Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Spa-Francorchamps, 2015

Haas chassis ‘probably better than Ferrari’s’

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Gene Haas believes his team can build a better chassis than rivals Ferrari when they arrive in F1 next year.

Tweets

Comment of the day

Why are so few new drivers getting a chance in F1?

F1 is lacking midfield teams and midfield drives. The kind of teams that don´t need pay-drivers to survive but can´t pay established top-drivers either, the kind of teams where promising youngsters used to start their careers. Nobody would mind Palmer getting a seat if Vandoorne and Ocon had one, too. Actually, I think Palmer deserves a shot – it´s just that there are others who would deserve it more and don´t get a drive.

When over the last decades the number of cars went from 35ish to 22, and the possible length of a drivers career went up by half a decade or more, the drivers position on the market got significantly weaker, and the rookies suffered the most.
Sven (@Crammond)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Alonsowdc, Paul and Claidheamh!

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

Five years ago today Red Bull clinched their first constructors’ championship title with a one-two in the Brazilian Grand Prix:

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.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 87 comments on “Haas chassis ‘probably better than Ferrari’s’”

    1. Well, that is certainly a bold claim.

      1. That’s the American way!

        1. It is! The USF1 team that didn’t even get into the grid said pretty much the same thing back then, except they didn’t go as far as saying it might be better than the Ferrari in some areas.

          1. Exactly. USF1, or Beatrice at best. I mean Dallara built their chassis. Didn’t they also build HRT’s.

            1. @Fast, Dallara were initially commissioned to work on the chassis for the team that eventually became HRT, but they only worked on the car for a short period of time.

              Adrian Campos, the initial team manager, ran into financial problems very quickly and ended up defaulting on payments, eventually leading to Dallara refusing to work on the car. That lead to the situation where Carabante kicked out Campos because of his incompetence and eventually brokered a deal for Dallara to release the chassis, which they had impounded for lack of payments.

              Although the chassis design was not great, the circumstances meant that development work was undertaken in a very limited piecemeal fashion and with quite limited exchanges of information between Dallara and what became HRT. Subsequent development work on the car was undertaken by Adess AG, a German specialist manufacturer that Kolles had a working relationship with from sportscar racing.

            2. No one built the USF1 chassis. It was supposed to be built in-house, but Anderson and his chief engineer (#1 son) never finished the design. The preliminary drawings showed promise, but as far as I know, they never made it past the tub stage.

          2. YEah, Craig Pollock was boasting about what BAR would achieve right off the bat too. @colonelrpg, @mangyblacksheep, @weeniebeenie

            1. To be fair to Craig, at the time a lot of people were expecting BAR to be one of the top teams based on what they had in terms of budget, chassis & personnel.

              BAR’s budget was the highest of any teams in F1 at the time, The car was designed by Adrian Reynard who was a well respected designer who’s cars had won 1st time out in every category he’d entered, They had some highly thought of engineer’s & technical people & a driver in Jacques Villeneuve who was still rated as one of the top 3 drivers on the grid at the time.

              BAR really should have done a lot better than they did in those early years, They were held back only by poor management & organization, Something David Richards sorted out for the most part when he replaced Pollock in 2002 & that led to the success they had in 2004.

        2. American and ridicolous…

      2. I find it both amusing and strangely endearing. We shall see.

      3. Wow, that is some grade-A BS. In Nascar, literally anyone drives the first lap of a race gets points, and the gap in both points and prize money between first and last is the most charitable in all of sports. That’s why there’s a whole industry in Nascar called ‘start-and-park’.

        I get that he is a businessman first and foremost, but jeez, at least find out about the basics of the sport you’re in before making sweeping declarations about the one you’re about to enter. He needs to let Steiner do all the talking.

        1. True, in Nascar you can finish every race in 30th place and still be a millionaire.

      4. I would already be impressed if they manage to build a better car than Manor or maybe even Sauber, but that’s already a stretch.

        Claiming it will be better than Ferrari’s is just stupid.

    2. ‘Better’ might not necessarily mean ‘faster’, of course

      By what other measure would you rate a race car?

