We find out today...

[ArrowsFA1]

The FIA will unveil later today in Monaco the raft of cost cuts that look set to secure the sport's future.

No details of what was agreed have yet been released in public, but it is understood they revolve around dramatic cuts in testing - which perhaps go as far as a total in-season testing ban - plus reductions in wind tunnel work and aerodynamic development.

Furthermore, it is believed that the FIA will approve an 11th hour decision to drop plans for a standard engine for 2010 after the manufacturers agreed themselves to supply cheap power units to independent teams.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72449

[Knock-on]

Furthermore, it is believed that the FIA will approve an 11th hour decision to drop plans for a standard engine for 2010 after the manufacturers agreed themselves to supply cheap power units to independent teams.

Didn't see that one coming :rolleyes:

[pino]

...and the winner is ? Luca di Montezemolo :up: :p :

[Allyc85]

No in-season testing at all, surely not?? So they will be putting new parts on cars that havnt even been checked out on track, thats safe isnt it?

[ArrowsFA1]

Didn't see that one coming :rolleyes:
Indeed, and what, I wonder, happens to Cosworth who bid for and won the contract which (it appears) may have now been dropped?

[BDunnell]

So, it turns out that Lewis Hamilton's remarks yesterday about the standard engine not happening, which sounded like a misreading of the situation to me, were correct. Excellent news for F1. See, it wasn't beyond the wit of man for them to cut costs and avoid the Cosworth option!

[Knock-on]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72442

I think we're missing the message here.

Max has been out "Maxed" I think. He held this threat of standard engines over the teams and they have responded with a package that has swamped him. It seems that the teams have finally started properly working together and have rewritten the FIA rule books by consensus.

So, next year, we will get closer, cheaper racing i think.

However, did you see the caveat at the end. You're forgetting Bernie in this little love-in.

Knockie hypothesis is this. Bernie is still hoping to charge top $$$ for the commercial right to F1 but is being battered by an increasing number of circuits. He is going to have to move his position and negotiate.

If FOTA can provide a united front with the teams and the FIA, they might secure additional funding from FOG/FOM thereby redressing the inequality in the sport.

I see Bernie as the rather meaty filling in a FOTA / FIA sandwich.

Knowing Bernie though, he's not too bothered as he's sold off 90% of the business and the 10% is in his estranged wife's name :laugh:

[Knock-on]

Indeed, and what, I wonder, happens to Cosworth who bid for and won the contract which (it appears) may have now been dropped?


Well, we still have F2 :D

[Mark]

No in-season testing at all, surely not?? So they will be putting new parts on cars that havnt even been checked out on track, thats safe isnt it?

That's why they should have an unrestricted Friday test day. So they can test new parts etc, without any restrictions on tyres, engines, etc.

[ArrowsFA1]

Well, we still have F2 :D
Oh yeah. I do remember reading a while ago that someone has signed up to drive in that series, but they'll have Audi power.

Having just checked...Max said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72324): "We have completed the tendering process and are now in exclusive negotiations with Cosworth together with Xtrac and Ricardo Transmissions (XR) to supply a complete Formula One power train starting in 2010."

I guess those negotiations will just stop :dozey:

[Dave B]

Unless Cosworth were tipped the wink about the tendering process being a bluff, they'll have wasted a lot of time and money on this.

[Knock-on]

Oh yeah. I do remember reading a while ago that someone has signed up to drive in that series, but they'll have Audi power.

Having just checked...Max said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72324): "We have completed the tendering process and are now in exclusive negotiations with Cosworth together with Xtrac and Ricardo Transmissions (XR) to supply a complete Formula One power train starting in 2010."

I guess those negotiations will just stop :dozey:

Hope they didn't spend too much on this. Must have been stupid to when it was obviously one of Max's negotiating ploys

[ArrowsFA1]

It seems that the teams have finally started properly working together and have rewritten the FIA rule books by consensus.
That certainly appears to be very true :up: and if so is a significant development. Until the formation of FOTA the FIA could rely on divisions among the teams in order to impose regulation changes.

[Allyc85]

That's why they should have an unrestricted Friday test day. So they can test new parts etc, without any restrictions on tyres, engines, etc.

That does sound like a good idea. Or maybe let them test at the circuit theyve just raced at like the do in moto gp.

[Mark]

That does sound like a good idea. Or maybe let them test at the circuit theyve just raced at like the do in moto gp.

I don't see a problem with that, but the fact is that Friday has been pointless for many years now. And if they insist upon keeping it then they might as well give it some reasonable purpose, and a test session seems the best idea to me. Especially if all other testing is banned.

Then you have a tactical choice. Do you use the test session to set up for the race, or test your new parts?

[ArrowsFA1]

A total ban on in-season testing, major revisions to engine regulations and dramatic cuts in aerodynamic development have formed the cornerstone of a radical rules overhaul that will cut costs in Formula One.
Following a meeting of the FIA's World Motor Sport Council in Monaco on Friday, the FIA has announced a host of measures that will be put in place over the next few years that will cut budgets by at least one third from next season.
All in-season testing, apart from that conducted during scheduled practice on a Grand Prix weekend, has been banned.
Teams have also been outlawed from using any tunnel that exceeds 60 percent scale and 50 metres per second after January 1, 2009. Factories will also have to be closed for six weeks per year.
Engine life is to be doubled, with drivers limited to a maximum of eight power-units over the course of the season - plus four for testing. However, the three-race rule voted through on November 5 remains in place.
This extra life will be achieved through a rev reduction to 18,000rpm, with no internal re-tuning allowed. Adjustment to trumpets and injectors will be permitted, however.
The reduction to 20 engines per team for the season means engine budgets should be cut in half compared to this season.
More to follow.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72456

[ioan]

Then you have a tactical choice. Do you use the test session to set up for the race, or test your new parts?

