Q: I’m so disappointed with the Andretti F1 rejection. I often wondered if Penske/Cadillac applied for entry into Formula 1 with a more professional/conservative attitude if the result would have been different. Do you have an opinion on that?
Also, do you feel Cadillac would continue without Andretti, and if so, how do you see that working? As an engine only supplier? As a factory team? Partner with an existing team?
Mark, Buffalo, NY
CHRIS MEDLAND: No, I don’t think the result would have been different, although a different approach might have created fewer headlines. F1 was very strong on not wanting to expand the grid in the short term, regardless of the team that was showing an interest. It wanted to see a strengthening of what already exists, such as what we’re seeing now with Audi taking over Sauber, Ford getting involved with Red Bull, Honda with Aston Martin and now to a lesser extent Toyota with Haas.
But it also needs remembering that it’s not a total rejection. F1 said it was open to something in 2028 if Cadillac committed to being a power unit supplier as it stated its intention was, and I am told that conversations are ongoing on that front and positive. Cadillac has always maintained that it would only enter with Andretti and I believe that to be the case. The only way I could see it working if it changed its mind would be to partner with an existing team.
Q: What does the Haas/Toyota deal mean for the future of F1? Could you see other teams doing a similar deal with other car makers? Have you heard any kind of reaction for the other F1 teams?
David Tucker
CM: Toyota is a unique case. It has an amazing motorsport facility in Cologne from its old F1 constructor spell that ended in 2009, and its WEC and rally projects among other things. There aren’t really any other car makers that have similar facilities in Europe that aren’t already involved in F1. So I don’t think it changes anything for the future of the sport, other than it might entice Toyota to increase its involvement further down the line if the partnership goes well and it sees value in doing so. It brings Toyota closer, but different manufacturers are involved in so many different ways I wouldn’t say it stands out in any particularly way as a model.
I haven’t heard of any reaction from other teams directly to this, but as a wider discussion point I believe there were some who were trying to push back on Testing of Previous Car (TPC) programs and limit their scope a little, so it took a while for Haas to understand how that was going to look going forward while in talks with Toyota – which will help it run a TPC program.
Q: I get the F1 franchise system is to increase the value for all teams. It probably does initially. But has anyone discussed what happens when the same teams are at the bottom consistently? I am thinking of Sauber, RB, Williams and Haas. How do you attract talent and sponsorship to get out? Also, would Mercedes put up with not winning the championship for extended periods of time? Does the value hold?
Steve
CM: I’d say you’re seeing that become far less of a thing though, Steve. Nobody has finished bottom for two consecutive seasons since Williams in 2019 and 2020, and that’s a team that is clearly improving along with the majority of the others. Sauber stands out as poor this year but is a big team that is getting Audi backing, so we’re seeing the standard raised everywhere and the potential for one team that finishes 10th one year to be as high as sixth the next.
More than that, though, through F1 tightening the technical regulations, we’re seeing a smaller overall field spread and teams able to make huge strides in shorter periods of time. Look at McLaren – it was genuinely one of the bottom teams at the start of 2023, and now leads the championship. There’s been a real spread of talent and big backing across all teams that they all have potential to produce competitive results.
One area where F1 has really grown, though, is in the understanding of the challenge by the wider world, how important points can be in a season, and how long it can take to become a winning team. So I believe sponsors of those teams want to be part of those journeys, and the sport is so big globally it provides a huge platform regardless of where the team is finishing in the standings.
I think the same is true of Mercedes. The brand received a huge boost from being involved in F1. Yes, winning championships certainly helped, but simply being competitive and now having that history also provides value. Mercedes itself owns 33% of the team (equal alongside Toto Wolff and INEOS) so it’s not bankrolling the entire setup and therefore still gets a very good marketing return just by being involved.
To reference Mark’s earlier question about Andretti and Cadillac, the reason teams and manufacturers want to be involved is because F1 is such an enormous marketing platform that reaches globally in a way no other racing series does.
THE FINAL WORD
From Robin Miller’s Mailbag, October 16, 2013
Q: The first race I ever saw was the 1982 Indianapolis 500. To date, I still believe that is the greatest 500 that’s been run in the last 35 years. I was 13 then and what kept me coming back were the cars. The innovation and new styles every year were exciting. I know you have indicated that you believe that the DW12 has produced the most exciting racing in the last 40-plus years but we have to look at the history of the sport. The legends became legends because of their ability to master cars on the edge of technology.
I would recommend going back and looking at some of Paul Page’s intros to the 500; his words were 100 percent correct. Now, where is the innovation? Where is the technology? I also get that it’s about money but I will suggest that good racing alone will not bring back the fans. Yes, we need stars and new legends but I will suggest that the cars and the technology will create the stars. Think about it: there were more fans in the ’80s and ’90s when very few races were up for contention at the end. Now most are and we are in the doldrums.
If the sport gets re-elevated to its elite status, the money will come. Look at Larry Ellison and the freakish amount he spent on the America’s Cup. The money will come once the fans come back, and so far I see nothing different that we are doing today than IndyCar was doing five to 10 years ago. I think IndyCar is trying to regulate cost too much. Without rehashing the obvious reasons that I mentioned above, why doesn’t IndyCar simply put out basic formula rules and let the owners buy or build the best car they can? The formula worked before and it can work again. I think its IndyCar’s only hope.
Michael, Atlanta, GA
ROBIN MILLER: It’s true that many of us want more powerful cars that look different and push technology. But are there enough of those people out there to really make a difference in attendance or TV ratings? And I think IndyCar needs some assurance from Ford or Dodge or Audi that they want to come play with a clean sheet of paper. Until then, why mess with the only thing you’ve got right now – good competition? Maybe just open up the rules for the Indy 500 but, again, will that get you teams from sports cars, NASCAR or F1?