Ferrari Corse Clienti, Road Atlanta, 2018

F1 to discuss allowing single and three-car teams

2018 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by and

Formula 1 “should really think about” allowing teams to run more or less than the current limit of two cars, according to the sport’s technical director Pat Symonds.

Teams are limited to entering a maximum of two cars per race and are only allowed to run single-car entries in exceptional circumstances, such as in the event of driver injury.

But speaking at a Motorsport Industry Association conference last week, Symonds said the possibility of allow single or three-car teams should be considered.

“It hasn’t been on the agenda,” he said. “[But] it’s a good point and probably at our next meeting it’s something we will debate.”

Symonds, who joined Formula One Management after Liberty Media became the sport’s commercial rights holder, said they are looking at how to increase the number of competitors beyond the current 20.

“What has been considered is what is the ideal number of cars,” he said. “More in the context of ‘Should we introduce more teams to Formula One?’”

But there teams have resisted any changes which could disrupt their influence within the sport, Symonds added.

“I think at the moment one of the problems that Formula One has suffered from is that the teams have probably held too much power. It’s a little bit of ‘turkeys voting for Christmas’ sometimes.

“I guess they’ll be worried that if there was a smaller number of teams with a big power base, that’s probably not conducive to change and we all need to change and evolve as our sport changes, as the world around us changes.”

The last race to feature a three-car team was the 1985 German Grand Prix, when Renault added a third car for Francois Hesnault alongside regular drivers Derek Warwick and Patrick Tambay.

Read more of Symonds’ insight into how F1 plans to “unleash the greatest racing spectacle on the planet” in the latest edition of Dieter Rencken’s weekly column later today on RaceFans.

Don't miss anything new from RaceFans

Follow RaceFans on social media:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2018 F1 season

Browse all 2018 F1 season articles

102 comments on “F1 to discuss allowing single and three-car teams”

  1. Gemma St. Ivans
    11th July 2018, 8:37

    Wasn’t Symonds one of the architects of crashgate along with the criminal Briatore?

      1. And with 3 cars there would be twice as many who can crash to help the star driver.
        What’s next from Mr Crashgate? Oblige all staff to wear hideous necklaces :P

    1. Does that one mistake make everything Pat says irrelevant? Kimi crashed into Lewis last weekend. Max crashed into… well a lot actually. Does that make them now irrelevant drivers?

      Come on. Look at the argument for its merits. Stop with the petty crap about things that he did a decade ago. Have you never made a mistake?

      1. there are mistakes, like forgetting to charge your mobile before going to bed, that hurt no-one and have zero consequence. There are then mistakes, like turning up to work as a doctor drunk and botching surgery as a result.
        The first doesn’t stop you owning another mobile phone, the second should absolutely mean you no longer qualify to be a doctor.

        Cheating at sport, at any level, let alone Formula 1 on the world stage, is in the second category, and just like the disgraced doctor, once you make this kind of mistake, a new career is required.

        Pat having the position he does now, is a little like our drunk doctor going on to manage his own hospital and being able to write new rules around how much doctors are allowed to drink at work.

        I absolutely think for the benefit of anyone who wasn’t following our sport 10 years ago, we should indeed bring this up every time he speaks. He should get out of Formula 1. That’s my opinion.

        1. Did you object while he was working at Manor and Williams before moving to FOM?

          Symonds is a true racer and a great technical brain, he’s served his time for his “crime” and everyone should move on.

        2. If all the cheaters were kicked out of motorsports, there wouldn’t be anyone left to race.

          1. Exactly. Those who dare, win, and all that. Crashgate was just a brilliant piece of strategy. Get over it, already. Making a big deal out of that rubbish. Get off your high horses.

            I always have a good laugh when it’s proclaimed Alonso knew nothing of the plan.

          2. Crashgate was just a brilliant piece of strategy.

            wait what?

          3. Alonso probably didn’t know anything about it because he didn’t need to know for it to work and it’s easier for him not to have to lie. Not that he would have had a problem with it. I wouldn’t call it brilliant because they got caught and punished. The truly great cheats get away with it like the Penske Camaros dipped in acid to lighten the body or Smokey Yunick’s basketball in the gas tank trick.

