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. Navs said on 14th June 2009, 5:27

    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.

  2. Tmax said on 14th June 2009, 6:04

    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……

  3. Prisoner Monkeys said on 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.

    • persempre said on 14th June 2009, 9:52

      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.

    • Navs said on 14th June 2009, 10:14

      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.

      • persempre said on 14th June 2009, 10:36

        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?

  4. KingHamilton&co said on 14th June 2009, 9:01

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

  5. Jamie said on 14th June 2009, 9:19

    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.

  6. Oliver said on 14th June 2009, 9:31

    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.

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

      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”.

      • Mouse Nightshirt said on 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”.

  7. sasbus said on 14th June 2009, 9:36

    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.

    • VXR said on 14th June 2009, 9:48

      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.

      • persempre said on 14th June 2009, 10:00

        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.

        • VXR said on 14th June 2009, 11:13

          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.

          • persempre said on 14th June 2009, 11:31

            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.

          • persempre said on 14th June 2009, 12:06

            BTW I forgot to ask, which model?

      • sasbus said on 14th June 2009, 10:02

        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.

        • VXR said on 14th June 2009, 11:21

          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?

          • FLIG said on 14th June 2009, 12:34

            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.

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

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

  8. Mouse Nightshirt said on 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.

    • Prisoner Monkeys said on 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.

      • VXR said on 14th June 2009, 10:02

        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]“.

        • Navs said on 14th June 2009, 12:26

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

      • persempre said on 14th June 2009, 10:07

        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.

      • Martin said on 14th June 2009, 21:30

        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.

  9. VXR said on 14th June 2009, 9:54

    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.

    • sasbus said on 14th June 2009, 10:07

      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?

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

        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.

        • sasbus said on 14th June 2009, 12:23

          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?

          • VXR said on 14th June 2009, 14:49

            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!

    • Martin said on 14th June 2009, 21:33

      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.

  10. mofs said on 14th June 2009, 9:59

    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?

    • persempre said on 14th June 2009, 10:21

      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.

      • VXR said on 14th June 2009, 11:29

        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.

        • persempre said on 14th June 2009, 11:37

          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.

  11. LewisC said on 14th June 2009, 11:28

    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.

    • FLIG said on 14th June 2009, 12:42

      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?

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 14th June 2009, 13:00

        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?

        • VXR said on 14th June 2009, 14:38

          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.

  12. FLIG said on 14th June 2009, 12:45

    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.

    • persempre said on 14th June 2009, 12:49

      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

      • VXR said on 14th June 2009, 14:58

        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.

  13. steve said on 14th June 2009, 12:54

    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.

    • Martin said on 14th June 2009, 15:31

      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.

      • steve said on 15th June 2009, 20:07

        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.

  14. al_amana said on 14th June 2009, 13:55

    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

  15. TommyB said on 14th June 2009, 14:08

    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 ;)

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.