One Car Teams

Hi All,

First thread for me! Basically my question to you all is do you think the rules banning 1 car teams should be removed and if so which teams would benefit from this move and would it encourage an influx of new teams into the sport due to reduced cost?

Personally I think HRT would benefit massively from this and I think Virgin would have done last year.

(If this has been posted before then I apologise and please merge me etc etc).
 

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
I would imagine that the car development, staff and logistical costs involved in getting to the grid in the first place would mean the difference between running one or two cars would be relatively small in comparison. Remember HRT probably profit from having a pay driver and, you have twice the chance of seeing the chequered flag.
 

RasputinLives

Leave me alone I'm on Smoko
Contributor
The last teams to run 1 car for the season were Osella and Coloni. Coloni didn't manage to qualify for one race and whilst Osella got 9 races in that season they failed to register for the 1991 season.

I don't see why there is a rule inforcing a 2 car entry. I don't see why there is a rule limiting the number of entrants either. I say if you can afford to bring an F1 car to a meeting then you should be allowed to. Obviously the limited on people starting the race would still be 26 so it'd have to be a good enough car to get through pre-qualifying and qualifying to be in the race as well as meeting all the safety standards but for the life of me I don't understand why there is a ban on this. If a GP2 team wants to try F1 out so decide they want to enter a car into the Monoco GP then let them - as long as they meet the regs I don't see what harm this could do.

Am I alone in this? The more the merrier. Yes the majority will prob not be up to scratch and get beat by the main competition but think of all the great priverteers we might get from this - along with drivers starting their own teams in the tradition of Mclaren and Brabham.
 

teabagyokel

#dejavu
Valued Member
Even if there's limited entrants, it would be easier for the likes of HRT, USF1, Stefan F1, Super Aguri, Minardi, Jordan etc. to run one car. I sometimes feel Toro Rosso would like to too.

So, 2011's entry list could look like this:

1 Red Bull
2 Red Bull
3 McLaren
4 McLaren
5 Ferrari
6 Ferrari
7 Mercedes
8 Mercedes
9 Renault
10 Renault
11 Williams
12 Williams
14 Force India
15 Force India
16 Sauber
17 Sauber
18 Toro Rosso
19 Lotus
20 Lotus
21 HRT
22 Virgin
23 USF1
24 Stefan F1
25 European Minardi
26 Prodrive
27 Villeneuve Racing
 

sobriety

Pole Sitter
But what about development, in motogp the Suzuki team were forced by financial constraints to ony run bike, this put them at a disadvantage due to only being able to gather half as much data as the other teams, a one car team in F1 would find it very hard to catch up, and well off three car teams would increase the defecit further with each race, especially with restricted/banned in season testing.
 

RasputinLives

Leave me alone I'm on Smoko
Contributor
I was thinking a limit to 2 car entry - I don't like the idea of 3 cars - makes it easier for one team to just run away with it.

But if someone is putting a team together and has enough money to put a car that passes all safety standards with a driver who qualifies for a super licence into a race then why not let them? As long as you keep the 26 cars to start and the 107% rule then I don't see what the issue is. Surely a team is more likely to pick up sponsorship after proving it can get in an F1 race rather than searching for it to bring up costs for a whole season entry. Obviously teams entering for the whole season will get a discount for doing so - that way insuring that all the main teams run in all the races.

I'd love to see one of the GP2 teams think 'right GP2 season over, lets builds us an F1 car and see if we're capable of making the upgrade' - bunging an entry into somewhere like Singapore and seeing if they can qualify the car. If they don't then go back to the GP2 - if they do they'll prob pick up sponsorship and valuable F1 experience if they wanted to make the step up.

Maybe I'm an idealist.

As for Quali. I'd say up it 4 sessions. Top 16 in the last race quali automatically and wouldn't come in until Q2 - Q1 would be for the rest with the top 10 making it through.
 

KekeTheKing

Banned
Supporter
There is a 1 car team by de facto right now. They run two identically liveried vehicles, but by the end of the race you've got a sneaking suspicion that they've completely forgotten about one of them.

(Said only partially in jest)
 

TN23

Rookie
There is a 1 car team by de facto right now. They run two identically liveried vehicles, but by the end of the race you've got a sneaking suspicion that they've completely forgotten about one of them.

(Said only partially in jest)

McLaren just keep on stifling Lewis... *cough* poor conspiracy theory *cough*
 

AlexM

Podium Finisher
Contributor
I think the rule should be removed and they allow customer chassis again, that would save money and also allow for a few surprises.
 
I think it's a good idea to give GP2 teams a chance (if they want to and are up to scratch) at F1. Maybe only 4-5 races during the season (during the Europe races to cut costs?). Customer chassis wouldnt be a bad idea either (although Dallara could come up with something?). A pre-qualifying system could be used (and televised) to eke out the cars that are not quite quick enough to compete and add an extra dimension to the grid.

I also think from a technical standpoint it will encourage greater creativity and the cars will be more diverse. On top of that more drivers will get a chance to race, so maybe the likes of Hulkenberg and Chandhok will be back where they belong.
 

RasputinLives

Leave me alone I'm on Smoko
Contributor
hmmm - I've never been keen on 'customer' chassis because I always thought it led to basicaly bigger teams - we already ahve the situation where the Toro Rosso's jump out of the way of the Red Bulls as soon as they see them - and the Saubers the Ferrari's which I think goes against good sportsmanship.

