[Annyllop21]

Suppose you had the money & entered two F1 teams under separate managements but with a common design bureau could (in theory) supply the same chassis & even the same engine. The question is, if STR (formerly Minardi) didn't follow this arrangement would it still exist today? Likewise, the short-lived Super Aguri used a copy of the Honda RA106 (dubbed SA07), that at times proved ironically faster than the 2007's RA107. If anything the SA07 could probably have scored more points had the management been up to the face.

Of course, the real solution lies in being able to field some of the world's leading automobile manufacturers to enroll. Don't F1 fans want to see Porsche? Aston Martin? A Lotus revival? How about Mitsubishi or Hyundai? Why not Ford or Northstar (Cadilac)?

Yet why not experiment with the idea of a 'B-team' that doubles as a customer team for the purpose of 'making the numbers' in F1? Surely 22, 24 or 28 cars are better than 20 or 18 or even 16.

My proposition is likeso:

1. The team must make a commitment towards becoming a fully fledged constructor team & that its 'customer car' status is intended to gain know-how from its 'senior' team.
2. No senior team may have more than one 'customer' team.
3. A 'customer car' may not be a kit-car, but must be manufactured (with the exception of the engine, transmission & KERS)
4. In the first year, a 'customer car' operator may not acquire a new design but a year-old design.
5. The team is a 'B-team' it is allowed to share technical information & documentation with the 'A-team' so long as this collaboration meets a fixed timespan that may not exceed three seasons.

Any opinions?

[prpaims]

Blimey TallG, has your Internet link been severed for the past 12 months or something and you've been saving all these ideas up

1. What if they don't manage it?

2. With the current FIA initiatives, this makes no sense.

3. It would have to pass FIA regulations and crash tests.

4. Why? What purpose would it serve?

5. Then what. The team winds up or sells on to another owner and renews the original agreement?

All seems a bit convoluted to me (but then, most things do) .

[Annyllop21]

Blimey TallG, has your Internet link been severed for the past 12 months or something and you've been saving all these ideas up


The team must make a commitment towards becoming a fully fledged constructor team & that its 'customer car' status is intended to gain know-how from its 'senior' team.
1. What if they don't manage it?

Not really, just been too busy to participate as of late.

Anyway the teams SHOULD manage it, but assistance is always helpful in jump-starting a team. Gone are the days when you could build a competitive car in a garage. The point is, they have to sign in as long-term participants save for any unforeseen circumstances.


No senior team may have more than one 'customer' team.


2. With the current FIA initiatives, this makes no sense. Neither do the FIA initiatives. I mean, an engine to last three races? The points system (or Gold medal system!) are a joke. How can a racer push hard if he figures that will burst his engine?

A 'customer car' may not be a kit-car, but must be manufactured (with the exception of the engine, transmission & KERS)

3. It would have to pass FIA regulations and crash tests. So be it.


In the first year, a 'customer car' operator may not acquire a new design but a year-old design.

4. Why? What purpose would it serve? Well you can't have a cutting edge system & it's best to be that 0.1-0.15 seconds behind or more behind. It would not be fair to other teams. If the F2007 with the 056/08 engine competed it probably would have come midway in 2008. I should include that they may acquire the new drive-train (engine+transmission+KERS) or one separate from their chassis provider.


The team is a 'B-team' it is allowed to share technical information & documentation with the 'A-team' so long as this collaboration meets a fixed timespan that may not exceed three seasons.


5. Then what. The team winds up or sells on to another owner and renews the original agreement? Up to the new team. That's why I prefer major car makers to enter. There's no shame in (say) Mercedes or Mitsubishi or even Porsche or Hyundai starting off with a dated chassis, building experience & then going it alone. If you can build a good engine (as all those stated above can do) it doesn't mean you can build a good car. Honda has the power but a brick for a chassis. Imagine if any one collaborated with (say) Ferrari, McLaren or Williams or even Toyota or whatever to gain experience. BMW did it with Williams, why not?

An independent entrant is always risky affair.



All seems a bit convoluted to me (but then, most things do) . I wish I was the head of FOM

[Annyllop21]

One thing we must all be aware of that according to the rules, a team (constructor) must design+manufacture their vehicles with optional items being the engine+transmission system. No rule however states that you can't source a third party for parts & components, & indeed, a majority of teams have multiple suppliers of everything from nuts & bolts all the way up. The important thing is that they manufacture (construct or assemble) a car of their design.

