NASCAR drivers curious about F1 – Haas

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Gene Haas says his NASCAR drivers have expressed interest in the F1 team he will enter to the sport in 2016.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Gene Haas’ Formula One venture brings interest, exposure (USA Today)

“Even in the NASCAR garage, most of the drivers now are shaking my hand. I think they’re interested. They say, ‘We’d like to see what that Formula One stuff is about.’ I say, ‘Sure, come on over.’ I think they have a natural curiosity.”

Haas F1 exec team bolstered with hire of ex-Anheuser-Busch marketing manager (NBC)

“It could very well be a worthwhile executive hire for the Haas camp, as Jacobs comes to the squad following a run as a sports marketing manager for beer giant Anheuser-Busch.”

F1 is a sport in crisis (The Telegraph)

“Given the situation, Marussia’s leadership have gone to ground, simply hoping for a positive outcome. [Sporting director Graeme] Lowdon spent the weekend with John Booth, the team principal, but neither they or the team have commented on the saga. Both have visited their stricken driver, Jules Bianchi, in hospital in Japan, which makes the timing of Marussia’s demise all the unhappier. ”

Lotus: Mercedes too good to pass up (Autosport)

“Clearly Mercedes has the engine; we expect them to continue having it – they’ve just done a better job.”

Project Brabham: Can fan funding bring back an icon to Formula One? (CNN)

“If you look at the history and heritage and what it means to people, a Brabham should really be out there – racing is in our DNA.”

Matt gets taste of F1 with McLaren (Matt Parry)

“The speed is the biggest thing – it’s hard to describe the power, but it pulls in every gear and, even in seventh, it feels like you are in first. It’s just continuous power everywhere. Of course, the brakes are good being full carbon, and they were incredible to experience as well, especially with the downforce.”

My race weekend: Head of IT strategy (Crash)

“At the start of each session I enable the marshalling system and check our feed connections to FOM and to the servers. One of the other things I have to do is check the CCTV system, ensuring that the cameras are switching correctly when they’re being used to follow a car. It uses the FOM loop feed to track the car position, and the video recorded from the CCTV cameras to create a video feed used by race control and the teams.”


Comment of the day

@GT-Racer addresses the dismantles the “if you can’t afford to be in F1, stay out of it” argument:

The problem is that its not just Caterham/Marussia who are struggling. Force India and Sauber are also on the brink of collapse so introducing third cars (which would raise costs massively), Dropping the engine freeze (Which again would raise costs) and opening up the rules (Again costs would go up) would put those teams over that brink and into the same position Caterham/Marussia currently are.

Lotus are also not exactly financially stable, Williams are safe as long as they retain the Martini deal and Toro Rosso are been held up by Red Bull.

Three-car teams will do nothing but hurt the smaller teams, It will put them further down the grid and raise there costs which will both put them under even more financial pressure. Then what: four-car teams, five-car teams or maybe the top four teams who are the only teams financially sound running six cars?

The primary part of the problem isn’t so much teams been unable to afford to run in F1, Its more that F1 doesn’t distribute its funds in a way that allows the small teams to afford F1.

If the prize funds were distributed more fairly then Marussia/Caterham and those just above them would be in far, far less problems and would in all likelihood actually be in no danger of going under.

Look at it this way, for ninth place in the constructors championship Marussia would get less prize money than the budget cap Max Mosley proposed would have been. Meanwhile Ferrari are getting $100m on-top of the prize money for there constructors placing simply because they have raced in F1 since the start.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Gavin Brown and Striay!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Happy birthday to Tiff Needell who is 63 today.

Needell entered two F1 races in 1980 as a substitute for Clay Regazzoni who was paralysed in a crash at Long Beach. Needell put the Ensign on the grid at Zolder but failed to qualify in Monaco.

Image © NASCAR

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

68 comments on “NASCAR drivers curious about F1 – Haas”

  1. F1 should race on an American Roval again (a course utilizing a banked oval and an interior road course; ex. the Indianapolis road course, Daytona 24H). I personally would like to see a race in the Los Angeles region- seeing a race at Fontana would be nice.

