2013 Driver Lineups

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Lots of questions on the subject of customer cars.

Indeed!

Originally Posted by Marbot

Where would the cut off point be between those that are works teams and those that are customer teams?

Which teams are "low-end" teams?

Why would, for example, Williams want to spend many millions on their own car when it's possible to have a 'competitive' car for a fraction of their budget?

It's their choice and budget to decide. I'm fine with 5 constructors, but 7 would be better for the long term.

Originally Posted by Marbot

could customer cars be upgraded or modified in any way?

Cost control is key. Check LMP2 and GT3 to see what works and what doesn't.

Originally Posted by Marbot

Would customer cars be regulated so that it would not be possible for them to compete on equal terms with works cars?

Would there be enough competitive works cars to sell on to customer teams?

My proposal is that customer cars would be slower indeed. I propose a two-class F1, like MotoGP, with an expanded grid of 26-30 cars.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

My proposal is that customer cars would be slower indeed. I propose a two-class F1, like MotoGP, with an expanded grid of 26-30 cars.

That's the last thing I'd want to see.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

My proposal is that customer cars would be slower indeed. I propose a two-class F1, like MotoGP, with an expanded grid of 26-30 cars.

I would not care for that idea ...

[somebodysb2]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

My proposal is that customer cars would be slower indeed. I propose a two-class F1, like MotoGP, with an expanded grid of 26-30 cars.

MotoGP is a three class series.
Factory Honda v. Factory Yamaha
Factory Ducati v. Satellite D/H/Y
Claiming Rule Teams

Only difference between this and F1 is that MotoGP Class #2 will never be able to show everyone up like how Sauber/Williams did.

[Burnsie]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

There's an article in Autosport about Alguersuari and his lack of a drive this year.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/105588

There was an article in Motor Sport last year (written by Nigel Roebuck I think) making the case that if Alguersuari was worth his salt as a racing driver, he would have been competing in something after he lost his drive with Toro Rosso. I have to agree, and I admire Bruno Senna and Timo Glock for grasping the opportunity to continue racing this year.

[Mekola]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That's the last thing I'd want to see.

But in the 1950s-1960s it was very common in F1. It seems that is a lot of distortion in our minds. That thing that every team should build their car is quite recently, it was coined in 1982.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Mekola

But in the 1950s-1960s it was very common in F1. It seems that is a lot of distortion in our minds. That thing that every team should build their car is quite recently, it was coined in 1982.

The rule that everone had to build their own car was another Ferrari International Assisstance rule. If you can buy the leading chassis and fit your own engine to it, then constructors of inferior chassis are pushed down the order and out of the revenue. i.e. If five teams are running 10 RBR chassis then McLaren, Ferrari and Williams would probably not be in the points.

There would also be no need to pay stupendous prices to sponsor a front running car, you could just buy a competitive car and run it. The manufacturers would also be pitted against one another when it came to supplying competitive cars at a price.

c.f. Porsche supplying customer cars in endurance racing.

F1 is about maintaining the status quo, look what a raw deal the new teams get.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by wnut

The rule that everone had to build their own car was another Ferrari International Assisstance rule. If you can buy the leading chassis and fit your own engine to it, then constructors of inferior chassis are pushed down the order and out of the revenue. i.e. If five teams are running 10 RBR chassis then McLaren, Ferrari and Williams would probably not be in the points.

.

Do you seriously think this would happen?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

Do you seriously think this would happen?

No, I don't think it will happen, simply because F1's controlling interests will not allow it to happen.
Unregulated, I certainly believe it is possible. cf. Porsche.

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

My proposal is that customer cars would be slower indeed. I propose a two-class F1, like MotoGP, with an expanded grid of 26-30 cars.

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I would not care for that idea ...

If the second half of the grid is cheaper, it means two things. One, there can be more teams, so more drivers get to race in F1. Second, good drivers will have more chances to drive even if they don't bring sponsorship, because there are more cars and they get cheaper.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by wnut

No, I don't think it will happen, simply because F1's controlling interests will not allow it to happen.
Unregulated, I certainly believe it is possible. cf. Porsche.

Wait a second, I think I now read your comment in proper context. Your saying Ferrari/Mclaren/Williams would head towards the rear if Red Bull built 10 other current model cars. F1 turning into what I knew as CART. I was thinking of customer cars being year old models.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

Wait a second, I think I now read your comment in proper context. Your saying Ferrari/Mclaren/Williams would head towards the rear if Red Bull built 10 other current model cars. F1 turning into what I knew as CART. I was thinking of customer cars being year old models.

[littleman]

Why not allow the smaller teams, or teams looking to enter F1, lease cars from the establishment?

This would significantly reduce the cost of "joining in" and help ensure a competitive grid.It would also allow the major teams to off-set some cost and protect the ownership of their technology.

If a smaller team then decided to make their own car (like Tyrrell did) at some point in the future, then fine.

This would also sort out the Playboy teams from the long term serious.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mekola

But in the 1950s-1960s it was very common in F1. It seems that is a lot of distortion in our minds. That thing that every team should build their car is quite recently, it was coined in 1982.

I'm not against having customer cars per se but I'm against the idea of customer cars being slower and having a two-class F1 grid, which I thought was what NaBUru38 was proposing in his post #776.

If you look back the F1 World Championship as we know it, it started in 1950. 1982 was 32 years later and 2013 is 31 years since 1982, so for nearly the second half of the F1 World Championship era, teams have been building their own chassis and it seems to have worked fairly well up to now and don't forget that for 1952 and '53 Formula 2 rules were briefly adopted.

[RobbieD90]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

If the second half of the grid is cheaper, it means two things. One, there can be more teams, so more drivers get to race in F1. Second, good drivers will have more chances to drive even if they don't bring sponsorship, because there are more cars and they get cheaper.

is this not what GP2 is?

[Mekola]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If you look back the F1 World Championship as we know it, it started in 1950. 1982 was 32 years later and 2013 is 31 years since 1982, so for nearly the second half of the F1 World Championship era, teams have been building their own chassis and it seems to have worked fairly well up to now and don't forget that for 1952 and '53 Formula 2 rules were briefly adopted.

Since 1996 we have the problem of grids that scarcely have got more than 20 cars, not much before, since 1992 backwards, we had a grid of 30+ cars...

[kipper]

Originally Posted by Mekola

Since 1996 we have the problem of grids that scarcely have got more than 20 cars, not much before, since 1992 backwards, we had a grid of 30+ cars...

By the same token grids in the 1950s were not that dissimilar to current levels (notwithstanding the Indy 500).

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by RobbieD90

is this not what GP2 is?

WIth the difference that GP2 doesn't have an F1 logo or F1-size viewers. This means that teams get much less money from sponsors. So they can't hire the best drivers so easily, they need decent sponsors. Which leads to pay drivers again.

My point is: with the current budgets required to qualify within the 107%, you can't expect to have 20 non-pay drivers.

[littleman]

Martin Whitmarsh has said,in typical McLaren gibberish,that 7 out of the 11 teams are in financial trouble and just about hanging on.

With a whole raft of changes coming next year, this will very likely push a few over the edge.

I firmly believe the next Concorde Agreement MUST gives the teams a larger slice of the cake and leased/purchased cars should be allowed.

As I've said before, we could have less than a dozen cars on the grid otherwise.

[steve_r]

7 out of 11 are in trouble, yet none of the teams supported the drastic cost-cutting measures that were planned a couple of years ago, when the 3 new teams signed up.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mekola

Since 1996 we have the problem of grids that scarcely have got more than 20 cars, not much before, since 1992 backwards, we had a grid of 30+ cars...

That's surely down to the change in the economic climate. Back in early '90s motorsport was awash with money, particularly money from tobacco and teams, sponsors were spending hand over fist. The same happened in CART and it became unsustainable.

Now nearly some 20 years later, we've had the banking crisis, tobacco money has long gone and teams and sponsors can't spend excessively like they once did, hence the smaller grids.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That's surely down to the change in the economic climate. Back in early '90s motorsport was awash with money, particularly money from tobacco and teams, sponsors were spending hand over fist. The same happened in CART and it became unsustainable.

Now nearly some 20 years later, we've had the banking crisis, tobacco money has long gone and teams and sponsors can't spend excessively like they once did, hence the smaller grids.

If the the teams could sit down and agree a budget cap of between 50 and 100 million would leave the sport sustainable in the long term but what is the chance of that happening? Nill.

F1 generates (FOM) about £800 million each year. The teams get about 60% so in round figures £480 million divided by 12 teams is £40 million each. With a budget cap of say £70 million then the teams only need to find 30 for each season.

If they were to get 90% of the gross fiqure leaving Bernie with the rest for admin etc. then the teams could have £60 million each. I imagine many back of the grid teams would survive comfortably on that amount.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That's surely down to the change in the economic climate. Back in early '90s motorsport was awash with money, particularly money from tobacco and teams, sponsors were spending hand over fist. The same happened in CART and it became unsustainable.

Now nearly some 20 years later, we've had the banking crisis, tobacco money has long gone and teams and sponsors can't spend excessively like they once did, hence the smaller grids.

Crisis, what crisis!


http://www.pitpass.com/48404-2012-fi...rraris-history

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Crisis, what crisis!


http://www.pitpass.com/48404-2012-fi...rraris-history

The banking crisis back in 2008, which is still affecting the majority of Western economies.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by wnut

Crisis, what crisis!


http://www.pitpass.com/48404-2012-fi...rraris-history

Just proves that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer even at times of crisis. Ferraris are at a record selling level in the UK and the Conservatives want to cut benefits.