I think that the rules should be relaxed on the 'design' part for customer teams but maintained for 'manufacture' as every team must commit that it intends to become a manufacturer & (just as importantly) designer of their own chassis.

[myspacepro]

Of course, the real solution lies in being able to field some of the world's leading automobile manufacturers to enroll. Don't F1 fans want to see Porsche? Aston Martin? A Lotus revival? How about Mitsubishi or Hyundai? Why not Ford or Northstar (Cadilac)? [/LIST]Any opinions?

Well, you could get President Elect Obama to bail out the motor companies which are heading for bankruptcy, and use this as the way to kick start the Global Economy. You should be able to field at least 5 teams under the bail out plan.

Good Luck!!

[Numbiydq]

I on the whole would welcome the idea of allowing teams to run anohter manufacturers machinery (they used to do it in the 1950's and 60's, why not now).

But (you may think i've done a Bernie here) i would allow it under certain conditions

Teams that run customer cars...

1. Would only be allowed to run ONE car
2. Manufacturer teams may only sell a car/give assistance to ONE customer team (e.g. only one team could run a Ferrari, one team to run a McLaren etc.)
3. Would be ineligible for world championship honours, instead competing in an independents category which would create interest further down the field
4. "Customer" teams would not be allowed to use a driver currently employed as another team's test driver
5. "Customer" teams would only be allowed to run an independent entry on the promise they begin to build and enter their own cars after a certain period.

It may look daft, but this would at least get grid sizes up to around the 26 car area

[myspacepro]

I on the whole would welcome the idea of allowing teams to run anohter manufacturers machinery (they used to do it in the 1950's and 60's, why not now).

But (you may think i've done a Bernie here) i would allow it under certain conditions

Teams that run customer cars...

1. Would only be allowed to run ONE car
2. Manufacturer teams may only sell a car/give assistance to ONE customer team (e.g. only one team could run a Ferrari, one team to run a McLaren etc.)
3. Would be ineligible for world championship honours, instead competing in an independents category which would create interest further down the field
4. "Customer" teams would not be allowed to use a driver currently employed as another team's test driver
5. "Customer" teams would only be allowed to run an independent entry on the promise they begin to build and enter their own cars after a certain period.

It may look daft, but this would at least get grid sizes up to around the 26 car area

Under such onerous conditions, who the hell would fork out gazillions to run such a team?

[zabiqapara]

Up to the new team. That's why I prefer major car makers to enter. There's no shame in (say) Mercedes or Mitsubishi or even Porsche or Hyundai starting off with a dated chassis, building experience & then going it alone. If you can build a good engine (as all those stated above can do) it doesn't mean you can build a good car. Honda has the power but a brick for a chassis. Imagine if any one collaborated with (say) Ferrari, McLaren or Williams or even Toyota or whatever to gain experience. BMW did it with Williams, why not?

An independent entrant is always risky affair.

The problem with the major car makers is that F1 is nothing more than a marketing cmapaign for them, and that means they'll have a short attention span. An independent entrant is there because they're racers- they want to run an F1 team, and as long as they can stitch together a deal to put a driver and engine in a car they'll keep doing that.


The manufacturers are there because some marketing expert has told them that success in F1 will buy them $x million worth of good publicity and help sell y% extra cars a year.

The problem is, as soon as they think it's served it's purpose in marketing terms and they'll get a better return from something else, or worse, as soon as the chairman, or a politician questions why when they've just closed two factories and sacked 5000 workers to save money, they're still spending a few billion a year on F1, they'll drop it like a bad smell....

Looking at the economic situation right now, how confident are you that every single manufacturer currently in F1 will still be there in 2-3 years time?

F1's problem is that as the manufacturers have come in, then they've raised the bar on what's needed to be competitive beyond what an independent team can realistically hope for- we've seen that happen in other areas of motorsport (sportscars, touring cars), and it always seems to follow the same cycle- Manufacturers come in, privateers are driven out, manufacturers leave, grid sizes implode....

[Annyllop21]

Under such onerous conditions, who the hell would fork out gazillions to run such a team?

Well why would Ferrari, McLaren or Williams or even Red Bull bother? There are people serious about entering F1 (Prodrive) & we've seen teams such as BMW have acquired experience from Williams before starting their own works team. Yes, they didn't rely on another chassis but then again I would be offering an alternative.

