Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

Is it finally time for customer cars?


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

Poll: Should there be customer cars? (93 member(s) have cast votes)

Should there be customer cars?

  1. Yes. (48 votes [52.75%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 52.75%

  2. No. (36 votes [39.56%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 39.56%

  3. Don't know. (7 votes [7.69%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.69%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 25 October 2014 - 21:20

Obviously, two teams are on their arse - and two more are looking very shaky.

 

Then there's all this talk of teams running three cars........... but is in really necessary? After all - all this does is bump up costs even more.

 

Thus, I think that a realistic and more effective solution would be to introduce customer cars - i.e. privateers running year old chassis and hardware.

 

Put it this way: Your Williams' and Force India's of the world will not be able to run 3rd cars. If the likes of Merc and Red Bull run 3rd cars then they will swamp and dilute any results........ no matter what post race adjustments occur.

 

Thoughts people? 


Edited by maverick69, 26 October 2014 - 19:12.


Advertisement

#2 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 25 October 2014 - 21:24

Something needs to be done, I agree.

Merc or Ferrari or Ree Bull could give their Abu Dhabi 2015 cars to Sauber etc for Austrailia 2016 for example for $xxxxx. Sauber then develop it on their own without any assistance from Mercedes.

#3 DutchQuicksilver

DutchQuicksilver
  • Member

  • 6,304 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 25 October 2014 - 21:38

But Force India and Williams, who undoubtedly want to build their own car, would protest if the likes of Sauber can use a Ferrari car I think.



#4 Kerch

Kerch
  • Member

  • 1,224 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 October 2014 - 21:41

Sounds better than 3 car teams, although handing over a chassis must involve a lot more than just shipping a couple of cars to another factory. To develop and maintain it properly the customer team would surely need all the CAD (computer aided design) files for manufacturing new components and using in CFD tests. It's possible but it would take some time - the winter break is probably enough though.



#5 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 25 October 2014 - 21:43

But Force India and Williams, who undoubtedly want to build their own car, would protest if the likes of Sauber can use a Ferrari car I think.

Yes. That was the original objection. But surely Williams would rather race a couple of year old cars, rather than a third car factory assault?


Edited by maverick69, 25 October 2014 - 21:43.


#6 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 35,983 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 25 October 2014 - 21:46

Customer cars were part of F1 for many years, but are not the solution to the various ill's F1 currently go through.

 

:cool:



#7 sabjit

sabjit
  • Member

  • 2,992 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 25 October 2014 - 21:46

Why should Williams complain about Sauber using a Ferrari when Williams are faster than Ferrari anyway?

#8 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 25 October 2014 - 21:52

But Force India and Williams, who undoubtedly want to build their own car, would protest if the likes of Sauber can use a Ferrari car I think.

 

Back in the day everyone bought Marches.  Not because they were the best, but because they were available.  March was a mass producer of racing cars and could adapt easily to knock up a Cosworth special.  The cost of building up extra cars was much less comparatively than the development cost.  Of course the similarities between formulae were greater - March's 721G for GP racing was basically the F2 car bolstered for a bigger engine, developed from it in a week, and yet good enough to nick a podium.

 

The modern-day customer model instead might be for five or six outfits to bung £10m each at Dallara to develop an F1 car for them all...



#9 Rob G

Rob G
  • Member

  • 11,609 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 25 October 2014 - 21:54

I'd much rather see customer cars than three-car factory teams, precisely because of what was said in the opening post. Teams like McLaren and Williams certainly wouldn't be happy scrapping over 10th place.

 

One thing I think that they should do though, unlike what they did in the '60s and '70s, is make the customer cars ineligible for Constructors Championship points. That would hopefully prevent one or two constructors from flooding the grid with their own cars.



#10 superden

superden
  • Member

  • 4,185 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 25 October 2014 - 22:18

No. Whilst I have no objection to customer cars when the sport is healthy, customer cars and three team cars are symptoms, not the cure. Until you sort out the financial and governance issues underpinning the problems in F1, it will only get worse.

Sadly, those making money just want to prolong the profits and will implement any half-cocked three car/customer car scheme they can think of and to hell with the future of the sport. They will all be dead or have found another sport to rape by then anyway, so what do they care?

