Bernie confirms all teams will be allowed to miss 3 races

[Giuseppe F1]

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=39908

[Sonic]

*Groan!*

So now we get to listen to USF1 waffle on for another 3 GP's "confirming" they'll be at the next GP.

Seriously!?! :(

[DazzlaF1]

Me believes it when me sees it with my own 2 eyes.

Probably just BE looking for a bit of attention again.

[Giuseppe F1]

I wonder how Aguri Suzuki and Tom Waslkinshaw will feel when hearing this? :)

[Sonic]

Me believes it when me sees it with my own 2 eyes.

Probably just BE looking for a bit of attention again.

True. I haven't found another site running the story yet...

[Alfa Fan]

I hope, as I imagine, this is just bull. The teams that aren't capable of making the first race should lose their entry and be replaced by Stefan and anyone else capable of running a team.

[SGWilko]

Right now, if I was Dave Richards, whenever I were to hear or see the word F1, I would probably randomly shout "Bunch of C***'s"
BE and Mr Whippy wanted the original £48m bond to rid the sport of the 5+ seconds a lap slower no hopers.

Anyone think USF1 will get within a month of Sundays to being worth a gob of spit?

[jonny hurlock]

I wonder how Aguri Suzuki and Tom Waslkinshaw will feel when hearing this? :)

damn right, if arrows or super aguri couldn't do this, none of the new teams can't do it imo

[DazzlaF1]

I hope, as I imagine, this is just bull. The teams that aren't capable of making the first race should lose their entry and be replaced by Stefan and anyone else capable of running a team.

I think it is bull, the whole point under the terms of the concorde agreement and the $48million bond was to prevent teams from doing what BE is "allegedly" suggesting.

Like i said earlier, i'll believe it when I see it.

[Rollo]

The teams that don't attend GPs will obviously score zero points at that GP. When it comes around to dishing out the revenues from TV rights, for the season following, all it means is that they are going to hurt themselves.

Heck in very rare circumstances, even Olivier Panis won a GP in a Ligier of all things.

[Koz]

Tomorrow they will probably announce that only that you can disregard any 3 races from the championship and it's be another bloody circus.

This is supposed to be the pinnacle... This just makes F1 look cheap.

[Dave B]

I hear that if your team name begins with "US" or "Camp" then you'll be allowed to field just one car, and that car is allowed to be a Formula Ford.

This is farcical :rolleyes:

[555-04Q2]

The circus rolls on...

[Dave B]

Anyway... as I understand it Bernie's only referring to the Concorde Agreement. My understanding of the FIA rules is that teams undertake to field two cars at every event:


13.2 Applications shall include :
f) an undertaking by the applicant to participate in every Event with the number of cars and drivers entered.

Source: pp 5-6 of http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/B113B92B22ACE29CC125768D002AF688/$FILE/1-2010%20SPORTING%20REGULATIONS%2011-12-2009.pdf

So whatever Bernie's thoughts about TV revenue or race promoters, the actual rules don't allow for skipping races.

[Alfa Fan]

Yeah so can we get rid of the over enthusiastic prefix to this thread?

[Dave B]

I think for many people, especially the media, Bernie is F1. It's easily forgotten that he's "merely" the race promoter and the rights holder, not the rule-maker.

Of course he has influence in those areas - although probably less than during the era when he was joined at the hip with Spanky - but it's the FIA who set the rules, not Mr Ecclestone.

[Mark]

I seem to remember reading, back in the mid-90's, that teams could miss a certain number of races, but if they did so, they would be fined a substantial amount per race. Meaning it's cheaper to turn up than not.

[Dave B]

I seem to remember reading, back in the mid-90's, that teams could miss a certain number of races, but if they did so, they would be fined a substantial amount per race. Meaning it's cheaper to turn up than not.
Well that's a more general problem with the FIA's rulebook: it doesn't say what the punishment is. Like much of the FIA's decision making, I suspect it would be made up on the hoof and range from a slapped wrist to a multi-million dollar fine.

The whole rulebook needs clarifying so that everybody - teams, fans, stewards, media - knows that if you do X then the punishment is Y, not the random mess we have at the moment.

