[Rumours] Customer cars to force out smaller teams ?

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Wolf was aWilliams sponsor in 1976 who took over most of Frank's team. Williams and Head left to start up the Williams team we now know in 1977 with a March car and Saudi sponsorship in 1977. It was mid 1977 before they were taking part in GP's

IIRC Patrick Neve was his driver in 1977 and it was sponsored by a brewery, not by Saudia who did not appear on his cars until 1978. I could be wrong but the March was red and white and did not carry Saudia branding at all unless it was as a minor sponsor at the end of the season. They started racing in European races in May 1977, missing the early overseas races.

[wolfhound]

It seems like customer cars might be back on the agenda in the near future if the stories coming out of the stratgy group are correct.

I think we are looking at the end of F1 as we have known it between about 1975 and 2012.

I could understand somebody being allowed to use a customer car for say 2 years but after that would have to build their own car. This would allow a new team to build up their infrastructure to get a new team known and running well.
However there would need to be a restriction to prevent somebody closing down one customer car team after 2 years and setting up another one a few days later.

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2015...customer-cars/


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118979

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

It seems like customer cars might be back on the agenda in the near future if the stories coming out of the stratgy group are correct.

I think we are looking at the end of F1 as we have known it between about 1975 and 2012.

I could understand somebody being allowed to use a customer car for say 2 years but after that would have to build their own car. This would allow a new team to build up their infrastructure to get a new team known and running well.
However there would need to be a restriction to prevent somebody closing down one customer car team after 2 years and setting up another one a few days later.

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2015...customer-cars/


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118979

That's sportingly just. But they aren't going to do that. Some organisations are going to make cash selling chassis and they'll want to keep selling chassis again and again and again. They aren't going to refuse making money for something quaint concept beloved of the fans such as fairness or innovation or whatever.

F1 is eerily going in the direction of CART. A sport ran by teams who run customer cars. That produced the best racing around for a time but promptly imploded. Make of that what you will.

[wolfhound]

Customer cars raises a whole host of issues for F1.
The prime one is that teams are paid on the basis of the constructors championship. How will customer teams win prize money?
Will the customer cars count towards points in the constructors championship for those that built them?
How can a customer team graduate to become a constructor?
What happens when all the customer teams are using a dominant chassis thereby preventing other constructors finishing in the top ten?

After thinking about how the strategy group is set up this looks like a Bernie idea that was supported by at least 4 of the teams as opposed to an agreement between Bernie and the FIA. In this case it appears to be that Ron Dennis was one those most in favour of the customer chassis.


http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1...omer-car-study

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Customer cars raises a whole host of issues for F1.

I think is generates some problems, but there are potentially straight forward solutions. To your questions...

Originally Posted by wolfhound

The prime one is that teams are paid on the basis of the constructors championship. How will customer teams win prize money?
Will the customer cars count towards points in the constructors championship for those that built them?

Constructors championship could be tracked at the team level.. So, no, any points generated by the customer cars do not apply to the original constructor. See directly below for another point regarding this...

Originally Posted by wolfhound

How can a customer team graduate to become a constructor?

I suppose that teams will just be teams with no real designation of customer vs. constructor. So teams could bounce back and forth as they see fit, or gradually migrate from customer to constructor on their own schedule.

Someone like a Haas would run the car straight out of the box with no changes, but after a year or two, who is to say they (or other customer car teams) couldn't tweak their customer cars slightly. Maybe run their own aero program, etc. It would be interesting to know if the potential customer car agreements would allow teams to do that or if they may preclude it. I hope they don't and maybe that should be part of the rule set that allows customer cars?

I expect the primary homologated parts will remain unchanged, but once cars have been tweaked, are they still considered to be "constructed" by the original supplier? I guess if you define "constructor" to only be the homologation of the monocoque then yes, but I think that is an overly strict definition that makes things difficult (such as around "what is a constructor championship".) Allowing teams to tweak customer cars solves a lot of problems IMHO. The downside is that it may not give the expected feedback to the true constructor. Or actually it might if the constructors feed potential development parts to the customer teams to let them try ideas out.

Originally Posted by wolfhound

What happens when all the customer teams are using a dominant chassis thereby preventing other constructors finishing in the top ten?

That is a risk and is likely to happen at some point. There is a semi recently model for this and that prototype racing. There might be periods of dominance (such as Porsche 956/962 in group C/GTP), but eventually the tide turns. How easy it is to get and the number available of any dominate customer car might also decide how this plays out. There is also the real potential for any customer car to always be a notch less than the car it is based upon. The quality (ie. speed) of customer cars will depend upon the level of competition within that market. Such as... What if Ferrari creates a better customer car than Mercedes? How much extra development might Mercedes give to the customer car program to get parity with Ferrari? What if they needed near parity with their own primary Mercedes team car?

Overall, I don't know what to think about this. I do think that teams should be allowed to source parts (even entire cars) from any supplier (including other teams) if they so wish. But I also feel that it is highly likely these teams will "generally" always be second class citizens. But as mentioned above, this does run the risk of a true constructor that is having a really bad time falling behind customer car teams. If that constructor is weak, then they may drop out and create the scenario that everyone is afraid of (follow path of CART/IRL)

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, but I do find it interesting that he and I agree on a potential path forward which is cheap engines and cost caps.

Richard

[old man]

I basically agree that a team wishing to enter any field of racing should be able to go out and buy a suitable car. The point made by Joe Saward about cheaper engines is obviously important but will only come about if rules are stable enough for manufacturers to recover development costs over a period.

As to one manufacturer dominating and putting the others out of business, well this could happen, has in F3, but we still have full field of cars because they see a way up the ladder. F1 is the top of the ladder and so the idea of customer cars may live or die on the basis of rewards for success and that brings us right back to the basic problem, inequality of reward.

I think the final analysis is what do we want from F1? Do we want a full field of competitive cars that allow the best drivers in the world to compete or do we want a technological field for development that provides a shop window for technical expertise by car companies.

With the present financial structure it is not going to change in any radical way, cost capping will simply not work because teams will "find a way" and until it implodes and TV stations, circuit owners and the public decide to spend their dollars on something else we will have to either put up with it or go away.

As Bernie said before the meeting "we will decide on the date of the next meeting". They will not let the customers get in the way of the smooth running of the organisation.

[old man]

Just been looking at the ELMS for the Imola meeting this weekend made me think, why not go the other way and ban factory teams, all customer cars

[DS"]

I think that Formula One should adhere to liberal free market principles, i.e. that teams should be allowed to run any chassis, any engine, any parts, any tires and so on they want, as long as they adhere to the regulations. Basically, Formula One should adopt LMP1 regulations, but with open wheels of course. But Formula One has never been about making the most teams happy, but rather making the top team of the week or at least Ferrari happy.

[bjohnsonsmith]

An interesting article sighting the uncertainty independent teams have regarding customer cars.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118996

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by DS"

I think that Formula One should adhere to liberal free market principles, i.e. that teams should be allowed to run any chassis, any engine, any parts, any tires and so on they want, as long as they adhere to the regulations. Basically, Formula One should adopt LMP1 regulations, but with open wheels of course. But Formula One has never been about making the most teams happy, but rather making the top team of the week or at least Ferrari happy.

+1

[Casper]

Originally Posted by DS"

I think that Formula One should adhere to liberal free market principles

They do now, it's called greed and self interest.

[JacobP]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Customer cars raises a whole host of issues for F1.
The prime one is that teams are paid on the basis of the constructors championship. How will customer teams win prize money?

I think the solution is very simple. The chassis builders should be treated just like any other parts supplier. Does the company that supply the brake parts or fuel get paid the prize money? Not of course. The constructor championship should be replaced with the team championship.

