planetf1.com

I notice Haas is listed as a F1 constructor, but is there anything Haas about their car?

If you look at the Careers section on their website. A decent amount of them are in Italy.

Spooky!

dinsdale wrote:I notice Haas is listed as a F1 constructor, but is there anything Haas about their car?

I think they paint the cars.

The construct the car from parts?

It reads Haas on the sidepod of the Haas car, so I think that is something Haas in the Haas car.

froze wrote:It reads Haas on the sidepod of the Haas car, so I think that is something Haas in the Haas car.

I get the point o the OP though. How much of the car is constructed by Haas? and how much needs to be constructed by them for them to be classed as a constructor?

mikeyg123 wrote:

froze wrote:It reads Haas on the sidepod of the Haas car, so I think that is something Haas in the Haas car.

I get the point o the OP though. How much of the car is constructed by Haas? and how much needs to be constructed by them for them to be classed as a constructor?

I would assume that they would need to create and build their own chassis and aero package. It may well be that they do so with 'advice' and/or research donated/sold to them by another team.

Although their chassis was built by Dallara it's not like they walked into a store front and picked it off the wall. It's a bespoke design built just for them and done in concert with the Haas aero guys. The idea is that while they build up their in house capabilities they will use Dallara as a contractor to build them.

hrm80953 wrote:If you look at the Careers section on their website. A decent amount of them are in Italy.

Spooky!

Dalara is located in Parma Italy so no surprise aero would be working in italy.

I think the American Haas car is more Italian than the Ferrari.

Apparently the following bits have to be produced 'in-house' to qualify as a constructer:

• Monocoque
  Survival cell
  Front-impact structures
  Roll-over structures
  Bodywork – except airboxes, exhausts, and prescribed bodywork geometries
  Wings
  Floor
  Diffuser

Of course how much of that was truly developed in-house by Haas / Dalara and how much, if any, got a helping hand by a Ferrari tech on their extended lunch break we'll never really know. It'll certainly be fascinating to see how this pans out as the Haas model pretty much makes the traditional independent model redundant (all else being equal of course). Bear in mind Haas are reported to be running around $100m budget for the year which would be the second lowest expenditure with only Manor underneath them. Considering the first two races have seen them at the head of the midfield with only Merc, Ferrari and Red Bull consistently finishing ahead of them there's clearly a serious return on investment possible with this approach.

dinsdale wrote:I notice Haas is listed as a F1 constructor, but is there anything Haas about their car?

If they follow the rules, does it matter?

Would you consider the iPhone an "Apple product" when Apple doesn't build any of it?

Would you consider the 458 a Ferrari, even though Pininfarina designed it?

I think it's great actually.

It should be possible for any team to pick and choose parts that are available from other manufacturers/constructors and put together a car of their own. The rules are such that the car must be unique in some way.

As far as I'm aware, this is how F1 was back in the early days. Not everyone built every part of their own car.

What Haas shows is that a reasonably competitive car can be built and operated on a much more reasonable budget than is expected. The more teams that enter/convert using this philosophy, the more competitive F1 will be and the closer the racing will be.

Toro Rosso also seem to be able to compete at times on a lowish budget. There is no doubt they are borrowing some know-how from their larger sibling, but they do bring a lot of their own innovations to the table.

I don't think teams should be able to purchase another team's car design outright, but a few parts and know-how from a number of other teams is something I'd like to see more.

Haas is following the rules that define F1. That is all that is required.

30-40% of the parts in other constructor's cars are sourced from various vendors - not built by the constructors themselves.

The 'golden days' of F1 competition was when most teams except Ferrari used the Cosworth DFV for power and built their cars around it.

They're meeting the requirements, the clearly have a hand in the design, and I don't see a problem. Certainly their car is at least as much theirs as many cars entered in the earliest days of the constructor's championship were. Since the rules haven't been tightened up sufficiently to keep this from being done, I say it's just a good idea of Haas to go this route -- and presumably it's been intentionally left open for a constructor to source that many parts, it's just that nobody else has done it recently.

I believe their plan is to slowly take over more and more of the work in-house as they progress, so this is mostly to get their foot in and all. Reasonable, considering how incredibly difficult it is to start a team wholly from scratch these days.

