Previously in Formula One, a victory on Sunday earned you either 8, 9 or 10 points. This has been the standard since the championship formed in 1950 and only this year have we seen a fairly dramatic change. An increase to 25 points for a race win mimics MotoGP, and the 150% rise will surely see the ‘most points gained in one year’ record fall, despite the fact the points may be more evenly shared between the top-four. Adding to this, more teams and drivers are now able to score points, the system now including the top-ten finishers as opposed to the 5, 6 and 8 in previous seasons.

The current record more most constructor points earned in a single season was 2004, with the mighty F2004 powering the Ferraris of Michael Schumacher and Rubens Barrichello world championship success. Ferrari totaled 262 over the course of the year. Schumacher took the driver’s title with Barrichello just behind in second, and it was this year that the most number of points gained for a driver was set, with Schumacher’s tally of 148 becoming the new benchmark. 2004 featured 18 grands prix, one less than the current 2010 season.

If the Bahrain Grand Prix result is anything to go by, the records look set to be maintained by Ferrari, both team and driver. However, after only one race it would be naive to presume this. Looking at a more modest result, like that of McLaren who only collected 21 points from a P3 and P7, even they could exceed 262 by the thirteenth round assuming they consistently hit an average take-home of 21pts/race.

The maximum able to be scored under the 2004 points system was 324 (for a constructor) and 180 (for a driver), which highlights the dominance of Ferrari’s campaign. For 2010, the maximum achievable for a constructor is 817 and 475 for a driver.

In terms of overall total points, the record positions are likely to remain the same as of the current teams, only Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and Renault feature at the top of the list. All four are fairly well-spaced so it is unlikely there will be any change in the order. For the driver’s though, Michael Schumacher has already begun to extend his lead at the top of the table, but Rubens Barrichello and Fernando Alonso are currently in P4 and P5 respectively, the former on 608 the latter 602. There is a strong possibility this could change at the next race in Australia.

Looking closer at the driver’s points earned in one year, we will also see an improvement in the average points gained per race, such is the difference between the two systems. Of the current grid, Michael Schumacher leads in P2 with an average of 5.49 points per race entered. At the first grand prix of the year, Schumacher scored 8 points, so he is already improving on this. Lewis Hamilton rest on 5.11 while Fernando Alonso averages out at 4.27 per race. Looking at the Spaniard’s form in Bahrain, you’d have to suggest that the double champion will be making some in-roads into Hamilton’s lead over him.

How poignant it was then, to have most of the surviving world champions in Bahrain, all celebrating 60 completed years of the world championship and sharing a photo call with those who on the eve of the 2010 season, may be about to rewrite the record books.

Statistics from Wikipedia: Drivers and Constructors.
Image © Foto Ercole Colombo.

Original article by BlogF1.

How The Records Could Fall In 2010

Martin Whitmarsh of McLaren believes Bridgestone need to provide more fragile tyres to the teams to prevent even the softer compound from lasting upwards of 25 laps. Next door in the Red Bull and Mercedes garages, Nick Fry and Christian Horner believe mandating pitstops might be the way forward, insisting each driver visits his team twice during the course of the race. A little further down the pitlane, Stefano Domenicali of Ferrari thinks everybody should wait a few more races before drawing any conclusions on the matter. And Mark Webber is just annoyed at the rules being changed all the time.

Few people are commenting on the actual circuit at Bahrain, and this may have played a part in the relative non-action we saw yesterday, although the general consensus is that the aerodynamic efficiencies of the cars are to blame for the lack of overtaking, the drivers being unable to get close enough to the car in front to make a move stick. Of course there was some overtaking during yesterday’s race, but this mainly focused in the midfield where drivers were making up places from being out-of-position following on-track incidents.

So, should the rules be changed, and if so how?

Original article by BlogF1.

Daily Debate: (How) Should The Rules Be Changed To Prevent Processional Races?

Yesterday evening, Whitmarsh stated his desire to look at mandating pitstops, improving the tyre situation with Bridgestone and making the cars better able to race closely together on the track.

I personally believe that more challenging tyres will help the spectacle of the show. I also personally believe that we should have two stops mandated because we want to stop this. Today, if we had had a safety car on lap five, we’d have all piled in [to the pits] and we’d have all gone on the prime tyre and run to lap 49 without a stop. That was a real danger.

We do need to look at mandating stops, we do need to look at the tyres and make them more fragile, and we do need to work on making the cars capable of racing close together and easier to overtake. Martin Whitmarsh.

Today has seen more team bosses speak up over the less-than-exciting opening race in Bahrain and concerns over races becoming processional with little-to-no overtaking. Nick Fry believes the technical regulations cannot be changed now because of the costs involved with updating the cars would be excessive. However, Fry is willing to take a closer look at the sporting regulations to see if something can be done here to add excitement to the grands prix.

I think we have all seen a race that was far from the most exciting that we have ever seen, and what we now need to do is between us have a look at it and establish what we do need to do.

Technical changes are obviously very difficult to make, and expensive. But I think we should look at both the technical side and the sporting side, with Bernie and the FIA, and see what we can do about it. Nick Fry.

Fry went on to say that he believes the teams should look again at mandating pitstops in order to prevent the drivers completing just one stop and driving most of the race on one tyre. Of course, this idea was discussed prior to the season’s opening race in Bahrain, but agreement between all squads was not forthcoming and the idea was quietly forgotten about.

[Mandating pitstops] is the one of the things that we should look at. We decided against it before, but is something that clearly could be done. I don’t think it would provide a particular advantage or disadvantage to anyone as far as I could see, but I am sure it is going to be high up on the list. Nick Fry.

Elsewhere in the paddock, Red Bull Racing team principal Christian Horner echoed the feelings of most others, saying that he believes it is crazy that his staff “train like hell” for just one pitstop per driver. Horner though does believe that an immediate reaction would be ill-thought and would prefer to wait until the fourth or fifth round before implementing changes.

I think we should consider whether we do two mandatory stops. It seems ridiculous that the guys train like hell for one stop.

We’ve only had one snapshot today, so perhaps we should review it after the first three or four races. Everybody thought I didn’t want it because of tyre degradation, but I think we have shown today that tyre degradation isn’t a problem for Red Bull. Christian Horner.

Ferrari boss Stefano Domenicali also thinks it would be prudent to wait three or four races before making decisions and changes to the rules.

Let’s wait. I can understand his [Whitmarsh] point but let’s wait and see how the other races will develop. It may be a different situation in different conditions, so I would like to tell you my opinion after a couple of races so we can at least have a different scenario that we can say, [whether] this is the real situation or not. Stefano Domenicali.

It would seem that the team bosses are in agreement that the issue should at least be discussed and if the Australian and Chinese grands prix continue in similar vein to Bahrain, then consider making changes to the regulations. It is interesting that there has been little comment on the Bahrain circuit and the additional loop after the fourth corner. The extra length in the track reduced the total number of laps raced and added no extra overtaking possibilities for the drivers. Admittedly, I don’t think McLaren or Ferrari would want to annoy the Crown Prince of Bahrain, both teams receiving funding from Middle East companies. However, from a personal view it would be desirable to see the Sakhir circuit return to its traditional configuration for next year’s event.

And for the last word, I think I’ll leave that to Mark Webber…

Wow! New rules, not sure huh? Why do they keep dicking with it? Followed Mercedes power for the whole race, no chance to overtake – again @AussieGrit.

Image © HondaF1.

Original article by BlogF1.

Nick Fry Adds Voice Of Concern Over Processional Races

Refueling was banned for a number of reasons for the 2010 world championship, with the teams hoping to save money by not having to transport heavy rigs around. Along with saving money, the pitlane is made safer with the teams not having to refuel a race car under pressure during a grand prix. However, this has resulted in pitstops only being required to change tyres, which teams must do at least once during a normal dry race. Of course, pitstops are significantly quicker now, but the real issue is the way the teams are approaching them.

Over the course of a grand prix weekend it usually becomes apparent early on that one tyre compound is better suited to the track than the other. Having to run both compounds during the race, drivers tended to stick to one-stop races. This was emphasised when it became known that the Bridgestone rubber supplied for the Bahrain Grand Prix was actually very durable and even the super-soft choice, which many feared would fall apart after a couple of laps, lasted for much longer than expected.

The result is drivers running the less-preferred or less-durable tyre for the first stint before changing very soon in the race to the durable option. This allows the teams to get the less-favourable compound out of the way and frees them up to run until the end of the race without having to make any further pitstops.

Combine this lack of pitlane activity with the fact that drivers are still struggling to overtake due to the efficiencies in the aerodynamics, and you’re left with a procession of 24 Formula One cars touring a circuit on a Sunday afternoon. As a sport, the whole show becomes a lot less desirable.

The Bahrain Grand Prix wasn’t too bad and there were some interesting battles in the mid-back field. At the front though, we saw several drivers just tail the car in the front, seemingly unable to pass. Even with the increase in points-margin between the positions, drivers simply couldn’t pass. It wasn’t a case of motivation and rather a case of physics.

If the Bahrain event had seen more pitstops, then there may have been more passes. Admittedly, these moves may have taken place in the pitlane and not on the race track, but at least the show would have been spiced up a little. Of course, if the Sakhir circuit had been run on its usual Grand Prix configuration, the lap length would have been shorter and more laps could have been completed. Furthermore, the drivers wouldn’t have been forced to complete the silly mickey-mouse section after T4.

After the race had been completed, Martin Whitmarsh, who is also the chairman of FOTA, spoke to the BBC about these concerns and how he would like for the rules to be changed as soon as possible. Whitmarsh has suggested revisiting the mandatory two-stops idea, or pushing Bridgestone to supply tyres that simply won’t last half a race distance.

We were one of three teams, that said we should have two mandatory pitstops because we were worried about one-stopping.

I think we have to re-examine that. But I think if we can now push on Bridgestone to have ‘racier’ tyres, we need a super-soft tyre that is really going to hurt if you take it to 20 laps. You shouldn’t be able to do that with a super-soft tyre and I think even the prime, if it’s a struggle to get it to do half a race distance, then you force [the issue].

The tyres were much closer in the race than we expected and they determined the spectacle. There was no real serious degradation of the tyres, we started the roll of pitstops because we were trying to get ahead of [Nico] Rosberg and everyone started to come in at that point.

But otherwise, just based on tyre degradation, we could have run to lap 25 or more on the super-soft tyres. If you can do that on the softest tyre, then the primes are just going to romp through for as long as you like. Martin Whitmarsh.

Whitmarsh went on to say that through FOTA, he is dedicated to improving the show

Formula 1 has to be entertaining, people have to be switched on to what is going to happen in the race, if it’s processional they are not going to be. Today was not the best show, we know that and we have all got to work together to improve it.

I personally believe that more challenging tyres will help the spectacle of the show. I also personally believe that we should have two stops mandated because we want to stop this. Today, if we had had a safety car on lap five, we’d have all piled in [to the pits] and we’d have all gone on the prime tyre and run to lap 49 without a stop. That was a real danger.

We do need to look at mandatings stops, we do need to look at the tyres and make them more fragile, and we do need to work on making the cars capable of racing close together and easier to overtake. Martin Whitmarsh.

While the McLaren boss is talking sense with regards to the tyres, it should not be forgotten that it was FOTA who pushed for these changes along with the sport’s governing body, the FIA. From the outset it was clear that if the drivers can get the harder tyre to last for most of the race, they will in order to avoid pitting. Formula One is after all a competition. Among those competing is Whitmarsh himself.

Also mentioned was the fact that despite trying to cut the downforce generated by the cars, overtaking is still very difficult due to the lack of close racing caused by overly-efficient aerodynamics. Again, the team bosses are desperate to reclaim any lost performance that arises from rule changes, and the designers and engineers are simply doing their jobs when they create these cars.

There is a solution to all this somewhere, simply because there has to be. But with the teams unlikely to unanimously agree to rule changes that could see them penalised (why would Ferrari vote in favour of mandatory pitstops?) I guess, for now at least, it comes down to the sport’s sole tyre supplier who are intent on leaving at the end of the season.

Original article by BlogF1.

Martin Whitmarsh Calls For Immediate Rule Changes

Damon Hill became world champion with Williams in 1996 after a thrilling season that climaxed in BBC commentator Murray Walker famously getting a lump in his throat and handing the microphone to his co-commentator. Hill later went on to almost take Arrows’s first victory only to be robbed in the dying moments of the Hungarian Grand Prix by a faulty seal.

In 1998 Hill moved to Jordan and took the Irish team’s first victory, finishing ahead of his team mate Ralf Schumacher in a very wet Belgian Grand Prix. After retiring at the end of 1999, Hill remained out of the spotlight for a number of years, running a variety of companies, but returned in 2006 to succeed Jackie Stewart as the president of the BRDC, the association that own and operate Silverstone.

Damon Hill has agreed to do two events. It is likely he’s going to do Monaco and another one, and we’ve got a range of other drivers who positively have said they will come along and help us. Graham Stoker, FIA Deputy President of Sport.

Hill attended a number of grands prix last year and has successfully managed to ensure there will be a British Grand Prix in 2010 by persevering with Bernie Ecclestone and picking up the pieces when the Donington Park deal fell through.

Original article by BlogF1.

Damon Hill Set To Join Stewards In 2010

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

The part in question is actually a driver-operated function that essentially closes off a vent while the car is moving at high speed. This helps the rear wing ’stall’ and improves the straight-line speed of the car. According to the regulations, movable aerodynamic devices are outlawed (aside from the adjustable front wing flaps). However, McLaren have some how managed to circumvent the rules and during the design process of the component, they maintained communication with the FIA who gave the all-clear to develop and build it.

Although most teams have remained quiet over the matter, Renault have spoken out alongside Red Bull Racing and have criticised the FIA for allowing such a device.

It is fundamentally clear that the McLaren wing design is totally illegal – and they have driven a cart horse through the sprit of the rules and regulations.

They have opened up another arms race; it’s going to cost everybody a lot of money. The governing body needs to be a lot stronger with these things.

I think that it is ridiculous in this era where we are all trying to save money. We are restricted by the number of people that we can bring to the track, with mechanics working ridiculous hours at night to prepare the car.

Now we have just opened another arms race that will cost us all a lot of money. It’s just a nonsense. I think the governing body needs to be more responsible in decisions like this. Bob Bell.

Like last year, the opening round of the season usually sees controversy as the teams arrive with their cars in full race-spec. In 2009 it was Brawn who came under fire with the ‘double diffuser’. The diffuser was eventually deemed legal and the other teams had to quickly develop a similar part just to keep up with the eventual world champions. In the past, McLaren have shown innovation, particularly with their third pedal which controlled a brake to one of the rear wheels. This was sensationally revealed to the world after respected F1-photographer Darren Heath took an unsuspecting shot of the foot-well of the McLaren and noticed the strange configuration.

Other teams are now looking at developing a similar part, which up until this weekend was generally kept well-hidden by McLaren.

We will have to get on and make our own version of it now. It wasn’t clear what the situation was, but we have had clarity from the FIA about how they want to treat it, so we are all off running in that direction. Ross Brawn.

Lotus technical chief Mike Gascoyne believes the system is illegal and refutes the FIA’s claim that the driver cannot be considered a moveable part of the car.

I still believe it’s a moveable aerodynamic device because the configuration of the aerodynamics are changing. Whether the driver is doing with it his knee or not, they [the aerodynamics] are not the same all the time so therefore it must be a moveable aero device.

We know what the rules are… but it is a pretty silly interpretation.

Everyone is going to go and do it, no one will have an advantage, we will go and spend loads of money – and for what? It will be worth two or three tenths, everyone will go and get it – so it is a complete waste of time. Vintage F1! Mike Gascoyne.

Along with Mike Gascoyne, Renault team principal Bob Bell believes this so-called ‘F-Duct Vent’ system will cause an arms race in the sport, and goes against the spirit of the regulations at a time when all involved are trying to save money and keep the sport as fair as possible.

While no official protest has been lodged, it isn’t out of the question that a team could. If McLaren perform particularly well during Sunday’s race, and rival team’s believe the McLaren has a significant straight-line advantage, then this issue could be dragged on. At the moment though, the MP4-25 is legal and will contest the Bahrain Grand Prix.

Original article by BlogF1.

Renault Critcise FIA & McLaren Over F-Duct Vent System

It is believed that Renault have requested a series of updates be made to the RS27 engine regarding both reliability and cost reduction measures, although these changes would likely see performance gains as well to bring them in line with others.

There is an issue with the engines and it would be a great shame if, under the engine freeze, engine performance is going to dictate the championship. Renault need to find a solution and quickly. Christian Horner.

The application to make updates to the Renault engine have been submitted under ‘fair and equitable’ grounds section in the regulations and both Renault and Red Bull Racing await the FIA’s decision.

Original article by BlogF1.

Renault Request Engines Be Equalised

Prost formerly drove for some of the sport’s greatest teams – Renault, McLaren, Ferrari and Williams – and accrued four driver’s titles during his career. Known among his peers as Le Professionnel, Prost had a reputation as being an intelligent driver who carefully calculated decisions both on and off the track. After retiring in 1991 following an unsuccessful season with Ferrari, Prost returned in 1993 with Williams. It was to be the Frenchman’s swansong season, and Prost duly took the title, thrashing his nemesis, Ayrton Senna.

After retiring for the second time, Prost took timeout of motor sport before returning to run his own team. Having taken over the Ligier squad, Prost hoped to continue the team’s building success (Olivier Panis had won the team’s first race in the year prior to the takeover). Alas, it wasn’t the greatest moment in Prost’s career and four years later the team folded due to lack of sponsorship.

Despite having successes and failures in Formula One, Prost is still a highly regarded member of the motor sport fraternity. His contribution to the steward’s team will surely be valuable and shows the FIA are working towards improving the management of the sport, especially when it comes to decisions made at the grands prix.

Judging by the comments in my 2008 post Are The Stewards Ruining Formula One?, it would seem that a lot as to be done to improve this area of the sport. Hopefully this move by the FIA will be seen as a welcome step in the right direction.

Original article by BlogF1.

Alain Prost Joins Stewarding Team For 2010

The checks come after Red Bull Racing team principal Christian Horner expressed concerns about the layout of the MP4-25’s airbox, engine cover and rear wing assembly, suggesting to the British press that the wing may have been designed to stall under high speeds, giving the McLaren a straight-line advantage.

McLaren seemed to not be overly bothered about the questioning from other teams and stated that the FIA were involved early on in the design process of the part, suggesting that the team were aware they are likely to be running close to the edge of the rules. However, having followed procedures correctly, exercising due diligence in communicating with the FIA and inviting the sport’s governing body to inspect the car, McLaren have successfully passed scrutineering and will take part in the Bahrain Grand Prix.

Original article by BlogF1.

McLaren Pass Scrutineering Checks: Rear Wing Deemed Legal

The main reason for the recent clamp down on testing was in an effort to reduce costs and make the sport more fair, essentially giving all teams the same opportunity to test. However, isn’t testing just an extension of the race, whereby the fastest win? And in Formula One, much like most other sports, the richest tend to be the quickest anyway. Should testing revert to being unrestricted and those who can afford it can test all day every day, and those who can’t will need to think more about their developments and perhaps, as Max Mosley once said, be more innovative?

Testing can also be very beneficial to upcoming young drivers who are looking at making the jump from lower formulae into Formula One. The vital experience gained from testing a car around a circuit proves very useful to them for when they make that jump, more so if the promotion happens mid-season. Although the rules have been adjusted for 2010, the extra day of testing awarded to new drivers isn’t really that sufficient from the pilots standpoint, who would undoubtedly prefer to spend a week or more charging around in a Formula One machine before lining up on the grid.

Should testing have the current restrictions in place, or should the non-race running be opened up to all teams, allowing them unlimited mileage at any time of the year?

Original article by BlogF1.

Daily Debate: Should Testing Be Restricted?

Among the changes that have been confirmed is the adjustment made to the points structure. This is something that has caused some division among fans, but on the whole I feel has been generally accepted. Changing the points is perhaps one of the biggest and most visible things the governing body can do because of the knock-on effects it has with regards to the records. Furthermore, it can make following the sport from one year to the next more difficult – something I feel the constant changes to the rules do not help.

The sport has gone through this type of change in the past, and for a good long while the structure remained a constant 10-6-4-3-2-1 for the top six finishers. In 2003 however, it was decided to award the top eight finishers and the gap between P1 and P2 was reduced, thus creating the structure 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. Since then this order has worked quite well, with many of the championships going down to the final race of the year and increasing the spectacle for the fans.