Or maybe you do both?! ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

2009
Engine
Engine life to be doubled. Each driver will use a maximum of eight engines for the season plus four for testing (thus 20 per team).
Limit of 18,000 rpm.
No internal re-tuning. Adjustment to trumpets and injectors only.
The three-race rule voted on 5 November remains in force.
Cost of engines to independent teams will be approximately 50% of 2008 prices.
Unanimous agreement was reached on a list of proposed changes to the Renault engine for 2009; all other engines will remain unchanged. Comparative testing will not be necessary.
Testing
No in-season testing except during race weekend during scheduled practice.
Aerodynamic research
No wind tunnel exceeding 60% scale and 50 metres/sec to be used after 1 January 2009.
A formula to balance wind tunnel-based research against CFD research, if agreed between the teams, will be proposed to the FIA.
Factory activity
Factory closures for six weeks per year, to accord with local laws.
Race weekend
Manpower to be reduced by means of a number of measures, including sharing information on tyres and fuel to eliminate the need for "spotters".
Sporting spectacle
Market research is being conducted to gauge the public reaction to a number of new ideas, including possible changes to qualifying and a proposal for the substitution of medals for points for the drivers. Proposals will be submitted to the FIA when the results of the market research are known.
Note: It is estimated that these changes for 2009 will save the manufacturer teams approximately 30% of their budgets compared to 2008, while the savings for independent teams will be even greater.
2010
Power train
Engines will be available to the independent teams for less than €5 million per team per season. These will either come from an independent supplier or be supplied by the manufacturer teams backed by guarantees of continuity. If an independent supplier, the deal will be signed no later than 20 December 2008.
This same engine will continue to be used in 2011 and 2012 (thus no new engine for 2011).
Subject to confirmation of practicability, the same transmission will be used by all teams.
Chassis
A list of all elements of the chassis will be prepared and a decision taken in respect of each element as to whether or not it will remain a performance differentiator (competitive element).
Some elements which remain performance differentiators will be homologated for the season.
Some elements will remain performance differentiators, but use inexpensive materials.
Elements which are not performance differentiators will be prescriptive and be obtained or manufactured in the most economical possible way.
Race weekend
Standardised radio and telemetry systems.
Ban on tyre warmers.
Ban on mechanical purging of tyres.
Ban on refueling.
Possible reduction in race distance or duration (proposal to follow market research).
Factory activity
Further restrictions on aerodynamic research.
Ban on tyre force rigs (other than vertical force rigs).
Full analysis of factory facilities with a view to proposing further restrictions on facilities.
Longer term
The FIA and FOTA will study the possibility of an entirely new power train for 2013 based on energy efficiency (obtaining more work from less energy consumed). Rules to be framed so as to ensure that research and development of such a power train would make a real contribution to energy-efficient road transport.
An enhanced Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) system is likely to be a very significant element of an energy-efficient power train in the future. In the short term, KERS is part of the 2009 regulations, but is not compulsory. For 2010 FOTA is considering proposals for a standard KERS system. The FIA awaits proposals.
A number of further amendments were adopted for the 2009 and 2010 Sporting and Technical Regulations.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72459

[Mark]

Ban on refueling.


That's an interesting little line hidden away in the detail there. I didn't expect to see that one. But it does make perfect sense. How much do those fuel rigs cost after all?!

[Knock-on]

That's an interesting little line hidden away in the detail there. I didn't expect to see that one. But it does make perfect sense. How much do those fuel rigs cost after all?!

Could be your life if we have another Massa like mix-up :(

[Mark]

Could be your life if we have another Massa like mix-up :(

Unless the new team Honda makes me an offer I can't refuse I doubt it :p . But your right, there have been quite a few accidents with the seemingly fool proof fuel rigs, none have caused any major problems, but they are an unnecessary risk really.

But, we still do need pit stop, even just for tyres.

[wedge]

That's why they should have an unrestricted Friday test day. So they can test new parts etc, without any restrictions on tyres, engines, etc.

True, but how do you schedule that over a normal GP weekend with support races that need track time and so forth?


I don't see a problem with that, but the fact is that Friday has been pointless for many years now. And if they insist upon keeping it then they might as well give it some reasonable purpose, and a test session seems the best idea to me. Especially if all other testing is banned.

Friday has never been pointless over the past few years. It's become a tyre test over the prime and option compounds, to gauge degradation and graining.




On the whole its all good. Excuse my ignorance but the sharing of fuel and tyre information sounds worrisome following of from McLaren/Ferrari spy row; tyre warmers WILL be banned, testing banned and hopefully no changes to race distance.

Good work gentlemen :up: :up:

[ioan]

That's an interesting little line hidden away in the detail there. I didn't expect to see that one. But it does make perfect sense. How much do those fuel rigs cost after all?!

I didn't expect it either, but it's welcome for the show.
How about having to completely redesign the cars to allow for a 2xbigger fuel tank? Doesn't that cost money? Maybe it's offset by not having to use refueling rigs and the 2 people that have to work with them?

[Nikki Katz]

I'm broadly supportive of most of it, but I'm still very anti the refuelling ban. As was mentioned before, in the 80s people tended to have to conserve fuel during the races, and many ran out of fuel in the last few laps. The GP2 race in Valencia this year was also a good example of that.
Also, the race distance would necessarily have to be slashed as the current cars can't go that far on one tank of fuel, and they don't want to introduce a whole new aero program 5 minutes after the current one is introduced, and especially not when we're supposed to be cutting costs.

[PolePosition_1]

All good to me, only disappointment is the possibility of standardising KERS. Whilst I appreciate its to cut costs, I thought the original idea behind introduction of KERS was to make F1 technology more relevant, surely by standardising KERS, your moving the focus away from making F1 a field of pushing KERS to its ultimate limits.

If they're going to standardise it, I'd say just scrap it altogether and save even more money.

[Knock-on]

All good to me, only disappointment is the possibility of standardising KERS. Whilst I appreciate its to cut costs, I thought the original idea behind introduction of KERS was to make F1 technology more relevant, surely by standardising KERS, your moving the focus away from making F1 a field of pushing KERS to its ultimate limits.

If they're going to standardise it, I'd say just scrap it altogether and save even more money.


I was thinking of that when I read it :laugh:

The claim: Max says F1 technology will help car manufacturers and the racing.

Reality: KERS is dumbed down and inferior to road technology.

The Future: Further standardised meaning it is consigned to a great white Elephant.

[Easy Drifter]

Be interesting to see how the drivers adapt to no tire warmers. Some will probably struggle at first.
They are talking of shortening the races. That would negate to some extent the fuel problem but I think the races are already too short. Trouble is I remember when they were around 300 miles. Larger fuel tanks will require larger cars and the handling will change more as the fuel is burned off than is now the case. With the costs of chassis redesign will it really save money?
I think the testing ban is a little dangerous. No question it will save money as test teams will be gone as will test drivers as well as the costs of track rental and hotel costs for the test teams. However the chance of component failure will increase.
I expect some of the rules planned for future implementation will disappear. Just look at the number of rules that have supposed to have come into effect over the last few years have quietly disappeared. The use of cheaper materials and standard parts will most likely die a quiet death as the economy improves.
One way to keep the costs down would be to stop the constant tinkering with the rules. Every change costs the teams money to implement.
Do the teams really need those all huge hospitality trucks with training rooms and private areas for each driver? They all stay in hotels anyway.
I know we can't go back in time but that is just a very obvious way in which teams spend as much money as they can get their grubby paws on.
I must admit that after over 50 years of following F1 (and at one time being with a F1 team) I am beginning to lose interest. I may not bother to watch next year but probably will. However if they dumb it down too much I will be gone.