        3. Sorry, but you are wrong. Sport encourages people to cheat. The more technical the sporting rules are, the more cheating that happens. You can’t view cheating in a black and white kind a way either. Mostly it happens in the grey areas and the interpretation of that is based on the referee. Take a look at the discussion around Kimi and Hamilton and the penalty handed down to see what I mean. People will argue everything from No penalty to race ban for that move.

          Don’t get me wrong. I hate cheating, lying and dishonesty. I don’t like what Pat did. It was wrong. But he has admitted that and I am sure learned.

          The real #1 point is this. People make mistakes.. I don’t suggest you forgive him for that mistake. But just because someone has made a mistake in their life, it doesn’t mean that everything that they ever do or say after that is null and void. Pat Simmonds knows way more about F1 that you and I put together will ever know. If he puts a point out there for discussion like he has here. It’s your job as a human being to try and put your emotions aside and asses the statement on it’s merits.

          The mistake the Pat Simmonds made is that he acted on his emotions rather than better judgement. You are choosing to dismiss what he say out of hand based on your emotions rather than assessing whether what he says deserves scrutiny (Or your better judgement) .

          Ahh the irony…. Lucky you don’t run an F1 team. Oh the mistakes you would make in his position.

          1. totally, and in my opinion, people who cheat shoudl be kicked out. This is my opinion, as stated above, I am by no way in any place of authority on this, which is why I am commenting on a news article on the internet, and not protesting at the gates of the FIA in Paris.

            And… I am not disagreeing with him. That was someone else. I am merely agreeing with someone that every time he talks someone points this out.. yes. Opinions are brilliant.

          2. of course running an F1 team and deliberately crashing to win the race is considered an acceptable interpretation of the rules. Yes. Oh wait, again, an opinion.

          3. It was race fixing, pure and simple. A lifetime ban was in order. If the sport is to have even the slightest pretense of legitimacy, then people like Symonds don’t belong — especially in any position of authority.

          4. @mickharrold

            Piquet crashing into a barrier was nothing compared to the cheating and crashing schumacher did with Pat in the team. Funny how Pat was finally punished only when it suited.

        4. Schumi and Damon Hill? Senna and Prost? Vettel and Hamilton in Baku? F1 history is full of deliberate crashes. Now lets think about what would be the F1 if Schumi, Senna or Vettel were banned FOR LIFE. At least Piquet Jr only put his own safety on the line. The others went after other drivers.

        5. So you think Ron Dennis should have been banned for Spygate and/or Liegate?

        6. I think there is cheating like designing a double diffuser or bending wings where you work inside the rules and interpret them to their rawest and weirdest defitions. Then there is the burning oil for party modes, secondary secret fuel tanks and using passive/active suspensions. These go against the rules but are harder to detect and take more effort to build. But these are all forgivable incidents because there are no safety concerns and you could argue that under certain interpretation or poorly written or lacking rules they are valid.

          But then you have the removing safety systems from pit stop tire guns, driving into cars to take a competitor out of the race (this comment has nothing to do with what happened in the last race) and crashing on purpose to bring out safety cars so your team mate can win the race. Not only is it a massive safety issue but it is huge ethical sporting issue. It is not just against the racing rules but against the law. If you fix the outcome of a sporting event there is all kind of speculation why did you do it. Let’s just put it that way.

          People who do the first kind of offences should be able to have any job at fia. But people who do the second kind of cheating should not. It just is not right. A player who plays rough and tackles a lot (plays on the edge of the rules) is fit to work as coach. Player who loses matches on purpose because he made a bet, attacks a referee or player who gets banned for long period because of doping should not be able to work as coach.

          I don’t think it is right that symonds works at fia. I don’t have anything against him personally but him and briatore should not be allowed to be in any official fia position. Same with piquet jnr. There are certain things you can and can not do. Some things can be forgotten but some things should never be.

          1. @socksolid, so presumably you would also say that Ross Brawn should not have been allowed to undertake work for the FIA or for Liberty Media given he was part of Ferrari’s senior management when they were alleged to have pressurised Sauber into blocking their rivals during the 1997 European Grand Prix?

            Should, for that matter, we also blacklist the senior management of Williams and McLaren from being involved in the sport given that those two teams also colluded with each other with non compete clauses? After all, all of those individuals were involved in efforts to fix the results of a race.

