One interesting point Todt spoke about was the possibility of re-introducing the 107% qualifying rule. This procedure was last introduced in 1996 as a way to weed out some of the sport’s lesser-funded and therefore under-performing teams and drivers. Essentially, the 107% rule dictates that any driver failing to qualify within 107% of the pole-sitter’s fastest lap would be excluded from participating in the race. Back in 1996, Forti often found themselves on the wrong side of the timing sheet.

The rule was scraped in 2003 as the qualifying process changed to a one-lap system and fewer teams were competing, meaning the limit of 20 cars each race implied most drivers attempting to take part should. For 2010 though, the sport sees more teams participating and if the first free practice sessions at Bahrain are anything to go by, some of these new squads are considerably off the pace of the front-runners.

Jean Todt has stated he is in favour of re-introducing the rule, although admits that if it is appended to the regulations, it won’t likely happen until 2011. In order to get the 107% rule in, the FIA would need unanimous agreement from all the teams, and that simply isn’t going to happen because Virgin Racing, Lotus and Hispania would have to block the move on a just in case reasoning.

We are very in favour of reintroducing the 107 percent limit. The reason why it was abandoned was because of the change in qualifying which was happening with fuel to start the race in the car.

Now to change that for 2010 you need to have the unanimous agreement of the teams, and to get the unanimous agreement of the teams the FIA will be supporting this solution.

I don’t think it will happen so we have to wait until 2011 to introduce it. Jean Todt.

Despite seemingly wanting to curb non-achievers in Formula One though, Todt was supportive of the new teams and offered his praise and support.

You must have respect for a new team who is arriving in this particular economic crisis period and to invest money to be in F1. I don’t think it is a time to criticise but to support and help, and to help them, and it is in the interests of everybody.

Everybody in the business should be supportive of these days. I was impressed today, they did quite well and we must give them a certain time to be ready. Jean Todt.

Looking at Nico Rosberg’s fastest lap of 1m55.409s in the second free practice this afternoon in Bahrain, 107% of this would be 2m03.488s. If this had been qualifying and the 107% rule had been in force, Hispania drivers Bruno Senna and Karun Chandhok would undoubtedly be in trouble, while the Virgin Racing duo would be cutting it close.

Original article by BlogF1.

Jean Todt In Favour Of 107% Qualifying Rule

Ari Vatanen had been a favourite among motor sport fans, the former rally driver promising to shake-up the FIA and make the organisation more transparent. However, Todt had received the backing of the outgoing president and was even said to have been a good candidate for Mosley succession way back in 2005.

The election, held at the FIA’s headquarters in Paris, was supervised by an external Huissier de Justice, the French state-appointed public witness. There were 12 abstentions or invalid votes and Todt’s victory was a comfortable one.

The news of Vatanen’s defeat will undoubtedly cause many fans of motor sport to be upset, many feeling that Todt is unsuitable for the role given his public support from Mosley and his former ties with Ferrari. The FIA has been accused in the past of favouring Ferrari and Bernie Ecclestone even admitted that the Scuderia receive benefits (both monetary and in the deciding of new rules). Although Todt has long been resigned from his post of team principal at Ferrari and recently resigned from the company entirely, many will still feel uncomfortable at his appointment.

Despite claims that Todt may fail to shake-up the FIA and will merely continue in the vein of his predecessor, the Frenchman does have a lot of experience in motor sport, primarily Formula One and World Rally. It was Todt who helped rejuvenate Ferrari into a dominant force that won many titles in the late ’90s and early ’00s, and his management style has received considerable praise. The Ferrari company was named by the Financial Times as the best company in Italy to work for in terms of employee satisfaction in 2008.

While many of us fans may have been hoping for a more radical change at Place de la Concorde, we should allow Todt some time to settle in to his new role before making judgments. The president of the FIA does not just deal with motor sport and much of the organisation’s aim is to improve motoring for the general public the world over. Of course, Formula One is at the forefront of their operations though, the international sport garnering much of the headlines that involve the FIA.

We shall have to wait and see how Todt deals with the pressures of being the president, but despite trying to offer the man a chance, I feel the Internet-at-large is about to get a little crazy. But before we all get hysterical, let us remember one very important rule that has just come into force: the president of the FIA may now only preside for two terms at the very most. Something I’m sure we will all agree on as being a very good idea.

Original article by BlogF1.

Jean Todt Comfortably Wins FIA Presidency Election

At the time there was a wild conspiracy theory that went along similar lines, the fact that Piquet had his accident just after Alonso had taken on fresh tyres and fuel seeming to be quite a coincidence. At the time, Piquet stated that he had just been pushing too hard and that he clipped the barriers a little too hard. However, the allegation that it was a deliberate act comes after the young Brazilian was unceremoniously fired from the team in August.

Piquet Jr. has not kept quiet since he was let go, and has himself made accusations towards the team and most notably, Flavio Briatore. In a long statement on his website at the time, Piquet claimed he received little encouragement from the team boss and his own manager, and that he often found himself on the receiving end of threats moments before qualifying sessions and races.

However little had come of this, until now it seems as there is supposedly fresh evidence to back up the allegations made by the Brazilian TV station. It is unclear whether or not Piquet himself is involved in anyway, but the only evidence that a TV station could possibly think it has is possibly a recorded interview with the man himself. The TV station would not be privvy to telemetry or radio communications, so unless they have caught wind of such a thing but not seen/heard it themselves, or in fact Piquet or a team member has spoken to the station, it seems a very strange allegation to make.

The FIA have been relatively vague in a statement made to the press this evening, just saying that “an investigation is underway regarding alleged events at a previous world championship race”. However, Singapore hit the headlines on a few news sites moments earlier breaking the story about Globo, so one can only deduce (at the moment) the two are indeed related.

Needless to say, if any wrongdoing by the Enstone team is discovered, Renault would be in a whole heap of trouble and could possibly face a ban of several races. Of course, it could just be a storm in a teacup, which in all honesty, is exactly what it sounds like at the moment. Unfortunately, I’ve said that before only to find the world of Formula One wrapped up in controversy for months down the line. Like you, I await further details and the inevitable statement from Piquet Snr.

Original article by BlogF1.

FIA To Investigate Fernando Alonso’s 2008 Singapore Win

Mosley is well within his right to support a future presidential candidate, but the FIA cannot be seen to be fully backing one candidate over another until the time comes to vote. The voting system should be private as well, just as it is with other political elections that many of us are familiar with.

Mosley stated that he felt Todt would be the best person to replace him, and it wasn’t the first time Max has spoken highly of the French rally, Formula One team and car manufacturer head. Vatanen, a former rally driver himself, retaliated with concerns that Jean Todt represents an older era, and that he himself would bring a new freshness to the role of president.

But it’s not good that a leader stays in the post for a long time, and when that happens, the best thing is a change. And I represent that change, a new era with more freshness.

On the contrary, Jean Todt represents the old era, and it’s not right that Max wants to impose a new leader, and that he uses the power of the federation to support his campaign. The FIA is not a kingdom; it’s a republic where the leaders are chosen democratically.

At Ferrari they don’t want Todt to be president, and so they have told me, because they think they sport would lose credibility. The same would happen if it was Ross Brawn or Flavio Briatore running. The president of the FIA must be someone neutral. Ari Vatanen.

It is the second paragraph that has annoyed the FIA Foundation, with Vatanen using the phrase ‘using the power of the federation to support Todt’s campaign’. Furthermore, Vatanen also claimed that the FIA were paying for a private jet for Todt to allow him in the running of his campaign. Ari wrote:

At the expense of the FIA Foundation, Jean goes with a private plane with his girlfriend, supposedly as a FIA representative, to various parts of the world, sometimes he has gone to Asia, sometimes to Canada, sometimes to Buenos Aires, whatever. In fact, he is doing a campaign totally supported and paid by the FIA. Ari Vatanen.

In a response letter written by the Chairman of the FIA Foundation to Ari Vatanen, Carlos Macaya refutes the suggestion of the FIA funding Todt’s campaign, and explained that the travel expenses Ari may be alluring to actually apply to Todt’s partner, Michelle Yeoh.

These assertions are totally false. For the last two years Jean Todt’s partner, the internationally acclaimed actress Michelle Yeoh, has served in a voluntary capacity as the global Ambassador for the Make Roads Safe campaign which is co-ordinated by the FIA Foundation. In this role Michelle has travelled all over the world to support the campaign especially in advance of this year’s first ever global Ministerial Conference on Road Safety to be held in Moscow on November 19-20. [...]

These activities have nothing whatsoever to do with the FIA, or the recently announced election. It is very disappointing that you have chosen to misrepresent the work of a fellow Trustee in this way and belittle the magnificent contribution being made by Michelle Yeoh. [...]

I appreciate that during the forthcoming election for the FIA Presidency there needs to be open and robust debate. However, I would ask that you do not again misrepresent the role of the FIA Foundation in this way. Carlos Macaya.

Macaya also explained that recently, while Michelle Yeoh was travelling to Dar es Salaam in Tanzania for an FIA function, Jean Todt tagged along as he was attending a workshop in the same city helping to promote intelligent vehicle safety systems in his role as the eSafety Aware president.

It would appear that no further sanction will come of Vatanen’s claims and Macaya’s response, and perhaps the former world rally champion was wrong in his accusation. However, it is interesting that Ari has raised the topic, as conspiracy theorists around the world concoct reasons as to why they feel the FIA are still pro-Ferrari and manage their affairs in a deeply private and suspicious manner.

Of course, Todt was the head of Ferrari’s Formula One operation for many years, praised with rejuvenating the team into world champions once again. But in late 2006, Todt resigned this role and took up the position of CEO for the whole company, dealing with the road car division as well. In 2008, Todt resigned this role, although he was still involved with the Maranello company until July 2009, when he completely resigned in order to focus on his campaign to become the next president of the FIA.

Should Jean Todt defeat Ari Vatanen in the election later this year, there will be cries of corruption the world over. Whether correct or not is almost irrelevant as some fans of the sports that the FIA govern, Formula One included, will still feel that the FIA are not 100% straight up, as they say.

So, to the perhaps slightly more thoughtful fans who I know this site attracts, but additionally also pleasing because I know the passion of motor sport runs deep with all… who do you want to see as the next president of the FIA? I can imagine what the answer is already, but before you comment, think for just a moment about the successes Todt and Vatanen have achieved over the years, and how you think they may run the organisation that still controls the sport we all love.

Original article by BlogF1.

Ari Vatanen Already In Hot Water With The FIA Foundation

The news will undoubtedly be welcomed by the eight FOTA teams who are currently still trying to sort out a deal with the FIA and commercial rights holders, all the time trying to piece together a breakaway series should a deal not happen. Alluding to this in a short statement, Vatanen said that he felt it was time for a change in the FIA, and for the organisation to become more transparent.

Responding to requests from many FIA member clubs, I shall stand for presidential elections of the FIA in October this year. I think the time has come for a change. My main focus is to reconcile views within the FIA and bring transparency to its stakeholders. The duty of President is to defend a billion automobilists and the great sport of ours. Ari Vatanen.

