FOTA FIA meeting

[andyps]

Interesting to read this piece in Autosport - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71629

There are a few points it raises/clarifies which indicate how the FIA are not on the same wavelength as others. The first point is this:

FIA said:

the independent teams are now dependent on the goodwill of rich individuals, while the manufacturers' teams depend on massive hand-outs from their parent companies.

Hasn't that almost always been the case? When Ferrari, Masserati, Lotus and others started, going back to the first ever motor race won by a Renault (IIRC) the manufacturers have funded the racing, based on the benefits of publicity - win on Sunday, sell on Monday. Alternatively, there have always been a few wealthy individuals who have fancied having a play at F1 - Lord Hesketh springs to mind!

Another area which concerns me is this:

FIA said:

2009
When the decision was taken to "freeze" the engines, certain teams asked for and got a period of time in which to address reliability problems and re-tune for 19,000 rpm. Some teams took advantage of this period to improve the power output of their engines. This was not intended. Other teams did not improve their engines, believing performance to have been "frozen".

This has produced unfair and inequitable differences in performance. The World Motor Sport Council has therefore decided that engine performance will be equalised in accordance with the 2009 Sporting Regulations in order to re-establish the position as it was when the freeze was agreed.

The FIA would like to discuss with FOTA technicians how best to achieve equalisation in a way which is fair to all and involves minimal cost.

How can it be certain that performance is equalised. I didn't think that was the original purpose of the freeze, I thought it was to stop money being spent on developments. Whoever had the best engine before the freeze should have maintained that advantage. I don't want to go into an FIA bias discussion but it is obvious that some engine manufacturers have progressed more than others this year, and maybe if those who have improved had been those who believed they were to remain frozen action would have been taken earlier.

As for re-establishing equalisation, if that is the desired outcome, will some engine manufacturers not be allowed to make changes whilst others are before the 2009 season?

In addition to this, how does this equalisation equate with the introduction of KERS which allows for many different configurations of performance enhancement which could be anything but equal across the teams. And that is before we consider the costs involved.

The final point which I am not sure about is:

FIA said:

The FIA would welcome suggestions for changes to the rules for going racing, with a view to reducing costs. We believe that priority should be given to things which the public cannot see (eg telemetry) rather than visible parts of "the show" (eg refuelling during the race).

As the teams are all set up for telemetry does it cost much in comparison to the maintenance costs of the fuel rigs and tyre changing equipment. I would propose that one set of tyres which had to last for the whole race would cost less than the current amount spent on multiple sets during teh race. It strikes me the FIA have this one the wrong way round.

What does anyone else think?

Edited by andyps on Monday 20th October 14:13

[flemke]

andyps said:

What does anyone else think?

(Almost simultaneously, I had posted a link to the same letter via the "Mosley 5 yr plan" thread.)

The main element of Mosley's game plan appears to be to discourage away from the formula any organisation (such as a major carmaker) that might be in a position to challenge his hegemony.
Bernie's somewhat sidelined himself since he sold control.
CVC couldn't find their ass with both hands but, just to be sure that they're not in his way, Mosley's trying to emasculate them by advocating a radical reduction in the % of revenue that accrues to the commercial rights holder.
The only remaining power-brokers are the big carmakers - hence Mosley's keenness, both through illegitimate rulings on track and dumbing the formula down to meaninglessness off it, to induce them to go. Then he will control his own little universe, just as Mummy and Daddy told him that he was entitled to do.

[andyps]

flemke said:

(Almost simultaneously, I had posted a link to the same letter via the "Mosley 5 yr plan" thread.)

I saw that - I thought there was a thread about the topic but couldn't see it before posting this one as it had dropped back a couple of pages and wasn't one I had contributed to.

Thanks for your thoughts. They all sound very reasonable (in the way expressed, rather than the outcomes which may be generated if you are correct!).

[lowndes]

flemke said:

andyps said:

What does anyone else think?

The only remaining power-brokers are the big carmakers - hence Mosley's keenness, both through illegitimate rulings on track and dumbing the formula down to meaninglessness off it, to induce them to go. Then he will control his own little universe, just as Mummy and Daddy told him that he was entitled to do.

I am not at all clear why the big car manufacturers don't do as you suggest and set up their own series, leaving Bernie and Max to play with themselves, if you'll pardon the expression. I know there has been talk in the past of a breakaway but what was the main stumbling block at the time? Perhaps this move by the FIA will provide the necessary catalyst for a more fundamental review by the manufacturers?

[andyps]

lowndes said:

flemke said:

andyps said:

What does anyone else think?

The only remaining power-brokers are the big carmakers - hence Mosley's keenness, both through illegitimate rulings on track and dumbing the formula down to meaninglessness off it, to induce them to go. Then he will control his own little universe, just as Mummy and Daddy told him that he was entitled to do.

I am not at all clear why the big car manufacturers don't do as you suggest and set up their own series, leaving Bernie and Max to play with themselves, if you'll pardon the expression. I know there has been talk in the past of a breakaway but what was the main stumbling block at the time? Perhaps this move by the FIA will provide the necessary catalyst for a more fundamental review by the manufacturers?

One of the main reasons the breakaway plan fell apart was that one of them broke ranks and accepted a large payout to remain within the FIA and FOM system. That team, of course, was Ferrari. Depending upon how the FIA play this out even Ferrari might change their mind, but interestingly Luca dM is one of only two people going to represent FOTA for the meeting.

[Derek Smith]

flemke said:

The main element of Mosley's game plan appears to be to discourage away from the formula any organisation (such as a major carmaker) that might be in a position to challenge his hegemony.

I can see no other purpose. In this he is likely to be successful. And this is the tragedy of F1 and for F1.

When he started threatening the modifications for 2010, especially after costing the major manfacturers so much money with the modifications for 2009, my real fear was that the manufacturers would opt out and go somewhere else. The more I see of Mosley's formula and its implications the more I hope they do. With no British GP, at least under F1 regs, what's the point in following the sport? And with everyone nowadays seemingly having access to Sky Sport, what's to stop another motor sport hitting the high spot?

Perhaps this is just me being a bit down after a rather boring race. But somehow I don't think so. I can see Ron Dennis jacking it all in for next season. I can't help feeling that it would be rather poetic if I went with him. It would add a bit of dignity to my rejection of the sport I used to love.

[flemke]

andyps said:

lowndes said:

flemke said:

andyps said:

What does anyone else think?

The only remaining power-brokers are the big carmakers - hence Mosley's keenness, both through illegitimate rulings on track and dumbing the formula down to meaninglessness off it, to induce them to go. Then he will control his own little universe, just as Mummy and Daddy told him that he was entitled to do.

I am not at all clear why the big car manufacturers don't do as you suggest and set up their own series, leaving Bernie and Max to play with themselves, if you'll pardon the expression. I know there has been talk in the past of a breakaway but what was the main stumbling block at the time? Perhaps this move by the FIA will provide the necessary catalyst for a more fundamental review by the manufacturers?

One of the main reasons the breakaway plan fell apart was that one of them broke ranks and accepted a large payout to remain within the FIA and FOM system. That team, of course, was Ferrari. Depending upon how the FIA play this out even Ferrari might change their mind, but interestingly Luca dM is one of only two people going to represent FOTA for the meeting.

Yes.
Other factors included the main circuits' being tied to Bernie and the FIA, the best tv contracts' being tied to Bernie, the top drivers' holding FIA licences, the FIA's connections to numerous government bodies and licensing agencies, Euro NCAP (just ask BMW about that one), risk to sponsorship contracts and ongoing support, and the depressing example of what happened between CART and IRL.

[Dirty Boy]

If MM, Renault, BMW, Honda and Toyota broke ranks, they'd now have access to at least a few decent tracks, Silverstone and Montreal to name two.

You'd then have British, German, Japanese and French involvement. Could Ford be lured in? Maybe even Audi?

Regulations in place, a 1 year break from racing, massive publicity on new the new 'Formula One' How long before Ferrari come with their tails between their legs?