          2. It is not all about race fixing but drivers crashing on purpose to create safety incidents which create danger for trackside workers and spectators and other cars. Asking a team to block a rival is nothing even close to that…

    2. He also paid the price for it – got fired, got banned, and lost an awful lot respectability. It would have been so easy for Pat to disappear from F1 with all his skills, knowledge and experience after the ban; instead he returned to serve the sport he loves (and lives) despite such comments.

      1. got banned

        His ban got overturned, @dieterrencken.
        I haven’t found an intelligent individual who could explain to me why he should not receive a ban. Therefore to me the guy (and his Italian friend) will always be tainted. F1 should be better than that, rather than relying on him.

        1. PS. And before you all now label me ignorant/etc. This is just my opinion. Both in business and sports I am fighting hard to keep thinks ‘fraud free’ and ‘fair play’ as much as possible, and I don’t think there should be room for frauds like this. Call it ignorant, but I sleep well at night.

          1. Symonds should have been thrown out along with Schumacher and the whole Benetton team. This lot were so corrupt to the point of thinking they could ignore black flags and tamper with fuel rigs setting their driver alight.
            Senna called them out as cheats and died pushing to hard to beat them. Piquet’s soft crash into the barriers was nothing by comparison.

          2. *too hard

      2. And after that he is still welcomed with open arms. Disgusting. No matter how many years later.

    3. How is that relevant to this discussion……?

    4. it would be great when the person that asked the question comes back here and sees the storm that brew over the comment, when in realloty he or she just really wanted to be sure that Pat Symonds was or not involved in the crashgate.

      Regardless Pat Symonds is/was a cheater and now works for the FIA, fine by me, he can spot others trying to do the same, a bit like anti-virus companies recruiting hackers to bullet proof their systems

  2. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
    11th July 2018, 8:44

    Would it be much cheaper for a team to run one car? If so I’d go for it. if we got two new one car teams it would be the equivalent of a new team wouldn’t it? Why not?

    Three car teams I’d go for too. Perhaps with limitations. Number of races, driver experience, not allowed to score manufacturers points etc. I would be great to see young drivers get a chance in a competitive car against established drivers.

    I think we’d soon see 26+ cars on the grid. How can that be bad? I’m sure someone is about to tell me!

    1. @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk – it might be a cheaper option for a financially struggling team to switch to one car, instead of bowing out altogether. They can better focus their limited funds on one car and one driver, although it brings into question how WCC classification will be worked out.

      I see the point you’re driving at, that a team is a large enterprise with a large sunk cost (R&D, designers’ salary, etc.). That said, a single F1 car itself constitutes a significant expense (PU purchases, driver salary, part fabrication), so shaving that off might be what Pat is aiming at.

      I’d be alarmed at the idea of three car teams. The four rich teams (3 PU teams + RBR) can easily afford to field a third car, gather an extra 50% data in race weekends (effectively using #3 as a test-bed), and just widen the gap to the midfield.

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        11th July 2018, 9:44

        I’d be interested to see the difference on cost… You’d still have to employ 90% of the same people – just a a few less mechanics, a few less parts and one less driver.

        Kind of seems like if you can’t afford to run 2 cars, why pay for everything else? It’s like building a £10m mansion and saying you can’t afford £50 for a lock….

        1. +1, add R&D to that which has to be a significant part of the team’s budget. Once you’ve got one car designed and built, making a copy of it is almost nothing.

          1. Once you’ve got one car designed and built, making a copy of it is almost nothing.

            Not quite, no. If you run an assembly line, then I agree that the cost difference between making 10,000 and 10,001 cars is negligible enough to be a rounding error.

            However, going from building one custom car to building two identical custom cars requires time and effort approaching double (except for truly spec parts like washers, spark plugs, etc.), and double the parts cost. Buying and sticking in all of the PU and associated components will also cost more, and so will the cost of maintaining an adequate number of spares.

          2. Once you’ve got one car designed and built, making a copy of it is almost nothing.

            You may have the tooling, which is a huge sunk cost, but building another chassis, set of suspension, gearbox, etc. is not cheap. Remember too that the teams build a spare chassis that they haul around in case of a serious accident, so even a one car team will be building the equivalent of two cars while a two car team will effectively build three cars (plus spares). Yes, it would be cheaper, but not half the cost of a two car team.

