117 replies to this topic

[FullThrottleF1]

I am totally in the group that thinks that there should be NO customer cars in F1. For all the reasons above. Vote and discuss! 

Edited by FullThrottleF1, 18 May 2015 - 10:52.

[HistoryFan]

There were costumer cars over years in F1...

[Pete_f1]

Customer cars only disappeared in the 80's so for most of its life 'Grand Prix' racing has been fine with them. Thats how Ferrari and Williams got stared.  

[Spillage]

Voted yes. I think it'll kill competition. Look at MotoGP; the same two teams have won every race since what, 2011? I worry customer cars will create a similarly two-tiered series.

[TimRTC]

Voted yes. I think it'll kill competition. Look at MotoGP; the same two teams have won every race since what, 2011? I worry customer cars will create a similarly two-tiered series.

 

I would support a MotoGP style solution with factory/full prototype teams running at the front and a second tier of satellite/customer teams further back. Yes the racing might not have the purity that some fans want, but if it would allow full grids and competitive racing, then I think it would be a good idea.

 

Afterall the only teams that could win a race are Mercedes, Ferrari or maybe Williams (although only if both Mercs retire), the rest of the teams are essentially a second tier, with Manor Racing occupying a third tier to themselves (or maybe shared with McLaren!). Allowing those mid-card teams to cut their costs and run customer cars would at the very least ensure their survival in this tough economic climate. They still won't win races, but if they can cut costs, they could hopefully bring in more drivers on quality rather than just sponsorship.

 

It would not need to be permanent either, encourage teams to move back up to manufacturer status when money allows.

[V8 Fireworks]

Blame Rossi for not riding the Ducati properly? 

 

Voted yes. I think it'll kill competition. Look at MotoGP; the same two teams have won every race since what, 2011? I worry customer cars will create a similarly two-tiered series.

 

I just don't think the other riders are of the same calibre as the Honda and Yamaha ones.  Ducati seem closer now; they went backwards when Rossi replaced Stoner - even though the actual bike was possibly exactly the same. 

[Spillage]

I would support a MotoGP style solution with factory/full prototype teams running at the front and a second tier of satellite/customer teams further back. Yes the racing might not have the purity that some fans want, but if it would allow full grids and competitive racing, then I think it would be a good idea.

 

Afterall the only teams that could win a race are Mercedes, Ferrari or maybe Williams (although only if both Mercs retire), the rest of the teams are essentially a second tier, with Manor Racing occupying a third tier to themselves (or maybe shared with McLaren!). Allowing those mid-card teams to cut their costs and run customer cars would at the very least ensure their survival in this tough economic climate. They still won't win races, but if they can cut costs, they could hopefully bring in more drivers on quality rather than just sponsorship.

 

It would not need to be permanent either, encourage teams to move back up to manufacturer status when money allows.

It's true that in any individual season in F1 it's unusual to see more than three teams win a race, but it's between seasons where having a grid full of unique cars pays off. When was the last time a MotoGP team that wasn't the factory Honda, Yamaha or Ducati effort won a race? The competitive seats are absolutely locked down. With a grid devoid of customer cars we can have phenomena like Renault wining two titles in the mid-00s, Brawn coming from nowhere in 2009, Red Bull rising from the midfield to dominate... the variety I like is not so much within the seasons, but over several of them.

[Fastcake]

There were costumer cars over years in F1...

In an era when teams were led by engineers and racers, when you could construct your own car with a dozen engineers in a garage and throw a ready to race Cosworth in the back. Now though, the marketeers and financiers who own the teams aren't going to approve building a massive factory with a windtunnel and mass CFD and simulation capabilities and a staff in the hundreds. The barrier to entry is so much higher nowadays.

[GhostR]

It's true that in any individual season in F1 it's unusual to see more than three teams win a race, but it's between seasons where having a grid full of unique cars pays off. When was the last time a MotoGP team that wasn't the factory Honda, Yamaha or Ducati effort won a race? The competitive seats are absolutely locked down. With a grid devoid of customer cars we can have phenomena like Renault wining two titles in the mid-00s, Brawn coming from nowhere in 2009, Red Bull rising from the midfield to dominate... the variety I like is not so much within the seasons, but over several of them.

