Heikki Kovalainen, Lotus, Bahrain, 2010

FIA invites “competitive” new teams to enter F1

2015 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Heikki Kovalainen, Lotus, Bahrain, 2010The FIA is inviting potential new Formula One teams to apply for a place on the grid from 2015 or 2016.

A statement on the website of the sports’ governing body said the selection process would choose “a candidate team to participate at a competitive level” until the 2020 season at least.

“The overall long-term interests of the championship will determine which candidates are selected,” it added.

Potential applicants have until January 3rd to submit expressions of interest to the FIA.

Formula One has suffered a dearth of new entrants in recent seasons due to spiralling costs. Since 2002 only five new operations have entered the sport, three of which have since left:

YearNew teamNotes
2002ToyotaLeft at end of 2009
2006Super AguriLeft in mid-2008
2010LotusNow Caterham
2010VirginNow Marussia
2010HRTLeft at end of 2012

The FIA previously announced a new cost cap will come into effect for teams from 2015, the first year in which the new competitors could arrive.

2015 F1 season

Browse all 2015 F1 season articles

Image ?? Lotus

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories 2015 F1 seasonTags , , ,

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 105 comments on “FIA invites “competitive” new teams to enter F1”

    1. This is the first step to the announcement of Customer Cars in 2015.

      A bold prediction, but one I believe in.

      1. And if that’s true, the first step to me not watching Formula One any more.

        Actually, that’s not true. KERS was the first step. DRS was the second. Double-point races are the third. This would be the last.

        1. Todd (@braketurnaccelerate)
          11th December 2013, 23:02

          Three Four Strikes and you’re [F1] out!

        2. Don’t forget the tyres!

      2. @ukphillie – Is that necessarily a bad thing? Introducing customer cars to the grid and leaving it at that is the equivalent of a bullet to the foot, but I think that with a few extra rule changes, it could work. The FIA is in the process of doing the same thing in the World Rally Championship, and it’s proving pretty propular.

        Until this year, the World Rally Championship was a mess, with cars from a dozen classes eligible to enter under certain regulations. In addition to the WRC, there were Regional Rally Cars, Group N Production Cars, Super 2000 and Super 1600 entries. The FIA condensed all of that down by reclassifying everything under the new Group R regulations. The ultimate goal of Group R is to see cars categorised as R5 replace World Rally Cars entirely.

        The idea behind R5 is that manufacturers will build cars and sell them to teams. They won’t actually run the cars themselves and will have no control over the actual teams and drivers. It’s similar to the system Malcolm Wilson’s M-Sport team uses: M-Sport build all of the Fiesta WRCs, and loan or sell them to customers (depending on the needs of that customer). That’s why Ford will have a dozen Fiestas competing over the course of a season, while other teams rarely enter more than four cars.

        I think a similar system could work in Formula 1. Constructors would build cars, but they would not actually race them. Instead, they would be sold to teams who competed on their behalf. Constructors would supply engineers and mechanics (perhaps with a rule similar to Formula 2, where pit crews changed cars every event), and provide upgrades to everyone using their chassis. Teams would compete with the cars, and would have the freedom to choose whichever drivers they wanted at a given moment. There would be a limit on how many cars a constructor could supply, based on the maximum that the smallest constructor could offer (so if Red Bull could supply ten cars and Williams could only supply four, Red Bull would be limited to four). Drivers would compete for the Drivers’ Championship, Constructors for the Constructors’ Championship, and individual teams would compete for a new title, the Teams’ Championship.

        Teams would be free to enter as many races as they liked, with a minimum and maximum number set across the season. In a season with 20 races, they would have to contest at least 8 and no more than 15. The season could then be divided up into a NASCAR-style Chase for the Sprint Cup, but implemented better. After fifteen races, the top twenty-four drivers would be put onto a set entry list, and the last five races would be run for the championship without any backmarkers getting in the way. Championship points would not be reset as they are in NASCAR – this is simply a way of getting a fixed grid of the best drivers. This way of running races would mean a return to the days of pre-qualifying, but the idea is to keep the costs for the individual teams down, so even if they don’t qualify for a race, it’s not a total disaster.

        Of course, for this to work, there has to be major restrictions in place on car design. The whole system fails if there is a massive gap in performance between cars. The FIA need to be brutal in their application of design regulations, severly restricting aerodynamic development (but opening up engine development at the same time).

        1. PM, why on earth didn’t you stand in the recent FIA presidential elections? Anyone with half an ouce of sense would’ve voted you in… ah, I think I just answered my own question!

        2. Good grief. Are you trying to completely F1 off completely? F1 is not NASCAR or WRC. Different beast all together, with completely different historical presidents.

      3. I predict that one of the current teams will go burst. Just like it happened before 2009, someone surely will lose its spot, or 2 teams will merge (Marussia is reported to be looking for a merger).

        1. @fer-no65 – Sadly, I’m afraid that’s what it’s going to take to enact real change. Twenty years ago, Williams were a force to be reckoned with; now, they face the same dire fate as Tyrrell, with substandard drivers, lacklustre cars and wildly inconsistent performances. Likewise Sauber, who are circling the drain financially. We could lose one or both in the none-too-distant future.

        2. I can think of three or four teams that might have that fate in the next two years. Even if the FIA allow another entrant (and they messed up last time, didn’t they?), we could still have two empty garages.

      4. Nope – because the FIA are giving prospective teams 3 weeks to apply for a place, but have made no announcement whatsoever about customer cars.

        Why get new teams to apply and then change the rules totally? Why not change the rules and then invite new teams to apply, especially as it is a rule change that would likely attract a lot more prospective new teams (albeit of a very different flavour)?

        So no, I don’t think this indicates that customer cars will be introduced in 2015.

        What is odd, is that there are no details at all of what this cost cap will actually be – it could be a rigid £50 million spend per year, or a vague and complex system like the resource restriction agreement. So I suspect we’ll have a similarly confusing situation to the last round of new team applications – where most applications were made presuming that Mosley’s £40 million cost cap would come into effect, but it never did (spelling the end of USF1).

        1. Why not change the rules and then invite new teams to apply, especially as it is a rule change that would likely attract a lot more prospective new teams

          But as you say this is exactly what they did last time with the budget cap but then didn’t go ahead with the changes leaving the new teams with an uphill struggle (from what I’ve read about USF1 the absence of a cost cap was the least of their problems).

          I don’t understand why they don’t have an open door policy – anyone who can build a car and operate it to the regulations should be welcomed. It’s not as if there’s such high demand for places that they need to be so restrictive. Could Stefan GP have made it to race – maybe not, but we never got the chance to find out and if they had given it a go what’s the worst that could have happened?

          USF1 and HRT weren’t exactly great success stories – and these were two of the three teams originally hand-picked by the FIA which shows how poor that selection process was. Why not let anyone who wants a go have a try, we already have rules which have to be met including the 107% rule to ensure only teams capable of racing can do so.

          1. The budget cap was overturned due to opposition from other parties. The FIA couldn’t push it threw as they had expected.

      5. FIA is a gift that keeps on giving….

    2. Of course you want a “competitive” team, as opposed to a non-existent one (looking at you, USF1).

      I find it difficult to see any major manufacturers joining unless there is some kind of budget cap implemented… I suppose it makes sense that they’re accepting applications now, since it’ll be near impossible for a brand new outfit to get a new car designed from scratch for 2014. Then there’s the budget cap proposed for 2015 (yeah, we’ll see)… I really hope either the existing ‘new’ teams, or the 12th one that will join in the future, will show that these new teams can build to a point where they’re competitive. How will any future teams consider joining F1 if all they see is failures and debts stack up from all the new teams?

      1. @steevkay

        I find it difficult to see any major manufacturers joining unless there is some kind of budget cap implemented

        I disagree – the typical modus operandi for manufacturer entrants is to try to buy their way to success, just as Toyota tried to do by spending an entire year testing their car before entering the championship, just as Porsche are doing at the moment in the World Endurance Championship.

        (Not that I have any confidence in a budget cap being realistic, I hasten to add.)

        1. As soon as I read your comment, I realized my error. You’re right about that, I was only thinking about the post-economic-meltdown climate (i.e. now that Honda and Toyota have both pulled out…)

          As far as the budget cap goes, it is something I hope for, but realistically am not expecting to happen.

        2. @keithcollantine the only reason manufacturer new entrants try and buy their way to success is because there is no other way to win a championship in F1 in its current structure. You have to spend. Even then, there are no guarantees, case in point Toyota. It is not a modus operandi dictated by the manufacturers but rather by the circumstances. A budget cap shifts the competition from whoever spends more to whoever uses its limited resources more efficiently. A structure where the there is a certain level of predictability of how much will be spent is appealing to manufacturers and an easier sell at boardroom level as far as determining ROI of a F1 project. So yes, a budget cap is an attractive prospect to manufacturers and a much better alternative to the current structure or ,worse still, customer cars.

          1. You have to spend.

            You might want to tell that to Lotus and Toyota.

            1. Could do, but of course you might also want to add come context (” Even then, there are no guarantees, case in point Toyota. “) which negates your point.

        3. @keithcollantine – At the opposite end of the spectrum, you have Lola, who rushed into development for the 1997 season.

          So I don’t think it’s a case of buying success – teams do need some time to prepare. It’s how they use that time that matters.

          1. @prisoner-monkeys

            I think Lola are a bad example. The team was never really meant to enter in 1997. It was pushed in by the sponsors, Mastercard. The owner Lola, didn’t intend for it to happen, therein being the difference.

    3. So could Carlin be in f1 after all.. Put many applications in, in the past.

    4. One Andretti Racing Team coming up…

      1. Coke or Pepsi perhaps? Or better, Apple iRacing.

        1. Doesn’t Google have lots of cash?

          There was the tobacco era, and now we’ll have the high-tech era: Google F1 (needs a better name), Apple, maybe Oracle will give up sailing for F1, Samsung…

          1. David not Coulthard (@)
            12th December 2013, 7:23

            Hmmmm…..Red Hat Ferrari?

          2. @steevkay if Oracle support a car like they support their products ….

            Google dismissed the proposal because their AdWords system was not used around circuits.
            Facebook dismissed it too because they could not change teams privacy settings without their consent.
            Microsoft refused, fearing some blue screen of death in the middle of a race.
            Apple was frustrated because they could not apply for a patent on the principle of open wheels neither could they rename the sport in iFormula.
            Not so simple :)

            1. …and I suppose Samsung can’t get in unless Apple joins, since they’ll essentially reverse engineer the Apple racecar, making the ‘spygate’ of 2007 seem like child’s play.

      2. When Mario Andretti intimated a few days ago that F1 should permit customer cars because it would attract teams like his son’s to F1, my only real thought was who cares? Surely there is no point to being in the sport as a team unless you rise to the technical challenge and compete on the design side of things.

        Since I first started karting I’ve absolutely loved it, loved competing and especially loved winning. Then when I was in college, as part of the course we designed, built and raced our own ‘soapbox’ electric kart in a one-off race at Pembrey. I know it’s at the absolute bottom end of the scale compared to F1, but the experience of competing with a machine you have designed and built yourselves is absolutely fantastic, it’s hard to explain but it takes on a huge added dimension in comparison to racing on your own just for the sake of it. I just don’t understand why any teams would want to enter F1 without entering into that spirit of competition.

    5. “The FIA is inviting potential new Formula One teams to apply for a place on the grid from 2015 or 2016”

      Is the FIA serious?

      They will be very lucky to even keep the 11 current teams on the F1 grid.

      1. Quite right, realistically the announcement should have read: Due to expected vacancies in the near future the FIA is looking for a number of people/business’ willing to spend vast amounts of money to support the owners of FOM.

        1. Spot on @hohum, and most likely why there will probably not be anyone interested.

          A manufacturer that would want to enter the sport would just buy out an existing outfit (Lotus would be for grabs, Sauber too, FI could also be open to it, who knows if a manufacturer came by, Mateschitz could in effect sell them the team too, Marussia would be quite cheap to have too, Fernandes would no doubt be happy to announce another business connection for Caterham) to use its resources.
          Even a wealthy individual would be far cheaper and better off just buying one of the existing teams instead of having to build up their own facilities.
          Only Toyota would probably be able to start up from the facilities they already have, although I guess VW would have the infrastructure too, but why would they want to do it.
          And until there is a real scope of making money from operating a team, I really struggle to see how anyone would want to enter F1 if not a manufacturer. Certainly not the likes of Andretti et all, who are used to be able to calculate a ROI for their operations

    6. We heard this all before when HRT, Marrusa and Caterham entered. Not before long costs had spiralled out of control an Bernie was complaining about the small teams not competing. I would not touch it with with her maws da’s!

