About the F1 Resource Restriction Agreement

[Richard]

Blocking the conversation on pedantry of about precise company naming is frankly a waste of time. We don't know and will never know the precise names of the signatories. I really couldn't be bothered if Ferrari signed up to the RRA as "Pink Eunuch Racing" and Red Bull signed up as "Aubergine Heifer Racing".

For the purposes of this thread, we shall in future refer to the team name as if it was one and the same as the RRA name. There is one exception with Red Bull where we can assume that RB Racing is the team and RRA entity, with RB Technology as a supplier.

In my mind, engine companies are suppliers, except Ferrari.

So Ferrari are worse off because make their own engines, while McLaren for example can do the RBT trick with MHPE. Incidentally, I view MHPE as a supplier to Merc AMG F1.

So those are the ground rules for this conversation. It allows every possible permutation, and they are pragmatically roughly in the right ball park .

[Cam]

Gestione Sportiva = Ferrari SpA

Ferrari SpA = Gestione Sportiva

They are both one and the same. To separate them is to create two companies.

The Resource Restriction Agreement only covered certain F1-related activities. We know this because we know drivers' salaries were not included. So, I think it's safe to say building road cars was also not included within the scope of the RRA.

Again, all we're doing here is proving more and more that none of this stuff has worked/will ever work. There are simply too many questions.

All this talk of who owns what got me thinking. Could we actually figure this out? I have some preliminary findings (mods, happy to migrate out to a new thread if you deem necessary). Happy to discuss further based on facts obtained, not hearsay.

• Ferrari S.p.A. is a multinational Italian sports car manufacturer based in Maranello, Italy. (An entitity)
• Scuderia Ferrari is the racing team division of the Ferrari automobile marque. (A division of Ferrari S.p.A.)
• The term "Gestione Sportiva" does not appear anywhere in the FIAT 2011 Annual Report
• Page 111 of the FIAT 2011 Annual Report - under the heading 'Ferrari - operating performance' states "On the sporting front, the Formula 1 season didn’t meet expectations. However, there were several highlights during the year including Fernando Alonso’s win at Silverstone in July, exactly 60 years to the month after Scuderia Ferrari’s first ever Formula 1 win on the very same circuit, with Argentinian driver José Froilán González at the wheel. (That would tie the F1 team performance to Ferrari S.p.A. - however not the build)
• From page 221 of the FIAT 2011 Annual Report - "The Ferrari segment earns its revenues from the production and sale of Ferrari-brand luxury sport cars, from managing its Formula 1 team and from providing financial services offered in conjunction with its vehicle sales. (So Ferrari "manage" the F1 team).
• Domenicali appointed Director of Ferrari's Gestione Sportiva (means - Sports Management)
• Ferrari Website news report - "Back to work for the Gestione Sportiva" The two F10s which will be used by Felipe Massa and Fernando Alonso are currently in the car assembly area at the Gestione Sportiva, where they are being built up in the initial configuration that will be used in free practice. (States it is Gestione Sportivia who has taken a break from building the F1 cars).

So what can we find out about the "Gestione Sportiva" as it's not part of Fiat or Ferrari S.p.A?

A link here: http://newsonf1.net/2006/news/10/oct26f.htm

26 October 2006: New structure of Ferrari Gestione Sportiva

Ferrari announces that as of this 1st November, Ferrari S.p.A. C.E.O. Jean Todt, will also take on, as an interim, the role of Managing Director of the Gestione Sportiva, which will be organised as follows:

Sporting Director – Stefano Domenicali
Technical Director – Mario Almondo
Technical Department will be made up of Chassis Department, headed up by Aldo Costa, while Gilles Simon will be responsible for Engine Department, with both men reporting to Mario Almondo.

So, having a CEO would mean the Gestione Sportiva is an entity. This entity takes breaks from building F1 cars. This entity does not appear anywhere in the FIAT 2011 Annual Report.

The central building of the Sports Management hosts all departments of Formula 1, including the Board, chaired by Stefano Domenicali. The property also has Logistics, Controlling, Human Resources, the Purchasing Department and the Information Systems department. In the same building there are the Department and the Department Engines frames, together with the technical departments and planning.
The second building houses the departments Assembly Engine, Transmission department and the Hydraulics and Vehicle Assembly. In this structure, even the cars are assembled before being launched and then transferred to the test track. In the last building are tested engines under development and those just assembled.

Mechanics
The Mechanics of Sports Management team produces all the mechanical components of the chassis and engines of the cars from Formula 1. Produces in particular the transmission and cooling systems. All components manufactured inside are tested and then mounted on the car.

• During the summer of 1968, Ferrari worked out a deal to sell his road car business to Fiat for $11 million; the transaction took place in early 1969, leaving 50% of the business still under the control of Ferrari himself.
• On 14 August 1988, Enzo died at the age of 90. Fiat's share of the company was raised to 90%

So FIAT owns Ferrari, yet has nothing to do with Gestione Sportiva?!

This is too good to be true. Please someone tell me I've missed something here.

[FoxHound]

I cannot find a source for it, so I called an Italian counterpart who laughed at me, Cam. He has suggested to me, the Gestione Sportiva and Scuderia Ferrari are one and the same.
Gestione Sportiva is a pseudonym for Scuderia Ferrari and that it's used mainly by people who work for the Scuderia.

It's not a division of a division according to him, but the same thing. And when I checked the Webpage, there was the Scuderia Ferrari windtunnel, and various other Scuderia buildings.
If you look at the Gestione timeline, it also fits in with Scuderia perfectly.
*Explains why it doesn't appear on a financial report
*Explains why Domenicalli took the reigns at exactly the same time as the Scuderia
*Expalins why development of F10's(and others) took place at maranello(Scuderia Ferrari) and was labelled Gestione Sportiva.

I will try and see if this is true or not, I guess an email to Ferrari would'nt hurt?

[Cam]

Hmm possibly. But they call it "Sports Management" - hardly a nickname for Ferrari. They already use Scuderia, so why introduce a completely new name? You may be right (hope so as it clears it up), but I am confused as to why they need so many names when they talk about Ferrari F1.

[FoxHound]

Scuderia is a competition name.
Gestione Sportiva would be the name given to the design, production and direction of the team.

Effectively they are one and the same I would guess.

If they are not, then I have yet to see anything of Gestione Sportiva that is seperate of Scuderia Ferrari. Same boss, same staff, same buildings, same windtunnels, same drivers, same car.

[Richard]

For the purposes of this thread, Gestione Sportiva is a synonym for Scuderia Ferrari.

We've had too much speculation in this thread because people are not referring to company accounts & reports. It's led to fantasy claims of £600mm budget at Red Bull, and now we're debating if Ferrari have a company called Gestione Sportiva that has no record in the company accounts or the FIA entry list.

It is on topic to propose that an effective RRA would need to have a good definition of the team that balances out the RB and Ferarri scenarios. Red Bull would need to combine RBT and RBR, while Ferrari would have to split the F1 activates from the rest of Ferrari. Also they'd need to find a compromise regarding engine suppliers who range from in house (Fer) to sister company (Merc) to external supplier (everyone else).

Please note the nature of discussion is based on suggesting possibilities. Stating "it is obvious that" is not the same as "perhaps they could".

Finally if a debate is simply each party belligerently repeating their opposing views without any attempt at discussion, then it is time to agree to disagree. I have deleted several posts due to this.

[gato azul]

Ferrari Spa. outsources most of this programs to external partners, or just tolerates private campaigns based on a Ferrari road car model.

all official GT2/GTE cars are built, homologated, sold and services via Michelotto, who also did the F333SP(in cooperation with Dallara) which was Ferraris last foray into prototype style sportscar racing. (the project was funded by Giampiero Moretti via his MOMO brand)

.....
In 1997 Ferrari entrusted total management of the F333 SP project to Michelotto.

http://michelottoautomobili.it/english/ ... toria.html

the GT3 Ferraris are built and sold via Kessel Racing
http://www.kesselracing.ch/index2.php/a ... /f430-gt3/

one of the last successful GT1 projects (LeMans/ALMS) with the 550/575 was done by Prodrive and financed by Frederic Dor, without any official involvement from Ferrari.
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/1236 ... nello.html

[gato azul]

as for the main purpose for this thread, what has the RRA achieved for teams like Sauber or Force India?
Do they spend less money in 2011/2012 then they did before the RRA in 2009? Do they employ less people
then they did 3 years ago?
Going by the numbers published for the U.K. based teams, it does not appear to be the case, at least not in
any meaningful quantities.
RRA may has achieved a reduction in the increase of costs, that is well possible, but I doubt, that it has done
much in terms of reducing costs for most teams.
So after a load was said and talk about it, one could be forgiven to conclude, that it has failed in one of it"s expressed
objectives. Independent of what some people may want to say/claim in public.

[WhiteBlue]

.. an effective RRA would need to have a good definition of the team that balances out the RB and Ferarri scenarios. Red Bull would need to combine RBT and RBR, while Ferrari would have to split the F1 activates from the rest of Ferrari. Also they'd need to find a compromise regarding engine suppliers who range from in house (Fer) to sister company (Merc) to external supplier (everyone else).

I support that kind of perspective. It pretty much covers what I have criticised about the RRA for a long time.

[CHT]

as for the main purpose for this thread, what has the RRA achieved for teams like Sauber or Force India?
Do they spend less money in 2011/2012 then they did before the RRA in 2009? Do they employ less people
then they did 3 years ago?
Going by the numbers published for the U.K. based teams, it does not appear to be the case, at least not in
any meaningful quantities.
RRA may has achieved a reduction in the increase of costs, that is well possible, but I doubt, that it has done
much in terms of reducing costs for most teams.
So after a load was said and talk about it, one could be forgiven to conclude, that it has failed in one of it"s expressed
objectives. Independent of what some people may want to say/claim in public.

F1 has always been a sport where teams will find all ways to cheat and exploit loops holes just to win. So it will be foolish for anyone to think that with RRA, teams will suddenly become fair play ambassadors and they will obediently self police their own spending hoping to win the fair play of the year award.

If team can find so many loop holes in FIA technical rules, even after so many years of revision, obviously RRA will simply open up another can a worms for even more loop holes.

Lets not waste our time talking about something which is bound to fail from the beginning as modern f1 will never be a sport for amateurs and low budget team to thrive or survive.

[WhiteBlue]

If team can find so many loop holes in FIA technical rules, even after so many years of revision, obviously RRA will simply open up another can a worms for even more loop holes.

I respect that opinion, but I think it is the lesser of two evils.

Lets not waste our time talking about something which is bound to fail from the beginning as modern f1 will never be a sport for amateurs and low budget team to thrive or survive.

It appears to me that the vast majority of the teams and the FiA do not share your view about the value of budget caps. Perhaps that allows us to keep the subject open until it is settled by the F1 commission and the WMSC.

[FoxHound]

I respect that opinion, but I think it is the lesser of two evils.

Why would an RRA mandate be the lesser of 2 evils?

It means whoever takes advantage of the rules is going to spend and do whatever they want(as in RBT's case), while the rest conform and lose(but save some cash in the process). This isn't F1, nor is F1 about saving money.
Rather have a free reign limit, spend whatever is deemed necessary and be done with constrictions that will only ever lead to creative accountancy.

If a team hits the wall for spending too much, their own fault for not managing their own resources well enough. A modicum of Charles Darwin's theory as pertaining to survival.

[WhiteBlue]

The other evil would be an F1 grid that starves itself to death by becoming non viable. In a Darwinian world we would first loose Marussia because they would not be supported with flying money and the $10m by FOM. Very little time later teams down from Lotus to Caterham would fold because they would collapse under their engine bills, which in a Darwinian world would easily reach $50m. By then FOM would have been forced to allow third cars and abandon the constructor principle. Instead of 12 teams with 12 different constructions and 24 drivers we would soon have only 10 teams with four or five different constructions and 20 drivers. So in effect there would soon be only two power teams fighting it out with a bunch of copies painted in different colour for rolling bill boards. For me a budget cap would be the lesser evil.

Btw, I don't support the idea to dispute such future scenarios. I'm aware that many people have different opinions and I respect them. Nobody at this time can know what the ptb in F1 will decide to do. So I suggest respectfully that we keep our opinions and reserve the discussions for the day when further news break on the issue.

[FoxHound]

Even in the peak spending years, engines didn't reach half those levels WB.

If we look at Aero/Chassis/Engines as 3 different areas of resource and look at which costs the most, it will be aerodynamics.
By a long chalk.
I want to use Red Bull as an example as we have something to go on. Maybe you could help with some figures...

What is their engine cost?
What is their chassis cost?
Would it then be plausible to say that the remainder be the cost of aerodynamics?

Without having access to any figures or wifi at present I cannot do a qualified search. However, I would guess Aero costs double what engine and chassis does combined.
So before we talk budget caps etc, wouldn't it be more plausible to limit aerodynamic development? I'm not saying spec series.
What I'm saying is that you can have areas of development cut out of the current aero rules, bringing a higher focus on engines and chassis.

[WhiteBlue]

Even in the peak spending years, engines didn't reach half those levels WB.

Historic sources disagree.

In March 2007, F1 Racing published its annual estimates of spending by Formula One teams. The total spending of all eleven teams in 2006 was estimated at $2.9 billion US. This was broken down as follows:
Toyota $418.5 million,
Ferrari $406.5 m,
McLaren $402 m,
Honda $380.5 m,
BMW Sauber $355 m,
Renault $324 m,
Red Bull $252 m,
Williams $195.5 m,
Midland F1/Spyker-MF1 $120 m,
Toro Rosso $75 m, and
Super Aguri $57 million.
Costs vary greatly from team to team. Honda, Toyota, McLaren-Mercedes, and Ferrari are estimated to have spent approximately $200 million on engines in 2006, Renault spent approximately $125 million and Cosworth's 2006 V8 was developed for $15 million.

The same source published the following budget split.

According to this a mid grid team like Red Bull Racing or Williams should have spend in excess of $100m in 2006. I think you better retract your statement about potential cost of a new budget war or even an engine cost race. History shows that onle the sky is the limit once they have kicked it off. And we know that some teams who took part in the 2006 race have deeper pockets now while the mid grid and the tail end teams are substantially poorer. So the situation is much more volatile than some people make us believe.