Whitmarsh: Three-car teams “wrong” for F1

2011 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Martin Whitmarsh, McLaren, 2011

Martin Whitmarsh says introducing three-car teams would be “the wrong solution” for F1.

The McLaren team principal said F1 teams must stick to their cost-cutting plans for the good of the sport.

The Formula 1 Teams Association will debate the future of its Resource Restriction Agreement in Abu Dhabi this weekend.

Speaking in a Vodafone McLaren Mercedes phone-in, Whitmarsh said cost containment is as high a priority now as it was when the RRA was introduced:

“The statistics that I live by are the ones since McLaren entered Formula 1 it’s been quite moderately successful, winning a quarter of the races and on the podium for more than half of them.

“During that team 101 teams have disappeared from the sport. I think that really demonstrates the volatility of the sport.

“We have in the last few years evolved from being a sub-set of the automotive sector, being pretty well back to a more pure Formula 1 set of business.

“I think we shouldn’t underestimate how tough it is for the smaller teams. It’s fine for perhaps some of the bigger teams, who feel quite confident about their future, but the fact is we need ten or twelve teams in the sport to race against.

“I personally think that going to generate grid size with three-car teams – I understand why some people are attracted to that, if it was necessary it has some interest to McLaren – but I think for Formula 1 it’s the wrong solution.

“Formula 1 requires the diversity of entry. I think we therefore have to work hard to endeavour to ensure that there are sustainable business models for all of the teams that are in Formula 1.”

Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo has repeatedly urged the sport to increase team sizes from two cars to three.

Whitmarsh played down recent comments from di Montezemolo suggesting Ferrari could leave F1 if restrictions on car development are not lifted:

“In fairness to Luca, I think Luca’s an extremely charismatic figure within Ferrari, within Italy and within motorsport.

“I know how off-the-cuff comments can be construed and amplified. I think he is passionate about Formula 1, I think he’s very proud of Ferrari’s history and heritage, and he will inevitably push with great passion his personal opinions and views.

“I think in my day-to-day business Formula 1 is much better when the teams and the governing body work together to design regulations.”

Whitmarsh stressed that F1 teams should continue to work together to improve F1:

“We’ve had some great races in the last two years. I think we should be very proud of that, and that’s been achieved by the teams working together with the FIA to develop sporting and technical regulations to achieve those ends.”

2011 F1 season

Browse all 2011 F1 season articles

Image © McLaren

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

58 comments on “Whitmarsh: Three-car teams “wrong” for F1”

  1. Three cars was never a viable idea. It was just an attempt by Ferrari to secure better results. Because the RRA doesn’t extend to driver salaries, Ferrari would be able to throw money at the three best drivers on the grid. Even if their car was poor, they could rack up more Constructors’ points, secure a better WCC standings, and thus get a better pay-out from FOM.

    1. Probably one solution is to allow three cars & but only points will be awarded to two cars (Teams has to select those two cars at beginning of season & no changes allowed unless driver changes). Then it servers ferrari purpose of testing young drivers without compromising individual teams.

      1. Nice idea, but it’s not an ideal solution.

        Even if the third car didn’t count for points it could still interfere with the points scoring cars around it. This could happen in the normal course of a race – faster car stuck behind slower car, unable to pass. More cynically, the third car could become a part of team strategy to block, slow down or even crash into its points-scoring rivals. It’s not often we see teams working to manipulate races but it does happen, even now – see Japan 1997 when Jacques Villeneuve (racing under appeal for a yellow flag infringement) tried to back up the back to allow people to pass Michael Schumacher. See also the tactics Ferrari deployed so that it didn’t work. If we allow non-points eligible third cars we’ll see more of this.

        It also makes the sport more complicated – some drivers can score points, other can’t – to explain and less accessible to the casual fan.

    2. …And then happily go on and destroy all that with team orders.

    3. This isn’t borne out by the evidence. You claim that Ferrari would buy the three best drivers on the grid. But if that’s the case, why don’t they already employ the best two drivers on the grid?

      In fact, could you point to any year in the last couple of decades when Ferrari have employed the best two drivers in F1?

      1. 1990 Ferrari line-up, Mansell/Prost, and also in my opinion early 90’s Alesi/Berger would match that criteria.

        1. You really think Mansell was better than Senna in 1990 and that either of those two drivers was better than Schumacher in 1995 or 1994? I’m kind of with Alex on this one.

          1. +1.

            You don’t have to go down early 1990’s to kill that theory :)

    4. I agree with everything whitmarsh says… or at least the title (I didn’t read the whole article)
      My biggest concern would be that 36 cars on the grid is too much. Imagine qualifying at monte carlo, or interlagos. it would be complete chaos

  2. Three car teams is a horrible idea but Ferrari seem obsessed with it. Whenever there is a space on the grid new teams should be allowed in, rather than the space filled up with a third car from existing teams. There is no shortage of teams wanting to become involved in F1, so the need for three team cars is a complete non-starter.

    1. I don’t know why Luca is so obsessed over 3 cars either.. Sure Ferrari would have an extra car but so would McLaren and Red Bull. Keeping in mind how Ferrari are the third fastest this year it’d be a miracle if they got on the podium.

      Just imagine 3 Red Bulls in this years grid…

      1. The Red Bull pit crew have already been showing off this year by doing pit stops for 2 cars on the same lap…I bet they’d like to try 3!

        I wouldn’t mind if only Ferrari had a third car – but with all these competitive people around in F1, everyone else would have to have one too. I doubt they’d be going round in groups of three in team formation very often – there’s too much variation in tyre and driver performance for that – but still the races would be decided from up on the prat perch too much for my liking!

  3. Three cars is really a bad idea. Imagine the magnitude of team orders …

    On the other hand, it’s really sad to see teams so far away from each other – but I guess that’s not going to change either.

    1. While I agree with many who don’t see the point of 3-car teams, I do agree with LdM about the lack of testing being an issue, as well as the cars being overly aero-dependant.

      ie. teams being so far away from each other would be much less of an issue if they concentrated on reducing the amount of allowable downforce while they have the mechanical grip from the soft Pirellis. They could get rid of the artificial passing created from the DRS as well.

      But then guys like JV, who called grooved tires a joke and was hauled up on the carpet in Paris for said opinion, who said give us back the big slicks (mechanical grip) of the 70’s which created so much drag down the straightaways that teams had no choice but to run less wing (less aero-dependancy) if they wanted any kind of respectable straightaway speeds, have been voicing this opinion for years. But obviously F1 doesn’t care to listen and would prefer to see fast cars stuck behind slow ones until they can deploy a device.

      1. Reducing downforce is a bad idea..the cars are supposed to be the fastest in the world and the keep being made slower and slower!

    2. If you look at all the old records you will probably find that, at the moment all the cars a very close together. When did we last have a race won by a driver, and in some case by a team, by over a lap.
      Also we have recently seen Glock get two new records, for finishing 23rd and 24th. Many times in the past we had less than 10 drivers finish a race, probably one of the reasons only the top 6 got points.

  4. He almost said:

    “In fairness to Luce, he does talk some rubbish sometimes”.

    1. Yes, and he almost said it in a very nice way, didn’t he? I liked it…

    2. hahaha, you could almost see his brain straining against saying it.

  5. 3 cars for 1 team is a joke to formula 1

  6. Rather then have three car teams I think the FIA needs to sort out their definition of a customer car and what is and isn’t allowed there. Technically Toro Rosso aren’t customers of Red Bull Racing and they build their own chassis but I’d be surprised if their sudden improvement in pace over the last few races isn’t down to help from RBR. Then there’s the technical collaborations that McLaren have with Force India and Virgin. Depending on how open the rules are in this regard Ferrari can develop a tie up with a lower team and have a third and fourth car in their B team like RBR. They just need to find a balance in the rules so that new teams can’t come in, buy a whole car and immediately beat the lower independents.

    1. RBR are getting a 5th and 6th car in HRT -.-

  7. “In fairness to Luca, I think Luca’s an extremely charismatic figure within Ferrari, within Italy and within motorsport.

    “I know how off-the-cuff comments can be construed and amplified.

    To me that means, “I know a lot of people are talking with and about Luca in Italy now. He is showing how good a leader he can be, but the he should not be taken to seriously on the content of what he said there as it was just a remark te be in the spotlight”

  8. Whitmarsh 1 Montezemolo 0

    1. @John H Wish we had a like Button.

  9. Sorry Keith – mistake found:

    “During that team 101 teams have disappeared”

    Presumably should read “During that time”

  10. Yet the latest proposals from Di Montezemolo are for 3 cars made by one constructor, with the 3rd car being run by a separate team. Not 3 car teams. No?

  11. Three-car teams is a good idea, in theory. Who wouldn’t like to see 3 Ferraris, 3 McLarens and 3 Red Bulls battle for the win? Also, this would help change the first driver status: now Ferrari can concentrate on Alonso and help him win the title, while keeping Massa behind him in the points. Already in this way Ferrari lose the constructors’ trophy before the season starts.
    With three drivers, they couldn’t afford two “number two” drivers, or they’d risk more positions in the championship. At least two drivers out of three would be helped by the team, with the third driver being either a young driver, who lacking experience can help the other two, or another great driver to try and win the constructors’ battle.

    But I like having, with the same number of total drivers, more teams. When an underdog obtains a great result everyone enjoys it. I think 24 cars is enough, more would be fine but not too much. I like watching at battles in the mid-field and behind, like Lotus vs. Virgin vs. HRT. Also, the costs would be unaffordable for the smaller teams, and we would see them fall out even more often.

    I prefer the way F1 currently is. Also, would Montezemolo really like to finish 7th, 8th and 9th rather than 5th and 6th?

    1. At least two drivers out of three would be helped by the team

      If you look at team Alonso, it is highly unlikely. I think Ferrari would have 2 moving roadblocks, who could “destroy” others race. (No offense to Massa)

  12. there’s a football game today between the f1 drivers & other local player from UAE in abudhabi

    1. I’ve Schumacher and Vettel playing soccer. Vettel did’t impress me while training with MSL’s Red Bull New York but, Schumacher can play.

  13. Wait a minute, isn’t he the guy who went on record saying McLaren have no information about pilfering of Ferrari data in ’07? wasn’t he the guy who also was involved in the case of Lewis not informing stewards correctly? Hmm…

    Nevertheless, as observed earlier, big bad Ferrari would suffer to get as many points it did this season, if Macca and Red Bull were running 3 cars too. Now it is not a bad idea. More cars would obviously mean a better spectacle. However, the smaller teams shouldn’t be squeezed out of their monies. May be they could simply renegotiate that bit and have 3 cars per team. As it is, there are a lot of drivers without a car next year. Having 3 cars would allow more of them to come in and hopefully it will work better for spectators than all the KERS/ DRS crap.

    1. The problem is, there’s absolutely no way to fit 36 cars (12 3-car teams) around Monaco, and it’d be a struggle in several other places as well. 3 car teams does pretty much mean 8 teams in F1, and while I don’t think Marussia would be a huge loss and I could probably live without HRT, Caterham and Toro Rosso would both be big losses to the sport.

      1. But would everyone feel good with Ferrari struggling to get on the podium this year? With 6 faster cars in front of them, I seriously doubt even Alonso would have been able to win in Silverstone.

        Not to mention having megateams will surely mean the likes of Williams, Sauber and Force India will also struggle to even get into the points and into the spotlight. Making it a realistic outlook of not only losing HRT, Caterham and Marussia, but these teams as well (for lack of sponsorship money).

  14. I never really liked Formula One when the big motorcar companies had their own teams, in many ways the sport lost its soul and is now a better place without the likes of Toyota and Honda. The appealing thing about the 2009 season was not Jenson Button’s championship, but the fact that a small bunch of guys had taken Honda’s ideas and made them work. The David vs Goliath spirit inwhich teams like Jordan, Stewart, Brabham and others evolved and then sadly died away.
    We must remember that even McLaren and Williams were both small teams when they started back in 1966 and 1975 respectively. They were able to flourish and become two of the sports most successfull, and that means something. Who knows where HRT, Virgin Racing, and the newly named Caterham be in ten years time? This is, as Martin Whitmarsh pointed out, a ‘volatile’ sport.
    F1 is not just about spending billions of dollars needlessly, as Toyota and Honda both did to their peril, but about getting the right people. Red Bull have blended the big bucks spending with the right personel, and it has achieved back to back championships for them. Lest we forget, just seven years ago they were Jaguar. A team that spent more time in the garage than out on the racetrack.

    1. The thing is, even when the big boys were about, the grid was no where near as competitive as it has been over the last couple years..in 08, 7 different drivers won races, which was brilliant..this didnt happen back in the early 2000s when you had, Ferrari, Renault, BMW, Toyota and Honda present.

      I think there needs to be a balance. Privateers are vital to the sport and we also need Constructors to be present. I think we could use another constructor in the sport, too many privateers just now, would love to see BMW or Porche back in the sport. It could be a turning of the tide however, the last 4 WDCs have gone to Privateers.

  15. I agree with Whitmarsh, and believe funding needs to be reduced so less competitive teams can race for podiums. I started watching F1 about 5 years ago, and honestly have been a bit bored watching 2 drivers (sometimes from the same team) race for the WDC. In fact, only 1 driver was in the mix this year, and he lapped the field, boring. If you like watching the battle for 2nd place in the championship, then you must be thrilled with this year’s racing, I’m not. I liked Kubica being a threat for the podium. F1 has the ability to create some thrilling races, but the gap between teams is too great. In fact, if Mercedes with their $ and talent can’t sniff the podium regularly, something needs to change. Wouldn’t it be awesome to watch Alonso duke it out with Rosberg for a win, or Shumi against Weber, or Vettel and Kimi in a Williams? Let that sink in for a minute. Bernie needs to scale it back, take a page from NASCAR. Granted, they have more cars on the track, but your guess is as good as mine on who will win any given weekend. Bernie, you have lightning in a bottle, use it. Go watch the movie Cutters, and then give me your opinion.

    1. Sorry, the movie is Breaking Away.

    2. F1 has the ability to create some thrilling races, but the gap between teams is too great.

      I agree, we don’t get the ups and downs in performance we did in 2008 and 2009 anymore. It would be nice to see the Mercs and Lotus-Renaults challenge for wins, the Force Indias and Williamses challenge for occasional podiums and the new teams get points, but none of it seems to be happening.

  16. I don’t see the problem with running a third car or third chassis in reality. Engines, gearboxes, kers etc are already sold to the teams so why no the chassis. It would help the knowledge of chassis design get distributed amongst the smaller teams. As long as the constructors points went to the team running the car it would be fine by me. The arguments against them could be applied to other areas of the car so why single out the chassis. Martin Whitmarsh is against the idea on constructor grounds but that only highlights the fact that they are only chassis constructors and not engine manufacturers, at least not yet.:) It works well in other series and could be a major improvement putting better machinery in the hands of smaller teams who at the moment only figure in Q1 and put pressure on teams who are comfortably dominating qualifying. It also allows new drivers to experience proper technology from the outset. It could be great for F1 IMHO.

  17. I think one car teams would be better, Private one car teams. and perhaps these one man teams would be allowed to test more/or have an extra hour practice on fri (like 2003). and have other restrictions limited like CRT in moto gp.

    And perhaps these one car teams would be allowed to buy bits from other teams, like gearbox/suspensions/engines to get them going but not chassis as that for me has to remain by the team.

    Someone like Rubens/villeneuve could perhaps muster up enough sponsorship to enter a one man team and with his experience it might stand a chance. Like Graham Hill did. It would cut some of the expense and would add an extra element to the sport.

