Are three-car teams the answer to F1 costs?

However, one aspect of the new regulations still has me baffled and that is the resultant cost cuts, aimed at making the sport more affordable and sustainable for all concerned.

Currently we have a situation where teams develop their own chassis and fit one of three power units – Mercedes, Ferrari or Renault.

Next season will see the return of Honda as a supplier, initially only to the McLaren team but expanding its customer base from 2016.

Running an F1 team has never been a budget sport and recent times have seen costs spiralling out of control, hence the move by all involved to somehow cap the stratospheric expenditure of the larger teams and, in theory, allow the smaller outfits an opportunity to at least appear more competitive.

Has it worked? I fear not.

The budgets of the main players still seem to be large enough to run a small country while those at the rear struggle to pay the bills.

F1 boss man Bernie Ecclestone has his own views on the situation. Basically, if you can’t afford it you should not be in the sport.

He has said he would not be too upset if those back markers were to disappear next season.

But Formula One management has an obligation to ensure there is a minimum of 20 cars on the grid.

So if three teams drop out – and rumours are that four teams may not survive – then that obligation cannot be met.

Not a problem to Ecclestone. He resolves it all by saying the remaining teams will field three cars each.

All very nice, but the thought of three Ferraris, or three Mercedes or three of anything leaves me cold.

In its infancy the smaller teams were the lifeblood of F1. From them came charismatic team owners and new talents behind the wheel, but the commercial venture that is F1 today appears to believe there is no place on the grid for those with minimal budgets.

Perhaps the call for a more equitable distribution of F1 revenue would assist in levelling the playing field a little.

It was reported that last year Red Bull, Ferrari, Mercedes, Williams and McLaren were the recipients of 63% of such revenue, while the balance was shared between six other teams. Five of those teams are also excluded from the all-important F1 Strategy Group and that means they have little or no input into a body that formulates the regulations. Not a very democratic situation.

The chances of this happening are pretty slim, so perhaps the three-car team will become a reality – but it is going to make life a little difficult for the fans.

Try to imagine this scenario. You will require seven teams to ensure championship status and, at the end of every race, you have 10 positions earning points towards drivers’ and constructors’ championships.

Now it gets tricky, as the third car in a team will not be eligible to score points or receive any prize money, but it can claim the race position.

So, if the three top teams get all their cars finishing in the top 10, only six of those cars will receive points – but they will fill nine places. That will mean the remaining four teams have even less chance of being able to earn points than they do currently. Not a real incentive to continue in the sport.

But there could be another issue: if seven teams field 21 cars, they will have four power unit suppliers. If, for example, three of the teams choose

Mercedes units and two use Renault, then it would mean Ferrari and Honda would have one team each. In Honda’s case they presumably would be receiving payment from McLaren but Ferrari would be a totally in-house affair with no revenue generation.

Without that income, surely the cost of racing increases for the Maranello plant?

But if each of the remaining teams has to operate a third car, then they will all face greater expenditure. Mercedes Grand Prix chief Toto Wolff has already said he is not too keen on the idea as it would add €32 million (R458 million) to the annual bill.

So cost-cutting in F1 has to be effective to ensure the survival of the smaller teams.

If not, the spectre of three-car teams could become a reality – or is that what the corporate interest really wants?

With a guaranteed increased income from the bigger players and elimination of the weaker ones, that makes it less of a cost-cutting exercise and more of a culling.