842 replies to this topic

[Gareth]

A thread to discuss the news that it appears Ferrari have held a veto over the technical regulations of F1, aside from the impact it has on the (much discussed in many threads) dispute between the FIA and FOTA over the 2010 regulations. (see here: click)

So, how long have Ferrari held this veto?

Does it stem from the 2005 version of Concorde that Ferrari signed when they broke ranks with GPMA? (see here: click)

From this article by Mark Hughes: click it appears they gained the right earlier, in 1998.

Edited by Gareth, 15 May 2009 - 16:07.

[Dragonfly]

Anyway it hasn't been the super secret as it's being presented now.
I remember reading about Ferrari right of veto back in those years.

[Orin]

Maybe my memory's playing tricks, but I thought the veto was common knowledge. However, I'd always assuming it began with the GPMA back-stabbing, but 1998????

[chhatra]

Just learnt that Ferrari will be going to court, because FIA have breached a technical veto they have.

What will this mean? If they succeed in blocking the 2010 rules then where does that leave Max and where does that leave the 2010 rules themselves.

[Clatter]

Maybe my memory's playing tricks, but I thought the veto was common knowledge. However, I'd always assuming it began with the GPMA back-stabbing, but 1998????

That's what I thought as well.

[trenchcoat]

Shows how corrupt this sport is One rule and special priviledge for Ferrari and one for others.

[Slowinfastout]

Shows how corrupt this sport is One rule and special priviledge for Ferrari and one for others.

If they only used that veto now after 10+ years I'd say they made good use of it... and have not abused it.

[Dragonfly]

Maybe my memory's playing tricks, but I thought the veto was common knowledge. However, I'd always assuming it began with the GPMA back-stabbing, but 1998????

Maybe it was in 2005 when this surfaced out.

[Suntrek]

Shows how corrupt this sport is One rule and special priviledge for Ferrari and one for others.

Well Max want to introduce one rule for the biggies and one rule and special priviledges for the Mickey Mouses, so what's new?

Personally speaking and as an F1 non-Ferrari fan, I've never been more grateful for the Ferrari special priviledges than I am now.

Edited by Suntrek, 15 May 2009 - 16:54.

[Josta]

Mass damper?
Scrapping the no tyre change rule?

[femi]

Mass damper?
Scrapping the no tyre change rule?

ferrari and Max deserves each other.

[trenchcoat]

ferrari and Max deserves each other.

Well said

[Anomnader]

Mass damper?
Scrapping the no tyre change rule?

You think?

Wouldn't they come under rule changes and not vetos?
Its a interesting idea though.

[fololo]

Ferrari are the only HOPE! They use the Veto agains the FIA!

[brunopascal]

What's wrong with the other threads?

[Saturnus]

This just show what fans have been complaining about for years: Ferrari have been treated differently than the rest!
To much politics and shady deals in F1 to be a real sport.

Why can't FIA just run the sport like other sports are managed? One set of rules and rewards for everyone. Max and Bernie have been to busy putting cash in their pockets to care about the sportsmanship.

[Seanspeed]

What's wrong with the other threads?

His opinion would be less noticed in those....

[ensign14]

Didn't every team have a veto under Concorde? Hence rule changes being snuck in under the guise of health and safety or some such nonsense.

[Suntrek]

Mass damper?
Scrapping the no tyre change rule?

Don't care. And I as an Alonso-fan I suffered from both.

But now we are facing a bigger issue than petty mass dampers and I'll gladly support the devil himself if he can stand up to Max and his twisted two-tier ideas. Go Ferrari, you have all my support, I happen to love F1 and you are on my side in this.

[Darth Sidious]

Didn't every team have a veto under Concorde? Hence rule changes being snuck in under the guise of health and safety or some such nonsense.

Dunno. I thought it was just the fIA that could ramrod rules under the guise of safety.

Isn't this veto loophole why KERS was included in this year's tech regs - because BMW enacted a veto that over-ruled the other teams who were trying to get it pushed back?

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/72898

[shonguiz]

Dunno. I thought it was just the fIA that could ramrod rules under the guise of safety.

Isn't this veto loophole why KERS was included in this year's tech regs - because BMW enacted a veto that over-ruled the other teams who were trying to get it pushed back?

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/72898

That's a veto that works only in the FOTA domain.

[Darth Sidious]

That's a veto that works only in the FOTA domain.

right you are. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Dragonfly]

I may be mistaken , of course, but I think the veto was a part of the Concorde agreement. I'm not sure whether only Ferrari had it, together with the heritage bonus money they were getting. Those things came out in 2005, some of them told by Paul Stoddard, others - by Ron Dennis.
But if what is written here http://www.grandprix...ns/ns21474.html , then it means Ferrari had resigned the Concorde agreement until 2012 and thus preserved their status rather than been given new privileges.

Edited by Dragonfly, 15 May 2009 - 18:26.

[J]

I may be mistaken , of course, but I think the veto was a part of the Concorde agreement. I'm not sure whether only Ferrari had it, together with the heritage bonus money they were getting. Those things came out in 2005, some of them told by Paul Stoddard, others - by Ron Dennis.
But if what is written here http://www.grandprix...ns/ns21474.html , then it means Ferrari had resigned the Concorde agreement until 2012 and thus preserved their status rather than been given new privileges.

And Concorde agreement says that WMSC/FIA can only approve/disapprove the rules presented to them by the F1 comission. They have no right to make rules by themselves (unless it´s an emergency safety issue.


-J

[rdebourbon]

Didn't every team have a veto under Concorde? Hence rule changes being snuck in under the guise of health and safety or some such nonsense.

The way I understand it is that as per the Concorde Agreement - which Ferrari got extended to 2012 by stepping inline back in 2003/4 - the FIA must consult the F1 commission in order to make any technical regulation changes.

The F1 commission is made up of 1 FIA representative, 1 commercial rights representative, 5 promoters, and 6 teams.
The 5 promoters as of 2008 were Australia, Brazil, Hungary, Monaco and Spain.
The 6 teams were: Red Bull Racing, Renault, BMW Sauber, Ferrari, Honda and Williams F1.

The selection for the F1 commission is based on national licenses, and Red Bull got on from an Austrian perspective. Mclaren were not chosen as Williams was chosen as the GB entry.

This F1 commission can veto proposed regulations, and as a representative of the F1 commission Ferrari would be claiming that the regulations have not followed the correct procedure for review prior to aprroval. The thorns in their side however are that the F1 commission has not met in years, and that the WMSC can override the F1 commission - the WMSC is in Max's back pocket, and they already agreed the 2010 regulations.

[DrBob]

There is some delicious irony to the fact that the hopes of the majority of teams now rest on the preferential treatment previously only enjoyed by one of their number.

So we've got two main possibilities now - either the application for an injunction is successful and the French courts bar the unapproved rule changes for 2010 (taking all parties back to the negotiating table), or the injunction is not granted, leaving us watching the days tick by until May 29. What then? Do the 'hold out' teams register just in case? Do they all keep the unified stand and watch enough new teams apply under the cap that them+Williams, Brawn et al fill the grid?

I'd like to think the injunction will be granted (I'm especially curious to see how much about their 'special relationship' with the FIA Ferrari will be compelled to reveal), but if I suspect it won't. Where we go from there is anyone's guess.

[Bloggsworth]

Forza Ferrari!

It is time to demonstrate that the sport belongs to the participants not the men running the line. Without the entrants there would be no F1, without the drivers, the manufacturers would F1 as it is understood still exist? The FIA, Mosely and Ecclestone could disappear into the ether, F1 teams could run without them, they, the FIA & FOM couldn't run without the F1 teams - For a start all television contracts would be null and void as FOM would no longer be able to provide what the advertisers were paying for, I doubt whether any court would validate the idea that just calling an inferior series Formula One made it so.

Edited by Bloggsworth, 15 May 2009 - 18:46.

[J]

Read the Appendix 5. WMSC cannot propose regulations, unless it´s a safety issue. The Path is:

SWG/TWG

F1 Comission

WMSC

WMSC and F1 Comission can only approve, or send the regulation back to the lower level. That is why Mad Max snuck in the change to appendix 5, that the WMSC can "consult" the Comission and make rules as it sees fit. FIA has openly violated it´s own rules, as far as appendix 5 goes, trusting that no one will dare take them to court. I guess that has changed..

-J

[Orin]

Didn't every team have a veto under Concorde? Hence rule changes being snuck in under the guise of health and safety or some such nonsense.

Wasn't that under the TWG? Or the F1C? Too many committees, anyway the gist is that the teams were meant to draw up proposals but only with UNANIMOUS agreement, which resulted in one or more teams simply saying "non" until the others caved in or, more often than not, stalemate, allowing Mosley to push through some ill-considered bollocks because "they can never agree". The real threat of FOTA is that it's majority voting, rendering Mosley's/Ecclestone's divide and rule strategies largely useless.

rdebourbon has a fuller explanation.

