Home  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides Veloce Books  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Single Seater Racing > Formula One

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 26 May 2015, 19:41 (Ref:3541508)   #126
Paradise City
Veteran
 
Paradise City's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Bhutan
Dublin
Posts: 4,320
Paradise City is going for a new world record!Paradise City is going for a new world record!Paradise City is going for a new world record!Paradise City is going for a new world record!Paradise City is going for a new world record!Paradise City is going for a new world record!Paradise City is going for a new world record!
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.
Paradise City is offline  
__________________
If I had asked my customer what they wanted, they would've said a faster horse.
-Henry Ford
Quote
Old 26 May 2015, 20:02 (Ref:3541519)   #127
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,803
Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradise City View Post
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.
That could be an option (last years car). Especially in the scenario I mention above in which a constructor could optionally provide a complete car. As you say the aero work is already done, etc. I do however think that in general top teams (i.e. Mercedes) will not want to let even last years car (especially if very successful) get out of their control. Yes they own the IP and may have NDAs in place to prevent customers from doing specific things, but anything "secret" on those cars will become effectively public once they become "customer" cars.

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
Richard C is offline  
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
Quote
Old 26 May 2015, 20:10 (Ref:3541524)   #128
wolfhound
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Ireland
Posts: 3,547
wolfhound should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridwolfhound should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridwolfhound should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridwolfhound should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradise City View Post
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.
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.
wolfhound is offline  
Quote
Old 26 May 2015, 22:53 (Ref:3541590)   #129
ScotsBrutesFan
Race Official
Veteran
 
ScotsBrutesFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Scotland
West Lothian
Posts: 5,695
ScotsBrutesFan will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameScotsBrutesFan will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameScotsBrutesFan will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameScotsBrutesFan will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameScotsBrutesFan will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameScotsBrutesFan will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameScotsBrutesFan will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameScotsBrutesFan will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameScotsBrutesFan will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
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.
ScotsBrutesFan is offline  
Quote
Old 27 May 2015, 00:32 (Ref:3541612)   #130
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 27 May 2015, 08:08 (Ref:3541662)   #131
lukej
Rookie
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 56
lukej should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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
lukej is offline  
Quote
Old 27 May 2015, 09:03 (Ref:3541673)   #132
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I repeat the question, if a dud car is designed and handed out to customers who fixes it?
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 27 May 2015, 12:10 (Ref:3541709)   #133
wnut
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
I repeat the question, if a dud car is designed and handed out to customers who fixes it?
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.
wnut is offline  
Quote
Old 27 May 2015, 12:25 (Ref:3541717)   #134
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut View Post
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.
So this year it is acknowledged that the RB car is a bit of a dog and not able to cut it at the pointy end of the field. OK, they will improve it somewhat during the year but not enough to get the leap they want to be first or second. I have a couple of questions...

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.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 27 May 2015, 13:37 (Ref:3541740)   #135
lukej
Rookie
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 56
lukej should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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
lukej is offline  
Quote
Old 27 May 2015, 13:40 (Ref:3541743)   #136
chillibowl
Veteran
 
chillibowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Canada
winnipeg, canada
Posts: 9,719
chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
So this year it is acknowledged that the RB car is a bit of a dog and not able to cut it at the pointy end of the field. OK, they will improve it somewhat during the year but not enough to get the leap they want to be first or second. I have a couple of questions...

Who would buy it next year as a customer car?
i would hope no one but given the financial realities of F1 my fear is that many would buy it and worse would be justified in doing so.

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.
chillibowl is offline  
__________________
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
Quote
Old 27 May 2015, 15:13 (Ref:3541762)   #137
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,803
Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
I repeat the question, if a dud car is designed and handed out to customers who fixes it?
Assuming things work as I mentioned in my earlier post...

