Customer chassis

[Born Racer]

There's been a few threads recently in which the use of customer chassis has been mentioned, but I've been meaning to run a thread on this anyway.

In a "purist" kind of way, everyone has their own ideas of what constitutes F1. My own feeling is that I hate the idea of teams being allowed to buy another manufacturer's chassis. For one, I feel common sense should be applied to close the loophole that banned Aguri using last year's Honda but maybe allowed Toro Rosso to use last year's Red Bull design.

For me though, building your own car is part of Formula 1. I'm aware though that due to the regulations, teams are spending vast amounts of money to all come up with what are very, very similar designs.

I enjoy Champ Cars for example, where teams use a common chassis, but I just feel that's not what F1's about. Views?

[ss_collins]

Well its not new. Customer chassis were commonplace pre bernie - BRP-BRM's. Stirling moss famously drove Rob Walker customer cars.

It belongs in F1 but... so do works teams - if they go you could get the F3 situation of a million dull dallaras and then the two ferrari's.

[Matski]

For me car design is one of the biggest reasons why I follow F1 - I hate the way regulations are strangling the designers at the moment - I think F1 should be about who has the best package of car/team/driver... not just about the driver. People who can design and build innovative fast cars should be able to prove it... and those who just want a customer chassis should go and race in a league that already caters for their wants.

I've said this before and I'll say it again... If you can't afford to race in F1... don't! accept your limitations - and deal with them (race in GP2!)

[Born Racer]

I know it was done far more in the past, but particularly in the 60s and prior to that, there were many drivers that entered for the odd GP here and there, and so the whole privateer thing was more fitting.

Whereas now we have a very fixed season and somehow I feel that means each team should come with their own car. We already have a situation (quite naturally, as racing has a long history of seperate chassis and engine builders) in which smaller teams buy bigger ones' engines. There is no way these teams will be "allowed" to consistently beat those from whom they buy the engines- e.g. I don't see Honda continuing to support Super Aguri if they started beating them regularly. Likewise Ferrari and Red Bull.

I don't want this extending to chassis as well.

I must also say I am very suspicious of what Red Bull are getting away with in owning a second team. They may be two seperate entities, but there is surely much shared information between the two teams to further their overall advantage. Is this right?

[kipper]

If you accept that there is a place in F1 for shared engines and tyres, then I don't really see the issue for why teams should have unique chassis. A number of teams have been exceedingly succesful with customer cars, such as Rob Walker Racing and Tyrrell, which demonstrates that they have played significant part in the development of F1.

With regard to contemporary F1, then if it serves to make the lesser teams more competitive then I don't see too many problems. As any chassis that is sold will be designed to suit a specific engine, I imagine that there will be limitations of the number of teams that one supplier can cover meaning that I'd imagine that one make F1 is an unlikely prospect.

Interestingly, customer cars are actually allowed in F1, for teams cannot use a car that has been produced by a current F1 team, but multiple teams can use cars that have been produced from a non F1 team, such as Lola.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Matski

I've said this before and I'll say it again... If you can't afford to race in F1... don't! accept your limitations - and deal with them (race in GP2!)

Presently,and in the future,none of the teams will be able to afford to compete with Toyota if all that F1 as become is a spending competition.Perhaps Toyota are hoping to win by default,because all the other teams will have gone off to race in GP2.

[BootsOntheSide]

I'd rather talented people compete in F1 than rich people. Right now Toyota are spending many times more than Williams or Red Bull but only starting now to comfortably beat them, which at least shows that there's still room for racing-based teams alongside the corporations.

[Born Racer]

If you accept that there is a place in F1 for shared engines and tyres, then I don't really see the issue for why teams should have unique chassis

Yes, I don't really have a particular way in which I can argue against this point other than to say that for me there must be some kind of real variable (apart from drivers and team personnel) that seperates teams.

The chassis seems like the appropriate place for this variable to exist.

With regard to contemporary F1, then if it serves to make the lesser teams more competitive then I don't see too many problems.

Not to say that buying a top team's chassis instantly launches another team up to the sharp end of the grid, but should a team be able to take this kind of short cut (for want of a term) to make them competitive?

I'd rather talented people compete in F1 than rich people.

There is a lot of talent in constructing your own car though. I'd like to see teams have to face the results of using their talent (or relative lack of talent) to place them where on the grid they have earned a spot.

[Peter Mallett]

Untill the mid eighties, we had privateers. Gilles Villeneuve ran in a BS Fabrications McLaren M23 in the 70's. BS Fabrications were funded by Bernie E. [I really am working from memory so please shoot me down].

We had all sorts of make up drivers who were there because they could be there (David Purley anyone). Were they any different from us who know best (now)? Of course not. They displayed their comments on the track. My fave was Hector Rebaque. A chocolate brown Lotus 78. He had no idea how to fettle it but he was out there for two seasons trying to find out how.

Top stuff.

Sorry the technical bull**** is fine but it isn't racing. Anyone who puts technical development above actual racing is either mischevious or really has lost the plot.

[Matski]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Sorry the technical bull**** is fine but it isn't racing. Anyone who puts technical development above actual racing is either mischevious or really has lost the plot.

Why can't technical ability be part of racing? car designers have always strived to make a better car than the other bloke... in the 90's, in the 80's in the misty eyed '70's and the nostaglic 60's... everybody who's designed or built a car has always tried to make it better than any of the other cars on the grid... we have gotten to a stage where the technical ability and knowledge is phenomenal.. that is what F1 has evolved into - and this has happened because F1 has always sought to be the peak of racing performance. ARTIFICIALLY dumbing down the sport by imposing regulation after regulation just forces the teams into spending even more money on more obscure methods of better their chances... wasting their time photographing each others cars (and reporting them to the FIA), analyzing engine note's, hiring lip-readers etc. etc...

If you don't want to see a technologically advenced series, and you want to ee tighter racing then watch GP2 - why not it seems to offer everything you want!?

The other thing that bothers me are the contradictions in what the masses say is wrong with F1. This is not a dig at any particular 10/10's users - just a general feeling... but, people bang on about slowing the sport down for safety reasons - then say how much better it was when drivers where sliding through corners on the limit of grip... people want to make it easier for under funded teams to get into the sport - so the FIA comes up with half-witted ideas like moving down to V8's - was this any cheaper NO! the teams admittted to spending even more money developing brand new engines.... people go on about seeing new teams in formula one, and how it should be easier for new poorer teams to get in.. then take the **** and criticise them for being dangerously slow and unfit to race (super aguri/yuji ide???)

It seems people want F1 to turn into a sport where only the drivers ability is what makes the difference between winning and not..... fair enough as a concept - but we already have many series where that is already largely the setup... why should a team (spending $300000000, employing hundreds of exceptionally skilled people) just to turn a twenty-something lad into an international star... not be allowed to demonstrate their ability - sometimes I think many people don't appreciate how much knowledge and ability and effort and ingenuity goes into making an F1 car.....

right... I think thats about all i've got to say...

[Marbot]

Why should any team spend $3000000000 just to put two cars on a track for two hours every other Sunday?

Why should F1 be a spending competition?

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Matski

right... I think thats about all i've got to say...

good.

[ss_collins]

heres another way to look at it - band of plucky and cunning engineers (British probably) buy a couple of two year old F1 cars with competant engines to run in them - these engineers whilst under funded are very sharp and find an innovation and a driver talent to win them a couple of races. No championships here - not reliable enough but look at how popular they and the sport just became...

[Knowlesy]

Customer cars would undoubtedly be a good thing combined with lower cost regs, particularly if the grid was expanded to allow a lot of them.

F1 would benefit, there would be more seats available (crucial IMO) and I suspect we'd get some fun teams as well, rather than the corporate staleness of your Toyotas and Hondas.

I'd rather that than a 12 car grid of technical behemoths, who cause three people to wet their trousers because of an exciting new front wing end plate. I mean, is that what racing is about in the end?

[rocketracer]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

I'd rather that than a 12 car grid of technical behemoths, who cause three people to wet their trousers because of an exciting new front wing end plate. I mean, is that what racing is about in the end?

i have said before, and i truly believe that f1 has become a purely "interesting" sport rather than an "exciting" sport. There's very little to get excited about (other than the other day when the williams brought out a revised front wing flap for magny cours and i had to put newspaper on the floor....)

seriously though, customer chassis' arent realistically going to be a shortcut to front running performance. Its one thing to buy the chassis, but unless you know the reasonings behind its design, you probably won't necessarily know how to extract its maximum performance regularly. Customer chassis' wont "dumb down" the sport in any way shape or form, quite the contrary - in that it might make openings for small teams to utilise a chassis, similar to the scenario specualted by SS... And also create an internal economy, where a smaller team (for example williams) might generate income from selling their chassis, thereby rewarding their technical knowledge above pure investment. For F1 teams, development is all about outlay at the moment, with very little means of retrieving that investment other than sponsorship (and winning of course). Getting away from this scenario, or at least lessening it would be healthy imo...

either way, i dont know if it would necessarily make a big difference, but certainly the sky wouldnt fall if it was allowed to happen...

[Dani Filth]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

Customer cars would undoubtedly be a good thing combined with lower cost regs, particularly if the grid was expanded to allow a lot of them.

F1 would benefit, there would be more seats available (crucial IMO) and I suspect we'd get some fun teams as well, rather than the corporate staleness of your Toyotas and Hondas.

I'd rather that than a 12 car grid of technical behemoths, who cause three people to wet their trousers because of an exciting new front wing end plate. I mean, is that what racing is about in the end?

IMHO .. F1 is both .. racing and technology
oh no .. not poor old Toyota&Honda corporate bashing again ..
you forget you have GP2 .. does it really have to be named F1 ??
when F1 won't appeal to me anymore(unlikely) .. i will just move along . dozens of series around the world ..

[duke_toaster]

In my view, allowing customer chassis (and DRASTIC cost cutting) can only be a good thing.

If teams don't need to spend millions on R&D, we will have more teams which can only be a good thing.

In my view, there should be a claimer rule on chassis (like in some forms of autograss and folkrace). That would be interesting

[M Coupe]

Originally Posted by ss_collins

heres another way to look at it - band of plucky and cunning engineers (British probably) buy a couple of two year old F1 cars with competant engines to run in them - these engineers whilst under funded are very sharp and find an innovation and a driver talent to win them a couple of races. No championships here - not reliable enough but look at how popular they and the sport just became...

Absolutely spot on.

This is what F1 was always about and should be again.

[Dani Filth]

since when .. what happened +30 years ago is "always been about" ?

i have nothing against customer chassis .. but F1 is F1 with or without it ..

[Dutton]

Right, now, here is a thought.

The FIA has all the drawings, and what not, of all the chassis of all the teams. I presume it keeps this stuff on record (if not, then it could if it wanted to).

After the conclusion of each season, any team can pay for said plans of whichever chassis wins the WCC (and the right to put them into action). Both the team that created it and the FIA are payed a fee (the FIA money could be used for this mythical "fighting fund", or for funding TWG investigations [or something]).

In the end, I am sure, all teams would buy the plans of the WCC winner at the end of each season.

There should be a two year delay between the adoption of this in principle and it happening. If it was adopted 1st November 2008, then it would come into force 1st November 2010.

This would allow the teams to decide what their strategies would be. That is to say they cannot whine with as much justfication.

I dunno. Just a thought.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Dutton

Right, now, here is a thought.

The FIA has all the drawings, and what not, of all the chassis of all the teams. I presume it keeps this stuff on record (if not, then it could if it wanted to).

After the conclusion of each season, any team can pay for said plans of whichever chassis wins the WCC (and the right to put them into action). Both the team that created it and the FIA are payed a fee (the FIA money could be used for this mythical "fighting fund", or for funding TWG investigations [or something]).

In the end, I am sure, all teams would buy the plans of the WCC winner at the end of each season.

There should be a two year delay between the adoption of this in principle and it happening. If it was adopted 1st November 2008, then it would come into force 1st November 2010.

This would allow the teams to decide what their strategies would be. That is to say they cannot whine with as much justfication.

I dunno. Just a thought.

IMO it should be (say) £250,000 for the WCC winning, £200,000 for 2nd and so-on.

Also, factory teams should be banned from buying the designs.

[M Coupe]

Originally Posted by Dani Filth

since when .. what happened +30 years ago is "always been about" ?

i have nothing against customer chassis .. but F1 is F1 with or without it ..

You really miss what people are getting at don't you.

F1 has always been about racing and teams which get the odd win who don't challenge for the overall championship. For a number of teams it's about the individual race nothing else. Be that with a chassis they bought or one they built themselves. It's always been about the little guy competing against the lerge teams and getting the odd success.

There have been customer chassis out there a lot more recently than 30 years ago. Have a look beyond the last few years.

[Dani Filth]

Originally Posted by M Coupe

You really miss what people are getting at don't you.

F1 has always been about racing and teams which get the odd win who don't challenge for the overall championship. For a number of teams it's about the individual race nothing else. Be that with a chassis they bought or one they built themselves. It's always been about the little guy competing against the lerge teams and getting the odd success.

There have been customer chassis out there a lot more recently than 30 years ago. Have a look beyond the last few years.

I remember Jordan winning .. I remember Stewart winning .. I even remember Renault winning in Monaco with Trulli a few years ago with an interesting engine design .. i remember DC in the RBR getting a podium in Monaco .. just a few races ago
Have a look at the last 10 years.

customer chassis has never been a main feature of Formula 1 .. never will be IMHO .. but it can be a nice addition if it can boost the grids and the competitiveness of some teams

[EERO]

Rob Walker was an F1 entrant from the early sixties until 1970 and won (WON) his last race in Britiain in 1968. Grahm Hill started his team in 1973 running privately entered Shadows and the next season a lola, which he alone ran, but which was hardly a "Works" team. James Hunt made his debut in a privately entered March and was running toward the sharp end, finishing a close second to Ronnie Peterson at Watkins Glen (I know, I was there)
In 1972, Mark Donahue earned a poduim in a Penske entered McLaren M19 in his first F1 race. I do not have the details of the 50's and early 60's at my fingertips; someone more of a historian than I can illuminate us.

However, the decision that Formula 1 is to be composed of a restricted number of teams (12 Maximum) and that each team must enter two cars of their own manufacture is a recent, and to my mind, and artificial set on limitations imposed by Bernie soley to control the package he sells to both Race Promoters and to Television Broadcasters around the world. This decision has not improved the racing and it has limited the possibilites for new blood to invigorate the sport, but it has created a predictable package and the opportunities for teams to score surprise results has been eliminated.

The Ban on customer chassis is neither in the tradtional spirit of F1 nor in the interest of good racing.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Dani Filth

I remember Jordan winning .. I remember Stewart winning .. I even remember Renault winning in Monaco with Trulli a few years ago with an interesting engine design .. i remember DC in the RBR getting a podium in Monaco .. just a few races ago
Have a look at the last 10 years.

customer chassis has never been a main feature of Formula 1 .. never will be IMHO .. but it can be a nice addition if it can boost the grids and the competitiveness of some teams

The Jordan and Stewart wins were somewhat fortuitous,they won because the weather intervened.RBR podium was also somewhat fortuitous.

Renaults engine had an 111 degree V angle,which lowered the centre of gravity but was not ideal by any means and was hardly pant wetting in the techno stakes.

Years ago many teams would use the same chassis and engine with varying results.Interestingly no team has ever won with a Ferrari customer engine!