The confusing history of F1 team name changes

What's in a name? When William Shakespeare posed the question rhetorically in Romeo and Juliet, the message was that a surname, with all the historically familial enmities it entails, is independent of the person.

When it comes to Formula 1 teams, it's a little more complicated. A name really can transform the way one is perceived, even when it remains fundamentally unchanged.

Take the plan to rename Scuderia Toro Rosso as 'AlphaTauri'. This is in deference not to a long-forgotten science-fiction B-movie, but Red Bull's clothing line. For those unfamiliar with it, this "creates apparel with the same dynamic innovation that inspired the creation of Red Bull".

Clearly AlphaTauri will be the same team as Toro Rosso. It has the same ownership, the same factory, the same personnel - it will just be wearing a different set of metaphorical clothes in its 2020 guise.

But by calling it something different, it will feel different and inevitably lead to questions about whether it should be considered a distinct entity for the purposes of historical statistics. From our perspective, it will still be Toro Rosso because it's just too similar.

This is also the team that raced as F1's most famous underdog in its Minardi guise from 1985-2005. Yet simultaneously, it is not. It raises an interesting question about identity.

The factory is still in the same place - Faenza in Italy. Some personnel remain from that era and, when Sebastian Vettel took that legendary victory at Monza in 2008, it really did feel like an unlikely win for Minardi. After all, an organisation is its people, those who do the work and very often not its ownership or leadership.

But statistically we consider Minardi and Toro Rosso to be different teams that started 340 and 263 (and counting) races respectively, even though they share the same history. This is largely down to the character of the ownership, as Minardi was inextricably linked with founder Giancarlo Minardi for much of its time. His was not an anonymous, corporate presence - this team was an extension of him.

That character remained under Paul Stoddart but, once acquired by Red Bull, Toro Rosso ceased to be the heroic underdog it once was even though its budget, in F1 terms, remained only middling.

Red Bull is perfectly within its rights to rename the team for commercial reasons, frustrating as it is for those of a statistical bent. It will be a continuation of Toro Rosso in terms of numbers, and therefore distinct from Minardi. As much as anything, this is based on 'feel', an emotive reaction to a team identity.

While it's frustrating that true new teams are such a rarity, especially for someone who enjoys the rich and diverse history of the various shortlived, heroic failures throughout grand prix history, there's a reason for it

It will also create confusion by pitting an Alpha team against an Alfa Romeo team. Alfa Romeo is symptomatic of another nomenclatural conundrum. It was renamed as a branding exercise, in doing so acquiring the history of the Alfa Romeo F1 teams.

We opted to consider it to be Alfa Romeo simply because that is how many fans will perceive it. This means the team, statistically, doesn't share its figures with Sauber - or the BMW Sauber incarnation for that matter. Clearly that is ludicrous, as the company still is Sauber. But again, this is largely based on the feel of the team and to minimise confusion. Hardly satisfactory.

Most teams on the grid create such problems. With the exception of Ferrari, McLaren and the very young Haas operation, they all have differing identities bubbling below the surface. Even the two behemoths - McLaren and Ferrari - have had differing ownerships over the years. It has become impossible to be consistent when it comes to statistical history, desirable as that would be.

We consider Red Bull a distinct team, yet it was a continuation of what was Jaguar and originally Stewart. That's statistically three teams in one. Then there's Mercedes, a company that started off as Tyrrell (pictured above) and also had incarnations as BAR, Honda and Brawn. But we don't consider F1's current dominant force statistically to be the same as any of those entities.

Racing Point is effectively the same team that started out as Jordan in 1991, via incarnations as Midland, Spyker and Force India. All are considered distinct entities for statistical purposes.

Even Williams has its confusions. The current team was started as Williams Grand Prix Engineering in 1977, where it competed against the Wolf team that was previously Frank Williams Racing Cars. This, combined with the fact that the earlier team sometimes ran cars dubbed as Williams and at other times ran such memorable brands as Iso-Marlboro and De Tomaso as well as running customer machinery, can send statistics haywire.

The most ridiculous of all is what's known as 'Team Enstone' - currently Renault. It won the world championship in 2005 and '06 as Renault and in 1994 and '95 as Benetton. In between its two stints as Renault, it became known as Lotus - but not the 'real' Lotus that it raced against in previous forms - during which time it also raced against the 'new' Lotus, subsequently Caterham. Oh, and in its original Toleman guise (pictured below) it raced against the Renault works team that it now is.

While it's frustrating that true new teams are such a rarity, especially for someone who enjoys the rich and diverse history of the various shortlived, heroic failures throughout grand prix history, there's a reason for it.

Currently, there are 10 organisations in the world capable of designing, building and running an F1 car. Even that number might be generous given the unique Haas team's dependence on Dallara and Ferrari for being on the grid

F1 teams are now such enormous, complex edifices that they cannot pop up and vanish at will. In effect, they are now franchises that change hands - even if they literally are not so.

So it's no surprise that F1 is making moves to protect the existing teams through the possible creation of what is effectively a buy-in that would lead to those currently competing sharing a windfall from the incomer should a start-up come in.

It is, to an extent, protectionist, but allowing things to be too open would risk attracting chancers after a share of the cash. And if there is a pot of funding to be shared on a more equitable basis, it's only right that this should not be diluted without due diligence.

As F1's recent public reaction to the aspirations of two new teams - Panthera Team Asia and the newly-announced project linked to the Campos Racing Formula 2 team - proves, there is a very high bar set for prospective new teams. This doesn't mean either are chancers, and both have credible people involved, just that they will have to convince F1 and the FIA that they are worthy of what were described in the statement as "serious discussions".

Currently, there are only 10 organisations in the world capable of designing, building and running an F1 car. Even that number might be a little generous given the unique Haas team's dependence on Dallara and Ferrari for being on the grid.

This is a reminder not just of the need to protect them - and as a result the thousands of people who depend on them for their livelihood - but also to make possible the addition of a genuine, well-funded and properly-established start-up that would be to the wider benefit of F1.

What F1 must not do is shut out new entrants indefinitely - the door must be ajar, if not wide open.

But most likely, F1 will largely be built upon the existing organisations. In future, doubtless some will change hands and, inevitably, identity again, but hopefully they should survive.

Simple. Unless you are a statistician aspiring to the impossible ideal of consistency, that is.