30 replies to this topic

[Wes350]

Just an idea I've been rolling around in my head lately...

 

I don't think that customers cars would be all bad if done right.

 

In fact certain F1 teams got their start that way.

 

The best Idea I came across for allowing customer cars (with a few of my own additions) was something to this effect:

 

Smaller teams can purchase a one year old car/chassis. (and all the relevant technical info).

 

They are free to develop it during the racing season on their own, but with no additional technical assistance from the seller.

 

There should be one big Rule though:

 

The top three WCC teams of any given year cannot sell customer cars the following season.

 

(So the top three 2014 WCC; Mercedes, RedBull, and Williams would not be allowed to sell customer cars for the 2015 F1 season.)

 

A top three WCC no-sell rule should eliminate a demand on any one particular constructors car year after year, with five or so teams all capable of getting into the top three.

 

This should make the midfield more competitive, with knowledge on how to make a decent chassis being more dispersed.

 

With the cost of buying a chassis cheaper than fully developing one on your own, it should help to control initial costs as a new team grows and learns how to be competitive.

 

This should also give a boost to the fourth or fifth place WCC teams as they will get a cash infusion to make a proper run at the top three WCC next year.

 

And it ensures that in order to take a top WCC spot you would eventually have to become a 'true' constructor of your own chassis. 

 

Maybe even enforcing that with a limit that you can only buy a customer car the first three years of a new team?

 

Granted, a few details I'm probably missing would need to be worked out, and other rulings made. But I think such a system would be workable.

Edited by Wes350, 08 January 2015 - 02:15.

[ehagar]

I would rather them just sell customer cars but make them either ineligible for constructor points, or the top 2 cars get the constructor points.

So if Haas Ferrari finishes ahead of Scuderia Ferrari, the points go to Ferrari.

You would have to arrange the money structure so the 'teams' championship is part of the percentages, or... Give out starting money instead like the old days.

Basically, give an incentive to design and build new cars but don't put the ridiculous demand of eveyone to design their own kit. There seems to be the ridiculous notion that F1 wouldn't be F1 if every team wasn't a constructor. Take a look at the sport pre-Bernie and you will see this is absolutely false.

[pdac]

People keep going on about customer cars and keeping F1 alive, but for me the whole point of F1 is that the competitors make their own cars. I'm not really interested in seeing F1 survive if it means losing this.

[ExFlagMan]

This has been covered in another thread

There are figure in there that suggest they might only save $20-$30m a year even if they got the cars for free.

[Nathan]

$20-30 million is a significant amount! Not sure why one would say "only".

 

I think it depends if you can still have good entertainment with 7-8 teams.  If not, then you need customer cars.  Economic reality has to rear it's head at some point.  Why can't some cars have a two-year lifespan?  Perhaps the need to produce 11 prototype cars each and every year is part of what is 'killing' F1?

 

Take $30 million off the expense sheets of Sauber, Lotus, FI, Caterham and Marussia and I bet the story lines aren't the same.

 

 

 

I don't think a customer team could collect constructors points.  I'm not sure how you would do the TV money.  I think it would be a good platform for new teams and drivers.

Edited by Nathan, 10 January 2015 - 14:42.

[ExFlagMan]

The point is the big teams are not likely to give the cars away for peanuts - in order to supply customer cars they would need to increase their own production capability and build up a stock of spares so either their own costs go up or they own developments get slowed down - not much point being a customer if the first time your driver comprehensively stuffs it you are out for the rest of the season.
If the customer has to have the capability of making their own spares then the projected savings rapidly diminish.

[eronrules]

this is where i do support ....

 

1. a spec survival cell for all the team made for FIA by  some 3rd party contractor (say dallara)

 

2. a spec inner chassis with all internal cooling arrangements provided by the manufacturers (so cars with Ferrari. Honda, Mercedes and Renault should have their own engine and cooling arrangements shared by the customer teams, given to them at the beginning of the season) and SPEC replacement should be available for purchase during the  season (i.e radiators/hoses/airboxes etc)

 

3. most importantly, customer teams should get the engine/software updates at the same time as the works team.

 

all the teams should build their own body work, suspension geometry and other stuffs. in this case, the factory teams still retains advantage as they'll still know much more than customer teams, so that they don't moan and bitch all the time.

 

also, customer teams will be relieved from building their chassis from scratch, saving them a lot on personnel and facility.

