Start, Suzuka, 2012

FIA presents new Concorde Agreement to F1 teams

F1 Fanatic round-upPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Start, Suzuka, 2012In the round-up: The FIA presents a new version of the Concorde Agreement, which outlines how F1 is run, to the teams.


Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:

2012 Concorde Agreement (FIA)

“A further important step has been achieved today to secure the future of the F1 world championship which should lead to a final settlement to be reached between the FIA, the commercial rights holder and the teams in the coming weeks.”

Ferrari all out with new components at private test (F1 Technical)

“The new parts for India, as tested by [Davide] Rigon on 18 October at Idiada, Spain include a different rear wing, changed brake ducts, new aerofoils under the nose cone, changed sidepod panels and different exhaust exits. All these updates have reportedly been verified at Toyota’s wind tunnel in Cologne.”

Renault reveals 2014 F1 engine (Racecar Engineering)

Renault Sport F1 deputy managing director Rob White: “We have now been running development engines of various types since the latter part of last year. First of all we had single cylinder engines running. There are some extremely significant bits of learning needed in order to be ready.”

Juncadella gets Ferrari prize test (Autosport)

“New European Formula Three champion Daniel Juncadella will make his Formula 1 test debut for Ferrari at Vallelunga next month.”

Raring to go (ESPN)

Valtteri Bottas: “I’m still learning a lot. I cannot really say one thing, except maybe as the tyres are so difficult this year it’s something that I still need to develop; just understanding about the tyres. But there’s so much in Formula One that you can learn and that you can develop yourself.”

Kingfisher offers 3 months dues by Diwali, employees refuse (The Times of India)

“The stand-off showed no signs of easing with a section of its Delhi-based employees outrightly rejecting the management’s offer demanding four months’ salaries in a couple of days. Another section said it will revert back by Thursday. ‘We reject the offer as we don’t believe in CEO Sanjay Aggarwal and executive vice president Hitesh Patel. We want a meeting with Vijay Mallya. Where is he?'”


Comment of the day

@PaulT thinks Red Bull deserve more credit for their achievements:

Winning in F1 is all about the best combination of drivers, team spirit and teamwork, a relentless pursuit of innovation, clever interpretation of the rules, capitalising on the misfortunes of one’s rivals, shareholders with the greatest passion and commitment, and just a bit of old fashioned good luck.

Red Bull hasn?t got it right in every facet in every year but 2010 and 2011 have shown that they have done the best job overall of all the teams, and 2013 is now shaping up as more of the same.

Many people dismiss them as ‘just a soft drink company’, but that just disrespects the experience and skills of the people in the team who have learned their craft during the Stewart and Jaguar days. A lack of years in the game (like, say, Ferrari), doesn?t discount the fact that, collectively, they have what it takes to race and win at the highest level.

I don?t like domination (the Michael Schumacher years turned me off F1 for a long time) and I truly hope that Ferrari, McLaren and Lotus find that something extra to take the battle to Red Bull in the last four races. F1, particularly this year, has a habit of surprising, but at the end of the day I?ll happily celebrate Red Bull as 2012 champions if, once again, they do the best job of all the teams in stringing together all those success factors.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Manatcna!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

James Hunt won the Japanese Grand Prix at Fuji 35 years ago today.

However a shocking crash involving Gilles Villeneuve and Ronnie Peterson claimed the lives of two spectators.

Image ?? Red Bull/Getty images

50 comments on “FIA presents new Concorde Agreement to F1 teams”

  1. The new parts for India, as tested by [Davide] Rigon on 18 October at Idiada, Spain include…

    Who? How many test and reserve drivers does Ferrari keep on the books? What are Fisi and the rest of them up to? And yet they still don’t manage to have anyone to step into Massa’s seat…

    1. How many test and reserve drivers does Ferrari keep on the books?

      Two. Rigon replaced Bianchi as a tester for the Scuderia in 2012. He also drove in the young drivers test at Magny-Cours this year. Fisichella is also a confirmed tester for the team but his involvement with AF Corse in endurance racing probably has set a limit to his involvement in F1 while Badoer has retired for quite some time now, Gene has been replaced and has taken up endurance racing as well and Bianchi has been lent out to Force India in order to get track time on Fridays.

      1. Correction.. 3 test drivers.. You forgot Felipe Massa

        1. Well, I can’t see either of their current actual test drivers being able to match Massa’s general pace & performance. You might not remember Fisichella’s first stint with Ferrari. And you might want to check Rigon’s results in GP as well.

