[ZX3URrBH]

Is this a good thing?

Up side:
- Full grids
- Potential upstart drivers get a chance

Down Side:
- Cost, only the rich teams can play
- No points, thus it becomes a test session under race conditions, again only rich can play

I'm for full fields, but if you are going to race, should you not get a chance at points?

Thoughts?

[BCVB9SOc]

To be fair, majority of cost of F1 is in development and R&D etc, cost of actually building a car is relatively low, so a 3rd car wouldn't create too much of an issue financially, as presumably the extra cost of building and transporting another car would be covered by extra sponsorship.

Personally, I'm quite keen on the idea, imagine having 3 top drivers in same car. however, as pointed out, idea that 2 teams could grab top 6 positions, or 1 team dominate the poduim, I'm not so keen.

All in all however, I think the benefits outway the negatives.

If we get to a situation of just 16 cars, I'd say go for it.

[PrettyFifa12]

Actually R&D takes up to 15% where engines take up 50%, granted, R&D is a far second, & that was for McLaren-Mercedes. I reckon that cost-cutting on engines is the priority & limiting R&D potential (even for engines) is a major priority. For most independent teams engines are a pain, costing anything between $90,000 to $150,000 per unit. Thus if you get 30,000km of testing & need a new unit per 700km that's 45 units, & up to 10 spares costing $5 - 7.5 million just for testing procurement. This doesn't include maintenance & fuel costs, but at 80 litres per 100km I think one can figure that out. This doesn't include other things such as transport cost or testing mileage (every circuit demands a sum that translates to thousands per lap).

[quorceopporce]

If it's allowed, I think they should certainly be allowed to score points, given that they could very easily influence the outcome of others' races.

[TodeImmabbedo]

Is this a good thing?

Yes, I think it is. The restrictions on testing recently agreed, and the demise of Honda, make it more likely as well.

The more cars on the grid the better IMHO. It increases competition and gives opportunities to more drivers so I hope we do see teams running three cars in the future.

[Kilsimpaile]

There have been three car teams in the past, so why the heck not? I'd even say let them build multiple cars and run them as separate teams. If someone wants to throw lots of money at the sport then let them...

BRING IT!

[inve.tment]

Yes to a 3rd car, yes to allowing that car to score championship points, and while they're at it, reconfigure the system so that the top 10 finishers earn WDC and WCC points.

[luspikals]

Is this a good thing?

Up side:
- Full grids
- Potential upstart drivers get a chance

Down Side:
- Cost, only the rich teams can play
- No points, thus it becomes a test session under race conditions, again only rich can play

I'm for full fields, but if you are going to race, should you not get a chance at points?

Thoughts?

I think if there are 3 cars from a grand prix team at one race weekend, they should all have an equal opportunity to score points.

However only the highest 2 positions achieved by the 3 drivers should count towards the manufacturers championship.

[Eromaveabeara]

If it happens the 3rd driver will in most cases (not all) be little more than a test driver. His salary will be no more than currrent test drivers or less and quite likely have to bring sponsorship money. If he (or she) turns out to be really quick then things will change.
Further I suspect that until the economy turns around driver salaries will take a real nosedive as their current contracts run out.
I very much doubt it will happen but it would be interesting if the drivers had to race in other series to make a good living. That was the way it was in the 50's to very early 80's.
To make a decent living that is why drivers like Clark, Stewart, Moss, Brabham, McLaren and most others drove in F2 and Can Am and other series including the Tasman series. It was to make a living not just to race.

[hitaEtela]

Actually R&D takes up to 15% where engines take up 50%, granted, R&D is a far second, & that was for McLaren-Mercedes. I reckon that cost-cutting on engines is the priority & limiting R&D potential (even for engines) is a major priority. For most independent teams engines are a pain, costing anything between $90,000 to $150,000 per unit. Thus if you get 30,000km of testing & need a new unit per 700km that's 45 units, & up to 10 spares costing $5 - 7.5 million just for testing procurement. This doesn't include maintenance & fuel costs, but at 80 litres per 100km I think one can figure that out. This doesn't include other things such as transport cost or testing mileage (every circuit demands a sum that translates to thousands per lap).

I don't think engines take up 50%

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this articale but I wouldn't have thought it was a million miles away.

Toyota's cost breakdown included-

* $63.4 million for research and development
* $2.8 million for car-manufacturing costs
* $13.14 million for wind tunnel costs
* $77.5 million for operating cars at tests
* $29.71 million for operating cars at races
* $68.53 million for team salaries
* $180 million for engine budgets
* $39.5 million for driver salaries
* $12.97 million for travel and accommodation and
* $11.5 million for corporate entertainment.


Also, for each lap an F1 car completes in a race, the cost is nearly $1,300 in fuel, tires and brake wear. The Grand Prix of Canada is 70 laps, meaning it will cost about $91,000 to reach the finish line.

http://www.zimbio.com/Formula+1/arti...xpensive+sport

[haudraufwienix]

I don't mind given the current state of affairs if a third car happened so long as the FIA dropped it's ridiculous rules on liveries and allowed the third car to run different colours/sponsors. Would love to see DiResta in a orange Mac for example!

[ultramDoctoo]

I'm all for three car teams in F1, but it would he hypocritical of the FIA to approve three car teams after all the talk of reducing costs...

[drugsprevi]

Why not have three-car teams?

It would allow more drivers to have a chance at the title, the grids would be fuller, but for it to happen other things must happen as well:

1. Points MUST be kept otherwise more top drivers will be racing for nothing.

2. Only two nominated constructors' points scoring cars before the start of every weekend.

3. There should be no restrictions on who can run a third car, so it's not just McLaren and Ferrari.

4. All drivers should be eligible for championship points.

This way, the number of cars could be kept reasonable by maybe Red Bull running three cars only instead of two teams, and maybe Toyota and Williams joining up for three cars.

So we could end up with:

Ferrari (3)
McLaren (3)
Renault (3)
Red Bull/Toro Rosso (3)
Toyota/Williams (3)
Force India (probably 2)
Honda (whoever buys it (2))
BMW (probably 3)

Total 22, although if all teams run 3 cars we could max out the grid for the first time for a while.

[Heacechig]

There are several positive sides about this idea: more participants, more competitive cars -> tighter competition. Also the costs won't be much higher and with the testing ban 3rd drivers of teams' can be more useful too during season!

I agree that all the participating drivers should be eligible for WDC points. However, I do think 2 best results of the 3 drivers should count towards WCC. This would be pretty much a similar system like we had in WRC back in 2002-2003. I don't like the nominating stuff. If Top2 drivers retire and the 3rd car wins the race, then oddly enough team gets no WCC points despite the win. I think this creates a weird situation, we have had such in WRC and to be honest, I didn't like to see someone else getting victory points despite not winning.

The main negative aspect I can see is indeed that one-two teams, who are above others, would leave even less opportunities to others to actually achieve anything. Midfielders, who are nowadays scrapping for minor points, may well be fighting for nothing. In this case I think it could be wise to start awarding points to at least Top10. Also the pits layouts should be changed - it would be rather weird if two (!) drivers had to wait behind their team leader for a pitstop in case a safety car appears... Maybe a team should get two pitstop areas to enable more flexibility for race-strategies.

[Pelefaifs]

I like the idea of 3 car teams .
But , the idea will only work if all the cars score .
And , that will only work if the liveries are freed up , to allow different sponsorship for each car .

This lowers the entry level ticket onto the rolling billboard , and might spark the low end of the grid further .

Take it one more step , and get the car makers in the field more interested in supplying up to date plants , and tech help , to customers , by having those engines score points , too .
That sparks the tail end as well .

Hey , as I sit here writing this , essentially thinking of a new category of prize , in a strictly engine constructor's trophy , I think I've solved another problem for the F1 world !

Are you ready for this ?

It's gonna be good .

Are you sure you're ready ?












We could let Bernie give out his medals for the prizes , and get him the hell away from the idea of replacing the regular points system .

Best part of the whole idea , I'd say .

[Duaceanceksm]

Can anybody clear up at what point there will be 3 car teams? I thought the minimum grid under the Concorde Agreement was 20 cars. If it drops below that then somebody has to run extra cars to make up the 20. With Honda gone the grid is only 18 and that means we will have 2 teams running 3 cars in 2009 (presumably Ferrari and McLaren).

Unless, of course, I have it wrong. I've read that the minimum is 18 or even 16 cars on the forum and the media hasn't mentioned 3 car teams since Honda's demise. So can somebody clear this up for me?

Edit: Just found this: http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headline...17134704.shtml

The article claims that 18 cars is a breach of F1's TV contracts which stipulate 20 cars minimum and that Ferrari and McLaren will be "invited" to field a 3rd non-scoring car. The article then goes on to say that the 3rd car would be a breach of the Sporting Regulations which limits teams to 2 cars, so an ammendment would be required.

My head's starting to hurt!

[EnvellFen]

Maximum grid is actually 24, but we've not had that for ages. It was going to happen in 2002 when Toyota joined, but Prost went bust - which kept it at 22.

[TopcigsCOM]

I'd rather to run another satellite team ala Red bull and Toro Rosso for those want more cars in the competition. Running three cars each team I think slightly complicated.

Having remembered McLaren was not easy to manage only two drivers i.e Alonso and Hamilton. Can we imagine if they have three character of Alonso or Hamilton at the same team.

[Pelefaifs]

Having remembered McLaren was not easy to manage only two drivers i.e Alonso and Hamilton. Can we imagine if they have three character of Alonso or Hamilton at the same team.

Don't you think that would be entertaining in itself ?

27 little men with big heads fighting to not be #3 . I think it would be a scream .

[hitaEtela]

Don't you think that would be entertaining in itself ?

27 little men with big heads fighting to not be #3 . I think it would be a scream .

The dream team would be Alonso, Hamilton and Kubica. What a bun fight that would be