53 replies to this topic

[Henk Vasmel]

When hearing about Andretti being forced to have a bespoke engine and be successful from the start, I thought that this was a very new level to be required from a new entry. Then I thought back into the history of FIA World Championship racing, and without regarding to any teams being forced this way, I wanted to know how many teams were debuting with their own engines and being successful in the same time. This is the list I came up with. Successful is regarding what is expected of Andretti now.

 

1950

Make/Team:       Alfa Romeo

Result:                  1/FL

Successful:          Yes

 

Make/Team:       Delage

Result:                  Refused Entry

Successful:          No

 

Make/Team:       ERA

Result:                  6

Successful:          No

 

Make/Team:       Ferrai

Result:                  2, First win 1951, First WC: 1952

Successful:          Yes

 

Make/Team:       Maserati

Result:                  T-car, first Victory/title: 1957

Successful:          Yes

 

Make/Team:       Ralph Miller

Result:                  NQ

Successful:          No

 

Make/Team:       Gordini/Simca-Gordini

Result:                  4

Successful:          No

 

Make/Team:       SVA

Result:                  DNA

Successful:          No

 

Make/Team:       Talbot

Result:                  3

Successful:          Not really

 

1951:

Make/Team:       BRM

Result:                  5, First Win 1959, WC: 1962

Successful:          OK

 

Make/Team:       Ford

Result:                  DNA / Camera car 1966

Successful:          No

 

1952:

Make/Team:       Aston-Butterworth

Result:                  R

Successful:          No

 

Make/Team:       Cisitalia

Result:                  DNS

Successful:          No

 

Make/Team:       Frazer-Nash

Result:                  21

Successful:          No

 

1954:

Make/Team:       Lancia

Result:                  R, FL

Successful:          No

 

Make/Team:       Mercedes-Benz

Result:                  1, FL, World Champion

Successful:          Yes

 

Make/Team:       Pegaso

Result:                  DNA

Successful:          No

 

Make/Team:       Vanwall

Result:                  7, First win 1957, Constructors Champions

Successful:          Yes

 

1956:

Make/Team:       Bugatti

Result:                  R

Successful:          No

 

1957:

Make/Team:       Porsche

Result:                  12, First Victory 1962

Successful:          No

 

1959:

Make/Team:       Aston Martin

Result:                   6

Successful:          No

 

1960:

Make/Team:       Scarab

Result:                  10

Successful:          No

 

1963:

Make/Team:       ATS

Result:                  11

Successful:          No

 

1964:

Make/Team:       Honda

Result:                  13, crashed, First Victory 1965

Successful:          Not really

 

1969:

Make/Team:       BMW

Result:                  DNS

Successful:          No

 

Make/Team:       Cosworth

Result:                  DNA

Successful:          NO

 

1972:

Make/Team:       Tecno

Result:                  17, NC

Successful:          No

 

1977:

Make/Team:       Renault

Result:                  R, First Victory 1979

Successful:          More or less

 

1985:

Make/Team:       Zakspeed

Result:                  11

Successful:          No

 

1991:

Make/Team:       Lamborghini

Result:                  7

Successful:          No

 

2002:

Make/Team:       Toyota

Result:                  6

Successful:          No

 

The only teams that ended up as successful started in the fifties, more than half a century ago, with the exception of Mercedes. That one could be coupled to the fifties team of Mercedes-Benz, which then makes that Vanwall is the last one to make it according to these rules, with even Honda and Renault not really making it.

Is this fair to Andretti?

 

 

Edit: I removed a second mention of Porsche in 1962 because that one was left in accidentally. And the 2010 entry of Mercedes, because the engine used was already in use as a customer engine, so it does not count as a "new" engine.

And the fact that it starts from 1950 is because we take the continuing World Championship as basis. We could extend further back but then we also need to consider non-championship races, and it suddenly becomes a huge job, with less relevance to the current situation.

Edited by Henk Vasmel, 10 February 2024 - 12:09.

[Porsche718]

Well researched Henk.

 

Of course it is unfair, but the truth behind the rejection of Andretti's entry into Formula One has nothing to do with their ability to be "competitive", it has more to do the other ten teams not wanting their "slice of the pie" to be lessened.

 

I think Frederic Vasseur (Ferrari) also makes a valid point.

 

One of Andretti's stated claims in his application is that he wants to increase the appeal of F1 to the American audience (a huge market for sure), and certainly a good outcome for all concerned.

 

But as Vasseur says, a totally American entry (chassis AND engine) will not achieve that aim, only a talented American driver will.

 

And the likelihood of that happening is next to zero.

 

We have seen drivers from my part of the world (NZ and Australia) who show talent and go straight to Europe to do all their learning. There is little opportunity here for high-level open-wheeler racing. Some like Liam Lawson and Oscar Piastri we have never even seen race in this hemisphere.

 

So they did all their learning in Europe, and were seen by those who matter.

 

If the US wants to have even one truly successful driver in F1, they need to do the same. Send half a dozen promising drivers to Europe, let them learn and be seen. But ...

