Max Mosley is wrong. The only split F1 needs is a break away from him

Posted on Author Keith Collantine

Max Mosley told the FOTA teams to run their own championship
Max Mosley told the FOTA teams to run their own championship

Max Mosley has told the world that instead of reaching a compromise with the nine FOTA teams, he thinks they should leave F1:

I say to them: If you want to draw up your own rules, then you can organise your own championship. But we have the Formula 1 championship. We draw up the rules for that. We have been doing that for 60 years and we will continue doing so.

It is difficult to believe that the president of the FIA could seriously be advocating a situation where the governing body?s most successful and popular championship is split into two.

Mario Theissen claims it was Mosley?s suggestion that FOTA place a ??conditional? entry to the 2010 championship, which they did last week.

But by agitating for a split Mosley has played into FOTA?s hands. Their argument that the governance of Formula 1 needs reforming has never looked more credible than when Mosley admitted he would rather see F1 split in two than accept that he might not get everything he wants from this debate.

Unlike Mosley, FOTA have been at pains to avoid threatening a split.

Various F1 correspondents have explored the possibilities of them creating a rival championship ?ǣ many pointing to the Ferrari-backed A1 Grand Prix series as a starting point.

But FOTA has frequently stated its desire to keep its teams in F1 and reach an accommodation with the FIA and F1 owners CVC (represented by Bernie Ecclestone).

It is Mosley who has spurned compromise and failed to reach a consensus with the teams.

Some may be tempted to argue that FOTA are holding Mosley to ransom by refusing to accept his demands. I disagree.

Mosley has stated in the past that he has demanded budget capping because the present teams have refused to commit to Formula 1:

Despite my repeated requests, not a single manufacturer has given us a legally-binding undertaking that it will continue in Formula 1
Max Mosley, in a letter to Luca di Montezemolo, April 2009

The manufacturers and supporting teams are now proposing a deal to keep them in the sport until 2012. So why is Mosley talking about a split instead of sealing the deal?

How a split would destroy F1

Pause for a moment to appreciate the full gravity of what Mosley is suggesting by urging the teams to split from F1.

It would mean F1 casting FOTA?s nine teams aside. These have, in their present guises, contested 2,040 Grands Prix, winning 414 races and 55 drivers and constructors’ championships. They are a vital component of the sport, woven deep into the fabric of its history.

We would have two series ?ǣ one calling itself F1, the other containing all bar one of the teams that contested the previous F1 championship.

Drivers and circuits would be caught in the middle. One series might have Spa and Silverstone, Hamilton and Raikkonen. The other Monza and Suzuka, Alonso and Kubica. And both championships would be incomparably weaker propositions.

What of the fans? Some would follow F1. Some would follow the new championship. And many ?ǣ perhaps most ?ǣ would stop watching. The longer it took the two series to re-unify, the worse it would get.

And the same goes for the sponsors which every year pump billions into F1?s coffers.

This is not conjecture. Exactly the same thing happened with the Indy Car championship. It finally re-united last year after 14 years divided – now a pale shadow of its former glory in every respect.

The teams must stay

The FIA President is proposing a development which would rent the world?s biggest motor racing championship in two. It would do huge damage to international motor racing, perhaps irrevocably ruining it.

Max Mosley is not unaccustomed to criticism. But his failure to come to terms with the teams is a new low. He must not be allowed to drive them out of the sport.

Given a choice between keeping the nine teams, and keeping the FIA president, I’d pick the teams.

Read more

203 comments on “Max Mosley is wrong. The only split F1 needs is a break away from him”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4
  1. Max doesn’t know what the Indy Racing League is, does he?

    1. i always knew max mosley was a nutcase, but today he’s gone one step ahead and completely proved me correct. I stand vindicated. he’s completely lost in a reality forgotten land. this is the height of lunacy. no responsible head of a international organization would utter such nonsense. what does he mean by saying F1 can do without the nine teams. this is just unbelivable. he has no respect for the chair he holds. the guy must understand that the teams were the ones who put him onto the coveted chair. This is a perfect example of misuse of power & authority. This guy is hell bent upon inflicting incurable wounds on the sport. the way things are moving we might lose the sport forever. isn’t there a voluntary retirement scheme in the FIA? please this man should be kept as far away as possible from f1. first he lost his image, then he lost his son, now he is hell bent on losing the sport. it was very clear from the outset that these decisions were only of max. how can one lunatic be allowed to hold the entire sport at randsom? i’ve long ago realized that online petitions are of no use. we the average f1 fan must do something about this man. i would suggest boycotting the races, be it on the circuits,TV,internet, print media everywhere. why i say this is, the only man who i think is capable of installing some sense into max mosley is bernie. now bernie handles the commercial aspects of f1. so without “us” the average f1 fan, bernie=0, so in such a scenario, max will have to give into bernie’s demands. we all know how greedy & commercial bernie is. so there is no way bernie will put max ahead of his commercial interests. so the only way to save this sport is to completely BOYCOTT it until max gives into bernie’s demand. There is an old chinese proverb:


      so i’ve taken my first step. i’ll not be watching the turkish gp on tv. so definitely the TRP rating will go down, cuz many of my friends will be joining my boycott, we are about 600 ppl. hope ppl do the same thing. this is to bring the trp rating down. bernie always keeps blabbing tv viewers. he’s gone as far as saying that TV audiences are more important than circuit fans. so this boycott must pinch bernie in his butt. only then he’ll blink.
      please save this wonderful sport or else we’ll lose it forever.

  2. What the hell is drinking Mad-Max?????

    Bufff….i need a “good-normal-race”, and somebody a fast retirement.


  3. Don’t like Mosley, never have….

    But I like saloon car manufacturers dictating terms in F1 even less than I like the FIA president. Large manufacturers are intrinsically bad for F1. Their agenda is not the purity of racing the best things on four wheels….their agenda in selling their little boxes on wheels. And their obscene marketing budgets distort and corrupt F1. The only pure F1 teams now are Williams, Mclaren and of course Ferrari.

    And so I have to disagree fundamentaly with your argument, Keith. If Renault and BMW and Toyota go….so much the better for F1. The world we live in has changed so fundamentally in the past two years and the collapse of car markets has brought what will one day be seen as a great blessing to F1.

    1. The only pure F1 teams now are Williams, Mclaren and of course Ferrari.

      Ferrari is a car manufacturer and McLaren plan to turn into one…

      1. Ferrari is not a manufacturer like Toyota.

      2. Give over Keith, Ferrari or Mclaren make expensive toys, they are hardly in the ‘mass’ market side of

      3. you have to remember Keith that Enzo’s road car practice was just to fund the team. the reality has changed things, but Ferrari is at heart a racing team above anything else…

        Dennis is going the same way after many decades of existence. but it’s the F1 team that will market his exotic supercar brand.

        rather than F1 Renault team parading a Twingo/clio/megane renault F1 sport that has not one nut or bolt in common with a single seater… Renault doesn’t, never had a proper high performance car that shares technology with F1, the Renault Espace F1 doesn’t count same goes for BMW, Toyota, which don’t even have a sports car on offer.

        It would be interesting if we connect the significance of the F1 practice to the development of road cars, especially within the brands that participate in F1.

        Honda’s Vtech injection technology was developed and refined in F1 what else transpired to the average driver over the years that made its debut in F1?

        1. Just a little note about F1’s influence on mass market road cars : Renault came to F1 with a turbo engine and won with it. Then all the others built turbos. And turbo came soon after to the road car market.
          I suppose there are other examples…
          Don’t draw a line between Ferrari, McLaren and the manufacturers : this is big businesses, far larger than racing. There is only one really pure racing team remaining in F1, ant it is Williams.

    2. The sri lankan
      5th June 2009, 0:48

      are you stupid? car manufacturers and their legions of fans are what keeps F1 going. do you really think a die hard fan of toyota( worlds largest car manufacturer) or Bmw will sit there watching Merc and ferrari have ago if the two including renault Leaves? think before writind Gibberish

      1. I was a fanatic of Toyota during its WRC days. I would hate to see it leave F1. But i would certainly love to see the pervert finally leave FIA

      2. Really new to F1, aren’t you?
        In the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s you hardly ever had large manufacturers as full fledged teams in the grid (Renault being the lonely exception). You had, Ferraris, Mclarens, Lotuses, Williams, Tyrrels, Ligiers, Brabhams — and those were the golden years of the sport. That is not to say that I agree with Max. He is a nut case who would rather have a grid full of Mickey Mouse teams as long as he keeps calling the shots. But this idea that you need the big manufacturers to have a good F1 is completely bogus. And just so we are in the same page: There is no such a thing as leagions of Toyota fans in F1 (and that is also true for BMW, Honda and Renaults). Ferrari have fans, Mclaren too. Apart from that, people root for the drivers.

        1. …and we oh so want those golden years back.

      3. I agree entirely with you. When we were driving big Mercs my son and I followed McClaren, then we went on to drive BMW’s and switched loyalties. Now we are back to Mercs and very dissapointed this season.

        Although F1 machines are vastly different from their road car sponsors they still have a huge following and brand loyalty.

    3. Funny thing is i think your arguement is flawed leon. If it wasn’t for the car manfactures, that are in f1, f1 wouldn’t be what it is today. Get rid of all the manufactures, including Ferrari, what will all the teams run for engines and gear boxes.

      The manufactures created the sport to what it is today. They advertise the sport, attract the millions of dollars in sponsorship for F1 in general, at the track, and the tv networks. Far easier to advertise f1 with the names every person in the world recongnises rather then using litespeed???. If the FOTA stick together f1 is dead. The dropping of 9 teams that the entire world know and have come to love will have massive ramifications on every contract bernie and the FIA have. Bernie will go broke overnight as lawsuits will pile up. I hope FOTA leave f1 and max and bernie will be known as the men that destroyed f1. They can start there own series and all the revenue can be distrubuted evenly amongst them. Not to some company. Everybody will follow the teams and drivers they come to know and love before following a name. Superfund, lola etc etc dont have the attraction that Ferrari, Mclaren, BMW, Renault etc etc do.

