About the F1 Resource Restriction Agreement

[WhiteBlue]

No you said published objectives - which is incorrect

I gave you the objective in an URL. But perhaps I need to copy/paste it for you. Emphasis added by me:

The World Motor Sport Council met in Paris on 24 June 2009. The following decisions were taken:

FORMULA ONE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP

All currently competing teams have committed to the FIA Formula One World Championship.

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.

Lola were dumped what 3-4 months ago rules changed and yet you state Birrane is a credible source....

Indeed I rate him as a credible source and I have told you why. Please go back a bit in this thread and read it again.

[Chaparral]

But where is the documentation on 280 personnel per team - nothings changed you cannot produce it - no matter - thanks

[WhiteBlue]

LOL, the topic is "Lola reveal 2011 resource cap".

It is not: "Please find copy of secret resource pact for Chaparrel".

[xpensive]

LOL, the topic is "Lola reveal 2011 resource cap".

It is not: "Please find copy of secret resource pact for Chaparrel".

Someimes you act so stupid you break me to tears WB, you opened this thread by claiming a 280 headcount, remember?

What's the problem, you thougt everybody on F1T would simply take your honest reputation for it?

[WhiteBlue]

LOL, the topic is "Lola reveal 2011 resource cap".

It is not: "Please find copy of secret resource pact for Chaparrel".

Someimes you act so stupid you break me to tears WB, you opened this thread by claiming a 280 headcount, remember?

What's the problem, you thougt everybody on F1T would simply take your honest reputation for it?

I can tell you that I'm of sound mind and that I don't feel compelled to troll every thread with useless provocations. My girl friend has not left me, I am still enjoying robust virility and my Viagra budget is zero. So how are you?

[xpensive]

Good for you. If any of it is true, which I doubt.

Not that it matters, when I think everybody on F1T is aware that you never know when to stop and admit you were wrong.

[segedunum]

I wish Montezemolo best of luck with his all Italian team. Perhaps he will really go back to the old times if he fires Chris Dyer and Rob Smedley and finds some Italian talent to "improve" the team.

It's the way they're heading. What was most worrying was Monty's use of the word 'Latin'. That gives you chills when you think of Ferrari in the 80s or back to where they were in the early 90s. The only talent they have left on the development side is Nikolas Tombazis who they simply had to get back from McLaren for 2006.

They're not going to get much help from Todt. He was squeezed out at Ferrari and by all accounts doesn't much care for them any longer.

[WhiteBlue]

They're not going to get much help from Todt. He was squeezed out at Ferrari and by all accounts doesn't much care for them any longer.

I was also under that impression until I heard about the engine plans. Apparently Ferrari have established a FOTA position that calls for complete engine neutralization to the point where engines are totally performance neutral. At least Christian Horner said that FOTA demands that engines are no performance differentiator any more. If Todt and the FIA agree to that concept they can forget the objective of fuel efficiency in F1. As FOTA is going to dominate the F1 commission in the future we have to assume that all their rule initiatives will carry through unless Todt and the WMSC vetoes something. So it will be very interesting to see how that particular item will be decided.

[segedunum]

But where is the documentation on 280 personnel per team - nothings changed you cannot produce it - no matter - thanks

Bugger me, some of you really are thick. Some of it seems to border on deliberate denial.

1. At the moment these are a set of totally informal guidelines to give teams a ball-park target as to what they need to downsize to, and the opportunity to achieve it within two years. Virtually every single Formula 1 team from Team Principals on down has talked about this in the press over the past few weeks and months, so denying it isn't happening and isn't going to happen is just plain silly. For the new teams to survive then it is necessary, so the relevant pressure will be applied. Even McLaren want this to happen given their new outside ventures and lack of historical financial muscle. Teams like Ferrari are in a minority now.

2. These informal guidelines were agreed upon to give teams the time needed to identify what they needed to do to get down to the required approximate levels and be prepared. This might be so they can agree severance terms and make sure they don't hire people long-term and they can plan ahead.

3. This was agreed as a better way of achieving the required goals than a short, sharp 40 million budget.

4. Although there are no regulations on this right now and are merely informal so as to give teams a chance to reorganise, presumably there will be a firming up in 2011 with a view to creating some harder regulations for 2012 - by which time teams should have adapted without going bust. It makes sense that they do this in a way where they feel it will work, no? This is in line with the FIA's two year target.

5. Presumably, it is being done this way because throwing a blanket figure over everything just wasn't going to work?

Did you not read this?

http://fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressr ... 40609.aspx

"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."

Someimes you act so stupid you break me to tears WB, you opened this thread by claiming a 280 headcount, remember?

Yer. That's a ball-park figure to give teams an opportunity for the hard and fast resource limits coming within two years. There is also the will to do it from the teams, so claiming it won't happen or that there was a 'claim' that this is a regulated limit is denial.

The small teams want it, and need it, to survive. McLaren want it considering their outside interests and lack of financial muscle. Mercedes want it because that's the basis on which they are running Brawn - a small, cheap and marketable team.

Clear?

[segedunum]

Apparently Ferrari have established a FOTA position that calls for complete engine neutralization to the point where engines are totally performance neutral. At least Christian Horner said that FOTA demands that engines are no performance differentiator any more.

I don't really see what that does for Ferrari or any individual manufacturer of engines, or those seeking to get involved like VW if you can't contribute to winning. It's not economical to have an engine programme and economies of scale rule. They will all just have to buy Cosworths or something.

[WhiteBlue]

At the moment these are a set of totally informal guidelines to give teams a ball-park target as to what they need to downsize to, and the opportunity to achieve it within two years.

I don't believe the resource restriction is informal.

1. Mercedes in their team announcement of Mercedes Grand Prix specifically referred to a binding agreement which is going to reduce their future F1 budgets considerably. This was mentioned in conjunction with increased revenue contributions from FOM due to a commitment of Mercedes Benz to F1 on a corporate level. Such references would not be made if there were just informal guidelines.

2. Adam Parr specifically said that the agreement must be legally binding when he set out to negotiate it between the parties. This agreement was actually holding up the Concord agreement for weeks because it was crucial.

The conclusions from all of this must be:

• There is a legally binding resource restriction in effect.
• The agreement is kept secret due to impact on employment levels.
• The reductions are substantial and of a magnitude to disrupt the employment and sponsorship market

[Chaparral]

segedunum wrote - Bugger me, some of you really are thick. Some of it seems to border on deliberate denial.

No denial here - yes Ive read just about everything on cost cuts over the last 12 months but there is no set target and no one can supply any documentation on it not even the self proclaimed F1 oracle WB - thats why I question the 280 head count number and as always WB states heresay as fact.

"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."

Well that is a ludicrous statement - you mean to say F1 teams will run with budgets of just $30-$35 mil pa - teams will spend what they need to win I can just see Ferrari sitting back and watching their pennies - I dont think so.

[xpensive]

Again, a headcount limit of an F1 team's employees will never happen, for the simple reason that everybody involved knows that it would be completely useless as well as unenforceable.

Clocking people going in and out of a team's premises would possibly been of value in the 60s or 70s, when you designed and manufactured every bolt and nut yourself, but today it would be simply stupid.

This concept was probably dreamed up by someone with --- for engineering xperience, like MrM or one from F1T perhaps.

[ISLAMATRON]

If you have read or kept up with what is going on rather than make up things in your fantasy "X-world" you would know that this is a FOTA initiative.

[WhiteBlue]

Again, a headcount limit of an F1 team's employees will never happen, for the simple reason that everybody involved knows that it would be completely useless as well as unenforceable.

This is an opinion which some people may share but there are equally many people who are involved in F1 like Williams and Brawn who are convinced that F1 will have a headcount limit. Briatore btw has often criticised huge budgets and teams with excessive personnel. Before the FOTA break away decision he has always lobbied for an agreement between the teams to limit the costs.

The problem with agreeing a headcount limit was that different teams had different views of an appropriate level. The enforceability isn't a huge problem in an industry that has a relative high rate of employee fluctuation between teams. Very soon a disgruntled or transferred engineer could talk if a team violates the agreed limits and practices.

I do not see a head count as useless and unenforceable and I believe that a lot of sensible people in F1 share that view. The resource restriction agreement exists and I believe that it includes a time variable headcount limit. Because the agreement is secret I obviously cannot prove this, but a drastic measure of that magnitude will at some time come to the attention of the public. So it makes little sense to call other honerable F1tech members stupid when time will ultimately reveal which opinion is closer to the reality.