Ford says let GM/Andretti in. https://apnews.com/article/f1-andretti-ford-cadillac-general-motors-2b3dccef850f34ad9faed3fcaac9d9eb
I was directly involved in the first Haas team, so permit me to offer a few corrections. FORCE was an entirely new company set up by Carl Haas for the F1 project, managed by McLaren co-founders Teddy Mayer and Tyler Alexander with an impressive technical staff including Ross Brawn, Neil Oatley, John Baldwin, and (a non-bald) Adrian Newey. They built as much or more of their car than any other non-OEM team of the day in a factory near Heathrow – the best laid out F1 factory of the seven I worked at over the years, by the way. This was already a couple of years past the end of the DFV era, and the team shared the Hart I4 turbo with Toleman and RAM for the late-season 1985 and early-season 1986 races until its exclusive (and disappointing) Cosworth Ford V6 turbo debuted at Imola. Beatrice was broken up in late 1985 following a hostile takeover by KKR who cancelled the sponsorship, resulting in a vestigal budget for 1986 and prompting a scramble to secure new long-term backing. In late 1986, we obtained a commitment from Foster's for title sponsorship – I still have a copy of the final board proposal – which only fell through when Benetton poached the Ford engine deal under mysterious circumstances (ahem).
Don't buy into it much. I see it as posturing to save face with the team bosses and manufacturers when Andretti are in.
ALMOST. They 'withdrew' when Beatrice was bought-out by KKR, KKR dropped them (the F1 team) within one week of the takeover. KKR is famous for buying out companies and then destroying them.
Asking a prospective team owner "wait 5 years and MAYBE" is proof that F1 has no intention of letting Andretti in, no matter what value he brings. Horner made the comment that if the system isn't broke, don't fix it. The problem is, it is broke. When a team like Williams or Haas can putter around the grid and make half of what they WCC champions are making, that's not racing. The backfield teams are getting carried by the rest of the value that the top teams bring to the grid, not the other way around. Their entry is not based on sports merit at all, so that "value" argument is clearly BS. What F1 teams want is for Andretti to buy an existing backmarker team of historic losers for an outlandish price, so their guarantee that teams staff job security. They don't want Andretti to come in, outperform Williams or Haas, and trigger those teams collapsing in a year or two. Andretti wants to start from scratch and not do the Audi thing of hoping to train a team of losers to miraculously start winning. That's the racket F1 have going for them. It's why Toyota, BMW, and Porsche are never coming back, and would rather do WEC or Formula E.
Two remarks here: - What added value Andretti will bring that deserve them to get a red carpet to enter F1 ? That's what I would like to know. Do they think they are going to compete at the front straightaway, and be title contender ? If one look at the recent strong entries in F1, it took years for them to reach the front (Red Bull, Mercedes), and they didn't start from scratch. Andretti will have to create en engineering office (what is their experience in designing racing cars ? Nil), then build engineering facilities for machining, fabrication, composite, have access to a wind tunnel, etc,.. It take years to gather all that and obtain a cohesive team of engineers and technicians. So, a bit of realism wouldn't come amiss here ... - As for eliminating the non-performing teams to make room for His Majesty Andretti, that's totally ignoring the fact that any series has backmarkers. Pretending that all the teams should be able to compete for a win at any moment, is totally unrealistic. It doesn't exist in specs series like Indycar, F2, F3, or BoP series like WEC, or IMSA. It also has no chance to exist in a series where 10 teams have to bring 10 different cars: there will always some better and more performing than others. Like it or not, backmarkers are part of the landscape !!! There are always teams at the back !!! they are also deserving attention. Eliminate Haas and Williams, and they will be replaced by 2 other team finishing at the back !!! One of them could be Andretti.
You seem to just not like Andretti personally, if I being blunt. I get that, but it's totally irrelevant here. The added value he brings is an additional two cars and the backing of a bigtime auto manufacture in GM, which would add value to North American races, where GM has an army of fans in the USA, Canada, and Mexico. Whether GM is a branding deal is irrelevant. Ticket sales, luxury, and promotion of F1 in north and central America courtesy of GM''s pocketbook is a no-brainer in terms of value. This doesn't even get into GM's intent to build their own engines. That is far more value than anything Williams, Haas, Alpine, or even Aston are bringing to the table. The F1 teams simply don't like Michael Andretti. There's nothing he could bring to the table that will change their minds. It's personal, not business. IDK the law in Europe, but what F1 is doing in terms of business practice, while calling themselves a sport, is blatantly against the law in the USA, and they'd lose their asses in a court of law. This has gone beyond Andretti. F1 is flagrantly breaking the law in the US by blackballing Andretti - like him or not.
If Andretti sues F1 and takes it to court, all they have to do is put Domenicali and others present during the conversation under oath, and it would be a slam dunk anti-trust conspiracy.
