Why controversial Haas model must stay in F1

Romain Grosjean putting his arms around his Haas mechanics to offer comfort after the team's double pitstop failure in the Australian Grand Prix captured the hearts of fans around the world.

Those moments of emotion as the driver and crew consoled each other at a table behind the Haas pits told their own story about the highs of lows of the Melbourne weekend - and epitomised the 'win together, lose together' mentality that underpins teamwork in Formula 1.

Grosjean's act drew near-universal praise from observers, just a few steps away from the tears on that Haas table were others getting their knives out within the paddock.

While Grosjean's and Kevin Magnussen's pace over the Melbourne weekend gave a shake-up to the established order, rival teams were not so happy. Unease about the Haas racing model - a small operation taking as many customer car parts as the regulations allow - has again resurfaced now the team has a genuinely competitive car.

Of course, when Haas was struggling at the end of last year, no-one seemed to mind too much.

The foundations of this unhappiness are clearly built on the competitive frustrations regarding Haas looking to be at the front end of the midfield battle with a car that rivals have suggested is a cut-and-paste of last year's Ferrari.

Fernando Alonso cheekily labelled the Haas a "Ferrari replica", while McLaren's executive director Zak Bown referred to the car as a "Faas".

If it were an exact copy of the Ferrari that would be against F1's rules regarding 'listed parts', which stipulate that teams must design their own chassis and bodywork. Haas has been clear throughout its time in F1 that is has always operated to the letter of the law.

But the arguments surrounding the American squad are not about whether or not Haas has done anything naughty with its current car. Instead, the implications are much bigger than that - it's ultimately a philosophical debate that runs to the core of F1's future itself.

The Haas model is ultimately a philosophical debate that runs to the core of F1's future

Really, the issue is whether the Haas model of a semi-customer team should be viewed as the key to the championship's future, or if the path should be shut down for fear of diluting the strong identities produced by each team making their own cars. The two sides of the argument are clear - and there is not much middle ground.

On one side, opening up the customer car route would be the quickest and cheapest way to helping teams (even new entrants) guarantee a cost-effective and competitive car.

Buying a year-old chassis off the shelf would take away a lot of the expensive build processes, allow small racing teams to get on the grid, and ensure there was a greater spread of competitive machinery. Success and failure would then be defined by how well each team made use of the available packages.

For those able to really maximise their chances - as Haas appears be doing right now - it would offer opportunities for the kind of giant-killing performance that all competition needs from time to time.

Examples of this include the affection that the Honda-backed Super Aguri team enjoyed during its brief F1 journey, or the scenes when Toro Rosso, during the period when it was allowed to have a super-close alliance with Red Bull, and Sebastian Vettel scored their maiden F1 victory at Monza in 2008.

But there are those who think that the customer cars path risks destroying F1. The fear is that if the door is opened to satellite operations, then it will fast track a process of making the championship a single-make series.

"Philosophically speaking, it would change F1 if suddenly you can buy your car," warned Force India's Otmar Szafnauer over the Melbourne weekend.

"If you take that to infinity - you will end up like IndyCar, where one guy produces the best car and everyone will want to buy from him. He will be ahead of the development curve because he is doing it, winning all the time and then selling the rest. We will have an IndyCar-like championship, which I don't think is what F1 has ever been about. I don't think it is a bad championship. It is just different."

The doomsday scenario of F1 turning into a single-make championship is not something that anyone has a particular desire to see.

Rewinding to the 2017 F1 Global Fan Survey - the biggest ever conducted in the championship's history - shows that fans ultimately want technical competition between teams, but are open to the idea of sharing cars. Fans admitted that one of the core attractions of F1 (which generated a 60% support rate) was that it was technological.

Under a call to find out what tweaks fans wanted to see to F1 rules, support for customer cars was an impressive fifth overall - only behind the return of a tyre war, bringing back V8 engines, ending the refuelling ban, and a point for fastest lap.

MotoGP offers perhaps the best example of how a top-line motorsport category can survive and thrive with a combination of manufacturers and smaller independents, who run what are in effect customer machines.

"You will end up like IndyCar, where one guy produces the best car and everyone will want to buy it" Otmar Szafnauer

While manufacturers KTM, Suzuki and Aprilia run only two bikes each for their works operations in the 2018 championship, a spate of satellite teams means there are eight Ducatis, six Hondas and four Yamahas competing across the nine remaining works and independent outfits.

The fact that Tech3 Yamaha rider Johann Zarco taking pole position on a satellite bike at the season-opener in Qatar didn't cause an outcry of 'unfair' among manufacturer rivals is because it's accepted as being part of the MotoGP game - and is applauded as something to get excited about.

MotoGP benefits from allowing smaller teams to have the opportunity of days in the sunshine, knowing that the reality is that they will never achieve the performance consistency to gun it for the overall title.

Of course, what works in motorcycle racing (where bike and engine are always a complete package) is not necessarily what's exactly right for F1, where teams are able to pick-and-mix how much they take from other teams in terms of engine, suspension, gearbox et al. And the reality is that fears of more customer car freedom opening the door to a single make F1 seem a bit misplaced - market forces would prevent it from happening.

Having the means to build and develop your own car would always deliver an opportunity to beat customer teams, and that would create a mixed offering of cars/teams and stiff competition at the front.

In its short F1 history, Haas has shown the benefits of its Ferrari relationship are felt best at the start of each year. But, as the development war is waged and bigger rival operations kick things up a gear, it hasn't been able to keep up. That's the bed it has chosen to lie in, and it is up to teams to choose which approach they prefer.

But having more than one way of being an F1 team is a good thing for performance swings over the course of a season.

The real difficulty F1 faces is that its current business model is not sustainable. Spending is out of control even for the manufacturers, and other teams whose cheques are signed by car or energy drinks giants are bleeding. Everyone - be it car makers, the independents, the FIA and F1 owner Liberty Media - all accept that costs need to come down. Things cannot continue as they are, but there is no consensus about what is the right answer to solve the problem.

The Haas model annoys the other teams so much because it's an approach they cannot take without it causing them a great deal of pain. Haas has capitalised perfectly on an opportunity that existed in the rule book that was not there when teams such as Sauber and Force India were setting up.

It saw the chance to form a close alliance with a works team; to have that factored in from the start, and to run what looks like a pretty nifty operation with just 250 staff - less than half of some midfield rivals and a quarter of the big boys. Creating a start-up operation that is maximised for the opportunities available at that moment is so much more convenient than having to trim things back to achieve the same thing.

It's why disruptors in the modern world are so effective. You create the perfect business for what is needed at that moment - you aren't having to evolve or cut back on an operation that has been in play for a while.

There is nothing stopping Force India, McLaren or Sauber forming an identical relationship to the Haas concept

In theory, there is nothing stopping teams including Force India, McLaren or Sauber going to Mercedes or Red Bull and forming an identical relationship to the Haas/Ferrari concept. But they don't do so because their companies have been built around a different business model - and they've invested a fortune in building up infrastructures and organisations that they believed was the right thing for F1 success.

Telling Force India or Sauber to sack half their staff and decommission half of their factory facilities does not really make sense either, and is something they are not going to embrace. But big pain is going to come to some teams over the next few years whatever the cost reduction route.

Even a $150million cost cap would force Mercedes, Ferrari, and Red Bull to embark on a dramatic redundancy drive. In the future, where F1 can make itself better is in allowing teams more options on how they approach going for glory.

A mixture of manufacturers, strong independent teams and customer operations (within limits) is perfect.

But what must also exist are rules that ensure the smaller operations can achieve upsets and race wins from time to time, without falsely stopping those bigger outfits that invest heavily from ensuring there is a good return (championship potential) on all that they spend.

The Haas model won't kill the championship, and it isn't what F1 should blindly head to as the future, but it is right that it has a future in F1.