mario wrote:DanielPT wrote:Sublime_FA11C wrote:The costs of running extra cars are somewhat offset by extra sponsorship income, but the main draw would be a higher WCC points haul. That's the only way to justify running unsanctioned number of cars per team. A small team running only 2 or even 1 car would be handicapped in terms of scoring points but on the flip side, it would have lower running costs and if the car was any good, it could attract sponsorship or manufacturer support in order to run another car. That said, it's more likely the teams would be forced to run an equal number of cars. I'm not sure which i would prefer.
This "extra sponsorship income" argument in favour of 3 cars is a weak one IMHO. You don't need to look further below those racing in upper midfield to start seeing teams struggling to grab some meaningful sponsorship in order to realise that all bar those at the very front (or manufacturers) will have some issues getting that extra income.
Even relatively major teams have started to struggle for sponsorship - McLaren, as we know, have no title sponsor and have lost a number of large and small sponsors (such as Boss moving to Mercedes), whilst Ferrari have also lost a couple of sponsors in recent years too.
Yes i agree entirely. The "extra sponsorship" is very weak. Though mainly because sponsors have moved away from teams and onto race sponsorship instead and the teams get a piece of the pie based on their WCC results and whatever voodoo is written into the concorde agreements or other contracts. Teams are more reliant on "investors" these days than they are on sponsors and i don't really know how these investments are supposed to work. The amount of sponsor decals on F1 cars today is bewilderingly small when compared to operating budgets.
A 1 car team would still find it cheaper to enter F1 and could possibly "test the water" with a smaller budget. Possibly, and i stress possibly because all this is hypotethical, if the performance was decent compared to their budget, they might attract support or investors that could help them compete at a higher level. If the car turned out to be utter junk maybe the rate of progress could be a gauge of the team's potential for continued existence in the sport. And if they were beyond hope, it would hopefully be a cheaper disaster than what HRT, Marussia and Caterham endured. They were full fledged, professional outfits trying to compete with established teams and no budget cap.
Sponsorship really isnt what it used to be, and attracting any kind of investment is a big headache for all but the strongest teams. Force India was reffered to by Damon Hill as the most efficient team with regard to operating costs vs. achievements, and has been like that for a few years now. That they could give McLaren such a stiff fight for so long is remarkable when you consider that McLaren are one of the biggest spenders in F1. But just like previous years, Force India is forced to split it's limited funds between the current WCC and next year's car, and again just like in the previous years, their decent but very cost effective achievements are not exactly bringing in the cash needed to compete up front though they do have a very handy partnership with Mercedes Benz.
(Tony Jardine, 1988)