 

Much as F1 is doing, MotoGP has been through phases of trying to rebuild itself. Just as with F1, back in the "glory" years it wasn't unusual to see non-factory riders mixing it with the factory riders and taking wins. More recently, I'd point to the Ducati championship that Stoner delivered in '07 as being akin to the Renault titles. At the other end of the scale: just as MotoGP has faced periods of dominance by a single team/rider, so has F1 (Doohan / Rossi vs Schumacher / Vettel). In many respects, MotoGp has been for a few years now trying to make itself more like F1 (introducing the CRT bikes etc) and failing to make it succeed (they even lost Stoner from the grid as a direct consequence of their fiddling). So it's arguable that the current state of MotoGP competition is evidence in favour of changing the current F1 rules for customer cars.

 

Ultimately, the success or failure of customer cars in F1 will depend entirely on how they implement the rule. I'm personally in favour of a rule that allows the core chassis and mechanicals to be bought, but the aero 'skin' that goes on it to be bespoke. I'd definitely support it if it comes at the same time as an opening up of the aero rules to allow more scope for some oddball ideas to be tried out. As much as they were ugly, I absolutely loved last years noses because there was such a wide range of different ideas (not least of which being Lotus' tuning fork).

[Radoye]

The thing is, unlike previous times when there were customer cars (and part-time privateer drivers) in F1, in today's atmosphere a customer car will never be allowed to beat their manufacturer team. If STR is to become a true customer team of RBR, they will be operated as one 4-car team with a strict hierarchy where the "main" operation will always have to end up on top. If say Haas is to become the Ferrari customer, or rather B-team, they will never be allowed to beat the red cars. And so on.

 

In effect, it will be used by the manufacturer teams to circumvent testing and other development regulations, and you'll have even more team order shenanigans.

 

It will be great for the smallest teams to stay in F1 on a budget, without a real ambition to compete for the top. They will be given a chance to mix it up for the lower points paying positions.

 

It would be a disaster for medium-sized teams who are too small to become a supplier but too large to be easily integrated into a manufacturer's operation as a B-team. With the big teams having such an advantage in testing and running more cars, they will get pushed out of F1.

 

It would be a disaster for the manufacturing base of F1, because except for the 3-4 top manufacturers no other F1 operation would have to employ any R&D and manufacturing personnel. They will essentially turn into glorified GP2 operations, sell off their factories and lay off people. It will greatly diminish the product as a whole with talented young engineers looking elsewhere than F1 for employment. And finally, it will make F1 even more vulnerable to the whim of the remaining manufacturers who if they decide to leave there will be nobody left to step in and fill their place.

[Wingcommander]

I voted yes. Because I like that in F1 every team has to design and build their own cars. I like that each team's car is unique. 

 

It's likely that with customer cars we could easily have a full grid, maybe even the pre-qualifying mayhem of the past. But it would basically create a two tier system that I don't like. The customer teams would not need the kind of infrastructure that all the teams these days have, so would they be able to take the step forward and start building their own cars? I am not convinced that many of them could, but if the answer is yes then I have nothing against customer cars. Ofcourse, why would anybody want invest a lot of money to create a moving chicane while you could just buy a Mercedes? Also I feel that having customer cars and therefore less constructors would only make the big teams even more powerful politically, which probably would not be a good thing. Just my 2 cents.

[LuckyStrike1]

There's been more years with customer cars in F1 than there has been without customer cars. 

[Geizterfahrer]

Depends on what exactly a customer car is and how they'll regulate it. If customer cars mean that Toro Rosso will get the same car and development steps as Red Bull, without any limit on how many seasons they're allowed to "buy" a ready to race car, then they'll definitely kill F1. If customer cars mean that you're allowed to buy a current car in January (when teams have their cars ready for testing) and have to develop it on your own, to learn how to build your own car in two or three years, then it's a chance for F1 to attract new teams.

[Wingcommander]

There's been more years with customer cars in F1 than there has been without customer cars.

That was a long long time ago when the step from being a customer to being a constructor was a lot smaller.

[apreading]

All this talk of Toro Rosso buying the Redbull car, surely this year they are doing better with their own?!?!

[MasterOfCoin]

I'm for customer cars, but i would like the customers to build the noses and the wings, and get chassis tubs and everything else from the manufacturers.

