3999 replies to this topic

[Gilles4Ever]

Adam Cooper ‏@adamcooperF1  2m2 minutes ago

A 'constructive' meeting for the F1 Strategy Group today, with details to be revealed tomorrow: http://adamcooperf1.com/2015/05/14/constructive-meeting-for-f1-strategy-group/ … #F1

[Fastcake]

They must have finally come to a decision on whether to have hobnobs or digestive biscuits.

[Frank Tuesday]

I doubt they'll announce anything that will get me interested enough to start watching the races again.

[Tony Mandara]

They must have finally come to a decision on whether to have hobnobs or digestive biscuits.

It'd better be hobnobs, or I'm never watching F1 again!!

[turssi]

Autosport promises customer cars: http://www.autosport...t.php/id/118979

Great news for Sauber !

[KingTiger]

 and 

 

 Customer cars is an obvious solution; yet the group couldn't agree on other cost savings even after staring financial doom right in the face. 

[turssi]

and

Customer cars is an obvious solution; yet the group couldn't agree on other cost savings even after staring financial doom right in the face.

They can't agree to cut costs, but can dream of increased income :-)

If this is something realistic, is another thing. But I guess there are rich playboys who will be spending some to get some track action.

I hope they keep the 107÷ rule !

[Moctecus]

Customer cars is one of the few cost saving solutions that doesn't hurt the big teams.

That's the only reason why this would be agreed upon in favour of better solutions like a redistribution of funds, a maximum price for engines, etc.

Edited by Moctecus, 15 May 2015 - 00:14.

[black magic]

interesting concern expressed by mckenzie.

 

looks up from his trough and is suddenly concerned that the cash cow is struggling. que guilt about how much he is raping from the sport. que guilt as to how the private equity idea of managing anything is to put no money in, load up the debt, pay yourself an unsustainable dividend and then convince some other suckers to buy you out so you don't gat caught with the corpse of the company on your hands.

 

now where have we seen that scenario...

[BillBald]

It'd better be hobnobs, or I'm never watching F1 again!!

 

I think they should be able to afford Sainsbury's 'Taste the difference' oat digestives.

[JHSingo]

Customer cars? Laughable, just laughable.

 

These idiots couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

[givemeabettercar]

Customer cars are not perfect, but it may mean two good things. There won't be as big of a need for paydrivers and we may see 26 cars grids again. The two tier thing is a downside, but it isn't like the standings would change that much.

 

In a perfect world we would have a budget cap and more liberal rules, but...

[KingTiger]

I think if the customer cars are a year old and allowed to be modified by the new teams, it would work out perfectly for all parties. They should be slower, but still competitive, if the manufacturers can't beat year old cars they would only have themselves to blame.

[Tourgott]

Actually the only thing I hope they agreed on is to listen closely to the fans. They should do serious research and polls in the next weeks and THEN decide. Throw all rules in the bin and start from scratch.

I'm afraid they have done a knee-jerk reaction again without actually thinking about it.

Edited by Tourgott, 15 May 2015 - 05:08.

[Jimisgod]

Oooooh customer cars. Interesting, but bad for FI and the like. A step towards spec series.

[Timstr11]

Oooooh customer cars. Interesting, but bad for FI and the like. A step towards spec series.

You mean bad for Williams. Force India is broke and need a life line of some sort.

[OO7]

Customer cars? Laughable, just laughable.

 

These idiots couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

Not as easy as it sounds, given the Health & Safety concerns: http://www.hse.gov.u...llwoodhouse.htm

[Timstr11]

Sadly, customer cars are just a band aid.

We're moving away from the idea that every team needs to be a constructor, meaning that you have to design and own the IP to your own chassis.

It's the fabric of the sport.

 

I really wonder what concessions CVC/FOM have made at this meeting if at all.

Will we be see anything towards a change in the business model of this sport, which is at the core of the problems of small independent teams?

[PayasYouRace]

You mean bad for Williams. Force India is broke and need a life line of some sort.

 

 I don't see why it would be bad for Williams. I'd imagine they'd have people interested in buying the 3rd fastest chassis on the grid.

[Timstr11]

 I don't see why it would be bad for Williams. I'd imagine they'd have people interested in buying the 3rd fastest chassis on the grid.

 

Williams have been the biggest opponent of customer cars in recent years, which is why I singled them out.

True that now they;re in a better, less threatened position.

But I hope and think their stance against customer cars was more principle.

[lustigson]

Here's the tricky bit in the article:

 

 

The understanding is the matter, for now, is to be reviewed by the four CCB (Constructors' Championship Bonus) teams - Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull and McLaren, to assess costs and feasibility.

 

3 of these 4 teams have a vested interest in the matter. As they do in most matters, by the way. Ferrari have long worked with Sauber and will have an even closer relationship with Haas from next season, Red Bull and STR are sister teams already, while McLaren worked closely with both Force India and Manor/Marussia in the past.

[FullThrottleF1]

Hate, hate this idea. You may as well make it a spec series!

[CoolBreeze]

Go back to 1999 season and we have great rules. 

[taziosenna881]

 I totally agree with the above post. Go back to what worked. 5 steps back to make a meaningful step forward. The late 90's or 2003 (most passes behind 2012), aero regs were brilliant, stunningly beautiful and produced legendary racing. If the cars look like that and the fans are happy progress is being made. Then f1 can think about how to incorporate the hybrids. But they should go back to what worked. Massive blast from the past approach.

 

Customer cars? Tiered racing at its finest. Horrible idea in my view. Just awful. F1 needs real leadership that it is sorely lacking. 

Edited by taziosenna881, 15 May 2015 - 07:27.

[ANF]

 

Adam Cooper ‏@adamcooperF1  2m2 minutes ago

A 'constructive' meeting for the F1 Strategy Group today, with details to be revealed tomorrow: http://adamcooperf1.com/2015/05/14/constructive-meeting-for-f1-strategy-group/ … #F1

 

It does indeed look like the meeting was "constructive".

[ensign14]

They really are ****ing clueless, aren't they?  They've fallen for another bait & switch that will result in another two years of "discussion" before they decide that, actually, customer cars are not the way to go, but by which time Sauber, FI and Manor will be dead, buried, recycled into peat and burnt into Lagavulin.

[Timstr11]

Go back to 1999 season and we have great rules. 

 

 I totally agree with the above post. Go back to what worked. 5 steps back to make a meaningful step forward. The late 90's or 2003 (most passes behind 2012), aero regs were brilliant, stunningly beautiful and produced legendary racing. If the cars look like that and the fans are happy progress is being made. Then f1 can think about how to incorporate the hybrids. But they should go back to what worked. Massive blast from the past approach.

 

Customer cars? Tiered racing at its finest. Horrible idea in my view. Just awful. F1 needs real leadership that it is sorely lacking. 

 

I'm sorry but comments like these don't help.

 

You completely ignore the fact that the business and technical environment has changed dramatically compared to what we had in 1999.

 

The current business model of F1, combined with pretty much free-for-all technical rules is just NOT VIABLE. 

 

Have you noticed that teams are struggling, even with technical rules that have been the most restrictive they've ever been in F1?

[sterlingfan2000]

Customer cars finally.... No more donkey cars in grid line.

But pls make the strongest engine ever

[Jamiednm]

If customer cars are the biggest story to come out of this meeting, then I will be majorly underwhelmed. Original manufacturing isn't an issue in F1 - it's one of the positives. The cost of the engines, distribution of prize money and spectator numbers are real issues and have to be addressed.

[Gilles4Ever]

Tobias Grüner AMuS @tgruener

#F1 Customer cars idea will never be realised. Strategy group just needed something to show for. In reality the meeting was a waste of time.

[ensign14]

 

Tobias Grüner AMuS @tgruener

#F1 Customer cars idea will never be realised. Strategy group just needed something to show for. In reality the meeting was a waste of time.

 

 

Is he reading my posts?

[Slackbladder]

 

Tobias Grüner AMuS @tgruener

#F1 Customer cars idea will never be realised. Strategy group just needed something to show for. In reality the meeting was a waste of time.

 

 

For a sport run by such dominant personalities they really can't organise or pull in any one direction can they...

 

What the hell has Todt ever done or said? At least Mosley engaged and had ideas.

[FredF1]

Autosport promises customer cars: http://www.autosport...t.php/id/118979

Great news for Sauber !

 

Not so great for the likes of Dallara, Dams and Oreca when they find that Sauber has done an "exclusive deal" with all of them in turn.

[Timstr11]

Of the three stakeholder groups in the sport: CRH, FIA and the teams, I would say that the CRH (who own the rights to the sport), hold the key to fundamental changes.

The remit of the strategy group is limited in that they have no say or influence in how the sport is run commercially.

[KingTiger]

I don't understand why people are against customer cars. What is the problem? That Force India and Haas won't be throwing away their money at the wind tunnel to be last on the grid? Why wouldn't it be better to just buy a finished car that works and they can just go racing. 

[Timstr11]

I don't understand why people are against customer cars. What is the problem? That Force India and Haas won't be throwing away their money at the wind tunnel to be last on the grid? Why wouldn't it be better to just buy a finished car that works and they can just go racing. 

 

It's a matter of preference. How you view the sport.

 

For me, F1 is a constructors championship. The big prize money is distributed based on how well you did with constructing/designing the car.

Customer cars take away the element of constructing/designing the car yourself. It's a fundamental change and it will generate a lot of debate about how points and prize money should be distributed under such a scheme.

Edited by Timstr11, 15 May 2015 - 08:46.

[aramos]

 I don't see why it would be bad for Williams. I'd imagine they'd have people interested in buying the 3rd fastest chassis on the grid.

3rd fastest chassis without the engine advantage?

 

I'd still rate the Red Bull over the Williams with engine parity.

[aramos]

I don't understand why people are against customer cars. What is the problem? That Force India and Haas won't be throwing away their money at the wind tunnel to be last on the grid? Why wouldn't it be better to just buy a finished car that works and they can just go racing. 

 

The problem is you're inevitably going to end up racing in the midfield with no hope of more. Part of F1 has been hoping that maybe one day the team can progress up the grid, but if a team is a 'customer team' it doesn't have the infrastructure to design and develop its own cars.

 

Some argue the dream of progression is unrealistic and in many ways I agree. I don't have any issue with smaller teams buying last years cars. But would last years Mercedes be any worse than this years Red Bull?

[Rinehart]

1. Customer cars - I've always been massively in favour of this - F1 is a "Constructor" series, the definition of construct is to assemble, not to design and fabricate also. Fact is in F1 you used to be able to buy customer cars, so the fact it has been outlawed for 30 odd years is purely economic (to protect the value of F1 teams), it is not a fundamental principle or a tradition. Customer cars allows the top teams to continue to gain the innovation and integration advantage, but it vastly lowers the entry and running costs for new and smaller teams. Plus the FIA can mandate a price ($5m) that top teams must be obliged to sell a "copy" of their chassis package to at least one customer - perfect, in my view. 

 

2. Subsidised engines - I would love the rule to be changed to allow the FIA to mandate a price ($5m) for a PU package, but I cannot see this being agreed to (for say Merc to agree to this, they're effectively agreeing to lose $57m if they have 3 customers) so it can't be introduced until the next Concorde in 2020 - and even then in a negotiable compromise position. 

 

3. Reworked funds - as above - I would love this to be renegotiated (last place team gets $60m and up from there so it is a sustainable sport), but I cannot see this being agreed to as it could cost say Ferrari $75m) so it can't be introduced until the next Concorde in 2020 and probably not even then probably not beyond a negotiable improvement.

 

Fact is that customer cars now and subsidised engines from 2020 will drastically reduce the costs for the smaller/poorer teams to compete, thus lessening the burden of the prize fund issue. In fact, it could even be possible to lower the prize winnings to teams based on their constructor championship finishing position if they were a customer rather than an IP owning team. I'm not going mad - if you reduce the cost to compete by $50m (due to buying a car for $5m and a PU for $5m) then to reduce the worst placed teams prize money by 50% ($40m in 2014 so $20m in 2020) - that actually represents an improved cash position of $30m for that team (save $50 - lose $20 = + $30m).

 

I'm in favor of it as it is the best solution to keep small teams in without affecting the competitive advantage of the bigger teams. It will be a "class 2" in effect but so what, does anyone actually think Force India are going to win the next GP anyway? 

[Rinehart]

Customer cars? Laughable, just laughable.

 

I've given my reasons why I think they are a good idea. 

 

Any chance you could explain why you think they're laughable?

[Timstr11]

1. Customer cars - I've always been massively in favour of this - F1 is a "Constructor" series, the definition of construct is to assemble, not to design and fabricate also. Fact is in F1 you used to be able to buy customer cars, so the fact it has been outlawed for 30 odd years is purely economic (to protect the value of F1 teams), it is not a fundamental principle or a tradition. Customer cars allows the top teams to continue to gain the innovation and integration advantage, but it vastly lowers the entry and running costs for new and smaller teams. Plus the FIA can mandate a price ($5m) that top teams must be obliged to sell a "copy" of their chassis package to at least one customer - perfect, in my view. 

 

 

Let's say team A has invested money in designing and building their own chassis, only to be out-raced by team B who has bought a superior chassis (cheaply as you suggest) from a front-running team.

 

How should in your view the points and prize money be distributed to customer car teams? The same as now? Do you think that would be fair?

Edited by Timstr11, 15 May 2015 - 09:00.

[wj_gibson]

Depends what model of customer cars we're talking about.

 

If it's the kind that means the bottom half of the grid all buy a Mercedes chassis then that benefits only Merc.

[Slackbladder]

Let's say team A has invested money in designing and building their own chassis, only to be out-raced by team B who has bought a superior chassis (cheaply as you suggest) from a front-running team.

 

How should in your view the points and prize money be distributed to customer car teams? The same as now? Do you think that would be fair?

 

It would have to lead to a two-tier F1, but then we pretty much have that already.

[Rinehart]

 I don't see why it would be bad for Williams. I'd imagine they'd have people interested in buying the 3rd fastest chassis on the grid.

Frank commented on this about 20 years ago. 

 

He basically said if a team did not have the infrastructure to design and build a car and could just BUY one (even theirs) and beat them it wouldn't be fair as they would be winning "his" constructor prize money. Also, it would wipe millions off the value of Williams the business, as the infrastructure wouldn't be necessary to a buyer, should the team be for sale.

 

What I'd say to Frank is;

 

1. The prize fund for customers can be separate to the prize fund for the constructors. There could even be 2 championships, 1 for constructors and 1 for customers.

2. Williams are likely to be BETTER OFF financially under this model with a proportionately larger share of the income and income from chassis sales.

3. I basically disagree with the argument that it would wipe value from Williams. Constructor teams will always hold a value over their customer rivals. Audi would not want to buy a customer team.

4. Dear Frank is arguing the opposite of what suited him when he entered into F1. 

[Rinehart]

Sadly, customer cars are just a band aid.

We're moving away from the idea that every team needs to be a constructor, meaning that you have to design and own the IP to your own chassis.

It's the fabric of the sport.

 

 

No it is not, customer cars were prevalent in the old days, Williams started that way for instance. It is purely an economic reason that they were banned, actually. 

[lustigson]

I don't understand why people are against customer cars. What is the problem? That Force India and Haas won't be throwing away their money at the wind tunnel to be last on the grid? Why wouldn't it be better to just buy a finished car that works and they can just go racing. 

 

The problem with customer cars is that, as soon as they're introduced, there will be 4 Mercedes' fighting for the podium, and 4 Ferraris, 4 Red Bulls and 4 McLarens — that's 16 cars from 4 constructors — taking all top 10 finishes over the course of a season.

 

With their constructor teams and their respective customers they'll push out constructors like Williams, Force India and Sauber. Then the sport will need several more customer teams, with even more Mercedes', Ferraris, Red Bulls and McLarens gunning for top positions.

 

And then Red Bull decides to call it a day, creating a 4 to 6 car gap on the grid. Necessitation more cars from Mercedes and Ferrari. And then Mercedes has decided it has won enough, with another major hole in the line-up to fill. Et cetera, et cetera.

 

In the end all we have is the Formula Ferrari World championship with 24 equal cars. That might be entertainment, but it's not Formula 1 and it's no longer Grand Prix racing.

 

We need biodiversity for a healthy ecological system.

[lustigson]

No it is not, customer cars were prevalent in the old days, Williams started that way for instance. It is purely an economic reason that they were banned, actually. 

 

Count the number of times non-constructor teams have won races (a handful) or championships (none).  :-\

[Kristian]

I'm in support of customer cars in theory, as long as a) A manufacturer can only supply one team (thus not having a grid full of Mercedes chassis) and B) They are a year old, with only the customer allowed to develop.

[Rinehart]

 

But I hope and think their stance against customer cars was more principle.

See above. Frank has been very clear that his opposition to customer cars is economic, self-interest in what is best for Williams - his view has nothing to do with what is best for F1 whatsoever.

I really respect Franks position, he's got Williams to where they are today with such cold blooded, self interested demands in the interests of the survival of and winning of Williams. Absolutely cannot knock that. 

[Timstr11]

It would have to lead to a two-tier F1, but then we pretty much have that already.

Exactly. A two-tier system.

Customer cars teams will have to be given less points, less prize money.

It's not in the rules, so we don't have that yet.