      Given Ferrari have anything from the 3rd to 5th best chassis depending on who you ask I don’t think it’s inconceivable given how much wind tunnel time Haas has been using that they might well have the edge on peak downforce. But I suspect Allison’s car will still be kinder on tyres and more drivable.

      1. They said in some ways. This means larger bulkier car on which there is more advertising space so more money and it fitsvin with the Americans style of bigger is better. The car is from USA so will be obese.

      2. @philipgb

        Given Ferrari have anything from the 3rd to 5th best chassis depending on who you ask

        Given that Ferrari have won at Malaysia (high downforce testing circuit), Hungaroring (lots of medium speed corners), and Singapore (tonnes of slow corners); I’d like to see anyone actually claim that Ferrari is only the 5th best chassis. I would say 3rd best minimum, slightly behind Mercedes and Red Bull.

        1. @kingshark Malaysia is definitely a high downforce circuit. In this era though it’s straights and peculiar weather make Malaysia a power circuit, restricted in both tyre and PU temps. Ferrari were well prepared in both categories. I think probably that says a lot, and the race strategy which was spot on. On a side note RB was struggling with their car which was by the way running the old nose and also a weak Renault package.
          Hungary is a slow speed track with some medium speed corners but yet again tyres were the talk of the day and the Ferrari was very good on tyres and is phenomenal on braking and good on traction, 2 categories that showcase how good Ferrari were with the tyres.
          Singapore is hot, bumpy and slowish. Good tyres, great ride, great brake-by-wire and Vettel.
          Ferrari actually struggled a lot on high speed high downforce tracks, places where peek downforce was amiss, which is not a surprise as we can see by the nose the car was designed to be sleek. Silverstone was a gift for Ferrari.

        2. Mr win or lose
          7th November 2015, 22:06

          I believe the Ferrari chassis was rated as 4th or 5th best, behind Mercedes, Red Bull, Toro Rosso and more or less equal to McLaren according to Autosport. It seems fair as the Red Bulls and Toro Rossos are not always blown away by the Ferraris despite their poor power units. Ferrari still lacks a lot of single-lap pace compared to Mercedes, despite the Ferrari power unit being almost as strong as the Mercedes power unit. Ferrari generally has better tyre wear though.

        3. They are definitely worse than Mercedes, Red Bull and Toro Rosso. And they are considered more or less on par with McLaren. Malaysia was a different case with high thermal deg, other examples are circuits with high downforce but not high straight-line speed. That makes all the difference in the world. Basically, they can turn their car into a high downforce car by sacrificing their straight-line speed as they wouldn’t have to worry about the aerodynamic efficiency.

      3. 3rd to 5th? That is being very uncharitable to Allison and Ferrari. I think they are the 3rd best chassis at worst. Probably no.1 at Hungary. Remember, Hungary wasn’t because of tyres. It was just a fast Ferrari in clean air (speed in clean air is usually the best measure of how good the chassis is)

        1. @Sumedh, I feel that you are giving Allison more credit than is warranted for the design of this car.

          At the beginning of this year, Allison himself has pointed out that the car was predominantly developed by Tombazis; the SF-15T is essentially Allison’s evolution of Tombazis’s initial concept rather than a new design. You are also doing Simone Resta a disservice by leaving him out of the equation, given that he is the current Chief Designer and was the Deputy Chief Designer at the time that the SF-15T was initially developed.

          Whilst I may not always agree with Pennyroyal tea, he is right that there are several caveats in Ferrari’s performance this season. As he notes, Ferrari have not been exceptionally strong at circuits that require a highly efficient aerodynamic package – at circuits like Silverstone, Barcelona and Suzuka, Ferrari were, at least in terms of outright speed in qualifying trim, not particularly competitive in the sectors where high speed cornering stability was a key factor.

          Equally, I would say that, even in the past, Allison has generally not tended to produce a chassis which is exceptional in one particular area, because that is not how he tends to approach a car. Unlike Newey, for example, who is known for sacrificing performance in some areas in order to perfect the car in another area, Allison has tended to focus on producing cars that tend to be very good in a wide range of areas.
          His approach tends to place a slightly higher emphasis on adaptability and maximising the performance envelope of each component – so although the theoretical maximum performance may be slightly lower than those of his rivals, the drivers are more likely to be able to get close to the maximum performance of the car than their rivals.

          With that in mind, I do think that it is the case that Ferrari’s chassis would probably fit in the region of 3rd to 5th best on the grid.

        2. They’ve got a chassis which at this point in the season can be beaten by Mercedes, Williams and Red Bull. Which can also be given a fair fight by Torro Rosso.

          Over the course of the year they’ve been the 2nd best team thanks to scoring well early on when they were the second best chassis, reliability, kindness on tyres, the cars consistency and frankly Vettel.

          Like I said 3rd to 5th. From sector times it’s apparent Mercedes and Red Bull are better in the corners, and there is reasonable argument to be had for Williams and Torro Rosso.

          I’m pretty sure McLaren would argue so as well given they are so far down on power and compromising aero to make up for it.

          Again I’m not saying that all season they’ve been 5th best, but at this point in the season, based on the last few races I think it’s a combination of their engine being roughly on par with Mercedes and Vettel that is still bringing in the results.

      4. ‘Better’ might not necessarily mean ‘faster’, of course

        By what other measure would you rate a race car?

        ……Reliabilty

        1. @wesley

          You’re thinking of an N14 Nissan Almera. Fine car, I’ve owned 2. But not much of a race car.

    3. Seriously, this is crazy talk. Haas chassis is probably not better than Ferrari’s might make some sense. Ok it might be, but probably not.

      The phrase, setting yourself up for a fall springs to mind. Let’s see.

      1. Wind the clock back 12 months, replace Haas with Honda…. We heard it all before. A team that hasn’t raced is going to blow the field away with a super engine/chassis. It’s better than X’s and they’ve spent ages refining it in a wind tunnel or in a computer sim. Yada, yada, etc.
        Let’s wait and see but hats off the the spin department at Haas, they have already got people talking about them in a semi-positive way.

      2. I agree.

        Really silly statement from a team that will be racing the Manors and Mclarens next year.

      3. I whis people would read the interview, before jumping on headlines.

        “We think our chassis in some ways will be better than a Ferrari chassis because we’re using some more…I won’t say state of the art, but we’re taking a different approach than Ferrari is and we think it’s probably a better design.”

        1. Normally you would be correct to make that claim, but in this case I think the article itself only slightly tempers the headline. He still suggests the design is “better” – a very bold claim.

        2. I did read the interview

    4. Would surprise me to see Sauber finish 11th next year. If the Haas is as good as many are saying, and Manor has the Mercedes power unit (2014 Ferrari => 2016 Mercedes with 2015 chassis). Assuming they can get new management sorted for next year then I can see them delivering some results.

      Sauber I feel has little potential. They have decent engineers but no budget and an anti-joke for a team principle, and they’ve shown in the past the inability to deliver.

      I think end of 2016 would be a good time for Felipe to retire. He’s had a good run in Formula 1 and will be respected.

      1. @strontium Sauber has little money and they’ve fired their aero guy. Sauber is inconsistent with their cars, sometimes they take chances and get nothing out of it, sometimes they go conservative. In this era they’ve got a reliable but smallish budget, 2 poor drivers on the talent and experience department, and a weaker PU than their peers. Sauber is bound to struggle but surely not Manor nor Haas level, and with Lotus going to Renault and STR going old Ferrari, Sauber can make up places on the standings, regardless of them making an actual great car.

        1. Their power unit isn’t that bad, it’s not as good as that within the Force India but it’s better than the STR, and certainly good enough to deliver results.

          Lotus becoming Renault will only improve the team, provided they don’t switch to Renault engines, which I haven’t heard anything about them doing so (correct me if I am wrong). STR isn’t going old Ferrari, the use of old engines will be banned next year.

          Sauber is bound to struggle but surely not Manor nor Haas level

          We don’t know if the others will be struggling though, Haas is confident, while Manor will have made an absolutely immense step forward, they are getting stronger.

      2. Just reread this now, I meant to say it wouldn’t surprise me if Sauber were 11th. Autocorrect will get it right one day… I hope.

    5. Haas chassis ‘probably better than Ferrari’s’

      Ha ha ha. Not even funny… I hope Haas realizes before it’s too late that less talk and more work is better. Especially when you’re a newcomer…

    6. In this day and age of F1, the calendar cannot have both the Dutch and Belgian GP’s on the calendar, unless somehow Holland gets a slot that is two months before Belgium. Zandvoort, like a number of European circuits is not what it used to be- and Spa is with the Nordschleife the best circuit in Europe and possibly the best circuit F1 currently uses. So Belgium gets my vote.

      1. Or if the races alternate

        1. To go from a classic that is Spa to any other track to alternate is sacrilege.

          Max Verstappen is as Belgian as he is Dutch anyway. Unless the Dutch organisers have a lot of money, I don’t see it happening.

      2. Don’t worry too much @mfreire. First of all, its quite a stretch that they would be able to completely overhaul the insfrastructure within 3 years. I would be even surprised to see them get started on that in less than 2 years.

        Then I am nearly certain that no one in the Netherlands is going to put in the kind of money Bernie is asking. And we can be glad about that, because it would also mean investing a boatload of money that would make the lovely Zandvoort track another Tilke upgraded boring track. Surely he would expertly neuter all the interesing bits.

        Off course, even if they od pull that off, its doubtfull that they will get a permit for the noise when its an issue already.

        Lets take this as a positive though. Its a statement that the town and the track management want to improve the track and its facilities for the fans, and maybe even allow a bit more racingthere. Something we as racing fans can all be happy about.

        1. I don’t think Zandvoort in its current form would need to be modified by Tilke, except for maybe the part after the banked hairpin behind the pits. But as one user pointed out, Max Verstappen is as Belgian as he is Dutch. So why have the Dutch Grand Prix anyway? There hasn’t been one since 1985, and the Zandvoort circuit then was a classic- but nowadays, it’s only half of what it was.

      3. Not going to happen, I think it´s just politics PR. Why? Too large sums of money, that no one wants to spend, the track had to be completely rebuild for a GP as it has virtually no run-offs and I fear the lack of adjoining estates around the track. As F1 is about kilometres of tarmac run-off areas nowadays, I see no chance for Zandvoort.

    7. Is it uncharitable to think of Adrian Reynard?

    8. That is just stupidity by the HAAS team. Why would they say something like that before the pre-season when they haven’t even gotten the engines from Ferrari yet

    9. Perhaps some people who have posted already should read the article…….

    10. (@Haas) Haas chassis ‘probably better than Ferrari’s’

      yup, Haas will fit right into Formula 1 just fine and dandy…

      1. ^^^Lol yes.

        Keep dreaming Gene

    11. So Santander is too get back with McLaren, or are they daydreaming again? About Haas, taking in consideration that Haas is a tech company perhaps Haas is more willing to try new composites, in the past year many breakthroughs in carbon composites were achieved in laboratory and some of them in the US. A little naughty by Haas to speak of what Ferrari is doing, especially concerning an area of the car that has to be made separately for each team. Honestly I can’t see Dallara producing a good chassis.

      1. To be honest I don’t know why they even asked Dallara. They have a very poor history of producing F1 chassis, such as the 2010 HRT.

    12. LOL! Hamilton in a Laugherrari! Must have really raised some eyebrows in Stuttgart. Also, that has got to go down as the single dumbest name of any car ever.

      1. Also, that has got to go down as the single dumbest name of any car ever.

        Nissan Cedric. Honda That’s. Great Wall Wingle. Mitsubishi Lettuce. Isuzu Mysterious Utility Wizard. Mitsubishi Mini Active Urban Sandal. Mazda Carol Me Lady. Geely Rural Nanny. Daihatsu Naked. Volkswagen Thing. Renault LeCar.

        And yes, they are all genuine car names.

        1. @raceprouk and in Latin America Mitsubishi has the Pajero. I can tell you that this word is related to some lonely activities teens usually do in the loo.

