Montezemolo still banging on about third cars

[747heavy]

In this case I go along with Joe Saward

Very rapidly Formula 1 would cease to have 12 solid teams, and the field would be reduced to eight teams, each manufacturing three cars, but what chance would there be for those at the back to move forward? And how easy would it be to find funding? The next logical step to support the sport would be six teams making four cars each. But look what happened when multi-car teams dominated Grand Prix racing in the 1930s or early 1950s. The opposition simply died out and when the dominant manufacturers decided that they had used F1 enough, they pulled out and left the sport in a mess.

In any case, Formula 1 has already been through this cycle of development with Red Bull Racing providing machinery for Scuderia Toro Rosso, and McLaren coming close to a supply deal with Prodrive. The other teams recognised the danger of what was happening and the idea was abandoned, particularly after Scuderia Toro Rosso won the Italian Grand Prix, something which would have been inconceivable a few years earlier.

The sport is better off with more two-car teams, even if some are weak.

The manufacturer cycle mechanism is well known due to more than 100 years of observations in motor sport. The lesson is learned and must not be forgotten. Manufacturers are good for the sport but they must be prohibited to take control of it.

First we would need to have 12 solid teams in F1.
I´m not sure I would call HRT a "solid" team.
Secondly, I think he answers his own question rather nicely.
Somehow I would like to think, that it is far easier to attract sponsorship and driver talent when you can offer a Newey designed car with an competetive engine, then if you offer hot air, big dreams a pile of crap and a Cosworth customer engine. ( btw no disrespect for the Cosworth engine here)
How much chance stands HRT to beat the likes of McLaren, Red Bull and Ferrari as it is now?

I think we need to discriminate between a 3 car team (like Ferrari and/or McLaren running 3 factory cars) and the possibility so sell cars to customer teams, as the RBR/STR model or a Prodrive team running McLaren chassis.

While I agree and it is true that a "car manufacturer" such as Toyota,Honda and BMW can/and will walk away from the sport(F1) at any time if it does not fit their current strategy, I can´t see the same happen for the likes of McLaren and/or Williams which are first and mainly "race car manufacturers/teams" and F1 is basicly their only "Raison d'État".

There was a quite healthy period of F1, where it was quite normal for a team to campain another Brabham or March chassis with a customer engine, and doing quite all right.

So I would say the answer is not as clear cut, as some want to make it sound like.

[WhiteBlue]

There was a quite healthy period of F1, where it was quite normal for a team to campain another Brabham or March chassis with a customer engine, and doing quite all right.

That was before F1 became an exclusive franchise of constructors with their own intellectual property. It would not work in the current business model as Saward rightly pointed out. The mechanism for admitting new teams has changed. Factually it is now controlled by the F1 commission because they set the criteria for selection of applicants. The F1 commission will not tolerate the use of customer chassis. So we can drop that point from the discussion. It will not happen.

Source
It's what he (Montezemolo) says every time he goes to Monza every year: "'We need more money". It's all nonsense. They're not going to break away. They've tried it all before. Luca's a lovely guy but he likes to say these things and then he forgets what he is saying.

Lol, we know Bernie. You do talk the same nonsense as Monte, just from the opposite side.

[747heavy]

The F1 commission will not tolerate the use of customer chassis.
So we can drop that point from the discussion.
It will not happen.

I bow for your superior knowledge about the inner workings of the FIA/F1 commission.

Or is it("So we can drop that point from the discussion") just a not so humble attempt to bully your point of view onto other forumers?

Never say never/not WB, they will do it, if it fit´s the bill/their interests.
This could happen as soon as 2013 or even before when HRT and maybe some others fall along the wayside.

Engines, gearboxes and KERS is just the beginning, it´s not a great leap to go from their to a front axle, upright, power steering system and ultimatively chassis.

I´m sure people had the same opinion ("It will not happen") about the return of turbo engines and ground effect cars at one time, perhaps not too long ago.

[andrew]

MrM and MrdM speak nonsence do they? Actually, they speak absolute sense most of the time only to have their words twisted by media hacks and people with keyboards and agendas.

A system where each of the top teams (say Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull) team up with the tail-end Charlies (HRT, Virgin and Lotus) and give them one car each and technical support would be immensely sensible. It would give these "cripple" teams some credibility and would allow them to develop a better car.

The F1 commission will not tolerate the use of customer chassis.
So we can drop that point from the discussion.

It's your thread. If you didn't want it discussed you shouldn't have started it. Or was this just another platform for the WB agenda of bashing Italians and short Englishmen with lots of money?

[donskar]

I agree with the last two posts (and others): customer cars can be beneficial to F1, and I'm not just theorizing. Think back to the days when customer cars were common. Williams, Tyrell, Rob Walker, Hesketh, and others ran customer cars and added color and personality to the sport -- as well as being thoroughly competitive. And I also agree that this thread seems to have been started merely to "bash."

[Giblet]

A system where each of the top teams (say Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull) team up with the tail-end Charlies (HRT, Virgin and Lotus) and give them one car each and technical support would be immensely sensible. It would give these "cripple" teams some credibility and would allow them to develop a better car.

Why just the top end teams? That seems a little bit on the silly side. Why can't Renault, STR, FI, Williams or anyone sell their chassis?

I feel that since Ferrari with the Marlboro money can afford to do this, they are the ones banging on about the good for the sport, when really it's about their bottom dollar.

I quite sure if a team like came in with a customer Ferrari and used it to a greater advantage then Ferrari, they would change their minds, likely in a blowhardy press conference.

The cripple teams are new, and a customer car might be a quick fix, but it will not create more constructors, which was the goal.

I would rather see lotus lose this year in their car, and possibly win later, then run around int he midfield in a bought and neutered Ferrari.

It's OK, Luca can do whatever he wants in his breakaway series.

[andrew]

A system where each of the top teams (say Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull) team up with the tail-end Charlies (HRT, Virgin and Lotus) and give them one car each and technical support would be immensely sensible. It would give these "cripple" teams some credibility and would allow them to develop a better car.

Why just the top end teams? That seems a little bit on the silly side. Why can't Renault, STR, FI, Williams or anyone sell their chassis?

I used the top 3 as an example as they can afford to do this and will be in F1 for the long term.

[WhiteBlue]

The F1 commission will not tolerate the use of customer chassis. So we can drop that point from the discussion. It will not happen.

I bow for your superior knowledge about the inner workings of the FIA/F1 commission. Or is it("So we can drop that point from the discussion") just a not so humble attempt to bully your point of view onto other forumers? Never say never/not WB, they will do it, if it fit´s the bill/their interests.

The constructor principle and it's privileges are fundamental to all Concord Agreements since the very first one. The conflict between Williams and the FiA for the 2008 ProDrive F1 application are indicative of the powers the constructor principle holds in F1. Williams challenged the FiA and won. Since then all attempts to weaken the constructor principal have been rejected. Mateschitz had to abandon his fictional scheme of Red Bull technology owning the intellectual property of the chassis and selling it to two teams. They are not allowed to do this any more although they would love to do it. These days the power in F1 comes from the F1commission which is dominated by FOTA. If Red Bull and the FiA could not do it against Williams alone what are the chances Ferrari will be doing it against FOTA with all the new teams that would immediately side with Williams? This is the reason why I see no probability in the three car proposal.

This could happen as soon as 2013 or even before when HRT and maybe some others fall along the wayside. Engines, gearboxes and KERS is just the beginning, it´s not a great leap to go from their to a front axle, upright, power steering system and ultimatively chassis. I´m sure people had the same opinion ("It will not happen") about the return of turbo engines and ground effect cars at one time, perhaps not too long ago.

This isn't a technical issue. It is a commercial issue that goes to the core of the viability of the private teams. The private teams have much more power now than Williams had in 2007. The result of a fight is easy to predict.

[fritticaldi]

I would prefer to see a third ferrari, third Mclaren , third Mercedes any day instead of those dreadful GP2 teams like Hispania, Virgins etc...Those teams get lapped 2 or 3 times in a race. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Bring it on

[marcush.]

it´s not about .is it good for the sport or the show,it is about the interests of those who decide.
As all these will just and only feed their own aims it is more than likely that a change of the powers or different possible supplies would also swing the decision.
e.g.Williams could do more than Mclaren in supplying third parties in my view.
A Ganassi run Ferrari would rob a lot of points potentially from teams like WGP,Renault,Sauber FI etc so why should they allow it?
If someone buys a Virgin(F1 Chassis!) there is no danger .

[horse]

Not quite on topic, but more nonsense from Mr. M.

"We need to avoid that F1 only becomes an aerodynamic test... [F1 needs] maximum performance and innovative technology - and also to anticipate what will be the transfer of technology to GT cars."

Future Ferrari GT cars to be brick shaped then Luca?

Autosport: Ferrari boss calls for F1 rules rethink

[ecapox]

Not quite on topic, but more nonsense from Mr. M.

"We need to avoid that F1 only becomes an aerodynamic test... [F1 needs] maximum performance and innovative technology - and also to anticipate what will be the transfer of technology to GT cars."

Future Ferrari GT cars to be brick shaped then Luca?

Autosport: Ferrari boss calls for F1 rules rethink

He usually has the issue of talk first, think later, but i think his ideas are correct. Testing ban has to be dropped. Period. I also agree with his "technology transfer" argument.

The testing ban is ridiculous. I understand it is for loer cost reasons, but it is completely assinine.

Imagine if football (American) football teams couldnt practice all week. Instead practice would be replaced by watching game footage as well as playing the latest installment of Madden 20xx. This would cut down the cost of a team for having an entire multi-million dollar practice facility used only for practice.

Imagine cyclists not being able to train with multi-million dollar sports science equipment. Instead they can only go for leisurely strolls with a WalMart mountain bike.

Imagine if commercial airplane pilots could only fly in simulators. No real flying lessons, just sit in the simulator and fly. Your first real flight will include 300 passengers from ORD to MXP.

Sure, some of these examples are extreme, but technically that is what is happening to F1. You are sacrificing things for the sake of lowering costs. You dont see the country of Monaco saying "you know what, we need lower income people to live here. Lets just cut things so that property costs fall and make it more affordable." It doesnt work like that. F1 is always a big money game. If you try to make it a low cost game, you get the high quality teams like HRT and Virgin. You basically make a mockery out of F1.

[donskar]

Careful escapox -- you're agreeing with Luca!

Seriously, your post is right on target -- and your examples are not so far out. Would it be too much to ask F1 rules to allow F1 cars to have technology equal to production cars?

Seriously, there is a LOT of technology standard on inexpensive production cars that is outlawed on F1. What could be more insane than the "pinnacle" of motorsport NOT allowed to have the technology available on literally millions of cars costing under $20,000? F1 can't lead automotive technology until it catches up to the baseline already available.

[ESPImperium]

Im starting to think that the testing ban is starting to be a bit outdated now. Heres how id have the testing re-structured;

Preseason:

* 15 Days accross 4 tracks.
* Test 1: Valencia - Feb 1 to Feb 3 (Circuit Ricardo Tormo) [Single Car]
* Test 2: Circuito de Jerez - Feb 10 to Feb13 [Single Car]
* Test 3: Circuit de Catalunya - Feb 18 to Feb 21 [Single Car]
* Test 4: Sakihr, Bahrain - Mar 3rd to Mar 6th [Dual Car] (The team will have all its gear in place for the first GP by then.
* Race Drivers are limited to 7 dats total testing (A half day will constitute a full day), this will mean that Test, Reserve & Young guys can get a feel for the car.
* The final 5 teams in the Constructors Title the year before are granted an extra 2 days testing at Bahrain
* This gives a total of 19 days testing for the successful teams and 21 for the tail enders, their Race Drivers are also granted an extra days testing in lew of this as well.
* Each team is limited to 10,000km (Bottom 5 teams will be 12,000km).

On Season Testing:
* There should be 2 on season tests lasting 3 days
* Testing will be done by Test, reserve or Development drivers
* Race drivers arnt allowed to be active at theese events.
* Testing will be done at non-callander cuicits like Aragon and Portamao
* Each team is limited to 500km per day.

At Race testing:
* In FP1 at 15 events (new tracks excepted) each team has to put in a Test, reserve or Development driver

Post Season:
* At Abu Dhabi there will be a single 5 day test from the Tuesday after each GP
* The first two are used for Development and Young Drivers
* The first three days shall be dual car status to get as many young guys on track as posible. The last two days for the test will be single car status.
* The final two days are for Race, Test or Reserve drivers to experiment with new things for the following season.
* Each team is limited to 5,000km

This gives teams a posible 17,500km test allowance for each season, with new teams having 19,500km allowance with more time for their drivers to get their cars better.

It also means that there can be some in season testing as well to develop drivers for the future.

However, without a concrete set of regulations (Both technichal and sporting) for a period of say 5 years, and a strong RRA and fair Concorde aggreement this will simply not happen.

My attitude to a third car is if a team wishes to run one they can, then if the team has a 1-2-3 finish they only get points for the first two with third placed points going down to P4 then. Complicated, but fair. But to be honest id like to see a 13th team as well, or two well financed single car teams would also be decent to me as well.

[Goran2812]

hm 500km a day during on season testing... how much money does a team spend when going to a track to test the car? would those 500 km a day be worth it when talking about price/benefit ratio?