[Team] 8 teams with three cars?

[ace007]

Wouldn't we have a higher playing field with 8 teams as follow:

RB (absorbing TR)
Ferrari (absorbing Marussia)
Mercedes
McLaren
Lotus (absorbing Caterham)
F.India
Williams
Sauber (with Gazprom support)

[ECW Dan Selby]

This is very, very pie in the sky thinking here... Lots and lots of assumptions.

Selby

[ace007]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

This is very, very pie in the sky thinking here... Lots and lots of assumptions.

Selby

That's just an imaginative proposal. The question remains though: 8 much more competitive teams for a better show?

[JacobP]

How is this going to make the mid-field teams more competitive with the top four?

[Paradise City]

The bigwigs will increase their strangehold on the sport. It's a quick fix band-aid stuff before stagnation returns more aggressively. This is exactly the kind of greedy idea that will tempt Eccelstone though.

[chillibowl]

in the other thread where we are talking about this and wolfhound brought a good point that more jobs as a result of running 3 cars can only be a good thing. also there is a logic to making f1 more cost effective by running a 3 car plus more sponsorship space. it could even be seen as a short term alternative to budget caps.

but i just dont see why any team would want absorb/merge a smaller team instead of rather wanting to see them fold so they can eat up their share of the prize money.

sure they would get the small teams assets (property rights to a sub par car and an underdeveloped factory which in the OP post included factories in different countries) but they would also be assuming their debt obligations of these fledgling teams which could be in the tens of millions by now.

[JacobP]

^

Indeed. Once you already have two cars, the cost of preparing a third car is not very high. If car specific sponsorship is allowed, then the third car will pay for itself easily. But one reason to merge could be the money. E.g. the first team has good facilities and experience but little money. The second team has a lot of money or sponsors. It's hard to imagine that Marussia is in the position of the second team, but then maybe they have just enough money to fund a third car.

[Armco Bender]

Theres enough whinging and whining already from the drivers of the current 2 car teams that the 2 cars aren't equal.If your driving the No3 car you know your the lowest of the pecking order.

[JeremySmith]

This idea would put a lot of talented people out of work..

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

in the other thread where we are talking about this and wolfhound brought a good point that more jobs as a result of running 3 cars can only be a good thing. also there is a logic to making f1 more cost effective by running a 3 car plus more sponsorship space. it could even be seen as a short term alternative to budget caps.

but i just dont see why any team would want absorb/merge a smaller team instead of rather wanting to see them fold so they can eat up their share of the prize money.

sure they would get the small teams assets (property rights to a sub par car and an underdeveloped factory which in the OP post included factories in different countries) but they would also be assuming their debt obligations of these fledgling teams which could be in the tens of millions by now.

If this is the goal then why not simply allow any team to run a 'B' team using the same chassis..... 4 McLarens, 4 Ferraris, 4 Red Bulls 4 Mercedes 4 Lotus' 4 Williams. Sauber, Caterham, Force India, Marussia, STR, all become satellite teams using another's chassis plus one other new team..... 24 cars with the same (similar) chassis in most respects, and probably engines. It would be like the sixties except with bigger and probably more competitive fields.....

Sauber might be happy to use a Ferrari or Mercedes chassis off the shelf. Force India a McLaren one, Caterham a Lotus one, Marussia a Ferrari or Williams one, STR a Red Bull and maybe Dave at Prodrive could run a two car team using the sixth manufacturer........

I understand the reasoning behind the three car teams but I can't see why they cannot allow them to do it now without sacrificing existing teams. Or simply allow all teams to use any make of chassis they wish to and also allow three car teams....

The constructors championship would simply become a teams championship for any two car team...

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

If this is the goal then why not simply allow any team to run a 'B' team using the same chassis..... 4 McLarens, 4 Ferraris, 4 Red Bulls 4 Mercedes 4 Lotus' 4 Williams. Sauber, Caterham, Force India, Marussia, STR, all become satellite teams using another's chassis plus one other new team..... 24 cars with the same (similar) chassis in most respects, and probably engines. It would be like the sixties except with bigger and probably more competitive fields.....

Sauber might be happy to use a Ferrari or Mercedes chassis off the shelf. Force India a McLaren one, Caterham a Lotus one, Marussia a Ferrari or Williams one, STR a Red Bull and maybe Dave at Prodrive could run a two car team using the sixth manufacturer........

I understand the reasoning behind the three car teams but I can't see why they cannot allow them to do it now without sacrificing existing teams. Or simply allow all teams to use any make of chassis they wish to and also allow three car teams....

The constructors championship would simply become a teams championship for any two car team...

The problem is that the current mid field teams would end up behind a small team with 1/3 the budget. Another factor if you were contracted to a top team who produced a dog like McLaren did this year and the customer team has no capacity to do anything about it.

[nicanary]

Or.. just let anyone with a car that complies with the regulations enter, and the organisers accept which entries they want, or hold pre-qualifying if there are too many entries.. or...

I'll get me coat.....

[willb]

What if one of the three car teams decides to withdraw from F1? It a new team were to enter in their place wouldn't they be in a more difficult situation it they had to field three cars instead of two?

[JacobP]

Originally Posted by willb

What if one of the three car teams decides to withdraw from F1? It a new team were to enter in their place wouldn't they be in a more difficult situation it they had to field three cars instead of two?

Once you have two cars, the additional cost of fielding a third car should not be very high. My personal concern with either allowing 3-car teams or allowing customer teams that this will lead to a rapid consolidation of the "factory" teams. Before you can blink, we will end up with only four teams that are still able to build a chassis, and the rest will be their customers. Once teams like Sauber or Williams lose their chassis manufacturing capability, it will be very hard to get back, and the sport will depend even more on the top teams. Worst case scenario is that F1 will resemble the LMP1/LMP2 prototype racing in 24 Hours of Le Mans. There are just two factories (three next year) and only they have a chance of winning races, and the rest of LMP1 and all of LMP2 are racing with customer chassis. Boring.

[Marbot]

I'm with Monisha Kaltenborn on this:

“You might have four teams in there that are capable of putting in that much money, but at some point in time – they are all in there to win – when they don’t do that and maybe just end up with a few points they leave the sport as well. So it’s a very dangerous route to go down.”

Customer cars are just another excuse for the top teams to be able to spend ridiculous amounts of money on winning, whilst also making money from the teams that are unlikely to hinder them in that pursuit.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

The problem is that the current mid field teams would end up behind a small team with 1/3 the budget. Another factor if you were contracted to a top team who produced a dog like McLaren did this year and the customer team has no capacity to do anything about it.

Point one. Nothing wrong with beating a team on only 1 third of the their budget... we need a cheaper sport anyway...

Point two. There is nothing compulsory about whose chassis you use. The second teams would make their choice based on any alliances and the pay off for choosing the best chassis (which may not be quite the same value as the builder if an open market).

Point three. If there was a financial interest of the A team in the B team car then yes they would be in a difficult position but I think that the A teams should be allowed to do extended testing in the off season, even if it was governed by releasing teams to do specific testing at set times and circuits during the development process. The present system is pathetic.

[kipper]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

There is nothing compulsory about whose chassis you use. The second teams would make their choice based on any alliances and the pay off for choosing the best chassis (which may not be quite the same value as the builder if an open market).

The likelihood is that selling teams would probably insist on multi year contracts in order to provide certainty. The reason for this is that I doubt any manufacturer would commit to producing additional cars without a commitment that they will be sold. As a result of this, customer teams may get stuck with a lemon if the manufacturer goes through a sudden downturn in form (such as McLaren this year).

[Baigu]

I'd rather they go with customer cars than 3 car teams. I like the "charm" than small teams bring to F1 & racing in general.

Instead I would include limitations to teams who do decide to use a customer car like:
-------------------
Example for 2014 season:

You could use a customer car as long as it's a chassis from the previous season but not from a team that finished in the top 3 in the constructor's championship in 2013. (meaning no Red Bull, Ferrari or Mercedes)
If you do wish to use a chassis from a team that finished in the top 3, it needs to be a chassis 2 seasons ago (2012 season)

One of the drivers needs to have finished in the top 5 (final standings) in GP2 (or similar "high caliber" junior series)

You can't use a customer car in more than 3 straight seasons. For the 4th season, you'll need to build your own.
-------------------

To me, these
I feel these "rules" would limit "factory teams" in being really competitive.
It would also help mid-field teams with extra income since their chassis would probably be more in demand.
It would also help young drivers get F1 experience.


I know it will never happen but interesting to think about!

[JacobP]

Originally Posted by Baigu

You can't use a customer car in more than 3 straight seasons. For the 4th season, you'll need to build your own.

This would have been a good rule in principle to help out complete newbie teams, but I am afraid that this rule can easily be gamed. Let say if Ferrari or Red Bull want to have a "third car" or more, they just setup a new team, or make a deal with someone to do it. Three years later through some kind of black hole finance manipulations, the old team is legally disbanded but effectively registered as a new team that continues to race with customer chassis instead of building its own.

If this sort of thing could have been prevented, I'd support this idea.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by JacobP

This would have been a good rule in principle to help out complete newbie teams, but I am afraid that this rule can easily be gamed. Let say if Ferrari or Red Bull want to have a "third car" or more, they just setup a new team, or make a deal with someone to do it. Three years later through some kind of black hole finance manipulations, the old team is legally disbanded but effectively registered as a new team that continues to race with customer chassis instead of building its own.

If this sort of thing could have been prevented, I'd support this idea.

Agree with you on that one.

[littleman]

As much as I yearn for the times of the plucky privateer, we have to recognise the days of building your own chassis and sticking a Cosworth DFV in the back of it are long gone.

F1 is now just far too expensive and far too sophisticated for that simple concept to be viable.Just look at how far Caterham & Marussia remain off the pace....it's a hopeless task.

Unless more "off the shelf" cars are aloud I can see the F1 grid shrinking to no more than a dozen or so entrants.We've seen Toyota,Honda,BMW,Ford and Renault all come and go.........and I don't see any of them coming back as factory teams.

Nobody new is going to enter F1 and be competitive............the investment is beyond any sane company,we have to look to the current players....period.

[JacobP]

Originally Posted by littleman

As much as I yearn for the times of the plucky privateer, we have to recognise the days of building your own chassis and sticking a Cosworth DFV in the back of it are long gone.

F1 is now just far too expensive and far too sophisticated for that simple concept to be viable.Just look at how far Caterham & Marussia remain off the pace....it's a hopeless task.

Unless more "off the shelf" cars are aloud I can see the F1 grid shrinking to no more than a dozen or so entrants.We've seen Toyota,Honda,BMW,Ford and Renault all come and go.........and I don't see any of them coming back as factory teams.

Nobody new is going to enter F1 and be competitive............the investment is beyond any sane company,we have to look to the current players....period.

This is a good point. Nonetheless, there is a serious concern that the incumbent mid-field teams may struggle against teams that run customer chassis from a top team. A good compromise would be to allow only the mid-field teams to sell a chassis to customers.

[littleman]

Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull and McLaren are the only financially viable teams in F1..........and I'm even having doubts about McLaren.

The rest of the grid is hanging by a financial thread, no other creditable entrant is on the horizon, so you've got to allow the above outfits to supply other interested parties.Either that, or Ecclestone has got to give ALL the existing teams a much larger share of F1's profits.Maybe the increased profit share should be conditional on signing a ten year agreement to remain in F1 and a specified amount MUST go into team investment.....this could be policed.

If we don't, the grids could sink to a dozen cars and then F1 itself will be at risk.

[JacobP]

I can see the economic reasoning behind the three-car teams or the customer teams. It's the same: consolidation. The most economically efficient way to supply the whole grid with cars is to have 3-4 manufacturers build a chassis for the entire grid. Heck, having just one supplier would have given the lowest per-car cost, but this is unacceptable for F1. Since the customer teams could obtain their cars cheaply from 3-4 leading teams, it would also follow that they do not really deserve much or any prize money. Bernie Ecclestone and some of the top teams would love that idea. There will be more money to be divided among the fat cats, and the incumbent factories will never be challenged by someone new, because 2-3 years down the road no one besides the elite factories will remember how to build a competent chassis.

There will be a strong opposition from fans and mid-field teams to the customer car idea, so Bernie has a backup plan: 3-car teams. This will still lead to some consolidation among the teams, presumably with at least Caterham and Marussia being absorbed into other teams. Again, the consolidation will reduce the mouths that need to be fed. Of the two plans, I think the 3-car plan is the least evil, specially if we're facing a prospect of losing a couple of teams.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by JacobP

I can see the economic reasoning behind the three-car teams or the customer teams. It's the same: consolidation. The most economically efficient way to supply the whole grid with cars is to have 3-4 manufacturers build a chassis for the entire grid. Heck, having just one supplier would have given the lowest per-car cost, but this is unacceptable for F1. Since the customer teams could obtain their cars cheaply from 3-4 leading teams, it would also follow that they do not really deserve much or any prize money. Bernie Ecclestone and some of the top teams would love that idea. There will be more money to be divided among the fat cats, and the incumbent factories will never be challenged by someone new, because 2-3 years down the road no one besides the elite factories will remember how to build a competent chassis.

There will be a strong opposition from fans and mid-field teams to the customer car idea, so Bernie has a backup plan: 3-car teams. This will still lead to some consolidation among the teams, presumably with at least Caterham and Marussia being absorbed into other teams. Again, the consolidation will reduce the mouths that need to be fed. Of the two plans, I think the 3-car plan is the least evil, specially if we're facing a prospect of losing a couple of teams.

There is another way at looking at this whole question.
If a select few top teams produced a car and could sell the basis of the car, tub, bodywork parts, plus suspension and drive train as per the customers wants and needs customers may want to tinker a little by doing their own 'B' version trying to maximise something out what they bought and perhaps going down a different path.

Or everyone buys a standard tub (safety approved etc) but builds their own car around that tub. Rather than the present convoluted regulations they could just insist on standard front noses and rear wings and provide a standard suspension package but you can bet your life everyone is going to try to maximise the package for their own favour anyway.

The car would be cheaper but they would probably just spend more on aero and suspension development