|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
8 Jan 2021, 14:37 (Ref:4027664) | #26 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
All things being equal (litteraly i suppose in this case), as with engines, customer car teams would rarely win, the best drivers would still want to race for the factory team, and when the occasional pink merc or rosso bull customer car wins its under a highly rare set of circumstance and most will be thrilled when it does because who doesnt like rare things.
It wont become like Indy car because Indy car only costs between 10-20 per car per season. Williams, a poorer team, alone can afford to field half the current Indy grid with their current budget. Merc could field like 50 Indy cars if they wanted. Even with the soon to be budget cap, F1 cars, customers or not, are still going to be very very expensive pieces of kit with team capable of spending on areas to differentiate themselves from each other. While i dont see the need to get rid of the constructors, i can see the point Casper is making and it speaks to making this about driving, about putting the focus back on drivers...personally i like that philosophy. |
||
__________________
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 |
8 Jan 2021, 16:00 (Ref:4027679) | #27 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
but going the other way and thinking about the economics of it...
lets say Merc builds 2 cars and used their full budget cap (175mil) so 2 cars cost them 87.5 mil per car (175/2). if they built 4 cars (175/4), now each car costs 43.75 mil. now they sell 2 of their 4 cars to Stroll at lets say their marginal cost so 87.5m (43.75*2). because of the budget cap, Merc have already spent their 175m so would have no more money to spend developing their car (budget caps are about spending limits irrespective of income earned). where as Stroll, who has only spent 87.5 mil buying customer cars, is still free to spend an extra 87.5m developing their purchased cars (175-87.5=87.5). in effect, Stroll now has 2 cars that cost Merc 175m to build (but only paid 87.5m to buy) plus he gets to spend an extra 87.5m to get to him to his budget total of 175 giving him a relative budget of 262.5m...clearly more then what Merc can spend. even if Merc raised the price, Stroll would still be have more money left over then Merc could spend because they already spent their full 175m. also Merc can only raise the price so much because Stroll is prohibited from spending more than 175m for two cars. so if Merc sell 2 cars for 175m who would buy it? the logic of buying a customer car is that it is cheaper then building your own...but as laid out, if Merc is compelled to sell them at the full 175m then why would Stroll not just say i am already building 2 cars for cheaper then that right now...why would i buy yours? so whats the incentive for a works team to sell their entire package to a customer and whats the incentive for the customer to buy them at full price? if the answer is because Merc can do a better job then Stroll, then it is likewise only rational to assume that Merc will also do a better job then Stroll's team on track (on account of the better staff, driver, and facilities then Stroll)...at which point we are right back where we started all be it with everyone spending less money right? this is just back of a napkin thinking so no doubt there are holes in my logic (by all means point them out im not sensitive) but i dont think the old arguments against customer car still hold true given the new financial model of F1 (budget cap and fairer prize fund distribution). at the least, think we need to see how this cap evolves before passing judgement. of particular interest to me will be to see how much Mclaren with a customer engine can take the fight to Merc, RB, and Ferrari (if they get their act together) under the new formula. |
||
__________________
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 |
8 Jan 2021, 16:52 (Ref:4027686) | #28 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,137
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
8 Jan 2021, 17:15 (Ref:4027693) | #29 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,791
|
Surely it's possible to reduce the budget of teams that don't build their own?
Sent from my AC2003 using Tapatalk |
||
__________________
Midgetman - known as Max Tyler to the world. MaxAttaq! |
8 Jan 2021, 18:03 (Ref:4027703) | #30 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
to answer...for sure that is the risk but is that inherently a bad thing? a new status quo where the manus are not automatically at the top of the ladder? i would like to think that within a budget cap, the teams that do well are the teams that work the best, are the most efficient, create the best work environment etc...will have to wait and see on that though. of course Stroll looks to have just bought what he needed to succeeded but this ex Force India team was punching well above their weight class for a while now...some of their current success imo is well deserved and beyond the scope of having just bought a pre made kit. |
|||
__________________
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 |
8 Jan 2021, 18:08 (Ref:4027704) | #31 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
|||
__________________
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 |
9 Jan 2021, 00:25 (Ref:4027749) | #32 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,203
|
Quote:
Also, I'm sorry if it sounded like I was telling you what to do. That was not my intention. I just wanted to point out that what you want so much already exists literally everywhere but in F1. So you win. It's me who's running out of traditional motor sports to follow. Quote:
They are opposed to customer cars because they feel their entire legacy is being put at risk. That's how I understand it. This is also part of the reason why until now Williams were so stubborn about not using some of the "listed parts" that some other teams (case in point: Racing Point) gladly use. Once you go that route, you start losing the (current) expertise that one day could lead you to build a better mouse trap and get ahead of the leaders, instead of keeping up. Of course, Williams' example shows how risky and demanding that approach is compared to using proven solutions. |
||||
|
9 Jan 2021, 00:34 (Ref:4027752) | #33 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,203
|
Quote:
So they now have 2 cars and 87.5 to play with, as do Force In... umm racing poi.. un jorda,,,, aston martin |
|||
|
11 Jan 2021, 15:44 (Ref:4028182) | #34 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
i'm not sure the cap will work that way.
i am assuming this, but the cap only reflects the amount a team is allowed to spend. i dont think they get any credits back based on income they generate from the sale of parts or expertise. |
||
__________________
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 |
11 Jan 2021, 15:52 (Ref:4028184) | #35 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,864
|
Quote:
As to the initial idea of a team selling their cars and that somehow being credited to their budge. That is just shifting budgets from small teams to the big teams? That makes no sense. Why not just have someone like Mercedes control a number of minnow teams to consume their budget to then allow Mercedes spend more than the cap allows (beyond cap spending offset by payments from small teams)? Now... what was proposed (customer cars and budget) can work like it does elsewhere. Where you have a manufacture "who does not participate in the sport" selling cost capped cars to teams. Then those teams race them. Is this not how current prototype racing works? Richard Last edited by Richard C; 11 Jan 2021 at 15:59. |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
11 Jan 2021, 15:55 (Ref:4028185) | #36 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
but that said, dont we want this dynamic? some teams, out of pride, branding, or a better long term view towards winning may choose different options and within a budget cap system they may actually be able to affordably build their own competitive cars. rather, it was the old/current financial model that meant they needed to spend 400mil a year just to keep up. also as an aside and in part based on the other convo about overtaking... more cars that are the same may lead to less variance in lap times. if there is an argument to be made against customer cars, perhaps it is that overtaking could be negatively affected? |
|||
__________________
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 |
11 Jan 2021, 17:46 (Ref:4028203) | #37 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
Quote:
while i think that could be easily legislated out, more practically is there any 3rd party company outside of F1 that can produce a competitive F1 chassis? Dallara's Hispania chassis was terrible and even i suppose a Manu could leave and just become a chassis builder but hopefully the manus have too much ego for that. typically when they leave they sell their operation off to a less well financed outfit (Toyota being the exception)? |
||||
__________________
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 |
11 Jan 2021, 18:51 (Ref:4028217) | #38 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,291
|
The Dallara Hispania was fine but it was never finished in detail as the Dallara bills weren’t paid.
|
|
|
11 Jan 2021, 19:17 (Ref:4028221) | #39 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,864
|
Quote:
However in reality, I suspect if any type of customer car situation came about, F1 would put in place some controls (including a process to be accepted as a customer car provider). Maybe those controls may be some type of checks to prevent upsetting the customer car market (selling a MUCH nicer car than anyone else by selling them at a loss). Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
11 Jan 2021, 19:47 (Ref:4028229) | #40 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
they were basically trying to build a 2010 car based on a several year old and uncompetitive Jordan car. either way i think the point stands...how many companies not already in F1 could do this? and if they did, how many hundreds of millions would need to be invested prior to making their first car? just supposition, but for it to be economically viable, i would guess the money required would also necessitate participating in F1 themselves. |
|||
__________________
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 |
11 Jan 2021, 21:19 (Ref:4028242) | #41 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,864
|
Quote:
Lets look at another scenario. Lets have ONLY cars produced by a set of fixed providers. It would be a cost capped situation, to both produce an affordable car for the buyer and also to hopefully level the playing field for the sellers. Buyers would be free to pick and sellers would not be allowed to only sell to specific teams. You might then end up with the scenario that exists in LMP2 prototypes. In which there is a fixed set of suppliers (I think the list is Oreca, Multimatic, Dallara and Ligier). However, for various reasons (probably mostly because success breed success) teams have gravitated toward Oreca at the expense of the others. So much so that I think the future of prototype racing will include some level of performance balancing. So the cars will end up being pretty much the same. Maybe more than they are now. Customer cars for F1 is to me a VERY risky business. Because if you are not winning, you are not making much if any money. In the end, IMHO, "customer cars" that are mixed in with full constructors is mostly a patch to address how screwed up F1 is. Just like DRS. What is the problem here? F1 is a constructors championship. Where else do we have that? And is there a feeder series in which teams can act as both a constructor AND participant? A series (or set of series) in which teams can move up the ladder and then jump into the tip top of both the sport in general AND the highest level of construction? None of that exists. Teams can learn how to be "teams" in any number of series. They have nowhere to learn how to be an F1 team other than F1. The closest is the top level of prototype racing and that (as a constructors series) is pretty much gone for similar reasons as to why F1 struggles (steep learning curve that requires DEEP DEEP pockets). I think the solutions are either... 1. There needs to be lower tier "constructor" series that allows constructors to learn the ropes. It would be helpful if the regulations were somewhat close to F1 in that lessons learned might be more likely to transfer. 2. Ditch (or significantly reduce) the constructor nature of F1. I tend to think #2 is the best answer, but also the lest likely to happen. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
11 Jan 2021, 22:28 (Ref:4028252) | #42 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
but seriously, RP and AT won races this season all be under very unique circumstances. they did not win on out right pace and the few podiums FI/RP or STR/AT have scored are typically down to circumstance as well. so from that point of view maybe the greater sale of parts to lower teams is just an attempt to create the veneer of competition...maybe DRS also falls into that category - i have to admit that much. but the other side of the coin is that RP did at times look to be legitimately challenging for podiums and their untraditional build resulted in them being docked points before the season even started because what they are doing scares people. other teams will want to copy this. Merc themselves may have even been complicit in the copying. rather they may even be abetting the decline of manu influence. like Ferrari, they will profit from it. in the years to come we will have a clearer picture, but maybe the Era of the Manufacturers is finally drawing to a close? Last edited by chillibowl; 11 Jan 2021 at 22:33. |
|||
__________________
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 |
17 Jan 2021, 13:53 (Ref:4029619) | #43 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,515
|
What about two classes in f1? I see mention of sports car racing being the other constructor based championship, so take another cue from them and add another class. Let customer cars in as part of a second class, where they are off the pace of the 20 cars out there now, competing in their own class, without constructor points awarded. Allow f2 cars in, maybe doing promotion/relegation with the secondary class in the f1 race as long as there are enough in that class. Get grid sizes up to around 30 or so, allow young talents to race in f1 in the main show, allow the older guys like Raikkonen to stay in it without taking a top class drive away from a young talent, etc.
With how hard it is for cars to follow, a second class of cars providing traffic could really upset running orders and gaps as they worked their way through it. Although I guess some sort of change in philosophy for f1 needs to happen to help, because the whole "get completely out of the way within three flag posts" thing has limited this effect currently when the leaders come up on the back of the grid. But two separate classes, one for constructors and one for customer cars, with constructor championship points for the constructor class only, could be a happy medium? |
|
|
18 Jan 2021, 07:19 (Ref:4029796) | #44 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
F1 raced as two classes back when both turbos and atmo engines were used and it did not last long.
|
|
|
18 Jan 2021, 08:01 (Ref:4029800) | #45 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 925
|
We seem so often to dismiss the past as providing a possible solution to any problems we think F1 has. I possibly have a different take on the key issues -my gripes are , in order , grotesque cost , manufacturer influence ,thin grids , excessive aero and the places where races take place.
But there are many examples of customer cars being raced in Grands Prix , or F1 non championship races. Sometimes very successfully (Stewart's March ) but usually mid grid or lower (too many to list but who remembers Giancarlo Martini in his 312T ?) . They served a useful purpose in filling grids , and as a stepping stone to a two car works team - remember Frank Williams was running all sorts of stuff before he hit the big time- De Tomaso , March , Iso Marlboro . F2 cars have run concurrently in Grands Prix , memorably so in the 67 German GP where Ickx qualified his (1600 cc!) F2 Brabham third quickest - but the F2 field - 10 cars in all- wasn't eligible for points. I'd love to see grids increase to 28, even 30 cars , as it only takes one startline shunt to deplete a 20 car grid to a pathetic apology for a GP. Single car entries ? Fine- why do we demand the homogenity of two car teams anyway ? I dare say lots of arguments against customer cars will be made - loudly - by the established teams, as a knee jerk reaction and any 'reasons' given will be created long after the objection itself . Much of F1's malaise is down to the absurd influence teams have - they expect to be involved in any decisions about every facet of F1 but , having done so , can simply walk away from the sport . |
||
|
18 Jan 2021, 15:51 (Ref:4029858) | #46 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 15,734
|
Great post coppice, I echo most of what you offer there.
|
||
|
18 Jan 2021, 22:38 (Ref:4029942) | #47 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
more cars is interesting and i wonder that if RB were allowed to sell a car directly to STR/AT, would they then have enough extra money to maintain the pace of capital improvements to their facilities (spending which i believe is outside the budget cap limits) so that they could build out as well as other manus? they already do better than Ferrari and are close to Merc as it is now. could Mclaren, if they had customers to sell to, rise up even further? presumably a larger grid including one with single entries buying customer cars could become the revenue source privateers like RB and Mclaren need to effectively compete against manus and their far deeper pockets? |
|||
__________________
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 |
18 Jan 2021, 23:41 (Ref:4029947) | #48 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,291
|
||
|
19 Jan 2021, 02:56 (Ref:4029953) | #49 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
|||
__________________
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 |
19 Jan 2021, 06:03 (Ref:4029958) | #50 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Customer Cars | Alan Raine | Formula One | 18 | 24 Aug 2006 14:20 |
Things Audi could have done to better sports car racing with customer cars | H16 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 12 | 8 Apr 2003 12:26 |
Customer cars way to go? | pink69 | Formula One | 23 | 13 Jun 2002 19:41 |
could we be seeing privateer's running customer cars from top teams in the future? | OVERSTEER | Formula One | 25 | 17 May 2002 23:52 |
Customer Cars / Engines | bobdrummond | Formula One | 1 | 30 May 2000 17:28 |