In the hours following Ford's announcement that is it pull out of F1 and put both Jaguar Racing and Cosworth Racing up for sale, there has been much speculation regarding the possibility of teams running three cars in 2005.
With 'the cat's' corpse still warm, internet message boards and forums have been bombarded by F1 fans, many of them excited at the prospect of three Ferraris taking on three WilliamsF1s and three McLarens.
Before heading off to China for the inaugural Chinese Grand Prix, Minardi boss Paul Stoddart spoke to Pitpass and clarified the rules regarding three car entries, should Ford prove unsuccessful in finding a buyer for Jaguar Racing.
"Were we to go below ten teams, we'd breach all kinds of regulations within the Concorde Agreement, the governing document of F1," he said. "In doing so, we would expose ourselves legally, therefore if we fall below twenty cars, it would be necessary for some teams to run (non-points scoring) third cars, and the way it would happen is as follows:
"If one team drops out, the FIA would ballot the remaining teams to enter two non-points scoring cars. The drivers of these cars would not be entitled to stand on the podium, even if they were to win the race, nor would they take part in the post-race press conference. If two teams drop out, then there would be a ballot and four cars would be picked from the remaining teams.
"However, let me paint a little example here. Out come four ballots which happens to be, Badoer in a Ferrari, Wurz in a McLaren, Gene in a Williams, and lets just say Montagny in a Renault. You've now got the four acknowledged fastest cars on the track carrying non-points scoring, non-championship participating non-pr and podium participating drivers out there, four incredibly competitive cars.
"It would not be beyond the realms of possibility to have, in a certain set of circumstances, those cars finishing one, two and three. What would happen? Chancellor Schroeder, or whoever assuming we're talking about the European GP, would be standing on the podium at the Nurburgring looking at himself and his other co-presenters with no drivers present - they are not allowed to go up there. The race would be declared with no winner until car five, but not the winner, just car five, and those points cannot be reallocated to anyone else.
"Furthermore, if you look back to a scenario as in 2003 when it was a very tight championship, imagine if Badoer accidentally took out Raikkonen or Wurz accidentally took out Michael. Does anyone think that the offended team principal, his team the press and public would not then say that the championship was not pure because a non points scoring car took out a race leading, title contending, car at a time when it affected the outcome of the championship?
"In simple it would destroy the integrity of the Constructors' Championship and possibly the Drivers Championship."
Then there is the question of cost, at a time when the sport is looking to seriously reduce spending.
"If you are a championship competing team and the ballot rules that you have to run a third car, you would need a complete set of mechanics for that car, it would probably be your test team. You would have one or two spare chassis because you would not want to deny your race drivers the opportunity to use the third car in the event that they needed to. Therefore, you'd be scratching around for garage space to put your five chassis in and it would be disorganised chaos, let alone a massive cost. The bigger teams recognise it would probably cost between twenty or thirty million to run third cars."
Much of this is exactly what Paul told me in 2003, however, he admits, the rules are not necessarily cast in stone.
"What has changed between then, when we last discussed the three car issue, and now, is that with regards the situation with Jaguar, if they don't find a buyer, if all the team owners, and Bernie and Max agree - that is if all the signatories to the Concorde Agreement agree - anything can be changed. So you'd like to think that we will all be sensible."
"That's very rare," I interrupt.
"Sadly that true," he responds.
