A flawed way of choosing F1 teams
We may not have a full, 26-car grid at Bahrain after all
The US F1 dream finally appears to be over. Now the post-mortem will begin on why a team we’ve known about for more than a year failed to make the grid for 2010.
Should they have been given a place on the grid to begin with? And if not, is there something wrong with the FIA’s tender system for appointing new F1 teams?
US F1 were one of the original three teams given places on the F1 grid for 2010 along with Manor (now Virgin) and Campos (now HRT).
All three of these teams applied to race under the budget cap proposals that former FIA president Max Mosley was putting forward at the time.
But the budget cap was pulled and replaced by the Resource Restriction Agreement. Campos were the first to complain that their terms of competing had suddenly become less favourable, and it surely affected US F1 in the same way.
So the three new teams were hampered right from the start. Of them only Virgin has made it to testing so far.
Much the same happened to Prodrive when it won the FIA’s tender for new teams in 2007. Prodrive intended to use customer cars supplied by McLaren after the FIA proposed regulations to make customer cars legal. When the FIA failed to get the customer car rules approved, Prodrive were no longer able to compete.
Questions have also been asked about whether the teams chosen last year were the most credible entries or just the most politically convenient ones. Tenders from established racing organisations such as Prodrive (who were rumoured to have a Mercedes engine supply deal) and Lola were overlooked in favour of start-ups.
One bidder which did not receive an entry, Stefan GP, found another obstacle in the tender process. Owner Zoran Stefanovich told F1 Fanatic last year:
We got information from Cosworth saying they were the only one engine that is allowed, which is not in the rules and not possible to be put in the rules. However, when we started to discuss it with them Cosworth sent us an email stating they were entitled to sign a contract and take money for this.
Apart from Cosworth we had two different opportunities but we were forced to stop because we were told Cosworth was the only one which was allowed for us.
Zoran Stefanovich
Political problems aside I think there is a fundamental problem with using a business tender process to appoint F1 teams.
The FIA shouldn’t waste its time trying to guess who can run F1 team based on a Powerpoint presentation given months before anything has been built. The rule should be, if you can get two F1 cars built and tested to a deadline before the start of the season, you’re in.
I’m sure that over the coming days and weeks we’ll hear more criticism about how US F1 weren’t up to the job of competing in Formula 1. I don’t want to pre-judge any of that.
But it’s not enough to shrug our shoulders and say “they weren’t good enough” when another team which won the original FIA tender still hasn’t tested its car yet, and one of the teams which didn’t win it is apparently ready to go but can’t race.
The cars designed by Toyota for 2010 before their departure have been snapped up by Stefanovich complete with a supply of engines. But they could be gathering dust while the teams gather in Bahrain next week.
Something clearly went wrong at US F1. But the tender process that got them in the sport in the first place is flawed as well.
The 2010 F1 teams tender process
- Exclusive: Zoran Stefanovic explains his complaint to the EU about the FIA
- How many F1 teams will race in 2010?
- Prodrive miss another chance to enter F1
Image (C) Toyota F1 World
Lustigson said on 3rd March 2010, 11:20
Perhaps a detail, but didn’t US F1 Team announce its wish to compete by 2010 before the budget cap was being discussed?
My point for allowing new teams into F1 would be similar to which applies to drivers: proven capability to run a race team on an international level (although both Manor/Virgin and Campos/HRT had that).
Plus, more importantly, but quite a high threshold to take: proven race car construction facilities (which disallows all new-for-2010 entrants, and favours Prodrive, Lola and Epsilon Euskadi).
Xanathos said on 3rd March 2010, 14:29
Why is everybody saying that Prodrive & co. would have made it? The 2008 Prodrive entry never even looked like happening and I think that they would have been the first ones to withdraw as soon as it was clear that the budget cap wasn’t going to happen. Epsilon Euskadi would have been even worse: A mediocre WSbR Team which has built an uncompetitive LMP1 car.
At least Manor and most likely Campos stuck to their plans and made it to Bahrain. And let’s be honest here, back in July USF1 looked more credible than those two.
vikenbauer said on 3rd March 2010, 16:22
“A mediocre WSbR Team which has built an uncompetitive LMP1 car”. Well, at least they’ve built a car before trying to get an F1 entry, aren’t they?
