My Bad!! I thought they withdrew at the end of that season after they swept the field. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Osella
http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1955/
Printable View
My Bad!! I thought they withdrew at the end of that season after they swept the field. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Osella
http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1955/
Are you sure?? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Osella
Pretty sure...that is certainly Nick Fry's interpretation of the rule..
This from Autosport might clarify...
"The Formula One rules were due to be changed next year to allow teams to use cars built and designed by others (I take this to be other competing teams, rather than commercial partners such as Dallara, or 3rd party licensed designs like Honda or Red Bull Technologies). However the existing teams have yet to sign a new commercial 'Concorde' agreement.
Williams have argued that the use of customer cars is a commercial matter and outside the remit of the FIA."
There are quite a few points there that I disagree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSfan
Firstly the FIA has never been against customer cars, it was they who proposed that teams be allowed to use them. If it was up to the FIA Prodrive would be right there in 2008 with two repainted Maccas.
Instead its the Concorde agreement that forbids customer cars, and that agreement isn't administered by the FIA, hence the threat by SFW to Max Mosley that he would take the issue up in the civil courts in order to prevent Prodrive from competing. Max didn't have an answer to that as he doesn't have jurisdiction over the Concorde agreement.
STR and SAF1 have a 2 year dispensation. They are allowed to use customer cars this season and possibly the next, after that they have to build their own. If they can't then they'll have to leave the sport. STR might be able to but since most of SAF1's development and manufacturing is done by Honda it'll be difficult for them to upgrade themselves in time.
Why is it wrong for Prodrive to plan to buy everything in as a customer team when they were told all along that that was exactly what they were allowed to do? If I tell you that a product is $10 all along then demand $1000 when you hand over the cash is it your fault or mine that you don't have enough money to buy it?
Not a single one of the 15 or so bidders for the 12th entry were capable of manufacturing a car themselves. Prodrive were chosen because they were thought to be the one most capable of doing so. A lot of the bidders barely existed even on paper.
Whilst you say that Jordan were a mere assembler of parts in fact they had quite a large R/D department with their own windtunnel and produced a lot of their own components themselves. Their manufacturing capabilities were quite high, but in any case EJ sold all that onto Midland, he has nothing left himself.
The teams can't sell the rights to cars to each other. The car must have been designed by a company that is not itself competing in F1 if it isn't designed by the team thats running it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Osella
SAF1 managed to use the Arrows because that team is no longer in F1. They wouldn't have been if Arrows was still solvent.
Sauber had to jump through a lot of hoops to get the Ferrari-copy allowed. In fact the car had a lot of differences to the Ferrari in question and none of the parts bar the engine and transmission were identical. Some areas like the rear suspension were of a completely different layout, and that of course was before the car was developed through the season.
Therefore Prodrive couldn't just buy the rights to an old car off McLaren.
I'm not quite sure what tricks STR/RBR and Honda/SAF1 have managed to pull, IIRC the STR/RBR design is (on paper) contracted out to a third party with enough differences between the two cars. Is the SAF1 car really produced in Japan? I thought they were manufactured in the UK at Brackley which has limited capacity for supporting two teams, hence why SAF1 won't get the new car in time for the first fly-away races.
I have a suspicion that SAF1 used teh argument that some of their car came from Toshigi and not Honda but this was never fully resolved.
Where in my post do I mention FIA at all, pro or against customer cars?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
I also make no mention of the concorde agreement. You are disagreeing with points I never made!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
Any 2 year grandfathered rule would require a NEW concorde agreement, which as far as I've read, hasn't been agreed on. And once again I ask, why would either Super Aguri or Toro Rosso agree to this if they where convinced there cars where legal in 2007?!?!?!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
What makes you think Aguri aren't constructing their own cars?!?! When they entered F1 they purchased not only the old arrows chassis' but also purchased the old arrows factory in Leafield. Also, Super Aguri has being aided by Honda R&D, which is a seperate entity from Honda Racing. Honda R&D is located in Tochigi Japan.
Mr. Richards should already be well aware of the polotics of F1, and also had plenty of chances of knowing the ins and outs of the concorde agreement. It would have taken a minor miracle for the customer car plan of the FIA's to have made it threw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
Whilst you say that Jordan were a mere assembler of parts in fact they had quite a large R/D department with their own windtunnel and produced a lot of their own components themselves. Their manufacturing capabilities were quite high, but in any case EJ sold all that onto Midland, he has nothing left himself. [/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
Both Eddie Jordan, and Paul Stoddart claimed to have put in a bid for the 12th spot. Both men already knows how the F1 game is played, and both of them would have probably put in a better effort to be on the grid in 08.
I also never claimed that the Jordan team didn't make any of their own parts. just they got alot of other people make parts for them. If a potential new team had no manufacturing capabilities, they could still enter using this method.
Precisely. The situation is, however, that teams can via a convoluted method. For example, Honda Racing sold their designs to Honda R&D, who then as owners of the RA06 design were able to build chassis for Super Aguri as Honda R&D is not a competing team. Nevertheless, the design originated in a team which is a current competitor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
Yes Sauber did have to jump through hoops, however those hoops/loopholes still exist, and therefore surely there should have been a situation whereby McLaren could have sold their designs for the 2007 car to a Prodrive subsidiary (ignoring the 2008 car for the moment), and then Prodrive F1 could have repurchased those designs and built the cars...
The problem, as I understand it, is that Super Aguri and Toro Rosso were using cars manufactured by 3rd parties (The Toro Rosso chassis were constructed in Milton Keynes by Red Bull Technologies, and then additional parts were manufactured in Italy using the Fondmetal facilities, as Minardi used to use). So neither SA or TR actually constructed their own cars, but nor were those cars owned by a competing team, the designs were 3rd party owned and built.
The Prodrive situation was different in that they were planning (and almost certainly budgeting!) to have McLaren design and build the cars themselves (in a Lola/Dallara style) and then effectively lease the chassis to Prodrive, therefore Prodrive would have neither owned the designs nor built the rolling chassis, and been a true customer team. This is the sticking point as they would not have been using 'their own chassis', as the F1 rules broadly dictate. Had they organised a conventional entry into F1 (using a Dallara chassis, or repurchasing a set of another team's designs), even if the car was then constructed by a separate non-F1 company (such as Lola Technologies for example), there would almost certainly have been no problem as they would have been running a 'different' car to McLaren using their 'own' car not built by another competing team.
It was only the fact that they intended to openly use acknowledged McLaren designed and built cars that caused Williams and Spyker problems, as the R&D costs are then nonexistent, and the manufacturing costs are negligable, aside from replacement panels, suspension components etc. Even things like the electricity bill would be hugely reduced with no wind tunnel running 24/7 and no need for autoclaves to manufacture entire chassis etc! This was why they believed that, as a 'non-constructor', Prodrive should have been prevented from receiving any FOM money for points, TV money, travel expenses etc.
As to another team entering, it's not hard. Dallara build a competitive F1 car in 1999 for Honda, and had another design ready and waiting to go in 2005, so all you would need are the personnel, budget and technology to maintain the car, and a customer engine deal (not hard to get, given enough money)
The obstacles in Prodrive's way were more complex, given that they were not planning to do any of these things, and just run another team's car under a different name while publicly acknowledging it was going to be leased from them, and Prodrive would have no ownership of designs or rights to the designs, which contravenes the Concorde agreement's rules regarding what a contructor is.
Thanks for a well thought out response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Osella
I should have made the point about the Sauber-Ferrari clearer. They weren't identical at all although the Sauber clearly looked VERY similar. Apart from the engine/transmission the cars were completely different underneath. There was a good in-depth article on Atlas regarding this with both cars having quite different design philosophies under the skin. Why Sauber chose to build a car so similar yet so different to the Ferrari I don't know, however it wasn't close to becoming a customer car save the propulsion unit.
I'm not sure there is such a legal distinction between owning the IP and constructing your own car. The term 'constructor' defined the design rights, not the actual manufacturing I believe. Williams and Spyker had no intention of allowing ANY customer car teams into F1, they have tried to challenge the existence of STR/SAF1 at every step. The reason they fought even harder to keep Prodrive out is only because a customer McLaren is a far hardier proposition to beat than a year-old Honda or a customer RBR. If Prodrive had had a powerful political backer on the same level as Red Bull or Honda then I suspect Williams/Spyker may have been forced to come to some compromise but with McLaren seemingly not bothered by the opportunity to make some cash on the side and with no major current F1 partners they never had the power to force anything through.
Re: Honda/Dallara, the car was actually designed by a Honda development team lead by Harvey Postlethwaite with a load of ex-Tyrrell engineers. The intellectual rights to the vehicle were always owned by Honda so again that car doesn't fit into the customer car debate either.
With its current design facilities and windtunnel Dallara isn't in a position to enter a competitive car into F1, in fact any of the current chassis builders like Dallara, Lola or indeed Prodrive would need a massive cash injection to build anything with a hope of not being a total embarrassment on the track. Its finding that cash or a partner willing to invest in such a start-up team that is the barrier for entering F1. Memories of the Lola disaster will be fresh in everyone's minds, as will be the destruction of the TWR empire following Arrows' demise.
That is why the 12th team auction generated so much interest after all, because groups like Prodrive/Dallara etc would be able to use customer chassis reducing the entry cost into F1 significantly and actually making a 24 grid a real possibility. As it stands there is noone able to field a fully in-house designed and built car to fill the last slot.
And thank you for yours ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
That is the rule as far as I understand it too, which makes a bit of a mockery of calling it the 'constructors' championship...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
It does in the sense that it is exactly what we are talking about re: Super Aguri and Toro Rosso. It was designed by HRD, built by Dallara, and could therefore theoretically have been raced by anyone with a budget. Where the design originated/who owned it is unimportant, as the rights can be resold and transferred under the current regulations regarding what a 'constructor' is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
Which I believe was what I said. Although I do believe that Dallara were in this position until about 2 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
It is fairly simple as long as someone has a budget large enough. I believe this possibility is growing increasingly likely the more 'spec' components are introduced, as we almost move back to a 70's situation where all you need is to buy a 'design', get a car built and get an engine (which will be an up-to-date unit owing to the engine freeze!)
Of this I am not 100% sure, however I think there are enough people within motorsport that can get the design side right (whether by importing people from other series', or poaching staff), and I believe that people such as ART, AudiSport/Joest, Panoz and ORECA-Courage would be able to achieve exactly this, budget/Political will permitting...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H