Theissen: customer cars will ruin F1

[RS]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/56107

Discuss :)

I'm inclined to agree with him. Watching the small teams battling away with their own equipment has been one of the things I love about F1 and it looks set to come to an end.

Ok, so for the smaller teams it can be good news in terms of competitiveness relative to the front runners, but their competitiveness relative to each other is unlikely to change much, and I can't see a McLaren or Ferrari 'B' team being allowed to outperform the A team.

It might save them a bit of cash, but probably in return for taking the 'A' teams junior drivers, and my other issue is where are the designers/engineers/aerodynamacists who eventually find their way into the top teams going to get their schooling? Not at the tail enders any more :(

[Gannex]

I agree with you, RS. What makes F1 special, for me, is the fact that every team is also a design and manufacturing company. That way, F1 really is an engineering competition as well as a racing series, but with customer chassis, that will no longer be the case. What will there be to distinguish an F1 team using customer chassis from a Champ Car team or an IRL team? Very little.

[Periapt]

I agree with you, RS. What makes F1 special, for me, is the fact that every team is also a design and manufacturing company. That way, F1 really is an engineering competition as well as a racing series, but with customer chassis, that will no longer be the case. What will there be to distinguish an F1 team using customer chassis from a Champ Car team or an IRL team? Very little.


In the early days of F1 private entries were not unusual. Many privateers raced in Cooper and Lotus chassis. There were even non-team Ferraris. I don't see a problem with it. The constructor's championship could be based on the two best finishers for each constructor, regardless of which team they were with, and you could even add a team championship if you felt it necessary.

Of course, the privateers rarely had the most up-to-date equippment. On the other hand, you might find a constructor unwilling to field a works team, but willing to give factory support to those privateers driving their equippment, as Porche has done in recent times in other series. Indeed, this might be a way to allow the privateers to compete against the likes of Ferrari by spreading the R&D costs over several teams, all using the same basic equippment, modified to suit their particular styles.

Periapt

[agwiii]

I agree with you, RS. What makes F1 special, for me, is the fact that every team is also a design and manufacturing company. That way, F1 really is an engineering competition as well as a racing series, but with customer chassis, that will no longer be the case. What will there be to distinguish an F1 team using customer chassis from a Champ Car team or an IRL team? Very little.

Gannex, I agree with what you are saying, but how is this different from the era of the Ford DFV when most cars used the same engine?

[agwiii]

In the early days of F1 private entries were not unusual. Many privateers raced in Cooper and Lotus chassis. There were even non-team Ferraris. I don't see a problem with it. The constructor's championship could be based on the two best finishers for each constructor, regardless of which team they were with, and you could even add a team championship if you felt it necessary.

Of course, the privateers rarely had the most up-to-date equippment. On the other hand, you might find a constructor unwilling to field a works team, but willing to give factory support to those privateers driving their equippment, as Porche has done in recent times in other series. Indeed, this might be a way to allow the privateers to compete against the likes of Ferrari by spreading the R&D costs over several teams, all using the same basic equippment, modified to suit their particular styles.

Periapt

F1 has gone through several eras when the engines were mostly the same (Coventry-Climax, Ford DFV), as well as when Lotus, Lola, Cooper and others sold customer chassis and there were true private entrants. Who can forget Rob Walker's private Loti for Sterling Moss? I'm afraid such things are in the past. For many years, Minardi was the most popular team with the fans, and of course, they had no chance of winning. Money drives all of these current events, and I don't think we will ever return to the era when privateers could be competitive.

[Roamy]

what a crock of sh!t - Theissen just doesn't want to race on a even playing field. I think F1 needs a couple of great independent car makers

[ST205GT4]

I agree it's a joke. As if the big manufacturer's don't already control F1!!! And where is the variety in seeing the huge gaps in the ability of the moneybags manufacturers fighting for the wins and seeing the other half of the grid 2 seconds a lap slower? I'd rather more competitve cars than half a field of competitive cars and half a field of fillers.

[Sleeper]

Anyone that saw the winter testing times would have noticed that the Hondas were all at the top end of the time sheets, wereas the Super Aguris were in the midfield using what was in effect the same car with only a few differences and the same driver that developed the RA106. The quality of the team will always shine through but can F1 really afford having the smaller teams priced out because they have to design, build and develop their own cars? Its clear that if a team wants to be winners they will have to design, build and develop their own cars but to start out in the sport, like Prodrive will be doing in '08, and to get a footing on the grid its a very good way to start without having to brke the bank on facilities and personel straight out.

[veeten]

sounds more like Mario is afraid that he'll get beaten on the track by some independent team using the same equipment as his team, only doing the job better than him. It has happened before...

This is the reason why you haven't heard any bad press on this from Ferrari, Mercedes, Honda... The main teams will have the newer & better equipment, while the independent teams will get the more basic packages and will build their own teams from that, including the hiring of their own personel.

Thiessen's idea works only if there was sufficient reason for other manufacturers to consider supplying or creating an F1 team, and at present that's just not the case. The cost is just too prohibitive for those outside of the present company to create a working budget, and the way Ford left the game two years ago gives them nothing but incentive to look elsewhere for a motorsport programme.

[ArrowsFA1]

I assume that Theissen opposes Red Bull/Toro Rosso in that case. They are effectively one team running four cars. To make it worse they are using "customer" Ferrari and Renault engines.

Is there a difference between a team providing their chassis to another team, and an engine manufacturer providing engines to a second team?

I have a problem with Theissen's view simply because manufacturers enter and leave F1 with no consideration for the sport. At the moment BMW are one of a number of manufacturers involved, but Ford have shown that manufacturers involvement can end at any time. At the moment F1 is dominated by manufacturers, but their financial committment is not limitless.

How long, for example, are Toyota willing to pour money at the midfield?

[Ranger]

How long, for example, are Toyota willing to pour money at the midfield?

I would be surprised if their last year isn't 2009 - Trulli's deal ends there, as does the Williams deal. If they don't improve substantially then they will not be puching past that methinks.

[samuratt]

I would be surprised if their last year isn't 2009 - Trulli's deal ends there, as does the Williams deal. If they don't improve substantially then they will not be puching past that methinks.

I found this comment on a motorspot article:

I apologise in advance but there's no way Toyota could organise a revolution with Ralf Schumacher and Jarno Trulli. I may be proved wrong -- and will be suitably chastened if I am -- but I just can't see it. The team hardly made any noticeable progress this year and I'm mystified as to why it signed Trulli through 2008. In fact, Toyota is a mystery all together. Do something!

Fousto, what do you have to say about this? ;)

The team is clearly going down, and it would be very sad to see on of the top teams (in terms of budget) leave...

About the provateers it would be nice to have one chassis to rent, so they can concentrate their investments on setups and on track tests, and not so much in I&D, wind tunel, etc...But the chassis should be the same for all of the teams and should have a price in exchange, not just drivers and team orders... Let's say that for the next year, all privateers could buy the design of the current f1 champion chassis.

I don't like the idea of a grid full of Ferraris and McLarens, as Theissen points out, a manufacturer with 3 teams on the grid could organise the race so it developes his way, and that wouldn't be good for the sport. We will have a new concept to think about, which is: manufacturer orders.

[agwiii]

I assume that Theissen opposes Red Bull/Toro Rosso in that case. They are effectively one team running four cars. To make it worse they are using "customer" Ferrari and Renault engines.

Is there a difference between a team providing their chassis to another team, and an engine manufacturer providing engines to a second team?

I have a problem with Theissen's view simply because manufacturers enter and leave F1 with no consideration for the sport. At the moment BMW are one of a number of manufacturers involved, but Ford have shown that manufacturers involvement can end at any time. At the moment F1 is dominated by manufacturers, but their financial committment is not limitless.

How long, for example, are Toyota willing to pour money at the midfield?

All valid points. I've raised the engine issue before -- the eras of Coventry-Climax, Ford DFV, etc.) However, I don't believe we solve these problems with new and even more complex rules.

