Do Andretti-Cadillac deserve a place on the Formula 1 grid?

Debates and polls

Posted on

| Written by

The FIA approved Andretti-Cadillac’s application to join the Formula 1 grid, but not everyone wants to see an 11th team enter the series.

Formula One Management have shown little interest in expanding the grid and most of Andretti’s would-be rivals have made it clear they don’t want them in.

Andretti, which already competes in IndyCar, Formula E and other disciplines, are scaling up their operations, having announced last year they are building a massive new base in Indiana, USA.

While F1 has responded coolly at best to Andretti’s overtures, it has been more receptive to the possibility of a General Motors-owned brand entering. But this week GM made it clear they not come into F1 with anyone other than Andretti.

So F1 faces a clear either-or question: Welcome Andretti-Cadillac to the fold or close the door. What do you think they should do?


“No more than 26 cars will be admitted to the championship,” state the Formula 1 Sporting Regulations quite unambiguously. With only 20 on the grid at present, F1 has capacity for Andretti plus two more teams.

The FIA received more than three applications when it opened the door to prospective entrants earlier this year. But Andretti-Cadillac was the only one it selected. Clearly, the sport’s governing body has faith in the quality of their choice.

Adding an 11th entrant wouldn’t solely be a drain on the finances of the existing teams, as newcomers have to pay in a $200 million ‘anti-dilution’ fee. Besides which, the addition of a major manufacturer such as General Motors allied to one of motorsport’s great racing dynasties – both from F1’s coveted US market – would generate extra interest and thereby income.


The idea of admitting an extra team is fine in theory but in practice would cause significant problems. The existing teams oppose it because their earnings from F1 would be reduced if they had to be shared with a new entrant. This isn’t a matter of greed – some of these teams were genuinely concerned for their futures just a few years ago when the Covid-19 pandemic struck.

There are also significant logistical challenges to overcome, such as how an additional team might be accommodated within some of F1’s smaller paddocks, notably in Monaco and Zandvoort.

At a time when of the greatest criticisms levelled at F1 is the lack of competition at the front of the field, the addition of a new team at the rear of it will make no useful difference.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

I say

The fact F1 is in a position to decide whether Andretti should be allowed in is wrong. If a team has built two cars which conform to the regulations and has a pair of drivers qualified to race them, they should be able to enter.

Of course, in practice, if every team was allowed in, some mechanism would be needed to decide how many get to start the race. But this has been done in the past and it’s not something F1 needs to worry about until Andretti have arrived and two more new teams have joined them.

It remains to be seen how competitive Andretti might be. No doubt they have set themselves a significant challenge. But that is a story which should be allowed to play out on the track, not a reason to forbid them entering in the first place.

You say

Should Andretti be allowed into F1? Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.

Do you agree Andretti-Cadillac deserve a place on the Formula 1 grid?

  • No opinion (1%)
  • Strongly disagree (1%)
  • Slightly disagree (1%)
  • Neither agree nor disagree (0%)
  • Slightly agree (9%)
  • Strongly agree (88%)

Total Voters: 236

Loading ... Loading ...

A RaceFans account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here. When this poll is closed the result will be displayed instead of the voting form.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

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.

96 comments on “Do Andretti-Cadillac deserve a place on the Formula 1 grid?”

  1. I’m always excited when a brand new team joins. I wish all 26 places were filled.

      1. Bring it on … please

    1. @f1mre I wonder, though, how many of those who proclaim that Andretti is deserving of a place on the grid were those who mocked and criticised HRT, Manor or Caterham for their attempts to enter Formula 1, or also like to criticise Haas as well? Whilst there are many who might claim that they want more teams, many of them have also been rather bitter critics of those teams when they did appear on the grid.

      1. There’s nothing inconsistent in wanting more teams to compete (not ‘participate), and being critical of teams who seem not taking it seriously.

        1. Facts&Stats, the way in which you seem to be dividing things up is rather arbitrary there, given it then depends on the extremely nebulous idea of drawing a line at the point where a team is deemed as “competing” rather than merely “participating”.

          Why exactly were those teams seen as mere “participants”? They put in fairly significant amounts of time, money and equipment, and the dozens of people who worked for those teams no doubt hoped for better things in the future. They built up their factories, developed staff and acted as a platform for other drivers – why are they seen as “not having taken things seriously”?

