2002 Malaysian Grand Prix start

Which teams will still be in F1 in ten years’ time?

Debates and pollsPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

2002 Malaysian Grand Prix start
Just four of the 11 teams from 2002 remain

Of the 11 teams which contested the 2002 season, just four remain on the grid ten years later.

And of those, one has been taken over and then sold again in the intervening period.

Manufacturers come and go

Peugeot’s shock announcement on Wednesday that it was scrapping its endurance racing team served as a reminder that teams backed by car manufacturers can disappear with little warning.

Those in F1 have recent experience of this – Renault, Honda, BMW and Toyota have all set up and then abandoned F1 projects within the last decade, though Renault remain as an engine supplier.

Other manufacturers have demonstrated greater staying power: none more so than Ferrari, the only team left from the first year of the world championship in 1950.

Having had an F1 team in the fifties, Mercedes returned to the sport as an engine supplier in 1994, and became a full works outfit again two years ago.

Which teams will still be in F1 in 2022?

  • Red Bull (51%)
  • McLaren (96%)
  • Ferrari (97%)
  • Mercedes (46%)
  • Lotus (21%)
  • Force India (16%)
  • Sauber (27%)
  • Toro Rosso (9%)
  • Williams (45%)
  • Caterham (27%)
  • HRT (2%)
  • Marussia (2%)

Total Voters: 486

Loading ... Loading ...

McLaren are taking their first steps as a car manufacturer. Lotus, following a lengthy legal battle, have now united their F1 team with their car manufacturing operation.

Other teams with affiliations to car manufacturers are Caterham (formerly Lotus) and Marussia (formerly Virgin) – both teams which first entered the sport in 2010.

The independents

Of the rest, Williams have been active the longest, but are mired in their worst-ever losing streak.

World champions, Red Bull, and their young driver training school Toro Rosso, are financed by the vast sums Dietrich Mateschitz has made selling cans of energy drinks.

Force India are entering their fifth season but it remains to be seen whether the problems affecting parts of Vijay Mallya’s financial empire will have an effect on his F1 team.

Having been briefly taken over by BMW, Sauber are an independent team once more. Owner Peter Sauber was enticed back to the sport when the team he created threatened to disappear at the end of 2009.

And finally there’s HRT, who only made it into the sport by the skin of their teeth in 2010 when Grupo Hispania took over Adrian Campos’s entry, and changed hands again last year. We wait to see if 2012 will see the team continue their tradition of shaking down their new car at the first race of the season.

Lost names

Mika Salo, Toyota, Melbourne, 2002
Toyota: arrived in 2002, left in 2009, now returning to Le Mans

Running a Formula 1 team is a fearfully expensive business even for those running around at the back of the field. The casualties of the 2002-2011 period include names like Arrows and Minardi, who spent decades in the sport and started hundreds of races.

Other lost names include Jordan, BAR, Renault, Jaguar, Arrows, Minardi, Toyota, Honda, BMW-Sauber, Midland, Super Aguri, Spyker, Brawn and Virgin.

What does the future hold for the current 12 entrants – one-quarter of which have changed names over the winter? Do they have what it takes to last another decade in F1? And is the high rate of turnover among teams bad for the sport?

Cast your vote in the poll and have your say in the comments.

An F1 Fanatic account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here.

F1 teams 2002-2012

This chart shows the championship positions achieved by all the teams that have competed in F1 in the last ten years. Use the controls below to hide or show different teams:


1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
McLaren 9 10 2 4 5 6 3 3 1 3 2 3 8 7 9 6 2 5 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 4 4 1 2 2 2 3 3 5 2 3 11 2 3 2 2
Ferrari 2 2 3 1 6 4 1 4 2 5 4 5 2 3 4 6 2 1 1 1 2 1 10 5 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 3 2 3 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 4 3 3
Red Bull 7 7 5 7 2 1 1
Mercedes 4 4
Renault 12 6 4 3 3 2 5 7 4 4 3 1 1 3 4 8 5 5
Force India 10 9 7 6
Williams 9 2 1 1 4 4 6 3 1 1 7 2 4 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 5 3 3 2 2 4 5 8 4 8 7 6 9
HRT 11 11
Toro Rosso 9 7 6 10 9 8
Sauber 7 8 7 7 7 6 8 8 4 5 6 6 8 7
Lotus 6 4 2 2 2 1 3 1 5 2 8 1 3 1 5 1 1 4 7 4 2 1 4 5 7 5 8 3 4 3 3 4 6 8 9 5 6 10 10
Virgin 12 12
Arrows 10 9 7 8 11 10 9 8 10 7 5 7 9 8 7 9 7 10 11
BAR 5 6 8 5 2 6
BMW Sauber 5 2 3 6 8
Brawn 1
Honda 6 8 4 6 4 8 9
Jaguar 9 8 7 7 7
Jordan 5 11 10 5 6 5 5 4 3 6 5 6 9 9 9
Midland 10
Minardi 10 11 7 11 8 10 10 9 10 11 9 10 10 10
Spyker 10
Super Aguri 11 9 11
Toyota 10 8 8 4 6 6 5 5

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

Image ?é?® Ferrari spa/Ercole Colombo

120 comments on “Which teams will still be in F1 in ten years’ time?”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3
  1. Can’t see Ferrari or McLaren going anywhere, all the others I can see the possibility they might not be there in 10 years.

    1. Yep that’s my feeling… McLaren and Ferrari are the only two I’d actually bet money on being there in 10 years.

      The rest are all at risk.

      1. Yep the same again. I think these two are solid. But Mercedes could do a BMW and Toyota and quit if results don’t arrive. Red Bull and Toro Rosso could end up being sold on, although the RB team less likely.
        Peter Sauber will have gone in 10 years, Force India have had 5 names in last 10 years so to stay as they are for 10 years will be unlikely. Williams I feel will be wound up by then. Lotus are not a stable team yet, the 3 newer teams are all likely to be sold on or go bust.

        1. I disagree about the the new teams. I see Caterham actually staying for a long time.

  2. This has given me an idea. How about an independents championship inside the current format. Have the world championship where all teams compete, then a constructers championship for manufacturers and an independents championship for teams like Williams and force india.

    1. Sounds a lot like Touring Cars. Whilst we’re going down that route let’s have success ballast too ;)

      1. I totally agree on success ballast. Works well in GT1, titles there went right to the last race… unlike Formula 1 this season.

        1. Your memory only spans 3 months back in time? Can’t rely on that sort of information then.

        2. @nick-uk F1’s 2010 season went right down to the last race though.

          Success ballast doesn’t really do much for me to be honest. I don’t see the point of it.

          It’s like reducing a football team down to 10 men because they’re occupying the top spot.

      2. I’d rather see a “Tier 2” F1 championship, with same rules as F1. The winner of this replaces the last place runner of the current F1 grid every year, much like in certain football leagues.

        This would let teams come in with a lower budget, and learn everything while competing with teams of similar experience/budget. My problem with GP2 is that it’s just too different from F1, and too much like other lower formulas, so all that technical competition is almost non-existent.

        1. So all of the development problems and headaches of F1 and none of the glory. I think there’s plenty of scope and demand for a 2nd F1 standard championship but the teams racing it shouldn’t be developing their cars greatly. FIA should develop a F1 spec series but with standard chassis and engine which draws it’s main inspiration from a midfield challenger from last year. This would give drivers the experience of driving f1 cars in anger – one of the main bug bears of the teams of the moment is lack of experience in the up and coming drivers. Management and engineers would get a chance to find out what it takes to run f1 cars while not occurring a great deal of cost.

          1. Nah, the idea is exactly to let smaller teams, like Virgin and HRT race with other teams of the same caliber. This way these teams would get more screen-time (hence sponsors, hence money) and a broader range of drivers could actually get a drive.

