Customer Cars The Way to Go!!!!

[mervyn charter]

Formula One has now been shown what the future could look like if Customer Cars are allowed.

Toro Rosso have shown that with good drivers and a powerful engine the Sister team could actually beat their Main Team, and this could make Formula One much more exciting with the Series suddenly depending more on the quality and skills of the drivers than the machinery.

This would be marvellous for the Fans and give the smaller teams a shot at mixing it with the big boys once they have talented drivers.

Surely teams like Williams and Force India must be looking at todays result with mixed feelings wondering if this may be their best hope of being competitive.

When the dust settles surely the Customer Car Issue must be the real story behind today`s race.

[CNR]

F1 teams look at new customer car proposal
SEPTEMBER 8, 2008
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20742.html


Formula 1 teams are studying a new proposal from the Formula One group that will allow for the continued use of customer cars in 2010 and beyond

[AndyRAC]

I know it sort of goes against the ethos of F1, but it would have no complaints from me. If it makes for a far more competitive Championship, then bring it on.
As a fan of both F1 & WRC, they both need a dose of realism. F1 is hung up on 'Constructors' building their own chassis - which is understandable, but currently unrealistic. Bring on the 'Customer' cars. Surely more cars with a possibility of challenging is what everybody wants?

[ShiftingGears]

It's a tricky situation. I certainly want competitive teams in F1, but at the same time I don't want teams that have always been in for the long haul (like Williams) to get boned because they actually design and manufacture their own cars.

[SGWilko]

F1 teams look at new customer car proposal
SEPTEMBER 8, 2008
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20742.html

I bet D Richards is chuffed to hear that......not! ;)

[tinchote]

Toro Rosso have shown that with good drivers and a powerful engine the Sister team could actually beat their Main Team, and this could make Formula One much more exciting with the Series suddenly depending more on the quality and skills of the drivers than the machinery.


Personally, I think that is a simplistic view. STR can stay alive when beating its A-team, because they have the same title-sponsor, so Red Bull probably doesn't care that much which of their teams is ahead; or at least they can get something good from it.

But a real B-team beating its parent team is likely to lose support. I would think that's part of the reason Honda pulled the plug on Super-Aguri. And weren't there talks on STR about to be sold?

I don't really think that a win in very tricky conditions by a B-team that happened to score a very talented driver this season shows much promise for the future. Weak teams have raised to the front on an occasions similar to yesterday's, but it didn't last in the long time: Jordan scored a victory at Brazil in 03, and two years later they were gone. Same with Stewart's win in 99, or Ligier's in 1996, or Arrows' almost-win in 97.

[Ranger]

Personally, I think that is a simplistic view. STR can stay alive when beating its A-team, because they have the same title-sponsor, so Red Bull probably doesn't care that much which of their teams is ahead; or at least they can get something good from it.

But a real B-team beating its parent team is likely to lose support. I would think that's part of the reason Honda pulled the plug on Super-Aguri. And weren't there talks on STR about to be sold?

I don't really think that a win in very tricky conditions by a B-team that happened to score a very talented driver this season shows much promise for the future. Weak teams have raised to the front on an occasions similar to yesterday's, but it didn't last in the long time: Jordan scored a victory at Brazil in 03, and two years later they were gone. Same with Stewart's win in 99, or Ligier's in 1996, or Arrows' almost-win in 97.
Yeah, STR is already for sale and was having problems finding a buyer... until yesterday.

I wonder if RBR can nab that engine from them? Seb sure won't mind! :D

[ioan]

Personally, I think that is a simplistic view. STR can stay alive when beating its A-team, because they have the same title-sponsor, so Red Bull probably doesn't care that much which of their teams is ahead; or at least they can get something good from it.

But a real B-team beating its parent team is likely to lose support. I would think that's part of the reason Honda pulled the plug on Super-Aguri. And weren't there talks on STR about to be sold?

