F1: Are 3-Car Teams Are a Good Thing?

[TenEightyOne]

F1's finances have seemed a mess lately, smaller teams say they don't get a big enough cut of the F1 pie while CVC and Bernie Ecclestone imply that they do but that they gamble too much of their budgets and promise more than they can afford.

Whatever the truth is, and it's likely somewhere between the two, F1 is at a point where it looks like we could see a return to three-car team entries. How scoring might be handled is yet to be seen but in the past a variety of systems normally saw the best two finishers per-team able to score.

So let's say that in 2015 we've got 22 cars of 2014 performance. We see Caterham and Marussia at the back squabbling over the last-place Constructors, they affect the race when they break down or when they're lapped by fighting leaders. I love these small teams, week after week they fight in the most amazing proto-class in the world, seemingly for nothing. They can be 4 seconds a lap off the race pace but they plug away until they go bankrupt.

But what if... what if in 2015 there were 22 cars that all ran "top ten 2014" times? What if instead of groups of two or three cars in the same lap window there were five or six? The tyres, fuel allowances and aero regulations have narrowed the gap considerably in recent years and the greatest discrepancies in that narrowing of the lap time envelope have come from the smallest teams. We're not surprised to see IRBR, Ferrari, Williams and McLaren qualify within 0.2s of each other over 4 miles of road, just as we're not surprised to see Caterham and Marussia competing for times that barely reach 104% of that.

What if every car on the grid was capable of qualifying within 0.2s of the polesitter? If we had 3-car teams we could conceivably see that.

I love F1, I love the history and I love the today... but with each year I accept that those two things sometimes have to be very different. Men in sheds building machines of astonishing speed that compete for F1 titles are a thing of the past, the girls and boys of modern sport might be schooled on the same rainy tarmac but they study engineering, mathematics and aerodynamics to a level that would have shamed Ferrari's chief engine designer in F1's gestational days.

Maybe the future of the sport is in 3 (or 4) car teams giving a grid of 20+ cars fighting over the same few feet of tarmac for 200 miles in 1h 30m? I know I'd love to watch that, for sure

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Whether it's good or bad is going to come down to how it is introduced.

 

[Soundtrack]

No offense, but in a paddock where midfield teams struggle to the point they are to offer their seats to the highest bidder, I don’t see how you could conceivably see a grid of 21/24 car qualifying within a .2 second...

If you want a more competitive grid, first make sure competitors can enter the fight on equal terms. Adding more cars will not cure the problem IMO.

 

[SagarisGTB]

I'm fearful that 3 cars could be the start of a spiral towards increasing costs, leading to more withdrawals, leading to more cars per team, and so on, and eventually we are left with open-wheel DTM.

However, that could be poetically symmetric as the first two F1 seasons were a near grid monopoly of Alfa Romeos, Maseratis, Ferraris and Talbot-Lagos (though with other cars coming in for specific rounds).

 

[DK]

The biggest worry would be the midfield teams like Lotus, Sauber and Force India. 3 teams could potentially lock out the top 9, leaving only one points-paying position. I'm aware that back when only the top 6 got points, 3 teams could lock out the points-paying positions with no room left over, but back then you were likely to see at least half of the field retiring rather than the few you see retiring nowadays.

 

[Dotini]

What if every car on the grid was capable of qualifying within 0.2s of the polesitter? If we had 3-car teams we could conceivably see that.

Maybe the future of the sport is in 3 (or 4) car teams giving a grid of 20+ cars fighting over the same few feet of tarmac for 200 miles in 1h 30m? I know I'd love to watch that, for sure

This is a beautiful dream. But it wouldn't it cost more to fund this dream grid than the grid we have now? Especially if still using the fiendishly complex power units in use this year.

I also ask if this dream was not already achieved in the 70's Cosworth kit-car era.

I fail to see how the fundamental problem of costs is addressed with 3/4 car grandee teams.

 

[GTPorsche]

I don't like the idea of 3 car teams or customer cars.

 

[TDZdave]

manufactures should be allowed to field as many cars as their budget allows, I hate to say it, but teams like Williams, Marussia and Sauber there just isn't a place for them on the grid with what is required from the budget, yes they do manage to cause the odd upset every now and then, but without a full manufacture's backing, or serious title sponsor the teams are "up the creek" nowdays, the days of the minnows stealing victories are now gone, and with the development race faster then it ever has been, any average team or new team literally start running backwards from the first test session of the year,

The biggest problem is the constant rule changes, in the last 10 years we have seen teams for out over 1 billion pounds in developing new cars, engines etc, whereas before a team would develop a car, then just continually reinvent the car, which is much more cost effective, as they weren't having to re-engineer the car, they would just continually build off what worked, until that stopped working as a basic the build that to something else,

I'm not even sure Bernie knows what the sport is anymore, they give him his annual takings and I can only assume that he lives of the idea of "if I'm getting paid, then it works"

 

[Swagger897]

At times I can be watching a race and think to myself "There just seems to be no action going on here... Mercedes is out front, and next is Williams Vs. Ricciardo, then Alonso, Vettel, and on and on..." Mind you, that is when no one is near anyone, unlike the last 10 laps of Sao Paulo.

But would 3 car teams do anything as far as interestingness? Maybe... Costs would be the other issue. F1 has gotten to a point where money has no value if you are winning, and means everything if you come in second or lower. Horner just had something on BBC sports where he wanted to go back to V8's as it is the last feasible effort to save everyone from possibly leaving the sport due to financial difficulties (except for Mercedes as Lauda said they would leave)..

If it was at any point in time considered before this season and before Renault wanted to change to V6's, then it would/could have possibly happened. But now after seeing the mess with the bottom tier teams there is no way.

I'm not even sure Bernie knows what the sport is anymore, they give him his annual takings and I can only assume that he lives of the idea of "if I'm getting paid, then it works"

yup.... I wish he would just leave, and somehow Steve Matchett leads the sport..

 

[TenEightyOne]

This is a beautiful dream. But it wouldn't it cost more to fund this dream grid than the grid we have now? Especially if still using the fiendishly complex power units in use this year.

I also ask if this dream was not already achieved in the 70's Cosworth kit-car era.

I fail to see how the fundamental problem of costs is addressed with 3/4 car grandee teams.

The larger share of team's costs at the front of the grid are normally research and development; the teams get greater sponsorship coverage from three cars (and drivers, possibly paying) than they would spend in additional build. As well as increasing your sales space by 50% you increase your driver availabilty by 50%.

There's little secret that Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull have oodles of cash despite having each built three cars this year. Would building a fourth (three built + one parted) recognise an insurmountable (or unprofitable) challenge? I don't think so. And one of the reasons I don't think so is the seemingly general acceptance from the teams that it's going to happen. One might even argue that an engine manufacturer supplying 50% more engine has a larger R&D budget themselves.

As for the 70s/Cosworth time... you're getting into customer cars there, I don't think they're a good idea and it would be fiendishly complex to manage under the TPC rules. I think that each of the large teams would be too suspicious of each other to let that past.

No offense, but in a paddock where midfield teams struggle to the point they are to offer their seats to the highest bidder, I don’t see how you could conceivably see a grid of 21/24 car qualifying within a .2 second..

I didn't say that; I observed that we see the top teams doing that now... which we do. If those teams fielded all the cars on the grid (not as customer cars, that's a different issue) then why do you think those cars wouldn't have the potential to run as fast as their stable-mates?

If you want a more competitive grid, first make sure competitors can enter the fight on equal terms. Adding more cars will not cure the problem IMO.

Again, I don't quite see your point. I'm saying that more cars from fewer teams (presumably the bigger, better teams) will put more drivers on equal terms.

I guess I'm arguing from the standpoint of wanting more cars in F1 in the first place; adding more cars will cure the problem of there not being enough cars because of how many cars there'll be. Surely?

