Real reasons Formula 1 struggled to bring new privateer teams from scratch in the future

[theriusDR3]

Last time Formula 1 brought all-new team from scratch was Haas in 2016 to date.

In my humble opinion:
1. Cost of entry fee too expensive right now (must be US$569,308 for deposit)
2. Cost of chassis development and customer engine leasing too expensive

Any additions?

[nzjrs]

Mercedes dominance and no cost cap

[Just_a_fan]

I don't think a dominant team prevents F1 new entries. It's simply a matter of money. It's just very expensive to do F1.

[jjn9128]

I don't think a dominant team prevents F1 new entries. It's simply a matter of money. It's just very expensive to do F1.

What's the point of entering a sport if it's impossible even for established teams to break the hegemony? The prize money pyramid is also so skewed it's impossible to not to be a massive money losing exercise.

Also F1 doesn't want private entries, they want road manufacturers. They feel that will add "prestige" but in reality all it does is make the sport hostage to the whims of OEMs - "do it how WE want or we're leaving".

[Stu]

I don't think a dominant team prevents F1 new entries. It's simply a matter of money. It's just very expensive to do F1.

What's the point of entering a sport if it's impossible even for established teams to break the hegemony? The prize money pyramid is also so skewed it's impossible to not to be a massive money losing exercise.

Also F1 doesn't want private entries, they want road manufacturers. They feel that will add "prestige" but in reality all it does is make the sport hostage to the whims of OEMs - "do it how WE want or we're leaving".

This ^^^, exactly this!
There is a very short-termist mindset in parts of the F1 management. The last time that they were so reliant on OEMs F1 got burned when BMW, Honda, Toyota, Renault all left (as entrants) in a very short space of time (2007/8). New rules were quickly ‘introduced’ for a cost cap, but these were equally as quickly rescinded once new entrants came in (even though they only joined up because of the cost cap…). The tail wags the dog…..

[nzjrs]

I don't think a dominant team prevents F1 new entries. It's simply a matter of money. It's just very expensive to do F1.

Sure, the and was the critical part. Absent a cost cap formula you can never overhaul a dominant team inside a regulation era.

Prize money distribution obviously bakes in the dominance too.

[Just_a_fan]

I don't think a dominant team prevents F1 new entries. It's simply a matter of money. It's just very expensive to do F1.

What's the point of entering a sport if it's impossible even for established teams to break the hegemony? The prize money pyramid is also so skewed it's impossible to not to be a massive money losing exercise.

Also F1 doesn't want private entries, they want road manufacturers. They feel that will add "prestige" but in reality all it does is make the sport hostage to the whims of OEMs - "do it how WE want or we're leaving".

Yes, but if one could be competitive for 50-100 million a year then it would be more attractive. But the reality is that the need to have a wind tunnel, huge CFD farms, simulators, etc, makes it impossible for a potential start up. Back in the day, someone with some money could buy a car and engine and go racing. He wouldn't beat the big boys, of course, so there is nothing new in the current situation.

Perhaps the other question that should be asked is: does F1 need more teams? Is a grid of 20 cars sufficient? Why have exactly two cars per team? Why not run 3 car teams, for example, if you can afford to. Or run a single car if you can't afford two cars.

If more cars/teams are desired, why not allow a return to customer cars? Allow me to go to Red Bull or Mercedes and buy a car package for, I don't know, £20million. Why not?

Ultimately, we have 10 teams / 20 cars because that's effectively what the rules require. Customer cars were banned because it didn't look good (in some eyes) to have people turn up in uncompetitive old cars and fail to qualify, for example. Those are a legacy of the Bernie/FOM era where he only wanted a small number of very wealthy teams (even Haas is wealthy in real terms).

It's interesting to note that the grid is as competitive as it's been in some time, or ever. By that, I mean the cars are separated by approx. 2.5 seconds. We all remember the 107% rule brought in because the guys at the back were minutes off the pace (hyperbole for effect).

It's hugely more involved than "new teams don't join because of Mercedes being too successful".

[Just_a_fan]

I don't think a dominant team prevents F1 new entries. It's simply a matter of money. It's just very expensive to do F1.

Sure, the and was the critical part. Absent a cost cap formula you can never overhaul a dominant team inside a regulation era.

Prize money distribution obviously bakes in the dominance too.

It's more complicated than that too, although the prize money doesn't help. Of course, prize money inequality isn't limited to F1 - it's an issue in many sports.

[Jolle]

Simply put, the amount of investments and the time that it takes to any returns.

Not just the starting fee, but also the whole investment needed to build up a team. like a factory, racing team, wind tunnel, etc etc. Due to the complexity of F1 it takes at least 5 years or more before you see any returns in either succes or/and money.

HAAS used another route, basically just setting up a racing team and outsourcing manufacturing and design (with customer parts from Ferrari and the support of Dalara).

The high entry fee is to add value to the exciting teams (and by doing that, adding value to F1 itself). If you look at the exciting teams and their origin, apart from Ferrari, all changed ownership one way or the other. It's a better investment to buy an exciting team then to start from scratch. Apart from HAAS, the newest team on the grid is AMG Mercedes, that was founded in 1999 as BAR-Supertec.

If, for instance, VW-AG would enter F1, they would do so by buying an exciting team like Williams, Alpha Tauri or Sauber. the same way as Mercedes, Renault, RedBull, Project Four or Aston Martin did. This route to succes goes back all the way to the early eighties, so isn't anything new.

[Just_a_fan]

Apart from HAAS, the newest team on the grid is AMG Mercedes, that was founded in 1999 as BAR-Supertec.

Nope. It goes right back to 1964 when it was Tyrrell.

• BRAWN GP LIMITED 06 Mar 2009 - 15 Jan 2010
  HONDA GP LIMITED 10 Jan 2006 - 06 Mar 2009
  BAR HONDA GP LIMITED 26 Jan 2005 - 10 Jan 2006
  BARGP LIMITED 10 Jan 2005 - 26 Jan 2005
  BRITISH AMERICAN RACING GP LIMITED 27 Nov 1998 - 10 Jan 2005
  BRITISH AMERICAN RACING GRAND PRIX LIMITED 10 Nov 1998 - 27 Nov 1998
  TYRRELL RACING ORGANISATION LIMITED 09 Jan 1964 - 10 Nov 1998

[Jolle]

Apart from HAAS, the newest team on the grid is AMG Mercedes, that was founded in 1999 as BAR-Supertec.

Nope. It goes right back to 1964 when it was Tyrrell.

• BRAWN GP LIMITED 06 Mar 2009 - 15 Jan 2010
  HONDA GP LIMITED 10 Jan 2006 - 06 Mar 2009
  BAR HONDA GP LIMITED 26 Jan 2005 - 10 Jan 2006
  BARGP LIMITED 10 Jan 2005 - 26 Jan 2005
  BRITISH AMERICAN RACING GP LIMITED 27 Nov 1998 - 10 Jan 2005
  BRITISH AMERICAN RACING GRAND PRIX LIMITED 10 Nov 1998 - 27 Nov 1998
  TYRRELL RACING ORGANISATION LIMITED 09 Jan 1964 - 10 Nov 1998

oh damn, yes, my mistake....

then it's (from the top of my head) RedBull, started off as Stewart in 1997 or something
(i was trown off my thought process with the reynard/BAR entry just buying Tyrrell's licence and not using anything from the original factory/personel, forgot about the Tyrrell buy)

[littlebigcat]

Aren't they still entered under the Tyrrell name as well? It makes them the second oldest team and heirs to Ferrari's heritage payout if they ever left F1

[Jolle]

Aren't they still entered under the Tyrrell name as well? It makes them the second oldest team and heirs to Ferrari's heritage payout if they ever left F1

No, that would be (the original) McLaren team.

There are basically a few types of takeovers that happend in F1.
-You by the team, keep the name and factory (McLaren changed hands a couple of times like that, Williams last year)
-You really only buy the licence (What BAR and Benneton did with Tyrrell and Toleman)
-You buy the whole package but change the name (what everybody else but Ferrari did)

[theriusDR3]

Even cost of engine leasing also high

[dans79]

In my opinion Formula 1 has a lot of issues primarily driven by the FIA, and the owners that are constantly in the pursuit of every possible random fan they can find.

1. The FIA tries to over regulate, but fails miserably. Thus the rules have lots of loopholes leading to extreme costs as teams tried to exploit them.
2. The rules are constantly changed to generate fake drama to draw in casual fans.
3. Things get dumbed down for the casual fans. Tire compound naming for example.
4. The points system is heavily biased towards winning when it should probably just be a linear scale. first place gets 20 points last place gets one.
5. The prize money payout is utterly ridiculous with some teams getting tens of millions of dollars more than anyone else no matter where they finish.

With all that being said, I think a lot of people need to get over the cost. Racing has almost always been the realm of the upper class, if you exclude the few people who got in because of their overwhelming talent.

Even small town drag racing becomes exceptionally expensive as soon as you move past racing the car you drive to work.