When will we see 12th team on the grid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osella

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.

---

In this case it was important though, HRD was the designing company and was also going to be the one to race the design in F1. Only the manufacturing bit was outsourced, and IIRC eventually that was to be brought in-house too. The designing company cannot already be involved in F1 if it is to sell on the rights to its design.

Off-topic I think the HRD project is one of the greatest what-if scenarios ever, especially since following Postlethwaite's death the core of HRD went on to join Renault and we know what they've achieved since. I'm certain HRD would have done better than BAR has done and it would have been interesting to see what Renault would have done without the HRD expertise that came their way, but I digress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osella

I believe was what I said. Although I do believe that Dallara were in this position until about 2 years ago.
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...

---

I don't think ART is a chassis manufacturer? I may be wrong.

The investment required to enter F1 is such that really a company like Dallara would still have to invest heavily in CFD/windtunnels/precision manufacturing kit to mount an F1 campaign, heavily enough to risk the company's existence. They'd need a sugar daddy, ideally a manufacturer or a big multinational to bankroll everything. If you look at how much investment Toyota put into its already pretty impressive Toyota Motorsport facilities in Cologne to get them ready for F1 its simply beyond the reach of the average race preparation/lower formula chassis supplier. And since Toyota there simply hasn't been anyone large/rich enough to bankroll such a campaign, neither do I see any signs of such a company appearing.

Its a big dilemma isn't it, whilst customer chassis will allow the sport to flourish they do harm what purists like us view as the core ethos of the sport, yet the likes of SFW themselves entered F1 via customer chassis and Max once made a living selling them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

In this case it was important though, HRD was the designing company and was also going to be the one to race the design in F1. Only the manufacturing bit was outsourced, and IIRC eventually that was to be brought in-house too. The designing company cannot already be involved in F1 if it is to sell on the rights to its design.

I don't think ART is a chassis manufacturer? I may be wrong.

The investment required to enter F1 is such that really a company like Dallara would still have to invest heavily in CFD/windtunnels/precision manufacturing kit to mount an F1 campaign, heavily enough to risk the company's existence. They'd need a sugar daddy, ideally a manufacturer or a big multinational to bankroll everything. If you look at how much investment Toyota put into its already pretty impressive Toyota Motorsport facilities in Cologne to get them ready for F1 its simply beyond the reach of the average race preparation/lower formula chassis supplier.
.

---

You are correct, ART do not make chassis, but what I meant was that they could, given the right people and budget, get a design that could conceivably be manufactured out of house and run a successful race team, as they have shown in F3/GP2 (as you were asking who would be able to run such an operation).
Audi has some of the most advanced CFD programming in the entire world, and indeed this was one of the cornerstones of their Le Mans success. They were one of the first motorsport operations to realise that understanding CFD was vitally important to a successful and reliable racecar, so if anyone got them involved it could work successfully. Likewise, anyone else with a reasonable CFD facility could design a lot of the car this way, and outsource the chassis fabrication/wind tunnel operation (budget permitting!). Okay it may not set the world alight initially, but then the team would learn and be able to advance this way, like Minardi/Toro Rosso have done. Toyota's problem is they just don't have the right people or structure within the team. In that case, you can throw whatever money you like at a project, but you're just throwing it away...

However, I still maintain that where a design originated in in theory important, but in practive irrelevant due to the common practice of teams passing on designs and re-selling IP. While this has been commonplace in components for decades in F1, the teams have now worked out how to effectively circumvent the chassis regs too. While it is not something I agree with, it does open up a whole raft of opportunities for (potentially) new teams. Without the neat circumvention of this rule, Super Aguri could not have used Honda-based cars, and would either have been way off the pace, or had to withdraw from F1. So do we stick to principle (like Williams) and screw the newcomers, or go with what is (just) permissable, and get more teams participating. I'd go with the latter..

Also, the fact that engine regs are frozen, gearboxes must last 4 consecutive races and we have a common ECU, with possible standard wings and suspension arms on the horizon, it all makes it much easier for a new team, as there is less and less for them to do in terms of unique (and expensive!) development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osella

Audi has some of the most advanced CFD programming in the entire world, and indeed this was one of the cornerstones of their Le Mans success. They were one of the first motorsport operations to realise that understanding CFD was vitally important to a successful and reliable racecar, so if anyone got them involved it could work successfully. Likewise, anyone else with a reasonable CFD facility could design a lot of the car this way, and outsource the chassis fabrication/wind tunnel operation (budget permitting!). Okay it may not set the world alight initially, but then the team would learn and be able to advance this way, like Minardi/Toro Rosso have done. Toyota's problem is they just don't have the right people or structure within the team. In that case, you can throw whatever money you like at a project, but you're just throwing it away...

Also, the fact that engine regs are frozen, gearboxes must last 4 consecutive races and we have a common ECU, with possible standard wings and suspension arms on the horizon, it all makes it much easier for a new team, as there is less and less for them to do in terms of unique (and expensive!) development.

---

Audi shouldn't have a problem with manufacturing, their Le Mans cars are hardly crude and they build enough of them for several satellite teams plus parts. If anything its the R/D that needs to be beefed up.

I know Toyota haven't exactly been successful but they did do the right things in terms of investing in infrastructure to ensure a decent F1 campaign, ie they upgraded their facilities to match those of any frontrunning team. Its the expense of doing so that I was pointing out which is eyewateringly high. I agree that the software using those facilities (ie personnel) isn't of a high enough quality or organised particularly well but thats by the by.

I was actually thinking that the new tech regs re: gearboxes and engines simply makes it easier for non-manufacturer suppliers like Cosworth etc to re-enter F1 as the engine design and manufacturing costs plummet. As long as the customer car ban is in place though it won't affect the costs of entering a competitive team much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

My Bad!! I thought they withdrew at the end of that season after they swept the field. :(

http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1955/

---

I don't know if they raced sports cars again after Le Mans, but the Grand Prix team did finish the 1955 season, winning all three races held after Le Mans.

What was the reason for the withdrawal? Mercedes never really said, they just anounced they were leaving racing and stayed out of Grand Prix racing for nearly 40 years. And all the while, used memories of their former invincibility to sell cars.

ClarkFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClarkFan

I don't know if they raced sports cars again after Le Mans, but the Grand Prix team did finish the 1955 season, winning all three races held after Le Mans.

What was the reason for the withdrawal? Mercedes never really said, they just anounced they were leaving racing and stayed out of Grand Prix racing for nearly 40 years. And all the while, used memories of their former invincibility to sell cars.

ClarkFan

---

I think Mercedes withdrew their cars during the Le Mans race after the Le Veigh crash.

I think there are a couple of reasons why customer cars shouldn't be allowed in F1. At least, as the regulations currently stand.

Firstly, with the restrictions on testing getting more stringent every year the potential for teams to abuse the rule gets greater. Honda have already been accused of using Super Aguri to test new drivers so that they didn't use up their own allocation of testing miles. What was to stop McLaren using Prodrive to test for them? It would have been impossible to prove and Prodrive would have benefitted from doing it because the parts they developed would have come back to them anyway.

Secondly, there are already many people complaining about how the technical regs don't allow innovation anymore. Allowing customer cars would stiffle that even more. Why would Force India, STR, Super Aguri and even Williams bother to go to all the trouble to design and build a car that is 2 seconds a lap slower than the Ferrari when, for a fraction of the cost, they can buy said Ferrari and only be 0.5 seconds a lap behind? Does anybody really want to see a grid of 6 Ferraris, 4 McLarens, 8 BMWs and a handful of Hondas?

The less people working on RD means the less chance of new ideas hitting the sport. The smaller teams do come up with ideas. It was Tyrrell who first adopted the raised nose and the X-Wings for example.

So we can discuss IP rights and the pros and cons of customer cars but I think the answer to the problem of getting more cars on the grid lies elsewhere and the problem, as always, is money.

The more teams you have, the smaller the slice of the money pie for each team. That's the real reason why Williams and Spyker fought, and continue to fight, the customer car issue. If Prodrive come in with competitive McLarens they will finish ahead of Williams in the championship and the less money Sir Frank will get.

To fix this problem would require the removal of the link between allocated revenue and constructor's championship position. If each team received the same base amount of revenue, with a dollars for points bonus scheme, then it wouldn't matter so much if Williams finished behind the customer McLarens as their base amount of Concorde money wouldn't change. The competition would remain fierce with the dollars for points system but each team would start from the same place. An even share of the Concorde monies would probably be enough to run a small team without any sponsorship.

Of course, the chances of Ferrari and McLaren giving up money to Force India and Super Aguri are sweet-f**k-all. I do however think that an even spread of the Concorde monies would help the sport immensly. Arguing over whether customer cars should be allowed and who owns what IP won't solve anything. If we want that 12th team, not to mention a 13th, 14th etc, then the money pie has to split equitably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClarkFan

I don't know if they raced sports cars again after Le Mans, but the Grand Prix team did finish the 1955 season, winning all three races held after Le Mans.

What was the reason for the withdrawal? Mercedes never really said, they just anounced they were leaving racing and stayed out of Grand Prix racing for nearly 40 years. And all the while, used memories of their former invincibility to sell cars.

ClarkFan

---

I think thats just the reason - Mercedes dominated racing, and had nothing left to prove, so they quit while they were ahead.