It sounds quite strange to me joining to F1 Constructors Championship without having made any car…
Giuseppe said on 3rd March 2010, 11:22
I agree with most things you have mentioned.
You have overlooked one major aspect of F1 teams though. Sponsorship
Any team that can has secure long term sponsorship is surely in a better position than a team that has built a chassis using borrowed money and then end up folding after two years.
F1 is a long term investment. 50+ years i would say
Kutigz said on 3rd March 2010, 13:30
Investment or no Investment, i quite right agree with Keith 100%!
BRING TWO CARS READY & FIT FOR THE TESTS; TEST AND YOU’RE IN!!
Its that simple mates..
Butt-Ham said on 3rd March 2010, 18:33
I think… build one car during the prev season and test it before year end, that’s a more realistic request. The new team can then invest time building the second chassis before the new season begins.
matt90 said on 3rd March 2010, 19:13
That is a risk to take though, as too many teams could potentially build cars, and someone would be turned away after months of work.
MuzzleFlash said on 3rd March 2010, 11:23
“The FIA shouldn’t waste its time trying to guess who can run F1 team based on a Powerpoint presentation given months before anything has been built. The rule should be, if you can get two F1 cars built and tested to a deadline before the start of the season, you’re in.”
Capital idea, but it’s both practical and sensible, so it’ll never make it.
I hate Powerpoint.
Bertie said on 3rd March 2010, 11:44
Hate powerpoint too.
However, this could cause issues if, say for example lola, prodrive, stephan gp, virgin and lotus all rocked up with a working car. Not allowing them to compete would effectively bankrupt them – hence no team would ever take the risk. Also not to mention no team would ever get outside investment if garantees were not made that they had a slot on the grid. The proposal make a lot of sense in one sense but would be a disaster economically.
Bertie said on 3rd March 2010, 11:48
I think fundamentally there is nothing wrong with the process they have in place, but more the politics that corrupted the decisions. Forcing the use of cosworth engines, trying to get a US presence etc.
Daffid said on 3rd March 2010, 12:44
agreed. The system was flawed and riven with ‘Maxisms’, but nobody can run an effective business with something as woolly as that. Although also agree on the ‘powerpoint’ thing. Flashy presentations from otherwise unsuitable tenders are at the root of 90% of the problems created in the built environment in the last 50 years, and they’re just as alluring, and just as flawed in F1.
Leon said on 3rd March 2010, 13:51
Good Point.
It all comes down to money doesn’t it ?
In a deep recession really good sponsors
are damned hard to find, and they sure as hell ain’t going to stick their label on a
team that has no cast iron guarantee of a
grid spot. So any new team has to get
approval from FIA right at the start.
The bit that’s missing, surely, is a rigorous technical inspection programme
to monitor any new team’s build progress. With fixed deadlines for measurable targets
to a fxed date for presenting a complete
car. Alarm bells should start to ring loud
and clear if a team misses any deadline.
Bertie said on 3rd March 2010, 15:07
Maybe a new team should be able to use a customer car for the first year, perhaps 2, and then have to build there own. This way the costs and logisitics are much easier to manage.
DavidT said on 3rd March 2010, 15:49
Couldn’t agree more.
Look at Jordan and Sauber. From what is known neither was ‘financially viable’ to run for a year but both managed it.
Neither team would probably have been allowed in under the FIA rules as they are now.
FIA seems to pick based on what accountants tell it rather than looking at pedigree of people running the team.
Sam B said on 3rd March 2010, 11:38
As I understand it StefanGP won’t be allowed to race unless all the teams agree, and Ferrari won’t whilst Mike Coughlan is involved.
Another FIA cockup.
Patrickl said on 3rd March 2010, 12:03
I doubt Williams will agree either. They never seem keen on sharing the TV money.
Mike said on 3rd March 2010, 11:40
I hope the let Stefan F1 in,
But how are the teams prospects for the future?
BasCB said on 3rd March 2010, 11:45
I still hope, that StefanGP does get some agreement with the USF1 outfit to use their grid slot (a one year lease maybe?).
For next year they can then join forces to build an innovative US-based car taking the best from the Toyota and ideas like the Gearbox from USF1.
