From the press the thought is Alpine would supply initially. The FIA has a rule to force a supply by a maker supplying the fewest teams I believe.
Andretti's initial contract with Renault has lapsed and is now void. I cannot see the FIA "forcing" Renault. Also, Andretti wants to badge the "alternative engine" Cadillac until their own unit is ready. Renault could refuse that. There are a lots of loose ends in this deal. Anyway it will be interesting to follow the rest of this saga.
Knowing how corporate business works, I presume that the agreement Cadillac offered Andretti has a time limit. GM will support Andretti in its application to enter F1, and offer plans for future technical collaboration if successful. If Andretti cannot obtain acceptance before a certain date, the deal will be off. Big business usually want quick answers and don't like projects to drag on in uncertainty.
Cadillac will buy Haas, giving Gene a new way out while saving face. Cadillac will then partner with Andretti. Still only 10 teams so nobody can complain.
So far Gene Haas has shown no interest in that solution. I wonder why. Maybe Andretti didn't offer enough ? The value of F1 teams has shot up terribly recently. Haas was estimated worth $900M, being the cheapest.
Haas has probably had enough and now I think the feds are chasing him again, aren’t they? Trading with Russia or something? Note to Gene: Cash only. No GM stock!
As far as I can see, Haas doesn't make the slightest effort to compete...he just takes up space on the grid and provides traffic hazards during the race. And who estimated that the Haas team was worth 900 million...and for what? That might be the average of what the teams are worth, but Haas does nothing to demonstrate that sort of valuation. As for the current value of F1 teams...what goes up, must come down. The quality of the racing just isn't there...not in the sense of Senna vs Prost or Lauda vs Hunt or Schumacher vs Hakkinen or Cosworth vs Ferrari or Lotus vs the world. F1 can no longer claim to be the pinnacle of motorsport...the rules prevent us seeing the best cars possible. Now all we get is semi-spec racing and lots of hype.
It ends up that advertising CNC machines has no better cost-value relationship than running an F1 team.
Business analysts probably, F1 insiders. In their findings, they estimated that Scuderia Ferrari was worth $3.5 Billion, Red Bull around $2.7Billion; Mercedes $2.5, etc ... Haas was the cheapest. The value of F1 teams has increased substantially since Andretti wants to enter F1. Buying a team was the only solution before. This is now one of the reasons they don't want him as 11th team; their values could be plummeting if he was accepted.
Chrysler 2 bailouts. GM once. Ford zero. Not like that is a lot of times. Don't forget how many of the Europeans have government ownership. GM is no different from every PU manufacturer on the grid in that they could change their commitment at any time. How many times has MB come and gone? Honda? Ford? Alpine/Renault has clouds with their management changes. Audi may be reconsidering their F1 program. Expecting anyone to stay forever is foolish.
According to reports Alpine would be required to supply Andretti per the Concorde unless someone else makes a supply deal.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/the-crucial-detail-that-could-determine-andrettis-f1-bid-success-/10554175/ The crucial detail that could determine Andretti’s F1 bid success OPINION: An impasse surrounding the Andretti Formula Racing F1 project shows little sign of ending. But MARK GALLAGHER believes that the team being willing to accept a prize money compromise could yield a crucial breakthrough Author GP Racing Updated Dec 2, 2023, 12:01 PM Formula 1 CEO Stefano Domenicali cannot have been hugely thankful when FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem announced in early October that the sport’s governing body had approved Andretti Formula Racing’s entry application, thus handing the poisoned chalice to Formula 1 in order to discuss commercial terms. A toxic game of pass the parcel. As is always the case, the FIA followed a process. These processes are always described as ‘strict’ or ‘stringent’, yet the last time the FIA followed its own path to determine the viability of new F1 teams things really didn’t work out. As the person at Cosworth responsible for supplying engines to USF1, Campos Meta, Manor Grand Prix and Lotus Racing in 2010, it soon became apparent to me that one of them had no clue, another had a wonderful dream without sufficient backing, and the final pair had money but underestimated both the scale and relentless nature of the challenge. All are now a distant memory, not because there is anything wrong with having a dream, but because Formula 1 did not offer a business model that stood any realistic chance of survival. All of them became a nightmare, particularly for unpaid suppliers. That was then, of course, and this is now. As we reach the end of 2023 Formula 1 is in rude health financially, the 10 teams operate profitable franchises in all but name, and those who possess a bit of business acumen have potential sponsors climbing all over them. The groundswell of opinion among fans on social media and certain specialist press is that it is inconceivable for an entry from Andretti to be even questioned. Equally, that the existing teams are led by nasty, greedy gatekeepers who don’t want anyone else invited to their party. Andretti's F1 future now rests with series' bosses after the FIA approved its application The teams have a point, however, and it is one Formula 1 supports. Considering that half of them courted existential challenges in recent times, specifically Williams, Sauber, Haas and the teams now known as Alpine and Aston Martin, it’s easy to understand why team bosses are not exactly falling over themselves to let a new team in at precisely the moment Formula 1 has become both stable and financially attractive. Sharing the prize money 11 ways instead of 10 is one thing, but it’s also worth considering that the US sponsorship marketplace is particularly vibrant at the moment. An Andretti team will necessarily target the self-same companies that Red Bull, Mercedes, Ferrari et al also want to court. One view is that, rather than focusing on the team paying a one-off anti-dilution fund of $200m, Andretti should not be eligible to receive prize money for a period of, say, five years Ultimately the solution will come down to the thing that fuels F1: money. This means Andretti’s ability to show it has enough money to not only enter Formula 1, but to be entirely self-sustaining for a sufficient number of years in order to demonstrate genuine staying power. One view is that, rather than focusing on the team paying a one-off anti-dilution fund of $200m, Andretti should not be eligible to receive prize money for a period of, say, five years. This should already have been covered since the FIA’s Expression of Interest document for new entries included the requirement for a detailed business plan, including financial projections, for the first five years of the project. What those projections show in terms of any assumption of a share of prize monies will be telling, for therein lies the dilemma facing Domenicali. If a new team is in any way reliant on a share of the prize fund for its survival, whether wholly or substantially in part, it will be difficult for F1 and its constituent teams to accept it.
