FOTA claims to support the fans – but do the fans support FOTA? (Poll)

Posted on Author Keith Collantine

FOTA's eight F1 teams are demanding changes to how F1 is run
FOTA's eight F1 teams are demanding changes to how F1 is run

In a press conference before the start of today’s Le Mans 24 Hours, Ferrari president and FOTA boss Luca di Montezemolo said:

In a couple of years the problem with Formula 1 will be solved – as I really hope, with a responsible FIA, as we want, or, as happens in other sports, organising our own championship.

FOTA claimed yesterday that F1 fans share its objections. It seems to me the best way to put that claim to the test is to run a poll…

Who do you support in the FIA-FOTA row?

  • The FIA (7%)
  • FOTA (83%)
  • Neither (10%)

Total Voters: 2,325

Loading ... Loading ...

I am not happy with how the FIA has handled the budget cap debate – or, for that matter, similar discussions over the future rules of F1 in recent years.

F1 has never strayed too far from controversy. But in recent years it seems to have become impossible for the governing body to sort out even the most minor of matters without kicking up an almighty fuss.

The prospect of F1 facing a split with as many as eight teams leaving the sport is not a pleasant one – and I hope it won’t come to that.

But I think FOTA have the best solutions to everyone’s problems, have put forward their side of the argument intelligently and, unlike the FIA, without recourse to needless provocation and antagonism.

Read more

317 comments on “FOTA claims to support the fans – but do the fans support FOTA? (Poll)”

  1. But I think FOTA have the best solutions to everyone’s problems, have put forward their side of the argument intelligently and, unlike the FIA, without recourse to needless provocation and antagonism.

    Hear hear, I totally agree :-D I just hope the FIA realise this before its too late!

    1. Max is the architect of all this, i don’t believe the FIA can bring out such arbitrary rules randomly.

      Budget Cap? NO way

      There will always be wealthy teams and they tend to do well, even football is the same, all sports are the same.

      The problem is that the new teams just want to join and be on a level playing field when some of the teams have invested billions into their success over many years. To them F1 is not about history and passion its about making a quick profit and bailing out when it suits them.

      Teams like Ferrari and McLaren would never quit F1 because of the economy, they have more to loose if they do

    2. The FIA will NEVER!!!!! realise this Kayleigh is my fear

  2. I’m not really sure what FOTAs solution is to the problem! I haven’t heard how they actually intend to cut costs.They remind me a bit of the Conservative party.They’ll pull the other side down,but don’t have anything to offer themselves.

    The FIA are currently offering 100 million budgets for 2010 lowering to 40 million thereafter.Sounds reasonable to me.Or maybe because that could be acceptable FOTA have found something else to be annoyed about instead ?

    The statement Di Montezemolo put out this afternoon was not unexpected.More of his ‘sour grapes’ than anything else.

    I’m not siding for either one in this.Both are as bad as each other IMO.

    1. I’m not really sure what FOTAs solution is to the problem!

      FOTA gave the terms under which they would compete at the end of last month: FOTA teams offer three-year F1 deal but will Max Mosley accept it?

      But this is part of the root of the problem: Mosley started by saying he wanted a budget cap because the manufacturers wouldn’t commit. Now the manufacturers are saying they will commit – but Mosley is still demanding a budget cap.

      1. But the budget cap is necessary for F1 to move forwards anyway! And I wouldn’t trust any of them to commit even if they signed the document in their own blood.We’ve seen it before,the manufacturers will walk away when they want and not when Ferrari or FOTA or whoever say they should.

        F1 needs more than just five manufacturers commitments to keep it alive!

        1. Why do you think the budget cap is necessary? There has been one team go (Honda) & one team who have been working for 2-3 years toward entering F1 regardless of the budget cap (US F1).
          Yes, there is a need to cut costs (to which all the teams agree) but why do you feel there is a need for an actual budget cap, VXR?

      2. Historically, Keith, the teams/manufacturers have said they will commit, and then done what suits them, could be why the FIA has little faith, even with a 48mil bond (honda?) they will still up sticks, and stuff the contract….

        1. The bond only applied to new entries, Achilles, & it ended in 2008, I think.

    2. FOTA gave the FIA proposals back in March with initial suggestions for changes for both 2009 & 2010
      as follows:

      KEY PROPOSALS
      Technical
      2009:

      ▪ More than 100% increase in mileage per engine (eight engines per driver per season)
      ▪ Reduction in wind tunnel and CFD (computational fluid dynamics) usage
      ▪ Engine available at €8 million per team per season

      2010:
      ▪ Engine available at €5 million per team per season
      ▪ Gearbox available at €1.5 million per team per season
      ▪ Standardised KERS (put out to tender, with a target price of €1-2 million per team per season)
      ▪ Target a further 50% reduction of the 2009 aerodynamic development spend
      ▪ Specified number of chassis, bodywork and aerodynamic development iterations (homologations) during the season
      ▪ Prohibition of a wide range of exotic, metallic and composite materials
      ▪ Standardised telemetry and radio systems

      Sporting
      2009:
      ▪ Testing reduction (50%)
      ▪ New points-scoring system (12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1), to give greater differentiation/reward to grand prix winners
      ▪ Race starting fuel loads, tyre specifications and refuelling data to be made public

      2010:
      ▪ Commitment to recommend new qualifying format
      ▪ Radical new points-scoring opportunities (eg, one constructors’ championship point to be awarded for the fastest race pit stop)
      ▪ Further testing reductions (four four-day single-car pre-season tests plus one single-car pre-season shakedown)
      ▪ Reduction of grand prix duration (250km or a maximum of one hour 40 minutes) pending the approval of the commercial rights holder

      Commercial
      2009:
      ▪ Increased data provision for media
      ▪ Explore means by which the presentation of Formula One action can be more informatively and dynamically presented, common to other sports such as tennis and cricket, to dramatically improve engagement with the public
      ▪ Nominated senior team spokesman available for TV during grand prix
      ▪ Commitment to enhance consumer experience via team and FOTA websites
      ▪ Mandatory driver autograph sessions during grand prix weekends

      2010:
      ▪ Commitment to enhance consumer experience via TV coverage

      —–
      At the same time they published the reults of their Global Audience Survey.

      For me the poll is a no-brainer. It has to be FOTA. :)

      1. Those offer budget reductions of up to 30%. Which is what they are at now. Not enough to bring in new teams.

        1. Two main barriers to entry for new teams have been the 48 million Euro bond & the demise of permitting the use of customer cars.
          The costs involved in F1 have been increasing mainly due to the FIA. Constant rule changes have cost the teams millions unnecessarily. KERS is one example as is the double-decker diffuser which, under sensible ruling, could & should have been sorted out long before the season started.
          Max is very quick to blame the teams but the truth lies closer to his door.

          1. The big budgets are actually the cause of the rule changes.

          2. I repeat again and again i cannot agree more.

  3. Reality is that the teams really haven’t proposed anything. Or rather that we really don’t have a clue what their latest offer was.

    First indeed they said, “We can do this without a budget cap and we will tell you how” … crickets … crickets …

    Then they said, “Lets do this budget cap thing (first year 100 mil) and we will promise to stay till 2012, but we want you to sign our Concorde agreement”

    So the budget cap is not the problem for FOTA. Not even the 45 million. Instead they put something in their Concorde agreement which probably hands them more power and more money.

    Especially with Renault coming out with a statement that all the money should go to the teams

    Besides it’s a complete misconception that the ONLY goal was to keep the current teams. The goal was to bring the field back up to 13 teams and have a healthy future where new teams can come back in when other teams drop out.

    So it wasn’t all done when the big teams promised to stay for at least a few more years.

    The sport is ruined by all three parties:
    – Ecclestone is killing off the venues and replacing them by crappy dead tracks with no tradition
    – The manufacturers are killing the sport with their utterly absurd budgets.
    – Mosley is killing the sport by being a jerk.

    To be honest I’m not convinced the budget cap is the wrong solution. I rather have a level playing field where all teams can spend the same maximum amount of money. Better that than cutting costs by standardizing cars (standard engine, gearbox, wings etc etc etc).

    I’m also not convinced that the teams starting their own series without the burden of Ecclestone and his CVC is the deathblow. Sure, it will kill the CVC and it will be a mess for a few years, but when the dust settles we can have a cleaner sport in return.

    1. A level playing field is to have a the same rules for everyone and then leave them to find the means to compete.

      1. I wholeheartedly agree with this simple and yet pinpoint quote.

        It doesn’t make sense that a team like Ferrari is being forced to only be able to spend approx. 10%-15% of their current budget. That is a lot of money to take out of amy system. It could be likened to the current economic crisis we are in now but on a localised scale. What I mean to say is that it’s like if a company is looking like it’s going under and everyone pulls out all their investments at once. It’s a type of vaccum effect. I just can’t see any good coming from pulling that much money out of the F1 structure. Not to mention the lost jobs.

        Only one team has had to pull out but look at what Brawn has done with the remains. By the way, I’m still looking for someone to enlighten me or quash my suspicion that Ross Brawn had a major part in the demise of Honda and that he has been working on his championship team since joining Honda?

        1. I think the main point is the FIA’s lack of compassion toward all the poeple who may lose their livlihoods if the budget cap comes in as it is proposed now. yes jobs will have to go to cut costs, but maybe some way could be found to reduce costs without losing too much of the workforce.
          In the current financial climate people need their jobs more than ever.
          If you look at any other major company they do not take job cuts arbitrarily. Budgets should be reduced slowly over a number of years 3 -5 i would say. And for newer teams there should be help from current teams in way of loans or something from the money saved.

          And money is going to be continually wasted by having new rules year in and year out.

      2. That’s a level playing field too yes.

        It’s even more level if the rules are the same AND they are not allowed to buy themselves into an advantage.

    2. Patrick i agree there needs to be cost cutting, and more teams in the sport but the teams but the way the FIA and Max has gone about it is totally wrong. If you look back in history all the 10 teams were happy to reduce cost and had agreed with a step by step program which would reduce cost significantly, which would avoid mass redundancies and sacking of people and allowing the big teams (the ones that support all the teams) to adjust.

      All Max wanted to do was to disrupt this agreement with the teams in fear of them creating a stronger alliance and decided to impose these ridiculous rules without consulting the teams which is wront.

      The reality is if FOTA leave, f1 is dead, from what I have read, all of Bernie contracts have certain requirements in relation to teams, viewing numbers, exposure etc etc. This would fallover overnight and CVC would be suing the pants off the FIA and bernie plain and simple. Another thing to note, if FOTA leave, which i hope they do, f1 may continue, but there will be no strong engine as already alluded to by williams, no electronics (No Mclaren ECU), not gearbox, i have no doubt bridgestone will leave, all major sponsors will leave the sport in droves and no money to invest. Inturn f1 will become a pathetic series.

      This fiasco is all about governance and money and this time FOTA will win, because without FOTA f1 is dead.

      1. The teams were happy to cut costs, but in reality they haven’t. Estimates are that they cut at best 20%. The top budgets for 2009 are still between $350 and $370 million dollars down from being between $400 and $445 million.

        The proposals they did in March really don’t go far enough. There is no plan from FOTA to substantially cut costs. That’s a myth they keep alive so they keep the fans behind them.

        Actually the teams agreed that a budget cap would be a good alternative rather than restrictive rules and standard parts.

        Sure F1 will suffer if the teams leave. Vice versa, the manufacturer teams will hurt if they leave F1.

        1. But the arguement here is we had total agrement and all the teams were happy. All the teams agreed with it. Why does the FIA have to go against it. There not accountants, the teams know what the can and cannot spend.

          The arguement to encourage new teams in the sport also ********. The FIA were the ones discouraging teams with stupid sign on fee’s. Not only that we have 8 of the ten team committing for 3 more years so the FIA concerns have been addressed and yet we still have an arguement. FIA are useless

          1. The FIA had to go against it, because the teams basically agreed to do nothing.

          2. But when you have all the teams that are spending the money agreeing and committing for another three years there is no issue. The FIA is the only organsation in the world that thinks it can control the finances of a company which it cannot control. No government, no organisation can do this. The stupidity in it all is the FIA have caused teams to spend more money with stupid rule changes that have done nothing for the sport.

          3. The teams don’t spend more money because of the rule changes. If there are no rule changes they spend the same amount of money. At best/worst it diverts money from one area to another.

            Teams were spending 200 million on their engines. The engines were frozen. So you would assume budgets to come down by at least 150 million or so. The budgets went up! The teams simply started spending the money on aero development.

            The relationship between budgets and rule changes is exactly the other way around. The rules need to be changed so often because the teams spent too much money on making the cars faster. The rules then need to be changed to bring the speeds back down. If they would spend less, the rules wouldn’t have to be changed so often.

            Honda had signed to race in 2009. Did they race? No, they simply took their losses and buggered out. So what is a contract with a manufacturer worth? Well their deposit money, but nothing more.

            Besides, I’ll say this again, the teams themselves asked for the budget cap in 2008.

            It really is the only viable way to actually get the budgets down without turning F1 into a spec series. All the teams (but two) know this, but Ferrari is afraid people will cheat.

            They don’t come with an alternative, because they simply don’t want an alternative. Ferrari and the other manufacturers want to keep their competitive edge by spending twice what a “privateer” team can spend. It’s bad enough that they are getting whipped by the privateers right now. Let alone that this could occur on a regular basis.

          4. Well I dont totally agree with that, because KERS cost between 50 and 100 million, and a useless piece of kit. Yes teams may have spent some extra dollars else where but they have every right to.

            As for Honda, Honda left because there sponsorship theory went to crap, i bet they would be kicking themselves now. You cannot come into f1 and expect to win first season out.

            My issue is and you still have not answered the question is you cannot police the budget cap plain and simple. And there are a tonne of ways to reduce cost. Not only this, the FIA have no right to control how much a team spends. All the teams know what they can and cant spend, apart from honda and ford, which both of which were useless, the teams must be getting some form of return for there investment in the sport. If they weren’t they would have all left a long time ago.

            You can control spending without the need to budget cap. Simple things like why do we need 30 people at a pit stop, why do we need 50 engineers at a race, standard non performance enhancing parts, rims, tyres, ecu, brake disc, caliapers, non exotic material. The issue for me is the manufacutres spent a truck load of money and the FIA expect to give it all up because they said so, its a crap rule. It like me writing a law to tell Google, to stop spending money because they have attained a competitive advantage because of good investment to let yahoo catch up because they were useless at there job. But google did it all legally. The money issues if there is one, is because of the FIA, Bernie and inappropriate distribution of revenue.

  4. I think like in any spectator sport, the fans support their favorite competitors more than the organization. It is sad that FIA doesn’t realize that in many ways when the competitors are upset, so are the fans. It seems the FIA is in the spotlight too much. Their place is to govern from the background and let the races be the things that people talk about. I hear more about the FIA FOTA clash than the races themselves.

    Just my 2 cents.

  5. I would like to read here the reasons those 20 who have voted for FIA has.

    Just curiosity, anything else.

    1. I didn’t vote for the FIA,but having read again the above FOTA proposals I think that I’m quite happy with my ‘neither’ vote.

      1. VXR, I think those proposals are based on what FIA was asking for under the naive behaviour of MAX.

        I’m pretty sure if you ask teams what to do not having to answer under the “rules” Max set up, the answer will be different.

        Don’t forget FOTA was trying to reach an agreemen.

  6. Engine and Gearbox available for 6.5 million.I wouldn’t put too much hope in getting ‘top spec’ for that.KERS is dead.Ban on refuelling is on anyway.Yet another qualifying format.Little bits here and there for testing and areo.Not exactly radical is it ?

    REDUCTION OF GRAND PRIX DURATION.That alone would make me vote for the other party.

    1. Yes, the FIA took some of the proposals & put them into use.

      The reduction in GP length is due to the halt in refuelling. The alternative being considerably heavier cars.

      The qualifying format change was included as part of their survey of fans & public globally, They were listening to what the fans had said.

      If a ‘top spec’ engine/gearbox can`t be made available for 6.5 million then a 30 million (or even 40 million) total budget cap would be totally out of question, wouldn’t it?

      1. Yes, the FIA took some of the proposals & put them into use.

        Other way around actually.

        The reduction in GP length is due to the halt in refuelling. The alternative being considerably heavier cars.

        We had “considerably heavier cars” in F1 before.