    1. Rovals are ok for motorbikes and Mazda Miatas but worse than Tilkedromes for F1.

      1. I always enjoyed the races at Indy. Had a decent level of overtaking & were for the most part exciting to watch.

        Circuit was OK as well with the exception of those slow hairpins towards the end of the infield, Rest of the track was quite fast & flowing. One I always enjoyed watching & enjoying driving on the computer sims.

        1. It was horrible… and honestly, the oval part was overrated. Ovals are good because of the corners, not the straights. And the only corner we got in Indy’s F1 track was one of the quarters, which in itself, isolated from the rest of the oval, is as boring as it could ever be.

          Also, cars entered it at reasonably slow pace for a oval. So it made no sense at all.

          Also the infield was beyond uninteresting. I remember playing it a lot on racing sims and never could really understood why the Cathedral of Speed had such a slow-ish track inside. Specially those two harpins ! what where they thinking?!?!

          1. Those were hideous indeed.

          2. I think the indy road course is the best roval and very good track on its own. Only thing bad about is the double hairpins in the middle but all the rest of the corners are fun to drive. Having driven it in many games I always thought is was one of the most underrated tracks ever. Each to their own I’d guess.

          3. The Indy road course was very uninspiring and the F1 cars just looked silly around the double hairpin. Sad, because the Brickyard is quite a special place for racing in America. I think COTA is fantastic though, hope it has a long future on the calender. Better not tell Bernie that we like it though, otherwise he might replace it with another (1) street race or (2) race in a country with money but no supporters.

        2. COTA is a great circuit. Races are much better at COTA than it was in Indy.

      2. That isn’t fair. Unfortunately I am inclined to believe F1 at Indy in the 2000’s gave you that impression- that certainly was not a good course; the current one is, however. Have you ever seen the Daytona 24 Hours in January? That might change your mind…

    2. I would change one character from those first seven words:

      F1 should race on an American oval

      1. I would love the idea of adding ONLY 1 oval race per year in F1!! (in the US of course….) They should consider it, I personally think it would make a lot of sense financially, its worth analyzing…

      2. I think ovals are beyond uninteresting. Also, F1 cars and engines (and regulations) are not designed for this kind of racing. There is not only the crash structures that would require a massive redesign, but just about everything. Hate to sound like a stubborn traditionalist (which I’m definitely not), but races on ovals are something I already hate in every other championship. 0/10 would not watch.

      3. So put the Indy 500 back on the calendar ?

      4. You seem to be overlooking a lot of practical restraints though, both in terms of technical limitations and financial issues.

        On safety ground, the crash structures of F1 cars are not designed to withstand the forces that would be experienced if the car crashed into a concrete wall at high speed, as would happen in an oval race. The crash structures of the DW12 are quite different to F1 cars for a good reason, and that is because they are designed for that scenario.

        Do you remember when Ralf Schumacher crashed at Indianapolis a number of years ago and fractured two vertebrae, forcing him to miss a third of the 2004 season? A direct cause of those injuries was the fact that the rear crash structures of the cars are not designed for the scenario where the car is brought to an abrupt halt by a barrier, since they are normally designed to protect the driver if another car drives into the back of him.

        Equally, the overall philosophy of the current cars are not designed around the possibility of an oval race – the engines and transmissions are intentionally not designed to be operated continuously for an extended period of time at full throttle. Instead, they are designed to provide a broad usable power band over a range of throttle positions, thereby giving the maximum driveability and acceleration – after all, that is ultimately what is required from the engine as that is what suits the circuits that F1 cars are designed for.

        Equally, in many ways you would be creating a single event where the cars would require an abnormal set up and design elements that could not be reused elsewhere (even events that used to be considered ‘one off’ events are not so unique any more – it’s not uncommon for components from Monaco to be updated and adapted for the Hungarian and Singapore GP’s, for example).
        Given that you have advocated reducing costs, it seems a bit odd to then trumpet a particular event that is more likely to cause cost inflation.

