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.
What I've been proposing is, perhaps, some of the teams at the bottom end of the grid should be able to run last year's constructor's car."
What a clever way of Bernie to support Ferrari in their quest for satellite teams with third cars. I doubt very much that HRT or Marussia would want to loose the constructor capacity that they have build up at high cost. So the dispensation would only help potential new teams that would profit from lifting the need for a constructor exclusivity. They would quickly destroy the likes of Williams, Sauber and Toro Rosso if they can run competitive chassis without the cost of being a constructor. On top you would have to expect that the privilege may be granted initially for three years, but what if it is then continued?
Another clever way to push Ferari's political agenda? And why does it come at this time? Are we having negotiations over the concord? It looks like Bernie/Ferrari are in full swing with their special inside deals.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
FrukostScones wrote:All we need is maybe a better prize structure for the teams.
Never take Bernie's "ideas" at face value!! He has often enough said that "F1 does not need those small teams". He isn't interested at all in their welfare. He simply seeks ways to avoid supporting them from FOM's money as they currently are.
It is true that F1 needs the small teams, the medium teams and the top teams. And that is a good enough reason not to ruin everything down from Lotus just to fulfil Montezemolo's wet dreams of having satellite teams which this would create.
In reality there is simply no way around meaningful and complete resource or budget restrictions that include the manufacturing and designing of engines as well. They are the key to keep top teams profitable, F1 affordable, the small teams viable and the fans happy with many drivers in many seats. This proposal is one of the worst ever made since F1 agreed to strengthen the constructor status. I'm totally confident the teams will see it as what it really is and dismiss it out of hand.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
This will be the most horrible idea ever. What if HRT buys a last year's Ferrari which ends up beating a Williams or a Torro Rosso. That will be very unfair. Or worse Red Bull sells their chasis to Marussia & they end up fighting for podiums.
Ferrari and Bernie's ties are not as strong as you believe my fellow Technical poster...
Ferrari has threatened to leave in 2009, do you really think Ferrari wants to operate a turbo engine that won't fit in their market of high powered super cars (we need only look at the F12 Berlinetta V12)?
Ferrari builds cars to support their racing habbits, but they know all too well no one will consider buying a V6 turbo prancing horse as a road car...they would just buy a cheaper C63 AMG, an SL 65, or an SLS...
I see rocks and stick fighting happening around September if Red Bull dominates again...Remember Macca said (2009) they would consider following Ferrari if they decided to leave perhaps Mercedes would follow suit?...FOM and Bernie would be in ruins...lost revenue, fans leave to join the new breakaway, Formula 1 dies.
Face it Bernie is scared that he may be stuck with a drinks company whom the owner of Red Bull drinks said that he would consider pulling the pin on the team after 2015...
If someone said to me that you can have three wishes, my first would have been to get into racing, my second to be in Formula 1, my third to drive for Ferrari.
I think it's an xcellent idea, why teams like Marussia and HRT should employ hundreds of people just to produce inferior cars is beyond me. Give them the right to run a competitive team's last year chassis and they will save a shitload of money.
These teams are simply also-rans anyway, just like in Hollywood they are there to make the stars look good.
Whatever this most reasonable proposal has to do with Ferrari is equally beyond me.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
Hail22 wrote:Ferrari builds cars to support their racing habbits, but they know all too well no one will consider buying a V6 turbo prancing horse as a road car...they would just buy a cheaper C63 AMG, an SL 65, or an SLS...
Ferrari built 288 GTO and F40 during F1 turbo era. They have 2.9l V8 turbocharged engine and it is two of the best cars ever built.
If Marussia & HRT dont have the money to create a proper Formula One car then just fire them. There is no need of such waste anyway. Besides guys like Maldonado,Senna are bringing huge sponsorship so I dont think they lack the money to create a car.
Anyways I would not bother even if they left. VW will come to Formula One after 4-5 years,that is my gut feeling. And maybe a Toyota or a Honda will come back or some other team. Formula One is much MUCH more profitable than it was a few years back.
My take on "Customer cars" is this. New/Small teams should be allowed to buy a IP for €10m a season, however id have it really tightly controlled, and make it an income stream for the mid feild teams. The clarification id use is this:
* Teams with a limited buidget can buy a chassis IP from a team futher up the grid for €10m a season
* Teams can only buy a chassis that has not came in the top 5 constructors that year. This would mean the last chassis Red Bull could sell was the RB4.
* Teams can only sell IPs from the last 5 years as well, thus meaning that teams would only have 3 chassis to sell.
* IPs that teams can buy have to be 2 years old. Example Williams could sell the IP for the FW32 this year.
* Teams who have scored less than 10 points in the last 2 seaqsons can buy a IP.
* Teams cannot feild a car that has been used by another team before.