* 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
Richard C is offline  
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
Quote
Old 28 May 2015, 08:22 (Ref:3542007)   #138
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 28 May 2015, 08:26 (Ref:3542009)   #139
wolfhound
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Ireland
Posts: 3,547
wolfhound should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridwolfhound should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridwolfhound should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridwolfhound should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
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
wolfhound is offline  
Quote
Old 28 May 2015, 08:34 (Ref:3542010)   #140
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 28 May 2015, 09:27 (Ref:3542022)   #141
lukej
Rookie
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 56
lukej should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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
lukej is offline  
Quote
Old 31 May 2015, 18:13 (Ref:3543491)   #142
wolfhound
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Ireland
Posts: 3,547
wolfhound should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridwolfhound should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridwolfhound should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridwolfhound should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
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
wolfhound is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Jun 2015, 08:48 (Ref:3543695)   #143
Moneyseeker
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,169
Moneyseeker is going for a new lap record!Moneyseeker is going for a new lap record!Moneyseeker is going for a new lap record!Moneyseeker is going for a new lap record!Moneyseeker is going for a new lap record!Moneyseeker is going for a new lap record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfhound View Post
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
Another point is that the parts for customer cars are likely to be very expensive and you would have to buy them from the manufacturer. Anyone who has bought and run customers cars like S2000 touring cars for example will have experience of that and these are going to be very low volume parts, so even more expensive.
Moneyseeker is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Jun 2015, 11:40 (Ref:3543740)   #144
wnut
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyseeker View Post
Another point is that the parts for customer cars are likely to be very expensive and you would have to buy them from the manufacturer. Anyone who has bought and run customers cars like S2000 touring cars for example will have experience of that and these are going to be very low volume parts, so even more expensive.
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.
wnut is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Jun 2015, 13:50 (Ref:3543782)   #145
bjohnsonsmith
Race Official
20KPINAL
 
bjohnsonsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
United States
London, England
Posts: 23,144
bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyseeker View Post
Another point is that the parts for customer cars are likely to be very expensive and you would have to buy them from the manufacturer. Anyone who has bought and run customers cars like S2000 touring cars for example will have experience of that and these are going to be very low volume parts, so even more expensive.
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.
bjohnsonsmith is offline  
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying."
Colin Chapman.
Quote
Old 1 Jun 2015, 20:22 (Ref:3543951)   #146
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,803
Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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
Richard C is offline  
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
Quote
Old 1 Jun 2015, 21:28 (Ref:3543978)   #147
JeremySmith
Veteran
 
JeremySmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
United Kingdom
Austin Texas
Posts: 11,402
JeremySmith is going for a new world record!JeremySmith is going for a new world record!JeremySmith is going for a new world record!JeremySmith is going for a new world record!JeremySmith is going for a new world record!JeremySmith is going for a new world record!
What happens if the manufacturer of the car decides to leave F1....
JeremySmith is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Jun 2015, 21:51 (Ref:3543990)   #148
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,803
Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremySmith View Post
What happens if the manufacturer of the car decides to leave F1....
I am not sure if the rumored proposal is for a single provider or multiple. If single, then I assume that company would have some type of contract for a period of time similar to the contract Pirelli has to supply tires with the usual penalties for leaving early, etc. So you would hope there are no "surprises".

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
Richard C is offline  
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
Quote
Old 1 Jun 2015, 23:41 (Ref:3544023)   #149
NaBUru38
Veteran
 
NaBUru38's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Uruguay
Las Canteras, Uruguay
Posts: 10,356
NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukej View Post
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.
Indeed. Changing rules every year is the exact opposite of cost cuts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukej View Post
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 second question is something that requires far more thought, being "How will we implement and regulate customer car provision in F1?".
I'd make three questions:

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?
NaBUru38 is offline  
__________________
Nitropteron - Fly fast or get crushed!
by NaBUrean Prodooktionz
naburu38.itch.io
Quote
Old 1 Jun 2015, 23:46 (Ref:3544024)   #150
NaBUru38
Veteran
 
NaBUru38's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Uruguay
Las Canteras, Uruguay
Posts: 10,356
NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto View Post
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.

A pure customer car that CAN'T be developed independently by teams is not very attractive to the existing smaller teams.

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.
I totally agree. Customer teams should be allowed to modify their cars as they wish, I mean, they bought them.

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.
NaBUru38 is offline  
__________________
Nitropteron - Fly fast or get crushed!
by NaBUrean Prodooktionz
naburu38.itch.io
Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:45.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2021 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2021-2022 Grant MacDonald. All Rights Reserved.