[jens]

I can already imagine Peter Windsor's everlasting smiling face saying: "Do not worry, we are right on schedule to reach the fourth race of the Formula One season." :p :

[Mark]

Well that's a more general problem with the FIA's rulebook: it doesn't say what the punishment is. Like much of the FIA's decision making, I suspect it would be made up on the hoof and range from a slapped wrist to a multi-million dollar fine.


No, at the time it was something specific like £500,000 per car per race.

[maximilian]

I think it's quite good. At least they seem to have learned from the mistakes of the past. I never understood why there wasn't more flexibility in participation to allow smaller outfits to run, say, one car, or run the European races only, things like that. We had this in the past, and we certainly have it in other racing series. And it would be a real shame to ban a team from the entire season and lose out on those additional cars on the grid down the road, just because they are unable to make it to the first race (or first couple races).

I maintain that, anybody who is able to produce a reasonably competitive car should be allowed to race, and I believe flexibility is a good thing in this case. I just can't share that elitist snob view of F1 who say that every team has to be doing everything the same way only at highest possible quality with highest budgets or get the hell out. Give the privateers a chance. As it is, they will try their utmost to make as many races as they can.

[Mark]

Personally I don't think it fits with the image of F1.

It always seems to be the case in British touring cars, that there are teams that miss the first two or three races because they 'aren't ready'.

If you aren't ready for the first race, try again next year?!

[wedge]

Personally I don't think it fits with the image of F1.

Teams go bust mid-season.

[V12]

I seem to remember reading, back in the mid-90's, that teams could miss a certain number of races, but if they did so, they would be fined a substantial amount per race. Meaning it's cheaper to turn up than not.

...which of course led to situations, the most recently at Magny-Cours in 2002 where Arrows turned up and deliberately DNQ'd to fulfil their "obligations". I vaguely remember Forti and maybe Simtek doing likewise when they were drawing their dying breaths as well.

If teams aren't ready and they need to skip the opening rounds, it's hardly the end of the world. It's actually only a relatively recent phenomenon where the entry list has been identical at every WC round.

Even the likes of Mercedes (the original guise) missed the opening two rounds in 1954 while readying their new car, Ferrari missed the inaugural WC round in 1950, Brabham only showed up midway through 1962, Williams (post-Wolf) I believe missed the start of the 1977 season, I could go on.

Yes, it's better for the teams to be ready from the start, and it's even worse when there is an apparently more than ready reserve (Stefan) waiting in the wings - but as far as I'm concerned that's just score another one for having an open entry list rather than a cap.

Taking Stefan out of the equation, I'd rather have 11 teams for the first 3 races and 13 from then onwards, than 11 teams all season long.

But here's hoping it doesn't come to that :)

At any rate it might be good for f1rejects.com to have some fresh material for its Teams section in the future :)

[maximilian]

Taking Stefan out of the equation, I'd rather have 11 teams for the first 3 races and 13 from then onwards, than 11 teams all season long.

EXACTLY! There are still 16 out of 19 races to contend, after all!

[UltimateDanGTR]

V12: my thoughts exactly! If there was a more open entry system to F1-ie Stefan could enter as well and more could have a go to try and qualify, then i think it would be fine.

and you are right, at any rate i bet F1rejects are currently rubbing their hands with glee!

[Copse]

Yeah so can we get rid of the over enthusiastic prefix to this thread?

I agree. "Bernie says" does not equal "OFFICIAL:". Can some moderator please fix?

[maximilian]

I agree. "Bernie says" does not equal "OFFICIAL:". Can some moderator please fix?
"But under the new version of the Concorde Agreement, teams may now miss three races before their official entry is handed back to the FIA, according to a report in the British newspaper Sunday Express."

If it's really in the new Concorde Agreement, then it really IS official. Soooo... is it really in there? :)

And might that mean that StefanGP may be asked to WAIT for 3 races before they are allowed to give it a shot?

28 cars!!! Come on guysssss!!!!!!!! :D

[Sonic]

[I]
EXACTLY! There are still 16 out of 19 races to contend, after all!
If F1 had an open door policy, as most of us would like to see, then I would have no problems with letting teams miss races as there would always be someone waiting in the wings who, thanks to the no shows, could make it past pre qualifying and into the race proper.

