Three-car teams back on F1's agenda

Has Formula 1's Strategy Group, which met just once on October 21 and has its second get-together on November 29 immediately ahead of the first and only Formula One Commission meeting of the year, shelved plans for the so-called Customer Car Concept (CCC)?

According to sources, a straw poll was taken during a Friday lunchtime meeting at Austin last week. The vote went against the 'CCC', a proposal whereby five major teams would supply five 'B' teams with two cars each, plus, of course, associated technology and support to deliver 20-car grids.

This column broke the news back in March and little wonder there was enormous opposition, for not only does the customer car idea go totally against F1's DNA, but its implementation would result in one team disappearing and five others being forced to totally downgrade their facilities to little more than repair shops.

In the process they would be obliged to close windtunnels, CFD departments and production/fabrication divisions, collectively laying off thousands of highly qualified engineers and other professionals.

Not only is such drastic action utterly immoral, but certainly no way to treat loyal and dedicated staff members, many of whom sacrificed personal lives to serve the sport they love.

The reasons advanced for the customer car plan are manifold, ranging from sustainability and affordability, on the basis that development and manufacturing costs can be spread over two teams rather than a single entity, to suggestions that the quality of grids would increase by featuring four frontrunning cars rather than, say, two Red Bulls and two Caterhams.

The pro faction overlooks, of course, that an exit by any major team would immediately reduce the grid by four cars, leading to dangers of a one-two-three-four by a single design, while 'B' teams fear they would be reduced to tyre-testing and rookie-filled lackeys dictated by their suppliers. "Do as we say, or no deal for our SuperDuper F1 chassis/engine..." is how one team boss described the danger.

Toro Rosso began life as effectively a customer offshoot of Red Bull © XPB

Finally, customer teams are concerned they would have no unique selling point for sponsors through being relegated to little more than customers - factories are a major sponsor draw - compounded by scoring no constructors' championship points to brag of.

Plus, of course, some or other customer team would be forced to accept the fifth-best car, for each major would supply only one customer...

Thus the customer proposal faces much opposition across the board including, allegedly, tacit threats that complaints could be registered with the EU Commission for abuse of monopolistic power.

So an alternative has been sought, with 'CCC' replaced by 'Eight-3', an equally radical concept that sees F1's entry list culled to eight teams, each entering three cars.

The real reason F1 tsar Bernie Ecclestone and his Strategy Group pushed so hard for the customer-car plan is none other than money. His pet majors would enjoy additional income streams, while the pesky independents would have lower operating costs (plus be easier to replace, should one or more disappear, due to lowered costs of entry), with racing (in theory) being closer due to reduced performance spread.

This would, in turn, allow commercial rights holder Formula One Management - headed by Ecclestone and a subsidiary of CVC Capital Partners, the venture fund which acquired majority shares in 2005 under a contentious transaction - to reduce payouts to teams, bolstering the fund's profits even further.

To put that in perspective, for the 2012 financial year CVC banked over £550 million, money that should have remained within the sport, for the sport. Against that background it's little wonder that an entity such as CVC, which restructures companies on a regular basis, may care little for heads lost in the process.

HRT showed how hard it is for small teams to progress in F1 © LAT

However, with the CCC idea now effectively endangered, if not already dead in the water, CVC needs an alternative strategy if it's to keep voracious shareholders sweet.

By the nature of such transactions - structured on a quick in, quick out basis - every passing year sees the initial investment lose gloss, particularly as F1's planned IPO on Singapore's stock exchange has, as predicted, been aborted due to the controversies surrounding F1, not least a raft of legal actions against Ecclestone and others on both sides of the Atlantic.

Thus Ecclestone sought an alternative concept to keep his taskmasters happy while simultaneously keeping the major teams onside and the cash flowing (even if, by sane thinking, in the wrong direction), and thus dusted off Ferrari boss Luca di Montezemolo's 2011 concept of each team running three cars.

But there exists a slight difference: where the aristocratic Italian pushed for majors only to enter third cars, the revised concept has eight teams running three each, thus providing 24-car grids - two more than at present and the sort of levels F1 has long aimed for.

The Eight-3 concept holds numerous advantages over CCC in that all teams have equal chances - whereas under the previous proposal customers would have little possibility of winning races - while any hegemony would be restricted to three cars maximum, as opposed to four.

Then, teams could continue designing, developing and constructing cars in their existing facilities, in turn spreading the cost over a 50 per cent larger base, while sponsors could be offered space on up to three cars, each conceivably running different sponsors within the same overall team livery.

David Hobbs races the Yardley McLaren at Monza in 1974 © LAT

There are other suggestions, including third cars being reserved for bona fide rookies or wildcard entries, running unique colours much as McLaren did in 1974, when the team found itself in a sticky situation by virtue of having two title sponsors (Marlboro and Yardley), so ran two cars disguised as a fag packet and one under the cosmetics company's livery.

However, for the concept to work three outfits would need to disappear, whether by attrition (two team owners are said to be considering their involvements) or hook and crook, with rumours abounding of Marussia and Caterham, neither of which scored a single point in F1 since joining the fray four years ago under circumstances initially proposed by ex-FIA president Max Mosley, being forced into merger talks with larger teams.

One of the four teams attracted by Mosley's budget concept was stillborn (USF1), another (HRT) staggered before folding, while Caterham and Marussia have yet to finish in the top 10 after a combined 300 starts, so, frankly, one wonders why they continue against the odds under a system stacked against them, and possibly Eight-3 will allow them to merge with dignity while saving their owners further fortunes...

The rumour mill links Marussia to Williams, while Caterham is believed to have held merger discussions with Lotus plus AN Other (or even two), and a source suggests the first announcement could be made as early as next week.

Two (potentially) down; one to go, and here Toro Rosso is the prime candidate, for the team was acquired by Red Bull as technical and sporting nursery for its main operation, and under the three-car system costs are spread over a larger base while enabling teams to accommodate rookies. Thus no real need for STR.

Considerably fewer heads would be lost in the process of implementing Eight-3 than CCC; the demise of one team would result in the loss of three cars out of 24 rather than four in 20; teams would have 50 per cent more real estate to sell on cars; and wildcard/rookie entries could attract driver-specific sponsors, enabling teams to attract experienced drivers and train rookies.

Caterham has been tipped for a merger with Lotus © XPB

True, the ideal situation would see F1 populated by 12 or even 13 fully-funded teams, each entering two cars of their own design, but that is dreamland, particularly given the current global economic situation and CVC's exploitation of a sport it simply does not understand, nor care much for save for its proceeds.

Ironically, in the British High Court this week, while testifying in favour of Ecclestone and the deal that saw the fund acquire the sport's commercial rights, CVC head honcho Donald Mackenzie implied its intervention had saved the sport from itself.

Well, sir, never before have matters been more perilous - as you would be in a position to judge first-hand were you in the paddock more regularly, rather than popping in and out of the Monaco Grand Prix...

Ecclestone is believed to now be pushing for Eight-3, for FOM would save considerable sums through paying out its 'Bernie Money' to eight rather than 10 teams, while freight and air travel subsidies and contributions paid by the commercial rights holder to cover teams' flyaway race costs could be reduced by around 30 per cent - again to the overall benefit of CVC.

Ultimately Eight-3 is a compromise, but it's a far superior solution to the issue of endangered teams and dwindling grids than CCC was, even if it needs finetuning.

Its major advantage is that the majority of teams are in favour - resulting in quicker resolution - while fans would see eight designs contest the championship, rather than five. Plus, there is every chance the sharp end will feature six cars of similar performance rather than four.

Will Eight-3 come to pass? It is about the only realistic solution facing F1 at present, and thus has a greater chance than CCC, for which the entire sport should be truly thankful...