2010 regulation row on £40m budget cap

[donskar]

Teams fail to reach agreement with FIA

By Jonathan Noble Friday, May 22nd 2009, 18:23 GMT


Formula 1 teams failed to reach an agreement with FIA president Max Mosley about the future of the sport on Friday, despite lengthy talks that ran into the early evening.

[gcdugas]

It will not be much longer before we can all sing along with these guys....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5iseJJ5ogA[/youtube]

[gcdugas]

How can they have any confidence that what little they do invest whether in technology or whatever will not be unilaterally ruled against as and when it pleases the FIA.

They can't, because that happens anyway regardless of how much the technology costs.

Case in point : Renault's mass damper system.

This was/is different as it was not a change in regulation but a ruling (which I totally disagreed with) just as with the DD. The one that comes close I think was the Michelin front tire issue. That was a change in the interpretation and hence a change in regs. Which of course meant that michelin had to redesign the tire and their teams had pound around testing the new tire burning some more banknotes in the process. No, what I meant was a team spends dollares on some new rig or design tool only for the FIA to again ban it, without consultation, in the name of cost cutting. Sometimes I think they should be made to reimburse teams for things like this maybe then they will think first and act later.

It matters not whether it is a ruling or a reg. It is the "unilateral" and "arbitrary" and "uncertain" and "unpredictable" way in which the FIA conducts itself that is essential. They can have an arbitrary and unpredictable reg or an arbitrary and unpredictable ruling and it makes no difference. Both are unacceptable and both are standard operating procedure of the FIA... hence the FIA is no longer acceptable with Max at the helm.

[gridwalker]

They can't, because that happens anyway regardless of how much the technology costs.

Case in point : Renault's mass damper system.

This was/is different as it was not a change in regulation but a ruling (which I totally disagreed with) just as with the DD. The one that comes close I think was the Michelin front tire issue. That was a change in the interpretation and hence a change in regs. Which of course meant that michelin had to redesign the tire and their teams had pound around testing the new tire burning some more banknotes in the process. No, what I meant was a team spends dollares on some new rig or design tool only for the FIA to again ban it, without consultation, in the name of cost cutting. Sometimes I think they should be made to reimburse teams for things like this maybe then they will think first and act later.

It matters not whether it is a ruling or a reg. It is the "unilateral" and "arbitrary" and "uncertain" and "unpredictable" way in which the FIA conducts itself that is essential. They can have an arbitrary and unpredictable reg or an arbitrary and unpredictable ruling and it makes no difference. Both are unacceptable and both are standard operating procedure of the FIA... hence the FIA is no longer acceptable with Max at the helm.

Precisely.

Anyway, can't a "ruling" merely be a regulation change by precedent? In the case of mass dampers, it meant that the term "movable aerodynamic devices" could now include internal components that do not interact with the airflow, simply because the device contains moving components and their movement enables the car to maintain a more aerodynamically efficient balance.

By including these devices under the ban on movable aerodynamics, the FIA managed to set a precedent that creates a gray area under the regulations which could enable them to ban any device which effects a car's aero balance on a whim simply because it contains moving parts.

Novel suspension systems could be banned under this precedent, especially if the FIA deem them too costly.

It is a trick that has been used in the law courts again and again : insignificant semantics of an arbitrary ruling can be used at a later date in the most extraordinary circumstances ... It's often simpler, easier and quicker to make a usefully vague ruling than it is to sit down and negotiate a complex piece of legislation.

I always thought that the regs relating to movable ballast were more applicable to the mass dampers, however when you look at it through the prism of the FIA setting precedents, using the regulations relating to movable ballast wouldn't have enabled the FIA to make such a sweeping technical power grab.

The FIA have gotten used to wielding this kind of power & are attempting the coup de grâce with the 2010 regulations. If the teams settle for such a drastic change in formula without their views being taken into account, then the teams will never have a say in the sport again.

Precedents are very important & should never be ignored.

This is why Ferrari are going to fight this until the bitter end.

[WhiteBlue]

How can they have any confidence that what little they do invest whether in technology or whatever will not be unilaterally ruled against as and when it pleases the FIA.

The FIA own the series and not the teams. The FIA have an obligation to their members to keep F1 alive, open and entertaining. Teams, promotors and FOM are all represented in the WMSC which is the highest gremium for setting rules. Fota has no seat in the WMSC. So FOTA should use the proper meetings like the sporting and technical working groups which are recognised by the FIA. But even if they have a unanimous proposal it still needs the approval of the WMSC. Those are the rules since the end of 2007 when the last concord agreement expired to which all teams, the FIA and FOM are signing up each year.