Bernie Ecclestone though, in his infinite wisdom (which I add sarcastically) decided that he wanted to change this last year, and proposed a radical solution to the apparent problem of drivers not always going for the win, but instead playing the strategy game as the season progressed. Ecclestone wanted to introduce medals for the top three finishers, much like the Olympic Games. Initially, it looked as though the FIA were behind this, although it is my impression that the majority of fans were not. Bernie’s idea was not well-thought out and caused more confusion than was necessary, especially as he intended to leave the constructor’s championship on the same structure with points awarded to the teams.

Thankfully, the FIA chose to ignore the ramblings of the old man but did however open discussions with the view of updating the points system. In late 2009, it was announced the sport would adopt a similar structure to MotoGP, awarding points to more competitors and thus giving the new teams a better chance to score and do well in their first years of competition. The new system was declared as 25-20-15-10-8-6-5-3-2-1, meaning the top ten would score and the difference between P1 and P2 increased once again.

With the new regulations, the system proposed in December has been tweaked ever-so-slightly, and now the drivers and teams will score 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1. This improves the difference between P1 and P2 to 7 points, equal to that between P2 and P3.

Also confirmed in the final draft of the rules is the fact that drivers who complete Q3 will have to start the race on the same tyres they used for their fastest qualifying lap, meaning that although no re-fuelling has finally abolished the nonsensical strategies adopted on Saturday, there will still be an element of tactics involved with the tyres. This may result in Q3 drivers running the harder compound of the two allowed in order to extend their first stint on Sunday. Or, we could see drivers go for a single banzai lap on the softer (and normally faster) compound before either pitting early and vacating the car or changing back to the harder tyre for safety. Thinking out aloud, I can see drivers waiting until the last moment in Q3 to go out and set a lap. As always though, there is much more to this than meets the eye and we will have to see how this plays out at the first race in Bahrain.

Exotic pitlane machinery has also been banned, presumably because of the emphasis now being placed on tyre changes. While I haven’t heard of teams intending to introduce new equipment to the pitlane, an additional rule now states that powered lifting devices are banned during the race. Previously (and presumably currently) when a car enters the pit box for new tyres, and front and rear are lifted on man-powered jacks, which essentially is completed in one swift movement from each end. Almost always the front goes up first as the person in charge of this end can wait in position and clench their bodies as a Formula One car hurtles towards them. The rear jack has be wheeled into place after the car has entered the box. However, in the time it takes to locate and position the air guns to undo the wheel nuts, the car is usually off the ground.

Testing has also been discussed, and in light of the number of driver substitutions last year, an extra day has been allowed for those teams who need to replace a driver mid-season. In 2009, Ferrari famously struggled in the second half of the year while Felipe Massa recuperated from his accident. Luca Badoer was charged with driving the F60, and although experienced, had not driven the car before and essentially embarrassed the Maranello squad. Jaime Alguersuari also caused some concern among the other drivers, the young Spaniard being given a promotion at Scuderia Toro Rosso despite having never driven a Formula One car around a circuit. Neither pilot were allowed to test the current car prior to their first race in it due to the in-season testing ban.

However, should a team require to change a driver in 2010, they will be allowed an extra day of testing providing the driver has not competed in the sport in the last two seasons and the test must be held at a non-championship circuit, like Jerez or Portimao. Popular testing venue Circuit de Catalunya is used for the Spanish Grand Prix, and therefore will be prohibited for such a test. Furthermore, the test must take place between 14 days prior and 14 days after the driver’s debut/returning race.

All is not lost though for teams wanting to substitute a driver with someone who has relevant experience. As the technical changes made to the cars is minimal, those who competed in 2009 will be able to get back into the groove much easier. Nick Heidfeld, who has recently been announced as the third driver at Mercedes, would be able to jump into the MGP-W01 and feel fairly comfortable from the get-go. Although different to the BMW he has been familiar with in previous years, the Mercedes shouldn’t be a completely unrecognisable machine to him.

The engine regulations have been tweaked as well, meaning that if a driver uses more than eight engines in a season, he will drop ten grid places at the first event the extra engine is used. This will continue unless another new engine is used, in which case the grid demotions will carry over. This means that if a driver uses two new engines at the tenth race, he will not be docked twenty grid places, but instead be demoted ten places at the tenth race, and ten places at the eleventh race as well.

Finally, a small change has been made to the formation lap procedures, stating that if a driver is slow away from the grid and cannot return to his original starting position by the first safety car line, he must start from the pitlane. This could delay a start because the driver, who is already falling behind the pack, will have to negotiate the pitlane while the field is lining up on the grid. The driver will then have to trundle down the pitlane at limited speed while avoiding the team personnel who are returning from the grid and wait at the end. Invariably, this will take longer than simply rolling around the final corner and tacking onto the back of the field. This situation is rarely seen though, so perhaps not so much of an issue.

So there we go, the ‘final’ 2010 rules and regulations have been published: what do you think of them? Will it improve the show, do they make sense, have I misunderstood something? Have your say in the comments below…

The full FIA Rules & Regulations can be downloaded from the FIA’s site.

Original article by BlogF1.

FIA Confirm Rule Changes For 2010

The Concorde Agreement sets out how the sport is run, its commercial income and how it is divided up among the competing teams and also what became a real sticking point up until very recently, the rules and how they will change in the coming years.

Following approval by the World Motor Sport Council, late last night FIA President Max Mosley signed the 2009 Concorde Agreement, heralding a renewed period of stability for the FIA Formula One World Championship.

The Concorde Agreement – a contract between the FIA, F1’s Commercial Rights-Holder and the participating Teams – sets out the basis on which the Teams participate in the Championship and share in its commercial success.

The WMSC has also approved a slightly revised set of stable Sporting and Technical Regulations (to apply from the 2010 Championship onwards), which have been agreed by the FIA and the Teams and which will be published shortly on the FIA’s website.

The new Concorde Agreement, which runs until 31 December 2012, provides for a continuation of the procedures in the 1998 Concorde Agreement, with decisions taken by working groups and commissions, upon which all teams have voting rights, before going to the WMSC for ratification.

In addition, as agreed in Paris on 24 June 2009, the Teams have entered into a resource restriction agreement, which aims to return expenditure to the levels that prevailed in the early 1990s.

With the 2009 Concorde Agreement and the resource restriction agreement in place, the FIA looks forward to a period of stability and prosperity in the FIA Formula One World Championship. FIA Statement.

All teams have agreed to the terms of the new Concorde Agreement with the exception of BMW who withdrew from the 2010 championship earlier in the week. However, should the German motor manufacturer wish to sell the team on to another company, they will need to sign the agreement, and the FIA have apparently set a deadline of August 5th for this to happen.

The new Concorde Agreement appears to be a continuation of the already-in-place measures contained in the previous 1998 Agreement, but with an added section pertaining to the need to reduce costs back down to those levels seen in the early ’90s. According to the FIA, the rules for the 2010 championship have been altered slightly, and these will be published to the FIA website sometime soon.

Original article by BlogF1.

New Concorde Agreement Signed

The lack of experience in a Formula One car wasn’t the fault of Jaime himself though. It was the fact that Scuderia Toro Rosso wanted the Spaniard in the car, and the fact that in-season testing has been banned for this year. Many current drivers voiced their concern over this, and Felipe Massa called the FIA to task, suggesting that they should allow rookies to test a car should they be called upon to substitute another driver. Likewise, McLaren’s experienced test driver and former racer Pedro De La Rosa believes that it would be very demanding even for himself to suddenly step up to the plate and race should the need arise.

And so we now come to the present day, where one of the sport’s most experienced drivers has been called upon to substitute the recovering Felipe Massa. Michael Schumacher has nigh-on sixteen years experience of racing a wide variety of Formula One cars, but the recent rule changes have made the 2009 cars very different to the last he raced in 2006, and the last he tested in 2008.

Ferrari have written to the FIA and their fellow competitors and asked for permission to allow Schumacher to test for one day in a F60. While this makes sense and is by-and-large completely understandable, it does put both the FIA and the other teams in a bit of a bind.

If the FIA agree, they have set a precedent. On top of that, Michael Schumacher is no Jaime Alguersuari. Schumacher is experienced, and wil undoubtedly give feedback on the car straight away. This takes it from a simple familiarisation exercise to a proper test. On top of that, will Ferrari’s rivals want this? The other drivers will not have the same fear of Schumacher driving as they did Alguersuari (who by the way, actually drove quite well in his debut). There is no fear of Schumacher throwing his car into another due to inexperience. In fact, the other 19 drivers are probably more fearful of the seven-time champion doing just that on purpose!

It will be interesting to see how the other nine squad’s respond to this. I would imagine the FIA might say something along the lines of it being acceptable as long as there is unanimous agreement among the other teams, but getting that agreement may prove harder than they think.

Do you think Schumacher should be given a day’s testing in a 2009 F60, or do you think he should just get on with it, much like how Jaime Alguersuari did?

Recommended Reading

• F1 Clienti Lend Schumacher F2007 For Fitness Testing
• Michael Schumacher Applies For A Super License: He’s Coming Back
• Jaime Alguersuari Confirmed At Scuderia Toro Rosso
• Massa Praises Algeursuari & Criticises FIA

Original article by BlogF1.

Ferrari Ask FIA For Permission To Allow Schumacher To Test F60

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 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

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

Recently, the FIA increased the number of teams allowed to race to 13, meaning next season’s grid should comprise of 26 drivers. It is expected that USF1 will be given the nod, the American outfit having stated very early that they intend to join the circus and have already started their ball rolling.

Prodrive will likely get a slot as well, with Dave Richards having previously been granted entry only for the Briton to withdraw when his intended technical partnership with McLaren was shunned upon. Of course Williams will be allowed – that has to be a given – so the remaining place will likely be fought out between Lola (who embarrassed all with their last feeble attempt at Formula One in 1997), Litespeed (a British F3 team) and Campos (a Spanish F3 team).

However, just because the 10 current teams and a slew of others have sent in their entry forms, the current saga gripping the sport is far from over. Ferrari, McLaren, BMW, Toyota, Renault, Brawn, Force India, Red Bull Racing and Scuderia Toro Rosso have applied conditions to their entries that they want met.

The FOTA teams want the new Concorde Agreement signed by June 12th, the very same day the official 2010 entrants list is expected to be published. The Concorde Agreement will outline the future of the sport and give apparent security to this and the measures involved. However, as always in Formula One, it isn’t as simple as passing a piece of paper around and everybody taking their turns at adding a signature. The new Concorde Agreement has long been in discussion as everybody wants their cake and eat it too.

Another condition of the current nine FOTA teams is that the 2010 regulations are to be based on the 2009 regulations, with only slight amendments, including the proposed €100m budget cap which will be reduced to €45m in 2011. FOTA are also asking that all the teams be granted entry, meaning that the FIA cannot kick a current squad out in favour of one of the newer entries.

FOTA confirms all its Members’ long-term commitment to be involved in the FIA Formula One World Championship and has unanimously agreed further and significant actions to substantially reduce the costs of competing in the Championship in the next three years, creating a mechanism that will preserve the technological competition and the sporting challenge and, at the same time, facilitate the entry in the F1 Championship for new Teams. These measures are in line with what has been already decided in 2009 within FOTA, achieving important savings on engines and gearboxes.

All FOTA teams have entered the 2010 championship on the basis that:

• 1) The Concorde Agreement is signed by all parties before 12th June 2009, after which all FOTA teams will commit to competing in Formula One until 2012. The renewal of the Concorde Agreement will provide security for the future of the sport by binding all parties in a formal relationship that will ensure stability via sound governance.
• 2) The basis of the 2010 regulations will be the current 2009 regulations, amended in accordance with proposals that FOTA has submitted to the FIA.

All FOTA teams’ entries for the 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship have been submitted today on the understanding that (a) all FOTA teams will be permitted to compete during the 2010 Formula One Season on an identical regulatory basis and (b) that they may only be accepted as a whole.

All FOTA teams now look forward with optimism to collaborating proactively and productively with the FIA, with a view to establishing a solid foundation on which the future of a healthy and successful Formula One can be built, providing lasting stability and sound governance. FOTA Press Release.

The window for entry into 2010 closes at midnight tonight, but there is an intentionally placed get out of jail free card in the rules that allows teams to submit entry for consideration if there is enough time for the team to be considered and if there are places available. The FIA are yet to respond to FOTA’s statement, but isn’t now likely to happen until tomorrow when the governing body has a clear idea of who has entered and who has not.

Original article by BlogF1.

FOTA Teams Submit ‘Conditional’ 2010 Entry Requests To FIA

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

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

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

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

After discussions between the ten principals, the following proposals have been made in order to sustain Formula One into the future, to make the sport in to more of a spectacle, and to appease those who insist on reducing costs and increasing competition. The results of FOTA’s global market research has helped the organisation put together their ideas, taking into account what we, the fans, would like to see happen to Formula One.

FOTA’s chairman, Luca di Montezemolo had the following say to the media at the press conference in Geneva.

This is an unprecedented moment in Formula One history. Above all else, for the first time the teams are unified and steadfast – with a clear, collective vision. Thanks to this unity, all the teams have already managed to make a significant reduction to their costs for 2009.

And, while we will continue to compete vigorously on track, we all share one common goal: to work together to improve Formula One by ensuring its stability, sustainability, substance and show for the benefit of our most important stakeholder, namely the consumer. It is with this mindset that we now intend to work hard, with our partners at the FIA and FOM, our shared goal being to optimise the future of Formula One. Luca di Montezemolo.

The proposals are split into three main groups; Technical, Sporting and Commercial, neatly summing up the three main areas of the sport. Much has been said about the technical side of the Formula One, with one of the sport’s most radical technical regulation shake ups in years being implemented for 2009. The sporting regulations have also been tweaked for this upcoming season, but fans clearly want to see more made of these to ensure a better race. And of course, the commercial side of Formula One has come under scrutiny recently, and this is something the team chiefs are keen to work on.

Technical Proposals

For 2009

• More than 100% increase in mileage per engine (eight engines per driver per season)
• Reduction in wind tunnel and CFD usage
• Engine available at €8 million per team per season

For 2010

• Engine available at €5 million per team per season
• Gearbox available at €1.5 million per team per season
• Standardised KERS (put out to tender, with a target price of €1-2 million per team per season)
• Target a further 50% reduction of the 2009 aerodynamic development spend
• Specified number of chassis, bodywork and aerodynamic development iterations (homologations) during the season
• Prohibition of a wide range of exotic, metallic and composite materials
• Standardised telemetry and radio systems

Sporting Proposals

For 2009

• Testing reduction (50%)
• New points-scoring system (12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1), to give greater differentiation/reward to grand prix winners
• Race starting fuel loads, tyre specifications and refuelling data to be made public

For 2010

• Commitment to recommend new qualifying format
• Radical new points-scoring opportunities (eg, one constructors’ championship point to be awarded for the fastest race pit stop)
• Further testing reductions (four four-day single-car pre-season tests plus one single-car pre-season shakedown)
• Reduction of grand prix duration (250km or a maximum of one hour 40 minutes) pending the approval of the commercial rights holder

Commercial Proposals

• Increased data provision for media
• Explore means by which the presentation of Formula One action can be more informatively and dynamically presented, common to other sports such as tennis and cricket, to dramatically improve engagement with the public
• Nominated senior team spokesman available for TV during grand prix
• Commitment to enhance consumer experience via team and FOTA websites
• Mandatory driver autograph sessions during grand prix weekends

For 2010

• Commitment to enhance consumer experience via TV coverage

So What Does All That Mean

FOTA would like the engines last a lot longer and be available for less money. Already for 2009 this has been partly achieved, but in order to help reduce costs even further, it is proposed that engines be available for €5m per team per season. And along with the engine, it is suggested other components be standardised and/or subsidised. There has been a fair amount of talk regarding the KERS unit, and FOTA are also throwing gear boxes into the equation as well. A standardised telemetry and radio system has also been mooted, and previously there had been talk of opening up all radio communication to be broadcast.

Also proposed is a limit on development work being made to the cars, which would obviously save a lot of money. This would coincide with a reduction in physical testing as well, something that has already been banned during the racing season this year. With more standardised parts, this could be easier to achieve, but then we get into the standardisation argument which has divided fans, although my personal impression is that it is generally seen as bad, or not wanted, for the sport.

In terms of the actual event of racing and the championship, the points structure has come under question. Before 2003, the points awarded to the finishing drivers (or those classified as finishing) was 10-6-4-3-2-1, obviously going to the top-six. This was changed in 2003 to 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1, the awards going to the top-eight.

Recently, Bernie Ecclestone opened his mouth and suggested a fairly radical change towards medals. Ecclestone wanted the constructors title to remain on a points basis, but in order to promote overtaking in the minds of the drivers, Bernie suggested the top-three be awarded medals. There has been a lively debate on this ever since, and again, my impression is that it is generally considered unnecessary. Particularly having two systems within one sport, albeit for different titles.

Notably, the FIA have said little on this other than to put off making a decision, citing the wait for market research to be compiled. FOTA have also chosen not to mention this in their proposals. Although it was probably discussed, it is thought the team chiefs are against the idea, despite Ecclestone suggesting the opposite a couple of months back.

FOTA are suggesting what many of you have said (or close to at any rate); to increase the gap between the first and second placed driver (to add emphasis to the win), but to keep it as a points system and to also keep the top-eight as scorers. Well done BlogF1 readers, common sense prevails. FOTA have suggested the following: 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1. Personally speaking, I dislike odd numbers, but it is in my opinion, a lot better than medals.

For 2009, FOTA would like race fuel loads, tyre specifications and refuelling data to be made public. Currently, it is an unknown at the start of the race exactly who is on what fuel load, and therefore what strategy they are running which ultimately means that new fans are left a little confused. By announcing this information, it would be easier to assess the qualifying efforts of the drivers as well make following the race a little easier, particularly for newer fans.

However, this too divides the sport’s followers, and former ITV commentator and now blogger James Allen has voiced his enjoyment of not knowing exactly who is doing what at the start of the race. I can see both sides of the story and appreciate the differing opinions on this. Although I feel that a return to qualifying of ye olde combined with fewer restrictions on tyre usage might help reduce some of the complications. Again though, and like Allen’s, it’s just another opinion.

For 2010, FOTA would indeed like to see commitment to sorting out qualifying. I’d put it higher up the list, but then I would say that! The association would also like to see new points added to the grand prix weekend, with perhaps a point being awarded to the fastest pitstop, this being added to the constructors championship. From this we could also suggest a point for the fastest lap. I would imagine the FIA might be keen on this as it may help Ferrari’s Kimi Raikkonen towards the championship, the Finn taking the majority of fastest laps last year.

FOTA have also suggested that testing be reduced again, and also that the race length be reduced. Currently, the maximum time allowed for a grand prix is 2 hours. Races only ever have to be stopped due to this ruling in seriously adverse situations. Only once can I remember a race being cut short because of time, but FOTA have suggested a maximum of 1 hour 40 minutes. This would mean presumably that races get reduced in proportion to the maximum time. Currently, a grand prix lasts for about 200 minutes or so, and I cannot see what is wrong with leaving it like that.

In terms of the commercial side of the sport and making the spectacle more fan-friendly, FOTA would like to see a nominated spokesperson for each squad, available throughout the weekend to talk to the media. They would also like to see more information being made available, for better engagement with viewers, more to be done with the online side of the sport as well as mandatory autograph sessions at races.

Sum Up

All in all, FOTA’s recommendations aren’t too far away from what I as a fan feel the general consensus is. We would all like more information to be made available, many of us feel the points system could do with a little tinker, but nothing too radical, and we would all like the sport to be a little more open and friendly to those who keep it going.

Regarding the technical side, perhaps it is leaning towards standardisation, but it should be noted that only KERS was really mentioned. It is a feeling I have that Max Mosley may get his way on certain things, particularly if he is re-elected as FIA president in November. However, credit where it is due, FOTA have only presented KERS as being a potentially-standardised part. All other components were just mentioned in a cost anaysis perspective. FOTA’s unified presence may help dissuade any future FIA shake ups without first assessing them properly as well.

So this is what has been presented, and I’ve included a few of my own thoughts, feeling and opinions on various matters. Now it’s over to you. What do you think of all this? Agree, disagree? If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, or more still needs to be done? Unlike many other websites out there, BlogF1’s comments are open, so please have your say…

Image © HondaF1.

Original article by BlogF1.

FOTA Announce Proposals For Formula One’s Future

To explain the weight concept in relation to Formula One, each and every car on the grid has a minimum weight to adhere to. Many years ago it was the opposite and the cars had a maximum weight, but in today’s technologically advanced world, if the team’s weren’t given a minimum weight they would be designing the cars so light it could impact their strength. This could in turn decrease the safety of the driver in the event of an accident. Thus, the minimum weight of a Formula One car and driver is 605kg. This limit has not changed for 2009, despite adding approximately 40kg for the KERS device.

Last year, BMW pilot Robert Kubica famously lost a few kilograms in attempts to improve the performance of his F1.08. Being a tall driver, Kubica obviously weighs a little more than some of his rivals. For example, Robert’s team mate Nick Heidfeld is one of Formula One’s shorter drivers, and so when the cars are being set up, Heidfeld will have more ballast than Kubica to bring his car up to the mandatory minimum weight. This ballast will help Heidfeld because he has more to play with, and therefore has more options as to where it is placed in the car, and therefore has more chance of getting a better balance on his car.

Robert Kubica says his weight loss helped him, and many other drivers looked at the Pole with curious eyes. As you can imagine, drivers who will do almost anything to gain an extra few tenths here and there were now questioning their own position on the bathroom scales. With the knowledge of KERS being introduced but the minimum weight remaining, some drivers have taken up the Kubica Diet and have shed a few pounds over the winter.

Scuderia Toro Rosso driver Sebastien Buemi has been considering losing some weight, the Swiss driver being slightly above the average height of the current crop of Formula One drivers. The rookie explained that adding 10kg to a car reduces the performance of the car by approximately 0.4s/lap; a country mile in Formula One language. Buemi stated to sports newspaper Blick that he wanted to lose 5kg, reducing his weight from 63kg to 58kg.

An article being ran around some of the F1 sites at the moment suggest that for Sebastien Buemi to lose 5kg would put him in the underweight category in most Body Mass Indexes. Having entered Buemi’s information into a couple of BMI calculators, the Swiss driver’s current weight/height/age result puts him firmly in the healthy brackets (20.3). Reducing Sebastien’s weight to 58kg but keeping all other data the same trims his BMI down to 18.7. The suggested limit by the UK’s NHS is 18.5. While a BMI of 18.7 isn’t underweight, it is very close to at least one organisation’s limit.

It should be noted that Body Mass Indexes are a relatively crude way of deciding if someone is over or under weight, and the fact that Buemi is a trim sportsperson who undoubtedly eats good, healthy food and works out a lot probably means he’ll be okay. Although quite how all these slim drivers are going to cope with the oppressively hot Malaysian Grand Prix could be interesting.

However, all this talk of losing weight reminded me of an admission David Coulthard made a couple of years back when his autobiography came out. Coulthard admitted that when he was younger and competing in karts and lower formulae, he found himself suffering with the eating disorder bulimia.

I have always taken racing seriously, even when I started out in karting.

By my teens, however, my focus – in particular, my weight – took a slightly more sinister turn. I was nearly the same height as now but I weighed only just over nine stone.

In my mind the only way to keep my weight down was making myself vomit. David Coulthard.

While I’m sure the drivers of today have very strictly controlled diets and are monitored closely by their team of people around them, if a competitor in motorsport can fall into the trap of an eating disorder, what kind of message is all this talk of weight loss putting out to those who follow the sport and idolise their heroes? Is it perhaps time that instead of dieting stories hitting the headlines around the motorsport press, we see Formula One drivers promoting healthy eating and regular exercise.

Original article by BlogF1.

Is Playing The Weighting Game Sending Out The Wrong Message?

Engines

Engine life is to be doubled. Currently, an engine has to last two races, but under new instruction, the power units will have last four race weekends. This will be helped with a reduction of maximum revs from 19,000 to 18,000. Each team will be allowed four engines for testing, thus limiting the total number of power plants for each squad to just 20 per year. There can be no internal retuning of the engines, although trumpets and injectors are allowed to be adjusted. Renault’s engine will be allowed to be altered, a list of measures being agreed upon by all parties. It will not require any comparative testing.

Factories

From January 1st, 2009, any wind tunnels that exceed 60% scale are not to be used. This ban also extends to any wind tunnel that exceeds 50metres/second speeds. The team’s factories must also close for six weeks of every year.

Racing

The number of staff from each team allowed to attend a race has been reduced. This has been achieved by agreeing to share data on tyres and fuel, thus eliminating the need for spotters around the track. Bernie Ecclestone’s medal proposal will not be discussed further until market research has been competed and analysed. And finally, no in-season testing is allowed aside from the practice sessions during a race weekend.

These changes should, according to the WMSC, reduce the manufacturers budgets by as much as 30% compared with 2008. The private entries should see a greater reduction in costs.

For 2010, further proposals were agreed upon, and they are as follows:

Engines

By 2010, power plants should be made available to independent teams at a cost of less than €5million per team per season. The options are to use an independent supplier, like Cosworth, or use an already competing manufacturer. If an independent organisation is used, the deal has be agreed upon by December 20th, 2008. If a manufacturer is used, they will need to sign an guarantee of continuity contract, essentially meaning they cannot pack up shop one day and leave the sport high and dry.

Also, the same engine from 2010 will be used through 2011 and 2012 now, meaning there will not be a new power plant in 2011. The teams and the WMSC are discussing the use of a standardised transmission, but nothing has been agreed yet on this as further research is required.

Racing

The teams have agreed to ban tyre warmers, refuelling and mechanical purging of tyres. They have also agreed to using standardised radio and telemetry systems, although a supplier is yet to be discussed. And finally, they have agreed to discuss the possibility of reducing the race length, but are waiting to see the results of market research first.

There was also talk of further limitations being place on factory activities and aerodynamic research.

So what say you, readers of BlogF1? Are all these changes necessary, or does it not even go far enough? Is standardising some parts better, like the radios for example, but engines and transmissions less so? Or is it all necessary to help the sport continue into the future? Have your say in the comments below…

Original article by BlogF1.

World Motor Sport Council Discusses Formula One’s Future

Although the two parties wouldn’t discuss any details with the press, it is believed that both FIA and FOTA have agreed in principal on a few measures to reduce costs for 2009 and 2010. The organisations are hoping to continue talks over the Brazilian Grand Prix weekend and also meet up post-Interlagos. So far, the following has been suggested as strong possibilities for future seasons:

• Increasing engine life from 2 races to 3.
• Manufacturers must be prepared to sell up to 25 engine units to customer teams for €10m/year.
• Possibility of reducing the testing mileage.
• Introduction of mandatory-KERS from 2010 onwards (it is currently optional for 2009).
• Possibility of allowing customer chassis to remain. This would improve STR’s and Force India’s chances of survival.

Increasing engine life is a no-brainer. When it went from 1 to two 2 races, everybody gasped in horror. But the teams soon found ways of making their engines much more reliable, so much so that an engine failure during a racing weekend is quite rare in comparison to the situation just a few years back.

The provision of cheap customer engines from the big manufacturers is also an obvious way of saving money. Currently Ferrari, Renault and Toyota supply other teams, Williams getting the Japanese plant, Red Bull Racing the French motor and Force India and Scuderia Toro Rosso each receiving an Italian-stallion to use.

Testing mileage is also another good way of cutting costs. Although race-weekend Fridays are meant for improving set-up, most teams are using the two 90-minute practice sessions as a test. If FOTA get their way and the race weekend is re-organised, Friday’s could take on a different form, and with a reduction in testing between races, I think the actual on-track competition could improve.

Next year we will lengthen the life of engines to three races. This will translate into a total of 25 engines that for the smaller teams will cost 10 million Euros a season.

We have decided with president Mosley that we will meet again after Brazil to talk again about limits to the chassis and engines in the future. Luca di Montezemolo.

So it seems FOTA are really pressing ahead with various measures to counter the FIA’s crazy notions, which if course is a very good thing. To change the sport in small steps is infinitely better than potentially destroying it in one fell swoop, which if Mosley had his way, would be done by making the engines single-spec, thus removing (half of) the idea of a constructors championship.

Original article by BlogF1.

FIA & FOTA Work Together On Cost-Cutting Measures

The meeting, that was described by Ferrari as “extremely constructive” was held to discuss the future of Formula One and how the teams will be involved in the decision making processes regarding rules and regulations. Obviously, the squads would like more input, and while the Technical Working Group do okay at working towards future technologies and (less well at) solving current issues surrounding the technical side of the sport, the teams want a more involved input into the things that directly affect them.

The Formula One Teams Association is to be created and they will be working on getting the Concorde Agreement finalised – a document that, in the eyes of Bernie Ecclestone – is very important. Whether or not Formula One needs yet another group (albeit made up of existing parties) getting involved is perhaps another matter for another day, but it does seem at the moment that the sport is getting a little lost among all the organisations and associations who want their voice to be heard.

It is important for those directly involved to be heard, but along with FOM, the FIA, the TWG, GPDA, GPMA and a few others, I have to ask if another is really necessary? The popular phrase too many cooks spoil the broth comes to mind, and while the sport will always have a political side to it, the more everybody concentrates on the actual job of racing cars around a circuit, the better.

Of course, going back the meeting at Maranello, not everybody felt the talks went far enough and Flavio Briatore feels more should be done to reshape Formula One. The Renault boss, who has run his team on a relatively small budget in comparison and [in his words] stuck to the letter of the rules, had more to say. When does Flavio not, though?

The Concorde agreement, the number of races, the costs, the spectacle, the imperative increase of revenues. Formula One needs to be re-designed.

I feel that it should be down to the teams to decide, by electing in turns a director of operations. A guy who does things, not a PR person.

On top of that, we need to decide with a 51% majority, not unanimously like now, otherwise we’ll carry on being stuck. Flavio Briatore.

When Briatore speaks of the teams having to agree unanimously on rule changes, he means those that are implemented at the request of the teams, usually done to correct or improve something that has not gone quite right once put into practice. These changes usually occur mid-season, and a good example of this would be the proposed abolishment of the pitlane closure under the safety car. For the new rule (and ECU software) to be implemented, there would have to be 100% agreement along the grid. However, the FIA could make it mandatory when they finalise the rules for next season if they so wished.

I’m not sure Formula One needs to be “re-designed”, but there are a lot of things that need to be improved. And while the FIA have in the past done okay with some rule changes, they generally fall short of doing anything appropriate. Dale Earnhardt Jr recently gave Formula One a slap when a NASCAR race faced a similar tyre issue that F1 faced in 2005. However, the difference between the two races was that the NASCAR event went ahead, but took intervals every 10 laps or so. The F1 event only fielded six competitors because Max Mosley refused suggestions from the teams and Ecclestone.

During the issues that have surrounded Mosley recently, Ecclestone appeared to have a bit of a falling out with the FIA president and during this time Ecclestone said he wanted more control of the sport, particularly the rules and regulations. I for one wouldn’t mind this being taken away from the FIA; I can’t see how FOM could do the job any worse.

Formula One needs to change with the times and keep itself relevant and exciting. But in all honesty, it does not need another group stirring the pot. It needs organisation, intelligent leadership and effective communication between the governing body, the teams and drivers and the fans.

Original article by BlogF1.

Formula One Team Bosses Create More Bureaucracy

Oh yes, you heard me correctly: Max Mosley, in his letter which has been published on the FIA’s offical website and available as a downloadable PDF, clearly states that teams may submit detailed proposals, which can then be discussed and possibly turned into rules that will enable many of the FIA’s objectives while giving the team’s some lee-way on how it is done.

Here’s the majority of the letter…

Formula One is becoming unsustainable. The major manufacturers are currently employing up to 1000 people to put two cars on the grid. This is clearly unacceptable at a time when all these companies are facing difficult market conditions.

Also, with attention on energy problems world-wide, Formula One cannot afford to be profligate in its use of fuel. Indeed, without the KERS initiative, some major sponsors might already have left.

The FIA is therefore inviting the teams to make proposals

• to reduce current levels of expenditure. New rules must ensure that the costs of the manufacturer teams come down by at least 50% and that the independent teams become financially viable. Both must be done without affecting the spectacle in any
  way;
• to extract more useful energy from less fuel. The target should be a (very challenging) 50% reduction from today’s levels of fuel consumption by 2015, while maintaining current speeds. The rules should encourage manufacturer teams to research technologies which are road-relevant rather than Formula One-specific;
• to improve the racing, including rules to ensure that cars remain aerodynamically efficient when in close proximity to one another.

The matter is now urgent. We need proposals which we can turn into detailed rules. These must be ready within three months and have the support of at least a majority of the teams, failing which the FIA will itself prepare new rules for 2011.

Mosley has detailed his proposals further by asking the teams to devise ways to achieve the following:

Cost Reductions

Mosley suggested budget caps, and has left it up to the teams to decide among themselves what this should be if chosen. However, he has stated that this must allow “a back-of-the-grid independent team to operate profitably”. Also, the manufacturers could offer independant teams the use of their drive-trains (and associated energy-saving technology) and Mosley hinted at a price of around €2m per year. Mosley went on to say that shared technology would be welcomed if it helped, but the “reduce[d] costs must not affect the spectacle in any way”.

Fuel Efficiency

Mosley wants a “20% reduction in fuel consumption for 2011 progressing to 50% in 2015, while keeping lap times and top speeds at current levels.” Mosley has suggested that limiting fuel flow and the total amount used during races would be a good way to control this, and has also asked the teams to develop more energy-efficient technologies for use in the sport and in the general motoring industry.

Improved Racing

Mosley’s final point is, to be frank, quite funny. In his letter he gets into quite specific things, especially regarding the KERS device. However, when it comes to improving the racing, he leaves it at just one paragraph. In essence, his text states that he wants the cars to run in close proximity to one another to better enable overtaking. Mosley offers no suggestions on this, and again opens his letter up for invitations on how this could be achieved.

So, either Mosley is stuck for ideas or he has hired a very clever PR company and is in the process of rebranding himself. Either way, the rules do require attention for beyond 2009 and despite Max trying to make himself appear more open, he is still being very specific about a number of things, KERS for example. Perhaps he’s just asserting his authority over the sport, albeit in a more friendly manner.

Anyway, as Max is being open to ideas from the teams, why not the fans?

Have Your Say…

Readers of BlogF1, get your thinking caps on and add your suggestions for the 2011 rules here, be they new rules, updates to existing rules or way in which Max can achieve his dream of a lean, green Formula One machine. Or something entirely different. As ever, comments are open…

Original article by BlogF1.

Max Mosley Talks About The Rules, Politely