            The natural order of selection would take care that if your team is too good to be in T2, it will advance to T1. It seems to be working quite well in other sports, why not F1. T2 teams will generally be smaller, with less money, so slower cars, but we’re still talking about 3-4 seconds slower a lap, which you would not notice when they are not lapped by Red Bull and Ferrari.

            I really think it would make F1 more accessible to new teams, as there could and would be a learning curve and not ultradeep water.

            Yes it would still be expensive, but not 300-500 million a year, just 50. Just a thought though…

    2. A similar idea was used in 1987 for normally-aspirated cars, which were generally uncompetitive against the turbos – the Jim Clark (drivers) and Colin Chapman (teams) cups. The idea wasn’t carried over into 1988, I don’t think people relished the idea of a two tier formula so it didn’t really capture the imagination.

      How would you define “independent” and “manufacturer”? Red Bull are presumably independent but what about McLaren?

      1. Yeah I’ve realised go difficult it would be to categorise the teams. I think. Manufactures would be c,assed as companies that produce over a certain amount of cars in a given period. Independents would be non car producers or very very small ones so yeah red bull would be independent.

        1. You mean red bull don’t manufacture? these?

        2. I don’t get your point.
          Being a car manufacturer does not give an advantage in F1, so why would the other teams need a separate trophy?

          1. You could argue it gives you the advantage of extra cash. Much the same as it does in other forms of motorsport.

            Ultimately, I think it’s a flawed idea as (if you class a manufacturer as a company who mass-produce road cars) you could well end up with only Ferrari contesting the Manufacturer’s trophy and everyone else contesting the independants. Which would completely ruin the credibility of the sport as a whole. It would also vastly complicate things in terms of awarding prise money. You could end up with an “independant” team finishing 4th overall but winning more money than the teams who came 2nd/3rd because they won a trophy. Can’t see any of the bigger teams willing to agree to something like that.

            On the plus side, it allows the “smaller” teams a degree of success in their own right. I know in BTCC it is quite a big thing for the independant, or customer, teams.

            I was also only joking about success ballast in my other post, I think it’s a bit of a gimmick to be honest.

      2. Would Ferrari (pre-FIAT) be classified as a manufacturer or an independent ?

    3. Doesn’t make any sense for anyone as we currently have an independent winning everything, it might be different if independents were always below the works teams and could not realistically compete in the championship but they can.

      In the last 5 years it is 3 vs 2 to independents, the opposite to other categories in motor.

    4. Don’t get it… how do you define independent ?

  3. Dont forget Mercedes originated as Tyrell back in the 60s and Red Bull began as Stewart GP and Jordan have had a few names since they began. There is scope for a “Rock Family Tree” of GP teams, the in fighting and machinations would make a great article.

    1. If you look at it like that we only lost 2 teams since then (Toyota and Arrows). Then there’s the 4 that are around with the same name. The rest have all changed there name at least once.

      I think we will be in the same situation in 2022. The new teams proved it is extremely difficult starting from scratch, so if there is new teams wanting to enter I find it likely they buy out a team already on the grid. The only teams we might lose are HRT and Marussia. Then it’s also a safe bet Ferrari, Mclaren and Williams (hopefully with factory support!) are still around. As for the rest of the grid, I think they will still be there but maybe under a different name.

      1. Bigbadderboom
        20th January 2012, 13:36

        I agree, I think it will simply be further evolutions of current facilities. I think HRT may be lucky to survive this season let alone 10 years! All this talk about restructuring sounds a bit “smoke and mirrors” to me! Williams need a turn around in fortunes but most of the others will still be there in some form. It’s manufacturers who have to bow to shareholder opinion and operate with accountanting philosophy that are generally most transient.

    2. It was Matra International before it was Tyrrell (1968-69).

  4. I hope Williams is around still.

    1. Hope so too but I don’t think Frank will be around.

  5. It’s a slightly odd question, as we know many of the names that have left F1 only really changed ownership while the actual team remained fairly stable.
    It comes down to who we feel is actually more important in the team, those that produce the car and manage the racing or the people who organise the money.
    Yes, there are a few names it would be terrible to see leave F1 because of the associated heritage but the teams would likely remain under another name.

    1. @samc

      we know many of the names that have left F1 only really changed ownership while the actual team remained fairly stable.

      I understand the distinction you’re making but I don’t agree that the continuity overrides the change.

      Take Stewart, Jaguar and Red Bull, for example. Ford decided they wanted an F1 team, took over Jackie Stewart’s outfit, then gave up after five years and put it up for sale. The team’s employees sat in the Shanghai pit lane holding up a “for sale” sign and thankfully Mateschitz came along.

      This was not a smooth progression between three similar identities. Since 1997 they’ve been an independent team set up by a former world champion, a premium car manufacturer, and now a soft drinks brand.

      You ask do our loyalties instead lie with the people who produce the cars, but they change too – Bobby Rahal and Niki Lauda are long gone, and Adrian Newey was with McLaren when Stewart first entered F1.

      My point is, we have lost something by having fewer teams in it for the long run like Ferrari, McLaren and Williams. Other team sports seem not to have the problem – I doubt we’ll see Manchester United or the Dallas Cowboys rebranding themselves. Wouldn’t we rather have Minardi and Brabham than Midland and Spyker?

      1. I don’t think we do lose anything as the drivers are really the stars. They are nationally backed as well which adds an International flavour to it other team sports don’t really have. It’s a truly global sport.

        p.s quite a few American Football teams have re-branded, so have football teams in the UK. There is actually another Manchester United team which started up in defiance of the Glazer takover

        1. @paulipedia

          the drivers are really the stars

          I’m sure that’s true for a lot of people but not everyone – go to Monza and they cheer the Ferraris more than the Italian drivers. Remember Imola ’83.

          1. No sorry didn’t go to that one.

            Ok they are the exception that proves the rule, Ferrari are unique and so are Italians

          2. The crowd cheered when Patrese – an Italian driver leading a race in Italy – crashed, handing the lead to a French driver, Tambay, in a Ferrari.

          3. i remember patrese’s accident. And people cheering.
            By the way keith, i was asking james allen how he compares petrov and de cesaris, two drivers with some similarities in my view.
            Would you consider an article comparing actual drivers with the ones in the past?
            Now that we are talking about patrese,i see some similarities with webber?

      2. @keithcollantine Quite a good picture that, thanks for sharing it!

    2. I am with SamC on this one. Name is almost irrelevant (now we could quote that Shakespeare’s bit about a rose to show that the fans of F1 are highly cultured people :-) ), but (referring to Keith’s remarks) so are to some extend people. I wonder whether one could find one single person who is with Ferrari or McLaren now and was there 50 years ago. But I strongly feel that there si some continuity of ideas and culture in teams, people change gradually and newcomers are incorporated into existing organism, there is an accumulation of experience and all such things. These do not change when a new owner comes.

      So for instance “Lotus” is an empty brand name for me now, they have absolutely nothing in common with the real thing. When somebody says “I am a Lotus fan”, I automatically think of Colin Chapman’s outfit (lately this caused me to misunderstand some comments here on F1fan at first reading). On the other hand I had a soft spot for BAR and Honda due to their connection with the only successfull 6-wheeler, one of my favourite cars, although I realize this borders on highly irrational. Then again, being a fan of F1 (or anything else) is hardly a rational choice anyway :-).

  6. Ferrari are a lock, Maccas pretty safe, Red Bull are safe while D.M. is alive. The rest could go but i hope Williams bounces back,, and Fernandes does well.

    1. All those that are dependent on one key individual are at risk of that individual changing their mind.

  7. I think they’ll all be in the sport a decade from now – but whether or not they are running under the same names is another matter entirely.

    1. I think you will find most people will agree with you, but it is clear in the article that the issue Keith is raising for debate is whether or not the constant changing of names is good for the sport or not, and which of the current teams you believe this issue is most likely to affect.

      I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

      1. whether or not the constant changing of names is good for the sport or not

        Yes. A team’s name should always be representative of the sport’s ownership. Why should a team be forced to run under somebody else’s name and somebody else’s identity?

        I actually don’t think this will be too big a problem in the future. It’s probably going to be one of the things the 2012 Concorde Agreement addresses.

        1. Sorry, but “A team’s name should always be representative of the sport’s ownership.” should actually read “A team’s name should always be representative of their ownership.”

    2. The privateer teams will probably still be there and they’re also the least likely to change names, I’d say. Red Bull Racing is just a marketing tool and I think they’d disappear as soon as they realised they’d got enough from the sport.

  8. Keith, I think you have interpreted the meaning “team” kinda strict. Many teams today have continuety from past “teams”. I mean the current Red Bull comes from the same plant as the last Laguar., just like team Lotus today still comes from the same Benetton Renault and so on.

    IMO, if you take out the name/ownership changes out of the equatiion, teams have alot more continuity in the timeline.

    1. I think you have interpreted the meaning “team” kinda strict

      I disagree. The FIA don’t recognise Mercedes as originating from Tyrrel for example. If a team changes ownership and name then it becomes a “new” team in the FIA’s eyes.

      1. Sure, but that’s not the point. The FIA has to do for legal arguments. But informally a team is not suddenly a completely different team when the name is changed. No it’s still the same team, but probably with fresh investment en new teamleaders, so it continues to exist, albeit in a slightly “mutated” form.

  9. There isn’t much doubt McLaren and Ferrari will still be there, but for the rest, I am unsure. Judging by recent history, I believe Mercedes will stay for a while, but maybe not ten years as a full works team.

    I don’t believe Lotus, Marussia, Toro Rosso, Force India or HRT will be around in there current formats in ten years, mostly due to financial pressures.

    I find Red Bull and Caterham more difficult to decide on. I believe Tony intends to be in it for the long haul, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they were to change in some way within ten years. Red Bull I hope and somewhat expect to stick around for a long while.

    Then there is the long standing Independants Williams and Sauber. There history doesn’t give them or even there names any sort of security. We almost saw the end of Sauber and as seen by the fall and demise of legendary teams such as Brabham and Original Lotus, There is certainly cause for concern regarding Williams. My opinion is we will see both names still in the sport in ten years though, maybe with a relationship such as BMW Sauber.

    1. @Silverkeg

      Red Bull I hope and somewhat expect to stick around for a long while.

      They have been active as a sponsor since the mid-eighties, I think. They put a huge amount of money into marketing their brand. I suspect the team will be around for a good while yet – barring any major upheaval in F1, they’ve got a good chance of making it to 2012.

      1. @Keithcollantine Well I would certainly hope they have a good chance of making it to 2012!! :P

  10. All the teams will still be in F1 it’s just some of them will have different names.

    I think if you are a hardcore fan you don’t “really” care which badge is on the front

    1. ha have just read other comments and people seem to be in agreement.

      Maybe rephrase the question as which Team names will still be around.

      I wouldn’t put my money on Williams, they have no brand value unless they start making sports cars or tie up with a big manufacturer again, which should happen but probably won’t.

      Just look what happened to Lotus and they make production cars.

    2. @paulipedia

      I think if you are a hardcore fan you don’t “really” care which badge is on the front

      A fan of what? The team in question, or F1 in general?

      1. F1 in general. Yes I think fans would be absolutely gutted if Williams stopped racing as they have so much history.

        But just look back at the records and see how many names have come and gone. Ultimately it’s the racing we really care about

  11. I would say that the likes of McLaren and Ferrari to remain are almost a certainty (remain with the same chassis name).

    For the rest of the entries, its hard to tell really. I do expect most of the existing outfits to be there in one form or another in a decade. But many might have changed names, or even did so repeatedly.

    Mercedes might fall by a management board refocussing on something else, although one would think they might want to give it a chance of winning rather than end up building a winning car they never raced, like this outfit already saw once.
    Both Marussia and Caterham will have a spell of at least another 5-10 years, before these car manufacturers can really reap the efforts of being in F1, and I would expect investors in both to be fully aware of it. Although its not certain they will be able to do so, the markets they focus on are growing.

    Red Bull is making sure both their outfits will be at least very solid investments if they ever decide they need to go to something else to wow the crowds, and as Joe Saward writes it will be mainly because of deminishing returns if they do so. If they want to go Asian, then its more or less the same story as for Caterham and Marussia.I guess Lotus can be seen in the same way, although its investors are far more dodgy and might be needing to sell before reaping in any returns.

    In fact, the only one’s not being there in any form, might be Williams – a team so traditional and established that if it bancrupts, it might be hard to find a buyer who will take the whole of it, and HRT who do not have much in terms of real value to anyone who would want to buy an F1 team.

  12. A lot of people noted that we should take into consideration actual team (bases) besides team ownerships.

    I once made a short list about the origins of the current teams, I’ll paste it here:

    Ferrari (1950)
    McLaren (1966)
    Mercedes=Brawn=Honda=BAR=Tyrrell (1970)
    Williams (1978)
    Lotus=Renault=Benetton=Toleman (1981)
    Toro Rosso=Minardi (1985)
    Force India=Midland=Jordan (1991)
    Sauber (1993)
    Red Bull=Jaguar=Stewart (1997)
    Caterham=Lotus (2010)
    HRT (2010)
    Marussia=Virgin (2010)

    1. As stated above, Mercedes goes back to 1968 (Matra International).

    2. I don’t agree, when a team changes hands, even if it’s the same team F1 has still lost a team.

      I mean, Yes, it’s from that origin, but I don’t think you can say that Lotus as the original Toleman Spirit.

      1. I mean, Yes, it’s from that origin, but I don’t think you can say that Lotus as the original Toleman Spirit.

        I think you meant “Toleman spirit” – Spirit of course being a team in their own right which entered F1 in 1983 to provide a low-key test-bed for Honda’s then new turbo engine. The team went bust and sold its tyre contract to none other than Toleman, which managed to alienate Pirelli and Goodyear by switching to Michelin (which promptly withdrew from F1).

      2. But often the teams are the same, just with different names/branding etc. Like the way Force India still has members that were there in the Jordan days.

        1. Does Jordan = Force India?

          I think the disdain shown towards Eddie Jordan when he talks about the subjects shows that it isn’t.

    3. Strictly speaking, Frank Williams’ F1 exploits started with a customer Brabham in 1969 and Williams, via De Tomaso and customer Marches, became a constructor for the first time in 1972 with a chassis called a Politoys. Two years of Iso-Marlboros followed with the first Williams branded car (FW04) in 1975. Walter Wolf (of Wolf Racing) bought a majority stake in the team in 1976 and sacked Frank at the end of the year. Williams as we know and love it came into being as a new team for 1977 as a partnership between Williams and Patrick Head.

      So it should really be Williams=Frank Williams Racing Cars (1969), or Williams=Wolf-Williams=Williams=Iso Marlboro=Politoys=Frank Williams Racing Cars (1969) if you want to capture more of the changes the team has gone through…

    4. Also:

      Force India=Spyker=Midland=Jordan (1991)


      Sauber=BMW Sauber=Sauber(1993)

  13. The only two I could be around 90%+ sure of are Ferrari and McLaren.

    If Newey decides to leave RBR, for whatever reason, and they fall back down the field, I can’t see DM retaining his interest. That would also probably spell the end of STR.

    Mercedes are probably a financially secure manufacturer and could still be there in 10 years, but I wouldn’t bet my house on it.

    We could, of course, see a few more manufacturers enter the sport before 2022 with the new engine regulations, although how many of them would stick around for 5-10 years remains to be seen.

    1. I would love Merc to stay, I really would, Them vs Ferrari vs Mclaren would be absolutely fantastic.

      However, Merc have said they must win to stay in it… So my hopes are low.

  14. Ferrari and McLaren, with reasonable certainty. As for the rest, it’s impossible to say.

    Look back 10 years and the only teams still around that competed in 2002 (ignoring teams which have changed hands or been renamed) were Ferrari, McLaren, Sauber and Williams. The others have either changed name/ownership (Jaguar, BAR, Renault, Jordan, Minardi), gone bust (Arrows) or withdrawn (Toyota). Go back another 10 years and there’s only Ferrari, Mclaren and Williams which survive – Benetton, Lotus, Tyrrell, Footwork, Ligier, March, Dallara, Venturi/Larrousse, Minardi, Jordan, Fondmetal and Andrea Moda are all gone in one way or another.

    Unfortunately, serious questions have to be asked about Williams’ long-term sustainability as it remains uncompetitive and the team founders grow older. While I would hope Williams can start building competitive cars again it seems unlikely without the team undergoing a significant change (a Project 4-style takeover, for example). I’m sure Peter Sauber will do right by his employees but I can’t see him wanting to stick around for the long-term either.

  15. It’s really hard to answer, because we don’t know what Formula 1 will be like in ten years time, let alone the line up of teams.

    I can see Mclaren and Ferrari. Lotus and Mercedes are debatable as it would depend on the results they get, I believe. A post-Newey Red Bull would also be an interesting prospect.

    I think Williams could well go into co-management/ownership like they did with BMW a few years ago. If Honda is indeed enticed by the 2013 engine changes and the friendlier emissions F1 will try to embrace, it will be interesting to see if they, or even someone like Volkswagen, would team up with them.

    1. I agree that the only way I can see Williams still being around is if it enters a partnership with a major investor, whether it be another manufacturer or not.

      I can’t see them being able to continue the way they have been unless there is a miraculous turn around in form.

      1. Williams did score some decent cash via their driver lineup and they have been (or still are) reorganising their household.
        I’m not expecting anything spectacular, but wouldn’t be surprised to see them regularly in the fight for points this year, and make further improvements next year.
        A lot will depend on how teams deal with the mayor changes expected for 2013. that could shift things around a little.

        1. Williams did score some decent cash via their driver lineup and they have been (or still are) reorganising their household.
          I’m not expecting anything spectacular, but wouldn’t be surprised to see them regularly in the fight for points this year, and make further improvements next year

          I sure hope so!

  16. Given the current conditions, it’s quite easy to say that only the big 4 will remain in the game for sure, though I’d like to see BMW, Honda and Toyota back.

    1. I don’t agree, Merc has publically said that it wikll leave if it doesn’t start winning. And Red Bull has said it will only stay as long as it is.

      I dunno how little spine they may or may not have, but I wouldn’t bet on a lot.

      (For the record, I think leaving because you can’t win it is spineless.)

  17. I expect most of the teams to stay in the long run. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if Lotus end up changing there name again.

  18. Beside Ferrari (no matter what break-away mumbo jumbo they will be saying) and McLaren I can see literally everyone having a chance of going away. From the big guns the first to go might be Mercedes (if it doesn’t achieve success and the economy in Europe will be still suffering from the crisis) and Lotus if their huge marketing plans fail. From the bottom I think Caterham has the greatest chance of staying for a longer term, whereas HRT might be gone even next week.

    Interesting thing is Red Bull. The team itself will probably stay permanently, whether it will under Red Bull’s ownership and brand, that’s a different story. It largely depends on whether the team can sustain it’s top-tier position after Adrian has retired.

  19. i could only vote for 3- ferrari,mclaren and WILLIAMS!

  20. Keith,

    If you are going to defie teams by chassis name (which I agree is the best option) they have you considered whether you should attribute 7th place in 2010 to BMW Sauber?

    I know they dropped the BMW moniker from the team name, but the chassis remained “BMW Sauber”.

    1. @Tom_EC1 I do have BMW Sauber down as having competed in 2010 (only they were eighth, not seventh).

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3

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.