The Debate On Customer Cars

[Cam]

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.

Well, one could argue that 'pay drivers' are indeed on topic - as pay drivers would 'pay' for a customer car. One could suggest that anyone with money would be a potential customer.

So let's look at approx costs. Gascoyne says:

I think £50million is absolutely the right level to set it at, including drivers’ salaries and even my salary.

So that's total for a year. Not a lot really. So, let's break this down into races (round figures here). 50m/20 races = 2.5m per race - all in (factory, transport, all wages for a full team etc). NOt bad when you look at it per race terms.

You have a lot of drivers out there with good funding. Look at Kobayashi - he raised £1.35m on his own, online. Sure, not enough to nab a Williams seat for a year, but good enough to fund a couple or races or at least one race.

In this scenario, Hekki would probably be better to fund a one off drive in a RedBull customer car to show his worth.

What a spectacle it would be. Drivers no-one wants, (potentially) out-racing pay drivers using customer cars. Now that would bums on seats.

Edit: Added previous quote from previous page.

[FW17]

What a spectacle it would be. Drivers no-one wants, (potentially) out-racing pay drivers using customer cars. Now that would bums on seats.

Have to agree with you, it was quiet a spectacle when the pay driver was kicking kamui's a** all over.

[Cam]

Sorry, you've lost me - which pay driver do you mean?

[raymondu999]

Sorry, you've lost me - which pay driver do you mean?

Checo

[feni_remmen]

Bazza, I find your belief that things wouldn't get out of hand, re: political control, a little naive.
If Ferrari were to supply a full car to another team, especially a smaller team, they would exert every ounce of political power they could muster, to ensure that their customer worked to the benefit of Ferrari. I would expect Mercedes and McLaren to do the same. I believe this was one of the perceived benefits of McLaren's desire to have a "b" team a few years ago. Double the data and some protection for the main team.
The prospect of McLaren supplying a chassis and expertise to another team to run the same car doesn't interest me, especially as it will make it progressively more difficult for independent teams like Williams or Lotus to compete with the might of Ferrari, Mercedes or McLaren. At least demanding that the engine be different prevents the manufactures from just setting up defacto "b" teams.

I agree whole heartedly that a full grid of competitive cars would be wonderful, but full customer cars would just lead to "a" and "b" teams, not due to performance constrains but rather due to political constraints. It seems to me a simple compromise to demand that the engine be different in a competitive chassis.

I'd love to see something like this...

4 McLarens
(McLaren Mercedes & Marussia McLaren Cosworth)
4 Lotus'
(Lotus Renault & Caterham Lotus Cosworth)
4 Williams
(Williams Renault & ???? Williams Cosworth)
4 Saubers
(Sauber Ferrari & FIFI Sauber Mercedes)
4 Red Bulls
(Red Bull Renault & Toro Rosso Ferrari)
2 Ferrari's
2 Mercedes'

I'm sorry to say, that even with that limitation in place, the supplying teams will have a tendency to pressure their customer into compliance. Especially if the championship gets tight and if the "b" teams start to mix it at the front and gets in the way.
(And yes, I was insinuating that a team like FIF1 could become a puppet of McLaren if the deal was right). Any team outside the top 5 (except perhaps Williams) could.

[FW17]

4 Lotus'
(Lotus Renault & Caterham Lotus Cosworth)

[Bazza]

Bazza, I find your belief that things wouldn't get out of hand, re: political control, a little naive.
If Ferrari were to supply a full car to another team, especially a smaller team, they would exert every ounce of political power they could muster, to ensure that their customer worked to the benefit of Ferrari. I would expect Mercedes and McLaren to do the same. I believe this was one of the perceived benefits of McLaren's desire to have a "b" team a few years ago. Double the data and some protection for the main team.
The prospect of McLaren supplying a chassis and expertise to another team to run the same car doesn't interest me, especially as it will make it progressively more difficult for independent teams like Williams or Lotus to compete with the might of Ferrari, Mercedes or McLaren. At least demanding that the engine be different prevents the manufactures from just setting up defacto "b" teams.

I agree whole heartedly that a full grid of competitive cars would be wonderful, but full customer cars would just lead to "a" and "b" teams, not due to performance constrains but rather due to political constraints. It seems to me a simple compromise to demand that the engine be different in a competitive chassis.

I'd love to see something like this...

4 McLarens
(McLaren Mercedes & Marussia McLaren Cosworth)
4 Lotus'
(Lotus Renault & Caterham Lotus Cosworth)
4 Williams
(Williams Renault & ???? Williams Cosworth)
4 Saubers
(Sauber Ferrari & FIFI Sauber Mercedes)
4 Red Bulls
(Red Bull Renault & Toro Rosso Ferrari)
2 Ferrari's
2 Mercedes'

I'm sorry to say, that even with that limitation in place, the supplying teams will have a tendency to pressure their customer into compliance. Especially if the championship gets tight and if the "b" teams start to mix it at the front and gets in the way.
(And yes, I was insinuating that a team like FIF1 could become a puppet of McLaren if the deal was right). Any team outside the top 5 (except perhaps Williams) could.

You're assuming Ferrari would sell the chassis to a small or medium-sized team. I's been a long time since the customer cars of old were motoring around, and a lot has changed from the corporate/business standpoint. I can't see a non-proven team ever getting a Ferrari chassis, probably nor even a McLaren chassis either.

For customer cars in other sports, generally it's held that they would do testing together if the teams are viewed as equal, with input from both team's drivers, but if not, then the customer gets what's being offered; updates and changes from the 'main' car, maybe some extra changes if they ask nicely.

Why FI would become more of a puppet of McLaren than now (which is what's permitted, just, and rules would undoubtedly be updated to reflect the situation), I don't know. In reality the leverage would be on the Mercedes Engine supplier, because now a potential double number of cars are using it on the grid with each chassis. Different engines alone aren't going to be enough to stop the B-team set-up though, if that's what you're insinuating (look at the Red Bull Ferraris from 07-08).

[feni_remmen]

Bazza, I find your belief that things wouldn't get out of hand, re: political control, a little naive.
If Ferrari were to supply a full car to another team, especially a smaller team, they would exert every ounce of political power they could muster, to ensure that their customer worked to the benefit of Ferrari. I would expect Mercedes and McLaren to do the same. I believe this was one of the perceived benefits of McLaren's desire to have a "b" team a few years ago. Double the data and some protection for the main team.
The prospect of McLaren supplying a chassis and expertise to another team to run the same car doesn't interest me, especially as it will make it progressively more difficult for independent teams like Williams or Lotus to compete with the might of Ferrari, Mercedes or McLaren. At least demanding that the engine be different prevents the manufactures from just setting up defacto "b" teams.

I agree whole heartedly that a full grid of competitive cars would be wonderful, but full customer cars would just lead to "a" and "b" teams, not due to performance constrains but rather due to political constraints. It seems to me a simple compromise to demand that the engine be different in a competitive chassis.

I'd love to see something like this...

4 McLarens
(McLaren Mercedes & Marussia McLaren Cosworth)
4 Lotus'
(Lotus Renault & Caterham Lotus Cosworth)
4 Williams
(Williams Renault & ???? Williams Cosworth)
4 Saubers
(Sauber Ferrari & FIFI Sauber Mercedes)
4 Red Bulls
(Red Bull Renault & Toro Rosso Ferrari)
2 Ferrari's
2 Mercedes'

I'm sorry to say, that even with that limitation in place, the supplying teams will have a tendency to pressure their customer into compliance. Especially if the championship gets tight and if the "b" teams start to mix it at the front and gets in the way.
(And yes, I was insinuating that a team like FIF1 could become a puppet of McLaren if the deal was right). Any team outside the top 5 (except perhaps Williams) could.

You're assuming Ferrari would sell the chassis to a small or medium-sized team. I's been a long time since the customer cars of old were motoring around, and a lot has changed from the corporate/business standpoint. I can't see a non-proven team ever getting a Ferrari chassis, probably nor even a McLaren chassis either.

For customer cars in other sports, generally it's held that they would do testing together if the teams are viewed as equal, with input from both team's drivers, but if not, then the customer gets what's being offered; updates and changes from the 'main' car, maybe some extra changes if they ask nicely.

Why FI would become more of a puppet of McLaren than now (which is what's permitted, just, and rules would undoubtedly be updated to reflect the situation), I don't know. In reality the leverage would be on the Mercedes Engine supplier, because now a potential double number of cars are using it on the grid with each chassis. Different engines alone aren't going to be enough to stop the B-team set-up though, if that's what you're insinuating (look at the Red Bull Ferraris from 07-08).

I think you'll see in my suggestion the implied belief that it would be unlikely that Ferrari or Mercedes would supply a customer. This is one of the reasons I am firm in my belief that the engine needs to be different in the case of a customer installation... I picked FIF1 as an example (and a relatively arbitrary one) and only picked them because of their technology relationship with McLaren. I believe in my limitation because it is an attempt to limit an engine suppliers control over the grid and specifically to limit engine manufacturers with their own teams. You are spot on when you say "the leverage would be on the Mercedes Engine". They are the organizations I am trying to control with a rule like this.

Also I believe the situation with RedBull and Toro Rosso is a great example of the dangers of customer cars and also a great example of how it could be done...

This idea of unique chassis/engine combinations was reinforced for me when it became apparent in the ass end of 08, that the Toro Rosso Ferrari was faster than the very similar Red Bull Renault. Red Bull Technology had access to twice the data collection. Red Bull's mid grid status and perhaps their company ethos (depending on your beliefs), were the only thing preventing them from manipulating the results... Imagine if Toro Rosso had an RB6 or RB7 at their disposal in the last few years (what it might do for the other teams). It might be great for the fans, short term, but not if Red Bull start putting their eggs in one basket... By ensuring the engines are different, you at least curtail some of the ability of one group to have total control over four cars on the grid.

I hope this makes sense. It seems reasonable in my head, at least in an open customer car environment...

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion. By the way, how good does the new toro rosso look!