[Rumours] Customer cars to force out smaller teams ?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

By chassis do you mean the tub? In which case, in which a team could buy want they think they need from a 3rd party and bolt it on.

Yup BJ that is exactly what I mean!

[AoB Special Stage]

Who would supply such a spec tub?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by AoB Special Stage

Who would supply such a spec tub?

One design only, anyone can manufacture, Tatuus, Minardi, Mercedes, McLaren, Porsche, Nissan, Force India, Lotus, Newman Haas, Ferrari, Lola, Jaguar, VW, NASA, Airbus, boat builders, anybody who can produce composite tubs can apply for a licence and comply with the testing.

Perhaps you could use the same tub from F4 through to F1 with a spec bulk head that you could bolt a whole range of engines to, make a standard adapter plate to bridge between the chassis and engine.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

One design only, anyone can manufacture, Tatuus, Minardi, Mercedes, McLaren, Porsche, Nissan, Force India, Lotus, Newman Haas, Ferrari, Lola, Jaguar, VW, NASA, Airbus, boat builders, anybody who can produce composite tubs can apply for a licence and comply with the testing.

Perhaps you could use the same tub from F4 through to F1 with a spec bulk head that you could bolt a whole range of engines to, make a standard adapter plate to bridge between the chassis and engine.

Imagine them all scrabbling to make it but who ever does will want to get their money back for making the tub in the first place.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

The thing is, right now the tub is so clearly defined by the rules and crash test requirements if the top teams were to layout just their tubs, the only real identifiable external differences would be locations of the various mounting points for the suspension, floor, sidepods, bulkhead etc plus of course the bodywork fittings. - and even at that I doubt many would be more than a few Millimetres different.

Taking Wnut's suggestion a little further, If you mandate a that all the engines come bolted into a frame which has standard fittings in order bolt to the back of the Tub.

That then leaves the teams to develop their own wings, bodywork, floor, suspensions, leaving lots of scope for cars to still look at least as different to one another as they do now.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Imagine them all scrabbling to make it but who ever does will want to get their money back for making the tub in the first place.

No BJ, the whole point is that anyone can make the tub, it is a generic spec tub that anyone can make to a free spec, it is not a single supplier item, if anyone tries to overcharge you, just go to the next name on the list and get exactly the same thing!

[VIVA GT]

Some interesting ideas/suggestions here.
The trouble is, I can't decide if I find them interesting or scary!

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Regarding the Joe Saward article above, I can't say exactly why, but Joe grates on me. I think it is just his style, so I don't read him on a regular basis

Richard

Off topic but I agree totally. His responses on his commentary page are very dismissive and intolerant of anyone who does not hold the same views as him.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

No BJ, the whole point is that anyone can make the tub, it is a generic spec tub that anyone can make to a free spec, it is not a single supplier item, if anyone tries to overcharge you, just go to the next name on the list and get exactly the same thing!

I get it.

[JacobP]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I would imagine that customer cars may well be a step or two behind on developments (which may or may not work anyway), plus, I would imagine that the customers may want to try their own developments (wings etc?) on parts that they can alter themselves. (I'm working on the principle that it will be the main chassis/monocoque that's supplied).

It may be possible that customer parts will be a step behind the mother team. But those one-step-behind cars will probably be at least as good as the one fielded by the lower half of the F1 teams. The customer chassis performance, even if its a step behind, should be more than good enough to stay in the mid-pack. Moreover, recall the most important reason for using a customer chassis. Instead of spending say 25 million euros on in-house chassis development, a customer team could get away with spending 5 million or less. This would have a positive effect on the financial health of the lower teams. We would see teams quitting sport less frequently, and I hope that the influence of pay driver's sponsors would be reduced.

It's really ironic that Sauber is one of the critics of the customer cars, yet this is the team that signed up four pay drivers for its two seats in this season. I sure some of you have followed Sutil's and van der Garde's battle against the team that took their sponsors money, signed a contract, and then let others drive the car.

