By Carlo Platella
With an official statement, Formula 1 puts an end to the Andretti soap opera. This at least for the moment, given the door left open to rediscussing the candidacy in 2028, with General Motors as Power Unit supplier. If on the one hand it is positive that the Circus leaders no longer take the arrival of new teams lightly, considering some of the failed initiatives of the last decade, on the other hand the incident leads us to reflect on the inconsistencies of the current system. The problem, rather than in the refusal, lies in the justifications provided, in particular in the concern expressed about the success of the project.
Attention to competitiveness
“Every eleventh team must demonstrate that its participation and involvement will benefit the championship,” reads the official statement. Formula 1 then explains that, according to estimates, Andretti's entry would not have “no significant positive effect expected on financial results, as a key indicator of pure commercial value of the Championship”. Without supporting numbers, it is impossible to judge from the outside the correctness of the prediction and to what extent it is an alibi for not dividing the cake into 11 instead of 10 slices, a choice which would still appear more than understandable.
However, the economic importance that Formula 1 attributes to the sporting success of a team is striking: “The most significant way a new entrant would bring value is by being competitive, specifically competing for podiums and race victories. This would substantially increase fan engagement and enhance the league's value in the eyes of key stakeholders and revenue sources.”
Precisely this issue raises the Circus' doubts towards Andretti's candidacy, starting from the competitiveness of a possible new Cadillac engine: “The entry into this sport as a new Power Unit manufacturer […] it can require a number of years and significant investments to become competitive. General Motors has the resources and credibility necessary to attempt this challenge, but success is not guaranteed”. Correct observation, but not necessarily valid to reject a new actor, considering how the same objection could have been made to Audi. However, the distrust towards the team's competitiveness is total, clearly expressed in the press release: “We do not believe Andretti would be a competitive participant.”
Here a debate opens on the assumptions made to estimate the success of a team that still does not exist. Competitiveness in Formula 1 rests above all on human capital, experience in the sector, developed knowledge and organizational structure. It is something that is subject to continuous evolution and whose effectiveness is difficult to ascertain before seeing its application. If too much weight is given to this inevitable uncertainty, no new team should ever enter. A different matter concerns the other ingredients for competitiveness, above all economic and temporal resourcesfor which Formula 1 already uses indicators, used to help both new teams and existing ones in difficulty.
Same goal, different methods
The sporting regulations contemplate the entry of a new team at several points. One of these is the allocation of hours to be spent on wind tunnel and CFD analysis, giving a new team 64% more resources in its first year than the world champion team. In this, a first inconsistency emerges with the part of the sporting regulations relating to power units. In the aerodynamic field, in fact, in the years preceding its entry a new team would enjoy total freedom of development, while the work of a new engineer would regulated up to four years before its debutwhile giving him a bonus.
It's also different competitiveness management in the years following entry, applying the same system designed for existing teams, which aims to encourage the recovery of the pursuers. In the aerodynamic field, the previous year's constructors' ranking is used as an indicator of the competitiveness of the teams, assigning greater development resources to the less successful ones. This is a different approach from the one that will be applied for power units starting from 2026. Extra development opportunities will in fact be granted to engine engineers whose average thermal power is at least 3% lower than the best engine of the lot. If in the aerodynamic field the competitiveness of the participants is treated in a proportional manner, in the motoring field it instead follows a binary logic.
Another issue is the control of economic resources, with the financial regulation limiting the capital that can be invested in strengthening infrastructure, another central area for competitiveness. Red Bull, Mercedes and Ferrari are the teams that will be able to spend the least until 2028, preceded by McLaren Alpine and Aston Martin, above which all the others are placed. In the management of aerodynamic and engine competitiveness, the regulation contemplates a different treatment for new entrants, an option however absent on the infrastructural front. In particular, if the success of a new team is of such primary importance for Formula 1, it is difficult to understand why there are no plans minimum standards on the quantity and quality of infrastructure to be equipped with upon entry.
The absence
In the words chosen to reject Andretti's candidacy, Formula 1 considers the competitiveness of a new team as a priority, expressing a logic that can be extended to all teams. With the same number of participants, the more of them become protagonists, the better it is for the sport. Think of the popularity that Red Bull has acquired over the years and the activation of new markets that this has brought, attracting new fans. With this in mind, a frequent alternation of winners it would be well received by Formula 1, which in fact in recent years has worked to promote greater general balance. The cap on expenses, the regulation of bench and wind tunnel tests, the new technical regulation are changes that move in the right direction, but which are still insufficient.
On these pages it has already been commented on how the disproportionate increase in Grand Prix races to the detriment of tests and the reduction in the number and duration of free practices hinder the work of the teams on the track, which remains the main tool for promoting their recovery and success sporty, even more so with ground effect. If this is the concern regarding the competitiveness of the new teams, the same attention should also be paid to the existing ones. If we add that, between engines, aerodynamics and investments, the aid offered to those in difficulty follows different logics, everything highlights an absence. Missing is a list of basic principles that guide the drafting of the rules, embodying the same role that the Constitution holds in a State. Something that helps define what type of competition Formula 1 wants to be and what the protections are for those who take part in it.
#Andretti39s #refusal #exposes #limits #regulation