      1. If it wasn’t for the car manfactures, that are in f1, f1 wouldn’t be what it is today.

        Absolutely right, its about time they returned to just supplying engines and leave the sport to the teams that know how to compete at the highest level. Let the proper on track racing return!

        1. f1 will die without the nine teams. You wont be watching anything on tv as no free to air network would want to cover it. Read the full comment dont just extract one component.

          1. LOL! Yeah, sorry I did read the full comment, I just thought it would be funny to play on that one statement, I forgot the smiley face.

            Anyway. F1 will not die without the nine teams… because F1 will not be without the nine (oh, hold on its 8 teams now, wait, I’ll just check, nope still 8 at the moment) teams.

            The whole point about this stand-off that is being missed, is that it is a stand-off… taking Ferrari’s example as someone has already said, how many times have they threatened to quit, and how many times to they continue to race. This is typical F1 and ok a bit more serious this time, but ultimately will all come out in the wash.

            The only difference here is that maybe some Manufacturers will use this as an excuse to exit, Toyota and Renault I’m thinking… but they were going to go anyway.

  4. Well said, Keith, well said. I cant believe that there are those out there who back this guy when his stance changes at his whim. Mosley needs to be ousted and FOTA needs to be listened to.

  5. Seems more and more like the only interest of Max Mosely is to win the argument and get his way no matter how much harm is done to the sport. It is all very very sad.
    What is Eccelstone and CVC thinking about this? With all the current teams gone away as Mosely urges them to do what will remaim is a second rate championship with second rate teams. How is this ever going to pay for the CVC dept.

  6. Maverick_232
    4th June 2009, 21:01

    Max Mosely – I dont think i could dislike anyone anymore.

    Closely followed by doddery old Bernie.

    Surely this dictatorship has to stop. If not then im sure the final nail in the F1 coffin is not too far away.

  7. I think max has put the final nail in his own coffin,
    Just waiting for Bernie to hammer it in!

    1. Maverick_232
      4th June 2009, 21:06

      Lol….. If only mate!!

  8. this has now gone past F1 it’s just about MAX winning the argument he doesn’t care about the sport & fans he will destroy everything to make a point.

  9. Of course Max needs to be re-elected in September! If by then the F1 nine/ten should have made plenty of negative publicity around the voting FIA members, that Max should be out leaving the way clear for the sport to be put back on the track. That seems to be the only light at the end of this dismal tunnel F1 seems to be driving through.
    As Formula one consistantly surprises me and its fans Max could well be re-elected. There again, I did see McLaren loading some swine aviation fuel into their trucks last Sunday.

  10. when is Max up for re-election? this would be the time for FOTA to back another candidate. dont get me wrong, i thing Max and FOTA both have their own agendas, but actually saying publicly that FOTA should split away from F1 is lunacy. with all respect to the teams looking to enter next year, if FOTA splits, F1 will surely struggle to better GP2.

  11. Absolutely spot on, Keith.
    Some of us remember (& some younger historians will have read ;) )how he got to where he is.
    Some remember the FISA/FOCA war, Balestre & the Maranello agreement which led to the first Concorde Agreement.
    Today has too many similarities to the early 1980’s.
    Max does not care what his new F1 looks like, achieves or if it will last just so long as it is HIS fist holding the reins.

  12. In fairness, Leon, Ferrari and McLaren are hand in glove with two of the largest purveyors of tin boxes in the world. Williams is the only serious stalwart independent in the sport for the last 10 years. They are no different from BMW-Sauber. Cf. Brawn.

    In this case, I think the manufacturers realize that, while a budget cap could save them money, it would destroy the value of their investment in the sport and the investment in their respective brands they make by participating in it.

    This all gives me a queasy reminder of the CART/IRL split. Seeing the great teams and drivers of CART shut out of Indy and eventually forced to crawl back into a 100% oval fully spec series run by a megalomaniac with no interest in racing except when he is checking his account balance made me ill.

    1. Good point mate ! And of course, as others have pointed out, Ferrari is now merely a posh badge for the mighty Fiat empire. And Daimler GMbh ain’t exactly a thoroughbred race co. There’s clearly a balance to be struck here but do you see Montezemolo and Mosley actually stopping strutting their stuff and sitting down to deal…… ?

      I’d like to see Mosley removed pretty smartish…but worry a lot about who we’d get in his place. A case of ‘better the devil you know’ ?

  13. conditional entry is ok for me… if one of the conditions is Mosley leaving.

  14. Hope Mad Max joins his son soon

    1. Really is no need for that, no matter how much you dislike the man

      1. yep, sykes, that is well out of order!

        1. Yep sykes, that was a bit harsh man!

      2. I take that back but he really is a douche and worst thing is, he gets away with everything.
        Still blame him for Ron Dennis leaving.

