,but could visualise a situation in which a court might take a view that a series that is intended to be a world championship could turn down an American entry is not exactly living up to the name.Could they perhaps retaliate by prohibiting such a series from running races in their country?Could penalties be imposed on senior executives of an American company that sought to prevent an American based team from competing?The FIA would seem to have put a good defence in place already,Liberty will need to proceed in a manner that can withstand very close scrutiny.

[S griffin]

Seems the FIA isn't going to let the teams try and stop them adding new entries

[crmalcolm]

2026 is going to be increasingly significant as we move through the current Concorde Agreement.

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

I agree..

Yet my logic would be to look to buy another team, even if it seems like the same amount of work.

If the requirement for the $200m anti-dilution payment is in place, if you could buy an existing operation, which already has people, processes, equipment, a shed, some drivers and engineers and other sorts, surely economically this is the easiest way forward?

Is there anything to really be gained by pitting the FIA against the Liberty mob? It will put the sport in the headlines, and equally would likely expose every payment made to everyone in the history of mankind

The question to be asked... where is Mr B.Ecclestone on this?
You might have thought someone with his unique perspective may have been able to help avoid an impending implosion

A question also.. what championship did an Andretti-affiliated team last win?

-There are no teams for sale and there won’t be in the foreseeable future.
-Bernie is hopefully as far away from F1 as it is possible to be.With Putin as his North Star he might as well wear Max Mosley’s old pantomime gear in public.
-There is nothing to be gained by a legal battle unless you are the lawyers collecting the fees.At the moment Liberty is holding hands with the teams even though more financially strong teams is in Liberty’s interests.At some point they will switch sides and that will be a delicate manoeuvre.
-What championship did Haas,Alpha Tauri,Stroll Racing or Sauber last win?Andretti is going to be a customer Renault team and that is the competitive level they will be at.

[BTCC frog]

I think Formula 1 should go much further than just allowing Andretti in, and allow many more teams into Formula 1. Here is my solution:

Hand out prize money based on points rather than constructors' championship positions. That way more teams doesn't really affect the existing teams' prize money unless they are beaten by them.

Then, instead of an overall entry fee, the entry is based on entry into individual events rather than the championship as a whole, and allow one-car teams. That way, smaller teams who can't afford to race in the whole season can just enter one car to specific events, and then won't lose so much money if they don't get prize money.

If more than 26 cars enter an event, certain teams have to enter pre-qualifying and only those who are in the fastest 26 cars are allowed to race. Then in real qualifying they also have to be under the 107% rule in order to race.

I think this is quite similar to the system used in 1989 when there were 39 cars, and think it would work because the current Formula 1 of ten teams and twenty cars would be relatively unaffected, but there would just be six extra cars on the grid. Serious teams like Andretti would be able to do the full season and enter the championship with no problem, thus boosting the number of competitive cars in Formula 1, and more smaller teams can just race occasionally when it isn't too expensive for them, although they still have to build a car and team, of course.

I think it would add extra intrigue to have a bit of variety in the cars at the back of the grid, as it does when there are replacement drivers, and it would be like having an extra race within a race, similar to when Caterham, Marussia and HRT were at the back in the early 2010s. I really don't understand the idea that if there is a bad team in Formula 1 they detract from the sport's 'value', this simply isn't the case because it makes it particularly exciting when they find themselves in a good position through some freak result.

This doesn't seem like it has any downsides, but are there any flaws that I have missed?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

This doesn't seem like it has any downsides, but are there any flaws that I have missed?

Many, but in essence people aren't going to invest the astronomical amounts needed today to maybe go home after Pre-Qualifying at 9 am on Friday.

Not to mention why would constructors want to invest enormous amounts when their entry has little value, and anybody can rock up with a five year old borrowed tub and enter.

There were many good things about late 80s F1, but it wasn't very professional, apart from maybe Ron.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Many, but in essence people aren't going to invest the astronomical amounts needed today to maybe go home after Pre-Qualifying at 9 am on Friday.

Not to mention why would constructors want to invest enormous amounts when their entry has little value, and anybody can rock up with a five year old borrowed tub and enter.

There were many good things about late 80s F1, but it wasn't very professional, apart from maybe Ron.

of the many things i dont get about this, one is that if the premise people are taking issue with is that the teams act too much out of self interest (lunatics running the asylum and all that), how would adding more teams (lunatics as it were) make any sense at all?

the 10 we have can barley reach a consensus...cant wait to see what happens if we add in more manus, more multi millionaires/billionaires into the mix.

with any luck one of them will also own twitter and he can spend the next couple of decades handing out race seats to his many children!

but really the bigger elephant in the room is that we really dont know where the money for the new teams in the future will come? Andretti is a known name but you open things up and who knows what sorts the sport will attract.

every major sport puts new ownership groups through the ringer. heck even the NHL charges more of a dilution fee then F1 (US$650mil for the last new team and it took them decades)...these are supposed to be a really really hard clubs to get into.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Many, but in essence people aren't going to invest the astronomical amounts needed today to maybe go home after Pre-Qualifying at 9 am on Friday.

