FIA opens F1 2011 new team selection

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ardius
  • 137 comments
  • 17,030 views

Who should be let in for 2011?

  • Prodrive/Aston Martin

    Votes: 54 52.9%

  • Lola

    Votes: 13 12.7%

  • Epsilon Euskadi

    Votes: 7 6.9%

  • RML (Ray Mallock Limited)

    Votes: 1 1.0%

  • N Technology

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • USF1

    Votes: 14 13.7%

  • StefanGP

    Votes: 12 11.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • Total voters
    102
European (mostly Italian) media are claiming Jacques Villeneuve has made Dietrich Mateschitz an offer of thirty million Euros for Toro Rosso. Mateschitz denies that he's looking to offload the team, but apparently most of the paddock believe Toro Rosso will appear on the grid in new colours next season.
 
I wouldnt mind that at all. As it stands now Torro Rosso just tends to not get noticed at all. I cant think of the last time (at least on speed) that they have been talked about at all except when one of there drivers end up in an incident, which is not even that often. With another outfit taking over they will no longer just be the team in the back keeping a low profile with drivers just waiting to go to the main team.
 
That would be good news as long as Villeneuve could run the team decently. As it currently stands STR is nothing but a R&D team for Red Bull and really has no shot of actually being more than a mid-pack team. Although I have always liked their liveries more than the "A" team.
 
Frankly, I don't see why anyone would want to enter F1 with all the testing restrictions in place: A team would have to practice and test in private for three to five years before even appearing in the paddock...a lot of money to and time spent with no immediate benefit. An impatient specialist media would discredit that type of activity that declares itself as "sport". A serious auto manufacturer would have had that type of dough years ago, but not so nowadays, as F1 seems a bit more frivolous in the portfolio.

Unless there's massive rule changes or a patient multi-billionaire waiting in the wings, bolstered by a real support structure and design crew, and a raft of equally-patient sponsors...I just don't see it happening, unless they want just have fun with being at or near the back of the grid.
 
Justin
That would be good news as long as Villeneuve could run the team decently.
Click to expand...
My concern here is that Villeneuve will try and run the team and drive at the same time. And that's going to be a serious problem, as Mark Skaife demonstrated a few years ago. He bought a V8 Supercar team and raced in another and instantly had a performance slump. If Villeneuve tries to juggle the two, it's just going to be a waste of a seat.
 
Pupik
Frankly, I don't see why anyone would want to enter F1 with all the testing restrictions in place: A team would have to practice and test in private for three to five years before even appearing in the paddock...a lot of money to and time spent with no immediate benefit. An impatient specialist media would discredit that type of activity that declares itself as "sport". A serious auto manufacturer would have had that type of dough years ago, but not so nowadays, as F1 seems a bit more frivolous in the portfolio.

Unless there's massive rule changes or a patient multi-billionaire waiting in the wings, bolstered by a real support structure and design crew, and a raft of equally-patient sponsors...I just don't see it happening, unless they want just have fun with being at or near the back of the grid.
Click to expand...

Thats what you get when you make the sport professional, like all sports, you cannot expect to just turn up and win.

The same criticism can be aimed at all professional motorsports, not just F1.
You cannot win Le Mans first try.
You cannot win the WRC first try.
All of them require vast sums of money, yes, F1 requires more than the rest but then F1 attracts sponsors far easier.

Motorsport should not be directly compared with ordinary sports, there are some costs involved which are part of its nature (and hence why it can never be a sport which is popular broadly, its difficult for people to become involved in the sport without money).

I don't see what rule changes can be made to make the sport as cheap as chips. It certainly can be improved and made a bit easier for new teams, but we are not talking organising your own basketball team here. I would be more tempted to say that said "specialist sports media" don't know what they are talking about.

Its unrealistic to the extreme to expect to come in and be a front-runner, you are always going to be at the back, even without testing restrictions, even with major rule changes. You can't create years of experience running an F1 team from nowhere. Is the sport wrong for being like that? Well, can a Conference League football team give a Premier League football team a run for its money? Probably not.

Toyota prepared for years before entering Formula 1 and they epic failed. Allowing people to prepare is a small part, the bigger problem is simply costs.
 
Last edited:
Ardius
Thats what you get when you make the sport professional, like all sports, you cannot expect to just turn up and win.
Click to expand...

