Ferrari to take their toys and go home

[prisonermonkeys]

This just in! Red Bull and Toro Rosso blink first:

Have Red Bull, Toro Rosso broken ranks?

Thursday 11th June 2009


FOTA could be in for a shock as another two members, Red Bull and Toro Rosso, have reportedly signed up unconditionally for next year's Championship. On May 29th, FOTA handed in a block entry for next year's campaign, signed up all the teams excluding Williams who had put forward their own unconditional entry and were therefore booted out of FOTA. Less than a week later, Force India were also suspended from FOTA after Vijay Mallya followed Williams in submitting an unconditional entry. Now it appears FOTA have lost two other members with the British press reporting that Red Bull and their junior team, Toro Rosso, have broken ranks. '(Bernie) Ecclestone has Red Bull, Toro Rosso, plus Williams and Force India who have entered the Championship, signed until 2012,' claims the Daily Express. Neither outfit, though, has confirmed the report.

If true, it's a major blow to FOTA. The FIA now hold four of the five private teams, and if they somehow manage to land Brawn - assuming Ross's boys are good for the title - it could well be game over.

 

[Viper-Fan]

Endurance racing just doesn't have the same crowd pulling ability that F1 has.

I think it could have, if Group C wasn't dropped. Back on topic, imo, I don't think it would effect F1 if Ferrari decide to resign. Sure, they've been there from the very start, but like everyone else, they've had bad patches and good times in F1. Times change etc. If they leave, F1 can survive without them surely? That is, if Renault, BMW & Toyota are still present. If not, F1 will turn into "The Privateer Pinnacle of Motorsports"

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

This just in! Red Bull and Toro Rosso blink first:

If true, it's a major blow to FOTA. The FIA now hold four of the five private teams, and if they somehow manage to land Brawn - assuming Ross's boys are good for the title - it could well be game over.

Or not?

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/090611165034.shtml

Christian Horner on Thursday flatly denied rumours that the two Red Bull teams have broken ranks and signed up unconditionally for next year's Formula One world championship.

Like fellow independents Williams and Force India, who have already lodged their paperwork and will appear on Friday's FIA entry list, Red Bull and Brawn GP are not subject to the same $50m bond that is holding together the unity of the remainder of the FOTA group.

Williams and Force India were expelled from the Formula One Teams Association, but the defection of Red Bull Racing and Toro Rosso would leave the alliance weakened with just six members: the major car manufacturers plus the dominant Brawn GP squad.

Red Bull mogul Dietrich Mateschitz's loyalty to FOTA has been questioned from the very beginning of the dispute with Max Mosley, as he is a close personal friend of the FIA President.


But Horner, Team Principal of Mateschitz's senior F1 team, shot down the speculation, telling motorsport-total.com that it is ‘not true at all’.

However, it remains possible that the Red Bull outfits - as well as Ferrari - will be listed along with Williams and Force India on the FIA entry list, due to the teams' apparent contractual arrangements with the sport's ruling bodies.

 

[Alltidxx]

Squabble outcome: One week extension. There we have it.

 

[Alltidxx]

An alternate championship has not felt quite real so far but today I think this conflict has gone so far I'm can't really see how the rebel teams will go back. I don't see them backing down on their demands anymore because it's a bit late to just turn back now after so many stern comments in the media about how seriously they mean what they say. I don't see FIA falling over either because Ecclestone and Mosley are rich anyway and too old and stubborn to conceed enough to the teams without looking majorly defeated themselves. I think they would chose pride ahead of a F1 on the teams' terms. Again, they don't need more money, and they are old anyway, so...

 

[TheCracker]

If they leave, F1 can survive without them surely? That is, if Renault, BMW & Toyota are still present. If not, F1 will turn into "The Privateer Pinnacle of Motorsports"

Like it traditionally has been for decades before other manufacturers decided they wanted a piece of the action? I wouldn't even really consider Ferrari to be a true manufacturer team in that they were a racing team before they decided to produce road cars to fund their racing programmes.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Consider the following: the teams have to negotiate with the FIA because a rival series has always been a last resort. They also have to continue to compete in the 2009 series. And in between all of this, if the following:

• They have just six months until 2010.
• They will need to organise at least fifteen races and you can bet that since they've threatened to go rogue before, Bernie Ecclestone will have something in the contracts with individual circuits and organisers to prevent them from joining a rival series.
• A rival championship would need its own set of agreed-upon technical and sporting regulations as well as the formation of a formal governing body; FOTA themselves won't cut it as the governing body needs to be impartial and FOTA would clearly be too invested.
• They would need to organise commercial and broadcasting agreements worldwide.
• They will still need to fully develop 2010 cars.
• They have used the threat of a breakaway series before, and not once has it come to fruition. So you can understand why event organisers and sponsors may not be falling over themselves to join with FOTA since they've got a history of doing nothing more than making threats.