I don't proclaim to know anything, but surely it's possible, if only to see 1000bhp cars again.

[flemke]

Dirty Boy said:

If MM, Renault, BMW, Honda and Toyota broke ranks, they'd now have access to at least a few decent tracks, Silverstone and Montreal to name two.

You'd then have British, German, Japanese and French involvement. Could Ford be lured in? Maybe even Audi?

Regulations in place, a 1 year break from racing, massive publicity on new the new 'Formula One' How long before Ferrari come with their tails between their legs?

I don't proclaim to know anything, but surely it's possible, if only to see 1000bhp cars again.

A lot of us would love it.

I think that the prevailing sentiment these days is not to rock the boat, because the sports' principals have grown rich within the present structure, notwithstanding the few corrupt 5hitbags who are perverting it. They are mindful of that, and of the fact that Mosley cannot live forever.

[german tony]

Waiting for Mosely to do 1 may take a very long time. A suspcious mind might be inclined to think that an attempt was made to hasten his departure earlier this year.

By far the best thing to do is to create their own series. Maybe Bernie will let them use the name "GP1" he went out of his way to register.

[lowndes]

flemke said:

andyps said:

lowndes said:

flemke said:

andyps said:

What does anyone else think?

The only remaining power-brokers are the big carmakers - hence Mosley's keenness, both through illegitimate rulings on track and dumbing the formula down to meaninglessness off it, to induce them to go. Then he will control his own little universe, just as Mummy and Daddy told him that he was entitled to do.

I am not at all clear why the big car manufacturers don't do as you suggest and set up their own series, leaving Bernie and Max to play with themselves, if you'll pardon the expression. I know there has been talk in the past of a breakaway but what was the main stumbling block at the time? Perhaps this move by the FIA will provide the necessary catalyst for a more fundamental review by the manufacturers?

One of the main reasons the breakaway plan fell apart was that one of them broke ranks and accepted a large payout to remain within the FIA and FOM system. That team, of course, was Ferrari. Depending upon how the FIA play this out even Ferrari might change their mind, but interestingly Luca dM is one of only two people going to represent FOTA for the meeting.

Yes.
Other factors included the main circuits' being tied to Bernie and the FIA, the best tv contracts' being tied to Bernie, the top drivers' holding FIA licences, the FIA's connections to numerous government bodies and licensing agencies, Euro NCAP (just ask BMW about that one), risk to sponsorship contracts and ongoing support, and the depressing example of what happened between CART and IRL.

Whilst the licensing bureaucracy might present a not insignificant Gordian Knot, it would be disappointing if the lawyers acting for the circuits, tv companies and other major sponsors had not placed on Bernie contractual obligations in relation to the quality of "The Show" that, absent the main players McMerc, BMW, Honda, Toyota, Renault et al, he would fail to satisfy and default of which would be grounds for termination.

[Derek Smith]

The title of Grand Prix can be used as it is not 'owned' by anyone. A generic intro, like motor racing, would be all that would be needed. We could all follow Motor Racing's Grand Prix without really switching allegiances.

I don't think circuits can be 'tied' any longer. Such restrictions are against the 'fair play' aspects of European law. Whilst such laws have not been rigorously enforced in the past - can't think why not - but if it was a choice of which power group to follow, the European manufacturers series of the FiA which races in the far east and Arabia in the main, it's not that difficult to see which way the EU lawyers will jump, especially at times of financial stress.

The FiA is not a requirement for NCAP, it is just an organisation. It is a legislative body of a type but that doesn't give it a right to exist. The reason it does is because most national motoring clubs are affiliated to it. All it takes in reality if for some manufacturers to opt out to render it virtually useless. Something would have to replace it of course and the thing that would be of concern is if a number of organisation replaced it.

Given that Mosley has made himself the de facto FiA, it means that it is a completely unrepresentative body, hence the fact that Mosely was able to stay in power despite his rather farcical confidence vote. Such organisations have an inertia, a reluctance of people to challenge its authority, but there is a threshold over which it is dangerous to step.

