Three is a Magic Number

Since the Concorde Agreement was originally signed in 1981, Formula One teams have been restricted to running a maximum of two cars in each race. Thirty years on however, the wisdom of this ruling has been thrown into question – the possibility of third cars is back on the agenda. Whilst proponents of this idea, principally Ferrari, believe third cars would be a great way of bulking out the grid numbers as well as giving young drivers an invaluable opportunity to gain race experience, there are concerns that they would be to the detriment of the smaller teams.

For teams with the resources (i.e. Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull and Mercedes), having third cars seems like a no-brainer. Not only would it give them the opportunity to try out up-and-coming youngsters in competitive machinery, a particularly useful thing for those with extensive young driver schemes such as Red Bull, but having a third car could act as a useful marketing tool if they were permitted to display different sponsors on it to those that appear on the two main cars. Spectators would also be able to enjoy more competitive races up front as there would be more cars theoretically in contention for the win, whilst more cars on track would naturally provide more variables besides.

Of course, the third car would not be eligible to score constructors points for the team, and there would have to be restrictions on who could drive the third car – perhaps only drivers with less than a season’s worth of experience under their belts, or drivers under a certain age. Another interesting rule could be that the teams would have to (or at least takes turn to) give a seat to a local driver, which would surely boost interest in the Eastern markets as well as the US venues of Austin and New Jersey that F1 is set to visit over the course of the next two seasons.

Third cars would also go some way to solving the increasing problem of having too many drivers for too few F1 seats. With Kimi Raikkonen and Nico Hulkenberg widely expected to be confirmed as Williams and Force India drivers for 2012 respectively in the near future, Adrian Sutil looks as if he may end up on the sidelines next season despite his solid performances this year, whilst Bruno Senna looks as if he will be usurped by GP2 champion Romain Grosjean next season as Renault continues to await the return of Robert Kubica. Furthermore, the seats of Sebastien Buemi and Jerome D’Ambrosio are looking decidedly under threat from Daniel Ricciardo and Charles Pic, not to mention drivers such as Jules Bianchi, Giedo Van Der Garde and Robert Wickens who have all arguably done enough to merit a drive that they’re unlikely to get. Perhaps Rubens Barrichello would also reach that incredible milestone of a twentieth consecutive season as a full-time F1 driver if there was more breathing space in the hotly contested driver market as a result of third cars.

Despite these obvious advantages however, not everyone is in favour of third cars. The obvious fear is that, in the age of near-perfect reliability, the top twelve cars would have a monopoly on points that would make it impossible for some of the midfield teams to survive, let alone those right at the tail of the field. Some advocate selling customer cars to these teams, creating a situation similar to that of MotoGP at present whereby four constructors supply bikes to the entire grid, but purists argue that to take that particular course of action would be to deny F1 its very essence as a championship that stipulates each and every entrant is responsible for the design and creation of its own chassis.   

There is indeed much debate as to the extent to which technical partnerships such as those between McLaren and Force India or Williams and Hispania are legal. Supplying engines is one thing, even if there are currently fewer engine manufacturers than at any point since 1980, but the fear in some quarters is that outfits such as Hispania will ultimately become little more than glorified customer teams that own almost none of the intellectual property contained within the cars they race. Bear in mind the less-than-ideal economic climate in which F1 is forced to operate however, and there is certainly an argument to say that the Hispanias and Virgins of this world would be best placed to operate third cars on the behalf of the larger teams.

Perhaps that would be the best compromise – imagine Timo Glock, a man, lest we forget, who was scoring podium finishes for Toyota just two years ago, in with a fighting chance of points with his Virgin-McLaren. With Lotus on the cusp of latching on to the back of the midfield pack pace-wise, the spread between the fastest and slowest cars on the grid would be significantly reduced, whilst the fact that the big teams’ third cars wouldn’t be ran from under the same roof would avoid a situation that would give Renault, Force India, Sauber, Toro Rosso and Williams next-to-no chance of a top-ten finish.  Another option could be to allow the four big teams to run third cars on rotation, giving the nominated third driver at each team the chance to contest five grand prix in order to prove their worthiness of a full-time seat.

So, what is the most likely outcome of this entire furore? Bernie Ecclestone is already on the record as saying third cars are ‘unlikely’ to become a reality, in spite of the insistence of Ferrari and its president Luca Di Montezemelo in favour of them. McLaren team Principal Martin Whitmarsh is also known to be against the idea, preferring instead to look at solutions to try and make the smaller constructors more competitive. Nonetheless, Ecclestone has mooted third cars as a possibility if grid numbers dwindle below the twenty mark, but there was no apparent shortage of interest in the thirteenth grid slot when the FIA invited applicants (only to reject all of them of course) last year, meaning that isn’t an especially probable scenario.

Next weekend brings the final round of the season at Interlagos, so ensure you check back here in a week’s time for a run-down of all the action.