However it is not. F1 is a closed club and the teams selected by the all powerful FIA are meant to be the cream of the crop, so if they can't get their act together and show up at race one - screw 'em!

F1 must decide which way it is going, either let them all try - good, bad, whatever. Or be selective and uphold the image of F1 as the top of the motorsport food chain.

[N. Jones]

28 cars? We might not have 24 cars on the grid, so I can't see how we can have 28. :)

[cathedral]

bump

[Valve Bounce]

There is a reason for this - Bernie always comes up with something stupid to get attention. But I can't figure out yet how he's going to make more money running with this, but I am sure he has it all figured out. :confused:

[V12]

[I]
F1 must decide which way it is going, either let them all try - good, bad, whatever. Or be selective and uphold the image of F1 as the top of the motorsport food chain.

The thing is, with an open door policy, F1 would still be "top of the food chain". Because any no-hopers would likely DN(P)Q their way to oblivion and fold anyway, but the point is at least they'd be able to get the shot, and for every bunch of Colonis and EuroBruns, you'd get the odd Jordan or Sauber that force their way through and establish themselves as a fixture, and IMO that would be worth the transient dross.

The FIA vetting procedure has come in for a lot of stick, but even if we work on the assumption that it has the best intentions, it can never be a real substitute for a bit of good old track-based natural selection (to use your nature analogy again)

Having said that, since it is a closed shop and there's nothing we can do about it, I do find it hard to disagree that USF1 and Campos shouldn't get any free passes, but ONLY if Stefan are there ready and waiting to pick up the slack from race one.

[ArrowsFA1]

Todt says the World Council has agreed that GP teams can miss up to three races, no necessarily consecutive, without penalty
http://twitter.com/byronf1

[Sonic]

The thing is, with an open door policy, F1 would still be "top of the food chain". Because any no-hopers would likely DN(P)Q their way to oblivion and fold anyway, but the point is at least they'd be able to get the shot, and for every bunch of Colonis and EuroBruns, you'd get the odd Jordan or Sauber that force their way through and establish themselves as a fixture, and IMO that would be worth the transient dross.

The FIA vetting procedure has come in for a lot of stick, but even if we work on the assumption that it has the best intentions, it can never be a real substitute for a bit of good old track-based natural selection (to use your nature analogy again)

Having said that, since it is a closed shop and there's nothing we can do about it, I do find it hard to disagree that USF1 and Campos shouldn't get any free passes, but ONLY if Stefan are there ready and waiting to pick up the slack from race one.

I agree with every word. My preference is open door, but as you say we are lumbered with this elitist bull then the teams picked better damn well show up.

[Dave B]

http://twitter.com/byronf1
All teams? Not just new teams?

So say McFerrari-Bull wrap up the championship with two races remaining, what's to stop them skipping the final couple of events to work on their 2011 car?

[ArrowsFA1]

All teams? Not just new teams?

So say McFerrari-Bull wrap up the championship with two races remaining, what's to stop them skipping the final couple of events to work on their 2011 car?
I assume such a ruling would have to apply to all teams...wouldn't it :confused:

So, in theory, yes the champions could skip a couple of races :crazy:

[I am evil Homer]

Ah good old F1...always finding a way to shoot itself in the feet.

[Mark]

All teams? Not just new teams?

So say McFerrari-Bull wrap up the championship with two races remaining, what's to stop them skipping the final couple of events to work on their 2011 car?

I think that would only apply if they've won the constructors championship too?
But there are also sponsors to think about. They sign up to be shown at all races and so the team would likely lose more money by not racing than they would save by not turning up.

[I am evil Homer]

I think many sponsors would view it as breach of contract...you sign up to a team on the basis they will race in all 16 rounds, getting TV air time etc across each broadcast. And right now pissing off sponsors would be a very bad thing.

[Mark]

I assume such a ruling would have to apply to all teams...wouldn't it :confused:

Doesn't have to be. It could be that teams in their first year of competition can miss three races. But there is then the question of how you define if it is a teams first year. Is it Mercedes first year in 2010?