    3 car teams would just destroy any new entries. how would they compete if red bull, mclaren, ferrari and merc take up the first 12 positions?

  18. Three car teams would destroy F1, you would be left with four or five teams running three cars each. Ferrari is obsessed with the idea. Ferrari should be putting all their efforts into making the two cars they currently have go faster instead of wasting everyone’s time on this third car idea.

    If Ferrari want to run Jules Bianchi (who by the way has only one career victory in his entire GP2 career) they can buy him a drive in a lower team to gain experience like Red Bull have done with Ricciardo at HRT this season.

    1. Allowing another team to run a third car for a top team is not the same as running 3 cars at least as I see it. It could be easily controled as is engine and gearbox distribution throughout the field. Who can share a third car could be restricted by rules such as “only the top 3 teams in any given season can provide a third chassis and only the bottom 3 teams could avail of it” . That could spice things up a bit and prevent long term relationship or influence being an issue. Although there are close relationships such as Red Bull/Toro Rosso and Ferrari/Sauber in F1 they dont seem to be a problem because the boundries are clear.
      As for Jules Bianchi, he has nothing got to do with this issue and if he and Ferrari have found a future plan together then fair play to them. He has plenty of time to prove himself and then we will see who is right.

    2. and we won’t see an hrt fan in this site anymore

  19. Ok, I wouldn’t be for any team running 3 cars per se, I would want the third car to be wholey under the team that raced it and the points, constructor or driver regardless would stay with that team. The way I see it percieved here is that Ferrari want to add a third car to their team and benefit from the constructor points or have a major say in the way it is run. That I would be against. However it is the chassis that is making all the advances these days and there are only 4 0r 5 teams capable of building a championship winning car at any given moment. So based on that at least 7 teams could stay at home and the top of the field would hardly notice. Or care! Filling up the ranks to make it look like a full competitive field is what we have today and that situation could be improved on with a customer chassis. It would need to have certain restrictions in place of course but it would put better equipment in the hands of upcoming teams and drivers. There is an argument that it would comprimise the independence of teams but there are engines and other components being provided to smaller tems at the moment and I doubt adding a chassis to the mix would be any different. Wouldn’t t be good to see smaller teams utilise their strengths such as upandcoming drivers and engineers with better equipment and beating the grandee teams?

  20. It’s never happening and we can ridicule Montezemelo as far as the day is long. That much we know but it’s funny sometimes to think, let’s just accept xyz for a minute and contemplate what it would mean.

    Me? I’m reminded of the infamous Shield moment when Mackey lets the prostitute aware of her pecking order – You’re [his] b****. [He’s] my b****. So that makes you my bottom b****.

  21. more fodder for the conspiracy wingnuts. i’m pretty sure enzo ferrari shot jfk, too.

    of course 3-car teams won’t work in today’s f1. i think it’s ldm asking for too much and then getting what he really wants – customer cars. and, it really is the best solution. whitmarsh all but says it out loud:

    “I think we shouldn’t underestimate how tough it is for the smaller teams. It’s fine for perhaps some of the bigger teams, who feel quite confident about their future, but the fact is we need ten or twelve teams in the sport to race against.

    “I personally think that going to generate grid size with three-car teams – I understand why some people are attracted to that, if it was necessary it has some interest to McLaren – but I think for Formula 1 it’s the wrong solution.

    half a dozen teams with good cars and idle production capacity, and half a dozen that can barely sustain 2 cars per year. the answer is staring us right in the face.

    1. but the second half a dozen would be entirely reliant on the first half a dozen to give/sell them the cars (Giving us TO, bound voting rights, and teams with too little skills to manage on their own). Meaning they would not be real teams, just seperate racing organisations.

      I think the teams are buying/renting some of those capacities already, and the big teams can use the capacities to do other things, diversifying into a wider range of activities and ensuring bright ideas get used / cause an offspin in other industries (even if they can’t be used in F1 for its rule limits), something that also enables to attrackt the brightest minds to get in.
      Thereby making F1 more healthy and stable altogether

      1. but the second half a dozen would be entirely reliant on the first half a dozen to give/sell them the cars

        that’s the usual relationship between buyers and sellers

        (Giving us TO, bound voting rights, and teams with too little skills to manage on their own)

        team orders has been part of motorsport since day 1. perhaps earlier. never mind practically every sport on the planet. nobody cries when their favorite team does it. let’s just stop the nonsense.

        if bound voting means what i think it means, who cares? a team will act in what it believes is its best interest. how would that be any different to how things always have been?

        as for teams with too little skills, we’ve had that for decades, and we still do. what they need is to focus on racecraft and not re-inventing the $100 million wheel.

        Meaning they would not be real teams, just seperate racing organisations.

        of course they’re real race teams. what they are not is manufacturers. that’s perfectly fine. some of motorsport’s (and grand prix/f1 specifically) greatest history is woven with works and customer teams. there was 1 guy that went from works driver/manager to customer team to founding his own manufacturer and works teams, as well as a successful road car company.

        1. I really see it quite differently @f1yankee, having a

          usual relationship between buyers and sellers

          would only work in an open market, which F1 can never be.

          In the closed confines of F1 it becomes an oligopoly with a few powerfull players dictating their views and serve their interests only. This will be only amplified by these big teams efectively executing voting rights for all teams reliant on them.

          As for Team Orders, they might have been and might be part of just about every sport we can imagine. That does not mean that anyone has to like that or condone it. And your

          nobody cries when their favorite team does it. let’s just stop the nonsense.

          is defenitely not true for me (and according to comments and voting on earlier articles on F1F to many other fans neither).

          For me Germany 2010 was a reason to see my liking of Ferrari dropped considerately after they had been gaining respect by me in the past few years.
          And Red Bull using TO (who can seriously believe they didn’t) lowered my respect for them as a racing team considerately.

          Using 3 car teams just means that even the 3rd fastest team has hardly a chance of getting onto the podium in F1. Weakening everyone but those right at the front.
          For a comparison, just look at what 3 car teams did in an environment where its not even about car development – NASCAR.
          The big teams there have a lot of cars, sponsors got in with them and this has really weakened the midfield/back of the field recently for lack of sponsorship.

          I do know that Ferrari, Williams, McLaren and Chapman all started their teams running customer cars, before building their own cars and building their company.
          But that was a quite different era, where there was no such thing as voting rights in either the technical rules nor was there any serious TV and track money, nor as big vested interests.
          We can all look at the glory days of yonder, but the reality is, that the world is now different, budgets are different and technology is on a whole different level.

          A team without a skilled group of engineers who understand their car and are able to work on it to improve its bits will always stay dependant on the one selling them a package, because there will just not be money left to start doing their own car.
          It would mean any customer team outfit would be relatively short lived, as there are no big investments needed, enabling easy entry, but also making a fast exit without much risks.

          Instead it makes far more sense to hire Windtunnel and simulator capacities that are available, buy a complete gearbox, engine and KERS unit with hydraulics attached (to sort out 80-90% of technical troubles with reinventing the wheel) and concentrate on building a nifty chassis to go with it and know where you are heading for long term success in the sport.