[Dave B]

My only real objection to the proposals is the hidden gem about banning refulling almost certainly goes hand-in-hand with the potentially reduced race distance / duration. I fear we're in for 60 minute races to fit the dumbed-down attention span of TV viewers.

Other than that it all seems fair enough.

[Andrewmcm]

"The chance of component failure will increase" - is that strictly true? Since the introduction of the one engine per one/two races the number of engines that blew up during races has dropped significantly (no facts to back this up but Brundle has noted it in his commentary).

Surely a lack of testing will make teams a bit more conservative and build components that are more likely to last for longer?

[truefan72]

don't like most of the suggestions at all especially the refueling ban and 3 engine rules. I always felt that cost cutting should be up to the individual teams and not mandated from the legislative side at all.

All these moves are gimmicky and have no real value IMO. When the economy turns around and money starts to flow again, I don;t see why a team cannot invest their appropriate amount to become champs.

These applications move F1 further away from a legitimate top series and more into a gimmicky series with useless contrived parity, cheap chasis, standardized units and shorter races.

My interest in F1 is fading rapidly. And the irony is, that it wasn't the economy bringing about my disinterest but their own stupidity of reducing a once proud series into the laughing stock of the motor world.

Better to leave the sport like Honda did, than to participate in this nonsense.
At least I got to see Hamilton win the last "real" championship.

[curry]

All I can say is how many times have they gotten it right when changing the rules in F1!

[Easy Drifter]

Curry: About the same # of times the Toronto Maple Leafs have won the Stanley Cup in the last 40 years. :D :rolleyes:

[VkmSpouge]

I'm generally in favour of all those changes they've made. Hopefully it will make F1 cheaper.

[fizzicist]

Generally good. Coupla problems:

We had an opportunity here to really push the boundaries of hybrid technology. All you needed was to allow engine development, a restriction on fuel capacity, no refuelling and 200 mile races combined with KERS and you're sorted. Although I guess if they leave KERS free, the development will come.

[Valve Bounce]

We had an opportunity here to really push the boundaries of hybrid technology. .

This always puzzles me: why should F1 be the avenue for pushing hybrid or any other technology?

I'd rather see F1 simply as the means for the best drivers racing in very, very fast cars. PERIOD!!

[CNR]

yet Ahole Bernie Ecclestone will still make around 30 million pre race weekend

[BDunnell]

I didn't expect it either, but it's welcome for the show.
How about having to completely redesign the cars to allow for a 2xbigger fuel tank? Doesn't that cost money? Maybe it's offset by not having to use refueling rigs and the 2 people that have to work with them?

I have thought for some time that the tech regs out to allow at least the flexibility to make running through without a fuel stop a viable option.

[ShiftingGears]

This always puzzles me: why should F1 be the avenue for pushing hybrid or any other technology?

I'd rather see F1 simply as the means for the best drivers racing in very, very fast cars. PERIOD!!

I totally agree.

[Somebody]

Race weekend
Ban on tyre warmers.
Ban on mechanical purging of tyres.
Ban on refueling.
Is it just me, or does this amount to an effective ban on non-emergency pit stops? (I include stops to change to and from wets under "emergency") You need to carry enough fuel to last you to the end of the race, since you can't pit for fuel, and you'd be spending a lap or more "driving on ice" after a tyre stop and you'd lose a hellavalot of time (cf: the Toyotas' last lap in Brazil, when their tyres lost temperature). And if they maintain the "you must use two compounds during a race" rule and thus enforce a pitstop, everyone will do one stop and no more.

I forsee some very hard tyres in 2010.

And DO NOT WANT the shortening of races.

[Valve Bounce]

Is it just me, or does this amount to an effective ban on non-emergency pit stops? (I include stops to change to and from wets under "emergency") You need to carry enough fuel to last you to the end of the race, since you can't pit for fuel, and you'd be spending a lap or more "driving on ice" after a tyre stop and you'd lose a hellavalot of time (cf: the Toyotas' last lap in Brazil, when their tyres lost temperature). And if they maintain the "you must use two compounds during a race" rule and thus enforce a pitstop, everyone will do one stop and no more.

I forsee some very hard tyres in 2010.

And DO NOT WANT the shortening of races.

There's nothing in the new regs that bans drivers from coming into the pits and waving to the Pit Babes, or having a shyte, although the latter could be regarded as an emergency if it wasn't just a routine visit.

[Somebody]

There's nothing in the new regs that bans drivers from coming into the pits...

Effective, de facto, ban. They can come in, but it's strongly enough to their disadvantage to do so that they won't if they can at all avoid it.

[Hawkmoon]

Effective, de facto, ban. They can come in, but it's strongly enough to their disadvantage to do so that they won't if they can at all avoid it.

They'll still be stopping for tyres. The pit crews will be back to wearing shorts and turning the cars around in less than 5 seconds. Should be good. Refuelling has done nothing good for the sport.

[ArrowsFA1]

In Max's view (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72462):
"...what's significant about these changes is when you walk down the pit lane, or you sit in the grandstand or watch on television, you will notice no difference at all."
Oviously we are yet to see the impact of these changes, but is he right :confused:

[Valve Bounce]

In Max's view (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72462):
Obviously we are yet to see the impact of these changes, but is he right :confused:

I suppose if we banned all on board computers, you won't see the difference either.

[wedge]

This always puzzles me: why should F1 be the avenue for pushing hybrid or any other technology?

I'd rather see F1 simply as the means for the best drivers racing in very, very fast cars. PERIOD!!

F1 has always been regarded as the pinnacle - active suspension, semi-auto transmission, seamless transmission, carbon brakes. Hybrid technology should be pushed into development.

They're very, very fast cars for nothing. The competition between constructors is so high that the rate of development is quicker and quicker over the decades.

That's one of the appeals of motorsport - to see which teams can differentiate themselves to get on top of the other and vice versa. The driver gets the plaudits and quite rightly so but there's competition between the designers and engineeers as well as the drivers.


In Max's view (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72462):
Oviously we are yet to see the impact of these changes, but is he right :confused:

Max is right but what you'll get is a much slower rate of development (on paper looks like snail's pace!) because huge money is spent on R&D.

[jso1985]

While I don't think they're bad ideas, I still fail to see how banning re-fuelling and tyre-warmenrs it's really going to help to cut costs. :confused:

[ioan]

While I don't think they're bad ideas, I still fail to see how banning re-fuelling and tyre-warmenrs it's really going to help to cut costs. :confused:

At least they don't need to buy refueling rigs anymore, same goes for tire warmers, that's something that might make a (small) difference for the likes of Williams FI and STR. But that's it.

[CNR]

At least they don't need to buy refueling rigs anymore, they will still need to fuel the car before the race and i am not sure if the refueling rigs get replace each year

[CNR]

While I don't think they're bad ideas, I still fail to see how banning re-fuelling and tyre-warmenrs it's really going to help to cut costs. :confused:

power bill at the race track ?

but this should be good to see how a driver will go on cold tyres how maney crash out on cold tyres

[Valve Bounce]

F1 has always been regarded as the pinnacle - active suspension, semi-auto transmission, seamless transmission, carbon brakes. Hybrid technology should be pushed into development.

They're very, very fast cars for nothing. The competition between constructors is so high that the rate of development is quicker and quicker over the decades.

That's one of the appeals of motorsport - to see which teams can differentiate themselves to get on top of the other and vice versa. The driver gets the plaudits and quite rightly so but there's competition between the designers and engineeers as well as the drivers.

.

This is where I disagree with the pinacle lovers. Consider the following purely hypothetical scenarios:

Case A : Sterling Moss lines up at the German GP in an oudated privately enterred Lotus powered by a 4 cylinder 1.5 litre Climax engine which wouldn't drag the peel off a tomatoe against the might of Ferrari in their V6 engines with around 10% more power and driven by Von Tripps, Phil Hill and Ritchie Ginther. Through his superior driving ability, Moss not only qualifies ahead of the Ferraris but manages to beat them to the finish line by more than 20 seconds.

Case B : At a test session at Estoril earlier in 1996 Villeneuve ponders the possibility of overtaking around the outside of the Parabolica corner. His engineers tell him it isn’t possible, which to Villeneuve means that, of course, he has to do it.

But Schumacher is not too impressed with such a move, telling Villeneuve “I don’t think you should be doing that, it’s not really safe.” Villeneuve laughs.

Case C: (purely hypothetical and imaginery) Schumacher steams away in his superior Ferrari with a 6 or 7 speed gearbox with seamless change from the rest of the field including poor bunsen with his non seamless change gearbox. Isn't this exciting?

Of course, I made up the three above scenarios, but if it did happen, I would find Cases A, and B very, very exciting. Case C, well I wouldn't find that very exciting at all and I would leave it to the pinacle believers. To me, F1 is all about the better driver on the day winning the race through his ability. Bugger the pinacles.

[Valve Bounce]

...................then, of course, had Moss been able to pull that off at Monaco, it would have been even more exciting.

[call_me_andrew]

If they want to save money on refueling rigs, why not just ban the rigs? Replace the pressure fed system with a gravity fed system (a la IndyCar) or use fuel cans like DTM and NASCAR.

And get rid of the fuel doors!

[wedge]

Of course, I made up the three above scenarios, but if it did happen, I would find Cases A, and B very, very exciting. Case C, well I wouldn't find that very exciting at all and I would leave it to the pinacle believers. To me, F1 is all about the better driver on the day winning the race through his ability. Bugger the pinacles.

Re-read my post again


F1 has always been regarded as the pinnacle - active suspension, semi-auto transmission, seamless transmission, carbon brakes. Hybrid technology should be pushed into development.

They're very, very fast cars for nothing. The competition between constructors is so high that the rate of development is quicker and quicker over the decades.

That's one of the appeals of motorsport - to see which teams can differentiate themselves to get on top of the other and vice versa. The driver gets the plaudits and quite rightly so but there's competition between the designers and engineeers as well as the drivers.

The competition between constructors has been an appeal to a lot - if not the majority of F1 fans. IMHO I certainly wouldn't want F1 to become like A1GP or GP2.

Fair enough, that's your opinion Valve and I agree to it to an extent but surely with your examples show that its more enjoyable to see a driver out drive the car in inferior machinery compared to a driver out drive a car in an inferior team in a series like GP2?

[Mr-914]

I think the new rules are going to decrease the excitement of the sport. To start with, these new cars are hideous. F1 had finally gotten back to building pretty cars last year, and now we are going to back to oddly proportioned over-regulated cars. Part of F1 is sex appeal, that is disappearing. These future engines are quickly approaching spec engines. The rev limits, the optional Cosworth 5 million euro deal...it stinks of capping any creativity that was left in the teams. The only bright spot is banning refueling, which should have been done a decade ago.

Now...the real problem in F1 is the FIA management. The F1 teams are facing a difficult economy where companies are cutting back on adverts and racing teams. So, in the face of this, what does the FIA do for 2009: makes all the teams develop from scratch a brand new technology in the form of KERS. Why is Honda pulling out? FIA rules.

Instead of mandating some exotic technology like KERS, let's just open the engine rules up and let the teams play. I think the idea of mandating that the big players have to allow customer engines is a good idea. I wouldn't even mind season long engines...although I always hear it's the development costs that are high, not the production.

What am I looking forward to in 2009? Even more than ever, Le Mans series. All kinds of engines, I can tell the cars apart and the racing is cracking. I'll still watch F1, yah, but it's increasingly just another series.

[BDunnell]

I think the new rules are going to decrease the excitement of the sport. To start with, these new cars are hideous. F1 had finally gotten back to building pretty cars last year, and now we are going to back to oddly proportioned over-regulated cars. Part of F1 is sex appeal, that is disappearing. These future engines are quickly approaching spec engines. The rev limits, the optional Cosworth 5 million euro deal...it stinks of capping any creativity that was left in the teams. The only bright spot is banning refueling, which should have been done a decade ago.

Now...the real problem in F1 is the FIA management. The F1 teams are facing a difficult economy where companies are cutting back on adverts and racing teams. So, in the face of this, what does the FIA do for 2009: makes all the teams develop from scratch a brand new technology in the form of KERS. Why is Honda pulling out? FIA rules.

Instead of mandating some exotic technology like KERS, let's just open the engine rules up and let the teams play. I think the idea of mandating that the big players have to allow customer engines is a good idea. I wouldn't even mind season long engines...although I always hear it's the development costs that are high, not the production.

What am I looking forward to in 2009? Even more than ever, Le Mans series. All kinds of engines, I can tell the cars apart and the racing is cracking. I'll still watch F1, yah, but it's increasingly just another series.

I respect and totally understand your opinions, but how, then, are the sport's costs to be cut? I think there's general agreement that they need to be, for otherwise there might not be an F1 to not follow as closely as you used to!

[Dave B]

Just to be clear, none of these proposals will actually cut costs - for the top teams at least.

All they mean is that teams on a lower budget have more chance of parity. The top teams will still spend their budget, just that they'll have to get more creative if they are to reap an advantage.

[ioan]

I think the new rules are going to decrease the excitement of the sport. To start with, these new cars are hideous. F1 had finally gotten back to building pretty cars last year, and now we are going to back to oddly proportioned over-regulated cars. Part of F1 is sex appeal, that is disappearing. These future engines are quickly approaching spec engines. The rev limits, the optional Cosworth 5 million euro deal...it stinks of capping any creativity that was left in the teams. The only bright spot is banning refueling, which should have been done a decade ago.

