Wallio wrote:Biscione wrote:Wallio wrote:http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-website/en/latest/interviews/2015/9/guenther-steiner-q-a--haas-could-become-model-for-new-teams.html
Lots to pour over in that interview, and honestly, as someone who was looking forward to Haas' debut, not much is good. No American driver, and they admit they are a Ferrari "B-Team". oh well.
And it's exactly this that gives me confidence they might actually survive. Steiner is right - they had to take this approach, or the project was guaranteed to be a failure. An American driver for the sake of having an American driver would have been a double whammy.
If Haas had elected not to take this route, and go it alone from the very start, the team would be dead by 2018. At least this way they might be able to establish themselves as respectable midfielders, and give themselves a platform to build from and attempt autonomy further down the line.
The American driver thing I can get over, although dismissively saying there is "no one" is shite, Rossi is 2nd in GP2 and has won a bunch this year (or is that a bigger condemnation of GP2?), Newgarden could be had, and hell, maybe even Kurt Busch (whethr or not they should jump series is another matter, but they would). But as I said, I can get over that.
The whole not building their own car thing is what bothers me. This is F1, and since the '70s, you build your own car. Period. This will kill any popularity for them over here. People will say, oh its just Ferrari 2, why not root for the big team? And they'd be right. Ferrari, while popular over here, is not THAT popular, especially when every other racing series over here has teams build their own cars, (or aerokits).
I do find it funny that only a few short years ago, there was massive outrage and backlash everywhere (besides on here of course) against Super Aguri and Torro Rosso and Prodrive over this very thing. It was even a sticking point in the "budget-cap" war. But now its A-OK. That's odd to me.
I'll still root for them, as I have been waiting my entire life for an American F1 team (I was 1 when the other Haas folded) but I will still hold Marussia up higher, as they are doing it right.
The issue with choosing an American driver would be whether they could get a superlicence in the first place - Newgarden and Busch are, IIRC, ineligible under the current licence regulations and would remain ineligible under the proposed 2016 regulations.
The only one that stands a reasonable chance would be Rossi - however, that is dependent on him retaining 2nd place in the GP2 championship this season, and that would not occur until the end of November this year. I expect that Haas is not prepared to wait until then to confirm his line up if he can secure drivers at an earlier date - moreover, given he has stated that he will be relying on drivers with experience to help the team mature and develop, Rossi would not fit into that role.
As for constructing the car, from Haas's point of view, being able to maximise his chances of success by buying in expertise and pushing the limits on what customers can acquire makes sense from his point of view. It reduces his risks and overheads during that initial phase, when the team is at most risk of burning up its resources too quickly, at a time when he may lack in house expertise given a potential shortfall of motorsport engineers with relevant F1 experience who would also be prepared to relocate to his headquarters.
Whilst it may be disappointing in some senses, Biscione makes a valid point - ultimately, Haas seems to be trying to strike the best balance between the resources he has at his disposal and the challenge of remaining in business during that initial difficult phase of trying to simply establish the team as a presence on the grid.
)