Discussion
Dr Murdoch said:
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.
One would argue that it is time to move on from it.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.
The signs are there with customer powertrains to go with the engines.
Williams announced they made a loss, Lotus are struggling to pay bills, Sauber's tie up with the Russians perhaps needs more convincing and Marussia talked about tie-ing up with Caterham. How long can this go on?
I am of the opinion (and I recognise it is flawed to a degree) that the motorsport industry has gone downhill since the turn of the century. Cosworth have been on the brink and had to diversify, same with Lola but ended up going bust, Williams have their hybrid technology as a revenue stream; teams have moaned about money and affordable cars up and down the ladder, yet F1 seemingly doing alright as teams have grown as R&D evolved.
rubystone said:
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.
Not read the article but what if teams were allowed to modify it themselves?rubystone said:
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.
Big problem is the aero kits last time I bothered by its politics.Some teams don't want it to happen. IndyCar is stuck in a rut as there is little money floating around.
mattshiz said:
Wasn't torro rosso until recently just using the red bull chassis but with ferrari engines? I remember sauber always seemed to have last years ferrari also in the early 00's.
Yes, the first Toro Rosso's used Red Bull chassis and the Sauber was a photocopy of the 2003 (I think) Ferrari. But the Concorde agreement had loopholes in it then, such as 'Red Bull Technologies' being allowed to be a supplier to 'Red Bull Racing' and 'Toro Rosso'. Super Aguri's two cars were an ancient Arrows and a year old Honda respectively.Around this time, Prodrive had a deal with McLaren to enter customer cars too. With Honda, Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren all having customer cars, the rules were tightened. Quite rightly, in my opinion. F1 is more than a sport, it is an engineering formula and a meritocracy. If a small team doesn't want to build their own car, they can always go and do Indy, LMP1 or GP2. There's something for everyone in the world of racing....
Eric Mc said:
That's what I as thinking.
That type of "customer" would be very different to some of the (shall we say) more eccentric examples of privateers who took part in GPs of old.
Whilst I'm against full time customer cars, I had a soft spot for those type of entrants. Emilio De Villota buying old McLarens and Williams for just his home GP each year, Hector Rebaque struggling to qualify the previous year's championshpi winning Lotus.That type of "customer" would be very different to some of the (shall we say) more eccentric examples of privateers who took part in GPs of old.
Maybe if the F1 grids need bumping up to 26 cars again, the top four WDC teams are forced to sell a year-old car and support a GP2 team in running it. And they have to run a local hero at each race as a wild card. I'd sign up for that....but not full time customer car entries.
i don't see what the problem with customer cars is - they are already all using customer engines. it just helps to control the ridiculous costs involved and levels the playing field.
if not a move to full customer cars then at least i think they could standardise the inner structure of the tub, and the front and rear wings.
if not a move to full customer cars then at least i think they could standardise the inner structure of the tub, and the front and rear wings.
Redlake27 said:
Maybe if the F1 grids need bumping up to 26 cars again, the top four WDC teams are forced to sell a year-old car and support a GP2 team in running it.
Would only work if the rules remained static. Which they wont.Why not sell tubs to other teams, around which they can design their own aero/suspension geo etc?
skinny said:
i don't see what the problem with customer cars is - they are already all using customer engines. it just helps to control the ridiculous costs involved and levels the playing field.
Aside from the damage it would do to midfield teams, the likes of Toro Rosso, Sauber and Force India it would heavily rely on the top teams.If everyone started buying Ferrari F1 cars that wouldn't be too much of a concern - Ferrari will always be in F1 (within reason)
But take the current state of affairs - Caterham starts buying Red Bull chassis because they're the best car. Toro Rosso, by association would also.
Caterham and TR duly shut down their manufacturing facilities to the point that they cannot design and build a car.
That means that out of a 22 car grid, 25% of the chassis are made by Red Bull.
Suppose in a year or two, Mateschitz decides that he's had enough out of F1 and wants to move the brand somewhere else.
That now means that a quarter of the grid have to find a chassis from another source. McLaren/Ferrari/whoever would potentially either have to turn them away or, we'd end up with a grid filled with cars from 2 or 3 manufacturers.