Now...the real problem in F1 is the FIA management. The F1 teams are facing a difficult economy where companies are cutting back on adverts and racing teams. So, in the face of this, what does the FIA do for 2009: makes all the teams develop from scratch a brand new technology in the form of KERS. Why is Honda pulling out? FIA rules.

Instead of mandating some exotic technology like KERS, let's just open the engine rules up and let the teams play. I think the idea of mandating that the big players have to allow customer engines is a good idea. I wouldn't even mind season long engines...although I always hear it's the development costs that are high, not the production.

You're not really coherent.

1st of all the excitement has nothing to do with the cars being beautiful or not.

2nd - beauty is subjective, what's ugly for you might be judged as beautiful by others.

3rd - the KERS introduction wasn't decided this season but at a moment when there was no financial and economical crisis. What should the FIA do? tell them to throw their 2 year designs away because there is a crisis?!

4-th Honda are out because they were stupid, they were not able to get results with all the money they poured into the team, plus they had no sponsorship!

[ioan]

Just to be clear, none of these proposals will actually cut costs - for the top teams at least.

All they mean is that teams on a lower budget have more chance of parity. The top teams will still spend their budget, just that they'll have to get more creative if they are to reap an advantage.

Exactly.

The small teams will be able to build competitive cars with smaller budgets but the bigger teams will always outspend them and get those extra tenths of a second advantage.

[BDunnell]

Just to be clear, none of these proposals will actually cut costs - for the top teams at least.

All they mean is that teams on a lower budget have more chance of parity. The top teams will still spend their budget, just that they'll have to get more creative if they are to reap an advantage.

But is it not true that, overall, the amounts of money 'circulating', for want of a better word, in the sport will fall?

[Tazio]

Just to be clear, none of these proposals will actually cut costs - for the top teams at least.

All they mean is that teams on a lower budget have more chance of parity. The top teams will still spend their budget, just that they'll have to get more creative if they are to reap an advantage.And, to extrapolate your very insightful point further, things will not change at the top. The disparity between the have’s and the have-nots will remain as they have come to be. What I believe is occurring is the ongoing formula changes while making it possible for the smaller budgets to stick around, (It's necessary to be able to field a grid IMHO of 18 to 22 cars) the of the McLaren’s, and Ferrari's of the F1 world will through the expenditure of large amounts in the area of R&D, continue to dominate in a way that these regulations are meant to stop or at least limit. You can reduce testing and wind tunnel usage, but what is next?
These reg's will undoubtedly force innovative teams that can afford it, to develope, and rely more extensively on Computational Fluid Dynamics. An area that is already very costly. I don't know what the answer is but expect the reg. changes to come on a regular basis in the foreseeable future, as the lower budget teams will continue to fall back. :confused:

[Valve Bounce]

They're very, very fast cars for nothing.
.

I don't understand! :confused:

[Valve Bounce]

Re-read my post again



The competition between constructors has been an appeal to a lot - if not the majority of F1 fans. IMHO I certainly wouldn't want F1 to become like A1GP or GP2.

Fair enough, that's your opinion Valve and I agree to it to an extent but surely with your examples show that its more enjoyable to see a driver out drive the car in inferior machinery compared to a driver out drive a car in an inferior team in a series like GP2?

The appeal to me has always been the competition between the drivers and not the cars. The trouble with trying to become the pinacle for any team involves throwing money into an ever hungrier furnace. The teams develop some fantastic system at great expense and if it is greatly successful, the FIA will ban it. Active suspension, turbo, fan, Trax, McLarens third pedal, auto gearboxes, etc. It just doesn't make sense. Why the hell throw money away.

Then, of course, we have HONDA who throw even more money away for a null return.

Then Max comes along after all these pinacle innovations at great expense give a team an advantage and bans them. What the hell is going on? Why not ban them before the teams start pouring money into them?

I am sure if McLaren develop a KERS that will give them a 1 second advantage over Ferrari and the others, Max WILL ban KERS.

A driver can't be banned for going too fast - or can he? Well, Max will think of ways to ban a driver if they look crosseyed at him; just ask Jacques. Then, of course, if he is a McLaren driver, they will get him for a trivial or trumped up charge because McLaren is on the nose these days.

OK, I've given you my solution: ban on board computers and aero to cut costs. You give me yours.

[Mr-914]

1. I know the cars are going to be uglier because I'm a successful product designer. I could go into more detail about why they are ugly, but that would require more effort than the subject is worth. Just trust me on this one.

2. KERS was introduced a couple years ago, but the FIA has been complaining about rising costs for two decades. Why do they force teams to develop expensive exotic technology while constantly "trying" to cut costs? Because of conspiracy or ignorance? Take your pick.

3. How to balance F1? I don't think it should be balanced. I don't have a problem with a couple teams running away. It's always been that way. Whether it was Mercedes and Vanwall or Williams and McLaren.

If the FIA wants to balance F1, why not have more equal revenue sharing? Everyone gets 1/10th of the TV profits. That would certainly help the small teams. Also, this proposal doesn't touch technology, which the FIA apparently knows nothing about.

Another idea is freeze the regs for a longer period. They keep tweaking every year. Of course that costs an arm and a leg. Freeze the regs for five years at a time. This way, the big teams will find the big gains the first year, the small teams can adopt them and become competitive. By year 3 or 4, everyone will be nearly equal as all the teams will have found the "low hanging fruit" of development. Note again, this is just managing the rules, not proposing any technology.

I suggest that everyone go and download a race from 1986-1994 to see how exciting F1 can be with loose rules. Of course, the winners were often the same, but it's pretty interesting how many small teams managed to get in the top 6.

Top 6...that reminds me of the stupid points system. If Bernie wants more wins, just give 12 points to the winner...no stupid medals. What the hell are these people thinking? I'm starting to think the society in Logan's Run had it right. Maybe the FIA just needs to stop letting senile old farts write the rule books. If I could vote, I'd make Gordon Murray FIA president.

[Mark]

"The chance of component failure will increase" - is that strictly true? Since the introduction of the one engine per one/two races the number of engines that blew up during races has dropped significantly (no facts to back this up but Brundle has noted it in his commentary).


Yes. In fact it's been ever since they introduced Parc Ferme rules meaning teams can't take their car apart on Saturday nights has increased reliability massively. Used to be you could expect about a third of the field to drop out with technical problems. That doesn't happen any more.

[PolePosition_1]

don't like most of the suggestions at all especially the refueling ban and 3 engine rules. I always felt that cost cutting should be up to the individual teams and not mandated from the legislative side at all.

All these moves are gimmicky and have no real value IMO. When the economy turns around and money starts to flow again, I don;t see why a team cannot invest their appropriate amount to become champs.

