Mosley warns F1 teams to expect big changes.

[FourWheelDrift]

Crash.net said:

Formula One must ready itself for some far-reaching changes over the next few years if it is to move with the times and embrace an increasingly environmentally-conscious world. That was the message from FIA president Max Mosley, speaking during a summit at BMW's headquarters in Munich following the historic resolution reached between the sport's governing body and the Grand Prix Manufacturers' Association. One of the key changes, he warned, could concern the fuel-burning stage of qualifying, in line with current concerns about escalating CO2 emissions.

"One of the suggestions is that we take five minutes off and allow an extra set of tyres," he explained. "Then you are going to see non-stop action. Whether you run with fuel or without fuel is another discussion again, but I think everyone is conscious of that."

Hey, Max. Cars can't run without fuel, it's what makes the little bangs and causes the wheels to rotate.

Crash.net said:

Another difference will be the money teams are allowed to spend on developing their cars, with cost-cutting high on the new agenda as the sport endeavours to retain its traditional manufacturer and independent mix.

"What we feel would be reasonable would be a Formula One team with not more than 200 employees and able to run at the front for a budget in the order of £100 million," he added. "That is the objective.

New Objective - Forced unemployment on teams with more than 200 staff. If a team spends it's £100million budget too soon on crash repairs (Sato) will they be forced to sit out the remainder of the season? Wouldn't that invoke the penalty clause of the Concorde agreement so they'll have to pay an FIA fine, hardly cost cutting is it?

Crash.net said:

"It is a fundamental change. It means we've completely changed the way we go about managing the rules. That is the first change, and the first effect that has come out of that is the change in attitude to cutting-edge modern technology."

Indeed, it is the sport's shift towards an alternative – and more eco-friendly – form of technology that was one of the principal factors in encouraging Mosley to remain at the helm of the FIA, after initially announcing he would be stepping down in June, 2004.

"Suddenly for me, all this has become very interesting," he said. "It has become as fascinating as, a few years ago, I found the whole crash-testing programme with NCAP. I think that Euro NCAP made a huge contribution to improving safety.

The safety improvements wouldn't have been put in place if it wasn't for the money invested by the teams and the staff you want them to sack.

Crash.net said:

"I think what we have found here is going to accelerate the whole technology that reduces CO2 emissions, improves fuel economy and above all helps make the public more conscious of the importance of those technologies. It is a huge change in Formula One and one that it would be a privilege to be involved in."

Just get rid of Bernie, stop fcking around with the circuits, let the teams have some free range on design but limit other speed factors like wings (standard 3 plane design) there's more as well..............but there was something else....... oh yes. Your resignation.

Edited by FourWheelDrift on Friday 24th November 00:50

[flemke]

FourWheelDrift said:

Crash.net said:

Another difference will be the money teams are allowed to spend on developing their cars, with cost-cutting high on the new agenda as the sport endeavours to retain its traditional manufacturer and independent mix.

"What we feel would be reasonable would be a Formula One team with not more than 200 employees and able to run at the front for a budget in the order of £100 million," he added. "That is the objective.

New Objective - Forced unemployment on teams with more than 200 staff. If a team spends it's £100million budget too soon on crash repairs (Sato) will they forced to sit out the remainder of the season?

Right.
And the global carmaker team that develops a "road car" technology at enormous expense, which just happens to have a racing application?
Different wage rates in different countries? Different costs of living? Design the cars in the UK, but have them built by low-wage labour in India?
You make your own engines but sell them to another entrant. How much of the development expense is part of your costs?
Your driver wins the championship, then his contract expires. He's expecting a raise. In order to stay within budget but retain the driver whom you helped to develop, do you have to sack dozens of staff?

Mosley continues to be as clueless as ever. No surprise there.
This is the same out-of-touch megalomaniac who announced, after the FIA's F1 Fans Survey a year or two ago, that he had no idea that the fans wanted to see more overtaking until 93% asked for it in the survey!

[GravelBen]

hmm, so using 5 minutes less fuel but another set of tyres is more environmentally friendly? I wonder how much oil, energy etc goes into making each set of tyres for an F1 car?

[LongQ]

GravelBen said:

hmm, so using 5 minutes less fuel but another set of tyres is more environmentally friendly? I wonder how much oil, energy etc goes into making each set of tyres for an F1 car?

And then transporting them around the world ...

Sound bite stuff which gives him a lot of control over so many things. More than his dad even.

Would NCAP have happened without the FIA?

Would something better have appeared from somewhere?

How many points can the manufacturers score by including warning labels on everything?

Would we have seen competition (and perhaps even faster advances) in road car design rather "me too" shapes and platform sharing? Would the trend towards lighter cars have continued but for the crash protection legislation? Might we have had ultra-light, ultra-strong and superbly safe vehicles on the roads all doing 80mpg or better and 'saving the planet' whilst reducing the Chancer's tax grab at the pumps? (except of course we know that last one would never be the case ...)

I don't see the CO2 things as important at all and I would not be surprised if the majority of people have reached the same conclusion by the time his raft of savings measures comes into play. However neither do I see any developments which make changes in those areas as necessarily negative. They may be bad news but there is not reason to assume they will be. Indeed it would be an excellent anti green argument to show how humans can develop by use of technology in preference to regression as promoted constantly, or so it seems, by the more active greens.

If he was really serious about the ecology thing as a direct effect of racing the answer would be simple.

Build one circuit with many potential variations in format where all the races are run. All spectating to be delivered by video technolgy of one sort of another. That is, after all, how most people see most races already.

The savings of reducing the team's travel and eliminating the spectator's travel completely would set a precedent that other sports could follow.

There. Fresh ideas aplenty. Can I have his MM's job?

[megy]

FourWheelDrift said:

oh yes. Your resignation.

That would be a Very good step in the right direction, but who would you get to take over, some would say 'better the devil you know' although i wish this devil were still unknown.

Edited by megy on Friday 24th November 08:13

[D-Angle]

Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Mosley.

Last time I looked, teams were working like crazy to increase thermal efficiency, get the maximum speed and distance from the least amount of fuel, and get as much development as possible out of the money they have available. Does the guy follow F1 at all?

[kevin ritson]

Sorry to disagree but I think the biggest problem is often perception. An F1 with a 'fuel-burning' stage to qualifying, (indeed everyone calls the first phase of Q3 this) in today's political climate is simply foolhardy. By taking the initiative, Max is helping to save the sport.

Redundancy isn't nice either (I went through it earlier this year) but is almost an inevitability of life these days, but that's down to the socio-economic dynamic of the western world, under which F1 thrives. Let the teams grow and the weak teams will fold, eventually leading to the stronger ones to leave the formula due to lack of competition. It started to happen when Prost and Arrows, then Ford disappeared from the scene. It happened in the early '90s.

Max is doing this for the long-term future of F1 and we should applaud him for this.