I don't really think that a win in very tricky conditions by a B-team that happened to score a very talented driver this season shows much promise for the future. Weak teams have raised to the front on an occasions similar to yesterday's, but it didn't last in the long time: Jordan scored a victory at Brazil in 03, and two years later they were gone. Same with Stewart's win in 99, or Ligier's in 1996, or Arrows' almost-win in 97.

Sad, but true.

PS: Good to see you a bit more active on the forum, again. :)

[ioan]

In order not too disadvantage teams that build their own chassis, maybe they should impose a simple condition, that the engine and the gearbox can't be the same make as used by the chassis provider.

You would say that this might be too harsh, but hey, STR just proved that it's possible to make it work with lots of work and dedication.

And it is certainly still way cheaper than having your own R&D department and having to build your own chassis.

[Azumanga Davo]

In order not too disadvantage teams that build their own chassis, maybe they should impose a simple condition, that the engine and the gearbox can't be the same make as used by the chassis provider.

You would say that this might be too harsh, but hey, STR just proved that it's possible to make it work with lots of work and dedication.

And it is certainly still way cheaper than having your own R&D department and having to build your own chassis.

I would also add to that a condition that all engines should be compatible to fit in any chassis as a rule (i.e standard design on mountings etc.), making a change a bit more seamless and much less hassle to a customer team.

[SGWilko]

I would also add to that a condition that all engines should be compatible to fit in any chassis as a rule (i.e standard design on mountings etc.), making a change a bit more seamless and much less hassle to a customer team.

Now that is far to sane an idea for the FIA to get their heads around.

[Daniel]

I personally don't see why F1 can't be a one chassis championship. If I were buying a Merc, BMW or Ferrari I think I'd be more interested in how their engines are doing in F1 (although even that has little to do with their road cars) rather than how good they are at building a carbon fibre monocoque which has precisely nothing to do with most of the cars these guys make. It would make the series a helluva lot cheaper and the costs for a new team to come in would be far lower.

[AndyRAC]

I personally don't see why F1 can't be a one chassis championship. If I were buying a Merc, BMW or Ferrari I think I'd be more interested in how their engines are doing in F1 (although even that has little to do with their road cars) rather than how good they are at building a carbon fibre monocoque which has precisely nothing to do with most of the cars these guys make. It would make the series a helluva lot cheaper and the costs for a new team to come in would be far lower.

Sorry, no chance!!

That's far too sensible a suggestion!! He he....

[Daniel]

Sorry, no chance!!

That's far too sensible a suggestion!! He he....
If it weren't for manufacturers being involved it would probably have a chance of happening.....

[jens]

F1 can't be a one chassis championship, because competition in car development is the main key of the whole Formula One World Championship. We have "one-chassis" championships all over the world, folks may watch them if they like.

[ioan]

F1 can't be a one chassis championship, because competition in car development is the main key of the whole Formula One World Championship. We have "one-chassis" championships all over the world, folks may watch them if they like.

Yep, GP2 and A1GP spring to mind. I'm sure there are plebty of other smaller championships using them.

[schmenke]

I personally don't see why F1 can't be a one chassis championship. If I were buying a Merc, BMW or Ferrari I think I'd be more interested in how their engines are doing in F1 (although even that has little to do with their road cars) rather than how good they are at building a carbon fibre monocoque which has precisely nothing to do with most of the cars these guys make. It would make the series a helluva lot cheaper and the costs for a new team to come in would be far lower.

That defeats the purpose of a "constructors' championship" :mark:

[Daniel]

Well the teams would still construct an engine. So you could still call them manufacturers, contructors, teams or whatever. But the level of competition would go through the roof overnight.

[gshevlin]

Here is the underlying problem...historically, as the amount of money in a branch of motorsport increases, the chance of one well-funded or well-supported team "getting it right" and walking away with most of the races also increases. (Think McLaren-Honda, 1988)
This leads to the governing body making the design regulations ever more restrictive. Over time, this results in most of the cars looking the same. Formula 1 designers have been saying for years how little (relative to road cars) design and conceptual freedom they have, and designers such as Gordon Murray and John Barnard have more or less walked away from the sport into other forms of automotive design - Adrian Newey has also talked about designing yachts instead of F1 cars in the past.
When the cars all look the same, and they operate within a narrow band of performance, it then becomes a small step for the governing body to either mandate identical bodywork templates (a la NASCAR) or go the whole way and specify a single chassis (GP2, IRL etc.). The rationale behind this move can be a mixture of competitive (as in the case of NASCAR and GP2) or economic (as in the case of Champ Car, where there was not enough money in the series to tempt multiple chassis suppliers in any case).
I see two options for the FIA:

1. Continue to restrict design options and innovation areas. In that case, it makes sense to allow customer cars, since the variation in performance across teams using original cars and customer cars will be restricted if the customer car teams can get the most from their cars ( Exhibit A being Toro Rosso)
2. open the technical regulations back up in a number of areas, to provide design freedom and incent the teams to develop different concepts. In that case, customer cars should not be allowed since that runs counter to the innovation philosophy

An optional extra to (1) would be to restrict customer car teams to using cars from the previous year. Remember that the Williams objections to customer cars largely stemmed from the fact that until September last year, ProDrive intended to run a team this year using this year's McLaren chassis. As Frank Williams pointed out at the time, that meant that realistically, Williams were going to be shuffled another 2 places down the grid.

[MJW]

So does this mean another chance for the Prodrive F1 entry, could be convenient timing if wrc program is cancelled.

[wedge]

I personally don't see why F1 can't be a one chassis championship. If I were buying a Merc, BMW or Ferrari I think I'd be more interested in how their engines are doing in F1 (although even that has little to do with their road cars) rather than how good they are at building a carbon fibre monocoque which has precisely nothing to do with most of the cars these guys make. It would make the series a helluva lot cheaper and the costs for a new team to come in would be far lower.

It would mean F1 will no longer be the pinnacle.

Competing constructors pushes the development race.

Even if we have customer chassis the big teams will still dominate because it comes down to car preparation. Look at GP2, IRL, NASCAR, F3 - the big teams are in dominant positions.

[truefan72]

It's a tricky situation. I certainly want competitive teams in F1, but at the same time I don't want teams that have always been in for the long haul (like Williams) to get boned because they actually design and manufacture their own cars.

agreed, engine supply is one thing, chasis is a completely different beast.

That I'm not a fan off. I loved Super Aguri and they were in the midst of an Honda Incubation. i wished they had raised enoug money to venture out on their own albeit with Honda engines. And I hoped thatthey would start developing their own chasis. I don;t even mind some small collaboration, in terms of using their wind tunnel or on one or two parts here and there. but overall design etc should be a custom thing. Thats one reason why I never reeally got behind Sauber back in the day.

[ioan]

Here is the underlying problem...historically, as the amount of money in a branch of motorsport increases, the chance of one well-funded or well-supported team "getting it right" and walking away with most of the races also increases. (Think McLaren-Honda, 1988)
This leads to the governing body making the design regulations ever more restrictive. Over time, this results in most of the cars looking the same. Formula 1 designers have been saying for years how little (relative to road cars) design and conceptual freedom they have, and designers such as Gordon Murray and John Barnard have more or less walked away from the sport into other forms of automotive design - Adrian Newey has also talked about designing yachts instead of F1 cars in the past.
When the cars all look the same, and they operate within a narrow band of performance, it then becomes a small step for the governing body to either mandate identical bodywork templates (a la NASCAR) or go the whole way and specify a single chassis (GP2, IRL etc.). The rationale behind this move can be a mixture of competitive (as in the case of NASCAR and GP2) or economic (as in the case of Champ Car, where there was not enough money in the series to tempt multiple chassis suppliers in any case).
I see two options for the FIA:

1. Continue to restrict design options and innovation areas. In that case, it makes sense to allow customer cars, since the variation in performance across teams using original cars and customer cars will be restricted if the customer car teams can get the most from their cars ( Exhibit A being Toro Rosso)
2. open the technical regulations back up in a number of areas, to provide design freedom and incent the teams to develop different concepts. In that case, customer cars should not be allowed since that runs counter to the innovation philosophy

An optional extra to (1) would be to restrict customer car teams to using cars from the previous year. Remember that the Williams objections to customer cars largely stemmed from the fact that until September last year, ProDrive intended to run a team this year using this year's McLaren chassis. As Frank Williams pointed out at the time, that meant that realistically, Williams were going to be shuffled another 2 places down the grid.

