Is Formula 1 going kit-car?

[xpensive]

Two things caught my attention on another site today.

This: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns27790.html

And this: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns27793.html

- If you connect the two, the second might be a actions to radically cut costs and make it a more level playing field.

- To do that, perhaps F1 needs to go in the kit-car direction, like standard suspension, front-wing and possibly gearboxes.

- The threat of losing four teams must be the worst possible scare for both MrE and MrT, changing Formula 1 totally.

Thoughts?

[calvarez]

This has been around for some time ago.

We sometimes forget that this is still a business for all parties, even if we consider that more money to the smallest teams will bring up more competitiveness it also represents that the bigger teams won’t have the “appropriate” support for their huge and revolutionary developments through all season.

A budget plan has been needed since a long time ago but it’s not easy to accomplish, even with this cut, the teams will always find a way to invest more money in order to have more media coverage that represent more money coming in.

[thomin]

I'd rather have an F1 with 6 distinct teams that all field four cars each than one with 12 teams that all field basically the same two spec cars.

[GitanesBlondes]

Well Ecclestone has been on record many times as saying he is perfectly happy to only have 10 teams on the grid since that is all that gets paid out for the constructor's championship, having an extra team or three now means he has to get into the bailout business when they are hemmorhaging money, which cuts down on the CVC profits. He did back off of that with his statement about being ok with 13 teams all of a sudden, but that's more because he knows at least Caterham is on their way out, and there is no threat of having a full 13 teams.

In any event. This may be exactly what you say...yet I can't help but think that you could wind up with the top teams telling Ecclestone and Todt to f*ck off on this one since being forced to use a homologated FIA-spec active suspension is just one less thing to engineer. Funny thing is that in 2015 this is the direction IndyCar is going in...

http://www.indycar.com/News/2013/12/12- ... -aero-kits

They are loosening up some aspects of their spec-series.

I do get the overall attraction of customer cars, and all the things that come with it, but when customer cars were prevalent in F1 during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the sport was so much different from what it was now. The cost to play was still high, but not relative to what it is now. Of course that was because aerodynamics were still very much low-cost, and you were employing a very small staff.

On the flipside, I will sing to my grave that the CART/IRL/Tony George debacle is a tremendous lesson to be learned from, and a path that should be avoided at all costs. I'm just amazed that while not identical, F1 is venturing down a not too dissimilar path. Open-wheel racing in America still has not recovered from that whole thing, and they were very much in the position F1 is where no one thought the whole thing could be destroyed with a bunch of bone-headed, short-term decisions. It's hard to believe that they were positioned to displace F1 only 20 years ago.

If the active suspension proposal has been brought up as another foolish way to try and cap costs to appease the 6 lower teams that are screaming, then it's going to be interesting to see what the top teams including Ferrari have to say about it. Of course one can't help but get the feeling that someone is maneuvering for their own personal benefit and a potential split is being eyed with "escalating costs" being the defining factor...even though it will just enrich someone at the end of the day.

[NTS]

- The threat of losing four teams must be the worst possible scare for both MrE and MrT, changing Formula 1 totally.

This is really a complaint against the power of the strategy group. The following teams are part of the group:

Red Bull
Mercedes
McLaren
Ferrari
Lotus
William

That leaves:

Toro Rosso
Sauber
Force India
Marissua
Caterham

And all of those except for Toro Rosso signed this letter... and we all know why Toro Rosso didn't complain . But it's really not news that the non-members disagree with the existence of the strategy group, Force India and others already complained about it quite vocally in October last year. They even went as far as claiming the group could be illegal under EU laws, an argument that is repeated in this new article.

In the end I think this will blow-over, it's just a political move to get more influence. They will get some more power over the sport/rules and will stay. Threatening to leave is just a tactic to put some pressure on it.

[xpensive]

My personal conspiracy theory is that the poor-four's letter to MrE and MrT was a tad more serious than the usual whining,
why they got spooked and suggested radical things such as an FIA active suspension and standard front-wing already from 2015.

[WhiteBlue]

F1 will never be kit car. It is one of these provocations that are thrown in here to kick off talks that suit certain agendas. F1 is committed to have a constructor rule. If they do certain things as homologated standard parts they will make sure there is enough content for the constructor status to be upheld. That is everything the small teams have. If we get third and fourth cars on the grid you know the end of F1 is not far away. Other racing series have clearly shown that. F1 as we know it cannot survive unless there is intellectual property of the chassis. The principle was established by Mosley's and Ecclestone's FOCA and it is still very true. I very much doubt that Williams for instance will ever vote for abandoning the constructor privilege/duty in F1.

[Sombrero]

I totally agree. If we have six manufactureers with four cars each then the story will start again. The less successfull manufactureers will struggle again and then there will be four cars manufactureers with six cars. And so on...

[xpensive]

I don't thing F1 will go kit-car either, but I believe the FIA will impose more and more standardized components, until little more than the tub remains.

[Just_a_fan]

Perhaps F1 should have two titles: a "rich team" title and a "poor team" title. In effect, the same as LMP1 and LMP2.

Allow for those entering the "poor" championship to use standardised parts e.g. common front and rear wings, common gearbox etc. Perhaps even a bit more fuel along with a higher flow rate to give some performance to offset the reduced grip from common, and less developed, aero parts. Alternatively, use a common chassis and drive train and allow the teams to develop their own aero packages (they have aero development facilities now so these won't be scrapped).

