The plight of the Caterham and Marussia F1 teams is a sorry state of affairs. That two teams should reportedly be placed into administration within a month of each other is deeply troubling even if it is not, in all honesty, a tremendous surprise. It is very sad for the team’s hard working employees and for their many fans. But for anyone to pretend that this is some new phenomenon and that it should not be permitted to happen is utterly absurd. If success is the barometer against which all racing entities are judged, then failure is inherent in the very DNA of the sport.
In the 64 year history of Formula 1, 164 teams have existed. Today, including Caterham and Marussia, 11 survive. 153 teams have thus failed within that time period. That’s an average of a little over two teams (2.390) failing each season. While unfortunate, the demise of the sport’s two slowest and most poorly funded teams is well within acceptable and statistical, if slightly Darwinian, limits.
Only one team, Scuderia Ferrari, has competed in every year of the championship. Even looking back a decade to the grid of 2004 highlights the fact that just four teams survived to take their place on the grid in 2014. That’s 60% of the 2004 grid that either withdrew, folded, or sold up and shipped out over the last decade.
There are no guarantees in this sport. There never have been and there never will be. For the uncompetitive, both sportingly and financially, life in Formula 1’s state of nature has always fallen under Thomas Hobbes’ most famed principle of social contract theory. Namely, that it is nasty, brutish and short.
Back in 2003, I remember well a conversation I had with then Minardi boss Paul Stoddart at European Aviation’s base just outside Ledbury, England. Stoddy was a battler, and either a bastard or a hero depending on which side of the fence one wished to sit. Constantly at loggerheads with fellow team owners and the FIA, he preached that without the small teams Formula 1 would die. His reasoning was simple. Without a Minardi or a Jordan occupying the final rows of the grid, those final positions would be taken by a major motor manufacturer. Said manufacturer would then have to explain to the board why hundreds of millions of dollars were being spent on this folly, only to be seen as slow and weak. The manufacturer would thus pull out, leaving another manufacturer on the back row. And so the unravelling effect would build speed until just one manufacturer was left and the sport was dead.
But while Stoddy sold up to Red Bull, turning Minardi into Scuderia Toro Rosso, and while teams folded all around, the sport didn’t die. It evolved. The Ferrari empire collapsed and the Red Bull empire was built. The great garagistes peaked and troughed. Big manufacturers withdrew. And in 2010, three new teams were welcomed into the fold.
Today, it is this process to which one must now give serious attention if we are to truly understand the situation the sport now finds itself in. Questions have always been asked but now answers must be given as to the true story behind a selection process that saw the seemingly worthy applications of Epsilon Euskadi, N Technology, Prodrive and Lola, amongst others, overlooked in favour of Campos (which became HRT), Lightspeed (which became Lotus/Caterham), USF1 (which never even made a race), and Manor Racing (which became Virgin and then Marussia.)
Each entry was sold on the promise of a budget cap which was never realised. Not one made the first race of the 2010 F1 season in the guise in which it had applied for and been awarded an entry. Only one scored an F1 point, and all four have now failed.
With the exception of Manor, a team with tremendous junior formula pedigree, and to a lesser extent Campos which itself had success at sub-F1 levels, answers must be given by the FIA as to how and why the teams were chosen in the 2010 process. As maligned as they now are in F1 circles, without the likes of Branson and Fernandes, and one must not forget Kolles’ role for HRT, the Lightspeed, Manor and Campos projects might well have proven to be as stillborn as was USF1. That they survived as long as they did is testament to the tenacity and hard work of those that will be hit hardest by all this – the staff.
So how do we progress? And can the teams be saved? Quite simply, in the cases of Caterham and Marussia, while administration will allow a chance for a buyer to be found, one would now sadly not place any serious amount of money on seeing either team on the grid in Melbourne next season. But while their demise is a perfectly natural part of the dog-eat-dog world of Formula 1, it does not mean that one should not learn from the problems the teams have encountered, and strive to find solutions for the future.
Bernie Ecclestone has today reignited the debate on the potential for teams to run third cars in Formula 1. But rather than the top teams running their own third cars, he has suggested something altogether different…
“They would supply a third car to someone else so if, for example, Sauber disappeared, a team could do a deal with Sauber. Ferrari could say, ”we will give you a car, all that goes with it, and we want you to put this sponsor on it. You have your own sponsors but we want you to include this one as well and we want you to take this driver”. The team wouldn’t have to go under then would they? If Red Bull decided they would give a car to Caterham for example that could solve their problem,” he told The Mail in an article written by Christian Sylt.
The issue with this is that it doesn’t solve the issue. Not for anyone. Except perhaps Ecclestone himself.
In order to qualify for payments as a Formula 1 constructor a team must be a bona fide “constructor.” As such, running another team’s third car would mean that it was, in effect, running a customer car and would thus forfeit its rights, rewards and obligations under Concorde. Let’s not even get into the concept of a team simply “giving” a car away to another squad and the cost implications implicit in this. At its very base, the idea negates a team’s position as a constructor and far from saving it, would merely condemn it.
What it does do, however, is keep the grid filled. And this, as the sport’s Commercial Rights Holder, is Ecclestone’s only real concern. Bernie has created deals with racing circuits, promoters and the world’s television networks worth hundreds of millions of dollars per annum on the basis that he and CVC will provide a Formula 1 World Championship… that means every driver and, of course, every team. Crucially, there is understood to be a clause in these contracts which designates a full grid as being composed of 16 cars. Austin will feature just two above this number. Should Sauber, which is also believed to be in financial peril, fold, Ecclestone has a real problem on his hands.
Ecclestone’s concept of third cars run by smaller teams is a short term stop gap, seemingly to save CVC and the sport from defaulting on its contracts promising full grids of a certain size. What it will not do is save the teams under pressure, let alone those who have already placed themselves in administration.
I have long argued the benefits of customer cars and today, as the last of the 2010 entrants admits defeat and enters its final weeks, I feel its potential importance to be greater than ever. It will not help those who are already failing, but it could be a solution for the future. Those who are regular readers of my blog will know my concept. For those that are new I will outline it in very simple terms.
Any new team entering Formula 1 may purchase and use an old (previous year or older) customer chassis for the first two years of competition in the sport. It is permitted to make its own upgrades to this car and to develop it up to the point where, starting at the first race of the third year of competition, it must field a car of its own design. A budget for the chassis of each team will be set by the FIA on a sliding scale whereby the bottom ranked team’s car is the cheapest up to the champion’s being the most expensive. As such, there is a higher chance of mid-grid to lower ranked teams receiving the benefit of a cash injection from the new squads, at a sensible level of affordability for the new entrant.
It is the principle which Super Aguri ran in its short F1 lifetime, and used to such effect to take a knackered Honda and start taking the fight not only to its big sister team, but to the established order on occasion. The car that Aguri would have fielded for the 2009 season it never saw, the first of its own design, actually went on to form the basis of the Brawn BGP001 which won the championship. Had Aguri had better financing, there is every reason to suspect that in just its third year of competition, it could have truly been a contender.
It is a simple concept, and one which I believe would help new teams. It gives them a step up to be able to compete, but it doesn’t hand them success on a plate. It must still be achieved by hard work and ingenuity.
What the last four years has taught us, however, is that talent alone is not enough. The teams can do their very best Emperor Nero impersonation, but if they want the sport to survive and if they want new blood to stand a chance, as they proclaim they do, then this small allowance must be permitted. I still find it beyond reason that Williams should be one of the chief voices against the return of customer cars, when Sir Frank himself began his F1 team running Piers Courage in a purchased Brabham in 1969. But that’s by the by.
Because, at the root of much of the discontent in the sport, is the simple fact that the teams have too much power. You want to blame someone for double points? Blame the Strategy Group. Engine Unfreeze? Strategy Group. That initial Team radio ban? Strategy Group.
I’ve said it once and I will say it again. You cannot expect competing entities to legislate for the furtherance of the sport. They will always be driven by their own agendas, be they sporting or financial. The teams will sit and crow that the demise of Caterham and Marussia is terribly sad and something should have been done to save them, but the truth of the matter is that the sport exists today in a political mess where only the teams have the ability to truly save themselves. That they have let two of their own destroy themselves is their responsibility. But it is a responsibility they should not have.
It has been reported that Jean Todt became so incensed with the teams’ inability to agree on something as simple as the enlargement of driver numbers that he realised early in his tenure that an agreement on a budget cap would be impossible. If that truly is the case then it is up to the President of this sport’s Governing Body to do what his job entails and to actually govern. If he cannot then he should move aside and an election should be held to find a leader of suitable conviction to take this sport by the neck and save it from itself.
The financial structure of the sport is also in desperate need of an overhaul. The very concept that certain teams should be given windfalls purely for being part of the sport, coupled with the unjust structuring of payments from top to bottom, would make any sane businessman walk away from the sport before he even began due diligence into the project. For while in principle all teams are equal, Formula 1 falls only too easily into the Orwellian nightmare that some are more equal than others.
That Gene Haas believes he can make a success of the sport, without the promise of a budget cap or customer cars, is bold. Some might say it is brave. Some might say it’s bloody stupid. One thing, however, seems certain. As things stand, his team might well be assured a top 10 constructors’ position in its debut season. And that, in itself, is why the sport must get on top of its issues. If there is no pressure to perform, no carrot of payments to dangle, then there is no need to develop and advance. While the financial structure does at least have this element correct, the precise payments and the structure of percentage increases per position is in need of a serious overhaul.
33 years ago, Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley led a revolution in the sport. The Concorde Agreement, which signaled the end of hostilities, remains today in a fairly similar form to the treaty that was drawn up more than three decades ago. The world has changed. The sport has changed. But its governance has altered little.
The time has come to rewrite this ageing document and reform our sport’s constitution. I do not have the answers as to what the solution should be, but one cannot operate a sport where competing entities have the absolute say on regulation, where the governing body sits impotent to the desires of those over which it was elected to govern, and where the finances of the operation and restrictions of regulation for the newcomers make it impossible to nurture the green shoots of a promising newcomer.
Caterham and Marussia will be missed. Their names will be logged alongside the other 153, many of whom achieved far more than 2010’s minnows. Race winners. Championship takers. No team is impervious to failure. None must ever become so.
But all should be given a fair chance to succeed. Sadly Caterham and Marussia, like HRT and USF1 before them, were seemingly doomed from the start.
So so true why don’t you stand up and put F1 back to the real world
Someone has to stand up against the old school
Go for it!!
Excellent as ALWAYS Will!
F1 is a cruel Mistress!
In my opinion the biggest danger to F1 is turning into DTM.
Sometimes Bernie an especially Ferrari seem bent on going in that direction. What would you get? A series dominated by constructors, who start crying in a corner if things don’t go their way, customer teams to keep up the appearance of competition, but in reality they are just used as ‘tactical instruments’ without a real chance of winning. But F1, like the ill fated super-DTM series, ITC, would then go down burning because it’s too expensive. Oh, and not to forget, DTM is probably the most boring championship of the moment.
“Any new team entering Formula 1 may purchase and use an old (previous year or older) customer chassis for the first two years of competition in the sport.”
This also negates one major disadvantage of customer teams – the ability to use them as development teams for manufacturers (which would widen the performance gap on the grid).
But the idea requires extremely stable technical regulations. Even those based on safety concerns (or maybe – especially those). Otherwise, how would you explain the teams being able to sell, buy and run cars not conforming to the safety changes?
It eliminates the possibility of “field leveling” changes in the years when new entries are accepted – all the off-throttle blown diffuser bans, however blown diffusers bans, mass damper bans etc.
And even with other changes, the new-coming teams would risk being left with a possibly illegal car within a year.
Also, how do you distinguish “not their own design” from “a design that is heavily influenced by the car they’ve been running for two years”? Once the new team is allowed massive dose of know-how and intellectual property, there’s really no way to leave the customer design behind.
Very thought provoking article! Some questions come to mind about the inner workings of leagues versus commercial rights organization. For example, the NBA has handled the running and funding of the New Orleans Pelicans for the past few years. The NBA has decided to cancel trades which was not in the best interest of the franchise. The other league members have agreed to fund the team for the best interest of the city and the franchise. With that said, I don’t know if the FIA could have done the same for the two teams. But maybe its time to reframe the Formula 1 model to reflect a more controlled and structured organization with a possible F1 commissioner. Most commercial organizations have a handle on the financial stablity and the sustainablity. If there are principles in place for application approval, then there should protocols in place for a full field race calendar.
Note: Haas F1 has done a very good job with communicating their progress. But there has been no communication from the other applicant.
this is really nice, except that the Concorde agreement was involving CSI who become the FISA and FOCA .. so Ecclestone and Balestre .. let Mosley out of that please ..
Especially cause he sell all the rights for the F1 championship to Mister E. when in place as president of the FiA ..
It was disastrous for the sport, and for the balance FOTA/FiA ..
Speaking Rallies, the new rules was the beginning of the end for this sport I love .. tremendously stupid and expensive .. we loose all the rally story and tradition in a couple of years .. totally unacceptable ..
so please let Mister Max out of that .. he devastated the sport auto in less time than you do à coffee ..
After that, rebuilding the FiA was a strong deal for Todt .. he try .. the only real problem is that the FiA is not only a sport federation .. this is a real problem ..
Hmm. Not sure where you’re getting your info from. Mosley drew up the Concorde Agreement and was an integral part of the FISA/FOCA war of the early 1980s. Agree with him or not, he got things done.
I agree, Mosley was with Bernie for the FOTA side, and in front was Balestre for the FISA ..
I was thinking that it was the two contendents who was describe .. so my remark ..
F1 races season after season do not come about by the heavy lifters of the sport seeking and finding answers by holding up a licked finger in the wind. At our level, as spectators or chroniclers, trying to posit “perfect” concepts as to how the the sport should be managed and run is way above any of our pay grades. The sky isn’t falling. So here’s to us who accept and love the sport through all its permutations, and here’s to those who have the wherewithal to bring it to us each season.
Thanks for commenting, Bernie.
Next time do so under your real name tho, please – it’s only fair.
Someone needs to point to a time and a place when and where there was a better F1, and name the perfect person responsible for pulling off such a miracle. Otherwise, how about just watching and enjoying the sport without the whine.
I think the George Harrison song, All Things Must Pass might be even more to your point, its also a much more bitter sweet tune.
F1 attracts a lot of the wrong kinds of people to it as team owners, they want a part of the big time show, they want the opportunities of proximity to wealth, they are not racers nor do they understand the role of an F1 team. Maybe hucksters and racers are the same thing, but one is focused on the rewards of a race the other is focused on self. F1 should make changes to favor the racer owner over this odd character we see now at Caterham etc.
Lets be honest, even if a team does everything they can think of to gain a point, and fails, maybe they are not the right people for the job. Some racers are unable to race when the glare and distractions are too great, a great GP2 driver can fall on their face in F1, F1 should monitor the players and make important judgments about their suitability.
Rule one should be you must score a point within three years or your entry is void. Every emphasis should be put on racing and performing. I love the idea of using last years car and tweaking it to perfection, for a single point. I also like freezing development in major areas for several years so small teams can catch up. Without the single point rule a team can theoretically show up for years and provide no entertainment of any kind ever, an empty set adding nothing but white noise to the F1 tune.
Reblogged this on Learning the Formula.
I agree entirely with Will Buxton. When the sport was at its peak teams went out and bought a chassis put a DFV and Hewland gearbox in it and went racing. As Will said Frank Williams did exactly that. It made for close racing and kept fields at sensible levels. Like Will I don’t know all the answers but there has to be a better way. Surely the governing body should do just that not let Bernie run it like his own train set. Maybe he has done a lot for F1 but it’s time for a change before the sport we all love disappears up its own exhaust pipe!
By contrast, how many premiership football clubs have failed? how many have failed in the division(s) below the top?
Teams who don’t invent their own rules coupled with a fair distribution of revenue.
Exactly! Which is why it’s insane the way FIA is allowing F1 to be run, in the exclusive interests of CVC and Ferrari (and to a lesser degree, McLaren, Red Bull, Ferrari, Merc and Williams), and perhaps even FIA’s own short-term interests, based on what they received – and gave away – in exchange for acquiescing to the establishment of a “Strategy Group” that doesn’t pass the smell test.
Who are the teams, specifically, you think are acting like the organizational embodiment of Emperor Nero? Surely not Force India nor Williams?
And is it really that difficult to understand Williams’ rational decision to defend their status as a constructor? It’s not like they’re doing badly this year as a result…
One thing, though, Will – I don’t think it’s correct to suggest that the current bilateral agreements and the Concorde Implementation agreement are similar to the tripartite Concorde that existed until expiring after 2012. Bernie’s evil, cynical genius which is actually driving the sport towards this disaster was to execute bilateral commercial agreements b/w FOM and each team, plus FOM and FIA, creating the Strategy Group in the process, whereas until 2013, governance had been agreed to through execution of a document to which ALL the teams were signatories, not like now with individual agreement.s
Great article Will, really informative.
Just one question though, is it true that the Super Aguri became the Brawn car? I thought Honda put all their resources behind their 2009 car that then became the Brawn car?
Here you go: https://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/wirth-rejects-laughable-brawn-sob-story/
Hi will, didn’t know that – great article
If the customer car idea is so wonderfully simple and plays such a role in helping get teams going, why did Super Aguri fail? They fell apart on the funding still. Honda politics no doubt the deciding factor, but that’s the real issue here isn’t it? Is not whether you make your own car, whether you but and run one, or if you have a car gifted to you. The real rub is, and will continue to be: where are the readies coming from? And it’s a damn hard question to answer. Maybe it doesn’t need an answer. As you say, over the 60 years over 130 teams have been and gone. Some won championships. Some never made the grid. So long as we always have more waiting to come it’ll balance. I think F1 really played a dangerous game in the 00s when it thought the level of manufacturer support it had was going to last forever. Stoddy always talked sense on this. Many in the sport could see the calamity waiting, and it did get pretty existential – hence the offers that dragged in the the new teams almost on false pretenses, and that existential crisis is still the reason for the current drop outs. So again, regardless of customer cars or anysuch, the key is, what are FOM and FIA doing to ensure any new blood gets a fair crack at a viable model? On this I see no progress, none at all. And no acknowledgment that progress even need to be made either.
Since you ask, N Technology were not overlooked by the FIA – N Technology deliberately withdrew their bid because they had lost the backing they needed to enter F1.
As for Epsilon Euskadi, they were on the point of bankruptcy and have actually since been declared bankrupt. Lola Cars, meanwhile, seem to have put their name forwards not because they were actually willing to bid, but because they were hoping to sell a pre-existing design to the new entrants and were trying to raise publicity – the only halfway serious bid was Prodrive’s bid, and even then that was contingent on a relaxation of the rules on the transfer of IP rights that was refused.
I believe that Prodrive tried to enter twice. The first time they intended to use McLaren chassis and Mercedes engines in 2008, but the clampdown on customer cars caused them to abandon that bid. The second time they tried to enter for 2010. but withdrew after being informed that their bid would only be considered if they agreed to use Cosworth engines. Since they already had an option to use Mercedes engines, they walked away.
The bid that Prodrive put together would have used more than just the Mercedes engine though – their bid would have still seen them relying fairly heavily on McLaren to provide them with additional components, some of which were not permitted at the time (such as suspension components).
Neat article. Too bad none of it will ever happen unless BE and CVC are out of the picture.
As long as there is money to raped out of F1, neither are going anywhere.
Thanks, Will!
Cheers,
Dylan
Wow Will. I understand now that we had to wait a bit because you pulled this one straight from the top drawer. I have read opinions and analysis on most of the topics discussed in this post, but I have only ever seen them discussed piecemeal. From team selection, to governance, to payment structure, to survival of the fittest … you took all of these threads that I had amorphously amalgamated in my mind and stated then in a concise, and digestible piece. Really great stuff.
I think that regular readers of your post may gather that, while you understand why it happened and that it will always be inevitable, you are angered, frustrated, disappointed, etc. at the demise of the 2010 teams. I am of the same mind. I am not disappointed that they failed, but I am frustrated by the mechanics of their failure. Competing teams governing themselves is an untenable proposition long term, particular when such colossal sums of money are at stake. And, the fact that the smaller teams have virtually no say in this untenable propositional makes their plight all the more futile. That said, it seems inconceivable to me that the principals of these failed entities can say that the unfulfilled promise of a budget cap contributed to their demise. All of these principals were immensely successful businessmen prior to entering Formula 1, and I just cannot understand men of that ilk vesting so much in someone’s, anyone’s promise.
This piece also has merit because it proposed some sort of a solution. So many of your colleagues bemoan and denigrate the sport that I truly love, and that is essentially their meal ticket, and yet make no suggestions for a solution. Not all do so, but far too many, and I have no patience for them.
While I say this from an admittedly ignorant perspective, maybe you should try to freelance this out to one of the major outlets. It is broad enough to give a global picture of the current quagmire to the benefit of the casual fan, and it entails more than enough well thought analysis and opinion to satisfy the avid fan. Hey, were I an editor, I’d pick it up!
See you on the TV in a few days. Can’t wait.
Thanks again,
Dylan
Which teams are in this for the “sport” of F1? Probably Ferrari, McLaren and Williams. How long can Williams scrabble up enough money to remain 2nd-tier? How long will Red Bull hang around if their losing streak continues or if their energy drink falls out of fashion? And Mercedes? Will they win a couple of Championships and then bail out with Mission Accomplished? Honda has already been in and out of the sport a few times. Maybe Force India, Sauber and Lotus want to stay, but they’re not doing a very good job of affording it.
I see a major “correction” heading F1’s way and soon…
Sadly it’s probably the case that the only people who can’t see what you’re saying as true are the ones actually in a position to change things. Such is politics……
Well said Will, we have all seen that with the larger teams cost will never superceed their thirst to win. Three car teams and or customer cars would be the clear answer to the demise of the smaller teams.
Great informative article; your insight and perspective are refreshing. Changes do need to be made and I would agree they should be driven by a group removed from the teams themselves. Propping up the taildraggers is not a solution but a band aid. Making entry into the sport less costly will help and possibly attract more teams and sponsors. You know your sport well Mr. Buxton – keep at it, release the hounds, chuck the tea overboard, and stir the pot:) Cheers!
This kind of long-form, well researched and articulate feature should be appearing on NBCsn’s motors web site