As it has been pointed out before some of the FOTA ideas have been adopted. Some obviously will not get adopted like the shortening of races and a new points system. Some teams have agreements with Bernie to race and it will be very costly not to serve those contracts. Ferrari are known to have an obligation to FOM to race and have been lavishly compensated for that agreement. I would be very surprised if they can afford not to race.

I am not surprised by the way this is going. Ferrari have no realistic way of making the majority of the teams walk away before 1012. Perhaps that is the plan. Until then this whole thing will be settled by a compromise where everybody keeps his face but the result should be the budget cap in a relatively short time.

I am pretty sure that there will be even less enthusiasm for a Montezemolo run series than there is for F1 run by Max and Bernie. They can be sure they will get screwed anyway. But in doubt you usually take the known devil before you go with the unknown.

[timbo]

Another insight from pitpass http://pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news ... t_id=37977

If that's the plan, than it is clear that F1 future is doomed...

[WhiteBlue]

It appears that the so called unity in FOTA is a bed time story. Pat Head in AMuS

The only teams that are not talking about it [the budget cap] are Ferrari and Toyota. They are alone in the corner. Mercedes give me the impression that they will be happy with the budget cap, even BMW are going that way, because you have to be. Flavio makes a lot of noise but it is he who for years has been warning that everything is too expensive. Max came to us to discuss what the (budget) limit should be, then came the news about the Ferrari injunction and he cancelled the meeting.
Now that Ferrari has lost in court, he will no longer be so lenient; I can't imagine he will stray far from the £40 million now.

It sounds as if Monty has been fibbing quite a bit. BMW and Merc will stay and they may even attract other automotive sponsors if F1 ends being a bottomless pit. Pay TV may not be such a bad idea at all. At least we would be instantly getting decent high definition if the product gets upgraded. I'm paying anyway in oder to avoid the wankers from RTL commenting and feeding their adds.

[timbo]

It appears that the so called unity in FOTA is a bed time story. Pat Head in AMuS

Yep, he is even more senile than MM and BE. Being absent at all meating he has very reliable insider information.

Pay TV may not be such a bad idea at all. At least we would be instantly getting decent high definition if the product gets upgraded. I'm paying anyway in oder to avoid the wankers from RTL commenting and feeding their adds.

Yeah, excluding F1 from major viewer exposure combined with introduction of a worldwide known brands as iSports and Campos is a brilliant idea. It may let Bernie close the hole at his pocket since Slavica left and than he may step off. After us the floods.

[enry86]

Hi to all!
Briatore, right after the end of the race, said that FOTA is going to present a document, subscribed by all members, in which they express their position in the controversy.
What they ask is the complete abolition of the new rules for 2010, here is the content of the interview (is in italian, but I can translate it, if you want)
http://www.tuttosport.com/formula1/rena ... 2010%C2%BB

I think is a very hard position, the outcome of the last meetings suggested a different and better development for the whole situation.

[alexbarwell]

Seeing as this seemed to start with renault and ferrari, the situation seemed to present a new edge to the championship - which team could spit its dummy out the furthest, a whole new realm of aero development could come into play. Surely this is part of a challenge - to develop cars for a lot less and still be competitive. We have seen this season that the teams with the biggest pockets have not been at the front. Big PR budget, or better car, or better driver?

[Conceptual]

As a project management specialist, I would PAY my first years salary for the chance to take on the challenge of making an F1 car for 40Meur with the 2010 "cap regs".

Man, the excitement and sense of purpose would be tough to get anywhere else!

[timbo]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/75610

So apparently teams are willing to exchange stable regulations for commitment, interesting what MM would say. If he rejects this proposal maybe he's bored from same old faces in F1

[WhiteBlue]

So this is pretty much going in the direction I expected.

1. Everybody agrees to refuelling ban

2. Two tier was a scare crow that worked and will not be implemented. Rules will be as for unlimited budget.

3. 45 mil € target will be reached 2011 with an interim target for 2010

4. Break away from FOM is possible after 2012 when current contracts expire (FIA to santion series)

I will be surprised if they cannot solve this by the end of the week.

[gcdugas]

I will be surprised if they cannot solve this by the end of the week.

Expect to be surprised then.

[WhiteBlue]

Don't be so negative. It would be nice to have the politicking out of the way for the next GP in Turkey.