Simply put, you have the facilities to 'design & build' a car, but with lack of experience & so on they'll end up spending lots of money to learn to reinvent the wheel & it could take years & years to catch up. My proposition is that a new entrant has the right to 'partner' as a B-team of any established constructor they choose, & to acquire a year-old chassis that they must build themselves. Only the whole drivetrain (engine+transmission+KERS) are to be acquired.

Until the team acquires a capability to design & build their own original chassis & ultimately manage their own team then it's time to 'go it alone' & so on.

[myspacepro]

Well why would Ferrari, McLaren or Williams or even Red Bull bother? There are people serious about entering F1 (Prodrive) & we've seen teams such as BMW have acquired experience from Williams before starting their own works team. Yes, they didn't rely on another chassis but then again I would be offering an alternative.

Simply put, you have the facilities to 'design & build' a car, but with lack of experience & so on they'll end up spending lots of money to learn to reinvent the wheel & it could take years & years to catch up. My proposition is that a new entrant has the right to 'partner' as a B-team of any established constructor they choose, & to acquire a year-old chassis that they must build themselves. Only the whole drivetrain (engine+transmission+KERS) are to be acquired.

Until the team acquires a capability to design & build their own original chassis & ultimately manage their own team then it's time to 'go it alone' & so on.

I am looking at Dazzla's onerous conditions 1, 3, 4 & 5. Looks to me like a "spend and lose lose" situation.
What would be the benefit of running a team under such conditions? Who the hell would want to chuck gazillions away for what?? It would be easier to just give the money away to the Salvos - at least it will do some good there.

[Annyllop21]

I am looking at Dazzla's onerous conditions 1, 3, 4 & 5. Looks to me like a "spend and lose lose" situation.
What would be the benefit of running a team under such conditions? Who the hell would want to chuck gazillions away for what?? It would be easier to just give the money away to the Salvos - at least it will do some good there.

Why start an F1 team? I mean, everybody in F1 is throwing gazillions every day. This is a means of creating a level playing field & introducing new people into F1 at less cost. Yes, one team benefits.

Under my plan, a constructor has facilities, but lacks design experience & know-how. They get an established partner to provide them with a design & a team of designers to 'set up' their facilities, & that saves costs in time, development, & so on. Since they're using a year-old chassis & a contemporary drive-train (engine+transmission+KERS) they are not given absolute advantage but merely a 'jump-start' towards becoming a fully fledged constructor.

You have to show someone how to swim & guide them through it before they can do it alone!

[myspacepro]

OK!! so we have team Tallgoose, since you are only allowed to run one car, one second hand car driven by a rookie in races where you can't score championship points. Your rookie driver brings up the rear of the grid (we are assuming that Honda finally gets their cars off the back row). He finishes last in half his races - the other half, he is so desperate to get ahead of the cars in front of him that he prangs into them. Then half way through the season your main sponsor reneges on payments and you owe millions and millions to your staff and supplier. Another two races and your supplier cries "enough" and impounds your car. Tallgoose becomes Cooked Goose.
And you are poorer, sadder, but many, many times wiser as you depart F1 and heads south with the other migratory geese.

[HOTgirlsXXL]

I know it doesn't go much along with F1's current situation(economical and politcal) but for the last 40 years, F1 has been pretty much about building your own car. and I like it, I'd prefer to have no manufacturer teams but hey that's dreaming to far...
If wannabe teams can't afford that they should go to IndyCars or GP2...
If costumer cars would be allowed, we could end up with a sort of spec-series where everyone uses either the McLaren or the Ferrari car

[myspacepro]

I know it doesn't go much along with F1's current situation(economical and politcal) but for the last 40 years, F1 has been pretty much about building your own car. and I like it, I'd prefer to have no manufacturer teams but hey that's dreaming to far...
If wannabe teams can't afford that they should go to IndyCars or GP2...
If costumer cars would be allowed, we could end up with a sort of spec-series where everyone uses either the McLaren or the Ferrari car

Things can change rapidly with the current economical crisis. I can't tell, and who can, whether sponsors will start pulling out of F1 as the costs become unsupportable. Ford wants 9 billion to survive in the States, and GM is asking for 18 billion from their Government. Starting an F1 team on a wing and a prayer, on a shoestring and the goodwill of one of the current teams and scoring zero points using a rookie driver in a second hand car may not be the most attractive proposition for a potential sponsor. Yep!! going to GP2 or Indycars might be the better proposition. Not to mention if Bernie and/or Max's successor might change their mind (what there is of it) and the rules ad hoc is far from attractive. If I had zillions to burn, I'd rather give it to the Salvos where it could do some good, than to try to start another private team which is doomed to failure, bankruptcy, and ruination.

