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?