  2. Based on the racecar article: from an engineering point of view, the 2014 engines are extremely interesting, but from a performance point of view I don’t think I will be impressed. The article talks about Monza downforce levels even at Monaco, and a lower power output than current, restricted V8s… I believe the front wing will also be reduced in size, so could we be looking at 5+ seconds slower cars?

    1. Ha, yes that sucks, and you’ll get a lot of people saying “oh don’t worry the engineers will get the speed back in a couple of months” but I have a feeling too that maybe this time they went a little too far with the rules.

      1. Williams Honda 1.6l Turbo. Well over 1000bhp in qualifying trim.

        I’m not worried just yet.

        The FIA does need to be flexible with the boost pressures allowed from the Turbo until we’ve seen how quick the cars are likely to be. It would be a disaster if F1 was suddenly slower than IRL just because of this tree hugger engine.

        1. The regulations were much freer back in the 80s than the 2014 regs. You won’t see power anywhere near that due to the limit on the boost.

    2. I don’t necessarily think that slower cars are automatically bad. Yes, they’ll be losing a lot of downforce, but that’s only going to make the cars harder to drive. They might be slower – though five seconds seems to be an exaggeration – but they will be that much more challenging to drive, and I don’t see how that is a bad thing. There is far too much emphasis on aerodynamic grip these days.

      1. @prisoner-monkeys Speed seems to be the end goal here but building a fast engine is easy. Give them a challenge and let’s see what the racing is like first.

    3. I wouldn’t worry about ultimate lap times, you can’t see 5 sec. difference in a lap as long as the car is racing at its limit and the cars around it are setting similar lap times, also a car with less ultimate grip can be far more entertaining to watch eg. Hamiltons McLaren in Korea. As for engine power, unless the max. fuel supply setting strangles the engine there should easily be more power and a flatter torque curve, maybe the fuel will be severely restricted to force more reliance on energy recovery systems but in that case the combined power output will be equal or better than the current engines, if it is not a chip re-program would be all that is needed to fix it.

      1. I think it can be good for racing to see the drivers struggle a bit more in the tough parts too @hohum, at least that way we can enjoy more moments of perfect car control and (wishfull thingking?) possibly even driver taking advantage of mistakes from others again!

    4. I wouldn’t worry too much about the speed difference. It has very little impact on the fun of racing for us viewers. Aryton Senna’s fastest qualifying lap around Monaco was 1:20.344 set in a 1991 McLaren. Compare that to Bruno Senna’s qualifying lap around Monaco of 1:18.509 (two seconds faster) which was done in a 2010 HRT, we wouldn’t suggest for a moment that Aryton wasn’t still Monaco king. Ultimately it’s all relative and when we see all the cars out there racing each other it won’t matter to us. The cars have been getting slower for years now and the racing is better now than it ever has been.

    5. 5seconds, fair enough. But the teams will tell us about how quickly the cars of the beginning of the current campaign is made faster when new improvements are found. Speed is found throughout the season, they might be 5sec slower in March 2014, but will have become faster by november and if the rules are not fiddled with, that means thatl increase in speed will carry on to march 2015, 2016 etc.

      Remember how the 2009 cars after all the aero bit was stripped from the rules of 2008, having less downforce, speed, etc Its going to be similar, but with smaller engines (size/displacement) but giving F1 a new lease of life. Im looking forward to it


    I do love the elevation changes and the trickiness of some of the combinations of corners. I am positively surprised by how awesome sector 3 is – I thought it’d be rather Tilke-ish and boring, but turn 13 through 18, and especially 13 through 15, seem great and technical. I’m also fond of the camber through the S’s and think that turn 8 and 9 at full speed will be quite a challenge.

    I am quite unimpressed with the amount of tarmac run-off though, but hey, what can you do? Also, I pray that the DRS zone will be on the main straight into T1…

    Any info about the expected average speed?

    1. Looks like it will be absurdly fast in a Red Bull in qualifying.

    2. It’s much more Istanbul-ish than Abu Dhabi, and that’s a very GOOD thing.

      1. It’s much more “Istanbul” rather than “Abu Dhabi”, which was what I was expecting, and that’s a very GOOD thing.

        It sounded like a blasphemy before

    3. We should probably thank Tavo Hellmund for his initial track design concept.

      1. Exactly, @hohum. A lot of people seem to be under the impression COTA is just another Tilkedrome.

        In fact, while his firm were consultants and had some design input, the overall layout was largely designed by Hellmund and Kevin Schwanz.

        Here’s an interesing article about their inspiration for the various corners:-

        1. Yeah, as far as I understand the design was already more or less done, with Tilke only having to check details to make everything fit with FIA and FIM rules.

      2. @hohum I’m sorry, but no credit goes to either Helmund, Schwanz or Tilke. Any idiot could lay out a cool track on that topography. They could’ve done so much more.

