Third Team Car on Grid in 2009 - Good or Bad?

[Blancvino]

Is this a good thing?

Up side:
- Full grids
- Potential upstart drivers get a chance

Down Side:
- Cost, only the rich teams can play
- No points, thus it becomes a test session under race conditions, again only rich can play

I'm for full fields, but if you are going to race, should you not get a chance at points?

Thoughts?

[PolePosition_1]

To be fair, majority of cost of F1 is in development and R&D etc, cost of actually building a car is relatively low, so a 3rd car wouldn't create too much of an issue financially, as presumably the extra cost of building and transporting another car would be covered by extra sponsorship.

Personally, I'm quite keen on the idea, imagine having 3 top drivers in same car. however, as pointed out, idea that 2 teams could grab top 6 positions, or 1 team dominate the poduim, I'm not so keen.

All in all however, I think the benefits outway the negatives.

If we get to a situation of just 16 cars, I'd say go for it.

[Tallgeese]

Actually R&D takes up to 15% where engines take up 50%, granted, R&D is a far second, & that was for McLaren-Mercedes. I reckon that cost-cutting on engines is the priority & limiting R&D potential (even for engines) is a major priority. For most independent teams engines are a pain, costing anything between $90,000 to $150,000 per unit. Thus if you get 30,000km of testing & need a new unit per 700km that's 45 units, & up to 10 spares costing $5 - 7.5 million just for testing procurement. This doesn't include maintenance & fuel costs, but at 80 litres per 100km I think one can figure that out. This doesn't include other things such as transport cost or testing mileage (every circuit demands a sum that translates to thousands per lap).

[BDunnell]

If it's allowed, I think they should certainly be allowed to score points, given that they could very easily influence the outcome of others' races.

[ArrowsFA1]

Is this a good thing?

Yes, I think it is. The restrictions on testing recently agreed, and the demise of Honda, make it more likely as well.

The more cars on the grid the better IMHO. It increases competition and gives opportunities to more drivers so I hope we do see teams running three cars in the future.

[Rollo]

There have been three car teams in the past, so why the heck not? I'd even say let them build multiple cars and run them as separate teams. If someone wants to throw lots of money at the sport then let them...

BRING IT!

[keysersoze]

Yes to a 3rd car, yes to allowing that car to score championship points, and while they're at it, reconfigure the system so that the top 10 finishers earn WDC and WCC points.

[ShiftingGears]

Is this a good thing?

Up side:
- Full grids
- Potential upstart drivers get a chance

Down Side:
- Cost, only the rich teams can play
- No points, thus it becomes a test session under race conditions, again only rich can play

I'm for full fields, but if you are going to race, should you not get a chance at points?

Thoughts?

I think if there are 3 cars from a grand prix team at one race weekend, they should all have an equal opportunity to score points.

However only the highest 2 positions achieved by the 3 drivers should count towards the manufacturers championship.

[Easy Drifter]

If it happens the 3rd driver will in most cases (not all) be little more than a test driver. His salary will be no more than currrent test drivers or less and quite likely have to bring sponsorship money. If he (or she) turns out to be really quick then things will change.
Further I suspect that until the economy turns around driver salaries will take a real nosedive as their current contracts run out.
I very much doubt it will happen but it would be interesting if the drivers had to race in other series to make a good living. That was the way it was in the 50's to very early 80's.
To make a decent living that is why drivers like Clark, Stewart, Moss, Brabham, McLaren and most others drove in F2 and Can Am and other series including the Tasman series. It was to make a living not just to race.

[Knock-on]

Actually R&D takes up to 15% where engines take up 50%, granted, R&D is a far second, & that was for McLaren-Mercedes. I reckon that cost-cutting on engines is the priority & limiting R&D potential (even for engines) is a major priority. For most independent teams engines are a pain, costing anything between $90,000 to $150,000 per unit. Thus if you get 30,000km of testing & need a new unit per 700km that's 45 units, & up to 10 spares costing $5 - 7.5 million just for testing procurement. This doesn't include maintenance & fuel costs, but at 80 litres per 100km I think one can figure that out. This doesn't include other things such as transport cost or testing mileage (every circuit demands a sum that translates to thousands per lap).

I don't think engines take up 50%

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this articale but I wouldn't have thought it was a million miles away.

Toyota's cost breakdown included-

* $63.4 million for research and development
* $2.8 million for car-manufacturing costs
* $13.14 million for wind tunnel costs
* $77.5 million for operating cars at tests
* $29.71 million for operating cars at races
* $68.53 million for team salaries
* $180 million for engine budgets
* $39.5 million for driver salaries
* $12.97 million for travel and accommodation and
* $11.5 million for corporate entertainment.


Also, for each lap an F1 car completes in a race, the cost is nearly $1,300 in fuel, tires and brake wear. The Grand Prix of Canada is 70 laps, meaning it will cost about $91,000 to reach the finish line.

http://www.zimbio.com/Formula+1/arti...xpensive+sport