'F1 is completely unsustainable'

smfh.

 

Just think of it as a backmark thread. A thread in crisis.

Competition will push up the most active thread.

 

I think that you're low balling the costs.
While a customer team would save some up front costs the carmaker would be including their R&D, fabrication and other associated costs in the price of the car.
If the customer wants to do their own chassis repairs they'd need many of the same facilities required to construct them from scratch.
As I understand it the proposed plan is to give the customer teams only a limited number of seasons before being required to make their own chassis. In order to gain that sort of expertise they'd have to do a lot more than what you suggest.
The costs might be lower but remember under Bernie's proposed rules a customer team would be in eligible to earn points and hence end of season prize money.
I'd love to see a return to customer teams but I don't see a model that makes financial sense.

Better a Formula 2 where new teams could compete head to head with their own chassis made to a less expensive spec.

 

Well, under the present management, I cannot see a solution. Bernie is a troublemaker, who wants any new idea to suit his agenda first.

But in principle, I can't see why a customer team would have to become a constructor.

The way I see it, if at the begining of the season you could buy 3 chassis at $5 millionsapiece from a reputable company, that would cost a hell less than recruiting designers, engineers, fabricators, aerodynamicists and an army of computer gurus to made a car without even knowing if it will work. You could even return the chassis for repair.

I mean airlines buy their jets, no? They don't try to make them themselves! Just look at the troubles Sukkhoi and the Chinese have trying to copy Boeing and Airbus !!!

It's the same with F1. Unless they have literally billions to throw away, anyone who starts from scratch in F1 (Hass?) has a hell of a job catching up with established F1 constructors, don't you think? That's what the last few years have shown.

As for the Formula 2 idea, I agree that could work, but only could, because GP2 which is the present F2 is controled by Bernie and it's a specs series using Dallara chassis and Mecachrome engine. Mecachrome is controled by Bernie's mate Briatore.
So any chance of small team developing chassis expertise there is gone.

 

It always comes back to the gnome, doesn't it?


5 Mil seems exceedingly low for a SOTA F1 chassis. Given how today's cars are such an integrated Series of systems I'm not even sure what a "chassis" is these days. It's not like you can go to a manufactuer and not use the P/U that the cars designed around.

 

I said $5 millions, but that could be $10m or even $15m, that's still cheaper than making it yourself, I think. Think at all the cost saving.
Of course, the chassis would have to match the engine it was designed for.
There even maybe a possibility of recycling last year chassis.

 

I still think you're on the low side.


Explain to me how having a bunch of customer no hopers is better than what we have now?

Other than creating a (possibly) economically viable way to fill Bernie's grids.

 

A couple of wing mirror costs that..

IIRC a few years back RD claimed he spent a mil on the car to just gain a tenth for Ham to clinch his title on the last race.

A steering wheel costs about 45k .
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

And that's wholesale.
Customer's gonna pay a markup.

 

Basic Components Price
Engine Unit $7.7 Million
Carbon fibre monocoque $650,000 per chassis
Front wing & nose cone $160,000
Rear wing & DRS overtaking aid $80,000
Steering wheel $50,000
Fuel tank plus assembly $110,000
Hydraulics $160,000
Gearbox $480,000
Cooling system $160,000
Total Basic Cost $9.4 Million

 

And I double up and then some

 

Plus adequate spares and you're talking real money.

 

I would argue that if you dont pay the teams to show up and only pay prize money - the teams would figure out a way to spend less, and compete more.

 

Why so many threads on what is pretty much the same topic?

 

Ridiculous technical rule changes are killing the sport. They are the primary drivers of insane development and operating costs.

 

Yes, but that isn't what I said. My point is that ridiculous (yes, ridiculous) technical rules are making speed not just expensive, but unaffordable. Besides, speed for the sake of speed doesn't seem to be the goal of the technical regulations. The goal seems to be, "You blokes try to come up with more speed after you see the technical bollocks we're handing you. Ha!"

I expect that after MBz wins one or two more championships they'll be gone because the costs will not justify the marketing benefits. I would expect Renault to leave soon because the teams they supply won't be able to keep up financially.

 

Given the reported backmarkers current budgets as constructors, what do think would be realistic budgets for customer teams purchasing cars instead?

Would they actually be saving substantially?

 

Realistic?
F1?
Budget?

The words don't go together.


Without knowing what the manufactures will charge its impossible to say but I don't see how the numbers can work if they aren't eligible fore Bernie Bucks. Lotus and F.I. are teetering financially so how can the new class of customer cars be viable?

 

Who could have seen this coming?

 

It's a bit like the guy that walks into the psychiatrist wearing only cling film for shorts.
The shrink says, "Well, I can clearly see you're nuts."..

 

What do you call budgetteams? In every given timeframe there are backmarking teams. But both Marussia and Caterham are a far cry from the likes of Forti Corse, EuroBrun, Andrea Moda and what not.

There will always be teams at the back and the financial system in F1 determines that once you are at the back, funding will get increasingly difficult. At the end it will always be a matter of time for teams to cut their losses and leave F1 alltogether. That also goes for the relatively well funded teams that fail to meet their (promotional) goals (Toyota, BMW).

Where there are winners, there are always losers. Per definition.

 

When was the last time a new team succeeded?

Why invite new teams to the sport and then stack the deck against them?
F1 should be tough but not impossible.

 

Hey, the '71 Bucks with Lew Alcindor, Oscar Robertson, John McGlockton, and Bob Dandridge were one of the best of all time. I can't remember the 5th starter.

The point is that the Bucks are profitable and nobody expects them to be out of business any time soon.

 

Torro Rosso and Red Bull. before that it was Stewart Gp.

 

Again, let's not forget that both Marussia and Caterham (in their original guises), volunteered to join F1 in the belief that there was going to be a $50Million budget cap for every team.

When it became obvious that the budget cap was not going to happen, both teams were advised to drop the idea of F1 as their budgets would be inadequate.

Despite this advice, both teams decided to go ahead anyway.

When they entered F1, both teams were already aware that the deck was stacked against them, it wasn't exactly a surprise to them.


I believe Bernie has already given HAAS a similar warning, that based on their projected budgets, they would be better off forgetting F1, but again, HAAS is a team that is determined to give F1 a go regardless.