FOTA announces breakaway series !!!

[TheCracker]

Depending on how FOTA determines a track suitable, could Brands Hatch be considered? It already hosts historic F1 cars and A1GP. Noise might be an issue, but it's not like A1GP cars a quiet.

The trouble with Brands is that the pits, or more accurately the paddock area behind the pits, is just too small for the modern Grand Prix circus. It's also land-locked with little no room to expand without some creative and likely expensive solution.

 

[Ardius]

OMG, yes Scaff, please bring back the Birmingham Superprix, FOTA

It would be rubbish for overtaking and the lap is way too short, but I would love to see Oulton Park with F1.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Oulton Park? 2.7 Miles is not too short. There's too much up and down bits for F1 though.

I'd like to see F1 at Thruxton. The average speed would make Monza look slow.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Or a third option:

3 - The FiA/FOM can't get the support to properly run F1 for 2010 so ties all the breakaway teams, circuit promoters, TV companies etc in so much legal action that FOTA can't organise a rival series either. Leaving us with no Grand Prix racing at all.

This is all about money.



I have no doubt the FIA/FOM won't be able to properly run F1 for 2010 (without the FOTA Teams). They won't have tracks willing to pay what Bernie wants, they won't have sponsors willing to pay what Bernie wants, they won't have TV broadcasters willing to pay what Bernie wants.

So, that is my first point. And that's why I say there won't be a split, because, any way you look at it, only one series will exist in 2010. The one that will feature the FOTA teams.


Now, you raise the question of neither series existing, because of legal action by FOM (and only by FOM, apparently FIA won't sue them anymore).

I concede that FOM may have contractual rights that can be discussed in court, but only to establish if the FOTA Teams owe FOM anything because they didn't enter the FIA F1 Championship.

However, FOM has no right no prevent companies like BMW, Toyota, Renault, Mercedes, Ferrari, and even Red Bull, STR or BrawnGP from entering (even several) different series, be it open wheels, touring cars, endurance prototypes, whatever, so FOM can't stop them from entering the:

"EF WAN WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP"
(copyright to "Ef Wan" due to an inspired forum member from F1 Technical)

 

[Scaff]

I think that's one of the biggest things FOTA has going for it - the ability (even if that's kind of forced upon them) to run at some of the worlds best circuits - rather than the mostly dull and faceless new circuits that are beginning to take over in F1. On the other hand, with circuits clambering over one another to host Grand Prix's, are any of them going to want to alienate themselves from the FiA by throwing their hats in the FOTA ring before a rival series is a done deal?

Which is exactly what is going to make the next few weeks very interesting, particularly if the FOTA rumour that they have had plans in the background for a while is true.

Oulton Park? 2.7 Miles is not too short. There's too much up and down bits for F1 though.

I'd like to see F1 at Thruxton. The average speed would make Monza look slow.

TheCracker has already answered this one, he may have been talking about Brands....

The trouble with Brands is that the pits, or more accurately the paddock area behind the pits, is just too small for the modern Grand Prix circus. It's also land-locked with little no room to expand without some creative and likely expensive solution.

....but the exact same point is even more true of Oulton and in particular Thruxton.



Regards

Scaff

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

FIA will NOT sue:

http://planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_5395272,00.html

Now they're in the mood to talk. It turns out Mosley was also kidding when he said FOTA were a bunch of "loonies". LOL! That Max...such a joker!

FOTA is on a roll.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That Max...such a joker!

Also desperate.

 

[Soundtrack]

Mosley may think there is no need to start 2 simultaneous rounds? When will the decision of the Lausanne Civil Court be pronounced? There may well be no need to sue any further depending on the result of that “arbitration”. What will happens to FOTA’s unity should that independent Court admit that Ferrari is indeed bound to race in next year’s FIA championship? Less than a week from here Mosley presented a compromise that was considered by most as reasonable. That solution was rejected by the teams.
Sure, Max may look like a joker (in my opinion all the parties involved look like bad clowns here), but how will we - eventually - have to consider FOTA’s team on the starting grid of 2010 FIA championship then? Claiming that this is only personal and that the eventual pull-off of Mosley’s head could solve the problem makes it even worse IMO.

 

[Alltidxx]

"We have taken our decision and that's it. There is nothing more to discuss," Renault's Briatore was quoted as saying by the Spanish press.

"The FIA closed the door on us.

We decided to do our own championship. There are no negotiations," he said, adding on Sunday that details of the new series will begin to be set in stone ‘next week’.

"I am not interested in what Mosley says. It is not our business anymore," said Briatore.



Well he seems pretty determined, that's for sure.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

This part sticks out for me:

'Sources within the paddock suggest that Mosley's sudden reappearance may have been motivated by a desire to seek a quick resolution to Formula One's problems - which some attribute to his style of management - because he has got wind of a possible coup at the FIA's World Motor Sport Council meeting in Paris on Wednesday.

It sticks out because I was reading an article over at F1 Fanatic - they have some really good stuff over there; I'm surprised I didn't find it sooner - that examines the letters between Ferrari and the FIA from a legal perspective. It is kind of detailed and I'm by no means a legal mind, but it's really quite interesting:

How solid is FOTA’s legal argument? A lawyer looks at the FIA-Ferrari letters

22 June 2009 by Keith Collantine

What should we make of the legal letters sent between Ferrari and the FIA, which were made public by Max Mosley last week?

The FIA give the impression that Ferrari’s case is flimsy and full of holes, but the Ferrari representatives hit back that the FIA have failed to address the substance of the matter.

It’s fairly technical stuff but it could have a significant bearing on the next phase of the FIA-FOTA row. Not being a legal expert, I thought it would be useful to get a lawyer’s opinion on the letters. Here’s what he had to say after reading the exchange of letters:

“I’ve had a look at the Ferrari - FIA correspondence and done a bit of Googling. Interesting stuff. Its impossible to work out exactly what is going on without being able to see the actual contractual documents they are talking about. Obviously, its a very complicated dispute.

“Looking at the correspondence, what does come across is that the FIA letters seem more directed towards their media image than actually addressing the legal points made by Ferrari. Although the letters have the facade of presenting a legal argument, they do not actually present much in the way of good legal points, and a lot of their allegations about Ferrari’s position altering or being contradictory seem unfair to me. Ferrari’s letters were much more to the point and cogent legally.

“It also seems that Ferrari have a very strong case for believing they are entitled to veto the 2010 regulations. The French court view at first instance appears to have accepted this at least, which is a strong indicator that Ferrari are right. Obviously France is not a jurisdiction I understand much about, but I have gathered Ferrari were effectively seeking an interim injunction restraining the FIA from taking further steps in implementing the 2010 regulations. Getting such injunctions is broadly about demonstrating two things - that the matter is urgent (because imminent harm will occur to the applicant if the injunction is not granted), and that there is a certain percentage chance of the applicant succeeding were the matter to go to a final trial (though I do not at what standard the threshold test would be set in France).

“What is key to note is that whether or not an injunction is granted, there is no final decision in France as to whether or not Ferrari are right (plus, what is finally decided in France may not be the last word on what is decided in other jurisdictions, although the existence of any final French judgement would be highly relevant in any related proceedings brought elsewhere). Furthermore, it appears there has been no final decision even on the injunction point yet - it seems there is some appeal route for Ferrari, although I don’t know what it is or whether they are pursuing it. It seems though that there may still be a chance of Ferrari getting the injunction in France.

“The court in Paris seems to have taken some point against Ferrari regarding when they exercised the veto, particularly the fact that Ferrari did not exercise it at the WMSC meeting. It’s unclear whether the point the court was making is that the veto may only be exercised at a certain time otherwise it is lost/waived, or whether because Ferrari exercised the veto relatively late, that indicated that on the facts there was insufficient urgency/it was implicit that Ferrari would not suffer damage in the immediate future. On the former argument, which would be a substantive point affecting the ultimate outcome, Ferrari appear from the correspondence to argue that there was no effective way/mechanism to exercise a veto at the WMSC meeting and therefore their veto right cannot be lost by a failure to exercise it there. That depends on the facts obviously, but if the facts support Ferrari the legal argument is again strong.

“It is much harder to tell who is right about whether Ferrari are contractually obliged to compete in Formula 1 next year. To some extent this appears to be interrelated with whether the FIA are entitled to impose the 2010 regulations and whether Ferrari can veto them. The French proceedings have no bearing on this (save to the very limited extent they give an indication on the veto point).

“What is clear is that it is extremely difficult to effectively injunct someone to compete in an F1 championship - that is a tough order for any court to effectively enforce/supervise, and so I think its very unlikely any court in the world would grant such an injunction. What that probably means is that both Ferrari and the FIA know that as between them, what is at stake if Ferrari do withdraw is a very long and costly legal battle to determine whether Ferrari must pay any damages to the FIA. I doubt therefore whether this legal issue is a major consideration (although it must be a factor) in Ferrari’s ultimate decision to take part or not.

“For what it’s worth, it looks to me as though certain things are still up in the air which those concerned would like to be clear on at this stage, and therefore it’s too soon for an agreed solution. Whatever posturing both sides get up to around now (including publishing the final entry list), I predict a negotiated settlement inside about the next six weeks, with a single F1 championship continuing.”

So, is this coup Mosley is afraid of? Or is it something else, that the WMSC will band together against him?

 

[Soundtrack]

“It is much harder to tell who is right about whether Ferrari are contractually obliged to compete in Formula 1 next year. To some extent this appears to be interrelated with whether the FIA are entitled to impose the 2010 regulations and whether Ferrari can veto them. The French proceedings have no bearing on this (save to the very limited extent they give an indication on the veto point).

I may have missed a major point, but wasn’t that actually the whole point of the procedure? It seems I remember that Ferrari asked - given their Veto rights - for the full removal of published 2010’s sporting and technical regulation?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think what it's trying to say is that the Parisian ruling doesn't have anyhting to do with the issue before the WMSC: namely, whether or not Ferrari, Red Bull and Toro Rosso are bound to compete until 2012.

 

[Soundtrack]

The french Court indeed recognize the Veto right in the hands of Ferrari, (Ferrari specifically underlined this) but the Court also mentioned they did failed to use it when appropriate. We obviously don’t have the details, nor the printed papers, but I suspect FIA has got an on par “counterpart” to this special treatment. If this includes X years of FIA championship commitment, then the Scuderia might well run in serious legal trouble should they lead and build a dissident serie.

Edit: Aren’t those Justice cases archives open to the public? It would be very enlightening to be able to consult these. Could it be possible for a descent journalist to dig this case a little, instead of serving us this overdose of tabloid level headlines?

 

[waggles]

If Ferrari were smart, they would build a 'car' that would enter the FIA Champ, but break down on the first lap and somehow red-flag every single event.

 

[J-PaP]

If Ferrari were smart, they would build a 'car' that would enter the FIA Champ, but break down on the first lap and somehow red-flag every single event.

I actually was thinking somewhat similar lines. Enter a car that just covers the basic regulations. Put no development into it. Heck don't even worry about too much of a crew. One guy can do all 4 tyres and fuel lol.

But that won't look too great on Ferrari's reputation in the sport.

 

[Alltidxx]

I actually was thinking somewhat similar lines. Enter a car that just covers the basic regulations. Put no development into it. Heck don't even worry about too much of a crew. One guy can do all 4 tyres and fuel lol.

But that won't look too great on Ferrari's reputation in the sport.

Ha ha "Hurry Gonzales, HURRY!" and then Massa jumps out and refules out of metal canteens while Gonzales alone struggles with changing tires with a crossbar. The other teams smirk and look over and the only engineer around at Ferrari working on strategy gets angry and goes "What?!! What's so funny? We have made the finance-cap look like a spending spree allowance with our supersavings. What have YOU done lately!? Oh, 'won races' right. Whatever. You think you're soo good". And Gonzalez with huffing and puffing says somthing like "we're on a onestopper today right? Right, Massa?"

 

[waggles]

Who would find it funny if the fuel overflowed in such an event?

Why is Massa driving the crap car?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Max makes St. Crispin's Day speech: "O, we few, we happy few ...we the band of buggered."