        If a ‘top spec’ engine/gearbox can`t be made available for 6.5 million then a 30 million (or even 40 million) total budget cap would be totally out of question, wouldn’t it?

        Engines aren’t included in budget cap.Which brings me to the point that the budget cap only really includes the cost of designing and making the cars chassis,everything else is outside of that.

        1. I`ll ask again, why do you think the budget cap (as opposed to cost cuts) is necessary?
          I`m trying to understand on what you base your opinion.

          1. I’m with VXR on the budget cap not being such a bad idea.

            Give every team the same maximum amount of money and they can do with it what they want.

            For instance if they want to use CFD and don’t need to test on track, fine. On the other hand, if they need to test on track and don’t want CFD, then fine too.

            The cost cuts limit the teams way too much in what they can do.

            Most cost cuts actually consist of standard components. Even going as far as standard aero components. Talk about turning F1 into a spec series! It’s the teams who suggest turning F1 into A1GP.

            The budget cap will allow for more competition. Oddly enough teams like Brawn and Red Bull (and Williams) would benefit a lot from it. The championship is no longer only open for the biggest budget teams. That is of course exactly the problem that the big teams have with the budget cap.

          2. How would you police it, Patrick?
            These are international businesses with links to other enormous international businesses.
            Do you think Max can go to the HQ of Mercedes-Benz & say I want to look at your accounts? The FIA doesn`t have the legal right to demand to see the books of a car manufacturer, an energy drink maker or a major sponsor like Vodafone or Santander.

          3. These companies have accountants check their books already. I don’t see how one extra check can really be an issue.

          4. There`s a big difference, Patrick.
            The FIA is a sporting body. Why should large multinational companies let them know what they spend their money on?
            The FIA may demand it of the teams but they cannot demand it of companies like Mercedes, FIAT, Toyota, Renault, BMW or any of the large companies & sponsors associated wih any of the teams (old or new). It just can’t be policed.
            What would stop team costs being hidden in an associated company’s books? A team could be saying it was within the cap & actually spending millions more than allowed.
            Cuts have to be mutually agreed & achieved by methods which can be properly monitored or you could never guarantee that they were being adhered to.

          5. According to Mosley the accountants at Deloitte and Touche and financial managers of “the teams” said it could be policed.

            To be honest I don’t see the problem either. “They don’t want their books checked” doesn’t really cut it for me.

            They don’t have to have their books checked. Just the books from the business units that actually have something to do with F1.

            I doubt it would be that easy to cheat anyway. Something needs to be transferred. If it’s parts then this would be obvious from the books of the F1 team.

            I guess they could hide research, but what are they going to do? Build an extra wind tunnel and sneakily test there? That would be cheating right now too.

            Even if they cheat a bit, the difference in budget would still be nowhere near as huge as it is now between the privateers and the manufacturers. So even then the system would be more fair than it is now.

          6. They wouldn`t have to build a new wind tunnel, Patrick. The teams with manufacturing connections could just use the car makers tunnels.
            We could keep this up all night (I`m watching Le Mans) so we`d better agree to differ.
            I hope we each get the motorsport we want although it sounds like it would have to be in different series.

          7. Yeah right, they have a 1:1 windtunnel that can do speeds of over 300km/h …

          8. Yeah right, they have a 1:1 windtunnel that can do speeds of over 300km/h …

            & all the teams have?

          9. The reality of how the budget cap would be policed is that the FIA want the power to:

            * Demand internal correspondence from the teams
            * Send people into the teams’ factories to interview personnel – including those not involved in the F1 team
            * Send in its own auditors

            I’m not in the least bit surprised that some teams -object to sharing such highly sensitive information with a third party. And the prospect of a championship being decided because one team got a penalty for running its wind tunnel for too long is rather depressing.

            More on that in the ‘forensic finance’ section here: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/06/13/fia-and-fota-remain-deadlocked-on-f1-governance-and-budget-cap/

          10. And the prospect of a championship being decided because one team got a penalty for running its wind tunnel for too long is rather depressing.

            Are you talking about the 2009 regulations …

            There always will be some form of policing necessary. Currently the teams could be cheating on wind tunnel and CFD use already. Both cost cutting or budget capping share the same problem that teams might try to circumvent it or break it inadvertently. So?

            The secrecy thing really is a non issue. These companies have Deloitte and Touche (or other accountants) running through their books already. They wouldn’t have to report all details, just verify that no funny business is taking place.

            Besides the most invasive investigations would only be necessary if the teams start using strange constructions. If Mercedes sells McLaren an engine for the same price as it sells it to Brawn GP, there is no need to go over all of Mercedes’ books.

            BTW I would hope the budget gets checked regularly. This would insure that problems in accounting are detected early and can be corrected in time.

            I’m not saying budget capping is not without it’s challenges, but I think it’s perfectly possible and I’d rather see that than that I’d like to see Formula 1 turned into another spec series. Seeing how the “cost cutting” measures are mostly being suggested in the form of standardization.

          11. Patrick

            Budget capping is not only impossible to police it is a ridiculous proposal.

            Currently all the teams operate out of different countries. Each country has different tax levels, employment requirements and assocaited cost. How do you propose equality across all 10 teams.

            Costs are different between different countries. Electricity is more expensive in the UK then is it in Italy. You can build an identical part with identical processes in two different countries and it will cost considerably different because there are so many variables that the FIA cannot control tax increases,emission trading schemes, laws that force teams to spend more cash. It is an impossible task to achieve plain and simple, and i dont care what the FIA say, they cannot provide equality across the grid with budget capping. Another thing to note is the difference between the US, POUND and EURO dollar. I know for a fact, the teams all operate with different currencies, this moves every day when your dealing or purchasing products from all over the world you may be spending more or less dependant on the value of the dollar. You cannot budget cap motor racing, it failed in v8 supercars and it will in f1.

            How do you propose the FIA regulate BMW Sauber or torro rosso. Half the car is built in switzerland/uk and the other half in germany/italy. It cannot be done.

            Only way to regulate cost is standardisation and rules. Standard rims, why do we need 10 different sets of rims on the grid this is not innovative, standard ecu, restriction in the use of material (non exotics), limit windtunnell testing, control the number of people who can work on a car at a track, Is there a need to have 30 people at a pitstop or 50 engineers monitoring the car.etc etc. I can write 100’s of things that will reduce costs and still make f1 innovative.

            Another things how can you regulate how much money and time is spent infront of a computer designing a car. A person doesn’t need to be working at the team headqtrs to be designing a car.

          12. You may have mist this fact, but international companies already exist. Amazingly people have come up with way to unify the books of the companies.

            Besides, who cares what costs what where. In the end it’s a bunch of numbers you add them up and the total needs to be less than the limit.

          13. So a team from a country where wages, materials, exchange rates & other elements may be considerably lower than elsewhere will actually be able to “spend” more than those elsewhere.
            How long before the cries of unfair start, Patrick?

            I can`t see how people could condone that whilst complaining that currently some teams can afford to spend more.

          14. Man you are so disingenuous …

            Reality is that there are hardly cost differences in the locations of the current teams.

            Yet the top budgets are at least 2 times as high and even up to 3 times as high as the lower budgets of Williams and Red bull.

          15. Do you not think that, maybe, Ferrari who use certain aspects from F1 in their cars may think the extra investment is worht it?
            As Ron Dennis has gone off to the sports car side of McLaren I presume the same can be said for them (ie as in the McLaren F1).
            You haven`t answered the questions many people have asked which are why the FIA should be able to dictate what these companies should spend, what right the FIA has to look at these companies books & how you think any cap could be effectively policed.
            So far you`ve called me disingenuous & hung up but I am at least trying to answer the points you put forward. I would appreciate it if you did the same &, as I have tried to do, provide some sort of source for things you are ststing as facts.

          16. Patrick you cannot answer the question, A lot of companies are international yet they must abide by the laws wihtin the country they operate. As for you arguement of cost are similar, that is crap too. How can it be similar when there is so many variables that can affect it. Simple way to put it is this, import tax in countries are different. Everybody uses carbon fibre, yet carbon fibre in italy cost 100euro a lineal metre and in germany 150 euro’s a lineal metre. toyota are all of sudden getting screwed $50 a lineal metre, over a year they may be 2million dollars, is this fair. Electricity has different prices. This is reqiured during everystage of development of an f1 car. A budget cap is flawed plain and simple

          17. If the difference was that big, the German teams would simply buy the carbon fiber in Italy.

          18. Patrick that wont work mate, because its import tax. You can buy the product in china, if you operate out of germany you pay import tax controlled by the german government same goes if you operate in italy.

            If your theory was applied you would build a car in china, because there is hardly any taxs on imports, labor, etc etc. Every team would move to china.

            Budget caps cannot be policed and applied evenly. Some things would be similar, but the reality is over the cost of a season, you would have several million dollars different between teams thus no equality.

    2. Yes reducing race distances is not good in my book, but 99% of FOTA propsals are probably worth looking at.
      I’m sure they will have decent ideas to put forward if they have to break away from FIA.

  7. FOTA Hands Down!!!

    I Think FIA Are Looking Out For What Is Happening In The Economy!

    FOTA Are Looking Out For The Sport And What The Fans Want

    People Who Arent Into F1 Would Be Annoyed At The Money… But For Me A Big F1 I Want To See Great Money Spent

    Money Spent On Good Technologys!! Like They Find On F1 Cars The Aero Parts Etc

    Id Rather Spend 300 Million On F1 Than 80 Million On Ronaldo!!!

    1. “I Think FIA Are Looking Out For What Is Happening In The Economy!”

      Which is a bad thing ?

      “FOTA Are Looking Out For The Sport And What The Fans Want”

      By shortening the length of races ?

      “Id Rather Spend 300 Million On F1 Than 80 Million On Ronaldo!!!”

      Both are equallt obsene amounts

      1. I just want to know why you start every word with a capital letter, Dan.

        1. bCAUSE tHAT’S tHE wAY hE lIKES iT, aHAAN, aHAAN. :)

  8. I’m not convinced Luca has quite the degree of fans support he thinks he has.

    I liked a lot of the suggestions Martin Brundle made in an article on a national newspaper some months ago about reducing costs.

    I’m not completely convinced by the budget cap amount as is currently proposed. I still think there should be more of a ‘budget range’ with a much higher cap that gets incrementally reduced over several years. But I do like that it gives the perceived opportunity for new teams to be able to join and compete at a reasonable rate. And I’m quite optimistic about this as we have seen STR and RBR and even Force India and now Brawn do some great work (I appreciate the Brawn example is a little different but you get my drift).

    Maybe the FIA should think about imposing a rule that says the cars at the bottom of the grid need to be within a certain percentage in terms of pace to the front car or will not make the grid on race day. This may be an incentive for the new teams to really up their game from the start and keep F1 competitive. I’m throwing this out there so am interested to hear your pro’s and cons views on this. I seem to think we may have even had this system in the past at some point.

    Anyways, I hope the governance and transparency issues that keep getting raised work both ways i.e. the FIA and ALL the teams…

    1. I voted neither. I would be inclined to vote FOTA if all the teams would commit to identical contracts with Max and Bernie where no perks and veto’s and other creative extras where allowed to ‘bribe’ people into submission…

      1. How about if they all agree to identical contracts (without the Max & Bernie bit), Chaz? :)
        Be that in F1 or not.

        1. Yes sure persempre, I could go with that. I’m still a little uncertain what FIA brings to the sport of F1 that other series that run on their own don’t/can’t do…

          1. I`d go for it, too.
            So, my ideal would be a strong team association where things are discussed openly &, instead of contracts (probably containing hefty confidentiality clauses) being signed with each team in private, that team contracts be signed en masse at a sort of AGM.
            Somehow, I don`t think we`ll get that with the current structure of the FIA & FOM, though :(

  9. Well that’s a pretty definitive answer.

  10. And I think the unecessary antogonising (‘well maybe you should all just go ahead and quit then, humph’- Mosely) is reason enough to support fota, who aren’t out for themselves particularly and are more out for the sport and fans and good competition.

    1. The teams are looking out for themselves. The sport needs more teams and to become cheaper.

      The big teams don’t want a budget cap because they don’t like a level playing field.

      1. Clearly, the teams want to continue in F1, so F1 is an overall profitable and useful enterprise for them. They have a vested interest in seeing it continue, at least as it stands now with the current teams.

        Why would the FIA have any interest in seeing F1 continue? They don’t have any commercial and monetary ties with F1 at all, as an independent governing body. The FIA will exist quite happily even if F1 disappears. They don’t really have anything on the line here, so I don’t expect them to be making good decisions on this issue.

        I’m glad the teams are looking out for themselves, they have the most incentive to continue this profitable marketing machine well into the future.

    2. “who aren’t out for themselves particularly and are more out for the sport and fans and good competition.”

      Don’t be fooled,”self interest” is all of their middle names.

      1. The big teams don’t want a budget cap because they don’t like a level playing field.

        Teams doesn’t want:

        To be under a forensic control of Max.

        Imagine, now we cannot have certainty of who has won a race, because naive behaviour of FIA; who are going to warrant we know what Team/driver have won the championship until December?

        Teams want:

        1) Clear & Stable rules allowing them to have clear mid/long term vision of his own business outlook.

        They cannot be investing money in resources (Human, Technical, infraestructure) one year and writting off the next one. See what have happened with double diffuser or KERS this year. That have cost millons to all teams.

        All current Teams have reduced their 2009 budgets over a 30% respect 2008’s, and they are looking for further reductions in the following years.

        What they need to do it properly is a CLEAR scenario to make the right decissions. FIA have demonstrated cannot provide this to the Teams.

        2) They want also a clear and stable scenario of revenues.

        They don’t want one speculator taking for himself out of F1, more than 50% of total revenues. This is the MAIN problem for F1, and is impoverishing all value chain, not allowing Circuits to have an stable economic scheme to survive (See what have happended with USA, Canada, France and what is going to happend with Germany, Britain and China in the near future) and not allowing to increase the current field with new teams coming into F1.

        Are the current teams the ones who have to invest for making that happens meanwhile Bernie has became rich selling this business to CVC?

        Finally, why there should be a “level playing field”. In which sport that happens today?

        There will always be big teams with possiblities for winning and the rest.

        The point (IMHO) is FIA should not regulate technical parametres as much as they are pretending (and doing) now. Let teams freedom to find their own way to become succesfull.

        FIA should regulate few things: Security (Cars and Circuits), non existance of driving aids, Mechanical durability and Consumtion.

        1. very well put. you’ve said all the things i think, especially regarding other sports. regulations are there to provide consistency which the FIA has not done.

  11. i’m voting for FOTA, but i’m tempted to vote “neither”. i’d like to see a poll for who is the greatest villain in this saga: FOTA, FIA or FOM.

    1. It’s not about “villains” though is it.It’s about the best way forward fo F1.

  12. I would like F1 to go in a different direction. First of all how can a budget cap help an industry that invent & use the latest bleeding edge technology? I want to see lap times go faster and faster every year while improving safety standards. Nowadays F1 is becoming more & more like NASA, stuck in low earth orbit rather than going to Mars!

    1. “I would like F1 to go in a different direction. First of all how can a budget cap help an industry that invent & use the latest bleeding edge technology?”

      Ideas cost nothing,and one great man once said: “An engineer is someone that can make for one dollar what any idiot can make for a hundred dollars”.

      “I want to see lap times go faster and faster every year while improving safety standards.”

      Physical impossibility,unless you want the spectators moved further back than they are already and the drivers having to wear ‘gravity suits’.

      “Nowadays F1 is becoming more & more like NASA, stuck in low earth orbit rather than going to Mars!”

      You can only work within the limits of safety.

      1. Ideas cost nothing,and one great man once said: “An engineer is someone that can make for one dollar what any idiot can make for a hundred dollars”.

        But as several other great men have pointed out the clever engineers want to be paid a wage which reflects their ability. The idiot doesn`t have the savvy to command the extra pay. ;)

        1. “But as several other great men have pointed out the clever engineers want to be paid a wage which reflects their ability. The idiot doesn`t have the savvy to command the extra pay.”

          Mosley has also brought forward to the table that one engineer should be excluded from the budget cap.

          1. If you can show me where it says that in the regulations which the teams had to sign up to or where the increased budget or the stopping of the two-tier system appears then I might change my mind.
            However, the 2010 regulations are online & are exactly the same as Max first put on the table as far as I can see.
            This, copied straight from the document is what the regs state:

            5.4 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.

