Ferrari to take their toys and go home

[Metar]

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.

Flavio has no interest to prevent Piquet from out-driving Alonso occasionally. Alonso wouldn't mind Piquet being right behind him, too. But Piquet has been given the same equipment, and occasionally better strategies considering the respective qualifying-performances, and I can only recall a single race - France 2008 in slightly-wet conditions - where Alonso finished behind Piquet (they were behind a Webber-train and Piquet got ahead when Alonso went off line for a moment). Other than that, only two races (Fuji 2008 and Hockenheim 2008) stand out as a good performance (he could've finished 2nd at Fuji with more overtaking-friendly cars), and only a handful halfway-decent runs.

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.

I'd agree with you that the loss of ING is a problem, however, you might have noticed the heavy colours of Total - Elf's parent company - who are not just technical partners, but also French and sponsors of the Peugeot Le Mans effort.

That being said, Piquet's chances of keeping a 2010 seat are slim to none, so he's out of the picture anyway... and comparing the nose to an anvil is not only ignorant, but downright wrong: Independent CFD testing done simulating the spec middle section and Renault's nose have shown to produce more downforce than the regular version, and the downforce/drag ratio improved slightly. At the same time, the bluntness of a part doesn't matter at all: Not only is a round, blunt shape the best for subsonic speeds, but it's the overall frontal area, and the Coefficient of Drag, that matter.

And downturns in sales are experienced across the entire industry. Other manufacturers suffer just as much.

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

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?

I'd agree that you need a governing body, preferably impartial (well, for all I care, it could hate the teams as much as it wants as long as they're hated equally). But as to who writes the regulations, I think the teams have a point, and could and should write them together. FOTA has the technical knowledge, and knows how fast the cars will be, what will change, or why it should be changed: And the FIA can then enforce it. The Olympics analogy is partially wrong, just as it was with Bernie's medals: The "judges" are the FIA, and still would be: The ones that enforce the rules. But in the Olympics, the rules for a sport don't change for years, anyway. When they are - for example, when a loophole is found - the judges, on the spot, decide on the legality - just as the FIA would if, during a season, a loophole that's technically legal is found. Teams will then review it for the next year - just as they should with the double-decker diffusers.

The FIA have a long history of changing things for the worse, and their staff isn't the most skilled, nor the most up-to-date, on technical matters - otherwise they'd be working for the teams. Time and time again, their attempts to improve overtaking failed miserably, and their attempts to cut speeds only amplified the overtaking problem; However, the teams, when given the reign, have proven themselves: OWG's 2009 cars overtake far better than in previous years. There are still a few problems (namely, loss of rear grip in traffic, as opposed to last year's complete loss of grip), but it's a great improvement.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I have to say, I find it interesting that none of the teams - or FOTA as a whole, for that matter - have commented on the budget cap going ahead. Yet.

And downturns in sales are experienced across the entire industry. Other manufacturers suffer just as much.

But it's a question of a) just how much Renault have suffered from it, and b) at what point they're doing to say enough is enough and start culling projects they feel they don't need. Renault have been struggling since 2007, really. The R27 wasn't that great compared to its predecessors; it scraped just a quarter of the R26's points and scored just two podiums in 2007 compared to twenty in 2006. And while Alonso won in Singapore and Japan with the R28, those victories came after the Ferraris and McLarens ran into trouble. And now they're seventh, though a lot of that would have to do with Piquet's consistent failure to score points. Whatever happened between 2006 and 2007, it marked a huge step backwards for the team and they haven't really demonstrated inroads into getting back on top. Renault may not have suffered the way other car companies have, but the Powers That Be probably don't have limitless patience with a team that have been in freefall since they last won the championship. Even if the budget cap negates the effects of the economic storm, there's still a lot to suggest Renault may not be with us for much longer. It's pretty telling that they've informed their suppliers not to be too surprised if they withdraw. Why would they do that if there weren't, at the very least, entertaining the notion of not competing?

