Chassis buying - pro or con?

[jens]

So next year it will be allowed again to use another team's chassis, although some teams (STR and Super Aguri) have more or less done it already this year. There have been rumours that Prodrive will be using McLaren's 2008 chassis. What is your attitude about it? I think both advantages and problems can be seen with that.

I personally support Prodrive, because with 2008 McLaren's car they will be without any doubt quite strong, which will create more competition in the front and definetely in the upper midfield. But the problem is that if they are going to beat the majority of teams, who build cars on their own, then this might... reduce the value of building your own car. I mean imagine if teams like Spyker, Honda and Toyota one day realize that they can be more successful by buying a chassis rather than creating one by themselves? It might create a very strange situation in F1. Imagine if we had only 3 chassis-builders and all the others were buying. :s That would change F1 into Champ Car. The 'classical' F1 would be gone and dead IMO. So in some way it would be important that chassis buyers won't become too successful...

So, what is more important? Competition or the principal idea of F1? All in all it looks important to have a few such "buyers" in F1 to stimulate competition, but hopefully we won't see too many of those. Next year we'll have 2 (if Super Aguri really builds its own chassis as has been rumoured) or 3 of those and I think that's absolutely enough. No more please! :)

What's your opinion?

[ArrowsFA1]

Imagine if we had only 3 chassis-builders and all the others were buying. :s That would change F1 into Champ Car. The 'classical' F1 would be gone and dead IMO.
I guess that depends on the definition of 'classical' F1.

Customer chassis are nothing new in F1. Take a look at the entry list for the 1977 Spanish GP for example and you'll see seven March 761's entered by a number of different teams.

[inimitablestoo]

More likely it'd be a four-wheeled version of MotoGP: about half a dozen true constructors and the rest buying chassis. Other categories where chassis-buying is common do tend to fall into a trap of one or two chassis becoming dominant, and the number of different manufacturers gradually reducing until it has to be turned into a one-make series; hopefully F1's reputation is such that that will never happen. Personally I've no problem with a handful of customer teams in F1 (at least it will remove the STR/Aguri issues) as long as we still get some variety - and that appears to be the case for now.

In any case, has the FIA retained the rule it was originally going to introduce for customer chassis whereby any team buying another team's cars has to commit to building its own car after two years? Sounds reasonable to me.

[ioan]

I doubt that Ferrari, McLaren, BMW, Renault, Honda, Toyota and Williams will ever think about buying a customer chassis. That's seven different chassis in F1, about as many as different engines there are too at the moment.

Not a bad thing in the end.

My question is, are they also going to get all the developments during the season?!

[Valve Bounce]

I remember Sterling Moss racing a Lotus for Rob Walker, albeit the previous year's model, which he used to beat the more powerful Ferraris at Monaco and the old classical track at Nurburgring. Then there were the Maserati 250F. What's so wrong with customer chassis?

[ArrowsFA1]

My question is, are they also going to get all the developments during the season?!
Do the likes of Red Bull, Williams and Toro Rosso receive all the latest updates from their engine suppliers during the season?

[Valve Bounce]

I think there is more than just engine updates to make the car succesful. All that bloody aero for a start, then there is the engine management, the transmission, the chassis set-up. I think Williams with his extensive experience and better resources, has the better chance of making a success of a customer engine.

But then if Fisi hadn't run into ant yesterday, and buggered up his front suspension, there was no way the factory Honda of Bunsen would have gotten ahead of his second hand Honda.

I guess the drivers also have something to do with the success of the teams, Arrows.

[ChrisS]

Do the likes of Red Bull, Williams and Toro Rosso receive all the latest updates from their engine suppliers during the season?

F1 has an engine freeze, so no engine development during the season

[Valve Bounce]

F1 has an engine freeze, so no engine development during the season


RIGHT!!

[jens]

I think it's hard to compare nowadays to 70s and earlier years, when we after all had often 3 or even 4 drivers in the same team. And sometimes just one. Also engine could be changed on several occasions during a season. I remember one case, when Lotus borrowed BRM engine for Clark to race at one GP in 1965. The number of competitors in each GP varied a lot these days (only several teams had a full-season programme) and I don't remember any customer really consistently challenging for top positions in the championship. And also the customers were quite independent. Hard to explain.

But now... if we had for example 6 Ferraris and 6 McLarens racing around. Well, it would be hard to imagine for me... And in that case it might start reminding DTM - "B" and "C" team drivers will do their best to block the main rival team's drivers. :p :

[VkmSpouge]

I would prefer it if all teams were to design and build their own cars but I have nothing against customer teams and support Prodrive in their attempts to use this year's McLaren in 2008.

[tinchote]

The big question to me is what's the meaning of "customer chassis". For example, these days cars use completely different wings (and probably other body parts too) for different circuits. Some of these are developed along the season. So, what is the customer really buying?

Personally, I'm not against the selling of the "basic package" at the beginning of the season, but I would feel uncomfortable with a complete duplicate.

[trumperZ06]

;) Looks like we are looking at a two-edge sword...

Bernie wants a full grid... unlikely to happen if new teams must start from scratch.

The major teams are setting up a " B " team to get more information... ie. Honda, Red Bull, and now McLaren... adding six more cars on the grid.

[schmenke]

The big question to me is what's the meaning of "customer chassis". For example, these days cars use completely different wings (and probably other body parts too) for different circuits. Some of these are developed along the season. So, what is the customer really buying?...

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
Does the "chassis" include the complete aero package? Is the customer entitled to updgrades to the aero package throughout the year?

[Jimmy Magnusson]

Roll on customer chassis. But then the following has to apply:

* More teams allowed in to create a larger grid

* No buddy-handing-down of the chassis. If you've got the money to buy it, you have to be able to do so.

* Same should go for engines

* Customer chassi users can't score constructors points but instead teams points.

[veeten]

ahhh ... the return of the 'Garagistas', eh Arrows? :cool: :up:

[wmcot]

I could see it becoming a problem if one chassis maker's customers start to dominate. That could lead to a one or two make series. The other problem could be if current manufacturers drop out of F1 and are replaced on the grid by more customer teams.

[BDunnell]

I could see it becoming a problem if one chassis maker's customers start to dominate. That could lead to a one or two make series. The other problem could be if current manufacturers drop out of F1 and are replaced on the grid by more customer teams.

I think the truth is that this is totally unknown territory for modern F1. I think both those concerns are valid, even though I generally support the idea of allowing customer teams. There are other series in other forms of motorsport that illustrate that such concerns need not be problems, even though F1 is a different kettle of fish.

[wedge]

Penske used to build their own chassis in Champcars. They went into a slump in the mid-late 1990s when they used to build uncompetitive cars and eventually gave up and use customer chassis.

A similar scenario could easily happen F1. For example, there's question marks over the future of Williams Grand Prix Engineering when Frank and Patrick Head retire. The new guy could easily cut his losses and go back to customer chassis.

[Valve Bounce]

;) Looks like we are looking at a two-edge sword...

Bernie wants a full grid... unlikely to happen if new teams must start from scratch.

The major teams are setting up a " B " team to get more information... ie. Honda, Red Bull, and now McLaren... adding six more cars on the grid.

My only concern here is that a couple of teams could effectively run 4 car teams this way, and dominate the championships. For example, McLaren could let Prodrive run two cars provided they have a say in the choice of drivers, and if they can get two good drivers who are capable of winning races for the so called "B" team, they could shut the door on their competitors.

But yeah!! I'd like to see the guys at the tail end of hte grid get cars which are competitive; mind you, that's not to be interpreted that I would prefer to see ant in this year's Team Honda car. But if he got to drive a McLaren, then I would be very happy. :)

.............and Mark as his team mate :) :)

[wmcot]

I think the difference between the current rules and the way things worked in the '70s is that now, a full blown team can jump right into a competitive, two-car team just by buying a chassis or becoming a "B-team." In the '70s, most of the "teams" using customer chassis were privateer teams and did not have the finances to be truly competitive all the time. they often entered only one car in a given race (it was all they could afford.) These privateer teams or "garagiste" teams as Enzo called them didn't have full factory backing that the "B-teams" will get.

It's one thing to sell a private investor a year old Honda, but it's quite another thing to have 2 full blown teams on the grid (i.e. RBR/STR, Honda/SA, McLaren/Prodrive, etc.) You might as well just allow teams to enter 3 or 4 cars.

Bernie could lower or waive the entrance fee for smaller private teams that would be like the '70s and use a chassis without full factory backing. That would liven up the grid, especially if one of the private teams gets it right and beats the factory team.

It all comes down to whether F1 wants (or can afford) to be a constructor's series anymore. Bernie and Max et al will be deciding the future look of F1 in the next year or two. Do we trust them to get it right?

Maybe we could get a poll to see who wants:
1. Pure constructor teams as it now stands.
2. Customer teams with equal rights to constructors.
3. Customer teams with no points allowed in the WCC
4. Customer teams that are not B-teams.
5. Customer teams with their own team championship in place of the WCC.

I'm sure other could add to the poll or re-word it properly. What do you think?

My opinion is that I would like to see smaller private customer teams that would compete for WDC points, but not WCC points. These teams would buy a chassis and engine (not necessarily from the same constructor) and run the team without influence from the constructor(s).