Edited by Orin, 15 May 2009 - 19:52.

[F1Champion]

I actually think that the veto shows Ferrari in a better right, after all they haven't really used it and have let the FIA allow rule changes even to the deteriment of themselves. Nothing in 2001 with the low nose, nothing in 2003 even when the late rule change affected their whole car balance. In 2005, the one tyre rule harmed them. In 2009, the rule change affected them the most even when stable rules would of helped them. Ferrari have actually gone along with all the rule changes of the FIA. I think that Ferrari have the veto for security but haven't really even used it as a) the other teams would not be happy, b) they forgot about it and wanted to be treated like the other teams.

You have to understand that over the course of time and given that Ferrari is the longest running team and brings in the most money, you can understand that concessions would be give over the course of the Ferrari-FIA relationship. After all the FIA/Bernie granted gave them this concession.

Its good that Ferrari are using the veto when the FIA isn't listening to the teams anymore.

Edited by F1Champion, 15 May 2009 - 19:54.

[Anomnader]

You have to understand that over the course of time and given that Ferrari is the longest running team and brings in the most money, you can understand that concessions would be give over the course of the Ferrari-FIA relationship. After all the FIA/Bernie granted gave them this concession.

Manchester United have being around longer then say Portsmouth, they bring in more money, but the Premiership still expects them to play for the same rewards under the same rules.

Its not an understanding, its an excuse.

[Yellowmc]

Manchester United have being around longer then say Portsmouth, they bring in more money, but the Premiership still expects them to play for the same rewards under the same rules.

Its not an understanding, its an excuse.

Well, then you'll be disappointed when they renew the TV contracts and the top 4 clubs, especially Liverpool and Manchester United get extra benefits.

I think Williams should also have this veto.

[Dragonfly]

Manchester United have being around longer then say Portsmouth, they bring in more money, but the Premiership still expects them to play for the same rewards under the same rules.

Its not an understanding, its an excuse.

They don't change football rules every year and, as a bonus, the dumbest fan perhaps understands them.

[J]

Well, then you'll be disappointed when they renew the TV contracts and the top 4 clubs, especially Liverpool and Manchester United get extra benefits.

I think Williams should also have this veto.

How about McLaren, then?

-J

[BigWicks]

Well, then you'll be disappointed when they renew the TV contracts and the top 4 clubs, especially Liverpool and Manchester United get extra benefits.

I think Williams should also have this veto.

i don't think you understand how football works

teams are paid money based on how they perform, not on who they are, so completely different to the f1 system where ferrari are paid more money because they are ferrari

[Melbourne Park]

The way I understand it is that as per the Concorde Agreement - which Ferrari got extended to 2012 by stepping inline back in 2003/4 - the FIA must consult the F1 commission in order to make any technical regulation changes.

The F1 commission is made up of 1 FIA representative, 1 commercial rights representative, 5 promoters, and 6 teams.
The 5 promoters as of 2008 were Australia, Brazil, Hungary, Monaco and Spain.
The 6 teams were: Red Bull Racing, Renault, BMW Sauber, Ferrari, Honda and Williams F1.

The selection for the F1 commission is based on national licenses, and Red Bull got on from an Austrian perspective. Mclaren were not chosen as Williams was chosen as the GB entry.

This F1 commission can veto proposed regulations, and as a representative of the F1 commission Ferrari would be claiming that the regulations have not followed the correct procedure for review prior to aprroval. The thorns in their side however are that the F1 commission has not met in years, and that the WMSC can override the F1 commission - the WMSC is in Max's back pocket, and they already agreed the 2010 regulations.

Its little wonder it has not met in years - because the majority vote is already set.

The FIA and Commercial rights = Max & Bernie = 2 votes

The 5 promotors = 5 race promotors who are totally beholden to Bernie

That's 7 votes. If the 6 teams unite and vote against those 7 votes, they loose by one vote.

I amnot sure about what exactly Ferrari's veto means. Since the FIA is supposed to be transparent (what with the EU rules and such), how come we cannot read about nature of their veto? I imagine the other teams would have to know the exact wording.

As Ensign 14 said, all teams have had a veto, except in terms of safety. I haven't felt that power has been constructive though. As an example, if the front tyre width had been reduced this year, I reckon KERS would work effectively. This years cars are out of balance, all due to foolish team wanting to keep their front aero development work on the old tyre aero shape. How ridiculous. So I am not keen on veto, however if a team's survival was threatened by a decision then I might change my mind. 

Edited by Melbourne Park, 15 May 2009 - 23:30.

