Customer cars

[Leyton House]

Ok all, interested in your opinions on this.
It looks like the above is eventually happening, and I'm not convinced it is necessarily a bad thing if applied properly. F1 being F1 anything being applied properly is highly unlikely but for argument's sake.
A customer car arrangement could work provided any team running a customer car would not be counted as a constructor, and as such would not score constructors points or receive constructors prize money. This would encourage a new team to, once established, begin to build their own cars.
I believe that the simplicity setting up a new team would encourage more potential teams to try. You could in theory buy two 2012 McLarens, some customer Renault engines and attempt to qualify. Of course you wouldn't stand a realistic chance of troubling the front runners with this arrangement but it would provide the opportunity for more teams to get their 'foot in the door' in F1.
People have argued a customer team could simply buy cars from Mercedes and 'lock out' all other teams from the big points, but a team such as Mercedes is never going to sell their latest equipment to a customer team. Just ask any of Ferrari's engine customers from over the years. A two year old Mercedes may be faster than a Caterham though, and for a fraction of the cost.
This would also open up an opportunity for racing car companies to operate specifically on a customer basis, selling chassis to private teams without entering on a 'works' basis.
I think that at best this could open up a whole new era of private team participation in F1, and perhaps yield a few more reject stories for us to enjoy.
A few people have said the idea of customer cars 'goes against F1's tradition' while ignoring that prior to the late 70s customer cars were common.

Agree? Disagree? Let's have some opinions!

[Onxy Wrecked]

You might be onto something. Those HRTs and Caterhams were absolute shite.

[F1000X]

Sensible, but the shitheads at the FIA need to stop changing the technical regulations each season or year old customer cars can't happen.

[Leyton House]

Sensible, but the shitheads at the FIA need to stop changing the technical regulations each season or year old customer cars can't happen.

Agreed, one of the flaws in the plan. If they decide to do what they did in 2009 and totally rewrite the regulations then old cars won't work. The only hope for the customer teams would be to buy a chassis from a non-entered manufacturer such as Dallara built to the latest rules as the active teams won't have the time to build 6-8 cars of the latest spec.

[Captain Hammer]

I would rather have teams pool their funds to develop a car together. That way, customer teams would have a legitimate claim to having developed the car. There would have to be some kind of cap in place, limiting the amount of money an individual team could contribute, to stop the big teams from out-spending the others. Teams could be ranked as Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 depending on their WCC position (with manufacturer-supported teams automatically getting a Tier 1 ranking), and the rules written to limit the number of teams frim each tier that could enter a partnership.

[Sublime_FA11C]

I think a key part of the plan is to exert more control over teams that are unable to sustain themselves. Not in order to limit their competitivnes but to prevent them from running up debts such as those that ruined Caterham and Marussia and are still threatening Lotus and Sauber.

It appears (to me at least) that Bernie is either fed up or acting fed up with a number of teams in financial difficulties threatening to mess up his show by failing to make the grid and reducing the field. The move towards extra cars and customer cars would reduce competitivnes across the field by formally splitting F1 into two divisions (similar to what it is now anyway), but it would also give much greater control over the customer teams to the strategy group teams and CVC. In a way it would simplify constructors and hopefully avoid teams dropping out of the sport amidst financial shambles, reduce the number of pay drivers and push out teams that have the will to compete but lack the means.

The push for customer cars is about exerting greater control over smaller teams competing in F1 because it looks like major players would get an even share of customer teams (one rpesumably) similarly to how Red Bull operate Toro Rosso. Toro Rosso is indipendant in some ways, but still reliant on the parent team in others. You get the feeling that Toro Rosso will never get the chance to overtake Red Bull, but at the same time they are not in financial danger either, and any valuable personell or ideas that originate in Toro Rosso will find their way to the parent.

I don't buy the argument that this is a conspiracy to drive any team out of F1. I see Williams staying the kind of team they allways were, wheter fully independent or linked to a manufacturer. Similarly, Force India have managed to mix it up with the midfield and take a few scalps in their day, and are on the verge of their most succesfull and lucrative season in history. Sauber were much less vocal about injustice in 2012 and they were effectively in their third year as an indipendent team since BMW's withdrawal (they technically entered the sport along with Virgin/Marussia, Lotus/Caterham and Hispania/HRT). While fully independent, they are free to use and misuse their budgets as they see fit, while customer team's freedom will not be as great.