[maximilian]

It's absurd to suggest that any championship-winning team would voluntarily sit out a race just because they "don't feel like racing!" :rolleyes:

[Garry Walker]

I think it's quite good. At least they seem to have learned from the mistakes of the past. I never understood why there wasn't more flexibility in participation to allow smaller outfits to run, say, one car, or run the European races only, things like that. We had this in the past, and we certainly have it in other racing series. And it would be a real shame to ban a team from the entire season and lose out on those additional cars on the grid down the road, just because they are unable to make it to the first race (or first couple races).

I maintain that, anybody who is able to produce a reasonably competitive car should be allowed to race, and I believe flexibility is a good thing in this case. I just can't share that elitist snob view of F1 who say that every team has to be doing everything the same way only at highest possible quality with highest budgets or get the hell out. Give the privateers a chance. As it is, they will try their utmost to make as many races as they can.

F1 is not charity. If you cant handle it, then get the f*ck out. I have nothing against privateers if they are competent, but the jokes the grid is getting filled with now, that I dont want to see. They will just be getting in the way of the leaders during the race and wasting everyones time.

[Sonic]

This is just bl00dy madness! We are in an insane situation where a team without an entry has already shipped its gear to both Bahrain and Malaysia and is ready to go, and two teams who have got an entry are being given free passes to be incompetent! It boils down to the fact that the FIA are hugely embaressed at the horlicks they have made of this vetting system.

And now Jean Todt is saying that even if one or more teams drop out, SGP would not automatically be offered the grid slot - good grief! :(

[ArrowsFA1]

It boils down to the fact that the FIA are hugely embaressed at the horlicks they have made of this vetting system.
Given that it was the FIA who promoted the idea of these new teams and went through a rigorous vetting process to approve them, a 50% failure rate of those it approved does not look good...that is if the stories about Campos & USF1 have some foundation :dozey:

[V12]

Thinking about it some more...if the upshot of all this is that the FIA vetting procedure is revealed to be incompetent and scrapped, I guess some good will have come of it all. Doubt it though.

[Sonic]

Thinking about it some more...if the upshot of all this is that the FIA vetting procedure is revealed to be incompetent and scrapped, I guess some good will have come of it all. Doubt it though.

A glass half full kinda guy!

Personally I'm disapointed in Todt. He had the perfect chance to break from the past, point the finger at the old guard, and open the doors wide to new applicants.

[SGWilko]

They will just be getting in the way of the leaders during the race and wasting everyones time.

.....and we've been there and done that with the likes of Lola and frends.

[jonny hurlock]

F1 is not charity. If you cant handle it, then get the f*ck out. I have nothing against privateers if they are competent, but the jokes the grid is getting filled with now, that I dont want to see.

completely agree, do all 19 grand prixs or don't do it at all, fia = joke, have some balls for the god of love.

[jens]

A glass half full kinda guy!

Personally I'm disapointed in Todt. He had the perfect chance to break from the past, point the finger at the old guard, and open the doors wide to new applicants.

The new application process will be opened during 2010 to select (a) new team(s) for 2011 if the grid reduces to less than 13 teams. It's not like they can throw a licenced F1 team out of the series already before the season merely due to negative rumours.

[Dave B]

I think many sponsors would view it as breach of contract...you sign up to a team on the basis they will race in all 16 rounds, getting TV air time etc across each broadcast. And right now pissing off sponsors would be a very bad thing.
All true, but do the teams we all assume this rule is aim at even have any sponsors yet?

[Alfa Fan]

Beyond Petronas/Lotus and Virgin/Manor you mean? Whether you count them as a "sponsor" is questionable, but no doubt the money for the two projects must be coming from somewhere!

[christophulus]

In a routine display of inconsistency, the FIA confirm that no team can miss even one race:



The FIA stated: "Following recent reports on the interpretation of clauses in the Concorde Agreement concerning the concept of a team's 'participation' in the FIA Formula One World Championship, the FIA wishes to make the following clarification:
"From a sporting and regulatory point of view, each team that has registered for the championship is obliged to take part in every event of the season.
"Any failure to take part, even for just one championship event, would constitute an infringement both of the Concorde Agreement and the FIA Regulations."http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81382


Consistent decision making my ar.... :s

[SGWilko]

In a routine display of inconsistency, the FIA confirm that no team can miss even one race:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81382


Consistent decision making my ar.... :s

Just like the old regime. Normal service has, sadly, been resumed.