[Yellowmc]

i don't think you understand how football works

teams are paid money based on how they perform, not on who they are, so completely different to the f1 system where ferrari are paid more money because they are ferrari

.....as I said, under new proposals, Manchester United will recieve money for being Manchester United. They'll continue receiving this extra money for as long as they stay in the top flight. This is similiar and you'll hear more about it when the PL get togethor to form the new TV contracts.

[werks prototype]

I am not sure about what exactly Ferrari's veto means. Since the FIA is supposed to be transparent (what with the EU rules and such), how come we cannot read about nature of their veto? I imagine the other teams would have to know the exact wording.

I think this is now backfiring badly on Ferrari. It's the fall out from a 'special relationship' one which cannot be renewed. It is also in a way consistent with what the eye has seen post 1998. Lets just say, Ferrari have had a very good ten years. And 'they' are now looking for another very good ten years, for themselves.

I'm not sure they really want to be taking on Max in this or any other context that is bound to lead to 'transparency' tangible and perhaps compromising information being made available to the public regarding the nature of their 'special rights', and anyway surely this plays straight into Max' hands.

I'm starting to think that perhaps Ferrari, in light of their 'special rights' they are infact the problem, the stumbling block. F1 is already unbalanced, bias and a multi-tier system and has been at least since 1998. The results, the stability of the rules that resulted in multiple titles (unlucky this year Hamilton) and the near destruction of their nearest rival with a philosophy (If you look 'at McLaren' you will find, if you don't look 'at Ferrari' you won't find) should now become stats in my opinion.

The FIA really are unable to offer a single tier system fundamentally because of Ferrari's 'special rights'. The need to accomodate Ferrari's 'special needs' ironically neccesitates the very thing Ferrari are allegedly against, a two tier system. The veto has come back to haunt them.

Perhaps then the solution is for Ferrari to leave for a year, get their books inorder, allow a new 'single tier' system and teams to work, and then jump back in on equal terms with everyone else in 2011.

Nasty business.

Edited by werks prototype, 16 May 2009 - 03:49.

[Hotwheels]

A veto on techincal changes , more money than other teams , Ross Brawn who reads rules between the lines, Michael Schumacher who bumps people off the track to win championships, Jean Todt , etc etc - NO WONDER they had a dream run from 1999 to 2005 . Of course it's a co incidence they get veto rights in 1998 and start winning in 1999 after 21 years. Forza Ferrari .

[Motormedia]

If they only used that veto now after 10+ years I'd say they made good use of it... and have not abused it.

With the right to veto comes implied power. FIA may have adjusted theor proposals not to trigger a veto.

[rdebourbon]

Its little wonder it has not met in years - because the majority vote is already set.

The FIA and Commercial rights = Max & Bernie = 2 votes

The 5 promotors = 5 race promotors who are totally beholden to Bernie

That's 7 votes. If the 6 teams unite and vote against those 7 votes, they loose by one vote.

I amnot sure about what exactly Ferrari's veto means. Since the FIA is supposed to be transparent (what with the EU rules and such), how come we cannot read about nature of their veto? I imagine the other teams would have to know the exact wording.

As Ensign 14 said, all teams have had a veto, except in terms of safety. I haven't felt that power has been constructive though. As an example, if the front tyre width had been reduced this year, I reckon KERS would work effectively. This years cars are out of balance, all due to foolish team wanting to keep their front aero development work on the old tyre aero shape. How ridiculous. So I am not keen on veto, however if a team's survival was threatened by a decision then I might change my mind. 

Well, in reality as per the sporting regulations the rules are meant to come from the Technical Working Group -> F1 Commission -> WMSC...

AFAIK the TWG is made up of the technical directors from each team...

According the EC ruling a few years ago, the FIA is supposed to be purely a regulator, and has no business setting the sporting or technical regulations - which is why the rules are meant to come from the various working groups, to the F1 commission, and then to the WMSC... At each stage, I was under the impression that a unanimous vote was required in order for the rule to stand... so a majortiy vote is not sufficent. This would explain how each team has a veto to the technical rules - provided the rule making follow the correct channels. The FIA has been making rules for a while now, and they have stood purely because the teams have not disuputed them - that does no mean they have lost the right to dispute or veto the rules...

=EDIT=
Having re-read the regs it is a majority vote - although the FIA votes are reserved for equal vote situations. So yes, the majority of the F1 commission is easily swayed by Max. However that still does not eradicate the fact that technical regulations are meant to be defined first by the TWG.. not the FIA... Unless Max is claiming as a NEW regulatory document, noone is signed up to it, and as such noone has the right to dictate the methodology for amending the rules within...