          2. It’s a new proposal working towards a compromise, how could it have been in the original rules?

          3. Personally, I wouldn`t buy a car with no engine, seats or doors from a salesman who wanted me to sign a “Sold as seen” agreement but promised me he`d make the car good after he’d cashed my cheque.
            Would you?
            Or would you, like me, say “No, I want to see that car put right before I sign up & pay my money”.

          4. Actually even in the earliest drafts of the 2010 rules, it was understood that the teams could pay dividends to key personnel (out of there profit).

          5. That didn`t answer my question, Patrick.

            It’s a new proposal working towards a compromise, how could it have been in the original rules?

            This suggests you feel that the FOTA teams should have unconditionally signed the 2010 entry form which includes 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” in the hope that it would subsequently be altered.
            Would you?

            As to paying staff out of profits, what happens for the first year before any profit is made (no staff?) or in subsequent years if there`s no profit? (still no staff?)

          6. Seeing how the teams basically agreed to go under the budget cap from 2011, this is not the problem. People who keep saying it’s impossible to race for that amount or that it’s inhumane to fire so many people. The teams already agreed to do that.

            What is left is then is that they want their Concorde agreement signed. In this they probably give themselves more money from FOM and more power back from the FIA.

            All that has nothing to do with the 2010 regulations that they were asked to sign. At best that the teams probably want to be involved in new regulations.

            So in effect what the teams are doing is blackmailing FIA and FOM into signing the Concorde agreement or otherwise they leave. They could have done the same thing in 2009 or 2008, or 2007 or the last time when they threatened a breakaway series and Ferrari stabbed them in the back.

            To be honest I think it’s weird that they agree to accept the 2010 rules (which they first claimed were ridiculous) and then threaten to leave F1 only because they want to have more say in the rules.

      2. R&D costs money, so good engineers with great ideas aren’t the only thing to consider!

        Going faster is certainly possible, relax the bloody rules a bit. I think more people would watch if the teams were allowed to be more creative, inventive, adventurous.

        G suits are cool! :)

  13. I don’t support either of them. The fact that they are all unable to site around one table on one day and decide this shows me what kind of people they are.

    1. Excellent post.

  14. It’s obvious FOTA remember that none of the FOTA teams if the reg’s stay will be on the grid next year so what have we got:
    FIA 2010.All cars standard engine [cosworth]gear box [unknown],the teams will have to build them inhouse as there are only two teams with 2009 spec gear but that will be lost as williams and force india will loose supply deals.Electronics new system to cope with cosworth engine and new gear box.KERS all systems designed around williams system as they are the only ones who have it.AERO again all standardized no room in budget for wind tunnels etc Brakes who knows what ever is on special that week at super cheap autos.
    FOTA.Engines each manufacturer to give at least one other team top spec engine also gearbox.Electronics manufacturers to supply other teams with there package unless they already have their own.Aero all the teams have there own wind tunnels and factories and have been building F1 cars for years.
    OUTCOME OF RACING.
    FIA all standard cars at the least 10 sec per lap slower than 2009 most races decided by dnf’s as cosworth still refining reliability to engine and gear box system.All races run in front of sparsely filled stands exempt for MONZA where noone turned up.
    FOTA.all the teams we see today close racing fans able to interact with teams/drivers raced at circuits that all have huge F1 history.Large crowds happy fans etc.Isn’t this a no brainer.

    1. Very much a no brainer

  15. Between FOTA and FIA, it’s claim and counter-claim. Without access to all the information, it’s impossible to judge. However one indisputable fact stands out: there has been at least one space available for a new team in F1 for more than ten years and there are currently two spaces.

    This could only mean there were either no teams which wanted to enter (unlikely) or F1 was so expensive, no new team could afford it. Now we know the answer: it was far too expensive. With the FIA cost cap, we have many new and interesting teams wanting to enter. The concept has been proved.

    FOTA will now have to reduce their costs and compete on a level playing field with the new teams or go and race somewhere else. That is what was needed. We have at last got some new teams.

  16. My vote went for the FIA with the following reasons:

    1. The poll says “FIA” not Max Mosely. The sport needs to be run by an impartial governing body with the right leader. If there was another option for “FIA without Mosely” I would have voted for that.
    2. I think it’s very naive to think that FOTA have the best interests of the sport and fans at heart. I’m pretty sure if Ferrari or McLaren could guarantee a title by making sure Williams were no longer in the sport they’d happily get rid. At the moment it’s more beneficial to put up a united front but each team will do what’s best for itself in the long run. No question.
    3. I think a budget cap (bigger than the 40m originally proposed) is the best way to reduce costs. It allows a lot more freedom than standardised cost cutting and would result in the cream rising to the top.

    The main reasons the fans are disgruntled are probably the chopping and changing of rules, dodgy stewarding and the traditional tracks being replaced by soulless, flat bore-rings. There are 2 people responsible for all of the above in my opinion – Mosely and Ecclestone. Replace these two with the right people and things will improve.

  17. I read here all the time but haven’t been commenting on this subject, because I really did think the PTBs would get this sorted out before now – but no.

    The result of the poll is pretty conclusive (FOTA running at over 80% after 500 votes). For a long time I felt very alone as a neutral fan – I don’t support any particular team or driver. I didn’t really think that the FIA was pro-Ferrari or anti-McLaren… until the latter half of last season, at which point the evidence really began to mount, and the long-simmering Mosley-Dennis feud became brutally obvious. However, I really hoped that once Ron stepped aside, Max would take a more balanced attitude. The reverse has been the case – he seems to have taken it as a sign that he can do anything.

    So when people say they support FOTA in this poll, I’m guessing that many of them would have the same two wishes that I do:

    1. Max should step down. I feel sorry for the man to be honest… he’s clearly brilliant, but profoundly damaged by his background. I wish he’d go and get some professional help, instead of acting out his control issuesand desire for humiliation by destroying the F1 championship. He did a lot of good work in the past, but bluntly I think the man has gone bonkers.

    2. Bernie and CVC simply cannot be allowed to continue funnelling half a billion a year out of F1 to pay off obscene debts that the sport did not run up. Surely now would be a good time for Bernie to go bust, since his ex-wife is preumably due 50% of the lot. This leeching of 50% of the turnover of F1 is the [b]sole[/b] root for the “unsustainability” of F1.

    So. FOTA is on the right track – not for the sake of the fans of course, except inasmuch as they want us to buy hats and t-shirts… and cars :) At this stage I do in fact think FOTA is going to be forced to split off, unless someone in the higher echelons of the WMSC does an ides of M(uch) A(dvertised) R(acing) C(ar) H(oax).

    1. The result of the poll is pretty conclusive (FOTA running at over 80% after 500 votes).

      I think that 800 votes and only 52 comments tells another story.

      I think that it’s all too easy to get caught up in the ‘Max is the spawn of the devil’ bandwagon and vote accordingly.

      1. It’s also easy to dismiss a considered opinion that Max’s actions have been the primary cause of the chaos over the past couple of years. I was simply trying to frame my opinion by explaining that I don’t have anything against the man personally, and that I feel sorry for him, having to deal with all this and his personal problems and tragedies too. Hardly “spawn of the devil” – just not the person I believe is best-placed to resolve the current crisis.

        In addition, he has demonstrated a deep-rooted inability to be seen to lose a negotiation… therefore if this is going to be resolved in the direction that I would like it to go (assuming that my opinion as a fan is as valid as anyone else’s?) – Max has to go.

        Rather a clear chain of reason I thought, but if you prefer to dismiss it as jumping on the bandwagon, suit yourself.

  18. Most fans tend to support a particular team therefore its the teams that facilitate the fans of the sport (within the fom / fia organised competition) therefore I believe that the FIA should meet FOTA somewhere in the middle, this does not seem to be the case. If they do not do this fans will be lost in the short term, in the detriment to the sport until a new fan base is developed again over time. I know I won’t be watching with the same degree of interest if the existing rivalry’s don’t exist.

  19. If you own a business, will you spend more than you can afford? Not if your smart. These teams are their own seperate business. Let them spend as much as they want. If then they can’t afford and “go out of business” then there will always be someone to replace them.
    if they want to spend more money than they can afford, then let them run themselves into the ground!
    FIA is being stupid. Check that. Mosely is being stupid.
    I say its time to start making flags and plastering them all over cars and proudly announcing that we are on the side of FOTA. I’m sick and tired of men in suits dictating sports. I’ve seen it in the NHL and I sure as hell don’t want it to ruin F1!

    1. If then they can’t afford and “go out of business” then there will always be someone to replace them.

      That’s the problem with not having a budget cap,there would not be anyone to replace them.

      The problem with letting say Ferrari spend their $500,000,000 and lets say Force India spending their $100,000,000 (both obsene amounts of money for putting two cars on a grid 17 times a year I should say)is that sooner or later FI are going to call it a day,and then there’s a space available,but guess what? No one wants it because they know that they need something like $500,000,000 to be competetive,and then Mr Mateschitz wants to sell STR (it’s for sale now),but guess what? No ones interested because they know they need…and so on and so forth until there’s only a few teams left.

      1. Indeed. In 1989 there were 20 teams. 2009 there are only 10 left. It’s been a steady decline.

  20. one more thing. I know that sport needs to become cheaper. But the teams need to do for themselves. I guarantee that if the teams have a budget imposed on them, they will look for ways of cutting corners “legally” of course. I don’t want to say that someone will get hurt but its likely.

  21. I have read several arguments but the reality is f1 is show business. All the billions of dollars in the sport is a direct result of the teams within it. The issue with f1 is funding, plain and simple. F1 is the only sport were the teams within it get on 50% of the tv revenue generated from it. The suits and bernie make more money then the teams yet, the do nothing for the sport. They do not create a show, they do nothing. The issue for FOTA is simple, without them there is no f1. If the manufactures leave, there will be no f1. F1 is supported by manufactures from engines, electronics (no mclaren ECU), gearbox. Three essitenial components to any car. Manufactures leave how the hell is campos going to develop a competitive package, it will be impossible.

    Cost reduction is essiential and FOTA supports that, but what max is proposing is ridiculous, in addition to this there is a massive human toll which is why ACEA is involved to paint max as the ultimate villian. You cannot expect any business to all of sudden reduce cost by as much as 90% in one year, that is what max is proposing. Teams cannot tell 250 poeple to bugger off because some person on a power trip said so. They have esblished themseleves legally and to have some clown all of a sudden say, because your better then some other teams we are going to force you to down size.

    Not only this it is impossible to regulate a budget cap. This can only work in sports like football, rugby etc etc not motorsport. Italy operate different to the uk in wage requirements, value of the EURO vs the Pound taxs etc etc.

    The think that gets to me is we had ten current teams in FOTA which put forward a package which they all supported to reduce cost in a proper way, yet this moron did not except it for 3 teams which have never built an f1 car and not contributed one thing to f1. I dont understand. Personally a rival series needs to start f1 will die, and FOTA will be the new premier class. f1 revenue will collapse instantly Bernie, CVC and Max disappear. F1 name is popular but the teams within it made it popular.

  22. I’m very surprised to see so many people support FOTA.

    I wasn’t expecting it.

    I am, because I think they’re right.

  23. FOTA, I think… I don’t quite understand that quote; it is worded strangely.

  24. I don’t support FOTA because I don’t think they are the right people to own & run race teams.

    I don’t support CVC and Bernie because the CVC inflated investment was a dud with no prospect of recovery and there has to be a deep loss taken that can either wipe them out or wipe the sport out or both.

    I don’t support what was done to Mosely and there has to be a far deeper price paid than what has been done to date.

    I do support world motorsport being in the hands of the national federations and not in the hands of British industry and the odd German and Italian. There is very little recognition of this British economic imperialism and how cost barriers to entry for teams located away from British engineering bases are not good for the sport long term.

    Should Max go? Probably … because the circumstances command it. But there is so little talent and so many bent screws out there with the former team owners and drivers that hang on to the sport that finding a replacement will be difficult. An Alonso given 20 years to mature and show himself as successfull in lesser businesses might be the right style of guy with the necessary smarts but when you look at the Stewart’s and Lauda’s etc you don’t see the smarts needed. They need the likes of a John O’Neil of Sydney Olympics and Australian Rugby heritage.

  25. Prisoner Monkeys
    14th June 2009, 1:19

    At this point, I support neither. I just want the war to be over.

  26. I have been following this closely for the last 12 months. I cannot even believe some comments are supporting a budget cap. People wake up. This is F1. This is the pinnacle of motorsport. This is expensive. This is where the glitz and glamour belong. The teams are ok. The engine suppliers are ok. This is a high stakes game. The fans pay a lot to watch races. There are lots of advertisers willing to pay serious dollars to be part of this sport. (I am not even including tobacco companies with deep pockets)

    What we need is a change in FIA. That racist arrogant person should leave the sport alone. I have been following F1 for the last 20 years. Never missed a single race. If Max mosley and the FIA will continue their stupid ridiculous actions which forces the teams to leave the sport, F1 will lose millions of loyal fans like me.

    Imagine. We already have no Micheal. Now, think about No Kimi, No Massa, No Lewis, No Frenando.. I mean lets be realistic. No ferrari, Mclaren.. come on.

  27. So to add to my previous comment:

    In simple sentence. I support FOTA. Any sane person would.

  28. I think Max must send trolls to this site.

    At my last glance 82% back FOTA yet there are people on this site that are making unproportionate noise in favour of the FIA.
    The FIA’s (or rather Mosley’s) governance of F1 is shambolic, they can’t even nip a diffuser debate in the bud before it blows up, they are incompetent, the rules and punishment depend on the team in question, no other mainstream sport in the world has so much incompetence and sleaze associated with it’s governing body.

    No one in their right mind can think a dictatorship that goes against the fans, teams and drivers wishes is best for the sport (See FOTA fans survey, not Max’s made up survey). Surely most people here live in a democracy and realise it’s required to stop one mentalist having absolute power to the detriment of everyone they are supposed to be leading.
    Wake up people – FOTA is made up of teams and team principles that are answerable to many. Mosley is answerable only to bought, corrupt FIA votes (The West isn’t that tollerable of adulterous S&M orgies with prostitutes, let alone most other countries where religion has more influence in their society).
    If F1 was a country it would be North Korea, head of state plays with bombs while his people suffer and starve but the power hungry fiend doesn’t care as long as he is in power.

    The teams don’t need to run the sport but they need to be listened to and not held to ransom, they are the sport. All this new team spiel is way overvalued. I would like to see a full grid with a few new teams, but if I wanted to watch budget handicapped small time racing then I would watch one of the many other single seater series. New teams should not be at the expense of the existing ones.
    #maxout

  29. I see the team principles of FOTA being only answerable to the boards of directors of the large companies they work for, I don’t see how that is any good as it comes down to money, sponsors, image.. when it should be about racing, so I can’t support FOTA.

    The FIA has also handled this horribly, so I can’t back them.

    Oh well, as I watch the 24h of LeMans, I can only hope that the FOTA teams leave so I can see Ferrari move up to LMP1 and Williams dominate F1 :)

    1. After watching Williams for the last several seasons, the break away by Fota is the only way they will dominate F1. They used to be the best team out there even when they where working with the least, but they just cant seem to find their way for the last 5 or 6 seasons, and budgets werent the reason as they had bug money behind them.

      1. I was thinking this was going to be the season Williams could turn it around, but they have failed as a team again. Hard to be a fan sometimes! :)

  30. For those of you that voted for the FIA, they created this mosnster. As others have stated the large bond for new teams was the FIA’s way of guaranteeing that the team had the resources to compete properly, now the want a buget cap that is only slightly more than the bond,…come on guys.
    They want a ban on refeuling.. they(FIA) brought refeuling and tire stops in as a way to create an new dynamic into the race…That arguement isnt valid.
    The double diffuser, Ross Brawn himself as a member of the technical committte told the FIA that there was a loophole there and he was shut down. So he exploits it and everyone tries to make him and the other 2 teams into villans.
    The FIA is like a large government agency.. everything they try to legislate turns into a joke as the engineers find ways around them.
    There is no way that they can ever effectively police the budget cap. And the best way for them to police it is to not have one as they will always be 1 step behind.
    For those of you that voted for the FIA and say that you are not voting for Max.. pull your heads out of the sand..Max is the FIA and he has ruined it. He and his group of new order for F1 have destroyed the very sport I have watched for 40+ years. FOTA can do no worse than Max and Bernie. If it gets the cars back to racing at the tracks they belong on then I am all for it. Bring back San Marino, Montreal, Paul Ricard or Magny Cours, I will take old Hockenheim anyday but the new on will work. Please oh please get away from all these new neutered tracks designed by H.Tilke.
    I will repeat Max and Bernie = the death of F1, bring on FOTA.

    1. I am pretty sure refueling was brought in by Bernie’s team Brabham back in the day, not the FIA.

      1. True enough, the Brabham team, owned by Bernie Ecclestone, introduced in-race refueling during the 1982 season. There was no rule at the time covering this aspect of racing.

  31. If FOTA were to start a break-away series, who could they go to for governance?

    Actually, I don’t even really understand the relationship between the FIA and Bernie – wouldn’t it be Bernie and FOM + shareholders of Formula 1 that should be making these calls, after all they are the ones with the vested interest in the long-term viability and short-term profitability of the sport. How is the FIA in a position to make these calls to begin with? The incentives are not aligned correctly at all with the decision-makers.

    @Mike, good comment.

  32. Maybe we should have budget cuts in Las Vegas and Monte Carlo. Maybe we should have buget caps on how much can be spent in a casino. Maybe these expensive Disney Cruises should be banned. Maybe there should be budget caps on making movies. Maybe there should be budget caps on Luxury cars. Let’s ban Rolls Royce, May Bach and Bentley. Maybe all the expensive wines and Liquors around the world should be banned.

    Wow ..Budget cuts in F1 to save the world economy.For God Sake this is the Pinnacle of Motor sport ,innovation and Entertainment Business.

    Mr Mosley, If the Team are ready to spend it whatz the problem. You dont own F1. Who gave you rights to mess up the sport like this. millions love this. They come to see Ferrari, Mercedez, BMW, Renault, Toyota fight each others. If there are budget cuts then these big team will keep the money in the lockers and bank accounts. It will never come out. The last thing this recession wants to see is people NOT spending money. You are not helping either of the cause. Neither Economy nor F1.

    I strongly believe it is high time for Mosley to move on. The teams are tired of him. Media is tired of him. Fans are Tired of him. Bernie is tired of him and Most of all F1 is tired of him. Mr Mosley has made it a one man show. Where are all the other decision makers in F1. is it really a one man show.

    I think F1 should get a new governance. Let all be back to happy racing days again.

    When was the last time I really read in the F1 news about racing and racers…hmmmm….. very hard to recollect……

  33. Prisoner Monkeys
    14th June 2009, 7:28

    Wow ..Budget cuts in F1 to save the world economy.For God Sake this is the Pinnacle of Motor sport ,innovation and Entertainment Business.

    That’s not the point. That was never the point. The idea of the budget cap was never to save the world economy, but to save Formula One in a world economy that might be in recession for some time. It’s all well and good to say that Formua one is the “pinnacle of motorsport, innovation and the entertainment business”, but what happens if spending kept going the way it had and the budget caps were never considered? Companies like Toyota, Renault, BMW and Mercedes woud run the huge risk of going under completely because they could not keep up with the spending. The likely case would be their axing their Formula One projects altogether simply to cut back on spending and keep their main operations – road cars – afloat. And then there would be no Formula One at all. Economics is a delicate subject and the “spend, spend, spend” attitude is not going to save the economy. It helps but arguably, unbridled pendng is what got us here in the first place.

    The budget caps, meanwhile, are designed to make it easier for new teams to get started and to protect the manufactuers. The manufacturers are in the sport to win, but until now it has always been a case of spending more and more in order to be competitive. Look at Toyota as the perfect case study: back in around 2006-2007, they were spending four hundred million dollars a year on their Formula One ambitions, and look how far that got them. By setting a budget cap on car development, manufacturers can still compete in the sport without having to blow their budgets simply to find a tenth of a second per lap. As all the teams would be operating under the budget cap, no-one would get an unfair advantage from spending more.

    The problem is that FOTA disagrees with the way the budget cap proposal has been introduced. They want continuity witin the rules from one season to the next, and they also feel that forty million pounds is not enough. It’s a target to work to, but first of all they need to know that it is possible to compete on a forced budget like one hundred million pounds.

    Like I said, this was never about doing the world a favour. It’s about keeping costs in Formula One at a level that is manageable for all involved because insane spending would drive the sport into the ground faster than Max Mosley, Bernie Ecclestone or whoever you want to blame for the current situation ever could.

    1. If the FIA suggestions were as great as they make out I would have expected to see all the GP2 teams lining up to get into F1.
      Could it be they know that they’re better off sitting put because their series will end up with the best cars. ;)
      In most cases the FIA choice of new entries accepted points to the cap having nothing to do with getting good new teams in. It appears to be more about playing politics & getting the large teams out.
      What justification can there be for not including people like Prodrive whilst taking Manor, for example?
      If I could see one thing in this fiasco that is genuinely for the good of the sport & not for the good of Max then I`d feel less strongly about it.

    2. I understand the budget cap idea to be essential to make F1 less sensitive to market dynamics.

      Technically the scenario you outline will not occur because each participant in F1 is still bound to consider profitability within F1 – so an upward spiraling budget for the manufacturer’s F1 team doesn’t make sense unless the sponsorship money and profit sharing in F1 and the marketing impact is also spiraling upwards. Which is not happening, so market dynamics would naturally have a damping effect on spiraling costs.

      However, year-to-year profitability variations within the set of manufacturers and teams may result in disproportionate investments from one set of manufacturers in any given year- this is what the budget cap will mitigate.

      The budget cap is meant to smooth out market dynamics and lower the risk and uncertainty of participation in F1. Not a bad thing overall, and I think FOTA supports it in spirit, but would prefer a more dynamic and self-regulated approach.

      1. The budget cap is meant to smooth out market dynamics and lower the risk and uncertainty of participation in F1. Not a bad thing overall, and I think FOTA supports it in spirit, but would prefer a more dynamic and self-regulated approach.

        FOTA are all for cutting costs but are totally against a cap because it is unworkable & they do not believe the role of a regulatory body includes interference in the commercial/business side of a teams` operation.
        Why should the FIA feel they have any right to know what major international companies do with their staff & money?

  34. KingHamilton&co
    14th June 2009, 9:01

    theres always the world le mans series next year. we can all watch that instead.

  35. Over the past twenty years or so the big budget manufacturers have driven all but one of the old guard and historic racing teams out of the sport, and I’m talking Wiliams, not Ferrari, who yes, would be missed but realistically get oodles of prestige out of F1 that they just wouldn’t get from sportscars or a mickey mouse splitaway series. I loved Ferari for long time as they used to sell cars to race, but when the old man died that changed, and it took a decade or so for me to realise it was gone. They are just a business now, much as F1 is just a business, not a sport.

    Mosley et al’s actions may not be altogether altruistic but if a by-product of their budget capping actions is to bring technological innovation back into the business and garagistes who’s main aim is racing instead of raking in the cash then for once I’ll back the FIA.

  36. Lets put things into perspective here. Real Madrid just bought a single player for twice the amount of the proposed budget cap. Yet F1 teams should design cars, purchase and maintain infrastructures, pay staff, fuel, test and compete with 40m pounds.

    1. Lets put things into perspective here. Real Madrid just bought a single player for twice the amount of the proposed budget cap. Yet F1 teams should design cars, purchase and maintain infrastructures, pay staff, fuel, test and compete with 40m pounds.

      You’re saying it can’t be done ?

      Of course the other option Rael Madrid had was to nurture its own talent,but I guess it’s just easier to throw money at the problem.Again,it’s an obsene amount for any one player and makes a mockery of the phrase “level playing field”.

      1. Mouse Nightshirt
        14th June 2009, 9:41

        This is not even close to an equal comparison.

        If you pay £80 million for a player, as long as they play they way they have been playing, you can sell them for as much, or even more later. Add to that the sheer volume of merchandising and television rights that go along with the big stars (Real is trying to tap into the Asian market which follows players rather than teams).

        However, if you spend £40 million on a team, you can’t turn around and say “Right, don’t want this anymore, I’ll sell all that back”.

  37. Why are we discussing Budget Caps?

    Let’s compare with other sports:

    1. Soccer: Some players are making more out of a season than the proposed budget caps in F1.
    2. Football/BasketBall: Big Big money
    3. Golf: Tiger is the king.
    4. Olympics: Do we really know how much some of the large countries spend. As an analogy: if we have F1 with budget caps do we really believe that someone could propose that all countries spend the same amounts in the Olympics?

    Irrespective of my fancy of Ferrari, McLaren and the rest (yes I voted FOTA) the idea of a budget caps is so ridiculous we should not even be discussing it. F1 is the ultimate in Motorsports, let’s keep it that way!!

    Incidentally BBC Radio discussed this topic, and from what I gathered only F1 is trying to propose budget caps.

    1. Incidentally BBC Radio discussed this topic, and from what I gathered only F1 is trying to propose budget caps.

      The thing with Golf and Soccer etc is that you can only get so much (if any) advantage out of a pair of football boots or a set of golf clubs,whereas with F1 it’s what you actually spend on the equipment that’s all important.

      Ferrari etc can only gain advantage by spending more on their equipment.The ‘players’ (as we can see now) are merely along for the ride.

      1. So how come Toyota (who have spent more than any other team for several years) haven`t run away with all the Championships?
        There seems to be a common thread with some of those who disagree with FOTA & that is an obvious dislike of Ferrari.

        1. So how come Toyota (who have spent more than any other team for several years) haven`t run away with all the Championships?

          Because they didn’t know how to spend the billions that they have spent.

          There seems to be a common thread with some of those who disagree with FOTA & that is an obvious dislike of Ferrari.

          I do not dislike Ferrari (I used to own one!).What I do dislike is that Ferrari are taking the passion of its supporters along for a ride that may end in tears.

          1. Really? That`s very interesting.
            Did you ever go to the factory or to any of the official events?

            The only way this would end in tears for the vast majority of Ferrari supporters is if FOTA backed down.

          2. BTW I forgot to ask, which model?

      2. Technology is applied everywhere from a simple football boots to training equipment to swimming suits. So I beg to differ!

        It is true that more investment may influence performace. However, there are one too many examples where teams (both F1 or other) after having spent millions, only to achieve nothing.

        1. Technology is applied everywhere from a simple football boots to training equipment to swimming suits. So I beg to differ!

          But generally speaking in other sports the individual is still very important.To make a point: Where is Alonso’s ‘six-tenths’ this season ?

          It is true that more investment may influence performace. However, there are one too many examples where teams (both F1 or other) after having spent millions, only to achieve nothing.

          There are indeed many examples of many millions being squandered in all sports for no reason.So maybe someone ought to do something about it?

          1. Thank you, reasonable man. Thank you.

            People think money grows in trees and that it should be thrown around so 20 dudes can race for 2 hours in red and silver cars.

          2. Where do you think the money would go instead, FLIG?
            Personally, I don`t begrudge anyone spending their own money.

  38. Mouse Nightshirt
    14th June 2009, 9:38

    I support neither,

    The FIA is being unnecessarily belligerent about this all. Demanding this and demanding that whilst being short with the teams is sure to get peoples’ backs up, which it has done spectacularly well.

    However, FOTA aren’t guiltless. They threw up a huge fuss at the original idea of a budget cap and it’s only when they were cornered did they compromise. And even then, they’re sticking clauses left, right and centre and who is to say they’re going to stick to the “spirit of the rules”? As far as I know, part of their “compromise” is to let them self-regulate the budget cap – sounds like foxes guarding the hens to me.

    FOTA are doing what’s in the best interests of the CURRENT teams – they’d rather spend more money and fight against themselves than be forced to spend less and possibly be beaten by unknowns – it doesn’t look good for advertising. They also need to get a grip and realise that they should be fighting for the sport as well.

    1. Prisoner Monkeys
      14th June 2009, 9:49

      I completely agree. I think a lot of people have taken to this because it’s a chance to attack Mosley; mass opinion seems to be that if someone is opposed to Mosley, then the President of the FIA must be in the wrong regardless. The number of comments I have read about new teams suggesting that Mosley was the only person who had any say in the selection process is insane. People automatically side with FOTA, but have the questioned what took the teams so long in objecting to the budget cap in the first place? We’ve known about it for months, but it wasn’t until Monaco that the situation got really serious when they started fielding protests and injunctions. FOTA are, at least partially, the architects of their own problem; why didn’t they give voice to their displeasure a month beforehand and save this whole eleventh-hour bickering?

      That’s why I don’t much care one way or the other right now. For better or for worse, I just want this over. I don’t care if the teams have to yield to Mosley because the WMSC say so (or vice versa), I just want Formula One to survive, whatever it takes.

      1. FOTA are, at least partially, the architects of their own problem; why didn’t they give voice to their displeasure a month beforehand and save this whole eleventh-hour bickering?

        It’s well documented that Ferrari could have avoided all of this by using their veto at the FIA meeting on March 17th.They didn’t.And in Mosley’s words: “They just sat there [and did nothing]”.

        1. Any theories on why Ferrari did this, or if it is in fact as black-and-white as Mosley says?

      2. True, Max is only one man at the head of an organisation but he has more power there than is healthy.
        It may not be his fault that he`s remained in power unopposed for the better part of 20 years but, as with any petty dictator, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
        It will be interesting to see the response of the FIA Senate & WMSC to FOTA & ACEA`s appeal.

      3. If you really want F1 to survive the Max and Bernie must go.
        Max is a meglamaniac and wants to control every aspect of F1..His knee jerk rules on the fly without talking with the teams prior is proof.
        Bernie is the worst of human nature.. all he cares about is money and power. He holds races now in these countries that will subsidize the race at a loss and takes it away from the venues that made F1 great. Sileverstone is proof, San Marino, Canada, there are more.
        F1 lost its roots 10 yrs ago when this started and it has taken this long for it to come to a boil.
        FOTA will be good for racing as it will shake up the establishment and make everyone reevaluate the positions of power.

  39. The real shame about all of this is that if Ferrari were not a member of FOTA we would have no real qualms about telling BMW,Renault etc exactly where it is that they can get off.

    1. So I get it your only concern is Ferrari. Have you noticed that since they are not really in the running for the championship no one is really bothered on this season?

      Do you know what the attendence was like in Turkey?

      1. So I get it your only concern is Ferrari. Have you noticed that since they are not really in the running for the championship no one is really bothered on this season?

        So F1 has always depended on Ferrari doing well has it ?

        I remember before pre-96 when Ferrari were little more than an ‘also-ran’ for many,many years.but still we loved F1.

        Do you know what the attendence was like in Turkey?

        There were around 30,000 at a circuit that can hold 150,000.Ticket prices were extortionate,and the Turkish people don’t really have a driver to support.More than anything else the crowd will turn up to support its driver.

        1. Never said that F1 depends on Ferrari. I believe that F1 should not be restricted by stupid, hard to manage policies such as the Budget Cap.

          I remember before pre-96 when Ferrari were little more than an ‘also-ran’ for many,many years.but still we loved F1.

          Exactly Ferrari’s popularity does not only come from their F1 presence only. Their pedigree of great supercars stands out.

          I think that you should continue monitoring attendance because clearly it is down from previous years and clearly if F1 is going to countries where F1 is irrelevant why are classical circuits being constantly threatened of not forming part of the calendar?

          1. Never said that F1 depends on Ferrari.

            So why is no one interested in F1 this season? If that is indeed the case.

            I believe that F1 should not be restricted by stupid, hard to manage policies such as the Budget Cap.

            I believe that it should,but that’s just my opinion.

            I think that you should continue monitoring attendance because clearly it is down from previous years and clearly if F1 is going to countries where F1 is irrelevant why are classical circuits being constantly threatened of not forming part of the calendar?

            Because teams like BMW,Ferrari,Mercedes,Toyota and Renault want to sell their cars in places like China,India,Russia and all those other far flung places that Bernie goes out of his way to find for both himself and for the car manufacturers.So next time another ‘classic’ disappears off the calendar ask yourself who it really is that wants to go to China!

    2. Wrong.. I have enjoyed this season because of the shakeup in the dominance of the teams. Mclaren is sweeping the rear..only now is Ferrari coming to terms with their car and you have new teams at the front as has happened every time they have had a majorspecification change in the car design.