 

... there is so much money in even the second and third tier open-wheeler racing series in the US, they won't leave. And it would be fair to say, one shouldn't blame them staying in the US to earn a living or support families etc.

 

Perhaps the US need to form some sort of scholarship program where the drivers will earn a generous income while learning the ropes in Europe to entice them to take the chance? 

 

I mean, in earlier years NZ and OZ have had some fairly successful "Driver to Europe" series winners progress to higher levels via a limited scholarship system.

 

Just my thoughts,

 

Steve W

Edited by Porsche718, 10 February 2024 - 08:40.

[uechtel]

I think you are trying to compare the incomparable. There were no 'entries' in the sense of today´s regulations before F1 became a closed series starting in 1981. There could be no such criteria as the whole concept was fundamentally different. Your entry could be accepted or refused by individual race organisers, but not by "F1" itself. F1 was just a set of technical specifications and if your car complied to these regulations you were running in an F1 car no matter what kind of race you did participate in.

 

Also to regard 1950 as the start of everything appears absolutely wrong to me. Most of the teams you have listed as debutants can not be regarded really to be newcomers. Alfa Romeo and Maserati for example were doing GP racing continuously from the 1920ies and also took part in F1 racing from 1948. Mercedes did a successful re-appearance in 1954, but of course they had already vast and successful GP experience.

Further, as I understand, Andretti was turned away because they would not be able to be competitive right from start. That criterium would also disqualify Vanwall, BRM etc. in your list. Maybe even Ferrari, regarding their 1948 season...

 

Your mention of Mercedes in 2010 appears very strange to me. Neither team nor engine were new. It was just a new name for the same previous combination. You would have to deal in the same way with the Renault team of 2002 (winning World Championship titles in 2005/2006, not too bad an achievement...). Similar examples would be Alfa Romeo (1979, with much lesser success) or - the other way round - Matra (1970). The latter being already successful even BEFORE entering as a  "complete" manufacturer, so who will come to top that one?

 

 

Is this fair to Andretti?

But to your final question, I think all the historic stats are leading to nothing. My clear answer is "No". Fairness is a concept in sport, not in business.

[john aston]

F1 has become a shabby little cartel , populated by teams who call themselves 'brands' . Some of those most vociferously opposed - like Williams' boss James Vowles - are apparently unaware of their own team's erratic entry in to F1 . Others - especially the new breed of Drive to Survive fan - airily dismiss Andretti after 5 minutes 'research'  on Wikipedia . In their judgment Michael was was blown away by Ayrton and had no wins and Mario is from the Pre Cambrian era when dinosaurs stalked the earth . So ..who do these American  upstarts think they are,  eh ?   

 

It is a bloody disgrace . 

Edited by john aston, 10 February 2024 - 09:18.

[Doug Nye]

Uechtel's pay off line applies in spades to this disappointingly shabby yet unsurprising current situation.

 

"Fairness is a concept in sport, not in business."

 

DCN

[opplock]

 

 

We have seen drivers from my part of the world (NZ and Australia) who show talent and go straight to Europe to do all their learning. There is little opportunity here for high-level open-wheeler racing. Some like Liam Lawson and Oscar Piastri we have never even seen race in this hemisphere.

 

So they did all their learning in Europe, and were seen by those who matter.

 

 

 

True for Piastri but not for Lawson. He competed in NZ Formula First (Formula Vee), FF1600, Australian F4 and won the 2019 Toyota Racing Series (beating Marcus Armstrong). TRS is the nearest thing NZ has to top level single seater racing. A sad fact for those of us who attended Tasman races in the 60s and 70s. It is however much the same in Europe. The British F3 championship fizzled out about a decade ago (5 cars at the last race I attended at Brands) and the top level national series is GB3 - a similar level to TRS. The only opportunity to see the F2 and F3 series is at the British GP a meeting I last attended when Johnny Herbert won. Germany, France and Italy all had F3 series before BCE and his cronies creamed off all of the talent and money into the F1 support series GP2 and GP3 (now rebranded F2 and F3). 

 

"Shabby little cartel" - well said.    

[Porsche718]

True for Piastri but not for Lawson. 

 

Quite correct.  

 

It is however much the same in Europe. 

 

So what are you suggesting are the feeder categories for GP3 and GP2? (or F3 and F2 such as were support for last years Aust. GP)

[opplock]

Quite correct.  

 

 

So what are you suggesting are the feeder categories for GP3 and GP2? (or F3 and F2 such as were support for last years Aust. GP)

 

Formula 4 is the base level. There are various series at similar level to TRS. Rather like the old FF1600/FF2000 setup. Those without a budget for F3 tended to race in FF2000. These days many 17 and 18 year olds switch from single seaters to GT racing once it becomes apparent that either they are not the next Verstappen or daddy can't finance doing F3/F2.   