      5. Thank you for the response, Mr. Collantine. If F1 could race on a Roval with actual high, lengthy banking, utilitze almost all of the oval course and combine it with an interior road course (such as the Daytona 24 Hour course; not the Indianapolis road course- which utilized only a quarter of the exterior oval; that was not a good course and made the great old Brickyard look worse as a result of those additions), that would be a fantastic addition to any F1 calendar. Think of all the passing opportunities on the oval and the spectacular sight of such fast machines racing on high banks (although the apparent FIA rule is no less than 10 degrees of banking on a corner; I think either an addition to the rule or an exception can be made here). The best part is at an American oval (particularly Fontana and Daytona), is that at almost any grandstand you go to, you can overlook 95% of the entire facility. I’ve been to the Daytona 24 Hours before, and believe me- at Daytona, the only thing that separates the concrete walkways (at the bottom of the grandstands) from the racetrack right next to those pathways is the high catch fencing. Seeing the Rolex Daytona Prototypes at least a foot away from me doing 180+ mph after coming off 31 degree banking is exhilarating, to say the least- and rather deafening. I can’t, however, agree with you about F1 racing on just an oval speedway- that just wouldn’t feel right. AVUS ’59 was as close as F1 cars ever got to doing something like that- but there was a slight-right hander on that circuit that led into the banking there.


          If F1 raced at a Roval like this, then that would be exciting; at least I think so.

    3. [F1 should race on an American oval again]

      You cannot be serious! If it happens it’s doomsday for F1 FOR SURE.
      It’s bad enough at the moment, in fact F1 is in a crisis now.

    4. I agree completely. Indy was one of the most enjoying races on calendar and it added that american flavour to F1. Indy is the race which I miss a lot.

  2. Yes (@come-on-kubica)
    29th October 2014, 0:41

    The more news I hear from F1 the more it puts me off the sport. It’s been a relatively exciting season but I’m losing interest in even bothering with the last 3 races. TBH, I’m not even sure when the next race is.

    1. someone didn’t read the round-up…

    2. Yeah, I strangely feel the same way.
      In terms of sporting, this has been a tremendous season, we’ve seen some exciting fights not only between the main championship contenders, but also great battles like the one between Alonso and Vettel at Silverstone and many, many more.
      Sadly, what’s happening beside the track is disappointing me. I absolutely loathe the way the battle between Hamilton & Rosberg is being turned into a fight between Good and Evil. I prefer British sports broadcasting over my own country’s, as it tends to be much more balanced. Sadly, the tone has become more bitter as the championship progresses, even commenters like Martin Brundle, whose expertise I appreciate a lot, have started to add a certain negative twist to most remarks about Rosberg, which I feel is completely unnecessary, because it removes the dignity from the championship. Nowadays, watching Sky gives you the impression that Hamilton would be the only deserving champion, while Rosberg is only in the battle because of cynical tricks. I am of course exaggerating, but the tendency is there.
      The team leaders at MGP are annoying the hell out of me. Niki Lauda may have been a great driver in his time and era, but he has always been terrible as a pundit in German TV and still isn’t brilliant when it comes to insightful comments. Toto Wolff isn’t outstanding, either. I have yet to hear anything from their mouths that is not trivial or questionable. In terms of managing the fight between their drivers, they have failed whenever the need to calm them arose.
      Bad decisions by the FIA have become a concern, too. Double points at Abu Dhabi? Horrible. We’re lucky if this doesn’t change the outcome of the championship. I would hate that.
      That nonsensical ban of team radio to aid the drivers? If anything has ever shifted the attention from the action on the track to pointless discussions about what should be penalized or not, it was this decision that just came out of nowhere.
      I understand whining/complaining drivers and micro-management of the drivers by means of radio messages is something that angers many fans. But whatever happened to the responsibility of the directors of the live feed? F1 is definitely not a glamourous, noble sport. It’s a bunch of high-level professionals working in an extremely technical, repetitive and frustrating surrounding. Imo, directors should only broadcast what is absolutely essential to understand the development of a race or what could help turn the race into an interesting story. In that regard, they’re not doing a great job, as most of the time we only get to hear whining or less-than-interesting messages.
      Penalties for racing incidents are at least as inconsistent as ever, if not worse so. Vettel bumping into Gutiérrez at Spielberg? No further action. Sutil and Grosjean colliding with no realistic chance to avoid the crash? 4 points to Grosjean’s license…
      The situation of Ferrari is disheartening to me. I loved their line-up until the end of 2013, with Stefano Domenicali as one of the most likeable team leaders and Alonso and Massa as my favorite drivers (since pre-Ferrari times). Then came Räikkönen (whom I detest) for Massa, which was announced as a possible game-changer (has nobody looked up the comparison of Räikkönen & Massa form 2007 to 2009?). Then, Domenicali was fired and replaced with a guy who had nothing to do with F1 and gives a terrible impression because of extremely dodgy interviews. Montezemolo being fired was something I finally could relate with, as he was, to my understanding, the Scuderia’s biggest problem, as he was constantly interfering with important decisions. But as it stands now, the team’s most important member, Alonso, is going to be sacked. The man who has gathered enough points in the first 5 races to beat his team mate after 16 races. And it seems he will be replaced with a driver I despise almost as much as his soon-to-be-teammate Räikkönen. That’s just to much for me to take. They had the one outstanding driver of his time and a very solid second man, both of who will have been replaced by drivers who may be the most overrated drivers of their time, who have been dominated by their respective partners during the 2014 season. That doesn’t bode too well.