[Annyllop21]

I know it doesn't go much along with F1's current situation(economical and politcal) but for the last 40 years, F1 has been pretty much about building your own car. and I like it, I'd prefer to have no manufacturer teams but hey that's dreaming to far...
If wannabe teams can't afford that they should go to IndyCars or GP2...
If costumer cars would be allowed, we could end up with a sort of spec-series where everyone uses either the McLaren or the Ferrari car

The issue isn't about running it on a continious basis. The constructor must commit to eventually designing their own chassis, & in my opinion F1 has always been about R&D. Of course, when will everybody realise that the current conditions make it difficult for new entrants to catch up on time & money.

By limiting them to a year-old model they'll fall mid-way through the field, & possibly more as they do not have the best drivers.

OK!! so we have team Tallgoose, since you are only allowed to run one car, one second hand car driven by a rookie in races where you can't score championship points. Your rookie driver brings up the rear of the grid (we are assuming that Honda finally gets their cars off the back row). He finishes last in half his races - the other half, he is so desperate to get ahead of the cars in front of him that he prangs into them. Then half way through the season your main sponsor reneges on payments and you owe millions and millions to your staff and supplier. Another two races and your supplier cries "enough" and impounds your car. Tallgoose becomes Cooked Goose.
And you are poorer, sadder, but many, many times wiser as you depart F1 and heads south with the other migratory geese.

Nah. Depends how one calculates it.

If I was a multi-millionare, & had sponsorship & the synergy to make it happen I would. Just because I have the facilities to build a chassis doesn't mean that I have one that win championships or challenge for points. My plan would be to buy a proven design (though a year old) from a leading manufacturer, & to attempt to get good drivers who can coax the most of it. The only 'up-to-date' item is the drivetrain.

Driver-wise I'd opt for somebody with experience & a good record. For drivers, at the start of 2008 I'd probably try to get Tiago Monterio & Ricardo Zonta & possibly Ralf Schumacher to join in the team as the first two are solid racers & have at least one season behind them. R.Schumacher, better than nothing but hey it's not like a team starting from a piece of paper & with debutant (rookie) racers.

As such if I picked a full collaboration with McLaren-Mercedes, my 2008 car would be their 2007 edition, the MP4-22 with the latest engine enhancements, & Standard ECU fitted & so on. The idea is that we can build a car from a blueprint, & are assisted in its development. In retrospect it is much more capable than the car that debuted in Melbourne in 2007, but is still way behind the pack. Whether we can add (say) forward wings (horns) or a shark-fin or whatever isn't what collaboration is about. I believe that our advisors from McLaren-Mercedes may suggest where we pour money.

I estimate that differences with the latest MP4-23, & of course driver ability (as all three would be less rated than Hamilton or Kovy) would be about 1.5 - 2 seconds per lap, effectively putting us at the back of the grid, but slightly ahead of the backmarkers. This isn't surprising, but I would say that as time goes on we'll gradually build on our experience. You can't expect to win races or score too many points (if any) in your first year! Still for us it's about steepening the learning curve.

Assuming regulations did not change in 2008 I may opt to continue our own development using the MP4-22 as our basis & continue to use a Mercedes driver-train for the car, or (failing that) could look for an alternative powerplant. My second choice would be Ferrari, BMW or even Renault.

[myspacepro]

................go to Honda thread. There's a team, possibly coming on line, for free. Go for it!!

[Annyllop21]

................go to Honda thread. There's a team, possibly coming on line, for free. Go for it!!

I'm not a multi-millionare/billionare, but if I did buy in I'd rather acquire my own facilities & a test-track (based on complex string) & MOST OF ALL synergy in the team. I'm not sure whether it'd be a 'British Team' or a 'Jordanian Team' but it ultimately depends on where we're based & staff composition. It's not just about equipment & facilities, it's about the synergy of teamwork!

The trouble with Toyota or Honda is that they are not really Japanese teams. With the exception of the engine they are based in Europe (Germany & the UK respectively) & are largely manned by non-Japanese. Yes, one could argue that Ferrari hiring Brits doesn't make it any less Italian, but most of the staff (from top to bottom) are based in Italy & are Italians. Scuderia Ferrari is a hertiage, Toyota or Honda are businesses.