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

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

Advert | Go Ad-free

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

  1. Dougie said on 4th June 2009, 22:00

    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!

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 4th June 2009, 22:21

      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.

      • Dougie said on 4th June 2009, 23:22

        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.

        • persempre said on 4th June 2009, 23:43

          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.

          • Bartholomew said on 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

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 0:19

            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.

        • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 4th June 2009, 23:53

          Max is purely calling their bluff.

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

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 0:16

            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

        • phil said on 5th June 2009, 4:42

          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.

          • GooddayBruce said on 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.

            Dougie:

            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.

          • GooddayBruce said on 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.

      • Achilles said on 5th June 2009, 6:35

        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..

      • Achilles said on 5th June 2009, 19:04

        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…

    • Martin Bell said on 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.

    • NDINYO said on 5th June 2009, 8:12

      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.

      • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 8:56

        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.

        • phil c said on 5th June 2009, 11:43

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

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 12:28

            This argument is crap..

            Exactly…

            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.

  2. ajokay said on 4th June 2009, 22:06

    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.

  3. persempre said on 4th June 2009, 22:12

    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.

    • Dougie said on 4th June 2009, 23:29

      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.

      • persempre said on 4th June 2009, 23:49

        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.

        • Dougie said on 4th June 2009, 23:56

          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.

          • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 0:12

            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.

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 0:32

            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.

          • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 0:48

            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?

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 0:55

            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.

          • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 1:07

            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.

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 1:29

            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.

          • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 1:54

            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.

          • phil said on 5th June 2009, 4:57

            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.

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 9:28

            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!

          • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 10:11

            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?

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 10:39

            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.

        • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 9:04

          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.

          • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 10:18

            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.

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 10:41

            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!?!

          • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 11:05

            Ah, back on the two-tier regs then?

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 11:31

            Ah, back on the two-tier regs then?

            EH!?!

            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.

          • phil c said on 5th June 2009, 11:47

            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

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 12:34

            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!?!

  4. 1994fanatic said on 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?!

  5. Eddie Irvine said on 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!!!

    • phil said on 5th June 2009, 5:47

      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

      • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 9:22

        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?

        • phil c said on 5th June 2009, 11:57

          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.

      • Alex Bkk said on 5th June 2009, 11:43

        <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.

        • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 12:12

          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.

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 12:15

            pps. this was in reply to Alex Bkk

          • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 14:26

            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.

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 14:59

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

          • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 14:11

            “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?

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 14:41

            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.

          • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 14:43

            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.”

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 14:47

            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.

          • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 14:56

            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.

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 15:04

            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

  6. sasbus said on 4th June 2009, 22:35

    Max Mosley should be more interested in listening to the teams … and the fans rather than building his own pride. Although sometimes I wonder whether he has hidden agenda????

    Such comments from the one person who should ensure F1 consolidation are unwarranted and naive.

    My only hope is that whoever will be taking part in the next FIA president’s election considers his Kamikaze tactics. Clearly, for me, this present is way past his sell date.

  7. persempre said on 4th June 2009, 22:38

    Just out of interest I`d like to know how many people here have read the Budget Cap Sporting Regs?

    • sasbus said on 4th June 2009, 22:46

      Maybe you should enlighten us and tell us how many other sports have budget caps. I have come across none!

      • persempre said on 4th June 2009, 22:52

        That I honestly don`t know, sasbus.
        I follow F1 closely but that doesn`t leave much time for any depth of knowledge of many others sports.
        I asked who had read the rules because I was wondering whether views on this were taken from reading the actual rules or just from what had been read/heard in the press.
        I think anyone who has read the proposed regulations would understand FOTA`s stance.

        • I’ve read the Budget Regulations and it is my contention that anyone who applies to be in the cost-cap will be disqualified at the end of 2010. The reason is that all teams who choose to accept the cap will have to state who they intend to have as staff, agencies, suppliers and consultants by December 15 of the year preceding competition.

          Firstly, no team can possibly know all those things that far in advance. No provision is made for any form of exception.

          Secondly, not all suppliers will be legally able to provide the FIA with the financial information it wants.

          Thirdly, part of the reason the staff need to be known is so that they can be interviewed as soon as they leave by a financial investigator. Failure of the staff member to submit to interview results in the team being penalised. It would only take a vengeful member of staff for a team to be brought down, even if the cause of the vengeance has nothing to do with money or indeed regulation breaches.

          • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 13:49

            Thanks Alainora,

            Do you agree that it`s just a totally unworkable nightmare as the thing stands & that is all Max has put on the table.
            He may have said the two-tier would go (although I can only remember seeing Bernie actually say that – not Max – but he certainly hasn`t come forward with anything else by way of alternative.
            The teams have had to sign with the 2-tier, capped agreement which is why they have done so conditionally.
            As far as I can see the teams had 2 choices not sign or, as at Max` suggestion, sign conditionally. How could they possibly sign as is?

