Discussion
Some of the smaller teams are apparently afraid of a plan to introduce cusoomer cars to F1. There's no real evidence that there is such a plan but Bob Fearnley of Force India appears to fear its on the way. http://www.pitpass.com/50210/Teams-frustrated-at-e... (apologies for the Pitpass link but the same story is on Autosport but there is a limited number of page reads there unless you subcribe).
So should there be customer cars in F1 or should each team build their own?
So should there be customer cars in F1 or should each team build their own?
scrwright said:
whats the issue? Surely its a cheaper option for a smaller team
I think the issue is a team like Marussia could buy a Red Bull and then start beating most of the midfield, who spend millions designing/developing/building their own cars. They may as well just give up and make most of their staff redundant.And if they did bring back costumer cars F1 would turn into a series with about 3 different car manufacturers.
It worked pre-80's, but things have moved on. Its not quite as simple any more just to get a better set up or make small amendments to the chassis to beat the works team. Those days are long gone since the dependence of aerodynamics and a reliance on technology.
For me F1 would be dumbing down if they adopted this, I want to see at manufacturers racing against each other, on track and off it.
Eric Mc said:
On the one hand people hanker for the more free days of the pre 1980s and on the other hand people accuse such a move as being "dumbed down".
Why wasn't it considered dumbed down in earlier times?
Stirling Moss and others thrived on such arrangements.
Mark Hughes wrote a great piece on this in Autosport this week. In summary he believes that it will push out he current midfield teams such as FiF1 and Sauber as the customer car teams vault them. Essentially the grid boils down to a McLaren/Ferrari/Red Bull/Mercedes clonefest.Why wasn't it considered dumbed down in earlier times?
Stirling Moss and others thrived on such arrangements.
Up until the 1980s, it was not unusual for racing car manufacturers to both run their own team (usually referred to as a "Works Team" ) but also manufacture and sell versions of the current car to other teams who did not build their own chassis.
In the days before outright sponsorship and the full commercialisation of motor sport, this was a very important source of revenue for racing car manufacturers. Most (although not all) manufacturers did this.
As I mentioned above, if you look at a typical grid for (say) 1962, you will find that the big teams of the day will have their "works" cars on the grid. So you will have Lotus, BRM, Ferrari, Cooper etc as you would expect. But you will also see non "works" team Lotuses, Coopers and, on occasions, Ferraris as well.
The non-works teams were, by and large, free to adapt and amend the cars as they saw fit. So, often these cars would feature different engines, gearboxes, tyres etc compared to the works versions. Although the assumption was that the official teams would always have the best and latest gizmos developed for the car, giving an advantage over the privateer/non-works teams, that was not always the case.
Most people, for example, felt that the Lotus cars entered and prepared by the Rob Walker team for Stirling Moss were probably better cars than the similar cars entered by the Lotus team.
With the arrival of "big money" into F1, the need to generate cash by selling customer cars faded out and it more or less stopped, not because of any specific rule changes, but more because it wasn't necessary.
Since then, it HAS been stipulated that an F1 team MUST build and develop its own cars - but for many years this was not the case.
In the days before outright sponsorship and the full commercialisation of motor sport, this was a very important source of revenue for racing car manufacturers. Most (although not all) manufacturers did this.
As I mentioned above, if you look at a typical grid for (say) 1962, you will find that the big teams of the day will have their "works" cars on the grid. So you will have Lotus, BRM, Ferrari, Cooper etc as you would expect. But you will also see non "works" team Lotuses, Coopers and, on occasions, Ferraris as well.
The non-works teams were, by and large, free to adapt and amend the cars as they saw fit. So, often these cars would feature different engines, gearboxes, tyres etc compared to the works versions. Although the assumption was that the official teams would always have the best and latest gizmos developed for the car, giving an advantage over the privateer/non-works teams, that was not always the case.
Most people, for example, felt that the Lotus cars entered and prepared by the Rob Walker team for Stirling Moss were probably better cars than the similar cars entered by the Lotus team.
With the arrival of "big money" into F1, the need to generate cash by selling customer cars faded out and it more or less stopped, not because of any specific rule changes, but more because it wasn't necessary.
Since then, it HAS been stipulated that an F1 team MUST build and develop its own cars - but for many years this was not the case.
Eric Mc said:
Why?
Was F1 NOT credible in the past?
It was, but the sport has evolved since then.Was F1 NOT credible in the past?
Modern F1 is about teams building their own cars, and has been for the last 30 years. To change it now will (imo) damage one of the few things which are good about F1 (when compared to previous decades).
Also the collateral damage for the midfield/tail end teams will be enormous. How many people do Williams employ? 500? How many of those will be required if Williams started to buy off the shelf cars? And how could a team like Williams ever get back to the front? They just wouldn't be able to (although I concede they aren't exactly making a decent fist of it at the moment).
Also, I don't like the idea of a customer team jumping out of the way, or blocking a rival, to help the factory effort.
Keep. as. is.
Edited by Dr Murdoch on Wednesday 23 October 12:49
Eric Mc said:
Why?
Was F1 NOT credible in the past?
I guess the problem is that in the past the cars were relatively simple. You could bolt in a different engine etc. Nowdays the car is deigned as an all inclusive package and there is limited scope to amend any of that.Was F1 NOT credible in the past?
Equally I suspect that the law has changed or matured as has attitude to safety etc and that Ferrari would not want a customer team making changes to their car and then having a fatal accident in it which might have been caused by a change the customer made to the car, but by inference tarnishes Ferrari.
So if there were customer cars they would be carbon copies of the manafacturers cars so wouldn't necessarially add anything to the racing?
A sensible reply.
But I would expect that the modern "customers" would be a far cry from the "customers" of the early 1960s (just as the teams are) and, if properly resourced, they could amend and adopt the cars within the safety etc regulations that exist today.
Just because a particular way of running F1 has evolved over time does not mean that we have to stick to that way forever. F1 is supposed to be an evolving activity.
But I would expect that the modern "customers" would be a far cry from the "customers" of the early 1960s (just as the teams are) and, if properly resourced, they could amend and adopt the cars within the safety etc regulations that exist today.
Just because a particular way of running F1 has evolved over time does not mean that we have to stick to that way forever. F1 is supposed to be an evolving activity.
Eric Mc said:
A sensible reply.
But I would expect that the modern "customers" would be a far cry from the "customers" of the early 1960s (just as the teams are) and, if properly resourced, they could amend and adopt the cars within the safety etc regulations that exist today.
Just because a particular way of running F1 has evolved over time does not mean that we have to stick to that way forever. F1 is supposed to be an evolving activity.
If one looks at the DW car in Indy, the teams are (I believe) free to develop certain elements - I recall Penske and at least one other looking to modify the aero and I am sure the dampers are free. But I would expect that the modern "customers" would be a far cry from the "customers" of the early 1960s (just as the teams are) and, if properly resourced, they could amend and adopt the cars within the safety etc regulations that exist today.
Just because a particular way of running F1 has evolved over time does not mean that we have to stick to that way forever. F1 is supposed to be an evolving activity.
I don't think the argument is that customer cars wouldn't work, it's more about the impact it would have on the whole ecosystem that has grown up in "motor racing valley" in the UK and upon the make-up of the smaller teams. The industry would employ less people - no need to duplicate the tub manufacture for instance...and a shrinkage in component suppliers with an effect on cost as a result of less competition but also economies of scale.
Eric Mc said:
Is F1 there to provide employment or is it there to provide motor sport?
I would argue that some of the "teams" are now too big and are industrial concerns rather than competitive sporting entities.
And these teams won't shrink. They will simply deploy people in other areas. It's the smaller ones that will shed people. Red Bull Technology will continue to design and develop cars - their client base will be larger, that's all. In a perfect world, they'd hoover up the lay-up boys from FiF1 of course, but the world isn't perfect!I would argue that some of the "teams" are now too big and are industrial concerns rather than competitive sporting entities.
I often wonder whether F1 can continue in its current state from a financial point of view. The insatiable growth in consumption of budgets has been partly continued (despite professed wishes to curtail things) by the expansion of the "business" into new "markets".
That can't continue forever, and some of these new "markets" may not turn out to be as lucrative as was initially envisaged.
That can't continue forever, and some of these new "markets" may not turn out to be as lucrative as was initially envisaged.
The argument on customer cars is an interesting one, specifically what defines a car or chassis? A modern F1 is a feat of packaging where the engine, gearbox, etc. etc. define the bodywork and vice versa. The only team in recent history I can think of to succesfully re-engine a modern F1 was Brawn and they specifically went Merc HPE power due to it being the closest match to the Honda in physical size.
I don't think it should be possible to rock up with a cheque book and buy a complete current F1, however a team being able to buy a tub and aero information etc. should be allowed. This removes a major point of cost for new entry teams and provides them with a crash tested base with competitive aero - from that point they should be relatively on their own with it being their responsibility to package whatever engine deal etc. they have secured. That alone is a significant challenge!
I don't think it should be possible to rock up with a cheque book and buy a complete current F1, however a team being able to buy a tub and aero information etc. should be allowed. This removes a major point of cost for new entry teams and provides them with a crash tested base with competitive aero - from that point they should be relatively on their own with it being their responsibility to package whatever engine deal etc. they have secured. That alone is a significant challenge!
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff