Talk Steer: Tony Dodgins on...

Toro Rosso's Italian Grand Prix win has ignited the customer car debate. Undeniably it was a dream story for Formula One but, for some, it was a bit of a nightmare.

Back in 2006 FIA president Max Mosley shocked the paddock with his proposal to allow customer cars in 2008. We were going to have them. Then, according to Bernie Ecclestone at the Brazilian GP last year, we weren't. David Richards's plan to run Prodrive McLarens came to nought. Super Aguri has gone away but still we have Toro Rosso.

A heavily staffed team like Williams, without direct manufacturer support, is the kind of outfit that will be hit hardest by the notion of true customer cars.

Size does matter

"It's a sticky subject," Frank Williams admitted in Singapore. Ever the sportsman, Frank added that Monza had been "a spot of humiliation for most of us. Toro Rosso and Vettel went and destroyed everyone. Very clever strategy and a great drive - he's very good that kid, in line to be a world champion."

But Frank's CEO, Adam Parr, was also keen to dispel a couple of myths.

"First of all," he said, not wanting to sound graceless, "Toro Rosso is not a small team. The budget of Red Bull Technology, to make chassis, is probably 70-80 per cent more than Williams's budget. In fact, Toro Rosso's budget is more than Williams's. So it is simply not true to say that a small team won. A two-team group with a €500 million budget, won a race."

A Team versus B Team

"Second," Parr continued, "the longer term impact of customer teams in F1 would be pernicious. Let's take the nightmare scenario that McLaren had done its deal with David Richards and we had two silver and red teams with the kind of performance they've got. Let's suppose that in Singapore, by going light with two of them, they'd managed to block the first two rows of the grid. There would be total war. It would only be a matter of time before F1 disintegrated into A teams and B teams and was ruined."

If you think that sounds a tad extreme, take heed of BMW's Mario Theissen: "We were approached by potential team owners when this was first on the cards. Basically they said give us the car free and we will do whatever you want all season..."

Big manufacturers have also rubber-stamped billion dollar spends to target F1 success and it obviously doesn't sit too well when 160 ex-Minardi guys with a cash injection go and buy an Adrian Newey car with a Ferrari engine, and beat them.

"Let's say that Toyota and Renault suffer at their hands in the next three races," Frank added. "They will get agitated too." It may not have been totally coincidental that Toyota protested fifth-placed Vettel for unsafe release from the Singapore pits...

"I thought the position had been clarified last year," Toyota's John Howett said. "There was a harmonisation period to become a full constructor and I'm surprised that the issue keeps coming back. Next year we're faced with the challenge of a new car, with KERS. Red Bull could run four cars during winter testing and have a significant advantage."

Where is the evidence that it might not be quite as sorted as Howett thought?

It's apparently back on the World Motor Sport Council agenda on October 7, until when the FIA is keeping its powder dry. And only last weekend Christian Horner and Gerhard Berger advised people to look at the bigger picture. Horner sees two fewer teams on the grid than the ideal 12 and no queue to come in as constructors. He feels it's in F1's best interests to have a mix.

"Are the people in the grandstands and watching TV really interested in how many wind tunnels we run, how many people we have working in R&D, CFD or stress finite element analysis?" he asked. "F1 is a sport and, secondly, a show. We need to address those issues and then worry about constructors and non-constructors."

I've got to admit that the idea of more competitive cars through customer purchase appealed at first, but not if the ultimate direction is the scenario outlined by Parr and Theissen. Some, though, would no doubt argue that the intrigue of all that would actually be good for ratings.

"There was a proposal offered at Silverstone, which was a good one, and I thought that the Toros had signed it," Frank Williams elaborated. "When it came up again after the Monza race they said it wasn't signed.

"It was that they would continue as a non-constructor until 2010 and provided that they could show three nominated technical directors, or ex-technical directors, they would then get their rights and asset share as meaningful constructors. It had general support but obviously didn't get done for one reason or another. I'm sure Max and Bernie are well aware of the problem and I don't believe they are comfortable. But they will have to deal with it. I just hope that it's fair..."