Customer Cars?

[chillibowl]

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.

[chillibowl]

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.

[gert]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

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?

For the customer (Stroll in your exemple) the advantage could be that by getting a Mercedes they will probably not beat Mercedes (the 'better job' part in your comparison seems real to me) but may stand a better chance against McLaren, Renault, Ferrari or even Red Bull

[midgetman]

Surely it's possible to reduce the budget of teams that don't build their own?

Sent from my AC2003 using Tapatalk

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by gert

For the customer (Stroll in your exemple) the advantage could be that by getting a Mercedes they will probably not beat Mercedes (the 'better job' part in your comparison seems real to me) but may stand a better chance against McLaren, Renault, Ferrari or even Red Bull

i intentionally used RP/Stroll in the example to facilitate this discussion point as they are the team currently upsetting the order with their customer cars....thank you Gert for taking the time to read my post and responding to it on point.

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.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by midgetman

Surely it's possible to reduce the budget of teams that don't build their own?

Sent from my AC2003 using Tapatalk

that could be a very effective mechanism in differentiating a constructor and customer.

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by Casper

...
F1 is strangling because it has become an engineering w***k fest, nothing more and nothing less and if it continues and it will without intervention then the best engineering team wins every time, enter the whinging about Mercedes winning every year.

Just curious, when do you think that change occurred? When Red Bull dominated? When Ferrari dominated? McLaren? Lotus? Or when Mercedes lapped the field in the '50s? Back when drivers were unceremoniously replaced midrace to give the constructor a better fighting chance? That was a legendary w**kfest!

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.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

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.

I can see how the teams that work the best, are the most efficient, create the best work environment, and invested lots of time and effort into assembling the right team of people to achieve success as a constructor don't feel like being beaten by a hypothetical billionaire and his son who bought last year's championship winning car.
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.

[bathurst77]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

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).
.

If merc build 4 cars @ 175 mill and sell two of them at 87.5, that can be deducted from their spend as they spent it on behalf of another team.
So they now have 2 cars and 87.5 to play with, as do Force In... umm racing poi.. un jorda,,,, aston martin

[chillibowl]

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.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

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.

It is conflating two things. How the caps are to work given the current rules (no customer cars) and a potential future world in which customer cars work.

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

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

...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.

but will that logic still hold true under the new financial regulations? of course its not as easy as hiring someone and bringing back in that 'lost' knowledge.

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?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

It is conflating two things. How the caps are to work given the current rules (no customer cars) and a potential future world in which customer cars work.

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)?

thats how i see it as well.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

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

i suppose the fear that there would be that company (Dallara for example) who would spend well above and then sell customer cars to F1 teams in needs thus circumventing the spirit of the budget cap.

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)?

[peebee2]

The Dallara Hispania was fine but it was never finished in detail as the Dallara bills weren’t paid.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i suppose the fear that there would be that company (Dallara for example) who would spend well above and then sell customer cars to F1 teams in needs thus circumventing the spirit of the budget cap.

I "think" they just wouldn't care. The pain is felt by the supplier who is doing something like selling below cost. This is assuming that this car would be available to anyone.

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

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by peebee2

The Dallara Hispania was fine but it was never finished in detail as the Dallara bills weren’t paid.

for sure they were not paid, but had they been paid would they have had the capabilities to produce a competitive F1 chassis?

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.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

for sure they were not paid, but had they been paid would they have had the capabilities to produce a competitive F1 chassis?

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.

You have one key qualifier in your comment and that is "competitive". I am defining competitive as one that can challenge for the podium with the right driver and power unit. I think any number of existing companies in the motor racing industry could produce an F1 chassis that fits the regulations. While the potential is always there, the actual likelihood that someone can produce a "competitive" car within lets say... five years is (IMHO) close to zero. Multiple established teams can't do it today. Why might someone new do it?

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

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

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.

perhaps...although by adding DRS and given my defense of DRS in the other thread, i may have to disagree with you out of principle!

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?

[RWill2073]

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?

[Casper]

F1 raced as two classes back when both turbos and atmo engines were used and it did not last long.

[coppice]

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 .

[chunterer]

Great post coppice, I echo most of what you offer there.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by coppice

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 .

if they cant beat a customer team with a car they made yourself, then maybe they should walk away right!

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?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i wonder that if RB were allowed to sell a car directly to STR/AT

Lol, they GIVE it to them now!

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Lol, they GIVE it to them now!

[Casper]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

they already do better than Ferrari and are close to Merc as it is now.

It would be more accurate to say that Ferrari's failure this year has resulted them being second in the pecking order and it is still Mercedes first, daylight second and RB third.