I will ignore your insinuations, they are not worth answering to. No hard feeling though ... It seems that having now 3 GPs in the States has inflated some people's heads? Never mind. The added value you are talking about is fine on paper, but only on paper. It doesn't pay the bills. The ADDED VALUE Andretti should bring on the discussion table is a proper dillution fee to compensate properly the 10 existing teams that risk being out of pocket otherwise. Something like the $1Billion which has been mentioned. The US are so wealthy, GM so big and Andretti so important, why can't they do the decent thing? Simply adding 2 cars to the grid will not impress the organisers outside the States (it may do at home though, I agree), nor boost their business much. Will that sell 10% more tickets in Azerbijan, Hungary or Qatar ? Will the TV channels pay more for having another US team ? If it was, they would have done it long time ago, don't you think? So let's be serious here !! You think the MARKET is only the US of A !! For some of the organisers in Europe, or Asia, having an extra team will incur extra cost to enlarge their pit area, increase the paddock size, etc ... For Liberty, adding a team and its equipment means revised logistics, and also ... extra cost. Before bragging about added value on paper, why don't they discuss that ? The US have only 3 GPs out of ... 24, and I consider it would be wrong if, solicited by one of its nationals, one country could impose its laws to an international sporting federarion. The USA came lately in F1 (first US GP at Sebring in 1959, I believe), and only sporadically after. They didn't believe in it, until lately. Now it look like they want to take it over !! Bringing the government in the running of a sport to impose a participant is a very bad idea. I don't presume the outcome of this affair, but it doesn't smell nice. That's my conclusion.
1. You asked what value Andretti is bringing to F1, and I answered. You might not like the answer, but there is an objective, major value he is offering to bring F1. 2. Paying $1 billion to just enter F1 is obscene. Sorry if you think otherwise. Nobody will pay that kind of money. Why do you think Toyota and Porsche are not interested in that kind of thing? The ROI in F1 is simply not worth it. You asking someone to burn as much money as some oil companies make, just to have the glorious privilege of being in F1. 3. F1 had 26 cars on the grid just a decade ago, and there was no problem. Now, suddenly, it's a problem. But it really isn't. It's all about the teams being more about their prize money, than they the actual quality of racing, and extra competitors, all while using the legal protection of calling themselves a sport in the EU and USA. 4. The US wasn't really late to the game. We simply had other racing series that were willing to do more, for less. That's why Long Beach replaced F1 with CART. The former were more trouble than they were worth. That's proper, legal business. 5. Liberty is a US company. They conduct business in the US, with F1, under the legal claim of being a sporting series, and all the legal protections that gives them when they race in the US. The US federal government has every right to demand F1 and Liberty practice business in compliance with US law. If they don't want to do that, then Liberty can be forced to do so, or be barred from racing in the US. That's the thing in all of this. Under US law, Andretti is simply within his legal rights to demand F1 either play fair, or be prepared to face consequences in a US court of law - where Liberty would be totally screwed.
If there’s a legitimate anti-trust action then Liberty and F1 have only themselves to blame. If Maffei actually said those things to or about Andretti, then yeah, he could find himself on the witness stand or in front of a congressional committee. I imagine John Malone is just a little pissed off. There’s no doubt about the personal antipathy toward Andretti. It’s palpable. I don’t get it, really. If people in this forum…and everywhere, really….are the F1 fans they claim to be why would they not welcome more competition? Why would they care if Horner or Toto or even Ferrari might get a slightly less obscene payoff? By the way….implying that Americans are pumped by having three races is absurd. Frankly I wouldn’t go to any of those venues if they were down the street. It would take something on the order of Watkins Glen, Road America, Road Atlanta or Laguna Seca to get my attention….not that those tracks are currently configured for F1, but you get the idea.
Answer 1 . That's pie in the sky. Answer 2. Toyota has been in F1, and burnt a lot of money without result.Porsche could be interested but only as PU supplier. BTW, both are fully involved in endurance which is more up their steet. If Andretti/Cadillac can't afford paying the *$$1Billion dillution fee, they should try to get in. IMO. Answer 3. Yes, there were up to 26 cars on the grid at one point, and up to 36 in pre-qualifs. It didn't work, because the lower teams couldn't make any money and got hardly any participation fees from FOM, so many went but in quick succession. Maybe 10 to 15 teams came to F1, lasted a few years and went bust. Remember HRT, Marussia, Caterham, Simtek, Pacific, Coloni, Life, etc ... ? So FOM reduced the grid to reasonable proportion, did away with pre-qualifs, and guarantied a start and some return to 10 teams.That's a workable compromise: the teams are happy (they signed the Concorde Agreement), and FOM (now Liberty) can balance the books and market F1. That's how there are so many circuits applying. I have never heard circuits asking for more teams. That's why Liberty and the teams are against an 11th team. Several applicants were turned down before, and there was no scandal until Andretti came in, and tried to bully his way in. Answer 4. No, the US were not really warming at the idea of F1 for a long time. Ecclestone , a big US supporter, had always problems to find a promoter in the States, and the US GP kept navigating. Sebring, Watkins Glen, Long Beach, Detroit, Dallas, Las Vegas (Ceasar Palace), etc ... I am not making it up. I can understand it, the US have very good national series. Answer 5. I won't pretend to be an expert in legal issues, but I would be surprised if just one country can run roughshot over an international sport series because of the residence of its administrator. I hope it doesn't work, because it send a very wrong message, that the rest of the other GPs on the calendar are just held in "occupied countries" for the US Government, and that their opinions don't matter. If that's the case, Liberty could relocate its F1 business in another (neutral) country out of US jurisdiction. The present Concorde Agreement must have been signed in Paris and is keptat the FIA, Place de la Concorde. How the US laws could apply, I can't fathom.