I'd agree that you need a governing body, preferably impartial (well, for all I care, it could hate the teams as much as it wants as long as they're hated equally). But as to who writes the regulations, I think the teams have a point, and could and should write them together. FOTA has the technical knowledge, and knows how fast the cars will be, what will change, or why it should be changed: And the FIA can then enforce it.

That's what I'm saying: co-operation should be the way forward, but FOTA shouldn't have complete control over the rules as the FIA seem to hink they are trying to do.

However, the teams, when given the reign, have proven themselves: OWG's 2009 cars overtake far better than in previous years. There are still a few problems (namely, loss of rear grip in traffic, as opposed to last year's complete loss of grip), but it's a great improvement.

I don't think they're ever going to get cars that behave perfectly under all situations. It's my understanding that when a car is moving, it is designed so that the air will provide the least resistance possible. But once that air is past the car, it becomes turbulent. Since the cars are designed to perform best in clear air - because you want to be at the front, not in second place - they don't behave the same way when cutting through turbulence as opposed to still air. That suggests, to my rudimentary knowledge, that having a car that performs the same way in clean air as it does dirty air is not possible.

 

[Radracing]

Can they really say they (major car manufacturers) want to lower the cost, that they really mean it. I think it really boils down to two things if they agree to the conditions of the cap they will lose the unfair advantage of having deeper pockets so that they can develope their cars at a faster pace. The second would be they have bigger sponsors that can afford to write off a lot more money so it gives them the advantage of getting the best people in the biz by offering tons more money for their contracts.

If they want more passing in F1 they should just bring back the ground effects. Just suck the car to the ground and forget about the air turbulence when following too close to other cars.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

If they want more passing in F1 they should just bring back the ground effects. Just suck the car to the ground and forget about the air turbulence when following too close to other cars.

The problem with ground effects is that when the airflow under the car is disrupted, the car becomes unstable.

 

[Alltidxx]

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.

There are indeed plenty of jerks with money in this world.

 

[Metar]

Renault have been struggling since 2007, really. The R27 wasn't that great compared to its predecessors; it scraped just a quarter of the R26's points and scored just two podiums in 2007 compared to twenty in 2006. And while Alonso won in Singapore and Japan with the R28, those victories came after the Ferraris and McLarens ran into trouble. And now they're seventh, though a lot of that would have to do with Piquet's consistent failure to score points. Whatever happened between 2006 and 2007, it marked a huge step backwards for the team and they haven't really demonstrated inroads into getting back on top.

Renault's fall from grace, as I said before, was the tyre-change. The Renault cars were famous for their excellent use of the Michelin tyres, and the Bridgestones were hard to adapt to: The only Michelin teams that got over the move well were the McLaren team with the Ferrari data, and BMW Sauber - neither of them teams that had the 2006 championship to fight for. Also, do you remember the fact that McLaren won the championship last year, but now barely moves out of Q1? Comparatively, falling from championships to 4th-fastest (which they were in 2007) doesn't seem too bad.

However, they've shown significant improvements during the season, and again in 2008, ending up 3rd-fastest on pace, and fastest on points (in the last 6 races, Alonso scored more points than any other). The Singapore victory was down to the safety-car, and indeed pure luck, but the Fuji win was with a BMW and a Ferrari chasing behind you; Not only that, but when analyzing the laptimes, Alonso was fastest by a margin.

It's pretty telling that they've informed their suppliers not to be too surprised if they withdraw. Why would they do that if there weren't, at the very least, entertaining the notion of not competing?

With the FOTA/FIA war going on, every responsible team should warn their suppliers.

I don't think they're ever going to get cars that behave perfectly under all situations. It's my understanding that when a car is moving, it is designed so that the air will provide the least resistance possible. But once that air is past the car, it becomes turbulent. Since the cars are designed to perform best in clear air - because you want to be at the front, not in second place - they don't behave the same way when cutting through turbulence as opposed to still air. That suggests, to my rudimentary knowledge, that having a car that performs the same way in clean air as it does dirty air is not possible.

That's obviously correct, but there are differences in the way it performs in dirty air. Take a note of sportscars: They don't perform the same way in traffic as in clean air, either; they perform better, as the leading car creates low pressure behind it and allows it to close up. The relatively small amounts of downforce produced, coupled with relatively insensitive aerodynamics, allow it them to follow closely and take advantage of the slipstream.

Now, compare, say, a 2008 F1 car. In traffic, airflow coming off the rear of a car would be not just extremely turbulent, but turbulent in a bad way (one of the OWG's discoveries was that specific types of turbulence are beneficial for the following car). The middle of the diffuser, coupled with the rear wing, created extreme upwash, leaving low-pressure turbulence in the middle of the follower's front wing - where the majority of downforce was produced. Airflow underneath the follower was also disturbed, causing loss of downforce in the rear from the diffuser, and as a result of that, the rear-wing which was coupled to it.

2009 cars improve greatly on that: The front wing even gains small amounts of downforce when trailing a car in jaw (such as through a corner), and cars can follow closer - but as I said, small kinks still reared their head, as the rear still loses downforce comparatively, and thus causes even more oversteer on this year's already oversteer-prone cars.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I recall reading somewhere that the 2008 cars needed to be going two seconds a lap faster than the car in front to stand a chance of passing it. The OWG halved that distance, and claim they could have taken it further but elected not to. Their reasoning was that because cars naturally lap slower when dogfighting, it would essentially be a drag race to the first corner. After that, everyone from second down would be fightng for position, and no-one could get closer to first.

Of course, the OWG never saw Brawn coming.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I think it was three seconds a lap before. Now it was supposed to come down to one second but not less because to would make it too easy to overtake apparently.

 

[Metar]

I think it was three seconds a lap before. Now it was supposed to come down to one second but not less because to would make it too easy to overtake apparently.

^ That was their reasoning: Less than a second would kill the spectacle, since a slightly faster car would then overtake with ease.

 

[Hun200kmh]

FOTA offers compromise deal to the FIA

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76263

and

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/090617124225.shtml

 

[prisonermonkeys]

*crosses fingers*

Please accept, please accept, please accept.

I think I speak for a lot of fans when I say that I just want this to be over.

 

[Tired Tyres]

This is going around in circles.

 

[Soundtrack]

Unfortunately, this new FOTA proposal sounds pretty vague and mostly looks like a new attempt to postpone the “deadline” (hopefully not literally).

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Unfortunately, this new FOTA proposal sounds pretty vague and mostly looks like a new attempt to postpone the “deadline” (hopefully not literally).

I don't know about that ... it sounds like FOTA just made a pretty big concession. This is taken from the AUTOSPORT article previously linked to:

"The time has come when, in the interests of the sport, we must all seek to compromise and bring an urgent conclusion to the protracted debate regarding the 2010 world championship," Reuters quoted the letter as saying.

"We hope that you will consider that this letter represents significant movement by the teams, all of whom have clearly stated a willingness to commit to the sport until the end of 2012.

"We would therefore strongly but respectfully submit that you consider these proposals and seek to avoid the potential departure from Formula One of some important teams.

"Now is the time to find a reasonable and rapid solution to the outstanding issues."

FOTA says in the letter that its teams could sign up to a version of the budget cap, or what it calls the 'resource restriction proposal' so long as it is independently policed and universal for all. In return for accepting this compromise the current teams would assist new entries with engine supplies and technical assistance.

"We detect ... that a solution might be possible based on the FOTA resource restriction proposal but with measures introduced," the letter said.

"We would propose in this respect that we nominate a top firm of independent accountants who will devise an audit methodology that will be implemented by all of the teams.