        2. @petebaldwin @lancer033 Yes it would be very interesting to know, but I suspect it isn’t ‘almost nothing’ nor just a few more parts and a driver, to run a second car. Purely as a guess of course I would think it would be something closer to at least one third less cost to run just one car.

      2. WCC rules could be changed to only count the top car of each team.

        1. Otoh that would encourage teams to put a pay driver in a third car.

      3. By the time the loss of income from missing a second pay driver is taken into context, a small team isn’t likely to be paying much more for a second car than to run only one car. If done partway through the season to save a team, losing the second car is probably a financial hit in itself – unless the pay driver is no longer getting a salary for some reason (e.g. sacked for performance reasons).

        On the other hand, a team that can’t take the reputation hit of using a pay driver has to cover the full cost, which is high enough that probably only Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari could provide it.

    2. @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk, in terms of costs, the impact would not be small – some of the larger teams were not keen on having three car teams because of that – but, at the same time, there will be a lot of sunk costs that are the same irrespective of the number of cars that a team has.

      You would be able to shave some costs off on manufacturing components, though it probably would not scale linearly: similarly, you might shave some costs off in terms of the number of mechanics you need at the circuit, but as some key personnel will tend to work on both cars, it’s not a case of reducing their head count by half either.

      For a major team, driver costs might end up being a fairly sizeable overhead – after all, a lot of the bigger names in the sport have similarly sized contracts to match – but, for a midfield team, it might not necessarily be quite so bad if their driver salaries are lower and a driver can bring some sponsorship in to offset their costs.

      I believe that, in the past, Symonds did indicate that, when working at Marussia, the team would probably have racked up around $2 million in costs to get their cars to a race – using that as a starting point, plus allowing for differences in personnel, driver costs and so forth, I’d hazard a guess that, on average, it’s about $20 million per car.

      It’s not insignificant, but if a midfield team were spending, say, $160 million a year, reducing that to $140 million is probably not going to make a huge difference, not to mention that it may have some downsides in terms of attractiveness to sponsors – which is why, in the past, when the topic has been discussed, it’s usually been agreed that the net benefit is not enough to really push teams towards single car teams (even when they were allowed to run a single car in the past, most teams would usually end up running two cars anyway).

      As for three car teams, that is probably less popular still – the smaller teams would be concerned about concentrating more power into the hands of the larger teams, the larger teams aren’t necessarily that convinced due to the associated costs and the commercial rights holder might be concerned that, if you have a year with a particularly dominant team, the fans might revolt at the idea of a single manufacturer locking out every spot on a podium in multiple races.

  3. Great idea!

  4. Personal opinion here –I don’t like the 3 car idea; it’s not in line with equalizing powers and cutting cost which while not something that’s actually happening is still a good princeple to stick by. On the other hand, allowing a single car entry may potentially allow more teams and manifacturers to join which would be cool.

    1. +1
      As someone said above, allowing 3 cars gives the top teams ways to get more data and pull a bigger gap
      Only issue with 1 car teams is how would they score WCC points? Would prize money then be decided by WDC positions, or would the single driver score double constructors points? I’m sure there will be a solution, and I love the idea of single car teams to add more variety to the grid.

      1. Yeah I too would worry about a dominant three car team locking up too many of the top points. And I think one car teams could make entry into F1 more affordable and sustainable. Just not sure I would alter the WCC points structure though. If you want to run one car so be it, but you shouldn’t get rewarded for that by getting extra points. It’s just the decision you made so you live with what points you can get. At least that’s my initial thought at first blush. What if that one car on that one car team dominates? Should that car get double the points?

    2. Yeah and if a team dominates you would get a podium full of the same car

  5. If the top 3 start running 3rd cars, good luck to the rest of the field for getting into Qualifing 3.

  6. How would they handle the championship points? Hard to see how they can find a system that would be fair to everybody.

  7. the top 9 will be 3 teams. the rest can fight for the last point. great idea

    1. But they’re considering changing the points system as well. It wasn’t that long ago that only the first 6 cars got points and getting a single point was an epic result (and an economic lifesaver) for teams like Arrows or Minardi.

  8. Not up for the 3 cars per team scenario, but surely a good idea to allow new entrants to have just one, that will definitely reduce the investment (the return of course will also be lower, as they will have less opportunities to score points), and if it brings new teams to the grid seems a perfect plan

    Some things should be taken into account however, how will they stop for example teams from reducing to one car and have the contrary effect? FI comes to mind, if they indeed have financial struggles but still have the desire to compete that could be an option. So maybe they could allow one car teams but withing a time-frame those teams would have to switch to two cars

    1. Maybe even allow 2 new entrant teams to share a lot more (car development) staff to really limit costs, @johnmilk
      A great way to get into F1 and grow up whilst gaining experience.

      1. I could live with that

  9. I like the idea of having teams field 3 cars but with certain limitations: it has to be run by rookie, or by a guest driver who is out of F1 for some time for example (if that can be done with the current super licence points). It could only be run in a certain number of races at the team’s discretion. It could be an older chassis (although that might actually increase the costs). etc

    I think that the idea is worth thinking about.

  10. No need for that. The current number of cars per team is fine as is the amount of cars on the grid.

    1. No, it isn’t, the grid needs at least two more teams.
      Just look at the number of drivers that have been missing an opportunity in F1 and you can see why it is not enough. Plus the fewer the seats the more expensive they, and guess what type of driver eventually lands on those seats

      1. @johnmilk For the quality of racing, it indeed is enough. What use would four extra cars be if they basically were nothing but moving chicanes for the rest of the field like the bottom teams were from 2010 to 2012 when the number of cars on the grid was 24.

        1. @jerejj that is assuming they will be moving chicanes. A few things can be made in order to prevent that. Teams have to present a valid proposal to enter the sport with a business/racing model.

          Haas never were a moving chicane, maybe a good model to follow

  11. Three car teams will only benefit the big guys. Imagine if you built the fourth fastest car on the grid and all you could fight for is a solitary point.

  12. Like MotoGP, F1 should allow wildcard entries to certain race weekends for teams to test their developmemt drivers.

  13. I’m defiantly not in favour of three car teams, the big factory teams could run an additional car at minimal cost. They could run it as a test mule under real race conditions, giving them a massive advantage over the smaller teams. Plus they would still have their “B” teams as well.
    Allowing one car teams would be great…..but who would supply their engines/gearboxes E.T.C.?
    Who could design and build an engine that could be competitive reliable and cost effective?
    Also a couple of other things to think about.
    Are we talking about a net increase in the number of cars? If so pits would need to be expanded, and yes that would be a very big deal for some circuits on some of the smaller tracks congestion could be an issue.
    all of that needs to be thought through, but there is not much a bit of planing and $$ can’t fix.

    1. @johnrkh

      pits would need to be expanded

      Not necessarily: many F1 circuits frequently host much larger fields than 20 cars. The teams would just have to deal with having fewer/smaller garages.

  14. I am all for this, BUT, I do think there is a clecer way to play with this.

    Lets say any team that enters Formula 1 has to field 2 cars, same as now.
    However, they have the right to “sell/rent out” their rights to one of their entries.
    So if ferrari or Red Bull wants to run a third car they can only do say by paying a small team for the right to enter that car.
    The small team then gets extra income and can focus all their recources on one car.
    Ferrari is happy it can run a third car. The front of the field gets more competative , and smaller teams have more recourses to go faster.

    1. Haas joke incoming in 3… 2…

      1. Ferrari already has 4 cars, what is the point in this discussion really

        (you asked for it)

  15. If they were privateers running customer cars, then why not ??

  16. Champagne Papi
    11th July 2018, 11:09

    Haas is basically a one car team this year with K Mag.

    1. or is that Ferrari’s 3rd car?

  17. Adam (@rocketpanda)
    11th July 2018, 11:50

    Don’t particularly like three-car teams – the idea of the podium being comprised of just one team doesn’t sound a whole lot of fun and seems to favour the bigger teams that could afford to field a third car. I mean if Mercedes/Ferrari/Red Bull fielded a third car each any other team would only be scrapping for tenth which doesn’t sound much fun. (Unless the points down to 20 idea came in)

    On the other hand love the idea of one-car teams. Surely it’d give smaller teams an option to focus all their efforts on one machine instead of two? Presumably the engine supply would be cheaper too as they’d only be buying one set of units instead of two. Could be a really good way of encouraging organisations and teams that wouldn’t usually go near F1 due to costs to take another look and really more cars on the grid can only be a good thing.

  18. 1 car can be a good idea to let some privateer in. But 3 cars? Nope. It’s like playing 17 vs 11 in football, F1 for the top teams is/should be a teams sport.

  19. If the constructor points system is overhauled, 1-car teams may be a pretty good idea. You might see other teams take the plunge in F1(coupled with some other cost cutting moves). F1 should really think hard on 3(or more) car teams beyond the obvious increased costs. NASCAR allowed multi-car(more than 3) teams years ago and the sport’s smaller teams were effectively squeezed out of contention for sponsors, and eventually, competition.

    1. Andrew in Atlanta
      11th July 2018, 22:33

      NASCAR had multi-car trans WELL before their economic squeeze. Hendrick and Yatea were both 3 car teams when NASCAR was filling the track and cash was plentiful. They have their problems but 3 car teams was not one of them.

  20. Don’t like the idea of 3 car teams but am open to single car teams.

    The only downside I see to single car teams is that there pulling less data to develop/improve a car & if the driver is having problems over a weekend there’s nothing to compare it to as far as looking at a team mates setup or anything.

    I know that in Indycar for example while there have been single car teams that have found success, Generally single car teams do struggle more than the multi-car teams & I have seen it said before about how been a single car team makes things harder & make it longer to figure stuff out. For instance it’s not that uncommon to see a team run split setup options between cars in practice to see which is the best direction to go.

  21. pastaman (@)
    11th July 2018, 12:57

    In Indycar in general the multi-car teams tend to be at the sharp end of the grid, and the one car teams struggle. Mostly this is because if you have 4 cars, you have 4 times the data and 4 different drivers helping with setup. Single car means no one else to compare data/setup. Who is going to pay exorbitant fees to join F1 only to run a single car at the back of the grid? No one, I’d wager.

    1. Exactly! Plus, only rich teams will afford to run a 3rd car. They already have the better cars, having 3 of them means they’ll push the others further behind, meaning less points and money, also reducing a lot more their chances to get a lucky podium or win… chances that are very slim at the moment anyway.

  22. Overall I think it’s a NO, in both cases. But… 1 car might not be a bad idea in the end in order to attract new competitors, if they agree to compete this way. It’s obvious that the champs will look somehow unfair when certain teams bring 1 car and others 2 or 3. 1 fast car may win the WDC, but has absolutely no chance at all to win the WCC, while 3 slow cars could get the WCC. Main issue is that only the manufacturers might afford to bring the 3rd car (abd be sure they’ll do it if it’s allowed) and with the current points system the rest is doomed. The 3rd car idea might work somehow only with a new points system: award points to all competitors! Still, the feel of unfair champs will increase if the teams will start to race with a different number of cars. At the moment, the only good reason of a 3rd car is to give ALO a chance to get a better car…

    1. @mg1982 The way around that WCC problem would be to count only the highest placed car (for the Constructors) for teams which runs more than one car. This does mean that basically put, the winner of the WDC would be the winner of the WCC.

      1. It’s an idea, and although solves a problem… it creates a new one: what will be the difference between them then?! None. This system obviously reduces the chances of rightfully seeing the best car winning the WCC and turns the WCC into a joke. They will still have to award points in the WCC for at least 2 cars. Actually, this might be the good idea: still award points in the WCC for 2 cars and only the first 2 cars for the teams with 3 cars. Awarding points in the WCC only from the best placed driver of each team doesn’t make too much sense to me.

        1. @mg1982 Yes, the WDC = WCC would be a bit of a flaw. ;-) What about single car teams? Do they get double points for the WCC then? That would be the only way I can think of that would be sort of fair, short of excluding them from the WCC altogether (i.e. a “proper” Constructor has to build & run at least 2 cars).

