Customer cars

[cds_uk]

As it seems as though we are going to have a winter of grumbling from various parties concerning Prodrive, Super Aguri and Toro Rosso it has crossed my mind as to weather anyone would complain if there was a dedicated customer chassis available, be it Dallara, Lola, Panoz or whoever, is there any mileage in a constructor doing this do you think, or a team for that matter, in the good old days with Cossie engines and a March chassis you where in with a shout, in more recent times, Dallara, Lola you maybe picked up the odd point, not so sure about now though, mainly because cars dont break down any more, what do you guys think.

[BootsOntheSide]

I expect those companies could build a competitive chassis (within a second of the slower factory cars) for a tenth of what the big teams spend. Even allowing for running costs, it could give a team a chance to run competitively and cheaply. To encourage entries, a seperate championship for teams running cars they didn't build could be introduced.

[pirenzo]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

I expect those companies could build a competitive chassis (within a second of the slower factory cars) for a tenth of what the big teams spend. Even allowing for running costs, it could give a team a chance to run competitively and cheaply. To encourage entries, a seperate championship for teams running cars they didn't build could be introduced.

If Lola, Dallara or whoever could build an F1 car within a second of the back of the current grid you'd be looking at a car that was relatively quicker than a Minardi of not so long ago. They were still spending a lot of money. A tenth of a top team's budget is still tens of times more expensive than running in GP2 or Sportscars. It would only be worth the investment if you could generate the same high-profile for your privateer's championship as you have for the main championship. I find that quite unlikely.

[Marbot]

I'm not sure that David Richards or anyone else would want to stump up the costs required to develop a chassis that was always going to be a second slower than the top teams.

[Chiefy]

I tend to find series with sub-championships harder to follow. I don't really want to spend my Sunday afternoons trying to work out what Prodrive finishing 5th means for one championship but what Williams cars finishing 4th and 6th means for an entirely different one. Are Prodrive really 5th, or are they in fact 1st? Too complicated for my tastes. Considering David Richards was so keen to get back involved with F1 you'd think he could be bothered to spend a few bob on building a half-decent car, instead of trying to nail the results without doing any of the work for them.

[Mekola]

Customer cars should qualify for their constructors (ie: Prodrive sums poins for McLaren, in case they took their chassis). To avoid advantage of constructors with more than two cars, the WCC would sum best two cars of each constructor.

[Maxwell Murder]

Or you could just change the constructors championship to the teams championship.

[Fish_Flake]

I don't see what the problem would be if Formula 1 returned to the sort of status quo that existed among privateers in the 1970s, where a team would purchase a stock March chassis and then let its own designers and mechanics make alterations to it as they saw fit. Hesketh and Penske won races with cars derived from the March, and many others competed with modified Marches with varying levels of success.

If Lola or Dallara could make a chassis that in its basic form can run competitive lap times in comparison to what teams like Super Aguri and Spyker are running now, and allow smaller teams to build onto that foundation rather than forcing them to start from scratch, it would be a boon for the sport, especially with the simplified aerodynamic regulations proposed for 2009. If these cars can contend for points and podiums, the big teams can complain all they want; the fact is that with the money those organizations are spending on development, they should be able to come up with a package that can beat a privateer with a customer kit.

[Born Racer]

To avoid advantage of constructors with more than two cars, the WCC would sum best two cars of each constructor.

But such constructors would have an advantage because they'd have more chances to score points.

[KA]

Originally Posted by Chiefy

Considering David Richards was so keen to get back involved with F1 you'd think he could be bothered to spend a few bob on building a half-decent car, instead of trying to nail the results without doing any of the work for them.

I think it's more like Richards being well aware that any attempt by Prodrive to try and take on F1 without the financial backing of a a major car manufacturer or a company willing to spend money on the scale Red Bull do, is likely to end in bankruptcy.

I really don't think it's possible for a new privateer operation to come into F1 in it's present form and survive for long, let alone be competitive, unless the rules are changed to allow customer cars.

How many changes of ownership is it we've reached now for Jordan/ Midland/Spyker/whatever the new Indian owners are going to call it....?

