Jump to content


Photo

How does Standard ECU benefit McLaren?


  • Please log in to reply
272 replies to this topic

#51 LePatron

LePatron
  • Member

  • 296 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 07 January 2008 - 18:50

Originally posted by undersquare


I think you are absolutely right, if Marelli/Fiat/Montezemolo had got the contract there would have been uproar.


We wouldn't have heard the end of it despite the fact that up until last year they were supplying 7 of the 10 teams. Only Honda, BMW and McLaren ran non-Magneti Marelli systems.

Advertisement

#52 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,600 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 07 January 2008 - 19:18

Originally posted by Clatter


If bids all meet the requirements then of course the cost will be a decisive factor. MM is always harping on about reducing the costs, so why would he go against that?


To avoid more accusations of bias...

At the time Max had just finished getting rid of Michelin.

#53 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 26,854 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 07 January 2008 - 19:41

Originally posted by undersquare


To avoid more accusations of bias...

At the time Max had just finished getting rid of Michelin.


I believe there were only 2 bids to choose from. Whichever way the FIA went they would be accused of bias, but if they are going to use competitive tenders to choose then just like the rest of the business world, cost will be a major factor.

#54 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,600 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 07 January 2008 - 19:59

Originally posted by Clatter


I believe there were only 2 bids to choose from. Whichever way the FIA went they would be accused of bias, but if they are going to use competitive tenders to choose then just like the rest of the business world, cost will be a major factor.


I just think, in the absence of any actual knowledge, that since the requirement was completely defined and of established technology, the bids are likely to have been very close. In that case, there would be less controversy with MES so that would be the obvious choice. This was 2006 and there was a lot of noise about Renault being hampered and Ferrari favoured - mass dampers, tyre changes reintroduced etc.

And the FIA were in the pleasant position of spending someone else's money :D .

#55 metz

metz
  • Member

  • 9,587 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 08 January 2008 - 01:54

Thank you PassWind for a good explanation of the technical workings and the potential advantage this may give the team already using the technology. The functions should be clear and transparent.
One would assume that complet technical specs, some of which may be Mac proprietary, would be made available to ALL the teams so that they can easily adopt the new box.
I guess we'll see how real the advantage is when we have a few DNFs due to SECU problems.

#56 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,277 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 08 January 2008 - 04:15

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/61758

#57 PassWind

PassWind
  • Member

  • 4,780 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 08 January 2008 - 04:54

Originally posted by Clatter


All teams were testing with the new ECU within weeks of the last race. Whilst there is integration work to be done, I can't help but think the problems are being exaggerated.



Clatter the problems may be exagerated and while I don't think it a problem that is too hard to sort it would consume some time to make the change over as reliable and all systems that flow on from that to the same level of reliability of what they had. If they have had to move to different parts to suit or change the way an interface works or make entirely new cable looms to match different inputs then thats time that could've been spent elsewhere, hence I think there must be an advantage, though I would say McLaren getting dicked by the FIA would compensate adequately.

#58 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,600 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 10:33

Originally posted by PassWind



Clatter the problems may be exagerated and while I don't think it a problem that is too hard to sort it would consume some time to make the change over as reliable and all systems that flow on from that to the same level of reliability of what they had. If they have had to move to different parts to suit or change the way an interface works or make entirely new cable looms to match different inputs then thats time that could've been spent elsewhere, hence I think there must be an advantage, though I would say McLaren getting dicked by the FIA would compensate adequately.


I agree it is an advantage for McLaren, Bob Bell at Renault spelt out the changes some while ago and they sounded pretty extensive. But more than offset as you say by the fine.

The thing I don't like is the way some Ferrari comments imply that there is something unfair about the MES item specifically, going on about the "triangular" shape (which it isn't, and is irrelevant anyway), and then now Todt talking it up, preparing to paint McLaren's 2008 performance as unfair, and talking about monitoring as though McLaren may be doing something underhand with it.

In my mind this is misleading and unsporting. Propaganda is the exact word for it. It makes it harder to respect Ferrari for their terrific racecar engineering.

#59 Certified Half-Wit

Certified Half-Wit
  • Member

  • 181 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 11:03

Originally posted by POLAR
Mclaren would hide some easter eggs inside de new unit. Dont trust them...

"De"? What do you mean by this (assuming you're not a 12 year old using "de" to replace "the"?)

Advertisement

#60 ATM_Andy

ATM_Andy
  • Member

  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 11:11

FYI

Magneti Marelli St'11 ECU
Length: 25cm
Width: 14.2cm
Height: 7.5cm
Weight: 2.2kg

MES TAG310B
Length: 15.2cm
Width: 16.7cm
Height: 5.6cm
Weight: 1.3kg

Shape aside the MES ECU is lighter and volumetrically smaller than the Marelli ECU.

