Do you want three-car teams? (Poll)

Posted on Author Keith Collantine

Ferrari want three-car teams in Formula 1
Ferrari want three-car teams in Formula 1

Yesterday we saw Ferrari banging the drum for three-car teams once again. But our debate around their now-infamous rant led us to a very different idea – why not let teams run a single car if they choose to?

I decided it’s time to put the question to a vote among F1 Fanatic readers:

How many cars should F1 teams be allowed to enter?

  • Two (the current rule) (47%)
  • One or two (15%)
  • Two or three (18%)
  • One, two or three (13%)
  • Any number (6%)

Total Voters: 4,593

Loading ... Loading ...

In the past, teams could enter any number of cars they liked in any race.

But this created the problem of fluctuating grid sizes. Typically the European rounds would be very well-attended but only a handful of cars made it to the ‘flyaway’ rounds.

Requiring teams to enter the same number of cars at each race is definitely the correct approach. But how many cars should that be?

At the moment every team has to enter two cars at every round. In other series where teams have to build their own cars it’s typical to see teams of more than two cars: like endurance racing, for example.

Ferrari wants to be able to enter a third car in F1 which, as discussed before, would boost grid sizes but could make it easer for one team to dominate and squeeze out their smaller rivals.

On the other hand I think there’s something to be said for letting teams enter just one car instead of two if they choose. It could help new teams get started in F1 by running a cheaper one-car effort in their first season but requiring them to run a full two-car squad after that.

Should F1 follow Ferrari’s repeated demands to be allowed to run a third car? Should one-car teams be allowed again? Or are we best off not tampering with the two-car system? Cast your vote above and have your say in the comments.

Image (C) Ferrari spa

126 comments on “Do you want three-car teams? (Poll)”

  1. nice post, I like that indy teams can field as many cars as they want! A one car team would be nice in a way.
    But the difference is they ‘field’ one car, here you need to make and develop the car. You can’t ask the same sponsorship, and I don’t think it would be better for the cost.
    One extra on the other hand might be more profitable looking at extra cost and extra income from sponsors.
    Wich bring up another point.
    Why can’t teams be allowed to have different sponsors on both their cars (Remember BAR being dissallowed to run 2 liveries). It would be a good option in these hard times for sponsorship!

    The idea of having a year old car run by an external team might be a nice option aswell.

  2. Any number of car per team and the re-legalisation of the customer chassis could well reduce costs, fill the starting field and making all other ‘cost-cutting’ measures unnecessarily again.

    To help the smaller teams, only the best 2 * [number of races] results should count for the constructors’ championship. So, in case of a 16 races season, only the best 32 results should count. In case a team would have three cars and get (3 * 16 =) 48 results, worst 16 results wouldn’t count.

    1. That wouldn’t necessarily stop the best teams from running 3rd cars for the whole season, making it difficult for other teams to even score 1 point.

  3. I voted for one or two cars but only new teams would be allowed to enter one car for their first season.

    I would only like to see three car teams in F1 if the sport lost a few teams and it was the only way to have 20 cars on the grid.

    I think F1 teams should enter two cars, although if they still took the spare car to races I would have reserve drivers use the third car during Friday free practice or perhaps even have a reserve driver sprint race.

    I am in favour of granting new teams some concessions until they are established, such as only running one car or perhaps even letting them use a year old customer car for their maiden season, and also allowing them to miss the first part of the season without penalty to give them more time to be ready as long as it was arranged well beforehand and once they do start racing they would face the same penalty as any other team if they miss a race.

    But I think that after their first season or so they should be treated like every team and have to run two cars which they designed and built themselves.

    1. That is a great idea. With the testing ban & the third drivers no longer being allowed to practice on fridays, why doesn’t the FIA allow them to have a race of their own as a support category?

      As it is, they are required to attend every GP & largely just sit there twiddling their thumbs. This way, they’d have a chance to test the car set up a little, and have a race so they are not race rusty if they are ever called up to the main game. And it would give the teams a chance to evaluate the up & comers, for when they are considering their next driver line ups.

  4. Aleksandar Serbia
    24th February 2010, 13:40

    Ferrari wants three cars so they can fill the podium, they are greedy, and that Montezemolo crap about being generous to Michael, by giving him the third car is another way of pushing for more TV coverage.
    If Fia would to let them go their way on this one its not F1 anymore, its Ferrari 1 !

    1. I think if Ferrari really want 3 cars they should do what red bull have done and start a new separate team call it Masserati and then go from there.