  8. CoolGav said on 4th June 2009, 22:55

    I’m interested in F1 for several reasons:
    – The technology & engineering
    – The drivers & circuits
    – The off-track activites (driver signings, politics)

    If FOTA set up their own championship it could attract the best drivers as there would likely be more money there. I would expect them to go to some great circuits and others where they have key markets. The cars could well be freer in concept, allow for more innivation, faster and all-together more advanced. To me a FOTA championship could have it all, and be fairer to everyone (fans, circuits, teams, advertisers).

    What would the FIA have? A few recognisable teams. A few great drivers who are there because they have a better chance to win. But still not racing at key circuits (Silverstone, Spa, Imola, Montreal, etc).

    To me FOTA are going to be OK. They have the least to lose. Shurely CVC/Bernie are qwaking in their boots – if F1 splits then they have an asset worth considerably less than it is now. FOTA can rid themselves of Max and Bernie and give the fans the championship we want.

  9. TomD11 said on 4th June 2009, 22:56

    “We now have a dispute and we will see who prevails.” – Max Mosley

    Sums his whole approach up really.

  10. matt said on 4th June 2009, 23:03

    Every day he sounds more and more like a power-hungry dictator, terrified of losing his throne no matter what damage he does to the institution it is his job to protect. He would rather bring down the championship with him than give in, end up looking weak and get booted out at the next election.

  11. Hallard said on 4th June 2009, 23:16

    Max has demonstrated once more that his number one concern is stroking his ego.

    Mosley has said “F1 would survive without Ferrari” which may be true, but F1 would THRIVE without Max.

    Why does he think he has the right to call the shots? Max brings nothing to the table and its childish for him to think F1 is his to destroy.

  12. Texas F1 Fan said on 4th June 2009, 23:19

    I can’t help but think this is all just a bunch of high drama.

    Surely he would not wreck F1 over ego/pride. I mean, we’re talking real money here.

    Before Rome burns, there’s got to be a last minute backroom pow wow, where everything will get sorted out. Max will get a budget cap (higher than 40M), FOTA will get one set of rules.

    • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 0:04

      Surely he would not wreck F1 over ego/pride. I mean, we’re talking real money here.

      Max has an ego no doubt, but FOTA is full of egos, and nobody least of all FOTA is backing down.

      Formula 1 and the FIA will still be here a very long time after FOTA (and any off-shoot) have gone.

  13. tdc said on 4th June 2009, 23:20

    Quite frankly, the man that would lose most in a split is Bernie, so I still expect him to somehow make it all work.

    • Influenced said on 4th June 2009, 23:30

      It would be funny if the FOTA creates a new series… Bernie get’s his fingers in and becomes the commercial right holders.

    • Martin Bell said on 4th June 2009, 23:31

      The fog of all this, the sudden rush of “new” teams, the convoluted nature of the debate, the inevitability of a resolution, it has Bernie written large across all of it. Of course he will make it work because all of it is his design. The man is a genius.

  14. Influenced said on 4th June 2009, 23:29

    One of the plus is the all the circuit that have been taken of the calender in the breakaway competition. The return of Canada, North American Or Multiple North American Races. France. And many others

  15. Dougie said on 4th June 2009, 23:52

    I can’t believe anybody wants a bunch of car manufacturers controlling the sport and dictating to somebody, in my view, who has a clear vision for the future of the sport.

    These manufacturers are only interested in one thing, and it ain’t Formula 1 and its future. As soon as Formula 1 is no longer advantageous for them they’re gone and who cares what happens to F1… or for that matter any break-away series they’ll create.

    Give me an engine, that’s all, or don’t. I couldn’t care if all the teams are running Cosworths, at least then it’s more about the teams ingenuity and the drivers talent. The manufacturers will soon come crawling back.

    McLaren/Mercedes have the right relationship. The other manufacturers are too closely involved with the team and will leave those employees high and dry in an instant. McLaren will survive without Mercedes.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 4th June 2009, 23:55

      I can’t believe anybody wants a bunch of car manufacturers controlling the sport and dictating to somebody

      That isn’t what FOTA are asking for, though, is it? Here’s what they say:

      All FOTA teams now look forward with optimism to collaborating proactively and productively with the FIA, with a view to establishing a solid foundation on which the future of a healthy and successful Formula One can be built, providing lasting stability and sound governance.

      Not “taking over the sport and running it ourselves” – contributing to the process.