"This methodology and the annual results would be disclosed to the FIA ... we can see no reason why such a system based on objective verification of compliance would not be acceptable to all parties."

The FIA believes Ferrari, Red Bull and Toro Rosso signed contracts to compete until 2012; now that all the teams of FOTA have indicated that they'd be willing to commit to that date, it sounds like they've met one of the big sticking points. And they're clearly hoping that if they're willing to do as much, the FIA will agree to an independent means of policing, which - let's face it - is the only way it could ever be done to avoid conflicts of interest.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Again, pardon the double-post, but this is possibly the most important piece of news all year: Mosley will deal.

Mosley offers deal but deadline stands

By Jonathan Noble - Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 12:56 GMT

FIA president Max Mosley says there will be no backing down on his insistence that Formula 1 teams lift the conditions attached to their entries within 48 hours, but has hinted that a compromise could now be on the cards.

Following a letter from the Formula One Teams' Association to Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone, viewed as a last ditch effort to avert teams walking away from the sport, the FIA laid out the terms by which it would accept a deal.

Although rejecting suggestions that the deadline for the matter be delayed from this Friday to July 1, and that standard engine supplier Cosworth be forced to detune its engines, the FIA says it would be willing to talk about governance changes and revisions to the cost cap.

In the letter, a copy of which has been seen by AUTOSPORT, Mosley said there was no chance of a revised Concorde Agreement being sorted before Friday - so the 1998 version would have to be used as an interim.

"If we start to modify the governance provisions of the 1998 Concorde Agreement, a lengthy discussion will begin," he wrote. "There is no time left for this because we must answer the remaining applicants for 2010 no later than Friday."

He added: "Our proposal is therefore that all parties agree to accept the 1998 governance provisions by means of an exchange of letters. We can then negotiate a new 2009 Concorde Agreement under the protection of the 1998 arrangement.

"After all, we lived with these for ten years; a few more weeks or months should not cause any difficulty."

Regarding FOTA’s suggestions that independent accountants be appointed to oversee compliance with a budget cap, Mosley said that such an idea had already been suggested by the governing body.

Furthermore, he wants the teams to accept the £40 million limit for now, prior to further discussions that could see it changed in the next few weeks.

"A fundamental problem with the FOTA proposal was the absence of a clear figure," wrote Mosley. "The teams need to know what the constraints are, so do we.

"We therefore propose that you accept the 2010 rules, as published, which we agreed with you last year. If necessary, these can be revised with the above governance procedures in due course."

Mosley confirmed that there would be no two-tier regulations in 2010, which had been one of the biggest complaints of FOTA.

However, he said that Cosworth would be allowed to run to 2006 regulations because it had "neither the time nor the resources to return for 2010."

And in a bid to get the matter sorted in the next day or so, Mosley said he would write to the teams to ask them to accept the FIA’s offer so they could drop the conditions attached to their entries before Friday's deadline.

"We will shortly send a letter for signature to each team. If signed and returned, the letter will make the above proposals legally binding and the relevant team's entry unconditional," he said.

If it weren' for the eleventh hour, nothing would ever get done ...

 

[Soundtrack]

Here’s a slightly different source. I suspect lots off “ifs” in there.

“further discussions of new confidential Concorde Agreement”.

FOTA’s hired “top firm of independent accountants”

Not to mention lack off any figure about an eventual cap implementation.

Hardly a significant movement by the teams in my opinion and definitely a way too vague/incomplete proposal to be considered an ultimate attempt for a satisfying compromise.

I fully agree with you it is about time to put an end to all this mess, but sadly don’t find any sign of peace-settings in there.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It's a start. They're a lot closer to a resolution than they were yesterday.

The point of agreeing to the 1998 Concorde is to protect the teams a little bit. Rather than simply existing for a few months without an agreement in place, the 2009 edition can be negotiated with the teams safe under the 1998 version if it falls through. Or at least, that's the way I'm reading it.

As for hiring an accounting firm, that's exactly what anyone running an audit - which is essentially what the FIA are doing, making sure the teams stick to the rules - would do. The firm is outside both the FIA and FOTA; the FIA hired them because they're the ones doing the auditing. So long as they're not another Arthur Anderson, it's absolutely nothing to be concerned about. In fact, it's a point in FOTA's favour because an external moderator is what they were pushing for.

It's vague for a reason: they're only just starting this round of negotiations. This is a call to the table where they'll talk and debate; think what you will of Mosley, but he's not going to say "Ha! I've got you now, FOTA! You were fools for signing up, because now I'm not going to listen to you! You're going to race in 2010 and you're going to race under my rules, or else I won't just throw the book at you, I'll throw an entire library!" within ten minutes of the teams agreeing to drop their conditions. It'd be suicide, and the letter would essentially constitute his word that they'll talk.

 

[Soundtrack]

At least FIA is playing tranparency. link

Will we get a full copy off the 2009 Concorde?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Will we get a full copy off the 2009 Concorde?

Let me answer your question by asking a question of my own: have we ever seen a copy of any of the previous Concorde Agreements? Since the first was signed in 1981, they have all been strictly secret. The only time the secrey was ever broken was when the 1997 Agreement was made public by a journalist in 2008, and even then, it had been replaced with the 1998 edition.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Mosley offers deal but deadline stands. And unconditional entries are still required.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76266

I think BrawnGP, possibly McLaren and BMW-Sauber will enter unconditionally now.

Ferrari, Renault and Toyota ... I don't know but I'd be surprised if they enter.

Red Bull /STR ... I don't have a clue what they'll do.

 

[Metar]

Dunno, I don't think McLaren can afford to keep the MTC under the cap.

Seriously though, they've never been known to be a particularly efficient team. They've been lethally effective, but not efficient by any means. Ever since the '80s they've been some of the biggest spenders on the grid; an entire team at TAG responsible for running an engine-testing car pretty much every day of the week, and later the same at Honda. For the 1988 campaign, they brought 20 engines to each race, and had a crew working on improvements for it nearly 24/7 with a test-track and car alongside. And in the '90s, with their Mercedes deal, they were the first to introduce today's big-spending Manufacturer Era - they were the first to spend today's impossible amounts of money.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Hardly a significant movement by the teams in my opinion and definitely a way too vague/incomplete proposal to be considered an ultimate attempt for a satisfying compromise.

Does this help you?

Mosley outlines deal offer to teams

By Jonathan Noble - Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 16:31 GMT

FIA president Max Mosley has informed teams of the package of rules that he is willing to accept for next year, AUTOSPORT has learned, as a final push is made by the governing body to end the standoff over entries to the 2010 championship.

The eight members of the Formula One Teams' Association (FOTA) have until Friday to lift the conditions attached to their entries - and efforts are increasing on both sides to try and reach a settlement.

After a day of further letters between motor racing's governing body and FOTA, Mosley has as promised laid out the terms by which he wants the teams to sign up. And although there had been fears of a total breakdown in discussions between the two parties, Mosley has informed FOTA that he is willing to make some movement on the question of governance in the sport.

He has told teams that he is prepared to discuss the FIA's International Court of Appeal, and also remove the controversial Appendix 5 to the 2010 Sporting Regulations. This latter element had angered teams, who feared that it gave the governing body carte blanche to impose whatever rules they wanted.

Mosley also said that he was willing to change some of the technical regulations for 2010. If the teams agree, the moveable wing rules will remain as they were for 2009, 4WD cars will not be allowed, tyre warmers will continue and the engine rules will remain as they are for this year - except customer Cosworth units will be allowed to run unrestricted. Also gearbox rules will remain as they are for 2009, as will testing limitations.

