So customer cars are back on F1’s agenda. But we’ve heard this one before, haven’t we? Yes, more than once. It’s back, but at the same time it’s one of those notions – like refuelling or a budget cap or the threat of a breakaway – that never really seems to go away Remind me, what exactly are customer cars? Chassis supplied 'off the peg' as it were. The talk is that Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull and McLaren will build cars for customer teams, or "franchises". Meanwhile, Bernie Ecclestone has talked about creating a two-tier formula, with cheaper (and presumably older) cars supplied. So why has the idea been shoved centre stage again? For the same reason it always does: because F1 is currently in a state of existential crisis. Whether it’s safety, sponsorship, viewership, ownership, the rules, the rivalries, the politics, the bending of the rules, the protests, the appeals, the lack of competition, the lack of action, the times when there’s too much competition and action but it’s achieved by ‘artificial’ means...there’s plenty of reasons why F1 isn’t averse to a bout of navel-gazing. Oh, and the money as well. How could we forget that? And the power, right? And Bernie Ecclestone? Absolutely. F1 is all about power and money. And Bernie Ecclestone. So Bernie Ecclestone wants customer cars? Actually, no; Bernie told Sky F1 last week that he was opposed to customer cars. Nobody really ‘wants’ them as such; or at least no-one’s prepared to explicitly say as much in a way that suggests it will move the sport forward. But the feeling is that using them could be a way to keep smaller teams in business. Why are smaller teams worried they might go out of business? Fundamentally, the reasons are two-fold. One, because costs have increased significantly in the last couple of seasons since F1’s switch to hybrid engine technology and, secondly, because of the way the sport’s revenues are distributed, with disproportionately high amounts going to big teams like Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull. As a result, Caterham went out of business last season and while Manor Marussia looked to be going the same way for a time, they’re currently hanging on in there. And the small teams are against using customer cars? Yes – absolutely. They’re long-standing constructors in their own right, possess skilled staff and also boast facilities like wind tunnels and CFD simulation tools. Their argument is that F1 is as much a competition between constructors as it is between drivers; that it’s part and parcel of the sport’s ‘DNA’. So what can they do to halt any march towards the introduction of customer cars? Not so much since the creation of the F1 Strategy Group, which has proposed the use of customer cars – but which only the five biggest teams are permanent members of. One of the smaller teams feeling the pinch, Force India, are also currently members by virtue of their sixth-place finish in last year’s championship. However, Strategy Group proposals are carried by majority vote so they find themselves outnumbered. Little wonder, then, that Force India team boss Bob Fernley is outspoken on subjects like income share and customer cars. He recently described the Strategy Group as "not fit for purpose" and said that the top teams are seeking to control the sport. And it’s the big teams who want to supply customer cars? It’s believed the big teams already have it written into their contracts that they’ll run third cars should the grid fall below a certain number (either 18 or 16 cars). But they’ve questioned the additional cost of running a third car themselves and could pass on some of their development costs by supplying to another team, or “franchise”, who could run a two-car team more cheaply than developing and building their own chassis. With outgoings for smaller teams as high as $100m at present, it’s been suggested that the figure for a two-car customer team could be around half that - and one that could, more or less, be met by their current share of F1’s revenues. Ecclestone, meanwhile, reputedly reckons it's possible to supply two cars for $15m. Although the big teams say the use of customer cars should only be seen as a contingency plan, they held another meeting to discuss it at the Canadian GP recently and the proposal could be rubber-stamped as early as next month. But doesn’t the FIA set the rules and wield the power? It sits on the Strategy Group alongside the commercial rights controller - Ecclestone - and the big teams. However, it doesn’t have any more power than they do; indeed, it helped create the Strategy Group in a deal which saw it receive a greater share of F1’s revenues, arguably in exchange for its influence. Yet the FIA President is always wading into the debate isn’t he? Budget caps, ludicrous driver salaries and so on… That’s Max Mosley, the former president. Current incumbent Jean Todt prefers to keep his mouth shut on F1 matters, preferring instead to discuss the governing body’s road safety campaigns. So rather than introduce customer cars, why not change the sport’s income distribution? Because the big teams – whose size increased substantially when big manufacturers invested heavily in the sport a decade or more ago – have each agreed favourable long-term commercial deals with Ecclestone they’d be loath to give up. If you were Ferrari and were handed a reported $38m more than world champions Mercedes last year, would you agree to throw that away? Hang on a minute. Customer cars were part of the sport for a long time, weren’t they? Yes, they were. One of Stirling Moss’s most famous victories – at the 1961 Monaco GP – was achieved in a privately-entered Lotus.Teams came and went 40, 50 or more years ago but grand prix racing back then was a niche sport that didn’t generate an annual income of around $1.6bn. Handfuls of staff were employed rather than hundreds and teams operated from garages rather than self-styled technology centres. A commercial imperative has long been prevalent in F1, like it has in lots of sports. Whether that’s to its detriment is a matter for debate, but times have long changed. So when might this happen? Besides the move – the latest one - towards customer cars, the most recent Strategy Group meeting resulted in a number of other proposals with the general aim of producing faster, more spectacular looking cars in 2017. So it’s reasonable to assume a similar timeline. However, the proposal must still be approved by the F1 Commission – on which smaller teams do have a say. And with sponsors, engine manufacturers, circuit promoters and tyre supplier Pirelli also having a say alongside the big teams, Ecclestone and the FIA, it could be the case that it might yet hit a stumbling block. And even if it doesn’t, it seems the smaller teams still have a potential ace up their sleeve: a complaint to the EU’s Competition Commission that F1’s governance and financial structure favours bigger rivals. It’s been reported that this could happen within the next month. That sounds like a big deal… It does, but there’s little doubt the malaise that F1 currently finds itself in is deep-rooted. Piecemeal commercial deals, teams that wilfully pursue self-interest while avoiding the bigger picture, owners that don't invest in the sport, a governing body that sits on its hands, empty grandstands and rising costs, the absence of the German GP and the fact the Italian GP is, according to reports, under threat... And so on. Things are clearly out of kilter but those with the power make changes seem to have created a situation where they’re unable to do so. “I know what's wrong but don't know how to fix it,” Ecclestone admitted late last year. So are customer cars the cure for F1's ills or a symptom of decline?
I'd also like the front wing to be made of something that doesn't explode into a thousand razor sharp fragments when it gets touched, and to have more rounded endings so brushing the car in front doesn't lead to DNF's, so many good tussles ruined by the briefest of contact.
2017 agreements so far courtesy of F1 Racing: Width of cars to be increased to pre 1998 levels of 2000mm Rear tyre increase from 325mm to 420mm Front wing likely to be widened to circa 1950mm Changes to floor and sidepod likely but yet to be agreed upon Re-Fuelling unlikely Michelin to tender for contract but based on 18" wheels only
Benson talking sense (along with Massa) "A high proportion of fans - among them Mark Webber, no less - seem to think there is some kind of major problem with F1 at the moment. But Williams driver Felipe Massa has cautioned against viewing the past with rose-tinted spectacles. The Brazilian said that the 20-year anniversary of Ayrton Senna's death last year prompted him to watch some old races from the legend's era and the result was not pretty. "'I was watching most of the races he did, it was a lot worse than how it is now,' Massa said. 'The difference in the qualifying was maybe 1.5 seconds to the third place, they (Senna and McLaren team-mate Alain Prost) were lapping the third place every race. So the difference was a lot bigger than it is now. But when you speak to the people everybody says the past is amazing. "'So go back and watch, and then compare to now. This is something that people need to do, not looking in the past without remembering so well, and just saying the past was amazing. The past looks more interesting also, because the tracks were a lot worse, they were a lot more bumpy, so when you see the cars driving with the bumps it looks more difficult. But now everything is more for our world, everything is more safe, the tracks are different.'" This is perfectly true. Anyone who has watched some of the Sky Sports Classic F1 races will see that even some of these 'classics' are one sided affairs dominated by a team or driver. Rarely has there been more than a couple of seasons where there has been both genuine competition and decent action on the track.
Wider cars, that will help with overtaking. Why not make them three metres wide? It will be hugely entertaining when they all get wedged in Loews hairpin.
They should just race old Fiat Puntos, and drivers should have to change their own tyres and do thier own repairs. That'd make it interesting.
F1's Strategy Group has recommended an overhaul of the current regulations surrounding engine penalties and an immediate ban on driver aids. According to the group, the ban will feature 'particular emphasis on race starts' and 'will bring back the driver in full control of the car, enhancing excitement and unpredictability.' The group's recommendations also include 'increased freedom of choice for tyre compounds' and a proposal for 'faster and aggressive looking cars' for 2017. An unspecified 'overhaul' of the engine-penalty regulations will also be fast-tracked for the approval of next week's meeting of the World Motorsport Council. The group has also agreed for 'an extra unit per driver for any new manufacturer entering the championship and, for the sake of fairness, the measure will apply retroactively to Honda for the 2015 season'. F1's current engine regulations limit each driver to just five units per season, a restriction that both Red Bull and Honda, who returned to the sport at the start of the year, have already breached. The FIA will also consider changes to the engine development token system and an 'increase in race fuel allowance'. The current limit to 100kgs triggered widespread criticism of the sport following last month's Canadian GP which was besmirched by a spate of radio calls to drivers to 'lift and coast' in order to save fuel. The Strategy Group has also proposed changes that will improve 'engine noise' for 2016 as well as put forward 'exciting' plans for the 'qualifying and race format' that could also be implemented for next season. Strategy Group statement in full 'The Strategy Group met yesterday in Biggin Hill, as planned, to follow up on the package of measures proposed at the last meeting and assess new directions for the future of Formula 1. It was a very constructive meeting, which led to approval of important decision and innovative evolutions. 'Increased restrictions on driver aids and coaching received unanimous support and will be rapidly implemented, starting from this year’s Belgian Grand Prix - with a particular emphasis on race starts – and in 2016. These measures will bring back the driver in full control of the car, enhancing races excitement and unpredictability. 'Following the Austrian GP, an overhaul of the power unit penalties has been unanimously agreed and will be submitted to the F1 Commission via an express fax vote for an adoption at the World Motorsport Council in Mexico City next week, together with changes to the exhaust system that will improve engine noise for 2016. 'Furthermore, it was agreed to allow an extra power unit per driver in the first year to any new manufacturer entering the championship and, for the sake of fairness, the measure will apply retroactively to Honda for the 2015 season. 'Mandate has been given to the FIA and FOM to propose a comprehensive set of measures for power unit development and cost of supply, including full review of the token system, increase in race fuel allowance, limits on the usage of engine dynamometers etc. 'Increased freedom of choice for tyre compounds has been confirmed and the modalities are being finalised with Pirelli for 2016. 'A new set of regulations aimed at achieving faster and more aggressive looking cars for 2017, to include wider cars and wheels, new wings and floor shape and significantly increased aerodynamic downforce has been outlined and is currently being assessed by the teams. 'Several exciting and innovative changes to the qualifying and race weekend formats have also been discussed and are being evaluated by FIA and FOM for a 2016 introduction.'
I'd prefer less aero downforce, rather than more. You might have to be quick, or people won't need to guess.
please log in to view this image Share this: By Giorgio Piola and Mark Hughes Here is the current proposal for the 2017 F1 car from the F1 technical group. The brief was to create cars five seconds per lap faster than the current generation, in response to current drivers and fan surveys each declaring current cars to be too slow and not demanding enough. For the purposes of comparison, the dark-coloured 2017 car is contrasted in the animation with the current Mercedes in silver. please log in to view this image The new car would be two metres wide rather than the current 1.8 metres, returning to the regulation width last used in 1997. please log in to view this image The rear wing would be much lower and increased in width while the lower beam wing – banned since 2014 – would return, working in conjunction with a longer and higher diffuser exit ramp. Rear tyres would be wider but retaining the existing diameter. 36seconds: Sidepods would have a mandatory angle in the longitudinal plane of 15-degrees so as to retain a short sidepod with good deformable side impact structure. The rear tyres would increase in width from 420mm to 450mm. 49seconds: In line with the increased width of the car, the front wing width would increase from 1650mm to 1850mm. 1m 09s: The rear wing main plane height would fall from 945mm to 800mm. The underside of the lower plane would fall from 740mm to 600mm. 1m 14s: The reintroduced lower beam wing would be situated between 300-375mm above the reference plane. 1m 21s: Mandatory angles on both the leading and trailing edges of the vertical turning vanes ahead of the sidepods – and the rear wing endplates. 1m 32s: A longer diffuser with a higher exit ramp would greatly increase the downforce generated by the underfloor – and also increase the proportion of total downforce generated by the underbody. It is believed this would facilitate overtaking by making the wake of the car ahead less turbulent – and reducing the aero sensitivity of the car behind. From the archive: Another big aesthetic change in F1 – the 2009 Grand Prix preview part 1, and part 2 The latest simulations by the technical group suggest that such a car would exceed the target lap time of five seconds below current laps by as much as two seconds – ie they would be seven seconds faster than cars are currently. The speed of such a car would increase its fuel consumption significantly and it has been accepted that there would need to be an accompanying increase in the current 100kg fuel capacity limit so that races did not become excessively fuel limited.