        1. ok sykes, but that was still not nice – show some respect man

  15. Keith you couldn’t be farther from the truth. By literally taking the media quote of Max you have missed the whole point of the argument. Max is not, as much as he references it, advocating and pushing the teams to leave F1 and create some other short-lived championship… he is simply saying this is F1, run by the FIA and therefore the rules come from us.

    “Shortlived”? Why? Because we all know that BMW, Renault, Toyota and Mercedes board have all considered departing F1 recently, they have no commitment to the sport other than as Leon has stated marketing and profit. They will be as committed to racing any series as they are to F1.

    I agree Max could have handled things better, however equally so could the teams. They have responded like for like with Max’s position and we all know you do not fight Fire with Fire.

    I make my point and opinion here and through subsequent replies.

    Max, after many stupid regulation changes over the years has finally hit the nail on the head. £40mill and do what you want. The teams don’t like it, because it makes it a level playing field for all, Williams, Force India,Toyota, Ferrari… and they can’t spend their way out of trouble.

    A solution will be found, and if not Ferrari will come back with their tails between their legs. McLaren, Brawn, Force India & Red Bull will realise their stupidity and buy their way back in… and the manufacturers? See ya, Good bye and cyanara!

    1. FOTA has said it wants to play a role in the process of creating the rules which is entirely reasonable – teams have always been consulted on changes in the past and, as the people who supply the cars, their voices need to be heard.

      Mosley, refusing to take heed of their views, is now changing his position away from demanding the teams either commit to F1 for several years or accept a budget cap, and is instead telling them to go away.

      I agree Max could have handled things better, however equally so could the teams. They have responded like for like with Max’s position

      I disagree. Mosley has pressed his case with maximum antagonism, first of all daring Ferrari to leave and now widening his threat to all of the nine teams.

      But I stress, substance is more important than style and it is there that Mosley is most badly wanting. Why isn’t he taking up the team’s offer to commit to F1 for at least three years, when that is what he said he wanted all along?

      If in a few weeks/months/years time we are lamenting the splitting of Formula 1, we will look back at this moment as the point Mosley had a workable compromise in front of him and turned it down.

      1. Keith, from what I understand Max has conceded some of his rules to the teams. For example the first thing to go was the 2 tiers, then he agreed to raise the cap, and we are to understand was in negotiation regarding moving it to 2011 and having a step in 2010.

        I don’t believe Max has threatened the teams in the way you suggest. In all cases, firstly Ferrari then FOTA as a whole, they have been first to mention departing F1 for other series (be that break-away or otherwise)… Max is purely calling their bluff.

        What we, as casual viewers, don’t know is the detail of this Concorde Agreement that the teams are all of a sudden desperate for Max to sign so quickly. If Max is true that this is a 500page document then I for one wouldn’t be signing it in less than 2 weeks, and that is all he is saying.

        Regarding “workable compromises” and who turned it down… from what I understand negotiations were positive, Max and some team members said as such, Norbert Haug was positive about his proposal… however FOTA threw a blind side with their conditions of entry, which to me (on reflection) flew in the face of all the negotiation that had occurred.

        1. The Concorde Agreement (if it follows those used in the past) includes the article which states The F1 Commission “shall resolve all matters concerning the FIA F1 Championship …….. and any changes to the regulations relating to such Championship”.
          So, just what Max doesn`t want.
          He wants “The WMSC may at any time make such additions or alterations to these Regulations as, in its absolute discretion, it considers necessary in order to ensure the achievement of the overriding objective” as in the Cap Regulations.
          Hence why Max doesn’t want to sign the Concorde Agreement.

          1. Bartholomew
            5th June 2009, 0:12

            In the new Concorde agreement it should be clear that Ferrari gets no extra money. If not we are back to square one and all this fuss will be in vain

          2. Max and Bernie have been pushing the teams since the last agreement expired to sign a new one, but the teams have shuffled around it.

            Now, all of a sudden the teams want to sign. Max is not against signing an agreement, just not one that has been rushed through and pushed for agreement in a matter of weeks.

            Any agreement should be carefully discussed and agreed before any signatures are applied.

        2. Max is purely calling their bluff.

          When did they ‘bluff’ by saying they would form a new championship?

          1. Keith,

            It’s true they haven’t officially mentioned a break-away series, I didn’t say they did, I just said they are threatening to depart F1.

            I think it is fair to say they will probably race in other series though. Ferrari have been reported to be looking at LeMans, BMW with the DTM etc

        3. Dougie,

          The way f1 rules use to work and should still work is there needs to be 100% agreement on changes. And the FIA could make changes based on safety.

          Max got certainty as was his original arguement and now he says he wont sign a concorde agreement because of time. If he can try force teams with budgets ranging between 100million and 400million to reduce it by 90% in some cases he can pull his finger out and read and negotiate on the agreement.

          The teams is what make the sport viable they attract the money not the FIA. The FIA is a regulator and police. They are affecting the commercial operations of every fundamental thing assocaited in f1.

          1. GooddayBruce
            5th June 2009, 16:38

            Interesting discussion but I think persempre has it right. The teams are causing this impasse because they are fed up with the way that Mosley handles the rules.