Not to mention why would constructors want to invest enormous amounts when their entry has little value, and anybody can rock up with a five year old borrowed tub and enter.

There were many good things about late 80s F1, but it wasn't very professional, apart from maybe Ron.

Agree with this. You would have all of the cost, but a risk of not getting the benefits. I haven't done the analysis, but I don't think we have had serious risks of drivers not fitting inside 107% recently (I think a few have been close). But if there becomes an entry limit, you might be generally fast enough, but would have to sit on the sidelines. What type of sponsor would sign up for that? You would be crazy to fund something like that. If the cost of F1 was SIGNIFICANLTY cheaper, then maybe.

Back when this was the case, what was the typical budget required to get onto the grid? And what might that budget be in 2023 dollars?

The current situation effectively guarantees some eyeballs for your brands.

Richard

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Many, but in essence people aren't going to invest the astronomical amounts needed today to maybe go home after Pre-Qualifying at 9 am on Friday.

But if there aren't enough entries then pre-qualifying won't be required and the teams get automatic entry if they can get under the 107% rule. Then more teams arrive and try to get in but will fail because now there are too many, and I would suggest the number of cars entering would fluctuate up and down like a damped oscillator until reaching an equilibrium point when only teams that genuinely think they can make the grid will be entering, which will be slightly more than the 26 cars that actually race. And I know it is still astronomical amounts but the not having to attend every Grand Prix and not requiring two cars, as well as there being a significantly reduced entry fee, should reduce these astronomical amounts considerably.

Originally Posted by peebee2

Not to mention why would constructors want to invest enormous amounts when their entry has little value, and anybody can rock up with a five year old borrowed tub and enter.

Because if the constructors invest enormous amounts then they can actually win races and championships, get the big prize money, worldwide coverage and more sponsorship, and the satisfaction of being competitive in Formula 1, whereas the five year old borrowed tubs are going to be lumbering around at the back and struggling to even get onto the grid.

Originally Posted by peebee2

There were many good things about late 80s F1, but it wasn't very professional, apart from maybe Ron.

I don't think being less professional matters so much, it gave Formula 1 of the past that extra bit of charm, although this is obviously a personal opinion. And with this idea I am also thinking back to earlier than the late 80s when privateers such as Rob Walker could enter and win races, which would surely be impossible nowadays.

[Richard C]

After reading the posts above, I realized I had to go back and re-read what BTCC frog is saying. As I think there is a disconnect between our posts and responses

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Hand out prize money based on points rather than constructors' championship positions. That way more teams doesn't really affect the existing teams' prize money unless they are beaten by them.

Someone would have to do the math to see if that means the current teams will win or loose money in this scenario. But it is also more complicated. See below

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Then, instead of an overall entry fee, the entry is based on entry into individual events rather than the championship as a whole, and allow one-car teams. That way, smaller teams who can't afford to race in the whole season can just enter one car to specific events, and then won't lose so much money if they don't get prize money.

Or... another way of looking at it. Someone like Porsche shows up. Doesn't pay an anti-dilution fee. Builds up a big team, beats established teams and takes their money from them.

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

If more than 26 cars enter an event, certain teams have to enter pre-qualifying and only those who are in the fastest 26 cars are allowed to race. Then in real qualifying they also have to be under the 107% rule in order to race.

I think this is quite similar to the system used in 1989 when there were 39 cars, and think it would work because the current Formula 1 of ten teams and twenty cars would be relatively unaffected, but there would just be six extra cars on the grid. Serious teams like Andretti would be able to do the full season and enter the championship with no problem, thus boosting the number of competitive cars in Formula 1, and more smaller teams can just race occasionally when it isn't too expensive for them, although they still have to build a car and team, of course.

I think this gets back into the points we made earlier. That it makes little financial sense to create an F1 car if you are not confident you are going to be in the race on a regular basis. Also, all of this devalues (right or wrong) the existing teams. Being in the current exclusive club gives those at the tail end a bit of a boost in value that they otherwise wouldn't have. And that value boost probably helps them in the end on track.

I know the following questions are not directed at me, but I am interested to answer them.