I've always thought that the FIA should design and build a basic chassie that fits with all the regs for the coming season and let all the teams have it for a few weeks - then the teams could choose whether to buy the chassie from the FIA and then work on improvements for it or whether to just build their own chassie from scratch. Would mean the field would be far closer and would even save some of the poorer teams money.
 

Galahad

Not a Moderator
Valued Member
I agree with Grizzly, I think the core cost is in the original design and build - the marginal cost of the second chassis (with accidents and crash testing you're probably going to need more than one anyway) is much less. Plus you get double the sponsorship exposure, particularly useful in case your driver is involved in a first lap accident etc., and you can sell the second seat to the highest bidder.

I'm in general in favour of things staying as they are - 2 car teams, each with a unique car design. F1 should be about aspiring to the best rather than levelling down for the worst.
 

cider_and_toast

Exulted Lord High Moderator of the Apex
Staff Member
Premium Contributor
I think running single car teams is the perfect way to increase the size of F1 by getting fresh blood into the sport.

The trouble is not how many cars teams can run though, the trouble is now, F1 is a franchise sport. In the good old days (correct me if I'm wrong) you could virtually pitch up to a race, present a car at scrutineering and if it passed it was on you go. There have been plenty of teams chucked out for being nothing more than a mobile road block with Andrea Moda springing to mind here so there has to be some sort of performance rule like we have with the 107%.
 
I agree with Grizzly, I think the core cost is in the original design and build - the marginal cost of the second chassis (with accidents and crash testing you're probably going to need more than one anyway) is much less. Plus you get double the sponsorship exposure, particularly useful in case your driver is involved in a first lap accident etc., and you can sell the second seat to the highest bidder.

Doesn't a new team (brand new) have to buy their grid slot from the FIA for a ridiculous amount? $40 million or something?
Possibly a way of reducing costs would be to cut that in half?

I understand your point in not wanting to encourage mediocrity Galahad (especially with HRT and Virgin), I just fear that we will get stuck in a rut where the only time we see a new team in F1 is when an existing team is bought out or a manufacturer such as Volkswagen create their own team. I want to see teams like ART and DAMS be encouraged to take a step up. It's a problem if the likes of Renault pull out for example (and Genii dont want to continue) and Mercedes lose interest a la BMW.
 

Galahad

Not a Moderator
Valued Member
Doesn't a new team (brand new) have to buy their grid slot from the FIA for a ridiculous amount? $40 million or something?
Possibly a way of reducing costs would be to cut that in half?

I understand your point in not wanting to encourage mediocrity Galahad (especially with HRT and Virgin), I just fear that we will get stuck in a rut where the only time we see a new team in F1 is when an existing team is bought out or a manufacturer such as Volkswagen create their own team. I want to see teams like ART and DAMS be encouraged to take a step up. It's a problem if the likes of Renault pull out for example (and Genii dont want to continue) and Mercedes lose interest a la BMW.

I certainly agree with getting rid of the entry bond, or reducing it to a more appropriate level.

As for the grid size, though, 26 is effectively the maximum since at Monaco there aren't enough garages for more. So if you allow in more than 13 teams, you need to introduce a new version of pre-qualifying, which these days has all sorts of implications for tyre, engine and gearbox allocations and so on. The team(s) that consistently fail to get through pre-Q will have a very short life expectancy since their sponsors will get virtually zero coverage - effectively all the mechanisms conspire to ensure that the grid stays roughly at its current level.

If VW or another manufacturer want to come in, they are more likely these days to partner up with an existing team than try to do it on their own from scratch. Likewise if an existing team comes up for sale, in general there are willing buyers out there, as we have seen with Minardi and Jordan (repeatedly). Or you can simply hold a selection process for a replacement, preferably a process improved over the one used to select HRT and Virgin.
 

siffert_fan

Too old to watch the Asian races live.
Contributor
I like the idea of 1 car teams. Lotus got its first F1 win via privateer Rob Walker's entry of Sir Stirling. Williams started off running a customer Brabham for Piers Courage. Hesketh brought Hunt into F1 to drive a modified March. McLaren started as a one-car effort for Bruce himself. Tyrrell started as a single-car entry with a Matra-Ford for JYS.

I am, however, not sure that it is practical today. In the heyday of the Cosworth DFV, it was relatively easy to be competetive, as having that engine and a Hewland gearbox gave you a drivetrain equal to the best. I can't see that being the case today, but I can always dream.
 

sportsman

Sidecar racers have the biggest cojones
Contributor
The entry fee for the entire season is all that the teams have to pay.The idemnity bond no longer applies.
http://www.statsf1.com/reglement/sportif.pdf We declare that we have examined this Entry Form and that the information given is true, correct and complete
and we undertake to pay the entry fee of €309,000 (three hundred and nine thousand Euros) (as may be
amended in accordance with The 2009 Concorde Agreement) to the FIA no later than 1 November of the year
prior to the year to which this application relates. We understand and agree that any changes must be notified to
the FIA in writing within 7 days of such change to allow reappraisal of the entry in accordance with the provisions
of The 2009 Concorde Agreement.
 
Top Bottom