F1 and NASCAR ramblings….
 |
| American Alexander Rossi went from one bankrupt team (Caterham) to another (Marussia). Now he won't have a ride in his home race. |
This past week, it was revealed both the Caterham and Marussia Formula One teams would not race in this coming weekend's United States Grand Prix. It should be said that an in-depth analysis of the situations would reveal circumstances unique to each party. However, as unfortunate stories of complicated ownership structures, nine-figure debt tallies, constant buyout rumors and lap times five seconds off the pace both share much in common.
Now, if and/or when either team races again is anyone's guess. What likewise remains uncertain is what exactly the Caterham and Marussia situations (both have gone into administration in the United Kingdom) mean for the sport going forward. Is this a wake-up call for Formula One to reconsider its financial model? Or are Caterham and Marussia simply the latest in a long line of people and organizations, unable to make it in the cutthroat world of Formula One Racing?
These issues and others will be explored in the coming week to ten days in an AutoRacing1 feature.
In the meantime, we will begin today discussing a very interesting tidbit of information that surfaced late last week in light of the Caterham and Marussia news.
Third Cars
While never confirmed it was previously assumed that should the number of entries fall below a certain number, top Formula One teams like Mercedes, Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull would field third cars. According to reports, they would, but certainly not in the manner anyone believed.
According to F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone,
"They (top teams) would supply a third car to someone else so if, for example, Sauber disappeared, a team could do a deal with Sauber. Ferrari could say, 'we will give you a car, all that goes with it, and we want you to put this sponsor on it. You have your own sponsors but we want you to include this one as well and we want you to take this driver'. The team wouldn't have to go under then would they? If Red Bull decided they would give a car to Caterham for example that could solve their problem."
Yes, rather than fielding third cars for their own teams, top teams would supply machinery to teams in financial straits. So, hypothetically Caterham would field a car provided by Mercedes or Red Bull as outlined above.
Now, on the surface, such a scenario may seem like a reasonable solution. Certainly, it would serve to address the concern of having say 14 or 16 car grids. Also, a Mercedes, Red Bull or Ferrari car replacing a backmarker would mean more legitimate competitors on the grid. Still, this nugget of news, elicits far more questions than answers.
For example, if Mercedes supplies Caterham with a car, does Caterham get the technical data that comes with it? Who gets the Constructors' points? Would such a situation potentially create a scenario in which a driver such as Fernando Alonso, who is unsigned for next season, goes to Caterham or Marussia to get himself in a desired car/engine combination?
Who would pay for the car? Would it be Bernie Ecclestone's Formula One Group, the supplying team, the receiving team, or would the costs be shared? And how exactly would it be determined which top teams supplied which bottom teams? I could see that becoming
Also, if Caterham and Marussia's financial troubles open up the possibility of those teams fielding Mercedes, Ferraris or Red Bulls, don't bankruptcy and administration all of a sudden seem a lot more desirable than previously? While I am by no means suggesting a team would deliberately sabotage their effort, I would likewise offer that Marussia's Max Chilton was more than five seconds adrift of Mercedes' Lewis Hamilton in qualifying for the Russian Grand Prix. Call me crazy, but gaining five seconds a lap for managing your team poorly does seem to be an odd method of addressing the problem.
Further, what does such a scenario mean for mid-pack teams such as Lotus and Force-India, who would face the possibility of their own competitiveness diminished with teams beneath them in the standings receiving top equipment? From a competitive standpoint, wouldn't such a situation render those teams the new Caterham and/or Marussia?
As we will explore, Formula One has clear financial issues it must address going forward. But as currently outlined, it seems the third car scenario may simply create more problems than it solves.
Another note on F1
As mentioned earlier, the world's top form of motorsport will make its third visit to Circuit of the Americas in Austin, Texas for this weekend's United States Grand Prix. While the event in Austin has been a success the past two years, and COTA seems like it may become a suitable long-term home for the U.S. Grand Prix, go ahead and count this writer amongst the skeptics regarding Formula 1's potential to ever make an impression stateside beyond the diehard racing audience.