Before you know it, it's essentially a 1 make series.
It worked in the 60s/70s because aerodynamics was much less of a factor and a chassis was, to all intents and purposes, a chassis. The engine was key back in those days.
With costs being comparatively lower aswell, one could build a chassis quite easily if one had the knowledge to do so.
In today's multi million pound environment, it would not work.
I know it doesn't fit for the rose tinted set, but as i posted over a year ago, f1 is f
ked financially.
Back then the sponsors were looking iffy, now they're not there.
Lotus is paying wages late.
Sauber does a bail out with the ruskies, but they don't pay the bill and the driver changes.
Williams relying on pvdsa who sponsor a departing driver.
Force india - isn't mallya struggling with kingdisher group?
Mrussia - god only knows. They seem to be funded by a car company that doesn't make cars. Money laundering job?
Anyways, f1 is doomed in it's current format. Torro rosso have been for sale forever, and i still suspect that the easy ride RB get on rule interpretations is bernied due to them keeping another 2 cars on the grid.what does that leave? 3 teams that are secure?
We might not like customer cars, but i don't like the idea of a 12-14 car grid either. Besides, the bottom 4 really aren't in it, are they?
ked financially.Back then the sponsors were looking iffy, now they're not there.
Lotus is paying wages late.
Sauber does a bail out with the ruskies, but they don't pay the bill and the driver changes.
Williams relying on pvdsa who sponsor a departing driver.
Force india - isn't mallya struggling with kingdisher group?
Mrussia - god only knows. They seem to be funded by a car company that doesn't make cars. Money laundering job?
Anyways, f1 is doomed in it's current format. Torro rosso have been for sale forever, and i still suspect that the easy ride RB get on rule interpretations is bernied due to them keeping another 2 cars on the grid.what does that leave? 3 teams that are secure?
We might not like customer cars, but i don't like the idea of a 12-14 car grid either. Besides, the bottom 4 really aren't in it, are they?
Muzzer79 said:
It worked in the 60s/70s because aerodynamics was much less of a factor and a chassis was, to all intents and purposes, a chassis. The engine was key back in those days.
How did that work out, then?We ended up with most of the grid running exactly the same engine - a customer Ford DFV, or derivative.
Can't see how that's all that far removed from 25% of the grid running customer chassis.
You'd assume if this happened that possibly RB, McLaren, Ferrari and Mercedes would remain as manufacturers, and the rest merely customers choosing one of those four chassis to race. So Caterham, Marussia, Sauber et al all go and buy the best customer car to race, and suddenly you have a dozen or more Red Bulls at the front, with Ferrari and Mercedes left in the midfield, and McLaren bringing up the rear (based on this year's form). Then what's to stop McLaren or Ferrari deciding to become 'customer' teams, and suddenly you have a one-make formula reliant on one manufacturer.
An unlikely scenario, perhaps, but with F1 performance so heavily dependent on aerodynamics, who would actually wish to race anything other than a Red Bull given a free choice? Would the likes of Alonso want to stay at Ferrari when they are being beaten by a rookie in a Marussia-run RB?
An unlikely scenario, perhaps, but with F1 performance so heavily dependent on aerodynamics, who would actually wish to race anything other than a Red Bull given a free choice? Would the likes of Alonso want to stay at Ferrari when they are being beaten by a rookie in a Marussia-run RB?
A lot of over-simplification going on here.
Simply buying a customer chassis and bolting it to a customer engine doesn't guarantee success.
You need the skills and experience to set up and run the combination, too - and you wouldn't always be able to put together the same engine / chassis combination, either - customer chassis would be compromised by offering 'universal' engine fitting options.
It has to be better than smaller teams running around at the back, unable to make any progress towards the midfield, let alone the front runners.
Simply buying a customer chassis and bolting it to a customer engine doesn't guarantee success.
You need the skills and experience to set up and run the combination, too - and you wouldn't always be able to put together the same engine / chassis combination, either - customer chassis would be compromised by offering 'universal' engine fitting options.
It has to be better than smaller teams running around at the back, unable to make any progress towards the midfield, let alone the front runners.
Euro1300 said:
A lot of over-simplification going on here.
Simply buying a customer chassis and bolting it to a customer engine doesn't guarantee success.
You need the skills and experience to set up and run the combination, too - and you wouldn't always be able to put together the same engine / chassis combination, either - customer chassis would be compromised by offering 'universal' engine fitting options.
It has to be better than smaller teams running around at the back, unable to make any progress towards the midfield, let alone the front runners.
It's a dim and possibly incorrect memory. But don't the new engine regs dictate the location of the mounts? So it's easier for teams to swap suppliers between seasons, and associated cost reduction.Simply buying a customer chassis and bolting it to a customer engine doesn't guarantee success.
You need the skills and experience to set up and run the combination, too - and you wouldn't always be able to put together the same engine / chassis combination, either - customer chassis would be compromised by offering 'universal' engine fitting options.
It has to be better than smaller teams running around at the back, unable to make any progress towards the midfield, let alone the front runners.
Munter said:
It's a dim and possibly incorrect memory. But don't the new engine regs dictate the location of the mounts? So it's easier for teams to swap suppliers between seasons, and associated cost reduction.
No idea - but I know the Brawn was a compromise due to switching from Honda to Mercedes engines. I recall the mounting positions being a good few centimetres different.slightly different tack..
OK, we are short on cars, the 'new' teams really are struggling to make any impact on the grid - and with the best will in the world, arn't going to get there fast.
we can talk about budget limit's, but practically, that's going to be near impossible to police, selling cars is clearly controversial, (although I don;t think it's a bad idea with the right limitations).
how about we re-visit 3 car teams?
Making a 3rd car costs bugger all (relatively) to the point that most teams will have them in bits anyway...
the third car can only be driven by somebody in their first two years of F1 (excluding test driver time etc), and does not score points for the constructors championship.
so, now we have 33 cars on the grid, 11 of which are newcomers, and likely to be pay drivers that will more than help the teams finances (eg, Caterham if they sold the third seat, might be able to afford a non-paying better driver in the lead cars).
33 cars on the grid will make for better racing, if only by factor of more traffic to deal with, but also we will have 3 Ferarri's/RD's/Merc's etc. all potentially capable of podium positions.
where's the flaw in this?
OK, we are short on cars, the 'new' teams really are struggling to make any impact on the grid - and with the best will in the world, arn't going to get there fast.
we can talk about budget limit's, but practically, that's going to be near impossible to police, selling cars is clearly controversial, (although I don;t think it's a bad idea with the right limitations).
how about we re-visit 3 car teams?
Making a 3rd car costs bugger all (relatively) to the point that most teams will have them in bits anyway...
the third car can only be driven by somebody in their first two years of F1 (excluding test driver time etc), and does not score points for the constructors championship.
so, now we have 33 cars on the grid, 11 of which are newcomers, and likely to be pay drivers that will more than help the teams finances (eg, Caterham if they sold the third seat, might be able to afford a non-paying better driver in the lead cars).
33 cars on the grid will make for better racing, if only by factor of more traffic to deal with, but also we will have 3 Ferarri's/RD's/Merc's etc. all potentially capable of podium positions.
where's the flaw in this?
It works for Moto GP so why would it be any different in F1?
The top teams, like RB, aren't going to want to sell their latest car so it would probably be last years car, but just because you have the car doesn't mean you have the team to develop it to work with your driver. I think it would work out quite well, all of the updates have been performed, so you have the best package that proved itself, it is down to the factory teams make a more current car and the other teams to decide whether they want to be a factory or a satellite team.
Certainly make the grids a little more interesting.
The top teams, like RB, aren't going to want to sell their latest car so it would probably be last years car, but just because you have the car doesn't mean you have the team to develop it to work with your driver. I think it would work out quite well, all of the updates have been performed, so you have the best package that proved itself, it is down to the factory teams make a more current car and the other teams to decide whether they want to be a factory or a satellite team.
Certainly make the grids a little more interesting.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff