single car teams?
Discussion
I don't think this would really help a great deal as a large amount of the cost is in design and development which would not change for 1, 2 or 3 car teams. The only saving would be on paying 1 less driver (which for low level teams usually more than covers his own costs so would actually hurt them financially) and a little on manufacturing/bought in parts on the car.
scrwright said:
But single car teams with customer cars could work, no development costs.
To me that is the best solution if needed, rather than 3 car teams have the third car run by a privateer team. The only potential problem is that the cars are too complex now and need to have so much support from the engine team, the chassis team, the aero team etc that it may not be possible. The top teams selling a naked chassis to others who could then develop their own bodywork would be interesting.
A few of the lads were discussing this down the pub the other night. The idea we came up with was:
1. Any teams that agree to a pa budget cap of, say, £[40m??], can run just one car (let's call them the "Delta teams").
2. If a Delta team scores any points, they will automatically be doubled (ie this year, Marussia might have 4 points rather than 2)
3. Any engine manufacturer who participates in F1 must make its engines available to any Delta team that wants them for no more than £[10?]m a season.
4. Limited in-season testing to be allowed for Delta teams (if nothing else, to allow rookie drivers to build up their experience)
This should encourage a backfield of 5-6 independent cars that have some benefit to being in the sport
1. Any teams that agree to a pa budget cap of, say, £[40m??], can run just one car (let's call them the "Delta teams").
2. If a Delta team scores any points, they will automatically be doubled (ie this year, Marussia might have 4 points rather than 2)
3. Any engine manufacturer who participates in F1 must make its engines available to any Delta team that wants them for no more than £[10?]m a season.
4. Limited in-season testing to be allowed for Delta teams (if nothing else, to allow rookie drivers to build up their experience)
This should encourage a backfield of 5-6 independent cars that have some benefit to being in the sport
It's an interesting balance between reducing costs but also making sure that the teams continue to develop engineering talent by having the engineering freedom that they wouldn't get with customer cars.
The best solution I've seen was suggested by Sam Collins in Racecar Engineering.
Allowing the teams to sell the previous years monocoque to another team would cut out the huge costs in building and designing tubs (and all the crash testing that goes with it). However, the teams could still be creative in developing bodyparts, suspension, winglets etc etc.
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/blogs/gravel-tr...
We last had this freedom in the mid 2000s, although it was rather covert as the teams couldn't admit the cars were the same underneath..... and it allowed Sauber (using a Ferrari tub), Super Aguri (using an Arrows and then a BAR Honda tub) and Toro Rosso to run very competitively whilst still having a lot of engineering freedom. The Ligier that won in Monaco 96 was effectively a Benetton with a different engine.
I like the solution in this blog as it allows some creativity, freedom and independence but loses the cost of the bigger ticket elements of the car.
The best solution I've seen was suggested by Sam Collins in Racecar Engineering.
Allowing the teams to sell the previous years monocoque to another team would cut out the huge costs in building and designing tubs (and all the crash testing that goes with it). However, the teams could still be creative in developing bodyparts, suspension, winglets etc etc.
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/blogs/gravel-tr...
We last had this freedom in the mid 2000s, although it was rather covert as the teams couldn't admit the cars were the same underneath..... and it allowed Sauber (using a Ferrari tub), Super Aguri (using an Arrows and then a BAR Honda tub) and Toro Rosso to run very competitively whilst still having a lot of engineering freedom. The Ligier that won in Monaco 96 was effectively a Benetton with a different engine.
I like the solution in this blog as it allows some creativity, freedom and independence but loses the cost of the bigger ticket elements of the car.
Would scores of lesser developed independent aero kits on the track not just create a mass of dangerous mobile chicanes?!
Look what happened to Webber going into the back of Kovaleinens (sp) Lotus, and that was purely down to braking (or the Lotus' lack of) performance.
Who has the resource to develop the aero kits that the major teams use? Wind tunnels are prohibitively expensive - and not always effective, see Ferrari - and CAD didn't much help the smaller teams.
Look what happened to Webber going into the back of Kovaleinens (sp) Lotus, and that was purely down to braking (or the Lotus' lack of) performance.
Who has the resource to develop the aero kits that the major teams use? Wind tunnels are prohibitively expensive - and not always effective, see Ferrari - and CAD didn't much help the smaller teams.
THX said:
Would scores of lesser developed independent aero kits on the track not just create a mass of dangerous mobile chicanes?!
Look what happened to Webber going into the back of Kovaleinens (sp) Lotus, and that was purely down to braking (or the Lotus' lack of) performance.
Who has the resource to develop the aero kits that the major teams use? Wind tunnels are prohibitively expensive - and not always effective, see Ferrari - and CAD didn't much help the smaller teams.
that was webbers fault. a silly mistake to make really.Look what happened to Webber going into the back of Kovaleinens (sp) Lotus, and that was purely down to braking (or the Lotus' lack of) performance.
Who has the resource to develop the aero kits that the major teams use? Wind tunnels are prohibitively expensive - and not always effective, see Ferrari - and CAD didn't much help the smaller teams.
I like the idea of running last years car. But not double points for them. The team could run 1 or 2 cars if it wished.
THX said:
Would scores of lesser developed independent aero kits on the track not just create a mass of dangerous mobile chicanes?!
Look what happened to Webber going into the back of Kovaleinens (sp) Lotus, and that was purely down to braking (or the Lotus' lack of) performance.
Less money spent on homolgating and developing the chassis tub can be spent on areo development.Look what happened to Webber going into the back of Kovaleinens (sp) Lotus, and that was purely down to braking (or the Lotus' lack of) performance.
RYH64E said:
Controversial maybe, but why don't they revert to cheaper engines (Patrick Head reckons $2m per season per team should be enough) then do something about the show so that people want to watch it again? Lower costs, more viewers, win win surely?
Get rid of the hybrid engines and put back some cheap v10/v8 and you wave goodbye to Mercedes, Honda, Renault and maybe even Ferrari.Who is going to supply outdated, inefficent engines in these times? Cosworth or Judd maybe, but do they bring a f1 team with them? No.
You pretty much just described the super league formula, which never got a massive audience and no longer exists.
Edited by l354uge on Saturday 8th November 18:59
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff