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

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

Advert | Go Ad-free

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

1 2 3 6
  1. Kayleigh said on 13th June 2009, 18:58

    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!

    • Giuseppe said on 14th June 2009, 10:31

      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

    • scunnyman said on 18th June 2009, 6:54

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

  2. VXR said on 13th June 2009, 19:12

    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.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 13th June 2009, 19:17

      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.

      • VXR said on 13th June 2009, 19:27

        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!

        • persempre said on 13th June 2009, 19:41

          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?

      • Achilles said on 14th June 2009, 7:45

        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….

    • persempre said on 13th June 2009, 19:36

      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. :)

      • Patrickl said on 13th June 2009, 19:43

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

        • persempre said on 13th June 2009, 20:09

          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.

  3. Patrickl said on 13th June 2009, 19:41

    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.

    • Oliver said on 14th June 2009, 9:20

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

      • al_amana said on 14th June 2009, 12:39

        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?

        • scunnyman said on 18th June 2009, 7:17

          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.

      • Patrickl said on 15th June 2009, 17:37

        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.

    • phil c said on 15th June 2009, 3:58

      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.

      • Patrickl said on 15th June 2009, 17:51

        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.

        • phil c said on 15th June 2009, 23:22

          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

          • Patrickl said on 16th June 2009, 10:11

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

          • phil c said on 16th June 2009, 10:54

            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.

          • Patrickl said on 16th June 2009, 21:17

            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.

          • phil c said on 16th June 2009, 22:26

            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. IDR said on 13th June 2009, 19:46

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

    Just curiosity, anything else.

    • VXR said on 13th June 2009, 20:06

      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.

      • IDR said on 14th June 2009, 6:39

        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. VXR said on 13th June 2009, 19:48

    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.

    • persempre said on 13th June 2009, 20:17

      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?

      • VXR said on 13th June 2009, 20:30

        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.

        • persempre said on 13th June 2009, 20:42

          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.

          • Patrickl said on 13th June 2009, 20:56

            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.

          • persempre said on 13th June 2009, 21:14

            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.

          • Patrickl said on 13th June 2009, 22:25

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

          • persempre said on 13th June 2009, 22:42

            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.

          • Patrickl said on 14th June 2009, 0:54

            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.

          • persempre said on 14th June 2009, 1:23

            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.

          • Patrickl said on 14th June 2009, 9:09

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

          • persempre said on 14th June 2009, 9:38

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

            & all the teams have?

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 14th June 2009, 10:29

            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/

          • Patrickl said on 14th June 2009, 11:59

            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.

          • phil c said on 15th June 2009, 4:19

            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.

          • Patrickl said on 15th June 2009, 11:38

            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.

          • persempre said on 15th June 2009, 13:09

            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.

          • Patrickl said on 15th June 2009, 17:55

            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.

          • persempre said on 15th June 2009, 18:48

            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.

          • phil c said on 15th June 2009, 23:30

            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

          • Patrickl said on 16th June 2009, 10:14

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

          • phil c said on 16th June 2009, 10:59

            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.

    • scunnyman said on 18th June 2009, 7:29

      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. Daniel said on 13th June 2009, 20:10

    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!!!

    • VXR said on 13th June 2009, 20:21

      “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

  8. Chaz said on 13th June 2009, 20:16

    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…

    • Chaz said on 15th June 2009, 19:28

      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…

      • persempre said on 15th June 2009, 20:49

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

        • Chaz said on 15th June 2009, 21:07

          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…

          • persempre said on 15th June 2009, 21:20

            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 :(

        • scunnyman said on 18th June 2009, 7:35

          yes

  9. matt said on 13th June 2009, 20:16

    Well that’s a pretty definitive answer.

  10. matt said on 13th June 2009, 20:19

    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.

    • Patrickl said on 13th June 2009, 20:42

      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.

      • Navs said on 14th June 2009, 12:54

        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.

    • VXR said on 13th June 2009, 20:47

      “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.

      • IDR said on 14th June 2009, 6:32

        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.

        • neracer said on 15th June 2009, 16:50

          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. F1Yankee said on 13th June 2009, 20:20

    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.

  12. SafirXP said on 13th June 2009, 20:25

    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!

    • VXR said on 13th June 2009, 20:39

      “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.

      • persempre said on 13th June 2009, 20:46

        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. ;)

        • VXR said on 13th June 2009, 20:52

          “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.

          • persempre said on 13th June 2009, 21:10

            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.

          • Patrickl said on 13th June 2009, 22:29

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

          • persempre said on 13th June 2009, 22:56

            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”.

          • Patrickl said on 14th June 2009, 0:59

            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).

          • persempre said on 14th June 2009, 2:31

            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?)

          • Patrickl said on 14th June 2009, 9:43

            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.

      • SafirXP said on 13th June 2009, 21:28

        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.

  14. sean said on 13th June 2009, 21:03

    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.

  15. Mike said on 13th June 2009, 21:12

    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.

1 2 3 6

Add your comment

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

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