Bernie is convinced that the plight smaller teams find themselves in today, and the reason small teams are unsustainable in the long term is financial mismanagement and getting into too much debt. He is convincd that granting money to such teams is in a way throwing it down a bottomless pit, and is trying to orchestrate a move towards a kind of F1 in which big teams control small teams with indipendents left out to fend for themselves.

There is another chapter in this tale. Rich teams are currently interested in things such as engine unfreezing and are keen on being allowed to spend money in order to chase success (Mercedes). This does not sit well with teams already in debt and there is a grain of truth in the claim they are being marginalised and increasingly unlikely to bridge the widening chasm that separates them from the top. But large and rich teams do not want to be constrained by cost caps or financial power of lesser teams. Mercedes oppose engine unfreezing for a different reason though, and i can't help but feel that Red Bull and Ferrari are getting first crack at running an extra car (and all the development mileage that goes with it) in order to gain some leverage over Mercedes.

[IceG]

I always thought that the standardised engine/transmission mounting points were designed to facilitate this. So you could bolt a Ferrari engine into a Red Bull chassis (oh, Toro Rosso alreeady did that )

[watka]

I don't buy the argument that this is a conspiracy to drive any team out of F1. I see Williams staying the kind of team they allways were, wheter fully independent or linked to a manufacturer. Similarly, Force India have managed to mix it up with the midfield and take a few scalps in their day, and are on the verge of their most succesfull and lucrative season in history. Sauber were much less vocal about injustice in 2012 and they were effectively in their third year as an indipendent team since BMW's withdrawal (they technically entered the sport along with Virgin/Marussia, Lotus/Caterham and Hispania/HRT). While fully independent, they are free to use and misuse their budgets as they see fit, while customer team's freedom will not be as great.

Bernie is convinced that the plight smaller teams find themselves in today, and the reason small teams are unsustainable in the long term is financial mismanagement and getting into too much debt. He is convincd that granting money to such teams is in a way throwing it down a bottomless pit, and is trying to orchestrate a move towards a kind of F1 in which big teams control small teams with indipendents left out to fend for themselves.

I agree that the current financial issues amongst the midfield has somewhat stemmed from the mass pull out of manufacturers we saw in the late 2000s. Brawn would have probably gone to the dogs had Mercedes not come in and bought them out. The current Lotus team and Sauber both used to be manufacturer teams and now they are, of the teams left standing, the ones in most financial peril. Force India and Williams on the other hand seem a little more stable, with Force India never having been a manufacturer team and Williams having recovered from the post-BMW era. The ex-manufacturer teams have continued to spend at the same rate as they did when they were backed, this being most apparent at Lotus where they could not afford the wages of a driver of Raikkonen's calibre. I agree that the teams needed to be sensible in light of their loss of support and its their own fault that they failed to do so.

At the same time though, what team realistically wants to just sit back except the drop in performance? The teams were shooting for the moon, but missed and hence did not get the income they needed to sustain themselves at the top. Perhaps Red Bull might even have been in this position had the rule changes of 2009 not played so handsomely into their hands and ensured Mateschitz's continued interest. Maybe I'm being far too unrealistic but I'd like to see a Formula 1 is which "independent" teams can still compete on an even keel to manufacturer teams rather than just slowly fall away, which might involve something like a high level cost cap or personnel cap.


It's a separate issue for the newer teams like Marussia, Caterham and HRT, who never stood a chance after the cost cap was removed. As I mentioned in the "End of the little teams" thread, there needs to be a way of getting into F1 and staying there as an independent team. On the income side, part of this is sorting out the prize money fund which leaves the team at the bottom of the championship high and dry, and the general greed of FOM in terms of things like stealing sponsors. On the cost side, perhaps customer cars is the only answer. If a team is willing to except a place at the back of the grid as a customer entrant, with the more manageable costs associated with it, then I have no problem with it. However, the rules give no scope to do this at present, because the integrity of the sport must be maintained, and it must remain the pinnacle of motorsport. However, I fail to see how this is a problem - no one questioned whether the sport of top of the motorsport tree when we had teams like Life, Andrea Moda and Eurobrun (who certainly didn't have the most up to date technology) going through pre-qualifying, so they won't question it if we have customer cars which will undoubtedly be more reliable and probably as fast as "independent builds".