A Serbian-USA based team might even work wonders for international politics!
dcowlives said on 3rd March 2010, 12:45
I like your thinking
BasCB said on 3rd March 2010, 11:42
I think you are right, about the presentations. Maybe the presentations should just be the start of the process. The FIA could then allow teams wich put in place
a. a good idea
b. facilities / contracted
c. Core technical staff / partners prepared
e. money and a bussinessplan in place as well as potential sponsorship plans
to be allowed a pre-entry. Then they should have some time to get car designs and sponsorship contracts with budgets prepared by a given time, say middle of the year before entry.
These team(s) can than build cars and test them from November/december onwards to be allowed on the grid.
maybe bring on Pre-season qualifying to get to the race start.
Even better, only the best of the new teams that year is given FOM-money. The rest can join, but do only get payed based on points secured during the season. That way it is possible without “official” support, but not giving a bonus for trying without any succes.
This would however make it neccissary to evaluate the last 1-2 teams on the existing grid as well, to avoid a 30 car grid.
James_mc said on 3rd March 2010, 11:43
I think that James Allen hit the nail on the head when he was discussing USF1 – The teams should be able to last for a number of years rather than just one or two
Patrickl said on 3rd March 2010, 12:08
Sounds like a good idea until you actually think it over for a bit. For instance, how can they prove this upfront?
USF1 actually claimed to have a budget in place for 5 years.
GeeMac said on 3rd March 2010, 12:13
Based on that criterion I don’t think Stefan GP would get in either.
Sasquatsch said on 3rd March 2010, 11:44
Yes the F1 tender was flawed, but only because of the mandatory choice for Cosworths.
You cannot let teams build cars and then say “Oh, you’re not on the grid”. That would be a waste of a lot of money. The choice has to be made before the building of the cars start.
And teams budgets are based on a certain amount of (expected) sponsorship. If sponsors don’t come through or there are not enough willing to sponsor the team, then the team is in serious problems as USF1 and Campos are. But they don’t get sponsorship before they have an entry to begin with, certainly not in this economic bad climate.
And there is the whole problem. The fundamentally wrong part was started with the introduction of the bonds and the limit of teams allowed to compete. Teams come (in good years) and go (in bad years), but if there are no teams coming (with the occasional exception), then teams will only leave and thus lead to less cars on the grid. And in economic difficult times it is hard for teams to enter because of lack of funding. And that is where we are now.
Ben said on 3rd March 2010, 11:47
“Tenders from established racing organisations such as Prodrive (who were rumoured to have a Mercedes engine supply deal) and Lola were overlooked in favour of start-ups.”
umm, Campos and Manor?
Look, I’ve said it so many times on this website and I’m sure I’ll be saying it all again sometime soon. Had the FIA NOT given a place to USF1 the outcry would have been massive. Even bigger than the outcry now, I’m willing to bet.
The announcement by USF1 was lauded by fans and media alike, “here’s a serious push from the US, where arguably F1 has struggled” people said. Now imagine what would have been said if USF1 wasn’t selected! Keith I’m sure you would have ripped the FIA apart for not selecting them, something along the lines of “how can F1 expect to succeed in the US when it pulls moves like this” etc. Look back, and be honest with yourself. Maybe go back and look to see what you wrote when the announcement was made, I’m willing to bet you talked it up as a great thing for F1.
I remember one of the threads actually, so many reader comments saying how great it would be for the US to have a team, finally F1 would crack through the hardcore fans into the general public. Some people questioned basing themselves in the US vs in Europe, but realistically they haven’t even reached the point for that to contribute to them failing.
Everyone be honest with yourself, they announced it so far out, had big name backers, said the lack of a budget cap wouldn’t change anything. Had they not been selected in the first place there would be a major number of people literally apoplectic about the decision.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 3rd March 2010, 12:15
No chance. It’s not as if the prevailing mood when US F1 was announced was “what a great idea, they’ll definitely make it”.
HounslowBusGarage said on 3rd March 2010, 12:31
Keith, I think you’re missing Ben’s point. If US F1 had been denied a place, American who had never even heard of Formula One would have ranted and raved about the bast*rd Europeans insulting the US by deliberately keeping them out of F1. They would have taken it as a direct insult to their national pride.
GeeMac said on 3rd March 2010, 12:47
That was Ben’s point exactly, but you have to ask yourself what’s worse? Giving USF1 an entry only for them to fall woefully short of making it to Bahrain, or “insulting their national pride” by not allowing USF1 in when the vast majority of American’s couldn’t care less about F1 and probably didn’t even realise they were given an entry?
HounslowBusGarage said on 3rd March 2010, 13:47
Well, neither actually. The worst bit is believing their tender, giving them an entry and then not following it up for six months or whatever.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 3rd March 2010, 14:01
I understand his point perfectly, I just think he’s wrong.
GeeMac said on 3rd March 2010, 14:36
As do I, just trying to fuel debate!
mfDB said on 3rd March 2010, 16:00
Yea, I think that is wrong as well. If the FIA came out and said, USF1 is not ready for 2010, maybe they can try for 2011, and these are the reasons they are not ready….there would not have been some huge public outcry. As a matter of fact, the outcry that is happening now is more massive…and embarrassing (to F1, not the US).
dsob said on 3rd March 2010, 16:06
I’m with Keith. Had USF1 not been grated an entry, it would have gotten no more notice than a line or two, most likely an afterthought at the end of a weekly-roundup column somewhere.
Folks on this site may not realize it, but amongst most of the American population, F1 is “F what?” Even among racing entusiasts, it’s way down on the list. (I know this because I live in the U.S.)
And USF1 DID get the nod, and still barely got any mention in the American press. So, like Keith, I see the point being made, just simply disagree with it.
HounslowBusGarage said on 3rd March 2010, 12:22
Ben, I think you’re right. There would have been huge outrage from the US if the FIA had not selected US F1 for the grid.
I think the flaw lies with the management of the situation by the FIA. Whatever the evidence or presentation was that persuaded the FIA that US F1 was a credible entrant was not followed through.
There must have been some kind of timeline on the basis if “By October we will have this done, that done. By January we will have done that etc”.
The FIA should have been checking that US F1 and every other new entrant was keeping to their own timetable. I’m involved with a project that has received government support; we have to provide status reports and receive inspections to monitor progress. They don’t interfere or advise, they just check our own progress milestones. And that’s exactly what the FIA should have been doing with all the new teams, but it seems they just didn’t.
SiY said on 3rd March 2010, 11:50
“Of them only Virgin has made it to testing so far.”
Clearly this article’s been sat in Drafts for a little while!
“The FIA shouldn’t waste its time trying to guess who can run F1 team based on a Powerpoint presentation given months before anything has been built. The rule should be, if you can get two F1 cars built and tested to a deadline before the start of the season, you’re in.”
Teams can only design and build cars when they have very large amounts of money in the bank – that’s the only thing which thwarted Campos. They can only get this money from manufacturers (who are now “undesirable”, a volte face from the 90s when the FIA tried very hard to get manufacturers in to replace independent teams), from rich businessmen (who can turn out to be “eccentric” (Stefanovich, Briatore), unreliable (Teixeira) or plain criminal (Allen Stanford from the cricket world)), or from sponsorship.
Sponsors will never commit to giving a team several million dollars to start designing and building a racing car, creating a group of experienced personnel, recruiting drivers, etc., unless there’s a guarantee that they will at least get a season’s worth of exposure, and preferably a very good chance of scoring a point or two and making their brand look good.
I agree that US F1 should not be allowed to defer their entry for a year. I don’t believe they weren’t serious; they had some good people on board, but the funds never quite materialised for them and they’ve missed the boat. If Stefan GP are awarded US F1′s spot purely because they turn up (with an untested car and a washed-up Canadian), it would be a real kick in the teeth to serious organisations like Lola and Prodrive. What if both of those teams, and Epsilon Euskadi, and Stefan, all turned up in Bahrain with working cars? How would the FIA then decide which team gets the last pit garage for the year and which three go home in huge debt and unable to deliver on sponsorship contracts worth, collectively, $100m? Half of that money would already have been spent on getting a team together.
BasCB said on 3rd March 2010, 12:00
Well, the money was spent in trying to get there, wasn’t it?
I think it is right to enable entrants to get a team with cars together for say 40-50
Million $.
Maybe even do this by asking engine/tire/electronics/ etc. suppliers, to commit to a limit on the price for their supplies combined with an obligation to deliver to teams.
But we must not forget, that this is a buissiness as well as being a sport. Where does a competitor get in without taking such risks?
Still, people are setting up new racing, cycling, sailing etc. entries. Often without any guarantee, that they will make it.
This is competition of teams to be the best, not some training program. Yes, it should be possible to join, but every entrant has to be aware of the risks and weight his/her abilities to get this investment back.
Patrickl said on 3rd March 2010, 12:11
“Of them only Virgin has made it to testing so far.”
Clearly this article’s been sat in Drafts for a little while!
How so? OF THEM (those 3 teams that signed under the budget cap) only Virgin has made it. Remember that Lotus came later.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 3rd March 2010, 12:17
No, I wrote it last night. Campos and US F1 never made it testing.
If you’re referring to Lotus, they were not one of the original three who won their places under the budget cap proposal.
SiY said on 5th March 2010, 9:56
Ah, sorry Keith, must admit I didn’t take in the “original three budget cap teams” intent when I first read the article.
Neil D said on 3rd March 2010, 11:50
Knowing nothing about the process of developing an F1 team I may be off base here, but isn’t it a bit of a catch-22 system where a prospective team is only likely to draw in the necessary sponsorship deals, investment and people needed to get a viable team together if they already have an entry granted?
Patrickl said on 3rd March 2010, 12:17
Yeah, so all you have upfront is a plan.
Nothing is sure. Especially not some plan on how one might run a team. Toyota signed a deal til 2012 and where are they now?
Dev said on 3rd March 2010, 11:54
i think FIA wanted each team to atleast have a confirmed engine… and at the time only Cosworth was a supplier who was willing to take the bait….
Williams n Red Bull both wanted to run Mercedes engines, but could not as they were blocked by McLaren… Williams then checked for Renault engines but knew that they could not support 3 teams, same would be the case with Ferrari… so the only viable option was Cosworth Engine..
If the teams had applied under budget cap rules and found new conditions not favorable… they should have either stopped working on the project & sued FIA or set a deadline to get required money and work on it … thats what Manor aka Virgin Racing did…
USF1 lied about the heath of their project and can’t really blame anyone but themselves…
Patrickl said on 3rd March 2010, 12:14
Completely agree. All this whining about politics and Cosworth engines being demanded by the FIA are just baseless rumours.
Cosworth might “de facto” have been the only possibility, but so what? You can’t blame anyone for that.
The EU commission and the french courts concluded that nothing unfair happened during the tender.
BasCB said on 3rd March 2010, 12:37
There was no ruling on this, as StefanGP did realize, that protesting the FIA was not the way to get an entry.
Therefore they called their legel stepps off and went on to buy the Toyota assets.
Patrickl said on 3rd March 2010, 15:39
I’ll bet the EU commission threw it out.
Red Andy said on 3rd March 2010, 18:02
I believe N.Technology’s lawsuit on similar grounds was thrown out by the courts.
Robert McKay said on 3rd March 2010, 11:56
I think it would be interesting to know how involed the FIA were in the actual process of the teams forming after their tender wins.
It LOOKS like (not necessarily is) that the FIA have done the work in “vetting” them, if you will, and then sat back and said “see you in Bahrain”. Is the Federation regularly checking up on them, visiting the factories, ensuring progress is being made?
If you’re sending an FIA delegate over to USF1 a couple of weeks before the first race and are not surprised by the lack of progress, fair enough. But if you already know there’s nothing it begs the question why you went over so late, and if you are surprised there’s nothing it begs the question of…why you went over so late.
Aleksandar Serbia said on 3rd March 2010, 11:58
I totally get why Stefan was overlooked, but to leave him out as they will, is pure evil.
I get all Stefan haters here who say he didn’t apply for this and that form, he didn’t do this by the book, he is whatever…
But one thing you cannot hide, and that is his persistence, which by far no team entering the sport had even shown.
Even Bridgestone acted like ignorant fools, not giving him tires, saying he cannot get them without Fia providing the entry!
What a load of crap form Bernie and the gang, giving heads up, and then cannot pull some string to get them proper testing!
I wonder what will The Supremo say when FIA say no go in Bahrain, he will act like a child, saying hey i don’t have the power, but when some other thing gets out of hand he will be the all mighty bolt of lightning.
