|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
26 May 2015, 19:41 (Ref:3541508) | #126 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,320
|
Customers should get last years car. They are already built and ready to go - so why not? Putting them to further use is more cost effective than scrapping them or just letting them sit in a museum. Customers get their own championship.
And if a customer wants to go constructor after a few years; they can do that, build their own car and move up to the constructors championship. |
||
__________________
If I had asked my customer what they wanted, they would've said a faster horse. -Henry Ford |
26 May 2015, 20:02 (Ref:3541519) | #127 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,865
|
Quote:
I could imagine slightly sanitized versions of last years car being provided. Cost of spare parts might also drive that. Imagine if Mercedes had a relatively complex and costly front wing. They may think that cost if fine for them, but maybe it might be two expensive to make on a regular basis for teams that break them. Speaking along those lines, there has been no talk about cost of customer cars. Cost cap or just let them be as expensive as they may be and let the free market decide how much teams will spend on them? Again, if just the core monocoque and crash structure, I can imagine the cost not being particularity crazy. But create a rolling chassis and then add in bodywork it will add up. This might also result in some expensive "track day toys" for a few really rich people. I think that the rules already require a specific bolt pattern for the power units, so someone could create a nice and less expensive (not not to F1 regulation) power unit for these cars. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
26 May 2015, 20:10 (Ref:3541524) | #128 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,549
|
That's fine but look at Marussia's pace now and a second or two and you will have the pace of the customer cars by the end of the year relative to the front of the field. The other part is that in 2017 when all this is due to begin (if it happens which I doubt) the new cars are due to be about 6 seconds faster at the start of the year over the previous year. So at the end of 2017 there will be a handy 10 second gap between the 'works' cars and the customers. In other words they would be lapped about every 7 or 8 laps on average.
|
|
|
26 May 2015, 22:53 (Ref:3541590) | #129 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,705
|
Using Richards list above,
If 1,2 & 3 can be pretty much standardised and homologated I think this could be a big cost reducer. Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes and RedBull and and perhaps Williams would probably still make their own, but for someone like a Dallara where perhaps 2 teams approached them building 3 or 4 per team would provide economy of scale I'd hope, to keep them reasonably priced, the current F1 manufacturers could offer to build for sale as well. So if that became a standardised part, As long as there is sufficient variability for suspension mountings, bodywork mountings different types or styles of nosecone etc that teams can still apply their own aero technology for items 5,6, 7 and 8. Item 4 the roll over structure tends to be more in fitting with the air intake for the engine, so the engine used might influence this but still hopefully leave space for creativity in that area. Then for me these would still be individually constructed cars, not customer cars. |
||
|
27 May 2015, 00:32 (Ref:3541612) | #130 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Using last years cars won't fly for the simple reason that a major rule change to start in the subsequent year would make the car illegal. As a for instance, the changes that have occurred around the nose and floor height this year or a wheel size change, any number of things in fact.
What happens at testing? MB make a customer car and sell it to teams who then go to the annual test days and it needs major re-work due to aero issues or something similar. Who does the re-work and gets the car to a competitive standard in general? In the good old days cars were simple, no electronics, no aero, nothing that required anything more than a box of spanners and a welder. I think the practicalities of the proposal will scuttle it more than anything else. |
|
|
27 May 2015, 08:08 (Ref:3541662) | #131 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 56
|
I think what many are trying to say is that any customer car plan would need to be coupled with greater stability in the rules.
In terms of old cars being used, the Manor Marussia is last year's tub with this year's parts on it so old cars can be adapted, whilst this isn't the quickest car, it's proof of concept at least. Luke |
|
|
27 May 2015, 09:03 (Ref:3541673) | #132 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
I repeat the question, if a dud car is designed and handed out to customers who fixes it?
|
|
|
27 May 2015, 12:10 (Ref:3541709) | #133 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
If you took the Porsche example in Group C sports cars, they thought that a customer car should be competitive for a minimum of 3 years from the date of delivery and provided the customer with free updates for that period.
|
|
|
27 May 2015, 12:25 (Ref:3541717) | #134 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
Who would buy it next year as a customer car? If a manufacturer produced a very uncompetitive car for their customers who fixes it? The customer team or the manufacturer? I presume that the reason the customer team is buying a car is they either do not have the expertise necessary to design and build, nor the resources to do either. So now we have a situation where maybe six customer cars are uncompetitive on the grid and something has to be done and it will take enormous resources from the manufacturer to do so. Who fixes them? Updates are one thing, basic poor design is another. |
||
|
27 May 2015, 13:37 (Ref:3541740) | #135 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 56
|
Casper, I'm not sure people are ever going to be able to answer you in a way you deem satisfactory.