        Here’s why this track is bad:
        – A hairpin before a long straight is a terrible, terrible (!!!) idea. Give it up already!
        – The entry and exit of the Hockenheim rip-off section are far too slow, making the whole section useless.
        – It’s hard to imagine, but they made the exact same mistake for the Istanbul rip-off section, so you end up with two painfully useless sections in a row.
        – Maggotts-Becketts is nice, but we already have it; Turn 4 at the Hungaroring is nice, but we already have it; the stadium section at Hockenheim is nice, but we already have it; turn 8 at Istanbul is nice, but we already have it.

        Of the 20 corners, only the first one is good and yet people praise this track. Really?

        1. Necro, I don’t think anyone is saying this is the worlds best track in all ways, just expressing pleasant surprise that a new “Tilkedrome” in the land of the oval looks to be as good or better than any of the new tracks.

  4. With the testing of formula renault I keen to see how Ericcson Daily,Sirtokin, and Stockinger can do. Ericcson is the big name coming from gp2. Daly has impressed but not as much as Vainio and Abt. Stockinger to but only cause I’m flipino:) but i hope he does well. Sirtokin cause he is young and did a great job in Auto gp.

    1. Ericsson, a big name?

      He’s been in GP2 for three years now, and has just two wins and six podiums to his name from sixty-two starts. If he spends another year in GP2, he’d be in danger of becoming the next Davide Valsecchi or Luiz Razia – having spent too long in the junior formulae to be of interest to Formula 1 teams. HIs only advantage is his age; at twenty-two, he can maybe take one or two more years to get into Formula 1, but he would have to impress in Formula Renault to do it.

    2. @F1-98 I’m a Filipino too! I’ve been keeping an eye on Stockinger as the man I will root for when Schumacher retires. He’ll be testing for Adrian Valles’ new team which is taking over from Team RFR. I didn’t really follow FR3.5 too much last year, but seeing RFR’s overall results last year doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence.

      As for Ericsson, @prisoner-monkeys is spot on. He snagged a YDT with Mercedes in 2010, but he was never able to recapture that form ever since. His lack of sponsorship is also a problem – and he’s unable to attract new sponsors precisely because of his lack of speed.

      Conor Daly has been a good talent so far, and I can see some potential in him. But he still has a few rough edges around him, and still has significant room for improvement.

      1. If Marcus Ericsson did make it into Formula 1, then I think he’d probably be a lot like Lucas di Grassi, Karun Chandhok, or perhaps Tonio Liuzzi: fast enough to justify a seat with a little bit of money to make up the difference between his talent and the minimum needed to race normally, but not a long-term prospect. He’d probably have to be partnered with an established driver like Pedro de la Rosa or Adrian Sutil, and he’d find his seat under perpetual threat.

  5. I’m still hoping against hope that the teams can hold out for a greater share of the revenue, they should ultimately be aiming for at least 75% of revenues to be shared amongst the teams.

    1. @hohum:

      1) If the FIA is presenting the Concorde Agreement to the teams, then that means everyone is ready to sign. There is no further time for negotiation.

      2) As I explained to you a few days ago, demanding more money is fruitless endeavour. They won’t get something for nothing, so if they wanted more money, they’d have to trade it for something else of value – something they might consider to be more important than money. For instance, just the other day, the teams agreed that all twelve teams should have input into future regulations, as opposed to limiting that power to the top six teams. If they wanted more money, then they might be required to give up that right – which won’t sit well with the six teams that lose the power to influence the regulations. All that will do is create a divide between the teams.

      1. @prisonermonkeys, I disagree. The teams don’t have to “give up” anything.

        Negotiations are about leverage, and the teams have plenty, because the sport can’t exist without them. If they think they are getting a raw deal, they can threaten to form their own series.

        As demonstrated by the NFL/AFL split of the late fifties and sixties, World Series Cricket in the seventies, and the ARL/Super League war of the late nineties, it can happen – unhappy competitors can and will walk away if they think it is in their interests.

        And while the FIA might make all sorts of threats, the reality of modern competition law is that you can’t shut down rival series easily.

        Now I don’t suggest that it would be easy for the teams to form their own series, but they could do it, and if a sufficient number of them carried out the threat it would destroy the value of the commercial rights

        The teams threatened this in 2009, and they can threaten it again. So they have a very big stick to wave, and plenty of scope to get a better deal than they enjoy currently.

        1. @tdog – The teams would not threaten to leave the sport over a lack of money. Especially since they are perfectly happy with what they are getting now.