[Gt_R]

I like the idea of having Dallara, Lola, etc manufacturing cars that privateer teams that can buy off shelf and race, because i believe that this will make entry easier with an existing infrastructure and a "up to date" race car. Afterall, teams like Red Bull, Force India, etc are not in Formula One for the engineering or technical progress, but wanting the tv exposure and being associated with F1.

Also, private teams can essentially pool their limited resources together to develope a base car, thereby having a "quicker" car to work on, rather than each struggling to keep 3 seconds off the pace.

To solve the issue that currently face Prodrive vs Williams, Spyker vs Super Aguri, i think a simple way forward will be to allow those non-constructor teams to go ahead scoring points, but at the end of the season, the prize money - which is the biggest stumbling block - that these teams will only get 50% or 60% of what a full constructor team will get. This will be an incentive to teams to progress to building their own. And money that is undivided can be given promote motorsports or young talents (ie sponsoring good but poorer drivers to test one-off for a F1 team)

[cds_uk]

You have hit the nail on the head Fish_Flake, why cant the guys in charge make it as straight forward as that.

[duke_toaster]

Instead of having the best two for the WCC, what about selecting the two cars that count by lottery after each race

[Chiefy]

I could subscribe to Fish Flake's idea I think. If it's the way things used to work then, yes, I can't see why it shouldn't work now. But doesn't that likewise go against what teams like Williams and Spyker are trying to achieve with their complaints?

And I appreciate it isn't easy for independent teams to break into F1 nowadays - but with what I thought (perhaps incorrectly, I'm not sure anymore!) was a turnover of £120,000,000 a year down at Prodrive, Richards would be in a slightly better position to make a go of it than most.

What if Prodrive could be customers of Williams - would that solve the problem?

[Teretonga]

Fish Flake is correct. However the Concerde agreement is the stumbling block. We have what is essentially a closed shop agreement that the current benefactors don't want to let go of.

The whole arrangement should be opened up.
It would do no harm to base the prize money on the drivers results rather than constructors or team points, right down to 26th or 28th place
Then the most successful teams would get the most money. Survival of the fittest?
Oh.... thats too competitive? This is a 'sport'....isn't it?

[jab]

I would support a move to customer cars if the customer's constructor points went to the manufacturer of their car as in the 70's. I'd then also like to see a team's championship alongside this, and more entries allowed than the current 24. But if customers were counted as constructors it would make the whole WCC a farce IMO

[Teretonga]

The whole debate abut constructors points is because of the money given to the teams the following year.
If the 'Concorde' agreement was simply based on the results a team scored down to last place then there wouldn't be an argument about a teams or constructors championship. You could still either or both but it wouldn't make a difference.
Points to 8th for the drivers sure and the constructors and teams championships but if the 'Concorde' was based on a system of 28 for first to 1 for 28th and those points determined the assistance for the following year the constructors would care a whole lot less about the constructors championship.
It's all because of the 'Concorde' money factor nothing else. Thats why no one worried in the sixties and early seventies about private teams scoring points for their manufacturers... No money was attached to it.

[Raglanparade]

I like the prize money idea.

Then you wouldnt need to worry about the constructors points.

[f1manoz]

What Gt_R said.

Get the privateers back on the grid. Fill the grids with Dallara's and Lola's and let's get back to the days when half the grid drove a March chassis.

I see no problem with customer cars at all. If they want to simply show up, race, let them go for the Drivers Championship but make them ineligible for the Constructors.

Or, as someone said above, change that to the Teams Championship.

There are plenty of ways to make this work. It seems some fear change.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by f1manoz

It seems some fear change.

It seems that EJ does and perhaps with good reason.

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=41222

[cds_uk]

He does have a point, if Prodrive cant make it will the others be aloud to re apply?

[MacMan]

EJ has a very good point from his point of view but that isn't Prodrives problem. EJ even admits he could have purchased another manufacturers technology. Just because his team chose not to doesn't change things.

What compensation would Prodrive get, given that their acceptance was based on them being able to buy a chassis from a manufacturer that was currently competing? If they are then found to not be meeting the Concorde Agreement how is that their fault?

Mentioning Toyota is like chalk and cheese compared to this, they always said they were going to manufacture their own cars and, them being "late" was down to their own setup not the FIA promising them they could do something and then changing it (that happens a lot with the FIA lol).