planetf1.com

I have to say considering current financial situation most teams are in that a relaxation in the 'customer' cars rule is a good idea, but as this guy says, only for certain parts, currently they are allowed so many parts but I think the list could be expanded.

Source:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/105575

the fom could help the teams by giving them more money from tv rights and sponsorship

I say bring back those days when people like Williams, Mclaren, Ferrari, Chapman et al just bought a chassis and an engine and start racing. It my not be that simple today but atleast it will reduce some cost on R&D for the lower teams.

_________________
Loading Quote.......
--------------------
PF1 Pick 10
Aus13: 2nd
Chi13: 3rd

And have the head honchos daughters potentially have to run the risk of doing a days work?!?!

_________________
Warning: The above post may contain sarcasm.

I seen one of them in the paper last week, working on her tan if that counts?

You'd have to go back quite a bit:

The last time Frank Williams raced a car bought from someone else was the FW05 in 1976, which was actually a Hesketh 308c

The last time Bruce McLaren raced a car bought from someone else was the Zerex Special sports car in 1964 - built by Roger Penske from a Cooper F1 chassis

The last time Enzo Ferrari raced a car bought from someone else was the Lancia D50 in 1956

The last time Colin Chapman raced a car bought from someone else was the Lotus Mk 1 in 1948 - a modified Austin 7

I agree with everything Abiteboul has said about the situation. If the components don't affect performance or show then I see no need for them to be a requirement to be independently built in order to be considered a constructor. I also think he makes a good point about sharing more creating greater collaboration and the benefit this could have on the automotive industry.

Two specific items mystified me. Apparently a constructor doesn't have to build a gearbox, when I would argue this is very relevant to performance. And on the other side, why on earth does a seat need to be distinct to a particular constructor?

_________________
Formerly kai_

Ha! Very telling.

I wonder if Bernie knows she's been doing her sums... haha

Its sad that it concern's her. I'm sure they'll be taxed a ridiculous amount, but they'll still inherit billions, more money than they can actually spend because it'll be generating so much interest.
It must be awful for her worrying about the future with a pittance of an allowance from Daddy with only 6 0's on the end of the number....

Anyway, I'm sure if Bernie is bothered about the tax he'll have already passed the money on into someone elses name.





I wouldn't mind them relaxing the rules about selling parts / cars. But I do think they need to limit how many teams you can supply depending on how important the part is.
So for example, a customer car for example can only be supplied to 1/2 team. Just to stop the teams at the back buying last years Red Bull and us ending up with 6/8 cars that are identical bar the paint.

Limiting it would make sure the competitive element is still there, avoiding everyone buying the same gearboxes etc because they're the lightest/fastest/strongest whatever

_________________
Warning: The above post may contain sarcasm.

Well, gearbox, electronic devices and engines are anyway sold right now (for instance, HRT used Williams gearboxes last year). The main focus of this customer-car , I suppose, goes towards the chassis as a whole.

_________________
Olivier Panis fan.
...and also Jenson Button fan.