The problem is that the longer the teams hold out, the more difficult it is going to be for them to establish their own series. And if this conflict does not find a resolution, they cannot afford to waste time. The longer they take to establish a FOTA series, the greater the danger that it will never start up. They simply cannot afford to take eighteen months, because the FIA championship will go ahead with or without them. And if the FIA is clearly setting themselves up for a fight in the courts - which they seem to be doing - then this will drag out even longer, giving FOTA less time to act and making it more likely they will fold. It's pretty obvious that a rival series is a card FOTA will only play if and when they absolutely have to. They're still going through the WMSC and they've openly stated that they have no confidence in Mosley and are challenging factions within the FIA to oppose him; the support of the ACEA only gives them more weight. You say today is D-Day, but there has been nothing from Autosport, GP Update, F1 Fanatic or any of the other usual suspects to suggest anything has dramatically changed. In fact, this article from The Times Online suggests that the teams are doing verything they can to stay in Formula One:

F1 chiefs race to halt team revolt

Dominic O’Connell - June 14, 2009

LEADERS of rebel Grand Prix teams fly into Heathrow tomorrow for a show-down with Formula One’s ruling body over a governance row that threatens to split the sport.

Eight teams – BMW, Brawn, Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull, Renault, Toro Rosso and Toyota – say that rules for next year imposed by Max Mosley, president of the FIA, the body that administers F1, are unfair, unworkable and would give the FIA unacceptable powers to pry into their financial affairs.

The Heathrow meeting starts a week of talks aimed at finding a solution before this Friday’s deadline. The British Grand Prix will be run at Silverstone next weekend.

F1 insiders say the dispute is the most serious yet of the periodic battles at the top of the multi-billion-pound sport. Some think it could lead to a final split between the manufacturers and the FIA. “The difference this time is that all the big teams are united against Max. The normal divide-and-rule tactics have not worked,” said one.

Flavio Briatore, who runs the Renault team, told The Sunday Times: “We accept the need to cut costs in Formula One and we are happy to have new teams, but not like this. We are confusing our sponsors and the audience.”

John Howett, who runs the Toyota team, said: “All our problems stem from one problem: there isn’t a balanced and correct governance system in place.”

In a letter to the FIA last week, the eight said: “We run a high risk of alienating and losing a number of teams.”

Executives at the Formula One Teams Association met Mosley last week in an attempt to solve the row but made little progress. On Friday, the FIA published the entries for next year’s championship, despite the objections to the rules. It made several of the teams’ entries “conditional”, giving a deadline of this Friday for a resolution of the row.

Mosley wants to impose budget caps, creating a two-tier championship comprised of teams that agreed to a £40m limit and those that did not. The former group would be given technical freedoms that most believe would provide a competitive advantage.

The FIA will also set up a “cost commission” with power to investigate the workings of the capped teams — a plan that has caused anger. “The publication of absolute team budget figures risks inflicting serious damage to the value of existing teams and has significantly reduced the fees that can be charged to sponsors,” the letter to the FIA says.

The teams have put forward their set of rules, which suggest more straightforward curbs including a limit on numbers of key components, such as tyres, that can be bought during a season.

Besides, what guarantee is there that FOTA would be a better governing body than the FIA? It's easy to blame Mosley, but this is a question that has to be asked. Ferrari had the motive, the means and the opportunity to end this before it even began with their technical veto and yet they didn't use it. Why were FOTA so late in opposing the reguations? We've known about them for ages, yet it wasn't until Monaco that they started protesting. Why not do it earlier, in Spain? Or Bahrain? Or even before the season began? Mosley often plays the villain of the sport ... but maybe that's because he has to. This is what the FIA have to say:

FIA: FOTA members preventing deal
By Jonathan Noble - Monday, June 15th 2009, 10:24 GMT


The FIA has blamed factions within the Formula One Teams' Association (FOTA) for the failure to find a settlement in the row over the future of the sport - after revealing on Monday that it believed it had an agreement in place last week.

AUTOSPORT understands that Ross Brawn is meeting the FIA today to discuss the situation and finalise what was agreed in last week's meeting.

In a statement issued on Monday morning, the FIA said that at a get-together with four members of FOTA last week a deal was reached for a way forward - but this subsequently failed to reach fruition.

"During the meeting FOTA acknowledged that the FIA wanted to encourage the introduction of new teams in the championship to maintain its vitality and economic viability in the long term," said the FIA.

"Agreement was reached on technical regulations for 2010 which offered assistance for new teams from the currently competing teams in several key areas.

"It was also agreed that the objectives of FOTA and the FIA on cost reduction were now very close and that financial experts from both sides should meet at the earliest opportunity to finalise the details.

"It was proposed by the FIA that any perceived governance and stability issues could best be eliminated by extending the 1998 Concorde Agreement until 2014 thus avoiding lengthy negotiations for a new agreement. This was well received by those present who undertook to report the suggestion to the other FOTA members."

