Do we need more cars on the grid?

Raging since the close of last season is the ongoing standoff between the FIA and the F1M on should Andretti F1 be allowed to join the grid in the near future. What should be a discussion is sort of marred by the argument of who has the right to determine who should be allowed to join the grid. In all of this, the FIA President is seen to be dictatorial on the matter, and the F1M is seen to be responding with resistance to corporate as they see their rights to manage the sport being encroached upon by the FIA.
The really interesting thing is the resistance by most of the teams; especially the big three. Their gripes are the potential reduction in their share of the F1 profit which would be reduced to 1/11th if Andretti joined the grid. I think we the fans can understand this since the teams have weathered the Covid pandemic that almost wiped out most of the teams financially from the grid

But is that a solid argument to block new entrants? The aspiration of F1 was always to grow the number of teams on the grid for as long as l could remember. The problem was, did they have what it takes to stay in the sport? Many have morphed into the teams that we know today. Some simply disappeared completely. Hence it doesn't make sense to see resistance to new entrants willing to join the grid. Any true F1 fan would jump with joy that a new team is joining the grid.

Besides, it looks very ugly to see such an attitude from the teams. It comes across as selfish and greedy. And the FIA not staying in its lane stinks of the sport being run by a dictatorship. That said, the F1M need to raise above this and lead the way. And the fair path is inclusiveness. They should not allow loud-mouth team principles with Trump mentality to build a wall that ring-fence F1 into a strict ten-teams operation. We want to see Porsche and Andretti in F1 don't we?

This is my view on the matter, l wonder what you all think?

I think your post sums things up fairly well. The power struggle and the greed are both obvious, and given what we have seen on the grid with team changes over the years, it seems that they want to keep the club even more exclusive and pocket more money, regardless of what hoops new teams are willing to jump through.

Andretti has given nothing but solid evidence of long term plans, goals, commitment, and available funding. I personally also tend to think that having such a strong team that is US based isn't desired by many of the teams, as if they perform well it puts a dent in the image that there is only one true hub of F1 activity for the teams.

I believe that if there is space within the paddock and a potential new entrant can show that they have the resources to be competetive and come with a track record from other series then they should be allowed to enter F1.

Although I can see the current teams perspective of not wanting to receive a smaller share of F1 revenues, this is partly what the $200,000,000 new entry fee was supposed o soften the blow. And I do not believe they should have the power to veto a capable new entrant.

Yes, thirteen teams for a full grid of 26 cars. Points from 8th to 10th would mean more.

The more the merrier! Andretti is more than capable. Other teams are worried about that.

With three F1 races in the USA, we need a better representation on the starting grid. If not, then F1 increases the chance of alienating American fans.

It is disturbing to see that some folks suddenly want to increase the entrance fee. They never mentioned increasing the fee before. They are scared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I am Tifosi

The more the merrier! Andretti is more than capable. Other teams are worried about that.

With three F1 races in the USA, we need a better representation on the starting grid. If not, then F1 increases the chance of alienating American fans.

It is disturbing to see that some folks suddenly want to increase the entrance fee. They never mentioned increasing the fee before. They are scared.

---

Welcome to the fray .

You're right .
They are scared .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Welcome to the fray .

You're right .
They are scared .

---

+1 What Bagwan and Tifosi said.

More Cars = More Overtaking = More Excitement

More Cars = More Backmarkers For The Leaders To Navigate = More Strategy = More Excitement.

Its a no-brainer if you want more excitement.

Using the current thinking, teams like Tyrrell (entered in 1970, Champions in 1971 and 73) would never have been allowed to compete, and this is just one example. Personally I think it is obscene that teams like Red Bull (a soft drink company with no racing pedigree when they first bought the Jaguar team and the current Mercedes team are now trying to prevent other teams from entering. Hypocracy at its worst

With the FIA giving the go ahead, now the balls lands in the FOM decision on the matter. And I suspect it will get messy, with them trying to justify why NOT to allow another team in. Andretti was the only team of four that met the approval of the FIA, so it would be hard to make it seem as if the FIA was swinging the doors wide open.

It's hard to say how this one might end up shaking out. There is no doubt that the Andretti name, along with Cadillac behind them, would being in a huge amount of new revenue within the US market. Even with three tracks now, the US market has room for a lot of growth. But with the comments and obvious greed of the existing teams and everyone wanting a bigger piece of the pie, they will be stuck in a position of exposing that greed or accepting new challenges with new teams. And if they stick with the attitude of the "good old boys club" that exists only for their own profit, it might hurt them in the US market.

Time to see what happens in the snake pit now.

Right now is the "sweet spot" for F1 and traditional racing. Over the next ten years automotive technology will change greatly and F1 will not be immune. It's been interesting to note that Formula E, soon to be Formula H, announced recently they are looking into hydrogen power instead of batteries. I've felt for a long time that the future of the automobile was hydrogen and definitely not battery power. We'll see how it plays out. Meanwhile F1 should enjoy what it has and accept new participants - assuming they have the resources to be there.

Three things that I think (just my opinions) will work against Andretti:
- A lot of people outside of NA fail to realize how big the Andretti name is in the US. Having Andretti in F1 will bring with it a lot of growth in the US as well as $US. But I think Europeans generally have trouble with the concept that a slightly smaller piece of a bigger pie is a good thing.
- The teams are afraid of losing their American sponsors to Andretti.
- The excitement that Drive to Survive brought to F1 and the corresponding increase in the value of F1 has peaked, so Andretti will be 'buying in high'.

I'd really like to see Andretti on the grid, but I still think there's quite a bit of struggle ahead before it happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firstgear

Three things that I think (just my opinions) will work against Andretti:
- A lot of people outside of NA fail to realize how big the Andretti name is in the US. Having Andretti in F1 will bring with it a lot of growth in the US as well as $US. But I think Europeans generally have trouble with the concept that a slightly smaller piece of a bigger pie is a good thing.
- The teams are afraid of losing their American sponsors to Andretti.
- The excitement that Drive to Survive brought to F1 and the corresponding increase in the value of F1 has peaked, so Andretti will be 'buying in high'.

I'd really like to see Andretti on the grid, but I still think there's quite a bit of struggle ahead before it happens.

---

Three well taken points. I still think that those controlling F1 are more than aware of your first point and understand what the impact of a bigger pie could be for all. They're pretty much not dumb people. Still, we'll see how it all unfolds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firstgear

Three things that I think (just my opinions) will work against Andretti:
- A lot of people outside of NA fail to realize how big the Andretti name is in the US. Having Andretti in F1 will bring with it a lot of growth in the US as well as $US. But I think Europeans generally have trouble with the concept that a slightly smaller piece of a bigger pie is a good thing.
- The teams are afraid of losing their American sponsors to Andretti.
- The excitement that Drive to Survive brought to F1 and the corresponding increase in the value of F1 has peaked, so Andretti will be 'buying in high'.

I'd really like to see Andretti on the grid, but I still think there's quite a bit of struggle ahead before it happens.

---

On the last point, it is a small part of the story. I think the impact of the COVID lockdown almost brought most of the grid to the brink of bankruptcy has more to do with it. The current teams had to weather the lull by paying out of pocket to stay in the sport while no money was coming in. It kind of made every team on the grid have a higher value for having a slot on the grid.

It is not fear or worry of losing sponsors. It is simply that they are still feeling the pinch of it all. And fear it may recur again unexpectedly in the near future.

I think it's a done deal , or will be as soon as all the dancing is through .

Three races , and an all-American hero named team on the grid with GM in as well ?
Can anyone smell the money ?
There will be no lack of new sponsors looking hard at F1 , surely , so few worries about losing any .

It's just about the numbers now .


One last point about this :
After all the vetting and press about how hard the procedure was to endure for those attempting to enter the championship , it , I think , would be unwise to deny the entry outright at this point .
To have one's brand associated with a denial would risk a 350million person boycott .
Americans are loyal to the brand they follow .


It's a done deal .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

I think it's a done deal , or will be as soon as all the dancing is through ....One last point about this :
After all the vetting and press about how hard the procedure was to endure for those attempting to enter the championship , it , I think , would be unwise to deny the entry outright at this point .
To have one's brand associated with a denial would risk a 350million person boycott .
Americans are loyal to the brand they follow .

---

I think you are correct. Dump Andretti and they risk losing all of the American fans they have spent the last three years courting. That would also risk losing a couple of the new American dates on the calendar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Used to be Starter

I think you are correct. Dump Andretti and they risk losing all of the American fans they have spent the last three years courting. That would also risk losing a couple of the new American dates on the calendar.

---

I doubt they would prevent Andrettii from joining the grid. They may however make it a difficult passage. Mostly due to Andretti's poor appreciation of how F1 conducts business. And l don't think losing American money would be a problem for F1. After all, the formula has survived for many years without it.

If the teams feel they may be dealing with a loose cannon that may upset the way things are done traditionally in F1. They may well think 350 million dollars is a small price to pay. Please note that there isn't an anti-American sentiment in F1. After all, Haas is a thriving American team in F1.

Andretti would have a spot on the grid quicker if they work with F1 the way the formula does things. This is not Indycar. I personally am very excited that they got the clear from the FIA. The tricky bit is navigating the FOM. If they don't play this right, they may not end up on the grid for the reason l stated earlier.

I expect pushback from FOM, but personally I think the teams have over valued themselves in recent years. It's easy to do, and claim a team is worth a billion dollars. But how much have any teams actually sold for in recent years? One of the people looking to found a team (that was rejected by the FIA) had stated in articles that Alpha Tauri wanting close to a billion was just not viable.

But as for Andretti, I think they will likely get in after being extorted for more money. The teams will show their greed and ask for more to enter the "good old boys" club, and they will try to talk their way around it being just primarily greed. TBH the FIA and FOM should both have in place vetting processes, already have agreements on the number of allowable teams, and none of the behind closed doors crap should be going on regardless of who is wanting in.

And for the record, though I expect that greed will be what causes the push back towards Andretti, the same greed will probably grant them entry. With the US market finally expanding, pissing off an attempted US entry might shut the door on that market somewhat. Let's face facts, Andretti is much more well known than Haas, and Haas is on the grid. A number of teams have floundered for years, including some of the names big in history. If they want to limit the number of spots available fine. But they should do it in a way that allows teams to be pushed out by stronger contenders if that is the case. Nobody should get a pass because of history, nor should the good old boys club dictate stupid requirements that change on the regular.

I have to agree with that assessment. The teams are being unreasonable. After all, Redbull has two teams on the grid but wants to prevent other teams from joining the grid. How fair is that? The over-valuation of each team on the grid is going to be a real problem in the near future as it is not sustainable.

I would say, if they insist on having ten teams only on the grid then maybe Redbull should give up its junior team to make way for Andretti. Not allowing the grid to grow beyond ten teams is silly and greedy. It is supposed to be a world championship after all. All qualified applicants should be granted access without unduly punitive entrance fees. Otherwise, it does not qualify as a world championship. Racing at different venues around the world does not make a world championship. Having participants from around the world is what makes it a world championship.

It is like saying teams are not allowed to progress into the British Premiership. This is the same as saying teams in the premiership should not be relegated from the premiership.

The concorde agreement should not be about keeping new teams out. It should be about placing a threshold of financial efficiency for teams to qualify to benefit from the pot of funds divvied out each season. Having ten teams only serves to guarantee that all teams would get funds regardless of how inefficiently they operate. This formula should be a competition at every level; including operational efficiency. Having more than ten teams and a threshold for entitlement to a share of the pot is the ideal way to run the formula as a bonefide world championship rather than a exclusive club of teams.