            Besides his pioneering work in safety

            I agree it sounds great but, given Mosley’s track record do you honestly think it will be that simple.

            I support a budget cap but the teams have it right in this case. As long as Mosley has the sole rule making power F1 is vulnerable to descending into a farce.

          2. GooddayBruce
            5th June 2009, 16:40

            sorry the quote should be

            Max, after many stupid regulation changes over the years has finally hit the nail on the head. £40mill and do what you want.

            not sure what happened there.

      2. As we only know what the ‘trusted’ media know anything at this stage is pure speculation, the compromise is yet to emerge, meanwhile the media keep the fires burning, and F1 gets constant, good or bad, publicity..

      3. So do the teams Keith, and they are as adamant in their view as Max is in his, you cannot have the tail wagging the dog, the FIA has a justified role in this, the teams are often guilty of ‘pass the contract’ or using the threat of leaving for leverage, Ferrari had a technical advantage over the other teams yet saw little wrong with that, Max was elected to a post nobody wanted, to help make the rules, soon the real positions will become evident, and we will see that little has changed…

    2. Martin Bell
      4th June 2009, 23:09

      Dougie, you are a voice of reason and clarity in a sea of nonsense and ill advised personal abuse. I hope it pans out the way you see it.

    3. Dougie

      If the teams were allowed more involvement in the running of the sport in which they are a key and primary stakeholder, don’t you think they would show more commitment?

      So long as Max side lines teams, current or future, there will always be a commitment issue on the part of the teams, whether they spend GBP40M or GBP400M. That is why in a way, a break away series of the 9 teams wouldn’t be so bad. They would have their hearts and souls in that series, that is for sure.

      1. No, I don’t think they will show more commitment.

        No manufacturer board is going to sign off the expense of running their own series, they have never mentioned that (just the media). They know, and Max knows, it is simply not an option.

        In what other sport do the players have a controlling part in the rules? Consulted yes, rule making ability no.

        The FIA has been and will always be in F1, the Manufacturers (and Teams to an extent) are short term players now and then, they come and go.

        1. apart from ford and honda, it has only been private teams that have left. This argument is crap..

          1. This argument is crap..


            Apart from Ferrari… you name me one manufacturer who has had a continuous presence in the sport since their name first appeared on car, either as a manufacturer or an engine supplier??

            No, again your argument as you so eloquently put it “is crap”. The private teams did not leave, they were forced out though a combination of bankruptcy and a lack of sponsorship/money.

  16. What of the fans? Some would follow F1. Some would follow the new championship. And many – perhaps most – would stop watching.

    There is of course the 4th option that isn’t mentioned, which is watching both. Which I would probably do, at least in the beginning.

  17. If you belonged to, for example, a golf club, Dougie. How would you feel about that club saying it wanted to check your bank statements to make sure you weren`t spending more than they thought right?
    Not chuffed, I bet.
    Why should Max believe that the FIA has the right to look into a team`s accounts?
    Even if the teams agreed to that how would the FIA be entitled to look into the parent company accounts?
    The whole budget cap is unworkable.
    I`m half inclined to think it was just designed to bring on exactly the sort of battle that`s going on now because Max would have to be totally brainless to believe the teams would stomach it.

    1. persempre,

      If the rules of the club were to not spend more than x, and I was winning handsomely, like an athlete is checked for drugs I would fully expect them to analyse my accounts, and I would have nothing to hide.

      As we have already discussed, the only way to keep F1 as the pinnacle of sport and protect it from becoming a spec series, is to limit the total cost they can spend and free up the rules within that. Otherwise it becomes a never ending war where the FIA set rules in an attempt to equalise, and the teams spend more to get the upper hand. Its where we are now and, until we cap the total costs, it will continue to the serious detriment of the sport.

      1. See my post above, Dougie.
        It does not free up the rules. It doesn`t even set the cap for more than one year.
        From the Cap Regs:
        4.3 The Costs Commission may make any other adjustments it deems appropriate to the amount of a team’s Cost Cap in its first year of participation as a CRT, having regard to the spirit of the Regulations and the Handbook and to the assets and activities of the team immediately prior to its first year of participation.

        5.2 The level of the Cost Cap will be decided for future seasons of the Championship by the WMSC and will be published on such date as the WMSC considers provides adequate notice to teams considering entering the Championship as a CRT. It is anticipated that such publication should occur, at the latest, at the time of inviting entries for the Championship to which the Cost Cap relates.
        5.7 In exceptional circumstances, a CRT may exceed the Cost Cap without being exposed to the possible imposition of a penalty. Such exceptional circumstances must be approved (in advance) by the Costs Commission.

        What we have here is a recipe for the FIA to constantly shift the goalposts & make up the rules as they go along.

        1. What you have is a set of rules written to a two-tier championship, which will never see the light of day.

          Max can/has conceeded that situation, the teams will run to the budget cap (whatever that may be in the end).

          With due respect, I think any argument surrounding the two-tier issue is blind to the intention of this whole situation.

