The Debate On Customer Cars

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
Websta
0
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 15:18

Re: The Debate On Customer Cars

Post

You could let them buy a more competitive car but exclude them from the constructors championship as well so that, whilst they may beat other teams that design their own cars, those teams will still receive the winnings they deserve. Heck, let the midfield teams sell them the designs, earning the midfielders more money and offsetting any losses from sponsors moving to the now more competitive back-markers. The back-markers would have reduced costs in terms of designing and increased sponsorship - even if they are excluded from the constructors, this would probably still be a favourable position.

This could also be implemented as a short-term solution to help the back-markers get on their feet and put a more effective production line in place.

Disclaimer: this is only for the purpose of the debate, I am not throwing any serious thought into it.

User avatar
FW17
170
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: The Debate On Customer Cars

Post

my say is that customer cars should be allowed with the current years cars without the key aero parts; front wing, rear wing, diffuser and splitter and engine cover.

Maybe as a budget capped

Cars without power train - $10 million
Engine - $10 -30 million
Gearbox - $5 million
Aero R&D and Manufacture- $10 - 15 million
Team expenses - $15 - 20 million

Budget cap for customer teams - $ 50 - 80 million

with 2 pay drivers ($10 million each) and FOM travel subsidy ($10 million) team would still need $20 - 50 million a year.

feni_remmen
feni_remmen
3
Joined: 26 Mar 2009, 15:43

Re: The Debate On Customer Cars

Post

I don't have any aversion customer cars, but the best safety to ensure things don't get out of hand is this...

Chassis cannot be connected to the same engine or gearbox as the suppliers chassis. This stops 1 team from having total political control over another.

Force India can race a McLaren chassis, so long as they don't have a Mercedes engine. Simple.
It means each team will have a unique identity and not beholden to a single political force, which will happen if teams are clones of other teams.

Bazza
Bazza
0
Joined: 13 Nov 2011, 13:01

Re: The Debate On Customer Cars

Post

feni_remmen wrote:I don't have any aversion customer cars, but the best safety to ensure things don't get out of hand is this...

Chassis cannot be connected to the same engine or gearbox as the suppliers chassis. This stops 1 team from having total political control over another.

Force India can race a McLaren chassis, so long as they don't have a Mercedes engine. Simple.
It means each team will have a unique identity and not beholden to a single political force, which will happen if teams are clones of other teams.
I've got no idea what you mean by that. How on earth would a customer team be stuck in the situation of being merely a puppet for the supplying team? If you're thinking of a similar situation to Torro Rosso, well, that's exactly the point of Torro Rosso (and Super Aguri, kind of). And why would you bring up the McLaren Mercedes ForceIndia example? All 3 teams use the Mercedes engine, yet you're insinuating that FI, by virtue of using a McLaren chassis, would somehow diminish the identity of Force India? What about the equally famous Formula 1 constructor and identity, Caterham?

Right now the cars are always going to be worlds apart. Having both Vettel and Kartekayan on the track on the same day is of course going to make it seem pretty bad, but even without the best and worst teams there's a massive difference in performance, something counter-productive to good racing.

The trick with customer cars is to bump up the number of cars to something resembling a full grid (something F1 needs anyway). That way, you can offer NEW teams the equipment from EXISTING teams, which will therefore still be there, still building their own stuff. Limit it to supplying 2 cars, for a total of 4 of the same constructor's car on the grid (up from 2 now).

There's room for 10 customer car on the grid, at least (let's round it to a grid of 30). Say we've got another:
2 McLarens (they're run more than 2 cars before)
2 Lotus (seems like a decent bet for a new team seeking cars)
2 Mercedes (customer Silver Arrows, (see gentlemen drivers) makes sense)
2 Sauber and 2 Williams (probably on the cheaper end of the scale, but decent enough to have a good crack on a good weekend).

Red Bull either wouldn't do it, or if they did, they'd give their 2 customer cars to STR. STR could do it (offer customer cars), which could actually be more likely. Ferrari, likewise, probably wouldn't do it, but it would still be possible.


And BAM! right there, I've eliminated the useless constructors (HRT, Marussia, Caterham, and possibly Force India, maybe), and instantly quadrupled the amount of good racing you're going to see in the midfield.

Richard
Richard
Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 14:41
Location: UK

Re: The Debate On Customer Cars

Post

It would also help start up team if one or two slots were for teams that only participated in EU or Asian races. Then we'd get low cost Asian entrant and a low cost EU entrant to add some diversity.

ESPImperium
ESPImperium
64
Joined: 06 Apr 2008, 00:08
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: The Debate On Customer Cars

Post

Ive always said that "Customer" teams can only sell the chassis IP for a cost capped amount. The amount would be €10M a season, however the Customer Team cant update the survival cell side of things and the front and rear crash structures. The Customer team can get their IP supplier to produce their chassis as well. However the Customer team would not be allowed to buy IP for the front wing, rear wing, engine cover and side pods and floor. Suspension, Mechanics and Electronics for the Customer teams can be IP bought as well, just the aero sensitive parts cant be IP Bought.

And as for the Top 3 cars from any year, they simply cannot supply a IP in order to give a income stream to a lower team that has a income of less than $150m a year, and also give the teams like Williams a chance of not being trounced by a Ferrari second team. This only leaves Williams, Sauber and Force India as a decent crack for a F1 car, unless Lotus and Mercedes reduced their budget. The IP cars are based on the last two years cars only, no present years car, so Sauber could sell the C30 or C31 but not the 2013 car the C32 for instance. Customer teams would have to make their own chassis after 2 years of customer IP cars.

This would mean they would get a car that was up to standard and also a good enough car for a base. Customer teams however would be allowed to take any engine supply, but they have to take that supply for 3 years, meaning their first chassis proper would have the same power train as their IP cars, meaning they have the same technology base for their first proper chassis.

As for Customer Teams, they are cost capped, they are cost capped to a €90m budget for full season teams, or €50m for F1 Asia, F1 Euro or F1 America based teams if you want a 13th team that is region based that can only do 6 to 8 GP a season in that region. Thats if the calender was evenly distributed in each region. The Customer teams would also be allowed to test for 8 days on the monday after a GP that isn't a street track.

User avatar
FW17
170
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: The Debate On Customer Cars

Post

$50 million should be max for a customer team, with today's economic status that will be a luxury.

User avatar
Cam
45
Joined: 02 Mar 2012, 08:38

Re: The Debate On Customer Cars

Post

richard_leeds wrote:It would also help start up team if one or two slots were for teams that only participated in EU or Asian races. Then we'd get low cost Asian entrant and a low cost EU entrant to add some diversity.
That's arguably one of the finest pieces of common sense thinking I've seen in a while. +1

Many races actually have this facility already - so there's no reason why F1 couldn't allow 'part time' or 'one off' teams in for a couple of races. For example, Team China to race in Chinese GP and maybe Singapore GP & Korean Gp. Would be low cost, would give the home team something to cheer about (especially if they perform well), would be great PR, would give more drivers opportunities to drive and get track miles and puts more cars on the track for fans to watch. Even if they aren't that quick, certainly couldn't be any worse that we've seen in past with some of the back markers.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
― Socrates
Ignorance is a state of being uninformed. Ignorant describes a person in the state of being unaware
who deliberately ignores or disregards important information or facts. © all rights reserved.

wesley123
wesley123
204
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 17:55

Re: The Debate On Customer Cars

Post

imo an entry that only goes in on selected races isnt something for F1. Simply because it doesnt give the "security" that F1 needs, and what about sponsors? Or marketing? F1 is selling itself to a huge audience, with 75% of them being completely confused when in one race XYZ racing is there, and the next is not. 75% of the audience will not understand why that happens and because of that rather watch soccer instead of F1 because he can understand it, and feel related to it.

And also as a driver, I wouldnt want to drive for XYZ racing, only doing selected races, and the driver sitting the other races out. And then we still have facilities, which needs to be funded for a full year, you cant simply say "oh guys our season is over, now go sit at home." your employees would possibly sit at home for half of the year.

So yeah, in theory it sounds fun, but in reality it would not work, and then mainly marketing is a problem.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

User avatar
Cam
45
Joined: 02 Mar 2012, 08:38

Re: The Debate On Customer Cars

Post

okay, so let's look at the Deltawing as an example. Raced once under a special provision. The PR was huge and Nissan are still feeding from it.

I doubt you'd have any driver saying 'no' to a one off drive in the pinnacle of Motorsport - this is the opportunity to shine and be noticed.

Sponsors as well would line up - small price to sponsor a car for one race, get huge exposure. You'd probably find that the one off teams would get better 'bang for buck' on their advertising dollars.

As to people being confused, I can't see that. People watch Le Mans and can get their head around so many different classes on a track, plus the one off prototype.

For a team to be able to sell a 'used' car for a one off race (or thereabouts) would put money back in their pockets - at a time when teams are leaving and struggling to find cash.....
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
― Socrates
Ignorance is a state of being uninformed. Ignorant describes a person in the state of being unaware
who deliberately ignores or disregards important information or facts. © all rights reserved.

wesley123
wesley123
204
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 17:55

Re: The Debate On Customer Cars

Post

Cam wrote:okay, so let's look at the Deltawing as an example. Raced once under a special provision. The PR was huge and Nissan are still feeding from it.
afaik the Delta wing did an ALMS season in 2012, and it had a waiver for LMP2. It at least did run in Le Mans and Road Atlanta.
I doubt you'd have any driver saying 'no' to a one off drive in the pinnacle of Motorsport - this is the opportunity to shine and be noticed.
Those guys would be desperate guys for a seat who are sidelined for a simple reason; they arent quick enough. But yeah, this is up for debate though
Sponsors as well would line up - small price to sponsor a car for one race, get huge exposure. You'd probably find that the one off teams would get better 'bang for buck' on their advertising dollars.
Which makes your events quite uncertain, since your sponsorship is variable. Only risky, plus you have like 3 months sponsorship when you would have to deal with 9 months more or team ownership.
As to people being confused, I can't see that. People watch Le Mans and can get their head around so many different classes on a track, plus the one off prototype.
the ALMS/LMS/WEC are watched by much less people. imo people who watch these series are real fanatics, who actually know their things, guys that actually love motorsport. A lot of f1 viewers dont know a damn thing and just watch it sometimes. They watch it because it is quite easy to follow, and a different line up per race(or continent) would only confuse the viewer.
For a team to be able to sell a 'used' car for a one off race (or thereabouts) would put money back in their pockets - at a time when teams are leaving and struggling to find cash.....
So you are actually putting a different team every race on the back of the grid, might as well just make it a single team, it is the same thing essentially with less confusion. A team that runs like 3 races a year is in no way capable of even competing with the rest of the field, it's as simple as that.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

User avatar
FW17
170
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: The Debate On Customer Cars

Post

This is same as a team trying to run region specific sponsorship, so far it has not worked.

Cost wise it will make lesser sense, as you spend the same on the car, but lesser on operations but compete in a third of the events.

hpras
hpras
15
Joined: 12 May 2009, 06:15

Re: The Debate On Customer Cars

Post

This sort of thing has happened in MotoGP quite a bit in the past. Usually at the 'home' race for a recognized fast guy who isn't in the series, one of the factories puts up a bike for them to have a go at it. One guy even won the race he was a 'Wildcard' in. Troy Bayliss in 2006 totally dominated the last race of the season in Valencia. There are fewer 'wildcard' spots these days, and they are more likely to get an inferior CRT machine, but they are still able to showcase their skills.

User avatar
Cam
45
Joined: 02 Mar 2012, 08:38

Re: The Debate On Customer Cars

Post

hpras wrote:This sort of thing has happened in MotoGP quite a bit in the past. Usually at the 'home' race for a recognized fast guy who isn't in the series, one of the factories puts up a bike for them to have a go at it. One guy even won the race he was a 'Wildcard' in. Troy Bayliss in 2006 totally dominated the last race of the season in Valencia. There are fewer 'wildcard' spots these days, and they are more likely to get an inferior CRT machine, but they are still able to showcase their skills.
Amen brother. Exactly.

Same scenario could occur for F1. Someone comes along and buys or rents a early season Ferrari and drives it for one race only. Pull a team together from selecting guys from GP2, GP3 etc, pull some sponsors - bang, you're away. I'm sure any of the reserves drivers would happily accept a spin for a weekend - they could even 'pay' for the privilege.

The comment about drivers who are sidelined only because they are not 'quick enough' simply is wrong wesley - if we need to have the pay driver talk, we can. Many fast drivers don't have a seat simply due to lack of funds. I'm surprised you used that as 'fact' to argue your point.

Wildcard racers are quite common and as hpras pointed out, can be successful given reasonable equipment - which an early season F1 car would be. They don't have to race all year, just one or two opportunities would be enough.

If you're against customer cars, cool, I get that. I'm pro F1 survival and if renting out a car for the odd race helps keep the sport going, I see nothing detrimental enough to not consider it as a possible viable option.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
― Socrates
Ignorance is a state of being uninformed. Ignorant describes a person in the state of being unaware
who deliberately ignores or disregards important information or facts. © all rights reserved.

User avatar
FW17
170
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: The Debate On Customer Cars

Post

Cam wrote: The comment about drivers who are sidelined only because they are not 'quick enough' simply is wrong wesley - if we need to have the pay driver talk, we can. Many fast drivers don't have a seat simply due to lack of funds. I'm surprised you used that as 'fact' to argue your point.
This is off topic.

Pay drivers are any day a better bet than average junior category champions. Timo Glock, Heikki Kovalainen etc were all junior category champions who were below average in there F1 career. So there is no guarantee that the current junior category champions, Robin Frijns, Davide Valsecchi, will be any better than the pay drivers.

Anyway why should teams believe in champ drivers when his sponsorship don't believe in him.