3. Change a good part of the technical regulations, as they did for 2005 and will do it again for next year. ;)

[Rollo]

I would also add to that a condition that all engines should be compatible to fit in any chassis as a rule (i.e standard design on mountings etc.), making a change a bit more seamless and much less hassle to a customer team.

As soon as you say this, the 1981 South African GP springs to mind. Although not a "Grand Prix" and notable because Renault, Ferrari, Alfa Romeo and Ligier didn't show up, the whole race had nothing but Ford DFV powerplants.

Certainly the costs of running a Formula One team are immense and to be honest the days of an independent constructor entering the sport are now behind us. It's even difficult for a manufacturer to develop and build a car ala Toyota.

Since the sport is commercial, let them sell product. The money from selling old chassis would be used to fund new ones. I think that the idea of a customer car is fine.

[aryan]

Financially, it wouldn't be feasible for teams to construct the chassis (which requires huge investment) and then see another team who has just bought it "off-the-shelf" compete with them for constructor points as well as tv advertising.

The only way customer cars might be allowed in F1, is if they gain a significantly less share of the TV rights, as well as do not compete in the constructors' championship.

[Daniel]

It would mean F1 will no longer be the pinnacle.

Competing constructors pushes the development race.

and?

High tech doesn't necessarily make for better viewing and better competition :mark: In fact it's probably always the complete opposite.

It's kind of like a Veyron. Fantastic bit of engineering and amazingly fast but does it stir the emotions like say a Ferrari 430 Scuderia? Not really.

Just like you can go to a rally and watch cars which are nearly 40 years old (Ford Escorts) and they're still good to watch. Sure a group N Impreza or Evo is faster but is it actually as good to watch?

I hate to say it but the whole "F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport" thing is a penis thing. In terms of impressing people in the warmup for a race it's great but it doesn't necessarily make for a better racing series. Back in the glory days the BTCC cars weren't the pinnacle of motorsport but they were the most exciting racing series in the world at the time bar none.

Get a decent team to design and prepare the chassis' and build them to spec and you will dramatically decrease the costs involved with running a top F1 team overnight. You can also solve the issue of ridiculous looking bodywork at the same time too. Whack a restrictor on the engines and limit displacement and you're done. You'd go from a championship where 3 guys win most of the rounds to a championship where there would be 10 or so guys able to win each round :) It's customer cars on a massive scale.

[Daniel]

Financially, it wouldn't be feasible for teams to construct the chassis (which requires huge investment) and then see another team who has just bought it "off-the-shelf" compete with them for constructor points as well as tv advertising.

The only way customer cars might be allowed in F1, is if they gain a significantly less share of the TV rights, as well as do not compete in the constructors' championship.

What I'm suggesting is taking that investment in testing and developing a chassis and spread it out over the whole field. Right now it costs £x million to develop a car for a year and then the cost of actually building a number of chassis' as well and each team who designs their own car does this. To have one chassis or perhaps two as some championships have would spread the cost between teams and wouldn't harm the spectacle at all. The cars would still be bloody fast, constructed from exotic materials and they would still look like F1 cars. Win win situation ;)

[Rollo]

Back in the glory days the BTCC cars weren't the pinnacle of motorsport but they were the most exciting racing series in the world at the time bar none.
Cue the widow Tie:
Oh yes they were. :D

Would this be in the "glory days"?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Alain_Menu_1996_BTCC_cropped.jpg

In which case, they were most certainly the most sophisticated tourers in the world and the most expensive.

The above car was prepared by Williams and whilst I can't provide costs for it, to run an entire two car team in 1990 cost £55,000 but in 1997 Vauxhall spent £252,000 per car. Even allowing for inflation it's still a threefold increase and the reason why they changed the rules.