F1 links: EC may look into FIA again

Here’s a round-up of F1 news and other interesting links I’ve found today.

If you’ve spotted a hot news story, interesting new website or just something funny from the world of F1, please share your links in the comments below.

F1 at risk of EC investigation

"The gaze of the European Commission may soon fall on F1 and, in particular, the selection process of the three new teams which are due to join the sport next year." More here on the FIA’s last brush with the EC.

Cosworth ‘has proof’ its engine is competitive

"What helps Cosworth quite a bit is that because it has been outside F1, it is free to optimise its engine for the current regulations of 18,000 rpm maximum. It was originally built for the 20,000 rpm rules of 2006, but has undergone substantial internal changes. The existing engines have all been retuned from the old 19,000rpm rules, with tight restrictions on areas they could work on, restrictions which don’t apply to Cosworth."

These are links I’ve bookmarked using Delicious. You can see my Delicious profile here.

Advert | Go Ad-free

19 comments on F1 links: EC may look into FIA again

  1. PrisonerMonkeys said on 21st July 2009, 2:03

    I hope we don’t have to go through the selection process again. I’m very, very susupicious of N.Technology’s motivations for doing it. First of all, they apply to the 2010 grid. Then they inform the FIA that they’re withdrawing their application because the manufacturers are not involved after FOTA go rogue. But then FOTA rejoins the championship and N.Technology have nothing, even if one of the current teams withdraw for other reasons. So, two weeks after the British Grand Prix when everything is looking good for the future of Formula One, N.Technology file their case.

    In short, I think that they realised that they had burned all of their bridges too soon. So now they’ve decided to burn everyone else’s bridges in the hopes that they can rebuild faster and get into the championship. USF1, Campos and Manor shouldn’t lose their palces on the grid because N.Technology are throwing their toys out of the pram.

    I know a lot of people think Mosley chose Manor for the purposes of discreetly giving them their own technical veto, and thus giving him control over the regulations. But Mosley isn’t stupid: he’s devious. He wouldn’t give the veto to a throwaway team to be used once and then the team folds because they’re uncompetitive. No, he’d give it to a serious racing organisation, that, while it may not have had the best application, would be more than capable of fending for itself. He’d do it so that he could have perpetual control over the rules.

    The other problem with the selection process is that N.Technology’s case is set to be heard on the fifteenth of Sepetember. Even if the court comes to a decision by sundown, another two weeks would have to be set aside to go through the process again, which which means that any new new teams would have just three months to get a car ready. Which they’re not going to do, even with the assitance of FOM and FOTA. So they’ll be lagging at the back, which future potential teams will see as a sign that Formula One is simlpy too expensive and too difficult for them to succeed in.

    Why should the future of the sport be jeopardised simply because N.Technology are throwing tantrums?

    • Gman said on 21st July 2009, 2:59

      I don’t always agree with your comments, but this is very, very well said! Great job summing up my thoughts as well, just with alot more detail ;)

    • John H said on 21st July 2009, 9:20

      First of all, they apply to the 2010 grid. Then they inform the FIA that they’re withdrawing their application because the manufacturers are not involved after FOTA go rogue. But then FOTA rejoins the championship and N.Technology have nothing

      If no FOTA members were in the championship, they couldn’t afford to be in F1 due to lack of sponsorship. They couldn’t have anticipated the FOTA walk out before their application. If Max hadn’t been so ridiculous with the two tier Budget cap regs, then I’d understand your stance.

      But Mosley isn’t stupid: he’s devious

      Oh, so that’s ok then is it?

      Why should the future of the sport be jeopardised simply because N.Technology are throwing tantrums

      Because there might be a case to answer? If everything is squeaky clean, then the FIA and Manor should have nothing to worry about. I think you assertion that USF1 & Campos won’t be working on their car until September is just plain wrong.

      If the FIA and Max had a good and fair play reputation then I may understand your comments, but frankly not to have an indepedent hearing on these matters is an insult to the sport, not good for it as you assert.

      • PrisonerMonkeys said on 21st July 2009, 10:25

        I think you assertion that USF1 & Campos won’t be working on their car until September is just plain wrong.

        I’m not talking about them; they’re already working on theirs and have been for some time. I’m referring to any team that might get onto the 2010 grid in their place if the selection process would be done again. They won’t be able to get anything done in time.

  2. DGR-F1 said on 21st July 2009, 8:22

    There is a good point in the article though. Why do the new teams have to use Cosworth engines specifically? What deals have been done already by Max to ensure this exclusivity? Shouldn’t it be that the teams can use any independent engine manufacturer, and open the sport not only to three new teams, but three new suppliers too?
    Will the current teams be getting kudos if they switch to Cosworth as well, or is this just another carrot before the FIA hits the new teams with incomprehendible rules and biased officials?

