Home  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides Veloce Books  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Single Seater Racing > Formula One

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 5 Feb 2017, 17:02 (Ref:3710175)   #1
Taxi645
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Netherlands
Posts: 979
Taxi645 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridTaxi645 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Customer chassis a way to control cost?

I think the customer philosophy is a very effective way to control cost. For instance on engines saying to engine manufacturers after 2020 you are obliged to offer the engine you race with for a set price (that small teams can afford) and the business model and the competitive logic of insanely expensive engine programs erode quite quickly.

How could a similar approach on the chassis side have a comparable effect. What if say a Force India or Torro Rosso level chassis were available to third tier teams for a set and reasonable price? The FIA/liberty making sure that it's worth their while for the chassis supplier/

Would that be a good approach to enlarge the field and help to keep cost down for third tier teams (think Manor) while providing an additional revenue source for a mid tier team or would that undermine the business case for too many teams to developing your own chassis and thereby reducing engineering capacity and diversity of the field too much?
Taxi645 is offline  
Quote
Old 6 Feb 2017, 08:32 (Ref:3710401)   #2
Taxi645
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Netherlands
Posts: 979
Taxi645 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridTaxi645 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
F1 customer chassis approach



3 tier teams:

1st tier: Design own chassis and engine
2nd tier: Design own chassis buys engine
3rd tier: Buys chassis and engine



Technical regulation should be such that each chassis is compatible with each engine/drivetrain so they can be freely used in the customers teams desired combination.


How to prevent smaller teams to be too dependent on the big teams, effectively becoming a 2nd team/puppet?


A team that offers a chassis has to offer the chassis they race with themselves to the customers teams at the set maximum price. The chassis are randomly picked from a pool by the FIA so the team offering chassis' can't cherry pick a better one for themselves.

This has a few advantages. This makes it less attractive for a top team to offer their chassis (because they have to offer a chassis where they invest huge amount of development in, in effect giving the competition top chassis for a bargain price. They can continou to develope that chassis through the year, but they have to offer that same chassis to the customer teams for the set price. They are thus more likely to keep such a chassis for themselves, thus reducing the likelyhood of teams become puppets of the top teams.

It is more likely that a mid tier team (say Force India or Torro Rosso) by designing a cost effective chassis (apposed to a no expenses spared approach of a top team) can offer it to a third tier team and make a profit. This of course requires the maximum price for the chassis to be set very keenly by the FIA/Liberty.



This system also ensures a stepstone ladder for teams. A third tier team by buying a chassis for a few years and be smart with thier cash can save up to design their own chassis after a few years while a mid tier team on their part can make a bit of cash with selling chassis'for a few years and then take the next step.

But also the other way around. A mid tier team who is in financial trouble doesn't have to quick right away. They can take a step back and save a bit of cash by buying in stead of designing their own chassis.



Top teams can then spend the ridiculous amounts they want, but it least there is a system in place that gives mid and third tier teams a cost effective way to compete.
Taxi645 is offline  
Quote
Old 6 Feb 2017, 10:40 (Ref:3710433)   #3
old man
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
England
UK
Posts: 2,007
old man should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridold man should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridold man should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
We had a canter through this subject of customer teams sometime ago and the idea does, as they say, have legs. The problem is why should someone set up a team at the 3rd tier leavel when the rewards only go to the top 10 teams?

For new teams to come in there has to be an incentive and although Haas have proved the customer team principle it has resulted in Manor failing because there are now, or were in 2016, 11 teams.
old man is offline  
Quote
Old 6 Feb 2017, 11:03 (Ref:3710444)   #4
S griffin
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,325
S griffin is going for a new world record!S griffin is going for a new world record!S griffin is going for a new world record!S griffin is going for a new world record!S griffin is going for a new world record!S griffin is going for a new world record!S griffin is going for a new world record!
It works well enough for MotoGP, so why shouldn't it work for F1? It would increase the grid numbers, should have more competitive teams and more opportunities for young drivers
S griffin is offline  
__________________
He who dares wins!
He who hesitates is lost!
Quote
Old 6 Feb 2017, 15:58 (Ref:3710507)   #5
chillibowl
Veteran
 
chillibowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Canada
winnipeg, canada
Posts: 9,716
chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!
question, how much (percentage wise) does a team spend on their chassis design and manufacture? is it an area of expense that is increasing or decreasing?

also we have seen how difficult things have been with customer engine programs over time and as the engines become more 'advanced'.

also i worry about providing the manus with an additional revenue stream (in effect another method for them to 'tax' the small teams) without first addressing the unequal distribution of prize money first.

to be honest though, i am not against the idea but am worried that it could just reinforce the current system rather than fix a problem.
chillibowl is online now  
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there
I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place
Quote
Old 6 Feb 2017, 17:20 (Ref:3710518)   #6
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,798
Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!
When we say "chassis", I assume rolling chassis (monocoque plus suspension). Does this also include a base aero package as well? I view the suspension and aero part to be the most expensive. Especially if you want to be competitive. Think about Haas who did their own monocoque and aero, but bought the suspension from Ferrari.

To reduce cost, I would also suggest less expensive suspension design as well. I vote to bring back a cost controlled version of active suspension. This would be cost controlled via spec ECU just for suspension and restrictions on number of sensors/actuators. Then, the suspension will be more software based vs. VERY complex mechanical systems. F1 suspension is like modern mechanical watches. Very cool, but expensive and generally don't keep time as accurately as a quality quartz (I still love an only wear mechanical watches! ) Any improvements results in the creation of mechanical systems that have little or no application anywhere else. So that is costly development for niche knowledge.

Recent history is littered with various mechanical solutions that they continue to outlaw so that leaves the teams to find other expensive niche mechanical solutions. Stuff like mass dampers, FRIC and now mechanical systems (really mechanical computers) that store and release suspension energy to optimize aero and tire performance. Teams are trying to figure out how far they can push the limits on this...

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/an...oversy-863068/

As to the original question, I think the other issue is the "constructors championship" which with teams today having to own their own IP, really is a "team championship". This factors into end of year money. I would say that they should split the constructors championship into two parts. First, the true constructor championship (if customer chassis is allowed) and secondly the team championship. Money should be allocated based upon team championship as that matches the current intent of the result based allocation (not that I am a fan of that model).

There is also the problem that the current teams are designed to operate in a constructors mode. So there is internal pressure to maintain the status quo (who on the design staff supports the elimination of their own job!). Also, you would have teams like Williams who would would be upset if a customer team is buying a better car than they can make. It would potentially lead to the erosion of the team + constructor combo as more teams would just by vs. build.

Plus the incentive to move from using a customer car to building your own would be small. I imagine someone who has a quality customer car (with no or little design staff) is likely to not produce an equal car of their own design out of the gate. So do you go to your sponsors and say... "We likely will suck the next year or two or three until we get this new staff and car design worked out, but we would like more money to staff up so that eventually we hope to produce a better car than we can buy today". Not a compelling sales pitch!

What happens when you have just one or two constructors? I don't know if that is a good or bad thing. Should we as fan even care?

Richard
Richard C is offline  
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Customer Chassis - What I'd do. Ingsy Formula One 30 7 Mar 2007 13:02
Thiessen against customer chassis Born Racer Formula One 19 4 Jan 2007 00:11
Customer chassis Born Racer Formula One 29 23 Jul 2006 00:01
Customer cars way to go? pink69 Formula One 23 13 Jun 2002 19:41
Customer chassis and short weekends Lee Janotta Formula One 14 6 Jun 2002 15:29


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:34.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2021 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2021-2022 Grant MacDonald. All Rights Reserved.