[Dave B]

That's consistent with the rule I quoted earlier on this thread, but it begs the question as to why first Bernie then Todt said the exact opposite. :crazy:

As an aside, USF1 and Campos are now toast. :\

Edit: as ever with the FIA we have the problem of not knowing what the punishment is. If it's a slap on the wrists and a token fine then it's worth breaking the rules. If it's exclusion from the championship then clearly not. I suspect we won't know until the rule gets broken.

As I always say, the FIA needs a clear rulebook which specifies in advance the punishment for breaking any given rule.

[SGWilko]

That's consistent with the rule I quoted earlier on this thread, but it begs the question as to why first Bernie then Todt said the exact opposite. :crazy:

As an aside, USF1 and Campos are now toast. :\

Edit: as ever with the FIA we have the problem of not knowing what the punishment is. If it's a slap on the wrists and a token fine then it's worth breaking the rules. If it's exclusion from the championship then clearly not. I suspect we won't know until the rule gets broken.

As I always say, the FIA needs a clear rulebook which specifies in advance the punishment for breaking any given rule.

Clear rules do not suit the FIA. They need to be as grey as an ex-prime minister.

[Alfa Fan]

As an aside, USF1 and Campos are now toast. :\

As they should be. It's not as if they only found out about their entry in October (Lotus) or January (Sauber!) I'll take Stefan GP from the first GP of the season over having USF1 and Campos. Its a shame it could take until the first race for this to be all sorted. I still remember Phoenix travelling to Malaysia in 2002(?) trying to compete (although if memory serves me right then they only got as far as putting a couple of car components through scrutineering).

[Bagwan]

Right now, if I was Dave Richards, whenever I were to hear or see the word F1, I would probably randomly shout "Bunch of C***'s"
BE and Mr Whippy wanted the original £48m bond to rid the sport of the 5+ seconds a lap slower no hopers.

Anyone think USF1 will get within a month of Sundays to being worth a gob of spit?

You and Dave Richards can relax , and maybe see this as a return to the consistancy you wish from Todt and the FIA , rather than the "glass half empty" approach you use against them .
Give Todt some time to become that idiot you call him , before calling him an idiot .
Remember , he's got big shoes to fill .

This has Bernie written all over it .
He got an idea in his head which fulfilled the dream of the full grid , and came out with it . The press ran with it , and Todt , not having fully checked the facts , made a bad assumption , to believe Mr. Ecclestone .

It could also be that he believes , or believed the rules could have or can be changed to accommodate such before the season starts .

So , maybe Todt was a dick for listening to Bernie , or he sees it as possible , but , at this point , the only thing that matters is that it is back to what it should be : miss a race , and yer out .

If he does get it changed , call him whatever you like , as he'll deserve it .

[truefan72]

confusion reigns at the FIA, In that regard some things never change.

As some have said here already, the FIA is embarrassed about the way things went about in their vetting process of the teams and I have my own strong opinions as to how and why these 3 new teams entered the sport of which 2 are failing. BMW sauber is an exception because it was a takeover of another team just like stefan GP would be/is. so it is a 66% failure rate of their new entrants.

To make matters worse they are stupidly saying things like stefan gP would not automatically be granted a spot on the grid. despite the finances, an entire team, completed and track ready cars, and already shipping equipment to the first race. This is just ludicrous IMO.

About the 3 race missing thing. The stance has not really changed, all they are saying is that they can and will pay a penalty for missing the race. To me the rule is put in place for existing teams that have some sort of mishap or run into some short term financial difficulties and such. Not for teams making it on the grid for the first time. There should be no wiggle room for those teams. Show up for the first race on the F1 calendar or lose your grid spot.

The FIA needs to grow a pair and do what is right. They continue to embarrass the sport with their comically sad reign over F1. This is what happens when you have a bunch of political bureaucrats running a sport in a cocoon from reality and with no accountability.

