Customer Engines in F1

[BoRED S2upid]

For years the likes of Renault, Ferrari and Merc have supplied engines to the smaller teams. Next year we will see half the grid race with Cosworth Engines.

Do the rules allow other customer parts?. Chassis for example?. Could the likes of Ferrari or Renault supply chassis to the smaller teams to create a Renault / Cosworth / USF1 hybrid.

This would certainly reduce costs. The chassis can't be that different between teams.

[llewop]

nope - that is the basis of the complaints against both Red Bull/Toro Rosso and Honda/Super Aguri: that in effect they were using the same chassis or selling it on (respectively).

But the get out clause in these cases were: Red Bull and Toro Rosso are both 'supplied' the design by Red Bull Technology (or something like that ) and then build their own cars. SA were 'sold' the IP for the 'old' Honda's...

Also why the reason that the Prodrive as McLaren customer proposal floundered - others protested the idea of Dave R turning up with year old McLarens....

[BoRED S2upid]

llewop said:

nope - that is the basis of the complaints against both Red Bull/Toro Rosso and Honda/Super Aguri: that in effect they were using the same chassis or selling it on (respectively).

But the get out clause in these cases were: Red Bull and Toro Rosso are both 'supplied' the design by Red Bull Technology (or something like that ) and then build their own cars. SA were 'sold' the IP for the 'old' Honda's...

Also why the reason that the Prodrive as McLaren customer proposal floundered - others protested the idea of Dave R turning up with year old McLarens....

Year old Maclarens would probably be very competitive next year. Shame that didn't happen Prodrive competing head to head with 12 month old cars beating Ferrari and Renault.

[Project 644]

BoRED S2upid said:

For years the likes of Renault, Ferrari and Merc have supplied engines to the smaller teams. Next year we will see half the grid race with Cosworth Engines.

Do the rules allow other customer parts?. Chassis for example?. Could the likes of Ferrari or Renault supply chassis to the smaller teams to create a Renault / Cosworth / USF1 hybrid.

This would certainly reduce costs. The chassis can't be that different between teams.

The chassis is massively different between teams. This (for me) is one part of the car that shouldn't be changed to a standard part. The gearbox-engine mounting is a set shape and bolt pattern now (hence why it was easy for Brawn to fit their gearbox on the merc engine).

A standard gearbox by X-trac or Hewland would be more of a start for moneysaving. Perhaps with an FIA standard crash structure on the back attatched to an FIA standard rear wing.

That would be a start as then you are starting to control the airflow coming off the back of the car. From there the possibilities start to mount up as to costs cutting and producing closer racing. (imho)

[zac510]

BoRED S2upid said:

Year old Maclarens would probably be very competitive next year. Shame that didn't happen Prodrive competing head to head with 12 month old cars beating Ferrari and Renault.

Maybe for the first 30 laps before they run out of fuel

[telecat]

Project 644 said:

BoRED S2upid said:

For years the likes of Renault, Ferrari and Merc have supplied engines to the smaller teams. Next year we will see half the grid race with Cosworth Engines.

Do the rules allow other customer parts?. Chassis for example?. Could the likes of Ferrari or Renault supply chassis to the smaller teams to create a Renault / Cosworth / USF1 hybrid.

This would certainly reduce costs. The chassis can't be that different between teams.

The chassis is massively different between teams. This (for me) is one part of the car that shouldn't be changed to a standard part. The gearbox-engine mounting is a set shape and bolt pattern now (hence why it was easy for Brawn to fit their gearbox on the merc engine).

A standard gearbox by X-trac or Hewland would be more of a start for moneysaving. Perhaps with an FIA standard crash structure on the back attatched to an FIA standard rear wing.

That would be a start as then you are starting to control the airflow coming off the back of the car. From there the possibilities start to mount up as to costs cutting and producing closer racing. (imho)

Actually it wasn't that easy to mount the Merc to the Brawn Gearbox as the pickup points were mismatched.

[zac510]

P644 c'mon please don't start suggesting 'spec' everything, we'll just fall back into that same old debate again.

[Project 644]

zac510 said:

P644 c'mon please don't start suggesting 'spec' everything, we'll just fall back into that same old debate again.

The OP is basically "could there be a spec chassis?"

This thread was always going to go that way. Just the same as every GP thread this year has degenerated into Jenson is crap, it's the car. Or Lewis is crap Ferrari's are best, and then the "Oh no they're not" coming back.

This is PH. Get used to it.

[Project 644]

telecat said:

Project 644 said:

BoRED S2upid said:

For years the likes of Renault, Ferrari and Merc have supplied engines to the smaller teams. Next year we will see half the grid race with Cosworth Engines.

Do the rules allow other customer parts?. Chassis for example?. Could the likes of Ferrari or Renault supply chassis to the smaller teams to create a Renault / Cosworth / USF1 hybrid.

This would certainly reduce costs. The chassis can't be that different between teams.

The chassis is massively different between teams. This (for me) is one part of the car that shouldn't be changed to a standard part. The gearbox-engine mounting is a set shape and bolt pattern now (hence why it was easy for Brawn to fit their gearbox on the merc engine).

A standard gearbox by X-trac or Hewland would be more of a start for moneysaving. Perhaps with an FIA standard crash structure on the back attatched to an FIA standard rear wing.

That would be a start as then you are starting to control the airflow coming off the back of the car. From there the possibilities start to mount up as to costs cutting and producing closer racing. (imho)

Actually it wasn't that easy to mount the Merc to the Brawn Gearbox as the pickup points were mismatched.

Suspension pickup points. Not the gearbox bellhousing layout. It is a standard shape and size to accomodate the change to a different type of engine being used. So that teams can change engines and use the same gearbox, just like Honda/Brawn and the Honda/Brawn gearbox being superior (in Ross Brawn's eyes) to the McLaren Mercedes unit which was also on offer, like Force India are using.

[zac510]

Project 644 said:

The OP is basically "could there be a spec chassis?"

This thread was always going to go that way. Just the same as every GP thread this year has degenerated into Jenson is crap, it's the car. Or Lewis is crap Ferrari's are best, and then the "Oh no they're not" coming back.

This is PH. Get used to it.

No the thread is about customer chassis - different!

[telecat]

Project 644 said:

telecat said:

Project 644 said:

BoRED S2upid said:

For years the likes of Renault, Ferrari and Merc have supplied engines to the smaller teams. Next year we will see half the grid race with Cosworth Engines.

Do the rules allow other customer parts?. Chassis for example?. Could the likes of Ferrari or Renault supply chassis to the smaller teams to create a Renault / Cosworth / USF1 hybrid.

This would certainly reduce costs. The chassis can't be that different between teams.

The chassis is massively different between teams. This (for me) is one part of the car that shouldn't be changed to a standard part. The gearbox-engine mounting is a set shape and bolt pattern now (hence why it was easy for Brawn to fit their gearbox on the merc engine).

A standard gearbox by X-trac or Hewland would be more of a start for moneysaving. Perhaps with an FIA standard crash structure on the back attatched to an FIA standard rear wing.

That would be a start as then you are starting to control the airflow coming off the back of the car. From there the possibilities start to mount up as to costs cutting and producing closer racing. (imho)

Actually it wasn't that easy to mount the Merc to the Brawn Gearbox as the pickup points were mismatched.

Suspension pickup points. Not the gearbox bellhousing layout. It is a standard shape and size to accomodate the change to a different type of engine being used. So that teams can change engines and use the same gearbox, just like Honda/Brawn and the Honda/Brawn gearbox being superior (in Ross Brawn's eyes) to the McLaren Mercedes unit which was also on offer, like Force India are using.

The words from Brawn GP were It was designed for a Honda engine, and it was not until December that the team knew they would be using a Mercedes. That necessitated some pretty crude changes.

"The chassis had the back six inches cut off to fit the engine in - the sort of thing you wouldn't normally do even with a test car," says my source. "And the gearbox was in the wrong place because the crank-centre height is different. There's a massive amount of compromise in the cars."

Edited by telecat on Thursday 5th November 11:46

[Project 644]

zac510 said:

Project 644 said:

The OP is basically "could there be a spec chassis?"

This thread was always going to go that way. Just the same as every GP thread this year has degenerated into Jenson is crap, it's the car. Or Lewis is crap Ferrari's are best, and then the "Oh no they're not" coming back.

This is PH. Get used to it.

No the thread is about customer chassis - different!

so Ferrari or Renault supply chassis. Or the Fia supply crash structures and rear wings. Same thing at the end of the day.

[FourWheelDrift]

BoRED S2upid said:

Do the rules allow other customer parts?. Chassis for example?. Could the likes of Ferrari or Renault supply chassis to the smaller teams to create a Renault / Cosworth / USF1 hybrid.

This would certainly reduce costs. The chassis can't be that different between teams.

You mean like Red Bull supplying Torro Rosso with chassis and Honda supplying Super Aguri?

This has been mooted but as usual Frank Williams vetoed the idea.

[zac510]

Project 644 said:

zac510 said:

Project 644 said:

The OP is basically "could there be a spec chassis?"

This thread was always going to go that way. Just the same as every GP thread this year has degenerated into Jenson is crap, it's the car. Or Lewis is crap Ferrari's are best, and then the "Oh no they're not" coming back.

This is PH. Get used to it.

No the thread is about customer chassis - different!

so Ferrari or Renault supply chassis. Or the Fia supply crash structures and rear wings. Same thing at the end of the day.

I'm just afraid that the FIA might actually listen to opinions like this and one day we'll end up with a glorified Indycar!

[Project 644]

zac510 said:

Project 644 said:

zac510 said:

Project 644 said:

The OP is basically "could there be a spec chassis?"

This thread was always going to go that way. Just the same as every GP thread this year has degenerated into Jenson is crap, it's the car. Or Lewis is crap Ferrari's are best, and then the "Oh no they're not" coming back.