  22. To riducle anybody simply displays a flaw in ourselves no matter what excuse we use to justify it. Today people think its cool or justified to say what they like about people from their lofty secure positions behind their keyboards but they would never say the same to that persons face. I accept that it is people are still learning to communicate in this great new world of instant access to everyone and everything and have yet to remember their manners.
    Luca cares little about that nonsense and it only clouds issues in discussions as sooner or later somebody gets upset, believe me I know and have been as guilty of this until I copped on.
    People should remember that without Luca, Max would have gotten his way and where would F1 be today if he did. I would rather Whitmarsh was more vocal regarding the BBC/Sky fiasco looming next year than running a third car.
    The idea of a third car seems to be viewed only in the narrowest of contexts and while some presentations of this are completely unacceptable, others could have a lot of positives attached. I was against
    using a common Ecu, especially a McLaren manufactured one(I still am) but it hasn’t caused any major issues so my objection is irrelevant(Of course I dont think this).
    If the top 3 teams in a given season were allowed to provide a 3rd car to the bottom 3 teams and were restricted in what they demand from those teams I dont see why it would be a problem. It would mean that new drivers would have a greater opportuinity in better equipment. It would also add value to the back of the grid and allow them to attract a better quality of driver. They would also have a better chance of scoring points, and points equals money, as well as being more attractive to sponsors.
    Already top teams use their technical agreements to place up and coming drivers and give them track time and it hasn’t caused a problem so why would adding the chassis to the mix be such a big deal. The smaller teams could only benefit from the knowledge they would gain and if they earned more money from it it would help them progress up the grid where they could apply what they learned.
    Every driver wants to win and when the lights go out thats all that matters until the chequered flag. It’s the same for fans, there are no forum discussions during the race. While the top of the grid are running close to the maximum the regulations allow, the far end of the grid seem to be wallowing in an almost hopless task to raise their game. This could be a way to make the racing even closer and help those positions.
    Red Bull and McLaren have the best positions in that they can put any engine they can afford in their cars with the exception that McLaren blocked Mercedes from supplying Red Bull. With Red Bull having the best chassis it is no wonder they dont want their secrets dissapated throughout the grid. McLaren would seem to be equally protective.
    I dont see why it couldn’t be tried for a season as with KERS,(which I like) or Drs(which I think is an abomination and the same could be acchieved with tyre compounds and KERS). After putting up with the stupid tyre rule of 2005 I’m sure nothing could be as bad so why not give it a shot for a season.

  23. I, for one, do not want three cars per team for two reasons.

    1, The competitive element between the intra-team contest is heightened when there’s only TWO drivers. Simply put, because there is ONE winner…and ONE loser!!
    2, With potentially 36 cars on the grid, traffic would be horrendous!! It already is at the moment – especially in qualifying. It would also mean 3 more sub par cars on the grid: i.e. Lotus, Virgin and HRT. I find their presence annoying enough as it is (I know I’m in the minority saying this) and I find them to be simply a ‘pain in the ass’ and ‘moving roadblocks’ when the big boys are having their exciting wheel to wheel action.

    Following on from my backmarkers remark, I would like a maximum of 10 teams!! Two cars, 10 teams, 20 cars on the grid. Nice, even and round numbers! Hell, the crappy teams can pool their funds and make one better team for all I care. They’ll then have more money for R&D and manufacturing, logistics etc. have better cars and stop being the annoying backmarkers they are, at 5-7 seconds per lap slower than the ones that count!!

    So, I agree with Whitmarsh and disagree with Montezemolo on this point but I do agree with Montezemolo on the reintroduction of mid-season testing and a relaxation of the RRA so that the teams can build the best, fastest and exciting cars they possibly can!!

  24. Maybe Luca wans lots more races like this;

    3 Ferrari’s
    6 Masserati’s
    1 Cooper-Climax

    Without looking you can guess which make won.

    1. I think more 1961 Belgian GP, Ferrari 1-2-3-4…

  25. 3 cars idea is good because today we have Red Bull and Ferrari conected with Torro Rosso.
    McLaren has it connection to Force India and this is hypocrisy of everyone who is against, because instead of two cars they hava four.

    1. @gzegzolek That’s not really the case though, is it? Assuming you mean engines, McLaren and Force India are linked via the Mercedes-Benz HPE.

      Different teams extract different performance. The last two races have seen STR fly through the speed traps with Ferrari really nowhere near.

      If you’re going to that extreme, you could say all the teams are effectively racing as McLaren as they all use their ECU.

  26. Sensible statement from Whitmarsh.

    At least him and Brawn have got their heads screwed on this week!

  27. How will having 36 cars work in F1?

Comments are closed.