[RS]

As some have said here already, the FIA is embarrassed about the way things went about in their vetting process of the teams and I have my own strong opinions as to how and why these 3 new teams entered the sport of which 2 are failing. BMW sauber is an exception because it was a takeover of another team just like stefan GP would be/is. so it is a 66% failure rate of their new entrants.

I would count 4 new entrants including Lotus who were given BMWs slot. That makes it a 50% success (or failure) rate, which is still not good!

[N. Jones]

So the FIA President says one thing and someone or a group of someones says something different.

Who at the FIA contradicted the president and why would they do so? Aren't they all looking to "eat crow" if some of the new teams do not show up at Bahrain, while a team with no entry is there is force?

[truefan72]

I would count 4 new entrants including Lotus who were given BMWs slot. That makes it a 50% success (or failure) rate, which is still not good!

you know you are right, but I do think sauber retained a lot of BMW' staff and equipment and the car design is from what they worked on last year for 2010. so to me they are technically a new entrant but not having any of the logistics, equipment, staffing and operational issues that any of the other 3 have had.

[555-04Q2]

If teams aren't ready by the first race, they should be banned for the rest of the season and heavily penalized with a fine.

Imagine soccer team X arriving three days late for their match against soccer team Y and expecting everyone to be happy about it.

If you can't develope a car in time you have no business being in F1, period.

[truefan72]

If teams aren't ready by the first race, they should be banned for the rest of the season and heavily penalized with a fine.

Imagine soccer team X arriving three days late for their match against soccer team Y and expecting everyone to be happy about it.

If you can't develope a car in time you have no business being in F1, period.

exactly :up:

[Sonic]

If teams aren't ready by the first race, they should be banned for the rest of the season and heavily penalized with a fine.

Imagine soccer team X arriving three days late for their match against soccer team Y and expecting everyone to be happy about it.

If you can't develope a car in time you have no business being in F1, period.

Truth!

[Robinho]

the way i read it, is that the Teams may miss up to 3 events without forfeiting their entry (whether you agree with that or not), BUT, not without consequences, as they will be breaking the terms of their entry and will be subject to punishment, probably a fine or points penalty or something.

i read up to 3 races as a minor breach, attracting punishment, whereas over 3 races is a gross breah and its goodbye.

not sure whether i agree, but equally i don't think that Stefan should be allowed to just sit and lobby for a spare spot if someone doesn't turn up. they failed to gain an entry, along with N Technology, Prodrive, Lola and others, who all could conceivabley have either bought the toyotas, or come up with their own cars anyway and all be pushing for the spot they didn't get.

i don't agree with the original vetting procedure, but just turning up isn't right either.

[Copse]

"But under the new version of the Concorde Agreement, teams may now miss three races before their official entry is handed back to the FIA, according to a report in the British newspaper Sunday Express."

If it's really in the new Concorde Agreement, then it really IS official. Soooo... is it really in there? :)


Are you actually trying to argue that "According to a report in the [...] Sunday Express..." is reason for OFFICIAL to be in the thread title? That's even weaker than "Bernie says that...".

A driver signing is official when a team press release says it. Not when an insider, or team principal says so in an interview. A change in the rules of F1 is official when the amended regulations are published by the FIA, or when the FIA make a press release explaining a new interpretation. It is absolutely amazing how people can not understand that "official" does not mean likely, almost certain, or even dead certain.

[52Paddy]

In one way, I don't like this idea. It's unjust when compared what happened to Arrows and Super Aguri (as already stated) but also, it will encourage more time wasting. If USF1 don't turn up in Bahrain, all of our discussing and hoping (those who would like to see them) would be in vain. Then we have a couple of more weeks of false hope before they fold the outfit or are kicked from the sport. Even if they turn up with a dog of a car in Bahrain, I'll be happy. But this business of being let off the hook for the three races just leaves way for immature behaviour in a sport that is acting as the pinnacle of its form.

On the other hand, I would like to see a return of wild-card entries like we had up until the early 80s. But that would probably need a revision of the rules in order to accommodate customer cars and is, in effect, just a rambling of my mind.