This is PH. Get used to it.

No the thread is about customer chassis - different!

so Ferrari or Renault supply chassis. Or the Fia supply crash structures and rear wings. Same thing at the end of the day.

I'm just afraid that the FIA might actually listen to opinions like this and one day we'll end up with a glorified Indycar!

What Indycar where it is relatively cheap, with big grids and lots of close racing and overtaking. Perish the thought!

What I have suggested is not actually that severe. A standard gearbox will not detract from the show. Who in the Audience cares which team has the fastest shift system in their gearbox? So there is a massive cost that has been cut. A standard crash structure. Nothing wrong with that. It will save the teams money in testing and homologating it. It would be a standard fit on the standard gearbox. Job done.

A standard rear wing would be able to control the airflow off the back of the car. Do you think it could be made less turbulent so that the cars could follow each other closer? I reckon they could, so that would be a good thing too, would it not?

With reference to your distaste for Indy cars, that is what I was getting away from by saying that chassis from the same manufacturer would be a bad idea. The chassis is one of the main parts of a car that the audience (be it TV or spectators at the track) can see. It is important (in my eyes) that these remain individual.

[telecat]

Project 644 said:

zac510 said:

Project 644 said:

zac510 said:

Project 644 said:

The OP is basically "could there be a spec chassis?"

This thread was always going to go that way. Just the same as every GP thread this year has degenerated into Jenson is crap, it's the car. Or Lewis is crap Ferrari's are best, and then the "Oh no they're not" coming back.

This is PH. Get used to it.

No the thread is about customer chassis - different!

so Ferrari or Renault supply chassis. Or the Fia supply crash structures and rear wings. Same thing at the end of the day.

I'm just afraid that the FIA might actually listen to opinions like this and one day we'll end up with a glorified Indycar!

What Indycar where it is relatively cheap, with big grids and lots of close racing and overtaking. Perish the thought!

What I have suggested is not actually that severe. A standard gearbox will not detract from the show. Who in the Audience cares which team has the fastest shift system in their gearbox? So there is a massive cost that has been cut. A standard crash structure. Nothing wrong with that. It will save the teams money in testing and homologating it. It would be a standard fit on the standard gearbox. Job done.

A standard rear wing would be able to control the airflow off the back of the car. Do you think it could be made less turbulent so that the cars could follow each other closer? I reckon they could, so that would be a good thing too, would it not?

With reference to your distaste for Indy cars, that is what I was getting away from by saying that chassis from the same manufacturer would be a bad idea. The chassis is one of the main parts of a car that the audience (be it TV or spectators at the track) can see. It is important (in my eyes) that these remain individual.

I beg to differ about Indycars. Like F1 they do rely on cars been on different strategies to achieve the overtakes and have even picked up on the usage of two types of tyres in the race to "spice" things up.

[anonymous-user]

It was F1 who copied the Indycar idea of running two different compounds, not the other way round, and it's a crap idea leading to the only tyre discussion being that the teams have to put on the "bad" tyre during the race at some stage, which is hardly a good PR notion for Bridgestone.

It's in the concorde agreement that chassis have to be bespoke to the team, Prodrive were not going to use year old chassis, they wanted to use current McLaren chassis. Williams forced this issue to be killed off, the teams that were getting away with playing a game were given some grace period to change back to making their own chassis, which is what TR have to do for next season.

I doubt you will find the FIA going for off the shelf safety solutions to crash structures, as it leaves them open to being sued should they not work in an impact.

[zac510]

Project 644 said:

With reference to your distaste for Indy cars, that is what I was getting away from by saying that chassis from the same manufacturer would be a bad idea. The chassis is one of the main parts of a car that the audience (be it TV or spectators at the track) can see. It is important (in my eyes) that these remain individual.

I don't have a particular distaste for Indycars, just that they have their spec rules and F1 has its chassis rules and that's how it should stay. Call it Rugby League or Union if you want!

Agree with the point about keeping the external panels different, but if you were to go a step further and have a spec chassis underneath (ie Nascar) then it trivialises the point of having different externals a fair bit.

[telecat]

zac510 said:

Project 644 said:

With reference to your distaste for Indy cars, that is what I was getting away from by saying that chassis from the same manufacturer would be a bad idea. The chassis is one of the main parts of a car that the audience (be it TV or spectators at the track) can see. It is important (in my eyes) that these remain individual.

I don't have a particular distaste for Indycars, just that they have their spec rules and F1 has its chassis rules and that's how it should stay. Call it Rugby League or Union if you want!

Agree with the point about keeping the external panels different, but if you were to go a step further and have a spec chassis underneath (ie Nascar) then it trivialises the point of having different externals a fair bit.

Indycar isn't "spec" on Chassis. You can only run "approved" chassis though. I believe Panoz produce one but no team currently runs it. The "current" Dallara Chassis is knocking on a bit as well.

Edited by telecat on Thursday 5th November 15:42

[zac510]

I thought when they merged series they abandoned that chassis?