  40. I actually voted for FIA! Why? Because I think they actually care for the future of the sport. I have yet to see any definitive proposals from FOTA about cost cutting (persempre, I have no idea where you got those rules from). They are seriously deluded if a rival series started up is gonna make money if the first series. And the jobs? Well, a proportion will go, but a proportion will be taken up by the new teams, which entered because of the hope of much reduced costs to allow them to compete and not just fill up the numbers. Remember Spyker? Super Aguri? Midland? Arrows? Prost?

    1. FOTA`s suggestions were from the press release archive on the FOTA website, mofs.
      The FIA regulations & entry form are from their own website.

      If something is just my opinion I will say so.
      If I consider it a fact (from the horse`s mouth or in an official document) I try to provide sources. I wish more people would do likewise because half the trouble with all this is that too many people have heard speculation & taken it for fact.

      1. I wish more people would do likewise because half the trouble with all this is that too many people have heard speculation & taken it for fact.

        None of what we have so far seen from either FOTA or the FIA is set in stone.Everything is still up for discussion,so it’s a good idea to keep up with what is coming from the press releases and interviews of all parties involved.

        1. from the press releases and interviews of all parties involved.

          Precisely my point, VXR. And to approach media stories (without proven sources)as being just opinion, speculation &, sadly, sometimes even as having a personal agenda.

  41. Neither for me; but closer to the FOTA end. My worry is that if FOTA are left to dictate, we end up with something like the DTM, where a few major manufacturers dictate and dominate everything. You need privateers to be able to afford to play.

    That said – still want Max’N’Bernie out asap.

    1. That’s the whole point here, I can’t see it any other way, and I would love if someone could convince me that the FOTA are not trying to keep newcomers away, so they can keep their lucrative business exactly like it was in Schumacher vs McLaren years. They were probably already pissed off when BMW tried to impose themselves and when Briatore got back to bring Renault and Alonso into the mix, they kind of had a hand (the way I see it) in the demise of BAR (who, in my opinion, got a much heavier sentence than McLaren, for instance). They OBVIOUSLY don’t want new people winning, so they need the money backup. Red Bulls and BMWs are already enough competition, right?

      1. I can’t see it any other way, and I would love if someone could convince me that the FOTA are not trying to keep newcomers away, so they can keep their lucrative business exactly like it was in Schumacher vs McLaren years. They were probably already pissed off when BMW tried to impose themsel

        Both Ferrari and Mercedes offered engines to Brawn to keep them racing. Said team are now destroying everybody. Is that not proof?

        1. Both Ferrari and Mercedes offered engines to Brawn to keep them racing. Said team are now destroying everybody.

          I don’t think that ‘anyone’ was expecting that were they! At least Mercedes seem to pleased that Brawn are using their engines to good effect.

  42. And think about Mr. Frank Williams, please. He has given so much to F1 in so little time. Why do you think he’s “on the other side”? He’s a very wise man who has run his squad brilliantly for a long time.

    1. I`d have had much more sympathy for that view if it hadn`t been Sir Frank that stopped customer cars being used & so stopped any new team starting in exactly the way he did. He would never have got into the sport if customer cars hadn`t been allowed back then

      1. I`d have had much more sympathy for that view if it hadn`t been Sir Frank that stopped customer cars being used & so stopped any new team starting in exactly the way he did. He would never have got into the sport if customer cars hadn`t been allowed back then

        Ah,now…there’s that ‘self interest’ thing raising its ugly head again.

        All the teams will want what they want regardless of what ‘club’ they may have joined or what might have happened in the past.

  43. The manufacturers have held F1 to ransom for years, threatening to pull out at a moments notice. Since Honda the FIA have wised up. The manufacturers will come and go like they do in Sportscars.

    The FIA proposals ensure the long term sustainability of the sport – drivers support them because of the HUGE wages they are prepared to pay. But they don’t care about the future of the sport just their bit in it, just listen to Hamilton he knows nothing, nor cares nothing for the history.

    The moment they sign a Cosworth deal Brawn will leave the FOTA group. Frank Wiliams knows where the future lies.

    1. The FIA isnt making decisions right now that will sustain the long term sustainability of the sport. If so they wouldnt have had some fo the rediculous requirements they have had in the past. The large evtry fee is just 1 example. In no other racing series do you have to pay such a retainer, not even close.
      Max has someone in the FIA over a barrel and is influencing this whole scenario in this direction and for waht I am not sure.
      A;sp remember that Williams is no longer the sole property of Frank, and that the decisions there are being made for the same selfish reasons that the other teams are against.
      In a previous post someone stated tha Williams was 1 of the teams that blocked others from using a chassis of another team, and that is correct. Ask Dave Richards of Prodrive who would have been in F1 last year except for this.
      Your right Williams knows where their future lies, in the mid to back of the pack.

      1. The world of the automobile has changed everyone smart knows this (of course this excludes the motor manufacturers who have no idea what is going on…. yeah big cars, Jeremy Clarkson, macho macho etc)

        Fi needs to be less expensive, less corporate, more agile, more in tune with the times. Ferrari will soon be forgotten, just another memory like the old Hockenheim Track, the Ring, the Monza banking, Surtees, Lotus and BRM. Ferrari’s bling is not shiny anymore – the future is hi-tech small and igenious teams making clever decisions and some bloody great racing.

        I have sat and fallen asleep watching this sport for 15 years and I’m old enough to remember when it really rocked. This year its started to feel a bit like that is happening again. With the corporate bulls-t of Ron gone, Ferrari cocking everything up like the old days and everyone within a tenth of each other……racing.

        I know FIA Max bad etc is like hating the teachers or something, but being in love with the bland corporate monstrosities of the manufacturers is just daft. If Toyota knew anything about how F1 works they would have won a bloody race by now. They throw millions at it and are still crap. Give it another year and they will be gone along with BMW, Renault and Merc.

  44. There’s one thing still unclear to me, in this saga.

    Since when is it that the FIA have the power to interfere with how teams run their businesses. I have previously posted a link to an article that quotes Bernie and others on what the role of the FIA is. I will post it again below. As another poster has said above, we have a majority of teams that agreed to the proposals set down by FOTA in regards to cost cutting etc. As the monetary side of F1 isn’t supposed to be of any concern to the FIA why are they being allowed to interfere in this way? I just don’t understand! The FIA are only there to be the referee!

    http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=37912

  45. Lets get a break away series with the Moto GP guys. :P If they can make F1 anything like the race today that would be amazing ;)

  46. Max said if you dont like my rules go and make your own series…

    While I would prefer Max to go, you is going to go watch the F1 race with out fota teams?
    I might flick it on tv but I wont be flying to Melbourne to watch the race, I wont be watch the pre season testing with so much anticipation, I wont be buying team merchandise, I wont even log on to the internet to keep upto date on the series.

    So as a track owner and race promoter and a tv director why do I pay so much $$ to have a bunch of name name teams running a advanced gp2 series when no one is showing up or watching?

    I will however support the FOTA teams breakaway series.
    Which will always br the true F1 series (in exile)

    Some of Max’s rules are just flabbergasting…cost cutting and introduce Kers, have a BMW or Ferrari etc running same engine, have no testing so rookie drivers dont get experience in a f1 car…etc the list goes on and on and on.

    FIA grow some balls and get rid of the problem MAX!

    1. I will however support the FOTA teams breakaway series.
      Which will always br the true F1 series (in exile)

      I wonder which channel you’ll be watching that on should it ever actually happen?

      Some would say that a “true” F1 series would be a series without manufacturers interference.

      1. Some would say that a “true” F1 series would be a series without manufacturers interference.

        Enlighten me please. Where would this F1 get their engines, gearbox, chasis, etc.?? From garage somewhere maybe??

        Wake up friend, all manufactures today where shops in the past. That come from hard work and persiverence and not how much money they had in thier poket.

        1. Enlighten me please. Where would this F1 get their engines, gearbox, chasis, etc.?? From garage somewhere maybe??

          You think that only car manufacturers supplied engines and gearboxes to F1!!??

          Enlightenment,just for one instance,comes in the shape of Cosworth,who many years ago supplied the MAJORITY of F1 cars with its DFV engine.Were it not for such as Cosworth and Hewland who supplied the gearboxes F1 would have been dead long ago.

          Engines could come from Hart,Judd for example.There are just as many engine people out there as there are racing teams.
          There are many engine companies out there that would leap at the chance to design and build and sell F1 engines.

          X-Trac among others would waste no time producing gearboxes for teams to use.

          The new teams are also already designing and building their own chassis.They have no choice because customer cars are not allowed.

          F1 does not need car manufacturers.

          1. I get it what you want is no manufacturers. Good – what I want is everyone.

            BTW when Cosworth was providing 90% of the F1 teams, Ferrari were still providing their engines. Furthermore, in my opinion – probably not yours – this was one of the dullest moments of F1.

            Cheers mate!

          2. If ACEA members don’t provide engines who exactly would be left to provide them?
            Cosworth? Spec series?

          3. As far as I`m aware Hart was bought out by Tom Walkinshaw & went bust with TWR.
            Judd are a possibility but I don`t think they’ve made F1 engines since their venture with Yamaha in the 1990s.

          4. The absolute worst time for F1 was when cosworth was the dominant engine. It only had Alfa and Ferrari to compete against. Only when Renault came in and exploited the turbo rules did we start to see new ideas and new blood invade the sport. Back in the old era Mclaren was running the MP4-1 for 2 or 3 seasons..you wont ever see that again as they are constantly developing the car. The team that had a good design would just sit on it until another team surpassed it and only then would they look for new ideas for competitive edges. Now they never stop the development of the car as they know everyone else is doing the same.
            This is why you can budget cap a team.. they get their budget used up in the early part of the season and the car goes uncompetitive because of lack of money.. they will just develope under a different roof and hide it from the FIA.

        2. VXR, I see you quite active just in this thread.

          Just in case, do you work in Place de la Concorde, Paris?

          1. Just in case, do you work in Place de la Concorde, Paris?

            I didn’t vote for the FIA,but at the same time I didn’t automatically jump on ‘the other lot must therefore be right’ bandwagon.

            And there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding among some of the posters as to what F1 actually is.

            I voted ‘neither’ which is a vote that I’m getting more sure about all the time.:}

          2. I think most people completely understand what F1 means.
            They expect Formula 1 to be the pinnacle of motorsport & therefore more advanced & with higher performance than the minor & spec series.

          3. How would that change if the top teams spend 80-100 instead of 400 million?

            Even at that “low” level there is nothing that comes even close to F1. Not budgetwise and not in rules. They still all build their own cars.

            If anything FOTA wants to turn F1 into a spec class with their standardized parts.

          4. Patrick
            Have you actually read what the teams are being asked to sign up to?
            If not,it is very important that you do in order to understand just how impossible it is for them to put their signatures to it.
            2010 FIA Sporting Regulations.
            The areas highlighted in pink are the changes for this year so you can scroll down & pick them out.
            It`s worth going through from the beginning. The first 30 pages won`t take long but I`ll draw your attention to things which appear towards the end
            a) Entry Form p.31/32 – The teams who signed unconditionally signed to be bound by the changes shown on p32.
            b) The Budget Cap Regulations which need reading in their entirety from p.43

          5. First of all, I’m not sure those regulations are fixed yet since they are stil under negotiation.

            Still, I don’t see any problem there no.

          6. This is just going round in circles, isn`t it?
            If you have ever had to sign a legally binding document, Patrick, you should know that what you sign is what you are legally going to get.
            Nobody in their right mind would sign any kind of document on the presumption or hope that its’ contants will change after they have signed.
            In past years the teams have been allowed until Novemeber to submit their entries. Why, this year, do you think Max gave them just one week to get those entries in or face an undisclosed late penalty fee?
            This is not the way to do business. This is bullying tactics.

          7. The budget cap was planned to enter in 2009. Mosley felt the teams had delayed matters long enough and he wanted the new teams to have enough time to actually build a competitive car for 2010.

            So yeah, thing feels rushed now for the uninformed fan, but reality is that this has been worked on for years.

  47. I said that F1 “does not need car manufacturers”.Not that they shouldn’t be there,and I have already given examples of just a couple of engine manufacturers in a previous post.

    Why do people think that only car makers can make F1 engines?

    1. If you had a Ferrari then I`m surprised that you think F1 engines can be made so easily.

      1. It was a ‘Mondiale’,and perhaps the most unreliable car I’ve ever had.But it was a Ferrari,rubbish build quality and all.

        F1 engines aren’t rocket science,as much as we’d all like to believe that.There are no ‘secrets’ there anymore.

        1. lol – Well, things have changed quite a bit since the 80s.
          Maybe not rocket science but a long way from the ones turned out by your average production line work.
          Cosworth have yet to prove that they can produce an F1 engine capable of the long-life expected under todays` F1 regs. It might be interesting to see how they get on but I may well not be watching it.

    2. By the way… Ford owned cosworth during the era when cosworth reigned as the dominant engine..
      So even then their was car mfg’s involved.

  48. BTW when Cosworth was providing 90% of the F1 teams, Ferrari were still providing their engines. Furthermore, in my opinion – probably not yours – this was one of the dullest moments of F1.

    So it’s a good job that ‘Cossie’ were there isn’t it,otherwise there would have been nothing to see.

    Actually many saw it as the ‘Golden age’ of F1,there was ‘overtaking’ and weird stuff like that! Maybe you weren’t around then ?

    1. Depends from which perspective you see it. I still think it was quite dull and BTW I’m not as young as you think but thank you!

      1. Depends from which perspective you see it. I still think it was quite dull and BTW I’m not as young as you think but thank you!

        It was what F1 was at the time,and maybe it will be like that again.Who knows ?

  49. I was.
    I also remember the fact that because Ferrari was the only team who manufactured their own car and engine they were paid more for the R&D & production which the other teams did not incur.
    There are probably several people reading this who can go back even further than the 60s when I first got involved with the sport.
    Please don`t assume that everyone who has a different opinion than your own is an idiot or too young to remember.
    I guess you might agree that Sir Stirling Moss knows what F1 is?
    From his column reproduced on Eurosport:

    “I like to hope that things can be sorted out. It’s so important that there is harmony, it’s so important that the FIA listen to the teams and the teams listen to the FIA. You’ve got a lot of very clever people there and there’s no doubt that they are negotiating from their own corner, but I also think that they appreciate that the sport is the most important thing and that, if they go and cripple the racing, they’re going to lose a lot of the enthusiasts that follow it now.

    Max is a very strong person, which the sport needs – you’ve got to have someone strong at the head, there’s no two ways about it – but he does get these ideas. Ultimately, I hope he’s intelligent enough to realise that what the teams are putting forward is a good idea, and they decide to work together – either to find a compromise or something that suits everybody. “

    1. Please don`t assume that everyone who has a different opinion than your own is an idiot or too young to remember.

      Did anyone assume that.No one was called an “idiot” and the question was asked that “maybe” he wasn’t around then?

      And yes,Stirling Moss has as much right to an opinion as anyone else.

      1. No, you didn`t call anyone an idiot. It was the impression conveyed. However, I am happy to apologise if that was not the case.

        1. I’m sorry I gave the wrong impression.

          My only hope is that all of this is sorted out before it starts to get really nasty,and it’s not like we can do anything about it ourselves is it.We’ll just have to let them play their war games and see who comes out of the smoke when all the guns have stopped firing.

          1. No problem :)

            I think, unfortunately, this will get much nastier.
            In truth, at the moment I think it has gone too far for a reconciliation. Either Max or the main teams will have to go.
            The ultimate choice will lay with the WMSC & FIA Senate, I guess.

  50. As far as I`m aware Hart was bought out by Tom Walkinshaw & went bust with TWR.
    Judd are a possibility but I don`t think they’ve made F1 engines since their venture with Yamaha in the 1990s.

    Hart did go bust in 2002,but he’s still around.Judd are a very good possibilty,they were racing at Le Mans,as were other engine manufacturers.

    1. Yes, but Judd or whoever, may have not long to get their act together if they`re going to supply F1 & I`m not sure that Max would want anyone else but Cosworth. After all a single engine supplier was on his wishlist at one time.
      Spec series looks more & more likely.

      1. Yes, but Judd or whoever, may have not long to get their act together if they`re going to supply F1 & I`m not sure that Max would want anyone else but Cosworth. After all a single engine supplier was on his wishlist at one time.

        It wouldn’t be the first time that Cosworth have ‘held the fort’ while reinforcements arrived.

        And perhaps there are other car manufactures out there that would like to build an engine without going to the trouble of trying to fit four wheels to it.

        1. All things are possible but, as I said, not much time left before next March now.

  51. I think the poll is pretty conclusive.

    1. I think the poll is pretty conclusive.

      Yes,at least the poll is.

      1. Yeah like the one in Iran….. then again knobs voted in te BNP too.

        If you read the comments most people who think about it vote in favour of the FIA, the gormless crowd vote for FOTA because its anti-Max and thats like bashing a teacher or something.

        1. Yeah like the one in Iran….. then again knobs voted in te BNP too.

          You could probably get Turkeys to vote for Christmas if they thought that it would stave off the threat of Chickens nicking their jobs.

  52. FOTA should break away and make a GP or F1 series. They can be called F1 once the current F1 becomes Formula Cosworth

    1. They can be called F1 once the current F1 becomes Formula Cosworth

      Actually,no they can’t.FOTA don’t have any rights to ‘Formula One’ or ‘F1’ wording.They will probably have to re-name themselves if they split from ‘F1’.

      It was also called ‘F1’ when Cosworth supplied most of the grid with engines for many,many years,not too long ago.

      1. The series is not popular because it’s called F1.

          1. The name F1 or Formula one became attractive because of the competition, the caliber of teams and equipments, the sophistication and the passion. If they had called it GP1 60years ago, it would still have its wide appeal.

          2. Oh, alright I just didn’t fully understand your first post. That is a valid point.

  53. Just one small point. Even thought they are suspended, Williams and Force India F1 are both still members of FOTA.

    This is more about preventing huge job cuts forced on the larger teams, as opposed to a gentle reduction over two or three years.

    It is also about removing a hypocritical, bare-cheeked liar from a position that he has been in longer than the previous incumbent (whom he accused of being in power for FAR too long!) and has been manipulating the regulations against the will of the teams just like he argued against back in 1980…

    I personally believe that the FIA and FOTA are right in different areas, however, I do not want to see Max Mosley involved in it any longer.

  54. The big problem is Cosworth have to make the engines last 4 races as will the gear box suppliers,they did have a few probs making it through a whole race last time they where in.

  55. theRoswellite
    14th June 2009, 22:13

    a short comment about the budget cap…

    No organization wants to offer themselves up to a carte blanche financial investigation, this would be opening a can of worms (or should I say..snakes in the plane) with the potential to make the current FIA entanglements seem elementary by comparison.

    FOTA can accomplish the same thing by structuring the regulations in such a way that restrictions are placed on easily verifiable quantities, such as elements of the car, practice days (as presently regulated), number of employees traveling…and I am sure they could suggest many more specific items.

    IT IS IN FOTA’S INTEREST TO MAKE REASONABLE, AND EQUITABLE…AND TIMELY LIMITATIONS ON THEIR COSTS.

    1. If it was so easy then FOTA could have put forward a proposal that actually aimed at achieving this.

      They didn’t do this even when they promised they would (after the meeting in Monaco).

      1. I think they have more pressing issues at the moment,Patrick. Likesorting out if they are even going to be in the series to make suggestions about.
        They had already produced (& published online) a set of proposals covering 2009 & 2010. Some of those suggestions were adopted by the FIA & published in the subsequent updates to the regs. However,until the problem of the budget cap & governance is resolved, there is little point in them trying to make further suggestions on other issues.

        1. At the Monaco meeting they claimed to know a way to cut budgets without a budget cap. They promised to come up with a proposal, but they never did.

  56. True F1 Technical Fan
    15th June 2009, 0:34

    Are F1 fans really this technically ignorant?

    One of the most technically challenging opportunities that F1 has offered the world of auto racing is the KER system. It was and still is an opportunity for F1 engineering to use hybrid technology to make the cars faster, and believe it or not it has worked!

    Arguably, Mercedes McLaren has spent too much time developing the KERS and not enough developing the aero package, but they will rebound, and when they do the KERS will put them over the top. Is this what Ferrari is afraid of?

    Do not fear the KERS, it is an optional accessory to the car, and if teams don’t think it is useful, don’t use it. But for FOTA to ban it entirely is ludicrous!

    Mercedes is happy to sell it to any team that wants to couple it to their Merc engines, and I guarantee it would make Brawn faster. Fans. get your facts straight, I disagree with allot of what the FIA has done, but KERS is right on target.

    Long live the KERS, I am not convinced it is dead, and true fans should not be so eager to see it leave.

    1. Is not a large of the problem how you spend millions on R & D (& production) of these new innovations when you will be capped at a figure which means you have to sack the majority of your staff?

    2. Seems you are also ignorant of the fact that the FIA limited the power that could be harvested with KERS to 80HP. So unless the teams go into an endless cycle of refinement to get the system smaller and lighter, at great costs of course, they won’t see any benefits from adopting such a system, and the associated balance problems inherent with it.

    3. KERS is a tiny fraction of the wider argument, though. And we should remember it was the FIA that banned it when it was first devised by Ilmor (Mercedes) in the late 1990s. The technology would be vastly more developed by now if it weren’t for that.

      1. KERS is a tiny fraction of the wider argument, though. And we should remember it was the FIA that banned it when it was first devised by Ilmor (Mercedes) in the late 1990s. The technology would be vastly more developed by now if it weren’t for that.

        Strangely it was banned in the first year that Ferrari had its technical veto!

  57. I voted for the FIA, with the following reasons…

    The existing teams all want to reduce spending, but on their terms. And if you notice, they want to keep the 2009 regs for next year also….don’t the rest of you realise they are just trying to wait out Max until he gose out of office? Then, they believe that they can continue spending as much as they want.

    I remember late last year when Honda decided to pull the plug, and everyone was running around on this and other forums stricken with fear and anexity over the sport’s future. It was believed that high costs were going to reduce the sport to 7-8 teams, and all the talk was of some teams running 3 cars. Now, the teams all want to go back to those days…

    I’ll be the first to admit that Max is being far from even-tempered in these negotiations. But on the same hand, he’s trying to preserve the future of the sport. So many of you are saying to let the big teams spend and go out of business if they wish- there’s plenty more to fill the grid. Well, those teams waiting to get in are there because of the cost cuts. Before those measures were implimented, the vast majority of the new/prospective teams were nowhere to be found around F1.

    It could be handled much better, but the FIA has the right idea here.

    1. My guess would be that they want to keep the 2009 regs because a) it doesn`t include the budget cap rules or the reg which allows the FIA to change any regulation as & when it chooses & b) because to keep this years` regs would be keeping costs down.

      If the FIA are so keen on keeping costs down I suggest their first step is to offer to pick up the redundancy costs for all the teams involved. Not going to happen, is it.
      In recent years it has been fairly obvious that when it comes to cost-cutting the FIA says one thing & does another, I`m afraid.

    2. You are wrong on the FIA having the right idea.
      If they had the right idea then this whole mess wouldnt have started.
      Honda leaving the sport is not that big a deal. They have done it 3 times now. The first after they finally won a few GP’s, then again after the turbo era as it slide back to normally aspirated and again recently. They leave whenever they want to.
      Look at who has stuck with the sport thru the good and the bad, they are the ones trying to preserve the sport at the top of motor racing. If you want budget caps and single engine series, stay with IRL, that way 10 minutes after the race starts you can be comfortably asleep either in your recliner or in the grandstands.
      The only way for this series to survive and be taken seriously is to break away and tell Max and Bernie to kiss off.

      1. Excellent point Martin. Unfortunately you won’t get much more than my response to your post as it seems any threads more than a few hours old tend to be moot!

      2. I agree Martin. More people on here should look at the history of formula one instead the here and now. Some who have been watching and following F1 for a short time haven’t had the time really to justify making a valid comment.
        You can usually tell those on here who have been following F1 for longer than a couple of seasons by the way they comment.

  58. FOTA teams are willing to reduce costs, but on their terms, not Max’s. This is a fight over who will decide the competitive nature of the sport, and who gets how much of the money.

    Before the expiration of the Concorde Agreement I think all teams had to unanimously agree on sporting regulation changes. And it was damned near impossible to get the teams to agree on anything! Max has used the lapse and seized the initiative to steer the sport, wrongly or right, in the direction of his choosing.

    The true crux of the issue is who runs the sport? Max has the ball in his court and won’t give it up. Time for him to go and establish the “transparency” many have called for.

  59. Who owns Metachrome?

    1. Do you mean Mecachrome, m0tion?
      It`s tied up with Renault, I believe, but there`s so much buying & selling that has gone on I`m no longer sure who actually owns it.

  60. Every team should have to use their own engines. None of this standardized engine crap.
    Ferrari
    Mercedes
    BMW
    Renault
    Cosworth
    Audi
    Peugot
    Toyota
    Honda
    Mitsubishi
    Nissan
    Lamborghini
    Saab
    Fiat
    Aston Martin
    I’m sure i left out a bunch of different engine types. I listed 14 different engines, thats 14 different teams. Thats 14 teams and 14 engines. That is the way it should be. It doesn’t mean that any of those companies have to own a team but I’m sure they would be willing to sell and supply the engines.
    F1 is the pinnacle of motor racing, therefore they should have each of the big name manufacturers providing engines. I don’t want to see 5 or 6 teams with Cosworth Engines, I want to see as many teams as possible, and each of them using different engines. Heck, I wouldn’t even mind seeing a team that has a custom engine built in some genuisus garage!

    1. HounslowBusGarage
      15th June 2009, 8:33

      Nice idea Brian, but it’s not terribly practical. Some companies on the list own other companies on the list (FIAT and Ferrari), others have cross holdings (Renault and Nissan), and at least one (Saab) is technically bankrupt (GM).

  61. I happily voted for FOTA. I think the way in which they have been ‘all’ treated is disgusting. We all realise that the days of teams spending $500 million a year are long gone, but these latest rule changes appear rushed and riddled with flaws.
    On top of that, it has been extensively reported in the press that several teams were not ‘informed’ by the FIA beforehand about certain changes and decisions, and had to learn of this secondhand.
    For the life of me how anybody can come up with excuses for the FIA is beyond me, and looking at the poll on this site I am not alone.
    This sport is at a critical, if not pivotal moment in its history, and all the FIA and Ecclestone can do is condescend teams that have made them billionares many times over.
    This sport was better off when real men were in positions of power, who cared about racing and its heritage. The FIA is a liability, and a scandal magnet!
    For all of you living in England, ask yourselves this?
    If the Football Association behaved in such away towards Premier League teams , would that be exceptable?
    Why not let racing people, real racing people, run this sport and run it well. A seperate authority not based in Paris, in a country that no longer hosts an F1 race but in an enviroment more becoming to Formula One.

    1. HounslowBusGarage
      15th June 2009, 8:47

      I’m not sure I agree with you last paragraph for lots of reasons, but taking it point by point.
      “Run by racing people” Racing people often aren’t very good administrators or business managers. They think about the racing and not about the careful governance of the sport.
      “A separate authority” I’m really not sure that’s a good idea. I’d be worried that separate Sporting and Regulatory Authorities for F1 versus sports cars or lesser formulae would fight against each other, trying to steal teams and sponsors. Also things like safety improvements should be across all forms of the sport, not just F1.
      “In a country that no longer hosts an F1 race” Paris *is* in France, which no longer hosts an F1 race.
      Also, not really sure what you mean by this “For all of you living in England, ask yourselves this?
      If the Football Association behaved in such away towards Premier League teams , would that be exceptable?” (sic).

    2. The teams were informed about the budget cap in march. Well before the WMSC meeting.

      I’m not sure which teams were not present at the WMSC meeting where the 2010 regulations were presented. Where is it ” well documented” which teams were not present?

      1. I think The Limit means that the WMSC meeting at which the 2010 regs were put through was actually called to hear the disciplinary case against McLaren from the Australian GP.
        As such certain teams, thinking it was nothing to do with them, did not send representatives. Ferrari was one, I believe.
        Am I correct, Limit?

        1. “For sure” Ferrari was present at that meeting. They voted against the 2010 regulations.

          1. Oh well, none so blind as those that will not see.

          2. http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/05/20/f1-links-ferrari-loses-fia-court-case/

            persempre says: May 20, 2009 at 5:05 pm

            The Court believed that the right of veto should have been exercised during the World Council meetings of 17th March and 29th April

          3. I think The Limit means that the WMSC meeting at which the 2010 regs were put through was actually called to hear the disciplinary case against McLaren from the Australian GP.
            As such certain teams, thinking it was nothing to do with them, did not send representatives. Ferrari was one, I believe.
            Am I correct, Limit?

            I am speaking about the 29 April.
            The relevant FIA documents can be found here:
            Extraordinary meeting of WMSC

            Do you see any reference to the discussion of Regulations?

            But the day following the meeting this appears:

            WMSC decisions

            As you will see from this media report:“FIA President Max Mosley, Formula One supremo Bernie Ecclestone and the 23 other members that comprise the World Council – only Ferrari team principal Stefano Domenicali is not present – all filed in.”

            This was stated in other accounts. The one linked just happens to be the first I found when I googled.

          4. Why are you so hung up on the extraordinary meeting?

            The actual regulations were voted on at the meeting of March 17th. On the 29th of april they only made some changes to increase the budget cap. Big deal.

            Stil even so, there was a meeting and Ferrari could have gone there and asked to be heard. That they didn’t go means they didn’t use their veto right. I’m not making this up, the judge told them so.

            Anyway, the point is that Ferrari were present at the march WMSC meeting (or at least the judge said they were) and that they should have used their veto then.

          5. Sadly, I think you have just proved that even when people give you official sources you don`t read them, Patrick.
            On the FIA`s own document decision linked above it starts off:
            An extraordinary meeting of the World Motor Sport Council was held in Paris on 29 April 2009. The following decisions were taken:

            You want to take that one up with the FIA?

          6. If Ferrari had attended a meeting which, as far as anyone knew, was meant to be a disciplinary hearing about McLaren then I can just imagine what would have been said.
            Had they had any notice that regulations were to be discussed I`m sure they would have had a representative there.

          7. Did you actually read which decisions were taken on the 29th of April?

            It’s exactly as I said. Only an update of the 2010 regulations which were voted in place on March 17th . Basically they decided to increase the budget cap from 30 million to 40 million.

            The actual meeting about the 2010 regulations was on March 17th.

            I would argue though that the April 29th meeting really would have been the last chance for Ferrari to use their veto. They should have done it on March 17th, but they might claim that they needed time to read the full regulations.

            Again, I’m just saying what the judge said who got to read and consider all the actual contracts.

            Seriously though, you really should read your own links better. Especially if you feel the need to complain about other peoples reading skills …

      2. Throughout this particular thread I have gone out of my way to try to make it clear that I was replying about what I thought The Limit may mean on his earlier post.
        Far from being “hung up” on the meeting of 29 April I thought that occasion might be what he was referring to when he said

        On top of that, it has been extensively reported in the press that several teams were not ‘informed’ by the FIA beforehand about certain changes and decisions, and had to learn of this secondhand.”

        I`ve tried to stay on topic on this thread at least.

        1. You really think that the teams were distraught buy the fact that the WMSC increased the budget cap to 45 million euro + out of budget costs?

          Yeah how odd that I thought he was thinking about the 17th march meeting where they actually decided on the regulations.

          If teams were stupid enough not to attend that meeting then who’s fault is that?

          1. I imagine they were “distraught” that anything at all to do with the new rules should be discussed at what was only called to be a disciplinary hearing.

            As I can only think your are being intentionally awkward over all this I shan’t bother to respond to your posts any further.
            I guess anyone reading this must be bored witless by now so, for my part in this farce, I apologise to them.

          2. You are making a fuss about an insignificant update of the rules where, by your own account, Ferrari didnt even have a vote to begin with.

            Besides, since the teams were talking with Mosley about how to finalize the changes, they sure did know that regulation changes would be ratified at that meeting.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/f1mole/2009/04/is-mosley-set-to-unveil-budget.html

          3. I have had a read of the link you’ve supplied and I find this comment to sum up the guise of the man and subsequently the organisation he runs:

            “In traditional Mosley style, that was always only going to be a starting point for negotiations.

            It is his standard modus operandi to come up with a proposal the teams will consider outrageous – the teams run around trying to stop that happening, succeed in bargaining him down, but still end up with something further away from what they originally wanted than they would have done had Mosley gone in softer at the start.

