Prospective new teams for the FIA F1 World Championship.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

I'm reasonably sure you would have known about Nick Chester,John McQuilliam and Jon Tomlinson joining the putative team.

I did, though I do think buying Skip Barber is an interesting development.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Oh yes, I had forgotten about that. But I guess I felt that Andretti had gone quiet because we weren't hearing about the saga everyday as we were only a month ago....

I think that its a good thing that Andretti has gone quiet - it is of course exactly what several F1 luminaries and quite a few of us on here were saying that Andretti should do - indicates a more serious and committed approach being taken.

That's no bad thing.

[S griffin]

The problem is the F1 teams haven't been welcoming, so Andretti seemed to feel he needed to fight back. However maybe it is best he does his talking with his work

[PhilipR]

Quick thought I just had:
What is stopping a manufacturer to start hiring staff and design a car for 2026 regulations now? They can design and do unlimited testing now and only apply for a spot on the grid in 2025 for 2026! - meaning they will not be limited by budget and cfd/wind tunnel time until they are accepted
Only limitation I can see is having access to the tyres themselves

I believe VW did something like this in WRC - they did unlimited testing in 2012 and only homologated the car in December 2012 meaning they had a full year with no restrictions in designing and testing their cars

[S griffin]

Maybe they are just not interested? Or there isn't enough demand. Not saying we won't have new manufacturers joining, but I doubt they would have a full entry without an existing team. But I would like to see more teams joining

Didn't know that about VW in WRC. They were always intending the enter the WRC for the foreseeable future, so no surprise there

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by PhilipR

Quick thought I just had:
What is stopping a manufacturer to start hiring staff and design a car for 2026 regulations now? They can design and do unlimited testing now and only apply for a spot on the grid in 2025 for 2026! - meaning they will not be limited by budget and cfd/wind tunnel time until they are accepted
Only limitation I can see is having access to the tyres themselves

I believe VW did something like this in WRC - they did unlimited testing in 2012 and only homologated the car in December 2012 meaning they had a full year with no restrictions in designing and testing their cars

Short answer...hypothetically somewhat possible, but with a few gates that would probably make it difficult if not impossible to pull off.

I took a few quick looks at the financial regulations and the first issue is that if you show up in 2025 looking for an entry in 2026, even if you sign agreement in late 2025, you still have to report your 2025 financial activities just like you had already signed up. So you don't get 2025 for free. So hypothetically you get remainder of 2023 and all of 2024 without oversight.

But I see other practical problems. Working backwards, you need approval to join to series. You are at the mercy of others to agree and let you in. As we have seen (Andretti) that is not an easy tasks. Being told "no" is a real possibility. So what might you do that might cause enough drama that you are told "no"? That leads to the next issue. You would need to fund, staff and have physical resources in place. Short of having this already done, under a dormant volcano in a secret lair in the Pacific somewhere, all of this would be very public activities. So F1 (teams, FIA, etc.) are not dumb and would know what is going on. So why would the F1 as a whole just say "yes" to someone who tries to game the situation like this? That would never fly. Lastly, take this story to your board of directors for funding and say you plan to game the system, spend a huge amount of money up front, but you have no guarantee that you will be able to secure an entry? Who in their right mind would approve that spend?

You didn't ask, but there is a similar question on the power unit side. Those are governed by a different set of financial regulations and this scenario is actually maybe planned for. In my quick reading of the regulations, there is not just a one year look back, but a look back that I think extends to effectively now. So you can join late, but the financial constraints (reporting, etc.) is just as if you had joined with the initial group who signed up for 2026 power units. The only adjustment is that you get to turn in your yearly financial reports late (others have yearly deadlines)

Richard

[bathurst77]

Originally Posted by PhilipR

Quick thought I just had:
What is stopping a manufacturer to start hiring staff and design a car for 2026 regulations now? They can design and do unlimited testing now and only apply for a spot on the grid in 2025 for 2026! - meaning they will not be limited by budget and cfd/wind tunnel time until they are accepted
Only limitation I can see is having access to the tyres themselves

I believe VW did something like this in WRC - they did unlimited testing in 2012 and only homologated the car in December 2012 meaning they had a full year with no restrictions in designing and testing their cars

Whats to stop "Lawrence Stroll Engineering ltd" or "toto industries" etc or an independent third party company not owned by any F1 team, build a "concept prototype racing car" that just happens to match current f1 specs.

This company is not an f1 team, has no interest in joining, and the prototype will never be homologated. ITs just a private project with unlimited budget and test days. It will be put in Toto's home as a toy. But Toto, Christian, or whomever are VERY interested in the testing results and changes to this car that does look a lot like their F1 car, He even offered to let his drivers spend time in it.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Short answer...hypothetically somewhat possible, but with a few gates that would probably make it difficult if not impossible to pull off.

I took a few quick looks at the financial regulations and the first issue is that if you show up in 2025 looking for an entry in 2026, even if you sign agreement in late 2025, you still have to report your 2025 financial activities just like you had already signed up. So you don't get 2025 for free. So hypothetically you get remainder of 2023 and all of 2024 without oversight.

But I see other practical problems. Working backwards, you need approval to join to series. You are at the mercy of others to agree and let you in. As we have seen (Andretti) that is not an easy tasks. Being told "no" is a real possibility. So what might you do that might cause enough drama that you are told "no"? That leads to the next issue. You would need to fund, staff and have physical resources in place. Short of having this already done, under a dormant volcano in a secret lair in the Pacific somewhere, all of this would be very public activities. So F1 (teams, FIA, etc.) are not dumb and would know what is going on. So why would the F1 as a whole just say "yes" to someone who tries to game the situation like this? That would never fly. Lastly, take this story to your board of directors for funding and say you plan to game the system, spend a huge amount of money up front, but you have no guarantee that you will be able to secure an entry? Who in their right mind would approve that spend?

You didn't ask, but there is a similar question on the power unit side. Those are governed by a different set of financial regulations and this scenario is actually maybe planned for. In my quick reading of the regulations, there is not just a one year look back, but a look back that I think extends to effectively now. So you can join late, but the financial constraints (reporting, etc.) is just as if you had joined with the initial group who signed up for 2026 power units. The only adjustment is that you get to turn in your yearly financial reports late (others have yearly deadlines)

Richard

If you’re running multi-cylinder 2026 projects it comes under the caps. Single cylinder doesn’t, but you can hardly put that in a car.

[S griffin]

I don't think the engine rules in 2026 will be too complicated. I think there will still be enough room for fine tuning, even with restrictions

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I don't think the engine rules in 2026 will be too complicated. I think there will still be enough room for fine tuning, even with restrictions

They have cranked down the complexity (no MGU-H) and are more prescriptive on the ICE side (some freedom of design on the top end, but much of the bottom end has prescribed dimensions).

Assuming that most players have gotten to roughly the same combustion efficiencies, it sounds like much of the area to play in will on the electric side.

Richard

[chillibowl]

to add to that...the spending then for the next round of engines will shift to the bio/sustainable fuels side of things and that would be money spent by their fuel partners and well outside the scope of any FIA review.

not that i have an issue with that mind you, every petrol company i assume is working massively in this area whether they are involved in F1 or not and thus not an existential threat to the logic and integrity of the cap?

and there are already rules in place to assure the fuels meet certain criteria temperature levels and/or maintain other characteristics?

before i go off topic with that line of thinking...the type of partnership a new prospective team will be one that requires a strong partnership with a petrol company. in the Andretti case i assume they would use Renault's engine and fuel provider?

[S griffin]

They should look into the bio fuels, if they haven't already. It will be easy for the fuel suppliers to do and the FIA will be seen to do the right thing.

Of course it's good to have many different fuel suppliers involved and with the cap, it should be easily kept under control. The fuel rules all make sense

Anyway, obviously any new team needs to make sure it has the right contacts and suppliers. I'm not sure about Andretti atm and not sure if Renault have any future plans of supplying engines.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by S griffin

They should look into the bio fuels, if they haven't already. It will be easy for the fuel suppliers to do and the FIA will be seen to do the right thing.

"Sustainable fuels" (Biofuel) is a key tenet of the 2026 Power Unit regulations. The regulations define the particulars. I don't know enough about that topic to judge how "tight" those regulations are and how much wiggle room exists for fuel supplier development.

Originally Posted by S griffin

I'm not sure about Andretti atm and not sure if Renault have any future plans of supplying engines.

While Andretti has a branding tie in with Cadillac, I believe it has been announced that it would be a Renault power unit (not sure if rebadged as Cadillac or Cadillac is just a named sponsor and Renault would remain on the engine). As only Alpine is running the Renault power unit, I am sure Renault would love to add a second team so as to gather more data. While development is frozen, "reliability improvements" I think are still allowed. And sometimes potential performance is dialed back by due to reliability.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

"Sustainable fuels" (Biofuel) is a key tenet of the 2026 Power Unit regulations. The regulations define the particulars. I don't know enough about that topic to judge how "tight" those regulations are and how much wiggle room exists for fuel supplier development.

Richard

I hope that the fuel suppliers don't just try to "green wash" their fuels, as there is a real possibility that they could be quite inventive if they really tried to do the right thing.

For example, you may be aware that out King Charles 111, who has been quite an environmentalist for donkey's years, had his classic Aston Martin converted to run on biofuels many years ago. Some of the ingredients that make up the mix of the fuel include cheese and wine that are very much past their best.

Just turning food crops into bio-fuel should not be the answer, any more than the UK government does by giving special grants to one of our electricity generating companies for burning wood pellets that come from forests, many in Canada, that are being chopped down especially for that purpose.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

For example, you may be aware that out King Charles 111, who has been quite an environmentalist for donkey's years, had his classic Aston Martin converted to run on biofuels many years ago. Some of the ingredients that make up the mix of the fuel include cheese and wine that are very much past their best.

I have a problem with this. Who on Earth leaves cheese or wine until it's gone off?

There's simply no such thing as left-over wine!

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Greem

I have a problem with this. Who on Earth leaves cheese or wine until it's gone off?

There's simply no such thing as left-over wine!

Sorry, I was not quite correct: it's said to be surplus wine and whey. And Aston have been quoted as saying that it's it runs very smoothly, and it has increased the engine's power!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I hope that the fuel suppliers don't just try to "green wash" their fuels, as there is a real possibility that they could be quite inventive if they really tried to do the right thing.

For example, you may be aware that out King Charles 111, who has been quite an environmentalist for donkey's years, had his classic Aston Martin converted to run on biofuels many years ago. Some of the ingredients that make up the mix of the fuel include cheese and wine that are very much past their best.

Just turning food crops into bio-fuel should not be the answer, any more than the UK government does by giving special grants to one of our electricity generating companies for burning wood pellets that come from forests, many in Canada, that are being chopped down especially for that purpose.

All good points. I particularly am not a fan of crops creating a fuel vs. food quandary! Again I am not an expert on this at all. Regulations can be found here https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...2022-08-16.pdf

Article 16 covers the fuel specifics. Two areas that might speak to the above...

16.1.2 With regard to fuel, the detailed requirements of this Article are intended to ensure the use of Advanced Sustainable (AS) fuels comprising solely AS components, that are composed of certified compounds and refinery streams and fuel additives and to prohibit the use of specific power-boosting chemical compounds. The final, blended fuel must achieve a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions savings, relative to fossil-derived gasoline, of at least that defined for the transport sector in the EU Renewable Energy Directive RED(1), which was current on January 1st in the year prior to the relevant Formula One Championship. The GHG savings calculation takes into account any net carbon emissions from land-use change, the energy used in harvesting and transporting the biomass and the production and processing of the advanced sustainable component. In any process where sustainable energy is used, this must be surplus to the local domestic requirements. Where available, GHG emission savings will be taken from the current EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED) or other equivalent, internationally recognised sources. The use of these compounds and refinery streams in F1 fuel will be dependent on evidence indicating that the supplier is genuinely developing these compounds for use in commercial fuels and that they are available from plants capable of producing at least 5m3 per year or are commercially available at similar volumes from a third party. Acceptable compounds and compound classes are defined in 16.2 and 16.4.3. In addition, to cover the presence of low-level impurities, the sum of components lying outside the 16.2 and 16.4.3 definitions are limited to 1% max m/m of the total fuel.