      1. That’s a good idea, but I think they are about to sell Maserati. Maybe call if fiat.

        1. or Alfa Romeo

      2. yep scuderia fiat squadron…
        But they would have to run cosworth or different engines to main team…

      3. I think ferrari should be allowed to field a 3rd car if, and only if, Luca Badoer is driving it! :)

        1. I got a chuckle every time I looked at the classification on TV only to see:

          20: BAD

          1. hahahahaha! that was hilarious wasn’t it? poor Luca…..

    2. no i think you’re wrong on that point.

      ferrari think 3 car teams are better, so the 3rd car can be leased to a new ‘team’

      the 3rd car will have its own branding, sponsors and name, but rather than them having the same hurdles that campos, lotus, usf1 etc are having now – they wont have to CFD, wind tunnel, develop a tub and chassis, aero packages, engine and gearbox installs and tuning etc etc etc etc…

      if usf1 could lease a car ready to run from ferrari with the full support of ferrari next door it would be a lot simpler and and cost effective, not only for the smaller team, but also for ferrari the larger team. it would make BOTH businesses more sustainable, rather than having to employ 200 more people, buildings, etc etc etc….

      we’re not talking only ferrari doing this, but the top teams who have the facilities, or any team with the facilities & resources for that matter.

      it’s VERY expensive to design, test, build and maintain 2 cars, new teams can come in with a lease of 1, once they are establish and build the sponsor revenue they could look into branching off, but this would at least allow a smaller funded person to come in and setup a small single car team leveraging a bigger team’s resources.

      how that isn’t a more cost effective and efficient way of keeping cars on the grid i don’t know.

      I can understand a manufacturer (toyota, bmw, etc) not wanting to go the lease route, but there’s people out there who have other motivations for being in f1, like usf1, campos and stefan gp.

      1. So this is Ferrari being generous? I think not.

        What makes you think a “team” could enter with one car, even if it is leased?

        If the situation with the Ferrari teams motive is as you suggest, then we would still be talking about customer cars, and that has already proved unaccented by the Prodrive-Mclaren effort.

        Last thing, how cheap do you expect Ferrari to lease one of its cars?
        A Ferrari due to its development cost, could not, and would not, be cheap, Ferrari would not sell themselves short.
        Lease also suggests that Ferrari will update, and provide replacement parts, or else the leased car will be uncompetitive and unreliable, which, due to the advantage that gives Ferrari, makes it unethical.

        Do you think Ferrari would place its car in the hands of an unknown driver? that may destroy it every second race and they would have no control in that respect?

  5. HounslowBusGarage
    24th February 2010, 13:40

    I voted for the One Or Two Car Team option.
    We’ve all read that some teams have used Number Two car to block a rival while Number One car has been allowed to sprint ahead. With a three car team, that tactic would be just too tempting. And that’s apart from considering whether the third car should be eligible for any Driver or Constructor Championship points.
    I’m sure that a one car team wouldn’t be half the cost of running a two car team, more like 66 -75%, but if it’s a way to allow new entrants access to F1, I’m all for it.

    1. Very true, the weaker driver of the three cars would focus on blocking other drivers and it would just be tactics. Each driver would have his own role and purpose. This is already happening with “number 1 & 2” drivers, 3 cars would just make it too obvious.

      I’m against letting any team have the advantage of having three cars while others have less. The idea of allowing new teams to start off with one car is interesting, but I still think the two car rule is the best option. Teams should have two cars on the grid, so that if one car faces trouble it won’t be the end for them, they can still push with their other car.

      I’m surprised that Ferrari still want three cars, I thought they only wanted it to bring back Schumi lol

      1. they were on about letting valentino rossi drive the third car.

        1. Schumacher, Rossi, this smells…. I doubt the motives they announce…..

          any ideas?

  6. One or Two car teams sounds about right. If your a bit short on funds you can enter one car, which would reduce your costs probably by about a third (assuming all that would come down would be the costs of paying a second driver, the costs of tyres, fuel transportation etc). This would allow a new team to keep its head above water and, most importantly keep new teams on the grid, while trying to get more sponsorship cash.

  7. I voted one or two however there are a number of caveats I’d like to add.

    After three seasons you must run two cars. You must be a fully independent company of a team that supplies you if you are buying cars of them. Customer chassis must be a season old, engines can be new.

    Any behavior deemed suspicious or corrupt, ie interfering with a rival of your suppliers race. Will result in fines for both parties and a ban if proven, this must be rigorously policed.

    Also I think it is aceptable for teams to run different liveries. So long as all changes during the season are licenced.

  8. cant see why we have to have 2 cars, why not just 1?
    Make it easier and cheaper for new teams to enter and build up.

    I quite like the idea of a single car entry.
    3 cars would destroy the WCC and WDC as teams like Ferrari would score 3xpoints near on every race.