 

 

if FIA can ensure these, we think we'll have a much more competitive field than we have today.

[Nathan]

If we look at gearboxes we can see McLaren, Red Bull and Ferrari have made a business case out of it, and Caterham, Force India, Sauber and Marussia found benefit in buying "off the shelf".  I don't know the details of the former three I mentioned, but perhaps the added production was about as simple as adding an evening shift and using infrastructure that was already in place. 

 

The big savings comes in the engineering.  McLaren may have to produce twice as many gearboxes, but they don't need to double the size of the engineering team.  They don't need to setup a second test rig.  Force India on the other hand no longer needs to operate gearbox rig or design department, and they don't need to  purchase the machining equipment and required factory space.

 

There is a large supply chain for Formula-1, and I can't help but there would be little problem in outsourcing a lot of production. These cars are prototypes to begin with where most parts are manufactured as needed.

 

The time and money that goes into design, building and developing a new monocoque every year must be enormous. 

 

If I'm a new team there are so many capital cost savings offered buying a customer car.  If I'm a true constructor this offers me additional revenue from something I'm pretty well already doing. It seems very win-win.

 

Isn't it good for the sport if two teams can split the cost of an object?

Edited by Nathan, 10 January 2015 - 16:35.

[ExFlagMan]

There is a big difference between supplying a gearbox and a chassis/aero/bodywork.
A gearbox design does not change during the season and the no of units required is pretty easily quantified, though I doubt it is just a case of and extra evening shift - even if you are right you still have to staff that shift, where do these guys come from.

Notice from these costs supplied by the mid-grid teams. probably those who might be buying in gearboxes, the gearbox/hydraulics cost is given as $5m

- Hybrid power system $28 million
- Gearbox and hydraulics $5 million
- Fuel and lubricants $1.5 million
- Tyres $1.8 million
- Electronics $1.95 million
- IT $3 million
- Salaries $20 million
- Travel and trackside facilities $12 million
- Chassis production/manufacturing $20 million
- Windtunnel/CFD facilities $18.5 million
- Utilities and factory maintenance $2 million
- HR and professional services $1.5 million
- Freight $5 million
TOTAL $120.25 million

I wonder how much the top teams would charge to supply a customer team with a rolling chassis and what you would get for your money.
What would be in it for the supplier teams? At the end of a season probably much of their chassis. running gear etc. would be past its best - F1 teams have comprehensive 'lifeing' schedules for parts.
What about aero, most top teams seem to have a different aero configuration each race, I bet they do not keep a supply of each of those sets of parts, so where would your customer team get spares the next season.
To my thinking the notion that you could make great saving by buying in a car and then maintaining/developing it do not really add up.

You may of course know better than I do, but I would be interested to see where/what you thing savings from the above list could be made by being a customer team.

[Wes350]

 

What about aero, most top teams seem to have a different aero configuration each race, I bet they do not keep a supply of each of those sets of parts, so where would your customer team get spares the next season.
 

 

 

In my original post - along with the car the customer would get all the relevant technical info: (CFD, Windtunnel, Testing, aero package data, Buleprints and technical drawings.)

 

The customer would be in charge of making their spares and upgrading their car.

 

While there would be some cost savings to be had, the main point is this:

 

To give new teams a leg up in learning to build a competitive chassis.

 

And banning the top three WCC teams of every year from selling their chassis would keep any one team from becoming the F1 equivalent of Dallara.

 

 

People keep going on about customer cars and keeping F1 alive, but for me the whole point of F1 is that the competitors make their own cars. I'm not really interested in seeing F1 survive if it means losing this.

 

Really!?????   As a practice, customer cars have been an option in F1 decades longer than the practice has been banned...

 

As someone new to the sport, the lack of historical knowledge shown by some longtime fans is rather surprising.

 

 

And as can be plainly seen in the history of F1 - to get to the top a team would eventually have to become a proper constructor anyway.

Edited by Wes350, 10 January 2015 - 19:31.

[ExFlagMan]

In my original post - along with the car the customer would get all the relevant technical info: (CFD, Windtunnel, Testing, aero package data, Buleprints and technical drawings.)

And to make use of all that data you would need an equivalent wind-tunnel, CFD system to the supplier, things the tail end teams probably do not have. At the very least this removes 50% of the potential savings!
 

The customer would be in charge of making their spares and upgrading their car.

And there goes most of the rest of potential savings coz you now need the same production facilities as making you own car and engineers/designers who can work out what the car originators where thinking - from personal experience it is much easier to design your own system than it is to understand someone else's system.
 

While there would be some cost savings to be had

Almost all the savings have already gone and you still have to buy the chassis and all the data - and that is probably not going to be cheap coz the teams will not want to give away their IPR- think Red Bull and their flexi-wing construction.
 

the main point is this:
 
To give new teams a leg up in learning to build a competitive chassis.

Except you haven't actually learned how to design/build a competitive chassis - at best you have just about learned how to run something that was competitive last season.
 

And banning the top three WCC teams of every year from selling their chassis would keep any one team from becoming the F1 equivalent of Dallara.

So you are not buying a competitive chassis - at best it was a mid-field chassis - and can any of the mid-field teams afford the extra cost of supplying the chassis, most of them are just struggling to survive themselves.
 

Really!?????   As a practice, customer cars have been an option in F1 decades longer than the practice has been banned...
As someone new to the sport, the lack of historical knowledge shown by some longtime fans is rather surprising.

Yes - in the days when any decent fabricator could stitch together a F1 tub and a team of armatures (look up Connew on the Nostalgia Forum) can build an F1 car and attempt to race in F1.

Edited by ExFlagMan, 10 January 2015 - 22:24.

[Radoye]

$20-30 million is a significant amount! Not sure why one would say "only".

...

 

Basically by going the customer route all they save is the cost of a single PU for the entire season. All other costs remain, and they also lose constructor status and are ineligible for points in the Constructors' Championship, which also means money for the next season.

 

It's not a very good tradeoff.

[Lee Nicolle]

Customer cars does make sense. The engineering and design is 3/4 of the cost. Cost of production is minimal in comparison. This for chassis, engines and transmissions. Actually bigger volumes makes everything cheaper.

 

In the not so distant past to get into F1 probably meant a Cosworth DFV and a Hewland. Then literally cars could be fabricated in a suburban lock up!

 

The current ugly stupid cars are just that. Hybrid racing cars? Boring and stupidly expensive. The aero makes them look stupid. Limit the number of 'planes' front and rear. Less aero, wider  [and bigger diameter,,, 13" !!] tyres and lets go racing with full fields and possibly beyond. Decent start money, better PRIZE money and a lot more cars.

The same teams may well still be on top, but maybe not too.

Look at Ferrari at times. Lose their way totally.

[ExFlagMan]

The engineering and design is 3/4 of the cost. Cost of production is minimal in comparison. This for chassis, engines and transmissions. Actually bigger volumes makes everything cheaper.

Not sure this agrees with the quoted figures from the teams.
I guess the following set could be associated with the production of the car, disregarding then bought in components like PSU and gearboxes.

- IT $3 million
- Salaries $20 million
- Chassis production/manufacturing $20 million
- Windtunnel/CFD facilities $18.5 million
- Utilities and factory maintenance $2 million

This gives chassis production as $20m, total for all the other costs is just over $40, and you still need the majority of the staff to run the team, assemble the cars, make spare parts etc.
I guess the only savings you might be able to make come from not having and wind-tunnel and CFD, but somehow I doubt you could be competitive without at least some of those facilities.

When I went round a F1 factory some years ago, the amount of effort that was being put into production of parts was not insignificant, and that was at a mid-season point where most of the production of chassis etc would be expected to have already taken place.

[Burai]

Or just pay the smaller teams more money instead of rendering their investment and commitment obsolete overnight.

 

It's not the sixties. The existing midfield teams have made considerable investment in their facilities and have shown years of commitment. The sport should be sustaining their investment and honouring their commitment, not throwing them under a bus whilst finding new ways of boosting the profits of the top teams in the process.

 

People need to stop giving FOM get out of jail free cards that save them from having to, God forbid, pay all of the competitors in their championship fairly. No other legitimate sport operates like this and it's time to stop.

[Clatter]

I would rather them just sell customer cars but make them either ineligible for constructor points, or the top 2 cars get the constructor points.

So if Haas Ferrari finishes ahead of Scuderia Ferrari, the points go to Ferrari.

You would have to arrange the money structure so the 'teams' championship is part of the percentages, or... Give out starting money instead like the old days.

Basically, give an incentive to design and build new cars but don't put the ridiculous demand of eveyone to design their own kit. There seems to be the ridiculous notion that F1 wouldn't be F1 if every team wasn't a constructor. Take a look at the sport pre-Bernie and you will see this is absolutely false.

Whilst I can see and in principle agree with this it wouldn't work in practice as the money at the end of the season is handed out on the basis of constructor points. Customer teams would be no better off, and possibly worse, than they are now.

[Clatter]

People keep going on about customer cars and keeping F1 alive, but for me the whole point of F1 is that the competitors make their own cars. I'm not really interested in seeing F1 survive if it means losing this.

You really need to read up on the history of F1 and especially how some major teams got their start in F1. Without customer teams in the past F1 may not have survived as long and become as big as it has.

[Clatter]

How about a compromise where a team can sell the design for their car to a customer team. That team then has to build the car itself. There will still be significant costs but at least they will stand a chance of being competitive.

[Nathan]

"I wonder how much the top teams would charge to supply a customer team with a rolling chassis and what you would get for your money.
What would be in it for the supplier teams?"

 

Please allow me to play McLaren and theorize this back to you.

 

What is in it for me? Well I'm basically able to produce a significant revenue source from a technology that has already been created and paid for.  To my eyes selling the IP is almost free money.  As I stated earlier, since I don't have to hire more engineers in order to make these sales I can share the expenses.  I can do the same with the equipment and facilities used to design and test. I may be able to do it with some of the equipment used to manufacture.

 

I can't speak to how much a customer team could reduce their aero department.  I don't know what % of tunnel and CFD time are used to created the basic platform, and how much goes to honing it.  You would think larger teams could use customer aero as a development ground for new engineers. 

Maybe a Marussia can save $10-15 million.  It is hard to guess without a break down of the manufacturing and production costs.  I think the bigger points are it creates expense splitting opportunities for larger teams, and it becomes much easier for new teams to enter F1.  F1 being F1, I imagine some of these would strive to become constructors. It drastically reduces the upfront capital costs needed to enter and as noted by Wes, you start off with a proven product and not a scratch design from a recently put together design team. 

Edited by Nathan, 11 January 2015 - 18:07.

[ExFlagMan]

"I wonder how much the top teams would charge to supply a customer team with a rolling chassis and what you would get for your money.
What would be in it for the supplier teams?"
 
Please allow me to play McLaren and theorize this back to you.
 
What is in it for me? Well I'm basically able to produce a significant revenue source from a technology that has already been created and paid for.  To my eyes selling the IP is almost free money.

What if your car has some secrets that you really would not want to pass on as you will be using the advantage it gives in next years design. Again I suggest Red Bull front wing layup methods that allow (legal) flexi-wings as an example. If you pass on the IPR, that team could exploit it, or at least use it as a basis for protesting your next seasons results.
 

As I stated earlier, since I don't have to hire more engineers in order to make these sales I can share the current EXPENSES.  I can do the same with the equipment and facilities used to design and test. I may be able to do it with some of the equipment used to manufacture.

Unless of course you need to produce a few more chassis/aero parts to supply the customer team as the this years race cars are basically worn out, and this at a time when your production department is flat out producing next years car.
 

I can't speak to how much a customer team could reduce their aero department.  I don't know what % of tunnel and CFD time are used to created the basic platform, and how much goes to honing it.  You would think larger teams could use customer aero as a development ground for new engineers.

There is probably not that great of difference between the two, as the same team would probably do both tasks, as chassis design/production is mainly a close-season task and honing/upgrades take place in-season.
 

Maybe a Marussia can save $10-15 million.  It is hard to guess without a break down of the manufacturing and production costs.  I think the bigger points are it creates expense splitting opportunities for larger teams, and it becomes much easier for new teams to enter F1.  F1 being F1, I imagine some of these would strive to become constructors. It drastically reduces the upfront capital costs needed to enter and as noted by Wes, you start off with a proven product and not a scratch design from a recently put together design team.

I agree there is some merit in this, but I wonder how many new teams would be persuaded to enter, given the OP suggestion of no constructor points and hence no chance of earning money.

Edited by ExFlagMan, 11 January 2015 - 17:22.

[Red17]

The IP problem is bollocks, there are tech partnerships in other businesses and the whole thing gets taken care of with a simple wording in the contract. No need for special inspections, teams are pretty good in figuring out when their ideas are being used elsewhere and telling the FIA about it.

 

Money? Easy, big prize money for teams, bonus prize money for manufacturer, keeps interest in making your own cars, doesn't scare away newcomers that could buy a working chassis from manufacturers.

