You are on page 1of 5

AUTOSPORT+ features: Why a three-car F1 team is illogical 1

Feature published on September 9th 2014

Why a three-car F1 team is illogical


The Formula 1 rumour mill was in full swing after the Italian Grand Prix, with the three-car teams
idea being discussed again. However, the concept faces many hurdles, as DIETER RENCKEN
explains

That the concept of eight three-car teams - delivering grids of 24 cars - should again rear its
head, after being exclusively revealed here almost a year ago, is no surprise. Since then various
familiar arguments over customer cars and 'listed' parts (components to which teams need to
own the intellectual property) have raged, all to no real avail.

Indeed, it is said that the issue of removing chassis (monocoque) from Appendix 6 of the
Formula 1 Sporting Regulations was again raised during a Strategy Group meeting at Monza by
Bernie Ecclestone, with the majority immediately rejecting the suggestion. Why is the removal
(or not) of a single word relating to a single component listed in the (note) sporting regulations
so utterly crucial to F1's future?

Simply as the removal of chassis from Appendix 6 would mean that teams could purchase
proprietary chassis - the structural heart of a car thus leaving the way clear for full customer
cars, a concept which goes totally against the DNA of F1.

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/feature/6184/ 2014 AUTOSPORT.com


AUTOSPORT+ features: Why a three-car F1 team is illogical 2

As Ferrari Sporting Director Marco Mattiacci pointed out Sunday, an integral part of the F1 world
championship is the constructors' championship, and, by extension, that requires teams to
construct their own cars.

However, Ecclestone is keen to see a full customer-car concept one allegedly pursued by CVC
Capital Partners co-chairman and -founder Donald Mackenzie, seen visiting teams on Sunday
simply as the costs of going F1 racing would be reduced for major teams, by off-setting direct
costs over double the production, and for secondary teams, who would not need to develop and
manufacture in-house designs.

CVC is, of course, the majority owner of Formula One Management, the commercial rights holder
of the championship, and as such Mackenzie is Ecclestone's de facto boss. CVC is keen to
contain costs to enable them to reduce payments to teams, thus increasing CVC's take from the
sport.

However, there are long-term commercial and sporting risks in the concept, likely leading to F1
alienating its fans in the longer term. But does CVC care about the long-term health of F1?
Unlikely; the company has already cashed half its shares, seems intent on listing the remainder,
and has taken a massive upfront loan to pay further dividends.

An equally unsavoury aspect of CVC's custodianship of F1 is the inequitable revenue structure


introduced under its watch. Last year, for example, Lotus won a race and finished fourth (with
315 points) in the championship ahead of McLaren (122) yet will receive $30m less for the
year.

Any wonder Lotus needed to trim its manpower levels by 30 per cent despite winning the
opener and fielding the only car able to take the fight to Red Bull towards the end? And, this is
far from the only example of the squeeze being put on the marginalised teams.

However, no sooner had the flag dropped on Sunday's Italian Grand Prix than a former team
principal, one better known for his comic-book than actual on-track achievement, tweeted the
following: "This is the last year of F1 as we know, in '15 eight teams will contest the
championship, with several teams entering three cars." [sic]

True, Adam Parr, once team principal of Williams and architect of a number of since-dismantled
projects, has his own issues with certain paddock folk, but what chance his prediction coming to
pass next year?

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/feature/6184/ 2014 AUTOSPORT.com


AUTOSPORT+ features: Why a three-car F1 team is illogical 3

This question brings us neatly to the point of 'Eight-3', as the concept is known. Since November
last year there has been yet another team-ownership change, with a group of Swiss-Middle
Eastern investors bankrolling the takeover of Caterham by a consortium led by Colin Kolles, he
of Midland/Spyker and HRT fame and, coincidentally, the man once in the frame for Parr's job.

According to sources, Caterham was on the verge of filing for bankruptcy when Kolles and
company rode to the team's rescue, the Romano-German appointing Christijan Albers as team
principal, who told this writer in Germany that he had decided to accept the challenge because:

"I was always a little bit of an entrepreneur. So beside racing I was also starting businesses, and
it went very well to the moment it turned out in 2007 I was making more money with my normal
business than as a racing driver. So I hope I can combine both of them, the technical side and
also the business side and be successful to bring this team forward. It's all about performance."

Strange, then, that this businessman, just three races in from his pitwall debut, has decided to
step away from F1. Dutch sources close to him have cast doubt on the team's statement that he
intended spending more time with his family. Indeed, said sources suggest the real reason is
linked to the team's (lack of) funding. Why the team consistently refuses to reveal the identities
of its investors may no longer be a mystery.

Marussia, too, is under enormous pressure look no further than the atrociously handled
Marussia/Max Chilton debacle in Spa for proof and at Monza Russian sources suggested that
majority owner Andrei Tsheglakov was intent only on seeing his team race on home soil in Sochi,
and would then be yanking his support.

So, assuming the remaining two Max Mosley Babes together with the still-born USF1 and
deceased HRT outfits, Marussia and Caterham entered F1 via an initiative devised by the former
FIA president, albeit at the time under different team names do not survive beyond season
end, Formula 1 would be left perilously close to its guaranteed minimum of 16 starters. All it
would require is for another team to topple. Or be pushed...

Clearly the sport would like to retain (in chronological name order) Ferrari, McLaren, Williams,
Red Bull and Mercedes, plus probably Lotus, leaving just three: Force India, Toro Rosso and
Sauber. The demise of any of this trio would trigger Eight-3, as would be the possible collapse of
Lotus, the finances of which are regularly speculated upon. Thus, one in four teams needs to
depart the scene for Eight-3 to happen.

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/feature/6184/ 2014 AUTOSPORT.com


AUTOSPORT+ features: Why a three-car F1 team is illogical 4

AUTOSPORT broke the news earlier this week that Sauber was in talks with Canadian billionaire
Lawrence Stroll, who made his fortune in the fashion industry, most recently listing the Michael
Kors label. A Tifosi at heart with a mouth-watering collection of Ferraris, Stroll owns Mont
Tremblant circuit which hosted his counry's grand prix in the 1970s and is a shareholder in
Formula 3 squad Prema Powerteam.

Ferrari places all its F3-bound driver academy proteges with Prema with young Lance Stroll
being a member of the Ferrari Driver Academy while yet another link to Maranello is Sauber's
long-standing relationship with Ferrari, which extends beyond a simple engine-supply deal.

Virtually a done deal, then, and one that deletes Sauber from the list of endangered teams IF it
happens? 'IF' is F1 spelt backwards, and therein lies the rub: obviously Lotus is the more
valuable brand, even if it was effectively hijacked by Genii Capital, owners of the team formerly
known as Renault, while Peter Sauber built his brand over many years. Thus Formula One
Management would prefer to retain Lotus.

Paddock sources are adamant FOM is attempting to push Stroll in the direction of Lotus
currently eighth in the championship even enlisting disgraced former Renault F1 boss Flavio
Briatore as masseur. Sauber, already under strain after its Russian deals all but collapsed in the
wake of the Ukraine crisis and with a point-less 2014 score, would be pushed closer to the edge,
bringing Eight-3 another step closer to reality.

Sauber, though, has survived worse crises over the years even beating the non-British-based
jinx and could still pull through, meaning the executioner would head for either Force India or
Toro Rosso. The former is going great guns this year despite a director (Subrata Roy) being held
in jail in India over alleged financial irregularities and another (Vijay Mallya) being under
financial pressure over non-F1 dealings.

That said, Force India's funding has never been in doubt, and this year the neat VJM07 has taken
the fight to McLaren, with the team lying a single point adrift of the Woking-based squad
running the same Mercedes power units, and a whopping 90 points up on Toro Rosso.

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/feature/6184/ 2014 AUTOSPORT.com


AUTOSPORT+ features: Why a three-car F1 team is illogical 5

Which turns the spotlight on Red Bull's junior squad. Traditionally the team has fared worse than
either Force India or Sauber, and was originally purchased to develop drivers via the use of
customer cars and previously-shared technology provided by the drinks company's main team.
Were one of the trio to go, would it be ethical for FOM to retain two-Red Bull-backed outfits
fielding six cars a quarter of the grid between them?

Already the EU is said to be investigating F1, and that would be yet another point of interest.

Apart from ethical considerations, what about reality? What if Red Bull changes its marketing
strategy and departs F1? F1 would be down to 18 cars at the stroke of a pen, mirroring the 2009
situation, when manufacturers left in droves after their boards pulled the plug on F1.

Indeed, the entire Eight-3 concept overlooks one rather significant development: when the
concept was mooted late last year the world at large knew not a thing about Gene Haas's plans
to enter F1, and thus the possibility of a newcomer was not factored into the equation.

Assume F1 goes Eight-3 in 2015, what then happens in 2016 when Haas F1 arrives? Eight-3 +
One-2? Nine-3? Welcome as it would be to have a 26-strong grid, that scenario is highly unlikely.

Thus, far better for FOM to do all in its considerable gift to secure the future of the sport's
existing 11 teams and provide every encouragement for Haas to make a fist of F1, than have
former T-shirt salesmen rushing about in the hope of forcing teams out of business in order to
provide CVC with even greater (short-term) profits.

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/feature/6184/ 2014 AUTOSPORT.com

You might also like