[10kDA]

The Andretti situation is one more example of the sort of thing that destroyed my interest in F1 - beyond the equipment. It's a closed-loop system, at least on the administrative side, run as an entertainment package provided to locals who can afford to pay for the privilege of putting on an event. The financial side is not closed. The huge open top of the cash funnel can never be filled beyond capacity. It's a lot like professional wrestling in that the promoters and the fans know what they are getting and the results at the end of the weekend have become minor variables.

 

About 5 years ago I took a survey that I believe was sourced from the business entity known as F1 that included a multiple choice question asking something about how excited I, as a consumer, became over the "intrigue" aspect of F1 off-track, ranked 1 to 5, lowest to highest. As I recall, "0" was not an option so I couldn't answer accurately. What's happening with Andretti pushes my answer into the negative numbers. It's not fair but it's totally in line with how the business is run.

[DCapps]

As pointed out, there is Now and there was Then. The obsessive focus on "F1" by the usually hapless FIA has much to do with its being, if not a cash cow, at least a source of income.

In addition to being a self-licking ice cream cone, it is Great and the Pinnacle of Motor Sport because, well, it says it is, it exists in the Here And Now, with its icon being Gordon Gekko.

"History" is a opportunity for financial gain and manipulation, e.g., the Emirates F1 70th Anniversary Grand Prix of August 2020.

Interesting that although "F1" is owned by a USA-based company, it is still the same ol' Eurocentric/ Anglocentiric clown act.

As pointed out, usually to deaf ears and blind eyes, Things Did Change beginning with the 1981 season in "F1" as a result of the FIA cashing in...

Oh, well, interesting that the Official Propaganda Web Site for F1 doesn't yet seem to let anyone know that the Andretti bid got rejected by the Milton Friedman Brigade.

Then again, there has long been more interesting things on in the realm of "racing politics and finances" than on the track...

[DCapps]

Oh, as far as Henk's interesting analysis goes, anything prior to 1981 is not relevant, an entirely different set of parameters, there being a very, very different sport since 1981.

 

Like it or not, whether you noticed it or not, Things Changed in 1981 and today's FIA Formula 1 World Championship series reflects that.

It is not the Championnat du Monde des Conducteurs and the Coupe Internationale des Constucteurs Formule 1 of Ancient Days, all that died on 31 December 1980.

 

F1 has morphed into something akin to the Premier League or the American NFL, a business that employs "sport" to make money. 

But, such is life in the 21st century, we cannot act all indignant and dismayed at any of this, it is, as they say, nothing personal, strictly business.

 

Watching 'F1" is probably a bit better than watching paint dry, even if by only the narrowest of margins in recent years, and the hype is overwhelming for the most part, but so it goes.

Edited by DCapps, 10 February 2024 - 15:34.

[Nathan]

What about Stewart, which was largely a proxy for Ford?  BAR was also interesting in that is had mega corporate backing, some motorsportsy names involved, and a 3/4 interested car maker.  For me, Andretti is similar in nature to BAR.

[john aston]

DC - I disagree . It's temptingly easy to dismiss modern F1 as being powered by hype and hoopla , and much of the fanbase loves the showbiz  side. That   is their choice but it isn't mine- I could do without the social media frenzy , the pantomime villains in the pitlane , the crappy circuits in crappy countries, the endless radio conversations, the near spec formula it now risks becoming and the fact (admit it , I do ) that the wrong people like my sport . 

 

But ....I went to  Silverstone in '22 for 2 days practice and qualifying - and it was as every bit as thrilling as it ever was.The cars may be a little subdued (but the literally deafening scream of V8s and V10s could get a tad wearing ) but the speed ....Jeez - watching Verstappen and Norris pitch their 1000 bhp cars into Copse at 180mph was utterly mesmerising . The racing might  be processional at one race but nail-bitingly  close at the next one -so , same as it ever was .

 

I lose no  sleep over the fact that it's no longer un Championnat nor un  Coupe  . 

Edited by john aston, 10 February 2024 - 16:56.

[Jim Thurman]

it is, as they say, nothing personal, strictly business.

Don, who is Tessio* in all of this?

 

*as played wonderfully by Abe Vigoda

[HistoryFan]

They want not to divide the money with another team, that's all.

[DCapps]

Don, who is Tessio* in all of this?

 

*as played wonderfully by Abe Vigoda

 

Jim, the listing is too long to provide at the moment...

[F1matt]

I realise that Andretti has been vetoed because the other teams want to keep a larger slice of the pie and on that ground alone the decision is wrong. Like most televised sport F1 is a slick well run operation, I credit that mostly to Bernie Ecclestone and Liberty have come in and added the WWE effect, which has made the sport popular which is their goal, my opinion as a 70s child who watched races at the track with his parents are irrelevant to the sports owners and stakeholders.