      2. Andrew in Atlanta
        11th July 2018, 22:36

        Not necessarily to your WDC=WCC, you’d still have 2 drivers earning points toward the team total and could have a different car win than driver. It would be rare but it’s rare a car wins and the driver does not currently.

  23. if you want to attract more teams to F1 change the damn engine rules, make them cheaper to build and do away with the 3 power units for 21 races.

  24. I’m aginnit

  25. I used to be against three car teams, but the more I think about it the more I think it would be a good thing. If the top teams can run three (more likely), then the winner of the championship would arguably have more credibility (i.e. defeating 2+ opponents) in similar machinery.

    I think the constructors points should be offset accordingly however. For example, any team that runs a three car team has their point tally multiplied by 2/3.

  26. Neil (@neilosjames)
    11th July 2018, 16:21

    Ugh, I hoped this one would stay away for at least a couple more years…

    How about sorting out the cost-cutting and the 2021 regulations first, and seeing if that attracts new entrants? You know, rather than bringing up this awful idea about giving the wealthiest teams extra cars and making the sport less appealing to newcomers, and more dependent on manufacturers, than ever before…

  27. I always think back to Mario Andretti. He has been a proponent for teams being able to run a non-championship 3rd car. He credits the ability for teams to run a 3rd car back in the day for him ever having a shot at Formula 1 to begin with. He would eventually go on to win the 1978 world championship.

    I think it would make sense to have a 3rd car for teams that wanted to run a local driver or test out a potential new driver. It would have to be non-championship and maybe be running a year old spec? I often feel Formula 1 needs something to replace the old test teams which were often used to train and evaluate drivers. Imagine if a team could run a 3rd car to evaluate Kubica in race conditions or run Alexander Rossi at the USGP. It makes sense on many levels its just a matter of costs and how do you keep it from being an advantage to teams who can afford to run a 3rd car.

    Maybe FOM could run its own non-championship team using Haas F1 cars, seeing as Dallara are experts at race car production. The cars would be a good base-line measurement. They can run various guest drivers that are local, rising young talent, and showcase drivers from other series for cross-promotion. This team could also be used for Ross Brawn as a test team to try out technical ideas during practice sessions.

    1. I think it would make sense to have a 3rd car for teams that wanted to run a local driver or test out a potential new driver

      The potential for abuse there would be huge. We just got done with Raikkonen being accused of turfing Hamilton off to help Vettel, what if instead of Raikkonen that had been a third car driven by a one-off entrant with no championship concerns of his own?

  28. 3 car teams would make it even harder for the smaller teams. As in smaller than the 3 top teams. Is that really a good idea? Or would it attract more top teams? I mean if there are 4 or 5 teams with a chance of a win and all of them race 3 cars then it makes more sense perhaps.

    I wonder if entering one car would actually be cheaper. Especially since the smaller teams get a lot of income from that second car too.

  29. One of the three people (+ Briatore and Alonso) who were responsible for the most unsportsmanlike maneuver in the entire history of formula 1 (Singapore crash 2008) is who is now planning the future?
    Good guys Liberty’s American cowboys, choose the best of the best for their business.
    Tell me who your friends are and I’ll tell you who you are…

    1. @jorge-lardone Funny how you don’t mention Piquet jr. who is the weakling who actually caved and agreed to crash and ultimately ended his own F1 career.

      Anyway Symonds is not planning F1’s future. Many people are, and he’s just floating an idea that will likely go nowhere.

      1. Robbie (@robbie)
        It is clear that Piquet was a victim in this episode. He was blackmailed by the mafioso briatore for questions relating to his personal life and was forced to participate in this scandalous act.
        On the other hand, alonso and symonds were partners voluntarily of this dirty project.

        1. @jorge-lardone Pardon me if I don’t take your word on that. There is no evidence FA was in on it, and NPjr, even if Briatore has something on him, could have just said go ahead and I’ll tell the world what you wanted me to do.

  30. Obviously a very complicated subject, but lets just look at how it could ideally work…

    Allow 3 cars but give points out to the top 15, which would still be half the field like it is today. 2014-2016 would have been Mercedes sweeps on the podium, but imagine if Alonso was there in a 3rd car, almost guaranteed a season long 3 way fight for WDC with Nico and Lewis.