Orgies, beating women, farcical confidence votes, the impossibility of the wishes of the majority for MM to leave to have any influence, the FiA's tendency to ignore the concord agreement, the farce of the stewards, the farce of mosleygate, the farce of the Indy FiAsco, the farce of Stepneygate, the farce of the major changes to F1 lasting just one year, the farce of the teams and their sponsors having little or no influence in the running of the sport they bankroll.

Mosley is heading towards this precipice with gay abandon. He appears very sure of his power base but one wonders if this confidence is misplaced. Fair enough, he has the FiA in his pocket but that will be of little use if someone invents FiA 2 and all the clubs and manufacturers move over.

He is very posh of course, his father being a knight (although it didn't stop him being imprisoned as a threat to his country), but when it comes to money in a time of financial crisis, does it count for much?

His power base may or may not include Eccs. Either way, I'd feel nervous if I was Mosley.

But then the energy required to actually change things might be too much for those affected. But with the Canadian motoring club being investigated after being one of the most vociferous in their condemnation of his beating of women, a lot of other clubs might see this as a connection and become a little worried to have their organisation controlled by such a vindictive person. The loss of the Canadian GP without explanation will be something else to consider and supportive of their conclusions. Whether such concerns are valid or not is not the question. It is whether they believe it.

Mosley's latest move might seem to the manufacturers as targeted against them. These are big businesses that I wouldn't want to have them the other side. At a time when jobs are threatened, national governments might be more considerte of their point of view.

What does seem inevitable is that F1 will no longer be, well, F1 as we know it. One way or another, Mosely's legacy will be the death of our sport.

[flemke]

Derek Smith said:

One way or another, Mosely's legacy will be the death of our sport.

Either that, or Mosley's death will be the legacy of our sport.

So much in life depends on the timing...

[Derek Smith]

flemke said:

Derek Smith said:

One way or another, Mosely's legacy will be the death of our sport.

Either that, or Mosley's death will be the legacy of our sport.

So much in life depends on the timing...

A slight glimmer of hope then?

[flemke]

lowndes said:

Whilst the licensing bureaucracy might present a not insignificant Gordian Knot, it would be disappointing if the lawyers acting for the circuits, tv companies and other major sponsors had not placed on Bernie contractual obligations in relation to the quality of "The Show" that, absent the main players McMerc, BMW, Honda, Toyota, Renault et al, he would fail to satisfy and default of which would be grounds for termination.

That could be, although one is bound to say that, in Bernie's negotiations with them, the circuits and race organisers do not often appear to have the whip hand. I could well be wrong, but I'd speculate that Bernie's terms are defined in a contract of his own drafting, and the circuits take it or leave it.

In any case, it's not only Bernie who has the leverage. There is no decent circuit in the world that hosts only the annual F1 GP. Many times, such as at Silverstone, the F1 event is the season's centrepiece on which the circuit will rely for some of its gravitas and appeal, rather than being a money-making activity in itself.
The problem is that many of the circuits' other, profitable events are also sanctioned by the FIA. It's not that Max "Forgive-and-Forget" Mosley would bear a grudge - heavens no. One does suspect, however, that a circuit that had signed with the breakaway premier series might possibly have a spot of bother in getting approval for its other FIA events from the Thug With The Rug.

[Cara Van Man]

Derek Smith said:

flemke said:

Derek Smith said:

One way or another, Mosely's legacy will be the death of our sport.

Either that, or Mosley's death will be the legacy of our sport.

So much in life depends on the timing...

A slight glimmer of hope then?

Well it's the one thing we can hope and wait for and are guaranteed of getting.

[flemke]

Derek Smith said:

flemke said:

Derek Smith said:

One way or another, Mosely's legacy will be the death of our sport.

Either that, or Mosley's death will be the legacy of our sport.

So much in life depends on the timing...

A slight glimmer of hope then?

One of my greatest motivations to live to a ripe old age is so that I may be predeceased by a certain ignoble character, on whose grave it is my ambition to piss.

[Cara Van Man]

flemke said:

Derek Smith said:

flemke said:

Derek Smith said:

One way or another, Mosely's legacy will be the death of our sport.

Either that, or Mosley's death will be the legacy of our sport.

So much in life depends on the timing...

A slight glimmer of hope then?

One of my greatest motivations to live to a ripe old age is so that I may be predeceased by a certain ignoble character, on whose grave it is my ambition to piss.

Get in the queue!!!

[lowndes]

flemke said:

lowndes said:

Whilst the licensing bureaucracy might present a not insignificant Gordian Knot, it would be disappointing if the lawyers acting for the circuits, tv companies and other major sponsors had not placed on Bernie contractual obligations in relation to the quality of "The Show" that, absent the main players McMerc, BMW, Honda, Toyota, Renault et al, he would fail to satisfy and default of which would be grounds for termination.

That could be, although one is bound to say that, in Bernie's negotiations with them, the circuits and race organisers do not often appear to have the whip hand. I could well be wrong, but I'd speculate that Bernie's terms are defined in a contract of his own drafting, and the circuits take it or leave it.

In any case, it's not only Bernie who has the leverage. There is no decent circuit in the world that hosts only the annual F1 GP. Many times, such as at Silverstone, the F1 event is the season's centrepiece on which the circuit will rely for some of its gravitas and appeal, rather than being a money-making activity in itself.
The problem is that many of the circuits' other, profitable events are also sanctioned by the FIA. It's not that Max "Forgive-and-Forget" Mosley would bear a grudge - heavens no. One does suspect, however, that a circuit that had signed with the breakaway premier series might possibly have a spot of bother in getting approval for its other FIA events from the Thug With The Rug.

Until I read your recent posts on the FIA (and its Fuhrer) I had no idea how pervasive was its influence nor how far it had permeated the motoring firmament. It seems almost quasi governmental in its reach but wholly lacking in the conventionally accepted structures of accountability. Which makes it all the more surprising that the elected Government has not sought to intrude and apply the dead hand of its centrist philosophy. Gordon or Max ...mmm spoiled for choice.

[flemke]

lowndes said:

Until I read your recent posts on the FIA (and its Fuhrer) I had no idea how pervasive was its influence nor how far it had permeated the motoring firmament. It seems almost quasi governmental in its reach but wholly lacking in the conventionally accepted structures of accountability. Which makes it all the more surprising that the elected Government has not sought to intrude and apply the dead hand of its centrist philosophy. Gordon or Max ...mmm spoiled for choice.

When it was disclosed in June, did you read about this:


The FIA representative from the United Arab Emirates says he was personally responsible for ensuring FIA president Max Mosley won a vote of non-confidence earlier this month.

Mohammad Bin Sulayem, the president of the United Arab Emirates' Automobile and Touring Club, admits he was responsible for securing 41 votes in favour of the embattled FIA president, whose leadership was questioned following revelations of a "Nazi-theme" orgy.

Despite calls from some of the more powerful automobile clubs in the world, Mosley garnered 103 of the 169 votes cast. The 41 votes from Sulayem, a staunch supporter of Mosley, clearly put him over the top.

"Yes, I made the difference. I don't deny it," Sulayem tells the Gulf News.

"If anyone can convince me that he has done wrong to motorsport or during his tenure his decisions have hurt Formula One or Rallying then we have a case. But not over his personal and private affairs," explained Sulayem, who called the stories about the sex scandal a "terrorist attack" against Mosley.

"The vote of confidence was a democratic process and once he has won the vote I think it is unfair to question his future as the FIA President. The very countries which say they are the torch-bearers of democracy seem to be doing just the opposite."

Sulayem's loyalty to Mosley goes back to his attempts to bring World Rally to the Middle East and UAE. Almost two decades ago, when he broached the subject, a senior FIA official told him to stop dreaming.

However, Mosley saw to it that the World Rally Championship and eventually Formula One came to the region.

Prior to the no-confidence vote, it was speculated that a large number of the smaller motorsport associations would line up behind Mosley as a way to pay him back for bringing world class events to their regions.

( http://www.tsn.ca/auto_racing/formula_one/story/?i... )