Should we take Alfa Romeo seriously?

There must be something in the water at the Brussels HQ of the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA): first, rumours that Audi would enter Formula 1 refuse to die, then Renault returned to the arena it left in shame in 2009, now Alfa Romeo's return is all the rage.

All this against a background of mass withdrawals towards the end of the last decade: Honda departed the scene at end-2008 - leaving the project to Ross Brawn and his merry men, who promptly won both 2009 titles with Mercedes power - while BMW, Toyota and Renault exited in quick succession, although last-named remained as engine supplier. Jaguar had, of course, exited in 2004 after just five years in F1.

While most blamed the global economic crisis for their departures, resounding lacks of success and embarrassment surely played their parts: Toyota failed to win a single grand prix in nine years of trying; BMW's single victory was rather more fortuitous than fought-for. Renault was shamed by the 2008 Singapore GP crash scandal, with its only other win in three years being down to Fernando Alonso's mastery at Fuji.

Honda? After just two wins (during the sixties) in its own right, it returned in the early noughties, scoring a lone victory at a teeming Hungaroring in 2006 - more due to Jenson Button's sublime wet-weather skills than inherent performance. Not good odds for manufacturers given their overwhelming technical and financial resources, then.

Indeed, browsing through Autosport's excellent Forix resource reveals a list of over 160 makes/teams have that contested the F1 world championship since its 1950 inception. True, some are post-WWII home-built specials or Indianapolis entries that feature due to a strange dispensation that meant the classic 500 was included in the championship. However, around 110 makes are recognised entities.

Of these, just nine are major motor manufacturers - excluding such as Caterham, Ferrari, Lotus, Maserati and McLaren, who are hardly mainstream car companies - including Alfa Romeo and Renault. Of these, just two won constructors' world championships in their own rights: Renault (2005/6), and Mercedes (2014/5).

However, the list of title-winning manufacturers to partner teams is rather longer: In addition to the two revealed above, Ford and Honda loom large, with McLaren's eighties TAG project being a Porsche V6 engine paid for by Saudi Arabian money. Mention must be made, too, of BMW, which won the 1983 driver's crown with Brabham/Nelson Piquet, but yielded to Ferrari in the constructors'.

Saliently, a common factor between Renault and Mercedes is that both adopted left-field approaches by appointing entrepreneurs to manage their operations at arms' length: Flavio Briatore at Renault, and Toto Wolff at Mercedes, surely the key to their successes, even if the former took the term "entrepreneurial" a touch too literally in Singapore in 2008.

Ford, though, provides historic lessons in how not to leverage F1: while sixties and seventies fans were left in no doubt that the Blue Oval powered Jim Clark, Graham Hill, Jackie Stewart, Jochen Rindt and Emerson Fittipaldi to success with Lotus/Matra/Tyrrell, who recalls that Michael Schumacher's first title with Benetton in 1994 was won courtesy of Blue Oval power?

Yet, the minute the Ford entered F1 in its own right in 2000 via its (then-owned) Jaguar brand - through the acquisition of Stewart Grand Prix, whose start-up Ford had largely funded - things went pear-shaped, despite Stewart having finished fourth in the constructors' points in its third and final season. Indeed, the operation was sold to the entrepreneurial Red Bull boss Diedrich Mateschitz, who won four titles on the trot with Renault power.

Ford showed how not to do it with disappointing Jaguar F1 effort © LAT

There is a lesson in this partnership, too: having reaped success through engine supply deals with both Williams and Benetton, Renault then myopically permitted Red Bull Racing to enter into a title partnership with alliance partner Infiniti, yet when things went horribly wrong after the sport switched to hybrid power, Renault took the flak.

For 2016 Red Bull's Renault power unit will be badged "TAG-Heuer" - memories of Porsche's programme - and could well win races in 2016.

All this suggests that motor manufacturers are better equipped to operate in F1 as engine suppliers rather than functioning as team owners. Particularly as they could - if properly leveraged - reap the full benefits of a successful partnership but avoid the dingbats when things goes wrong, as invariably they do at times in F1.

The major issue is, though, that commercial rights holder Formula One Management barely recognises the contributions of engine suppliers, and a case could be made that its treatment of these vital partners is such that F1 deserves to have no engine suppliers at all.

Alternately, a case could be made that F1 is best avoided by motor manufacturers, certainly if market success is the motivation. Of the world's top-selling motor manufacturers in 2014 (the last year for which full passenger car sales figures are currently available) - Toyota, Volkswagen Group, General Motors, Renault-Nissan Alliance and Hyundai-KIA - only Renault has F1 form.

Even that inclusion is shaky, for fully two-thirds of the alliance's global sales were contributed by its Japanese partner, which has absolutely zero record in world motorsport's top echelon. Indeed, of the rest, only Toyota contested F1 (poorly at that), yet it consistently stars as #1 and is expected to retain the top slot for the foreseeable future.

When it comes to sporty image, Mercedes' market peers Audi, BMW, Jaguar and Lexus give it a healthy run for its AMG money - even outperforming the company in sectors - yet they either have no F1 history (Audi and Lexus) or unspectacular campaigns to their names (BMW, Jaguar). A lesson must surely lurk in there, somewhere.

Renault is back, but it knows success will not be instant © XPB

It is against this background that Renault, in an attempt at shoring up its conservative image and boosting sales, has re-acquired its former team. As Lotus, it burnt through spectacular piles of venture funding whilst owned by Genii Capital, to whom Renault had originally sold the Enstone operation for a song - even providing part-funding for the transaction.

Renault concedes it could take up to five years and hundreds of millions of dollars before the operation notches up the sort of consistent successes vital for world championship glory. Even then there are no guarantees, as Renault discovered during its first (1977-85) campaign, when title success evaded it despite its pioneering turbo technology.

Now, though, there is talk of Alfa Romeo re-entering the fray. Successful during the first two years of F1's existence - before the constructors' championship was instituted in 1958 - Alfa Romeo won with largely pre-WWII technology, then Ferrari got the better of it and the brand withdrew from F1.

Alfa returned as engine supplier in the seventies, initially with lacklustre, sports car-based V8s supplied to Max Mosley's March outfit, then as supplier of Flat-12s to Bernie Ecclestone's Brabhams. They won only two races - including victory by the soon-banned "fan car" - despite having Niki Lauda in the cockpit, with even a switch to V12 architecture not improving Alfa's fortunes.

The next campaign, which overlapped with the Brabham era for a season, proved even less successful: after a two-year gestation period Alfa Romeo's own 177 chassis made its debut in 1979, with a subsequent seven-year campaign delivering just three podiums before the company withdrew at the end of 1985 - having scored zero points - to concentrate on supplying its turbo units to independent teams until end-1987.

Now, though, comes news that Alfa Romeo is considering returning to F1, either using its own chassis/engine combination, or by sharing power units with corporate relative Ferrari - with the suggestion coming from none other than Fiat/Ferrari boss Sergio Marchionne.

In Formula 1 talk is cheap, as attested to by unfulfilled promises from optimistic race promoters, budding team owners, wannabe drivers, and, yes, even motor manufacturers. Hint at nascent F1 programmes, and the news goes global within seconds. Ask Audi: having in 2014 hinted it was investigating F1, the story provides news fodder two years on despite the scandal and subsequent motorsport cutbacks currently engulfing the VW Group.

Marchionne's comments, made during a recent interview with Italian publication Gazzetta dello Sport, that "Alfa Romeo can and must consider the possibility of return to race in Formula 1" understandably sent Alfa fans into raptures, but this should not be construed as an imminent return to the grid by the brand.

Alfa's last attempt at F1 produced little success in the 1980s © LAT

The word "consider" looms large, and the comments should be treated as such, particularly given the former ACEA president's penchant for making provocative comments while talking up the resurrected brand he pitches squarely at sporty Mercedes, BMW and Audi models. As an aside, Mercedes boss Dieter Zetsche is currently ACEA president, so possibly they sipped from the same tap.

Powertrain sharing with Ferrari - technically not part of the Fiat family after the recent IPO, but still a close relative - could provide Alfa Romeo with a cost-effective entry into F1 while doubling Marchionne's political clout. It also makes marketing sense: the sportiest Guilia shares its V6 engine architecture with the unit being developed by Ferrari for the "entry level" Dino due for 2018 launch.

However, it is no secret that Alfa Romeo pushed back Guilia variant launches due to, inter alia, budget constraints, so the Group's ability to fund an F1 programme in the face of massive investments required by Fiat Chrysler product on both sides of the Atlantic is questioned, particularly as he hinted that Alfa Romeo could also build its own engine for installation in an in-house chassis.

Given that FCA is allegedly the only global motor manufacturer with more debt (said to be £5billion at last count) than cash, such a programme would require substantial financial support from partners and/or, whisper it, F1 commercial rights holder Formula One Management.

Renault's return via Lotus allegedly hinged on commercial terms with FOM, back-loaded so the majority of income flows after expiration of the current team agreements in 2020. Such a deal would not, though, solve the conundrum of F1's Strategy Group being over-subscribed until 2020. Would Marchionne accept that Williams has such a voice and Alfa Romeo not? That is a potential sticking point.

In returning to F1, Renault acquired an existing team, and the most expedient solution would be for Alfa Romeo to purchase an existing team such as Sauber, whose Hinwil, Switzerland base is but 200 miles from Alfa Romeo's Milan HQ, and provides the necessary infrastructure required to support a full-scale F1 programme - courtesy of BMW's previous upgrades.

As with Lotus, which was in dire danger of liquidation before the sale was completed, such a move would save a team from potential extinction - provided a long-term commitment is made. Manufacturers don't, though, have overwhelmingly good form in this regard, particularly when results are slow in coming - as those mass 2009 exits prove.