Financially weak teams at the rear of the grid are the most vulnerable to the dilution of the pot. I learned from sky F1 that the pot was originally designed for twelve cars on the grid. As it goes, ten cars are enjoying the share intended for 12 cars but do not want an 11th car to join the grid.

I think they Andretti deal should be approved. They are quality team and will bring additional competition to the grid. They seem to have some impressive backing with Gainbridge and Group1001. It actually might grow the pie with Cadillac and GMC supporting the Andretti deal.

I have not seen an argument of why it would not be good for F1. All I have seen is a protectionist attitude where they are taking a position that their team is going to be diminished if another team joins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1nKS

I think they Andretti deal should be approved. They are quality team and will bring additional competition to the grid. They seem to have some impressive backing with Gainbridge and Group1001. It actually might grow the pie with Cadillac and GMC supporting the Andretti deal.

I have not seen an argument of why it would not be good for F1. All I have seen is a protectionist attitude where they are taking a position that their team is going to be diminished if another team joins.

---

I agree, but Andretti did not respect the F1 process. Thinking he only needs the approval of the FIA and not engaging FOM effectively in its bid only makes resistance present at the FOM stage. Unfortunately, they may have to pay dearly for their poor interfacing with FOM.

That said, the argument for diluting the share of the pot is very stupid. Joining F1 has never been about how a team impacts the share of the pot. Also, F1 has in the past run with more than ten teams without any problems in the Ecclestone era. This new culture of exclusivism is ugly and goes hand in hand with how the formula is perceived to be very corrupt in recent times. The lack of transparency and hidden dealings and dodgy decisions.

Say what you like about Ecclestone and Mosley, they ran an open shop that was also very fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1nKS

I think they Andretti deal should be approved. They are quality team and will bring additional competition to the grid. They seem to have some impressive backing with Gainbridge and Group1001. It actually might grow the pie with Cadillac and GMC supporting the Andretti deal.

I have not seen an argument of why it would not be good for F1. All I have seen is a protectionist attitude where they are taking a position that their team is going to be diminished if another team joins.

---

Another question to ask is given the declaration of a number of automaker brands to go all electric within the next 10 years or so, where does that leave F1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Used to be Starter

Another question to ask is given the declaration of a number of automaker brands to go all electric within the next 10 years or so, where does that leave F1?

---

There is a good chance that there may still be internal combustion vehicles in ten years' time using environmentally friendly fuel. The 2026 F1 engine is geared towards the development and use of this type of fuel which will be produced from plant oils.

The question is valid for it shows there is a divergence in the direction car manufacturers are going relative to where F1 is trending toward. F1 is taking a calculated risk that environmentally friendly fuel has a place in the automotive future; say 10 years down the line for instance. The rate of development of electric powertrain which has its source and roots in the formula-e series is such that the efficiency of electric motors and storage mediums such as batteries is improving dramatically. The range expectation will double in a few years. We can reasonably expect electric cars at some point in the near future to be capable of a thousand miles on a full battery. And for batteries to be smaller to reduce the weight penalty they currently have.

The fact of the matter is that internal combustion engines may become unclean and redundant in the long run. And may be a luxury thing for those with deep pockets or pure petrolheads. This was one of the main criticisms of the 2021 regulations, that it did not have a plan for the future of F1 powertrain in line with auto manufacturing trends. It is hard to tell at this stage if the 2026 engine regulation is a subjective obsession or objective insight into future trends. After all, all the infrastructures to support the future volumes of electric cars that would replace fossil-fueled cars are still in their infancy. The current infrastructure will not be able to sustain the growth trends expected in line with the affordability and ubiquity of electric cars.