      1. Ah, but those teams entered under the assumption that a budget cap would be put in place. The existing teams managed to kill that off because it was so poorly implemented, and it hurt those new teams.

        This time, however, Jean Todt has got the “Global Cost Cap” in place already. It’s not clear how this will be introduced, but the important part is that there is an agreement in place that the teams think is workable (otherwise, they never would have agreed to it). The Streategy Working Group might only have representatives from six teams, but the teams who put up the most resistance to an externally-policed budget cap are among those six teams, so this isn’t a case of the FIA performing a bait and switch on them.

        The difference between then and now is that Max Mosely put the cart before the horse. He opened the grid up to entries under the promise of a budget cap before he could make good on that promise. In fact, he probably tried to use those new entries to coax the existing teams into agreeing to the budget cap. But Jean Todt has been smart enough to get an agreement in writing first. This way, any potential new entires will know exactly what to expect and there is no risk of having the carpet pulled out from under them.

        1. Its a strange sensation to see a comment of you being that naive as far as the “Global Cost Cap” is concerned @prisoner-monkeys.

          Yes, the work group did agree and sign off this initiative to form a commission to agree on the how and what of a Global Cost Gap. But its far from clear what that cap will actually be, and one of the reasons the teams might have agreed is that they will have all the options in the world to tone it down, neuter any control mechanisms and make the penalties for infringement almost irrelevant.
          To state that this cost cap is done and dusted is very far from the reality.

          1. @bascb

            Global Cost Gap

            Interresting typo :)

          2. I think @bascb has a point there. We don’t know if the cost is 50 or 100 million euros/pounds/whatever. Plus, teams like Ferrari, RB and Mercedes all part of the strategy group have budgets far, far bigger than those. I doubt it would really help the teams with money like MArussia or Caterham have. It, in my opinion would be much better to have less cost for engines, more part-sharing (gearbox etc) than limiting costs and customer cars.
            Burning up money is a part of F1, after all. It is the pinnacle of motorsports. A money limit won’t let F1 be the innovator it has been. Would the development of V6’s be possible with the budget? No. Maybe the engines coulld have been separate from the Works team of Ferrari and Mercedes (and Cosworth , “shhhh!”) but it just leads to more and more loopholes, doesn’t it?

            And a cost cap combined with a bit of return of in-season testing ( 4 post race sessions, removal of YDT) sounds strange to me.

            Money burning has become a part of F1 in the last few decades or so. It’s F1 which is full of glamour, not 24 hours of Le Mons.

    7. I wonder if they’re aware of the semantics surrounding the word “competitive”.

      1. You just made me laugh :)

    8. “The overall long-term interests of the championship will determine which candidates are selected,” it added.

      The FIA are really off their nut, and the pomp of the message is a great symptom of the leadership issues at the higher echelons of the sport. Formula 1 seems to be in a commercial slump at the moment, and it’s entirely down the leadership of the sport. There’s plenty of money out there, but for some reason large numbers of blue-chip commercial partners just aren’t interested.

    9. until the 2010 season at least

      Slightly confused. Must be a mistake :P

      1. No mistake, it’s just the latest FIA gimmick. You earn double points in the last race of the season, and backmarker teams can inversely defer their failures back to the 2010 season, thus ensuring that only positive benchmarks are reached after new rolling roadbl… err… backmarker teams join the grid.

    10. Formula One has suffered a dearth of new entrants in recent seasons due to spiralling costs. Since 2002 only five new operations have entered the sport, three of which have since left.

      Thankfully, few teams have left though. And those that do tend to be recent start-ups. Although that is bad in that it puts off new teams from having a go, it is reassuring that teams with decent resources and long histories have stayed safe, even if they’ve come close to leaving. The track record for established teams is quite good. They tend to change hands rather than go bust at least. Formula 1 isn’t in a great way financially, yet 9 teams on the grid can trace their roots back to the ’90s or earlier. Toyota was something of an exception, but although it raced for a reasonably long time (8 years), it was always poorly managed, poorly structured, under-achieving, and existed under just the one name- it isn’t surprising that the team disappeared completely when Toyota gave up. Despite Honda, Toyota and BMW being big name to withdraw, their exits were not tragedies in the end and the last major casualties were actually Prost and Arrows (not to detract anything from the younger teams which left).