    Imagine this year with a VET/RAI/LEC Ferrari, a VER/RIC/GAS Red Bull and HAM/BOT/ALO Mercedes. Who doesn’t want to see that?

    1. @swindle94 True, that scenario would be nice for the viewers.

      Still I think it would also make it even harder for the mid field and the back marker teams to stay afloat. Who would sponsor them if there are 9 top cars driving in front.

  31. I think f1 could be more flexible for allowing one or three car teams on specific occasions. For example allow a team to run 3 cars in two events per year. That way a local or upcoming driver could get a chance. For example mclaren could have had third car for the british gp just like toro rosso could have ran third car at red bullring. Or force india could run a third driver in australian gp to have a local driver in the car. Or you could have a wec, dtm or superformula driver in the third car. Or have mercedes run three cars with rosberg in the third one in the german gp for example.

    That being said I don’t know how that could work in modern f1. The engines are too expensive and there are lots of logistics involved to add couple of extra cars on the grid during the year. Teams don’t even have spare cars anymore so the third car would need to be built. You also have the pit personnel. How do you manage the extra people you’d need to run a third car? Do you put your testing crew to handle the third car or use less people per car? Then you need different amount of pitboxes and trucks.

    And how useful it is to do one race for the third driver? If you have a bad race you risk ruining your career. And it is very hard to come in in the middle of the season and do well so you may not have many people willing to take the chance. But then again you could have kubica, norris and aitken do a race.

    I’m not sure if it is a good idea to have permanent 1 or 3 car teams but I think it would be good idea to allow third cars in some special cases. The backmarkers could sell that seat and the front runners could try out new drivers and mid fielders could run their test drivers. From that pov it sounds good idea imho.

  32. I hope one day we will only have two teams running 12 cars each. That’s the endgame they want.

  33. Ask Haas they have been running with one car half a season now…

  34. Has always been a supporter of 3 car teams. Imagine top 6 drivers in Ferrari and Mercedes. That would guarantee great racing every race. Never understood the existance of back marker teams.

  35. I am big supporter of both ideas.
    It is so nice allowing single entrants, be as it may for a capped budget team, or even for a privateer.
    Now imagine the 3rd car of a top team open for privateers? For me, that sounds pretty nice.
    Even if the 3 cars are for seasoned regular drivers, the WCC could inspire itself by the past point scoring systems. Why not discarding all the results of the 3rd best car of a team? Or even discarding all of the worst results amongst the 3 cars as far as the calendar goes.
    As for the single WCC, the solutions could lie in the money earned. For example, a single WCC takes half of the prize, since the big bucks are there for the full teams (At least 2 cars).

    There are lots of ways to decide that. I say bring it on!

  36. Yes! Upwards of 4 cars per team. Only top two count for WCC.

  37. I’m leary of three car teams but like the idea of one car teams. It’d help fill the grid, expand F1’s worldly reach, develop more drivers, and it’d be great to see which minnows rise up the ranks and maybe, someday, expand to 2 cars and become title contenders.

    Before you scoff at that idea look at Gene Haas. He got his start owning a one-car backmarker team in NASCAR in 2003. By 2011 he’d grown into a 4 car stable and won his first championship. Now, he has a 4 team juggernaut with 2 titles and 46 victories to its name. Oh, AND a rapidly improving F1 team. All that starting as a tiny one car operation!

    1. F1 can’t be ever compared to a spec series. and on top of that, it demerits the constructor championship because when you have one team or entity owning 20% of the grid then you start to value the legitimacy of the competition.

      If you like spec series racing go watch that, and I hope those philosophies stay of out F1.

      1. I get what you’re saying but think you missed my point (as i said I DON’T want 3 or 4 car teams) :

        It’s not about NASCAR (or spec series) at all, it’s about the idea that an upstart one-car team could grow and rise to the top of F1, noting that one of F1’s own owners has done just that in the past elsewhere. I think there’s a lot of good PR and $$$ to F1, and fan enjoyment, with that story.

        Everyone loves a scrappy underdog; even Sauber and Leclerc right now are on a wave of good PR for punching above their weight. Single car teams allow for more stories, and more chances for curious racing fans to find a team to be loyal to. And remember thay Loyalty = $$$ in sports. I think it’s worth a try

Comments are closed.