Vatanen is a former motor sport competitor and since retiring from rallying, the Finnish 57 year old has undertaking many different roles, notably that of a European MP (from 1999 until earlier this year) as well as continuing to make the occasional appearances at various rally events. Vatanen took the 1981 World Rally title with Dave Richards as his co-driver. Richards would go on to start Prodrive and field his own rally cars before attempting to break into Formula One. Ari has also won the Paris-Dakar rally four times.

Vatanen also isn’t afraid of the written word either, and a quick perusal of his website, I found a nice piece titled Colin McRae – Fragile Life, describing the time he received the news that McRae, his son and two other children had perished in a helicopter crash not too far from the champion’s home.

It is difficult for us to admit how small we are in the grand scheme of things. Our illusion of power and control over life is like the morning haze, in that our judgement is often clouded. The great Konsta Pylkkänen (a well known fictive philosopher by Finnish writer Veikko Huovinen) once said “In the celestial scale, the human has the power of an ant.” I couldn’t agree more. Ari Vatanen.

I’m sure I have more to write on this, but for now, I’ll leave it there.

Original article by BlogF1.

Ari Vatanen Confirms He Will Run For FIA Presidency

Since Wednesday, it has been claimed that a series of rumours and allegations have been made by FOTA, and in a letter to FOTA’s chairman Luca di Montezemolo, Mosley voiced his anger at these claims and stated the team’s association has deliberately attempted to mislead the media.

In his letter, which was sent to di Montezemolo on Thursday, Mosley references the suggestions that FIA Senate president Michel Boeri has now taken over Mosley’s role in relation to Formula One, that Mosley was forced out of office and that he would have no ongoing role within the FIA.

Mosley has slammed FOTA and demanded an apology and correction to the statements made. According to Autosport, the letter was sent to di Montezemolo prior to Thursday’s FOTA press conference, where no apology was forthcoming.

We made a deal yesterday in Paris to end the recent difficulties in Formula 1. A fundamental part of this was that we would both present a positive and truthful account to the media.

I was therefore astonished to learn that FOTA has been briefing the press that Mr Boeri has taken charge of Formula 1, something which you know is completely untrue; that I had been forced out of office, also false; and, apparently, that I would have no role in the FIA after October, something which is plain nonsense, if only because of the FIA statutes.

Furthermore, you have suggested to the media that I was a ‘dictator’, an accusation which is grossly insulting to the 26 members of the World Motor Sport Council who have discussed and voted all the rules and procedures of Formula 1 since the 1980s, not to mention the representatives of the FIA’s 122 countries who have democratically endorsed everything I and my World Motor Sport Council colleagues have done during the last 18 years.

If you wish the agreement we made to have any chance of survival, you and FOTA must immediately rectify your actions. You must correct the false statements which have been made and make no further such statements. You yourself must issue a suitable correction and apology at your press conference this afternoon.

Formula One is run entirely by our 5-strong team without any help from me or any other outsider. There was no need for me to involve myself further in Formula One once we had a settlement. Equally, I had a long-standing plan not to seek re-election in October. It was therefore possible for me to confirm both points to you yesterday.

However, given your and FOTA’s deliberate attempt to mislead the media, I now onsider my options open. At least until October, I am president of the FIA with the full authority of that office. After that it is the FIA members clubs, not you or FOTA, who will decide on the future leadership of the FIA. Max Mosley.

Unfortunately for Mosley, this letter only furthers the perception that he is a dictatorial manager, and it also suggests that he no longer commands the respect of the teams – the very fact Mosley felt compelled to send this indicates that. Mosley is clearly clutching at straws. While Mosley does not need the support of Formula One fans, he cannot work against them either. And unfortunately for himself, this letter will only push more away rather than reach out to newcomers. It also shows a man who is desperately trying to retain the power he seemingly craves.

It would also appear that Mosley is taking the alleged actions of FOTA somewhat personally. The letter apparently did not come from the FIA, but from Max himself. While it is perfectly acceptable for the FIA president to write a letter or send an email, it does seem a little strange that in this case, he would put his name at the bottom. Perhaps the letter would have carried more weight if the FIA had sent it.

It is very clear that FOTA have no issues with the FIA itself. In the past, they have made it known they are unhappy with the governance of the sport, which could be interpreted as the FIA. However, it would seem that Mosley agreeing to not stand for re-election again in October was what finalised the deal on Wednesday. The very fact that Mosley is now bringing that into question leads me to believe that he is aware that this is the point that could cause the deal to collapse. Otherwise, he could have threatened a return to the £40m budget cap.

If FOTA now resurrect their plan to create a breakaway championship – and it would seem this is the only course of action for FOTA aside from backing down and/or apologising – we will be back to square-one again. Formula One will face falling apart at the seams, fans will be confused and in this time of financial turmoil, the sport will be further rocked through its core.

If it is all about Mosley – and it is looking more and more like it is – perhaps the FIA Senate need to think about what is more important to the sport it holds so close to its heart and that helps promote all the work the organisation does away from motor sport. Formula One, or Max Mosley?

Further Reading

• Breakaway Averted: Max Mosley Will Not Stand Again
• Formula One To Split As Talks Between FIA & FOTA Fail

Original article by BlogF1.

Clutching At Straws: Mosley Isn’t Ready To Rule Out Re-Election

The apparent resolution of this crisis means that the planned breakaway series will no longer happen and the eight FOTA teams have been confirmed as entrants to the 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship. Ferrari, McLaren, Brawn, Renault, Toyota, Red Bull Racing, Scuderia Toro Rosso and BMW will compete alongside Williams and Force India, as well as newcomers Campos, Manor and USF1.

There will be no alternative series or championship and the rules for 2010 onwards will be the 2009 regulations as well as further regulations agreed prior to 29 April 2009.

As part of this agreement, the teams will, within two years, reduce the costs of competing in the championship to the level of the early 1990s. The manufacturer teams have agreed to assist the new entries for 2010 by providing technical assistance.

The manufacturer teams have further agreed to the permanent and continuing role of the FIA as the sport’s governing body. They have also committed to the commercial arrangements for the FIA Formula One World Championship until 2012 and have agreed to renegotiate and extend this contract before the end of that period.

All teams will adhere to an upgraded version of the governance provisions of the 1998 Concorde Agreement. FIA Press Release.

The teams must also sign up to the new Concorde Agreement which will help ensure the sport’s future until 2012 with the current squads.

Earlier in the week Max Mosley had been adament about standing again later this year, saying that it doesn’t matter if he remained or left, as his successor would behave in a similar fashion as the role of the president is to ensure the matters of the FIA are looked after. However, the teams have made it known that they are unhappy about the way Mosley has governed Formula One, and it would seem that this, along with the acceptance of their cost-cutting proposals, has eased the tension and allowed the issues to be resolved.

Original article by BlogF1.

Breakaway Averted: Max Mosley Will Not Stand Again

The funny thing is, all we want, “we” being the millions of fans around the world, is for a season’s worth of damn good racing with an epic fight for the world championships that comes down to the final corner of the final lap of the final race. Swiftly followed by a sporting handshake between the participants and lots of celebrations.

Alas, while we may get that, we also get the political manoeuvrings that should stay in the background, but nearly always end up in the foreground.

The FIA have released a statement – the second of the day – which explains they are starting legal proceedings against the eight FOTA teams.

The FIA’s lawyers have now examined the FOTA threat to begin a breakaway series. The actions of FOTA as a whole, and Ferrari in particular, amount to serious violations of law including wilful interference with contractual relations, direct breaches of Ferrari’s legal obligations and a grave violation of competition law. The FIA will be issuing legal proceedings without delay.

Preparations for the 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship continue but publication of the final 2010 entry list will be put on hold while the FIA asserts its legal rights. FIA Press Release.

So it would appear that the FIA believe FOTA and Ferrari seriously violated the law and breached legal obligations. I particularly like the FIA’s choice of language in this statement. It reads “[...] and a grave violation of competition law.” Wowser! Maybe it’s because I was raised on music manuscript, but whenever I read the word “grave” I think of the term as a musical direction, which essentially means what the word means; we’re talking deathbed here, serious undertones of darkness and sadness. And I fail to see how any of the FOTA-8 have behaved in this manner.

I’m also struggling to figure out why Ferrari have been singled out in the statement. Ferrari are a member of FOTA just like the other seven, and previously nine when Williams and Force India were members. While they may have separate deals with the FIA and/or FOM, it seems odd to single them out in a statement that otherwise appears to be relatively generic. Of course, the reason is clear – the FIA want Ferrari in their championship, and in all likely, Ferrari are probably the main protagonists in this saga.

I also fail to see exactly what the FIA are hoping to get from this. Presumably they do want Ferrari (and the other FOTA-7) to stay. But taking them to court isn’t exactly the best way to chummy up to someone or some company. If the FIA are just out to prove a point, then it may turn out to be a very costly mistake. If the FIA are out to break FOTA’s unity, then that is just childish and if the governing body feel they are owed money, then that too seems to be a bit of a mystery – the FIA is a non-profit organisation. Sure, I bet it costs a fair amount to run, but then that is why they charge for licenses etc…

And now because the FIA intend to start legal proceedings, the final 2010 list (which would never have been the final 2010 list anyway) has been put on hold.

Original article by BlogF1.

FIA To Start Legal Proceedings Against FOTA & Ferrari

The FIA is disappointed but not surprised by FOTA’s inability to reach a compromise in the best interests of the sport. It is clear that elements within FOTA have sought this outcome throughout the prolonged period of negotiation and have not engaged in the discussions in good faith.

The FIA cannot permit a financial arms race in the Championship nor can the FIA allow FOTA to dictate the rules of Formula One.

The deadline for unconditional entries to the 2010 FIA Formula World Championship will expire this evening.

The 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship entry list will be announced tomorrow. FIA Statement.

I’m not sure I can fully agree with the FIA on this one. Although it is known that I’m not one of the organisation’s greatest supporters, I do feel that the FIA should not be in charge of the rules. The FIA are there to ensure that safety is kept as paramount importance, both the cars and circuits the sport uses, to organise and issue relevant licenses and to raise awareness of their various campaigns and intiatives with the cooperation of the sport. But with a [relatively] unified body of those participating (FOTA), it should be that particular organisation that decides the rules.

FOTA have maintained that under their proposals for 2010, the sport would have eventually saved more money by cutting costs. It is just that FOTA believed the process should be more of a gradual decrease rather than a huge leap down to the planned £40m.

I also find the comment regarding blame quite humorous, as it would appear – to me at least – that both parties involved in this dispute were equally stubborn. FOTA did not want to sign up without conditions as it needed some leverage for a just in case scenario, and the FIA refused to budge on the rules for 2010, completely ignoring FOTA’s proposals in the process, according to the Association.

Tomorrow’s entrants list for the 2010 Formula One World Championship will undoubtedly make for interesting reading, but it certainly will not be the last draft of that particular document. The list will surely include Williams and Force India, but the former will probably jump ship if they can once another series is cemented. Williams could stay and dominate Formula One next year, but Team Owner Frank is too much of a real racer. Williams thrives on the competition. Vijay Mallya’s Force India may also jump ship, especially when you consider he has a substantial alliance with McLaren and Mercedes for technical help and engines/gearboxes etc…

Lola withdrew their Formula One entry recently and may be interested in a FOTA-organised championship, assuming they didn’t step down for any serious reason other than failure to make the initial F1 list. Prodrive may be interested as well, especially if FOTA can sell Dave Richards on the costs – the former Benetton and BAR boss is known to be very careful about where his money goes.

Original article by BlogF1.

FIA Respond To FOTA Breakaway Plans

The eight teams – Ferrari, McLaren, Brawn, Toyota, Renault, BMW, Red Bull Racing and Scuderia Toro Rosso – met at Renault’s Enstone factory yesterday to discuss the issues surrounding their Friday deadline to remove the conditions they had placed on their 2010 Championship entries. Through letters sent back and forth between the two parties, it was made clear that the FIA have little intention of backing down over the teams demands. The FIA had stated that the £40m budget cap would remain for next year and rejected FOTA’s recent complaint against Steward Chairman Alan Donnelly. FOTA claimed that Donnelly was intentionally trying to cause a rift in FOTA by misrepresenting the teams during meetings at the Turkish Grand Prix.

With little sign that the governance of the sport will improve to FOTA’s liking, the four hour long meeting resulted in the association releasing a statement that has sent shockwaves through the sport and it’s fans.

Since the formation of FOTA last September the teams have worked together and sought to engage the FIA and commercial rights holder, to develop and improve the sport.

Unprecedented worldwide financial turmoil has inevitably placed great challenges before the F1 community. FOTA is proud that it has achieved the most substantial measures to reduce costs in the history of our sport.

In particular the manufacturer teams have provided assistance to the independent teams, a number of which would probably not be in the sport today without the FOTA initiatives. The FOTA teams have further agreed upon a substantial voluntary cost reduction that provides a sustainable model for the future.

Following these efforts all the teams have confirmed to the FIA and the commercial rights holder that they are willing to commit until the end of 2012.

The FIA and the commercial rights holder have campaigned to divide FOTA.

The wishes of the majority of the teams are ignored. Furthermore, tens of millions of dollars have been withheld from many teams by the commercial rights holder, going back as far as 2006. Despite this and the uncompromising environment, FOTA has genuinely sought compromise.

It has become clear however, that the teams cannot continue to compromise on the fundamental values of the sport and have declined to alter their original conditional entries to the 2010 World Championship.

These teams therefore have no alternative other than to commence the preparation for a new Championship which reflects the values of its participants and partners. This series will have transparent governance, one set of regulations, encourage more entrants and listen to the wishes of the fans, including offering lower prices for spectators worldwide, partners and other important stakeholders.

The major drivers, stars, brands, sponsors, promoters and companies historically associated with the highest level of motorsport will all feature in this new series. FOTA Statement.

The news is very damaging to Formula One, and while preparing for this weekend’s race, many drivers have voiced their concern for the sport’s future, but vowed to follow their respective teams. Many of the comments coming from the drivers centre around the fact that with so many new teams entering next year, the sport will not be as challenging or technically advance. In essence, the drivers do not want to race in a dumbed-down series.

FOTA seem confident that they can set up a breakaway series and that there will be transparent governance – something the fans have been crying out for. FOTA say they will listen to the fans and generally try to improve on what Formula One has pretty much failed at doing; cheaper tickets and one set of organised regulations. FOTA also say that the major drivers, sponsors and promoters will follow them to the new series, which if true, particularly for the promoters, will give the new championship and excellent starting position.

It is almost certain that when FIA president Max Mosley responds to FOTA’s announcement, it will be a response filled with optimism for the future of Formula One, of new teams, new faces and stability for the future. However, loosing many of the sport’s big names will have a costly impact and even with the little knowledge we have at the moment (literally, it is just the FOTA statement), I can foresee many fans following FOTA and the drivers they employ to a new series.

For Bernie Ecclestone, the future may not be quite so clear. Ecclestone controls the commercial rights to Formula One and therefore he is not directly linked to the negotiations that have happened in the past few months. However, the wealthy Briton obviously has a vested interest in the sport, and losing so many household names will not make his job any easier. It is likely that for now, Ecclestone will have to remain with Formula One, but if the breakaway championship proves successful, the lure of it may prove too much of an opportunity to miss.

Of course, this is big news for Formula One, but it also affects the future of BlogF1. I will not lie, the recent political mess the sport has found itself in has worn me down somewhat, but BlogF1 still holds a very special place in my heart. The site will always remain as will the 1600+ article archive. But what to do in 2010? Well, I’ve been up all night thinking about it – I’m literally stepping out the door to go to work – and although I cannot really make decision until more is known about the championships, a new domain will likely be set up and efforts moved over accordingly.

So, what’s next…?

Original article by BlogF1.

Formula One To Split As Talks Between FIA & FOTA Fail

In a nutshell, Max Mosley has written to the FOTA-8 urging them to enter the 2010 World Championship without conditions so that they can then participate in the future creation of rules and regulations. However, Mosley also pointed out that it was too late to change next year’s rules, and that a new Concorde Agreement would not be ready in time for the end of the week, therefore it could not be signed by all parties, especially those who do not know if they are in the 2010 championship yet.

Under the International Sporting Code (Art. 66) we cannot now change the published 2010 rules unless we have the consent of all the competitors who have entered. However once we have a list of confirmed entries, we can make changes provided we have the necessary unanimous agreement.

You therefore have the option of participating in this process as a confirmed entrant, or not. In order to participate, you should now write to us confirming that your entry is unconditional.

It is of course up to you, but the simplest way to ensure that all entrants run under the same rules would be if everyone entered under the cost-cap rules as published and then all entrants cooperated to agree modifications to those rules which would make the proposition workable for all parties. Max Mosley.

Basically, Max is saying to the teams that once they have signed up to the current 2010 regulations without conditions, they can all sit down (once the new squads have been determined) and thrash out any changes, assuming all agree to them. Any decision made to change the rules has to be unanimously agreed, just as it always has been.

However, the risk for FOTA is that once they’ve signed up the 2010 championship in an unconditioned and legal manner, they are bound by contract to race – they simply have to or face legal action, which could arguably end up costing them more than if they had competed.

We plan to arrange a meeting of all the confirmed 2010 teams immediately after 12 June in order to discuss the cost saving measures that have been proposed by the 2009 FOTA teams.

We have already canvassed the views of some of the likely new entrants regarding the proposed measures and the feedback is broadly positive so a solution should be relatively simple to achieve.

To this end, if you do intend to enter, it would be helpful if you would let us have drafts of the precise rules you wish adopted, as much of the Enclosure 3 submitted by FOTA on behalf of the 2009 teams is currently in the form of minutes and statements of intent rather than the clear rules which you [and we] seek.

We look forward to a positive response. It would be helpful to have this no later than close of business on Tuesday 9 June. Max Mosley.

This part of Mosley’s letter is quite clever. The FIA president states that he plans to have a meeting once the teams for next year have been confirmed to discuss the proposals made by FOTA in recent months. When the FIA stated that the budget cap would be in force in 2010 and set at the £40m limit, the FOTA teams were pretty annoyed as they felt that their proposals had been ignored. In fact, Ferrari stated that had the FIA looked at the combined efforts of the current teams, they would realise that FOTA’s proposals would mean more money being saved. Of course, that is the view of FOTA though – so far I have not seen any hard numbers, and unlikely will.

Max then adds some pressure to the FOTA-8 by asking for a response before the end of the business day on Tuesday. This gave FOTA 48 hours to prepare a response while they were travelling back to the UK/Italy/Switzerland from the Turkish Grand Prix. It is interesting that Mosley should wait so long before replying to FOTA, as it now means the teams are under increased pressure.

This is a game, most definitely. Friday is going to be one very interesting day…

All quotes from Autosport.

Original article by BlogF1.

Games Galore Ahead Of Friday’s Announcement

The FIA don’t usually give in to demands very easily though, and the eerie silence from the sport’s governing body since the entries were submitted has been deafening. It is known that the FIA want to introduce a budget cap from next year onwards, but most of the teams are unhappy about how this was introduced, and the fact that the proposed budget is huge step down from what the squads are currently spending each year. The FOTA-9 also want the Concorde Agreement agreed and signed by June 12th.

It has been suggested by many that the FOTA-9’s conditions that were sent in along with their entry forms is actually against the rules itself and therefore invalid. Therefore, while the current crop of teams (Williams aside) feel that they are doing the right thing by pressuring the FIA, it could still backfire.

Max Mosley has suggested that getting a Concorde Agreement put together in the next week is nigh-on impossible, and that the FIA lay out the rules for the Formula One championship, and if the teams want to create the rules, then may be they should set up their own series.

A Concorde Agreement which one receives so late can’t be signed by June 12.

We now have a conflict and we will see who succeeds in the end. I say to them: If you want to draw up your own rules, then you can organise your own championship. But we have the Formula 1 championship.

We draw up the rules for that. We have been doing that for 60 years and we will continue doing so. Max Mosley

Mosley’s words suggest that the FIA are not willing to back down over their proposed introduction of a budget cap, and that the nine entrance forms submitted by Ferrari, BMW, McLaren, Toyota, Renault, Brawn, Red Bull Racing, Scuderia Toro Rosso and Force India are in fact invalid. If these teams are not allowed to partake in the 2010 championship, then the series would be rocked.

Should the FIA disallow the FOTA-9, it would be expected for Brawn and Force India (and possibly McLaren) to bow in to the FIA’s rules and re-submit. There is a clause in the rules that allows teams to submit an entry after the deadline, and should this happen, it is likely they would be let in. However, whether or not there will be space for them is another matter entirely.

At the time of writing, 10 new teams have apparently submitted entry. Currently, it has been reported that USF1, Prodrive, Litespeed, Brabham, Campos, Superfund, N.Technology, Epsilon Euskadi, March and Lola have all applied for the 2010 championship. Add in Williams who broke ranks with FOTA and submitted under the proposed rules of 2010, means there are just 2 places left.

The FIA do not have to accept any entry, and need to consider the finances and organisation of each entry to assess their ability to race in Formula One for many years. Some of the new entries are likely to be disappointed and not allowed in, which would free up some places, but given that the FIA are in strong disagreement with FOTA, it seems unlikely that any critic of the FIA will be allowed in, despite how potentially damaging to the sport that may be.

Of course, come June 12th we could all be reading how the FOTA-9 are in, along with Williams and few new squads to bolster the numbers. At the current time, we simply do not know. Either way, I think next Friday is going to be very, very interesting.

Original article by BlogF1.