 

[Imari]

I'd rather see those extra cars being sold to smaller teams as customer cars than being used to form bigger teams. Same end result (more cars on the grid from fewer manufacturers) but there's more diversity in team make up then.

There's a danger in the road we're going down that it ends up being only the big boys that can afford to play, Mercedes vs Ferrari vs Honda vs Renault. An extra car per team just raises the costs for smaller teams even higher than it is now.

As for the 70s/Cosworth time... you're getting into customer cars there, I don't think they're a good idea and it would be fiendishly complex to manage under the TPC rules. I think that each of the large teams would be too suspicious of each other to let that past.

Why would it be hard to manage? I'm sure there would need to be rule changes made to accomodate customer cars, but I don't see why it need be difficult.

If done well, it reduces costs for everyone. The big teams get to recoup some of their massive investment in R&D, and the small teams don't have to foot the bill to set up R&D programs that they can't afford to use to their full potential.

 

[TenEightyOne]

IWhy would it be hard to manage? I'm sure there would need to be rule changes made to accomodate customer cars, but I don't see why it need be difficult.

If done well, it reduces costs for everyone. The big teams get to recoup some of their massive investment in R&D, and the small teams don't have to foot the bill to set up R&D programs that they can't afford to use to their full potential.

For example, if Ferrari wanted to run a TPC tomorrow it would be accompanied by an official, witnessed, other vehicles wouldn't be allowed near, no TPCs within a day etc., do you think the teams would trust each other to supply and run them in a championship context? If that happened there'd be no little or no chance of technical lockdown.

 

[Imari]

For example, if Ferrari wanted to run a TPC tomorrow it would be accompanied by an official, witnessed, other vehicles wouldn't be allowed near, no TPCs within a day etc., do you think the teams would trust each other to supply and run them in a championship context? If that happened there'd be no little or no chance of technical lockdown.

I don't get it. What does running cars from previous years have to do with customer cars?

Manufacturers supply engines and such to other teams. I'm not sure why it's a leap to just sell them a whole car.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't get it. What does running cars from previous years have to do with customer cars?

Manufacturers supply engines and such to other teams. I'm not sure why it's a leap to just sell them a whole car.

The cars (minus engines) are the prototypes... that's why they're locked down as strongly as they are now at the end of each season (for 3 years, iirc). The engine development is frozen but chassis development is not; the current TPC rules prevent teams from gaining any test/tech advantage by "innocently" running similar recent-spec car at "demonstration days", for example.

It's one thing having a Mercedes lump in competing cars; Ferrari won't be troubled by that, but what if Mercedes were developing with 6 cars on track during the season while Ferrari only had enough customers to field 4?

And would you trust a company to give you a fully complete customer car? Can you imagine Red Bull dropping this year's car off at McLaren for the day and leaving it? Of course not, it'd be stripped and weighed in detail before you could say photocopy. So how would it work in the customer world? Development advantages at this prototype stage are worth millions per 0.05 seconds, am I as a customer getting the same development as the works team? I find it difficult to see how a customer is fighting on equal terms with either their own chassis supplier or, by dint of that, with the other supplier-teams.

I think the addition of customer cars overall will just lead to a new kind of division and suspicion, and soon the haves/have-nots. The best option for F1 is for it to retain its current structure (with the return of Caterham/Marussia in workable guises) but, failing that, I'd rather see the big teams provide more racers in the top-ten time window than have a new era of shared-prototype-development racing.

 

[TDZdave]

Sadly F1 as a whole is still being affected by the credit crunch, hopefully the WEC doesn't follow suit with allowing costs to get so far out of hand

 

[BKGlover]

Firstly, like any number of organizations, F1 needs a boss with enough guts to tell Red Bull and Ferrari "NO", then call their inevitable breakaway bluff. Second, I don't know how the customer car thing will work, but if it ends up as I think it will, dropping of a bare frame with no bits at all, I don't think it would work. TO the point of three car teams, the problem I see is that the third car would piloted by a driver with little actual upside but deep pockets, essentially meaning the current grid of drivers would be relatively unchanged in names alone. How much can Maldonado bring Ferrari?