The only thing I would warn against is that I wouldn't like to see a grid that is full of Toro Rosso-like "minion" teams. Whilst using components from other teams, they should still be free to make their own decisions (unlike Toro Rosso) about who they choose as drivers and generally how they go racing rather than being puppets of the big teams.

[Sublime_FA11C]

First let me agree that Marussia/Caterham/HRT belong in a separate category from Lotus/Sauber/Force India and the way they have been screwed over could fill several books. Though HRT least helped itself with doubtfull investments and infrastructure projects.

As for minion teams, Toro Rosso has done quite well. No pay drivers, and while the Red Bull young driver programme dictated who gets to drive, all the choices have been good. It's a shame the drivers who got dumped had nowhere to go though. Toro Rosso serves a specific purpose and has it's spot in the Red Bull machine. In principle it's stifling that they don't get a fair chance to race the parent team, but in practise Red Bull are simply too quick to chase and talent from Toro Rosso has a great chance to move up, so it's not like their efforts go unrewarded. Say what you will about Red Bull but they favor their own drivers, young drivers and talented drivers and waste little time in convulted negotiations. They should be applauded. They wont sign a champion but will instead try to make their own.

Ferrari already have a driver academy, and Mercedes and McLaren are both trying to spot young talent and help guide them reach F1. I'm not sure these teams would try to copy the Toro Rosso example exactly but having a customer/junior/minion/semi-indipendent/subordinate team, or any combination of these types would be better for them than having to negotiate with indipendent teams like Force India or Sauber who also have their financial (pay drivers) or competitive agenda.

I don't know if customer teams would be permanently locked out of success at the top. I hope not, and statistically it's unlikely. But F1 needs smaller teams where pressure and stakes are lower, where young drivers, designers, engineers and other personell can develop before moving up to replace their aging counterparts in top teams. I don't know if indipendant teams would continue as such, Williams probably would but they would try to claw their way to the top and grab a works deal i suspect. In any case customers mixed with indipendants + top teams would be preferable to the messy 2+1 cars where only a few teams run third cars, only 2 cars score points, but drivers allways score points, and they have to be young, and can only compete in a limited number of races and let's change liveries for the thrid cars.... and what the hell is that?

F1 doesn't have to stay static, and i would be okay with 2+ cars per team, but having a 22-28 grid of 2 car teams would be an ideal goal at this time.

[watka]

As for minion teams, Toro Rosso has done quite well. No pay drivers, and while the Red Bull young driver programme dictated who gets to drive, all the choices have been good. It's a shame the drivers who got dumped had nowhere to go though. Toro Rosso serves a specific purpose and has it's spot in the Red Bull machine. In principle it's stifling that they don't get a fair chance to race the parent team, but in practise Red Bull are simply too quick to chase and talent from Toro Rosso has a great chance to move up, so it's not like their efforts go unrewarded. Say what you will about Red Bull but they favor their own drivers, young drivers and talented drivers and waste little time in convulted negotiations. They should be applauded. They wont sign a champion but will instead try to make their own.

Ferrari already have a driver academy, and Mercedes and McLaren are both trying to spot young talent and help guide them reach F1. I'm not sure these teams would try to copy the Toro Rosso example exactly but having a customer/junior/minion/semi-indipendent/subordinate team, or any combination of these types would be better for them than having to negotiate with indipendent teams like Force India or Sauber who also have their financial (pay drivers) or competitive agenda.

In terms of driver academies vs own picks it's a lose-lose situation right now unfortunately.

True, driver academies undoubtedly bring through young talent but I think we've seen it stretched to the extreme in the case of Max Verstappen. It's got to a state where to have any chance of being a future race winner in Formula 1 you need to be in a driver academy. What's more is that drivers are selected to be in a driver academy from a young age, so if you've gotten up to GP3 or FR3.5 (or arguably Formula 3 and FR2.0) and you don't have the backing of a driver programme, we're probably not going to be seeing you in F1 even if you're a championship winner. I don't care how much talent Verstappen has (clearly a lot), but he was racing karts last year. Compare him to Ocon, who has more experience and won the Formula 3 title, but only really has connections to Ferrari, so has a much harder path to Formula 1 which will probably involve him having to carry a sack of $s on his back and having to prove himself constantly against all the other drivers coming through that are lucky enough to be nurtured by driver programmes and be plonked straight into the best cars in the field. We've also seen how Frijns, who turned down a spot on the Red Bull driver programme and achieved the kind of results that you might expect to have been enough for a Toro Rosso seat, have been routinely ignored be Formula 1 teams despite many in the paddock respecting his ability. In summary, I guess what I'm saying is that driver academies are selecting drivers too early before the drivers have even proved themselves, and that if you don't get into one no manner of results in Formula Renault or GP2/GP3 are going to get you into F1. Hence whilst Toro Rosso have brought some interesting prospects into the sport, not least Daniel Ricciardo, I've never really supported them as a team.

On the other hand, let teams choose who you want and then you're going to have a grid of pay drivers as we have now. When it was looking like Sauber would field van der Garde and Ericsson next season I was thinking I'd never seen a case of 2 such clear pay drivers in a midfield team since, well, I'm sure you could give me plenty of examples actually! But nonetheless, it didn't feel right.

Maybe you are correct about Toro Rosso style teams being admirable, but the most I can push to would be to say that it is the lesser of 2 evils.


Wow, I'm grumpy today!

[f1andrea]

I'm totally against customer cars or third cars

[Sublime_FA11C]

The argument that young driver programmes are extremly tight and selective and the age is becoming very low is a separate one. Red Bull is pretty much the only programme witch concrete results (Vettel, Ricciardo, Kvyat, and JEV, Buemi, Algesuari to a lesser extent). McLaren can point to Lewis... and noone else since they still havent thrown any support behind their next protege Magnussen. Ferrari can't even have Bianchi anymore though given how the team itself preferes established race winners and champions it's probably the last team to switch to giving an unproven youngster a drive. Mercedes recently showed us Wehrlein and that's about it.

There is still going to be room for drivers who show promising talent. Bottas was never a part of any programme yet he made it into F1. Ditto Hulkenberg i belive, though he hasn't been so fortunate or consistent. Whter any future examples make it with or without belonging to a top team "stable" and wheter such programmes will hurt or aid development is still up in the air.

So if there are downsides to having to tie yourself to a YD Programme of some kind in order to reach F1, a multitude of newly proposed customer teams would provide seats for more talent and give them some sort of opportunity to compete, against each other if not with the top flight. Budgetary restrictions would prevent customer teams from aiming too high, but on the flip side the finacial security, lower running costs and a more level playing field amongst customers would remove the need for brutal examples of only pay drivers being considered. And greater "parent" team control would prevent farcical incompetence or financial suicide which hopefully means more cars on the grid, with quality as well as quantity and that's healthier than F1 today.

If such a system was in place it's highly likely we could have seen Ocon or Frijns instead of Gutierrez, Ericsson or (braces for impact) Chilton.

[watka]

The argument that young driver programmes are extremly tight and selective and the age is becoming very low is a separate one. Red Bull is pretty much the only programme witch concrete results (Vettel, Ricciardo, Kvyat, and JEV, Buemi, Algesuari to a lesser extent). McLaren can point to Lewis... and noone else since they still havent thrown any support behind their next protege Magnussen. Ferrari can't even have Bianchi anymore though given how the team itself preferes established race winners and champions it's probably the last team to switch to giving an unproven youngster a drive. Mercedes recently showed us Wehrlein and that's about it.

There is still going to be room for drivers who show promising talent. Bottas was never a part of any programme yet he made it into F1. Ditto Hulkenberg i belive, though he hasn't been so fortunate or consistent. Whter any future examples make it with or without belonging to a top team "stable" and wheter such programmes will hurt or aid development is still up in the air.

