Q: I have attended the British GP twice at Brands Hatch in the mid 1980s and other races at Silverstone. Why did Brands Hatch lose its rotation for the GP? Brands Hatch is such a nicer track, with vertical development and great viewing areas, whereas Silverstone is a bit boring, made from a flat old airfield. I would love to see the GP come back to this historical track!
During a layover at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris, I rented a car to drive out and see an old dinosaur, Reims. What an amazing trip back into time, about an hour from the Paris airport! It is commendable that the French have allowed this historical track to stand. I think you need to go and report on this old track. Perhaps you have already done so and I missed it?
Tim, Germantown, TN
CM: I wasn’t totally sure about why Brands lost out but a bit of research tells me it was two-fold — one was that FISA at the time wanted to commit to longer-term deals and so signed with Silverstone for seven years to stop the alternation. And it appears the reason it was Silverstone that got that deal over Brands Hatch was the vast development space for run-offs, etc., for safety reasons at Silverstone, while Brands was also going through a change in ownership.
And Reims is amazing isn’t it! Admittedly my report on it was when I was working at ESPN — I drove to a number of old French circuits in 2013 on the way down to the Spanish Grand Prix, including Reims but also Circuit Charade at Clermont-Ferrand, Magny Cours and Paul Ricard. You can drive a lot of the old layout of the full Charade circuit too, which was incredible around the edge of the mountain.
What I will admit is that in the feature I looked at the chances of a return for the French GP, and said it would only really happen at Magny Cours given the work done there. Access to Paul Ricard ruled that out in my eyes, but just over three years later came the announcement that the race was heading back to the latter!
Q: Has there been any discussion of the EC antitrust authority stepping into the Andretti/F1 situation. Its aggressiveness is well-known.
Also, your recent Mailbag discussion mentioned the economics having changed since the €/$200M expansion fee was set, such that the investment is instantly worth much more. Is there talk of increasing the fee to reflect current economics?
Doug Farrow, Plymouth, MN
CM: It’s a topic that’s come up a few times, but mainly from sources offering an explanation as to why F1 would never give a straight “no” but instead offer the scenario that would make an entry possible (hence the 2028 information).
And yes, increasing the fee is one of the central topics when it comes to the next Concorde Agreement, that will need to be agreed at some point over the next two years. That might be 18 months away, though, and there are so many other aspects to the Concorde that it’s not as simple as just agreeing a fee and signing a new one quickly.
Q: Do you think that we will see Lewis Hamilton pilot a Ferrari 499P at Le Mans in the coming years?
TM, FL
CM: I certainly hope so! It opens the door to a top category drive that might have taken tougher planning if he was finishing his F1 career elsewhere, but Hamilton has never really stated a desire to race at Le Mans. A number of years ago he said he wished he wanted to race in IndyCar or at Le Mans but that the motivation isn’t there and that he has other things outside of racing he’d love to do once retires, so it remains to be seen if that view changes at Ferrari.
Q: If Williams is not financially stable, why aren’t Dorilton and Andretti talking about a sale/investment? Seems like there is an opportunity for at least a 500% profit over the price Dorilton paid. And isn’t making money Dorilton’s main business? Is there anything going on there?
Ed Joras
CM: I take “not financially stable” with a pinch of salt, given James Vowles wanted to be allowed to invest $100 million in facilities. Dorilton clearly has the money and is willing to invest it, but at this stage that means Williams isn’t profitable. Once it is, that’s when a sale might make sense as a new buyer wouldn’t need to invest so much.
As for Andretti, it’s clear that all the plans now are for a brand-new team setup, so the cost of an existing team would be higher and less cost-effective given it wouldn’t need some of the facilities. And investment doesn’t work for it either as Michael Andretti wants total control of the team’s decisions and future — that’s a key reason why the Sauber investment a number of years ago fell through.
Q: Follow-up to your response to CJ Leland in the Feb. 7 Mailbag: If FOM wants more anti-dilution money and wants GM as an engine manufacturer/supplier, why didn’t they just stipulate that a 2026 entry is approved contingent on a $600 million dilution fee and GM committing to being an engine manufacturer by 2026-28?
Alternatively, this hasn’t been central to many discussions, but would all the 10 teams be on board with an 11th entry if FOM upped the prize money pool accordingly?
NorCal Rob
CM: So, FOM clearly wants to agree a new figure with the teams, but as pointed out in another answer, that figure is set in the Concorde Agreement that currently runs until the end of the 2025 season. The next figure (if one is agreed) will be in the next Concorde, but that’s such a complex agreement itself that it will likely take a lot of talks and negotiations. That’s why it’s not as simple as just upping the fee, as it will happen alongside multiple other discussions.
I believe the existing teams would be more open to an 11th team in that scenario, yes, but then it comes down to FOM asking why they should be the ones footing the bill for another team to come in if they don’t foresee a big enough return? There are owners and shareholders that need pleasing — it’s a huge business after all — and if F1 is so attractive and potentially so lucrative to a new team, that’s why the onus has been on the entering team to pay for a spot. If FOM’s profits go down rather than up because it accepted an 11th team, Stefano Domenicali’s job might be on the line!