[Mekola]

Or treat the constructor championship in the spirit in what it was created, a constructor championship. That means all cars of the same make, works and customer ones, will score for the same constructor of the chassis.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mekola

Or treat the constructor championship in the spirit in what it was created, a constructor championship. That means all cars of the same make, works and customer ones, will score for the same constructor of the chassis.

That's what used to happen in the '70s.

[wnut]

Given we are pretty much running a spec formula, the chassis should be spec, and anybody is free to build them to that spec. The rest is all bolt on.

P.S. Time to make the cockpits bigger to allow for taller drivers!

[Mekola]

Originally Posted by wnut

Given we are pretty much running a spec formula, the chassis should be spec, and anybody is free to build them to that spec. The rest is all bolt on.

A rule to share car making knowledge among F1 teams and in extension all carbon-fibre/kevlar formula car makers (including Dallara, Tatuus and others) at least after two or three years could benefit all teams.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Mekola

A rule to share car making knowledge among F1 teams and in extension all carbon-fibre/kevlar formula car makers (including Dallara, Tatuus and others) at least after two or three years could benefit all teams.

They already do that have you ever noticed how engineering personel seem to move more often than drivers between F1 teams.

[JacobP]

Whenever there is a discussion about customer cars, there are a ton of formula 1 fans criticizing customer cars for destroying the chassis manufacturing capability of the midfield teams, and for generally destroying the sacred rule that every team must be able build its own chassis.

However, look at the bright side.

1. The backmarker teams actually have a chance to score a point. This is extremely important. The current formula has already proven that the new teams (HRT, Marussia, and Caterham), basically had no chance of making it into the Q2 session of qualifying or to score any points. After five years of competing, these three new teams made the Q3 session extremely boring, because you knew that almost always they don't make into Q2, and they managed to score points just once in five years between three of them! (thanks to Bianchi's strong performance in the Monaco GP of 2014)

2. We will finally be able to compare more than two teammates against each other in more-or-less equal cars. Just imagine if Force India had a full access to the Mercedes Benz package. Suddenly you get a chance to compare Hulkenberg's performance to someone driving a top car, even though Nico never had a chance to drive a top spec car.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by JacobP

Whenever there is a discussion about customer cars, there are a ton of formula 1 fans criticizing customer cars for destroying the chassis manufacturing capability of the midfield teams, and for generally destroying the sacred rule that every team must be able build its own chassis.

However, look at the bright side.

1. The backmarker teams actually have a chance to score a point. This is extremely important. The current formula has already proven that the new teams (HRT, Marussia, and Caterham), basically had no chance of making it into the Q2 session of qualifying or to score any points. After five years of competing, these three new teams made the Q3 session extremely boring, because you knew that almost always they don't make into Q2, and they managed to score points just once in five years between three of them! (thanks to Bianchi's strong performance in the Monaco GP of 2014)

2. We will finally be able to compare more than two teammates against each other in more-or-less equal cars. Just imagine if Force India had a full access to the Mercedes Benz package. Suddenly you get a chance to compare Hulkenberg's performance to someone driving a top car, even though Nico never had a chance to drive a top spec car.

You've made some valid points there, but I think there may be different levels of variation between the customer(s) and the constructor(s) cars.
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).
Previously I have been against the idea of customer cars, but I'm changing my opinions now (for all the reasons you've highlighted above) just as long as (somehow) it doesn't eventually turn Formula One into a single make formula because one manufacturer dominates and all the others give up...

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by JacobP

Whenever there is a discussion about customer cars, there are a ton of formula 1 fans criticizing customer cars for destroying the chassis manufacturing capability of the midfield teams, and for generally destroying the sacred rule that every team must be able build its own chassis.

Is it a sacred rule that every team must be able build its own chassis? During the 60s and 70s some teams would use a customer chassis rather than build their own.

[TzeiTzei]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Is it a sacred rule that every team must be able build its own chassis? During the 60s and 70s some teams would use a customer chassis rather than build their own.

