The issue with third cars in Formula 1

No sooner had this column last week disclosed that the question of third cars being made available by the major teams to customer squads would become a hot topic ahead of negotiations to extend the 2010-12 Concorde Agreement, than Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo alluded to the matter during the weekend's Ferrari World Finals event at Mugello.

"Finally, there's the issue of the third car which, mark my words, we support not so much for our own interests, but more for those of the sport [Formula 1] in general. We believe the interest of the fans, media and sponsors could increase if there is a bigger number of competitive cars on track rather than cars that are two or three seconds off the pace, being lapped after just a few laps," said the Italian, tipped by many to succeed Silvio Berlusconi now that the scandal-engulfed prime minister has agreed to stand down.

The concept of major teams selling kit to minnows is not novel, nor is it Ferrari's idea, having been around since the first world championship F1 race back in 1950. But for three years now the 64-year-old Bolognese - who masterminded Niki Lauda's first world title in 1975 - has been pushing for the rules to accommodate third cars.

Just as there are many ways of skinning a cat, so there are many ways of multiplying a (prancing) horse, with the primary consideration being one of principle: should third cars at all be permitted? Only in the case of an affirmative would decisions be taken about the modus operandi: whether these are run by the 'works', farmed out to contractors to run on behalf of the major team, sold/leased, or just made available to customers.

The possibilities are, in fact, endless, as teams could run third cars as 'B' teams under different commercial banners - as McLaren did back 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 cosmetic company's colours.

Until the early 1990s F1 entrants were permitted to dip in and out of the sport as they wished. Thus some of the smaller teams entered the sport with a single car - at times purchased from existing constructors - and tailored their campaigns according to the size of their wallets. That is precisely how Frank Williams entered the sport - twice, having gone bankrupt once. Then creeping professionalism led to increasingly stringent entry requirements, with teams not only required to construct their own cars, but also to enter two cars per grand prix, in every grand prix.

Di Montezemolo wants third cars brought back into Formula 1

Eventually these requirements became enshrined in the Concorde Agreement, the tripartite document which governs F1 by setting out the technical, sporting and commercial obligations of governing body (FIA), commercial rights holder (Bernie Ecclestone's companies) and the teams (currently 12) collectively. In fact, according to a source in the Concorde loop, Clause 4.2 (a) states 'each team shall be required during the term of this Agreement to participate with two cars in each event (grand prix)'.

In terms of the agreement, constructors must wholly own the intellectual property to their chassis and suspension designs. While manufacture of such componentry may be out-sourced, certain parts may not be procured from fellow constructors, thus ensuring each design is unique within the scope of extremely stringent regulations.

In other words, a Ferrari chassis must be totally different from, for example, a McLaren monocoque, despite both being designed to the same rules. Ditto suspension members, although proprietary items such as brakes may be bought in from specialists such as Bremo and AP, while powertrains (engine/transmission/KERS) are excluded.

But then the global financial crisis took its toll, resulting in a mass withdrawal of major manufacturers, their places taken by independents. Simultaneously the sport embraced the Resource Restriction Agreement, which limits the total number of heads employed by teams, the speed of wind-tunnels and the size of their bespoke models, computer capacity, levels of capital investment and even technical support at races - currently teams may deploy only 45 operational heads at races (plus two more where KERS is used).

Although the exact terms of the RRA are currently another contentious topic, the 'Big Four' are overcapitalised, while teams like HRT are underfunded and underequipped. Simultaneously the gaps between haves and have-nots are growing - to, as many (including di Montezemolo) believe, the detriment of Ecclestone's 'show'.

Intriguingly, Concorde does permit what are defined as 'additional cars', subject to entries falling below the 20-car mark (the 'Minimum Number'), subject to 60 days' notice being given to teams to enable them to prepare for the situation. However, currently 24 cars are being actively campaigned...

Toro Rosso is not alone in recieving technical support from a bigger team © LAT

To increase the competitiveness of minnows and to use its excess capacity, Ferrari has proposed it be permitted to campaign additional cars from 2013 onwards. In the meantime McLaren has adopted another tack: the British team entered into agreements with Force India and Virgin to develop technology that remains the property of the smaller squad, and to lease excess facilities, including simulators.

Red Bull provides support (within the Concorde) to sister team Toro Rosso, while Williams supplies HRT with 'back-end' technology. HRT also rents windtunnel and computational fluid dynamics expertise from Mercedes. In 2012 three manufacturer-owned engine companies will supply 10 teams, with Cosworth alone servicing two.

Not to be outdone, Renault (the F1 team) supplies hydraulics and gearbox technology to (Tony Fernandes-owned) Lotus - notwithstanding extended and thankfully now resolved litigation over the use of the name 'Lotus'.

Clearly Ferrari's proposal runs counter to Concorde as long as there are more than 20 cars on the grid, while McLaren, with its advantage of being in the UK and therefore close to many teams, has exploited a loophole that cannot be plugged until both Concorde and the RRA expire at the end of 2012. Thus it was no surprise to hear the comments of Martin Whitmarsh, team principal of McLaren, on the subject - made as this was written.

When the 2010-12 Concorde was agreed in August 2009, teams negotiated as a block via the Formula One Teams Association, founded at the behest of Ferrari president di Montezemolo specifically to provide a unified platform - enabling them to extract double revenues from Ecclestone and various regulatory concessions from the FIA.

But it is obviously in the best interests of Ecclestone to split FOTA, currently chaired by Whitmarsh. Prior to the current agreement Ecclestone, working with then-FIA president Max Mosley - his friend of 30 years - was able to 'divide and rule' teams by offering individual financial sweeteners, with Ferrari traditionally being the biggest beneficiary.

The current document forbids such pacts, further specifying that no individual deals may be cut unless all teams are offered equal terms, with a further proviso stating negotiations with individual teams may not commence before January 1 2012.

Whitmarsh is the FOTA chairman at present © LAT

One thing has, though, remained constant in recent times: FOTA's quest for more money and a subsequent flexing of its muscles. Ecclestone needs to prise open a split within FOTA, and knows Ferrari (as does the Scuderia) that it is vital to F1 - in other words, that a FOTA without the Italian team is badly wounded. In short, he who has Ferrari onside controls F1, as Ecclestone discovered to his (substantial) cost when di Montezemolo headed FOTA.

What better way for Ecclestone to split Ferrari from FOTA than by offering the Scuderia a deal: a kind of; 'sign the Concorde, and I will push for you to provide third cars under whatever banner' agreeent... Thus there would be eight major teams, with eight operations running third cars on behalf of or in conjunction with the majors - making 24 in total, as per the current grid, except that grids would be substantially tightened.

That way Ferrari gets to use spare capacity, while being able to offer the legendary brand to prospective sponsors; surely that is attractive to independents... In return Ecclestone gets Ferrari onside, simultaneously eroding McLaren's commercial advantage and wounding the British team and, by extension, substantially weakening Whitmarsh's chairmanship of FOTA.

There are, of course, major ramifications. For starters only four teams can be deemed to be in F1 for F1's sake - Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and Sauber - with all the rest effectively being offshoots of commercial entities. Yes, it may be said that Renault is a standalone team; it is, after all, owned by a venture-capital entity, rather than the manufacturer whose name it bears. It cannot be denied either that both Red Bull-supported teams are offshoots of the drinks company's marketing department.

Force India is nothing other than a promotional platform for India's Sahara Group and Vijay Mallya's Kingfisher corporation, while Marussia and Mercedes are on the grid to sell (road) cars as is the team that will become Caterham next year. Why HRT exists nobody really knows - possibly Friday's FIA media conference will shed a little light. Whatever, it is clear that teams will have to make way or become third car contractors or customers - either way it will be expensive for some.

Multi-car teams are not new; Mercedes ran four W196s at the 1955 British GP! © LAT

That said, Whitmarsh's comments drew attention to the volatility of the sport, particularly his statement that over 100 teams have disappeared in 50-odd years, ie two per year. At that rate F1 could in any event be down to 20 cars by the end of 2012...

The 'additional car' topic is thought to have been discussed during last week's meeting of the Formula 1 Commission - although a veil of secrecy has been thrown over discussion points bar for the name-change issue - and will no doubt be tabled again before Concorde negotiations commence in January.

If accepted, F1 will have come full-circle in half a century: exactly 50 years ago Giancarlo Baghetti drove a glorious 'shark-nose' to his debut victory in the 1961 French Grand Prix, with the works entries finishing nowhere. The car had been loaned by Ferrari, and beat a Porsche, two Lotuses and the Cooper of Bruce McLaren across the line. The last-named founded the team now opposed to the customer car deal - proving that the more things change in F1, the more they could stay the same.