Mosley also made it clear that he would be willing to accept a 100 million Euros cost cap limit for next year, providing that it was reduced to 45 million Euros for 2011. This was the same figure that was outlined in a letter sent to FOTA president Luca di Montezemolo following the team meeting in Monaco.

Outline plans were also detailed for how the budget cap would be policed with 'self-reporting of compliance using a reputable auditor' used. Mosley also confirmed that breaches of the budget cap rules would not result in on-track sanctions, but would instead be 'financial against a pre-agreed formula.'

FOTA now has 48 hours to to decide whether to accept the terms and sign up for F1, or decide to stand firm and risk being left off the grid.

Again, all pretty reasonable, I think. I'm not too big on tyre warmers staying for 2010, though. I was under the impression that the ban on them an refuelling was to challenge the drivers more because the cars would perform different given the level of fuel in the tank and the state and temperature of the tyres.

 

[peterjford]

Again, all pretty reasonable, I think. I'm not too big on tyre warmers staying for 2010, though. I was under the impression that the ban on them an refuelling was to challenge the drivers more because the cars would perform different given the level of fuel in the tank and the state and temperature of the tyres.

The ban on refueling seemed to be to move the passing opportunities to the track, instead of in the pits. The ban on tire warmers would seem to do the same, and still make pit strategy a part of a race.

So next year the name will change to "Formula 100 million Euros" and in 2011 it will be "Formula 45 million Euros"?

 

[Soundtrack]

Again, all pretty reasonable, I think. I'm not too big on tyre warmers staying for 2010, though. I was under the impression that the ban on them an refuelling was to challenge the drivers more because the cars would perform different given the level of fuel in the tank and the state and temperature of the tyres.

Again, I agree with you. Still, I don’t see major changes between these and the previous “Mercedes Initiative” that failed.

I’m still unsure the remaining “rebel teams” are even considering a transitional 100 million cap, since there is absolutely no hint in their previous letter they are even willing to do so. Also I don’t think they will compromise unless they obtain a new redistribution proportionality of Bernie’s cash. In the middle of those montains of power and money, refuelling and tyre warmers looks almost insignificant, witch, if needed, sadly shows how bad the road of this “sport” has become. F1 needs “fresh air” for sure.

 

[Metar]

Does this help you?
Again, all pretty reasonable, I think. I'm not too big on tyre warmers staying for 2010, though. I was under the impression that the ban on them an refuelling was to challenge the drivers more because the cars would perform different given the level of fuel in the tank and the state and temperature of the tyres.

No tyre-warmers would be a pretty minor thing both as far as money is concerned, and as far as driving-challenges. It'd simply mean half a lap of limping around the track at dangerous speed-differentials until the tyres reached their temperature: Ambient is around 25c on most tracks, while operating temperatures are above 90c...

 

[Hun200kmh]

According to F1.Live's speculation, FOTA will not last for many hours.

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/090618101310.shtml

So, the rebel (team) alliance is doomed. And the "Empire" will prevail.

 

[Soundtrack]

Never underestimate the power of the for$€.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So, the rebel (team) alliance is doomed. And the "Empire" will prevail.

And then we sell the movie rights and mke a trio of crappy prequels that explain how we got to this point but are really just money-spinners. With Hayden Christensen as Kimi Raikkonen.

 

[Hun200kmh]

LOL, maybe Felipe Massa will be played by the CG character Yoda.

Meanwhile, FOTA is meeting now at Enstone (Renault headquarters)

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/090618211804.shtml

 

[Alltidxx]

According to F1.Live's speculation, FOTA will not last for many hours.

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/090618101310.shtml

So, the rebel (team) alliance is doomed. And the "Empire" will prevail.

Yup, breakaway series it is then. I told you guys not to underestimate FOTA. There are challenges ahead but I hope for them to pull this off well. An alternative is to put in 3 drivers per team to fill the grids. Not so unreasonable, have a look at WTCC. If FIA comes out with a list of participants for 2010 then it is cemented.