Mosley ready to run for re-election

By Jonathan Noble - Tuesday, June 23rd 2009, 11:38 GMT

A defiant Max Mosley has told the FIA that he now has no option but to consider standing once again as president, in light of what he sees as an 'unjustified' attack on the governing body by Formula 1 teams and manufacturers.

Ahead of what is being viewed as a key meeting of the FIA's World Motor Sport Council in Paris on Wednesday, where the governing body is expected to react to plans by F1 teams to create a breakaway series, Mosley has made it clear that he will not be forced to walk away by the wishes of teams.

In a letter that Mosley sent to all FIA member clubs on Tuesday, he insisted that it was entirely up to the members of the governing body to decide if it wants him to continue to help stave off the threat posed by teams.

"Over recent weeks it has become increasingly clear that one of the objectives of the dissident teams is that I should resign as president of the FIA. Last year you offered me your confidence and, as I wrote to you on May 16, 2008, it was my intention not to seek re-election in October this year," wrote Mosley in the letter, a copy of which has been seen by AUTOSPORT.

"However, in light of the attack on the mandate you have entrusted to me, I must now reflect on whether my original decision not to stand for re-election was indeed the right one.

"It is for the FIA membership, and the FIA membership alone, to decide on its democratically elected leadership, not the motor industry and still less the individuals the industry employs to run its Formula 1 teams."

Mosley has told the member clubs that he views the breakaway plans and recent comments from the European car industry association ACEA calling for a change of governance in F1, as an assault on the FIA's authority.

"This is an attack on the FIA's right to regulate its Formula 1 World Championship but, worse, it is a wholly unjustified criticism of and direct challenge to the entire structure and purpose of the FIA," added Mosley.

"No president of the FIA could allow this to go unanswered...we are also preparing legal proceedings in case these are needed to protect the FIA's rights in its Championship and to discourage any dissident Formula 1 team from engaging in illegal acts."

Mosley has also cast doubts on whether the parent board of the manufacturers involved in the breakaway will be happy to offer financial support to a new series.

"The catalyst for the current dispute was the FIA's attempts to reduce costs in Formula 1. A reduction in costs is essential if the independent teams are to survive.

"Without the independent teams, the championship would depend entirely on the car manufacturers who, of course, have always come and gone as it suited them.

"It is extraordinary that at a time when all five manufacturers involved are in great financial difficulty and relying on taxpayers money, their Formula 1 teams should threaten a breakaway series in order to avoid reducing their Formula 1 costs.

"It remains to be seen whether the boards of the parent companies will allow precious resources to be wasted in this way."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that in 2005, the FIA changed its policy so that the President could only hold office for two terms. Mosley was elected in 1993, making this his fourth term, which is twice as long as he should have been in office. Or is it a case of since the policy was made in 2005, the 2005-2009 period marks his first term under the new rules?

It goes without saying that he wins the Nicolae Ceausescu Award for Total Denial of Reality. Does he really think the manufacturers won't support their own teams? He seemed to think that ACEA would be on his side, only for them to throw their weight behind FOTA. The fact that the car makers' union supports FOTA implies that the manufacturers themselves support FOTA, the same manufacturers he now thinks won't be willing to support the teams in their own championship.

 

[J-PaP]

Just remembered. Isn't there going to be no refueling as of next year? That saves Gonzales one job at least lol. I say Ferrari has a celebrity driver each Race. Also as part of the budget cutting, The race engineer uses his van with a trailer on the back for car and equipment transport.

Anyhow back on topic. Say Ferrari for instance is forced to stay in F1 next year. What would be the likelyhood of Ferrari having a team in both series?

 

[TheCracker]

Anyhow back on topic. Say Ferrari for instance is forced to stay in F1 next year. What would be the likelyhood of Ferrari having a team in both series?

That would mean splitting their resources in half, in effect running two 'reduced budget' teams. They are wanting to break away, along with other reasons, so they don't have to reduce their budgets. It kind of defeats the object doesn't it?

 

[J-PaP]

I'm just going to try keep things simple by only including Ferrari and ignoring the other 2 teams that are apparently 'contractually obliged to stay in f1'.