          1. Have you heard what the new one-tier rules are, Dougie?
            I haven`t & I don`t believe Max is even interested in them.
            Bernie said the two-tier had been dropped but Max went ahead with the deadline for signing the agreement as is.
            That doesn`t see like a very diplomatic, let`s find a happy medium, course to take.
            What we appear to fundamentally disagree on is that it seems you think this is about money & I definitely don`t.
            Nobody, not one team, says costs should not be cut. FOTA keep coming up with ways to do this.
            To me what this is all about is Max wanting to get rid of a strong team alliance who threaten his power.
            He doesn`t want the teams to be able to have a say in the future of the sport. He wants small teams that he can, once again, divide & conquer.

          2. persempre, nobody knows what the final set of rules coming out of this will be. We can only speculate, even you are speculating that the rules as written will be final.

            Max clearly wrote the two-tier rules to make it attractive for all teams to run to the cap, that much is obvious. More so when in the meetings it was the first thing he conceded.

            This is about money, Formula 1 is always about money and that where things started to go wrong. Manufacturers have always spent money to get back on top, and they don’t see the same return on investment if they can’t beat the smaller teams by spending money. They don’t want to be running at the back, they want to spend their way to the front.

          3. OK just a few questions then

            Why have smaller teams found it too expensive to enter F1 in recent years & who was responsible?

            Why have the teams been forced to spend so much money to have any opportunity to win & who was responsible?

          4. Well I guess in both cases you could argue that Colin Chapman started it all when he brought sponsorship to the sport, but I won’t lay all the blame at his door as I liked him a lot and he deserves enormous respect in my opinion.

            No one person can be blamed for either of those questions, which is essence is the same one.

            Though Bernie really has to think more about the classic original circuits than just his and CVCs pockets. I think there are better ways to spread the cash around.

          5. Small teams were actively discouraged from enterring by the introduction of a $48 million bond which had to be paid to the FIA on entry. THis was because the FIA & FOM considered them bad risks & wanted to get manufacturers into the sport.

            Teams have had to spend a fortune because of the way the FIA regulations are formatted & the way they constantly change. Since the old Concorde Agreement expired the FIA has side-stepped the F1 Commission. The Ferrari veto (which, as the court pointed out had never been used) was, apparently, in place until others subsequently signed up & then things were to revert to the Concorde Agreement.
            The lack of small teams & the spiralling cost of F1 can be laid squarely at the feet of the FIA who are now trying to make it look like the manufacturers’ fault.
            Sponsorship, for which Colin Chapman was responsible, is an altogether different issue.

            However, we`d better agree to disagree on this one, Dougie. If things pan out your way all I can say is I hope you are happy with the outcome because I think very many people won`t be & will leave F1 behind.

          6. The $48mill bond was to ensure new teams had adequate funding before entry, it was not an entry fee. It was not designed to only let the manufacturers in, and was not against small teams, just teams who were not properly prepared. In more $48mill is awfully close to £40mill which seems to be what the FIA feel is a nominal figure to successfully compete.

            If things do pan out my way then I can assure you we will all be happy. All the teams will still be here with some new entries as well, M&B still running the show to a set of rules everyone agrees with. Maybe some manufacturers will have left and Briatore F1 will exist instead. Who knows, but that is what I think will happen.

          7. I didn`t say the bond was the entry fee – just that it had to be paid on entry.
            That £48 million was in addition to all the set-up & running costs so $100 million plus was needed.

            I certainly hope that something will be sorted out but I have my doubts. I can`t see the major teams belittling themselves by bowing to Max` demands. His S&M tendencies are coming to the fore again ;)

            If they leave & you get your new F1 I suppose you`ll have plenty of choice for seats at whatever GPs are left in a year or so. I`m not so sure it will be so easy to watch on TV, though.

            Anyway, I must away. Practice 1 starts in a few hours! Nice debating with you.

          8. Dougie

            Budget capping in f1 will never work. How do you propose it to work. An identical part in two different countries have different prices. I can go to the uk and by a bonds singlet for 30pounds, the same singlet in italy will be 30euros. The value of a euro and a pound is different. Furthermore each country has different employment, tax arrangements. Germany is more expensive then Italy etc etc. How can you have true comparison you cant. It is impossible. F1 teams are based in 5 different countries. Bduget capping works in sport like football etc etc. Motorsport cannot budget cap it never worked in v8 supercars in australia it will never work in f1. The way to cut cost in f1 is what the f1 teams are saying to do. Standard parts, and materials.

            Standard tyre, engines, ecu, electrics, wheels, etc etc. these products can be calcualted at a cost equivalent for all teams. Limit cost in terms of limiting resources they can develop is where money will be saved. No need to carry out expensive reasearch. Another thing they could do is leave the rules alone for 10 year periods. the more you change them the more it cost.

            Max has ruined f1.

          9. If they leave & you get your new F1

            persempre, I don’t want a new F1, I want the F1 I grew up with before the debacle that was the last 15 years. An F1 that had the UK and the world on the edge of their seats start to end at every single race!

          10. Morning Dougie :)

            Imaginary scenario.
            F1 exists under a budget cap with rules that allow the FIA to change regs at will.
            If one team begins the season in as dominant form as Brawn has this year, how will the other teams afford to catch up & make the exciting races the fans wish for?
            There are only 2 alternatives.
            a) The FIA changes the regulations to impede the runaway winner or b) they allow extra spending by the teams (& note, the FIA can chose which team can overspend) who may catch up.
            What`s the difference between (b) & paying one team more than the others which so so many have called unfair?
            So, we will then have totally manufactured racing.
            It is not the job of the FIA to interfere with racing to manufacture a show.
            If teams are budget capped &, therefore, cannot spend to make the necessary improvements how can we get a full season with good racing?
            If people are writing the Championship off now & calling it boring what will be said when there is no hope of that changing without intervention by the FIA?

          11. Good morning presempre,

            Great first practice eh! quality! It really shows that the teams are closer then people think. Good old… errr… young… Rosberg showboating again! Go on Son! :-D

            The problem with your scenario is it fails at the first hurdle. The “changeable rules” scenario (which for the record I don’t agree with, as we need stability) was to manage the two-tier championship, but (as Max wants) if the teams are all running to the capped regulations then that requirement no longer exists.

            What I want is stability for the next 5 or 10 years. Freed up regulations and a budget cap to curtail ridiculous spending. Then we will see who really is the best F1 team out there… for me Williams & Brawn will be right up there, with McLaren, Ferrari & Red Bull close behind.

        2. Phil, I agree that stability of rules is a big factor in cutting costs and we need that, but not with the current rules, we need a change that will last 5 or 10 years and another way to control the escalating development costs. The only way to do that is capping.

          As for standard parts, I’m not in agreement, that is making a spec series more than my comment about the teams having to use Cosworth (because that is all that is available at the moment due to the manufacturers pulling out and not because of a rule) and having freedom everywhere else within the cap.

          Personally, even if FOTA (and they are already crumbling with Force India now leaving, just Brawn & McLaren to go, RB would be good too) do step away from F1 I predict there will still be 2 other engines on the grid in Mercedes & Ferrari supplying teams.

          1. I think the cost cuts suggested by the teams which have already been adopted have cut quite a large percentage in costs.
            For instance, cutting testing (not a move I personally like) was a team agreement.
            There are other, much more sensible ways to control costs than an unworkable cap.
            FOTA have made several suggestions but Max is only interested in getting his own way & coming out as top guy.
            If this had only been about money then it could have been sorted long ago.

          2. The problem with the teams proposals is the they may cut costs, and help the smaller teams, but…

            Where does it stop the big teams still spending loads… where is the competition in that!?!

          3. Ah, back on the two-tier regs then?

          4. Ah, back on the two-tier regs then?


            No! I don’t want a two-tier regulation, I was the first to jump up and say “yes!” when it was reported and confirmed Max had conceded that!

            I want a budget capped formula with freed up regulations that are stable for at least 5 years! Everyone to the same rules and the same costs. True competition.

          5. you didn’t answer how can it be policed so no teams has an advantage regarding development in different countries. The standard parts are parts that are not really developed anyhow. Rims no light weight rims, no exotic materials ,etc etc

          6. how can it be policed so no teams has an advantage regarding development in different countries

            To be fair phil, you do have a valid point here, though I don’t believe it is such a big issue as you are making out. However, this was something that I understand FOTA and Max were coming to an agreement on during the talks, before FOTA went stupid with their conditions.

            Why couldn’t they have just said “conditional on positive and fully agreeable outcome from the talks etc” WHY!?!

  18. 1994fanatic
    4th June 2009, 22:18

    He sounds like Fidel Castro. I’ve been following F1 for decades now waking up at 2:30 sunday mornings to watch some race in bumblef@ck china. If this crap goes on I’m done with F1 as I’m sure many of you are. Races need to be where they were before this decade for the fans, not Bernie’s already fat bank account. How much money do you really need, you piece of trash? Can anybody tell me where to write to get these two out. I’d need some help with letters though. Can we ban together and take these commies down?!

  19. Eddie Irvine
    4th June 2009, 22:27

    Firstly, I strongly beleive that budget cap is the way to go. I really hope that after all these mess, F1 come up with 15-16 teams pre-qualyfing and many many drivers. Nigel Mansell was right; a worthy champion is someone who come first between 26-28-30 drivers not 20(and of course in one competition).
    Can’t wait for next season, it will be a new era for formula 1!!!
    Prodrive-Lola-USF1-Lightspeed-March-Brabham-Campos-******-****** many wishes and many podiums!!!

    1. Budget capping in f1 will never work. How do you propose it to work. An identical part in two different countries have different prices. I can go to the uk and by a bonds singlet for 30pounds, the same singlet in italy will be 30euros. The value of a euro and a pound is different. Furthermore each country has different employment, tax arrangements. Germany is more expensive then Italy etc etc. How can you have true comparison you cant. It is impossible. F1 teams are based in 5 different countries. Bduget capping works in sport like football etc etc. Motorsport cannot budget cap it never worked in v8 supercars in australia it will never work in f1. The way to cut cost in f1 is what the f1 teams are saying to do. Standard parts, and materials.

