The case for expanding the F1 grid

Next to a championship battle that seems to be falling into the hands of the reigning title holders, the biggest topic of debate in Formula One is the shape of the grid for 2019 and – more importantly – the lack of seats available.

Already well documented is the predicament of Esteban Ocon, who will find himself without a drive next year, as well as Stoffel Vandoorne, who has been ousted by McLaren in favour of the junior Lando Norris.

Another potential victim of the lack of availability of seats for 2019 is Mercedes-Benz junior driver and F2 championship leader George Russell, who came out and stated that he feels “Formula One is currently lacking at least two teams”.

Discussed widely has been the concept of fielding third cars and Russell’s employer, Toto Wolff, has been a strong advocate. However, there are a plethora of problems that third cars present, given how much of a stranglehold the manufacturer teams already have on the sport.

As well as locking out the podium, or even top ten, third cars even as development entries for young drivers would detract from the variety of competition across the grid – even if it meant keeping talent such as Ocon and Russell from racing in Formula One.

Russell’s thoughts on another two teams, however, could be where the solution lies for the sport and expanding the grid to – at most – 24 entries, given the current field is comprised of 20.

Photo: AMG Mercedes-Benz

One could easily diffuse this notion and immediately raise the eventual failures that the three teams introduced in 2010 became, with Hispania, Lotus (Caterham) and Virgin (Marussia/Manor) always consigned to the rear of the grid.

The success of the Haas team is the formula that any prospective entries should aspire to model themselves upon.

The Anglo-American squad, upon their entry in 2016, immediately formed an alliance with Ferrari for their power-unit and other internal components, while having their chassis built from Dallara. They were accused of being merely a Ferrari B-team and blasted by fellow independent outfits for not being a true ‘constructor’, but Haas has achieved what the former three teams couldn’t and is a midfield destination for talented drivers.

Yes, having more teams like Haas will not encourage non-manufacturer teams to vie for the overall championship and, again, the high costs of competing in the sport remain undesirable – it is still a more rewarding solution than that of Wolff’s.

Given that the suggested alternative is the like of Mercedes AMG and Ferrari fielding third cars, the prospect of more teams in the vein of Haas – aligned with these manufacturers – is a more appealing outcome and one that’ll add more variety and identities to the grid.

Gaining more manufacturers would ultimately be an achievement for Formula One and its new owners, if the regulations beyond 2021 are attractive enough. However, if there isn’t going to be any new marques out to topple the monopoly of Mercedes AMG and Ferrari, then at least increase the midfield competition, which has been at its most competitive in recent years.