Three-car F1 teams won't happen overnight

Having originally exposed the three-car concept back in November 2013, this writer firmly believes that grids comprising eight teams of three cars each is the end game planned for Formula 1 by Formula 1's commercial rights holder CVC Capital Partners - which seems utterly determined to squeeze the last drop out of its flagship investment.

However, the final objective is unlikely to be achieved overnight.

Instead Eight-3 is likely to be achieved by stealth, with first one or two teams fielding an extra car as struggling teams fall by the wayside, then three and so on until it's a case of mission accomplished. Thereafter six primary teams each supplying two cars to customer outfits is just a step away, but that is another story for another week...

In Singapore various team bosses spoke vaguely of three-car clauses in their respective commercial agreements with the commercial rights holder, with most agreeing that the trigger would be grids of "below 20 cars". However, how this would/could be achieved was left open to conjecture, with opinions about the desirability of third cars differing wildly.

Ferrari, for example, is known to favour third cars under certain circumstances - even if the Scuderia admits it has its hands full with two recalcitrant entries at present - while Toto Wolff of Mercedes seemed set against the concept, certainly with F1's current commercial structure, which is, of course, intended to be shrouded in mystery.

Wolff has made his position clear on the idea of three-car F1 teams © LAT

"I'm not a big fan of it; a third car means additional costs," he said during the Singapore GP weekend. "The way you can refinance it is not enough, so even for smaller teams it wouldn't be a profitable business case to put in a third car."

During a post-Singapore media phone-in McLaren Racing Director Eric Boullier stated: "I think the [third] driver is the easiest to get on board," before adding: "Regarding the chassis for the third car, the logistics and the people around, we will need at least six months' notice."

The Frenchman would, though, do well to analyse his team's commercial agreement with the CRH, for, assuming the clause is identical to those applied elsewhere, he is likely to discover it refers to Clause 4.2 (and four sub-clauses numbered a-d) of the 2009-2012 Concorde Agreement in the absence of a later tri-partite covenant.

Said clause calls on teams to enter third cars in the event that entries drop below 20 (defined as the minimum number), and that they would be required do so with "sufficient advance notice (not less than 60 days) [being] given in order for additional cars to be prepared [for a race]". Thus the CRH could, by rights, instruct selected teams to enter third cars as late as early January next year ahead of Melbourne's season opener on March 15.

Clause 4.2 also outlines compensation for third cars, namely 50 per cent of the travel and freight benefits enjoyed by qualifying teams for two cars, but with a crucial caveat:

No team which enters an additional car shall be entitled to any points in the [two FIA championships] arising out of the additional car's performance in any event, and any points which the additional car would have earned but for this provision shall be declared null and void and shall not be awarded to any other car or team in the same event. Thus points notionally scored by a third entry fall away completely.

True, this point could ultimately be changed, presumably only by unanimous agreement. However, there are obvious strategic and technical advantages to be gained by entering three cars where others have two - particularly in these times of restricted testing - so by rights those teams with the wherewithal to field triple entries should be falling over each other to do so.

There is absolutely no doubt that Mercedes, which has thus far exploited every single technical and strategic advantage, has (or could rapidly muster up) the resources, and therefore Wolff's comments in Singapore rang half-hollow. However, a little delving soon unearthed the reason the Austrian is averse to third cars.

Where 2013-2020 commercial agreements with teams individually (known in F1 Paddockspeak as "Bilaterals") differ from Concorde is in their trigger mechanism.

Red Bull, McLaren, Ferrari: F1's 'CCB' teams since February 2012 © LAT

Where the latter relied on revolving ballots (straw draws, if you like), Bilaterals give priority to so-called Constructors' Championship Bonus teams that complied with the definition* as at 15 February 2012, i.e. Red Bull Racing, Ferrari and McLaren. The significance of this date will become evident later.

[*CCB teams are the three qualifying constructor champions, whose position in a ranking of all 2012 signatory teams by reference to the number of races won in the last four most recent seasons [2008-11], completed prior to 15 February 2012, is between first and third, subject to each team giving the required [financial] commitment. They are required to have won the FIA Constructors Championship at least once prior to 15 February 2012, and competed continually without changing chassis name since 2012.]

Thus, should grids fall below 20 cars (i.e. the loss of two of F1's current 11 teams, or three should Haas F1 Team make the grade in 2016 as expected) during the validity period of the Bilaterals, then one of those teams, powered by Renault, Ferrari or Honda engines respectively in 2015, is expected to step into the breach.

Note: There would not be a single Mercedes-powered car among them despite its power unit being the class of the current grid, and thus no strategic or technical advantage to be gained by the Three Pointed Star, certainly not until/if three teams fall away. In that case F1 would already be on Eight-3, and thus all eight competing teams would have three cars.

This would not be at all critical were mechanisms in place that would enable Mercedes to be elevated to Constructors' Championship Bonus status on merit. However, the system allows for only three teams who individually fulfilled (rather nebulous) requirements (and made requisite financial commitments) as at 15 February 2012 - the date upon which teams were offered commercial terms effective 2013-2020.

Thus, at the very least one of three CCB teams would need to drop out before Mercedes could join this extremely select club, and even there no guarantees exist, for the replacement criteria include win counts in the four seasons prior to February 2012 without chassis name change - and Honda morphed into Brawn (which begat Mercedes) under exceptional circumstances. Indeed, the 2009-12 Concorde makes regular and repeated reference to this.

This highlights a major weakness in the CCB structure, for if, say, Ferrari enters a season-long drought - as it has variously during its illustrious history - and Mercedes wins every title for the foreseeable future (as well it could given its current technical superiority and regulatory freezes), then the reigning serial champion would sit on the Strategy Group, but derive no further benefits, while the Italian team would retain full CCB status.

Ditto Red Bull or McLaren - and it does not require recording how far McLaren has fallen since February 2012 - which, along with Ferrari, earn substantial annual bonuses.

These vary from team to team, but according to sources Ferrari last year earned £60m in CCB bonuses, with RBR and McLaren on £50m/£22m respectively. Any wonder Wolff believes it would not constitute a "profitable business case to put in a third car"?

Smaller teams would gain very little from adding third cars © LAT

And, if it makes no sense for a manufacturer-backed team such as Mercedes to enter a third car, what about Williams or Sauber - the only true independent teams that exist purely to go Formula 1 racing? In the end they would receive no additional remuneration save for a 50 per cent increase in travel/freight benefits on flyaway events only.

Another weakness is that the three-car trick is predicated upon the belief that third parties such as engine and tyre suppliers - who do not necessarily hold contracts with the CRH - are willing to supply additional hardware at substantial cost, but without the benefit of points or championship advantage.

Why should, for example, Renault, go beyond its contractual commitment of providing Red Bull with a two-car engine supply simply because the CRH has managed to squeeze the lifeblood out of a backmarker team running a 'foreign' power unit? Denying that third power unit any championship chances simply adds insult to injury.

This is not so much a rant against third cars - in the past this writer has expressed his opinion sufficiently strongly - but further proof the CCB concept, not even at the end of its second season of eight, is utterly flawed and in dire need of a root-and-branch overhaul.

To deny a team such as Mercedes (and other high achievers) all chance of premier status while CCB teams are able to consistently languish well below it is ridiculous in the extreme, and hardly conducive to a level sporting playing field. If Mercedes finds itself disadvantaged despite its commercial and political clout, then consider the plight of the rest, bar, of course, the three CCBs.

But, of course, the teams individually signed up to all the clauses contained within the Bilaterals, so in the final analysis they have but themselves to blame. Certainly, that is the CRH's argument.