 

The thing is, most manufacturers are not interested right now. It would change many things and teams don't really fancy many sudden changes.

[Amphicar]

"I wonder how much the top teams would charge to supply a customer team with a rolling chassis and what you would get for your money.
What would be in it for the supplier teams?"

 

Please allow me to play McLaren and theorize this back to you.

 

What is in it for me? Well I'm basically able to produce a significant revenue source from a technology that has already been created and paid for.  To my eyes selling the IP is almost free money.  As I stated earlier, since I don't have to hire more engineers in order to make these sales I can share the expenses.  I can do the same with the equipment and facilities used to design and test. I may be able to do it with some of the equipment used to manufacture.

 

I can't speak to how much a customer team could reduce their aero department.  I don't know what % of tunnel and CFD time are used to created the basic platform, and how much goes to honing it.  You would think larger teams could use customer aero as a development ground for new engineers. 

Maybe a Marussia can save $10-15 million.  It is hard to guess without a break down of the manufacturing and production costs.  I think the bigger points are it creates expense splitting opportunities for larger teams, and it becomes much easier for new teams to enter F1.  F1 being F1, I imagine some of these would strive to become constructors. It drastically reduces the upfront capital costs needed to enter and as noted by Wes, you start off with a proven product and not a scratch design from a recently put together design team. 

As I pointed out in a previous thread, the top teams stopped selling customer cars long before the FIA banned it. Not counting Toro Rosso and Super Aguri, I reckon the last true customer car in F1 was the Brands Hatch Racing Williams FW07 that Desire Wilson failed to qualify for the 1980 British Grand Prix. 

[LORDBYRON]

People keep going on about customer cars, customers cars would mean that some or all of the investment would be there own cash  will never wok 

 

but the chassis thing could but the fia are hell bent on not cost saving so will never come in to force

 

the only route is a red bull second team option as in may be buying a 40% steak in a mid to back field team

Edited by LORDBYRON, 11 January 2015 - 20:44.

[Wes350]

 
Except you haven't actually learned how to design/build a competitive chassis - at best you have just about learned how to run something that was competitive last season.
 
So you are not buying a competitive chassis - at best it was a mid-field chassis - and can any of the mid-field teams afford the extra cost of supplying the chassis, most of them are just struggling to survive themselves.
 

 

Most teams base their new cars off of a previous seasons competitive car, so there is much for a new team to learn by using last years car. And continuing to update it.

 

If a new team does not want to invest in the personnel and resources to learn...

 

As for "mid-field chassis"... with 5 good teams  Mercedes, Redbull, ferrari, mclaren, and williams. That means if the top three can't sell you still have two of the remaining teams who can.  And it's not like these are all permanent back marker teams. And the points difference between the 3rd, 4th & 5th place teams can be narrow.

 

So yes, I would call buying a chassis and technical info from  4th or 5th place teams of the above names a competitive chassis...

 

Naturally some years will be better times to buy a competitive chassis than others.

 

As far as IP stuff and tech secrets - nobody is making anyone sell anything.

 

As far as WCC points:

 

If a new team starts beating its chassis seller by updating a year old car...  who's fault is that.

 

I just don't see it as a problem.

 

By excluding the top three WCC teams from selling their chassis - any team that wants to get to the top will eventually have to become a real constructor anyway.

 

It's a self-correcting issue.

[Lee Nicolle]

Since we will have a 16-18 car field this year customer cars are very good idea. Since they are not constructors the team gets no points for that championship. 

Look at Indy Cars, these days a control chassis, but cars on the grid.

For McLaren or Red Bull for instance to punch out 6 or 8 tubs makes the per unit price a lot less. For Renault, Ferrari etc to build some more engines too makes the per unit cost far less

A capable motorsport team could take these components and put it all together and at very least make up the numbers. A very smart one could challenge for podiums.

It works in no end of series. Even 'last years' cars with a refurb could be on the pace, eg fix the bits that did not work and maybe use a better engine, and or trans.

The big teams have made some shockers at times!

[Clatter]

Since we will have a 16-18 car field this year customer cars are very good idea. Since they are not constructors the team gets no points for that championship. 

Look at Indy Cars, these days a control chassis, but cars on the grid.

For McLaren or Red Bull for instance to punch out 6 or 8 tubs makes the per unit price a lot less. For Renault, Ferrari etc to build some more engines too makes the per unit cost far less

A capable motorsport team could take these components and put it all together and at very least make up the numbers. A very smart one could challenge for podiums.