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

I would suggest the number of cars entering would fluctuate up and down like a damped oscillator until reaching an equilibrium point when only teams that genuinely think they can make the grid will be entering, which will be slightly more than the 26 cars that actually race. And I know it is still astronomical amounts but the not having to attend every Grand Prix and not requiring two cars, as well as there being a significantly reduced entry fee, should reduce these astronomical amounts considerably.

I think you are greatly underestimating the cost of just showing up with an F1 car.

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

whereas the five year old borrowed tubs are going to be lumbering around at the back and struggling to even get onto the grid.

Where does these old F1 cars come from? This implies customer cars and teams who are not required to own the IP of their cars. Which is not where we are today.

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

I don't think being less professional matters so much, it gave Formula 1 of the past that extra bit of charm, although this is obviously a personal opinion. And with this idea I am also thinking back to earlier than the late 80s when privateers such as Rob Walker could enter and win races, which would surely be impossible nowadays.

To my point earlier. What is the respective budgets in 2023 dollars for 1980's vs. today. And to my point above regarding customer cars.

Richard

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

And I know it is still astronomical amounts but the not having to attend every Grand Prix and not requiring two cars, as well as there being a significantly reduced entry fee, should reduce these astronomical amounts considerably.

Even in the BTCC they don't want teams to pick and choose which events they enter and skip, as it's bad for promoters and fans. Hence the fixed 32 TOCA BTCC license holders that are required to attend every round.

I don't mind the idea of entries fluctuating (e.g., 40 cars entering Brands Hatch, while say only 16 bother to make the trip to Knockhill), but it's generally the sign of a lower-level, less professional series.

[crmalcolm]

Overall, I think there is an interesting juxtaposition between how F1 is currently organised and how American franchise sports function.

The F1 construct operates effectively as a fixed scale of teams, with 'players' being selected to represent each team on a merit basis.
There are ten 'franchises' in F1, and much is designed around keeping that status quo.

Where the big difference lies is the way that the under-performing teams are compensated or given a chance to improve. We are starting to see that with the aero regulations, but there is still a big divide compared to having a 'draft'.

I can see F1 moving further towards the franchise model under Liberty, and eventually you will have the driver market drafted each season.
How about a situation where each team has one franchised driver and one drafted driver each season?

But on the prospective teams - a fully franchised series would mean that each team would be invested fully in the benefits of the overall series, not just their individual entry. An expansion would be considered against the overall impact.

Looking even further ahead - if there are genuinely enough teams wanting to particpate, then why not split into conferences?

Conference A - the World F1 League (WFL)
Conference B - the Global F1 League (GFL)

Regular season sees races in the Americas contested by WFL teams. Races in the Asia-Pacific regions are contested by the GFL teams.
European races are split between WFL and GFL. Then the post-season sees the top 5 drivers from each conference contest a final 5 race World Series!!!


Specifically addressing a couple of points below:

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Someone would have to do the math to see if that means the current teams will win or loose money in this scenario. But it is also more complicated.

I think the issue here is that the prize money is effectively matching the WDC. This devalues the WCC and would encourage teams to dedicate resources against a single car - particularly those lower down the order.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Where does these old F1 cars come from? This implies customer cars and teams who are not required to own the IP of their cars. Which is not where we are today.

It was peebee2 that suggested it was possible - https://tentenths.com/forum/showpost...0&postcount=91

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

To my point earlier. What is the respective budgets in 2023 dollars for 1980's vs. today.

As a very broad estimate (based on extracts from books / public account records) the following shows the history of F1 budgets (all estimates in USD):

Year	Team	Budget	2022 adjusted
2016	Mercedes	350M	400M
2014	Red Bull	320M	372M
2009	Brawn	284M	357M
2006	Toyota	393M	545M
2001	McLaren	274M	431M
1996	Ferrari	120M	213M
1980	Williams	39M	145M
1968	Tyrrell	97K	789K

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Where does these old F1 cars come from? This implies customer cars and teams who are not required to own the IP of their cars. Which is not where we are today.

You buy the IP with the hardware. Anyway there's plenty of examples, some not so long ago.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think you are greatly underestimating the cost of just showing up with an F1 car.

The cars are horrendously complex, even just to start the "engine."

The days of knocking up an F3000 tub and mating it to a Cosworth lump and Hewland box, then adding F1 size wings and wheels are long, long gone.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

As a very broad estimate (based on extracts from books / public account records) the following shows the history of F1 budgets (all estimates in USD):

Interesting. I can just remember being with Tyrrell in 1984. There was a total of 12 staff. That included Ken the boss, his wife Norah who ran the stopwatches and made the sandwiches (!) and also BOTH drivers!