    Cant see why we cant have 28 cars on the grid either…remember the old days teams/cars would have to qualify for the race never mind where they would line up….

    1. “cant see why we have to have 2 cars, why not just 1?”
      Not enough pit slots for pit stops. 2 cars share one stop and rival teams would not like sharing a pit box.
      Just look at Monaco.

      1. so top (depending on grid spots for that race) 24? gain entry to race.

        Not like it hasn’t been like that in the past.

        OR

        @ some tracks single car teams may have to share pit bay…remembering all pit bays are designed for 2 cars…

  9. I like the idea that new teams could be allowed to enter 1 car for the first season, if they wish, of course. Nothing stopping them form fielding 2 cars if they feel they are able to.

    In the first year they could keep one driver, or alternate between 2 if they feel they’d like to get 2 rookie drivers up to speed for their second season.

    No more than 2 though, or else you would start to see well funded teams grabbing the best of everything and constantly locking out the front of the grid and the podium.

    However, if Ferrari wanted 3 cars, why not just start up a 2nd team? Run it with a second set of Ferrari designers and mechanics. They could share the engines, and other bits and pieces they are allowed to share, but must design and construct their chassis completely seperately of one another, just like Red Bull and Toro Rosso.

    If they end up locking out the front row, it would be more valid if the 4 cars, although still Ferraris, were designed and run by different people, seperate teams, within the organisation.

    I believe that’s what happens in Le Mans, isn’t it? Peugeot don’t really run 3 cars, they run 2, and a prive team run the 3rd, even though the branding and colours are near enough the same.

    1. If Ferrari indeed field two teams, are they entitled to use same engines?

      1. In the same way that Toro Rosso and Sauber use the same engines as Ferrari, I would say so.

  10. I just want the rules to be left alone for a change!

    1. You mean, like in a spec series?

      1. no, i think he means that he wants no more changes to the rules we have at the moment, this is a view i share, after DD diffusors are gone everybody should quit trying to improve the ‘the show’ and leave the regs alone.

    2. Exactly S Hughes, we need the rule makers to stop constantly tinkering!

  11. It needs an option of selling previous cars to private runners.
    As S Hughes has said can we just leave the rules as that has created the most trouble for teams and finance.

    1. “It needs an option of selling previous cars to private runners.”

      We currently have a BMW with a Ferrari engine, so why not. Maybe a year old Ferrari with a Merc engine would take some catching. ;)

  12. I voted for 1 or 2, but I agree with Scribe that there should be a limit to how many races or seasons you can run this way. I say even less, maybe 6 or half of 1 season.

    Another issue with running different amounts of cars is that it can be too confusing . Here in the states, I have always watched Indy and occasionally NASCAR, but one of the reasons I like F1 so much more is that the team layouts are rather simple. 2 cars, every team, period. This layout makes it very easy to pick teams to follow and it is easier to follow them throughout the races and most importantly, throughout the season. If random teams have three cars, some have 2, and the new teams have 1, the WDC would be too muddled.

  13. 2 cars. Three cars would mean a podium could just be dominated by one team and the smaller teams will get squeezed out, one cars for the new teams leaves may give them a break but they could find that they can’t run two cars when the time comes around so fail (better to eliminate them immediately than later on) and more than anything I’m sick of rule changes. There’s been so many rule changes in recent years that it must be a headache for casual fans to understand the sport at times.

  14. 3 cars on race day no, 3 cars on Friday practice YES! By doing so, the economical problems brought by testing limits would be partially solved.

    1. Aleksandar Serbia
      24th February 2010, 14:25

      Not bad, really not bad, plus the people would see more running, great idea!
      Let the test drivers get more experience!
      Thumbs up Xibi ;)

    2. interesting, but counter intuative to cost cutting. you essentialy produce a third car for no reason. if u want a rookie to test, throw him in on a friday morning.

  15. Three car teams don’t seem to do ruin Le Mans.

    Far more detrimental to smaller teams is all the money that gets taken out of the sport by the commercial rights holder rather than reinvesting and redistributing it more evenly among the teams.

    1. “In the LMP1 category it was no surprise that both Peugeot and Audi got three works entries each. Peugeot will have its fourth Peugeot 908 HDi FAP in the race as well as Oreca”

  16. I think that one driver a team would be the best. No second drivers, no team orders…

  17. One or Two just like 20 years ago, without customer chassis and 30+ drivers trying to qualify.

  18. If we are considering cost, which is a current huge issue, than there should be a minimum of 2 cars per team as it will surely be much cheaper (per car) to participate in the championship. there is still the logistics of fitting several extra cars into limited garage spaces.