If someone believes that any manufacturer constructs the entire car, they are not aware of all the facts. Every manufacturer, every engine manufacturer contracts out specific tasks and purchase specialty parts from firms that have immense expertise in certain components. Even if you examine the two most obvious manufacturers, Ferrari and Mercedes, their wheel rims and braking systems are purchased from a third party. For the engine manufacturers, their pistons and turbochargers are sourced from companies with the expertise to make them properly. Nuts, bolts, fasteners, even the tape covering up gaps is sourced out.

So let's try to get past the indignation of assumptions, they all source out parts and expertise.

Yes, Haas source out everything they can, and for one very good reason. They are brand new to Formula One and don't want to go down the wrong path, but instead rely on others to supply components. It is a method to minimize mistakes. This decision comes from their management structure, the same decision-makers who decided to wait another year, and that was one very good decision. That was pure Haas.

But there is one part of the car they are solely responsible for, and that is the aerodynamics, very critical. Haas has one of the best wind tunnels in existence, it is second to none. Other teams have also used this wind tunnel. When Haas was first accepted and Ferrari suddenly started to show improvement, it was no co-incidence. They have leaned heavily in Haas to help find aero solutions. In two years the Ferrari aerodynamics have gone from questionable to the standard Ferrari fans expect and enjoy.

I mentioned the Haas management, and it is relevant for a team's success. We saw how pooched it was at Ferrari during the Alonso era, they had to bring out the long knives and start fresh. The same at Williams, they were a shadow of their great team until Sir Frank and Patrick Head realized their old ways did not work in this modern era and turned the decision-making process over to new blood.

Right now Haas are building the minimum they have to, that was no secret from the beginning. But what is also common knowledge is that they intend to wean themselves off other suppliers and begin to design and construct parts once they have a few year's experience in this game.

smiddlehurst wrote:Apparently the following bits have to be produced 'in-house' to qualify as a constructer:

• Monocoque
  Survival cell
  Front-impact structures
  Roll-over structures
  Bodywork – except airboxes, exhausts, and prescribed bodywork geometries
  Wings
  Floor
  Diffuser

Of course how much of that was truly developed in-house by Haas / Dalara and how much, if any, got a helping hand by a Ferrari tech on their extended lunch break we'll never really know. It'll certainly be fascinating to see how this pans out as the Haas model pretty much makes the traditional independent model redundant (all else being equal of course). Bear in mind Haas are reported to be running around $100m budget for the year which would be the second lowest expenditure with only Manor underneath them. Considering the first two races have seen them at the head of the midfield with only Merc, Ferrari and Red Bull consistently finishing ahead of them there's clearly a serious return on investment possible with this approach.

And isn't that the point. I am happy to lose a little bit of the traditionalism in F1 if it attracts competitive teams to the sport. Haas although unconventional have been a massive boost for a sport currently trying to nuke itself!

Grizzly B wrote:And isn't that the point. I am happy to lose a little bit of the traditionalism in F1 if it attracts competitive teams to the sport. Haas although unconventional have been a massive boost for a sport currently trying to nuke itself!

For some people, their idea of "traditionalism" goes back just twenty years, for others it may go back fifty years. But for me, when one delves into traditions, it encompasses the entire history of the sport. Formula One as we know it was a continuance of what was going on before WW2, Grand Prix racing. That itself is a long and convoluted path, with many different things happening during different eras. The most successful car in the history of Grand Prix racing was the Bugatti Type 35, with 351 wins. And back then, wealthy individuals purchased the cars and ran them. During the heyday of kit cars, with the exception of Ferrari, everyone had a Cosworth engine and a Hewland gearbox. And even with Sir Frank Williams, his team Williams Grand Prix Engineering ran a March 761 engine and a Cosworth engine.

1974 Canadian Grand Prix at Mosport. A Brabham BT42, basically purchased as a unit and ran in the race. At that time Bernie Ecclestone owned that team.



So when we use the word "tradition", it is a sticky morass, depending on each person's interpretation.

Just ten years ago the first Scuderia Toro Rosso car was a modified version of the 2005 Red Bull RB1 chassis, while they claimed it was from the Jaguar, Ford owning the intellectual rights. In 2008 the car that brought Vettel his first win was the STR3, designed by Adrian Newey.

Grizzly, I'm not disagreeing with you, and I also appreciate that a new team can get going with something more than crushing failures. Formula One has been turning itself into a closed club, and it's nice to see that little clique being broken up.

Beat me to it Blinky. Well said.

Hell, even Enzo bought or borrowed cars to enter races before making his own (sure it was before the official advent of F1, but he was no different). The one tradition that rings true in F1 is that almost every possible scenario has tried and though most prove unfruitful, some have succeeded and some quite well.

Some teams have run previous year Ferrari's 100%, chassis, drivetrain, everything, simply painted over to the "new" teams' sponsor colors.
Some teams made their own chassis but bought engines & drivetrains from others, what, where & how did the successful Mercedes engines begin life? Certainly not as Mercedes. I guess dropping a wad of cash and buying something cancels out the history before the purchase. Ferrari are so proud to boast how they make everything in house but that simply isn't true. With all their decades of experience in manufacturing the very best everything in the world of luxury supercars they bought turbo units from elsewhere and it didn't pan out well. Then a year later, after identifying the problem they go out and buy different turbo units. Many teams buy transmissions as well as insanely overpriced engines from other teams.

The days of teams building cars from the ground up almost 100% are history and the Garagista will NEVER again be seen.

Yes Haas has taken the constructor rule and pushed them farther than anybody else before. It's not like they haven't spent the past two years telling everyone in every interview exactly what they were doing. What is with the intentional obtuseness? Listening comprehension problems.

Why does a German team like Mercedes or a French team like Renault have a presence in the UK? It's because there is a small area in the UK where a significant cottage industry exists primarily to service F1 teams. Yup, outside companies doing wire harnesses, circuit boards, composites, metallurgy, coatings, forging, etc for F1 constructors. No team truly builds the car in a bubble and no team is truly mono-nationalistic.

Heck, even the engine manufacturer we now know as Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains was started as Ilmor (they basically got their start through Roger Penske and his Indy campaign), went through a few name changes, one being Sauber. And their engine factory is located in Brixworth, Great Britain.

So Formula One cars and their equipment isn't about purebreds developed in house by teams, but more mongrels that came into being through a long history of changes and cross-breeding. Bruce McLaren got a good part of his initial financial assistance from a movie, "Grand Prix", where Frankenheimer wanted a white car in the movie. He paid Bruce to paint his cars white. When Ilmor first got into Formula One, his company received some financial backing via General Motors.

Bruce McLaren at his team's initial Formula One debut, at the 1966 Monaco Grand Prix in the M2B

I've been in this forum to hear people complain incessantly about HRT and Virgin and all the total failures of F1 projects that limped onto the grid, survived as back-markers for a short while and then vanished into the night. Now we have a new team that is competent, well-funded and performing really well right out of the gate and people are still complaining!? This is the problem with F1 fans. All they want to do is complain.

sandman1347 wrote:I've been in this forum to hear people complain incessantly about HRT and Virgin and all the total failures of F1 projects that limped onto the grid, survived as back-markers for a short while and then vanished into the night. Now we have a new team that is competent, well-funded and performing really well right out of the gate and people are still complaining!? This is the problem with F1 fans. All they want to do is complain.

I agree with that. Haas have done exactly the right thing. In fact it should be used as the handbook for all small or new entry teams.
What the sport did not need right now is another new team struggling at the back and disappearing in a short time.

Whilst it would be great to see a completely independent team in every sense the current regulations and money distribution make this impossible and almost suicidal to attempt.

sandman1347 wrote:I've been in this forum to hear people complain incessantly about HRT and Virgin and all the total failures of F1 projects that limped onto the grid, survived as back-markers for a short while and then vanished into the night. Now we have a new team that is competent, well-funded and performing really well right out of the gate and people are still complaining!? This is the problem with F1 fans. All they want to do is complain.

You've hit that nail right on the head, I'm afraid. Whether it's liveries, new regulations, new teams or the racing itself, the one constant you hear from F1 fans is that the sport is a terrible shadow of itself and nothing is good anymore. It gets very annoying very quickly.

Luckily I don't have to deal with it from my own broadcaster, but if I watch a race on Sky for some reason their relentless negativity gets to me as well. No other sport that I'm aware of is as negative about itself as F1, and no wonder it trickles down to the fans. It starts with Bernie - who never passes up an opportunity to talk his sport down - and goes all the way to the bottom; can you imagine the owner of any other sport on the planet saying he wouldn't pay his money to watch it anymore? Shameful is what it is.