[wedge]

I like the idea of what Super Aguri did, taking and old chassis and adapting it.

Of course there is a danger of a team like Williams - God forbid - having to rely on customer chassis. It still saddens me slightly that a great organisation like Penske no longer make their own cars for oval racing.

[TOgoFASTER]

Manufactures or independant teams have come and gone on pretty much the same basis over the years. Their commitments to the sport overall have varied greatly in both camps.

Governance and rules packages have also played a huge part in whom plays and whom walks away.The current climate set by that same governance has made on purpose a platform favoring car manufactures. It's been that way for at least a decade now. It feeds their bottom line and has little to do with the overall health of F1. Right or wrong it's the way it is.

One way or another there always is and has been a manufacture in the engine bay somewhere on the grid. The importance and reality of that in many areas is being overlooked by some.

"Ford have shown that manufacturers involvement can end at any time."
Huh? They also showed what a great asset they were during the DFV kit car decades.
Going broke can be as much as a problem and effect to a major manufacture as it was for the likes of Jordan, Minardi etc.
And like whom that can it end at any time? Hesketh, Wolf, Penske etc. Funny I never have seen these teams nor many others come back as say Honda, Renault or even Mercedes have.
When will DiDi walk?

BRM had a long hard climb to the top and a hard fall. For me they were an example of a group that lived for F1. In the end they were just as Ferrari, a F1 manufacture. There is a great value in a team that built it all win or lose, above engine hopping.

Would Theissen's statement be the same if BMW had a "B" team?

Only good governance of the sport can bring a balance, something sorely missing for the long term now.

Williams started out using customer chassis'. Brabham, Detomaso, ISO
Though I would say now the more likely customer chassis would come from them and would be used by Toyota. Williams is coming out of a down period with new income and a revised staff, Toyota has never built a competitive F1 chassis.
I also very much doubt while Frank is alive Williams will become a permanent "B" team in any shape or form.

[V12]

In an ideal world, as in the past, the bulk of the teams were building their own cars, but the field was supplemented by a few private entries - constructors that made a business out of selling customer cars alongside their works entry - such as March, with a few year old cars, Tyrrells, Brabhams, Lotuses etc. Unfortunately I'm inclined to agree with Thiessen - when customer cars are allowed, I get the feeling that we'll end up with basically six four car teams, maybe will improve the competitiveness throughout the field, but at the loss of that extra variety, kind of like what touring car racing is like at the minute.

[jjanicke]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Champ car is very exciting, perhaps even more so, during the race, than F1. All teams are driving the same chassis and engine however a few seem to rise to the top again and again. I'm positive this is down to these teams investing in engineering and R&D to make their spec cars go fast (and faster).

I'm not sure what Mario is whining about, as most, if not all of his concerns can easily be handled.

I'm all for it. I would love to see a privateer Mclaren, Ferrari or Renault take it to the big boys and change up the yawn fests of late.

[Roamy]

I found this comment on a motorspot article:

I apologise in advance but there's no way Toyota could organise a revolution with Ralf Schumacher and Jarno Trulli. I may be proved wrong -- and will be suitably chastened if I am -- but I just can't see it. The team hardly made any noticeable progress this year and I'm mystified as to why it signed Trulli through 2008. In fact, Toyota is a mystery all together. Do something!

Fousto, what do you have to say about this? ;)

The team is clearly going down, and it would be very sad to see on of the top teams (in terms of budget) leave...

About the provateers it would be nice to have one chassis to rent, so they can concentrate their investments on setups and on track tests, and not so much in I&D, wind tunel, etc...But the chassis should be the same for all of the teams and should have a price in exchange, not just drivers and team orders... Let's say that for the next year, all privateers could buy the design of the current f1 champion chassis.

