F1 has rejected Andretti's entry bid

[Leithen]

marine boy said:

Don't mean to be harsh but I don't believe you have the faintest idea of what is required to build a F1 team from scratch. If I've assumed incorrectly, please accept my apologies and feel free to convince me I'm wrong

Maybe read that back to yourself and do likewise.

[Sandpit Steve]

tele_lover said:

Forester1965 said:

Worth bearing in mind the FIA approved the entry in October last year. If there were concerns over the ability to build and run a compliant car that's where it would've failed.

The final decision was 'subject to the commercial rights holder's approval'. Make of that what you will.

I don't see how a commercial right holder can deny a participant who meets the sporting body (FIA) requirements.

F1 has to abide by the international Court for sport arbitration (forgotten it's name now).

Hope everyone wears Andretti merchandise to races.

Like the idea that Andretti should promote a whole line of F1-specific merch, and encourage people to turn up at the races wearing it.

Bonus points if FOM massively over-react and try to ban it, like Pepsi shirts at the Olympics!

[marine boy]

Leithen said:

Maybe read that back to yourself and do likewise.

Read it back to myself

Not sure what you were asking me to do afterwards

[Leithen]

marine boy said:

Leithen said:

Maybe read that back to yourself and do likewise.

Read it back to myself

Not sure what you were asking me to do afterwards

Perhaps you could tell us all what is required to build an F1 team from scratch. You appear to have plenty of experience.

[skwdenyer]

marine boy said:

skwdenyer said:

I understand the history. But I think you're underestimating the importance of corporate knowledge in this sphere. You're talking about - from scratch - putting together things including:

- CFD codes (there's no off-the-shelf F1-standard CFD that I'm aware of);
- simulators (the sim itself isn't the issue; it is the underlying physics codes);
- baseline wind tunnel data (and which tunnel are you going to use?).

If you gave me a bunch of money, do I think I could put together a team that could get to within 105%? Possibly, yes. That would still be over 3 seconds a lap off the pace in, say, Miami.

I'm not talking about "a bunch of redneck NASCAR mechanics" thank you very much! I'm talking about the fact that there's almost no comparable motorsport discipline left, apart from perhaps LM "Supercars." In the past, constructors used to build other formula cars. Even that knowledge wasn't transferable - recall the failures of Raynard, Penske and others to make the step up in *much* simpler times.

Anyhow, we shall see. As I've said repeatedly, I support the idea of Andretti being allowed an entry. If F1 wants to institute a "franchise" model (like NFL) they're going to have to re-cast their governing documents to enshrine that. For now, the rules state additional teams may enter, and I support the application of those rules.

Don't mean to be harsh but I don't believe you have the faintest idea of what is required to build a F1 team from scratch. If I've assumed incorrectly, please accept my apologies and feel free to convince me I'm wrong

I will however agree on your comment that there is no comparable form of motorsport compared to F1. In the past LMP1 was the probably the closest in all round technology. Now only small aspects of various other categories might be considered comparable but none would include the most important competitive aspect of aero performance

Also agree Andretti/GM should be given the opportunity of competing in F1 even though it's so obvious from their comments in the press they haven't grasped the enormity/reality of the task they've set themselves

My comment about how "I could put together a team that could get to within 105%" was somewhat tongue in cheek For "me" substitute "an excellent experienced manager with relevant experience, contacts, time and a suitably-large budget." I don't have those things. I *fully* understand the enormity of the undertaking, which is precisely why I'm saying I think there needs to be a proper "on-ramp" for new entrants.

The days of "small team of plucky new entrants does F1" died with Simtek (who fielded a car with a staff of under 40 people - and Wirth of course tried and failed again with Virgin).

I also think we need to go back to constructors in other formulae, precisely to provide a suitable ladder of progression for teams and staff. The days of a Gordon Murray or Adrian Newey or whoever working their way up with a fully holistic view of vehicle performance seem a long - and much-missed - way away now.

[marine boy]

Leithen said:

Perhaps you could tell us all what is required to build an F1 team from scratch. You appear to have plenty of experience.

Far more clever and experienced people than me have tried and failed as F1 is a difficult, complicated nut to crack

Even if I could convince all the good F1 experienced people I know to help me start a team from scratch with an unlimited start up budget I'd be dreaming if I seriously thought I could get a team within 105% which is why I called out the previous poster

After good experieced people who know/understand what they're doing, good leadership, time and clear communication are the most precious commodities in F1.

Having different parts of a team scattered across different sites, countries and time zones is the perfect approach for under performing. Just too slow and inefficient way of working for the pace required in F1

Disadvantages of building a team from scratch this way means it will be impossible to start on the same level as established teams and impossible to catch them up when competing with an equal budget

Just my humble opinion based on too many years of experiencing how not to be successful in F1 while working in various design/engineering roles in the youngest to oldest established teams

[skwdenyer]

marine boy said:

Leithen said:

Perhaps you could tell us all what is required to build an F1 team from scratch. You appear to have plenty of experience.

Far more clever and experienced people than me have tried and failed as F1 is a difficult, complicated nut to crack

Even if I could convince all the good F1 experienced people I know to help me start a team from scratch with an unlimited start up budget I'd be dreaming if I seriously thought I could get a team within 105% which is why I called out the previous poster

After good experieced people who know/understand what they're doing, good leadership, time and clear communication are the most precious commodities in F1.

Having different parts of a team scattered across different sites, countries and time zones is the perfect approach for under performing. Just too slow and inefficient way of working for the pace required in F1

Disadvantages of building a team from scratch this way means it will be impossible to start on the same level as established teams and impossible to catch them up when competing with an equal budget

Just my humble opinion based on too many years of experiencing how not to be successful in F1 while working in various design/engineering roles in the youngest to oldest established teams

The "catching up" issue is amongst the toughest to crack. Conceivably a team could start now and target, say, a 2028 entry (so long as that was locked-in, to attract investment), and then work on successive iterations (I'm assuming, but do not know, that a team without an entry that year isn't precluded from spending what it likes).

But how to fund that?

Joe Saward likes to write that he thinks Andretti are trying to get an entry "on the cheap" (as opposed to paying the market value of an existing entrant); from where I sit, it isn't at all obvious that starting from scratch (with a proper runway to getting to at least that 105% level) would be markedly cheaper than buying an existing team.

As far as catching up, I've written before that I think the current playing field is stacked in favour of the current better teams, and that testing / CFD / budget should be allowed for those not at the sharp end in order to further-tighten the field. F1 grids may be closer than they ever have been, but the combination of simulation, experience, reliability and strategy means that outcomes are no more (and often less) unpredictable than in times passed. If we want the modern approach to F1, we need to find a way to increase the chances of multiple winners IMHO (or at least allow progression for those with great ideas - which of course also takes us back to the problem of there being no training ground for modern F1 folk outside of the sport).

[marine boy]

skwdenyer said:

My comment about how "I could put together a team that could get to within 105%" was somewhat tongue in cheek For "me" substitute "an excellent experienced manager with relevant experience, contacts, time and a suitably-large budget." I don't have those things. I *fully* understand the enormity of the undertaking, which is precisely why I'm saying I think there needs to be a proper "on-ramp" for new entrants.

The days of "small team of plucky new entrants does F1" died with Simtek (who fielded a car with a staff of under 40 people - and Wirth of course tried and failed again with Virgin).

I also think we need to go back to constructors in other formulae, precisely to provide a suitable ladder of progression for teams and staff. The days of a Gordon Murray or Adrian Newey or whoever working their way up with a fully holistic view of vehicle performance seem a long - and much-missed - way away now.

Thanks for taking my comment in the way it was intended

Edited ..... just read your last post

Not sure how F1 team start up spending rules compare to a F1 PU supplier but I know 2026 PU suppliers could spend an unlimited budget until the end of 2024, after this cut off date further spending is cost cap limited

Agree 100% there should be on 'on-ramp' for new entrants but achieving this is a huge problem

No other form of motorsport comes close in engineering scope and breadth or work to the same level of detail. Some motorsport categories come close or even maybe actually ahead of F1 but only in small areas of what is required to competitively race a F1 car

Been very fortunate to have started out in motorsport working for one of the names you mentioned and very recently indirectly helping the other name

When I started I had face to face discussions but now they won't even know I exsist as part of the car design group

Not many people left in F1 like me with all over car design experience, feel very privileged to have enjoyed so much freedom but starting to feel like I'm one of the last of a dying generation

F1 has changed drastically in the few decades that have passed since I started. Big teams have gone from 300-500 people to upto +2000 people. Everyone now doing extremely niche jobs with few opportunities for expanding/widening their areas of expertise

F1 teams are like a monster people eating machines, they spit out people faster than they can consume them. Never enough good F1 experienced people to go around so for a start up team with no secure future attracting the right F1 experienced people is an almost impossible task

Edited by marine boy on Tuesday 7th May 14:37

[Leithen]

marine boy said:

Far more clever and experienced people than me have tried and failed as F1 is a difficult, complicated nut to crack

Even if I could convince all the good F1 experienced people I know to help me start a team from scratch with an unlimited start up budget I'd be dreaming if I seriously thought I could get a team within 105% which is why I called out the previous poster

After good experieced people who know/understand what they're doing, good leadership, time and clear communication are the most precious commodities in F1.

Having different parts of a team scattered across different sites, countries and time zones is the perfect approach for under performing. Just too slow and inefficient way of working for the pace required in F1

Disadvantages of building a team from scratch this way means it will be impossible to start on the same level as established teams and impossible to catch them up when competing with an equal budget

Just my humble opinion based on too many years of experiencing how not to be successful in F1 while working in various design/engineering roles in the youngest to oldest established teams

Thank you.

Previously the cut-off was 107%?

Q1 at Miami from first to last was 101.3% (please correct if wrong)?

Is 105% really unachievable? Is it too slow though? What do race pace performances work out at in percentage comparisons?

The sport is utterly broken if new competitors cannot realistically enter due to any technology/skills gap. Williams is probably the canary in the coal mine here. HAAS continues to make a mockery of the ruleset too.

[coppice]

marine boy said:

Throw money at it not possible now in the cost cap era

Only way to out spend exsisting teams is before and up to the year a new entry is accepted

How new teams have approached F1 in the past is not relevant anymore

No sign of Andretti or GM out spending established teams and why would they if there is no guarantee of an entry

You can still throw a hell of a lot of cash at it. And if it doesn't come off , well at least they tried . The issue here isn't budget though - it is entirely about new teams not getting the chance . And it is absolutely not for the current teams to veto new ones. Odd, isn't it how time and again we have seen major manufacturer teams close shop when they feel like it and walk away. But despite that , now this bunch of hypocritical , selfish idiots claim to be safeguarding the (retch ) brand and similar PR speak guff by denying others the opportunities they themselves have enjoyed. .

[rallycross]

coppice said:

. Odd, isn't it how time and again we have seen major manufacturer teams close shop when they feel like it and walk away.
But despite that ,
now this bunch of hypocritical , selfish idiots claim to be safeguarding the (retch ) brand and similar PR speak guff by denying others the opportunities they themselves have enjoyed. .

Exactly.

[egomeister]

Leithen said:

marine boy said:

Far more clever and experienced people than me have tried and failed as F1 is a difficult, complicated nut to crack

Even if I could convince all the good F1 experienced people I know to help me start a team from scratch with an unlimited start up budget I'd be dreaming if I seriously thought I could get a team within 105% which is why I called out the previous poster

After good experieced people who know/understand what they're doing, good leadership, time and clear communication are the most precious commodities in F1.

Having different parts of a team scattered across different sites, countries and time zones is the perfect approach for under performing. Just too slow and inefficient way of working for the pace required in F1

Disadvantages of building a team from scratch this way means it will be impossible to start on the same level as established teams and impossible to catch them up when competing with an equal budget

Just my humble opinion based on too many years of experiencing how not to be successful in F1 while working in various design/engineering roles in the youngest to oldest established teams

Thank you.

Previously the cut-off was 107%?

Q1 at Miami from first to last was 101.3% (please correct if wrong)?

Is 105% really unachievable? Is it too slow though? What do race pace performances work out at in percentage comparisons?

The sport is utterly broken if new competitors cannot realistically enter due to any technology/skills gap. Williams is probably the canary in the coal mine here. HAAS continues to make a mockery of the ruleset too.

105% from a standing start would be an incredible achievement.

The technology gap is something that has concerned me about the sport for a while. As marine boy as suggested earlier, Sportscars is probably the only thing remotely comparable where an organisation could develop the skills and processes in order to make the leap to F1. I suspect the Porsche LMP1 project at the start was actually a training project for an F1 entry given the money they threw at it and the type of engine they designed, but evidently the F1 entry never materialised.

I think there is a big loss from the single seater junior formulas becoming single make. I can't think what the next open chassis formula would be unless you go all the way down to club racing.

[skwdenyer]

coppice said:

marine boy said:

Throw money at it not possible now in the cost cap era

Only way to out spend exsisting teams is before and up to the year a new entry is accepted

How new teams have approached F1 in the past is not relevant anymore

No sign of Andretti or GM out spending established teams and why would they if there is no guarantee of an entry

You can still throw a hell of a lot of cash at it. And if it doesn't come off , well at least they tried . The issue here isn't budget though - it is entirely about new teams not getting the chance . And it is absolutely not for the current teams to veto new ones. Odd, isn't it how time and again we have seen major manufacturer teams close shop when they feel like it and walk away. But despite that , now this bunch of hypocritical , selfish idiots claim to be safeguarding the (retch ) brand and similar PR speak guff by denying others the opportunities they themselves have enjoyed. .

Of course, they're not safeguarding anything but their windfall. Budget caps (which most teams opposed, ironically) have turned money pits into valuable assets almost overnight. Had those caps been introduced at the proper time, we'd likely still have Caterham / Lotus, Virgin, etc. Williams would possibly still be family-owned. And with that lower bar of technology, we'd likely not have the problem described above - the talent problem.

F1 has reached a frankly absurd position where the gains being targeted are tiny; where aero work on a par with some of the most advanced fluid dynamics research anywhere in the world is being poured into finding advantages in the last place left by the rules - and the one place that there's little to no hope of finding outside talent to assist with.

Take Newey, whose skills are undoubted. Is he great general purpose aerodynamicist or fluid dynamicist? I can't speak from personal experience of the man (others perhaps can), but he seems to be a very niche player, expert in this incredibly narrow aspect of the field. Look back, for instance, at the America's Cup of nearly a decade ago, wherein Newey and Red Bull Technologies teamed up with what was then Land Rover BAR in a "dream team" for victory, but which resulted in elimination by Emirates Team New Zealand - behind which, from memory, were "only" established yacht people (no F1 secret sauce). I'm sure those yacht people are also very narrowly-focussed on yacht performance, but at least an America's Cup boat by and large is an extension of a much wider design canon.

For some full disclosure, my background is in carbon composite structures. Although we did have a few crashed Benetton nose cones on the lab walls, my work was all around aerospace applications. At the time, McLaren (IIRC, but I may have forgotten which team - now I come to think of it, perhaps it wasn't McLaren - didn't they sub work out to Hercules?) were still sending their carbon monocoques out to Rolls Royce in Derby for machining - what we could do in our lab was apparently too advanced for their manufacturing capabilities The guys in Derby used to laugh about the abilities of the F1 teams, not to mention the silly planes of a certain Burt Rutan (he did alright for himself...).

Going back to aero, to the outside world it is simply a question of trying stuff in a wind tunnel and running some CFD code. We have finite elements for structures - surely CFD is just the same, isn't it? As many of us know, even choosing which code, which elements, which material models, and so on is a challenge even for structures; in the CFD world, that's hardly the start of it I'm sure the man in the street thinks one buys "a CFD package" and away you go - like SuperFastMatt and his land speed record car. CFD-as-a-service, innit?

And yet we deliberately hobble the wind tunnel (there seems to me really no justification for the restriction to sub-scale tunnels these days; it is hard for me to imagine that the alleged savings are not more than offset by the costs and problems of correlation); we limit the amount of CFD time (but do we limit the number of research teams working on "off the shelf" - ah-hem - CFD codes for the teams?); and so we're more reliant than ever before on the hard-won corporate knowledge base. At the same time, we write rules which, whilst designed to tighten the field and limit spending, simply ensure this is primarily a battle of the tinyest of aero gains yet forbid genuine ingenuity that might advance a team up the order.

It is a mess. And it isn't obvious how to fix it.

Maybe we should adopt something from the world of Finnish "folk" stock car racing? In that series, any competitor may - as right - buy any other competitor's car for a fixed (low) sum. Great driving is encouraged; endless expenditure is not. So maybe in F1 we should say "you can use any CFD code you like, but you must be prepared to share it with any other team that asks for it"? That would at least mean that it was human ideas, not endless backroom code research, that differentiated? Maybe we should have a single compute stack for all teams, on a subscription basis?

Maybe we should just massively simplify the aero?

I'm not sure I know the answers. But I know enough about technical development to knowt that the current set-up doesn't create the sort of uncertainty and if-we-strive-really-hard-we-can-do-better outcomes that made heroes out of drivers teams and engineers of yore. Yet without those heroes, what is F1 in the end?

[Forester1965]

I wonder when the penny will drop for some that F1 is not what they thought it was?

[Leithen]

Forester1965 said:

I wonder when the penny will drop for some that F1 is not what they thought it was?

It's not the piranha club anymore?

[Forester1965]

Corporate marketing reach-around-social-media-engagement club with some boring crap distractions involving circulating cars in the middle.

We're the product.

[732NM]

It's getting spicier.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/us-house-judicia...

It's moved on a stage from last week. The Chair is asking for a lot of private information and communications.

[Sandpit Steve]

732NM said:

It's getting spicier.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/us-house-judicia...

It's moved on a stage from last week. The Chair is asking for a lot of private information and communications.

That’s a damning letter aimed at Liberty and FOM.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24653590-f...

On October 2, 2023, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the governing body for Formula One, approved Andretti Cadillac’s application to enter Formula One.4 The commercial agreement governing Formula One and its participant teams, known as the Concorde Agreement, allows for the entry of two additional teams if each new entrant is approved by the FIA and pays a $200 million fee.5 Of the four teams that applied to join Formula One, Andretti Cadillac was the only team approved by the FIA after a “comprehensive” and “stringent” process.6 FIA analyzed Andretti Cadillac’s “sporting and technical ability,” the team’s ability “to raise and maintain sufficient funding” to participate at a competitive level, and the team’s experience and human resources.7 Both Andretti Global and General Motors invested significant resources for FIA approval under the belief that the entry process would be clear and fair.8

On January 31, 2024, however, Formula One abruptly rejected Andretti Cadillac’s entry into Formula One.9 The excuses put forward for denying Andretti Cadillac’s entry appear to be pretextual, arbitrary, and unrelated to Andretti Cadillac’s suitability to compete in Formula One.10 For example, Formula One alleged that a new team could only add value to Formula One by “competing for podiums and race wins.”11 However, the FIA had already analyzed—and approved of—the technical capabilities of Andretti Cadilac to compete among current teams, and most current teams in Formula One do not meet Formula One’s standard of regularly competing for “podiums and race wins.”12

Formula One also faulted Andretti Cadillac for attempting to use an existing engine manufacturer because it could “be damaging to the prestige and standing of” Formula One.13 At the same time, however, Formula One stated that if Andretti Cadillac used a new engine manufactured by General Motors in the team’s first year, a new engine would create a challenge for the new team.14 Formula One cannot have it both ways.

The truth, as FIA President Muhamed Ben Sulayem explained, is that the rejection of Andretti Cadillac is “all about money/.15 The Concorde Agreement is set to expire at the end of 2025,16 and reports indicate that a new agreement will include a much higher entry price tag or a otal ban on new entry.17 In addition, as one team owner explained in his opposition to Andretti Cadillac’s entry, many of the uncompetitive teams are “not financially stable.”18 Weak teams want to be protected from competition to the detriment of consumers and an additional team would compete for prize money and sponsorships.19

If Formula One must hinder competition and harm consumers to protect failing competitors, then the entire Formula One model may be broken and the entity cannot hide behind the necessity of a sports league to pursue anticompetitive conduct. Delaying Andretti Cadillac’s entry into Formula One for even one year will harm American consumers to benefit failing Formula One teams. Limiting the number of teams in Formula One will increase the price of sponsoring or buying into an existing Formula One team.

[Forester1965]

Much of the commercial value of F1 is built on intangibles and mystique.

TV viewing figures have been dropping since Liberty took over but online 'engagement' is massively up, the gender split more equal and fan average age is reducing. The commercial language of F1 is all about the wider marketing value to the brands.

Where in the past there was a sport with which brands could pay to associate, the real game is now the brands themselves as focus and the sport is secondary.

The valuation of the teams and F1 as a whole is measured in comments and likes on social media and, yes, Drive to Survive. It's literally a popularity contest. Much of the growth is aimed at the US because it's a large and affluent market traditionally under exploited by F1. It's increasing engagement there already without the help of another US based team.

The concept of adding teams to F1 conflicts with the business model, which relies on limiting the number of franchises to uphold their on-paper valuations. In other words, team owners don't want to dilute the asset value of their franchise. A buy-in figure of $200m for a new franchise creates valuation difficulties for an existing one believing it's worth 4x that despite languishing toward the bottom of the timesheets every week.

From Liberty's perspective adding another franchise won't increase the valuation or revenue of F1 but will increase costs and reduce margin.

Nobody who matters in F1 wants another team because it doesn't make them any money. That's the bottom line.

[732NM]

And the bottom line for the USA antitrust regulators is that F1 is likely in breach of the law and their own contracts.

If you want to play in the USA, you must play by the rules the USA government and legal system dictates.