      • Dougie said on 4th June 2009, 23:58

        What irks me about that FOTA statement is they are looking forward to…

        …maybe if they took a look behind they would see that was already happening until they threw that curve ball.

        • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 0:24

          What curve ball, Dougie? They`ve made their case quite clearly from the start but every time they come up with a suggestion Max changes the argument.
          Did you see what Mario Theissen said?
          Q. You submitted your applications as conditional. Was that suggested by the FIA, or was it something that FOTA decided to do unilaterally?

          MT: When we had the meeting with Max [Mosley] in Monaco, it was his idea to put in a conditional entry.

          Q. So it would be difficult for the FIA to come back, therefore, and say you are in breach of the rules?

          MT: It would be a surprise.

          Why do that if he (Max) isn`t just going out of his way to be awkward?

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 0:36

            Well, it seems obvious to me why he would say that…

            The discussions are ongoing, positive steps have been taken but work is still to be done. The entry date is looming. So make an entry but make it conditional.

            The teams just took those conditions too far. Conditional on a positive outcome from the meetings, not conditional on Max backing down completely!

    • Isuraeru said on 5th June 2009, 1:42

      These manufacturers are only interested in one thing, and it ain’t Formula 1 and its future. As soon as Formula 1 is no longer advantageous for them they’re gone and who cares what happens to F1…

      That applies not only to Manufacturers, also to Independent teams, Sponsors, TV, Ecclestone, etc, etc, IMO.

    • Isuraeru said on 5th June 2009, 1:51

      in my view, who has a clear vision for the future of the sport.

      Question: Did you forget the question mark at the end?

    • Isuraeru said on 5th June 2009, 1:53

      Give me an engine, that’s all, or don’t. I couldn’t care if all the teams are running Cosworths, at least then it’s more about the teams ingenuity and the drivers talent.

      you can have that in a series call A1GP, why you bother to see F1.

      • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 9:09

        Isuraeru,

        My statement actually reads as…

        With a £40mill cap, the teams have complete freedom in the rules and can use whose ever engines they want. However, if all the manufacturers have pulled out and all that is available is Cosworth, so be it.

        I don’t believe that situation will happen, at minimum I see Mercedes and Ferrari engine s on the grid as well.

        As for your comparison to A1GP, if you knew anything about F1 and A1GP you would know that is a stupid comparison. A1GP have standard EVERYTHING, engine, chassis, ancillaries, everything!

        • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 10:29

          Somehow, I don`t think any manufacturer who leaves the sport will be interested in doing the R&D & producing cheap engines for F1.
          The offer is there (engine/gearbox) in FOTA`s suggestions but I`d be surprised if it stays on the table if the engine manufacturers leave.

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 10:43

            Manufacturers have been supplying engines for F1 in the whole 29years I’ve been watching F1 and even before then.

            It is only recently that they have taken over control of the whole team and gone wild with costs.

          • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 11:03

            This article may interest you then. It looks less likely they`ll be gearing up for additional engine-supplying.

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 11:34

            Oh god! Merc-Benz shed 50 jobs! Panic! they’re going to pull out of F1! Oh no! F1 is dead! …err.. no!

            They’ve shed 50 jobs in a difficult climate… Why?… to reduce overheads and costs! Hmmm… makes a budget cap seem sensible to me.

            My employer (a bank) is shedding 650 jobs, with more to come am sure, does that mean we should all keep our money under the mattress… No!

          • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 11:53

            Ah, a bank man. You must be used to being unpopular lately ;)
            If a cap comes in the manufacturer teams will be forced to cut jobs regardless of the economic situation.
            Ferrari happen to have done very nicely if you look at their last annual report. Why should they have to make redundancies at Maranello just to suit Max’ idea of a budget cap?
            Did you notice “This is a serious blow to the district, its high-tech economy and its relationship with F1. We have a cluster of businesses in Northamptonshire which are at the leading edge. It affects not only those who are involved in the business but their families. This is really very bad news and one must commiserate with family and individuals affected.”

            By the way, I thought when we were talking about Chapman yesterday that you may actually, like me, remember the advent of sponsorship even Lotus in British Racing Green.
            No matter how long we have followed the sport we are constantly learning, Dougie.
            My 40 years of following F1 don`t mean I know it all.

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 12:45

            persempre, LOL!! actually I am an IT man, but lets not get into that ;-)

            I feel for anyone who is made redundant or under a cloud of redundancy, but it is a sign of the times, but it is not a new thing… I personally have sat under a cloud of redundancy every 2 years since I’ve came out of college… its life, businesses do what they need to do to survive, Formula 1 is no different to that.

            It would appear you’ve been watching Formula 1 for as long as I’ve been on this hunk of rock floating in the vast expanses of nothingness… sponsorship had arrived before I joined the many fans watching the sport, and I have taken some interest in its history… but one thing is clear, I would never pretend to know it all, I just know what I feel.

        • Isuraeru said on 5th June 2009, 14:46

          With a £40mill cap, the teams have complete freedom in the rules and can use whose ever engines they want.

          No, they doesnt have complete freedom, they will have to manage under cap, thats not “complete” freedom.

          As for your comparison to A1GP, if you knew anything about F1 and A1GP you would know that is a stupid comparison. A1GP have standard EVERYTHING, engine, chassis, ancillaries, everything!

          Maybe I don’t explain myself enough, I am going to show like I explain things to litle ones:

          A1GP have estandar everything (as you said) and thats why this statement (from you)

          at least then it’s more about the teams ingenuity and the drivers talent.

          describes better A1 than F1. IMO

    • phil said on 5th June 2009, 5:10

      Dougie

      The only manufactures that left the sport was ford and honda (prematurely i might ad) F1 is not a sport it is a marketing monster. Thats why people pay millions. If you want to watch a series where they have one engine go and watch A1. If the manufactures leave you have no KERS, dodgy costworth engines, NO ECU, Bridgstone will leave because they would have no reason to advertise in f1. The new teams cant gurantee there survival, and dont have the capability to develop systems like the existing teams. F1 goes back to the stone age. How do the new teams get all the electrical know how under 40million, they cant. This is carried over from year after year. you have no arguement. If your investing 100million plus pounds in a sport a year you want to have a say. Plain and simple.

      • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 9:14

        All the manufacturers (except Ferrari, who I see as a racing team first anyway) have come and gone and come and gone from the sport over the years. Just because they are here now does not mean they will all be here in 5 years.

        If Williams can develop a KERS system, and a whole host of other stuff over the years in the limited budget they have, then am sure other teams like McLaren, Red Bull, Brawn etc can manage the same.

        I think you are being unfair to the vast amount of talent that Formula 1 teams (not the manufacturers) possess. It was not all that long ago that teams had innovation with a budget of a lot less than £40mill.

        • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 10:37

          Williams bought into Automotive Hybrid Power Limited for the Flybrid. They still haven`t been able to use it properly because it rattles around like a pea in a bucket.
          So KERS was far from a wise investment for them so far, Dougie.

          Yes, budgets were less than 40 million but what did a pint cost then? ;)

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 10:50

            I think you are missing the point… I’ve never agreed with the proposal to have KERS this year with such short notice, Max made it obligatory so the teams had a choice, Williams made a choice and I am all for freedom of choice. Sound investment or not, they made a choice, and with £40mill they would still have a choice.

            How much was a pint then? Who cares, that is not the point. The point is, other racing series can put a car on the grid for an absolute fraction of the cost of the £40mill budget for F1… so even with the extra cost of an F1 car, that leaves an enormous amount for R&D.

          • persempre said on 5th June 2009, 14:02

            KERS was optional not obligatory.
            Unfortunately, those that went with the FIA`s request to use it were almost all the same as those who went by the OWG aero regulations & so found themselves at a double disadvantage (no diffuser but the added weight/grim balance of KERS).

            I don`t think I`m missing the point, Dougie.
            If you feel the cap is correct then fine but you won`t get back the F1 you were yearning for in an earlier post. Apart from the fact that we can never go back, it`s never the same, these are completely different circumstances which F1 has never had before & in my own opinion should not be brought in as they dumb down what should be the pinnacle of motorsport.
            You disagree which is absolutely your right.

          • Dougie said on 5th June 2009, 14:28

            KERS was optional not obligatory.

            Yeah, sorry, that was what I meant… this lack of edit is a bit of a pain.

            those that went with the FIA`s request to use it were almost all the same as those who went by the OWG aero regulations

            Which I find to be a bit silly, as it’s the FIA rules that govern the sport. Choice’s and choice’s. But it’s all within the same set of guidelines and therefore (finances apart) an equal playing field.

            If you feel the cap is correct then fine but you won`t get back the F1 you were yearning for in an earlier post. Apart from the fact that we can never go back, it`s never the same, these are completely different circumstances which F1 has never had before & in my own opinion should not be brought in as they dumb down what should be the pinnacle of motorsport. You disagree which is absolutely your right.

            Actually, I don’t disgree with your point here, and you are absolutely right it will never be the same, and I have to come to accept that. However, with a £40mill cap, it will still be the pinnacle of Motorsport.

            If what you want is a showcase for the manufacturers to parade round and round showing off how much money they have and a continuation of a lack of proper overtaking and racing (like we used to have) that’s fine.

            I want to see a return to a level competition for all (finances included) and proper wheel to wheel racing.

Add your comment

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

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.