          In some ways, is it not more telling of the arbitrary fickleness of quite a few posters here? Those that lauded Haas for bringing something new to the grid now turn on it, with some even decreeing that it should be thrown out even as they espouse the same position of “more is better”.

          Perhaps, in some ways, people prefer the dream of Andretti competing in F1 more than they might like the actual reality of Andretti competing in F1. As a prospect, the Andretti entry can be turned into an idealised and romanticised dream onto which they can project their ideals of what they think the sport should be, whereas the actual team is likely to end up otherwise behaving in ways that would not live up to those ideals and may prove to be more disappointing.

          1. anon,
            Do you disagree with my statement though?

            There’s nothing inconsistent in wanting more teams to compete (not ‘participate), and being critical of teams who seem not taking it seriously.

            Happy to have that discussion if you do disagree.

            You make a lot of assumptions and even insinuations about other posters, without being specific which poster and which comments.
            I suggest you use direct quotes if you want to make a point of inconsistency, rather than a generic ‘many’.

      2. Wasn’t following in those years and I’d have never criticised such minor teams, I preferred back in the old times when you had LOADS of teams and then only some could pre qualify.

      3. I haven’t questioned a Formula One entry since the “Ensign” team. Andretti and Cadillac, both have racing heritages and a financial commitment worthy of the opportunity. I’m sure a financial arrangement could be arrived at for an 11th team. Haas could come to some arrangement as well, as their effort has never matured.

      4. Anon: Just saw your amusing comment that F1 media wasn’t hyperventilating over the tiny fan incursion. Could post links to endless stories that show otherwise, but RF auto deletes posts w/links to other F1 media. Simply listen the race’s post-weekend pod (one F1’s biggest pods) and they were doing just that w/an entire segment dedicated to how “inexcusable” it was. I get it though, you confused your perception w/reality.

        1. Nick T., comes across as more than a little ironic that your response is to then mass post across the site in complaint, thereby showing that your response has been to furiously overreact yourself (with a bit of slightly creepy stalking throw in for good measure).

          1. Nailed it. I’ve been stalking you. I’m looking through your window right now and I’m waving a tiny red flag (a red flag 🚩 in and of itself).

      5. I think the point is geared more towards the fact that you have, usually, between 2-4 back marker teams who always finish the season in p8-10th, example, Williams and Haas, that are perfectly fine finishing the season dead last. These are teams that as long as they are able to field 2 cars and finish within 107% rule will get prize money at the end of the season.

        With the cost cap, these teams that would loose hundreds of millions are now able to at least break even or potentially post profits. Adding another team would create a need to actually spend money to be competitive and innovative.

        In my opinion, if we have room for 13 teams, field 13 teams and only let the teams willing to spend to be competitive stay.

        1. Since when Williams fine with finishing dead last? And “always finishing dead last”
          is pretty hyperbolic that had their last win only a decade ago on pure pace and not luck (some teams have never had win or a single win due to half the field falling apart), were the only team giving Mercedes a run for their money in their first season of dominance and qualified well in the top 10 for most 2014, 2015 and 2016, awful during 2017-2019, back to competing with the other tail enders in 2020 and have since then gradually progressed to being competitive enough that if they had a decent second driver could be competing for 6th in the WCC.

          So, characterizing the team as always last and “OK with being in dead last” is just wrong. Also, unlike some of the other back markers, they’ve got true historical significance, still have lot of fans, are tied for the most WCCs in F1 and don’t change their name every year to a clothing brand or marque doing a badging exercise. Either way, as long as a team isn’t OK with being dead last, I have no problem with them (within reason).

          The only team that’s truly looked like they don’t care is Haas. And I’m sure the personnel care, but it’s more a case their namesake and owner’s not caring that demoralizes them. It’s that fact paired with the team’s utter lack of history or character that makes so many hate them. I hear very few people ever saying they “hate”’Williams.

      6. From afar it seemed to me the biggest problem Manor, HRT, and Caterham faced was the banning of their cars from being broadcast, and mention of them in the race commentary. I hope there won’t be a repeat of that policy when GM – Andretti (or whoever) turn up on the grid.

        1. Well, the first thing that showed itself to be a huge problem was that when most of those teams signed up and got their entry they were promised a completely different set of rules that would allow them to run for far less money. Only that disappeared as the battle between Mosley and the teams was settled / ironed out.

          And yeah, having Bernie do as much as he could to prevent them from getting screen time will have certainly hurt their ability to get investment on board and happy.

        2. That and they had been told the imminent passing of a budget cap was a mere formality. They all knew they were up sh*+’s creek when that all fell apart. But Ricciardo, Bianci, Ocon and others got their first drives at those teams. So, they were far from useless.

  2. I think this whole issue goes away if F1 increases the pool of prize $ for the team to compensate for an addition of a new team.

    1. I think there is no issue.
      The Concorde Agreement states that the teams each get a percentage of the total pool – there is no mention of a minimum payout or what the actual size of that pool is. Needless to say, it’s different every year.
      Besides, the $200m anti-dilution fee covers multiple years worth of relative ‘losses’ by having the extra team, anyway.

    2. Yes, they should be able to afford it, I think, then we’d have the same problem if more teams wanted to enter, but to start with, since the fia approved andretti’s bid, they could start with that.

  3. Given that the only people opposing this are the existing teams, Liberty (on behalf of their many ‘arrangements’ (deals) with the existing teams) and those very few others who think that Andretti somehow isn’t a proper racing operation (as though all the current teams are better) – the result of this poll should be rather predictable.

  4. The fact F1 is in a position to decide whether Andretti should be allowed in is wrong.

    F1 (FOM) cannot decide whether Andretti will be allowed in. That ship has sailed when the FIA approved its entry request.
    FOM can merely exclude them from the prize money pot and can ignore them in the broadcasts. But that would be a risky avenue due to anti competitive legislation in various countries.

    FOM will negotiate with Andretti (and the Concorde signees) until they find a middle ground.
    Andretti will then decide if that middle ground matches their business case.

  5. I 107% agree that Andretti Cadillac deserves a chance to participate in F1.

    1. This post got a sensible chuckle out of me.

    2. Nice and +1

      1. Well done!

    3. Hans V D Velden
      12th November 2023, 16:02

      hub100% agree

    4. The 107% rule is exactly what one of the criteria should be. If GM – Andretti can demonstrate they can drive their car around a selection of current F1 tracks within the 107% rule time limits then they deserve a place in F1.

      1. The problem is that to do so they’d have to develop an F1 before knowing of they’d be allowed to race. That’s a massive investment. A company would be willing to take a risk that their car performed badly for the first season or two while they develop it, but making a requirement that they demonstrate a quick enough car before they are allowed to race at all would just guarantee there are no future entrants to F1.

        1. 107% is a really low bar. I doubt they’d balk at it.

  6. Let’s get rid of Haas and bring Andretti in their place.

    1. As an American I strongly AGREE

  7. No need for long and tiresome analyses – simple YES. Formula 1 has been stale for too long, there are literally two teams who’ve taken all the titles in the last 15 years and the rest seems to be content with money for participation. It needs to change.

    1. Yes, this is a big problem: the teams we knew as top teams from the earlier years, even just the 2000s, ferrari, williams and mclaren, don’t seem to be able to compete with a well established mercedes or red bull, and this reflects in the fact since 2010 no one else won the title any more.

      It would be a tall order to expect andretti to start doing what ferrari and mclaren can’t though.

      1. Now that teams can’t just spend endlessly to beat Newey or get lucky banking on them having the best chassis, but also an engine so bad they can only win the odd race. If Newey weren’t in F1 or it was only teams 2-10, we’d be saying this was one of the most insanely competitive seasons.

        My biggest problem isn’t balance of performance, it’s the inherent dullness of racing with massive, heavy cars with fragile tires on top of it.

  8. It speaks volumes that the “for vs against” are all issues made by the FIA and FOM themselves.

    Party, organise, couldn’t, ***-up etc.

  9. There are also significant logistical challenges to overcome, such as how an additional team might be accommodated within some of F1’s smaller paddocks, notably in Monaco and Zandvoort.

    Series like FRECA manage to race at places like Monaco and Zandvoort with no problems, and they have significantly larger grids than F1, even if F1 had a full 26 car grid (indeed F1 has also managed to race at Monaco in the past with at least 13 teams on the grid), so I think this arguement is the one with the least merit to it.

    1. Worst case scenario, we change the qualifying format to allow teams to send one car out at a time and have a shootout for grid slots.

      I’ve always liked the idea of a 30 car grid.

      Personally, I found the days of Hispania etc entertaining. Even if it did cause a two tier effect. Fine by me to have additional depth.

      1. Agree. People seem to have forgot what the word qualify means. It shouldn’t just be a spectacle to set the grid order – but a hard-cut decider who is qualified to participate at all. That should not be done in a court room ahead of the season. I would love to see enough cars/teams take part so that (on some circuits at least) not everyone will actually get to start the race. Want to join half-way through and try your luck? Go ahead.

    2. Zandvoort are planning to enlarge their Pitboxes by adding them on 1 side (toowards Tarzan bocht) giving teams 1 box extra…. Lets wait how that is going to be handled with 1 extra team …..

      1. Electroball76
        13th November 2023, 9:30

        The suspense is in tents. I’m sure someone could find some camping gear for such a marquee name.

  10. Absolutely. Let them in.

    It should have nothing to do with the existing teams, they have way too much power.

  11. I don’t really see the ‘deserve’ concept. 20 cars in the Q1 queues is enough entertainment wise. To get in on merit, well the B team should be out on that basis, then okay. Or on being likeable Michael is too tubby and pretentious and Cadillac make the wrong cars, so Slightly Disagree for me

    1. Tommy Scragend
      12th November 2023, 16:27

      That’s the second time I’ve seen it argued on this site that Andretti shouldn’t be allowed in because Michael Andretti is overweight.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if FOM actually give this as a reason now.

      1. well it is a TV program, what about the children?? setting an example! And as for Zak and Crofty…

      2. I wouldn’t be surprised if FOM actually give this as a reason now

        Not possible. They have a minimum weight but no maximum.
        I think it only applies to the cars though. :)

      3. Unfortunately Tommy, these are the kind of “fans” Drive to Survive has inflicted upon us. Concerned only with image and the show.

        1. nobody wants to look at old men who eat too much pasta :(

      4. Surely the F1 team would be named after Mario and not Michael.

        1. The team is named Andretti Racing, not Michael Andretti Racing or XXL Andretti Racing.

  12. F1 can’t afford to lean back and think the sport will be fine with the current teams and manufacturers, it makes the sport far to vulnerable and dependent. Imagine Mercedes pulling the plug (or threaten to pull the plug) – it would leave F1 in a sorry state. Also more teams mean more drivers, mechanics and designers that get their chance in F1 – even if a team isn’t a top performer – it can still serve a purpose for talent development. People F1 might need in case one of those big brands does pull the plug.

    1. In practical terms, the big danger to F1 has indeed been its reliance on a small number of engine manufacturers. Which then wield undue political influence over their clients. The 2014 regulations failed to attract anywhere near the number of participants that F1 no doubt hoped for. It’s part of the reason they made such a big switch for 2026. Those new engines are so standardized that even a company with zero experience like Red Bull can feasibly put them together.

      What having a spec lite engine will mean for F1 in the long-term is still unknown. We’re already seeing a bit of a change in which kind of companies put their names on the engines. Having F1 engines be simpler and cheaper could attract more ‘names’, but just like having ‘named’ LMP2 cars didn’t make IMSA DPi a manufacturers series, F1 might also struggle to keep itself relevant to manufacturers as anything other than a driving billboard.

      1. In that respect F1 the FIA / Liberty has really lost it’s bearings. F1 is getting further and further away from being relevant – engine concepts that are way to expensive and cumbersome, cars that are way to big. F1 needs to be lean and mean. Light cars with strong but effective engines and most of all encourage young and independent teams and small manufacturers to join F1 and try to make a name for themselves. Jordan, Tyrrell, Ilmor, Hart etc. That ship has sailed a long time ago and is probably not of this time anymore – but if the FIA wants the sport to have a (sustainable) future it might be better to look at it’s origins instead of being purely focused on revenues and viewing numbers.

  13. The existing teams oppose it because their earnings from F1 would be reduced if they had to be shared with a new entrant. This isn’t a matter of greed – some of these teams were genuinely concerned for their futures just a few years ago when the Covid-19 pandemic struck.

    That they struggled to manage their cash flow in extraordinary circumstances isn’t proof that they’re not greedy. It just means that F1 teams, like many other businesses, had a hard time making the numbers match up because there was a huge amount of uncertainty plus a loss of many normal income streams.

    F1 teams still pay themselves very well, especially at the senior level. Many of these people make literal millions. The “best” argument – which still isn’t very good – against new teams is about physical constraints on the space at some venues, and that’s not their concern. If the track cannot accommodate the number of cars that the regulations say could be present, that’s a track problem and that track shouldn’t be on the F1 calendar. All the other ‘concerns’ have been about money. Specifically, money that the F1 teams want to keep for themselves.

    Now, it’s entirely possible that Andretti is also in it for the money. But! Andretti is investing in a ‘global motorsport home’ facility expected to be operational in 2025, and by building new facilities and attracting an engine partner for 2026 onward, Andretti’s plan is similar to Aston Martin’s. Which is good, and they definitely made their case to be part of F1. How long they’ll be able to stick around, and how successful they’ll be is anyone’s guess. But being a hopeless also-ran hasn’t stopped at least four current teams from being on the grid for years on end despite showing no sign of improvement. Let’s not subject Andretti to standards that said teams also fail to meet.

  14. As long as they meet the requirements of the championship and their submissions are in order, there’s no good reason to exclude them.

    I voted “strongly agree”, though I do have a small issue with the wording of the question. I don’t think any team really “deserves” a place in F1, but they should be allowed to compete. They have the funding and backing to do so, have a strong Motorsports tradition. Basically, there’s no reason to deny them, especially if they’re willing to pay the ridiculous “anti-dilution fee”.

    1. And if you think it’s ridiculous now, just wait until the $600m ADF they’re expected to pass hits the books.

  15. I would say strongly agree even if they were likely to be Manor in 2015. There is absolutely no downside in having more teams and smaller teams just give everyone a team to root for and be happy if they randomly get a good result.

    If it was up to me, the budget cap would be scrapped (just because the next bit is impossible with it), as would the entry fee to the championship, that would be changed to an entry fee for individual races. Then teams would be allowed to enter any individual Grand Prix they wanted, so long as they paid the much lower entry fee for an individual race, and they don’t have to enter the entire season, and also only need one car. If more than 26 cars enter a Grand Prix, you have pre-qualifying to make sure only 26 make it to qualifying, and then anyone who beats the 107% rule in qualifying gets to start the race. Bad luck to the teams that didn’t progress through pre-qualifying, but I would also introduce non-championship races again with individual prize money, so the main teams wouldn’t bother to enter them all (but will often want to do them anyway for the extra testing and for the prize money), and that would leave more spaces open for smaller teams to make it into the top 26 and start races.

    The worst thing that would happen with this rule is that teams don’t want to enter if they might not pre-qualify, in which case there are just 26 cars on the grid rather than 20. And in this scenario, Andretti-Cadillac definitely make it onto the grid.

    1. That is like it was in the old days …. Seeing and experienced both times i would see a blend of Old and New as i would keep the Budgetcap but the 1 car teams i would like to see but no championships i rather see those (championships) AND races with indivdual prizes. We have 26 teams with 1-2 cars just pre quali on friday and qualifly Saterday for the 26 spots left.

  16. Archibald Bumfluff
    12th November 2023, 16:53

    I challenge anyone to give a reasons that Haas or Alpha Tauri have more of a right to be on the F1 grid that Andretti-Cadillac

    1. Because they are already participating (FIA requirement) and have signed the Concorde Agreement (FOM requirement).

      But I guess you know as well that this is not about one team replacing another (they could simply buy that team), but about adding an extra team.

  17. Strongly agree & garage accomodiability should be a non-issue since the same pit buildings had enough space for 12 teams in 2010-12.

    1. Rather accommodation

    2. the same pit buildings had enough space for 12 teams in 2010-12.


      1. There are more than enough tracks that can accomodate 26 cars. Those that don’t have no place in the calendar if there are 26 cars on the grid.

      2. Zandvoort will have extra garages from 2024 onward. In August, Dutch GP sporting director Jan Lammers said: ‘Should the F1 field of 20 cars ever extend to 22 we are also ready for it. But for this moment, the primary reason is safety and space.’ (reporting by Adam Cooper)

        1. notagrumpyfan
          13th November 2023, 6:57

          Not sure if those will be ready for 2010-2012 as claimed by @Jerejj ;)

  18. I mean, who in the seven hells would prefer the smaller grid, especially since most of us (except most recent fans of course) are used to having at least 11 teams on the grid? We as fans have no reason to want to see lesser number of teams. And if they don’t want to allow 11th team, I wish we could force them to reduce the number to two or three teams (since less is better), and let them fight it out between themselves. I mean, I don’t need Haas in F1. Does anybody? The only reason why I prefer them to stay is to have more cars on the grid. It’s not like I’d miss modern Sauber as well. I could live without any individual team to be honest. If they don’t want to allow newcomers, than the best course of action would be to have them all replaced. I’d enjoy in new F1 with new, less pretentious teams and more purity of motor racing.

  19. Just from a fan’s point of view: the more teams the better. I don’t even really understand the 13 team limit, but if they want to enforce it, why not change it into “Top 26 cars in qualy will qualify to the race” or something like that? I don’t care if you’re American, Chinese or Saudi Arabian. If you have enough funds and intelligence tu run a (107%) competitive F1 team, just do it

  20. If ever the American market was being handed to the FIA/F1 on a silver platter, then this is it!

    Don’t be dumb…let them in!

  21. Those “Against” arguments are such a weak sauce, haha, you tried your best.

    F1’s grid should consist of 26 cars (13 teams). The “significant” logistical challenges to overcome are a joke in such a million billion dollar business. Back in the 90s every team would bring 3 cars to the weekend and there was enough room for that.

    1. Yup. And anyone with basic common sense and even just average intelligence could think of a dozen ways to solve the phantom problem of not enough garage space.

  22. Coventry Climax
    12th November 2023, 17:20

    Does it matter whether they ‘deserve’ it or not? If they want to compete, then let them compete.
    If they fail, they fail, if they succeed, they succeed.
    That’s all there is to it.

    Of course you need a racket if you want to play tennis, and some shoes would be nice too. But ‘deserve’? What kind of nonsense is that?

  23. The last thing perhaps anyone would want to see is another Haas. So, hope GM-Andretti will bring something competitive.

  24. José Lopes da Silva
    12th November 2023, 17:37

    Business owners protect their business and fans protect their sport. It’s simple.
    Sport must prevail. Business owners then adapt their business.
    Bring 6 new cars yesterday.

    1. Eloquent, succinct and spot on. Kind of an end of debate answer.

      Because fans care about the sport, I think they would actually be quite sympathetic to team concerned about another team if these were lean times like 2009 and likely be right there with them championing to solidify the financial health of existing teams before expanding the grid. But the fans can clearly see between the budget cap having massively reduced costs and stronger than ever revenue and profits, there’s enough income to accommodate another team.

  25. Do Andretti-Cadillac deserve a place on the Formula 1 grid?

    In my mind (in there amongst all the weird muttering voices) they don’t have to deserve it. They just have to fulfill the criteria set to qualify for a place. And, as far as I understand, so they do.

  26. Anybody deserves a spot on the Formula 1 grid as long as their car can get past the 107% cut. While the extremes of 1989 aren’t what F1 should strive for, 20 cars is too little. I would even go over 26 cars on some tracks.

  27. Of course – let them have their shot. The sooner the better: I’m intrigued when it’s reported they want to start in 2025, the year before the engine rules change.

    Talking of additional cars, will Sunny Haze and Stuart Pearce (or whatever his generic movie name was) be back for the Vegas GP?

    1. According to various reports, Andretti had an option with Renault, but that expired. Recently suggested that Ferrari was considering supplying engines to Andretti in the two years before GM expects to be able to make their own. The idea being that with the loss of Sauber as a costumer, Ferrari would lack the political clout of their rivals since they’d then only be supplying Haas.

      I suppose we’ll see how it turns out. But they do need a supplier for 2025 if they want to debut then. It’d make no sense for GM to make an engine for one season only.