The sad thing is, they know that fans/consumers will always take whatever sh*t they shovel, F1 is rather like football in that respect. If you support either farcical 'solution' offered, then you ultimately support the demise of F1.

Edited by superden, 25 October 2014 - 22:22.


#11 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,644 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 25 October 2014 - 22:35

Open source. At the end of the season all technical design will be shared between all teams. Might be a little harder to win 4 years in a row and need smart work to stay on top.


Edited by Mauseri, 25 October 2014 - 22:36.


#12 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,465 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 25 October 2014 - 23:03

Open source. At the end of the season all technical design will be shared between all teams. 

Which means an invitiation to develop the car all through the season to be ahead of all the others during the actual season itself before the deadline. And so we'll have another spending race....



#13 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,546 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 October 2014 - 23:11

Customer cars and three car teams are both "solutions" that will do nothing but exacerbate the problems now facing F1. With the money and talent that exists within the sport there should be no reason why all teams cannot construct and compete with their own cars.

 

The circumstances that allowed customer cars to work decades ago have gone, and allowing them back will either introduce a spec series through the back door or see F1 go through a slow, painful death.



#14 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 33,502 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 25 October 2014 - 23:16

Yes. Either give a team launch spec or end of previous season spec. Nothing wrong with it.

#15 FNG

FNG
  • Member

  • 5,736 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 25 October 2014 - 23:29

I like the idea of customer cars but only if they are last years car or older. Customer teams shouldn't be allowed to run a current spec car for that season. Something along those lines anyways.



#16 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,764 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 October 2014 - 23:39

I like the idea of customer cars but only if they are last years car or older. Customer teams shouldn't be allowed to run a current spec car for that season. Something along those lines anyways.

 

That becomes an issue when you have big regulatory changes. You also create a two tier F1.

 

What's happened in F1 is the major manufacturers/spenders have basically created a set of regulations that means they monopolies the sport. There is NO chance for a new team to come in and replicate what happened in the 60s and 70s. It has been evident across the entire spectrum of motorsport, even in karting.

 

It's a complete nonsense


Edited by rhukkas, 25 October 2014 - 23:39.


#17 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 9,223 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 25 October 2014 - 23:49

It shouldn't matter where the car has come from. If it meets the technical regs, you're all good to go :)



#18 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 15,853 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 25 October 2014 - 23:51

The modern-day customer model instead might be for five or six outfits to bung £10m each at Dallara to develop an F1 car for them all...

 

This is the way I feel would be the right way to go for customer teams. Loosen up the regs about teams a bit, bring back pre-quali if that's needed (might be a problem with the limited PU's and gearboxes), and let teams go together and chip in money to an external dev like Dallara, Lola and so on to make a car. Then they can develop that further themselves if they like. But if multiple teams does that, you get a car made to the same budgets, but at a lower price.

What if Lotus, Virgin and Campos (at the time they had those names) had managed to give Dallara... 20 mill EUR each to develop a car, then Dallara would have 60 mill, and the teams would've payed less overall.



#19 aguri

aguri
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 October 2014 - 00:31

I only support customer cars if the customer teams receive the same spec chassis and engine as the works team. Customers should have a realistic chance of winning races if the works team car is good enough to win races. There has to be an element of risk involved for the works team to justify the extra money they will make selling a customer car. 



Advertisement

#20 turssi

turssi
  • Member

  • 3,368 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 26 October 2014 - 00:54

No way they'll get latest motors. They'll get evolution that is ready when the season starts.

After that it's aero and mechanical and anything other than the motor that they'll develope.

The business case for customer teams is to fight for positions not taken by manufacturer teams. Other than that it's a few sponsors, sponsor events and driver management. More or less what Williams has been doing for the last twenty or so years...

#21 drag

drag
  • Member

  • 162 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 26 October 2014 - 02:07

Simply no , F1 will loose its lure ... third car is also bad idea but its getting more likely 



#22 tkulla

tkulla
  • Member

  • 3,824 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 26 October 2014 - 02:25

Customer chassis and engines, but the teams should still all be responsible for their own aero. That way aero talent is developed in the small teams and tech guys can make names for themselves. 



#23 paulogman

paulogman
  • Member

  • 2,642 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 26 October 2014 - 04:13

absolutely not.
teams have to build their own cars.
the core teams will always be there.
indy car and champ car are customer car based series and they are barely able to maintain a domestic series.
ft needs to be a constructors championship or it will lose it's integral value and identity

#24 aguri

aguri
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 October 2014 - 04:46

No way they'll get latest motors. They'll get evolution that is ready when the season starts.

After that it's aero and mechanical and anything other than the motor that they'll develope.

The business case for customer teams is to fight for positions not taken by manufacturer teams. Other than that it's a few sponsors, sponsor events and driver management. More or less what Williams has been doing for the last twenty or so years...

 

A good compromise would be customer teams get the same motor and chassis as the works team at the start of the season. That way they will be able to develop more over the season because they haven't had to use all their testing hours developing the car in the off season.

 

I think their needs to be some safe guards though so we don't get a situation where Ferrari deliver the cars to customers and then 2 races later are running a totally car that is half a second faster. 

 

What would really help in terms of customer cars is if regulation were fixed for 2 seasons at a time. Seems like the easiest cost cutting measure IMO.



#25 scolbourne

scolbourne
  • Member

  • 554 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 26 October 2014 - 04:48

I agree that they should not allow customer cars. A lot of the allure of  F1  is that it shows new ideas and developments that ideally should be appearing at each race. I am also totally against the engine freeze but can see that they are trying to steer developments in to certain fields. It would have been better to wait until the engines had reached parity if this is the chosen path.

Costs are not the problem as teams will always spend as much as they can.

I would prefer to see 7 good teams  of three cars each than bring down F1 to make it affordable to everyone.



#26 Murl

Murl
  • Member

  • 743 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 26 October 2014 - 08:15

Customer cars were part of F1 for many years, but are not the solution to the various ill's F1 currently go through.

 

:cool:

 

Agree with this.

 

Customer cars might be fine for the moment. Or not. That isn't really the point.

 

If F1 is to carry on it has to allow a sustainable footing for professionally run teams - competition makes for excitement. (variety is the spice of life).

 

Customer cars should be allowed, imo. Just don't hope that they will solve the underlying problem.



#27 Murl

Murl
  • Member

  • 743 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 26 October 2014 - 08:19

It shouldn't matter where the car has come from. If it meets the technical regs, you're all good to go :)

 

 

Yes. in open competition this is all that is needed.

 

All this bull about who is granted an entry should be shoveled out to the garden where it belongs.

If your car can pass scrutineering your car is eligible to race.

107%


Edited by Murl, 26 October 2014 - 08:19.


#28 DutchQuicksilver

DutchQuicksilver
  • Member

  • 6,304 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 26 October 2014 - 10:00

Perhaps a budget cap should have been forced in back in 2010. They should have listened to Max Mosley back then. It works for the NBA and Baseball and stuff, so why shouldn't it work for F1?



#29 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 26 October 2014 - 10:09

Ecclestone: Teams to Supply Third Cars to Ailing Rivals:

 

http://www.pitpass.c...-cars-to-rivals



#30 Hellenic tifosi

Hellenic tifosi
  • Member

  • 6,564 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 26 October 2014 - 10:27

Perhaps a budget cap should have been forced in back in 2010. They should have listened to Max Mosley back then. It works for the NBA and Baseball and stuff, so why shouldn't it work for F1?

 

Because the vast majority of NBA teams expenses are player salaries. Given that the NBA is based in one country, it is relatively easier to check through the IRS that no-one is circumventing the rules by having separate under the table agreements.

 

With F1 being a hugely international sport, policing the budget cap is simply impossible.

 

IMO the solution is simple: Fairer distribution of TV revenue, and huge restriction of aerodynamic regulations



#31 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 26 October 2014 - 10:33

Ecclestone: Teams to Supply Third Cars to Ailing Rivals:

 

http://www.pitpass.c...-cars-to-rivals

 

Well there you have it.

 

I must have had a chat with Mystic Meg  :p   ;)



#32 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 23,842 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 26 October 2014 - 11:00

The only way it's a sound idea is if the basic chassis/ engine/ gearbox were supplied, but the buyer had to do their own aero- wings, sidepods, etc, and the team providing the chassis could only provide it to one customer- otherwise you'd end up with a grid full of Mercs or Red Bulls, which would be a bit of a kick in the teeth to those who do construct their own cars such as Williams or Force India. We've had even closer to that, with the Sauber C23 essentially being a Ferrari F2003GA, and the mid '90s Ligier that was a near copy of the Benetton. Still preferable to third cars.

