Haas - American team in F1

[Wayne DR]

Failure? Depends on how you define success... see posts above. I'd be delighted if I could run an F1 team for 4 years.

Have a look at the history of constructors and you'll see a lot of teams last for 3-5 years, it's the natural lifecycle before sponsorship cash runs out. Then the next new team comes along to repeat the cycle.

Yes, Marrussia and Caterham did have some success (they were racing on par with Sauber this year), and Bianchi even scored a couple of points.

I did not mention USF1 as (IMHO) their entry was stillborn, and never stood a chance to get off the ground. (A pipe dream, similar to the New Jersey GP. A great idea without any substance behind it...)

By failure, I meant financial failure. From day 1 when they entered the sport, the writing was on the wall as the rules had changed, and they never had a chance at raising the required funding. I agree that there have always been Constructors that have come and gone over the history of the sport (some casualties are inevitable), but the current state of play is that their are more leaving than arriving (We are not that far away from 3 car teams...). My concern is that we are not seeing any teams entering F1 that have even the remotest chance of surviving.

When the "Budget Cap" went out the window, "Customer Cars" should have been put back onto the table then.

How is this relevant to the Haas entry into F1? Gene Haas does have the wealth to back the team, so the team have a better than average chance at surviving (as long as Gene stays committed to the sport). BUT, it would be far easier and cheaper for him to pay a top team to supply them cars for a few years, until he can put together a successful design team.

I am reminded of the age old quote, "How do you make a small fortune in F1? Start with a LARGE one!"

[Richard]

Haas is further behind then these teams were back then

Really? He's got more time to prepare, has more infrastructure already in place and appears to have better funding in place. So which bit is less prepared than the other teams 16 months before their first race?

[Facts Only]

Dampers (from specialists like Multimatic)

Multimatic is from Toronto, Canada

The mothership is but all the F1 damper design and manufacture is done in Thetford Norfolk.

Its surprising how much NASCAR stuff we see being churned out of the motorsport valley supply chain as well.

[GitanesBlondes]

I haven't failed to read anything.

Yes, you have.

You completely failed to understand that without any money you are guaranteed no success.
That´s why HAAS is in a MUCH better position for success.

Having a lot of money means you'll spend every last penny, but it has no correlation with success.

Name one single world championship team that won it without money.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point that I am making Sector. By your logic the same thing could have been said when Caterham, or Lotus as it was then known came along.

Having money to spend will get you a team on the grid, however it is absolutely no indicator of accomplishing real things in F1.

[Sulman]

Except F1 doesn't attract any sponsors selling products to the average person.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... s-FW22.jpg

That was a long time ago.

[Pierce89]

Dampers (from specialists like Multimatic)

Multimatic is from Toronto, Canada

The mothership is but all the F1 damper design and manufacture is done in Thetford Norfolk.

Its surprising how much NASCAR stuff we see being churned out of the motorsport valley supply chain as well.

In fact, the Thetford suspension guru is a well respected member of this very forum. I won't give you his name,here, but if you know his real name, he'll be easy to spot.

[Pierce89]

It would be falsely assumed that 'the current model did not work' just because teams failed. That's an incorrect assumption.

The truth holds that all of the 3 newcomers since 2010 effectively failed due to cashflow problems. Actually that is a normal business problem; if a local bakery can't generate enough income anymore they'll go bankrupt. What needs to be investigated is the source problem why they could not generate enough income. This can have a variety of causes; but in the end it means they were or are not able to meet the demand presented to them.

In the case of the 3 teams that entered F1 since 2010, which should have actually been a total of 4 including USF1, there is the simple answer of 'causality'. Cause and effect.

All these 4 teams were to enter F1 under the then present concorde agreement, paired with the promise of a budget cap, back when Max Mosley was still at reign. These teams built their entire plan and idea upon this concept, and started out to go for it. Meanwhile, some turbulence within F1 happened, and the budget cap was off the table.

this left the newcomers virtually empty-handed because it was the base upon which they entered F1. But they were bound to enter F1 so had to act either way. The resulting demand is more then two-fold; They could no longer operate within the budget cap window because it would render them helpless against the(ir) competition; let's say they were hoping to take 2-3 years to reach a 2009 backmarker; F.E. Sauber. This could only be achieved because Sauber would be bound to the budget cap, too - thus restricting their operational movement.
But with the budget cap off the table, Sauber could ( possibility aside ) operate in a 120 million EUR budget instead of the proposed € 40 million EUR budget. that's 3 times as much.

The double-trouble means that now, their budget for 3 years has decreased to just 1 year, just to be able to be somewhat competetive or in-range to the backmarker back then. They had to raise income/cashflow/sponsors from 40 mil to triple-that in just a short timespan just for the 'virgin' year of their outfit - let alone generate enough for the next years.

It's easily said a 'tough job' to plan out something in 3 years with a annual 40 mil budget, thus 120 mil in 3 years, all of a sudden to 360 mil in 3 years. WITHOUT any change to the original 'concept'. Tell that to your sponsors and income generators. Meanwhile, the original goal was set on a 40 mil cap for your competition; so you could have a sort-of guarantee you can 'swim up to him'. But with that off; the operational budget of that very same competition could have went not just from 120 per year but perhaps to even 200 per year.

A problem all newcomers thus had to face. Essentially, the moment the cost-cap was put aside, these teams were given the death penalty. Add to that the 2014 F1 format change and the insane amount of higher cost and there's your executioner.

So wat does this have to do with Haas?

Well let's face it; Haas did not enter F1 on the promise of a cost-cap. It's an entirely different situation compared to the 2010 entries.

Haas has not been given false hopes, ideals or whatever. They're in it for themselves. They have been 'eased' on the possibility of these parts 'sharing' - something not taken away by them after it was initially promised.

Yet that aspect is easily overlooked when Haas gets compared to the 2010 entrants on that there is little difference between Haas and these other teams when they started; Haas has not beem scammed into entering F1; they are coming into the F1 that they were planning for and have been 'promised' and based their operations upon, whilst these other outfits have been promised a much cheaper F1 and instead were given a much more expensive F1.

That's why I have trouble accepting Haas would be in a 'similar' 'success' compared to the other 3 'newbies' when they entered. It's just not the same, and in relation, Haas is further behind then these teams were back then - Haas has not beem scammed and forced to replan and restructure. That's important and viable time that these entrants lost, not to mention costs. And most of all; I for one do not think either of these 'newcomers' in 2010 had 'success' when they fielded F1 back in '10. Nor do I believe they had success during any of the following 4 years.

I do feel they were to be praised for their effort in the situation they were given. But that is not be mistaken with the idea they 'had success'.

Now if Haas is on 'par' with these newcomers that did not have any success, then where does that put Haas with a gargantual bigger budget then these 3 newcomers combined could ever dream of?

Haas IS INFINITELY better prepared than the 2010 group. Although some don't want to believe it, a top-level Nascar team is similar to an F1 team. Haas already has access to hundreds of engineers that know how to build a racecar to whatever rule constraints they'really dealing with. When Red Bull came to Nascar, they were full of European F1 experienced engineers. They eventually got to where they could run in the top 10, but the point is "F1 experience" means nothing, as compared to a talented engineer.Compared to Caterham f1, Haas ' team probably has developed better F1 practices already.

[acosmichippo]

[snip]

So wat does this have to do with Haas?

Well let's face it; Haas did not enter F1 on the promise of a cost-cap. It's an entirely different situation compared to the 2010 entries.

Haas has not been given false hopes, ideals or whatever. They're in it for themselves. They have been 'eased' on the possibility of these parts 'sharing' - something not taken away by them after it was initially promised.

Yet that aspect is easily overlooked when Haas gets compared to the 2010 entrants on that there is little difference between Haas and these other teams when they started; Haas has not beem scammed into entering F1; they are coming into the F1 that they were planning for and have been 'promised' and based their operations upon, whilst these other outfits have been promised a much cheaper F1 and instead were given a much more expensive F1.

That's why I have trouble accepting Haas would be in a 'similar' 'success' compared to the other 3 'newbies' when they entered. It's just not the same, and in relation, Haas is further behind then these teams were back then - Haas has not beem scammed and forced to replan and restructure. That's important and viable time that these entrants lost, not to mention costs. And most of all; I for one do not think either of these 'newcomers' in 2010 had 'success' when they fielded F1 back in '10. Nor do I believe they had success during any of the following 4 years.

I do feel they were to be praised for their effort in the situation they were given. But that is not be mistaken with the idea they 'had success'.

Now if Haas is on 'par' with these newcomers that did not have any success, then where does that put Haas with a gargantual bigger budget then these 3 newcomers combined could ever dream of?

[emphasis added by me]

I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion.

According to the first half of your post, HRT, Caterham/Lotus, and Virgin/Marussia folded ultimately because they were promised a cost cap that never came to fruition. They were not financially prepared to run outside of a cost cap, and definitely not for the new power regulations in 2014.

In contrast, Haas (as far as we know) has entered F1 without any such promises. He is fully aware of the costs associated, he has money, and he has a plan to keep costs as low as possible by using Ferrari parts as much as possible. To me, that seems like a much more stable financial situation than the 2010 entries ever had.

[Blanchimont]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/haas- ... r-approach

Let's see if by the end of January, this has come true: "We are moving right ahead and in January we are going to start having a few employees in the UK,"

[Facts Only]

Dampers (from specialists like Multimatic)

The mothership is but all the F1 damper design and manufacture is done in Thetford Norfolk.

Its surprising how much NASCAR stuff we see being churned out of the motorsport valley supply chain as well.

In fact, the Thetford suspension guru is a well respected member of this very forum. I won't give you his name,here, but if you know his real name, he'll be easy to spot.

I'll be keeping a lookout now!

[acosmichippo]

also from that article (emphasis added):

"If you want to become a doctor, you have got to spend 10 years going to medical school. You've got to learn from somebody. That's why we have partnered with Ferrari."

Tweaks to the rules have made Haas' new approach possible, where significant support and components can be supplied by a parent team like Ferrari on top of the basic customer 'power unit'.

And Haas said the tie-up with Maranello could also help Ferrari.

"I think they would like to partner with somebody that can give them some feedback, so if we can provide value to them I think then that this will work out very well," he said.

"It is basically an experiment to see if this new way of doing things is beneficial and also whether a new team can be competitive."

[Manoah2u]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/haas- ... r-approach

We.....will be vastly different to .... Marussia and Caterham

"Our business model in Formula One is based on our Nascar race team where we use other people's engines and chassis," Haas said.

Correct, but:

"As part of its application to compete in the 2010 FIA Formula One , Hispania agreed technical partnerships with Dallara and Xtrac. Cosworth provides the engines.

"other people's engines and chassis" - Didn't really work out well for HRT tho.

Agreed, they had a vastly different financial situation which was the core of their failure (unsufficient funds). I don't think Haas should think they are inventing the wheel with phrases like this:

"If we do it right we will look like geniuses."

When in reality, they aren't doing anything new, at all. Neither did HRT back then, because in the early 90's it happened, and Toro Rosso essentially - before the rules prohibited this possibility - had 'RedBulls chassis' and 'Ferrari's' engine.
Did that work? Actually, yes. Is it new? no, not at all. So...genius? hardly.

"To me the new teams are just so far behind that they can't even catch up,"

Except for the fact that dispite all the setbacks they had from the start after the broken promises on budget,
and the insane spending required for 2014, Marussia actually passed Sauber in the 2014 standings - even though they got DSQ for not participating in enough rounds.
In 2012 Kovalainen made it into Q2 a couple of times by beating one of the Toro Rossos. His best result was 13th place finish at Monaco. Not so far behind then, i'd say.

Especially knowing that outside of the 107% rule is 'too far behind', yet all of them managed to constantly be within that 107% rule (by a fair margin actually).

Again - the root of problems for the backmarkers were finances. Thus stating 'the news teams were too far behind that they couldn't catch up' is essentially untrue. The finances of these teams weren't adequate enough to provide for their survival. Their 'results' were not neccesarily paired to this.

I said it before and i'll say it again;

Haas is ignorantly boasting before even having done a single thing.

I like the fact they have a ferrari partnership for parts and sorted this out. I like the fact they have an engine deal and sorted that out. I like the fact they have a chassis builder to sort that out.
What i don't like is that they act like they 'have it in the bag' because they've done these simple things that a team like HRT had, too. Meanwhile, Virgin F1 team had more financial backing then Haas could dream of.

What i'd like to see is Haas just showing solid proof of their current progress, without arrogantly boasting. Let your work do the talking. If you do that, and you actually turn out to perform better compared to your predecessors, then you are a genius. Then you can talk why and how you did things.