James14 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:I've been in this forum to hear people complain incessantly about HRT and Virgin and all the total failures of F1 projects that limped onto the grid, survived as back-markers for a short while and then vanished into the night. Now we have a new team that is competent, well-funded and performing really well right out of the gate and people are still complaining!? This is the problem with F1 fans. All they want to do is complain.

I agree with that. Haas have done exactly the right thing. In fact it should be used as the handbook for all small or new entry teams.
What the sport did not need right now is another new team struggling at the back and disappearing in a short time.

Whilst it would be great to see a completely independent team in every sense the current regulations and money distribution make this impossible and almost suicidal to attempt.

When the three teams were granted into Formula One, at that time they were promised that the other established teams would assist. That didn't happen, all languished at the very back, in a separate performance category, and two out of three folded. If back then the well-funded and experienced teams had partnered up with the new teams, would it not be similar to Haas's current situation? The difference between then and now is that Haas learned from the mistakes of the past and made sure they had those bases covered.

Haas has done excellent job so far. Remember, they might have contracted out chassis manufacturing, but the design is still theirs. Uniquely theirs.
Wind tunnel loophole was closed last year. So all the development you will see this year on this car from now on is their own.
Even when wind tunnel is shared with other team, there is no data sharing. Big team, especially Ferrari wont do anything that will by blatant violation of FIA rules and regulations. Of all teams, you can trust Ferrari to follow those rules to the last word.

Having said that, Haas went about their business in a smart way. Core components even though can be sourced from other teams, have to be assembled and packaged by Haas themselves. So that is all Haas. Even likes of Williams, FI outsource body panels, wing manufacturing to 3rd parties.
We know all of them outsource wheels and other key components to 3rd parties.

I dont get all the hate thrown at Haas. Here is a new team which didnt suck like other new teams in last 2 decades. We should be happy to see that happen and it should encourage other new teams into sport seeing perfect example of being a successful team in debut season.

Look, any new startup has to make build-or-buy decisions initially. I think recent history has made it clear that outsourcing the maximum amount of components from proven vendors is the obvious way to go for a new F1 team. As time goes on and they gain more experience, Haas will begin to bring more of these competencies in-house.

In the meantime, can't we just be happy that a new team has entered the sport and is really adding to the show and performing up to par instead of languishing at the back and filling the news sites with stories about creditors and property seizure?

I don't understand why anyone would object to the Haas methodology of building an F1 team... except those, like Williams, who feel threatened by them.

What Haas is doing is perfectly legal, and has it has been pointed out in here, many teams, including Williams, also started off buying virtually every major component... many still do. With the exception of the chassis... which has been built by a major racing chassis builder in conjunction with Haas engineers. Pretty damn smart move as I see it. Strangely, do any of you remember some of the reactions in here many months back when Haas announced that they would be working with Dallara for the first chassis? I do... it was one of ridicule by some here... making of fun of Dallara and the partnership. I am guessing those critics have conveniently forgotten their comments of the time.


That said, I am glad to see such a big percentage of the post in this thread being so positive towards the Haas method. Too bad a few F1 principles are not as wise.

Blake wrote:I don't understand why anyone would object to the Haas methodology of building an F1 team... except those, like Williams, who feel threatened by them.

What Haas is doing is perfectly legal, and has it has been pointed out in here, many teams, including Williams, also started off buying virtually every major component... many still do. With the exception of the chassis... which has been built by a major racing chassis builder in conjunction with Haas engineers. Pretty damn smart move as I see it. Strangely, do any of you remember some of the reactions in here many months back when Haas announced that they would be working with Dallara for the first chassis? I do... it was one of ridicule by some here... making of fun of Dallara and the partnership. I am guessing those critics have conveniently forgotten their comments of the time.


That said, I am glad to see such a big percentage of the post in this thread being so positive towards the Haas method. Too bad a few F1 principles are not as wise.

My concern is that it feels like a slippery slope towards customer cars and a two-tiered grid of 'works' and 'feeder' teams, much like the RBR/Toro Rosso relationship. It's no secret that Bernie and the big teams are in favour of this sort of structure as it decreases the operating costs for the lower half of the grid and therefore gives them greater justification to grab a larger share of the revenue for themselves, but is this good for F1? It can only reduce the competitiveness of the field.

I have no criticism of Haas, they are working within the regulations and even if much of the car is bought in it is still a superb achievement to engineer and run a competitive car straight out of the box, but I am not sure if this is the right direction for F1 to be going in.

It's the smart way to enter F1, I have no problem with any of it.

j man wrote:

Blake wrote:I don't understand why anyone would object to the Haas methodology of building an F1 team... except those, like Williams, who feel threatened by them.

What Haas is doing is perfectly legal, and has it has been pointed out in here, many teams, including Williams, also started off buying virtually every major component... many still do. With the exception of the chassis... which has been built by a major racing chassis builder in conjunction with Haas engineers. Pretty damn smart move as I see it. Strangely, do any of you remember some of the reactions in here many months back when Haas announced that they would be working with Dallara for the first chassis? I do... it was one of ridicule by some here... making of fun of Dallara and the partnership. I am guessing those critics have conveniently forgotten their comments of the time.


That said, I am glad to see such a big percentage of the post in this thread being so positive towards the Haas method. Too bad a few F1 principles are not as wise.

My concern is that it feels like a slippery slope towards customer cars and a two-tiered grid of 'works' and 'feeder' teams, much like the RBR/Toro Rosso relationship. It's no secret that Bernie and the big teams are in favour of this sort of structure as it decreases the operating costs for the lower half of the grid and therefore gives them greater justification to grab a larger share of the revenue for themselves, but is this good for F1? It can only reduce the competitiveness of the field.

I have no criticism of Haas, they are working within the regulations and even if much of the car is bought in it is still a superb achievement to engineer and run a competitive car straight out of the box, but I am not sure if this is the right direction for F1 to be going in.

Toro Rosso and Haas are both far more competitive than the likes of HRT, Manor or Virgin ever were. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this model would reduce competitiveness but that simply doesn't jive with reality.

The fact is that there is no way under these complex regulations with hybrid engines and such, that a new privateer team can come in and actually compete head to head with Ferrari or Mercedes. By partnering with one of those organizations, they can find themselves just a few places behind them on the grid wheres if they go it alone, they'll be at the back flirting with the 107% rule.

Blake wrote:Strangely, do any of you remember some of the reactions in here many months back when Haas announced that they would be working with Dallara for the first chassis? I do... it was one of ridicule by some here... making of fun of Dallara and the partnership. I am guessing those critics have conveniently forgotten their comments of the time.

I also remember that - apparently some people decided that the problem with HRT wasn't that they were underfunded or had no real aerodynamic design ability, but rather who actually manufactured their chassis. Or maybe people assume that Haas just put in an order without any input on what they received?

So when Mercedes bought Brawn or Renault Lotus or the others who did the same, should they have been considered manufacturers since they simply bought someone else's entire car? Haas at least formed a new team like virgin, hrt and lotus/Caterham unlike Mercedes and Renault who simply bought an existing team.

People who complain that Haas is following a slippery slope down the path of two classes of car (Customer and Factory), aren't watching. There are only two contenders this year, and they're both factory.

Red Bull should contend, but neither of the leading engine manufacturers will power their car. The two class system is already here.

macaw wrote:So when Mercedes bought Brawn or Renault Lotus or the others who did the same, should they have been considered manufacturers since they simply bought someone else's entire car? Haas at least formed a new team like virgin, hrt and lotus/Caterham unlike Mercedes and Renault who simply bought an existing team.

They did not just buy someone else's car, they bought a legal entity along with and its assets. The most important of those assets being the entities existing contractual status as an entrant to F1. A change of ownership of a legal entity has no effect on that entities existing contractual obligations nor on the obligations others have to it. In other words Mercedes buying Brawn is really nothing more than a name change in regards to existing agreements between F1 and Brawn/Mercedes.

Haas not only has certain components it must design and have made, it also must decide what to purchase from other suppliers. One does not just willy-nilly buy whatever looks good off the shelf and hope it all fits together in a balanced design that produces excellent outcomes. You have to make careful choices about what to include, what fits well with other options, decide on the tradeoffs of one choice and those impacts on the range of other choices, etc. No matter how you cut it, this is engineering their own car.

sandman1347 wrote:

j man wrote:

Blake wrote:I don't understand why anyone would object to the Haas methodology of building an F1 team... except those, like Williams, who feel threatened by them.