What I would ask, however, is that surely the problem of producing a competitive car for customers in F1 is the same as that faced in Formula Ford, Formula 3, GTs, Prototypes, NASCAR and previously Formula Renault? Whilst I appreciate some of these are simpler vehicles, there's no doubting the complexity of LMPs, Oreca and Peugeot had a good relationship in LMP1, as do Audi with Joest and also previously with many other teams. I guess what I'm saying is that undoubtedly many large manufacturers can and will build cars better than the minnows, that's not to say people don't have bum years but rules stability reduces risk in all areas. Luke |
|
|
27 May 2015, 13:40 (Ref:3541743) | #136 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
for example if i am already running at the back of the field what incentive do i have to buy anything other than the cheapest/weakest chassis? heck RB might even further subsidize my purchase by requiring me to run some RB logos. get a couple of pay drivers, some other small sponsorship deals, one or two bigger B2B deals, write off the losses via my other business income and try to stay in it for as long as it takes to gather some prize money. F1 is now profitable for me. and given that prize money is lighter on the dull end, why would my next nearest competitor on track want to outspend me for a relatively small gain in prize money? they would have a similar incentive to buy the same cheap/weak chassis as me and trust that their drivers or some small tweak or even just dumb luck will see them finish ahead of me on the ladder. look at this year points table...is there a good financial reason why Force India and Lotus are paying for merc power when they could have gotten a cheaper deal buying the inferior Renault power unit. if they had they would still effectively be sitting in the same positions relative to Toro Rosso? sure STR have a better chassis so FI and Lotus would move down a peg...question is would a drop of one place actually be more profitable for them? when a team spends 200 mil a year and wins its all then its all good but when they spend that much and lose or worse come up with an massively inferior product how do they justify spending that much money? answer is by creating a market for inferior goods and thats exactly what the customer chassis market will become. its classic car manu logic. |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
27 May 2015, 15:13 (Ref:3541762) | #137 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,865
|
Quote:
* If a team is able to do so, they fix it themselves as anyone can develop the car. This scenario should apply to anyone from Manor on up. * If a team is not doing their own development, they are either stuck or at the mercy of whoever provided the car, or maybe a third party to provide updates. And that is not a bad thing. This scenario would apply to someone like a Haas who is just starting and frankly is going to be at the back regardless. * This assumes that the core issue is not the main monocoque design, however that design would inherently have a specific front suspension design (pull rod, push rod, geometry) that could be a dog. My guess is that the reasons teams succeed or fail is not down to superior monocoque design. It is all of the other stuff (suspension, aero, etc.) that is the larger factor. The point being that a "dog" monocoque is not very likely? If it truly is a bad design that can't be resolved without a complete redesign (or you don't have the resources or money to solve on your own), then you suffer like anyone else who has a bad design. It happens today in series that allow customer cars. This is not directly related, but I think that more pre and mid season testing should be allowed. This will allow early feedback on the customer cars, but in reality I think the logistics will be difficult if you have a number of customers. Would anyone be expected to iron out their primary car plus support 2 or 3 other teams on the first day of testing? Would they even have more than one or two customer cars at testing (implication being some teams may miss out of testing). I can envision the need for special allowances for customer car testing? That way the core car could be "settled", produced and potentially in the hands of customers on the first day or normal testing? Richard Last edited by Richard C; 27 May 2015 at 15:20. Reason: typo/spelling |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
28 May 2015, 08:22 (Ref:3542007) | #138 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
I think it needs a lot more thought and planning before the decision is made either for or against but F1 generally fails that test. The main criteria that usually pushes a decision is will it benefit those who already reap the most benefit, aka the greedy ones.
|
|
|
28 May 2015, 08:26 (Ref:3542009) | #139 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,549
|
Dieter Rencken writing in Autosport (access required) has had a long chat with Franz Tost of STR. He has been around the block in F1 on pretty well all sides over the years.
When STR ran RB customer cars about 6 years ago it cost £75 million for a season compared to £90 million last year. Allowing for inflation and the higher engine cost last year that shows that customer cars are not low cost options. At time Red Bull was not the force it was to become either. Tost does not believe that customer cars are the answer to F1's problems. http://plus.autosport.com/premium/fe...594.1432368537 |
|
|
28 May 2015, 08:34 (Ref:3542010) | #140 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
There are pluses and minuses on both sides. The biggest unknown is what will a customer car actually be? That can very from a turn key vehicle to an assembly of CF with attaching points for everything else. If it is just a tub with attachment points they have already dictated what will attach so they may as well build a complete vehicle.
|
|
|
28 May 2015, 09:27 (Ref:3542022) | #141 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 56
|
I think the reality is that there need to be two discussions on this for F1.