[adinserter name="GOOGLE AD"]There are many reasons for this. Americans have their own uniquely American sports such as football and baseball. NASCAR-style saloon car, circle-track racing, also provides Americans with their own uniquely American form of racing.
Plus, the appeal of Formula One, which throughout much of the world is based on ‘the spectacle' of a Grand Prix rather than the action of the event itself, will only go so far with Americans. Throw in the fact there is no American driver remotely close to securing a deal with a top team, and yea I really don't see F1 making much of an imprint stateside anytime soon.
One thing that certainly won't help
Texas Motor Speedway president Eddie Gossage can be something of a grandstanding loudmouth. But when Gossage speaks up at some point this week (which he certainly will) and criticizes the decision for COTA and Formula One to host the U.S. GP the same day as a NASCAR race at TMS, he will be 100% correct.
I know F1 has to coordinate the COTA race with their trip to Interlagos. Still, this is a conflict that I imagine can be avoided in the future with a simple phone call between Ecclestone, Gossage, and NASCAR chairman Brian France. And for an industry that needs all the help it can get right now, the fact the various parties involved don't seek some resolution tells you everything you need to know.
As for something we don't need
Danica Patrick found herself in the news over the weekend.
Patrick, who tangled with Joey Logano at Charlotte two weeks ago, made it clear that the matter between her and the Team Penske driver was not behind them.
"If he keeps proving that he's sorry, then everything will be fine," said Patrick.
The driver of the #10 Go Daddy Chevrolet didn't stop there. Noting that Charlotte would have been a lousy race to seek retaliation because Logano's spot in the next round was secured, Patrick noted "Look, it's not my style to want to start a fight, but I have to stand up for myself at some point in time."
Yes, it may not be Patrick's style to start a fight. But it does seem her style to needlessly grab headlines. While the story of an attractive female dynamo running with the big boys was worthy of our time and admiration at one point, it's been nearly a decade now since Patrick burst onto the scene. Currently, the narrative on Danica is not of a novel pioneer, but that of a driver ranked 27th in the series standings.
Or stated another way, isn't a story. And the only way she becomes a story is when she does something like threatening to wreck those who are legitimate championship contenders.
Stay classy Danica.
The Chase
I've said this numerous times but it bears repeating. In determining the champion of any motor racing series I've long advocated the following system:
All races count for equal points
Add up the points at the end of the year and award the championship to the driver with the most points
Of course, such thinking runs counter to the modus operandi of most major racing series in 2014. IndyCar adopted ‘double-points' for 500 mile races this past season, while Formula One will award double-points at its upcoming season-finale next month at Abu Dhabi. No sanction, however, has tinkered more with its championship format in the last decade than NASCAR.
And while I'll save my profound disdain for The Chase for another time let the record show: after yesterday's race at Martinsville the possibility of a zero-win driver such as Matt Kenseth or Ryan Newman winning the NASCAR Sprint Cup Championship is very much a reality.
That, my friends, would be a public relations disaster, particularly when you consider Brian France assured everyone the new system would place a premium on winning.
Speaking of winning…
To my knowledge no one brought up the notion of Martinsville winner Dale Earnhardt Jr., who is eliminated from title contention, moving over yesterday in the closing for teammate Jeff Gordon, who finished 2nd and remains in title contention. Of course, a win would have clinched Gordon's spot in the final round at Homestead.
To be perfectly clear, I'm not suggesting Earnhardt should have. While I'd argue such a maneuver would have been fundamentally different than what occurred last year at Richmond, I'm aware of NASCAR's 100% rule, and know no one would want the PR fallout of such a matter.
That said, I wonder whether teams took note of the situation yesterday. And will any of them make plans should they find themselves in a similar situation, particularly in the case they are staring at elimination in two weeks which at Phoenix?
Has anyone noticed…
The 2014 Red Bull Global Rallycross season-finale in Las Vegas will take place next Wednesday evening? It will not be shown on live TV rather tape-delayed until Sunday November 16th on NBC network. Is there some wisdom I'm missing in a non-televised motorsports finale on a Wednesday evening?
Brian Carroccio is a columnist for AutoRacing1. He can be contacted at BrianC@AutoRacing1.com