So if there are downsides to having to tie yourself to a YD Programme of some kind in order to reach F1, a multitude of newly proposed customer teams would provide seats for more talent and give them some sort of opportunity to compete, against each other if not with the top flight. Budgetary restrictions would prevent customer teams from aiming too high, but on the flip side the finacial security, lower running costs and a more level playing field amongst customers would remove the need for brutal examples of only pay drivers being considered. And greater "parent" team control would prevent farcical incompetence or financial suicide which hopefully means more cars on the grid, with quality as well as quantity and that's healthier than F1 today.

If such a system was in place it's highly likely we could have seen Ocon or Frijns instead of Gutierrez, Ericsson or (braces for impact) Chilton.

Yeah, you just undermined you're whole point there by mentioning Chilton

[TomWazzleshaw]

...Compare him to Ocon, who has more experience and won the Formula 3 title, but only really has connections to Ferrari...

Actually, Ocon is part of the Lotus young driver program, and I believe has been for some time. The Ferrari program has Marciello, Lance Stroll and Antonio Fuoco, for reference.

[Captain Hammer]

The latest idea that has been floated: "Super GP2". The idea is that privateer teams could run highly-modified single-make chassis as an alternative to building and developing their own car.

[Backmarker]

The basic idea of having the FIA/FOM contract Dallara to make a F1-spec chassis, which customers can then buy and run, in order to maintain a full grid, is not the worst one I've heard. You would need to add incentives for them to become constructors, though. And it would be nice if they actually contracted two manufacturers (e.g. get Swift in on it) so there was some incentive for for the contracted company to make competitive chassis on a budget.

[DanielPT]

Well, I can support that if it is done properly. The goal should be to use those cars a starting point and a ramp to become full constructor later in a team life but those cars should also be competitive enough in order to give the smaller teams some chance of fighting the midfield and eventually nail a point or two on occasion. That car should be built in using a fair budget which allows all the former conditions and at the same time help the constructor to make a few bucks. It's price should also be enough to attract more teams to F1 and then let then sort out in the track who is best and who deserves to leave. Again, it could work if done properly.

[andrew2209]

My issue with customer cars is that it runs the risk of wiping out the midfield and creating a two-tier system. Teams like Sauber, Lotus, Force India won't want to spend millions developing their own car, if others spend far less on a spec chassis.

[Frogfoot9013]

My issue with customer cars is that it runs the risk of wiping out the midfield and creating a two-tier system. Teams like Sauber, Lotus, Force India won't want to spend millions developing their own car, if others spend far less on a spec chassis.

I agree with that. Customer cars will be of huge benefit to the minnow teams, but any midfield teams are in a spot of trouble, because they have the money to build their own car, just not as competitive a car as what the front end teams use, which the small teams would also use, so then they'd probably just buy cars as well, and F1 would start to look a lot like IndyCar in the 1990s, where nearly everyone except some of the front end teams just bought a chassis instead of building one themselves.

[good_Ralf]

My issue with customer cars is that it runs the risk of wiping out the midfield and creating a two-tier system. Teams like Sauber, Lotus, Force India won't want to spend millions developing their own car, if others spend far less on a spec chassis.

I agree with that. Customer cars will be of huge benefit to the minnow teams, but any midfield teams are in a spot of trouble, because they have the money to build their own car, just not as competitive a car as what the front end teams use, which the small teams would also use, so then they'd probably just buy cars as well, and F1 would start to look a lot like IndyCar in the 1990s, where nearly everyone except some of the front end teams just bought a chassis instead of building one themselves.

Wasn't it in the 1970s when at least 10-15+ Grand Prix teams used the same March chassis?

[AndreaModa]

My issue with customer cars is that it runs the risk of wiping out the midfield and creating a two-tier system. Teams like Sauber, Lotus, Force India won't want to spend millions developing their own car, if others spend far less on a spec chassis.

I agree with that. Customer cars will be of huge benefit to the minnow teams, but any midfield teams are in a spot of trouble, because they have the money to build their own car, just not as competitive a car as what the front end teams use, which the small teams would also use, so then they'd probably just buy cars as well, and F1 would start to look a lot like IndyCar in the 1990s, where nearly everyone except some of the front end teams just bought a chassis instead of building one themselves.

Wasn't it in the 1970s when at least 10-15+ Grand Prix teams used the same March chassis?

