Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Pit Lane. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Brawn: Customer cars good for F1
Topic Started: May 12 2008, 08:31 PM (684 Views)
Steelstallions
Member Avatar
Driver
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=42636

Quote:
 
Honda Racing boss Ross Brawn believes the teams that objected to customer cars were prioritising their own needs over what was good for the sport.

Brawn was speaking after the demise of Super Aguri, which had benefited from a 'customer car' style arrangement with Honda – running versions of the works team's old chassis.

Watch ITV's video feature on Super Aguri's exit on our ITV Exclusives page

This was a controversial interpretation of the rules that insist all teams must construct their own cars, but FIA president Max Mosley was keen to open up the regulations to allow fully-fledged customer deals.

However, this plan met with opposition from independent teams such as Williams and was ultimately abandoned.

Prodrive, which had intended to run customer McLarens, consequently withdrew its planned Formula 1 entry, while existing 'customer' teams Super Aguri and Toro Rosso were told that they must prepare to design and construct their own chassis in the near future.

This contributed to Super Aguri's collapse, and has also led to Red Bull putting Toro Rosso up for sale.

With the grid now down to 20 cars, Brawn has hit out at those who stood in the way of customer cars.

"There are a number of teams who felt aggrieved by the possibility that non-constructors could compete in the future," he told ITV Sport.

"They saw situations where they felt their [sponsorship] rates would be undermined.

"They were really looking at self-preservation rather than what was in the best interests of Formula 1."

Earlier in the Istanbul weekend, Brawn suggested that the current regulations meant that only major car manufacturers would have the resources to start new F1 teams.

<think>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John
Team Boss
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I wonder if Honda are experiencing a little back lash from the Super Aguri collapse...

This smells of damage limitation to me... <dunce>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brave_Lee_Flea
Member Avatar
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm not so sure. Even as a Williams fan I can see that Williams were acting in their own interests. But then you can hardly blame them for doing so.

Williams don't have a parent company willing to throw tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars at the team and of course they were doing what they had to in order to survive. It is not Williams job to look after the future of the F1.

It could be argued that Williams are being short sighted but I would argue that allowing a situation in which only those teams with super-rich independent backing were able to compete to develop in the first place was far more short sighted and should have been prevented by those whose job it actually is to safeguard the interests of F1 - the FIA.

At one stage Max stated that the manufacturers did not have the best interests of the sport in mind and that they were using F1 as a glitzy billboard. And of course, he was right.

Why then did he suddenly abandon that position and shamelessly woo the manufacturers. Did they perhaps dress up in outlandish German fetish uniforms?


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Andy
Member Avatar

Moderator
Customer cars can't be good for F1 because they aren't F1. Simple.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Startline Ed
Member Avatar
Engineer
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well they aren't F1 now. From the 1950s until the late 70s/early 80s there were customer cars on the Formula 1 grid. For example, Williams started off by running a customer March 761 in the 1977 season.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Andy
Member Avatar

Moderator
That's true, Ed, but to be honest F1 now is pretty much synonymous with teams constructing their own cars and racing them (I think customer cars have been banned since 1984). For me much of the appeal of the sport is based around that idea. Customer cars are, to my mind, detrimental to the spirit of F1.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brave_Lee_Flea
Member Avatar
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Red Andy,May 12 2008
10:41 PM
That's true, Ed, but to be honest F1 now is pretty much synonymous with teams constructing their own cars and racing them (I think customer cars have been banned since 1984). For me much of the appeal of the sport is based around that idea. Customer cars are, to my mind, detrimental to the spirit of F1.

I lament that it is Max not you who is ruining.... ahem *running* ... the FIA.

Why I bet a man of your calibre would never have been caught in a sex scandal involving just four sex slaves.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Andy
Member Avatar

Moderator
Well, I'm a bit younger, so I would have an advantage in that regard.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
u4coffee
Member Avatar
Just Married
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Startline Ed,May 12 2008
10:51 PM
Well they aren't F1 now. From the 1950s until the late 70s/early 80s there were customer cars on the Formula 1 grid. For example, Williams started off by running a customer March 761 in the 1977 season.

'84 was the 1st year without customer cars... I think. It was also the 1st year without re-fuelling <think>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
safc_fan89
Member Avatar
safc_fan89
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Of course Williams were thinking of themselves. Having other teams run customer Ferraris, BMWs and Mclarens could potentially destroy them. Why should teams have that advantage through no hard work of their own, but paying $15 million or whatever to a parent team? They shouldn't, simple as that. If they want to do that, they should forego any constructor points, but of course such teams would not agree to that.

If F1 wants more teams, it needs to come up with genuine cost-cutting measures. Maybe not so each team only spends a set amount, but so a team can be competitive on a lower budget.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brave_Lee_Flea
Member Avatar
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Red Andy,May 13 2008
06:44 AM
Well, I'm a bit younger, so I would have an advantage in that regard.

lol .. and judging from your avatar, more attractive :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
willyshafter
Engineer
[ *  *  *  * ]
Larrouse fell foul of customer cars in 1990 the FIA considering taking away Larrousse's points because of an alleged "false declaration" about the design of the chassis. The team had by registering the car as manufactured by themselves, when in fact it was designed and built by Lola in England had broken the sporting rules of F1
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sportsman
Member Avatar
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
safc_fan89,May 13 2008
07:59 AM
Of course Williams were thinking of themselves. Having other teams run customer Ferraris, BMWs and Mclarens could potentially destroy them. Why should teams have that advantage through no hard work of their own, but paying $15 million or whatever to a parent team? They shouldn't, simple as that. If they want to do that, they should forego any constructor points, but of course such teams would not agree to that.

If F1 wants more teams, it needs to come up with genuine cost-cutting measures. Maybe not so each team only spends a set amount, but so a team can be competitive on a lower budget.

15 million wouldn't buy you much. Prodrive were going to pay McClaren 100 million.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyW76
Member Avatar
Team Boss
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
My opinion is that customer cars should be allowed but in a very limited sense. The chassis should be a design that is over a year old but modified to meet existing rules. This is on the theory that most new cars are faster than old cars (unless you are Honda). In addition, there could be a chassis manufacture that is completely unconnected to existing F1 teams, like March etc. who builts a generic, off the shelf, chassis. This option should be limited to teams that are in their first 2-3 years of F1 as a way of allowing a cheap way of entering.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheCompleteGuitarist
Driver
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
How about every entry gets a free 2007 Honda chassis, that would be encouraging, yes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Formula 1 · Next Topic »
Add Reply