    I think we are pretty much at capacity with this years extra entrants, and i wouldnt want to see any more clutter then we currently have. If several teams were to withdraw from the championship, then adding a third car to higher end teams may be a good solution.

    But its not as simple as just running an extra car. this will inevitably change several other aspects of the sport; points, budget caps, and any number of complaints that will surely follow after this comment…

  19. I voted for 2-3 cars becuse I rather want to see 3 McLarens against 3 Ferraris than Virgin, “Lotus”, USGP Stefan GP etc.
    And I m all against that smaller teams would get any benefits becouse they are small. Small team go race in small series. F1 is the best of the best in motorsport.

    1. Aleksandar Serbia
      24th February 2010, 15:39

      You are that is good, but lets also not forget the one team which is being treated with precedence!

    2. “And I m all against that smaller teams would get any benefits becouse they are small. Small team go race in small series. F1 is the best of the best in motorsport.”

      Define “small team”.

      Sauber is a big team with big facilities and big ambitions, but it has a small budget. It could possibly not make it into 2011 or even to the end of 2010 along with other similar ‘small’ teams.

    3. McLaren, Williams, Red Bull (as Stewart), heck if you go back far enough even Ferrari all started off as “small” teams.

      Force India – small team who shook up a few races last year. Toro Rosso – small team who won a GP 2 years ago.

    4. might as well ban every car except chasis and engine makers…leaving Renault vs Mclaren vs Ferrari vs Mercedes
      Then they all could enter 6 cars each….

  20. Two cars max for me, it wouldn’t be a proper race when 2 of the 3 Ferraris get together – no matter what the team or drivers say.

  21. If you allow any flexibility, why not a 10 car team, or a one car team in only 2 or 3 races suited to their car?

    Two cars in all races, keeps it level and symmetrical, as all competition should be. Real Madrid cant field 25 players because they can afford the wage bill and want extra ad revenue, it would ruin the symmetry of competition. Likewise you have to perform same in every event, or it just not credible.

    What defines a seperate team? Red Bull and Toro Rosso seem mighty close to me, where do they draw the line? Can collaboration really be controlled?

  22. Everyone talks about Ferrari dominating with a third car, but it very well could beMcLaren or RedBull, or anyone else with the budget, that would dominate in a three-car world – you can bet if Ferrari did it, they wouldn’t be alone for long.

    Anyhoo, it would eventually squeeze out the smaller teams, no question. I like the idea of letting teams enter one car in their first year of operation.

    1. Is it me or is there not much difference between a championship dominated by a two car team and a championship dominated by a three car team?

      It still boils down to a lack of competitive racing and in such a season a three car team would provide more competition than a two car team. But no one really wants a championship where one team dominates no matter how many cars they have.

      Three car teams haven’t squeezed out the little man in Le Mans.

      1. Well it’s just a question of limited pit lane space isn’t it? If you get the two or three or four top teams with three cars each it’s that many fewer spaces available down the grid…

        …and as for competitiveness – for all intents and purpouses, the constructors’ championship basically goes out the window.

        1. But what happens in the constructors championship when McLaren win 15 out of 16 races? Hell what happens to the constructors championship when Brawn win 6 of the first 7 races?

          1. Well yes, but that’s domination through… you know, better engineering, not domination through sheer number of cars. What I mean is that teams with more cars than others would put an even bigger stranglehold on the constructors’ title. I mean think about it, would you really want to see starting grids where two teams lock out the first six spots?

          2. Is it not just relatively the same as the front two rows being locked out by two two car teams?

          3. Well that depends what you mean by relatively. In proportion, no it’s not the same. Anyhoo, I guess we could shoot this back and forth forever – for me it’s just a question of always preferring more variety rather than less.

          4. Personally I’m just not convinced that 3 car teams would be heinous as most people make out. I think the fact that it’s Ferrari saying this means that many are unable to consider it objectively:

            That’s exactly what they want. This ties into what I was saying the other day about Ferrari attacking the new teams: they feel threatened, and they’re willing to do anything to secure their place at the top of the sport

      2. Would that be the same Le Mans that has been won by Audi, Peugeot, Bentley, Porsche and BMW works or works-supported teams every year since 1998?

        Some of the races between works teams has been fantastic over the last 10 years, but they have tended to lock out the fight for victory.

        1. Yeah it’s not like F1 has ever been dominated by works supported teams, especially over the last ten years.

  23. I voted for 2 cars. No more, no less. I dont like the idea of a grid with 3 cars from every wealthy constructor, and Ferrari doesnt need any more opportunities for exposure anyway. I also dont like the idea of 1 car teams. If a team cant hire a pair of drivers, and field a pair of cars, then they dont belong in F1. Also, if a team has the option of only fielding one car, then we could end up with the maximum capacity of 13 teams, and still have less than 20 cars on the track for a race.

