Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: New Teams

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    6,744
    Like
    145
    Liked 209 Times in 165 Posts
    To put it very shortly how I understand the Haas situation.

    By the looks of it they have a somewhat stronger background than any of the pre-2010 new teams. Their preparation is far more complete than the way Team Lotus/Caterham rushed onto the scene, and they do not seem to be consistently on the brink of collapse like HRT did. And they do not design an all-CFD/non-windtunnel car like Virgin did!

    However, Dallara is used to feeder series spec series, and is not used to competing in Formula One. Teams like Force India, Lotus and Sauber may be underfunded, but they are professional with their limited means and I have no reason to think Dallara can match them now in designing and building an F1 car. What about Haas' budget? I doubt it is greater than the one of traditional midfield teams either, so they fit in there.

    If we imagine that Mercedes has a pace-setting chassis, I think FI, Lotus and Sauber can design a chassis, which is about ~2 seconds off the pace. Evidence from current year seems to support that they have the ability within that range with their limited means. And this 2 seconds includes integration with power unit, which of course works teams have better than the customer teams.

    Dallara chassis, by my modest estimation, will be at least 3 seconds off the benchmark initially. And I consider this an optimistic projection.
    Last edited by jens; 6th October 2015 at 13:51.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    6,744
    Like
    145
    Liked 209 Times in 165 Posts
    I wanted to add that sometimes Haas' situation is compared to Toro Rosso... or Super Aguri, who were both B teams. However, there was an important difference. Up until and including 2009 Toro Rosso was always using entire Red Bull chassis, literally. So the difference really was the engine (hence 2008 STR was better!), and obviously the way the team understood the car and it was run in races, so RBR was somewhat more professional. There was a loophole on rules, which didn't forbid sharing chassis. Also Super Aguri used Honda's old 2006 chassis in 2007, and that's why they were so good.

    Haas doesn't literally use Ferrari's chassis, and this fact is a big difference. If you have to design your own chassis, it is a huge challenge, as opposed to just purchasing a good chassis.

    Of course - ever since 2010 Toro Rosso started building their own chassis, but by that time STR had had plenty of time to build up the team properly with Red Bull's funding, and gain lots of experience in co-operation.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    6,744
    Like
    145
    Liked 209 Times in 165 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rjbetty View Post
    This could be interesting. It's Graeme Lowdon's views on Haas' prospects. He thinks they could do pretty well.

    http://planetf1.com/news/haas-could-...straight-away/
    .
    BAR also said they could win straightaway. Not to mention McLaren-Honda was supposed to be on the podium straightaway.

    Toyota was one of the very few teams, who took F1 entrance realistically. They had a full year of testing and a huge budget, but they still modestly said - we will be near the back! Well, they had a point about that one. Maybe they were too modest, and that's why they never succeeded in F1...

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    6,744
    Like
    145
    Liked 209 Times in 165 Posts
    Regarding new teams I wanted to talk about the Team Lotus (later Caterham) as well, which entered in 2010. They were one of my favourites teams at the time, and they looked promising. Highly rated Mike Gascoyne as technical director, and solid enough finances. I was impressed at the time that they hired Kovalainen-Trulli as a driver line-up, and didn't need a paydriver, which was better than teams like Sauber could do!

    Gascoyne was hyping the team up all the time, telling they would reach midfield in no time. On paper the team looked midfield material (budget, engineers), but it never materialized. The team probably wasn't run well enough, infrastructure wasn't also quite up to scratch (old Bentley factory or what was it???) and in the end Tony Fernandes lost interest. But for me it was one more proof how damn hard it is to enter F1 and do well against experienced "club members".
    Last edited by jens; 6th October 2015 at 14:49.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,583
    Like
    68
    Liked 182 Times in 139 Posts
    Do not forget that this Team Lotus had lost its primary source of funding really fast. Starting with 2012, the Enstone team was the "official Lotus team", and Team Lotus became Caterham. At that point they hired Petrov, probably for his Russian sponsors, but after 2012 the team went downhill.

  6. Likes: jens (6th October 2015)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •