Jump to content


Photo

De Lorenzo, Fumes: BMW fires the second volley as the FIA remains totally clueless.


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 05 August 2009 - 14:48

A few sniffs from a great article:
http://www.autoextremist.com/fumes1/

...
The FIA is the most archaic, moribund, paralyzed - and polarizing - racing organization this side of NASCAR, and that's saying something. But the difference is that the FIA controls all of racing with their juvenile squabbles and nonsensical missives, and thus their abject incompetence spreads like a dark cloud over the entire sport.
...
.
... they're perfectly content believing that the world revolves around them, while the entire sport is collapsing on their heads.

Yes, collapsing.

Anyone who things that BMW's pullout of Formula 1 is just another little speed bump for the grand circus dominated by Max Mosley - ably assisted by his vertically challenged compatriot, Bernard Ecclestone - is woefully out of touch. What these manufacturers are saying point blank is that the old F1 model is flat-out obsolete, and that they cannot and will not compete again until the sport is aligned more with where their massive research and development budgets are aimed, which is high-performance with fuel-efficiency, sustainability and environmental responsibility.

In other words, the FIA had many, many warning signs that the world was going in this direction, and the manufacturers made it very clear that they needed to focus on these new environmentally-oriented parameters in order to transform their corporate missions for the future. And the FIA should have anticipated and responded to the changing winds by throwing out the traditional rule book and totally reinventing the sport.

And yet what do those brainiacs at the FIA do instead? They focus on a series of Byzantine directives designed to cut costs, which in turn has sent the sport into a tailspin, while the manufacturers start packing up and going home.
...
.
... bring the wild creativity back to the sport and in turn give the manufacturers a new raison d'etre for Formula 1. In other words, give them something to sink their teeth into - like a direct link to what they're doing in their future product development programs, for starters - so that they can justify devoting a large chunk of their R&D budgets to their boards of directors. Because as of right now no scenario exists in F1 that will allow them to do that.
...
..
.


Edited by DOF_power, 05 August 2009 - 14:49.


Advertisement

#2 wide-front-wing

wide-front-wing
  • Member

  • 509 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 05 August 2009 - 15:04

A few sniffs from a great article:
http://www.autoextremist.com/fumes1/



Right - cutting costs was the problem....

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

#3 Kooper

Kooper
  • Member

  • 2,189 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 05 August 2009 - 15:17

Anyone who things that BMW's pullout


needs a proof reader

#4 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 05 August 2009 - 15:22

Right - cutting costs was the problem....

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:




The Byzantine nature of them and other byzantine populist and ego measures.
The costs vs. relevancy, ROI dropped.

#5 irish_sean69

irish_sean69
  • Member

  • 82 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 05 August 2009 - 15:26

A few sniffs from a great article:
http://www.autoextremist.com/fumes1/


Cost cutting needs to be brought in its a fact. The grid is getting smaller and smaller each year ( teams where interested in joining as they liked the idea of a 40million budget cap). If there was no budget cap brought in teams like Williams said they would have had to leave the sport. The grid would turn into something like the world touring car grid with 6 Seats and 6 BMW let you make your minds up on that. Bring in a budget cap of around 100 million to 150 million then let them sink there teeth in to that. Free up all regulation i.e. testing, number of engines a season number of gearboxes, rev limits this will lead to teams taking up different options of how they believe is the best way to achieve the quickest car. IMO could be wrong but a budget cap is the only way the sport will survive.

#6 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 05 August 2009 - 15:33

Cost cutting needs to be brought in its a fact. The grid is getting smaller and smaller each year ( teams where interested in joining as they liked the idea of a 40million budget cap). If there was no budget cap brought in teams like Williams said they would have had to leave the sport. The grid would turn into something like the world touring car grid with 6 Seats and 6 BMW let you make your minds up on that. Bring in a budget cap of around 100 million to 150 million then let them sink there teeth in to that. Free up all regulation i.e. testing, number of engines a season number of gearboxes, rev limits this will lead to teams taking up different options of how they believe is the best way to achieve the quickest car. IMO could be wrong but a budget cap is the only way the sport will survive.




Agreed with most of what you're saying.
But the article doesn't say cost cutting is evil. Just that such measures where piss poor, and Williams's complain that the 2 week black out costs more money is proof to that. As is true for other measures.

Basically every single cost cutting measure GP racing took in its history of over 100 years failed on the medium-long term.

And how much will these little teams last ?!

Edited by DOF_power, 05 August 2009 - 15:33.


#7 PassWind

PassWind
  • Member

  • 4,842 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 05 August 2009 - 15:41

:rotfl: Great article full of personal attacks and claims the Pope directs F1 to cut costs. The guy has a loose connection to reality, fun read though for comic relief.



#8 PassWind

PassWind
  • Member

  • 4,842 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 05 August 2009 - 15:49

Couple of points for the Author, it is organizations like the FIA that gather public opinion, guide and advise the manufacturers to adopt what would be socially responsible car manufacturing. It is in the FIA's charter to do so as it’s the whole reason they exist. Manufacturers would without public endorsed legislated pressure maintain the status quo, or that which maximizes the investors profit margin, that's all they exist for once you have waded through the PR bullshit. The PR machine attempts to remain connected to its customers changing outlook on how they view the world.

It is naive to think that manufacturers want to be green by their own moral and ethical outlook, they will of course tell you they are however it will only be apparent once they sense that the market demands it and therefore its profitable. The USA is a market where you can begin to see the signs of change; Europe is much further down the road. So if the manufacturers were so concerned why the markets aren’t the same in the two largest economic regions on the planet. I don't see a whole raft of BMW innovations in their PR campaigns in the USA; after all they are capturing a different market. Toyota Prius's are cool in California, I wonder if it was just Toyota's green innovation that just happened to capture the Californian's attention in this regard or was it something to do with legislation in CA attempting to improve the living conditions in the State that was heavily affected by vehicle pollution?

Without government intervention and public and private organizations lobbying the manufacturers we would not have air bags, abs etc. Guys like Ralf Nader made the public aware; the public then said that safety was a buying consideration all of a sudden adding safety was profitable in the USA at least. Seems the author is sucking up the BMW PR campaign like a good sheeple.

The guy has his chicken and eggs mixed up and cannot decide if Formula One is a chicken or an egg.


#9 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 05 August 2009 - 15:55

A few sniffs from a great article:
The FIA is the most archaic, moribund, paralyzed - and polarizing - racing organization this side of NASCAR, and that's saying something.


They are saying they are the 2 most successful car racing series on the planet??

#10 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 05 August 2009 - 15:55

:rotfl: Great article full of personal attacks and claims the Pope directs F1 to cut costs. The guy has a loose connection to reality, fun read though for comic relief.




Pope ?!

The guy has predicted a lot of things that came true, years ahead, and has decades of experience the auto industry.

I'd very careful about questioning the credentials of de Lorenzo if I was you.

#11 Snap Matt

Snap Matt
  • Member

  • 1,157 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 05 August 2009 - 15:56

I like the idea of what the article says, but I don't know if it only fully applies to BMW, plus there is the general criticism of manufacturer involvement in F1 in that they will only stick around for so long without winning. Toyota did criticise the KERS project for being too restructive and Honda always used F1 as a proving ground for new engineers, so perhaps there is more in the argument that it's getting credit for.

#12 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 05 August 2009 - 16:01

Basically every single cost cutting measure GP racing took in its history of over 100 years failed on the medium-long term.


Which ones please?


#13 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 05 August 2009 - 16:01

Couple of points for the Author, it is organizations like the FIA that gather public opinion, guide and advise the manufacturers to adopt what would be socially responsible car manufacturing. It is in the FIA's charter to do so as it’s the whole reason they exist. Manufacturers would without public endorsed legislated pressure maintain the status quo, or that which maximizes the investors profit margin, that's all they exist for once you have waded through the PR bullshit. The PR machine attempts to remain connected to its customers changing outlook on how they view the world.

It is naive to think that manufacturers want to be green by their own moral and ethical outlook, they will of course tell you they are however it will only be apparent once they sense that the market demands it and therefore its profitable. The USA is a market where you can begin to see the signs of change; Europe is much further down the road. So if the manufacturers were so concerned why the markets aren’t the same in the two largest economic regions on the planet. I don't see a whole raft of BMW innovations in their PR campaigns in the USA; after all they are capturing a different market. Toyota Prius's are cool in California, I wonder if it was just Toyota's green innovation that just happened to capture the Californian's attention in this regard or was it something to do with legislation in CA attempting to improve the living conditions in the State that was heavily affected by vehicle pollution?

Without government intervention and public and private organizations lobbying the manufacturers we would not have air bags, abs etc. Guys like Ralf Nader made the public aware; the public then said that safety was a buying consideration all of a sudden adding safety was profitable in the USA at least. Seems the author is sucking up the BMW PR campaign like a good sheeple.

The guy has his chicken and eggs mixed up and cannot decide if Formula One is a chicken or an egg.




It's got nothing to do with the FIA, it's got to with EU and CAFE legislation and the political realities.

If anything FIA is behind the pack, and many of its top members like ADAC and AAA are totally independent of FIA. They're some of those gathering public opinion, guiding and advising the manufacturers.

And car companies have their own partnerships with firms that takes surveys and such.

And I don't a ******* history lesson about Nander and how things where 40 years ago.


#14 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 05 August 2009 - 16:02

Which ones please?




Everyone, just take your pick.
Ban on turbos, ban on active suspensions, ban on the 6/3/1.5 litre supercharged engines, etc etc, etc.

Edited by DOF_power, 05 August 2009 - 16:04.


#15 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 05 August 2009 - 16:06

Everyone, just take your pick.


No, thats not the way it works - you made a statement now please back it up with some examples.

That is not an unreasonable request.


ahh you updated...

Everyone, just take your pick.
Ban on turbos, ban on active suspensions, ban on the 6/3/1.5 litre supercharged engines, etc etc, etc.


These are bans on speed, that isn't what you said - You said "Basically every single cost cutting measure GP racing took in its history of over 100 years failed on the medium-long term".

Edited by cheapracer, 05 August 2009 - 16:10.


#16 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 05 August 2009 - 16:10

No, thats not the way it works - you made a statement now please back it up with some examples.

That is not an unreasonable request.




Repost:

Ban on turbos, ban on active suspensions, ban on the 6/3/1.5 litre supercharged engines, ban on the pre WWI big block engines, ban on berylium alloys, ban/restrictions on MMC, ban on TC, ban on the 2.5 litre NA engines, etc, etc, etc.

#17 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 05 August 2009 - 16:13

Repost:

Ban on turbos, ban on active suspensions, ban on the 6/3/1.5 litre supercharged engines, ban on the pre WWI big block engines, ban on berylium alloys, ban/restrictions on MMC, ban on TC, ban on the 2.5 litre NA engines, etc, etc, etc.



Repost:

These are bans on speed, that isn't what you said.

Additionally, bans on beryllium and depleted uranium were bans for Team workers safety.

I'll come back tomorrow and maybe see a few historic (not recent) cost cutting examples, TIA.

Edited by cheapracer, 05 August 2009 - 16:14.


#18 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 05 August 2009 - 16:18

What are FOTA:s proposals for the future that would have saved BMW? This far it seems to me that FOTA didn't come up with anything attractive enough to convince the BMW board that they should continue to participate.

Lorenzo is full of shit too, when he says that FIA didn't hear the warning bells. As far as I'm concerned it was Mosley who was ringing the damned bells, long before Honda went belly up.

Edited by Motormedia, 05 August 2009 - 16:19.


#19 OnyxF1

OnyxF1
  • Member

  • 547 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 05 August 2009 - 16:21

I have to say that the FIA's budget cap was a more suitable solution, particularly from the technology point of view than the crappy ideas that the manufacturer-dominated FOTA are coming up with at the moment. Homologated front and rear wings? 5 engines per season? Enforced shutdowns? All dreadful ideas.

Advertisement

#20 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 05 August 2009 - 16:22

Repost:

These are bans on speed, that isn't what you said.

Additionally, bans on beryllium and depleted uranium were bans for Team workers safety.




I'm gonna upload on youtube videos in witch Balestre and Mosley said the ban on turbos/active suspensions will reduce costs and improve the racing if you want.

The official PR statement on many of the measures FIA took was something like this "decrease costs, improve safety, level the playing field, improve the quality of racing".

The bans/restrictions on the SC engines where cost related not just speed related, and FIA saw very well that the 2.5 and 1.5 litre NA cars posted ever faster laptimes due to lower weight, lower CoG and reduced aero drag.
The switch to the 3 litre NA/1.5 FI formula was to bring back the (non british) fans and hopefully the (continental) manufacturers witch where turned off by the FIA fomulas and the costs saving failed to attract enough F3/F2 garagistes into F1.



#21 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 05 August 2009 - 16:24

I have to say that the FIA's budget cap was a more suitable solution, particularly from the technology point of view than the crappy ideas that the manufacturer-dominated FOTA are coming up with at the moment. Homologated front and rear wings? 5 engines per season? Enforced shutdowns? All dreadful ideas.




The cap was way to small, and the new cost cap Cosworth enforced teams where FIA political tools.
I would have wanted a bigger cap and technical freedom, plus the return of the privateers.

#22 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 05 August 2009 - 16:32

Also, I don't get what this Lorenzo dude is on about. It's out of FIA's hands now. FOTA runs the show now. If he has any complaints about where things are going he should direct them at FOTA. Lorenzo is clueless.

#23 Jodum5

Jodum5
  • Member

  • 1,247 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 05 August 2009 - 16:39

That wasn't an article. It was an opinion piece.

#24 Max!

Max!
  • Member

  • 494 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 05 August 2009 - 17:21

The cap was way to small, and the new cost cap Cosworth enforced teams where FIA political tools.
I would have wanted a bigger cap and technical freedom, plus the return of the privateers.


The cost cap would have allowed the teams budgets of around 200 million if they so wished. The restriction was solely on performance development. The technical freedom was offered, but FOTA went for more silly measures like a maximum number of hours you can use your wind tunnel.

#25 PassWind

PassWind
  • Member

  • 4,842 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 05 August 2009 - 21:39

It's got nothing to do with the FIA, it's got to with EU and CAFE legislation and the political realities.

If anything FIA is behind the pack, and many of its top members like ADAC and AAA are totally independent of FIA. They're some of those gathering public opinion, guiding and advising the manufacturers.

And car companies have their own partnerships with firms that takes surveys and such.

And I don't a ******* history lesson about Nander and how things where 40 years ago.


Just go have a look at what the FIA is first and you may just get a glimpse by visiting their home page, you like the tool who wrote the article think the FIA is all about racing, not true never has been. You do need a history lesson, you and the author are desperately in need of one and also how then to contextualize reality.

A very powerful lobbying body
"The Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile is the governing body for world motor sport and the federation of the world’s leading motoring organisations.

Founded in 1904, with headquarters in Paris, the FIA is a non-profit making association. It brings together 221 national motoring and sporting organisations from 132 countries on five continents. Its member clubs represent over 100 million motorists and their families.

The FIA has been dedicated to representing the rights of motoring organisations and motor car users throughout the world via campaigns and activities that defend their interests. On issues such as safety, mobility, the environment and consumer law the FIA actively promotes the interests of motorists at the United Nations, within the European Union and through other international bodies.

The FIA is also the governing body for motor sport worldwide. It administers the rules and regulations for all international four-wheel motor sport including the FIA Formula One World Championship, FIA World Rally Championship and FIA World Touring Car Championship."

http://www.fiafounda...s/homepage.aspx

Time to get a clue. Oh and its Nader, much maligned and more macro look at American attitudes rather than the benefit he brought to millions.


#26 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 5,311 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 05 August 2009 - 21:47

Pope ?!

The guy has predicted a lot of things that came true, years ahead, and has decades of experience the auto industry.

I'd very careful about questioning the credentials of de Lorenzo if I was you.


I wouldn't.
He's a freaking joke.
Sure he predicted an economic downturn years ago, but so could have anybody. The economy is cyclical fer cryin' out loud, he was bound to be right....someday.
This is also the same buffoon who landed first and mostest in the Tony George cheerleading section.
Remind me, how did that turn out? He's essentially pressured IMS/irl for years on opening their rulebooks to 'innovation' and 'what the manufacturers want' as well.
Same De Lorenzo as last year, the year before that, and the year before that, ad nauseum.
Also, if you haven't noticed he's basically run off everyone who ever contributed to that site and it's now a one man show.
Nice credentials. Too bad no one listens to him anymore.


#27 PassWind

PassWind
  • Member

  • 4,842 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 05 August 2009 - 22:02

I wouldn't.
He's a freaking joke.
Sure he predicted an economic downturn years ago, but so could have anybody. The economy is cyclical fer cryin' out loud, he was bound to be right....someday.
This is also the same buffoon who landed first and mostest in the Tony George cheerleading section.
Remind me, how did that turn out? He's essentially pressured IMS/irl for years on opening their rulebooks to 'innovation' and 'what the manufacturers want' as well.
Same De Lorenzo as last year, the year before that, and the year before that, ad nauseum.
Also, if you haven't noticed he's basically run off everyone who ever contributed to that site and it's now a one man show.
Nice credentials. Too bad no one listens to him anymore.


It's really interesting that he was so experienced as the middle man between the manufacturer and the consumer that he no longer gets it. Or more to the point he thinks his Marketing background has something to do with the F1 model or that it should be. F1 is not there for the manufacturers and this guy thinks it ought to be because he only knows how to think in terms of making money. This of course has nothing to do with true competition his petty stabs at the underlying politics that are trying to keep the competition first and foremost while trying to engage more variants of teams to compete misses the mark. Again because he thinks in corporate and not motorsport. F1 was never about win on Sunday sell on Monday, its not NASCAR or any other type of Saloon racing you can push into that category.

#28 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 06 August 2009 - 12:20

I wouldn't.
He's a freaking joke.
Sure he predicted an economic downturn years ago, but so could have anybody. The economy is cyclical fer cryin' out loud, he was bound to be right....someday.
This is also the same buffoon who landed first and mostest in the Tony George cheerleading section.
Remind me, how did that turn out? He's essentially pressured IMS/irl for years on opening their rulebooks to 'innovation' and 'what the manufacturers want' as well.
Same De Lorenzo as last year, the year before that, and the year before that, ad nauseum.
Also, if you haven't noticed he's basically run off everyone who ever contributed to that site and it's now a one man show.
Nice credentials. Too bad no one listens to him anymore.



It's really interesting that he was so experienced as the middle man between the manufacturer and the consumer that he no longer gets it. Or more to the point he thinks his Marketing background has something to do with the F1 model or that it should be. F1 is not there for the manufacturers and this guy thinks it ought to be because he only knows how to think in terms of making money. This of course has nothing to do with true competition his petty stabs at the underlying politics that are trying to keep the competition first and foremost while trying to engage more variants of teams to compete misses the mark. Again because he thinks in corporate and not motorsport. F1 was never about win on Sunday sell on Monday, its not NASCAR or any other type of Saloon racing you can push into that category.




I feel sorry you guys, and I feel sorry for GP racing in particular and motorsport in general.
He's not a bean counter he's a car enthusiast and a motorsport gearhead.

Motorsport for the car enthusiasts doesn't mean a sterile and useless run-in-circles "competition".



#29 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 5,311 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 06 August 2009 - 13:03

...he's a car enthusiast and a motorsport gearhead.


Now THAT is a qualification for lecturing the FIA, the irl and NASCAR.
Lord knows there is a shortage of those types any more.
Especially on this forum.



#30 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 06 August 2009 - 13:14

Now THAT is a qualification for lecturing the FIA, the irl and NASCAR.
Lord knows there is a shortage of those types any more.
Especially on this forum.




This forum has a lot casual/comatose driver fanboys and nostalgic anglo-saxon garagiste geezers, but few true race fans.

Both out of touch with the contemporary realities, who think that despite the end of the cigarette era, the Cosworth becoming/being useless without Ford, the huge pressures on car manufacturers to reduce emissions/NOxes/improve fuel efficiency, the problems of getting sponsors, F1 can just solder on and that the departure of the car manufacturers in not an issue.

Good luck with your pipe dreams fanboys .

Edited by DOF_power, 06 August 2009 - 13:24.


#31 wide-front-wing

wide-front-wing
  • Member

  • 509 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 06 August 2009 - 13:23

This forum has a lot casual/comatose driver fanboys and nostalgic anglo-saxon garagiste geezers, but few true race fans.

Both out of touch with the contemporary realities, who think that despite the end of the cigarette era, the Cosworth becoming being useless with Ford, the huge pressures on car manufacturers to reduce emissions/NOxes/improve fuel efficiency, the problems of getting sponsors, F1 can just solder on and that the departure of the car manufacturers in not an issue.

Good luck with your pipe dreams fanboys .


Are you done yet? Are you that priest who ran onto the track?

#32 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 06 August 2009 - 13:25

Are you done yet? Are you that priest who ran onto the track?




I'm just a disappointed racefan.

#33 ex Rhodie racer

ex Rhodie racer
  • Member

  • 3,002 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 06 August 2009 - 13:32

I'm just a disappointed racefan.

If you no longer enjoy F1 and the way it´s going, there are other formula´s you could consider, as well as two wheel sport, which is about a pure as it gets.

#34 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 5,311 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 06 August 2009 - 13:33

I'm just a disappointed racefan.

Part of that problem comes from reading De Lorenzo.
I've been reading Auto Xtremist since the day it went up, but if it was the only thing I read , I'd be depressed as well.
I think it's rather funny that so many bemoan the state of racing, and at the same time will never think of missing a race.
Then there are some like me, who if I don't like the particular form of racing, I won't attend and I won't watch, and can live with it, without throwing a pity party and getting on a board and preaching about what *I* would do to fix it.
Then again, I don't have a blog like DeLorenzo does so I can beat on every form of motorsports but SCCA and tell every other series how stupid they are for not doing what he thinks they should do.
Totally unconstructive and pointless, but then again he's been falling into that mindset for the last few years and shows no sign of being realistic anytime soon.


#35 wide-front-wing

wide-front-wing
  • Member

  • 509 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 06 August 2009 - 14:00

It's also odd to read this sky is falling junk in the same week that the concorde is signed and the future of F1 has been stabilized....as much a twit as mosely is - he did predict that at least one more manufacturer would pull out - and he is not standing for re-election.

which means the fia is heading for change.

I guess I just don't get it - it's the teams themselves via FOTA that are essentially charting the course - so you really should be mad at FOTA.

#36 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 06 August 2009 - 14:16

Motorsport for the car enthusiasts doesn't mean a sterile and useless run-in-circles "competition".

:up:

#37 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 06 August 2009 - 14:21

It's also odd to read this sky is falling junk in the same week that the concorde is signed and the future of F1 has been stabilized....as much a twit as mosely is - he did predict that at least one more manufacturer would pull out - and he is not standing for re-election.

which means the fia is heading for change.

I guess I just don't get it - it's the teams themselves via FOTA that are essentially charting the course - so you really should be mad at FOTA.




Trust me I am.
FOTA is made out of compromised "racertainment" people, not company racefans.

But ultimately it was the duty of AIACR/FIA to keep-it-real and away from the casual driver fanboy brigade.

#38 PassWind

PassWind
  • Member

  • 4,842 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 06 August 2009 - 15:10

Trust me I am.
FOTA is made out of compromised "racertainment" people, not company racefans.

But ultimately it was the duty of AIACR/FIA to keep-it-real and away from the casual driver fanboy brigade.


Which then completely contradicts what you were originally trying to point out to us who are labeled (because everyone needs one how else will you be categorized on Twitter Duh) nostalgic, fanboy, part time boy band, part time 1920's Jazz Band with Byzantine Keyboards.


So in a completely like keeping it real like non Byzantine way so my fanboy personality can take over for one minute while its real of course, can you restate what your point is again?


Look we get it you love the Blog, great IMO the guy is not in touch with anything despite his links to the industry and probably because he prints pretty much garbage he has long lost any credible links, really come on, read it there is nothing there that indicates he is taking any official or connected information and creating a informative new argument based on insider info, if anything the article implies (at least the way I read it) the guy has conducted the absolute minimum research (like getting FIA and BMW right) read the PC BMW press release and then without digging a little into the BMW side of the house delivered a tirade against the FIA who isn't even setting the conditions for racing next year. Its pretty clear who the casual fanboy is in this case.

#39 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,179 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 06 August 2009 - 16:04

Cost cutting needs to be brought in its a fact. The grid is getting smaller and smaller each year ( teams where interested in joining as they liked the idea of a 40million budget cap).


We dropped to 20 cars in 1996 from 26 in 1995. Where was the cost cutting then?


Advertisement

#40 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 06 August 2009 - 16:26

The same autoextremist who spread disinformation when GM and Chrysler were going down? No one takes him seriously.

#41 Apex

Apex
  • Member

  • 2,313 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 07 August 2009 - 06:24

Motorsport for the car enthusiasts doesn't mean a sterile and useless run-in-circles "competition".

Just out of curiosity, what would your ideal racing series look like?