Max Mosley Suggests That The FIA Are Not About To Bow To Demands

Ferrari is also a car company that produce luxury sports cars. Of note, they are quite the exception to the general automobile industry at the moment as it was recently reported that profits at Maranello are only very slightly down on the same period twelve months ago. Where the entire industry is panicking and closing down factories, Ferrari are actually still making a fair amount of money.

But this aside, Ferrari are also an older company and have competed in every year that Formula One has existed. From the first season in 1950 right through to the most recent race, Ferrari have been there, mostly in their famous Rosso Corso colour. There were one or two races when the team changed to blue, but that is because of another dispute many years ago.

So one could argue that because of their ability to generate money, their history and most importantly because of their own desire, Ferrari should remain in Formula One. The two are very closely associated, and although Ferrari has in the past and could in the future participate in a different form of motor sport, Formula One will still likely be considered the pinnacle, and therefore attractive to the top brands.

There is another reason why Ferrari may want to remain in the sport as well. You see, while Stefano Domenicali* was at Heathrow earlier today discussing the budget cap matter with FIA president Max Mosley, Ferrari lawyers were applying for an injunction in the French courts to stop the FIA from pushing through its new rule. The reason for it happening in the French courts is because the FIA are based in Paris. The reason for Ferrari starting this process is even more interesting.

It was stated recently by Bernie Ecclestone that Ferrari do get special treatment in the sport. It turns out that should Ferrari win the constructors title, they get an extra £80m on top of what other teams would get should they win the title. This preferential treatment didn’t cause the stir among the other teams that would normally have been expected, indicating that it is common knowledge inside Formula One.

And now it has become apparent that Ferrari also have the right to veto any future technical regulations. In other words, they have to okay them before they happen. As Ferrari are seeking an injunction, one can presume Ferrari believe this process was not followed by the FIA when they announced the introduction of the budget cap plan. Joe Saward of Grandprix.com has mentioned this agreement regarding the vetoing of rules on his personal Formula One blog, and as it is new to me, I thought I would share a little with you.

The legal argument is apparently based on an agreement that was made in January 2005 between Ferrari, the FIA and Formula One Management.

[...]

The details of this agreement have never been made public but it seems that it included not only a substantial payment each year to Ferrari, but also a veto on the technical regulations in the future. According to our sources, the document even stated that if the new agreement was not validated by all the other teams, the old Concorde Agreement would prevail. Joe Saward.

Joe goes on to say that during the course of the meeting, Max Mosley was willing to raise the budget cap and introduce a “a glide path”, which presumably means a sliding scale whereby the cap would decrease by a set amount each year. However, the meeting apparently didn’t get much further than this as Ferrari and Toyota brought up the legality of the introduction of the rule and refused to back down on this point. They wanted the 2010 regulations cancelled in their entirety.

We can therefore presume that Ferrari believe they have a strong case; an organisation like Ferrari wouldn’t just go to the courts on a whim. However, the fact that Ferrari have this power in the first place is interesting enough. Despite all the possible points one could discuss right now (feel free to in the comments), this does show that Ferrari do want to stay in Formula One. A team wouldn’t bother wasting money on seeking an injunction and enduring the possible embarrassment if it wasn’t granted if they wanted to leave.

Max Mosely believes the same as well, stating as much to Autosport after the meeting. However, Max also believes that Ferrari won’t go through with their threat of leaving the sport and expects them to lodge an entry, either before the deadline or after. From what I can work out from all the quotes and new insights into Ferrari’s position in the sport, it would seem quite the opposite. Yes, Ferrari do want to stay. But if it cannot be done on their terms, then they will leave.

Needless to say, Formula One just got a whole lot more intriguing. Politically, anyway.

*As a footnote to this post, it should be noted that Ferrari Team Principal Stefano Domenicali was representing the team today instead of FOTA and Ferrari President Luca di Montezemolo. Although Luca was meant to be present, his father passed away yesterday. I would like to extend my condolences to the Cordero di Montezemolo family at this sad time.

Original article by BlogF1.

Ferrari Clearly Want To Stay, But Also Want It On Their Terms

Essentially there are two things that are annoying the teams; the two-tier formula and the way in which the rule has been introduced. The ‘two-tier’ argument comes from the fact that should the voluntary budget cap idea come to fruition, there will be two sets of regulations. Those teams who choose not to restrict their spending will have to adhere to stringent development limits, will have their engines limited as they currently are and essentially, little will change for them from this season.

However, those that do limit their spending will be allowed greater freedom to develop their cars, they will have their engine rev-limits removed and the fear is that this will split the performance of the two tiers on the track. Although by imposing a limit, more companies may be inclined to enter the sport, potentially creating more competition and a better spectacle for the fans. According to the FIA, there will be more invention and innovation from those limited teams as they will only have a set amount of money to develop their cars.

Currently Ferrari, Renault, Toyota, Red Bull Racing and Scuderia Toro Rosso have said that they will not enter the 2010 championship unless the rules are changed. Obviously, the announcement from Ferrari has created the biggest news and split Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley. Ecclestone believes that Formula One needs Ferrari, and he himself would obviously want to have Ferrari on board as they generate a lot of money for the sport, and therefore his company. Undoubtedly, Ferrari help indirectly with the repayment of the loans taken out by CVC to acquire the commercial rights to the sport.

Conversely, Max Mosley believes Formula One will continue without Ferrari and has been suggesting that there are plenty of other teams looking to enter the sport should the costs of competing competitively be dramatically reduced. The budget cap is an instantaneous way of slashing costs and will make the sport more alluring to new ventures. Interestingly, it is usually Ecclestone who doesn’t give two-hoots about the sport’s history while the FIA who try to maintain some of its roots. Ferrari is undoubtedly a large part of Formula One, but Mosley doesn’t seem overly concerned by their intention to withdraw.

Regarding the way the rule was introduced, Ferrari have taken particular exception to this and are seeking an injunction in the French courts to prevent the FIA from going ahead with its planned budget cap rule. Ferrari have the power to veto new rules, but this process was presumably not followed when the FIA announced the budget cap. Although the governing body cannot enforce a budget cap, they can make it difficult for teams to not sign it by placing heavy demands on those who remain unrestricted in budgets.

This is what Max Mosley had to say following the meeting earlier today.

It was quite a friendly meeting, but in the end all that happened was that the teams have gone off to see if they can come up with something better than the cost cap.

We explained we cannot put back the entry date, as this has all been published, and we cannot disadvantage the potential new teams who will come in. But we are prepared to listen to whatever they have to say. Max Mosley.

This is understandable. The deadline date of May 29th, 2009 has been known for a long time, and although USGPE have been preparing themselves for a while now, other teams that will have their entry considered further will want to know as soon as possible if they are in or not so they can prepare themselves.

In the meantime, the regulations are as published. We have explained that we want everyone to race under the same regulations. We have explained that we would like all of the teams to come in under the cost cap and that is what they have gone off to consider.

We have said that we cannot see why anyone wouldn’t want to operate under the cost cap, and it would mean a gradual relaxation of the technical regulations – which all the engineers would want. We said in the end the choice was between intellectual freedom and financial constraint, or intellectual constraint and financial freedom – which is what they have had up until now. Max Mosley.

It’s good that the FIA can see that the sport should operate under one set of rules – I have mentioned this previously as it would itself save money (having to police one set of rules as opposed to two) and will make the sport far easier to understand. However, one of the things that has really annoyed the teams, who together form the Formula One Teams Association, is that as FOTA they suggested numerous ways of gradually reducing the costs in the sport.

While it may be easy to say “cut costs now” in practice it will take longer because some teams, Toyota being a classic example, currently spend hundreds of millions a year on their Formula One operation. Contracts have been signed, people employed and to release themselves from these obligations may not be possible straight away. FOTA say that their suggestions, which would have apparently resulted in costs being cut further than what the FIA are doing, have been largely ignored.

We have pointed out, and it is something the engineers have said, that current F1 consists of endless refinement at enormous expense and we want to move away from that and have invention and creativity, but we can only do that if we restrict the cost – because if we have unrestricted cost nobody would be able to afford it.

I think some of the teams agree with that idea, and some don’t, and they have gone away to discuss it. Max Mosley.

In principal, the FIA is correct. Cut costs, allow more entries, the sport survives, the sport thrives, everybody is happy. However, in typical FIA fashion, they have introduced it in completely the wrong way. It would appear that they have completely ignored the teams, they have not considered what could happen as a result of their actions and now the sport is paying for it by being on the front pages of the sports newspapers all over the world for completely the wrong reasons.

The fans are utterly flabbergasted that Ferrari et al may withdraw, and generally speaking, this is all completely unnecessary. Had both parties communicated and cooperated more effectively, this whole scenario could have been avoided. And from a fans point of view (and doing my best to put my own reservations about the FIA to one side), the blame looks to be more on the FIA’s shoulders than the teams. In principal, it makes sense, in practice it is harder to achieve. And when something is hard to achieve, you break it up into smaller chuncks and go about solving the issue that way. It really isn’t rocket science.

The issues currently remain up in the air. The FIA has stood its ground and the teams have been forced to discuss further among themselves as to their next move.

Original article by BlogF1.

FIA, FOTA & FOM Fail To Reach Compromise Over 2010 Rules

The budget cap plan is causing considerable unrest in Formula One at the moment and it is envisaged that all manufacturers will add their voice to the debate and threaten to quit if the rules are not amended. Teams whose companies centre around Formula One motor racing are likely to enter, those being Williams, Force India and Brawn, with possibly McLaren as well. However, the argument isn’t strictly centering around the manufacturers as Dietrich Mateschitz has stated that he will not enter his two teams either if the cap remains in its current form.

In a statement, Renault said that they are not happy with the way the capping rule has been introduced and Flavio Briatore is particularly upset as FOTA’s own proposals were largely ignored. This echoes the other four teams who have stated that they are also unhappy with the way the rule was brought in with little-to-no consultation, and Ferrari are even investigating its legality due to the fact that they have a strong involvement in the introduction of new rules.

There is frustration that FOTA’s constructive proposals, including major cost saving measures to be adopted progressively between 2009 and 2012, which were carefully constructed by FOTA members, have been completely ignored without any form of consultation by the FIA with the teams.

It should be stressed that FOTA has set the same, if not lower, financial objective as the FIA, but Renault strongly believes that this must be introduced through a different procedure agreed by all parties. Renault Statement.

Renault went on to say that the governance of the sport needs to incorporate all parties involved, including FOM and FOTA as well.

The decision of the Federation International de l’Automobile (FIA) to introduce two sets of Formula One technical regulations for the 2010 Formula One season has caused the Renault Group to reconsider its entry in next year’s FIA Formula One World Championship.

Renault also believes that it is paramount that the governance of the sport is coordinated with a spirit of consultation with all parties (FIA, FOM, FOTA) in order to achieve a better balance between the costs and the revenues. Renault is also of the firm view that all entrants in the World Championship must adhere to and operate under the same regulations. Renault Statement.

It is also my view that all the teams should operate under one set of regulations. Not only does it make policing the sport much easier, but the potential to have one set of teams performing considerably better on the track than another set would be negated under a single set of rules. As stated previously, I cannot believe for a second that the FIA will get the potential performance difference right from the word go – they couldn’t even organise qualifying properly with changes being made mid-season in previous years.

While Renault remained calmly professional but firm in their statement, team boss Flavio Briatore showed his typical emotive side, indicating that while the Italian may not always be right, Formula One is clearly still held very close to his heart.

Our aim is to reduce costs while maintaining the high standards that make Formula One one of the most prestigious brands on the market. We want to achieve this in a coordinated manner with the regulatory and commercial bodies, and we refuse to accept unilateral governance handed out by the FIA.

If the decisions announced by the World Council on the 29th of April 2009 are not revised, we have no choice but to withdraw from the FIA Formula One World Championship at the end of 2009. Flavio Briatore.

It is this “unilateral governance” that has caused much of the problem, and had the FIA spent more time discussing the options with FOTA rather than seemingly ignoring their efforts, then this issue would have likely been avoided.

As the 29th May deadline for entries to the 2010 World Championship approaches, it is still unknown if a compromise can be hammered out. FOTA chairman and Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo is expected to meet with Max Mosley prior to the Monaco Grand Prix, where solution will surely be found. Until then though, Formula One will once again endure bad press after bad press as the sport makes the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

Further Reading

• Ferrari Joins Toyota & Red Bull In 2010 Boycott
• Dietrich Mateschitz Becomes Latest To Voice Non-Entry To Two-Tier F1
• Budget Cap Causes Consternation Among The Teams
• FIA Adjust 2010 Decisions: Budget Caps
• The Future Of Formula One – Capping The Budgets

Original article by BlogF1.

Renault Become Fifth Team To Reconsider 2010 Entry

It’s very easy to focus on the negative points when discussing someone’s success in a position of authority that is also played out in the international media. Mosley is the front man of the FIA and isn’t solely concerned with Formula One. Many other motor sports fall under his and the FIA’s command as do various safety initiatives designed to improve technology and awareness in relation to safety in the automotive world, be it in the manufacturers factories or for the humble driver behind the wheel.

However, despite the organisations good work, it is Formula One that captures the imaginations of most. It is the sport that makes the most headlines for the FIA and because of this, it is also where Mosley is mostly judged from. And currently, it isn’t looking like Max will be remembered too fondly.

The introduction of a £40m budget cap for the 2010 season onwards is in essence, a good idea. Expenditure needs to be controlled in a sport that is lavishly costly at the moment. In order to thrive, the sport needs to be open to new teams, but it must not become a common-as-muck sport; many say that Formula One’s exclusivity is exactly what draws people to it in the first place.

The balancing act is quite hard, and while the FIA feel that currently a $40m budget for a season’s racing is acceptable, the current array of manufacturer teams plus Dietrich Mateschitz’s family of two feel it is not.

In Spain this past weekend, Toyota’s John Howett stated that if the cap is not discussed and amended, the Cologne-based squad would not lodge an entry into next year’s championship. Yesterday, Red Bull Racing and Scuderia Toro Rosso followed suit and stated that unless the rules change, they’re out as well. And now Ferrari have gone on record with a similar concern.

If the last thing you do in any given role or position is what you will be remembered by, then Max Mosley could be on the verge of being remembered as the man who destroyed a sport that up until recently, not perfectly, but was adequately ticking over. I am certain that this fiasco over the budget cap will be resolved by the end of the month and those who had every intention of entering prior to the initial budget cap proposal will indeed lodge an entry.*

It’s interesting though to think about how Max will be remembered. He has been a driving force in Formula One for so many years. Whether you agree with what he has done in this time is almost irrelevant as the fact remains that he has been a driving force, either for the good or the bad. And as someone who spends so much of his time in the (motorsport) public eye, Max will be remembered for a very long time to come.

It almost makes me wonder if, come late-summer, Mosley announces his intention to run again. I’ve said it before, but I will say it again: I can’t possibly leave the FIA while Formula One is such a state of flux with many changes happening. Thus, the only honourable thing I can do is to remain for another term to see these changes through.

We all know what that translates to, but now I’ve thought about it a little more and depending on what happens with the 2010 entry saga, I believe Mosley may also want to continue to ensure he leaves on a happier, more respectable note.

*I’ve worded that phrase carefully as I’ve had suspicions about Toyota and Renault since Honda withdrew last year.

Original article by BlogF1.

Will Max Mosley’s Legacy Be The Death Of Formula One?

Ferrari are the sport’s oldest and most successful team, having entered cars in the inaugural 1950 season when the World Drivers Championship was first run. Eight years later, when the World Constructors Championship was introduced, the formation of the team was complete and the company began to grow into not just a racing team, but also a sports car manufacturer, developing and building luxury cars for use on the public roads.

The company is one of the most recognised brands in the auto industry and their products are sought after by almost anyone who has even a passing interest in cars. Posters of Ferraris adorn the walls of many young children the world over and they always gain attention when driven around in public. Gestione Sportiva, the Formula One side of the company, is one of the most popular teams in the sport, and their drivers are adored by fans not just in Italy by the Tifosi, but in just about every country on the planet.

The same rules for all teams, stability of regulations, the continuity of the FOTA’s endeavours to methodically and progressively reduce costs, and governance of Formula 1 are the priorities for the future.

If these indispensable principles are not respected and if the regulations adopted for 2010 will not change, then Ferrari does not intend to enter its cars in the next Formula 1 World Championship. Ferrari Statement.

However, the debate continues as to whether or not Formula One can continue without its most prestigious team. Some say, and I agree with, that Formula One can survive and flourish without Ferrari. There have been other big name and high profile disappearances of teams in the past, Lotus, Brabham and Tyrrell being just three. The point isn’t necessarily about the future of Formula One in relation to its competitors. The point should be about the future of Formula One in relation to its rules and management.

From a commercial perspective, Bernie Ecclestone would like for Ferrari to remain as they make him a lot of money, bringing in fans and helping to put bums-on-seats at the races. But Max Mosley isn’t one to buckle under this pressure and feels that the sport can and will continue should the red cars not enter.

I guess only time will tell; the deadline for entry for the 2010 championship falls at the end of May, and currently only those teams whose businesses rely on Formula One will be entering (ie. Williams). Talks are due to be held between FOTA and the FIA, and in all honesty this issue will very likely be resolved. For the mean time though, it doesn’t look particularly pretty, nor does it look calm and peaceful. The 2009 championship may be exhilarating on the track, but in the boardrooms it is an entirely different story.

Original article by BlogF1.

Ferrari Joins Toyota & Red Bull In 2010 Boycott

Wheatcroft & Sons, the family owned company that owns Donington Park, lease the track to Donington Ventures Leisure Limited, who run motor sporting events as well as music festivals on the land. However, DVLL owe £2.47m in rent to WSL, and this is why legal proceedings have commenced. If DVLL have their contract revoked, then the British Grand Prix is in serious trouble.

Bernie Ecclestone has insisted that Silverstone will not hold the British Grand Prix again, despite the circuit investing a lot of money in redevelopments of the old airfield. Such is Ecclestone’s disgruntlement towards Silverstone’s owners, the BRDC, that Ecclestone would rather drop the race from the calendar or postpone it until Donington can get its act together.

If the work at Donington is not finished in time, we would be happy to skip a year. I don’t want to lose the British Grand Prix, that’s the last thing we want to do, but we aren’t going to Silverstone for sure. Bernie Ecclestone, speaking to The Times.

One has to question why Ecclestone has allowed this to happen, and the bad press this saga is generating for Formula One in the UK. While Bernie may not get along with the BRDC, surely the billionaire businessman can see how this is reflecting on the sport in the UK, a nation that contributes an awful lot to the global motor sporting industry.

Original article by BlogF1.

British Grand Prix Could Be Postponed Until 2011

If the proposed rules for 2010 remain unchanged, we will not enter next year’s championship.

The conditions for 2010 at the moment make it impossible to sign in. But I hope there will be a meeting and a settlement before the entry deadline. Dietrich Mateschitz.

As discussed in the previous post regarding Toyota, the teams are not happy with the current budget cap proposals, intending to limit teams who volunteer to the scheme to £40m per season. Although the cap does not include drivers and principals salaries and engine costs, it is still very limiting despite the technical development freedom. By remaining outside of the scheme, teams may be punished on the track by having to adhere to the very strict confines of the current regulations which sees among other things, rev-limited engines that cannot be developed.

It is clear that you would need to compete at the £40 million budget cap because the car would be quicker. And if you see that the engine revs are unlimited, then engines excluded from the cap, the KERS is excluded, you are probably talking about a budget of £150 million or more. It is a very confused situation that we need to clarify more. John Howett – FOTA Vice Chairman & Toyota Motorsport President.

Also concerning the manufacturers and Mateschitz’s two teams, Red Bull Racing and Scuderia Toro Rosso, are the way the FIA have introduced this rule and intend to introduce others in the future. Currently, if the teams agree unanimously, a rule change can be dropped, adjusted or implemented. However, Autosport are suggesting that the FIA would like to make it harder for the participating teams to do this, thus taking away an element of control from them.

FOTA, the teams (supposedly) united body have stated in the past that they would like greater involvement in the creation of the technical regulations, and on the face of it, FOTA could be construed as an organisation that could compete with the FIA for even further control of the sport. Although currently the organisations have been working together to solve many issues surrounding the sport at the moment.

While at times relations between the two bodies have appeared constructive and cooperative, this latest controversy has the potential to escalate very easily. However, FOTA Chairman Luca di Montezemolo is expected to meet with Max Mosley prior to the Monaco Grand Prix in a fortnight to discuss the concerns of the teams.

Original article by BlogF1.

Dietrich Mateschitz Becomes Latest To Voice Non-Entry To Two-Tier F1

The budget cap would essentially split Formula One into two tiers; those who are capped and those who are not. In an attempt to make it fair, the FIA stated that those not choosing to cap their spending would have to follow the proposed rules which are a continuation of the current set and include rev-limited engines and a strong grip on the development of other parts. Those who choose to cap their budgets would be given greater technical freedom and development opportunities.

FOTA have said that they urgently need to open discussions with the FIA, implying that they are not happy with the way this system will split the sport. A few team bosses have voiced their disgruntlement towards this in the build-up to the Spanish Grand Prix in Barcelona, and the urgency comes about because the deadline for entry into the 2010 Formula One World Championship closes on May 29th. Some teams, it would appear, are not ready to commit to next year’s campaign because of this budget cap issue.

Toyota became the first to implicitly say this, with the team’s president, John Howett, speaking to Autosport about his squad’s future involvement in the sport. And while Toyota may have been the first, it is suggested that Ferrari are not too far behind and are said to be evaluating the possibilities of a future away from Formula One.

Under the rules as they are published, we cannot submit an entry. There are concerns about the governance process within the sport, that there are clearly prescribed areas of discussion within the sporting and technical rules and we don’t feel they are being complied with.

From Toyota’s perspective there are a number of concerns that really need clarifications before we commit to the future. We want to be here. We believe we have been a good corporate citizen within the F1 environment, but now we must reflect long and hard on what we do in the future.

I would say it is very likely we won’t enter unless something changes significantly.

Our real heart is to remain in F1, but now we have to start considering what are the best alternatives and discussing with the other manufacturer teams what their opinion is and what their intentions are. John Howett.

The manufacturers would like to see costs reduced, as would the private entries as well. However, by creating a split in the way the teams are run, budgeted and ruled could lead to further problems on the track with performance. With greater freedom to develop new parts, a capped team could discover something which could put them far ahead of any other team. The other capped teams would then copy and implement (much like the recent diffuser issue), resulting in a gap forming between the two levels. Already in 2009 we have seen the difference between Brawn and the others, and everybody is currently reading from the same rulebook.

We are also assuming, regarding the potential performance split after capped teams development, that the FIA will get it right to begin with. If the FIA do not start the scheme off with the teams running vaguely equal, then development will only add to this. And to be perfectly honest, when have the FIA ever got anything right from the word go?

There is also a matter of policing, and although the FIA is setting up the Costs Commission to oversee this, David Coulthard commented on the BBC’s qualifying coverage earlier today that he can foresee capped teams being quite imaginative with the way they deal with some of their finances should this scheme go ahead.

In reality, the way to deal with this problem is far simpler than the FIA is making it. If capping budgets is necessary to ensure the survival of Formula One (and I’m not overly convinced it is, but I can see the merits in it), then simply enforce a standard cap on every single competitor. If you want to compete in Formula One, you will have your finances picked apart by the Costs Commission, and the total must not exceed x-amount, which is the same for everybody. If on the other hand you do not want to have your budget capped, either don’t join the sport, or if you’re already a competitor, then leave. But the rule has to be the same for everybody. Every. Single. Team.

Original article by BlogF1.

Budget Cap Causes Consternation Among The Teams

I cannot begin to tell you how happy this makes me, and I am sitting here at my desk hoping that there is no hair-brained scheme to adjust qualifying to bring silly little influences into it that ultimately lead to a race not of the fastest car and driver, but of the best strategy. Qualifying is about finding out who is fastest, not which team has the most intelligent tactician.

So… when the drivers make a pitstop in 2010, the only thing they will be collecting is a new set of tyres and maybe a wipe of the visor and a quick clear-out of the sidepods. Also, as I’m talking about tyres, the blankets used to pre-heat them will be banned. This usually leads to considerable debate as the tyre warmers, I feel, are fairly important to the operation of a Formula One car.

For their cost, which is surely not that great amount of money, they warm the tyres prior to the driver leaving the pitlane or startline, enabling more immediate grip and preventing the need to work hard at warming them up.

The side of the argument that is for the banning of these devices say that a driver should be able to warm their tyres quickly and that is a fundamental part of his/her skill and why they are a Formula One driver.

The flipside is that the tyre warmers add an extra layer of safety. For a driver to leave the pitlane on a cold set of slicks and join the circuit where other competitors are touring on warmed slicks, the difference in speed can be quite large and may lead to accidents. The collision between Sebastian Vettel and Robert Kubica towards the end of this year’s Australian Grand Prix was at one point, suggested to have been because one car’s tyres were colder than the other car’s set. Of course, driver ambition versus skill played a large part, but maybe the beginning of the coming together was prompted by the difference in tyre temperature.

Ultimately, my own perspective is that given their cost (the reason given for their banning) it really cannot be that much. The cost/benefit analysis surely works in the tyre warmers favour. I will however, leave it up to you to debate in the comments.

Also being changed from 2010 is the minimum weight of the cars. This season has seen the optional integration of KERS, but taller and therefore heavier drivers have been placed at a disadvantage. Robert Kubica, one of Formula One’s tallest competitors, has only ran KERS once on his BMW during a race so far, yet his team mate, one of the sport’s shortest drivers, has been utilising the system since the start. This has lead to many drivers shedding weight, which I previously mentioned was perhaps not the best image to be broadcasting.

The new minimum weight for car and driver will be 620kg, an increase of 15kg over the current limit.

So, will the new minimum weight really help drivers like Kubica, or is simply not enough considering some suggestions that KERS weighs almost 60kg? Also, what happens if FOTA get their way and KERS is banned from 2010 onwards? Will the minimum weight get reduced back down to 605kg? What do you think of the ban on refuelling, and yes, what side of the fence do you fall on with regards to tyre warmers…?

Original article by BlogF1.

FIA Adjust 2010 Decisions: Technical Regulations

It has been announced that Bernie Ecclestone will provide $10m of assistance to each new entrant in their first year of competition. This is a fairly substantial amount of money and should a new team take up the recently revised budget cap, it will enable the new team to enter the sport and if it all works, be able to compete with the long-standing establishments that have been around for many decades.

Furthermore, Bernie Ecclestone will allow the transportation of 2 chassis and another 10,000kg of freight to each race under his current scheme, usually only available to teams who have competed for more than three seasons. And as an almost silly aside given the grand scheme of things, Ecclestone will also provide 20 economy class air tickets to each non-European race per new team.

The FIA announced that applications for the 2010 season will be opened for a week, starting on May 22nd, whereupon it is expected that the current 10 squads will submit as well as the new USGPE (formerly USF1) and possibly Lola and Prodrive among others.

It is expected for the FIA to publish the list of entrants on June 12th this year, and new teams will be selected to a maximum of 13 (26 cars) and will be judged on their ability to secure finances for the longterm as well as also having access to facilities and to be able to compete as a constructor, much like the current crop of squads.

Original article by BlogF1.

FIA Adjust 2010 Decisions: Financial Help For New Teams

Previously, the proposed £30m would encompass every expenditure a Formula One team makes with the only exceptions of the motor home and any penalties and fines the team receives during the course of the year. However, the cap has now been increased by £10m and importantly, engine costs are now not included. Also removed form the budget are the drivers salaries, marketing and hospitality and anything else the teams can prove has no affect on its on-track performance.

This makes far more sense from a team owner perspective because additional items like PR are completely separate from the sporting side. If Red Bull want to spend millions of pounds on a lavish parties for their guests, then why can they not – after all, it is their money and has no influence on how fast the Red Bull car actually goes. If Dietrich Mateschitz would rather a decent bottle of champagne rather than Tesco Value, then in all honesty, whatever. It’s his money.

As before, the capped teams will be allowed more technical freedom to develop their cars and engines. The engine will not be rev-limited and adjustable front and rear wings will be allowed. The wind tunnel usage will not be monitored and the teams may test as much as they want during and between the racing seasons.

The budget capped teams will be monitored by a new organisation set up called the Costs Commission, and the WMSC has stipulated that a chairman and two commissioners will oversee the teams and ensure they are remaining within their budget. The FIA has stated that one commissioner has to be experienced in finances while the other has to have high-level experience of motor sport.

With several companies expressing a wish to enter Formula One providing the budget cap is reasonable, the FIA has also raised the maximum entry number of teams from 24 to 26 (13 teams). And from a non-experienced look from the outside in, the cap looks to much better and more thought out than previously. It will be interesting to see who of those interested parties will now come forward to say that they will step up to Formula One and have a go. It will also be interesting which of the current teams take on the budget cap and if it will have any impact on the racing.

One concern I have is that the actual racing will be damaged. If we presume that Ferrari do not accept the budget and remain within the current regulations but with a fund limited by only what they can raise, will they still be able to compete with the capped teams who will be able to develop cars and engines that are potentially superior. All it would take is for one of the capped teams to stumble across something that will add several tenths to their lap time at a fairly low cost and we could have one team winning everything.

I wonder how much the fabled Toyota/Williams/Brawn diffuser cost to develop and build? I’m not suggesting that is the only thing on these cars that is making them fast, far from it, but you get my point, I hope.

Original article by BlogF1.

FIA Adjust 2010 Decisions: Budget Caps

This means that the disqualification from the Australian Grand Prix stands, and no further punishment will be handed out to the team or drivers providing no further evidence or misdemeanour comes to light. The suspension will last for twelve months, during which time McLaren really do not want to breach article 151c of the regulations (bringing the sport into disrepute). Had the WMSC decided not suspend the sentence, McLaren would have been banned from competing in the Spanish, Monaco and Turkish grands prix.

Having regard to the open and honest way in which McLaren Team Principal, Mr Martin Whitmarsh, addressed the WMSC and the change in culture which he made clear has taken place in his organisation, the WMSC decided to suspend the application of the penalty it deems appropriate.

That penalty is a suspension of the team from three races of the FIA Formula One World Championship. This will only be applied if further facts emerge regarding the case or if, in the next 12 months, there is a further breach by the team of article 151c of the International Sporting Code. FIA Statement.

Martin Whitmarsh, who took over the team principal role from Ron Dennis prior to the start of the 2009 World Championship commencing, appeared in Paris alone and the meeting with the WMSC only lasted for about an hour. Last week Whitmarsh also sent a letter of apology to the FIA for the conduct of his team during the stewards meetings and following investigations, and the FIA clearly took this into consideration when finalising their verdict.

I would like to thank the FIA World Motor Sport Council members for affording me the opportunity to answer their questions this morning. We are aware that we made serious mistakes in Australia and Malaysia, and I was therefore very glad to be able to apologise for those mistakes once again.

I was also pleased to be able to assure the FIA World Motor Sport Council members that we had taken appropriate action with a view to ensuring that such mistakes do not occur again. Martin Whitmarsh.

Whitmarsh went on to say that he hopes this will be the end of the matter. Although once again, McLaren have been involved in an incident that has garnered media attention the world over and painted a poor impression of Formula One as a whole. With great racing on the track though and a championship that looks set to be a supreme and honest fight all season, hopefully the behaviour of David Ryan and Lewis Hamilton in Australia can be put to the back of minds while the twenty participating drivers duke out on the tarmac.

Original article by BlogF1.

McLaren Receive Suspended Three Race Ban From WMSC

Currently, the circuit is owned by the Wheatcroft family and Donington Ventures Leisure Limited lease the track for motor sporting activities as well as music festivals and other outdoor events. The Wheatcroft’s, who own and operate the company Wheatcroft & Sons Ltd, have commenced legal proceedings against Donington Ventures Leisure Ltd because of arrears in rent, reportedly amounting to £2.47m. If DVLL cannot afford the rent, WSL may evict the resident company whom the contract for the 2010 British Grand Prix is with.

Donington Ventures Leisure Ltd owe us nearly £2.5m in rent dating back to September 2008. Despite receiving numerous reassurances over a number of months they have consistently failed to meet their financial obligations under the terms of the lease.

We have held off taking legal action for as long as possible but have been left with no choice but to commence proceedings to recover the outstanding rent and forfeit the lease. Kevin Wheatcroft.

