Pirelli May Cut Off Caterham

[Scott]

Apparently there is a condition in the Concorde Agreement that if the grid drops below 20 cars, ALL other participants are obliged to run 3 car teams.  Eric Boullier has indicated it is too late for 2015 already...so does that mean Bernie props up the 10th team??

I don't like 3 car teams.  What's next, 6 teams running 4 cars?  Bernie will keep the terms of the CA intact so he only has to pay down 6 or 8 teams and keep the rest. 

But John, according to VJ, all remaining participants must run 3 car teams, not just some of them.  That could really throw a wrench in Bernie's fragile F1 economy.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/29366691

[Jericoke]

Apparently there is a condition in the Concorde Agreement that if the grid drops below 20 cars, ALL other participants are obliged to run 3 car teams.  Eric Boullier has indicated it is too late for 2015 already...so does that mean Bernie props up the 10th team??

I don't like 3 car teams.  What's next, 6 teams running 4 cars?  Bernie will keep the terms of the CA intact so he only has to pay down 6 or 8 teams and keep the rest. 

But John, according to VJ, all remaining participants must run 3 car teams, not just some of them.  That could really throw a wrench in Bernie's fragile F1 economy.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/29366691

I've proposed in the past that teams be allowed  to enter 1, 2 or 3 cars (up to FOM to ensure that 20 cars are entered I guess)

There would have to be certain criteria met for each 'level' of committment, but I don't see that being tough to work out.

[Scott]

It would be a pretty complicated points formula, and of course FOM cash distribution formula, basically it would probably require a completely new Concorde Agreement (I think the name actually changed now, but can't remember what they call it), with new negotiations, otherwise nobody would agree to it (your idea of allowing teams 1, 2 or 3 car teams).  Little teams would still want a cut of the pot that would keep them in business, even if they only fielded one car.  Big teams would want of course another 50% or more of the share because, hey, they're now really the 'BIG' teams. 

I just don't see it happening without a rather major F1 implosion. 

[John S]

The single car team in itself is not really a great idea, they only really work if they can use customer cars - though in the past we have had relatively successful teams just entering one car.

Hey maybe we will again and it's the answer to how teams field 3 cars.    I.E. instead of 3 Scuderia Ferrari, or whoever enters a third car, it's entered under a different name - lets say Ferrari US racing, or Taureau Rouge, or whoever. 

I guess it's to late to revive Rob Walker racing as it once existed, however McLaren could run a 3rd car under the name since his family's company name 'Johnnie Walker' is confirmed as a continuing sponsor with the team. 
Mind you it might be pushing it to get Stirling Moss back in the driving seat. 

[Irisado]

Teams used to be able to field a single car.  The last time this happened at a race meeting was when Brabham entered Damon Hill along for the 1992 Hungarian Grand Prix (Brabham's last ever race meeting as it turned out) after Eric Van de Poele moved to Fondmetal and no replacement driver was nominated.  The last team to enter only one car on the entry list was Coloni in 1991.  Single car teams were generally not a success, and were usually only entered, owing to a severe lack of finance, preventing the running of two cars.

I'm opposed to three cars, because it's horrendously expensive, and reduces competition/variety on the grid.  They keep going on and on about cost cutting, yet fielding three cars is just the opposite of that mantra.  Furthermore, it's the independents which are the lifeblood of this sport.  The manufacturers come and go as they please.  Ecclestone should be making it easier for independents to enter, not more difficult.

[Jericoke]

Single car teams were generally not a success, and were usually only entered, owing to a severe lack of finance, preventing the running of two cars.

I can name a few current two car teams that also suffer a severe lack of finance.

I'm opposed to three cars, because it's horrendously expensive, and reduces competition/variety on the grid.  They keep going on and on about cost cutting, yet fielding three cars is just the opposite of that mantra.  Furthermore, it's the independents which are the lifeblood of this sport.  The manufacturers come and go as they please.  Ecclestone should be making it easier for independents to enter, not more difficult.

Back to this.  Ferrari and McLaren are the two most successful teams in F1.  They are both manufacturers of cars.  Williams is also very successful over all, and is also part of a large engineering corporation.

However, I know you mean Ford, Toyota and Honda.  Considering that all three companies have extensive racing histories, you have to wonder why they believe F1 (amongst other companies with strong racing pedigrees) is a bad investment.  Why would an independant believe they can bring more to the sport than Ford can?

The sport doesn't NEED the manufacturers, however, when the people who have been part of racing history want no part of it, you can't be surprised that people like Peter Sauber and Frank Williams aren't lining up to join the sport.  Instead we get people who see F1 as some sort of vanity project, bailing out once the fun wears off.

What F1 needs, is for FOM, FIA to work together (stop laughing) and go out and target possible owners/suppliers/sponsors.  Ask what they need to be part of F1, and then do it.  Why aren't more American companies involved in the sport?  Why aren't successful teams from 'lesser' Formulae trying to move up?  Why aren't top brands sponsoring F1 teams/races?

If you look at the 'top brands' in the world, you have to hit #16 (Mercedes) before you find one with a significant F1 presense.  If the other 15 are so good at promoting their brand, why isn't F1 a place for them to do it?  Why do I have to go to 29 (Marlboro) before I find a major F1 sponsor?
http://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/

[Irisado]

I can name a few current two car teams that also suffer a severe lack of finance.

Not to the extent that they cannot run two cars.

Back to this.  Ferrari and McLaren are the two most successful teams in F1.  They are both manufacturers of cars.  Williams is also very successful over all, and is also part of a large engineering corporation.

However, I know you mean Ford, Toyota and Honda.  Considering that all three companies have extensive racing histories, you have to wonder why they believe F1 (amongst other companies with strong racing pedigrees) is a bad investment.  Why would an independant believe they can bring more to the sport than Ford can?

I also mean BMW .

Independents race for the love of racing.  Manufacturers race to shift cars from the car showroom.  That's the difference in a nutshell.  I know which I'd rather rely on to see a successful and sustainable Formula 1. 

The sport doesn't NEED the manufacturers, however, when the people who have been part of racing history want no part of it, you can't be surprised that people like Peter Sauber and Frank Williams aren't lining up to join the sport.  Instead we get people who see F1 as some sort of vanity project, bailing out once the fun wears off.

Sometimes, you get people who think of it as a vanity project, yes, but the fact of the matter is that the real lovers of Formula 1 often don't want to enter because it's geared towards those with the largest wallets.  Those with the largest wallets don't necessarily have the best interests of Formula 1 in their hearts, as we have seen.

Why aren't more American companies involved in the sport?  Why aren't successful teams from 'lesser' Formulae trying to move up?  Why aren't top brands sponsoring F1 teams/races?

I know that these are rhetorical questions, but I'll answer them anyway.  The answer to all those questions is cost.  They can't afford to for a variety of different reasons.

[Jericoke]

Why aren't more American companies involved in the sport?  Why aren't successful teams from 'lesser' Formulae trying to move up?  Why aren't top brands sponsoring F1 teams/races?

I know that these are rhetorical questions, but I'll answer them anyway.  The answer to all those questions is cost.  They can't afford to for a variety of different reasons.

It's not rhetorical.  F1 needs to answer these questions.  With those answers in hand, the people who love racing will return to the sport.

For now, the people who love racing are at the dirt tracks on Friday nights, where they can race.