(1) Article 29, Section 10(c) of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 for biofuels, and Article 25, Section 2 for RFNBO

and...

16.2.8 Advanced Sustainable component An Advanced Sustainable (AS) Component is one that is certified to have been derived from a carbon capture scheme, a renewable fuel of nonbiological origin (RFNBO), municipal waste, or non-food biomass. Such biomass includes, but is not limited to, lignocellulosic biomass (including sustainable forest biomass), algae, agricultural residues or waste, and dedicated non-food energy crops grown on marginal land unsuitable for food production. RFNBOs are considered renewable when the hydrogen component is produced in an electrolyser that uses new renewable electricity generation capacity. Biocomponents from food crops can be regarded as an advanced sustainable component only if they have already fulfilled their food purpose (e.g. waste vegetable oil because it has already been used and is no longer fit for human consumption). Furthermore, the biomass, from which the advanced sustainable component was made, must not originate from land with high biodiversity such as undisturbed primary forest or woodland, land designated for nature protection or highly biodiverse grassland, and were in this state in or after January 2008. Additionally, the biomass must not originate from any land with highcarbon stock such as wetlands and peatlands.

My take on the above is that they seem to be trying to do the right thing? Maybe still not getting it fully right, but trying???

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

IndyCar are using 100% renewable race fuel as of this season, which has been developed by Shell. Shell are an official partner of Ferrari, so it will be interesting to see if Ferrari and Shell do the same.

https://www.indycar.com/news/2023/02/02-27-shell-fuel

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My take on the above is that they seem to be trying to do the right thing? Maybe still not getting it fully right, but trying???

no doubt there are any number of unintended and perhaps even intended consequences tied to the use of any fuel/energy source, but still i have to agree, from that wording in the rules your highlighted, it does sound to me like they are trying to do the right thing.

and as a fan of the sport, i applaud their effort in this despite knowing there will be many challenges and criticisms they will face as they try to move forward.

[Mike Harte]

Richard, they do include forest biomass which they claim is sustainable. However, that is very subjective dependant on what timber is being used.

"Virgin" paper, as opposed to recycled, also comes from sustainable forest because they use specific types of tree which is very fast growing - less than 10years, from memory - that is then ready to make the perfect pulp for high grade paper. But that is specific to paper manufacture and, certainly in my time in the business, they were actually planting at least two for every tree felled in Scandinavia.

Will the same principles apply to fuel for F1?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Richard, they do include forest biomass which they claim is sustainable. However, that is very subjective dependant on what timber is being used.

"Virgin" paper, as opposed to recycled, also comes from sustainable forest because they use specific types of tree which is very fast growing - less than 10years, from memory - that is then ready to make the perfect pulp for high grade paper. But that is specific to paper manufacture and, certainly in my time in the business, they were actually planting at least two for every tree felled in Scandinavia.

Yes, I noticed that it looked like some forest was fair game.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Will the same principles apply to fuel for F1?

Not sure I understand. Are you talking about fuel beyond that used for the race cars? Such as transport?

Richard

[Rusty Nail]

Rodin cars to put in a bid for F1 grid.

I don't think this is a publicity stunt, and the money shouldn't be a problem, it sounds like he is serious. NZ does have the ability to produce very high tech innovative and winning manufacturing - think Team NZ Americas Cup, Rocket Lab etc.

Interesting choice of drivers, both have yet to set the world alight in the upper feeder formulae.

Louis Sharp has time and may well prove himself but I'm not sure about Jamie Chadwick. She could be a good PR move though.

https://www.thepress.co.nz/a/nz-news...ate-david-dick

[Skam85]

As long as he stays well clear of Mike Krack I see no issue.

[Rusty Nail]

There's an earlier article here from Motorsport Magazine which puts a slightly different slant on it.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/a...-woman-driver/

[Mike Harte]

Have watched Jamie Chadwick quite a few times in the past, and she was always quick amongst other drivers who were also good drivers.