I don't like the idea of a grid full of Ferraris and McLarens, as Theissen points out, a manufacturer with 3 teams on the grid could organise the race so it developes his way, and that wouldn't be good for the sport. We will have a new concept to think about, which is: manufacturer orders.

fousto says **** BMW and Toyota.
Toyota created there own demise by locating in Koln and starting out with that Baffoon Ovary Andersen. They have not hired a top driver to date (sorry Pino) Actually I can't recall one person worth a sh!t at Toyota. Christ they may as well merge with Prix Richards and move to England.

[ArrowsFA1]

"Ford have shown that manufacturers involvement can end at any time."
Huh? They also showed what a great asset they were during the DFV kit car decades.
Going broke can be as much as a problem and effect to a major manufacture as it was for the likes of Jordan, Minardi etc.
And like whom that can it end at any time? Hesketh, Wolf, Penske etc. Funny I never have seen these teams nor many others come back as say Honda, Renault or even Mercedes have.
I was referring to the Ford/Jaguar period in particular, but your point is well made. In my defence I'd say that Ford merely provided the financial backing for Keith Duckworth and Cosworth (at the behest of Colin Chapman) to produce the DFV. It was not a Ford product, although the Ford & Cosworth names will always remain linked.

Ford in F1 have been most effective when working with specialists like Cosworth, or in partnership with the likes of Lotus, Williams, Benetton and even Stewart. When they go it alone their record is not stupendous, something that Toyota are learning to their cost.

[Dazz9908]

I'm all for partnerships and customer cars in F1. And "Hopefully" it will close the gaps to the bigger teams and incite closer racing. "Hopefully" the Concorde agreement and the FIA will allow bigger grids, which has I think has been seriously lacking in F1 for Soooo lLong.

[samuratt]

I'm all for it. I would love to see a privateer Mclaren, Ferrari or Renault take it to the big boys and change up the yawn fests of late.

You won't never see that!!! because a privateer Ferrari will have to finish behind the official Ferrari due to the manufacturar orders. That is the mayor concern when I think of 6 cars from the same manufacturer.

[TOgoFASTER]

I was referring to the Ford/Jaguar period in particular, but your point is well made. In my defence I'd say that Ford merely provided the financial backing for Keith Duckworth and Cosworth (at the behest of Colin Chapman) to produce the DFV. It was not a Ford product, although the Ford & Cosworth names will always remain linked.

Ford in F1 have been most effective when working with specialists like Cosworth, or in partnership with the likes of Lotus, Williams, Benetton and even Stewart. When they go it alone their record is not stupendous, something that Toyota are learning to their cost.

I'll agree.
It was Chapman that got all the parties together and that Ford's part was more or less the financial end. Ford also OKed the use of the DFV in the McLaren and Tyrrell teams for 1968. They got the same or very close to the same spec engine as the factory Lotus. That was a shining example of, for the betterment of the sport.
I hope one day to see a return to a balance that allows manufactures and indepentents without the politics.

[agwiii]

In my defence I'd say that Ford merely provided the financial backing for Keith Duckworth and Cosworth (at the behest of Colin Chapman) to produce the DFV. It was not a Ford product, although the Ford & Cosworth names will always remain linked.

When FORD paid for the product, why do you consider it not to be a FORD product?

[ArrowsFA1]

When FORD paid for the product, why do you consider it not to be a FORD product?
Because the DFV was designed, conceived, built and engineered by COSWORTH in the same way that the BMW P86 2.4V8 was designed, conceived, built and engineered by BMW.

[veeten]

sorry, but it's the truth.

From reading the responses, both here on this thread & forum and in others, it has come to me that a great many are products of the present generation, that of which are used to what they see as Formula 1 of the last 15-20 years. Unfortunately, what they are actually witnessing is the triumph of marketing over motorsport, which didn't happen overnight, but over time.

Remember when Formula 1 trully exuded the ideal of innovation & creative thinking?... that was back when the teams & manufacturers built original designs in both chassis & engines, such as the Ferrari 312 Boxer engine, or Renault-Gordini Turbo V6, BMW Turbo I-4(which was based on their production engine), Matra & Alfa Romeo V12, Ford-Cosworth DFV V8... Lotus 72 & 78, Ferrari T312, McLaren M23, Brabbham BT-series, Tyrrell P3/4 & later the P34 6-Wheeler...