What Haas is doing is perfectly legal, and has it has been pointed out in here, many teams, including Williams, also started off buying virtually every major component... many still do. With the exception of the chassis... which has been built by a major racing chassis builder in conjunction with Haas engineers. Pretty damn smart move as I see it. Strangely, do any of you remember some of the reactions in here many months back when Haas announced that they would be working with Dallara for the first chassis? I do... it was one of ridicule by some here... making of fun of Dallara and the partnership. I am guessing those critics have conveniently forgotten their comments of the time.


That said, I am glad to see such a big percentage of the post in this thread being so positive towards the Haas method. Too bad a few F1 principles are not as wise.

My concern is that it feels like a slippery slope towards customer cars and a two-tiered grid of 'works' and 'feeder' teams, much like the RBR/Toro Rosso relationship. It's no secret that Bernie and the big teams are in favour of this sort of structure as it decreases the operating costs for the lower half of the grid and therefore gives them greater justification to grab a larger share of the revenue for themselves, but is this good for F1? It can only reduce the competitiveness of the field.

I have no criticism of Haas, they are working within the regulations and even if much of the car is bought in it is still a superb achievement to engineer and run a competitive car straight out of the box, but I am not sure if this is the right direction for F1 to be going in.

Toro Rosso and Haas are both far more competitive than the likes of HRT, Manor or Virgin ever were. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this model would reduce competitiveness but that simply doesn't jive with reality.

The fact is that there is no way under these complex regulations with hybrid engines and such, that a new privateer team can come in and actually compete head to head with Ferrari or Mercedes. By partnering with one of those organizations, they can find themselves just a few places behind them on the grid wheres if they go it alone, they'll be at the back flirting with the 107% rule.

My thinking was more along the lines of 'junior' teams not racing the 'senior' teams rather than their outright pace. When RBR were title contenders and one of their cars encountered a Toro Rosso on track they'd just be waved through. That's not competition. With a large number of 'customer' teams you could end up with half the field not bothering to race each other.

I'm not going to stick up for HRT because their management was an utter shambles, but Manor would be much more competitive if the TV money was distributed more fairly. F1 generates more than enough revenue to support 10 independent teams all building their own car.

Maranello1 wrote:People who complain that Haas is following a slippery slope down the path of two classes of car (Customer and Factory), aren't watching. There are only two contenders this year, and they're both factory.

Red Bull should contend, but neither of the leading engine manufacturers will power their car. The two class system is already here.

Very true, but does that not reinforce my point? That customer / supplier teams are not good for the sport's competitiveness as the customer is not allowed to beat the supplier? I've had that feeling when watching Williams 'compete' against Mercedes over the past couple of years.

Surely having even more teams in the Haas / Toro Rosso mould is a step even further in this direction?

j man wrote:

Maranello1 wrote:People who complain that Haas is following a slippery slope down the path of two classes of car (Customer and Factory), aren't watching. There are only two contenders this year, and they're both factory.

Red Bull should contend, but neither of the leading engine manufacturers will power their car. The two class system is already here.

Very true, but does that not reinforce my point? That customer / supplier teams are not good for the sport's competitiveness as the customer is not allowed to beat the supplier? I've had that feeling when watching Williams 'compete' against Mercedes over the past couple of years.

Surely having even more teams in the Haas / Toro Rosso mould is a step even further in this direction?

As opposed to backmarker teams with no supplier connections being even less competitive than these teams? Also with no chance to win and usually in financial straits.

Blake wrote:

j man wrote:

Maranello1 wrote:People who complain that Haas is following a slippery slope down the path of two classes of car (Customer and Factory), aren't watching. There are only two contenders this year, and they're both factory.

Red Bull should contend, but neither of the leading engine manufacturers will power their car. The two class system is already here.

Very true, but does that not reinforce my point? That customer / supplier teams are not good for the sport's competitiveness as the customer is not allowed to beat the supplier? I've had that feeling when watching Williams 'compete' against Mercedes over the past couple of years.

Surely having even more teams in the Haas / Toro Rosso mould is a step even further in this direction?

As opposed to backmarker teams with no supplier connections being even less competitive than these teams? Also with no chance to win and usually in financial straits.

People have said it many times but you solve this problem by distributing the revenue more fairly.

If Manor have $50 million to build and run two cars and Ferrari have $200 million+ then it's little surprise they'll be a few seconds off the pace. If everyone has a similar amount to spend then you'll get a competitive field of cars which are roughly similar on pace as the correlation between money spent and lap time is well proven. This approach works in other sports.