These applications move F1 further away from a legitimate top series and more into a gimmicky series with useless contrived parity, cheap chasis, standardized units and shorter races.

My interest in F1 is fading rapidly. And the irony is, that it wasn't the economy bringing about my disinterest but their own stupidity of reducing a once proud series into the laughing stock of the motor world.

Better to leave the sport like Honda did, than to participate in this nonsense.
At least I got to see Hamilton win the last "real" championship.

A true right wing racing enthusiast!! The market will solve anything!

I couldn’t disagree more. If we’re talking of business or sport, I totally disagree with this approach, and I think its worldwide accepted now that true capitalist approach of ‘the market will solve everything’ is simply not practical, sure it works, but too many people get hurt in process, with the correct intervention, you can limit the hurt caused by a declining market, and come out the other end as unhurt as possible.

And I think these steps are a good step for intervention, and not only will it help those already in F1, but will be good for F1 long term.

[PolePosition_1]

This always puzzles me: why should F1 be the avenue for pushing hybrid or any other technology?

I'd rather see F1 simply as the means for the best drivers racing in very, very fast cars. PERIOD!!

Because a part of F1 appeal, to both fans and those involved is that by being in F1, they can show their market that they're the best in their fields.

Whether we like it or not, hybrid technology is the future of the motoring industry, and with it being the current media darling, it makes both economical and marketing sense to get F1 involved in this.

And with things as they are, F1 is a luxury for majority involved, if it can be seen to be relevant to its primary activities to justify its position in F1, it can only be seen as a positive.

[Bezza]

My only real objection to the proposals is the hidden gem about banning refulling almost certainly goes hand-in-hand with the potentially reduced race distance / duration. I fear we're in for 60 minute races to fit the dumbed-down attention span of TV viewers.

Other than that it all seems fair enough.

I agree. The current race length of approx 1hour 30mins (depending on track) is perfect and does not need to be changed.

Going to a MotoGP style race distance will not interest me.

[ShiftingGears]

I agree. The current race length of approx 1hour 30mins (depending on track) is perfect and does not need to be changed.

Going to a MotoGP style race distance will not interest me.

I agree.

[Valve Bounce]

I agree.

Me too!!

[wedge]

The appeal to me has always been the competition between the drivers and not the cars. The trouble with trying to become the pinacle for any team involves throwing money into an ever hungrier furnace. The teams develop some fantastic system at great expense and if it is greatly successful, the FIA will ban it. Active suspension, turbo, fan, Trax, McLarens third pedal, auto gearboxes, etc. It just doesn't make sense. Why the hell throw money away.

Because racing is about pushing the limits. A driver will always want a quicker car than they presently drive, and quite rightly the boffins will try create one by pushing the limits of the rules.

In some cases the FIA are right to ban because its an indication of that we've reached the limit of car technology that aids the driver far too much eg. TC and active suspension.


Then, of course, we have HONDA who throw even more money away for a null return.

Then, of course, we have Renault who throw money away just to win a race this year when they started off with bad car.


I am sure if McLaren develop a KERS that will give them a 1 second advantage over Ferrari and the others, Max WILL ban KERS.

I doubt it. Max is planning spec KERS.


OK, I've given you my solution: ban on board computers and aero to cut costs. You give me yours.

The new rules regarding car development are perfect. All what was needed was to slow the rate of development because huge costs go towards R&D, wind tunnel, testing, etc.

What do you mean by onboard computers? Everything is so reliant on the ECU these days. The onboard controls on the steering wheel? No different to the days when they controlled the boost, air/fuel mixture, roll bars.

Though I understand some of your frustrations we could do with spec aero, steering wheel, transmission but hybrid technology is new and untried and tested at top level motorsport.

[Valve Bounce]

I give up - let's agree to disagree.

[Bezza]

Me too!!

That must be the first time you have ever agreed with something I've said!!

[jens]

I can understand the need to cut costs, but in some areas they have gone too far IMO. No in-season testing? Sorry, but this is not normal. Development as such is the main goal of F1, it can't be taken away. If someone has stuffed up by the first race of the season, they may well write the season off. This ban is especially harsh considering all those rule changes and new technologies. If someone can't get KERS to functioning properly by Melbourne, they may as well throw it into the bin...

And now KERS itself. A standard one for 2010? Teams have been developing an expensive system, which can be used only for one season at best?! "Cutting costs". The problem with FIA is that their decisions are simply too shortsighted. They decide to change rules due to current situations, then circumstances "suddenly" change in the world or in F1 itself and they change the rules again, and again - and this process seems to be lasting forever.

Don't really know, what to make of the ban of refueling - future will tell, I guess. When we are looking at the races since 1994 (with refueling), then the importance of strategy has risen and if the racing itself hasn't been exciting, then at least strategical games have made battles more interesting. If the racing itself won't improve, then the ban of refueling wouldn't change much in the positive way. People often use an argument that in the 80's racing with the ban of refueling was interesting, but back then F1 itself was quite different and we can't make a straight comparison. For example tyres itself were less durable and often blistered, which forced drivers often to pit for new tyres, which created more mess and fluctations in races. I hope at least the fuel tanks will be big enough, so that drivers won't need to save fuel during the race like they did in 80's. IMO it's not "proper racing" if a driver can't race on the limit for 100% of the time.

The current length of races is just fine - don't see any need to change this.

[jens]

I am sure if McLaren develop a KERS that will give them a 1 second advantage over Ferrari and the others, Max WILL ban KERS.


Hm, I'm starting to think that maybe Toyota has chosen the right path. They are the only ones, who have officially announced they won't be racing with KERS in 2009. People have been surprised by this decision as Toyota has had so much experience with hybrid cars and now they somehow are "unable" to build such system. Oh really? Maybe there are some other calculations behind the decision. ;)

I personally wouldn't rule out either that KERS might get banned before 2009 (don't underrate FIA and their changing moods!) and then Toyota would have an advantage as they are the only ones, who have been concentrated on developing a car, which is constructed without keeping the needs of KERS in mind.

[Valve Bounce]

That must be the first time you have ever agreed with something I've said!!

You're right!!

[Valve Bounce]

Hm, I'm starting to think that maybe Toyota has chosen the right path. They are the only ones, who have officially announced they won't be racing with KERS in 2009. People have been surprised by this decision as Toyota has had so much experience with hybrid cars and now they somehow are "unable" to build such system. Oh really? Maybe there are some other calculations behind the decision. ;)

I personally wouldn't rule out either that KERS might get banned before 2009 (don't underrate FIA and their changing moods!) and then Toyota would have an advantage as they are the only ones, who have been concentrated on developing a car, which is constructed without keeping the needs of KERS in mind.

