Former Caterham F1 Owner Tony Fernandes said that there will "never be room for small teams like Caterham in F1 unless there’s a reduction in spending throughout the grid," according to Mike Wise of SKY SPORTS. Fernandes said on Wednesday that outfits like Caterham, "which he sold at the end of June, will never make progress if larger teams continue to spend what are, in his opinion, vastly-inflated budgets." Fernandes: "People can blame whoever, but the big teams are as much at fault as anyone. The gap has become way too big and it's money. And so I thought, 'Well, I can’t compete.' But I can compete at QPR; I can compete at Air Asia." Neither Caterham nor their rivals Marussia will "race at this weekend's U.S. GP after both went into administration." Both teams entered F1 in '10 having been told they could "compete
with a budget cap." More established teams had agreed to "limit their own
spending around that time but that deal eventually broke down." Fernandes: "Rather than continue something where I thought, one, I wasn't able
to give it as much time as possible, two, I thought we were on a beating
to none anyway, you’ve got to be brave and say 'Look, we screwed up.
You can’t compete; you thought you could and time to leave'" (SKY SPORTS, 10/29).
MORE LOSSES FEARED: In London, Kevin Eason wrote as the small teams "are squeezed, fears are growing that the roster will be
reduced by another two, leaving only seven competitive squads and forcing
the sport to allow each remaining team to field three cars." The complexities "are horrendous, though, with no one sure whether the third cars would be
eligible for points or championship positions." In the case of this season
with an "utterly dominant Mercedes, Formula One could have witnessed a single
team taking all three podium positions" at many grands prix. Fernandes: "There may even be teams within F1 who want a second team -- a Red Bull/Toro
Rosso situation. So, we will give it maximum support but
it's not something I want to get involved in anymore. You have to immerse
yourself in it. Racing's over for me" (LONDON TIMES, 10/29). BLOOMBERG's Alex Duff reported CNC
Communications & Network Consulting partner Xander Heijnen said that the biggest teams "typically get about 10 times as much as
the smallest." Heijnen has "advised
carmakers about the series" (BLOOMBERG, 10/29).
HAAS NOT DISCOURAGED: In London, Daniel Johnson reported the "demise of two teams is not putting off F1's likeliest next entrant,
American Gene Haas." Scheduled for a '16 start, the 61-year-old "bullishly
claims those teams failed due to 'mistakes' which his Ferrari-sponsored
outfit would not make." Haas: "They wound up making a lot of mistakes. Inevitably they didn't
have the resources or the cars weren't properly put together because they
rushed things. We would be very proud to be a Ferrari 'B' team because that
would certainly teach us how to run in Formula One" (TELEGRAPH, 10/29).
CHANGE OR DIE: In London, Eason reported in a separate piece F1 has been warned to "change or die as the sport edges closer to the financial brink." With two teams in administration and two more "said to be struggling," Cass Business School lecturer in strategy Dr. Paolo Aversa said that F1 had "no option but to ditch a business model that favours the biggest teams." Not only is the "reputation of the sport at risk but also the livelihoods of thousands of people employed in an industry that has grown up around Britain's leading position in the world of motor racing." Aversa: "Formula One is not only a sport and an entertainment circus but an industry which provides cutting-edge technology to a variety of other sectors, as well employing thousands of people around the world. ... We should ask whether the distribution of wealth is proportionate to a point that allows all the players -- both administrators and teams -- to get a fair share of the pie and thus achieve a reasonable turnover" (LONDON TIMES, 10/28).