            Problem is, this time there have been very few negotiations – the teams have been too busy a) preparing for the new season; and b) arguing over the controversial ‘double-decker’ diffusers which have come about because the rules were left with loopholes.

            (The double-decker diffusers, incidentally, run counter the FIA’s original intentions for the 2009 rules – but wicked cynics have suggested they fit Mosley’s wider political plan by driving a wedge between the teams and proving that success does not always have to be about money).

            The Formula 1 Teams’ Association (Fota) is planning a meeting to discuss the budget cap, among other things, on 6 May – ie, a week after the latest decision by the FIA is expected.

            They are certain Mosley will unveil his latest proposal on Wednesday – but they are unsure what it will be.”

          4. Indeed that ‘start a war and see where the chips land’ style of negotiating is what makes me blame Mosley for his part in this debacle.

            To be honest, it does appear to be the only way he can (could) get the teams to go along with any changes at all though.

            The teams are always full of good intentions, but when it comes down to it nothing ever happens when you let them work it out for themselves.

          5. More facts on the matter:
            http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=38194

            This led to the World Motor Sport Council (WMSC) decision of 17 March which introduced a voluntary financial regulation and technical freedoms for the capped teams to enable their cars to achieve Formula One levels of performance. Ferrari voted against the financial regulation at that meeting but not against special technical freedoms for the new teams

            The detailed regulations were discussed and voted on at the WMSC meeting of 29 April. The new Ferrari representative on the WMSC was Mr. di Montezemolo, replacing Jean Todt whose Ferrari contract finished on 31 March. Mr. di Montezemolo chose not to attend but gave a proxy to Mr. Macaluso, the Italian president of Karting, who also did not attend but joined the meeting by video link. His was one of two votes against the new rules but no reasons or alternative were offered.

  62. I defiantly support FOTA

    Just looking at the issues in this argument alone, I agree with FOTA’s suggestions rather than The FIA’s. Also FOTA have handled themselves a lot better than The FIA who appear to have gone out of their way to cause conflict.

    After the way Max and the FIA have run F1 over many years, I doubt I could ever support The FIA until there is regime change.

    1. Which FOTA suggestions?

      1. Oh, Patrick. At least some of the suggestions have already been pasted on here in the last few days.

        1. Well I’m trying to find out if indeed it’s the useless set of FOTA suggestions that you posted (shorter races, standardized aero parts!) or their vague suggestion of “we must have better governance”.

          So far I have seen nothing of any substance coming out of FOTA. Which is especially lame since they claimed quite clearly that they would come with a counter proposal. Their counter proposal for the budget cap was “We are fine with the budget cap, but only from 2011”. Nice one.

  63. Have been reading tis thread, and others, and all the websites and newspaper coverage of F1 with keen interest. This may be a long post, but I’ll have everything off my chest.

    Quote from mofs:
    “I actually voted for FIA! Why? Because I think they actually care for the future of the sport. I have yet to see any definitive proposals from FOTA about cost cutting (persempre, I have no idea where you got those rules from).”

    As persempre noted previously in this and other threads, FOTA published a comprehensive document on their website 5 March 2009. It can be found here >>> http://www.teamsassociation.org/press-release/2009-03-05/fota-press-release

    Quote from persempre:
    “I try to provide sources. I wish more people would do likewise because half the trouble with all this is that too many people have heard speculation & taken it for fact.”

    Hear Hear!!

    Quote from steve:
    “The moment they sign a Cosworth deal Brawn will leave the FOTA group. Frank Wiliams knows where the future lies.”

    Have you noticed that so far Cosworth’s only comment has been “NO Comment.” ? They, like FOTA, are smart enough to not sign a blank paper and let the opposition party fill in the contract above their signature.

    And, realistically, that’s exactly what Max was asking the FOTA teams to do…”Just withdraw the conditions of your entries, and I assure you we will work, well, something out.” Yeah, sure Max, and you have a bridge in Brooklyn you’ll sell real cheap too, I bet.

    Max has had only one interest at heart, only one driving goal for many years, and that is the expansion and consolidation of his own power and authority over F1. Notice how he has never gotten involved like this in any other racing series that FIA polices ? From the time Max became FIA President in 1993, he has a long history of self-interest. To anyone who might disagree with this, I invite you to read any one of the several fine histories of Formula 1 available. I have read several, and they all share this same theme.

    I don’t remember what person commented about Max selecting teams, saying no one man could have that much authority, but in point of fact, Max does. FIA received 15 applications, dropped 6 of them out-of-hand as not viable, then vetted and interviewed the remaining 9. Of these, 5 were presented to FIA President Max Mosely, to choose the 3 that would be offered a spot on the 2010 grid.

    But, to play fair, it does seem Max has a soft spot in his heart for some. He picked Manor, run in part by his old business partner Wirth, as one of the three new teams for 2010. And he brokered the deal that handed a mega-billion dollar media contract to his former business associate for a mere 150 million pounds—oh, and that was for a 100 year deal !( And did you remember to say ‘Thank you’, Bernie?)

    Max has also been behind most, if not all, of the sometimes inane rule changes over the past 13 years. After all, without FISA, which Max put quickly and quietly to death after taking the FIA Presidency in 1993, F1’s only governance has come from FIA with Max as the day-to-day overseer. And the often drastic and sometimes conflicting changes from one season to the next, have done nothing to keep costs down over the years.

    I have nothing personal against Max. I’d want anyone who acted the same way to be cashiered.

    This was a long way around to this: Given the choices offered in the poll, I’ll have to give the nod to FOTA, since any other vote supports Max. Shame there wasn’t a selection “I support the racing” , I’d have picked that.

  64. Ok I’ll try again. Where is it written that the role of the FIA is to control the monetary affairs of teams and subsequently the businesses associated?

    1. In the 2010 Sporting Regulations, sadly ;)
      Seriously, I know exactl what you mean & totally agree, al_amana.

  65. Who drafts these regs and have the teams agreed to them? The other thing, up until the current, lets call them negotiations, who was the primary controlling party in F1 I take it that it was the teams as a whole? Now the 2010 regs are introduced and the FIA have taken no time to try to impose their new guidelines…….something seems wrong with that picture all be it the feeling of the “power getting to the head” of one Max Mosley.

    1. As an FIA Championship the FIA drafts the regs. Under the Concorde Agreement any changes were referred to the F1 Commission for checking over.
      Link to old F1 Commission document
      However, I can`t remember the last time the FIA called the Commission together (probably not since the last Concorde Agreement ended) & the 2010 regulations say that the FIA can change regs as & when they like which is what`s causing some of the governance arguments.

  66. Ok well I’ll go back into the little hole I crawled out of and read the doc you’ve supplied. Then I might crawl back out to wave my arms around and scream bloody murder at Max and Co.

    Hang on! So there’s a definate case of opportunism on the part of the FIA, in that when all these past agreements have run out they have seized the opportunity to make what ever changes they want because there is no one that can police or at least scrutinize them? So then, however, from a legal stand point does that not mean that that any one that is going to lose out from these changes has a legal right to call the FIA to account for their losses? I mean they would have to be major losses if teams like Ferrari will be forced to slash their spending etc by upwards of 75%!

    1. The parties involved vote for the regulations at the WMSC meeting. The WMSC has 26 members. It’s not just FIA or Mosley who decides on the rules.

      BTW Ferrari is not told to slash it’s spending by 75%. Just that it cannot spend more on it’s F1 cars. They could use the extra recources to race in Le Mans or to build F1 cars for other teams or whatever.

      1. The teams are not part of the WMSC, Patrick.
        They have no vote.
        The WMSC.

        1. Jean Todt was on the WMSC for Ferrari. There was a news item about how Ferrari had to nominate a new member to replace Todt after he left Ferrari.

          The news articles about the FIA court case stated that Ferrari voted on the issue at the WMSC meetings.

          I could be wrong, but there is a lot of evidence that in fact Ferrari do have someone on the WMSC.

          1. Jean Todt had been the representative for the F1 Constructors however, as he resigned from Ferrari in February he, at the same time, gave up his place on the WMSC.
            I haven`t heard that his position has been given to anyone else yet but, if it has, maybe you`ll be able to let me know?
            The other individual who sits on the WMSC is Bernie as President of F1 Constructors’ Association. Yes, I know, but he does.

          2. Facts remain:
            – It’s not just Mosley who decided on the regulations
            – Ferrari neglected to use their veto on either WMSC hearing

          3. Not all teams are on the WMSC. Williams is on it but MClaren isn’t.

          4. Patrickl
            It’s possible the cost cutting and 2 tier rules was not on the agenda during the WMSC. If I am not mistaking, Mosley simply just announced his decisions and there was no vote.

        2. So, as far as you`re concerned the blame for this entire fiasco lies with a veto which was never used & that most non-Ferrari fans were less than pleased to hear about because they felt it showed favouritism?
          As far as Ferrari are concerned it seems a case of “Damned if they did & damned if they didn`t.”

          1. I voted neither, does that mean I put the blame on one party? Don’t think so.

            I’m simply setting the facts straight about what happened with the Ferrari veto and suposed breach of this contract from FIA.

          2. Who on this thread has mentioned breach of contract by the FIA?

      2. “Just that it cannot spend more on it’s F1 cars.” – By upwards of 75%.

        First of all, where Ferrari spend “their” money should be their choice. Secondly, if with the amount of money that they have already poured into the sport, Ferrari aren’t entitled to be dissapointed with the bullying by the FIA then Scotland isn’t part of Great Britain ;-). Without the teams opposed to the capping the forward progress of F1 as the technically superior form of motorsport is dead. It’s the fact that teams like Ferrari have been able to pump the money into the sport that we have these awesome machines racing today. If the FIA get their way F1 will become nothing more than another open wheel racing category!

        1. Well, Ferrari had a chance to show alternatives on how to bring the budgets down. They came up with … nothing.

          I guess Mosley felt like the budget cap was the only alternative.

          For what it’s worth, I voted neither, because I think all parties involved are pig headed idiots. The teams spend too much and do nothing substantial to bring costs down (budgets are down by 20% or so), Ecclestone kills the best tracks and Mosley’s only way to get an agreement is to start a huge public fight and then back down after getting a compromise.

          1. My point is that budget capping makes no sense when it comes to the pinnacle of motorsport.

            If Ferrari are able to spend more than others in developing a championship winning car then so be it. It’s being claimed by the FIA that other teams can compete with 40-60million. Well whats stopping them?

            Then you have the desire of the FIA to increase the number of teams allowed to race in F1. All well and good but why does there need to be a cap in order for this to occur? After all there can only be one winner at seasons end!

            There is something not right with this whole saga and the stench is coming from the FIA’s end!

          2. Actually it makes a great deal of sense. Which is exactly why Ross Brawn suggested it to the FIA.

            The costs need to be brought down to keep the present teams in and to allow new teams in.

            Sure it’s the pinnacle of motorsport, but even at 45 million it’s still the pinnacle of motorsport by miles (with GP2 budgets at 2.5million and IndyCars budgets at around 8 million). Then there is the extra items that are not even under the budget cap so actuall budgets will probably be more up to 100 million euro.

            A 45-60 million budget cannot compete with a 300 million budget. That suggestion is just silly. The only way that works is if the smaller budget has some extra help (moveable wings and other silly things)

            Anyway, even the teams agree that the budgets need to come down.

            How do you do this? FOTA have come up with proposals like shortening the race and using standard wings.

            Besides, even if there are standard parts, the teams will simply put more money in other areas that are still free. This will go on until all parts are standard or so strictly regulated that the effect is a standard part.

            Is that really what the pinnacle of motorsport should be? Standard parts? It would devolve into a spec series.

            That’s why Ross Brawn suggested that a budget cap should be introduced. The teams are then free to spent the money wherever they see fit. Just that the amount of money is fixed.

            There is then much less need for restrictive regulations. Or testing bans and such. Much more pinnacle of sport than the spec series the FOTA teams envision.

  67. The FIA are claiming that some teams in FOTA are deliberately preventing any agreement from being reached.

    http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76229

    1. Yeah which ones would that be? Renault and Toyota seem like likely candidates. Ferrari probably too. Who’s the fourth? BMW? McLaren?

      I doubt Brawn, Red Bull, Torro Rosso are the problem. They would rather benefit a lot from the budget cap. McLaren has been annoyingly docile after they got whipped again this season.

      1. Red Bull benefit from a budget cap?!
        See their statement.roflol – They can`t even fit their centre on dry land at Monaco.

        Serious question, Patrick. Where do you get your F1 information from?

        1. I have a brain. Red Bull has a budget of 120 million euro. About the same budget they would have under the budget cap. If the car manufacturers come down to the same level it will benefit Red Bull Hugely

          You might not read these things in press conferences, but actually thinking about matters might improve your insight …

          1. You keep sayong that the budget cap will be 100 million plus. Will you please post a source for this information?

          2. I’m saying the total (top team) budgets would most likely be somewere around the 80 to 100 millon mark yes.

            You do realize that even the proposed budget cap is only for part of the budget don’t you?

            Add driver salaries, engines, motorhomes, etc etc etc and the actual budget will be a whole lot over just the 45 million they can spend on the car.

          3. I’m saying the total (top team) budgets would most likely be somewere around the 80 to 100 millon mark yes.

            So this is your own assumption? Not from the FIA?
            Are we dealing with supposition or facts here?

            Yes, I`m aware of the exceptions (5.4 – Under Cost Caps Sporting Regs) I`ve read them.
            Can you tell me what amounts teams currently spend on everything else?
            Can you also tell me what the Cap will be for 2011 under 1.5 or 5.2?
            So far it`s GBP40 million but, under those rules it can go down (& upset the larger teams even more) or up (&, having got several new teams in) throw a spanner in their works.

          4. Jees, can’t you figure that out for yourself?

            Add the salaries
            engine costs
            motorhome costs

            and see how far you get. If you end up with a figure of below 80 million (euro) for the top teams please report back and I will help you find the fault in your calculations.

            Indeed I have seen exact budget break downs, but look for it yourself if you are actually interested.

          5. Actually what I`m having trouble with is where you`ve got the idea of 80 million from.

            I do know that hundreds of staff will have to go before January to comply with the cap & ask again who pays their redundancy?

          6. As you seem to be getting a little heated. I`ll try to clrify what I`m saying.
            If you know the current budgets for Ferrari, Toyota, McLaren etc. & also know where & how they spend that money. Then many more peole than me will be interested including lawyers of each of the above mentioned teams.
            Without that knowledge I would not presume to say what figure is feasible & I certainly would not bring in regualtions which mean that staff & whole areas around the factories & their suppliers are unnecessarily financially harmed.
            These figures being thrown around do not reflect the harm to local economies.

            This whole problem goes way beyond money, anyway. The budget cap is only one side of the arguments.

          7. You honestly think that the driver salaries and engines already cost 35 million?

            Yeah if the teams decide to downsize rather than diversify, they will need to let people go.

            If the teams had actually come up with cost cutting measures, they would have had the same problem though.

          8. Drivers wages are a pretty closely guarded secret but this (out of date) list may help.
            Then add the rumoured 7 million Newey (or his equivalent depending upon team) earns.
            Every team has specialists employed in several fields so the millions mount up.
            These clever men & women don`t have to take wage cuts they can go outside of F1 & still be paid enough to keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed. So, don`t expect them all to leap at the opportunity to work for capped teams. Then where does F1`s innovation come from?
            Ferrari`s Gestione Sportiva employs more than 900 staff. Remember in F1 there are practically no days off so the number of staff has to cover that.
            Remember, too, that in recent years Ferrari has only been around third on the list of F1`s big spenders.

            Yes, you can argue that this is an enormous cost.
            However, GBP 80 million has recently been paid for just one footballer (Ronaldo).

  68. Interestingly !

    http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76236

    “The FIA understands that Porsche did not support ACEA’s Formula One resolution and has instructed the ACEA secretariat to make this clear in response to any press enquiries,” added the FIA statement.

    1. Closely follwed by
      http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76237

      Doesn`t progress much, does it?

      1. Doesn`t progress much, does it?

        No it doesn’t.

        “FOTA, whilst reserving its position on the specific issues, does not intend to comment the FIA press release issued on the 15th of June and to be involved in a prolonged series of polemical statements that generate confusion and does not help create a positive environment for the ongoing contacts,” he said.

        They would have done better not to bother with that statement at all.

        1. Maybe they were just working on the presumption that the media would give them no peace until they responded? ;)

          1. Probably so.

            But we can now await official dossiers from both parties on why they hate each other so much.

          2. That was meant to be in reply to VXR

  69. This is true.
    Look on the bright(?) side, though.
    If all goes to plan (oh, yohoho) then by Friday we`ll know when it will progress from “Why I hate you” dossiers to “When I`ll see you in Court”.

    1. I will include the strange posting order in my own dossier which will shortly be produced & handed to Keith ;)

  70. You keep sayong that the budget cap will be 100 million plus. Will you please post a source for this information?

    I thought that it was fairly common knowledge since last Fridays meeting that the FIA were going to go to a 100,000,000 budget for 2010 and then 40,000,000 for 2011 ?

    1. I wasn’t even talking about that. The costs not under the budget cap are quite extensive.

      1. I wasn’t even talking about that. The costs not under the budget cap are quite extensive.

        Agreed.The ‘budget cap’ merely covers the cost of designing and building a chassis,personel costs and testing.

        What it doesn’t cover is engines,driver salaries,marketing,hospitality and heaven knows what else that an F1 team can think to spend money on.So yes,in REAL terms the budget cap will be around 100,000,000 anyway.

  71. I put up a whole post about the history of the budget cap and it doesn’t show? Guess it’s moderated.

    Anyway, the point of it was that the budget cap was proposed by Ross Brawn as early as december 2007. The teams supported the budget cap even to be implemented as early as 2009 and now a year and a half later they make all this fuss.

  72. Popular opinion seems to be on the side of FOTA, which is a shame because not long ago I remember an awful lot of people screaming for more technical freedom for the teams (myself included)which is what the FIA are offering in return for the budget cap, FOTA want to continue with the same rules (except for KERS of course) it sickens me to think that the very soul of F1 is being sacrificed because of this.

    seeing as I’ve already mentioned KERS, can anyone tell me how it took a turbo car to be competitive on a regular basis/win a race?

    The Turbo era was such a boring time in F1 wasn’t it? I mean no one hung on the edge of the seat wondering if the damn things would stay together long enough to finish the race not alone win, did they?

    Yet FOTA want to get rid of the first major performance differentiator that f1 has had in what seems like decades.

    Max and the FIA may not be popular (but then when is the ref ever popular) but on this occasion I think they are absolutely 100% spot on with the rules

  73. BTW here is another article about the budget cap in may 2008:

    http://www.f1wolf.com/2008/05/budget-cap-or-budget-farce.html

    Tony Purnell (FIA consultant) has written to all F1 teams with the figures the FIA would like to set. So here are the figures:

    2009 – 175 million Euro (USD280 million)
    2010 – 140 million Euro (USD224 million)
    2011 – 110 million Euro (USD176 million)

    That’s also excluding engines, marketing, driver salaries, team principal salaries and KERS development.

    The teams were outraged that the budget caps were set so high ;)

    1. Umm I find it strange that you would post a link to an article that is actually against a budget cap!?!? With the addition of a smiley face none the less!

  74. Another article showing the 2008 support for a budget cap among Williams, Red Bull, Force India, Torro Rosso and even Ferrari.

    Monaco 2008 press conference:
    http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressinformation/f1pressinfo/monaco/Pages/conf2.aspx

    Vijay MALLYA: I have been very clear in my mind that small independent teams like Force India would welcome a budget cap otherwise the difference between independent teams like ourselves and the teams that are backed by big automobile manufacturers will only widen as time goes on

    Stefano DOMENICALI: On the first question, regarding budget capping, we basically have always been very clear with the FIA and all the teams. From the principle point of view it’s not a bad idea for sure. But we have a lot of concerns related to the mechanism of control that is put in place in order to be sure that in such a competitive world, everything is controlled.

    Nothing about secrecy, but only that they want to ensure the other are unable to cheat.

    Adam PARR: Budget capping is still a moot point. We haven’t quite got there yet but we believe very strongly that it is essential for the future of the sport. Just for your reference we are probably spending three times more than we did 10 years ago and as you probably know there are teams that are probably spending three times as much again as we can afford to do. We just do not think that is sustainable for anybody in the sport.

    Gerhard Berger: Well, I think it is very clear in F1 that a budget cut is more than welcome. Budgets are going through the roof and I think it should be reduced by a big way.

  75. Canada june 2008 press conference

    http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressinformation/f1pressinfo/canada/Pages/conf2.aspx

    Pat SYMONDS (Renault): I think you asked about budget-capping as well. That, of course, is longer term and I think it’s a little bit more difficult to say how that’s really going to affect the racing. It’s much more a question of survival to be honest.

    A funny quote about the new aero regulations for the 2009 cars:

    Geoff WILLIS (Red Bull): The problem is that all the teams have now got a set of regulations that they are going to be trying to find loopholes in and trying to develop, and we have to hope that we’ve done the work well enough in the regulations that we haven’t left any subtle loopholes open

  76. Still missing BMW, Toyota, McLaren and Brawn

    Here’s BMW:

    “I think whatever we do, if it’s a monetary figure or if it’s another form to cut resources, we have to police it and I think it can be policed,” the German said.

    “If we were not convinced it can be policed we wouldn’t expend any effort on it but I think it can be done with a bit of good will on all sides and the right spirit. It can be done,” added Theissen.

    http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72900

    MT: We have had very extensive discussions on budget cuts last year. In principle we have always supported the budget cap instead of individual technical restrictions because very simply if you want to save money you should limit money and not something else.

    So in our view this is a very valid approach, you can always argue about the figure then, but the principle of going to a budget cut and allowing the teams to spend the money in areas they think will make them competitive, is something we would approve.

    Q. Would a budget cap be difficult to police?

    MT: I think it wouldn’t be that difficult. If you police a budget cap it’s just one figure you have to police. In my view it’s much more difficult if you don’t achieve a budget cap and come up with individual restrictions like wind tunnel use or, simulator use, or whatever.

  77. Ron Dennis then:

    http://www.motorsportmagazine.co.uk/2008/04/02/ron-dennis-speech-for-the-motor-sport-business-forum-in-the-middle-east/

    Budget-caps are the latest idea. I support any idea that reduces costs in Formula 1. Yes, Formula 1 is expensive to do well – but that doesn’t mean that well-run teams aren’t also well controlled financially, with budgets strictly adhered to. I like to think of myself as a businessman, an entrepreneur. But I’m also a racer, through and through.

    For me, the two things go hand in hand. And for Formula 1 to continue to thrive in the way it has thrived all these years, we’ll need rules that foster freedom of entrepreneurship, but we’ll also need rules that encourage close and competitive racing. And if we can frame those rules in such a way as to keep costs in check, or even reduce costs, so much the better.

    Whitmarsh said:

    “The best solution may or may not include a budget cap, but ideally would not encompass a two-tier regulatory framework.”

  78. Yeah,looking back it’s interesting what they’ve all previously said before.

    It’s the same thing as when regular ‘free-thinking’ kids join a gang.Their opinions go out of the window,and only the opinion of the whole is championed on.And then when you want out because you don’t like the way things are looking……

    1. Yeah I was amazed how positive they all were. Even Ferrari.

      I completely agree with Ross Brawn that the budget cap allows for more freedom and ingenuity rather than the cost cutting measures which don’t work anyway.

      Maybe the big teams really did change their mind after they found that this year they are getting beaten hands down by two small teams (Brawn and Red Bull). Maybe it dawned on them that without their extra money they would be completely unable to defend themselves in situations like this.

      On the other hand we haven’t heard any coherent complaints from teams besides Toyota and Ferrari. I mean we cannot take Briatores ramblings seriously and the other teams had problems with the two-tier regulations, but never with the budget cap itself.

  79. Honda/Brawn;

    http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64483

    December 27th 2007

    So far what we have been successfully doing is moving money from one area of the team to another. Money is certainly moved from engines to aerodynamics, because that is the next best area of performance advantage.

    “So rather than chasing our tails, we think we should be considering an overall budget cap. Although it will be difficult to monitor, we think it can be achieved.”

    “The concept of a budget cap a couple of years ago was thought to be fairly ludicrous. But if you look at the weaknesses of the counter-arguments and alternative solutions, you wonder whether budget-capping isn’t the one you ought to find a solution for. It gives everyone the opportunity they want to try and achieve the objective.”

    Button backs F1 budget cap plan

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8028092.stm

  80. So, only two teams seem to have problems with the budget cap. Toyota and Ferrari.

    Only two teams oppose budget caps – Head
    http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/12833/900/

    Head believes last Friday’s FOTA meeting in London was a missed opportunity.

    “Max came to us to discuss what the (budget) limit should be, then came the news about the Ferrari injunction and he cancelled the meeting.

    “Now that Ferrari hast lost in court, he will no longer be so lenient; I can’t imagine he will stray far from the 40 million (pounds sterling) now.”

    I have no idea what Toyota’s problem with the budget cap is, but they probably need their huge budget to even be able to maintain their mid level position. One can only imagine how much they would suck if they weren’t allowed to outspend everybody.

    Ferrari’s problem seems to be the fact that they worry that the budget cap might be cheated upon. They don’t have a problem with the budget cap idea itself, nor with their sensitive records. Just that they want it policed properly.

    But as Ross Brawn says, how can you police CFD use? Or wind tunnel use? Or whatever cost cutting measures were introduced.

    More importantly, the cost cutting measures introduced have not substantially reduced the budgets at all. They cut it by a few million, but the teams simply spend the money on their aero instead of the engines.

    I guess another issue is the height of the budget cap. apparently they went from 175 million euro for 2009 to 45 million euro. That’s a bit of a steep drop. 175 million is obviously ridiculously high and 45 million seems a tad low. Some negotiations should have been able to get to a middle ground.

    Of course Renault now sees their opportunity to pick a fight with Ecclestone. Why not ask for more money when you are making demands already?

    On the whole I feel the pig headedness of Ferrari and Mosley have created this stalemate where neither wants to give in.

    Seeing how the other teams don’t have a problem with the budget cap (obviously Ross Brawn was actually the one to ask for the budget cap in 2007) I’d say Toyota should simply leave F1 and Ferrari needs to be pursuaded by the other teams to use common sense.

  81. Yeah an you picture it. Its Breakaway Grand Prix on Sky Sports, supported by Formula Premier (remember that?, Masters Grand Prix and A1 grand prix wid der funny lookin cars…. or maybe DTM what happened to that?) It wont matter because the billions spent will mean every car looks the same and they go rund and round and round – with James Allen screaming like a demented child.

    We can have adverts for cars we don’t want to buy, Alonso sulking…..meanwhile the BBC shows F1 with some balls out racing from hungry teams.

    It was Le Mans this weekend did anyone who isn’t an insane fan like us watch?

  82. And an you imagine anyone actually getting to look at Ferraris financial dealings….

  83. It’s weird how the abbrevition ‘FOTA’ seems to perfectly fit with the two teams who are ‘really’ up against the FIA. ‘F’errari and Toy’OTA’.

    1. I think you’re getting a little delirious VXR might be time to take some R&R!

  84. I will support those who are spending time, effort and good sums of money over the years to keep me entertained. The teams make the sacrifices, they put up the show. If they don’t succeed they get nothing in return. They are the ones who have to think about raising the money, designing the cars, employing the right engineers and team personnel. They spend sleepless nights trying to extract the last ounce of performance from their investments. Minardi toiled for many years but never tasted the sweetness of success, but Bernie is still rich for his effort. Honda invested hundreds of millions but didn’t really succeed, even at that, they left a team fully financed for the season not needing a sponsor, yet Mosley is trying to claim the limelight.
    I have not seen any sport that makes the referee the main attraction. No one goes to watch football because of the officiating. F1 should be no different.

    I will always put all my support behind the people who make it happen. Who risk everything for success. Those who nurture great engineers and build wonderful machines. This is where they strike gold, their reward should not be a penny.

  85. We fans have no power in any of this, but it’s good to have the chance to have our say – thanks for that. So, over 2000 votes and FOTA’s lead is almost embarrassingly big. It’s clear where fans’ loyalties lie.

    I think that the way the FIA has behaved in all of this has been appalling – it’s been draconian, dictatorial and divisive.

    FOTA have come up with constructive proposals and a plan to get f1 from where it is now to pretty much where Mosley wants it to be but this isn’t good enough for him.

    If he throws last year’s champions and the team that looks like it’s going to win this year out, then that would seem to be an act of commercial stupidity – probably the most stupid thing done since Gerald Ratner said his products were rubbish and wouldn’t outlast an M and S prawn sandwich.

    I think FOTA deserve a huge pat on the back for holding it together for this long. If Mosley gets his way, F1 could be reduced to a couple of also rans and 11 new teams – which would effectively be the public execution of the sport.

    1. We fans have no power in any of this, but it’s good to have the chance to have our say – thanks for that. So, over 2000 votes and FOTA’s lead is almost embarrassingly big. It’s clear where fans’ loyalties lie.

      I think that it was mostly a vote against Max Mosley.

      FOTA have come up with constructive proposals and a plan to get f1 from where it is now to pretty much where Mosley wants it to be but this isn’t good enough for him.

      Actually,they fall a long way short of where anyone who wants to see at least ten teams in F1 would expect them to be.

      1. The ten teams have already committed themselves to race next season and onwards if the present rules are maintained.
        It costs the teams a lot of money every time the rules are changed. Its easy for you to support the FIA because you are not the one managing the present teams, and seeing all your investments being destroyed overnight.
        You don’t want to lose your entertainment, yet you fail to think of the well being of the entertainer.

        1. The ten teams have already committed themselves to race next season and onwards if the present rules are maintained.

          I wouldn’t believe that for one minute.Manufacturers leave when they want to leave and not for any other reason.The reason that Honda left was because of costs.

          It costs the teams a lot of money every time the rules are changed.

          They seem to be able to spend the same amount even when they’re not changed! It’s just that out of their 500,000,000 they may have to spend a bit less on aero work and a bit more on new technology.

          Its easy for you to support the FIA because you are not the one managing the present teams, and seeing all your investments being destroyed overnight.

          I voted ‘neither’,and if teams like Toyota want to plough 3 billion into F1 then that’s up to them.But it’s no wonder that they feel the need to ‘take control’.

          You don’t want to lose your entertainment, yet you fail to think of the well being of the entertainer.

          Ah,the poor entertainer,which,if you happen to be a manufacturer,will have the largest stage given to you on which to advertise your products.All they have to do is turn up with two cars and everything else is paid for,and still they want more and feel the need to spend it.

          1. Where is the evidence they currently spend 500 million of anything.

  86. to cut costs maybe homologate the cars, and aero packages

    Submit your low, mid and high aero packages at the start of the season. That is now what you will use thru out the season. You do this at the end of pre-season testing and before you roll out onto the track in Melbourne.

    Have a soft, med, hard, inter, wets. Use what ever you want.

    Open up in season testing to allow rookie drivers to do testing for a limited amount of days or km.

  87. From reading various posts and articles regarding the FOTA vs FIA it has become quite clear that the fundamental running of motorsport in general has to change to stop everything from running itself into the ground. I am not just talking F1 either, i’m sure most motorsport series are in need of improvement.
    What i see is the need for a body to be set up (totally independant of the FIA, with no ties at all), to be used to introduce and run the regulations of each motorsport series. The teams should not really have any part of the regulations, nor should the FIA.
    The teams should be there to just to race period.
    And the FIA should only be there to referee and make sure the teams and drivers are running to the series regulations set out by the above mention body. And this needs to be seen to be done correctly and above board, totally transparent.
    People need to know that the sport is run fairly, and refereed fairly.
    Three sides of the infernal triangle should not get involved with each other.

    The only sticking block to this is the CVC and Bernie and Max.

    With these 3 entities overseeing motorsport then nothing good will ever work properly.

    1. I also meant to say that in football/soccer you would never get the referees getting involved in running the sport and the rules. They just REF ER EE don’t they?

  88. Ferrari have responded to the results of this poll!

    The Formula 1 fans’ noise on the internet continues in favour of Ferrari and FOTA […] British website http://www.F1fanatic.co.uk published the results of a survey where 83% of the fans agree with the FOTA.

    http://www.ferrari.com/English/News/Pages/090617_Fans_on_the_internet_are_with_FOTA.aspx

    1. You must be so proud Keith.

      To have such an International Body such as Ferrari quoting your lil’ ol’ website.

      Keep up the good work.

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.