  24. For the Price of the series, I would not mind if a team had one two or three. But that is me.

  25. that picture of 3 ferrari cars on track scares me.

  26. Sorry Keith but I don’t agree that teams should be allowed to enter just one car instead of two,I think that won’t allow some bigger teams to come in F1.But I do also agree that three cars teams is Bonkers.

  27. What about going to WRC style rules. They can run more than two cars if they want, but only two are nominated prior to the race to score manufacturers points. That way teams with 3 cars are not get additional chances at championships.

    1. HounslowBusGarage
      24th February 2010, 16:38

      Yes, but on WRC stages the cars run sequentially, so one car can’t get in the way of another. In F1, it’s different; interference would be easy.

      1. How about for the constructors championship teams score the _average_ of their driver’s points. If you run 3 cars but one finishes out of the points too busy trying to block other people then you’re harming your own score as much as the other teams.

  28. I made a mistake in my voting and voted for two cars, when I should have voted for the ONE AND TWO car rule.

  29. Why is everyone focusing on Ferrari having 3 cars, when the real question is, should teams be allowed to have just one car? This would benefit the smaller teams immensely and help keep costs

    In NASCAR, there is a maximum of 4 cars per team, but only a few teams actually run 4 cars because of cost. Then there are a variety of teams running 1, 2, and 3 cars. I think you’d see the same thing in F1… the big guys running multiple cars and the small teams putting all of their resources into 1 car. Who knows what could happen!

    1. Yes but you have to remember that we all hate Ferrari and that as the pinnacle of motorsport ideas that seem perfectly reasonable and logical and work very well in other series don’t apply in the parallel universe of F1, that’s why we never consider them.

      1. Aleksandar Serbia
        24th February 2010, 17:07

        ”parallel universe of F1”
        you mean space and time right..

        1. Spacetime? No nothing that tangible.

          I mean the 13th dimension that exists in and around Bernie Ecclestone’s imagination.

          1. My vote for quip of the day.

          2. lol Yeah well you hit enough balls eventually your gonna make a home run….

            (Where did that analogy come from I hate baseball!)

    2. I think everyone is focusing on Ferrari having three cars because, as far as I am aware at least, they are the only team pushing to run three cars. I may be wrong but I don’t recall any other team being so vocal about wanting to run a one or three car team recently.

  30. HounslowBusGarage
    24th February 2010, 16:46

    If grid places are limited to 24 or 26 or whatever, it would be very poor if two or three teams entering three cars each could keep out new teams.
    If three-car entries had been permitted this season, and MacLaren, Ferrari and Mercedes had all entered three cars, then two new teams would have been declined entry. I don’t think that would be in the long term interests of F1.

  31. I would like one or two, but not allow it to be a race by race choice, instead one that can only be made at the start of the season so you wouldn’t have issues with some races having less cars.

    I like competition, and so I would like to see more approaches to the F1 regs then less, then we could again see teams like Walter Wolf Racing come in a field one good car and one good driver.

    I don’t know why Ferrari would want less competition, if all you do is fight against teams you supply, you are not proving anything. And I don’t want to see a Ferrari vs McLaren series or something like this.

  32. I read the Ferrari rant as proposing three cars from each manufacturer, with two run by the ‘works’ team and another run by an ‘independent’, which would serve as somewhere to put the work’s third driver, or to train rookies. Given the lack of testing available now, and the competitiveness at the top of the grid, its quite a logical suggestion. I am very surprised they didn’t point a finger at Red Bull/Torro Rosso and say that its happening already.
    I also have to agree with LeRoy, wouldn’t allowing one car owner/driver teams be a way to increase the number of teams and increase the number of cars on the grid? (Which is what both Bernie and Jean want, they say)Also, dispensation could be given in the way of FOM and FIA fees, allowing single car teams as a way into the sport on a drastically reduced budget, since it means less drivers, less pit crew and fewer lorries too.

  33. nice bit of lateral thinking Keith. Anything that adds interest is a good idea but having 3 whingeing ferraris on the grid is not in the least a good idea.

    A more tedious bunch than the current Ferrari crop is hard to imagine. Alonso will fit right in ;)

  34. The problem with one car teams is that there are none of the economies of scale possible with a two car team, but only half the opportunity for sponsorship income.

    A one car team would require just as much expenditure on research and development, just as much wind tunnel and CFD capacity, the same standard of facilities, just as much time to manufacture the first chassis (always the most complex and expensive), etc.

    Granted, there would be fewer spares and new parts to make, less equipment and fewer people to transport around the world. But the savings in these areas probably aren’t big enough to cover half the costs of the other areas.

    Space on the car to sell to sponsors would be halved because there’s only one driver competing. Only having one driver means only once person giving feedback, so the risk of going down a cul de sac on development is much greater.

    1. I think the primary counter argument to this would be that single car teams would logically be customer teams. That way though a team could buy themselves instant competativeness it would be very difficult to interfer with the other teams budgets.

      The way I saw it was that for three seasons a team could intergrate themselves into F1 before moving up to building their own cars.

      1. Then the counter counter argument would be the usual ones against customer cars.

        Allowing small independents to buy instant competitiveness at a knock down price would damage the current independents like Williams, Force India and Sauber. Why would any of them stick around when anyone can buy a McLaren or Ferrari and beat them for a fraction of the budget? They’d be rapidly driven out of business or forced into becoming customers themselves.

        Then the grid would just be made up of teams like Ferrari, McLaren and Mercedes, their customer squads, and not much else. If say Mercedes were then to drop out F1 would be just like the DTM – a stilted contest between two manufacturers, both of whom have to be kept onside so one doesn’t leave.

        Requiring customer teams to become constructors after three years solves very little – those teams would still have to face the challenge of designing and building their own car to a competitive standard, as well as raising the much larger budget that requires, and that’s what makes breaking into F1 so difficult for anyone.

  35. i would prefer 2 car teams.

  36. Definitely 2 car teams :)

  37. KingHamilton&co
    24th February 2010, 17:44

    2 car teams are the best. But i wouldnt be against having lots of smaller teams enter one car, as they can focus all their resources and money on that and we’d get bigger entry lists.

  38. i also hit 2 car teams by accident when i’d quite like to see a few one car entries back – coloni-esque, run on a tenner a season in the vain hope they make it past pre qualifying!

    3 car teams? never!

  39. I DEMAND 3 CARS !

  40. Why do ferrari want to change something that is not broken.

  41. I believe the key to healthy grids in the 70’s, 80’s and mid 90’s was the ability to run just one car, thus reducing all costs involved.

    We shouldn’t forget that that was the way Williams, Mclaren and even Ferrari started out.

    1. Why does everyone think that 1 car is cheaper than 2. It is only cheaper by the value of its componants, but the R&D costs for one car or two are the same!!

      Then if you factor in the extra sponsership revenue an extra car generates its actually cheaper to have 2 cars or even 3.

      The cost of the cars themselves is minimal compared to the salaries and other costs associated with designing an F1 car.

      Single cars are a rubbish idea, same for three. Even as a Ferrari fan I think its a dumb idea.

  42. Two cars only please.

  43. I think they should be allowed to run 3 cars or 1 car:
    Of course, there would have to be new rules:

    Teams with 3 cars are only allowed to have 2 pointscoring cars and the third can be used as a test car for example

    Obviously, teams with one car will have greater resources for the car but don’t stand a chance in the constructors’ championship as they probably won’t be able to collect enough points because they are missing a second car for pointscoring.

    I think to promote a ‘Greener’ and ‘Energy Effiecient’ sport, they should have a seperate competition in which the driver and team who uses the least amount of petrol during a race (in other words, who drives most efficiently; person with highest MPG). It would then be averaged at the end of the year to find a winning driver and team.

  44. I like the idea of having any number of cars per team to train younger drivers, but the team would have to nominate two points-scoring drivers at the start of the season, so one person could not score points no matter what position he came in, e.g if the result was 1) ferrari no3 driver, 2)Mclaren no2 driver, mclaren driver no2 would get points for a first. This would mean they could still train young drivers without having to sacrafice points, but would stop some teams dominating the constructors championship. I also like the idea of one car per team, would save costs, but they would have to sacrifice points.

  45. This has nothing to do with the topic but there are still no forums, anyway, someone posted a clip of the 1960 Monaco GP (where Lotus scored its first win) and I thought some of you might like to watch it. Moss, Brabham, Mclaren, von Trips and Phil Hill amongst others are caught on camera. It’s in colour too
    http://www.stirlingmoss.com/video/stirling-moss-race-history-1960-monaco-gp-first-lotus-formula-1-win

    1. HounslowBusGarage
      24th February 2010, 22:14

      Not totally irrelevant to the topic, Steph. This was a singleton car entry of a Lotus-Climax fron Rob Walker Racing. So as such it was a ‘customer car’, one car team. The particular car – Lotus 18 – was the current Lotus Grand Prix car so it doesn’t quite fit with the idea of using the previous year’s car. But apparently, it was the only time a customer car won a Formula 1 Grand Prix.

      1. I can think of one other time – Jackie Stewart, Spain 1970 in a customer March 701.

      2. 6 Cooper-Climax cars, 3 Cooper-Maseratis, 3 BRMs, 3 Lotus-Climax cars & 3 Ferraris. Obviously the Coopers completely dominated the race and squeezed out the smaller teams…

        Overtaking galore back in the old days.

  46. imagine three-car teams with alonso, schumi and massa :D

  47. American_F1_Fan
    24th February 2010, 22:05

    I voted 2 cars only. That said, here are my thoughts:

    I think letting new teams run a single car has some merit. I would agree with a number of others that have already posted that new teams should be eligible to run a single car for the first year only. I also think a previous years customer car should be allowed, again for the first year only. In their second season they would be required to design and build their own chassis and run two cars. This would definitely relax the entry barriers for new teams.

    Regarding allowing teams to run a third car, I hate the idea. But if it were to happen, my feeling is that only two cars are eligible for both WDC and WCC points, obviously. Someone suggested the two points eligible cars to be nominated prior to the race. I’d take that one further and suggest the two points eligible cars be nominated prior to the start of the SEASON. If you want to run a third car, fine, but you can’t change which cars are eligible for points on a race-by-race basis. Again though, I really don’t like the idea of a third car, period.

  48. Prisoner Monkeys
    24th February 2010, 22:22

    Ferrari wants to be able to enter a third car in F1 which, as discussed before, would boost grid sizes but could make it easer for one team to dominate and squeeze out their smaller rivals.

    That’s exactly what they want. This ties into what I was saying the other day about Ferrari attacking the new teams: they feel threatened, and they’re willing to do anything to secure their place at the top of the sport, even if it comes at the expense of a competitive season.

  49. ALL teams should run two cars – if they can’t afford it, they shouldn’t be in Formula One

  50. I know this has been covered a bit abobe but anyway,

    I really don’t think new teams would only run 1 car if they had the option. The huge costs for new teams are the initial set up of their teams (wages) and development of their car. Having only 1 car would not bring the costs down by 50%, due to the one off capital expenditure, yet having only 1 car on track and on TV, 1 driver doing interviews etc.. would bring the sponsorship down much closer to 50% less.

    What that would mean is it would be cheaper for new teams to enter f1, but less likely for them to make a profit. Given how hard it already is to make a profit in F1, I’m not sure this would be good for the sustainability of new teams.

    1. Three cars? Never! Too many from one team! One car? Perfect as long as he gets the exact amount of testing the two-car teams get, i.e. half of their time! Very good idea: it´ll help new teams and they´d get the chance to upgrade to two cars later on. I wouldn´t limit the one-car-for-one-year deal: that´ll make sure the team stays without any financial troubles and if they want to earn half of the potentially available points so be it…. Great idea that of the one car…

  51. 1,2,and 3 car teams with 28 car grid and qualifying to get on the grid at each race. By having to qualify each race for a grid position there is no guarantee the 2 & 3 car teams will get all there cars onto the grid.Go fast or go home .Works for NASCAR. Makes for nail biting qualfiying sessions.
    Customer chassis to be allowed.
    Will limit costs for those teams running one car.

  52. Prisoner Monkeys
    25th February 2010, 1:04

    I wouldn’t mind third cars with the provision that they be driven by a rookie. The FIA could open up two or four extra grid positions – based on how many teams wanted to enter a third car – and have a dedicated practie session for rookie drivers, with the fastest two (or four) being granted entry to the qualifying session proper.

  53. Very good idea to put three cars each team in the grids!

  54. Why not open up the possibilities, and see what works?

    One-car teams could be customer chassis run with Cosworth engines, thus making it easy for a new entrant to come in and try their luck at F1. We could see “proper”, two-car teams (built by the teams or made by a manufacturer outside of F1, a-la Campos) evolve from them if they do well enough. It’s certainly preferable to what’s been going on this year with the new entrants.

    With three-car teams, you could stipulate a rookie must drive it, with their presence on track limited to Friday Practice 1, give them their own mini-qualifying session, and then their own sprint race; these could be done before the main events to help clean up the track before the “senior” drivers take to the track to do their qualifying runs and the race. This would work well in conjunction with a budget cap, where teams could opt either to spend the money on wind-tunnel time or getting their data from the track itself.

  55. Having three, scares me, unless its done similar to how Icthyes suggested.

    But to be honest, what do we like in F1? do we like it when one team wins 6 of the first 7 races? unless your buttons wife then not really right? don’t we like it when Force india almost wins at Spa? or when Vettel won in monza? (going further back) or when Damon almost took Hungoring in 97?

    I think 2 cars has to be the limit, but 1 car should also be allowed, It would help teams like USF1 or Campos make the grid, but any 1 car team, Can’t then use 2 cars next race, the team can pick one or two, but must commit to that for the entire season.

    On a separate note, remember pre-qualifying? with all those potential entries, why couldn’t they bring that back, and just say go for it?

    wouldn’t that work, these groups mostly insisted they had the money (yeah like USF1) and that would mean only the better entries would actually get to race.
    And about attending every race…. that’s kinda got to happen, I don’t want 6 cars in Melbourne, and 82 at Silverstone…. make the rules strict, but less exclusive.

    ranting further…. I got looped into doing this dodgy LG survey on F1, kinda official and all that… Do you realise how many times I saw the word exclusive? my god man! I’m still holding on to the thinning hope that its actually still a sport! open it up I say, It’s not a club, Don’t turn it into a popularity contest…

    ok I’m done! thanks if you managed to read through that ^^

    1. Prisoner Monkeys
      25th February 2010, 2:30

      Button doesn’t have a wife.

      But you do raise a good point: who on earth wants t watch the racing when one team can lock out the entire podium?

      1. He doesn’t? My mistake ^^

  56. when is that photo from?

  57. Anyone remember when the teams had a spare car, and the first driver to crash would legit back to the pits and jump in the spare.

    1. Yeah – there goes my memory again, but what happened with that?

      1. Spare cars were scrapped in 2008 to save money.

        Remember the car used to be set up for one driver or the other and sometimes a driver would have to race a car that was set up for his team mate, sometimes successfully sometimes not.

      2. For races with a high probability of a first lap crash and restart say Monaco, or if it was an important race such as a championship decider big teams sometimes even took two spares cars to a Grand prix.

        If I recall correctly the use of spare cars for the race was effectively stopped with parc ferme rules after qualifying, and then the rules were changed so teams couldn’t take a full spare car to races in effort to save costs, but they can still take a spare chassis/monocoque I think.

  58. Third car is a tremendous advantage to the teams with a lot of cash and good engineers. It allows one team to completely dominate the season, and to some extent it allows them to bypass testing ban. With more data from three cars they can spot problems earlier, and develop the car faster.

    No, thank you.

    However one car for new teams is a pretty good idea. You have my vote.

  59. why cant a GP winner dropped 10 grid in the next race. so if someone win, in the next race, he should start maximum 11th on the grid…

  60. I would liek to see more cars on the grid but then we must have longer races. A team should have no more or less then 2 cars. If ferrari wants to deliver cars to another tyeam that is OK for me as long as management is clearly separated. Single team cars are not F1.

    In Le Mans three car team do not matter because it’s a 24hour race. Most of the teams there are only racing to be able to finish. In F1 everyone should aim to win. Entering F1 should not be the target.

  61. Stop changing rules every year!
    Please!! :)

  62. this is getting confusing Keith, 1,2 or 3… I think it’s good as it is. but the idea of a 1 car team is also debatable.

    I’ve always been for customer cars such as Piero Ferrari suggested. but if ever teams were to run 3 cars, i think the runaway factor would be negated by using the same points eligibility factor as WRC uses. by the end of FP2, teams should present the FIA with the 2 cars they nominate for manufacturer points. but the three drivers would be eligible for D.C Points.

    to make things more interesting the third car can be an old generation chassis dedicated to rookies. (not 7 time world champions)

  63. Three cars, but only to help another team in that team’s first year. After that the new team has to develop the car themselves.

    In this way a new entrant can attract sponsors while racing in their first year and also use the car as a base to go from.

    This would ensure that a start up can get income and also won’t be seconds of the pace in their first year.

  64. Agree with MEmo on one car teams, but I’d allow teams to run a third car for a maximum of 3 races a year, none of which fell in the last 3 races. This would allow test drivers, or “new guys”, to at least test the GP waters. Third cars could only be run at races with expanded grids, which is to say they could not eliminate any of the regular qualifiers.

  65. Just a point that the poll is a bit ambiguous, option
    * 0ne or Two
    Does this mean it should be a fixed number and that number should be either 1 or 2. Or that teams be allowed to choose between 1 and 2. I presume the latter.

  66. Of course the top teams should be allowed to run 3 cars. The lose of BMW and Toyota are important. The teams have finally gotten round to putting the best drivers in the best cars, something that would never have taken so long to accomplish if the 3rd car was there from 07 onwards.

  67. Some of the comments on this matter are let me just say politely, $%£&*…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.