Firstly I think it needs to be asked simply "Do we want to allow customer cars in F1?". The answer to this should be yes in my mind, it's not to say teams have to be customers but to say they can be if they choose. The second question is something that requires far more thought, being "How will we implement and regulate customer car provision in F1?". The discussion on this point will understandably be lengthy on this, as it rightly should. For me, I don't think we should prevent people being customers, it may even assist in the revival of F1, but it does need strict regulation. If it's the wrong answer, it will fail in practice, but if it's the right answer and it's been blocked then what a missed opportunity. Luke |
|
|
31 May 2015, 18:13 (Ref:3543491) | #142 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,549
|
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 |
|
|
1 Jun 2015, 08:48 (Ref:3543695) | #143 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,181
|
Quote:
|
||
|
1 Jun 2015, 11:40 (Ref:3543740) | #144 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
If any supplier tries to overcharge, just get the parts from someone else. |
||
|
1 Jun 2015, 13:50 (Ref:3543782) | #145 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,239
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
1 Jun 2015, 20:22 (Ref:3543951) | #146 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,865
|
Quote:
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:
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:
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 |
||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
1 Jun 2015, 21:28 (Ref:3543978) | #147 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
What happens if the manufacturer of the car decides to leave F1....
|
||
|
1 Jun 2015, 21:51 (Ref:3543990) | #148 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,865
|
Quote:
If they allow multiple providers to exist, I expect there may not be any special contract such as above, but maybe there still would be. But if there wasn't and it was more free market style, then yes, you could have someone pickup and leave mid-season (or just provide minimal support until they leave) and leave customers in a lurch. In reality, I expect that whoever provides the cars will be large enough and professional enough that they would probably service customers through at least the end of a season. Regardless I think those who would use a customer car run some risk of having a supplier that may not be ideal in various ways (performance, cost, longevity, etc). I wonder if teams might even consider hopping between providers mid-year? I think about the situation with ESM Racing (a P2 prototype team) this year. They have raced with three different chassis so far. They started out with an all new HPD chassis that proved to be bad out of the box, switched to a backup of older (and out dated) HPD chassis that they used previously and then finally moved to new Ligier chassis. Might the same happen with F1 customer cars if they allow for more than one supplier? Or will customer car contracts be much more "locked in" in that you might be contractually obligated to run the same chassis for the duration of your contract (maybe with some performance based escape clauses for multi-year contracts). I personally expect contracts that lock in the customers on a yearly basis at a minimum, similar to PSU contracts. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
1 Jun 2015, 23:41 (Ref:3544023) | #149 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,397
|
Quote:
Quote:
What do fans want? What do manufacturers / teams want? What can be done? Each fan wants something different. Personally, I want more teams and closer competition, while keeping technological development. I think that customer cars would help. Now, big manufacturers like Ferrari, McLaren and Mercedes want to keep at the front. Their customer cars would never be equal. Now, if they are too bad, small teams would switch to another customer car or leave. Therefore, grids would shrink and they will lose rivals and customer sales. Manufacturers should be wise no to do that. But some small teams don't want to buy customer cars. Great: they can be small manufacturers. Sauber and Force India are afraid that another team will beat them with a customer team. But then they should also be afraid of getting beaten by another small manufacturer. What's the difference? |
||||
__________________
Nitropteron - Fly fast or get crushed! by NaBUrean Prodooktionz naburu38.itch.io |
1 Jun 2015, 23:46 (Ref:3544024) | #150 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,397
|
Quote:
Of course manufacturers don't want third companies to "steal" their designs, and I'm afraid that the fear is becoming worse around the world (TTIP, TPP). But I'm talking about installing new parts on the car. That should never be forbidden through homologation rules, that has damaged rallying and touring car racing around the world. |
|||
__________________
Nitropteron - Fly fast or get crushed! by NaBUrean Prodooktionz naburu38.itch.io |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Bernie wants customer cars for new teams, for their first three seasons | ECW Dan Selby | Formula One | 124 | 19 Mar 2012 14:15 |
Engines for smaller teams | Edmonton | Formula One | 23 | 27 Dec 2003 17:50 |
Non Coverage of Smaller Teams | Evomike | Australasian Touring Cars. | 50 | 29 Oct 2003 08:17 |
could we be seeing privateer's running customer cars from top teams in the future? | OVERSTEER | Formula One | 25 | 17 May 2002 23:52 |