73 replies to this topic

[Atreiu]

The notion of constructors should simply be abandonned in favour of 'teams', it has no usefullness anymore. So there should be teams who could build or buy chassis and/or every single part and component possible, engine included.

 

Whether you build or a buy a car you still have the same race to contend and thus any prize should be the same. Building or buying is a mere administrative decision taken into consideration regarding funding, opportunities, risks and branding/marketing.

Edited by Atreiu, 12 November 2014 - 21:53.

[EthanM]

The notion of constructors should simply be abandonned in favour of 'teams', it has no usefullness anymore. So there should be teams who could build or buy chassis and/or every single part and component possible, engine included.

 

Whether you build or a buy a car you still have the same race to contend and thus any prize should be the same. Building or buying is a mere administrative decision taken into consideration regarding funding, opportunities, risks and branding/marketing.

 

Except if you 're someone like Williams and have made infrastructure investments into building, sizeable but nowhere near top4 levels, you probably want to protect them investments

[johnmhinds]

The notion of constructors should simply be abandonned in favour of 'teams', it has no usefullness anymore. So there should be teams who could build or buy chassis and/or every single part and component possible, engine included.

 

Whether you build or a buy a car you still have the same race to contend and thus any prize should be the same. Building or buying is a mere administrative decision taken into consideration regarding funding, opportunities, risks and branding/marketing.

 

Did you not watch the death of CART?

 

You'll just end up with everyone buying the best car making it a spec series and then the foundation drops out of the sport.

Edited by johnmhinds, 12 November 2014 - 22:04.

[jureF1]

Did you not watch the death of CART?

 

You'll just end up with everyone buying the best car making it a spec series and then the foundation drops out of the sport.

 

But you could limit that easily. You could limit the max number of teams/cars that one constructor can supply. Or that constructor must suply last year's chassis. Or there could be one or few FIA chassis, that would be made by FIA as chassis that can be sold to teams. Made by dalara, sauber, force india or some other FIA defined constructor.  

[Atreiu]

1, Williams isn't on the brink of disappearing, it seems. I think it'd help more the likes of Sauber, Marussia, etc. And they have already demonstrated they can do fine with their car.

 

2, Well, simply limit how many teams a chassis maker can provide.

[redreni]

But you could limit that easily. You could limit the max number of teams/cars that one constructor can supply. Or that constructor must suply last year's chassis. Or there could be one or few FIA chassis, that would be made by FIA as chassis that can be sold to teams. Made by dalara, sauber, force india or some other FIA defined constructor.  

 

Of course, there's lots of things you could do. Many of them would make the sport a fair bit cheaper for the small teams. The fact that these things are possible doesn't make them a good idea, though. F1 didn't aquire its status as the pinnacle of motor racing by doing things on the cheap.

[wrighty]

I must admit i think the idea of Super GP2 (or lets call it 'F1 CRT' or whatever) appeals to me, if only because i think by losing the teams from the back of the grid we're watching a slow death of the sport, in that there's no bottom step for teams, drivers, engineers and even sponsors to join the sport on. Having said that, how to achieve it so that it's interesting to teams and spectators (and drivers, engineers and sponsors) isn't so easy.....for a spec tub to work in a more liberal power unit supply environment you need a common interface, but that might need a spec floor (or at least a spec floor per PU). Teams will be left to do their own aero, and yet that appears to be acceptable as a major cost, and yet there's no real support for spec aerodynamics, so it might be that teams would need the option to buy aero packs with floors.....

 

I would like to see the CRT teams get some support by way of flexibility on tyre laws (as an example, run hards all day without the 2-compound rule that the grandees have to follow) and then you might see races where there's less difference in pace between the tiers....if that happens then sponsors and drivers and engineers will get interested, and that's where sustainability for the sport starts to grow. I think ;)

[johnmhinds]

But you could limit that easily. You could limit the max number of teams/cars that one constructor can supply. Or that constructor must suply last year's chassis. Or there could be one or few FIA chassis, that would be made by FIA as chassis that can be sold to teams. Made by dalara, sauber, force india or some other FIA defined constructor.  

 

You're assuming here that any of the current constructors have the facilities to build cars for other teams of course.... None of them do.

Edited by johnmhinds, 12 November 2014 - 23:20.

[evo]

 

From another topic (http://forums.autosp...-customer-cars/)

 

In the end, there's no real viable solution to the current problem.

 

In any case, this is my suggestion:

In years of continuity, customer teams can buy anything bar aero from the WCC from two years prior. That way they are in some way 'pegged back' so midfield teams still have an edge (somewhat).

 

In years of major changes, the rules have to allow a phase in period where the team would be given special allowances to up-spec or down-spec a two/one year old chassis (a bit like the STR with the V10).

 

Additionally, smaller teams would have "balance of power" subsidy whereby they are allowed a number of in-season (post race) testing days which comes from a pool of FOM income set aside for the upcoming season, a fixed amount per x number of teams depending on where they finish in the previous year's WCC, ie. lower WCC finish = higher subsidy for testing. This would be encouraged to increase competitiveness throughout the field, and in the interest of F1's sustainability.

 

Thoughts?

 

Similar thinking to the OP in terms of the construction of the cars themselves, and any further development would be done by the customer. The Constructor won't make the car, just provide the IP to build the chassis and aero, the same way STR and Super Aguri did years ago.

 

With the demise of  Caterham and Marussia, did anyone feel more 'tension' when watching Q1? Suddenly, no one was safe. Having teams with cars that are more likely to be faster than what Caterham and Marussia could build will make the whole weekend more exciting.