I think Toyota, although they have stated they are commited to remain in F1 next year, are undergoing difficult times with tens if not hundreds of thousands of cars unsold worldwide, and they have also stated they are not going to lay off their workers. Under the circumstances, they will probably have to cut down dramatically on R&D. And, as you point out, maybe they are not convinced KERS is the way to go.

[BDunnell]

I can understand the need to cut costs, but in some areas they have gone too far IMO. No in-season testing? Sorry, but this is not normal. Development as such is the main goal of F1, it can't be taken away. If someone has stuffed up by the first race of the season, they may well write the season off. This ban is especially harsh considering all those rule changes and new technologies. If someone can't get KERS to functioning properly by Melbourne, they may as well throw it into the bin...

And now KERS itself. A standard one for 2010? Teams have been developing an expensive system, which can be used only for one season at best?! "Cutting costs". The problem with FIA is that their decisions are simply too shortsighted. They decide to change rules due to current situations, then circumstances "suddenly" change in the world or in F1 itself and they change the rules again, and again - and this process seems to be lasting forever.

Maybe we shouldn't look at it as 'cutting costs', but reducing the amounts of money circulating in F1. There is simply no way that most car manufacturers involved in F1, surely, can really justify their current spends on the sport in the prevailing financial climate. The whole sport begins to look like an irrelevant extravagance when car markets are shrinking and workers are being laid off. The same can be said of all motorsport, of which F1 is the most visible example. What is to be done that isn't short-termist, that provides good racing, that allows individuality rather than spec components, and so on? I can't come up with an answer.



Don't really know, what to make of the ban of refueling - future will tell, I guess. When we are looking at the races since 1994 (with refueling), then the importance of strategy has risen and if the racing itself hasn't been exciting, then at least strategical games have made battles more interesting. If the racing itself won't improve, then the ban of refueling wouldn't change much in the positive way. People often use an argument that in the 80's racing with the ban of refueling was interesting, but back then F1 itself was quite different and we can't make a straight comparison. For example tyres itself were less durable and often blistered, which forced drivers often to pit for new tyres, which created more mess and fluctations in races. I hope at least the fuel tanks will be big enough, so that drivers won't need to save fuel during the race like they did in 80's.

As I said earlier in this thread (I think it was this one), surely it isn't beyond the capabilities of F1 rulemakers and engineers to come up with a formula which means that different fuel strategies can be competitive?


IMO it's not "proper racing" if a driver can't race on the limit for 100% of the time.

I disagree. There are different forms of racing, and car preservation, whether it be engine, tyres or whatever, is as legitimate a form of racing as any other in my opinion. For instance, I wouldn't begrudge Prost his 1986 title even though he wasn't the quickest in the field that year. His win was a great achievement.

[jens]

I disagree. There are different forms of racing, and car preservation, whether it be engine, tyres or whatever, is as legitimate a form of racing as any other in my opinion. For instance, I wouldn't begrudge Prost his 1986 title even though he wasn't the quickest in the field that year. His win was a great achievement.

I can understand your thought, but in my view "economical racing" should be better part of other types of racing, like endurance racing. F1 better remain as it is.

[Valve Bounce]

I can understand your thought, but in my view "economical racing" should be better part of other types of racing, like endurance racing. F1 better remain as it is.

....................or the Mobil Economy Run. Bring back the Rambler!!

[aryan]

yet Ahole Bernie Ecclestone will still make around 30 million pre race weekend

Which in the grand scheme of things, is nothing. Stop this nonsense about executive pay. Talent earns money. BE made FOM and completely changed the commercial nature of F1.

Anyway, about these changes, I love all of them, but two:

1) shortening races. But that's just because I am a race fan. I can actually see a 60 minute race being more popular with the "general public".

2) Standardising KERS. You've just created it, why standardise it the next year? All the effort and money that went into producing the 2009 KERS will just go down the drain.

What I liked most about the proposals:

1) Ban on refueling (though I'm afraid it will go with shorter races).

2) The possibility of looking into energy efficiency (obtaining more work from less energy consumed) from 2013. This is were real innovation will happen in the next decade. F1 should be part of it, and at its forefront.

[aryan]

I think the new rules are going to decrease the excitement of the sport. To start with, these new cars are hideous. F1 had finally gotten back to building pretty cars last year, and now we are going to back to oddly proportioned over-regulated cars. Part of F1 is sex appeal, that is disappearing. These future engines are quickly approaching spec engines. The rev limits, the optional Cosworth 5 million euro deal...it stinks of capping any creativity that was left in the teams. The only bright spot is banning refueling, which should have been done a decade ago.

Now...the real problem in F1 is the FIA management. The F1 teams are facing a difficult economy where companies are cutting back on adverts and racing teams. So, in the face of this, what does the FIA do for 2009: makes all the teams develop from scratch a brand new technology in the form of KERS. Why is Honda pulling out? FIA rules.

Instead of mandating some exotic technology like KERS, let's just open the engine rules up and let the teams play. I think the idea of mandating that the big players have to allow customer engines is a good idea. I wouldn't even mind season long engines...although I always hear it's the development costs that are high, not the production.

What am I looking forward to in 2009? Even more than ever, Le Mans series. All kinds of engines, I can tell the cars apart and the racing is cracking. I'll still watch F1, yah, but it's increasingly just another series.


While you are driveling over your incoherent unrelated rant, and think being a "successful product engineer" gives you special capability to know what is beautiful, we here on planet earth recognise that we have to cut costs. I know... I don't like slow cars either... I would like F1 to be the fastest baddest nastiest cars ever... but then, that's exactly the same reason why we have so few privateers, why manufacturers are leaving the sport, and why we don't have a full (24 car) grid.

F1 went the wrong path since 1994 which culminated in the 2002-2004 boring years (with 2003 a fluke ;-) It has started to slightly correct itselt since 2005, and these proposals follow on that path.

[curry]

Current econmic climate:

F1: Honda (Japan) - OUT
WRC: Suzuki (Japan) - OUT
WRC: Subaru (Japan) - OUT

See the common thread?

Now tell me where Toyota is from again!

[Valve Bounce]

Current econmic climate:

F1: Honda (Japan) - OUT
WRC: Suzuki (Japan) - OUT
WRC: Subaru (Japan) - OUT

See the common thread?

Now tell me where Toyota is from again!

Toyota has 40 thousnad unsold vehicles they are trying to get rid of in Oz that I know of.

[aryan]

Toyota has 40 thousnad unsold vehicles they are trying to get rid of in Oz that I know of.

And nothing of value is lost by not buying those awful Camrys and Corollas.

Oh wait... the Camry now has a 80s style spoiler... stick a "sports" badge to it and call it a sports car :rolleyes:

And wait... the Prius is sooo green everyone should drive one. Never mind that the energy and material that goes into its production is about 1.7 times that of a normal hatch, and that it weights about 500 kg more than a Panda 100.

Toyota: The most tactless, characterless, boring, un-innovative car there ever was.

[ioan]

Toyota has 40 thousnad unsold vehicles they are trying to get rid of in Oz that I know of.

I'm willing to pay 10€ for one and relieve them of the burdain if they ship it to my door!
Hell I'll buy all of them for 5€ a piece! ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

Max has been out "Maxed" I think...I see Bernie as the rather meaty filling in a FOTA / FIA sandwich.
Comments somewhat supported by Luca di Montezemolo:

Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo believes the era of Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone's domination of Formula One is over - and thinks the current costs crisis may accelerate change at the senior levels of the sport.

"What's certain is that the time to divide and conquer to rule in F1 is over."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72514

[jens]

Current econmic climate:

F1: Honda (Japan) - OUT
WRC: Suzuki (Japan) - OUT
WRC: Subaru (Japan) - OUT

See the common thread?

Now tell me where Toyota is from again!

Yes. And to be honest, I'm a bit worried about Toyota. Arguably they have a lot of reserves, so they should be able to survive the economic crisis, but in tough times they may realize it's better to use these in other areas.

What sounded strange to me is that recently Trulli has been talking about race wins for 2009. Usually he is not a so-called propaganda-guy and to talk up the car already before he has sat in it seemed kinda odd. What came through my mind, was that at worst scenario he already knows that there is pressure for Toyota to withdraw and hence feels that he needs to convince the team to stay with a positive message.



Toyota: The most tactless, characterless, boring, un-innovative car there ever was.

But despite all this they are arguably the biggest car manufacturer in the world, so they must be doing something right! ;)

[Knock-on]

Comments somewhat supported by Luca di Montezemolo:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72514

Well, Balestre didn't see it coming till it was too late and I think that Max has just tried to bolt the door a bit too late :D

If he takes the FIA with him, then it really doesn't matter anymore because it's dead from the neck up anyway.

[BDunnell]

Well, Balestre didn't see it coming till it was too late and I think that Max has just tried to bolt the door a bit too late :D

You could also say that LdM and others have left it too late to be critical.

[ArrowsFA1]

Perhaps, but I still think it is significant that Luca says "the time to divide and conquer to rule in F1 is over". It's a clear recognition of the way F1 has been run in the past, and that the formation of FOTA, and the unity of the teams, marks a major change for the future of F1.

[Tazio]

Perhaps, but I still think it is significant that Luca says "the time to divide and conquer to rule in F1 is over". It's a clear recognition of the way F1 has been run in the past, and that the formation of FOTA, and the unity of the teams, marks a major change for the future of F1.
Probably the most coherent thing LdM has said in a looooong time!

[Knock-on]

You could also say that LdM and others have left it too late to be critical.

Fair point.

Ferrari led a privileged position in F1 as proven by the extra money they were paid to compete in the sport over everyone else. It's also true that the President of the FIA confirmed that Ferrari were the most important team leading to speculation they were further favoured.

While this artificial situation existed, it was illogical to bite the hand that fed it.

Now, the realisation that a cancer exists in motorsport has culminated in the realisation of impending ruin if steps aren't taken.

Looking at the harmony within F1 at the moment, it's clear that there is an unprecedented level of co-operation between Ferrari and McLaren at the moment; even friendship. This is the clearest indicator that a shift has occurred and I think FOTA isn't finished yet.

[555-04Q2]

To be fair to Ferrari, they have been in F1 since the start and have been loyal to the sport. Loyalty in = loyalty returns. We have a similar policy at work where our long time loyal customers get certain privelages that others dont.

[ArrowsFA1]

To be fair to Ferrari, they have been in F1 since the start and have been loyal to the sport.
Just a couple of minor points on that...

Ferrari were not present at the very first GP of the 'modern' era (British GP 1950) because Enzo Ferrari was in dispute over starting money. Enzo was also not slow in withdrawing, or using the threat of withdrawl, when things weren't going Ferrari's way. John Surtees won his 1964 title racing not for Ferrari, but for the 'North American Racing Team', and Ferrari's CART programme was started (IIRC) when V12's were on the verge of being outlawed. Needless to say Ferrari continued racing V12's for a while and there was no prancing horse presence in CART.

But, that said, Ferrari & F1 do go hand in hand.

[Valve Bounce]

I think the Manufacturers have fianlly realised that if they stick together instead of fighting each other and take a stand against Bernie + Max, they will be able to take control of F1 themselves. And I am willing to bet that Luca will have a huge say in how that will take place sooner, rather than later. I think the standard engine fiasco was the last straw.

It would be very easy for all teams to quit F1 and form another competition if they stuck together.

[555-04Q2]

Just a couple of minor points on that...

Ferrari were not present at the very first GP of the 'modern' era (British GP 1950) because Enzo Ferrari was in dispute over starting money. Enzo was also not slow in withdrawing, or using the threat of withdrawl, when things weren't going Ferrari's way. John Surtees won his 1964 title racing not for Ferrari, but for the 'North American Racing Team', and Ferrari's CART programme was started (IIRC) when V12's were on the verge of being outlawed. Needless to say Ferrari continued racing V12's for a while and there was no prancing horse presence in CART.

But, that said, Ferrari & F1 do go hand in hand.

:up:

[CNR]

http://www.manchester.com/Sports_News/Ferrari_back_FIA_over_standard_engine_rejection-18936831.html


Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo has given his full backing to formula one governing body the FIA over its decision not to adopt a standard engine.

Crisis talks in order to reduce the cost of running an F1 team have been held in recent months so that the sport can continue to operate effectively in the current economic climate.

And at the talks, the FIA considered a proposal to introduce standard engines as a way of slashing the financial outlay of teams.

However, after Ferrari threatened to walk away from F1 over the plan FIA president Max Mosley backed down.

And Di Montezemolo said the change of heart effectively saved the sport from a mass exodus.

"It was an occasion to leave F1. If the standard engine had passed, at least four or five teams would have abandoned [the sport]," he claimed.

[Valve Bounce]

But, that said, Ferrari & F1 do go hand in hand.

Some would argue that hand in glove might be more correct.

[trumperZ06]

Perhaps, but I still think it is significant that Luca says "the time to divide and conquer to rule in F1 is over". It's a clear recognition of the way F1 has been run in the past, and that the formation of FOTA, and the unity of the teams, marks a major change for the future of F1.

:D Yep !!!

;) That was part of the intent back when the manufacturers threatened to spin off from Formula One.

Now that Ferrari is "on board", it enables FOTA to challenge the two stooges who were using Ferrari to divide and conquer the others on the grid.

[Hawkmoon]

Sorry, wrong thread. :o