The "new" teams in 2014

[raymondu999]

Back in 2010 I asked the following:

Hey all.

We're now 2-3rds-ish over the season. In retrospect, shouldn't the new teams have been introduced last year? I mean, then their only disadvantage would be inexperience (but some ARE experienced) in managing teams/designing a chassis. Regarding ideas etc, people like Nick Wirth/Mike Gascoyne should be able to produce ideas that are "on the pace" in terms of aero, no? As everyone is looking at their own creativity to try and create a faster aero package anyways?

Thoughts please.

Just to clarify, what I meant is, admitted to start racing in 2009, rather than admitted to start racing in 2010, when everyone was starting with a clean-sheet design.

Thread: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... f=1&t=8838

My contention was that it would have been a more "level" playing field if everyone started with a clean sheet, rather than having the older teams with a year's headstart.

Knowing what we know now, what do we think about next year? A similar situation is about to arise with a major changes in the car design regs.

Assuming engine parity, how do we think the Caterham/Marussia skedaddle will fare in their chassis and aero-mech development? Will this be the boost they need to join the midfield? Or will it expose further shortcomings and lack of experience and in fact have them starting back where they did in 2010?

For the purposes of discussion let us assume that the 11-team formation we have now is carried forward to 2014.

[wesley123]

They'll stay the backmarkers. They simply lack resources compared to the other teams to make the step. Maybe they'll have a good first few races, but that'll be it.

[Sombrero]

I guess also they'll stay the backmarkers. It's more likely that the backmakers field will extend in 2014 : Williams has still no point (!) this year and thinks are not looking good either for Sauber (only 7 pts) with big financial issues.

For Caterham and Marussia finally still beeing there is a success.

[piast9]

I don't know exaxt budgets but really the "new" teams have that much smaller budgets than for example Williams or Sauber?

[Steven]

Probably not, as Sauber hardly has any budget at all at the moment. Both Williams and Sauber though have extremely good facilities with all equipment necessary in their factories. This cannot be said for the "new" teams at all.

Caterham has been noting since the launch of this year's car that it was only a mild evolution as they're entirely focused on the 2014 challenge. They may hence have planned a longer lead time to try to offset its smaller development team. I was initially hopeful for Caterham in particular due to this, but they have also recently said that their progress is going to be slow and is limited by its budget.

[banibhusan]

I remember reading somewhere that next year, the gap between the lead teams and the back markers will again go back to 5-6s per lap and the teams down the order will be more scattered in terms of pace.

The budget of these small teams are so small, I wonder will they be able to even survive the whole 2014 season with the new powertrain systems costing so much compared to now, forget about in season development. The cheapest engine is predicted to be the Ferrari one with an estimated cost of around $15m, which means with 5 power trains per season it will cost around $75m which is huge. IMO, the small teams would have a budget of may be a little more than $100m and without major sponsors this will cause a big problem for them.

[MOWOG]

I think the "new" teams will fall even further behind. in truth, there is no earthly reason for Marussia or Caterham to even be on the same track at the same time with the others. IF the sport had any interest in keeping the lowest competitors in the mix, it would share some of the $$$$$ it generates with them. That it refuses to do so is all the proof you need that it does not want these lowest teams to succeed.

Euthanize them. They are an afterthought and an embarrassment to the sport.

[LionKing]

The cheapest engine is predicted to be the Ferrari one with an estimated cost of around $15m, which means with 5 power trains per season it will cost around $75m which is huge. IMO, the small teams would have a budget of may be a little more than $100m and without major sponsors this will cause a big problem for them.

$15 million cost can not per engine. A top of the line jet engine's list price is around $30 million.

[ScottB]

It's mystifying, Tony Fernandes seems to be happy to throw money at QPR, for little tangible benefit, while Caterham, whose fortunes will surely have an impact on his attempt / desire to turn Caterham cars into a credible, global manufacturer seem rather starved for cash...

I'd imagine both 'new' teams will be relying on the big teams they've latched on to, the whole back end of the Caterham will RBR, and Marussia do have Pat Symonds and access to Mclaren's facilities, so they could both get the jump on a midfield team doing a bad job, a la Williams or Sauber this year.

[iotar__]

There's an interesting interview with Pat Symonds in Amus regarding F1 costs and running small team with some great comparisons to teams from the past. It's in German but google translate works just fine as far as I can tell:
http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... 36558.html

It's mainly focused on budget and technical implications (it might explain Sauber's problems too) but the part about development rate and downforce levels is interesting too. Especially in light of trend of misinformation about speed of F1 cars that results in comparisons with MotoGP or GP2 .

About the poll: they might close the gap if they end up on the 'winning' engine side and one of the mid-fielders on the opposite. At least for a while.

Part2
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 36562.html

[MOWOG]

Thanks for that AMUS article, iotar! =D>

I know Formula One is supposed to be the top of the peak of the pinnacle of motorsports, but I have doubts about how much spending all this money on aerodynamic perfection improves the racing. It's an age old question and one that can be debated six way to Sunday, but it seems a ridiculous waste of manpower and money, at least to me.

I think aero is boring. I would much prefer to see a series that emphasizes mechanical genius and not the arcane science of fluid dynamics as applied to the passage of air over 10,000 little tidbits and widgets plastered all over the cars. Let's go RACING, for heavens sake. Let's have drivers who are the best at their craft instead of those with the biggest wallets. How many potential world champions are excluded from competing because they don't bring a boatload of cash with them?

Pat Symonds terms it "madness". I quite agree.

[Tim.Wright]

I know Formula One is supposed to be the top of the peak of the pinnacle of motorsports, but I have doubts about how much spending all this money on aerodynamic perfection improves the racing. It's an age old question and one that can be debated six way to Sunday, but it seems a ridiculous waste of manpower and money, at least to me.

I'm with you. Mandate a minimum body work radius of 100mm everywhere and allow only a single closed cross section profile through any vertical plane. Figure out someway of allowing intakes and exhausts for engine and cooling and I think you will end up with a very simple and possibly beautiful shape.

Then you could run CFD on it with a mesh size as big as my head for very little money.