The difference back then though was cost. Anyone with a bit of capital could get their hands on an old chassis, a supply of DFVs and Hewland gearboxes, a tyre contract, and go racing. Similarly, it wasn't much more to hire a couple of blokes, a lock-up garage on a housing estate somewhere in Britain, and build a car yourself. The step between being a customer and a constructor wasn't that great.

These days, it's about as wide as it will ever be. If you want to build your own car you need half an industrial estate, and at least 200 people. As a customer, you only need the race team, and a small back-up team in an office somewhere with room for the cars to be stored in/prepared. I bet you could do it on about than 50 people in all. To go from one to the other requires massive investment that just doesn't exist anymore.

[Yannick]

Isn't Dallara currently the sole constructor homologated to build GP2 cars?

The days of March vs Lola vs Reynard vs Dallara are long gone. Force 1ndia, GenII Capital Racing and Sauber would probably be better off financially if they had an exclusive chassis contract with one of the junior formulae than to actually be an F1 team.

Dallara has got several of those contracts and they always seemed to be able to outbid their competition whereas their former competitors used to outperform theirs.

In the old days, when F2 cars filled up the F1 fields, F2 was not a spec series. Today, however, almost every series except the touring car and sportscar championships and F1 are spec series. In the old days, there was the Cosworth engine and the Hewland gearbox and they were kind of like spec.

I doubt that Force 1ndia, Sauber or GenII Capital Racing would buy Dallara GP2 cars to fill up Bernie's grid.

[Frogfoot9013]

Isn't Dallara currently the sole constructor homologated to build GP2 cars?

And GP3, and F3, and Formula Renault 3.5, and IndyCar, and Indy Lights as well to boot.

[Sublime_FA11C]

I doubt that Force 1ndia, Sauber or GenII Capital Racing would buy Dallara GP2 cars to fill up Bernie's grid.

Hence why they're whining that this is a conspiracy to push them out of the sport. In actuality they could stay as indipendents but only Force India could afford it though even they would probably be locked in the midfield at best. It's worked well enough for them this year, but the rate of development would probably make it impossible to realistically compete with McLaren and Williams with Lotus being a strange case of good potential and terrible finances. Their best bet is to keep progressing in small steps and avoid overly ambitious investments while hoping to get themselves onboard the strategy group someday.

[FMecha]

If the GP2 chassis idea goes forward, then what about the engines?

[mario]

The basic idea of having the FIA/FOM contract Dallara to make a F1-spec chassis, which customers can then buy and run, in order to maintain a full grid, is not the worst one I've heard. You would need to add incentives for them to become constructors, though. And it would be nice if they actually contracted two manufacturers (e.g. get Swift in on it) so there was some incentive for for the contracted company to make competitive chassis on a budget.

I would presume that the concept is that it would be just the monocoque that would be delivered by Dallara, with subsequent customisation of that undertaken by the customer teams to form the final car. It is an interesting concept but, as others have pointed out, one that does have concerns about the possibility of such a move being used as a backdoor route for supine customer teams that can be easily manipulated by the few large teams that remain.

I doubt that Force 1ndia, Sauber or GenII Capital Racing would buy Dallara GP2 cars to fill up Bernie's grid.

Hence why they're whining that this is a conspiracy to push them out of the sport. In actuality they could stay as indipendents but only Force India could afford it though even they would probably be locked in the midfield at best. It's worked well enough for them this year, but the rate of development would probably make it impossible to realistically compete with McLaren and Williams with Lotus being a strange case of good potential and terrible finances. Their best bet is to keep progressing in small steps and avoid overly ambitious investments while hoping to get themselves onboard the strategy group someday.

Given that Force India are guaranteed at least 6th place in the WCC this season, they are due to be promoted to the Strategy Group for 2015 as Lotus's replacement - an event that I can't imagine the 'big five' that have permanent seats will be pleased about.

[Backmarker]

Isn't Dallara currently the sole constructor homologated to build GP2 cars?

And GP3, and F3, and Formula Renault 3.5, and IndyCar, and Indy Lights as well to boot.

Super Formula too.

If the GP2 chassis idea goes forward, then what about the engines?

Cosworth or Zytek could do it without any worry. Advanced Engine Research probably could.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

If the GP2 chassis idea goes forward, then what about the engines?

PURE?