      It’s a puzzle of many small (or tall) things that have increasingly taken down my excitement. I only wish for the championship to not be decided by that double points nonsense. Other than that, I’ve become pretty uninterested (at least for my standards).

  3. 20 years ago there were 9 different F1 engines on the grid (10 if you count the Ilmor as different to the Mercedes and include Pacific who failed to qualify) and 14 teams competing to be on the grid,
    now; 9 teams, 3 engines,
    next year 4 engines ??? teams.

    1. It was some of those engine manufacturer’s (Especially those who brought teams or brought a share in teams) which helped increase cost’s so massively over the past 20 or so years.

      And like when some of them brought teams, Most of them pulled out due to lack of success. And the private engine builders (Like Hart) withdrew due to the increased costs brought about by the big manufacturers which saw them unable to compete.

      The same thing has happened in WEC, LMP2 is totally powered by Nissan & LMP1 is full of the big manufacturer backed teams (Lotus-AER is the exception). Practically all the privateers have been driven out due to the increased costs the big manufacturer’s brought about over the past decade.

      1. Let’s hope this new formula will appeal to more large manufacturers, of course for that to happen we need a full field of healthy teams and more eyeballs for the sponsors names.

      2. You’re forgetting the privateer Rebellion Racing, who have a 2-car entry in LMP1-L :P

        As for LMP2, yes the engines are almost all Nissan, but Nissan don’t make the cars themselves. Those are made by Zytek, Oreca, Ligier, Alpine, and Morgan. And none of the teams in LMP2 have any form of manufacturer backing; the class is reserved exclusively for privateers. Same for LMP1-L; manufacturers can only compete in LMP1-H (and LMGTE, but the costs there are a lot lower anyway; the privateers just buy the car complete from the manufacturer).

        1. The thing is, no other privateers want to challenge Rebellion – Dome, for example, have made it clear that there is no demand whatsoever for their LMP1 spec chassis, and has now abandoned trying to develop an LMP1 car as the only demand is for the LMP2 class.
          (Yes, there is the Lotus P1/01 car, but that is really just a modified version of their 2013 LMP2 T128 – furthermore, the car is now a complete write off after being destroyed in a fire in Japan).

          Oak Racing, meanwhile, complained bitterly that the LMP1-H regulations are really just a way for the manufacturers to intentionally lock out privateers – the cost of developing a hybrid power system is out of reach for a privateer or independent manufacturer, whilst manufacturers like Audi have stated that they will not sell hybrid power systems to privateers, therefore making entry impossible for privateers.

      3. Hello! Judd is still in there….. This is because the rules now specify the engine has to be production based. Nissan already had a useable motor, and John Judd stepped up to the plate with his BMW variant,

  4. I think F1 should start evenly distributing the prize money. Consider it as a form of a wage for the teams competing. All the higher-ups in F1 will still be making money (because they aren’t giving out any more than they already are – it’s just being redistributed) and any argument that it would discourage competitiveness is unfounded – teams still make money off sponsors, and to make (more) money off sponsors you need to be performing. So there’s still incentive, the difference is that now smaller teams are better off. In addition, having a stable, reliable flow of income for the teams in the form of this ‘wage’ would help to ensure long-term stability. Look at Lotus this year – they finished 4th in the constructors standings last year, but this year they’ve produced a poor car. Not very good for pleasing sponsors, but not only will they suffer= losses from that but also from the lack of prize money. Naturally I don’t expect them to be very competitive next year, even with a Mercedes engine. It’s a sort of “poverty cycle” (for lack of a better word), which of course Marussia and Caterham have been stuck in since 2010.

    A while ago I would’ve called myself an idiot but actually now that I think about it this idea makes sense.

    1. petebaldwin (@)
      29th October 2014, 13:10

      I’m sure Ferrari would argue it’s for the “good of the sport” that they get more….

      1. All the teams will continue to argue that it is “good for the sport” for X to happen, and it is just coincidence that X is good for them. Sometimes X actually is good for the sport, but that is the coincidence. All teams will always argue for whatever will benefit them the most.

  5. Nice COTD from @gt-racer, I would just like to suggest that Ferrari really get their extra $100million because they are “Union Busters” taking Bernies bribe to cripple the bargaining power of the teams, the power of the brand and the loyalty of the tifosi makeing them key to the success of any breakaway series, but maybe, now or soon, they will no longer be such a force.

    1. ColdFly F1 (@)
      29th October 2014, 1:35

      @hohum, agree.
      But to be honest I am so sick of how F1 is run today that I could not care any more.
      In the past I would not have supported a breakaway without Ferrari, but now my support would go immediately to any alternative ‘pinnacle of motor sport’ even if it would be without the red cars.

      1. OmarR-Pepper (@)
        29th October 2014, 3:12

        @hohum @coldfly agree with you both. maybe the other can follow the example of the NFS game producers, where Ferrari was asking so much for the rights of portraying their cars, that the company decided to skip Ferrari (a bold move if you consider videogames are also a big business, where Tifosi are also a big part of the cake) but the game series survived.

        1. Michael Brown (@)
          29th October 2014, 12:37

          How the tables have turned, because 10 years ago Ferrari refused to have their cars in NFS games due to the content of those games (police chases).

    2. I started watching F1 in 1990. My oldest clear memories date back to 1992 and back then, Ferrari, for me, was a pretty average team. I didn’t know much about the history of F1, I watched it because in my country there was only one TV channel and everybody had to watch the same thing and my father liked F1.

      My first F1 hero was Nigel Mansell in the era, everybody loved Senna but very few followed fiercely Ferrari hero Alesi. Ferrari heritage started to make an impression on me only in late 1990s when my then fave driver (Michael Schumacher) moved to Italy.

      For youngsters being introduced to F1 in this decade Ferrari is seem as an underachiever, we (“the old bunch“) still remember Schumacher’s dominant era and give Ferrari that extra value, but for the young(er) folks? I don’t think so.

      I reckon Ferrari’s value to this sport, but their share is overpriced at the moment.

      1. @jcost – Ouch! If you’re part of the “old bunch” some of us here are simply ancient. I started watching F1 in the late 60’s because my dad watched it. I started following it in the early 70’s…

        1. LOL @tribaltalker I don’t see myself as an old guy, that’s the reason for quotation marks. I just wanted to separate guys from 1980s like me from guys born in 2000s who are too young to remember Schumacher’s dominance in red. With 3 decades of age, I like to believe I’m still a baby :)

      2. Wow it’s hard to think of anybody who came into watching the sport in the last five years sees Ferrari as nothing more than a faded superpower. But it’s true. They have no memory of Ferrari’s domination in the 2000’s. Kids these days!

  6. I’m glad Haas is getting to F1 the right way. The initial idea of entering in 2015 would’ve render them a failure before they completed their first lap.

    Getting all the resources, the know-how, the marketing, in preparation for a major project like F1 is the best thing they could do. Of course few privateers can do it the right way like this…

    1. As I said in yesterdays roundup, I don’t see why people seem to believe a breakaway series is the answer to any problem given how the teams who would be in charge of any breakaway series are part of the problem with F1 as it is.

      With regards to Ferrari specifically, They have been one of the biggest blockers (And critics) of many of the things which would help the small teams survive.

      All you need to do is look at the mess that was CART (And the Indycar of a few years ago) to see what happens when you have the teams running the show & where there self interest’s are nearly always placed above whats best for the series. CART went through a ridiculous number of CEO’s purely because the big teams revolted & forced out anyone who did something which woudl affect there competitive advantage (Several of the big teams in the current Indycar did the same to Randy Bernard in 2012).

      With a breakaway you also have to remember that it would need the teams to fund it. They would have to find all there own travel expenses (FOM currently sort out & pay for that for them) & they would have to arrange & find the cash to pay for other things that are currently paid/done for for them. That alone would raise the costs for every team by a massive amount.

      1. For some reason it put the reply to the wrong post?

        It was meant as a reply to @hohum‘s post above-

        1. @gt-racer, I understand what you are saying but I am going to give the teams the benefit of the doubt as they have seen what’s gone wrong in the past, and even if they did nothing different they would be better off financially because they could cut hundreds of Millions of dollars out of management costs, with historic revenues of $1.5 Billion p.a., competent experienced management/promotional companies would be lining up for 10% of the action.
          Sure FOM provides efficiencies for the teams, but not for free, all those costs come out of the teams pockets, new management could provide all the services Delta Topco provide while returning hundreds of millions of dollars EXTRA to the teams.

      2. @gt-racer But giving more more money to Marussia and Caterham would it really change the situation?

        I think Bernie said it once, a big part of it is that people in charge of the small teams don’t manage their resources properly, they spend everything they have before the end of the season and don’t prepare well enough for future circumstances (like new more expensive engines or the billionaire owner that will abandon the team).

        But in a way I understand them, it’s in their nature to be competitive to keep developing the car even if there’s no money in the hope of scoring a handful of points and to gamble for that one crazy race where everything can happen… too bad everyone can see when it doesn’t pay off.

        1. @mantresx, It’s the way they get (or rather don’t) recompense for their expenditure that forces them to spend to be competitive, look at how much Marussia look to get from only 1 point scoring finish this year compared to Sauber or Caterham.
          A good example I believe are Force India who, it is reported, have just paid their engine bill to Mercedes, I don’t imagine there are many banks willing to pay VJs bills but due to the current problem FOM have filling the grid and the number of points FI have scored this year I’m pretty sure Bernie would have helped out, but only because FI spent that money effectively and scored points which are as good as money in the bank to Bernie.

        2. people in charge of the small teams don’t manage their resources properly, they spend everything they have before the end of the season and don’t prepare well enough for future circumstances

          Small teams have no resources, in comparison to the top teams. They have to become competitive in this season to win any money. If they finish lower than tenth, they get practically nothing. So they have no choice but to throw everything at finishing 10th or higher to have any chance of being competitive next year.

          If they hold back enough money for next year, they probably won’t be able to afford to be competitive next year anyway.

          If they don’t become competitive quickly enough, the team is basically a black hole. They will be throwing money into a black hole continuously. They will get no prize money, no share of the immense profits made by the sport, and noone will pay a decent amount to sponsor a team which is not competitive. So every year, they will have less money available, and less chance of being competitive.

          It is a situation where the only possible route to success is to go from being a backmarker to getting a few points every year within the first 3-4 seasons. So they will plan for 3 years, throw everything at them, and go broke if they haven’t made it by then. It is a huge gamble, but the way the deck is stacked, it is the only way to have any chance of success.

        3. petebaldwin (@)
          29th October 2014, 13:17

          @mantresx – You mean like how they signed up under the agreement that a budget cap would come into force and once they paid their entry fees, they got told that a budget cap wouldnt’t come into force?

  7. Who would like to know what that Formula One stuff is about:

    Just for fun .. here it goes…

    1. In F1, Drivers really race hard and there is fair play 80% of the time
    2. Punching the other drivers is not allowed at any time ie either on the track or on the paddock
    3. When there is a yellow flag or a safety car, make sure you look for people on the track and careful not to run over them
    4. Drivers are not allowed to race under the influence of alcohol. Definitely no pots allowed
    5. You don’t get to hear “Driverssssssss…. Sssssstaaaaaaaaaart your engines”… well, somebody will do that for you.

    1. Really?……

  8. I just do not get the crowdfunding. Fans are already paying high prices for tickets and (often) TV subscription. They should not fund teams or drivers. What’s next, fans paying Ecclestone’s hotel bill?

    I do not believe that fan funding is a solution to F1’s problems. Three-car teams looks like a temporary solution as several teams would not be able to afford it and I am not sure if all the big teams would be happy about it. As far as I know, only Ferrari have been actively campaigning for third cars so far.

    The COTD pretty much nails it. I personally think that a fairer distribution of income should be accompanied by tighter technical regulations that would include more standardised parts as a budget cap does not seem to be possible.

  9. Mr Haas even if your current racing activities was PowerBoat F1, again all that drivers would had want to race a F1 car as it is the pinnacle of motor racing, well at least still because we dont know what is coming…

  10. The argument still stands. F1 with only 4 teams but unlimited development would still be closer to the often mentioned “DNA” of the sport than a full grid with so much technical limitations.

    1. While I kind of agree, it would be a rather dull series.

      What I imagine would happen would be:
      * Grid dwindles to the point where 3 car teams become necessary
      * More money is funnelled towards the top teams which can afford 3 cars
      * Lower teams drop out, until we end up needing 4 car teams. Rinse and repeat until only 4 teams with 5 cars each. No additional teams can be encouraged into the sport as the 4 teams have such huge advantage.
      * Popularity drops, as series is dull

      At this point (or more likely before), one of 2 things will happen. Either the series will become a spec series, with one manufacturer providing a standard chassis etc to all teams, or serious limitations are introduced to restrict budgets and allow new entrants, along with bonus money to new teams to help them get started, as well as fairer overall distribution of money. The second is what they need to do now to stop the rest happening.

      The thing is that, once the grid fills out more with healthier teams, viewership will increase, the world economy will have recovered, more money will be available for everyone, and restrictions can be relaxed. What we need is a short term fix of the system to allow F1 to fix itself.

    2. petebaldwin (@)
      29th October 2014, 13:21

      @dh1996 Absolutely agree. I’m not saying we want only 4 teams but a decision has to be made.

      A. Limit spending and resources, make life easier for teams with less money and accept that we will have limited engines, tyres, gearboxes etc which will have to be long lasting. Engines will be turned down to prolong life. Drivers will save fuel etc etc

      B. Unlimit everything and let F1 be the absolute pinnicle of technology and motorsport.

  11. “Haas, F1? I’m curious, do we turn left AND right?”

  12. Interesting read from AMuS (German) working out why/how 3 car teams would quickly lead to more dropouts, including big teams quitting

    1. Intersting article as you sat @bascb. He makes and interesting point here “That would mean for Ferrari, that there would be no more customer teams for the engine.” But even if Marussia do drop out for next year, there will still be Sauber as an engine customer, won’t there? Or is Michael Schmidt predicting Sauber as the next casualty?
      Of course, Haas will be a Ferrari engine customer in 2016.

      1. yes, in the article he takes it as almost a given that Sauber would be out if it comes to 3rd cars @timothykatz.

