|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
20 May 2015, 00:07 (Ref:3539497) | #101 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
||
|
20 May 2015, 00:13 (Ref:3539499) | #102 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 906
|
Who would supply such a spec tub?
|
|
__________________
. . . but I'm not a traditionalist so maybe my opinion doesn't count! -TF110 |
20 May 2015, 00:24 (Ref:3539502) | #103 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
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. |
|
|
20 May 2015, 00:31 (Ref:3539503) | #104 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,282
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
20 May 2015, 00:57 (Ref:3539509) | #105 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,709
|
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. |
||
|
20 May 2015, 00:59 (Ref:3539512) | #106 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
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!
|
|
|
20 May 2015, 07:11 (Ref:3539551) | #107 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,658
|
Some interesting ideas/suggestions here.
The trouble is, I can't decide if I find them interesting or scary! |
||
__________________
Incognito: An Italian phrase meaning Nice Gearchange! |
20 May 2015, 08:15 (Ref:3539564) | #108 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
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.
|
|
|
20 May 2015, 11:10 (Ref:3539607) | #109 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,282
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
20 May 2015, 11:20 (Ref:3539610) | #110 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 495
|
Quote:
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. |
||
|
22 May 2015, 15:59 (Ref:3540210) | #111 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,550
|
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. |
|
|
22 May 2015, 17:06 (Ref:3540226) | #112 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,282
|
Quote:
"What difference does it make what the car is?". It makes a lot of difference if you want to remain a constructor. |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
22 May 2015, 17:27 (Ref:3540227) | #113 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,550
|
Could it be a good old Bernie diversionary tactic to take peoples mind off a revenue bill?
|
|
|
22 May 2015, 18:44 (Ref:3540242) | #114 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,890
|
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 |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
22 May 2015, 18:52 (Ref:3540248) | #115 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,320
|
Allow customer cars but customer teams can't score points in the constructors championship. Problem solved.
Next thread! |
||
__________________
If I had asked my customer what they wanted, they would've said a faster horse. -Henry Ford |
22 May 2015, 20:27 (Ref:3540277) | #116 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,550
|
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.
|
|
|
22 May 2015, 21:59 (Ref:3540290) | #117 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,320
|
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.
|
||
__________________
If I had asked my customer what they wanted, they would've said a faster horse. -Henry Ford |
23 May 2015, 08:23 (Ref:3540360) | #118 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,550
|
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.
|
|
|
23 May 2015, 15:39 (Ref:3540419) | #119 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,320
|
|||
__________________
If I had asked my customer what they wanted, they would've said a faster horse. -Henry Ford |
23 May 2015, 20:48 (Ref:3540486) | #120 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,550
|
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. |
|
|
24 May 2015, 10:48 (Ref:3540608) | #121 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,419
|
Quote:
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. |
||
|
24 May 2015, 11:05 (Ref:3540609) | #122 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 961
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Karting - why are there so many categories!? |
25 May 2015, 10:09 (Ref:3540999) | #123 | ||||||
Rookie
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 56
|
Some really interesting points here, they got me thinking not just about F1 but the whole ladder in general.
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
The next two points seemed linked, so I wanted to raise them together when throwing in my two penniesworth. Quote:
Quote:
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 |
||||||
|
25 May 2015, 14:25 (Ref:3541053) | #124 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 906
|
Quote:
|
||
__________________
. . . but I'm not a traditionalist so maybe my opinion doesn't count! -TF110 |
26 May 2015, 19:20 (Ref:3541497) | #125 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,890
|
Quote:
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 |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
|
|
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 |