* Teams have to get their chassis built bu an outside contractor and updated to the current rules. They cannot buy the chassis directly from a factory team. This means the larger teams have to think about clever interpritations of the rules and how they are integrated.
* Teams that use IP buying are only allowed to one update package a year (Unless there is a specific change needed for a safety matter)
* Teams who used a costomer chassis as outlawed from 2010 cannot sell that IP, as it is a loophole that could be used to sell a RB5.
Chassis that could be bought this year by Hispania/Marussia/Caterham would be as follows:
McLaren: MP4/22 (From 2007 as they were DSQ from the constructors title that year)
Toyota: TF107, TF110
Honda: RA107, RA108
Spyker/Force India: F8-VII/VJM01, VJM02, VJM03
BMW Sauber: F1.09
WIlliams: FW30, FW31, FW32
Renault: R29
Toro Rosso: STR5
Sauber: C29
All those cars could be used this season, and for say €10m to buy an IP, and the cost of manufacture of a the chassis from say EPM Technology or Carbo Tech Austria would be my way. However id make it that the lower teams can hire a up to half of a design team from larger teams, and they should be able to do so for a period of 5 years into the sport.
As for what engine they should use, if a team uses a IP Chassis, they are then automatically limited to using a Engine Only supplier like Cosworth and now Renault. No buying a Force India IP and marrying it up to a Mercedes power plant it was designed for.
Im trying to keep teams as a "Constructor" however the car has been designed by another team, it would also provide teams like Williams another income stream. However it should be said that new teams should have limited options, and they should be within 2 to 3 seconds of the midfeild this way. Time they can easily find by updating the car and developing mechanichal set up.
didn't we more or less have this with honda and super aguri? ended well.
Why don't the fia be more strict on who they allow into the sport?
I'll be more than happy for the simple solution that HRT and Virgin(whatever) move over after this year, if there is no improvement, and let someone else have ago.
does the entrant process happen for each season? (i.e what HRT, Lotus, Virgin, US F1 had to go through)
ESP: that just wouldn't work. What happens when there is a big rule change like in 2009/2014? You've listed the MP4-22, the regs then are way off to the regs now. It would be pointless
True. The regs change every 5 or so years in a big way.
What about a year old IP to the start of that seasons regs. As theoretically you get 2 to 3 seconds development thrugh a season, but the rule changes from one season to another roughly claw back half of that. You would still have toi find about 2 seconds just to be comnpeditive enough.
And if you were IP buying/licencing for €10m a season, the selling team would have to update the design to the rules of that year in order to sell them.
I am thinking this is the ground work for a new team in 2014 being played out.
I also think that a new team shoud have to do what Toyota did in 2000 before they started in 2001 and do so many tracks with a base design to get the teams knolege base up, or have competed in at least a lower formula for at least 5 years, say GP2. Either compete in GP2 for 5 years and be in the top 3 teams there for 3 of those years to be classed as eligeable, and make it that new teams have to have their car tested for at least 6 months before it can race in a GP meaning the team are up to speed and have a knolege base.
However i have always been for the 13th enbtry being split into 2 single car entries, as if they can spend €40m on a single chassis for one season and beat the likes of Marussia and Hispania, where if they finish P13 or P14 in a constructors title this year, they then have to go to single car status the next year.
I think that would be more than enough of a threat for the slower teams to sharpen their act up and get faster. Lets face it, a little carrot and big stick, approach never hurt anyone.
Funny. I've never read any complaints from you about so-called satellite teams when Red Bull and STR bend the regulations over and...well, you get the idea.
(And if you don't, that's an allusion to prison rape.)
For what it's worth, Ferrari doesn't need a satellite team (or teams) to increase its "political power" in F1. All they need is for Montezemolo to show up in front of some cameras in an impeccably tailored suit and say the Italian equivalent of the following, "We're f@@@@@@ Ferrari, and we want this. If you don't like it, ciao!"
As long as it is properly restricted and governed customer chassis can work. But they work best when the team has a parent company. Like STR or Super Aguri, this is a win win for both teams because in Super Aguri's case Honda got to expand there technical understanding and it gives all new members a chance to prove themselves before moving to the parent team. Also improving the company's imagine as it is seen to support younger company's.
Mean while the smaller team enjoys the finical security of the bigger team while not having to invest millions in chassis design while boosting there position. They become a more respectable out fit and can focus on trying to improve the design but with a good references point from the year before.
Also with the ban on in session testing it gives bigger teams more chances to run young drivers, an example would be Ricardo at HRT last year for Red Bull. And that has worked well for him and it is good for us who as fans want to see lots of new drivers coming through which we don't see so much anymore.
I personal am in favour of customer chassis.
“Be clearly aware of the stars and infinity on high. Then life seems almost enchanted after all.”
― Vincent van Gogh