  28. Strongly agree. Only because there isn’t a ‘very strongly agree’. There’s no genuine argument for not accepting the application. And to be honest, it’s not as though the current eight non-Red Bull teams are doing that good a job of producing a decent competition. Shaking them up a bit sounds a good idea, plus it’s good for the drivers (more teams, more competition for them).

  29. Red Bull over spent the cap because of their catering bill, allegedly, all teams could cut back on their catering budgets and allow another team in.

    1. That would work – they could all go to Red Bull for dinner. Bringing their own drinks, of course.

      1. Pot luck dinners using the tire warmers to keep the food warm and tire guns to mix the food. Part of the Drive United campaign.

  30. Jacques Paquet
    12th November 2023, 21:59

    It will not be competitive. Instead of going into an agressive recruitment drive with genuine good talents, looking at LinkedIn they seem to recruit F1 rejects so far.
    Yay. Another Manor. Well done lads.

    1. You’re telling me that an organization that doesn’t even have an entry yet isn’t able to hire the most qualified talent right now?! Wow, shocker. 🤦‍♂️

  31. Oh wow, has there ever been a stronger poll? Maybe knockout qualifying?

  32. Yes.
    That fact that it seems to annoy the other teams makes me want to see it happen more.

    You need new blood once in a while.

    Otherwise you’re just maintaining a status-quo, with existing teams resting of their laurels as they sit upon their fiefdoms.

    It really rubs me the wrong way that team owners have a say in this.

    Like that “Super League” wealthy football team owners attempted to start for themselves. Wanting to control who’s “worthy” enough to be allowed in their clubhouse.

    If Andretti passed the application process, then they deserve to have their chance to compete.

    Besides, if Liberty want to boast that F1 is growing, this is a way to show it. Put your money where your mouth is.
    If they want more stories, more headlines, more on track action, more eyeballs on the product; I fail to see how allowing a new team doesn’t help.
    Especially with their pursuit of the american market, by having an established american racing brand join.

    And if Andretti is refused entry, then what?
    What message does that send?
    Only manufacturers allowed in F1?

    Because manufacturers have always been such paragons of stability when it comes to sticking with motorsport programs,
    Just ask… 8 of the 10 existing teams…

  33. I’m very strongly for more teams. I think F1 is at the bare minimum with 10 teams. Too vividly I remember the recession of 2008 with three manufacturers leaving F1 within one year. Moreover, the last time a team went defunct (Manor), no viable buyers were found and the team disappeared without a successor.

  34. Yes. modern f1 is far too sterile, we need more teams and action. Between 1994 and 2020 i watched every f1 race, in the last couple of years i missed a few. This year i have only watched 1 after the failed rule chang tp the car designs. Heres hoping 2026 might yield something, but i much prefer watching Indycar these days, and with hybrid on Indycars next year, it will be far more interesting than f1. apart from a handful of classic tracks like spa/silverstone/interlagos, most of the F1 tracks suck utter ballsack now and it is so dissapointing to see how sterile the series has got. At least in Indycar you have amazing tracks nearly every race, and only 3 oval tracks now for the bizarre haters of ovals.

  35. 97% of votes in agreement. That is amazing! There’s never been such agreement in any vote on this site I believe, @keithcollantine? Hopefully you can still this under the noses of the F1 powers that be?

  36. “Excuse me, but has anyone noticed the elephant in the room?” “What elephant? … Is there an elephant in the room … oh there … why, yes, now that you mention it … How strange, I just didn’t see it, there right in the middle of the room, under the chandelier, is a huge grey elephant.”
    My understanding is some teams get more than just the standard prize money payouts. All the teams get paid a mixture of an equal portion of the TV rights payout and a performance based division of the payout, but some teams get a bonus which the rest of the teams are entitled to. I don’t see why GM – Andretti (or whoever) couldn’t be paid with money taken from that bonus fund. Yes, I’m sure those teams that get the bonus can justify every bonus cent they get, but this isn’t about the past, this is about the future. Can F1 pay GM – Andretti the same as all the other teams without affecting the normal team payouts? Yes. How? Reduce the bonus pool payout by the amount of money needed to pay GM – Andretti (or whoever).

    1. That’s not new news and it’s not just a rumor. It’s in black and white.

  37. I’m puzzled at this situation, where teams have say at rules, and who can join the F1 show?

Comments are closed.