I see this as offering a viable framework for a solution. 5 years is excessive but something like zero the first year, 50% of what would be the 11th constructor (no matter how they actually place could be fair.
The teams claim that $200 is too low, although that is what they agreed to in the current Concorde. But even if it was raised, would they be happy?
The only way to make the teams happy is for 2 teams to drop out making the split 8-ways instead of 10-ways
Another cynical version would be if Andretti lined up a string of big money sponsor but then shared them with the others on the grid instead of keeping them for themselves.
Make the maximum grid 22 cars...and if you are bumped from the grid in qualifying, you don't race on Sunday, no matter who you are. That means be on top of your game and don't crash out in Q1. And if Andretti can pick up where Dan Gurney left off, I'd love to see it.
No, because the 10 teams have a contract with the FIA that they will participate with 2 cars each to all the GPs. So, in exchange they must be allowed to race, regardless of grid positions. This isn't Indianapolis where cars are bumped-off the grid.
So my understanding is Andretti's team is going to rely heavily on prize money for funding. Good luck with that one.... As I said before, I don't trust GM as far as I can throw them when it comes to racing commitment. One bad quarter and whooosh... the funding is gone.
FIA has not released the “plan” publicly but other sources are speculating this is the heart of Andretti intention. Also we can toss any “fairness” statements from the FIA out the door with respect to Andretti lol. Given MBS hand- holding it was clear who the favorite was to begin with. No maker from the US or any where else thinks long term in F1 lol!
Here you go Mayor! Certainly not the worst news but things in auto market, and for the makers change quickly! GM Lays Off More Workers. It’s Bracing for Tougher Times. General Motors announced new plans to cut more than 1,300 jobs at factories in Michigan. The car market said in filings with state regulators that it will lay off almost 1,000 workers at its Lake Orion facility and more than 300 at the Lansing Grand River assembly plant. The news comes a day after its Cruise robotaxi business said it would trim its workforce and that executives from the unit were leaving. The layoffs suggest GM is bracing for tougher times ahead. Economic growth is set to slow, the excitement around electric vehicles is cooling, and the company just got through a protracted labor dispute earlier this year.
Hi Andretti LOL. Yeah this is a company that needs F1 or Andretti and is losing money given what little its done with actual share price. Again more bad financials and F1 is easily put off. I dont see GM as a long term F1 supplier at all. Yes I could be wrong. The numbers are garbage in the near term so far. https://www.autoblog.com/2023/12/17/gms-barra-reboots-her-10-year-effort-to-lift-stagnant-shares/ DETROIT — General Motors CEO Mary Barra has made many bold moves during a decade on the job to lift the automaker's share price: jettisoning money-losing operations in Europe, promising to outsell Tesla in the electric-vehicle market and betting billions on developing a profitable robotaxi business. Investors are unmoved. GM shares are trading close to the $33 a share at which they went public in 2010 following the company's government-financed bankruptcy. Since hitting $63 a share in November 2021, GM shares have fallen 47%. Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway sold all its GM shares without explanation during the third quarter as the price slid to a two-year low during tough contract bargaining in the U.S. with the United Auto Workers. Now, as she heads toward her 10th anniversary on Jan. 15, Barra is overhauling GM again. On Wednesday, GM said Barra has named new heads for key areas of vehicle development and EV manufacturing. The moves come after production technology problems caused GM to fall well short of EV output goals. ........Barra sold or closed GM's money-losing operations in Europe, Australia and Southeast Asian markets. GM's market share and profit in China have fallen as the world's largest auto market has shifted to EVs made by Tesla and by BYD and other Chinese automakers. GM is still No. 1 in U.S. sales volume, but Tesla is by far the more valuable company with a market capitalization of $775 billion to GM's $46 billion. Like Roger Smith, who led GM during the 1980s, Barra has tried to revive investor interest by repositioning GM as a technology enterprise. She told investors in October 2021 that GM could double its annual revenue by 2030 to $280 billion by adding EVs, expanding sales of digital subscriptions, ramping up the Cruise robotaxi operation, supplying vehicles to the U.S. military and developing a new electric van delivery service. But during the second half of 2023, key elements of Barra's growth strategy stalled. The biggest trouble is at Cruise, which has lost $8 billion since GM acquired it in 2016. Barra has told investors Cruise could generate $50 billion a year in revenue by 2030. Cruise's future is now uncertain after regulators charged officials with misrepresenting details of an accident in which a Cruise driverless car dragged a pedestrian 20 feet (6.1 m )before stopping. The Cruise incident has put Barra back in the role of crisis manager.
