When will we see 12th team on the grid?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64623

So with Prodrive decisively dropping F1 plans, who will become 12th team in F1?

F1 fans have been waiting to see 12th team on the grid for a while, but that doesn't seem to happen (before 2002 there were huge hopes too, but these disappeared too...)

I can't understand. Since early 2006 it has been clear that from 2008 onwards it would be possible to use customer chassis (hence ~10 teams contested to join F1)... and now right before the start of the season it suddenly turns out that this is not possible?!?! :s How is such misunderstanding possible?

Now with the requirement of constructing your own chassis probably rarely anyone of those 10 teams, who were competing for that 12th slot, is interested in joining F1 any more. How much longer does it take before we finally see 12th team in reality, not just as a possilibity?

:dozey: It's likely to be quite a while before we see an additional team in Formula 1.

In fact, we may see the loss of Toro Rosso and Super Aguri occuring after the 2 year "grandfather clause" expires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trumperZ06

:dozey: It's likely to be quite a while before we see an additional team in Formula 1.

In fact, we may see the loss of Toro Rosso and Super Aguri occuring after the 2 year "grandfather clause" expires.

---

......and if Toyota don't fulfill there promise within the self imposed 2 year timeframe, that may be another loss.

Great thread, pardon me if I vent a little in here :p :

First, Pro-drive should give McRetards a great big thank-you basket for saving them a boat-load of money by causing them NOT to enter F1. Had Mcstupids wheren't the center of attention during 2007 then perhaps this customer BS would have been cleared up, and Pro-drive would be on the 2008 grid.

As for the 2 year "grandfather" rule. A) I haven't read anything confirming an agreement has been reached, and B) If I was Toro Rosso or Super Aguri, I would tell the FIA where to stick any "grandfather" ideas. Both teams where ready and willing to appear in court to prove that their cars complied with the 2007 regs... Which tells me:
a) the constructed their cars themselve
b) the designs are owned by them or a 3rd party
c) their parts are probably similar but in-compatible with their so called "supplier's" cars

I think once the Toro Rosso and Aguri car's were deemed "legal" then it would then be in Williams and that other team (Their name could possibly change by the time I'm finished this) best interest to agree to some customer car agreement, then FIA could at least impose some restrictions on them.

I would also like to thank David Richards and the whole Pro-Drive team for being probably the most lazy dumbasses that thought they could field a contender in F1. I'm sure they had the resources to Build a car from whatever information they bought from McLeran. Do their really need someone to do everything for them?!?

As to a possible 12th team. Eddie Jordan claimed he was one of the many who but in a bid to be the 12th team and suggested that it should be opened up again since Pro-drive didn't make the grid. Based on how he ran Jordan, he could easily do it again. (I believe I read that the Jordan team basically designed their car but got a whole bunch of 3rd party manufacturers to build their parts.) Or any potential team could also go with a similar plan as Midland was planning on doing, and that is to get a company like Lola to build their cars...

I believe the # of entrants trying for the 12th team was something like 22... I'm gonna go and see if I can confirm that...

with Toro Rosso i do not think it would be to hard for them to modify a minardi car plans



[img]http://i19.tinypic.com/81ptyyv.jpg[/img]
http://i19.tinypic.com/81ptyyv.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

......and if Toyota don't fulfill there promise within the self imposed 2 year timeframe, that may be another loss.

---

I do dread the day when manufacturers find F1 too expensive and/or unrewarding in terms of returns in sales. Renault does not appear to get any benefit from F1 success, and if these teams start to pull out, and nobody is i a position to replce them (technically as well as resource wise), then F1 will fall into a period of recession.

OK we may think of McLaren as in it for the long haul, but I clearly remember Mercedes pulling out of F1 when they no longer needed the benefit of being #1 to keep sales at an elevated position. Then BMW might find that it no longer will get the return/financial advantage they need if Mercedes pulls out.

And Honda appears to be going nowhere from year to year. And the stock market just took one helluva dive last night with the Dow plummeting 246.75 points :(

Who will be left in F1 apart from Ferrari? especially if Ferrari dominates to the point the remaining teams see their continued participation as an exercise in futility?

I think Bernie should start thinking of putting something back into F1 instead of greedily milking it year after year.

Now I'm feeling depressed. :(

In ten years we'll have Ferrari, McLaren using customer Ferrari engines, and a few teams running customer Ferrari chassis and engines or customer McLaren chassis with customer Ferrari engines.

...then we'll have Williams, running customer Ferrari engines, and complaining about all the customer cars on the grid :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

Renault does not appear to get any benefit from F1 success(

---

Indeed, in fact, the Reggie became a constructor (again) because they were not getting the increase in sales of their road cars from their engine's on track success.

The harsh reality is that the same can (in all probability) be said about their success as constructors.

I would eat me (chocolate) hat if they remain in the sport beyond 2012.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

...but I clearly remember Mercedes pulling out of F1 when they no longer needed the benefit of being #1 to keep sales at an elevated position.

---

When was this, as far as I am aware they have been in F1 as a manufacturer effort from 1993 'til now with no breaks, and the only other time they were involved was the 1950's when they withdrew from all racing after Pierre Levegh's 1955 Le Mans crash into the crowd...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

Now with the requirement of constructing your own chassis...

---

Actually, I believe this rule is almost always misinterpreted. It actually means that a team has to own the rights to the car they are racing. The customer situation has actually been the case for many many years, for example Scuderia Italia never actually constructed their own car. They just paid for Dallara/Lola designed cars, which were then built by those suppliers and handed over to the team to race and maintain.
Okay, that was under a different Concorde agreement, but the rule itself has been consistent, in the same way, Super Aguri do not actually construct the car themselves, the chassis are built in Japan by Honda (who have the design copyright), and licensed to SA to race and run..

So the rule is fairly messy, as you do not have to construct a car to be classified as a constructor. I think they should rename that championship the teams championship anyway...!

In such a way, I believe there will be no problems for Super Aguri or Toro Rosso unless the rule changes regarding third party designs run by an F1 team, after all it has been used by several teams in the past.

Then there is the other issue of old cars. As far as I am aware, there is absolutely no issue whatsoever with one team selling their previous years designs to another team, who can then copy them and re-register the design as their own for that season, just as Super Aguri did with the Arrows cars, and Sauber did with the Ferrari's.
What I don't understand is why Prodrive and McLaren didn't just come to that arrangement...

I believe the only reason is due to money issues over the concorde agreement, rather than breaking any of the FIA's technical regs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osella

When was this, as far as I am aware they have been in F1 as a manufacturer effort from 1993 'til now with no breaks, and the only other time they were involved was the 1950's when they withdrew from all racing after Pierre Levegh's 1955 Le Mans crash into the crowd...

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osella

Actually, I believe this rule is almost always misinterpreted. It actually means that a team has to own the rights to the car they are racing. The customer situation has actually been the case for many many years, for example Scuderia Italia never actually constructed their own car. They just paid for Dallara/Lola designed cars, which were then built by those suppliers and handed over to the team to race and maintain.
Okay, that was under a different Concorde agreement, but the rule itself has been consistent, in the same way, Super Aguri do not actually construct the car themselves, the chassis are built in Japan by Honda (who have the design copyright), and licensed to SA to race and run..

So the rule is fairly messy, as you do not have to construct a car to be classified as a constructor. I think they should rename that championship the teams championship anyway...!

In such a way, I believe there will be no problems for Super Aguri or Toro Rosso unless the rule changes regarding third party designs run by an F1 team, after all it has been used by several teams in the past.

Then there is the other issue of old cars. As far as I am aware, there is absolutely no issue whatsoever with one team selling their previous years designs to another team, who can then copy them and re-register the design as their own for that season, just as Super Aguri did with the Arrows cars, and Sauber did with the Ferrari's.
What I don't understand is why Prodrive and McLaren didn't just come to that arrangement...

I believe the only reason is due to money issues over the concorde agreement, rather than breaking any of the FIA's technical regs.

---

Are you sure?? :confused:

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSfan

First, Pro-drive should give McRetards a great big thank-you basket for saving them a boat-load of money by causing them NOT to enter F1. Had Mcstupids wheren't the center of attention during 2007 then perhaps this customer BS would have been cleared up, and Pro-drive would be on the 2008 grid.

As for the 2 year "grandfather" rule. A) I haven't read anything confirming an agreement has been reached, and B) If I was Toro Rosso or Super Aguri, I would tell the FIA where to stick any "grandfather" ideas. Both teams where ready and willing to appear in court to prove that their cars complied with the 2007 regs... Which tells me:
a) the constructed their cars themselve
b) the designs are owned by them or a 3rd party
c) their parts are probably similar but in-compatible with their so called "supplier's" cars

I would also like to thank David Richards and the whole Pro-Drive team for being probably the most lazy dumbasses that thought they could field a contender in F1. I'm sure they had the resources to Build a car from whatever information they bought from McLeran. Do their really need someone to do everything for them?!?

As to a possible 12th team. Eddie Jordan claimed he was one of the many who but in a bid to be the 12th team and suggested that it should be opened up again since Pro-drive didn't make the grid. Based on how he ran Jordan, he could easily do it again. (I believe I read that the Jordan team basically designed their car but got a whole bunch of 3rd party manufacturers to build their parts.) Or any potential team could also go with a similar plan as Midland was planning on doing, and that is to get a company like Lola to build their cars...

I believe the # of entrants trying for the 12th team was something like 22... I'm gonna go and see if I can confirm that...

---

There are quite a few points there that I disagree with.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osella

Then there is the other issue of old cars. As far as I am aware, there is absolutely no issue whatsoever with one team selling their previous years designs to another team, who can then copy them and re-register the design as their own for that season, just as Super Aguri did with the Arrows cars, and Sauber did with the Ferrari's.
What I don't understand is why Prodrive and McLaren didn't just come to that arrangement...

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

There are quite a few points there that I disagree with.

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.

---

Where in my post do I mention FIA at all, pro or against customer cars?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

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.

---

I also make no mention of the concorde agreement. You are disagreeing with points I never made!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

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.

---

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?!?!?!?!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

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?

---

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

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. [/QUOTE]

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

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.

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... Therefore Prodrive couldn't just buy the rights to an old car off McLaren.
.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osella

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)

---

Thanks for a well thought out response.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Thanks for a well thought out response

---

And thank you for yours ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

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.

---

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

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.

---

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

..Dallara isn't in a position to enter a competitive car into F1, in fact any of the current chassis builders...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...

---

Which 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!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

As it stands there is noone able to field a fully in-house designed and built car to fill the last slot.

---

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 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.