This is a shame on the sport, is there no common sense that says, if somebody is trying so hard to get in, he means business?
Stefan had no guarantees and still did a better job than Campos and Us GP and will get canceled on technicality!
All the nerds of F1fanatic will burn me on this, because strict laws mean more to them than perseverance, but i do think there are some who look at this situation not with condemnation, but sympathy and a character resolve.
Now i can only look with eyes of sorrow,
our maiden team denied flight,
for its dreams were to fly among the chosen few,
who laugh in their demise..
Patrickl said on 3rd March 2010, 11:59
Stefanovic is either a poor reader or he is lying. Cosworth never said that they were the only supplier. They stated that the applicants had to have a valid engine deal AND that Cosworth were willing to provide such a deal.
These exact texts were available in the letter they sent out explaining how they “felt” that they could only choose Cosworth.
Now in reality, they couldn’t only get a deal from Cosworth because which manufacturer is going to sign a deal with some eastern european guy who’s only link to F1 is a failed takeover attempt in the late nineties?
At best he could have gotten a conditional deal and those were not allowed.
“The rule should be, if you can get two F1 cars built and tested to a deadline before the start of the season, you’re in.”
That’s probably the best solution yes. Then limit the number of cars actually running in the race to 26 by removing cars during qualifying or some other selection process.
The only problem might be the number of garages. Perhaps a pre season test selection race could be held to see which team has the best car at that time?
BasCB said on 3rd March 2010, 12:05
At the time of selections, there were strong rumours (I think from Prodrive as well), that the engine had something to do with it i.e. “we allow you on the grid only if you choose Cosworth”.
Prodrive had some kind of agreement with Mercedes at the time. This was said to be one of the reasons for not getting an entry.
Patrickl said on 3rd March 2010, 12:22
Rumours yes. Read the text of the letters itself. Keith put them up here a while ago.
It’s exactly as I say. Cosworth warn that the teams need to have an engine contract and they present themselves as a possible engine partner. Nothing more and nothing less.
“Prodrive had some kind of agreement with Mercedes at the time. This was said to be one of the reasons for not getting an entry.”
I read that too yes. The problem then is that “some kind of agreement” wasn’t good enough. It had to be a valid and signed deal.
Red Andy said on 3rd March 2010, 13:42
Spot on. I understand why people were disappointed at Prodrive not getting an entry but I don’t understand why people are still harping on about it months later. Dave Richards got over it, so should everybody else.
BasCB said on 3rd March 2010, 12:10
surely you would not expect Cosworth to actually write down something like ‘the FIA will allow you only with our engines”, would you?
Daffid said on 3rd March 2010, 13:02
who’s going to spend millions building cars in the current economic climate not knowing whether they’ll be allowed on the grid if too many show up? How could you possibly secure sponsorship if you can’t promise investors you’ll be allowed to compete?
And “some eastern european guy”? Why should being from Eastern Europe make their operation any more dodgy than “some Malaysian guys” who didn’t previously have F1 links, or “some Indian guy”? or “some Australian guy working out of America who seems to be economical with the truth”. That’s just Daily Mail talk.
Surely there were other engines kicking around. Ferrari hadn’t then committed to supplying Sauber. Mclaren blocked Merc engines for Red Bull because they’re so good, but they didn’t block them to Force India or Brawn (when they expected them to be rubbish). And Toyota were happy to pass over their operation to the guy.
Leon said on 4th March 2010, 9:45
Sums it all up nicely mate !
Exactly the point I was trying to make earlier, too.
Nobody, but nobody is going to lift a spanner until the money is there. The money can only come from sponsors.
Sponsors will not be remotely interested in nice promises. They want cast-iron guarantees that any team they back has a certain grid slot.
And then the catch 22 comes in. FIA won’t/can’t guarantee you a grid slot if you don’t have a proper set up and the money to back it.
Perfect set up for the lunatics to take
over the asylum ?
steph said on 3rd March 2010, 14:47
Nice comment Patrickl
maciek said on 3rd March 2010, 15:01
… and yet, the only teams given entries were those with Cosworth contracts – which doesn’t prove anything on its own, but it certainly raises at least one of my eyebrows.
Patrickl said on 3rd March 2010, 15:45
In reality it probably was impossible to get an unconditional contract with any of the other engine manufacturers.