          1. If I’m not mistaken in spanish speaking countries the Pajero is called Montero

          2. Pajero isn’t a weird name though, just an unfortunate choice in Spanish. Whereas Lettuce is just stupid no matter how you look at it :)

        2. How about Buick LaCrosse & Fairlady..?

          1. Worse than Rural Nanny? :)

      2. I bet Ferrari love the PR from it @us_peter. Granted, it would have been even better had he done that right before the IPO, but still, its a nice touch for Hamilton.

        So, will we now start the rumours about Hamilton falling out with Mercedes and going to Ferrari (along with Niki Lauda)? Afterall he told the press that his team was cuddling up to Rosberg last weekend and now this … must be a clue, right.

        p.s. no, I do not really think that will happen at all

    13. Honda: interesting article from BBC. In history of motorsport technology, every time there was an apparent impossible problem to solve, the brains of the engineers managed to find a solution to get the wanted efficiency. What seemed to be impossible became normal. 20,000 rpm engines with pistons as thin as credit cards, bending like butterflies wings and accelerating thousands of times a second. Sensors and CPU that could adjust suspensions thousands times a second. Kgs of downforce generated from all kinds forms that were unthinkable 5 years before. Gearboxes changing gears under hundreds of kgs of torque at the speed of thought. Almost every time the rulers have tried to slow the F1s down, those amazing brains have managed to “create” the same speed with a lesser base. Banal to say but it’s only matter of time and I love what they say: it’s not a miracle. Someone has done it already. I am no McLaren fan, but I have the deepest of respect for Mr Dennis. He knows better, his dream is true, his resilience is mighty. (compare it with RedBull for example…) Not only F1 needs these examples of human strength, but the whole motorsport. Honda will catch up. I only hope there is enough times and financial resources to sustain it.

      1. @nuvolari71 I beg to disagree. To catch up, the rules should be more flexible. And related to budgets, remember BMW got just 1 victory as Sauber Bmw, Honda 1 in Hungary with Button, and Toyota… zero.

        1. I agree Omar. The available time is also related to the flexibility of the rules. Problem is that if the rules are flexible, even the other teams can take advantage. So, I still dare to think it’s a matter of time, money and patience:)

          1. Problem is that if the rules are flexible, even the other teams can take advantage.

            @nuvolari71 How is that a problem? Teams, in the same fashion as teammates, should push each other to come up with the best design every single race. In the end it would lead to the richer teams at the front but within the current rules we have that too. If the rules were more flexible there would be more room for the smaller teams to experiment and more often get the odd good result.

            1. No problem. I was only saying that softer rules don’t necessarily help only the slower guys, because the progress is available to everyone, hence the effort of the slower guys is double. I really hope McLaren comes back in the top 4 but I struggle to believe they will gain the 2,5 seconds plus the gain the others will get during this winter…

      2. @nuvolari71 I was fortunate enough to get a glimpse of the McLaren-Honda during one of the Final Practices, and it seemed to me the engine was actually very powerful. It seemed to me it was very similar in power output to other F1 grade engines. Why the performance of the car is less than their competitors is a question I don’t know the answer to.
        I recently was looking at some of the comments Ron Dennis gave regarding different questions, and it seems the engine is one part of a complex equation. Yes, the engine is important, but as we’ve seen in the past, a good aerodynamic package can compensate for a slight reduction in engine performance. Winning isn’t about having the most powerful engine, it is about having the best combination of the important attributes.
        I think there is a lot of optimism within McLaren regarding 2016, so hopefully those expectations will be fulfilled.

        1. Agree 100% Stephen. If it was only 20 hp of difference, Dennis would certainly focus quite exclusively on chassis and aero. Out of the 2,5 seconds delay they have now, I dare to say that at least half is due to engine. My 2 cents

    14. Did Haas sign up Brawn,lol. Although i like people making such statements, kinda a nice buildup to 2016 season. 2016 midfield is really interesting, hopefully McHonda joins the party as well. The front runners would definitely be Mercedes but it’d be interesting what RedBull might do with their customized engine.

