The madness of unneccessary F1 costs.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I interpret to mean that they would like to have the ability to purchase the "core" of the car from any of the other constructors, e.g. Ferrari or Mercedes.

I could be wrong on this, but I suspect that might be too far for some to accept. I suspect it might be easier to get agreement on smaller teams cooperating and them using the same chassis of their own design vs. leading teams providing core parts to smaller teams?

I can see someone like a McLaren or Ferrari letting mid-field teams work together, but not wanting a dominant team (such as Mercedes) provide their monocoque (or even car) to a mid-field team for the risk of it instantly being competitive enough to compete with the top teams!

Any solution is likely to allow the minnows to survive, but not to challenge.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

In the article it states, ''They ( the teams) want to create the idea of a 'core car' - where major components such as the monocoque are jointly developed and shared between them.'', nothing about purchasing a ''core'' car....

thats how i read it as well otherwise it would just be another customer car proposal.

but for that to happen the rules would presumably have to be changed which could mean Mike's interpretation is also right. if 3 small teams can get together why can't Ferrari and Haas enter a similar arraignments.

for that matter, from a competition point of view, why would Force India want a partnership with Lotus and Sauber when they could form a partnership with Merc?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

thats how i read it as well otherwise it would just be another customer car proposal.

but for that to happen the rules would presumably have to be changed which could mean Mike's interpretation is also right. if 3 small teams can get together why can't Ferrari and Haas enter a similar arraignments.

for that matter, from a competition point of view, why would Force India want a partnership with Lotus and Sauber when they could form a partnership with Merc?

The way the article reads, it's about the smaller teams collaberating on a common ''core'' monocoque, nothing about buying one. From a competition point of view, the teams would then design their own aero-kits, the only common part would be the tub. I doubt very much Mercedes would want to collaberate with any team.

[mikuni]

I wouldn't want to see a core chassis shared across all teams, but a core shared between some teams in the same way the PU is shared should be acceptable I think. Ideally a limit to a "primary" team and a "customer" team would be a good way to limit the whole field running a single chassis. ie Ferrari could sell a chassis to Haas, Red Bull to Torro Rosso, etc.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The way the article reads, it's about the smaller teams collaberating on a common ''core'' monocoque, nothing about buying one. From a competition point of view, the teams would then design their own aero-kits, the only common part would be the tub. I doubt very much Mercedes would want to collaberate with any team.

yeah i agree with you on how the article reads.

after that though i got a bit carried away speculating what happens when the definition of a constructor changes.

once that door gets opened what benefit would there be enter into a collaboration with other small team when you could do so with a big team?

given that there is no working definition of what 'collaboration' entails is this is all just rampant speculation on my part...but from a certain point of view merc already collaborates with several teams through their PU program.

anyways ill stop before i go too crazy...

[wnut]

Just spec the core tub (everything else is) and the number and location of the pick up points, then anyone can manufacture one and present it for crash testing and supply it to anyone. Should do it for all the formula cars!
The rest is up to the team, similar to Indycar, but not given to one manufacturer.
The tub is just a glorified bracket after all is said and done!

Gearboxes too?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Just spec the core tub (everything else is) and the number and location of the pick up points, then anyone can manufacture one and present it for crash testing and supply it to anyone. Should do it for all the formula cars!
The rest is up to the team, similar to Indycar, but not given to one manufacturer.
The tub is just a glorified bracket after all is said and done!

Gearboxes too?

A spec core tub was proposed by Lola which could be used by both IndyCar and Indy lights, when the ICONIC committee were deliberating about a new IndyCar. Now IndyCar has the DW12 with aero-kits.

[Casper]

Why was the "kit car" banned and when did it happen?

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

This is an interesting article. The smaller teams wish for sharing of major car parts, including the monocoque.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117821

Personally I think this is a great idea, if it reduces costs then I am in favor of it..

[GT6]

And if it keeps the smaller teams in F1 it has to be a good thing

[ger80]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Personally I think this is a great idea, if it reduces costs then I am in favor of it..

It will reduce the minimum cost to build a car, however all teams spend much more money to improve all sorts of detail to gain 0.001 of a second.
If they spend less on the tub, they will just spend a little more on everything else...

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by ger80

It will reduce the minimum cost to build a car, however all teams spend much more money to improve all sorts of detail to gain 0.001 of a second.
If they spend less on the tub, they will just spend a little more on everything else...

Indeed they do. But it seems teams could save money by themselves by restructuring their organization.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I could be wrong on this, but I suspect that might be too far for some to accept. I suspect it might be easier to get agreement on smaller teams cooperating and them using the same chassis of their own design vs. leading teams providing core parts to smaller teams?

I can see someone like a McLaren or Ferrari letting mid-field teams work together, but not wanting a dominant team (such as Mercedes) provide their monocoque (or even car) to a mid-field team for the risk of it instantly being competitive enough to compete with the top teams!

Any solution is likely to allow the minnows to survive, but not to challenge.

Richard

I think you have nailed all the problems with F1 with this phrase Richard:

Any solution is likely to allow the minnows to survive, but not to challenge.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by ger80

It will reduce the minimum cost to build a car, however all teams spend much more money to improve all sorts of detail to gain 0.001 of a second.
If they spend less on the tub, they will just spend a little more on everything else...

That's fine as long as it's within budget.

[wolfhound]

Gary Anderson has written his blueprint for a future structure of F1 it a freebe on Autosport at the moment.

http://plus.autosport.com/free/featu...358.1403130801

He has some interesting ideas some not fully thought out like the Williams Lotus position but otherwise worth considering.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Gary Anderson has written his blueprint for a future structure of F1 it a freebe on Autosport at the moment.

http://plus.autosport.com/free/featu...358.1403130801

He has some interesting ideas some not fully thought out like the Williams Lotus position but otherwise worth considering.

Everyone has an idea but the chances of getting any of it through what is the democracy of F1 is about zilch and until the whole thing is on a precipice about to implode the greedy ones will refuse to concede any meaningful changes. The problem as is repeatedly pointed out here and elsewhere is there is no single correct answer. The teams have a lot to take the blame for as it is they who have driven the costs up, no one else has done it even agreeing to the last motor changes. It seems from where I stand that it is only the observers who can see what is happening and maybe two of the teams, the rest just pay lip service to it and carry on as usual. Has anyone seen a F1 team say that they have reduced their budget this year? As for the AS article, way too complicated but give him a B for effort.

[chillibowl]

BE will be out soon and with Marchionne talking Ferrari IPO i feel like its just a matter of time before change happens.

although, i suppose that depends on what or whom you consider to be the biggest obstacles to change...for me its BE and Ferrari.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Gary Anderson has written his blueprint for a future structure of F1 it a freebe on Autosport at the moment.

http://plus.autosport.com/free/featu...358.1403130801

He has some interesting ideas some not fully thought out like the Williams Lotus position but otherwise worth considering.

This idea is just a way of entrenching the established order.

The nightmare of the big teams is that the Mercs of this world arrive and dominate the sport before they can stop them.
If you get more manufacturer teams, where does that leave McLaren, Williams, RBR, and perhaps Ferrari. Trailing in the wake of Mercedes and various manufacturers.
Hence all the emphasis on low speed ground effect aero; as apposed to supersonic; where the teams are indeed world leaders.

Look at how badly the lack of testing is affecting Honda.

They should have been running around a test track ad nauseum for six months now in order to be competitive in Australia.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

Look at how badly the lack of testing is affecting Honda.

They should have been running around a test track ad nauseum for six months now in order to be competitive in Australia.

This hadn't occurred to me before.

The testing limit was obviously another occasion of F1 pretending to do something about the spending race while doing nothing of the sort, but it was much more clever than that.

Of course the real money is in CFD and aero development in general. The big teams have best CFD and other simulation capabilities, so what the testing limit does is prevent the small teams, new entrants, and anyone who has made a big step with their new car from getting to develop it and learn what makes it tick. The big teams can then turn to their much more expensive simulation tools and pull further away.

[Casper]

The no testing rule whether by intention or not makes it very difficult on any new entry/manufacturer to catch up, nearly impossible I would say and it is a point I have raised before, most probably in this thread. It just about makes the whole thing a closed shop but some do not think so, witness Haas joining next year.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by ger80

It will reduce the minimum cost to build a car, however all teams spend much more money to improve all sorts of detail to gain 0.001 of a second.
If they spend less on the tub, they will just spend a little more on everything else...

Then that has to be policed ...

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by ger80

It will reduce the minimum cost to build a car, however all teams spend much more money to improve all sorts of detail to gain 0.001 of a second.
If they spend less on the tub, they will just spend a little more on everything else...

Frankly isn't that the plan? On the assumption that a teams budget is fixed, spending less money on something like the tub should free up resources for other things. Including things that prevent them (at worse) From having success and (at best) surviving.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Going slightly off-topic, there are reports on both Autosport dot com and Motorsport dot com that Force India, Lotus and Sauber have had a recent meeting in London with Mr Ecclestone to ask him to assist them financially, possibly by bringing last year's "prize money" payments forward as they are all suffering from cash-flow problems. It would seem as though some suppliers, bearing in mind their potential losses from Caterham and Marussia, have been asking for pro-forma settlements.

This is now affecting their preparations for Australia, and considering that the air freighters leave the UK next Saturday, the reports are insinuating that there is a possibilty that some or all of the 3 teams may not make it on to the grid at Melbourne, with Force India admitting that they are still working through the building of their second car.

See: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ca...ourne/?v=2&s=1

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117869

[old man]

Originally Posted by miatanut

This hadn't occurred to me before.

The testing limit was obviously another occasion of F1 pretending to do something about the spending race while doing nothing of the sort, but it was much more clever than that.

Of course the real money is in CFD and aero development in general. The big teams have best CFD and other simulation capabilities, so what the testing limit does is prevent the small teams, new entrants, and anyone who has made a big step with their new car from getting to develop it and learn what makes it tick. The big teams can then turn to their much more expensive simulation tools and pull further away.

This has been the case for many years, I recall a visit by people I know very well, serious racers, to McLaren some 15 years ago I suppose. The facilities available were amazing even then and can only have advanced.

The truth is that the teams with the money will find ways to get round testing bans, bans on test teams and so on. This is why a budget cap can never work

[Casper]

They will be on the plane, BE could not tolerate anything less as it would break standing agreements with the promoters and there are some in Oz who would take the opportunity to use that as a means to end the Oz GP.