Of course Bernie/CVC will have to allow for a bigger prize fund but that's his problem.

There is a precedent in F1 - back in the days when we had turbo and NA cars on track. There were two championships running in parallel.

With care, there is no reason why the performance differential would be worse than it is now, and certainly no worse than some other series that run multiple titles on the same track.

This has the added bonus of potentially having decent grid sizes - 30+ cars on the track is going to make it more interesting than the 20 that Bernie wants.

[dobbster71]

Two things caught my attention on another site today.

This: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns27790.html

And this: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns27793.html

- If you connect the two, the second might be a actions to radically cut costs and make it a more level playing field.

- To do that, perhaps F1 needs to go in the kit-car direction, like standard suspension, front-wing and possibly gearboxes.

- The threat of losing four teams must be the worst possible scare for both MrE and MrT, changing Formula 1 totally.

Thoughts?

Seeing as Gene Haas is making a big song & dance about his F1 effort being "efficient" am I the only person that see's his team as being a trojan horse, used for the introduction of the "customer chassis" approach to F1?
Imagine after 2 years of running with the back markers using the Dallara chassis, Mr. Haas tells Bernie that he needs a better chassis for his Ferrari PU . He doesn't want to invest in the risky business of producing his own chassis but would really like to put that Ferrari PU into a Red Bull chassis. Bernie quickly realizes that the success of the now 2 US Grand Prix would be seriously enhanced by having a stronger US team & subsequently enacts that all current F1 chassis manufacturers make available their chassis to customer teams! To keep things a little more interesting, the customer teams would be responsible for their own aero development & would not be entitled to manufacturer team upgrades.
Just a thought!

[beelsebob]

Two things caught my attention on another site today.

This: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns27790.html

And this: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns27793.html

- If you connect the two, the second might be a actions to radically cut costs and make it a more level playing field.

- To do that, perhaps F1 needs to go in the kit-car direction, like standard suspension, front-wing and possibly gearboxes.

- The threat of losing four teams must be the worst possible scare for both MrE and MrT, changing Formula 1 totally.

Thoughts?

Seeing as Gene Haas is making a big song & dance about his F1 effort being "efficient" am I the only person that see's his team as being a trojan horse, used for the introduction of the "customer chassis" approach to F1?
Imagine after 2 years of running with the back markers using the Dallara chassis, Mr. Haas tells Bernie that he needs a better chassis for his Ferrari PU . He doesn't want to invest in the risky business of producing his own chassis but would really like to put that Ferrari PU into a Red Bull chassis. Bernie quickly realizes that the success of the now 2 US Grand Prix would be seriously enhanced by having a stronger US team & subsequently enacts that all current F1 chassis manufacturers make available their chassis to customer teams! To keep things a little more interesting, the customer teams would be responsible for their own aero development & would not be entitled to manufacturer team upgrades.
Just a thought!

Why would this need a trojan horse? There's a fine history of teams buying chassis in F1. It's only in very recent years (thanks to RedBull) that teams have had to build everything themselves.

[MOWOG]

Formula One, where all the important stuff takes place away from the track. Same old, same old. I grow tired of watching all these egomaniacs preening their feathers on the world stage. A pox on all their houses.

[dobbster71]

Two things caught my attention on another site today.

This: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns27790.html

And this: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns27793.html

- If you connect the two, the second might be a actions to radically cut costs and make it a more level playing field.

- To do that, perhaps F1 needs to go in the kit-car direction, like standard suspension, front-wing and possibly gearboxes.

- The threat of losing four teams must be the worst possible scare for both MrE and MrT, changing Formula 1 totally.

Thoughts?

Seeing as Gene Haas is making a big song & dance about his F1 effort being "efficient" am I the only person that see's his team as being a trojan horse, used for the introduction of the "customer chassis" approach to F1?
Imagine after 2 years of running with the back markers using the Dallara chassis, Mr. Haas tells Bernie that he needs a better chassis for his Ferrari PU . He doesn't want to invest in the risky business of producing his own chassis but would really like to put that Ferrari PU into a Red Bull chassis. Bernie quickly realizes that the success of the now 2 US Grand Prix would be seriously enhanced by having a stronger US team & subsequently enacts that all current F1 chassis manufacturers make available their chassis to customer teams! To keep things a little more interesting, the customer teams would be responsible for their own aero development & would not be entitled to manufacturer team upgrades.
Just a thought!

Why would this need a trojan horse? There's a fine history of teams buying chassis in F1. It's only in very recent years (thanks to RedBull) that teams have had to build everything themselves.

Yes, up to the 1970's this did indeed happen quite often.
Wasn't it frowned upon within F1 circles when Super Aguri used an old Honda chassis? It hasn't been tried since then, to the best of my knowledge.

[timbo]

I learned a new word: disenfranchised. Anybody knows what this means?

We already have standard SECU, standard crash structures and mandatory central sections on the front wing. I think standard diffuser and floor might also work. Standard active suspension is interesting idea. It indeed may be much more cost effective, given today's FRIC systems. The question is what parts are common. If it is possible to have only standard actuators, control-units and sensors, while teams will choose their own mounting points, arms shape and so on, then we're not loosing much.