        Sure enough in these kind of things its a bit speculative, but the ghist of it is that once more teams drop out, I think its highly likely that Renault would give up on F1, and its questionable whether Stuttgart would support that formula for long either.

  13. The only real solution is 4 cars & not 3 cars… like Red Bull & Torro Roso. Where sister teams are allowed to co-develop cars items together… share certain data together… and both teams combined points will be considered for Constructors Championship. so Ferrari 1 and Ferrari 2 teams will have same cars but with different livery, logos, set-ups, garages… with all points won by it adding to it’s kitty.

  14. Four-car teams are a tad much in IndyCar. For the Indy 500, some teams even run more than that. Anything more than two-car teams is nothing more than a short-term solution. The problem is that F1 must be both affordable and allows for innovation and development. You cannot have one or the other, we found that out in 2009.

    One issue is the extortionate money that Ferrari get simply for being there. Take that away and the chances are that Ferrari will leave. That poses the question: does Formula One need Ferrari more than Ferrari needs Formula One? Similar could be asked of McLaren. I am not asking for an equal distribution of money at the end of the year, I am asking for a fairer distribution, but perhaps that is only one part of the solution.

  15. The Guardian is reporting that because he requires a new engine, Vettel won’t be driving at Austin until Sunday. See –

    It seems Red Bull don’t want to risk having to use *another* unit before the end of the season, so will avoid practice and qualy at Austin, and may reduce running in the next races too.

    The article – unusually forthright from an “embedded” reporter like Paul Weaver – says:

    “[F1’s] TV audiences are hidden behind a pay wall, track attendances are also in decline and sponsors are turning their back on the crisis-hit sport in increasing numbers.”

    What the hell is going on? Is F1 *trying* to shoot itself in the head?

    1. 2 words, HOSTILE TAKEOVER, Bernie E and RedBull buyout of an ailing entity, get it cheap then build it back up. I just get the feeling all is not well between BE and CVC as he hasn’t been reinstated in to some of the positions he had to relinquish before the German trial. I think Bernie is out to get F1 away from CVC as his last act before retirement/death.

      1. Yeah, that idea has some merit. I have had the feeling in this current whirlwind of negative emotion about F1 that something like you say might be driving the “chaos”.

        The other option I have considered is some other player or group of players in the power stakes is looking to wrest F1 from Bernie as it is perceived he is weak at this point – age, court case problems, “outdated” views etc….

    2. @rsp123 The idea Vettel might not run in any of the three practice sessions is very unlikely.

      1. That’s just what I thought. He’ll run in p1 & P2 because a different engine is used. He’ll run in P3 to shake down the new engine. He’ll miss qualifying because he’ll start from the pit lane anyway if he changes all the engine components.

  16. Rosberg winning the title with double points fiasco will put the sport in meltdown.

    1. Hardcore fans will be mad, but frankly, I don’t think it’ll be a large stain on F1. I’d rather not have it happen, sure, but still.

      Looking at some of the past titles (Lauda winning 1984 on half a point that Prost would have not lost if Monaco wasn’t red flagged, Senna winning 1988 because of the points rules at the time) I think that ultimately people will come to terms with it and casual fans might not notice in retrospect.

      I think it’s really about how F1 deals with it as it happens. But the media (rightfully so) have already spoken out against it, so IF Rosberg wins the title because of double points, F1 has no chance in hell to spin that into positive PR.

  17. I’m an old goat, I know, but I don’t get how you folks begging for cost controls think you can tell a car company like Ferrari or McLaren or Mercedes, that Mr. Joe BagofDonuts wants to start an F1 team and join your series, and compete against you and take sponsor dollars and car sale money out of your pocket. But, in order for BagofDonuts F1 team to join, you (big car manufacturer) have to limit yourself in the amount you spend competing in the racing series so the new team has a fair fight. If I’m Ferrari, McLaren, or Mercedes I’d be telling Mr Minnow team feel free to go join one of the less pricey competitions.

Comments are closed.