The FIA has blamed members of FOTA for failing to act on this agreement - and claims that some are determined to see talks fail even though this will hurt F1.

"The FIA believed it had participated in a very constructive meeting with a large measure of agreement. The FIA was therefore astonished to learn that certain FOTA members not present at the meeting have falsely claimed that nothing was agreed and that the meeting had been a waste of time.

"There is clearly an element in FOTA which is determined to prevent any agreement being reached regardless of the damage this may cause to the sport."

Now, explain that one to me without saying it's just propaganda.

 

[Metar]

Besides, what guarantee is there that FOTA would be a better governing body than the FIA? It's easy to blame Mosley, but this is a question that has to be asked. Ferrari had the motive, the means and the opportunity to end this before it even began with their technical veto and yet they didn't use it. Why were FOTA so late in opposing the reguations? We've known about them for ages, yet it wasn't until Monaco that they started protesting. Why not do it earlier, in Spain? Or Bahrain? Or even before the season began? Mosley often plays the villain of the sport ... but maybe that's because he has to.

*cough*

The reason Ferrari went to court is because they weren't allowed to veto the regulations - the FIA didn't adhere to it even though they were contractually bound. And no, the regulations were released on the 30th April, so they couldn't veto what wasn't known.

This is what the FIA have to say:

Now, explain that one to me without saying it's just propaganda.

Well, for starters, it's what the FIA says: It's obviously going to be in favour of the FIA. A FOTA press release would claim the exact opposite, and we have no way to determine the truth unless we sit in the actual meeting.

Second, what you seem to forget is that the FIA still insists on a cap, and that's what FOTA doesn't want. It's not the height that matters to them, it's the way it's enforced: FIA will receive unlimited access to the entire team, in order to make sure everything is billed properly - but that's like saying everyone who's innocent shouldn't mind government espionage and city-wide CCTV cameras (hint hint, nudge nudge): Teams also don't want the FIA to hang around their wind-tunnels, factories and test-beds, either.

"FOTA are blocking the FIA's proposals" - but the FIA is blocking FOTA's cost-cutting ideas, as well. Spec'ing certain parts (as much as I dislike the idea) and limiting the number of certain parts per team will cost just as much as unlimited parts and testing but on a limited budget. The current testing-ban, a FOTA proposal originally, is currently saving the teams millions without the need for an FIA delegate at every corner of McLaren's factory. Even limiting the number of wheel-nuts, at $1000 a piece, would save costs.



Yes, a rival series will completely and utterly fail - but so will the cap.

 

[Alltidxx]

Consider the following: the teams have to negotiate with the FIA because a rival series has always been a last resort. They also have to continue to compete in the 2009 series. And in between all of this, if the following:
*They have just six months until 2010.

So what? Lets take a year off and run from 2011. What makes you think making painful adjustments to compete in a series you don't like the rules in for another year would be a better choice?

They will need to organise at least fifteen races and you can bet that since they've threatened to go rogue before, Bernie Ecclestone will have something in the contracts with individual circuits and organisers to prevent them from joining a rival series.

Bernie has an ace down his sleeve? Speculation based on nothing. As far as tracks go we've been over that.

A rival championship would need its own set of agreed-upon technical and sporting regulations as well as the formation of a formal governing body; FOTA themselves won't cut it as the governing body needs to be impartial and FOTA would clearly be too invested.

Copy FIA. Change according to taste. Ezpeleta governs.

They would need to organise commercial and broadcasting agreements worldwide.

Sure. If that takes too long lets run 2011.

They will still need to fully develop 2010 cars.

How is that different from FIA F1 2010?

They have used the threat of a breakaway series before, and not once has it come to fruition. So you can understand why event organisers and sponsors may not be falling over themselves to join with FOTA since they've got a history of doing nothing more than making threats.

If it has never happened before it will never happen in the future? I suppose you cross the street without looking because no car passed by yesterday either.

In fact, this article from The Times Online suggests that the teams are doing verything they can to stay in Formula One

Yes, of course? If they wanted to break away they would've by now. They want to stay in F1 but not as the rules stand.

Now, explain that one to me without saying it's just propaganda.

You want the teams to eat FIAs crap don't you? You want to see Mosley and the bunch put their foot on the racing teams to shut them up and carry on?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Well, for starters, it's what the FIA says: It's obviously going to be in favour of the FIA. A FOTA press release would claim the exact opposite, and we have no way to determine the truth unless we sit in the actual meeting.

That's true, but I posted it for a reason. On just about every forum and blog where the current row is being discussed, I see one thing in common: the mass opinion that regardless of what the FIA do, they will be wrong. And likewise, FOTA will always be right. I've seen it here, at the Autosport forums, F1 Fanatic and F1 Rejects to name a few.

Take the new teams as the perfect example: I've seen an alarming number of people posting the opinion that Max Mosley was the only person who had any say in choosing the new teams. Now, while he did have the final say, an Autosport article on N.Technology's reaction (I don't have a link to the article; for some reason opening Autosport causes my browser to become non-repsonsive), shows that Max Mosley did indeed pick the teams, but he chose them from what the FIA as a whole decided to be the five best proposals.

Now I know I have a record of posting stuff that's downright wrong, like when I said Adrian Newey takes a while to get his head around the regulations. I don't know why I did that, but that's not the point of this post. The real point is that we have to consider both sides of the argument. Yes, Max Mosley is a screw-up. Yes, the man seems more resilient than a cockroach; in the event of a nuclear war tomorrow, I wouldn't be surprised if he is among the survivors. And yes, he's made bad calls in the past, done things that one could make the case for having been to the detriment of the sport rather than its benefit. But that does not mean he's always wrong. And it does not mean the other side are always right. I'm by no means defending him here, but rather launching an attack on popular opinion. It's easy to say Max Mosley is a crackpot, but don't you think that it's possible more than a few fans are saying it because they've always said it. Popular opinion is getting in the way here because it changes the way we're seeing things. Fortunately, this is not F1 Idol and we are not voting for our favourite contestants, but let's look at it this way: say tomorrow that the FIA come out and announce a plan that they think is reasonable and it gets posted all over the internet. We don't know the details of the plan, only that it doesn't meet all of the team's demands (if any), but the FIA still think it to be reasonable. And then, ten hours later, we get a report revealing that the teams have agreed to that plan. What comes next?

My bet is that the internet comes alive, accusing the teams of being spineless and agreeing to an unconditional surrender, that FOTA is now ruined because they caved in to Mosley and the FIA will now think they can walk all over the teams. But we still don't know what the teams agreed to. For all we know, the FIA have proposed a system of forensic accountancy, getting what they want, but ensuring the confidentiality of the teams and protecting their interests. The point is that a soluion has been worked out, but because of popular opinion, we've already written it off without even knowing what it is.

That's why I posted the article: because there are two sides to every conflct. I think we should at least read what the FIA say before condemning it instead of condemning it on priciple.

Yes, a rival series will completely and utterly fail - but so will the cap.

God, I wish some people woud see things that way. Not because it's my opinion that it will fail, but the number of people who are spoiling for a split is insane. They actually want this to happen ithout consiering the repercussions.

So what? Lets take a year off and run from 2011. What makes you think making painful adjustments to compete in a series you don't like the rules in for another year would be a better choice?

I'm not talking about an unconditional surrender, I'm talking about the teams negotiating with the FIA rather than burning their bridges. Like I said: the FIA championship will go ahead in 2010 with or without the current teams. If FOTA form a rival series and can't get off the ground for 2010, you can bet the FIA will have signed conacts with the owners of every current circuit allowing them exclusive rights to run races.

Bernie has an ace down his sleeve? Speculation based on nothing. As far as tracks go we've been over that.

My speculation is based on the idea that someone of Ecclestone's integrity always has an ace down his sleeve. You think great businessmen got to where they are now by taking needless risks? No. Research has shown that the world's best and brightest businesspeople have some of the lowest tolerance for risk and ambiguity.

Copy FIA. Change according to taste. Ezpeleta governs.

You think it's as easy as that? You're a perfect example of what I was talking about when I said people are priming for a fight without thought to the consequences. There is no guarantee that FOTA, Ezpeleta or anyone else will be better that Mosley and the FIA.

You want the teams to eat FIAs crap don't you? You want to see Mosley and the bunch put their foot on the racing teams to shut them up and carry on?

No, I want Formula One to survive, whole and intact. If that means bending to the FIA's will, then so be it. It's better than a schism in motorsport that may never be repaired that was made simply to prove a point. At least I'm not the one calling for a rival series that is doomed to begin with simply so that I can say I was right.

 

[Alltidxx]

At least I hope the media stops contacting old racing drivers anytime soon to ask for their opinions. Their intellectual brilliance or media training have not quite shone through.

There is no guarantee that FOTA, Ezpeleta or anyone else will be better that Mosley and the FIA.

No, there are no guaranties. Only taxes and death is certain.

When I read your last post you seem like a reasonable guy. But in this case you seem to have taken on the arguments of the underrepresented other side (kinda like when I back in school was arguing that "war is not all bad" because everyone else said war sucks) even though this is not your real position. Easy to misjudge a person's opinion then.

Ps. Actually, Saudi Arabia doesn't have any taxes do they? In such case... DOH!

 

[TheCracker]

What nobody seems to think about or mention in respect to a FOTA brake-away series is their potential grid size. As it stands they'll have a maximum of 16 cars, and with the two Red Bull teams reportedly signing up unconditionally for F1 next year, a likely 12 car grid. This is hardly going to draw in the sponsors or spectators/viewers is it? New teams looking to join F1/FOTA GP are going to have the choice of joining a series with no history and little providence, against well established teams with huge budgets and which isn't F1. Or a series with almost 60 years of history, where the budgets are relatively low and, along with some well established names, a lot of the teams are also new and trying to find their feet too. Not to mention the hundreds of millions of fans the series has worldwide.

It's not only the teams that face this potential crossroads, it's the drivers too. Drivers grow up wanting to be the F1 World Champion, not some kind of FOTA GP Champion which at the end of the day means diddley squat to anyone.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

But in this case you seem to have taken on the arguments of the underrepresented other side even though this is not your real position.

I have been known to play the Devil's Advocate to the extent where I slip into the role by default, but I'm not doing it simply because everyone else is agreeing with one thing. My view is that although I think Mosley has overstayed his welcome, neither the FIA or FOTA are completely innocent or completely guilty in this latest episode. I think a lot of people are automatically siding with FOTA because of their dislike for Mosley and the FIA, and because of that they are passing judgement without really considering what is going on. It's a bit like a kangaroo court, a trial that is only for show because innocence or guilt - usually guilt - has already been decided before the trial begins.

 

[Alltidxx]

What nobody seems to think about or mention in respect to a FOTA brake-away series is their potential grid size. As it stands they'll have a maximum of 16 cars, and with the two Red Bull teams reportedly signing up unconditionally for F1 next year, a likely 12 car grid. This is hardly going to draw in the sponsors or spectators/viewers is it? New teams looking to join F1/FOTA GP are going to have the choice of joining a series with no history and little providence, against well established teams with huge budgets and which isn't F1. Or a series with almost 60 years of history, where the budgets are relatively low and, along with some well established names, a lot of the teams are also new and trying to find their feet too. Not to mention the hundreds of millions of fans the series has worldwide.

It's not only the teams that face this potential crossroads, it's the drivers too. Drivers grow up wanting to be the F1 World Champion, not some kind of FOTA GP Champion which at the end of the day means diddley squat to anyone.

Yes there would be challenges. But you are taking an awfully pessimistic view of it all. History is cool but I don't see myself watching F1 because the series used to be the greatest. Does what I watch need to be branded "F1" for no good reason? No, I just want to watch the pinnacle of motorsports. Spec car racing is not likely to be that. In terms of well established names the FOTA F1 will have that over FIA F1. Or both series will have that if the criteria is to have raced before. Regardless, to me it does seem weird to argue that a team that cannot build its own car will have more brand power than a team that can. And it's not like peoples memory will reset the day FOTA break away and wonder "uh, so who are you people? Fer-r-arriy?". I think your estimation of the difficulty to break away is overestimated. What would you have said the day someone came up with the idea of creating an F1 league I wonder? That it couldn't be done because it had not been done?

I can see the intro to F1 ahead: "dum dum dum ta daaaa aaaand welcome to another round of F1! This used to be the best racing league in the world! Aint that right Harley? Yes Dave, it really used to be.."

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Okay, say FOTA break away, but as TheCracker suggested, only six teams defect and so there are twelve cars on the grid. Obviously, that's not going to be enough, so where are the remaining four teams FOTA would need to match this year's grid going to come from? The FIA received fifteen applications to join this year's championship, but you can bet they'll be added to the roster for the FIA series in 2010 because they'll guarantee the budget cap and a future before FOM are offering financial support in a team's freshman year. So where are FOTA going to find four teams (minimum) to build an F1 team from the bottom up without any financial backing like FOM and with no guarantees of a future?

 

[Alltidxx]

Do you Race?,
But if we forget about the pie-throwing and image perceptions for a while and think about the real issues: Do you think the FOTA have no good points in their protests against the FIA regulations?

 

[TheCracker]

It's been a long time since F1 has been the 'best' racing series in the world - But that doesn't stop it from being 'F1 - the most popular racing series in the world'.

 

[Alltidxx]

Okay, say FOTA break away, but as TheCracker suggested, only six teams defect and so there are twelve cars on the grid. Obviously, that's not going to be enough, so where are the remaining four teams FOTA would need to match this year's grid going to come from? The FIA received fifteen applications to join this year's championship, but you can bet they'll be added to the roster for the FIA series in 2010 because they'll guarantee the budget cap and a future before FOM are offering financial support in a team's freshman year. So where are FOTA going to find four teams (minimum) to build an F1 team from the bottom up without any financial backing like FOM and with no guarantees of a future?

Well I don't know, where did Force India come from? And free spending is not an assumtion, there obviously need to be some cost cap. Just not £40M right here right now. Why do the 15 teams want to compete in F1. Because F1 is F1 today. Tomorrow it might not be. And again, lets run in 2011 then if 2010 is too tight.

It's been a long time since F1 has been the 'best' racing series in the world - But that doesn't stop it from being 'F1 - the most popular racing series in the world'.

True that. Americans would argue running 400 laps round and round is the best racing in the world.

 

[TheCracker]

Do you Race?,
But if we forget about the pie-throwing and image perceptions for a while and think about the real issues: Do you think the FOTA have no good points in their protests against the FIA regulations?

FOTA do have some some good points, that isn't in doubt, but F1 has come to a crossroads. Financially the global economy has come to standstill which isn't likely to get back to how it was let's say two years ago for some time to come. As it stands F1 has fewer teams then it really needs to sustain a level of competitiveness. A majority of the teams that do compete are now either manufacturer teams or partially bankrolled by a manufacturer. The budgets set by these manufacturers are totally at the whim of their board of directors and could quite easily be cut at any time. With one unnamed manufacturer already widely reported to be dropping out at the end of the 2009 season, it's going to leave F1 looking poorly supported. Without a major financial shake up, F1 will not attract any new teams to fill the grid and within a few years F1 will be a shadow of it's former self and will have no credibility.

All the FIA is trying to do is secure F1's future by making it attractive to new teams to join. FOTA, which is obviously made up by the existing manufacturer teams, is being very short sighted and greedy in wanting things to pretty-much stay as they are. They seem to have no wish in sharing the FOM pot with any new teams. FOTA is made up of businesses, who at the end of the day just want to make money one way or the other.

Well I don't know, where did Force India come from? And free spending is not an assumtion, there obviously need to be some cost cap. Just not £40M right here right now. Why do the 15 teams want to compete in F1. Because F1 is F1 today. Tomorrow it might not be. And again, lets run in 2011 then if 2010 is too tight.

Do you really expect sponsors and fans alike to sit on their hands for 12 months without looking elsewhere?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Do you think the FOTA have no good points in their protests against the FIA regulations?

I think they raise plenty of valid points, especially when it comes to continuity between the rules from one season to the next and the way the budget caps would give the FIA access to all their records. But that doesn't mean I'm of the belief that they're totally and completely infallible and nothing more than an innocent bystander of the FIA's crusade against rising costs the way so many people believe they are, just as the FIA aren't comepletey guilty.

Well I don't know, where did Force India come from?

Vijay Mallya purcahsed the remains of Spyker when they withdrew. Spyker purchased Midland after they packed it in. Midland bought Jordan when EJ went belly-up. Jordan had been in the sport for a decade and a half and was established at a time that was much cheaper. I know, there are people out there like Mallya who can afford to buy an F1 team, but that's not what I'm talking about: anyone who joins a FOTA series will have to start from the ground up. Building or buying facilities, hiring four hundred or more people, developing and building a car, getting themselves from one event to the next, hiring and paying drivers. The costs for starting up a team are astronomical; circumventing this - the single biggest barrier to entering the sport - was one of the primary objectives of the budget cap. The FIA can guarantee a future and FOM will pay new teams to help them through their debut season. FOTA can do neither; they will not have the money to support one new entrant, much less five (because they'll at least need to match this season's number of cars), and they cannot guarantee the series will exist beyond 2010.

With one unnamed manufacturer already widely reported to be dropping out at the end of the 2009 season, it's going to leave F1 looking poorly supported.

Renault and Toyota seem to be the leading candidates for that. Renault have lost the backing of ING as a title sponsor, they are failing to get results the way they have been in the past - which will make it harder to convince potential sponsors to join on, espeically in the current economic climate - they have experienced a downturn in sales in their road car division, Flavio Briatore's management style means they are essentially a one-car team and they've apparently told suppliers not to be too surpised if they withdraw. As for Toyota, they've been in the sport for several years and are still yet to rack up a win and their leadership-by-committee approach is the worst way to govern a Formula One team; Honda proved as much. BMW-Sauber also get their name thrown about for a potential exit, but only really because of their dissatisfacion with the budget cap and because they spent too much time and money developing KERS instead of the F1.09 as they should have been doing and if their Turkey results are anything to go by, they're returning to their old form. Haven't heard anything else about the others.

 

[Ardius]

Flavio Briatore's management style means they are essentially a one-car team

Hang on there, Piquet can do no wrong now eh? As easy as it is to blame Flavio, Piquet is allowed to drive well you know....as long as he doesn't challenge Alonso. I don't think crashing and generally doing far worse than your teammate is the same thing.
If its all Flav's fault, are we assuming Fisichella was so good even Flav couldn't stop him outshining Alonso from time to time? I doubt it.

Yes, it could be said that Piquet isn't in the easiest team to learn to race with but then again it could be said he is - he has no pressure to beat Alonso, no one ever expected him to. He could pretty much go his own pace and learn F1 as he went along without having to lead a team (like Vettel) or develop the car. But all he's managed his some lucky or mediocre results and some very bad drives. Not to mention his utter arrogance, no wonder he's not liked much at Renault, he has to battle a couple of other personalities!

(sorry for off topic forgot this wasn't the Turkey thread).

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm not saying Piquet can do no wrong, but because he's not allowed to challenge Alonso, he's basically the same driver he was three years ago. And it would be the same story if Romain Grosjean, Lucas di Grassi, Bruno Senna or anyone else you could care to name were in Piquet's position. Briatre is essentially running a one-car team, with Piquet only there to make up the numbers. He might not be the most talented driver on the grid, or the most deserving of his race seat. But don't you think he should be allowed the opportunity to become a better driver?

Even without Briatore's leadership style, there's still a hell of a lot wrong going wrong at Renault, and I seriously oubt they'll be with us in 2010. And if that means no more Briatore, I'm all for it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Pardon the double-post, but this is important: one way or another, this is about to end.

Budget cap remains for 2010
16 June 2009

The FIA has elected to proceed with its plans for a €45m budget cap next season. Despite much wrangling between teams and the sport's governing body over past months, the latter has finally decided that - after a meeting with team representatives on Monday - regulations surrounding the scheme will not be modified.

With four current teams - BMW, Brawn, McLaren and Toyota - still under conditional entries for 2010, responses from FOTA (Formula One Teams Association) remain to be see; having met with financial experts from FOTA on Monday, the FIA opted to keep the spending limit in place after describing that the teams' fiscal delegates were 'not prepared to discuss the regulation at all' as a result of being granted no permission to do so.

The FIA statement reads:

'As a result, the meeting could not achieve its purpose of comparing the FIA's rules with the FOTA proposals with a view to finding a common position.

In default of a proper dialogue, the FOTA financial proposals were discussed but it became clear that these would not be capable of limiting the expenditure of a team which had the resources to outspend its competitors. Another financial arms race would then be inevitable.

The FIA Financial Regulations therefore remain as published.'

The usual suspects of Autosport et al haven't picked up on this yet, but one assumes they will before long. By the sounds of things, negotiations are over with, and one of three things will happen: the teams will join unconditionally, they will leave, or they will fight it in the courts. They just have to decide which one.

 

[Alltidxx]

And today F1-live.com AGAIN presents another Niki Lauda ramble about how he perceive things to be a joke and laughable. Euphemistically called "straight-talking".

We have a saying in Sweden about not throwing stones in a greenhouse.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I thought they'd changed the budget cap to €100 million for next season then €45 million after that?

 

[TheCracker]

And today F1-live.com AGAIN presents another Niki Lauda ramble about how he perceive things to be a joke and laughable. Euphemistically called "straight-talking".

We have a saying in Sweden about not throwing stones in a greenhouse.

As a three time World Champion, long time commentator on the sport and successful business man in his own right, i think Lauda's comments on the situation are as valid as anyones. I like the fact that he speaks his mind without pussy-footing around trying not to step on anyones toes.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I thought they'd changed the budget cap to €100 million for next season then €45 million after that?

That was only a suggestion put forth by Mercedes.

 

[Metar]

I'm not saying Piquet can do no wrong, but because he's not allowed to challenge Alonso, he's basically the same driver he was three years ago. And it would be the same story if Romain Grosjean, Lucas di Grassi, Bruno Senna or anyone else you could care to name were in Piquet's position. Briatre is essentially running a one-car team, with Piquet only there to make up the numbers. He might not be the most talented driver on the grid, or the most deserving of his race seat. But don't you think he should be allowed the opportunity to become a better driver?

Briatore is letting Piquet develop - but there's nothing left to develop. He's tried hard for a season and a half, after a long time as test-driver, too: And he fails miserably. He's still using Alonso's setups, something which, for the record, Hamilton only did for half a season, and he's still slower, more inconsistent (well, he's consistently inconsistent) and prone to mistakes every other Sunday. Do you really think Briatore has a "Crash-button" on the #8 car? Or that Alonso gets significantly better parts (excepting the diffuser in China, which was only a last-minute thing)? How hard is it to accept that Briatore isn't the devil (and I thought you liked playing Devil's Advocate?) and that Piquet is ever-so-slightly crap?

Even without Briatore's leadership style, there's still a hell of a lot wrong going wrong at Renault, and I seriously oubt they'll be with us in 2010. And if that means no more Briatore, I'm all for it.

With the cap in place, I can see them on the grid. They've been one of the teams that had budget-savings as their motto: Winning 2005 and 2006 with a significantly smaller budget, building faster and/or more reliable cars than the McMerc and Ferrari powerhouses. That, and being one of the two that actually adhered to the engine-freeze.

What else is wrong? Their aerodynamics team has been playing catch-up nicely - not as successful as Ferrari, but they're at the bottom end of the points, unlike some other higher-spending manufacturers. They have one top driver and one sub-par driver, a team of slightly drunk strategists and colour-blind painting crews. Other than that?

 

[Hun200kmh]

Wooaa ... very bad news. Now the war is in the press!

Monday FIA - FOTA meeting ended without ANY progress.