      Standard tyre, engines, ecu, electrics, wheels, etc etc. these products can be calcualted at a cost equivalent for all teams. Limit cost in terms of limiting resources they can develop is where money will be saved. No need to carry out expensive reasearch. Another thing they could do is leave the rules alone for 10 year periods. the more you change them the more it cost

      1. Budget capping in f1 will never work. How do you propose it to work. An identical part in two different countries have different prices.

        Except that most of the parts come from the UK anyway, and the Euro and Pound are pretty identical at the moment. Anyway, so what, if the teams want cheap parts or a bit more expensive quality parts that’s there choice.

        …and that the beauty of this system, the teams have a choice! They will all do things in different ways, but within the £40mill, the racing will be close and different as each teams strengths shine.

        Standard tyre, engines, ecu, electrics, wheels, etc etc.

        So, you want a spec series then?

        1. A good portion of the cars and parts are designed and built inhouse. You can have identical parts built in two countries and one will be more expensive then the other. It cannot be accuratley calculated so every team is fair. If the UK introduce an emission trading scheme and italy dont, electricity in the uk is more expensive then italy. Is that an unfair advantage to ferrari, williams will think so. The FIA cannot control these things.

          As for the spec series, im only suggested things that are almost identical anyway, rims, ecu, engines design, material (non exotic) brakes, F1 design and construction will be reduced to a set of materials, no need for expensive research.

      2. <blockquoteFirstly, I strongly beleive that budget cap is the way to go.

        Well Toyota has the biggest budget and where has it gotten them over the years? A bit closer to a win is all. You can’t put a budget on talent…Newy, Brawn, Alonso etc…

        I don’t think anyone in this sport is going to spend more than they can afford to spend. If they do spend more or can’t get the money because of poor results, then they need to leave. The teams that can’t afford to race this Formula need to race in another one.

        All this talk about a budget creating a level playing field in F1 is fiction. That may sound harsh but no one is holding a gun to Toyota’s head and saying spend this much.

        1. Which is why Brawn, Alonso, and Neweys salaries are outside the budget cap.

          Toyota may be spending the most for the least return, but the teams generally are spending still a massive percentage of Toyotas budget each year… and Williams are the only front running team working to a sensible budget plan… and for me show how it should be done.

          ps. Brawn in 2009 (not including their 2008 astronomical development costs) are also working to a sensible budget plan, and it will be interesting to see where they are next year. I believe still somewhere at the front.

          1. pps. this was in reply to Alex Bkk

          2. I should have added that, as the Entry Form contains the statement “We hereby apply to enter the 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship under the standard regulations/under the cost cap regulations (delete as appropriate) and we undertake to participate in each and every Event :” that the teams were left with little choice but to do what they did. Max hasn`t really shifted an inch since the cap regs were first published.

          3. presempre, See my replies to this above, the system for some reason is sticking them in funny places.

          4. “Relevant expenditure shall include all expenditure, valued in accordance with these Regulations, which, irrespective of its source, is directly or indirectly connected with the CRT’s participation in the Championship save for expenditure : (a) the sole purpose of which is marketing or hospitality; (b) on the employment or remuneration of test or race drivers, including any young driver programmes; (c) on any fine or penalty imposed by the FIA; d) for 2010 only, costs directly and exclusively associated with the supply and maintenance of engines under existing engine supply arrangements and (e) which the team can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Costs Commission was not intended to have and could not have any influence of any kind, however marginal, on the CRT’s sporting performance in the Championship”

            Where does it say anyone bar drivers wages are exempt, Dougie?

          5. save for expenditure : (a) the sole purpose of which is marketing or hospitality; (b) on the employment or remuneration of test or race drivers, including any young driver programmes;

            It’s written there in your post.

          6. Since when have Brawn & Newey been drivers, Dougie?
            LOL – Read your own post :)
            “Which is why Brawn, Alonso, and Neweys salaries are outside the budget cap.”

          7. Oops… just re-read and understood your post…

            As part of the negotiations the teams were saying that Max had agreed to exclude Team Principals and “one other nominee” (e.g. Newey) from the cap.

          8. Yes, but the whole point behind what I`ve been trying to convey is what is said didn`t make it onto paper.
            Would you sign a binding agreement which was full of conditions you thought impossible & rely on what was said to be put into action or would you assume that the document you sign is what you are likely to be agreeing to binding legally?
            The teams signed conditionally because the Sporting Regulations & the Entry Form have remained unchanged from the situation Max wants.

          9. persempre,

            How can Max change the regulations when they are still negotiating them!?! Hence why he recommended a conditional entry to cover the situation they are in, it seems perfectly logical to me.

            Look, enough already, I’m going to agree to disagree, I’m really bored with this now, and in more the website is doing funny things with my posts. I’ll see you on another post sometime, but not in the same way. Take it easy. :-D

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.