 

[TDZdave]

How much can Maldonado bring Ferrari?

nothing, Venezuela is broke, though Vadim Kogay has some money left......

 

[Imari]

And would you trust a company to give you a fully complete customer car?

I rather suspect people wouldn't pay millions of dollars for a car unless they were satisfied that they were receiving what they paid for. Any manufacturer who didn't give a fully complete customer car would find themselves fairly quickly without customers. And I imagine the FIA could enforce this too, if they so chose.

Can you imagine Red Bull dropping this year's car off at McLaren for the day and leaving it? Of course not, it'd be stripped and weighed in detail before you could say photocopy. So how would it work in the customer world?

The same. If anything, I think this would be to F1's advantage. It limits how much it becomes worth spending on performance upgrades when you know that your opponents can see what you've done by buying one of your cars.

Honestly, I don't see a problem there.

Development advantages at this prototype stage are worth millions per 0.05 seconds, am I as a customer getting the same development as the works team? I find it difficult to see how a customer is fighting on equal terms with either their own chassis supplier or, by dint of that, with the other supplier-teams.

How do customers now know that they're getting the same engine as the factory teams?

I think the addition of customer cars overall will just lead to a new kind of division and suspicion, and soon the haves/have-nots.

Maybe. It depends how heavily you want to regulate it. Given that the FIA already has the ability to inspect the entire car at pretty much any point they choose, I don't see enforcement of equality being a big issue, only whether they actually want to enforce it or not.

I think it could be interesting in that you end up with only a few unique cars on the grid, but a relatively large variety of teams. Some teams like McLaren might buy components and build their own, but I don't see how it changes anything for the worse if Toro Rosso are running Ferrari-duplicates instead of Ferrari-engine+TR-chassis.


It admittedly becomes a sport that is less about the development race, but that's one of the things that is going to have to change sooner or later. As you say, they spend millions now for fractional second advantages. That's not sustainable. Better that the information becomes open, the cars become more or less equal while still retaining some character, and teams compete via driver skill, team efficiency, car setup and strategy.

The manufacturers still get to show off their engineering brilliance, perhaps moreso with more cars on the grid that they can call their own. The teams who want to take part in one of the highest forms of motorsport can do so without it costing hundreds of millions of dollars. And the fans get to watch races with more cars on track, which means more action and more excitement. 36 car Grand Prix? Yes, please.

 

[Swagger897]

Sadly F1 as a whole is still being affected by the credit crunch, hopefully the WEC doesn't follow suit with allowing costs to get so far out of hand

It's more of the regulations for each power plant getting out of hand... If Audi want to keep using diesel, the FIA will keep stiffening the regulations, meaning more money dumped in, just like here at F1...

The regulations have to stop at some point, as this is motorsport. If they want to see a bunch of Prius' go around really fast and economical, than they are in the wrong job. I like innovation, as it has made some wonderful things, but not when forced by the regulations imposed on..

F1 isn't F1 anymore really... To me, it's a more exclusive open wheel WEC LMP program, which is something when looking back, never had one thing in common when old Peugeots and Porsches were going down the Mulsanne. I just wish F1 can keep some of its dignity and specialness and be what it really is...

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't see enforcement of equality being a big issue, only whether they actually want to enforce it or not.

I think it could be interesting in that you end up with only a few unique cars on the grid, but a relatively large variety of teams. Some teams like McLaren might buy components and build their own, but I don't see how it changes anything for the worse if Toro Rosso are running Ferrari-duplicates instead of Ferrari-engine+TR-chassis.

It admittedly becomes a sport that is less about the development race...

But that development race is the core of F1, it's a super-mentalist prototype road series. Very few cars run in the same form for more than a couple of races. If you take out that millisecond-development factor you've got super-GP2.

...that's one of the things that is going to have to change sooner or later. As you say, they spend millions now for fractional second advantages. That's not sustainable. Better that the information becomes open, the cars become more or less equal while still retaining some character, and teams compete via driver skill, team efficiency, car setup and strategy.

