The Return of Customer Cars

[lkjohnson1950]

[cosworth151]

[Jericoke]

How has customer chassis' ended in failure?

Super Aguri, Hispania (they used a Dallara chassis), Scuderia Italia (Lola and Dallara chassis), Larrousse (Lola chassis from 1987-1991), and plenty more which didn't achieve very much back in the 1970s.  All of these teams failed.

Ferrari seems to be doing okay.
Toro Rosso only stayed in F1 because of customer chassis, and they're doing well.
Williams entered the sport with a March chassis, and it's been a while since they won  a championship, but they're pretty successful.

Ferrari haven't supplied customer teams with a chassis since the 1950s/1960s, Toro Rosso receive the vast majority of their funding from Red Bull, and they have had to design their own chassis for the last few years, so I don't think they they are a good example, and Williams haven't used a customer chassis for years, as you say.  If customer chassis were such a good idea, then surely Williams would still be using one (rules permitting) .

In fact, the only customer chassis team to fold since I started watching F1 was Super Aguri.  Considering the number of failed teams using their own designs, that's a pretty good record.

You started watching in 1996 if I remember correctly, and customer cars were only allowed for period between 2006 and 2009.  As a result, it's not a viable comparison that you're making in my opinion.

Even Bernie got his start in F1 using customer chassis... oh, NOW I see the problem 

Quite so !

Customer cars rob teams of their identity and are as bad as the big teams just fielding three or four cars.  They shouldn't be allowed on that basis either in my view.

1)  I don't think comparing modern F1 to pre Concorde F1 is a helpful example.

2)  Ferrari started out using customer cars.  'Scuderia Ferrari' refers to the stable of drivers that Ferrari hired to race other Italian cars.

3)  I don't think anyone gets into F1 to run customer cars.  They simply use that as a stepping stone into the sport.  In the days of Bruce McLaren, they could just take any old car and bring it to the grid.  Even if they made it themselves, they could race it in other series, and get value out of the design.  Today, to get into F1 you need to know everything about F1 from the ground up.  You can't hire the best people, because the best people aren't going to work for a startup with no guarantees, they're going to work with big established teams who will provide what it takes for an F1 car to win.

Where is that stepping stone into F1?

If you want more privateers, you need to give them a way to get into the sport that gives them a chance to win.  Put limits on who can use a customer chassis.  e.g., Bottom half of the WCC or only 2 consecutive years with a customer chassis.

Or else at least let teams sell their chassis to lower series.  Let GP2 run F1 spec cars with less turbo or something.  All the F1 teams could have junior teams in GP2 (it's common for soccer, hockey and baseball to run minor teams to develop talent, why not motorsports?)

[lkjohnson1950]

Preachin' to the choir Cos. Always loved the 49 and the DFV. Chapman's Lotus was and is my favorite.

[Alianora La Canta]

The total number of teams using customer chassis since 1993 (when I started) is three - Hispania (Dallara), Super Aguri (Honda) and Toro Rosso (Red Bull). The latter was technically not a customer chassis under FIA rules because part of it had to be designed in-house to meet regulations, but was a customer chassis for practical purposes. The other two teams went bust three seasons into their customer car time. I think F1 needs teams that will last longer than three seasons.

Makes me glad that the attempt Midland made to have a customer chassis from Dallara did not come to fruition.

[Irisado]

1)  I don't think comparing modern F1 to pre Concorde F1 is a helpful example.

Why not?  Customer car teams operating before the Concorde agreement are much the same as those which operated after the agreement was implemented in terms of how they work.

2)  Ferrari started out using customer cars.  'Scuderia Ferrari' refers to the stable of drivers that Ferrari hired to race other Italian cars.

The first year of the world championship featured a Ferrari factory team, and that's the team that is still going.  That suggests to me that the customer idea isn't successful in the long-term.

3)  I don't think anyone gets into F1 to run customer cars.  They simply use that as a stepping stone into the sport.

That model has not worked since the 1970s.  Formula 1 teams can't operate like that any more.

The idea you suggest regarding GP2 is interesting, however, given GP2 is a single make formula, I can't see it working, because Formula 1 is all about diversity.

Customer cars are the opposite of what Formula 1 should be about.  Formula 1 is supposed to be unique teams competing against each other, not a bunch of teams running the same cars under different names.

The total number of teams using customer chassis since 1993 (when I started) is three - Hispania (Dallara), Super Aguri (Honda) and Toro Rosso (Red Bull).

If you're including 1993 in that sequence, you missed out Scuderia Italia (Lola) .

[Alianora La Canta]

The total number of teams using customer chassis since 1993 (when I started) is three - Hispania (Dallara), Super Aguri (Honda) and Toro Rosso (Red Bull).

If you're including 1993 in that sequence, you missed out Scuderia Italia (Lola) .

Oops, so I did!

[Jericoke]

The total number of teams using customer chassis since 1993 (when I started) is three - Hispania (Dallara), Super Aguri (Honda) and Toro Rosso (Red Bull).

If you're including 1993 in that sequence, you missed out Scuderia Italia (Lola) .

Oops, so I did!

I'm  just curious.  Is it consisered a 'customer car' if a contracted team designs and builds a unique f1 chassis?

Certainly when HRT was using Dallara its not like anyone else was.  Thus everyone having a unique car is still upheld even though the guy at the drafting board wasn't being paid directly from HRT

[cosworth151]

The same could be said of Scudaria Italia & Lola. Both Lola & Dallara were building cars for other teams in other series. At one point, it was specified that customer cars could not be built by a current F1 team. I think the term "Customer Car" generally applies to any car not designed & built in house.

[Irisado]

Customer car is applied to any team which does not produce its own chassis, be the chassis handed down from a manufacturer team to a satellite team, or produced by another company.

[Monty]

In a BBC interview Bernie said that customer cars will definitely not be allowed. So I wonder what that actually means?

[Jericoke]

Customer car is applied to any team which does not produce its own chassis, be the chassis handed down from a manufacturer team to a satellite team, or produced by another company.

Seems silly that to build an F1 car you have to be employed by an F1 team.  It's not true of any other component of the car, why does the chassis have to be?

Even if each team is required to use a unique chassis, and if a supplier is allowed to supply only one team... I don't see why an outside engineering company who isn't interested in chasing sponsors can't team up with guy who loves chasing sponsors but couldn't draw a straight line to save his life.

Seems like a good way to strangle innovation while keeping costs up to me.

[Scott]

Eddie was moaning on the broadcast about Haas being basically the Ferrari B team.  F1 already has a couple B teams, why not another?  And what does it really mean to be closely associated to a mother team anyway?  Even STR has proven they don't do favours for the RBR's, and I would bet that Haas won't be moving over for any Ferrari's unless it is the last race of the season and the WCC is on the line or something.  And even then, they will do it in support, not in obedience. IMO...

I totally agree with Jeri regarding the chassis.  Seems stupid you can buy almost everything on an F1 car, but not the chassis itself.  Why is that so important?  Customer cars?  Bring them on.  A much better way to save money than the silly engine regs they are using at the moment.

[Irisado]

Seems silly that to build an F1 car you have to be employed by an F1 team.  It's not true of any other component of the car, why does the chassis have to be?

Because it is the chassis which is the fundamental element to producing a unique car.  It's one of the defining aspects of an individual Formula 1 team.  Now, if teams really want to purchase a car from Lola, Dallara, or some other independent manufacturer, then I am not totally opposed to it.  I'm just not a fan of it.  What I am opposed to is teams being sold hand-me-down chassis by other teams.  That is not, in my view, what Formula 1 should be about.  It weakens diversity and individuality, and is demeaning to the independent and small teams.

Seems like a good way to strangle innovation while keeping costs up to me.

I don't understand how buying a chassis made by someone else is innovative.

Why is that so important?  Customer cars?  Bring them on.  A much better way to save money than the silly engine regs they are using at the moment.

Because you could end up with a formula comprising two or three chassis, and a total loss of diversity and individuality as I alluded to above.  As for saving money, if you look at the teams which have used a customer chassis down the years, that argument doesn't stand up very well to scrutiny.

[Jericoke]

Seems silly that to build an F1 car you have to be employed by an F1 team.  It's not true of any other component of the car, why does the chassis have to be?

Because it is the chassis which is the fundamental element to producing a unique car.  It's one of the defining aspects of an individual Formula 1 team.  Now, if teams really want to purchase a car from Lola, Dallara, or some other independent manufacturer, then I am not totally opposed to it.  I'm just not a fan of it.  What I am opposed to is teams being sold hand-me-down chassis by other teams.  That is not, in my view, what Formula 1 should be about.  It weakens diversity and individuality, and is demeaning to the independent and small teams.

Seems like a good way to strangle innovation while keeping costs up to me.

I don't understand how buying a chassis made by someone else is innovative.

Why is that so important?  Customer cars?  Bring them on.  A much better way to save money than the silly engine regs they are using at the moment.

Because you could end up with a formula comprising two or three chassis, and a total loss of diversity and individuality as I alluded to above.  As for saving money, if you look at the teams which have used a customer chassis down the years, that argument doesn't stand up very well to scrutiny.

I'm proposing a scenario where each team must have a unique chassis.  I like that aspect of the sport (though quite frankly I think unique engines would be even better).  Just that they don't have to have in house expertise to do it.

Just like Adrian Newey went to Red Bull with the promise of doing other work, I would imagine some of the best F1 car designers aren't people who want to spend their entire life designing F1 cars.

Let Boeing or Bombardier supply a chassis to someone willing to run it.  They have no interest in running an F1 team, but that would be a great halo project for a team of engineers, and would be more meaningful than just slapping their name on the side of a Williams.

I think by requiring F1 cars to be designed by full time F1 designers is limiting innovation.