          Although the teams did threaten to walk away in 2009, it was not over revenue. They were unhappy with the governance of the sport, particularly Appendix E of the sporting regulations, which would have given the FIA the power to change whatever regulations they saw fit, whenever they saw fit and without consulting the teams first. It was intended to let the FIA close loopholes in the regulations quickly – like the one Red Bull were exploiting in Germany – but the teams were afraid Max Mosley would use it to force through budget caps and other controversial rule changes.

          1. @prisoner-monkeys, sadly you are probably right about negotiations being over, doesn’t stop me wishing for a more just distribution of revenue, after-all there are 12 teams that have to design, build, race and continuously upgrade 2 cars. What does FOM do to justify keeping half of all revenue?
            As for the teams being happy with what FOM gives them, nobody is happy after a deal with Bernie, can you imagine any of the teams saying we don’t want an extra $50million from FOM but we cant afford testing during the season?

        2. @tdog, you are absolutely right, it would only take the top six teams to start up in competition with F1 and it would be all over for FOM. Unfortunately Bernie knows this and does side deals with Ferrari who are the key, along with, to a lesser extent, McLaren and RBR (who have taken the place once held by Williams) .

  6. @keithcollantine Thanks for the COTD! Written after a bottle of wine with the missus, who often tells me my opinions are rubbish. What does she know….. Goes to show, wine is good for you.

    1. @keithcollantine Great COTD! Shouldn’t the year be 2012, though, and not 2013? :)

      1. @journeyer Yes, should have been 2012. Obviously I wasn’t in as good shape as I thought …………

    2. @PaulT

      Written after a bottle of wine

      That’s doping! You should be disqualified and stripped of this COTD as well as all the past and future COTDs! You have no place in commenting!

      1. @girts damn you are speaking of taking out half of F1fanatics there … that would be some operation ^^ I’m not sure Keith is ready for this or if he wants it (maybe he’s also on the beer/wine side to find inspiration)

      2. Ha! Love that @pault

    3. In vino veritas.

  7. Check out the “inappropriate” date on the French version of the Concorde Agreement announcement… “8/11/2010” ;-(

  8. It’s also a year without Marco Simoncelli :'(

  9. Will the new V6 sound similar to Indycar? I certainly hope not.

  10. I’ve just spent the last 10 minutes reading a rather enormous apologetic from Nick Tombazis (summerised here)

    Following the recent unecessary explanations by Ferrari as to why thet were justified in retaining Massa, it seems like the bug is spreading around Maranello. This 1500 word monologue pre-ambles through Massa, Alonso, the bad car at the season start, the improvents made to the car, the approach so far to the development of the car, the change of approach now required to the car design until the last race in Brazil……..

    …….and then “the wind tunnel”!!! It is apparently the root of all Ferrari’s woes. Yet a rather grumpy Stefano Dominicali following the race in Japan stated most eloquently, “the wind tunnel is and will be no excuse for anyone in the team”.

    Maybe Stefano had just heard wind tunnel complaints from the design team once to often – who knows – but his message did not reach his chief designer as this missive from Tobazis leaves us in no doubt his opinion as to the culprit of Ferrari’s woe’s.

    Lot’s of explanations coming from Ferrari about things that don’t matter to anyone but them – I wouldn’t be feeling too confident if I was Alonso.

    1. JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III
      23rd October 2012, 21:17

      Willem Toet said almost 2 years ago on the flying lap that the ferrari wind tunnel which he helped to build was no longer the technical marvel it once was and was infact getting out of date. It has significant restrictions compared to a facility like the hinwil wind tunnel which i think he also helped to design/build. He stopped short of saying it in black and white because he obviously had no desire to step on italian toes, it was pretty clear though he had misgivings about ferraris ability to continue using this tunnel.

      1. Surely a wind tunnel is simple physics/mechanics, it is how you interpret the observations and what parameters you chose to test that are the difference between success and failure, no doubt the “Concorde” was designed using a wind tunnel much older than the one at Ferrari.

        1. JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III
          24th October 2012, 6:43

          If that’s the case why do the teams spend millions of their local currency making tunnels. Instead they could bodge one together mythbusters style out of a box of drinking straws a fan and a smoke machine?

        2. I also remember that episode of the Flying lap, @hohum, the Ferrari tunnel is a bit more complicated to operate not just because its getting dated, but also because the way they had to put it up in the air to fit within limits the the local council gave them compromises the installation.

          And as for the Concorde, the US went to space with computers being outcomputed even by a pocket calculator. I guess it was more “simle lines, a lot of power” on the Concorde than intricate detail to get it flying nicely without too much drag like modern F1 cars!
          Imagine Newey designing a new version now :-)

  11. The FIA press release linked above has since been moved here:

Leave a Reply

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

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.