[aguri]

I think this problem of constructors v privateers could be solved easily if there was a competitive independent engine manufacturer willing to supply 5+ teams equally with top spec kit.

 

That, along with an equal revenue distribution would really cut into the manufacturer/works team advantage.

 

It would be like a rehash of the old Cosworth DFV. 

 

So yeah next time the engine formula is set to change. Cosworth should get the information a year before the manufacturers and sort out some funding so that when the time comes they can be competitive. 

[Cacarella]

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/116807

 

Looks like it's gonna happen.

 

Here's what I don't understand.  When did Williams become a big manufacturer?

I think they're fighting on the wrong side of the fence on this issue and will be burned.

[le chat noir]

They made the best deal they could. And now they're on the resurgence. It's not that they're a big manufacturer but a historic team, part of the fabric of F1 that F1 would be harmed by should they disappear. Not so tru of the others. Yes Enstone does well, but under several names

[ardbeg]

Also this again is basically F1 + F2 running at the same time. Ones F1, customers F2.

 

Agree. So they should call them like that. F1 & F2, run them together but different championships.

Better than to pretend. F1 and F2 cars have raced together before.

[SenorSjon]

I strongly dislike this. The CRT in MotoGP is a failure.

 

First season: factory machines were way faster. As if you combine Moto2 and MotoGP in the same race.

Following season: factory machines are severely limited to give CRT's a chance (more fuel, better tires).

 

In the end, when factory teams are so hamstrung that they will lose races, they will go as well. Nothing to gain.

[black magic]

not bad idea but sadly is only necessary becasue the sport set up currently broken.

 

the only real solution will sadly arise once f1 has reached absolute crisis and the choking grip of CVC can be broken

 

look at the suggestion of modified gp2 put forward by bernie

[noikeee]

The only way I ever see this working healthily is if it retains a constructor element, for example, tell any parts interested in running in the 2nd tier, that they can fit an old V8 detuned and can outsource 75% of the car to other teams but have to build the remaining 25% the first year, then 50% the second year etc. Not sure how you'd write that in the rules, but it would be considerably cheaper than a fullblown F1 team on current terms, and would give a gentler path for these new teams to become new constructors in their own right over the years.

 

But if you just allow a few GP2 frontrunners to field a beefed up Dallara and show up with it, you're opening a massive can of worms that's one step too dangerously close to a single spec car for the entire grid. If another proper team folds, they'll say, no problem, replace it with 2 more Dallaras. Then another. Then another. Then a few years later we're left with GP2 making up the entire F1 grid.

 

Unless that's their actual long-term plan, as it's obviously way cheaper for everyone to have a single car instead of building 13 different cars to compose a grid. That's what every other series in the world has done. But it'd be a very sad day for F1 when that happens.

[Wingcommander]

I wouldn't mind if FIA created F2 as a cost capped formula. The teams would still have to design their own cars but there would be a strictly monitored budget cap. Let the privateers race in a series where driving and engineering talent matter more than money. I don't want a spec series, I want a healthy open wheel series where teams build their own cars.

[le chat noir]

I wouldn't mind if FIA created F2 as a cost capped formula. The teams would still have to design their own cars but there would be a strictly monitored budget cap. Let the privateers race in a series where driving and engineering talent matter more than money. I don't want a spec series, I want a healthy open wheel series where teams build their own cars.

 

That's a good idea. That way the 3 littler teams can stay in 'F1', keep much of their workforce, and have their budget cap. The big teams have a full grid and can spend as they wish. The only thing is the little teams can't win the F1 championship, but they can win the F2 championship, which might result in generating more sponsors. The drivers should all compete together though.

[bourbon]

I don't understand the point of the medals instead of points for the drivers.  They already get medals (cups).  The points signify how they did over the entire season rather than race by race, which is more relevant to the man+machine singularity.  Obviously human error and machine reliability can have a major impact on outcome as well as outside forces.  So I don't see  how medals are particularly valuable as a device at all in an ongoing series with low driver turnover at the top.  There is nothing in the OP that appears to award the driver on an overall basis - yet that is the only basis for awarding the constructor/customer.  I don't understand the need for the distinction.  Why would the bifurcated WCC still be calculated on an overall basis rather than medals race by race?

[le chat noir]

It was just a way of showing all drivers in one system, the teams split into two. Instead of then having three points systems you had points for teams and something else for drivers. It also solves all the concerns about poor Lewis Hamilton missing out on his second WDC when he's won more races.

[bourbon]

It was just a way of showing all drivers in one system, the teams split into two. Instead of then having three points systems you had points for teams and something else for drivers. It also solves all the concerns about poor Lewis Hamilton missing out on his second WDC when he's won more races.

 

So the highest gold medal count would result in the WDC? 

 

As for the bifurcated WCC, if the present day bottom of the field is competitive, that might not play out very well on track for top drivers lapping them or catching up from a pitstop or rear-grid start.

[le chat noir]

So the highest gold medal count would result in the WDC?

As for the bifurcated WCC, if the present day bottom of the field is competitive, that might not play out very well on track for top drivers lapping them or catching up from a pitstop or rear-grid start.

Yes

And - really? you're worried about cars being too competitive?!

[johnmhinds]

I get the impression that Bernie would be happy at this point to kill off F1 and replace it with GP2. Or start GP1.

He'd have more control over the rules, a vastly lower cost sport would give him loads more money, and he would get back the loud cars.

Edited by johnmhinds, 18 November 2014 - 19:37.

[evo]

but when you modify the product that much, it just becomes a different product, and not neccesarily one that the tv audience or race goers would want. There is truth in the inherent 'DNA' of f1, and how the world currently views modern f1.