Then there is the matter of developing countries where the challenges of infrastructure and culture of running old cars for very long periods would mean there would be lots of internal combustion cars operating around the globe well into 50 years from now.

But more relevant is; how willing are car manufacturers to dismantle their internal combustion car manufacturing infrastructure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firstgear

Three things that I think (just my opinions) will work against Andretti:
- A lot of people outside of NA fail to realize how big the Andretti name is in the US. Having Andretti in F1 will bring with it a lot of growth in the US as well as $US. But I think Europeans generally have trouble with the concept that a slightly smaller piece of a bigger pie is a good thing.
- The teams are afraid of losing their American sponsors to Andretti.
- The excitement that Drive to Survive brought to F1 and the corresponding increase in the value of F1 has peaked, so Andretti will be 'buying in high'.

I'd really like to see Andretti on the grid, but I still think there's quite a bit of struggle ahead before it happens.

---

I don't think the teams are afraid of losing American sponsors. After all, when Andretti joins the grid they would most likely start at the rear of the grid fighting Haas, Alpha Tauri, and Williams. They would not be offering the sort of media exposure of the established teams.

Drive to survive brought good exposure to F1 but it is a small part of the reason why the value of the teams has increased. The main reason why the value of the teams has gone up is due to the introduction of the cost cap in the 2021 regulations onwards and only ten teams competing in the sport at this time. The cost cap gave the small teams financial security and lowered the threshold for operational and financial efficiency to allow small teams to be able to survive in F1.

The original idea of why the cost cap was introduced was to make F1 more attractive to potential new entrants. It has worked in protecting small teams like Williams but it has also attracted five new applicants to the sport since its introduction. Audi is clear to join the grid through the purchase of Sauber. Andretti has progressed through the FIA stage of application.

The important thing is that the current Concorde agreement is defined around profit sharing across 12 teams. Though there are actually 10 teams competing and enjoying the sharing of profits that should have been for 12 teams, but are shared among 10 teams on the grid. This fact is where the dilution of share argument falls flat on its face. The teams can grumble about diluted shares, that is not sufficient reason to bar a new team from joining the grid under the current Concorde agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Used to be Starter

Another question to ask is given the declaration of a number of automaker brands to go all electric within the next 10 years or so, where does that leave F1?

---

I am not sure what pertinence that question has on whether Andrietti team is let in or out.

As far as everything going electric in the next 10 years? I don't think it will happen in the U.S. unless there is a battery breakthrough. The infrastructure is nowhere close to being able to sustain that.

Personally, I think Hydrogen fuel cells are a better bet if they can't get the storage/transportation worked out. Then, there are still infrastructure that needs to be built.

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1nKS

I am not sure what pertinence that question has on whether Andrietti team is let in or out.

As far as everything going electric in the next 10 years? I don't think it will happen in the U.S. unless there is a battery breakthrough. The infrastructure is nowhere close to being able to sustain that.

Personally, I think Hydrogen fuel cells are a better bet if they can't get the storage/transportation worked out. Then, there are still infrastructure that needs to be built.

---

Hydrogen will only be a viable solution if an onboard hydrogen generation solution is found. All you would need to do is just add water and you are off. The hydrogen gas station route is just as problematic as the electric situation. Also, they have not found a clean way yet to mass-produce hydrogen. Current production techniques are just as dirty as fossil fuels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

Hydrogen will only be a viable solution if an onboard hydrogen generation solution is found. All you would need to do is just add water and you are off. The hydrogen gas station route is just as problematic as the electric situation. Also, they have not found a clean way yet to mass-produce hydrogen. Current production techniques are just as dirty as fossil fuels.

---

With the exceptions of wind, water, geothermal and nuclear, everything is currently as dirty as fossil fuels. And none of those has a big enough footprint to make any real difference in emissions.

For me, 20 cars are enough to produces all kinds of drama one can expect from an F1 race. What I would want to change is closer competition among the teams.