    15. Even if it was better he should probably hold his horses. 2016 is a long way, and only testing will tell us how good they did for a new team over winter.

      1. You have to love the irony (if thats the right description) of going to a “charity” ball in a £1m car, why not go in a £10k mondeo and donate the other £990k to the charity? .. that would get much better publicity! (Not just hammy but all celebs take note!)

        1. That would require someone less self-absorbed. Great idea tho

    16. Lewiz… In Ferrari….. Lawl!!!

      But seriusly, Haas had unlimited wind tunnel time. So why not, it is posible. Especially if Ferrari Engineers accidentially had some coffe in same space, and doing some gardening…

      So initially maybe yes, but McLaren has *best chassis* look how far it got them. It is nice to have peek downforce, lower weight, crazy packaging, nifty aero groves… But come next year Test 1 we shall see, and come first pieces of rubber stuck in front wing, following another car…

      What I do see is them easily stomping backmarkers… A few top10 in first year.

    17. Geen Haas is funny:) or a great gambler!!

    18. screenshot dat title!

    19. God forbid, if by some miracle Red bull take the title next year….

    20. ColdFly F1 (@)
      7th November 2015, 10:49

      Not sure why people are so surprised, or even upset, by Gene’s comments.
      Gene gets some free publicity, and the comments will long be forgotten come the first test.

      Expect more comments – and headlines – like this!

      1. Well if we think of the news about McLaren @coldfly and how they’re copying the F1 mainstream now as Peter Prodromou steers them away from Size Zero, how likely is it that a new entrant and Dallara are going to out-design Allison and Ferrari with something ‘different’? Especially since a lot of Ferrari people have been in the Haas windtunnel.

        People still remember BAR and their cocky predictions, so I think it has cast a bit of doubt over how grounded Haas is. Not in the sense of people gloating, I’d say, but in the sense of hoping they’re going to be successful and not wanting contrary signs like this. F1 has humbled a lot of confident characters over the years.

        1. @lockup Agreed. These comments won’t be long forgotten. They’ll be remembered starting now.

          I haven’t yet read the article about Haas ‘not being a Ferrari junior team’ which I (and no doubt others) had already claimed they were upon the hiring of EG, and I had to laugh when near the end of the ‘better chassis’ article he says their deal with Ferrari includes helping develop their drivers. Not a junior team though, eh?

          Anyway I think generally it is better to under promise and over deliver, so if I were Haas I’d just let actions speak louder than words…however…I’m not Haas. It’s going to be fun to watch. Can’t wait.

          Also, I’m still stuck on the notion that you don’t just build a good chassis and slap a good PU in it and call that job done…it’s now about the integration of PU to chassis in an intimate marriage. That said, perhaps that is what will be occurring at Haas. It has to, as far as I understand this era. And it’s awfully hard for me to imagine any team getting anywhere close to the works team of any maker these days. At least Haas points out 10th being where the reward money starts, and that’s not very deep into the grid.

          1. Yep @robbie it’s going to be fun to watch for sure. I feel the safe way would have been to listen very, very, super carefully to those Ferrari guys, who know everything about the vital integration as you say. I just hope it’s not toooo different.

    21. The more I listen to this Haas guy, the harder it is to believe that his squad is there to stay. He’s been blowing a lot of hot air lately on how innovative his approach is, and how clever his approach is, and how it’s easier to earn money in F1 than in NASCAR, etc. Well, Gene, I’ve got news for you, there’s nothing particularly innovative in how you try to do things, we’ve seen others try to do the same thing and fail miserably. But what really bothers me is the business aspect of the thing. He just can’t shut up about how he’s a businessman and is out there to turn profit. He claims that he can turn profit even by coming 10th in the WCC. And we’re talking the amount of roughly 30 mil here. If that’s the level of his investment in the team, plus some sponsorhip money, well, I think Sauber and Manor will give him a run for his money. Over the last decade there were only two successfull teams on a modest budget, Renault and Brawn, but the success of the latter was basically paid for by a huge previous investment from Honda. So, the Renault of 05-06 was the only team of late that won championships while spending quite a lot less than their competitors, still, their budget was times more than what Haas claims he can work with, and I seriously doubt Renault turned any profit. Thus, I strongly suspect that Haas just wants to run a team for a while, try to increase its market value and then sell it. Also nothing new in F1, we’ve seen this strategy multiple times with varying degree of success. What this strategy definitely doesnt do is creating a lasting racing team.

      1. I think you are missing a key source of revenues for Haas though, that being the huge global marketing advantage Haas will now have, and probably has already started to enjoy just from officially announcing his entry into F1, for his CNC machinery. He’ll gain many contracts around the world, and even moreso if he finishes the year having scored points in F1, even for 10th place.

        Gleening revenues from F1 is far more than just about the prize money for the standings order. Otherwise Haas would not enter nor would any entity.

    22. I think at this point Haas might very well have come further with their 2016 car then many other teams, simply because they started working on it earlier, while other team were focusing on 2015. They even said design study on the 2017 design will start soon.

      Problem is, they lack experience. Judgement may be a little bit off because of that. They may think they have already got a great chassi, but reality will show what’s what in pre-season testing.

      Also development pace will be a lot slower than most other teams. Haas will need time to settle into F1, get operations going, and from what I understand will operate with a much lower budget than most teams. A classic “Force India season” is to be expected: A good start to the season and then a drop off in performance compared to the top teams because of lack of development.

    23. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the Haas chassis is better in some ways than the current Ferrari chassis.

      They have Ferrari personnel helping them & Dallara with the chassis, They have some Ferrari bits on it & since there not an official entrant this year they are not bound by any of the restrictions on Wind Tunnel/CFD work than the other teams are so have been able to do a lot of work on there car which others have not (Something Ferrari have taken advantage of BTW, Using the Haas chassis to test some bits for there own car).

    24. Somehow, the Haas claim might make sense. The chassis is, after all, only a box that has to hold the suspension at its front corners, the driver (safely) in the middle, the engine, gearbox and suspension at the back, and the aero parts around it. It must be rigid, resist torsion, have the right weight and center of gravity and pass crash tests. The Haas design (Dallara and subcontractors are only manufacturing minions) can look at new materials and cad-cam stress, weight and other factors. Haas is already buying engine, gearbox and suspension from Ferrari (arguably second best on the grid at the moment.) The bodywork, wings, etc., have to be Haas’ own and he claims to have a jump on aerodynamics (questionable, but money and wind tunnels play a role.) The electronics come from McLaren (standard contract, unless I’m out of date) and anyone can buy Brembo brakes. I haven’t really any thoughts on Gutierrez, but Grosjean’s short career in F1 has shown more than occasional promise.
      All in all, I can see Haas further up the grid than some of the ne’er-sayers are predicting.

    25. Is it that hard for the Dutch to just reclaim a wee bit of land and build a new crcuit there?

      Or are they scared about how a brand-new track would be all-Tilke which they think (probably rightly) would be worse than a Tilkefied Zandvoort? :)

    26. @keithcollantine Thanks for the CotD. Though it seems Gene Haas stole the show ;)

      1. Perhaps there’s a better relationship than you think. Haas might have “stolen the show”, but he’s the first big money, financially viable new entry since Mateschitz/Red Bull. With the greatest of respect for the enthusiasm, sportsmanship and work of HRT and Caterham (Manor remains to be seen), they are exactly the sort of teams that desperately relied on pay drivers and could barely muster sponsorship to get beyond the very back of the grid. This in turn pulls down the likes of Sauber. A new billionaire with a proven record in motor racing could be the light at the end of the tunnel to really and truly find the obscene amounts of money needed to keep F1 at the pinnacle of the sport.

    27. Harlequin pattern is the most stupid way to portrait one of the greatest racers of all times.
      Eduardo Kobra and all the dimwits who paid the tons of paint just need a friendly buttkick to come back to senses.
      What a hogwash mural!

    28. Another year possibly for Massa? Please say it aint so. What a shame for all the young upcoming talent

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.