[Rumours] Customer cars to force out smaller teams ?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

What happens if the manufacturer of the car decides to leave F1....

Or went belly up financially during a build program....nah that wouldn't happen would it?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

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?

Richard

Just having a quick look at the rule book and in particular, rule 14.10. Steering and Suspension, it states in subsection 14.10.3. Only the Dallara supplied suspension parts may be used. However, regarding dampers, section 14.11. Dampers, it states in subsection 14.11.1. Dampers are an open development component, provided they otherwise comply with these Rules.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Just having a quick look at the rule book and in particular, rule 14.10. Steering and Suspension, it states in subsection 14.10.3. Only the Dallara supplied suspension parts may be used. However, regarding dampers, section 14.11. Dampers, it states in subsection 14.11.1. Dampers are an open development component, provided they otherwise comply with these Rules.

Once you give a supplier a monopoly on a component, expect monopoly pricing and profiteering! That is why the chassis should be manufactured to a standard blueprint by anybody that wants to make it.

P.S. If the chassis was manufactured to a common blue print it would provide greater access to reasonably priced chassis and components which would hopefully lead to a world wide resurgence of single seat racing cars. F1 at last doing a service to the wider racing community!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Once you give a supplier a monopoly on a component, expect monopoly pricing and profiteering! That is why the chassis should be manufactured to a standard blueprint by anybody that wants to make it.

P.S. If the chassis was manufactured to a common blue print it would provide greater access to reasonably priced chassis and components which would hopefully lead to a world wide resurgence of single seat racing cars. F1 at last doing a service to the wider racing community!

Just to round off the IndyCar take, when the various manufacturers put their bids for the new IndyCar chassis to the "ICONIC" committee, only Lola came up with the idea of a universal tub. It could be used by both IndyCar and Indy Lights teams, saving Lights teams money if they wished to progress from Lights to IndyCar, or indeed to race teams in both and obviously saving Lola money as a constructor.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Just to round off the IndyCar take, when the various manufacturers put their bids for the new IndyCar chassis to the "ICONIC" committee, only Lola came up with the idea of a universal tub. It could be used by both IndyCar and Indy Lights teams, saving Lights teams money if they wished to progress from Lights to IndyCar, or indeed to race teams in both and obviously saving Lola money as a constructor.

Was the universal tub to be specified and open sourced though, or merely Lola supplying both IndyCar and Indy Lights with a Lola chassis?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Was the universal tub to be specified and open sourced though, or merely Lola supplying both IndyCar and Indy Lights with a Lola chassis?

There was no open sourcing as Lola were going to make the tub but were looking to build an assembly facility in the US. At the time they were also involved in discussions with US component suppliers.

http://www.crash.net/indycar/news/15...2-concept.html

[Richard C]

I do remember the ICONIC stuff and the idea Lola had for a unified tub/moncoque. Regarding an open source design... I like the idea of open source in general, but in a case like this, someone has to get paid to create the design. So with a customer car, nobody pays you for the design, they pay for the final product. If the design is open, only those building to the design make money.

The alternatives is either to pay someone to create a complete design and open it up, or you create a tight spec (mount points, here, here and here) and then each design is owned by the constructor but are effectively interchangeable. But you still then have N number of constructors creating very similar solutions and that is not efficient.

I think the idea of a spec or open design is interesting and could work in a racing series, but IMHO, it is an anathema to what F1 is.

Richard

[wolfhound]

The independent teams are accusing the big four teams of a power grab with their plans for customer cars. There have been no attempts to cut costs from the strategy group.
There was a meeting at the Canada GP of the big four who did not include who Williams and Force India also on the strategy group. The meeting was to do some more planning on how customer cars would be brought in. Bernie's idea of a standard customer car is not on their agenda.

I suspect we are going to see a big fight between the top teams and the others (-STR). It will be interesting to see what Williams does as they could be very influential to the eventual outcome. At the moment they seem to be keeping their cards very close to their chest.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119351

[Richard C]

I can't help but to see some parallels to what is happening with respect to prototype racing. You have a very healthy top tier in the LMP1 (ignoring the mostly non-existent non hybrid private teams for the moment) and a second lower tier in LMP2 that in the near future is being forced into a using a limited number of officially sanctioned "customer cars" and will not be allowed to create their own cars. In short those who are serious and well funded run in the top class and all of the rest play in a separate and well controlled sandbox in which the toys are provided.

I would like to see some journalist ask some questions around if the top teams (and FOM) plan on keeping the special constructors club very private with large and new hurdles to move into the top tier.

Richard

[Casper]

Interesting times indeed and the world awaits some detail of how it might all work. The small teams only have two options if this plan were to come to fruition, get out or play the game. What they should do is leave it as late as possible, close shop and walk away.

On Richard's point, why is there no strong investigative journalism in and around F1? Why are the hard questions that should be asked never asked, is it because all the journos are afraid that they will be sent to Coventry by the powers that be in the top teams and management? In other words they tell it how the management and teams want it and do what they are told. Just about everything we read is I suspect through press release passed as suitable for publication by those putting it out. The whole thing is highly incestuous in my view and the Autosport story is a good example. No one has gone to the top teams independently and got some answers that I can see.

[DS"]

I'm all for customer cars, but the recent plans by the "big four" are really bad for the sport, should they come to fruition. Worse, it seems like Bernie Ecclestone is losing control over his own sport and yet doesn't seem to care that much about it anymore. Because if the big 4 get their way, we'd have an open-wheel version of the DTM: Big manufacturer teams and semi-private teams that aren't really allowed to compete for the victories.
Then again, it's no wonder that the big teams want to keep potential suppliers like Dallara out of F1. That'd mean more teams that aren't under their thumb, oh the horrors!
Maybe we'll see a repeat of the 2009 fiasco some time in the future...

[wnut]

This, to me at least, was a stunning factoid:


"Jordan is one of only two teams that have entered F1 in the last quarter of a century to have won a Grand Prix, the other being Toro Rosso."

from
http://www.pitpass.com/53979/A-Strategic-Mess

[wnut]

http://www.grandprix.com/ft/anyone-seen-the-fia.html

" the bureaucrats in Brussels, who are starting to believe the Strategy Group is an illegal body as it may violate competition laws by discriminating against the five teams that are not part of it."

When is the European Court going to get involved, F1 seems to violate every competition regulation in the Eurozone rules?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

This, to me at least, was a stunning factoid:


"Jordan is one of only two teams that have entered F1 in the last quarter of a century to have won a Grand Prix, the other being Toro Rosso."

from
http://www.pitpass.com/53979/A-Strategic-Mess

It does not surprise me as I have long believed that F1 is a effectively a closed shop. With limited testing, limited wind tunnel time, customer engines it can be nothing else. Any category that limits these things is effectively limiting any newcomer to an artificially low level within the category. The days when you either built your own motor or everyone used a Cosworth, a company that did not compete so had no need to favour any team are long gone. I think that the Mercedes and Renaults of this world should not be allowed to supply motors, build them for their own use but not supply them to other teams. The other teams should have at least one independent supplier who supplies the PU but does not compete.

[JABWOA]

Don't forget about Stewart GP. (wasn't Toro Rosso formally Minardi?)

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by JABWOA

Don't forget about Stewart GP. (wasn't Toro Rosso formally Minardi?)

F1 'teams' usually are sold many times over, so not many 'teams' have entered in a long time; they just leave and get sold to return with a new name.

For example, Jordan became Midland, which became Spyker, which became Force India.

Even Mercedes AMG was Honda F1 a few years ago.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JABWOA

Don't forget about Stewart GP. (wasn't Toro Rosso formally Minardi?)

So we take STR out of the equation I guess and add Stewart to Jordan?

Additional point is that Stewart only won the European GP at Nurburgring in 1999 which was dominated by the weather and Herbert qualified 14th with team mate Barrichello 15th!

Stewart was never really competitive!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by AoB Special Stage

F1 'teams' usually are sold many times over, so not many 'teams' have entered in a long time; they just leave and get sold to return with a new name.

For example, Jordan became Midland, which became Spyker, which became Force India.

Even Mercedes AMG was Honda F1 a few years ago.

Very true. What about Lotus? That's one you really need get you're head around.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

It does not surprise me as I have long believed that F1 is a effectively a closed shop. With limited testing, limited wind tunnel time, customer engines it can be nothing else. Any category that limits these things is effectively limiting any newcomer to an artificially low level within the category. The days when you either built your own motor or everyone used a Cosworth, a company that did not compete so had no need to favour any team are long gone. I think that the Mercedes and Renaults of this world should not be allowed to supply motors, build them for their own use but not supply them to other teams. The other teams should have at least one independent supplier who supplies the PU but does not compete.

Plus 1 here Casper!

The engine manufacturers should be forced to put the engines in a pool and the FIA should allocate the engines on a random basis as needed during the season.

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Very true. What about Lotus? That's one you really need get you're head around.

There are at least three different 'Lotus' teams, one that defuncted a while ago, one that became Caterham, and the current team. I think.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by AoB Special Stage

There are at least three different 'Lotus' teams, one that defuncted a while ago, one that became Caterham, and the current team. I think.

I said it was one to get your head around: what a convoluted web.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

http://www.grandprix.com/ft/anyone-seen-the-fia.html

" the bureaucrats in Brussels, who are starting to believe the Strategy Group is an illegal body as it may violate competition laws by discriminating against the five teams that are not part of it."

When is the European Court going to get involved, F1 seems to violate every competition regulation in the Eurozone rules?

That's a fairly pithy article, e.g. "at the end of the year the FIA organises a Gala where all champions receive their trophies.

But when it comes to making the rules in Formula One, the Federation seems to be largely absent."

and the situation regarding the FIA I think is perfectly summed up in the last paragraph: "After all it's the FIA's championship, so it's the Federation's responsibility to preserve it".

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That's a fairly pithy article, e.g. "at the end of the year the FIA organises a Gala where all champions receive their trophies.

But when it comes to making the rules in Formula One, the Federation seems to be largely absent."

and the situation regarding the FIA I think is perfectly summed up in the last paragraph: "After all it's the FIA's championship, so it's the Federation's responsibility to preserve it".

I must admit that the sooner the "bureaucrats from Brussels" involve themselves in F1 and start banging heads together the better!

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That's a fairly pithy article, e.g. "at the end of the year the FIA organises a Gala where all champions receive their trophies.

But when it comes to making the rules in Formula One, the Federation seems to be largely absent."

and the situation regarding the FIA I think is perfectly summed up in the last paragraph: "After all it's the FIA's championship, so it's the Federation's responsibility to preserve it".

Although one can agree with the sentiment that the FIA is largely absent in regards to rule making apart from it acting as a rubber stamp, I don't believe that one can realistically argue that it's any longer the FIA's Championship. Commercially, and that's all that seems to be important to the FIA, the Championship is leased out to FOM for the next 90 odd years, for which the FIA receives a fee of around $30 million per annum, for which sum the FIA allows the Championship to run under it's flag.

As most of these financial arrangements are a deep secret, I am not even sure whether the contract between the FIA and FOM even states whether the Championship has to be run as long as they are getting their 30 pieces of silver!