Does F1's grid size matter?

It only takes two cars to make a race. Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg have proved that numerous times in 2014.

So from a sporting perspective, does the fact that just 18 cars will be on the grid for Sunday's United States Grand Prix, thanks to Caterham and Marussia both missing the trip to Austin, really weaken the spectacle of an Formula 1 race?

Setting aside the very legitimate financial problems that this situation is a symptom of and focusing purely on the on-track product, the most obvious consequence is that the number of cars has been reduced by 18 per cent. By definition, that means there is less to watch.

Certainly, that has an impact on those trackside, particularly those hoping to see home hero Alexander Rossi make his F1 debut for Marussia. But, in fairness, you'd imagine that few of those ticket sales were motivated by the expectation of seeing him on the grid on Sunday.

Sometimes a two-car battle at the front is enough to make a race exciting © LAT

For those watching on TV, the impact will be lessened. The grid will look noticeably thinner at the start, and 18 cars does feel like a slender field when you watch a close up shot of the whole field pouring through the first corner.

Beyond that, the impact will be limited, but given that the start is arguably the focal point of the race, that is enough to damage the spectacle.

It's demonstrably the case that there is a disproportionate interest in the front of the grid. At AUTOSPORT we just need to look at the number of people who read the average news story about a small team compared to a big one to see that.

This is far from exclusive to F1. After all, the majority of coverage of football in the UK and, indeed, most countries is always devoted to the big clubs. A disinterested football fan would have more interest in watching or reading about Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool or Arsenal rather than West Brom or Crystal Palace.

The same could be said of any sport. The majority (yes, there are some exceptions, but they are a minority) are interested almost exclusively in the big names.

From that perspective, the scrap for the championship at the front, the question of whether Daniel Ricciardo can pull off a fourth surprise win of the year and Ferrari's struggles would always have attracted far more attention than what was going on at the back.

Perversely, there will likely be far more coverage devoted to the two absent teams than there would have been had they actually been racing during the US GP weekend.

And should three-car teams come to pass - a scenario that there are many arguments against - you can guarantee that there would be more interest in the extra top team cars than there would have been in those plugging away at the back of the field.

But that is not necessarily a good thing in the long-term. Giantkilling acts are part of the appeal of any sport. Were Mercedes to have had three entries this year, it's possible that the three races it has not won so far might also have fallen to it, creating a silverwash not desirable outside of Brackley, Brixworth or Stuttgart.

It's worth noting that a smaller grid with the two slowest teams removed is very different to one shorn of a couple of big outfits. This does underline the fact that quality is ultimately more important than quantity. But only to a point. After all, the six-car US GP of 2005, comprising a couple of Ferraris and the Jordan and Minardi teams stands as one of the most catastrophic faragos in F1 history.

The number usually given as the minimum (certainly in the commercial agreements) is 20. That seems a sensible basement number. It would be good to have the full 26 (and, actually, every track with perhaps the exception of Monaco could easily start more cars were the teams to exist to field them), but it would be a mistake to assume that it has always been the norm.

Grid sizes, or to be more representative entry levels, have ebbed and flowed over the years. There have been times where over 30 cars have started world championship races (the record is 34 on the grid for the 1953 German GP, run to F2 regulations).

Conversely, a combination of the cost of travelling to Argentina for the 1958 season opener and a change in fuel regulations meant that only 10 cars were entered for that race. That remains the record low.

F1 entries peaked in 1989, with an average of nearly 39 cars per race! © LAT

But those are outliers created by extraordinary circumstances. Discounting the points-paying Indianapolis 500s of 1950-1960, which had little to do with grand prix racing, the average number of cars entered for the 903 world championship races held is 24.3.

The average number of cars making the grid during that period is 22.6. This discrepancy is explained by the fact that there have been times when either through an abundance of entries, or a lack of pace, all entries have not been able to start. There have only been 29 races where more than 26 cars have been allowed to start.

But is there any correlation between number of cars entered and the quality of the season? This is difficult to measure because there is no metric for measuring how great a season is.

Here's how F1's average number of race entries has ebbed and flowed since the world championship was inaugurated in 1950.

If a small number of entries equates to a poor season, then it's bad news for Jackie Stewart's title win for Matra in 1969 (average of 16.09 entries) and Denny Hulme's triumph in 1967 (18.09 entries).

But it would be very positive for 1988-1992, the five seasons when the average number of entries peaked. In 1989, the average number of cars entered was an astonishing 38.81!

There's a good chance you'll look back on that period very fondly. Personally, that is seen as a time when the foundation for the love of F1 was being built, but it's worth bearing in mind that not one of those seasons produced a championship fight that went down to the last race.

That said, it did produce two iconic Alain Prost v Ayrton Senna clashes that decided the '89 and '90 titles at Suzuka. But it also encompasses an '88 season during which McLaren won 15 out of 16 races and a '92 campaign when Nigel Mansell was crowned in mid-summer.

While the size of the grid might not correlate to great sporting drama, there is romanticism about the minnows and they do quite rightly have their place on the grid.

After all, those working for them put in just as much effort, perhaps even more, than those working for the big teams and when you consider their relative pace to the front, they produce what are pound for pound still good cars.

While it would be ideal to have a packed grid of 13 two-car teams (having non-qualifiers, while entertaining, is probably unsustainable as the same outfits would struggle week in, week out), it does F1 no credit to have fly-by-night outfits like the infamous Andrea Moda squad of '92.

The existence of the 107 per cent qualifying regulation should prevent such operations, but it is perfectly reasonable of the FIA to hold teams to strict criteria before allowing them in.

Six-car US GP at Indianapolis in 2005 was a farce for Formula 1 © XPB

That not only protects the integrity of F1, but it reduces the chances of rank and file staff (on 'normal' wages and with families to feed and mortgages to pay) having their lives ruined by joining a squad that is shortlived.

It's also worth stressing that there are financial implications for companies outside of F1 teams. The UK in particular houses countless specialist engineering companies that supply items to teams and, in recent times, too many of them have been victims of teams paying desperately slowly.

These are companies that might be fundamentally solvent, but whose futures are jeopardised by F1 teams not paying in a timely fashion. There are examples of companies who have had to be bailed out by bigger teams using the same services actually paying early to keep them afloat.

The bottom line is that, for the ideal spectacle and to give enough drivers the opportunity to break in, it would only be positive to have 13 well-run operations.

Some involved might disagree with that, for sharing money between 10 teams leaves them all better off, but F1 can't count on companies like Red Bull being involved in grand prix racing forever and there's always the risk of teams shutting down.

Given that, it make sense to have a few teams in reserve to ensure the grid doesn't drop below 20.

Some would be wealthier than others, the big teams would still be at the front and the minnows at the back, but F1 makes enough money to make such a set-up perfectly sustainable. It's just that not enough is going to those actually putting on a show.

Spectacle is a big part of F1. While those at the back don't get much airtime, they are contributing to the show and should be looked after.

As Austin will prove, F1 will miss them when they are gone.

Thanks to Joao Paulo Cunha of FORIX for compiling the statistics