Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut
That was why I suggested a spec chassis design, anybody would be free to copy the blue prints of that design and that design only. This would mean that any part would have to bolt onto a standard flange or set of them, like the current engine mountings.
If any supplier tries to overcharge, just get the parts from someone else.
|
I am trying to figure out how much spec I think these should be. So we already have standard engine mounts, but that also means most everything from that point back might be very dependent upon the PSU and transmission supplier (given suspension mounts are typically on the transmission). So that means you could have a number of different solutions for rear suspension (geometry, etc.) As for the monocoque, the suspension pickups are going to define the geometry and type of front suspension. So I kind of like the idea of not making that spec on customer cars?
I do wonder about spec mounting dimensions for things like steering racks, wheel hubs and other smaller, but hidden parts. This means you don't have a single homologated part, but vendors can make parts that should for the most part "bolt in".
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith
The cost of buying parts from the chassis manufacturer was one of the objections IndyCar teams had, after the Dallara DW12 chassis was chosen to replace the old IR-05 chassis. The price of spares had proven to be as much as 40% higher than was promised. A new deal was reached in 2013 so teams could buy from 3rd parties. It was estimated that the new deal saved each team around $50,000 per entry during the course of the season.
The costs of running an F1 team are considerably more than an IndyCar team, so that would be a substantial saving. Whether the chassis manufacturers would be happy with that is another thing, as they would stand to lose a valuable revenue stream.
|
I really don't follow IndyCar, but was aware of the concerns about the cost of parts for the DW12. I didn't know they had worked out an agreement to allow 3rd party parts. That seems like a very good thing. The point being that while a complete chassis can be provided, they can source from various vendors. I know the DW12 is a relatively controlled spec, but I can see suppliers also improving upon the initial parts? Is that allowed?
Three other things comes to mind. When Lola (prototypes) was going through problems recently and prior to the IP being sold to Multimatic, the existing Lola customers were having problems getting spare parts. The hang up was not that suppliers were unwilling to supply parts, but I think it had to do with homologation issues and maybe IP issues. In short, you had to source parts from Lola, but Lola was in the middle of bankruptcy? Second, back in the days of Cart (can't remember what chassis), but teams were clearly improving upon the out of the box chassis and creating their own parts on a regular basis. Lastly, not all of the group C/GTP Porsche 956/962 monocoque (and other bits) were created by Porsche. Others created drop in replacements that had various improvements (stiffer for example). Clearly the Cart and Group C/GTP examples plus the DW12 example shows that you can make sourcing from third parties (including items that are improvements) work. But the Lola example also shows there can be issues that need to be addressed. Either in the rules or in how the cars are sold/licensed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfhound
Bob Fernley has spoken again about customer cars and I would have to agree with what he says. I have posted some similar comments already on the subject. The top teams have come up with the customer car plan and for the good of F1 they better get right if it is to go ahead.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119251 |
Sorry that I am a broken record on this, but that article to me, shows that a pure customer car that CAN'T be developed independently by teams is not very attractive to the existing smaller teams. However the larger teams also clearly want the smaller teams to be in a very well defined second tier. I know the argument is "they already are in a second tier", but the point is right now those who are in the "everyone else" category is just one good design away from making a leap out of that group. Think of the doldrums that Williams has been in, but last year became a real force again (even if they are not as much of a force this year), or maybe STR this year, and even RBR if you look deep enough into their history. While a set second tier will effectively be balanced, by design, to never be able to challenge for a win against the top teams. Would anyone really be able to move from customer car to full on constructor without having someone large like a Ferrari, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche, etc. footing the bill to staff up the design side? You might as well just buy a GP2 team and then staff up the design side it you wanted to create a new "F1 constructor".
Here is a scary thought... What if part of the customer car deal is strong incentives (financial?) for the existing smaller teams to do it, but part of the deal of creating the new second tier, those also the creation of two tiers of membership in the championship in that those second tier teams are not automatically guaranteed to become constructors again if they wanted. Just like today there is X number of slots what if there are now X (constructor team) and Y (customer team) number of slots? And you can't just move up if you wanted. Maybe someone would have to leave to make room for you?
The current proposals that are being floated is nothing more than ensuring a full field, but via a two tier multi class version of F1. We don't need spec cars, but freedom to source as much as of the car as we please from ANY vendors without having IP/Constructor hoops to jump through.
Richard