 

We are in an era when all the teams turn up for all the races, we have full grids at every race, they have qualified within a couple of seconds of each other and unless there is freakish moment nobody is going to be lapped more than once, if we took the current world champion out of the equation we would have tight races and tight championships which I think is what Liberty and most fans want. All the cars on the grid are of a high standard, they are safe, and well turned out. We all know we don't have to go back that far when this wasn't the case and we would have teams miss occasional races due to finance issues, or if you are Ferrari "industrial action", we would have cars who failed to qualify, we would have cars that were around 6 seconds a lap slower than the leaders, and we had cars that the teams knew would never make the finish but they were picking up the cheques from some rich playboy who was happy to circle around for half a race at the back and would retire because the car failed or he got tired. 

 

When Haas entered F1 they had a solid engineering background and built a good relationship with Ferrari and IIRC Dallara, on paper they should have made a bigger impact but they are nowhere and Gene Haas now looks to be losing interest, with the greatest respect to Andretti from what I can see they have succeeded in spec series where thy buy a car, engine, and gearbox off the shelf and use their very famous name to bring on sponsors, their project gained traction when SPACs were all the rage and you could raise money for just about anything, what makes their entry any different to an application from ART, Prema, or Arden, teams who are already on the support package? 

 

It is going to be interesting to watch how Audi do and how they are approaching F1, taking over an existing team and bringing in their own power plant, I don't believe anyone thinks they will be winning races within 5 years of their first race so what can we realistically expect from a team relying on their name? F1 has made inroads into the American market because of Liberty and having multiple races in the US, only an American driver can take the interest to the next level for Americans. Or failing that one of the drivers starts dating Taylor Swift. 

[Porsche718]

Gene Haas now looks to be losing interest, 

 

Perhaps Andretti should make an offer to buy out Haas, remove the Ferrari engine and install the Cadillac?

 

May make everyone happy.

 

But ... they will still be at the back!

Edited by Porsche718, 11 February 2024 - 13:14.

[d j fox]

Indeed a very predictable yet still despicable response from “effwun”….. Who needs GM/ Cadillac on the grid anyway?!!!
FYI If I understand US media hype correctly Taylor Swift is apparently going to win today’s Super Bowl ( a 60 minute American football game that takes 4 hours to complete)

[john aston]

 

 

We are in an era when all the teams turn up for all the races, we have full grids at every race, they have qualified within a couple of seconds of each other and unless there is freakish moment nobody is going to be lapped more than once, if we took the current world champion out of the equation we would have tight races and tight championships which I think is what Liberty and most fans want. All the cars on the grid are of a high standard, they are safe, and well turned out. We all know we don't have to go back that far when this wasn't the case and we would have teams miss occasional races due to finance issues, or if you are Ferrari "industrial action", we would have cars who failed to qualify, we would have cars that were around 6 seconds a lap slower than the leaders, and we had cars that the teams knew would never make the finish but they were picking up the cheques from some rich playboy who was happy to circle around for half a race at the back and would retire because the car failed or he got tired. 

 

 

 I miss the era when we had no hopes (like Frank Williams) struggling to qualify , and the heroically unreliable teams like Zakspeed and Toleman. Whatever happened to the latter I wonder? Oh ,they are Alpine F1 . And the other team founded by a World Champion , Stewart, after an apprenticeship in F3 ? It's now Red Bull .    

[MCS]

I miss motor racing as it once was - when it was closer to being a sport and there was an inherent prospect of potentially different outcomes, real competition and variety and, dare I say, fair play.

 

I find it abhorrent these days and haven't watched it for many, many years, but I stand on the outside looking in every once in a while.

 

The Andretti rejection doesn't appear to be logical to me and has all the hallmarks of a cartel made decision based primarily on self-interest and greed.

 

But that's probably not surprising given the individuals involved.

Edited by MCS, 11 February 2024 - 18:10.

[F1matt]

Perhaps Andretti should make an offer to buy out Haas, remove the Ferrari engine and install the Cadillac?

 

May make everyone happy.

 

But ... they will still be at the back!

 

 

 

It would provide a quick route to owning an F1 team and a guaranteed entry, maybe the price to buy an existing team is too high? 

 

 

 I miss the era when we had no hopes (like Frank Williams) struggling to qualify , and the heroically unreliable teams like Zakspeed and Toleman. Whatever happened to the latter I wonder? Oh ,they are Alpine F1 . And the other team founded by a World Champion , Stewart, after an apprenticeship in F3 ? It's now Red Bull .    

 

 

Some great examples above, all needed a huge cash injection at some point to take them to the next level, sadly for Zakspeed, possibly the bravest for turning up with their own engine and car never got that far. We also have to remember some of the less noble entries such as Andrea Moda, Mastercard Lola, AGS, Scuderia Italia, and all the other pre qualifiers.

[F1Frog]

Of course the decision is about the other teams not wanting to share the prize money, and is entirely commercial.

But I don’t understand this idea that fans seem to have that a team must be competitive to ‘add value’. A slow team would add plenty of value to the sport, just as much as a midfield team because we have plenty of those already. As recently as 2010, we had three new teams join with no hope of scoring a point or making it to Q3. But they created a private race in themselves as it was interesting to see if Glock could get ahead of Trulli, or if a Lotus could sneak into Q2. And every time a wet qualifying session or race happened, it was so much more exciting when you knew one of these teams could have a great result. I am thinking about Malaysia 2012 when Narain Karthikeyan briefly ran as high as sixth, or Belgium 2013 when Giedo van der Garde was third in Q1. And what a nice moment it was when Jules Bianchi brought the Marussia home in ninth for their first point in Monaco 2014. These small teams added so much value to the sport and they were only ten years ago. In 1989, the pre qualifying battles would also have added great value and the occasional special moment like Stefan Johansson scoring a podium for Onyx. So I would certainly Andretti to the grid and would love to see them in the midfield, but would be just as excited about a useless team joining to cruise around at the back, or preferably a number of such teams, but where only the top 26 below 107% could qualifying for the race.

And not to mention the fact that the new generation of fans who Liberty are so excited about would absolutely love someone to make fun of on social media (for now they have to make do with Haas who are not bad at all by the standards of most last placed teams).

[john aston]

I couldn't agree more - in the silly 'all shall have prizes ' world of  F1 , and motorsport generally,  there is the delusion that a close field is always better than a more widely spread one. That idea has spawned the almost universal adoption of spec formulae - as if doing so would result in every race being  a near dead heat.  The reality is that for most modern formulae , identical cars with too much grip and insanely good brakes drone round 1.5 seconds apart and most overtaking is effected by shoulder charging the guy in front off the track . Only FF1600 (FJ etc ) can offer great racing from very similar (but not identical) cars by the tested recipe of no aero , so so brakes  and narrow tyres . 

 

I'd love to see another Zakspeed , Amon or Pacific do its best to qualify , even , or especially if they held up  the majestic progress of the teams who think they have sole rights to the racing line. My , what delicious , self righteous rages the likes of George Russell and Toto Wolff would fly into as a result   

Edited by john aston, 12 February 2024 - 07:23.

[Dipster]

Indeed a very predictable yet still despicable response from “effwun”….. Who needs GM/ Cadillac on the grid anyway?!!!
FYI If I understand US media hype correctly Taylor Swift is apparently going to win today’s Super Bowl ( a 60 minute American football game that takes 4 hours to complete)

She did! And I understand she is in the running for the US election later in the year......  It is a strange world nowadays. All hype, as is F1. 

[john aston]

And the  bats**t  crazy Q Anon has decided that Joe Biden is actually .....wait for it , none other than Lee Harvey Oswald . Yes the guy who was shot dead on live tv by Jack Ruby. Or was he ? I blame the lizard people . 

[68targa]

I couldn't agree more - in the silly 'all shall have prizes ' world of  F1 , and motorsport generally,  there is the delusion that a close field is always better than a more widely spread one. That idea has spawned the almost universal adoption of spec formulae - as if doing so would result in every race being  a near dead heat.

The same as those handicap races that were so prolific, the theory being that all competitors would cross the line together - rarely if ever happened but at least there was more vertaking.

[AJCee]

I think it’s a shame that the Andretti name, one which for me brings to mind one of the greatest ‘racing drivers’ (or race car drivers) I’ve been lucky enough to see, won’t be in Formula 1 in the foreseeable future. I doubt though that the name means much to most current fans, no more than the origin of the name McLaren does.
But as has been noted, this isn’t the sport of thirty, forty or fifty years ago and therein lies the explanation.
Those aspects of ‘bringing along what you have’ and giving it a go are gone. They still exist in some other sports though and are part of the draw to them for me.
I still watch, and often enjoy, modern motorsport, but change is a natural thing so I have accepted that.

[mariner]

May I make a different " cartel" point - there is de facto circuit cartel now because all the race dates are filled by races which give world championship (WC) points.

 

That was not the case back in the 1950's/60's/70's when lots of non-WC  races took place, Aintree 200, Easter Goodwood, Brands race of champions Pau, Solitude, Enna, Syracuse etc etc . People think the F1 calendar is two or three times the old days at 22 races but  back then most years had at least 5 or 6 non WC races for F1.in addition to the 8 or 9 WC rounds . So it is more like 14 to 16 actual F1 races then  are now 22.

 

 

The relevance to this Andretti question is that entries to the  non WC races were easier so new team could prove itself over time and all the spurious arguments about relative perforrnance were negated by actual on track results in the non WC races. 

Edited by mariner, 12 February 2024 - 14:46.

[10kDA]

Of course the decision is about the other teams not wanting to share the prize money, and is entirely commercial.