I don't think that does have to change and I think that if it does F1 as we know it is dead. Clone (I mean customer ) racing soon turns into one-or-two-make spec series with the biggest spenders uppermost in the standings. I don't have a problem with that; I just love good racing after all... but to me that really isn't F1.

36 car Grand Prix? Yes, please.

I'd take that though

 

[ScottPuss20]

Running F1 cars nowadays is a lot harder than it was before, so a having 3 car team where all cars are competitive is impossible. Unless a rich team can build another car for a smaller one...

 

[Soundtrack]

I didn't say that; I observed that we see the top teams doing that now... which we do. If those teams fielded all the cars on the grid (not as customer cars, that's a different issue) then why do you think those cars wouldn't have the potential to run as fast as their stable-mates?

Again, I don't quite see your point. I'm saying that more cars from fewer teams (presumably the bigger, better teams) will put more drivers on equal terms.

I guess I'm arguing from the standpoint of wanting more cars in F1 in the first place; adding more cars will cure the problem of there not being enough cars because of how many cars there'll be. Surely?

Bottas, 4th was .3 second from Nico's pole in Brasil, Button 5th was .9 second,... so I'm assuming there is a specific further selection in top teams that needs to be done to match an hypothetical within .2 second field. What and how many top teams does it then need and how many cars would they have to throw in to achieve that illusory goal anyway?

If you also exclude customer cars, what are the sustainable options to bring 20+ cars for more than a few (generous here) seasons, if the field is based on a very restricted club of happy fews, none of which will play the back marker for too long, nor will agree on loosing money doing so. Then maybe external economic factors may impact their commitment to the the sport, we have seen it before haven't we. Who will they call to the rescue then?

That said, the idea of having a 6 cars Mercedes team is tempting; if only from a driver's management perspective...

 

[Imari]

But that development race is the core of F1, it's a super-mentalist prototype road series.

It's part of it. I don't think that's the only defining feature of F1, but even if it were, there's nothing that says that it would be best to stay like that forever.

If F1 were to turn into two or three manufacturer backed super teams with 6 cars each, because manufacturers were the only ones who could afford to be in the sport, I think that would be a sign that the core values might need altering.

Development is cool, and I think there are ways to keep parts of that alive in F1. But I don't think that F1 can continue this arms race much longer. You can see how much regulations in recent years have been designed to stifle innovation and excess development outside of certain very defined areas.

I don't think that does have to change and I think that if it does F1 as we know it is dead.

F1 as we know it is unsustainable. The technological advance that it took to gain a second in lap time in the 50s is orders of magnitude less than the technological advance that it takes to gain a second in lap time today. The budgets just keep getting bigger for diminishing returns, especially when the FIA continues to cut off avenues of research.

What do you do in ten years when it costs a hundred million to gain a tenth? I figure they're better off starting to plan now and adapt the focus of the sport slowly. People will learn to love the other things that are great about F1, and the technology is always going to be there (because they're some of the fastest cars in the world and it can't not be there), but the development race needs to take a step back. There are ways to keep some development alive, but the level it's at now isn't helping anyone.

It strikes me as a lot like when tobacco advertising was banned. The tobacco companies spent millions and millions on advertising, to no real advantage because they all had to do it just to keep up. Tobacco advertising gets banned, they all save all that money and smokers carry on as they always do. Tobacco companies throw a sneaky one in here and there to get their name out, but by and large they save money to get similar results.

Clone (I mean customer ) racing soon turns into one-or-two-make spec series with the biggest spenders uppermost in the standings. I don't have a problem with that; I just love good racing after all... but to me that really isn't F1.

What is F1?

F1 is cars that are largely identical because of regulation, with the biggest spenders uppermost in the standings. The last time I can think of a "little" team being dominant was Brawn, and that was a bit of a perfect storm of regulation changes, technical innovation and a capable team being on the chopping block. The people who spend the most money are almost always going to win in motorsport (as at most things in life). But it's more interesting if a.) more people can at least join in the game, and b.) those who aren't spending the most money have an outside chance to get lucky and cause an upset.