It's probably true. Michael Andretti brought it upon itself with his attitude. The guy is no diplomat and rubs people the wrong way, all the time. He approached F1 with a feeling of entitlement that surprised many. Michael was explained the set up, and didn't like it; he wanted it his way. Andretti was offered an entry in F1 by buying a majority share at Sauber; he turned it down, the fool !! He never mentions that ! He would already be in business. Instead a campaign of animosity started. He enrolled his father to peddle bull**** all the time about added value, how big they are, etc ... Together they came to Europe, trying to collect names and signatures by bullying people whilst touring the paddocks and trying hard sale at different venues. They got a cold reception and didn't like it. So yes, the man is very antipathic to many. It's not about competition, but lack of manners. Bringing his "mates" from the Senate to sort out his affairs look so much over-the-top that it's utterly laughable. I am wondering if he isn't acting like that from the humiliation he endured when trying F1.
Andretti has met all of the FIA requirements for entry into the sport, and his participation is allowed in the Concorde agreement, which calls for up to 26 cars on the grid. But the teams don't want it, not because Andretti couldn't beat Williams, Haas, VCRB, and Alpine in a year or two, but because it means slightly less money potentially for them. So it's not about his sporting abilities, or his value. It's the F1 teams and Liberty wanting to shake him down before he can even play at the back of the grid. No matter how you spin it, that's not in the spirit of any sport. No team on the grid would be in danger of going bust because of Andretti being on the grid, or if they are, they shouldn't be racing at all. It's simply greed, and it's a very, very bad look for F1, which won't always be riding on this current sugar high, and will at some point need a new entry when one of the teams does finally bite the dust. The US has a long history with F1. Watkins Glen hosted races for 20 years straight, then it hosted various street races in the 80's and early 90's, before a hiatus for a few years. Hell, F1 has a more recent history in the US compared to France or Germany at this point. As for the law, that's not how any of this works. It's actually not complicated. Liberty has to comply with US law if it wants to host races in the country. Canada has similar laws to the US, btw. That's how it works whether F1 races in Europe, Asia, or Antarctica. The federal government would give F1 the ability to comply with is business law in the US, and if they refuse to do that, well, that's when an injunction would come down to prevent F1 from hosting races in the US for failure to comply with the courts. The US has done to bigger organizations than F1. Hell, they just did it to TIkTok. Anyways, I've said what I wanted. I respect your opinion, William.
However well resourced the team is the FIA made a valid point when they said they felt that a team that has never built its own car would struggle to design and build and competitively race two completely different cars immediately due to the 2026 regulation changes
Andretti were given by Liberty 2028 at a realistic target to be on the grid. Let's not forget that as soon as a team is recognised as entrant, it is subject to all the restrictions in terms of testing, development, wind tunnel time, and budget. That would be a serious brake for a new team starting from scratch. Delaying that would allow Andretti to work under the radar for a couple of years without constraint, do some research, build mock-up cars, have some track testing, etc ... Realistically, it would take 2 years at least to form a design team to create a new car, new chassis, etc ... Gathering a collection of talented individuals, engineers, aerodynamicists poached from other teams is not a garantee that they will gel and work together as a cohesive unit. As for installations, facilities, engineering, it also take time before they deliver. Most new engineering businesses start slowly, but in F1, a new team immediatly needs to be of a substantial size to be able to operate. The plan to enter in 2025 was quite unrealistic, IMO.
WASHINGTON — When the Andretti racing team recently got in touch with a U.S. congressman to discuss Formula 1’s shocking move to reject its bid to join the grid, it piqued interest. The congressman, Rep. John James, R-Mich., teamed up with a dozen lawmakers in both parties to write a letter to the American owner of Formula One Group, Liberty Media, demanding answers for why it rejected Andretti. In blistering remarks to reporters outside the Capitol on May 1, James accused F1 of “cartel-like behavior” and anti-competitive actions to protect the largely European teams from U.S. competition. Could the pressure from U.S. lawmakers move the needle? Maybe. https://www.yahoo.com/sports/f1-finally-winning-u-fans-110041599.html When it comes to the guardian of everything F1, I always turn to my congressman.
At this point I really think that F1 should accept Andretti's team, just to make it ridiculed with its arrogant mindset. Assuming existing F1 teams are afraid of Andretti's competition is completely laughable IMHO.
Existing teams are not "afraid of Andretti's competition", I am pretty sure. They simply don't want to lose money through the inclusion of an 11th team. It will decrease the amount of money due to them at the end of each season. Receiving 1/11th of the "pot" isn't quite the same as 1/10th, don't you think ? No business would gladly accept a loss of revenue.
I don't know how an additional team would actually reduce each existing team's revenue, I'm too lazy to make some research but I'm pretty sure the money is not evenly shared between the teams. My guess is that a new team would receive significantly less than an already existing team (not even considering any prize money).