    • PrisonerMonkeys said on 21st July 2009, 8:36

      We only have the un-named team (like to be N.Technology, but could have been any of the others) giving their version of events; we have no idea of the context. Campos and US-F1 were some of the earliest entries, and so set the standard very early on. For all we know, they were told “You need to nominate the Cosworth engine if you want to make the 2010 grid because the best entries are running it”, as opposed to “You need to nominate the Cosworth engine because we said so”. After all, cost-cutting has been a huge part of the FIA’s agenda this year, and the spec-engine was designed and intended as a much cheaper alternative to building your own engine or doing an engine deal. New teams would have been assessed on their ability to minimise costs as well as everything else. That’s why it makes sense that the new teams may have been told to nominate Cosworth because the best applications were already doing so: to build your own engine or do a deal would raise your costs and thus make it less likely for you to be chosen.

      A lot of people on the internet are tossing around the word ‘corrupt’ when referring to Max Mosley, but I think that’s too strong a word. ‘Compromised’ might be better. I don’t think he tried to drum up business for Cosworth because they paid him to, but rather that when the contract was awarded to Cosworth, Mosley promised them that new teams would use their engine, and so the new teams were told to nominate it because the FIA was trying to honour its contract with Cosworth.

      Either way, I think the wording and the context in which the new teams were told to run Cosworths will be a very important issue.

  3. Patrickl said on 21st July 2009, 10:28

    The teams were told that they needed a contract with an engine supplier. Isn’t it simply the case that Cosworth was the only available supplier?

    • DGR-F1 said on 21st July 2009, 13:17

      Admittedly Cosworth do appear to be the only ones interested in attempting to build engines for the new season.
      Its just strange that when the whole scenario as devised by Max was to increase the number of teams, there didn’t appear to be much incentive to other engine manufacturers too. Maybe its just bad timing.
      Cosworth have had a long and successful history with F1, so of course its good to see them coming back, but there are other manufacturers out there.
      As it stands, those teams which can afford it next year look like they are getting Mercedes engines, and those that cannot afford it will use Cossies…..

      • Richard B said on 4th October 2009, 2:05

        Which Cosworth ?
        It,s an historical company in name only, the current company has yet to prove its self in current times.
        The Duckworth Cosworth, the Vickers Cosworth, the Goddard led engineering teams or many other of the owner and engineer led
        Cosworth involvees have a great track record. All new now.
        It’s been a long time between drinks.

  4. chaostheory said on 21st July 2009, 11:43

    Go EC !! :P

  5. Simple solution: Let them all in and bring back pre-qualifying. :P

    • PrisonerMonkeys said on 21st July 2009, 13:43

      That’ll never work. The sport is too expensive. No sponsor is going to be willing to invest in a team when there’s a very good chance the car will never make the grid (and thus never be seen by audiences or spectators).

      • patrickl said on 22nd July 2009, 12:56

        Maybe a budget cap would solve that problem …

        • PrisonerMonkeys said on 22nd July 2009, 13:17

          Doesn’t change the fact that lesser team may not make the grid and sponsors won’t be seen. If they can’t be seen, they won’t pay for the privelige of having their branding on the side of a Formula One car. And without that money, the teams will never be able to build a car that can challenge for the grid.

          • I kinda hoped the :P would show I was just kidding… ;)

            In practice the idea is of course totally unworkable. Would be fun though!

  6. Hallard said on 21st July 2009, 16:30

    According to cosworth:

    “So what we did was produce a complex model of the engine’s performance as it will be in 2010 and gave it to a third party agency with the largest body of data. We asked the question, ‘If you were to take all the results this year of the top three teams and substitute this engine into their cars, would it have affected the outcome of any of the races?’ Because that’s the ultimate measure of the competitiveness of the engine.

    “The result that came back was that if the engine we are proposing for next year had been in any of the winning cars, the winning car would have still won. If it had been in any of the second place cars they would still have been second, or in one or two cases, would have won.”

    Am I the only one who thinks this is totally erroneous? There is no way you could isolate a single variable (in this case the engine) and plug it into an equation to determine how the car would finished in the race! From a mathematical perspective, even after ruling out the factors of human behavior, a race is far too complex to draw any sort of conclusion like this. Especially to say that the second placed car would have been able to take the lead if it had a Cosworth engine. Im all for cosworth returning to F1, but this “analysis” is assanine. I for one feel insulted by this pseudo-science.

    • Bigbadderboom said on 21st July 2009, 18:01

      Too many presumptions would have to be made against too many variables, these presumptions would make the simulation worthless. And does that Cosworth simulation allow for them running with a greater rev band than everyone else. I want Cosworth back, but they must compete on an equal footing.
      Once again F1’s troubles come down to transparency, why is our sport so shrouded in back room deals and dodgy dealings. Max’s legacy is going to be that of corruption and miss management. I hope the EC uncovers some real truths but I doubt it.

    • patrickl said on 22nd July 2009, 13:02

      Yeah, I thought it was rather comical too.

      How would they even know the exact characteristics of the other engines.

  7. manatcna said on 24th July 2009, 3:31

    There’s something rotten in Denmark the FIA

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.