And I don't even have time to read this now, but even lawyers letters and correspondence between Mosley and Montezemolo are now made available by the ... FIA

Here, if you're into a long, long read:

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/f1releases/2009/Pages/fia_fota.aspx

 

[prisonermonkeys]

How hard is it to accept that Briatore isn't the devil (and I thought you liked playing Devil's Advocate?) and that Piquet is ever-so-slightly crap?

I never said that Piquet was good. I simply said that I felt Briatore's management style - namely the preventing him from beating Alonso - means that Piquet will always be forced to be second best in a sport where second best isn't good enough. Nor am I saying that if Piquet had been treated differently, he would have had a different career. I'm only saying that he might have done so.

And while I play the Devil's Advocate by choice, it doesn't mean I always like doing it. I balance that dislike against everyone agreeing on the same point on principal as opposed to having original thoughts (I'm not referring to anyone in particular here, but more the internet in general).

What else is wrong? Their aerodynamics team has been playing catch-up nicely - not as successful as Ferrari, but they're at the bottom end of the points, unlike some other higher-spending manufacturers. They have one top driver and one sub-par driver, a team of slightly drunk strategists and colour-blind painting crews. Other than that?

No title sponsor for 2010. No results that may convince potential sponsors that investing in Renault is worth it; Alonso might be doing well, but Piquet's results hardly endear the team to anyone. What do you think would be more likely: a double World Champion driving a bad car very well, or an undertalented and undeserving driver being given a race seat in a good car? Given that if Renault had one of the best teams, they could attract anyone they like and that their nose cone was apparently designed around the aerodynamic properties of an anvil, I think the former - at least to potential sponsors who have little knoweldge of and/or experience with Formula One - is more likely. Elsewhere, Renault have apparetly experience a downturn in sales of their road cars, which means they have less money to throw at projects like Formula One. I can see them being an engine supplier - if that's allowed - but not a full works effort.

The latest insanity report: the FIA are accusing FOTA of attempting to hijack the regulations and the commercial rights to the sport.

FIA: FOTA is attempting to control the rules of F1

By Jonathan Noble - Tuesday, June 16th 2009, 11:55 GMT

The FIA has told the Formula One Teams' Association (FOTA) that it finds its attempts to take over the regulations of F1 and get control of commercial rights as unacceptable, as it explained why it will not back down on a budget cap.

With tensions mounting between the governing body and FOTA over cost-cut control and future governance of the sport, the FIA issued a lengthy press statement on Tuesday explaining its stance.

It claims that the efforts made by itself and Formula One Management in making the sport one of the most popular in the world will not be wasted by what the teams want.

"The FIA and FOM have together spent decades building the FIA Formula One World Championship into the most watched motor sport competition in history," it said.

"In light of the success of the FIA's Championship, FOTA - made up of participants who come and go as it suits them – has set itself two clear objectives: to take over the regulation of Formula 1 from the FIA and to expropriate the commercial rights for itself. These are not objectives which the FIA can accept."

The FIA stated that its hardline stance on the budget cap has been fuelled by the lessons learned from trying to cut engine costs, and the fact the manufacturers had refused to commit themselves for the long term.

"Mr. [Luca] di Montezemolo promised to secure the necessary guarantees from the main car manufacturing companies (not to be confused with guarantees from the teams).

"He continued to promise this all through the winter, most recently at a meeting he had with the FIA's President on 23 February 2009. Not one such letter has been forthcoming – not even from Mr. di Montezemolo's own company FIAT.

"At the same time FOTA and Mr. di Montezemolo rebuffed all attempts to hold meetings to discuss cost reduction. There was no need, the FIA were told. FOTA's own measures were adequate and they would make up for the shortage of cars by each running a third car. By March it was clear that FOTA had no intention of facilitating the entry of new teams, indeed were opposed."

Speaking about why a budget cap was seen as the best way forward, the FIA explained: "If we wish to see innovative technology in Formula 1, the only way is to limit expenditure and allow the engineers freedom to do their best within a fixed budget.

"This is exactly what happens in the real world and it is the only way forward for Formula 1. Without technical innovation, Formula 1 will wither and die. Without real cost constraints, Formula 1 will lose its teams. This is why the FIA is insisting on cost restraint as part of the Formula One regulations."

If this is true - and yes, I know it's a report in favour of the FIA because it's no doubt taken from a media release written by them - then I actually think the FIA are in the right here. While FOTA have the right to protect themselves and their interests, a right that extends to being a part of the decision-making process, I don't think they have the right to try and dictate the regulations themselves. The FIA exists as the governing body becaue it is impartial. Yes, I know getting embroiled in a political shouting match with the teams on a regular basis is hardly the definition of impartiality, but what I mean is that the FIA are not the teams. Look at the Olympics or any other professional sport: there is a reason why the judges are not from the same country as either of the teams or indiviudals playing. If FOTA were in control of the rules and there were factions within FOTA as the FIA claim there are, what's to say those factions won't be self-serving and make decisions that are good for them rather than for the good of the sport?