Yes, but those days the step from a customer to a constructor was a lot smaller. Now I have a feeling that once any privateer team takes the customer car route they will never be a constructor again. The investment would be too big.

The reason (IMO) why pretty much all the midfield teams, even with their financial troubles, are against the customer car plan is that if customer cars are allowed then these teams become pretty much worthless. It's the infrastructure and the know how that makes teams valuable. You take those away and you have a glorified GP2 team.

Anyway, I feel that as the pinnacle of motorsport F1 should be about teams racing what they have designed and built. There are more than enough racing series around the world where you buy a car and go racing. F1 is and should be something different, something special.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by JacobP

Whenever there is a discussion about customer cars, there are a ton of formula 1 fans criticizing customer cars for destroying the chassis manufacturing capability of the midfield teams, and for generally destroying the sacred rule that every team must be able build its own chassis.

However, look at the bright side.

1. The backmarker teams actually have a chance to score a point. This is extremely important. The current formula has already proven that the new teams (HRT, Marussia, and Caterham), basically had no chance of making it into the Q2 session of qualifying or to score any points. After five years of competing, these three new teams made the Q3 session extremely boring, because you knew that almost always they don't make into Q2, and they managed to score points just once in five years between three of them! (thanks to Bianchi's strong performance in the Monaco GP of 2014)

2. We will finally be able to compare more than two teammates against each other in more-or-less equal cars. Just imagine if Force India had a full access to the Mercedes Benz package. Suddenly you get a chance to compare Hulkenberg's performance to someone driving a top car, even though Nico never had a chance to drive a top spec car.

Regarding #1 and actually having a chance to score a point. We will have to wait and see. It may or may not shake things up. I expect that in the short term they may reduce the gap, but they may still be at the very back of the pack. There will always be someone in last place.

Regarding #2 and customer cars being equal to the cars they are based upon. Pure pipe dream IMHO. The true secret sauce will be mostly hidden away even from their customers.

I see little in this being about helping smaller teams compete or place higher. IMHO, this is about keeping the field size from shrinking, increasing stability and reducing the risk and drama of teams imploding.

Richard

[AoB Special Stage]

There could always be a MotoGP style split class.

Factory:
main teams backed by an engine manufacturer:

• Mercedes
• Ferrari
• Red Bull-Renault (and maybe STR-Renault)
• McLaren-Honda

These teams have totally frozen engine development and 4 engines and 5 gearboxes per season.

Open:
all other teams
These teams have a choice of chassis constructor (who can themselves be in the open class) and engine supplier. Triple engine and gearbox allowance, and free development of engine and aero kit. Chassis constructors can oblige a team to give a new aero piece for examination and the factory teams can take up to 4 engines and 5 gearboxes total from any team they supply for examination (which can be placed in the factory car, but go against their allowance).


All constructors (engine and chassis) must supply parts identical to those used by the works team or face Championship exclusion.


The constructors (and its prize money) will be split between teams' and constructors' championships. The F1 Teams World Championship is based on points per team, while the Constructors will be based on the two highest finishing cars of a given chassis-engine combination in each race (so that the championship isn't decided by the most used chassis).

[wnut]

If the basic chassis was a spec item that anyone could build, it would open the number of suppliers and relieve the mid field teams from some of the cost of producing a large carbon fibre element.
Add spec single element wings with spec mounting points and you would close the field up a lot for far less cost.
Perhaps actual racing may actually break out.

For me the best time was in the 70s when somebody like Tyrell could build a car, hire a really good driver and take it to anyone, but then Ferrari hated the garagista!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

If the basic chassis was a spec item that anyone could build, it would open the number of suppliers and relieve the mid field teams from some of the cost of producing a large carbon fibre element.
Add spec single element wings with spec mounting points and you would close the field up a lot for far less cost.
Perhaps actual racing may actually break out.

For me the best time was in the 70s when somebody like Tyrell could build a car, hire a really good driver and take it to anyone, but then Ferrari hated the garagista!

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.