    11. This does seem wonderfully mistimed. Teams might be entering in 2015- one year after a major regulation change. That is one of the problems the recent new teams faced, joining 1 year late. I’m sure that simply be start-ups, with reduced resources, is a big reason for them staying at the back, but having been on the back foot- one step behind the major teams- must be an issue. This is why their performance will be particularly interesting next year.

    12. I wasn’t around in the 80’s or whenever it was. It sounds horrible to have teams that would ship their equipment all over the world and not pass pre-qualifying. That just sounds like a ridiculous waste of everyone’s time and poor planning on the championship’s part.

      But aside from that, was it so bad when the standards were lower and whoever wanted to race could easily enter? Building up a team is already hard enough without all these extra artificial barriers of crazy entry fees and what not. Having not witnessed the 80’s, I say the more the merrier. If they can pass crash tests and prove they have the will and the funds to contest at least a full season, why not let actual pace (via the 107% rule, or tighten it up to 105%) weed out the uncompetitive teams naturally?

    13. If they want new teams, then they will need to sort out the sorry state of Formula One first. No team is going to want to enter when it’s getting such bad press, with the tyres, double points etc. I still love F1, but it does need to sort itself out first.

      The only way I see any team entering and being competitive, is if someone with quite a lot of money comes in and tries to entice some top people into building something up from the ground. It can be done, but as I said, would need money and the willingness of a few key people.

    14. perhaps the prize money could be distributed a little more equally, say a million or so for each team at each race? that would be pretty good show-up money…

      1. Michael (@dedischado), meet Bernie Ecclestone. Bernie Ecclestone, meet Michael (@dedischado).

        As long as Bernie’s still got hiz wizened claws sunk into F1’s helm, no team will be getting more money. Except Ferrari, that is — got to give them every possible advantage to help cheat their way to the top step.

    15. Seeing as most of the grid have money problems, it seems that investing or buying into one of those would be a better investment.
      When’s the last time a New Team won anything?
      The closest I can think of was Toyota. Red bull and brawn don’t count since they were only new in name but had past iterations.

      1. @yoshif8tures
        Stewart is the newest constructor to win a race. They entered the sport in 1997 and won a race in 1999. Stewart later became Jaguar and eventually Red Bull, so it took them 14 seasons to win a championship.

        But we haven’t had that many new entrants after that – the only ones have been Toyota (2002), Super Aguri (2006) Hispania/HRT (2010), Lotus/Caterham (2010) and Virgin/Marussia (2010). Toyota achieved 13 podiums and 3 pole positions, the others not much so far.

        1. Super Aguri used an old Arrows chassis and then a Honda hand-me-down chassis, so query their “newness credentials” too.

    16. Let’s see how successful Formula e is. My gut tells me if it is successful, Formula e will become/merge with Formula 1.

      1. You heard it hear first: It’s going to be a dismal failure. It will run precisely as long as the contracts last, with extremely low viewership — and only that long if loopholes and get-out clauses can’t be found in the contracts.

        The cars sound awful. They look Mickey Mouse. The whole formula has been invented, it seems, to emphasize the shortcomings of the cars. (Electric cars can’t even manage to get to the end of a shorter-than-average, race, it seems. So you have to change cars — not batteries, or recharge, or anything else, but CHANGE CARS — in the middle of the race. And just in case you didn’t notice how shambolic that is, we’ll make you get out of one perfectly good, flat-batteried car, and run halfway down the pit lane while the cameraman follows you, huffing and puffing, to your new car. Whatever do you mean it’d make more sense to change cars side by side, if you have to change cars? Motorsports is all about running, isn’t it?)

        1. Formula E sounds to be more gimmicky than F1, just like the XFL was when it was trying to compete with the NFL.

        2. Let’s wait and see. Personally I’m going to be watching it provided it airs on a channel in the UK that I have access to.

          I don’t actually mind the noise or look of them and if it makes it past a few seasons then I’m sure the rules will get changed as it matures and hopefully it will spawn some decent innovations.

    17. Whatever happened to Scorpion Racing

      1. Never heard of em

        1. They were a consortium that tried to buy HRT’s assets shortly after the team withdrew from the championship.

          Evidently, nothing came of it.

          1. Like you said @prisoner-monkeys that SR was going to buy HRT but once Bernis told them that it’s too late to feature in 2013 grid they quickly bailed out

            1. @William – Actually, they missed a deadline to apply to join the grid. Bernie might have been the one to inform them of it, but there is an actual regulation in place for new entries.

          2. Better out than That

        2. @yoshif8tures They were supposed to take over HRT.

    18. Is it just me or is this “sport” starting the initial phases of disappearing up its own backside?

      1. Nope, you are not alone.
        I’ve long thought that F1 was in need of a dose of syrup of figs and then some! It’s not just the obscene overspending, or the pathetic circus-based gimmicks, or even the tyres. It’s the entire machinery that administers, promotes and runs it. From the nit-picking, ham-fisted FIA, to the money-grabbing FOM all the way down to the megabuck celebrities who prance about the grid with their ‘Mechanic’ pit passes.
        Enema’s all round!

    19. How about double points for new teams?

      1. @kelsier Ha ha . Spot on ! That’s the kind of FIA announcement we can expect to hear .

    20. Since 2002 only five new operations have entered the sport, Toyota, Super Aguri, Lótus/Caterham, Virgem/HRT and none of them won a single race
      I was curious to know what the last one entered and won

      1. Stewart Grand Prix managed to do well, winning a race in 1999. @erivaldonin

      2. I believe it’s Stewart/Jaguar/Red Bull, with Stewart starting in 1997 and RBR achieving its first race win in 2009.

        1. Damn, looks like I was beat to it… and I didn’t know Stewart ever won a race. I’m just an amateur at stats it seems…

          1. As Jackie Stewart is proud to point out, they managed to stand on every step of the podium in their time.

            1. And the most amazing of these was the 2nd place. This was in their fifth race after in the first four races, both cars had to retire. So the first time a Stewart finished a race it immediately made it onto the podium! (Monaco 1997, quite rainy conditions allowed for the surprise).

              I wonder whether that happened for any other team.

              @geemac @beejis60 @erivaldonin

      3. Brawn GP won both championships in ’09 and they (arguably) started life as BAR in 1999.

      4. Nowhere near a win, but I still think Super Aguri’s 10th place at Brazil in ’06 in an old Arrows chassis developed on a shoestring budget was an immense achievement.

    21. They’ve only got until 3 January? The FIA isn’t giving them much time. But then, I guess that the teams that are most likely to be “competitive” will know straight away if they can commit. I’m guessing that the FIA has Andretti Autosport in mind as one of the potential new teams.

      1. @prisoner-monkeys I tend to think that FIA would not even talk about that if there wasn’t already a bunch of investors interested. Furthermore motorists are surely willing to sell more of those expensive engines.

    22. No one cares about new teams that are eventually going to be last. Furthermore, inviting them in 2015 means they’ll be one full year behind in car development with the new rules. FIA are just making rules up as they go, the don’t have a clear direction or master plan of any kind for the sport.

      1. In 12 months time, due to lack of interest and a couple of team failures, customer cars will be back on the table, the FIA having made every effort to find new teams.

    23. I’m imagining… Newey-Brawn F1.

      If anyone can build a new team from scratch, those two can. Sponsors would fall over themselves to be part of it, engine suppliers too, and they wouldn’t lack interested drivers.

      Nice little challenge for the guys who’ve won everything, and Newey deserves his name on a car. I’m guessing both of you religiously read F1Fanatic, so… please?

      1. David not Coulthard (@)
        12th December 2013, 7:47

        Brawn-Briatore (or even Brawn-Andretti or Brawn-Penske!) would be better, I think.

        1. I’m guessing the Briatore name isn’t going to have sponsors falling over themselves quite as much.

    24. Id like to see a google f1 team, or microsoft f1, or any other big tech firms getting in on it. Why not? If they got in, its good advertising, they’ve got money to burn, and they could sit in the fota meetings and push things in a more technical direction maybe? Advanced electronics? Google are buying up robotics firms, how about pit crew robots? I want the future, now dang’it!