[apreading]

Perhaps they should allow all constructors to sell just to a single customer team and any constructor points scored by the customer team are accrued by both teams.  That way the customers will be unlikely to beat any of the constructors unless one of them does a really poor job.  And I like the idea that they buy the car at the beginning of the season and have to develop it themselves.  Obviously the constructors would sell them a slightly downgraded version of the car they actually take to the races themselves anyway.

[Jimisgod]

No. Refueling will.

[Fatgadget]

A more realistic proposition would be say a chassis built by Dallara.An engine by Cosworth.Electronis by Marelli and an open source management system.All this at an affordable price....Yeah I'm just day-dreaming too lol! 

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

Back when I first plunged headlong into racing in the '70's customer cars and parts were common in Formula One. But it is extremely critical to understand that the conditions were very different between the eras. Back then, any team had a decent chance of doing well as long as they had decent engineering and a good driver (e.g. Hesketh). And back then, a customer car provided a platform for any team to learn and progress. Build a car, show up, and if you qualified, race. Do well, collect money and prestige, get better, progress. The story of Sir Frank Williams is one of those successes. He started in Formula One with a Brabham chassis and Cosworth engine.

 

But in today's climate where Bernie has everyone wrapped up tight with contracts, going the route of a customer car is a road to perpetual mediocrity. The odds of actually winning a Formula One race are practically zero. The ability to improve as a team is zero. And the net effect is that any teams mired in the land of customer cars are forever doomed to never getting better, never finishing in the points, the only good odds are eventual bankruptcy. And what serious racing team would go down this route? They know that eventually it will result in failure, maybe disgrace. So anyone going down the route of customer cars would not be a serious race team as in the example of Peter Sauber (who was winning in endurance but wanted to go up another level), but rather some business venture only interested in gaining international exposure for advertising purposes, or some billionaire just wanting to rub elbows with the rich and famous.

 

It would become a two-tier series, it would become a farce and embarrassment, it would devalue Formula One as the premier racing series.

 

It would fill the grid, Bernie would have fulfilled his end of the contract, and Tamara would be able to buy that mansion.

[oetzi]

She can already.

Must try harder.

[KingTiger]

Customer cars are very good for F1, if they are integrated properly. 

[Nonesuch]

I don't think it would 'ruin' F1; it would merely continue the existing trend in many forms of motorsport to standardize more and more aspects of cars not directly funded by big constructors. Whether that's GP2, LMP2, or the 'balance of performance' adopted in many other series.
 
I don't see much point in customer cars either, for reasons similar to those outlined by BlinkyMcSquinty.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

Customer cars are very good for F1, if they are integrated properly. 

 

But how can they be integrated and not just a lower tier? Only teams that do not have the resources will have to settle on customer cars. And since they do not enjoy the vast resources of others, can never indulge in the finer details of wind tunnel time, the constant upgrades, and being able to spend millions just to find that 1/10th. I understand that this is the fate of any team that is not on top, but how on earth can they have any chance of actually improving enough to get points, to make more money, attract better drivers and more sponsorship?

 

And this leads into the second part, that the top teams are allowed some control of the sport. This is part of the cancer, because each team is bound to look out only for their own interests. I do not hold that against the teams, but I do hold it against the ones who gave them such powers. This cancer is pervasive within Formula One, the cancer of unequal distribution of funds, of teams controlling the sport, the inability to control costs in a sane manner, and regulations that stifle innovation.How we got here can fill a few hundred Wiki servers, but we are here. To accept customer cars is a band-aid solution, it does not address the core problems, it just masks them for a few more years.

 

Any healthy professional sport has a method to allow change, to allow fresh blood, and a financially viable environment. But in Formula One, it is becoming a closed club, they eat their young.

[Nathan]

Voted yes. I think it'll kill competition. Look at MotoGP; the same two teams have won every race since what, 2011? I worry customer cars will create a similarly two-tiered series.

 

But we already have that, F1 has been three-teir for as long as I have been watching..  Customer cars would allow the current two-teir teams that have little hope of seeing a podium more opportunity to do so.  F1 would be more competitive because back of the grid teams would be closer speed wise to the front.

Edited by Nathan, 20 May 2015 - 01:30.

[Norm]

Fantastic post Blinky.

[Norm]

But we already have that, F1 has been three-teir for as long as I have been watching..  Customer cars would allow the current two-teir teams that have little hope of seeing a podium more opportunity to do so.  F1 would be more competitive because back of the grid teams would be closer speed wise to the front.

F1 would become nothing more than a showcase for the manufactures. Guaranteed results week in week out. There is nothing competitive about that.

Edited by Norm, 20 May 2015 - 01:47.

[CoolBreeze]

I cant seem to vote, but my answer is yes. 

[anbeck]

As spec series show: even if all the teams have the same car, it is still the better teams that end up on top. I would not have a problem with Haas running two Ferrari cars next year, because I don't think he'd beat anybody. Would I prefer to see a solution that allows Sauber, Force India and Manor to survive on their own? YES! But do I prefer them running customer cars before they go bankrupt? Yes! (although I cannot imagine Sauber not building their own car, given the top facilities they have... but for Manor, it would be a good option).

 

What I'd like to see rather than Ferrari and Merc selling their cars would be a something like March in the olden days, that is, constructors that make a business model out of selling their car to several teams. Dallara might do that: just build a car and sell it to all the new teams that want to enter (and the others who want to give up constructor status, like Manor). Let Bernie and the FIA figure out a good engine-deal, and we might have 26 cars on the grid by the start of 2017. Using this Dallara base car, those new teams (likely to be on back of the grid) could slowly build their own capacities and when they feel ready, become full constructors on their own. This way, ART or similar teams could make the step from GP2 to F1 more easily before becoming full-blown constructors after a few years.

Although new teams would enter cars that are all based on a Dallara design, they are allowed to develop it in their own way. Then it'd be interesting to see what Manor, Haas, ART, DAMS, etc. would be able to get out of that car...

 

So instead of big teams selling their cars to 'satellite allies' (which would establish rather fixed power relations), we'd have an external constructor selling cars to anybody who wants to race them. Under those rules, only constructors who don't enter factory teams are allowed to sell their car to other teams. If the price is right, this might solve Manor's problems, it would not threaten Sauber, Williams and Force India, it might get us full grids and a better show. Just figure out the engine rules. And if Dallara can sell their car to more than just one team (HRT), then they have more resources to come up with something more sustainable.

 

If you let big constructors (i.e., top teams) sell their cars: change the constructors' championship back to the old rules: it is only the first car for every manufacturer that scores points, no matter for which team he is driving. Didn't Stirling Moss win the first race for Lotus with Rob Walker's customer team? 

[KingTiger]

But how can they be integrated and not just a lower tier? Only teams that do not have the resources will have to settle on customer cars. And since they do not enjoy the vast resources of others, can never indulge in the finer details of wind tunnel time, the constant upgrades, and being able to spend millions just to find that 1/10th. I understand that this is the fate of any team that is not on top, but how on earth can they have any chance of actually improving enough to get points, to make more money, attract better drivers and more sponsorship?

And this leads into the second part, that the top teams are allowed some control of the sport. This is part of the cancer, because each team is bound to look out only for their own interests. I do not hold that against the teams, but I do hold it against the ones who gave them such powers. This cancer is pervasive within Formula One, the cancer of unequal distribution of funds, of teams controlling the sport, the inability to control costs in a sane manner, and regulations that stifle innovation.How we got here can fill a few hundred Wiki servers, but we are here. To accept customer cars is a band-aid solution, it does not address the core problems, it just masks them for a few more years.

Any healthy professional sport has a method to allow change, to allow fresh blood, and a financially viable environment. But in Formula One, it is becoming a closed club, they eat their young.

I agree with your 2nd point. The teams have too much power and are using it for their own interests. Unfortunatelly that will not be changed unless there are big changes at the F1 FIA comission.
I don't think customers will forever be stuck in mediocrity with old designs, especially if the FIA gives them protection. A strong mature chassis should be able to compete with new cars at times, especially if the customers are allowed to augment it as they see fit. The tiny teams will never be able to compete with the manufacturers on a equal level, and I'm sure they know that. With a strong starting point they'll be able to spend the little money they have improving the car and running the team rather than fighing the fires their own new car would have. I think Marussia/HRT/Caterham would've been better off starting with a proven design rather than starting from scratch and struggling their entire existance with hugely uncompetitive cars.

[Peat]

I'm not against the idea, but there should be an incentive to build your own car. 

F1 owes it's existence to independent constructors, letting people buy current cars off the shelf is a royal middle finger to them.  

[PayasYouRace]

But we already have that, F1 has been three-teir for as long as I have been watching..  Customer cars would allow the current two-teir teams that have little hope of seeing a podium more opportunity to do so.  F1 would be more competitive because back of the grid teams would be closer speed wise to the front.

 

No it hasn't. Just because you've arbitrarily divided the grid into front-runners, midfield and backmarkers doesn't mean they are different tiers. They've always been racing under the same rules as each other, bar a couple of exceptions such as the turbo and non-turbos of 88-89 or the limited V10s of Toro Rosso in 2006. The only thing determining which "tier" a team has been in is how good a job they've done.

 

----------------

 

On a more general point. It shouldn't be too hard to implement customer chassis regulations that both protects existing constructors and allows new entrants into the sport.

 

For example, the independent teams wouldn't score in the constructors championship but could have an independents' prize money pot that would be smaller but just for them. There would have to be an appropriate balance. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if customer teams beat other constructors as long as the rewards were appropriate to the amount of work required to achieve the result.

 

If the rules were drawn up sensibly it would encourage new entrants to build up to becoming full constructors in a few years.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

Any customer chassis by definition would be an older design, and thus uncompetitive in relation to the front-runners. But even if a lower team was sold the 2015 Mercedes or Ferrari chassis, it takes a huge amount of resources (translated = money) to make it work properly. You can't just take a chassis, fit in a power unit, and expect it to go fast. The tuning, tweaking, and upgrading is a constant battle, even the top teams struggle at times and devote a LOT of effort in this area.

 

Returning to my previous rant, the bottom line is the unequal distribution of funds, and no matter how good the hardware, if you don't have the money, you can't improve as much as those with money. And if you can't improve performance-wise, you don't improve the revenue. Definitely a Catch-22. The present financial structure and regulations severely restrict anyone from improving without that one constant, pouring a lot of money down the well. Red Bull had to spend hundreds of millions to get from Jaguar to where they are now, Williams spent a lot last year (they improved in performance, but the company took a financial loss doing so), and Force India could improve, if they spent more money. Fact of life.

 

The design and construction of a chassis is somewhere around 15% of a team's total revenue, while power units eat up to over 50% of the total costs.

[tormave]

The biggest problem with customer cars is the fact that it would kill the current midfield teams. They're set up as manufacturers, and have invested heavily to become such. Their valuations will plummet, if suddenly one can lease a couple of Ferraris or Williams', go racing and lap the current midfield.

 

Having said that, I'd much rather see e.g. Nico Hulkenberg or Romain Grosjean driving something much closer to front runner pace than they are now. It would be totally OK for F1 to have 5-6 manufacturers with a similar sort of number of teams driving close to factory spec cars in customer teams. Essentially we already have customer cars - there's just a semi-arbitrary list of components that have to have your own IP, the chassis being the biggest one of them. STR and Haas are only developing the sharing-forbidden bits by themselves. There's a lot of racing teams in other formulae who are good at going racing with someone else's machinery. Allowing customer cars would significantly lower the barrier of entry to Formula One, which can't be a bad thing either.

[Nathan]

 ^ Are they not dying now as we speak?  What about future teams?  We can have more with customer cars.  The cost to establish a true constructor is much too great for anyone other than a billionaire, or large corporation.  Is that the kind of team ownership we want?
 

F1 would become nothing more than a showcase for the manufactures. Guaranteed results week in week out. There is nothing competitive about that.

 

OK that's fair, but F1 isn't really a showcase for small constructors that struggle to score points.  That is why they have few fans and small budgets.  Few really care, most want to see whats happening at the front.  Mercedes has guaranteed results now, Red Bull before that, before that Ferrari and Williams...so what changes?  Now we have two Mercedes teams fighting for a win?  Better than one. 

Most complaints about what might happen all ready do happen.  Last year we seen a very competitive Williams, and a big part of that was the engine in the back.  Is that being competitive, having the right/wrong motor?

 

 

No it hasn't. Just because you've arbitrarily divided the grid into front-runners, midfield and backmarkers doesn't mean they are different tiers. They've always been racing under the same rules as each other, bar a couple of exceptions such as the turbo and non-turbos of 88-89 or the limited V10s of Toro Rosso in 2006. The only thing determining which "tier" a team has been in is how good a job they've done.

 

So by your definition, a customer car'd F1 wouldn't be two-teir, and the suggestion it would be is probably arbitrary since customer cars would still probably have to follow the regulations of the time.  For example, FIA is always looking to reduce downforce, I highly doubt if they did so in say 2018 they would allow the 2017 customer cars to continue producing 2017 downforce.

Why can't we determine tiers by consistent performance/results?  It is clear most teams are locked in to front/mid/back pecking order any how, with the odd over achieving season here and there.

Edited by Nathan, 20 May 2015 - 14:55.

[Radoye]

Any customer chassis by definition would be an older design...

 

Not necessarily. The 'big' teams can use their customers to circumvent testing and wind tunnel regulations. If each team is allowed a certain amount of total testing and wind tunnel time, having two teams running the exact same chassis effectively doubles this allotment.

 

But yes, the customer team will never be allowed to beat their suppliers - effectively we will end up having 4 (6, 8...) car teams run under strict team orders.

 

Now imagine the situation with 4 Mercedes cars on the grid, but only two of them are allowed to fight for the win, with the other two merely there to pick up the scraps. We would have a guaranteed Mercedes podium lockout, without a real threat to the inter-team Championship battle from the outside - because only Hamilton or Rosberg would be ever allowed to win. In case there is another manufacturer team strong enough to threaten Mercedes, the 'B' team cars can be used to block or punt them off the track if needed.

 

We will end up with 2007 DTM.

[garagetinkerer]

Two tiers. In one no, in the other, yes.

[turssi]

I'd like to see the customer cars as third cars, as in brought to the GP's by the manufacturers with all the race operation handled by the customer.

[MikeV1987]

No, customer cars won't make it any worse off than it already is atm.

Edited by MikeV1987, 20 May 2015 - 15:14.

[PayasYouRace]

 

 

So by your definition, a customer car'd F1 wouldn't be two-teir, and the suggestion it would be is probably arbitrary since customer cars would still probably have to follow the regulations of the time.  For example, FIA is always looking to reduce downforce, I highly doubt if they did so in say 2018 they would allow the 2017 customer cars to continue producing 2017 downforce.

Why can't we determine tiers by consistent performance/results?  It is clear most teams are locked in to front/mid/back pecking order any how, with the odd over achieving season here and there.

 

No it wouldn't unless the customer chassis had limitations (such as having to use a year old design) enshrined in the rulebook.

 

And no, most teams aren't locked into their positions in the pecking order. Red Bull were solid midfield for many years, then became front runners for many years and are now back in the midfield. Williams have fluctuated too.

[Szoelloe]

A question that is kept being asked for the last three decades. The answer is no. It will put teams like Minardi, Caterham, Maarussia and such out of their misery, and into a way more competitive position and environment for less than what they throw into a black hole now, make teams like Sauber stop chewing dung and live off renting out the first-class WT they own and get out of their comfort zone to produce competitive cars on merit( first he is going to whine though), and give is a much denser grid in term of lap-times, where young drivers can show their talent - or the lack of - from the first season of their career. All this, of course, has to be well managed, thought through etc, but it should have been realized sooner I think.

[Sterzo]

There's nothing wrong with the concept of customer cars. In fact, there's no logic behind the current rule which excludes them. Obviously they'd be run by some of the slower teams, but what's wrong with a grid which includes top teams, middle teams and slower teams? Hasn't it always?

 

However, we're only having this debate because the finances are broken. That's the real problem which must be solved, but when it's mentioned to the authorities, they introduce a rule about the colour of drivers' hats instead, to deflect attention.

[vowcartaGP]

Customer cars worked for years before the sport got as big as it did. Then the sport got rich and enough teams could afford to build their own cars. That isn't the case any more and arguably hasn't been the case since 1995 in which time we've no longer had enough cars for the 26 grid slots.  

 

Although I'd prefer some kind of base chassis (common survival cell, floor, maybe suspension and/or wings, etc) for every team except maybe the 4/5 big guns, where individual teams then do some aero parts/their own upgrades/different engines etc, customer cars are probably a more agreeable option. (Or should that be the least controversial). I say 5/6 original constructors, supplying no more than 3 teams aside from themselves (minimum of 1). But customer teams are allowed to do their own development of those cars.  

