In a bid to address Formula 1’s longstanding debate over grid expansion while maintaining fairness for existing teams, an innovative proposal has emerged, offering a potential solution that could reshape the future of the sport.
Andretti’s bid rejection sparks controversy
The backdrop to this proposal stems from the contentious rejection of Andretti’s bid to join the Formula 1 grid. Despite initial approval from the FIA, F1 vetoed the American outfit’s entry, citing concerns over its perceived value to the sport.
Efforts to resolve the impasse have intensified, with discussions underway between key stakeholders. In collaboration with power unit partner General Motors, team owner Michael Andretti has engaged in talks with F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali to secure a pathway into the sport.
Alternative proposal offers a fresh perspective on Formula 1
Simultaneously, according to racingnews365.com, an alternative proposal has been tabled, aiming to influence the upcoming 2026 Concorde Agreement. Crafted by industry veterans Tim Milne and Lewis Butler, this initiative presents a novel approach to introducing new teams onto the grid.
Under the proposed framework, up to three new teams could enter Formula 1, operating as non-constructors. These teams would be strategically based in regions currently underrepresented in the sport, such as the Americas, Asia, and Africa/Oceania.
Crucially, these new entrants would not initially compete for constructors’ championship points or prize money. Instead, they would focus on participating in designated races to foster development within their respective markets.
🚨IS F1 BEING BROKEN??!!
Being reported by @Racingnews365 – a proposal has been submitted to F1 / FIA to allow 3 teams into F1 – but not as constructors and therefore would not get points or prize money… and must be situated in Americas, Asia, and Africa/Oceania#F1 #Formula1 pic.twitter.com/EYMijKR40l
— FormulaNerds 🤓🏁 (@Formula_Nerds) May 2, 2024
Opinions on the matter
Milnes explained:
“When Andretti was rejected in January, I took a step back and looked at what that meant, which was that the FIA and Formula One Management had effectively concluded it was not possible to start a Formula 1 team, and for it to achieve what they wanted it to achieve, in a three-year timespan.
“We had in Andretti, one of the best-known motorsport brands in the world, backed by GM, that couldn’t get in. We had LKYSUNZ, with one-and-a-half-billion dollars from a tier-one financial institution, and a three-year plan to grow the sport in south-east Asia, and that wasn’t enough.
“And then you had two established teams in the lower formula in Hitech and Rodin-Carlin looking to grow their operations up from the lower categories into Formula 1, and none of these bids were deemed good enough to come and join Formula 1.
“That really said to me that fundamentally it’s not possible to start a Formula 1 team from a blank sheet of paper and be on the grid in three years.
“It seemed illogical to me the sport was turning its back on these great brands, and the huge amounts of investment available to do this, and there wasn’t a way that could be found for Formula 1 to embrace that investment, and to use this as an opportunity to evolve the sport. I felt there must be a way to do this.”
These teams would be mandated to meet revenue and fan engagement targets within their home regions to ensure viability and competitiveness. Additionally, they would be evaluated based on on-track performance benchmarks to maintain the integrity of the sport.
Will this work as an incentive?
Milnes explained further:
“If you’re turning around and saying that in order to start a new team, an investor has to pay $600 million before they spend a penny on recruitment, technical design work, all the infrastructure, the factory and everything else you need to be a competitive Formula 1 team, it felt to me like you must be able to invest that better.
“If you instead said, ‘Okay, don’t pay that $600 million but come and race and don’t take anything out of the pot, I’d be pretty surprised if any of the new teams objected to that.
“So rather than demanding $600 million as an anti-dilution fee, get the new team to invest that money in what can help evolve the sport, and the sport needs to decide what that might be.
“A new team would only then become a constructor when it has demonstrated its added value to the sport, and that all the teams will be better off by the presence of that new team. We should be able to find a strategy that is to the benefit of everyone.”
While the proposal awaits further scrutiny and refinement, initial acknowledgement from Formula One Management’s chief technical officer, Pat Symonds, signals a willingness to explore its feasibility.
Why this proposal?
Milnes said this proposal would benefit new teams and the sport.
“This is about getting the teams to focus on priorities in terms of car performance. One of the things FOM said is that they didn’t believe Andretti could arrive and be competitive.
“What we’re saying is, get the new team to focus on core performance drivers, so aerodynamics, vehicle dynamics, understanding the tires, whilst they grow alongside that, to really get the remaining core engineering competencies up to the standard required for Formula 1.”
“[This is] not a blueprint for the 2026 Concorde Agreement”, but instead a platform for potential “creative discussion” with F1 and the FIA.
“Let’s debrief as a sport on the process that everyone went through last year, and let’s have a think about whether there’s a better way of doing it, whether there’s a better way of bringing new teams into the sport.
“This might not be it. But as I say, to me, it feels like there must be a solution in there somewhere. If you’ve got groups of people with over a billion dollars wanting to come and join the sport, we must be able to find a way that that is beneficial for everyone.”
In the wake of previous bid rejections, proponents of this proposal believe it offers a pragmatic pathway for new entrants to establish themselves within Formula 1, potentially ushering in a new era of diversity and competitiveness on the grid.
Feature Image Credit: Chris Graythen via Getty Images