      1. David not Coulthard (@)
        12th December 2013, 7:50

        I’d rather see the Free Software Foundation do so (and have chassis’ named like RMSF115 for the first season)- but I guess that’s just me.

        1. @davidnotcoulthard yeah! and with open-sourced releases of chassis details, engine cartography, … They could even build a transparent car :)

          1. David not Coulthard (@)
            12th December 2013, 12:28

            I prefer the term Free software.

            By the way, the cars (and telemetry) will probably be obfuscated, though :p. It still wouldn’t count as DRM….

            Wait, will that involve Red Bull’s help in adhering to the letters, but not “spirit”, of the license?

            1. @davidnotcoulthard A fan’s team, crowd-sourced, BSD-like license ;)

          2. David not Coulthard (@)
            12th December 2013, 12:29


      2. Surely Google would only be interested if the car were allowed to drive itself.

    25. I always thought it was ridiculous how the old process worked. Teams were only allowed 1 year to, from the ground up, build a car. It much more sensible for teams to be allowed 2 years from the time of the acceptance till they had to race.

    26. With the kind of announcements FIA is making, it seems obvious that they make decisions on impulse .
      With the current model , I doubt if anyone will ever join unless they are bribed or given double points or some thing ( Beware of this if some new team does join as Bernie could have done something in the background with them ). I mean , just take Lotus for example . They are one of the top end teams with shrewd people at the helm and are now relying on driver money to pay last year’s salaries .Who would want to join ? With these kinds of rule making and amateurish quick fix attitude to problem solving , even ‘I-don’t-know-what-to-do-with-my money’ businessmen would dread to join .I doubt had Red Bull Racing joined now , they would have made it to the points .
      I think the essence of FOM and Bernie’s business model is that ‘No matter what we throw , F1 fans will take it’ . If that barrier is breached , I believe they will get a wake up call to make things more sane .
      I am not cynical of everything FOM wishes to do . All I am saying is that they have to analyse more before coming up with these Fevi-stick responses.
      Mercedes and Ferrari agreed to the double points rule , I suppose . Why no objection from them? If that did happen , then , I can’t imagine their faces next year , if their driver looses out in the final race .
      I am amused by the way that the sport which involves such innovative and brilliant minds at work is governed by a board whose intellect is infinitesimal. Diluting the sport is one , dissolving it is another. I believe ‘true f1’ is on the verge of the latter .

      1. With the irony with DRS (2010 Abu Dhabi and 2012 Brazil), tyres changing post Silverstone (suited RB more than Ferrari, theres half a chance it will happen.

    27. newey should ditch redbull and create Newey GP with the unstoppable N-1

    28. And it is not just teams that are going to be wary of F1, consider the position of a 12 year old Karting champion, do you channel another 8 years of dedication towards the goal of being a F1 driver where you will be expected to pay millions to drive for several years in the hope that you have the talent and the luck to be offered a drive by a team that can afford to pay you, or do you look for greener pastures in touring cars, LeMans, Indycar etc. Hell, even classic car racers get paid.

      1. @hohum – Pay drivers don’t race for free. They are usually paid out of the money they bring to the team.

        1. True, but unless they they have an oil company or one of the worlds richest men as backers they are not making it in the same league as Hamilton or even Webber/Massa for that matter. How well do you think Hulkenberg is doing financially, and do you think there will be a greater or lesser demand to pay to drive in future?

      2. +1
        Nothing to add. Says exactly what is wrong with F1.

    29. Hm, when you look at this “selection process”, not only does an interested party have all the time of the world – until Januari 3rd (making that about 2 work weeks) to apply, but then the FIA will no doubt have a very carefull look at everyone who chipped in their 5000 USD administration fees, with the whole process taking almost 2 months (seriously, last time they took 6 months and look who they picked).

      If the requirements are so low, maybe we really could have a go at bringing together 5k and enter that F1Fanatic Racing team @keithcollantine.

      1. David not Coulthard (@)
        12th December 2013, 12:37

        …which will fail to pre-qualify?

    30. Daniel (@collettdumbletonhall)
      12th December 2013, 13:28

      Good news. On another note, I hope that these rule changes coming give Marussia and Caterham a chance to catch up with the other teams. They’re almost there.

    31. what happened to Scorpio buying HRT and joining the grid this year?

    Comments are closed.