Watching Schumacher and Ferrari dominate for years at a time isn't fun. Williams changing from a backmarker to a legitimately podium challenging team is fun. Watching midfield runners like Hulkenburg and Kvyat mix it up with the big boys is fun. Watching Mercedes go from upper-midfield to "omg-are-they-cheating-or-what?" is fun, for a year anyway.


As far as I can tell, keeping the emphasis on development means spending more money. Spending more money means that small teams cannot be competitive, they're either rolling chicanes like Marussia and Caterham or they just don't take part in the first place. If making it less expensive to run a team in the sport means de-emphasising development, I'm OK with that. There are lots of other things about the sport that make it interesting.

Note that I'm not advocating removing development entirely. I'm advocating a set of rules that give severely diminishing returns for excessive spending, and provide greater normalisation throughout the grid when one team makes a major upgrade.

It's been a long time since F1 was about making cars as quick as possible. It's about making cars as quick as possible given a certain set of restrictions. I suggest substantial tweaking to those restrictions, particularly in the areas of how information is transferred between teams.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

SOOPAH GEE PEE TOO!

http://m.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/116734/uper-gp2-plan-to-boost-f1-grid

 

[mustafur]

SOOPAH GEE PEE TOO!

http://m.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/116734/uper-gp2-plan-to-boost-f1-grid

It's scary that this is even a thought.

 

[Dotini]

It's scary that this is even a thought.

At the end of the 1951 season when Alfa Romeo withdrew, Formula One collapsed. In it's place, much simpler and lighter Formula Two cars were run in the front line GP races for the next 2 years, and the races were hugely successful and popular.

 

[Imari]

SOOPAH GEE PEE TOO!

http://m.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/116734/uper-gp2-plan-to-boost-f1-grid

It's a reasonable idea.

Why bother have so many F1 teams if the majority of them are unable to be competitive? Let the big boys duke it out with each other, and let the smaller teams race have their own regs that allow them to compete with each other sensibly. Run them all on the track at the same time, you get two competitive fields who have to deal with tripping over each other on the track. Multiclass makes for interesting racing situations.

It's an interesting solution that allows F1 to keep it's idiosyncrasies, and fills up the field with similar yet cheaper cars. Hell, without having to deal with the F1 restrictions they could very well tune it so that the SGP2 cars were fairly competitive, say around about what would be midfielder pace right now.

It's scary that this is even a thought.

Why is that? Because it's sensible? Would you rather have tiny F1 fields?

Given a choice between a field of 14 F1 cars, and a field of 14 F1 cars and 14 SGP2s, I'll take the latter, thanks. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the best solution, but it's worrying that people are willing to write it off for no reason at all.

 

[Soundtrack]

5.1 Events are reserved for Formula One cars as defined in the Technical Regulations.

Good luck with this one.

 

[mustafur]

It's a reasonable idea.

Why bother have so many F1 teams if the majority of them are unable to be competitive? Let the big boys duke it out with each other, and let the smaller teams race have their own regs that allow them to compete with each other sensibly. Run them all on the track at the same time, you get two competitive fields who have to deal with tripping over each other on the track. Multiclass makes for interesting racing situations.

It's an interesting solution that allows F1 to keep it's idiosyncrasies, and fills up the field with similar yet cheaper cars. Hell, without having to deal with the F1 restrictions they could very well tune it so that the SGP2 cars were fairly competitive, say around about what would be midfielder pace right now.



Why is that? Because it's sensible? Would you rather have tiny F1 fields?

Given a choice between a field of 14 F1 cars, and a field of 14 F1 cars and 14 SGP2s, I'll take the latter, thanks. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the best solution, but it's worrying that people are willing to write it off for no reason at all.

because having spec cars is exactly not F1, since day 1.

There is a way this can be done and it has to be done via a cost cap solution of some sort but this GP2 idea is just mentally deranged.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Good luck with this one.

What is that supposed to mean? Who were you addressing?

That's just how a "formula" works