I'd really really like to see a successfull American Team. I really do. I really would like to see a new team rise to become atleast 'decent'. But because of the history of American Team entries in the past, and the paired failure and disappointment, you'd expect a little bit more conservity.

I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion.

According to the first half of your post, HRT, Caterham/Lotus, and Virgin/Marussia folded ultimately because they were promised a cost cap that never came to fruition. They were not financially prepared to run outside of a cost cap, and definitely not for the new power regulations in 2014.

exactly. Therefore, if your pockets are filled and you have a big budget, kicking to the shins of the underdog - no longer there to defend themselves - is imho a wrong and low thing to do.

In contrast, Haas (as far as we know) has entered F1 without any such promises. He is fully aware of the costs associated, he has money, and he has a plan to keep costs as low as possible by using Ferrari parts as much as possible. To me, that seems like a much more stable financial situation than the 2010 entries ever had.

Except we don't know how much these ferrari parts actually cost. I'm quite confident these ferrari parts will definately be much more expensive then the parts caterham or marussia used for their car. Actually, all the former backmarkers had several cooperations and 'partnerships' with excisting, stable teams. Mclaren and Ferrari, for example.
Meanwhile, it did little for their 'progress'.
Or, it might actually did do them great progress yet we did not know about this.

The end is still the same; Haas is entering a different F1 then the backmarkers did, and Haas can enter F1 with a whole bucket of better finances then any of these other cars had (or, so it be in their struggling final years atleast). Meanwhile, just how much money is Haas going to 'throw at it'?

It's concidered Haas' financial situation and backing is better than that of their predecessors. But is this actually true? Haas said he 'wasn't just going to throw money at it'. So, Haas' CNC company may have a big budget - but just how much budget is Haas planning or accepting to spend for his F1 foray? It wouldn't surprise me if that would be immensely slimmer then most here are simply taking for granted.

[Manoah2u]

In addition, Ecclestone actually worded this very well a year ago in Januari 2014;

“They have been talking about it for three years. Two or three people there. I would say it is most unlikely. It's no good proving someone has got the money. Somebody can have ten billion in the bank, but it doesn't mean they are going to spend it. It's nothing to do with having enough resources. You can't tell them to make a commitment because it's a commitment to do what? It's always been like that.”

Haas:
"I just think we as Americans have the ability to take complex machines and figure out how to make them go fast without all the complexity. I could be wrong, but I have that gut feeling," he explained.

"Everybody said I'm out of my mind," Haas continued, "but the shock was when Mr. Ecclestone said I don't think these guys know what they're doing. That's tough to overcome.

[Wayne DR]

Meanwhile, Virgin F1 team had more financial backing then Haas could dream of.

Yes, agreed, until the point Sir Richard lost interest in the sport (as he saw no return on the investment) and walked away.

Any fool can spend large amounts of money, it's spending it efficiently (i.e. achieving results or desired outcomes within budget) that is difficult.

A reasonable outcome may be getting sponsors air time (by hiring a big name driver) and securing them season after season (but all sponsors like to see improvement over time too). Having certainty around income is good, particularly if you can limit your outgoings to less than your income (i.e. so you actually make a small profit each year... A sustainable business, surely not in F1!)

I would also like to see where Haas is at, as I am keen to see them make it onto the grid (I was disappointed by USF1). But, given that their first GP is still just over 12 months away, they probably don't have anything tangible to show just yet.

[Richard]

Haas is ignorantly boasting before even having done a single thing.

Yes, we get the message, you don't like the way Haas talks. He's a showman. He's loaded to the brim with bravado, and obligingly feeds hyperbole to the PR circus. It's a cultural clash as you amply demonstrated in earlier posts.

Don't let his bravado distract you from the fact that he does have race infrastructure in place, he does have funding, he does have technical support from Ferrari. He's probably as well prepared, if not better prepared than most F1 entrants. We're a long way from when he'll need to commit serious money, which is why there's nothing to show. For all we know he might decide it's not worth the bother. We can only wait and see.

Let's finish with some positives:

I like the fact they have a ferrari partnership for parts and sorted this out. I like the fact they have an engine deal and sorted that out. I like the fact they have a chassis builder to sort that out.