It works in no end of series. Even 'last years' cars with a refurb could be on the pace, eg fix the bits that did not work and maybe use a better engine, and or trans.

The big teams have made some shockers at times!

I doubt that. The manufacturing cost per tub will be the same regardless of the number produced as they are made my hand and not by machine. 

[Kulturen]

Or just pay the smaller teams more money instead of rendering their investment and commitment obsolete overnight.

 

It's not the sixties. The existing midfield teams have made considerable investment in their facilities and have shown years of commitment. The sport should be sustaining their investment and honouring their commitment, not throwing them under a bus whilst finding new ways of boosting the profits of the top teams in the process.

 

People need to stop giving FOM get out of jail free cards that save them from having to, God forbid, pay all of the competitors in their championship fairly. No other legitimate sport operates like this and it's time to stop.

 

The problem is that F1 is not owned by the teams like most big professional leagues are but by a third party. F1 as you said needs proper revenue sharing but we won't have that until the league is owned by the teams. 

 

Personally I think that at some point the teams need to grow a pair and just buy F1 off of cvc or whomever. My hope is that some move will be made once Bernie is gone one way or another.

[ExFlagMan]

As for "mid-field chassis"... with 5 good teams  Mercedes, Redbull, ferrari, mclaren, and williams. That means if the top three can't sell you still have two of the remaining teams who can.  And it's not like these are all permanent back marker teams. And the points difference between the 3rd, 4th & 5th place teams can be narrow.
 
So yes, I would call buying a chassis and technical info from  4th or 5th place teams of the above names a competitive chassis...
 
Naturally some years will be better times to buy a competitive chassis than others.
 
As far as IP stuff and tech secrets - nobody is making anyone sell anything.

And there lies a potential major problem. If the top three are not allowed to sell their cars, and one or more of the mid-field do not want to sell their IPR or cannot afford the time/resources to make spare chassis, then who supplies the chassis to this plethora of customer teams...

[aramos]

this is where i do support ....

 

1. a spec survival cell for all the team made for FIA by  some 3rd party contractor (say dallara)

 

2. a spec inner chassis with all internal cooling arrangements provided by the manufacturers (so cars with Ferrari. Honda, Mercedes and Renault should have their own engine and cooling arrangements shared by the customer teams, given to them at the beginning of the season) and SPEC replacement should be available for purchase during the  season (i.e radiators/hoses/airboxes etc)

 

3. most importantly, customer teams should get the engine/software updates at the same time as the works team.

 

all the teams should build their own body work, suspension geometry and other stuffs. in this case, the factory teams still retains advantage as they'll still know much more than customer teams, so that they don't moan and bitch all the time.

 

also, customer teams will be relieved from building their chassis from scratch, saving them a lot on personnel and facility.

 

 

if FIA can ensure these, we think we'll have a much more competitive field than we have today.

 

That isn't a bad idea actually, as it covers some of the costs whilst allowing a lower entry point into the sport. Also the 'spec chassis' would no doubt be slower, which offers incentive for teams to eventually move beyond it.

[ExFlagMan]

this is where i do support ....
 
1. a spec survival cell for all the team made for FIA by  some 3rd party contractor (say dallara)
 
2. a spec inner chassis with all internal cooling arrangements provided by the manufacturers (so cars with Ferrari. Honda, Mercedes and Renault should have their own engine and cooling arrangements shared by the customer teams, given to them at the beginning of the season) and SPEC replacement should be available for purchase during the  season (i.e radiators/hoses/airboxes etc)
 
3. most importantly, customer teams should get the engine/software updates at the same time as the works team.
 
all the teams should build their own body work, suspension geometry and other stuffs
.
.
also, customer teams will be relieved from building their chassis from scratch, saving them a lot on personnel and facility.

Except you need almost the same production facilities to make these parts as you do to make the whole car, so the potential savings are not as great as might seem at first glance.

Having said that, it could level the field a bit unfortunately I cannot really imagine the likes of Ferrari, Red Bull etc. signing up to such a scheme and the FIA are not in a position to enforce it.

[Nathan]

Production costs, probably not, though you would think there would be some economies of scale - perhaps mopped up as profit.  But what about other areas like engineering, testing, windtunnel, needed floor size, startup costs, overall liabilities on the balance sheet? 

Edited by Nathan, 12 January 2015 - 16:49.