 

Have separate constructors and teams championships, and it's only fair that financially at least that the constructors championship should give more prize money than the teams championship, with everyone entered in the latter and with an even money share. 

[johnmhinds]

Customer cars would be a disaster for the research and development side of F1.

If the bottom 4-5 teams start buying pre-built cars from the top teams then they wont need any R&D departments for younger engineers to work in.

 

The sport would lose a lot of talented engineers. And a lot the companies that supply the smaller teams with parts/services would go out of business.

 

And I seriously doubt it would save the smaller teams any money or make them competitive, all it would do it funnel their current budgets directly into the bigger teams pockets and make them even more powerful and unbeatable.

Edited by johnmhinds, 20 May 2015 - 16:43.

[Szoelloe]

Customer cars would be a disaster for the research and development side of F1.

If the bottom 4-5 teams start buying pre-built cars from the top teams then they wont need any R&D departments for younger engineers to work in.

 

The sport would lose a lot of talented engineers. And a lot the companies that supply the smaller teams with parts/services would go out of business.

 

And I seriously doubt it would save the smaller teams any money or make them competitive, all it would do it funnel their current budgets directly into the bigger teams pockets and make them even more powerful and unbeatable.

 

Wrong. If managed correctly, the sport will gain a lot of talented engineers. There is basically no R&D in the minion teams. You may be seriously misunderstanding the term(customer cars). The companies supplying the minions with parts and services are 80% the same as the ones supplying the bigger ones, and they usually don't get payed by teams going out of business. The "bigger teams" are the top three or four. Customer service is going too cost them. They will need to expand the workforce, invest in expanding in some areas, on the short term, it is going to be a loss, leak, whatever you call it. I do think the biggies should invest this much in the sport they participate in. So no, I do not agree with one word you have written.

[HeadFirst]

All this talk of Toro Rosso buying the Redbull car, surely this year they are doing better with their own?!?!

 

Yes, but would they be in that position without the success of the RB chassis (with Ferrari engine) that Vettel took to his, and their, first win. Hard to say of course, but would they be here today without that help at the start?

[johnmhinds]

Wrong. If managed correctly, the sport will gain a lot of talented engineers. There is basically no R&D in the minion teams. You may be seriously misunderstanding the term(customer cars). The companies supplying the minions with parts and services are 80% the same as the ones supplying the bigger ones, and they usually don't get payed by teams going out of business. The "bigger teams" are the top three or four. Customer service is going too cost them. They will need to expand the workforce, invest in expanding in some areas, on the short term, it is going to be a loss, leak, whatever you call it. I do think the biggies should invest this much in the sport they participate in. So no, I do not agree with one word you have written.

If Force India decided to buy a Mercedes chassis that doesn't mean that all of the people working currently for Force India R&D would be able to get a job at Mercedes. Some might but most people would lose their jobs. You don't need to double your R&D work force to make a few more copies of an already designed car.

And what you suggest only creates a bigger problem when a big team pulls out, if Mercedes pulls out where would all those Mercedes workers go if the lower teams have no R&D deparments at all.

It would create a top heavy system with no fall back options for the workers when the biggest teams inevitably move on to other things.

Edited by johnmhinds, 20 May 2015 - 21:58.

[Nemo1965]

Wrong. If managed correctly, the sport will gain a lot of talented engineers. There is basically no R&D in the minion teams. You may be seriously misunderstanding the term(customer cars). The companies supplying the minions with parts and services are 80% the same as the ones supplying the bigger ones, and they usually don't get payed by teams going out of business. The "bigger teams" are the top three or four. Customer service is going too cost them. They will need to expand the workforce, invest in expanding in some areas, on the short term, it is going to be a loss, leak, whatever you call it. I do think the biggies should invest this much in the sport they participate in. So no, I do not agree with one word you have written.

 

I have to say I am in two minds about this. Gary Anderson states that customer-cars would be about 30 to 40 percent more expensive than building their own... A fact I almost can't believe... When I read your post (thanks) I at least have an idea how cost would go up. But then I think: what if the rules are kept stable, and customers can buy year-old cars? Wouldn't the cost then be LOWER than building a car on their own?

[Chubby_Deuce]

even though the actual bike was possibly exactly the same. 

 

Nope.

[Jimisgod]

Make them ineligible for WCC points. Then the money goes to true constructors.