Edited by rdebourbon, 16 May 2009 - 16:55.

[The Ragged Edge]

What Veto? According to Max, Ferrari's veto no longer is valid and Max is no fool when it comes to legal issues.

[rdebourbon]

I think this is now backfiring badly on Ferrari.
.
.
Nasty business.

A veto on techincal changes , more money than other teams , Ross Brawn who reads rules between the lines, Michael Schumacher who bumps people off the track to win championships, Jean Todt , etc etc - NO WONDER they had a dream run from 1999 to 2005 . Of course it's a co incidence they get veto rights in 1998 and start winning in 1999 after 21 years. Forza Ferrari .

And of course the fact that all teams have the right to "veto" new technical regulations merely by being part of the TWG, and all members of the F1 commission including Williams have a another "veto" is irrelevant and completely overriden by your blind hatred of Ferrari...

So unbiased of both of you to actually research and consider facts before you slag off one party for having an "unfair" advantage...

[rdebourbon]

What Veto? According to Max, Ferrari's veto no longer is valid and Max is no fool when it comes to legal issues.

Well, according to some legal departments a memorandum of understanding that refers to a binding contractual agreement is not actually legally binding. The extension to the Concorde agreement issued a few years back was reportedly done by memorandum, and a new Concorde was not reissued - apparently the memo stated that the Concorde was to be extended with all its terms remaining unchanged until 2012.. It depends on your legal system as to whether or not this means the Concorde is still in effect or not... If the extension is valid, then as per the original Concorde the teams signed up *THAT* agreement have the right to veto technical amendments. By extending the Concorde Ferrari got in a unique position, as Bernie got all the other teams to sign up to new agreements... Meaning that only Ferrari is on the original Concorde Agreement...

Thats the way I understand it anyway

[Sakae]

This just show what fans have been complaining about for years: Ferrari have been treated differently than the rest!
To much politics and shady deals in F1 to be a real sport.

Why can't FIA just run the sport like other sports are managed? One set of rules and rewards for everyone. Max and Bernie have been to busy putting cash in their pockets to care about the sportsmanship.

Ferrari at least drives their cars built to to specifications over which no one went to court; pitty we cannot say that about Brawn and Williams. The stunt FIA pulled this year is far more disturbing favouritism then anytime before what I have seen as long as I watch F1.

[ZooL]

What I'm really surprised about is that nobody has yet approached the European Union and see what they think about all this.

Surely that the FIA have given a special veto in a secret deal to only one competitor makes the Regulatory Body subject to fraudulent conduct?

Also I'm pretty sure the FIA have no right to inspect budgets of competitors, or impose such things in the regulations.

[Clatter]

Ferrari at least drives their cars built to to specifications over which no one went to court; pitty we cannot say that about Brawn and Williams. The stunt FIA pulled this year is far more disturbing favouritism then anytime before what I have seen as long as I watch F1.

Bargeboards anyone? Flexi floor? Seems those rose tinted glasses need a bit of a clean.

[mattorgen]

Well, according to some legal departments a memorandum of understanding that refers to a binding contractual agreement is not actually legally binding. The extension to the Concorde agreement issued a few years back was reportedly done by memorandum, and a new Concorde was not reissued - apparently the memo stated that the Concorde was to be extended with all its terms remaining unchanged until 2012.. It depends on your legal system as to whether or not this means the Concorde is still in effect or not... If the extension is valid, then as per the original Concorde the teams signed up *THAT* agreement have the right to veto technical amendments. By extending the Concorde Ferrari got in a unique position, as Bernie got all the other teams to sign up to new agreements... Meaning that only Ferrari is on the original Concorde Agreement...

Thats the way I understand it anyway

I think we find that the old Concorde Agreement cannot continue like a contract for a house if you stay in the house after the ending of the contract. The Concorde has terms which have expired and date which has expired. But we find out now that without a Concorde Agreement there is no agreement from the teams to allow the FIA to make the F1 rules...

[rdebourbon]

I think we find that the old Concorde Agreement cannot continue like a contract for a house if you stay in the house after the ending of the contract. The Concorde has terms which have expired and date which has expired. But we find out now that without a Concorde Agreement there is no agreement from the teams to allow the FIA to make the F1 rules...

If you read the pitpass article linked elsewhere - the FIA never had that power anyway - Concorde or not

[Felix]

If you read the pitpass article linked elsewhere - the FIA never had that power anyway - Concorde or not ;)

Be very careful about what you read and believe, particularly there...