#33 DutchQuicksilver

DutchQuicksilver
  • Member

  • 6,304 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 26 October 2014 - 11:02

And let's not forget the earlier Toro Rosso's who looked a lot like the Red Bulls.



#34 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,870 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 October 2014 - 11:06

Then there's all this talk of teams running three cars... but is in really necessary? After all - all this does is bump up costs even more.
 
Thus, I think that a realistic and more effective solution would be to introduce customer cars - i.e. privateers running year old chassis and hardware.


How would that work? Would the likes of Marussia, Caterham and now Sauber all buy this year's Mercedes come 2015? What of teams like Force India and Toro Rosso, who make decent cars of their own? They might be threatened by such second-hand cars, simply because of the ridiculous dominance displayed by this year's Mercedes car? Will they also opt to buy a Mercedes? Can Mercedes really supply ten 2014-spec Mercedes cars? If not, where would the limit be? Which team would be able to buy a Mercedes and which would have to make do with the Ferrari F14T? One might assume that Mercedes, Red Bull, Ferrari and likely McLaren (with Honda engines) and Lotus (with Mercedes engines) will have better cars next year than they do today. In that case, why would the smaller teams want to buy an old car that is almost guaranteed to be struggling for points?

There already is a series for old F1 cars: the FIA Masters Historic Formula One Championship. Let's keep it that way.

Does that mean F1 doesn't have serious problems with the way it is both regulated and the way its income is distributed? No, of course not. But to be quite honest I have no idea why F1 needs cars fighting for P18-20. Does that really excite the spectators or the people involved? Why don't they race in a category where they can be competitive?

If that means F1 would show up with six or seven three car teams, I wouldn't at all mind. If anything, think of how much more exciting the WDC battle could have been if three people had been able to use the Mercedes car this year, or the Red Bull in previous ones. Isn't it kind of disappointing that the only other 2013 Red Bull was used by Mark Webber? Or the only other 2005 Renault by Giancarlo Fisichella?

#35 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 26 October 2014 - 11:07

The only way it's a sound idea is if the basic chassis/ engine/ gearbox were supplied, but the buyer had to do their own aero- wings, sidepods, etc, and the team providing the chassis could only provide it to one customer- otherwise you'd end up with a grid full of Mercs or Red Bulls, which would be a bit of a kick in the teeth to those who do construct their own cars such as Williams or Force India. We've had even closer to that, with the Sauber C23 essentially being a Ferrari F2003GA, and the mid '90s Ligier that was a near copy of the Benetton. Still preferable to third cars.

That was my point really. You can also point to the recent RB3 and STR2.



#36 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 26 October 2014 - 11:08

The only way it's a sound idea is if the basic chassis/ engine/ gearbox were supplied, but the buyer had to do their own aero- wings, sidepods, etc, and the team providing the chassis could only provide it to one customer- otherwise you'd end up with a grid full of Mercs or Red Bulls, which would be a bit of a kick in the teeth to those who do construct their own cars such as Williams or Force India. We've had even closer to that, with the Sauber C23 essentially being a Ferrari F2003GA, and the mid '90s Ligier that was a near copy of the Benetton. Still preferable to third cars.

 

That wouldn't help the ailing team at all as they don't have the means to do aero research. This measure is aimed at bankrupt teams.



#37 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 26 October 2014 - 11:12

How would that work? Would the likes of Marussia, Caterham and now Sauber all buy this year's Mercedes come 2015? What of teams like Force India and Toro Rosso, who make decent cars of their own? They might be threatened by such second-hand cars, simply because of the ridiculous dominance displayed by this year's Mercedes car? Will they also opt to buy a Mercedes? Can Mercedes really supply ten 2014-spec Mercedes cars? If not, where would the limit be? Which team would be able to buy a Mercedes and which would have to make do with the Ferrari F14T? One might assume that Mercedes, Red Bull, Ferrari and likely McLaren (with Honda engines) and Lotus (with Mercedes engines) will have better cars next year than they do today. In that case, why would the smaller teams want to buy an old car that is almost guaranteed to be struggling for points?

There already is a series for old F1 cars: the FIA Masters Historic Formula One Championship. Let's keep it that way.

Does that mean F1 doesn't have serious problems with the way it is both regulated and the way its income is distributed? No, of course not. But to be quite honest I have no idea why F1 needs cars fighting for P18-20. Does that really excite the spectators or the people involved? Why don't they race in a category where they can be competitive?

If that means F1 would show up with six or seven three car teams, I wouldn't at all mind. If anything, think of how much more exciting the WDC battle could have been if three people had been able to use the Mercedes car this year, or the Red Bull in previous ones. Isn't it kind of disappointing that the only other 2013 Red Bull was used by Mark Webber? Or the only other 2005 Renault by Giancarlo Fisichella?

 

I think you are looking at it from a very extreme POV there.

 

As I've just recently said: Look at the scenario of the 2007-08 RB3 and STR2. Both the basic chassis and design were the same - but they had different engines and over time the aero packages were developed independently. This saved STR a hell of a lot of money - and eventually allowed them to stand on their own two feet. 

 

It doesn't have to be "Devo Max" you know........



#38 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 26 October 2014 - 11:22

I think you are looking at it from a very extreme POV there.

 

As I've just recently said: Look at the scenario of the 2007-08 RB3 and STR2. Both the basic chassis and design were the same - but they had different engines and over time the aero packages were developed independently. This saved STR a hell of a lot of money - and eventually allowed them to stand on their own two feet. 

 

It doesn't have to be "Devo Max" you know........

 

STR is not a good example as they enjoy decent income from RedBull. Caterham and Marussia don't.

And running a different engine requiring different installation, cooling and aero is a major, major expense.


Edited by Timstr11, 26 October 2014 - 11:22.


#39 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 26 October 2014 - 11:25

STR is not a good example as they enjoy decent income from RedBull. Caterham and Marussia don't.

And running a different engine requiring different installation, cooling and aero is a major, major expense.

 

Obviously that's not viable in the short term. But if new teams had such an opportunity from the outset - then it would be a good, proven compromise. Certainly better than the top teams running 3 cars.



Advertisement

#40 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 26 October 2014 - 11:30

Obviously that's not viable in the short term. But if new teams had such an opportunity from the outset - then it would be a good, proven compromise. Certainly better than the top teams running 3 cars.

 

A year-old mercedes will still be a fast machine compared to several midfield teams.

It will therefore be very unfair for those midfield teams to concede valuable constructor points to a team that inherited a fast car instead of designing it themselves.



#41 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 26 October 2014 - 11:38

More spec parts. Spec parts can be produced cheaper and need no constant development. There is little benefit for allowing the teams to develop every nut and bolt. The cost of putting a car on the grid is more or less the same for every team. We need to bring that cost down.

Spec crash structures could be a starting point. No need for crash testing and the FIA can specify what they really want rather than teams trying interpret the rules.

If you really want to bring the cost down -> spec wings.

#42 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 October 2014 - 11:45

We have GP2 for that. I do like an off the shelf survival cell where the teams that want to can bolt the wings, sidepods, engine, engine cover and the works on. Saves crash testing and still lets teams develop their aero.

#43 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 26 October 2014 - 11:50

A year-old mercedes will still be a fast machine compared to several midfield teams.
It will therefore be very unfair for those midfield teams to concede valuable constructor points to a team that inherited a fast car instead of designing it themselves.

I doubt Mercedes will even sell this years car to anyone. I think they have a lot if secrets that they don't want leaking out for years.

#44 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 26 October 2014 - 11:53

We have GP2 for that. I do like an off the shelf survival cell where the teams that want to can bolt the wings, sidepods, engine, engine cover and the works on. Saves crash testing and still lets teams develop their aero.

Again, the most money is spent on researching an aero and cooling package around a tub and engine.

A struggling team will not be helped much with merely a tub.



#45 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 26 October 2014 - 11:53

I doubt Mercedes will even sell this years car to anyone. I think they have a lot if secrets that they don't want leaking out for years.

 

Indeed.

 

Ironically: It could be high performing non-works teams like Williams that couple profit very well from this if they sell off/lease their old chassis and provide some technical support.


Edited by maverick69, 26 October 2014 - 11:54.


#46 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 26 October 2014 - 11:54

I don't buy the argument that third cars just increases costs for teams. If there are fewer teams, they should each get a bigger slice of the revenues. The overall cost of populating a grid of 24 cars is also going to be considerably less if there are only eight different chassis designs rather than 12 because of the reduced amount of R&D, yet the overall revenues would be the same, so as long as the distribution of revenues isn't formulated in such a way as to kill off the teams at the back, it should be cheaper all round. What it wouldn't be is better.

 

We should remember that in 2008 a situation devloped whereby there wouldn't have been a viable grid in 2009 without the independent constructors. When Toyota pulled out the team just disappeared. When BMW pulled out it was only Peter Sauber's brave decision to delve deep into his own pockets that led to that team continuing. When Honda pulled out Brawn and Fry could have simply walked away, in which case that team would have disappeared as well. That would have left the Red Bull-Renault, Mclaren-Mercedes and Ferrari as the only manufacturer-backed entrants at that time. Under your proposed system of two cars each plus customers racing year-old machinery, we could have ended up with a 12-car grid - there were enough independent teams to give a bigger grid than that, but if they had been reliant on the manufacturers to supply them with a car, 12 would have been the limit.

 

I, for one, would not want the factories at Enstone, Silverstone, Grove and Hinwil downsized and de-graded to the point where there's no longer the facility to design and build an F1 car there. Once you start following that model the sport becomes entirely reliant on and dominated by the manufacturers, rather like DTM. That might seem okay when the economy is doing well, but next time there's an economic slump, they'll just all agree to not develop their cars for two or three years, and then they'll  regulate in a development freeze and performance parity in chassis, just like they did with engines, to save money. You don't have to squint too hard at the automotive industry to see that cuthroat competition between themselves is something manufacturers will do almost anything to avoid. The top designers will go elsewhere. This is not what made F1 great.



#47 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 26 October 2014 - 11:55

We have GP2 for that. I do like an off the shelf survival cell where the teams that want to can bolt the wings, sidepods, engine, engine cover and the works on. Saves crash testing and still lets teams develop their aero.

A few spec parts here and there won't make F1 even close to a spec series. A spec ECU didn't change anything. I think spec tyres made the racing better.

#48 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 26 October 2014 - 11:58

I doubt Mercedes will even sell this years car to anyone. I think they have a lot if secrets that they don't want leaking out for years.

 

I don't think that's a problem at all. They can ensure their IP is safeguarded as is the case with Mercedes providing the entire backend to Force India.

It's not so much selling. It's more like a lease.



#49 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 26 October 2014 - 12:00

More spec parts. Spec parts can be produced cheaper and need no constant development. There is little benefit for allowing the teams to develop every nut and bolt. The cost of putting a car on the grid is more or less the same for every team. We need to bring that cost down.

Spec crash structures could be a starting point. No need for crash testing and the FIA can specify what they really want rather than teams trying interpret the rules.

If you really want to bring the cost down -> spec wings.

 

I agree that's one way to bring the minimum cost of competing down. You could do it even more effectively by getting a spec chassis from Lola, then everybody could run their programme for a couple of million $ plus whatever it costs them for the engine. It's worth noting that anything short of full-spec chassis and engines won't reduce what the top teams spend by a single penny, because they already spend their budget, and they raise the biggest budget they possibly can. All spec parts would do is bring down the minimum cost of producing a car that complies to the regulations and is quick enough to be allowed to race.

 

But it's dangerous to assume that the sport itself is going to hold onto its audience and hold onto its commercial value if it goes further and further down that dumbed-down route.


Edited by redreni, 26 October 2014 - 12:03.


#50 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 26 October 2014 - 12:04

I agree that's one way to bring the minimum cost of competing down. You could do it even more effectively by getting a spec chassis from Lola, then everybody could run their programme for a couple of million $ plus whatever it costs them for the engine. But it's dangerous to assume that the sport itself is going to hold onto its audience and hold onto its commercial value if it goes further and further down that dumbed-down route.

 

But this is a case of where four teams may not exist at all - and finding a medium term solution other than the top teams running 3 cars..... which most find extremely un-appetising.