Well, I prefer it when teams "climb the ladder" and join the sport. Heck, I root for Coloni in GP2, because they tried the top rung and still stick with it just below the peak of the mountain.

Until 1980-81, a couple of investors could buy a car and show up as a private entrant. The original Concorde Agreement killed that off; it was in the better interest of the ongoing FOCA-FISA war. I am skeptical when investors get in with little or no formal racing experience, not solely because I feel they bought their way in, but because history shows us that:

[1] Racing does not reap great financial rewards: This isn't 1910; cobbling together production cars out of racing success is no longer a glory road.

[2] The most successful investors get bored whether successful (sell for profit) or not (bail water!), unless they're genuine gearheads.

Le Mans is a sports-car racing invitational (like certain golf tournaments), so it's sort of its own entity via the ACO. They set their own entry rules, which is why for many years it wasn't part of the FIA World Championship of Makes.

I stand by my opinion on entering F1 based on a fan, I'm all for "the more, the merrier", but rules make it ridiculously hard to enter, let alone compete. On the other hand, while I understand that auto manufacturers have the resources to compete, foot the bills, and have "star power", they get little return on investment unless they're trying to make a name for themselves, like any other sponsor. (Ferrari is sort of the exception to the rule, although they've had little to do with other forms of racing since 1973; by tradition and myth, they've carried the archetype-ideal in point #1.)

The wall is tough enough by the suppressed innovation created in the sport, and many of the testing restrictions and regulations are quite difficult hurdles to inspire new teams to enter. On the other hand, having a near-Formula Libre is akin to asking NASA to construct a car; it's not really within the spirit of anything, although there's eventual road-going innovation that might come out of it.
 
I'm more of the opinion that the teams that have failed have not done a good enough job, rather than blaming the sport. All of the teams that have gone out of the sport lately were due to bad management causing a loss of sponsors and support. This also applies to the manufacturers, though BMW simply chose not to race in F1 anymore. Honda and Toyota were cases of bad management.
We simply haven't had many new teams for a long time really though and I would blame the manufacturers and the FIA for this, building up an ideal of "it has to be road relevant, spend loads of money developing parts to win".

I think that they are already going in the right direction in some ways trying to make it easier for the new teams but at the same time I don't think it should too much easier anyway.
There is only so much cost cutting that can be done and there has to be decision on whether to keep F1 as a relatively free formula or make it more and more spec. As long as its a free formula where you can develop the cars, its always going to be the teams with the most money who will usually win, as they can hire the clever staff and they can setup acadamies and talent scouts to ensure they remain there.

I really don't see any way around the money problem. Even in spec series, the teams with more money tend to win.

I think at some point F1 is going to have to question the point of its aerodynamic-focus. Eventually they will have to move away from relying on aerodynamics to gain advantages and to pour money into.
 
Ardius
I really don't see any way around the money problem. Even in spec series, the teams with more money tend to win.
Click to expand...
There is no way; although asking an $30-48 million entry free is totally absurd. A few million would be sufficient to catch out most crooks. Even if you had a money restriction, every team would probably "cook the books". It's best not to waste time trying to police it.

I think at some point F1 is going to have to question the point of its aerodynamic-focus. Eventually they will have to move away from relying on aerodynamics to gain advantages and to pour money into.
Click to expand...
I feel that it's the last bastion of the sport in which there's some freedom to create things the way the team wants. There's not a whole lot left beyond the rules for massive or unorthodox drivetrain and engine advancement.

On the other hand, the latest aero-packages are mostly unique to a circuit; since the first wings sprouted from mere spoilers to scaffolding in 1968, they've offered little to road cars, since they rarely operate in the type of environment where a ginormous coefficient of friction is beneficial for the effectively "lightswitch" power delivery F1 cars produce, along with their super-responsive handling reflexes.

It's going to be really hard to regulate either one in the technical equation; there's smaller areas to conquer on the car because so many more are forbidden or tightly-regulated.
 
Pupik
There is no way; although asking an $30-48 million entry free is totally absurd. A few million would be sufficient to catch out most crooks. Even if you had a money restriction, every team would probably "cook the books". It's best not to waste time trying to police it.
Click to expand...

That is absurd because its not true:

James Allen
The new Judging Body of the World Motor Sport Council imposed some heavy sanctions against USF1, “a fine of 309,000 euros (a sum equivalent to the Entry Fees for the Championship);
Click to expand...