At the 2008 British Grand Prix, held at Northamptonshire’s Silverstone circuit, Bernie Ecclestone allowed the FIA to announce the change in venue from 2010 onwards, the Donington Park track having been awarded a ten year deal to host motor racing event. At the time, Ecclestone made it clear that Formula One would not return to Silverstone, owned by the BRDC, an organisation Bernie doesn’t get on too well with. If Donington failed to complete their redevelopment works on time, there would be no British Grand Prix. Ecclestone reiterated this while visiting the Bahrain Grand Prix.

If Donington can’t put on the British Grand Prix then that’s it. We will be leaving Britain. There is no question of us going back to Silverstone. They have had enough chances and have not delivered what they promised. Bernie Ecclestone.

It is at this point that the British Government were asked to step in and help, the campaign being voiced by Formula One commercial rights owner Bernie Ecclestone. Having completed deals all over the world for the sport, Bernie has seen what can be done with government funding, the race in Bahrain this weekend being a great example of top-notch facilities all funded by the country itself. Abu Dhabi, which looks to be an absolutely stunning arena for motor sport and business, is also funded by the government, and Ecclestone believes the United Kingdom should follow suit.

It’s a disgrace that the British government don’t step in to help. They are throwing billions at the London Olympics. They could do what is needed to save the race by putting in a fraction of it – 0.002 per cent. Bernie Ecclestone.

Damon Hill, the 1996 Formula One World Champion and now president of Silverstone’s owning organisation the BRDC, has tried to keep the door open to Ecclestone and Formula One, and has apparently maintained communication with the Macronym title=”Formula One Management”>FOM director. Hill would obviously want the race to return to Silverstone, and speaking live on the BBC during today’s qualifying session, Eddie Jordan believes Ecclestone’s firm stance on the issue of not returning is actually his way of saying it will happen.

Confused yet? Well, Jordan believes that Bernie’s negotiation tactic is hard and almost reverse of he publicly says. But on the face of it at the moment, the fate of the British Grand Prix doesn’t look healthy. The House of Lords debated the issue yesterday and Labour deputy chief whip Lord Davies stated that their would be no direct financial hand-outs. Lord Davies emphasised that the government would do what it could, but there would not be any financial aid.

We do not want a state-sponsored motor industry, but the government can give necessary assistance and support in judicious ways, particularly by emphasising how important the industry is to the development of our society and economy.

The government will continue to give the support that we have done in the past. We see our role as facilitating and encouraging the Motor Sports Association and the owners of Donington to be proactive about attracting money from various funding arrangements to guarantee the finances they need.

However, should anything go wrong on that front, it is important that Silverstone is available to resume its position, because the essential thing is that we must not lose a British Grand Prix. Lord Davies.

Lord Davies may want to run that last sentence by Ecclestone before believing his own words.

It would be a tremendous shame for Britain to lose the British Grand Prix, and drivers up and down the Bahrain pitlane today have expressed a desire for the event to remain. Even non-British drivers like Rubens Barrichello who essentially cut his teeth in lower formulae around many of the UK’s racing tracks spoke of a desire for the race to remain.

It is also a great shame that the country is willing to pour so much many into hosting the Olympic Games, but is unwilling to spend (by comparison) a little amount on ensuring the UK remains on the Formula One calendar.

Perhaps using tax payers money on sporting events is incorrect, to which you would have to include the Olympic Games, but surely in a crisis, the government should be there to prop up the affected industry/business/event and offer a helping hand.

Of course, life and politics doesn’t work like that and the UK will applaud the efforts of the government at funding the organisations that will bring the Olympic Games to London in 2012, over budget and probably behind schedule. The British Grand Prix, by then, could be but a distant memory. Just as long as Team Great Britain can host the Games then all is okay with this county’s involvement in international sporting events.

Original article by BlogF1.

2010 British Grand Prix Facing Fresh Threats

The one-sided war of words between Flavio Briatore and the Brawn team has been comical to say the least. While it is good to voice concerns and raise issues, Briatore’s approach to the situation that sees his tightly budgeted team now having to spend more money on developing a ‘double-diffuser’ was strikingly poor. Instead of simply announcing a meeting between the members of FOTA to discuss his concerns with those involved – which Briatore, in an attempt to gain support, believes is all teams – the Italian team boss has instead allowed a slew of laughable comments to be released in Italy’s popular sport’s newspaper, Gazzetta dello Sport.

The drivers in our teams have been and are world champions, while the championship is now fought between a driver who was almost retired and another one who is a good guy but a paracarro [Italian concrete mile-marker]. Flavio Briatore.

To suggest fellow competitors as almost retired and as a concrete post is perhaps not the wisest of moves, especially as Jenson Button politely pointed out in response, Briatore attempted to hire him while the Honda-situation was still up in the air over the past winter.

He also needs to remember that he tried to employ me for this year, so…

He is obviously a very angry man after the diffuser issues and he is obviously very disappointed that they haven’t produced a car that is as competitive as ours. We have produced a very competitive car because of the work force we have back at Brackley and you cannot take it away from them – it is very unfair to say that. Jenson Button.

When asked about the general response from the Brawn team to Flavio’s comments, Button simply added: “Laughing, basically.”

The media have generally lambasted Briatore, saying that the former Benetton-franchisee is showing all the signs of a bad loser. It isn’t just the British press either that are siding with Ross Brawn on this matter, and it is somewhat confusing as to why the former Honda team has been singled out over Williams and Toyota, who had also developed the controversial ‘double-diffuser’.

However, despite the general failure to get the press on his side, Briatore remains resolute to his cause, and has now suggested that Brawn’s entitlement to benefits should be ceased, and money owed to the team from TV rights be shared equally among the others.

Mr. Briatore seems to be forgetting that FOTA, the association made up all the competing Formula One teams, supported the takeover of Honda by Ross Brawn et al. McLaren and Mercedes helped the squad tremendously by offering engine units, for which the FIA gave permission for as it does break the rules. The teams agreed that in this case, the ruling should be ignored for the sake of having ten squads on the grid this season. Also required to give consent was Vijay Mallya of Force India; the team who had just received a substantial technical backer in McLaren and Mercedes.

Flavio does have merit in his argument; the teams who have not developed a ‘double-diffuser’ will now have to spend a reported approximation of $25m per car to redesign and implement the parts required to integrate a different diffuser. At a time when the sport is desperate to cut costs, the extra expense is certainly not welcome. And that must be made worse for Renault as they have always ran a very tight budget. Combined with the fact that the squad are due to lose their title sponsor at the end of this year and are already struggling with pace, one can understand why Flavio is upset.

Despite some being against it, [Luca di] Montezemolo kept the FOTA united in supporting Brawn GP, and so did McLaren, in supplying engines.

But since [Ross] Brawn was our technical delegate, and he forces me to spend money I don’t have in my budget, and since Honda’s money have luckily not been shared yet, we’ll have a meeting.

My proposal will be as follows. Brawn is richer than anyone else, because he’s had his team paid for in full by Honda, plus he’s had 130 millions given to him [by Honda]: he’s certainly richer than I am.

I don’t want to be a Robin Hood, but when there’s a situation where everyone is transparent then it’s fine.

At this moment my position is, since I need to find the money in the budget somewhere and the season can’t end up with [everyone] being one second behind the Brawn cars, then the money share will have to be reviewed in full. I think it’s around €30 million. Flavio Briatore.

Also troubling Briatore is the fact that Brawn are receiving transport help along with the other teams. Flavio’s point is that the FIA have stated that Brawn is a new team, hence why they are at the end of the pitlane and have been issued with the bottom set of numbers, despite finishing ahead of Force India in 2008 when they were known as Honda. The FIA did waive the ‘new team entry fee’ though, showing that they understood the situation and circumstances. However, Bernie Ecclestone has treated Brawn as an existing team, which is shown by the fact they are receiving transport help which is only usually given to established squads.

As FOTA commercial chairman I’ll propose that we follow the FIA’s indications that it’s a new team and for three years it has no rights with regards to transportation, nothing. Flavio Briatore.

When Briatore was questioned about the FOTA agreeing in late December to support Ross Brawn’s endeavours and to ensure the team was given all that was owed, Briatore simply replied with with an almost nonsensical answer…

That was at Christmas, though. Now that Christmas has gone, we’ll talk about it again next Christmas.

Since it’s a new team, it has to follow all the regulations we followed when we entered with new teams. I will propose that to FOTA, then we’ll see. Flavio Briatore.

It seems to me that Briatore could have handled this a whole lot better, and the man has been laughed at from several quarters. While it is far from great that six companies are now going to have to develop new parts for fourteen cars at a huge expense of time, resources and money, that is Formula One, and that is what these people let themselves in for when they sign on the dotted line in Bernie Ecclestone’s office.

When Red Bull Technologies put a giant shark fin on the engine cover of last years RB4, Renault were among the first to develop a similar part. While a shark fin almost certainly costs considerably less to design and build, and a much more simple piece to integrate into the car, it is an example of one team pushing the envelope, and the others copying. One is almost tempted to bring up the J-Damper saga from a few years back…

Perhaps instead of whining and complaining, Flavio should turn his charismatically creative mind to that of finding and wooing potential sponsors for his team. Oh, and a graphic designer to redo that livery.

Original article by BlogF1.

Whining Flavio Briatore Won’t Drop The Diffuser Issue

The diffusers mounted on the Brawn, Williams and Toyota cars came under scrutiny in Australia and three teams (Ferrari, Red Bull Racing and Renault) lodged a complaint with the stewards. The stewards in Melbourne judged the offending diffusers as legal and the trio then lodged an appeal. The same process occurred in Malaysia as a formality and the trio became a quartet as BMW joined the appeal, which was heard yesterday in Paris and deliberated yesterday evening and this morning.

The FIA International Court of Appeal has decided to deny the appeals submitted against decisions numbered 16 to 24 taken by the Panel of the Stewards on 26th March at the 2009 Grand Prix of Australia and counting towards the 2009 FIA Formula One World Championship.

Based on the arguments heard and evidence before it, the Court has concluded that the Stewards were correct to find that the cars in question comply with the applicable regulations. FIA ICA Statement.

With the diffusers now deemed legal, the other teams will almost certainly have to redevelop the rear of their cars to accommodate this part, the advantage gained from it is too great for the teams not to change. However, the rear of a Formula One car is very complex and Red Bull have already stated that fitting a ‘double-diffuser’ to the RB5 will be far from easy. According to the Milton Keynes team, the rear suspension is going to have to change which brings its own problems to whole area.

This means that the points gained by the three teams using the ‘double-diffuser’ will remain, and Jenson Button is still leading the the driver’s championship with Brawn heading the constructors. Toyota have also welcomed the decision as their TF109 car has so far looked to be a pretty good motor, powering Jarno Trulli and Timo Glock to a third place each in the first and only two rounds of the championship so far.

Brawn look set to continue their dominating pace for now, although Ferrari are said to be already implementing several new parts in Shanghai this weekend, and also at the Spanish Grand Prix at the beginning of May. The race now between the non-offending teams isn’t necessarily one of track position, but rather one of getting the rear end sorted.