[Frogfoot9013]

If the GP2 chassis idea goes forward, then what about the engines?

PURE?

Dig out the Lotus-Judd IndyCar engines from 2012?

[AustralianStig]

If the GP2 chassis idea goes forward, then what about the engines?

Wouldn't they just get a customer deal with Ferrari, Merc or Renault?

[MorbidelliObese]

To be fair to F3 that isn't spec (the Euro F3 commentators make a point of this on every warm-up lap ) but Dallara established themselves as the car to have a long time ago and it's reached the point where nobody even tries to take them on anymore, probably no business case for it, but there's nothing in the F3 rules that says you have to run a Dallara.

But yeah my own thoughts on customer cars - I have nothing against them in principle, nothing at all, I keep hearing they're against the sport's history or DNA but they were an integral part of Grand Prix and/or F1 racing from the sport's inception until they were outlawed. My main worry is we get half a field of 2006-2009 Toro Rosso-style outfits, basically 4 car teams in all but name, even worse than the 8x3 that's been mooted.

But if there was a way where teams could run old customer cars while remaining truly independently owned (not sure how you'd transparently verify that), or better still have external chassis constructors e.g. Dallara, Oreca, Swift etc. (well, probably just Dallara in reality) build an off the shelf F1 car that more than one team could use, while I would prefer 13+ full constructors, I'd prefer that to 3/4 car teams or the already ridiculously small grid shrinking further.

[roblo97]

Instead of the GP2 chassis, why not use the Super Formula chassis? after all, the Super Formula cars are turbocharged and IIRC they are as quick, if not a tad faster than a 2010 mid grid F1 car.

[Valrys]

Instead of the GP2 chassis, why not use the Super Formula chassis? after all, the Super Formula cars are turbocharged and IIRC they are as quick, if not a tad faster than a 2010 mid grid F1 car.

If it might mean more Japanese teams and drivers, that'd be a laugh

[mario]

Instead of the GP2 chassis, why not use the Super Formula chassis? after all, the Super Formula cars are turbocharged and IIRC they are as quick, if not a tad faster than a 2010 mid grid F1 car.

I would presume that the most likely reason would be that it would be easier to modify a GP2 chassis to meet the safety requirements of F1 (I believe that there are certain similarities in the design of the side impact and front crash structures of the two series) rather than modifying the Super Formula cars, which are designed in accordance with regulations laid down by Japan's national racing bodies.

[roblo97]

Instead of the GP2 chassis, why not use the Super Formula chassis? after all, the Super Formula cars are turbocharged and IIRC they are as quick, if not a tad faster than a 2010 mid grid F1 car.

I would presume that the most likely reason would be that it would be easier to modify a GP2 chassis to meet the safety requirements of F1 (I believe that there are certain similarities in the design of the side impact and front crash structures of the two series) rather than modifying the Super Formula cars, which are designed in accordance with regulations laid down by Japan's national racing bodies.

According to the announcement article on race car engineering, the cars are built to 2010 safety standards.
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... -revealed/

[WeirdKerr]

I think A standardised Tub is the way to go, for all teams i.e from tip of the nose cone to the where the roll hoop slopes down to the floor and in cludding the side impact / sidepods. this would cut the cost of passing the crash tests every year.....

[mario]

Instead of the GP2 chassis, why not use the Super Formula chassis? after all, the Super Formula cars are turbocharged and IIRC they are as quick, if not a tad faster than a 2010 mid grid F1 car.

I would presume that the most likely reason would be that it would be easier to modify a GP2 chassis to meet the safety requirements of F1 (I believe that there are certain similarities in the design of the side impact and front crash structures of the two series) rather than modifying the Super Formula cars, which are designed in accordance with regulations laid down by Japan's national racing bodies.

According to the announcement article on race car engineering, the cars are built to 2010 safety standards.
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... -revealed/

If I am not mistaken, however, the side impact regulations of the current F1 cars are much stricter than they were in 2010 (the upgraded side impact structures, which came in around 2013 IIRC, were actually one of Marussia's biggest contributions to the sport given that they were the ones who originally put forward the concept to the FIA). They'd certainly be a decent enough platform, but the side impact structures could be a bit of an issue given the way that the current designs are integrated into the chassis.