But I don’t understand this idea that fans seem to have that a team must be competitive to ‘add value’. A slow team would add plenty of value to the sport, just as much as a midfield team because we have plenty of those already. As recently as 2010, we had three new teams join with no hope of scoring a point or making it to Q3. But they created a private race in themselves as it was interesting to see if Glock could get ahead of Trulli, or if a Lotus could sneak into Q2. And every time a wet qualifying session or race happened, it was so much more exciting when you knew one of these teams could have a great result. I am thinking about Malaysia 2012 when Narain Karthikeyan briefly ran as high as sixth, or Belgium 2013 when Giedo van der Garde was third in Q1. And what a nice moment it was when Jules Bianchi brought the Marussia home in ninth for their first point in Monaco 2014. These small teams added so much value to the sport and they were only ten years ago. In 1989, the pre qualifying battles would also have added great value and the occasional special moment like Stefan Johansson scoring a podium for Onyx. So I would certainly Andretti to the grid and would love to see them in the midfield, but would be just as excited about a useless team joining to cruise around at the back, or preferably a number of such teams, but where only the top 26 below 107% could qualifying for the race.

And not to mention the fact that the new generation of fans who Liberty are so excited about would absolutely love someone to make fun of on social media (for now they have to make do with Haas who are not bad at all by the standards of most last placed teams).

I and I suppose many others may be accused of pining for some or other "good old days" but the atmosphere as well as the racing itself was very different. Having raced myself, I could understand at some level what it was like for the designated no-hopers to get on the grid and run at the top level though not necessarily top placings, at least until they broke, either mechanically (per race) or financially (per season or for good.) I don't feel any affinity for the racers of today who run mid-pack & lower. I just lost interest in a process where determination played less and less of a role while budget's influence grew. I don't have to accept what racing has become, and my nonacceptance simply means I stay away. Vintage racing still has my attention but the venues for same have been altered or ruined by compliance with requirements for cars that can carry so much more energy, due to increased cornering speeds, off-track when somebody screws up.

 

In the world where fans of the sport believe their opinions of participants actually carry some weight, some , maybe most of them, need targets on whom they can rag or their itch for opinionating does not get scratched. While the "It ain't like it yoosta wuz" former fans get ridiculed, the current fanboi bunch is just as resistant to change. Once in a while I look in on RC here and I see the proof, and that's just at the level of this here Autosport Forums platform. It's out there all over the place and easily seen. To break it down in terms of similar marketing spin and perhaps managed scenarios, over the past few years we've had this:

 

Starring Lewis Hamilton as Verne Gagne

Max Verstappen as Nick Bockwinkel

Also Starring Nico Rosberg as Mad Dog Vachon

and Sebastian Vettel as Dr. X

 

As long as Verne Gagne was Champ, all was right with the world. A couple of glitches along the way resulted in his tag team partner turning on him and taking the singles title once, and early on there was a string of hard fought matches until Dr X was at last overcome. But now it looks like Max Bockwinkel is a tough enough opponent to keep the title for the foreseeable future - "We've got to DO SOMETHING about this DOMINATION!!!"

Significant factor: The title never changes hands in Milwaukee.

[E1pix]

Oh My God, I actually know every player’s name in your star cast…

Great post.

[rl1856]

I think most of us agree that the reason for denying Andretti entry into the cartel was driven by money.  Existing members of the cartel view the revenue stream as basically fixed, therefore a new entrant would force existing members to receive less money from their cut of the pool.  What a myopic view.   The cartel has benefited immensely from Liberty's ownership, through significant expansion of off track coverage and social media coverage.  Anyone who belies that "F1 Drive to Win" has not led to more money and focus in F1 has been living in a cave !    

 

Others have pointed out that one of Liberty's goals is to promote F1 in the US.  Drive to Win helped, and provided the foundation for holding 3 races in the US.  F1 is now socially relevant in the US....heck GP Racing history and F1 was a recent category on "Jeopardy"  !   (A televised quiz show in the US).   

 

Has the growth curve for F1 in the US started to flatten ?  Maybe.  What is needed to reignite growth in the US ?   Short of a viable US driver, a US TEAM with a recognizable heritage is needed.  Haas enjoyed immense success in the US- but only true fans know who is is or was.  Many more know that his drivers in the US included Paul Newman, Mario Andretti, and Michael Andretti.  In fact Paul Newman was an owner of the team, and at one point the team was called Newman-Haas.   Recognition that comes with a familiar name is key.    This is what Michael brings.   The involvement of Michael and Cadillac will bring attention, and expand the fan base of F1 in one of the most lucrative, and relatively untapped markets in the world.   Their involvement will also bring *a lot* more money into the sport and to other teams as they benefit from the financial growth of F1.   IMHO it is myopic to decline what amounts to a near term investment with substantial ROI potential in the future.   Simply stated, Andretti's involvement will eventually mean a larger revenue pool for everyone to share.

[10kDA]

Do you refer to the Beatrice-Haas team or the current Haas team? Because the respective individuals named Haas are unrelated.

[10kDA]

Oh My God, I actually know every player’s name in your star cast…

Great post.

Thanks -  I guess some things stick with us LOL.

[DCapps]

Realistically, from about the 1959 season, with a few wobbles here and there, hasn't it been pretty much Formula Albion?

[E1pix]

Thanks -  I guess some things stick with us LOL.

For better or worse, Eh? (LOL)

Channel 18, The Bomb. Failing to remember Mad Dog’s twin…

[10kDA]

For better or worse, Eh? (LOL)

Channel 18, The Bomb. Failing to remember Mad Dog’s twin…

Zee Bootcher! Our TV  would pick up Channel 18 late afternoons and evenings so I could watch the Saturday afternoon AWA show (and Shock Theater) but not the Sunday repeat. Until we got a new TV I had to go to my cousin's or a friend's house for the rerun because it didn't get old.

[uechtel]

May I make a different " cartel" point - there is de facto circuit cartel now because all the race dates are filled by races which give world championship (WC) points.

 

That was not the case back in the 1950's/60's/70's when lots of non-WC  races took place, Aintree 200, Easter Goodwood, Brands race of champions Pau, Solitude, Enna, Syracuse etc etc . People think the F1 calendar is two or three times the old days at 22 races but  back then most years had at least 5 or 6 non WC races for F1.in addition to the 8 or 9 WC rounds . So it is more like 14 to 16 actual F1 races then  are now 22.

 

 

The relevance to this Andretti question is that entries to the  non WC races were easier so new team could prove itself over time and all the spurious arguments about relative perforrnance were negated by actual on track results in the non WC races. 

Again I think this is not comparable. Non-WC F1 races are generally no longer possible, as this would be a contradiction in itself. This is not a matter of  F1 regards itself to be identical to the WC - how could they otherwise have celebrated F1´s 70th birthday in 1950. No track owner can organize a race and call it "F1", and if he would it would be outside FIA and probably prosecuted by an army of lawyers. Every current F1 team that would participate would be sanctioned. And on the other hand if F1 themselves would organize non-championship races (for whatever reason they should do as they would rather try to squeeze even more WC races into the calendar) it would again be exclusive to the official teams that are currently engaged.

 

Also there was no need to "negate about relative performance" in regard to admission or rejection to "F1". Sometimes the organizers of the top events acted somehwat restrictive, but there were other GP organizers who were happy to accept almost anybody, no matter of a previous proof of competitiveness. Ask Ottorino Volonterio, Al Pease or Otto Stuppacher...

 

 

Edit: In fact, currently the ciruits may be even in the weakest position of all today, as they have to struggle from year to year for a place in the calendar with increasing applicants.

Edited by uechtel, 12 February 2024 - 18:20.

[DCapps]

Uh, the FIA has owned the commercial rights to the "Formula 1 World Championship," since 15 April 1980 when the former championshipshuup was stated to be null and void as of 31 December 1980. With the sporting and technical bits now one set of regulations, effect as of 1 January 1981, the silly "F1 70th Anniversary Grand Prix" in 2020 was simply more of the usual sort of Alternate Facts that tend to be what passes for more than a few aspects of motor sport history. 

 

Incest has pretty much eaten the brains of the F1 teams and fans do not care it seems. The "sport" was a bit of a mess (to be very kind) before 1980 and since 1981 it has managed to only find more ways to continue to demonstrate its ability to be a self-licking ice cream cone. 

 

"Greed is Good." The central focus of the F1 world is making Gordon Gekko's words as their guiding principle as clear as an azure sky in deepest summer...

[Michael Ferner]

This is a business decision. Why are we discussing it as if it were a matter of sport? Don't fall for the F1 'narrative'.

[john aston]

Well, any professional sport needs to be run in a business like way , no matter how endearing amateurism can be . And like all high profile sport , F1 has allowed the business tail (with its insatiable appetite for media cash )  to wag the sporting dog. In F1's  case , the tail now outweighs the dog. 

 

And yet ..,ignore the bullshit , the hysterical  new fanbase  and the over excitable media coverage and it is still bloody wonderful . And those of us who followed it for decades (most folk on here) and still love it ( rather fewer ) look, often in vain , for any trace of sportsmanship in how it is run.  

[Porsche718]

And those of us who followed it for decades (most folk on here) and still love it ( rather fewer ) look, often in vain , for any trace of sportsmanship in how it is run.  

 

 

 

... and I might add John, that the one or two moments of pure sportsmanship in a season that we sometimes see can make the rest of the crass, mega dollar circus all worth while.

 

Although there haven't been many moments of pure sportsmanship in recent years. One case in 2023 was when Carlos Sainz's Ferrari was irrepairably damaged by the man-hole cover at Las Vegas.

 

Most of the drivers (and "perhaps" the teams they drove for) called for Carlos to not be penalised because it was neither driver nor team that forced Ferrari to have to change the battery and power packs, effectively building a new car, only for officialdom to refuse on points of strict interpretations of the rules. 

 

It could well be any "wiggle room" in the regulations had to be 100 per cent legislated out after the 2021 Abu Dhabi debacle.

 

All we see now is Verstappen blocking a pit lane, so that he can get a clear qually lap, or Norris in Canada, driving ridiculously slowly under safety car flags and backing  the entire field up so that he didn't have to "double-stack" with Piastri. Both drivers actions were subsequently reprimanded as being "unsportsmanlike behaviours", and yet true sportsmanship is legislated out of the sport.

 

So that tells you what the rule makers think of sportsmanship.

 

I am still a antiquated romantic, desiring to see the likes of a Stirling Moss, stopping and pleading with Hawthorn not to restart his car in the wrong direction, and therefore go on and finish second in the 1958 Portuguese Grand Prix. Moss effectively losing the World Championship through this gesture.

 

Or Peter Collins handing over his car to Fangio at Monza, and ruling out the slim change Peter had of gaining the 1956 title.

 

Oh dear!

 

Darling, where are my pills?

Edited by Porsche718, 13 February 2024 - 14:20.

[AJCee]

Is a ‘purely business decision’ ever unquestionable? After all, it may, for example, impact livelihoods of people who have worked hard to gain profits for the company.
Just as commerce doesn’t exist in isolation from moral factors/obligations, any sport*, even a professional one, has an inherent component of competition. People get annoyed when it is apparent that this component is more restricted than they had hoped or imagined.


*widening the definition of sport here from huntin’, shootin’ and fishin’ as the element of competition there is somewhat different.

[Henk Vasmel]

Although there haven't been many moments of pure sportsmanship in recent years. One case in 2023 was when Carlos Sainz's Ferrari was irrepairably damaged by the man-hole cover at Las Vegas.

 

Most of the drivers (and "perhaps" the teams they drove for) called for Carlos to not be penalised because it was neither driver nor team that forced Ferrari to have to change the battery and power packs, effectively building a new car, only for officialdom to refuse on points of strict interpretations of the rules. 

 

It could well be any "wiggle room" in the regulations had to be 100 per cent legislated out after the 2021 Abu Dhabi debacle.

This was when I was very disappointed about Mr. Ben Sulayem. It was very clear that penalising Carlos was very unfair. And the only on who could step in and say: "This wasn't what the rule was intended for" was the FIA president. That would have solved everything. But no message from the FIA.

[Henk Vasmel]

And another thing. When it is said that Andretti is not going to be competitive, I see them finishing "about" last at every Grand Prix. Yet teams are claiming that they are going to be taking away a lot of money from them. Why? If they will be uncompetitive, no money is going to be taken from them. 

The logic of this all escapes me.

[john aston]

Ironic , isn't it , that the self interested  and myopic fat cats of F1 airily dismiss a team operated by US motorsport royalty but don't question the motorsport credentials of countries which host Grands Prix . Forgive me if I've failed to notice it so far , but the motor racing heritage of Qatar , Azerbaijan , China, Saudi Arabia  and  Abu Dhabi seems to be on a level with Tristan da Cunha's  . I could understand their inclusion if the main hosting  criterion were human rights abuse and suppression of press reportage.     

 

Anyway , it is not all bad news , the VISA Cash App RB team team formerly known as Minardi has announced its  2024 challenger - it is called the VCARB 01 . What a time to be alive. ... 

Edited by john aston, 14 February 2024 - 11:59.

[AJCee]

The time is ripe for a return of the Grand Prix circus to Gibraltar…

[Rupertlt1]

I posted this elsewhere:
F1 has long been a "closed shop" where extraordinary efforts are required to get in. Bernie kept it that way. He was quite content to watch teams go bust. What was the most cars ever to start a Grand Prix since 1950? Way more than 20? Most entries? (20 entries hasn't kept out sub-standard drivers.)
No Trevor Carlin? If ever a man has paid his dues? They'd be keeping out Colin Chapman, Jack Brabham, Ken Tyrrell etc nowadays. Whatever happened to the garagists? That was then and this is now?
RGDS RLT

[B Squared]

....They'd be keeping out Colin Chapman, Jack Brabham, Ken Tyrrell etc nowadays. Whatever happened to the garagists? That was then and this is now?
RGDS RLT

As well as Roger Penske and Parnelli Jones/Vel's who I saw welcomed at Watkins Glen (in their second races) in 1974. Doesn't seem possible that has been 50 years ago.

[F1matt]

And another thing. When it is said that Andretti is not going to be competitive, I see them finishing "about" last at every Grand Prix. Yet teams are claiming that they are going to be taking away a lot of money from them. Why? If they will be uncompetitive, no money is going to be taken from them. 

The logic of this all escapes me.

 

The 10 current teams are given a set amount before the season, IIRC somewhere between $35 to $40 million dollars regardless of where they finished last season, in return for this they had to compete in every race the previous season and meet a certain level of professionalism, I presume this is dictated in FIA documents on the entry forms. There are then historical payments which I guess Ferrari get the most, then McLaren etc and it works its way down. Money is then awarded for where a team finished in the constructor’s championship, on top of this there is an additional bonus split between the teams. If a new team was to enter, lets imagine Honda or Toyota decided to go it alone (which would probably be approved) they would have to pay an upfront fee of $200 million dollars which is split between the current 10 teams but the new team would be allowed a share of the pot from day one. If the money was paid purely on performance you have a valid point about Andretti been at the back at the start but as the fund would be diluted we can see why the teams are looking to keep the barriers to entry high.