Original article by BlogF1.

FIA ICA Declare Brawn, Williams & Toyota Diffusers Legal

One side of the argument is clear: Brawn, Williams and Toyota have acted outside of the spirit of the rules. While there is indeed a loophole enabling these trio of teams to do what they have done, it is against the idea and purpose for which the ruling was written that should be adhered to.

Anyone with a command of English will tell you it is a hole, so do not let someone attempting to be clever with words defeat the express purpose of the rules. Nigel Tozzi, Ferrari Legal Representative.

However, in a sport that is just as much a business as it is a jolly bit of racing every other weekend, it isn’t quite as simple as following the spirit of the rules.

Brawn, Williams and Toyota spotted the potential to design the diffuser so it fits with the exact wording of the rules, although perhaps clearly not to within the idea behind them. Essentially, these three teams saw the loophole and went for it. Interestingly, Brawn lead both championships, Toyota have shown great improvement over their 2008 pace as do Williams, with Nico Rosberg doing particularly well in Malaysia until the early stoppage of the event.

The fault, in my mind, isn’t with Brawn et al for developing this ‘double diffuser’, nor is it with those who have not and may or may not be complaining. The fault quite clearly lies with the person or people who write the rules. If it isn’t absolutely clear what you can or cannot do, can you really blame competitors for pushing the limit to see what they can get away with?

Before anyone chimes in with the Hamilton/Ryan saga, I consider that different and this is not the post to discuss this matter. Instead, this post is about the teams pushing the technical regulations to the limit, just as they always have done, and forever pushing the boundaries of lap time and reliability.

I hope that tomorrow, the International Court of Appeal give a thumbs up to the diffuser. It may prove that the spirit of the sport is broken, but in all honesty, it was broken many years decades ago. The thing this diffuser has allowed though proves to be much more interesting. It has, in part, enabled three teams to improve, one of those dramatically so. It has shaken the grid up. It has made some teams look very carefully at themselves. It will be fascinating to see how those without the diffuser right now will claw their way back into the title fight.

But what say you? Is it a great shame that the diffuser-trio felt the need to circumvent the rulebook a little in order to improve themselves, or is it just typical F1 innovation at its best?

Original article by BlogF1.

The Two Sides Of The Diffuser Debate

McLaren have stated that David Ryan, the team’s Sporting Director at the time, asked Hamilton not to mention the fact that the team had asked him to allow Trulli to repass after the Italian Toyota driver fell off the track momentarily. However, Trulli did make his way pass the McLaren and finished the race in third place. An initial investigation found Trulli to be in the wrong and the driver was handed a hefty penalty, although at the time, Jarno professed he had little choice but to repass because Hamilton had slowed significantly and moved away from the racing line.

Toyota started to appeal the steward’s decision, but given the controversial nature of the results anyway (due to the ongoing diffuser issue), Toyota backed down and withdrew their appeal. However, audio evidence from McLaren’s pit-to-driver radio later revealed that the team had been in contact with Lewis during the incident and had asked him to slow down and allow Trulli to pass. Since this information was not given to the stewards at the time Trulli has now been reinstated and Hamilton disqualified. However, there is a larger issue now that needs addressing and it is this that has caused the FIA to consider bringing further action against McLaren.

An extraordinary WMSC meeting has been scheduled for April 29th, 2009, where McLaren representatives will be required to attend in Paris at the FIA’s headquarters. The official charge is that McLaren have breached Article 151c of the International Sporting Code, which details how teams cannot partake in any “fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally”.

The FIA have charged McLaren with five counts of breaching Article 151c.

Vodafone McLaren Mercedes has been invited to appear before an extraordinary meeting of the FIA World Motor Sport Council in Paris on Wednesday, 29 April, 2009, to answer charges that, in breach of Article 151c of the International Sporting Code, it

• on 29 March, 2009, told the stewards of the Australian Grand Prix that no instructions were given to Hamilton in Car No. 1 to allow Trulli in Car no. 9 to pass when both cars were behind the safety car, knowing this statement to be untrue;
• procured its driver Hamilton the current World Champion, to support and confirm this untrue statement to the stewards;
• although knowing that as a direct result of its untrue statement to the stewards, another driver and a rival team had been unfairly penalised, made no attempt to rectify the situation either by contacting the FIA or otherwise;
• on 2 April, 2009, at a second hearing before the stewards of the Australian Grand Prix, (meeting in Malaysia) made no attempt to correct the untrue statement of 29 March but, on the contrary, continued to maintain that the statement was true, despite being allowed to listen to a recording of the team instructing Hamilton to let Trulli past and despite being given more than one opportunity to correct its false statement;
• on 2 April, 2009, at the second stewards’ hearing, procured its driver Hamilton to continue to assert the truth of the false statement given to the stewards on 29 March, while knowing that what he was saying to the stewards was not true. FIA Press Release.

On Friday 3rd April, while at the Malaysian Grand Prix, McLaren’s team principal Martin Whitmarsh suspended David Ryan, and since then the two parties have separated. McLaren made a statement earlier today that they had received the summons to the WMSC meeting at the end of the month and that David Ryan no longer works for any of the McLaren group of companies.

McLaren acknowledges receipt of an invitation to appear at an FIA World Motor Sport Council meeting in Paris on April 29, received this afternoon.

We undertake to co-operate fully with all WMSC processes, and welcome the opportunity to work with the FIA in the best interests of Formula 1.

This afternoon McLaren and its former sporting director, Dave Ryan, have formally parted company. As a result, he is no longer an employee of any of the constituent companies of the McLaren Group. McLaren Statement.

Also on Friday, Lewis Hamilton gathered the press in the media centre at Sepang and offered an apology to the FIA, his team and the fans. Hamilton professed he is not a liar and stated that he was following instructions from one member of the McLaren team.

It has since been discussed all over the Internet how this will impact McLaren’s and Hamilton’s reputations, and of course, the saga from 2007 has been raised once again. Back in ‘07, McLaren banded together and held strong; a philosophy often taken by sporting teams of winning together, and losing together. However, the way McLaren have handled this particular incident is quite different, with the team singling out one person and immediately removing that person from the equation (the team). Perhaps it is the new team principal’s way of doing things, perhaps it was just seen as the better course of action to take.

Undoubtedly this will have a negative impact on the team, and although some will say (myself included) that McLaren pay Hamilton, therefore he should do what they say and it is also up to the team to be correct and truthful, this will also have a negative impact on Hamilton. After all, a lie is a lie. During his apology at Sepang, Lewis stated that he felt like quitting the sport over what had happened, which perhaps sounds a little drastic and melodramatic, does perhaps offer some redeeming value in his reputation. Unfortunately though, while I am absolutely certain this is not the first nor will be the last time a driver or team have lied to the FIA, the fact they have been so publicly caught and shamed by it will only damage the core trust placed in them by motor sporting bodies as well as McLaren’s rivals and supporters.

Possible sanctions that could be imposed on McLaren should they be found guilty of these charges range from complete disqualification from the 2009 World Championship (drivers and constructors) as well as monetary fines, to a mere slapping of the wrists and suspended sentences. It is my opinion though, given how strictly the FIA have dealt with cases like this in the past, that McLaren will be lucky if they are contesting both titles for the remainder of the season. While it is highly unlikely that Hamilton will be thrown out of the drivers – his appeal to fans is too great – the team could very easily be disqualified from the constructors battle, just as they were in 2007.

So what do you think? Should McLaren face further charges/penalties, or is it enough that Hamilton was disqualified from Australia and both driver and team shamed in the international media? How would you deal with this particular case?

Original article by BlogF1.

McLaren Summoned To Extraordinary WMSC Meeting

Essentially, this all boils down to two things:

• Those teams that spotted a possible loophole and utilised it.
• The rules were not clear enough to begin with, allowing the loophole.

Those teams that saw the advantage should in a way be congratulated. They have spotted a way of making their machine go faster while keeping within the rules as they were written and in their belief. The teams that complain are essentially just complaining at themselves for not seeing what others saw. However, is this really the spirit of the sport? Perhaps not, but when millions of dollars ride on a successful campaign, it is understandable (from a business perspective) that spirit gets sacrificed in favour of performance.

So representatives from Williams, Brawn and Toyota attended a meeting with the FIA stewards to discuss the protests lodged and to consider if the teams had in fact broken the rules. The meeting, held at Albert Park’s race control lasted for more than four hours during which time presentations were made from the accused teams and the FIA stewards. It was judged that the trio are clear to race this weekend.

This isn’t the end of the matter though, and Ferrari, Renault and Red Bull have each said they will lodge an appeal to the decision. Unfortunately for the sport, this appeal cannot be heard until after the Malaysian Grand Prix. Should the appeal be deemed in favour of Ferrari et al, the results of the Australian and Malaysian Grands Prix could be altered. This poses a significant problem to Formula One, but it isn’t one that is new.

The issue surrounding the changing of race results is something I personally am against. It is my opinion that once a driver stands on the podium, or for other points scorers, once the podium celebration has commenced, that the result of the race stands. Once drivers are seen on televisions all over the world celebrating their performances, it seems utterly ridiculous to me to change the result.

Of course, there are some circumstances where it may be necessary to adjust, and I understand when drivers get disqualified after a thorough weigh-in is completed, or other such inspections that may take some time. As an example, I would understand that an investigation would be needed had Michael Schumacher won the race (and championship) at Jerez in 1997. That would apply to any of the drivers on the grids past and present. But the way the process is currently set up, it would appear that teams can lodge complaints and these are not always heard until weeks after the event. Weeks is far too long. At most, it should be following day.

Also, I find it insane that the FIA stewards have deemed the Brawn, Williams and Toyota cars okay to race, yet all their hard work could be undone. The stewards have decided that these cars can contest the Australian Grand Prix. Therefore, whatever results they claim should remain. If the appeal meeting cannot be held until after the Malaysian event, then any results gained from there by the trio should also stand.

If the FIA then decide that these teams need to alter their diffusers, then they should be told to do so and their cars should be inspected at the following event before being given the all-clear to race. If the diffusers still don’t satisfy the FIA, then the team does not race. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that in this scenario, the diffuser would comply and be adorned with I Heart FIA or Max For President sticker.

To me though, this seems better than altering results. Miles better. Yes, the Brawn, Williams and Toyota cars may be running with a component that sits outside the regulations, but it is too late to change. And the alternative of banning the trio of racing is so ridiculous it doesn’t even merit any more of a mention.

As I just wrote in a short ditty to the London Evening Standard (they wanted my thoughts, apparently, although not published yet), these issues should have been raised weeks ago. They should have been dealt with weeks ago, and there should be no reason for a protest unless a team has changed something very recently. It is my opinion that the incompetency of FIA to draw up rules that are not clear and concise combined with teams that are upset at themselves has once again caused Formula One to hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

Original article by BlogF1.

Brawn, Toyota & Williams Cleared To Race: Their Diffusers Are Legal For Now