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/06/fia-throws-the-book-at-usf1/

Where did you get that figure from?

£30-40 million is the size of Lotus and Virgn's budgets! They would never even have gotten to Bahrain if that was the entry fee! Hispania wouldn't even have been allowed entry!
 
Last edited:
...could have sworn it was at one point...jeez, I must be losing it.

Banning a team from ever competing in F1 just because they can't jump though enough flaming hoops is one of the most Draconian and arrogant decisions I've ever heard of from the FIA. Maybe it's my occasional fits of red-white-and-blue pride getting bruised, but it sure reeks of country-club mentality, since many smaller teams and star-crossed dreamers give it a shot on paper and never turn up with a car or transporter.

To hell with it, the FIA might as well ban all new-comers that ever drew an unlicensed and/or practical F1 design in study hall! Fear this, all teenagers!
 
Last edited:
The idea behind it is to weed out teams that never should have been applying in the first place. If it were open season on grid entires, you'd get a lot of companies looking for a quick PR boost by announcing plans to form a team when they have no intention of actually doing so. The entry fee is a good faith payment to demonstrate a new team's comitment to compete for a whole season.
 
Pupik
...could have sworn it was at one point...jeez, I must be losing it.

Banning a team from ever competing in F1 just because they can't jump though enough flaming hoops is one of the most Draconian and arrogant decisions I've ever heard of from the FIA. Maybe it's my occasional fits of red-white-and-blue pride getting bruised, but it sure reeks of country-club mentality, since many smaller teams and star-crossed dreamers give it a shot on paper and never turn up with a car or transporter.

To hell with it, the FIA might as well ban all new-comers that ever drew an unlicensed and/or practical F1 design in study hall! Fear this, all teenagers!
Click to expand...

The entry fee is nothing if you have a proper budget, and not a "budget" like Stefan GP. Hispania's supposed season budget was $20 million (plus whatever they are finding from pay drivers), Virgin's is ~$30 million, Lotus is ~$40/50 million, etc. A few hundred thousand just to enter the championship is really peanuts. If you find it difficult to pay that money, then you are going to be struggling to finish the season.

Entry fees are common practice in all forms of motorsport too. Like I said, if you want professional sport, you have to start determining which entries are "professional" and which are not. There is a certain standard that has to be met and the FIA wish to see teams that can finish the season and add value to the championship, not also-rans that barely make it to each race.
As much I enjoy the various stories of the smaller teams that struggle on, I can't say I want to see the sport filled with them. I'd rather see a small team of the Minardi type rather than someone like Stefan or even USF1.
 
Last edited:
interludes
The idea behind it is to weed out teams that never should have been applying in the first place.
Click to expand...

Ardius
Entry fees are common practice in all forms of motorsport too.
Click to expand...

I did state that I don't mind the entry fee [read above]; you can't even show up to a local autocross without paying an entry fee: It should carry a price tag, just not a tremendous one.

But when the FIA is partly to blame for its own due diligence towards checking on USF1, things get a little hazy when they get banned-for-life out of what apparently boils down to impatience. Yes, USF1 wasn't ready and was ill-informed on getting their crap together. Yes, HRT has a right to their grid spot. Yes, the FIA is invoking its rights to its vested interests, but with no clear technical rule book for the future, it's a rough road for teams to enter.
 
USF1 was a joke though, they had no chance at all of making the first race. It became more and more obvious as time wore on. The FIA simply needed a proper reason to kick them out, as you need proof not suspicion alone. You imply that USF1 would have made it if the FIA had been patient, which is simply not the case.

I think it says more that the FIA learnt from that and has not allowed any new entry this year.
Maybe we should try to differentiate between Mosley-era FIA and Todt-era FIA, as its partly Mosley's fault for swapping the 2010 regulations around so much that screwed those new teams over. So far, Todt has been doing a decent job in my opinion, and its not really been given much coverage in the media.
And as far I can tell, there is a clear technical rule book for the future - the very one FOTA recently put together and that the FIA is likely to agree to for 2013. 2011 is simply 2010 regulations without the double diffusers, not really unclear is it?
 
There's already a thread on that out there. If Porsche do come back, it will most likely be as an engine supplier and nothing more.
 

Latest Posts

Back