These and many ideas that sprung from the fertile minds of those we held in the highest esteem all the way to the mid-80's were replaced by the cold, repetitive logic of fluid dynamics & wind tunnels, producing chassis that if one removed all paint & advertising marks, as well as driver numbers, and run them on track at the same time, one would have a devil of a time trying to distinguish one from another. Engines that have been legislated into a one size used by all specification, where the only way to know which is which is in how much throttle the driver is using.

The recent slate of rules that been a classic example of what has happened over the past 20+ years; true creative thought has been drownned out, replaced by incremmental mediocrity, and buttressed by hype to give it justification fleecing the world public.

I often find it comical when people do comparisons between F1 & NASCAR, as both are essentially doing the same thing: equalization by fiat as a means generating revenue. Thank you, Bernie & Max.

[Viv]

With customer cars..in the current scenario I think there'll be 2 team championship fights. One between the 'A' teams for the title and another championship battle between the customer teams for the best 'B' team :p :

[agwiii]

Because the DFV was designed, conceived, built and engineered by COSWORTH in the same way that the BMW P86 2.4V8 was designed, conceived, built and engineered by BMW.

If you buy something, does that make it yours? I think you're just reaching on this to discredit FORD in favor of Cosworth. Had it not been for FORD, there would not have been a DFV.

[Dazz9908]

You won't never see that!!! because a privateer Ferrari will have to finish behind the official Ferrari due to the manufacturar orders. That is the mayor concern when I think of 6 cars from the same manufacturer.
Is that mean we will have a:
Drivers Championship
Manufactures Championship
And Possibly a Team Championship.

I drought it, Cars may be coupled to a different engines to the Main Team.
Many combinations are plausible. Interesting Thought that!

[ArrowsFA1]

If you buy something, does that make it yours?
Funny you should say that. I was going to begin my post you quoted with "if you buy a pair of Nikes would that make them agwiiis?" :D

I think you're just reaching on this to discredit FORD in favor of Cosworth. Had it not been for FORD, there would not have been a DFV.
I've no reason to discredit Ford. I merely wished to raise the point that, unlike BMW or Toyota today, Ford effectively badged something that they did not produce. Nothing wrong with that at all.

[TOgoFASTER]

^ I will always look at it as a partnership that all three parts involved played equal parts.
Chapman wanted a engine that could be used as a stressed member, in fact he set a lot of the specs for the engine project including the price range per unit required, Cosworth had the know how and Ford found the project worth investing in as they wanted an F1 presences. BTW Ford had worked with Cosworth years before the DFV on other projects.
One without the other equals no DFV.

[Narr]

Is that mean we will have a:
Drivers Championship
Manufactures Championship
And Possibly a Team Championship.

I drought it, Cars may be coupled to a different engines to the Main Team.
Many combinations are plausible. Interesting Thought that!

One of the rules the FIA is trying to pass (it was in their document that came out just before Christmas) was to change the WDC to an Engine Manufacturer trophy.

[Roamy]

Theissen whines so much they are going to classify him as a "Vinyard"

[agwiii]

Funny you should say that. I was going to begin my post you quoted with "if you buy a pair of Nikes would that make them agwiiis?"

You're comparing apples and oranges. However, if I had Nike or some other company make a line of shoes with my label on them, then they would be mine.

:)

March 2007, hurry fast!

[agwiii]

I merely wished to raise the point that, unlike BMW or Toyota today, Ford effectively badged something that they did not produce. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Isn't "badge engineering" a British tradition?

[ArrowsFA1]

March 2007, hurry fast!
A familiar cry. Perhaps you could hibernate until March comes around and discussion can continue.

[agwiii]

A familiar cry. Perhaps you could hibernate until March comes around and discussion can continue.

Grizzly bears do that until some unfortunate wakes them.

[agwiii]

Ford effectively badged something that they did not produce. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Hum. That seems to make Cosworth the agricultural implement. :) What's the word?

[ArrowsFA1]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/56107

Discuss :)
As the head of a manufacturer in F1 you can understand where MT is coming from. He, and other manufacturers, gain in marketing terms from beating each other. (Mercedes v BMW, Honda v Toyota etc.) They don't gain from beating themselves; something Renault found when supplying Williams & Benetton, so they withdrew from the sport. As veeten pointed out earlier, what we are witnessing is the triumph of marketing over motorsport.

There might be a danger that the likes of Super Aguri and Toro Rosso will become mere test hacks for Honda & Red Bull, and the chances of them beating the 'works' teams will be next to zero. But there's two things to that: 1) would they beat them with a self-made chassis anyway and 2) don't the manufacturers have a responsibility to the sport as well as their own self interests?

MT says that "having just four or five big players controlling the grid in our view would not be F1 any more". Well, sorry Mario, but over the years one or two teams have dominated generally anyway. It's been Renault and Ferrari in recent years, and Williams & McLaren before that.

Back in the "glory days" did you ever see Brett Lunger's M23 ahead of the 'works' McLarens? It didn't happen, and yet it was still F1. A F1 with more cars, and more drivers competing. Drivers even had the chance to make their debut in a third 'works' car (Gilles with McLaren). Perhaps if MT is so against supplying chassis to another team, this is something he would consider.

Customer cars, or even third 'works' cars would be better than the two-by-two billboards we see now.

[BDunnell]

Remember when Formula 1 trully exuded the ideal of innovation & creative thinking?... that was back when the teams & manufacturers built original designs in both chassis & engines, such as the Ferrari 312 Boxer engine, or Renault-Gordini Turbo V6, BMW Turbo I-4(which was based on their production engine), Matra & Alfa Romeo V12, Ford-Cosworth DFV V8... Lotus 72 & 78, Ferrari T312, McLaren M23, Brabbham BT-series, Tyrrell P3/4 & later the P34 6-Wheeler...

These and many ideas that sprung from the fertile minds of those we held in the highest esteem all the way to the mid-80's were replaced by the cold, repetitive logic of fluid dynamics & wind tunnels, producing chassis that if one removed all paint & advertising marks, as well as driver numbers, and run them on track at the same time, one would have a devil of a time trying to distinguish one from another. Engines that have been legislated into a one size used by all specification, where the only way to know which is which is in how much throttle the driver is using.

I have much sympathy for your sentiments, but I can't help but feel that there have been some benefits in restricting some of the wilder excesses of the innovation of that period. In particular, it strikes me as very sensible that there should be a rule stating that F1 cars should only have four wheels.

In other ways, yes, it is a shame that there's not more scope for being different.

[BDunnell]

In general, I don't have a very strong view on the customer car issue. I wonder whether it will be forced to come up when car manufacturers go through another of their periodic bouts of disinterest in F1.

[ArrowsFA1]

That's my biggest concern. What will be left if that happens?

[DexDexter]

sorry, but it's the truth.

From reading the responses, both here on this thread & forum and in others, it has come to me that a great many are products of the present generation, that of which are used to what they see as Formula 1 of the last 15-20 years. Unfortunately, what they are actually witnessing is the triumph of marketing over motorsport, which didn't happen overnight, but over time.

Remember when Formula 1 trully exuded the ideal of innovation & creative thinking?... that was back when the teams & manufacturers built original designs in both chassis & engines, such as the Ferrari 312 Boxer engine, or Renault-Gordini Turbo V6, BMW Turbo I-4(which was based on their production engine), Matra & Alfa Romeo V12, Ford-Cosworth DFV V8... Lotus 72 & 78, Ferrari T312, McLaren M23, Brabbham BT-series, Tyrrell P3/4 & later the P34 6-Wheeler...

These and many ideas that sprung from the fertile minds of those we held in the highest esteem all the way to the mid-80's were replaced by the cold, repetitive logic of fluid dynamics & wind tunnels, producing chassis that if one removed all paint & advertising marks, as well as driver numbers, and run them on track at the same time, one would have a devil of a time trying to distinguish one from another. Engines that have been legislated into a one size used by all specification, where the only way to know which is which is in how much throttle the driver is using.

The recent slate of rules that been a classic example of what has happened over the past 20+ years; true creative thought has been drownned out, replaced by incremmental mediocrity, and buttressed by hype to give it justification fleecing the world public.

I often find it comical when people do comparisons between F1 & NASCAR, as both are essentially doing the same thing: equalization by fiat as a means generating revenue. Thank you, Bernie & Max.


This is just one of those posts where "in the old days things were much better", funny how people always think like that. Times change, F1 cannot afford an active suspension Williams which is 2,5 seconds faster than anything else any more, or a ground effects Lotus 79 for that matter. Limiting creativity is better than for example Mclaren winning 15 out of 16 races. In order to survive, f1 needs to be entertaining for the masses since the competition for peoples "souls" in more fierce than ever. If f1 becomes more entertaining because of technical restrictions, then I can live with it.

[BDunnell]

That's my biggest concern. What will be left if that happens?

I think it's dangerous for people to assume that F1, by becoming such a big business, has come out of the phase whereby there are periods of high manufacturer involvement and then slumps in that participation. There probably needs to be something to fall back on, unless new independent constructors come in to fill the breach.

[ArrowsFA1]

Limiting creativity is better than for example Mclaren winning 15 out of 16 races. In order to survive, f1 needs to be entertaining for the masses since the competition for peoples "souls" in more fierce than ever. If f1 becomes more entertaining because of technical restrictions, then I can live with it.
But by limiting creativity aren't we moving more and more towards a 'spec' series, which is something many say F1 should not be?

[jso1985]

exactly we already have Champ Cars for a spec series!
Plus current ideas makes F1 even more unfair, why should Super Aguri bother to design a chassis if they can take someones work(Honda's one) and beat teams who actually work and try to innovate like Williams or Spyker?

[BDunnell]

Plus current ideas makes F1 even more unfair, why should Super Aguri bother to design a chassis if they can take someones work(Honda's one) and beat teams who actually work and try to innovate like Williams or Spyker?

This happens in all sorts of forms of motorsport. I don't see why F1 should necessarily be any different. It doesn't have an inalienable right to be.

(By the way, this is not to say I'm in favour of allowing customer cars - as I said earlier, I'm not that bothered either way.)

[DexDexter]

exactly we already have Champ Cars for a spec series!
Plus current ideas makes F1 even more unfair, why should Super Aguri bother to design a chassis if they can take someones work(Honda's one) and beat teams who actually work and try to innovate like Williams or Spyker?

Unfair or not, if borrowing Honda's chassis makes Super Aguri competitive, I'm all for it, since your average Joe (who keeps F1 alive) doesn't care about intellectual rights of a chassis or if SP chassis is in reality a Honda. What they want to see is competitive racing and drivers from their home country competing in a competitive car. I too don't want a spec series but the realities of today's world require limiting the John Barnards and Colin Chapmans of today.

[jjanicke]

Is that mean we will have a:
Drivers Championship
Manufactures Championship
And Possibly a Team Championship.

I drought it, Cars may be coupled to a different engines to the Main Team.
Many combinations are plausible. Interesting Thought that!

:up: at least someone is thinking outside the small confinds of the present F1 box.

Let's see what responses this spures.

[jjanicke]

I have much sympathy for your sentiments, but I can't help but feel that there have been some benefits in restricting some of the wilder excesses of the innovation of that period. In particular, it strikes me as very sensible that there should be a rule stating that F1 cars should only have four wheels.

In other ways, yes, it is a shame that there's not more scope for being different.

What's the logic behind a rule for 4 wheels? Seems quite arbitrary to me, isn't it?

[jjanicke]

That's my biggest concern. What will be left if that happens?

The privateers will be forced to develop their own cars, with their existing budgets and F1 will evolve yet again, and probably for the better.