[wolfhound]

Well Bernie has come out and said he wants customer cars in 2017. They are to be spec cars and I suspect a new one every year. I suspect they will use current engines but not sure on that.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119108

The teams that use them will not be allowed to develop them so at the start of the year they will probably behind the top teams by the end of the year they will be 5 seconds behind.

Bernie gave no indication on who would build these cars or to what regs.

To me it will just be GP2.5 and thats not F1.
I can't see this getting passed all the various hurdles to come into effect but I have been wrong in the past. The other thing is whoever is going to build the cars will need to have a contract in place PDQ if they are going to be F1 cars.

Time to head to LMP where all the tech interest is.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Well Bernie has come out and said he wants customer cars in 2017. They are to be spec cars and I suspect a new one every year. I suspect they will use current engines but not sure on that.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119108

The teams that use them will not be allowed to develop them so at the start of the year they will probably behind the top teams by the end of the year they will be 5 seconds behind.

Bernie gave no indication on who would build these cars or to what regs.

To me it will just be GP2.5 and thats not F1.
I can't see this getting passed all the various hurdles to come into effect but I have been wrong in the past. The other thing is whoever is going to build the cars will need to have a contract in place PDQ if they are going to be F1 cars.

Time to head to LMP where all the tech interest is.

Reading that article, it sounds like he was making it up as he was being interviewed. I thought his last comment was priceless:

"What difference does it make what the car is?".

It makes a lot of difference if you want to remain a constructor.

[wolfhound]

Could it be a good old Bernie diversionary tactic to take peoples mind off a revenue bill?

[Richard C]

I can support allowing teams to buy all or part of a car from someone else plus also being able to develop it on their own, but I can't support the plan BE is suggesting.

Why not just run GP2 and F1 as a multi-class event!

Richard

[Paradise City]

Allow customer cars but customer teams can't score points in the constructors championship. Problem solved.

Next thread!

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Allow customer cars but customer teams can't score points in the constructors championship. Problem solved.

Next thread!

However teams are paid on how they finish in the constructors championship. If they are not constructors how will they get prise money as the existing contracts are locked in until 2020 or thereabouts.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

However teams are paid on how they finish in the constructors championship. If they are not constructors how will they get prise money as the existing contracts are locked in until 2020 or thereabouts.

You'd have to overhaul the prize money regime. Maybe create a teams championship but make sure that the constructors championship remains king so as to incentivise car construction.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

You'd have to overhaul the prize money regime. Maybe create a teams championship but make sure that the constructors championship remains king so as to incentivise car construction.

Yes but there would surely be a big battle over contracts with all the F1 teams and as we know they cannot agree on the time of day.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Yes but there would surely be a big battle over contracts with all the F1 teams and as we know they cannot agree on the time of day.

I appreciate that point. These are basically money-men - not sportsman.

[wolfhound]

There has been no hanging round about customer cars. Mercedes has been approached by three current F1 teams about customer cars in the future.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119139

However we have a long way to go before such a plan can be implemented.

[rustyfan]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

There has been no hanging round about customer cars. Mercedes has been approached by three current F1 teams about customer cars in the future.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119139

However we have a long way to go before such a plan can be implemented.

While Wolff mentions that it works in NASCAR, where several of the large teams provide chassis and engines for smaller teams, the huge difference is that in NASCAR the customer teams are able to beat the teams providing the hardware. I can't see that ever happening in Formula 1, should it introduce customer cars, as the major teams simply would not provide fully competitive cars - they'd always be a tad inferior.

I'd be happy to be wrong, of course, but I just can't see it happening seeing how egoistic and protective the big teams are even today.

[spider]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

There has been no hanging round about customer cars. Mercedes has been approached by three current F1 teams about customer cars in the future.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119139

However we have a long way to go before such a plan can be implemented.

Manor, Force India and Lotus then. Won't happen I suspect...

[lukej]

Some really interesting points here, they got me thinking not just about F1 but the whole ladder in general.

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Well Bernie said... the teams that use them will not be allowed to develop them so at the start of the year they will probably behind the top teams by the end of the year they will be 5 seconds behind.

Sometimes I really wonder what BE is thinking, banning customer development takes far too much away from the sport and if customer car programmes were to work surely allowing development is a way of gaining but-in from some or all of those wary of the proposal right now.

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Bernie gave no indication on who would build these cars or to what regs.

I think Wingnut's earlier proposal (below) gives us a good platform for finding a solution to this, though I'm not 100% sold on a spec tub idea.

Separate buy connected to this I guess, is the notion of external suppliers building tubs never to race themselves. This is certainly an idea that has worked previously (see BAR &Reynard), this could open the door for Dallara who recently helped Caterham, but also the Tatuus, Mygale and Elans of this world to grow.

Originally Posted by wnut

One design only, anyone can manufacture, Tatuus, Minardi, Mercedes, McLaren, Porsche, Nissan, Force India, Lotus, Newman Haas, Ferrari, Lola, Jaguar, VW, NASA, Airbus, boat builders, anybody who can produce composite tubs can apply for a licence and comply with the testing.

The next two points seemed linked, so I wanted to raise them together when throwing in my two penniesworth.

Originally Posted by wolfhound

To me it will just be GP2.5 and thats not F1... Time to head to LMP where all the tech interest is.

Originally Posted by wnut

Perhaps you could use the same tub from F4 through to F1 with a spec bulk head that you could bolt a whole range of engines to, make a standard adapter plate to bridge between the chassis and engine.

Wolfhound's point about GP2.5 is one I've been wrangling with. Of course I'm concerned about this, but I also don't like an F1 where teams flounder at the back of the field, lapping at GP2 pace whilst spending a lot more money. Perhaps customer cars will increase the gap back to GP2.

The LMP comment is especially interesting as this is perhaps indicative of the direction we need to take with F1, then again it has two or three manufacturers that dominate P1 and not many others compete so is this the right way to go?

What pops into my mind most about customer car and spec parts is that back in the day it wasn't uncommon for F1 and F2 cars to be almost identical, or for teams to move between formulae an a weekly basis whilst using the same basic car to race in another class and that's where Wingnut's point comes in.

I'm not for a moment suggesting we regress to this point but surely there are elements of it we can use in the modern day racing ladder? Just to play devil's advocate here I'll put forward a few ideas for us to play with, they might come to nothing, but perhaps we need to think differently because the current ladder is barely fit for purpose. Anyway, here goes...

For a customer car formula to work, is it to be assumed that customer teams in F1 need the opportunity to develop their own parts or aero kits as happens in Indycar?

If the above is true, can we also assume that this would open up the sport and reduces the chance of GP2.5 happening?

Were the customer car era to begin, what happens to all the tubs and parts left at the end of each season? (I appreciate that dilemma exist now anyway).

I'd like to suggest that there's a need for an increased level of rules stability, to me this seems quite logical, and when combined with allowances for customer cars or parts, could we perhaps enter into an era of reduced costs not via budget cap but instead by the following.

- The life of a design or part is increased.
- The on costs are reduced through a reduction of sweeping changes to regulations.
- Manufacturers get much more use from the same designs and tooling.

Coming back to the problem of cars being redundant, what are the options for restarting continental series or even other formulae using older designs?

Could the new FIA F2 series be a home for F1 spec cars with smaller or detuned engines?

Perhaps the above ideas aren't worth much, but in my mind at least it'd help clear up what the ladder is, allow teams move up it also and provide some longevity to designs all whilst reducing costs and allowing people to be creative. Can you imagine what would happen if engineers were given more scope, or if all of the best engineering talent was employed in the same place, pushing each other to do more and achieve more.

Anyway, I'll leave my essay there for now.

Thanks,

Luke

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by rustyfan

While Wolff mentions that it works in NASCAR, where several of the large teams provide chassis and engines for smaller teams, the huge difference is that in NASCAR the customer teams are able to beat the teams providing the hardware. I can't see that ever happening in Formula 1, should it introduce customer cars, as the major teams simply would not provide fully competitive cars - they'd always be a tad inferior.

I'd be happy to be wrong, of course, but I just can't see it happening seeing how egoistic and protective the big teams are even today.

Simple, if a team is found to have supplied cars not identical to the works car to the customers, the constructor shall forfeit all points earned until the issue is resolved.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by AoB Special Stage

Simple, if a team is found to have supplied cars not identical to the works car to the customers, the constructor shall forfeit all points earned until the issue is resolved.

I appreciate the idea, but in practice how would that work? They would have to homologate everything (which they don't do today) to be able to say/prove X is not the same as Y. Constructors would not be able to roll out changes to their own team as each small development part would have to be homologated and distributed to all customers? What about those situations in which even teammates might have different cars (different specs as they try out new things). It would be a mess to try to enforce, or if you make it enforceable, then none of the large teams would want to provide customer cars as it would be a detriment to their core teams ability to be nimble.

I think the main hangup is that sporting regulations talk to "World Championship" which currently consists of two parts... Driver and Constructor. To be a constructor a you must own the IP for a small list of things (Appendix 6 in the sporting regulations). That list consists of...

1. Monocoque
2. Survival cell
3. Front impact structure
4. Roll over structure
5. Bodywork
6. Wings
7. Floor
8. Diffuser

I am not sure why #1 and #2 are split and not considered to be one in the same, but I am sure there is a reason. Also I believe that #3 does not include the front wing, but just the core crash structure that is hidden under the nose and front wing structure.

Anyhow, I think a potential solution is (combo of many ideas from posts above including mine)...

* Expand the Championship to be Driver, Constructor and Team championship. The means two things. First you can run cars that you are not listed as a constructor for and second, you can be generating constructor points for whoever is the constructor (someone other than yourself).
* (Optional) Shrink the list of items that define a constructor down to just #1, #2, #3 and #4. For the lack of a better name, call this the "minimum customer car" and it would be homologated. Customer teams could not make changes to this, or would be very limited as to any changes (especially as these are homologated as part of crash testing). This makes it easier to act as a constructor as you don't have to provide a complete car. You could provide more if you wanted (and I suspect they would), but you don't have to.
* A few extra things that are implied, but should be spelled out...
o Anyone can create a customer car. This could even include someone who is not currently fielding a F1 team. Constructor does not have to equal existing or future F1 team!
o Related to the above, if someone like Mercedes were to create a "Customer Car" that fits my definition above, there is no requirement that it must be the same one they use. I think that can muddy the waters a bit around something like this. If Mercedes has both a customer car and their own car (two separate homologations), I don't think you can combine the constructor points together (if that makes sense)? Or maybe you would combine them. Especially if you might have a single "constructor" that might have 2, 3 or more homologated "specs" in use at any one time (such as if the rules are stable enough that over a period or years you might create a new customer car homologation at the beginning of each year, but teams may choose, for cost reasons, to use last years core for the current year, but all of those might still be a "Mercedes" customer car.
o Anyone can create bodywork, wings, floor, suspension, etc. So you can build your own, or source from a supplier.

The problem with this idea is that it is very much not in alignment with what has been proposed. What has been proposed has been to create a very clear second tier within the series (which IMHO is intended to always be a level below the "true constructors"). While what I propose above is a more blended concept that can allow a team to start out with a car that is 100% sourced from someone else to potentially graduate into doing more and more of their own design and construction and eventually maybe act as a constructor at some point. I think what I am talking about allows for customer cars to truly potentially challenge for race wins.

Richard