2010 rules state a budget of 40 million. If the cost for Ferrari to get out of F1 is greater than that of the budget cap, wouldn't the smart thing be to stay in the series for a year and run in 2 different series? Don't teams like Ferrari spend like x4 that a year currently in F1 anyway? Also from what I have understood, the issue isn't about imposing a budget cap. The issue is
a. a 40 million budget cap
b. FIA pushing teams around
c. Two tier series

 

[Alltidxx]

That saves Gonzales one job at least lol.

Yes it would. Then he could focus on just being the all-in-one gridgirl, lollipopman, carhightenerdude, tirechanger and cheer-on-along-the-plank-dude.

I'm just so tired of this conflict already. Can you tell? Wake me up when things have been sorted out regardless of outcome.

 

[Soundtrack]

"It remains to be seen whether the boards of the parent companies will allow precious resources to be wasted in this way."

I guess he is referring to the massive, long if not endless, multilateral high stakes multiple trials that could well be the only end result of such a breakaway situation.

 

[Scaff]

I guess he is referring to the massive, long if not endless, multilateral high stakes multiple trials that could well be the only end result of such a breakaway situation.

Only one of the teams that could be affected by legal action has a manufacturer that could be tied up by this, and that's Ferrari.

I just think its fortunate that old man Ferrari is long dead, now he would have put a car into F1 that only just came within the minimum required, and he'd have done it just to wind the FIA up.

@waggles - Totally off topic. A Scaff is a scaffolder, they put up/take down stuff like this.....

....I'm not a scaffolder, but my dad runs a scaffolding company (and I have helped out from time to time). Which actually gives me something in common with Timo Glock (and sort of drags this back on topic).

If you weren't an F1 driver what would you be? I would do scaffolding. My Dad has a scaffolding company and I worked quite a long time in the company, so if I wasn't in F1 I would work for my Dad.

Source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/drivers_and_teams/7878991.stm


Regards

Scaff

 

[Soundtrack]

Not necessarily out of topic. FOTA,FOM,FIA,... are somehow bound in a scaffolding looking structure: slip one off it’s foundation and the whole thing collapses...

 

[torontoml]

Just received an email from Ferrari asking me to fill out a survey for if I support the FOTA's decision to form a new championship. I voted yes.

 

[Metar]

I just think its fortunate that old man Ferrari is long dead, now he would have put a car into F1 that only just came within the minimum required, and he'd have done it just to wind the FIA up.

Trouble is, these days even a bare chassis has so many requirements - apart from the dimensions, it has to pass that endless series of tests...

Remember, though: He already did one of these "In your face, governing body" move back during the FISA/FOCA war, when his Scuderia turned up with cars that had two rear wings - because the regs didn't explicitly restrict them to one wing only.

 

[Hun200kmh]

And he also presented a Indy car (Ferrari 637) just to show he was ready to go elsewhere.

One question to the enlightened ones. Di Montezemolo has a seat in the WMSC, from what I read, and that will make tomorrow's meeting the "mother of all meetings", I just wish it was broadcasted

But my question is: does anyone know the full composition of the WMSC?

 

[ultrataco]

That would mean splitting their resources in half, in effect running two 'reduced budget' teams. They are wanting to break away, along with other reasons, so they don't have to reduce their budgets. It kind of defeats the object doesn't it?

Well, it's not like F1 is the only racing Ferrari does. Same for Red Bull and others (?). They already run other teams in other series. But, yes I agree they probably won't do that in this case.

 

[Metar]

And he also presented a Indy car (Ferrari 637) just to show he was ready to go elsewhere.

One question to the enlightened ones. Di Montezemolo has a seat in the WMSC, from what I read, and that will make tomorrow's meeting the "mother of all meetings", I just wish it was broadcasted

But my question is: does anyone know the full composition of the WMSC?

Yes.

And a broadcast would be funny. Could replace a Spanish Soap Opera.

Well, it's not like F1 is the only racing Ferrari does. Same for Red Bull and others (?). They already run other teams in other series. But, yes I agree they probably won't do that in this case.

Red Bull sponsor a few others - Brian Vickers and Scott Speed in NASCAR, for example - and Ferrari supply GT racing-cars, but they don't have a full factory effort.