Jean is quite correct in his statment, there will be an advantage to McLaren, and McLaren freely acknoledge that. However the advantage will not be performance based, but more in system acclimatisation, and some development time for the non MES teams to package the MES ECU (F1 wiring loomage takes a supprising ammount of time to work out and get correct).

Oh FYI Max didn't "get rid of Michelin." Michelin decided not tendor to be the single tyre manafacturer, it really isn't Max's or the FIA's fault.

#61 jb_128

jb_128
  • Member

  • 311 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 08 January 2008 - 11:20

In the autosport.com technical analysis Paddy Lowe of McLaren says that the electronics department have been spending a lot of time on removing launch, traction and brake control from the control code. I feel my earlier suggestion is not too far off:

Originally posted by jb_128
As I currently understand it the standard ECU is less about standard engine management than it is about standard data recording. Since all ECUs record the same data it is easy for the FIA to run TC detection test software on the data.


There actually isn't much of a standard engine control, the teams are still using their own code. I thought maybe the teams would only be allowed to change certain mappings but Lowe's comment implies that they really are still in full control of the code. It's just that the FIA has an easier job of detecting illegal functions in the software now that they all record data in a standardized way.

How this relates to Todt's comments, I don't know, for that we would need information on which input/output channels the teams were previously using that aren't available anymore. But personally I can't imagine there is much of a problem in terms of missing data channel or there would probably have been more outrage from the teams that think they can no longer get the most out of their engines.

#62 Nobody

Nobody
  • Member

  • 1,371 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 11:27

Geez, the little red smurf should take a chill pill - it's not as if the ECU is a moving aero device, like a retractable floor or something...

I for one would like to hit him with it, see the disadvantage then

#63 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 08 January 2008 - 11:27

Originally posted by ATM_Andy
Oh FYI Max didn't "get rid of Michelin." Michelin decided not tendor to be the single tyre manafacturer, it really isn't Max's or the FIA's fault.


He'd made it patently clear that Michelin didn't have a cat in hell's chance by repeatedly slagging off the company - it amounts to the same thing.

#64 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 26,854 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 January 2008 - 11:36

Originally posted by ATM_Andy
Oh FYI Max didn't "get rid of Michelin." Michelin decided not tendor to be the single tyre manafacturer, it really isn't Max's or the FIA's fault.


Michelin have consistently said they were not interested in being in F1 as a single supplier. They wanted the competition that MM has removed, so it is MM's fault.

#65 ATM_Andy

ATM_Andy
  • Member

  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 11:46

Originally posted by Clatter


Michelin have consistently said they were not interested in being in F1 as a single supplier. They wanted the competition that MM has removed, so it is MM's fault.


Errr Quite, also if Michelin had of tendered it would not have been Max's decision anyway.

In the same way with the ECU, the FIA would have loved Porsche, Bosch, Motec etc etc etc to tender but they did not. The FIA chose Microsoft MES as it was the best tender, they were not looking out to hamper Ferrari, Toyota or Renault it’s just the way these processes work I’m afraid…

As a team you accept it and work with it.

#66 Johny Bravo

Johny Bravo
  • Member

  • 2,599 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 08 January 2008 - 11:56

Originally posted by ATM_Andy
FYI

Magneti Marelli St'11 ECU
Length: 25cm
Width: 14.2cm
Height: 7.5cm
Weight: 2.2kg

MES TAG310B
Length: 15.2cm
Width: 16.7cm
Height: 5.6cm
Weight: 1.3kg

Shape aside the MES ECU is lighter and volumetrically smaller than the Marelli ECU.

Jean is quite correct in his statment, there will be an advantage to McLaren, and McLaren freely acknoledge that. However the advantage will not be performance based, but more in system acclimatisation, and some development time for the non MES teams to package the MES ECU (F1 wiring loomage takes a supprising ammount of time to work out and get correct).

Oh FYI Max didn't "get rid of Michelin." Michelin decided not tendor to be the single tyre manafacturer, it really isn't Max's or the FIA's fault.


Never try to put facts into the way of some good bashing. :)

#67 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,112 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 08 January 2008 - 12:02

McLaren admitted they do have a small advantage, bit IMO it's not something to overly worry about. However I 'd like to point something out that seems to have been sweeped under the carpet. The financial aspect of it.
Bridgestone was taken to task last year because some teams had to pay for tires, and some not, so they had to adjust. But is it ok, when a competitor indirectly profits financially from such arrangements? That opens a can of worms IMO, and I think the FiA should have chosen a company without any connection to any of the F1 teams. Dunno if there were such companies biding though. In any case I think its a dangerous precedent.

Originally posted by femi


Most people love easter eggs...that's why they are so popular and if Mclaren did indeed hid some in the ECU, the benefiting team should be grateful. Don't you think?

Hopefully the easter egg is that he car is doing doughnuts now and then, randomly, but more pronounced for those drivers that find no TC dangerous ;)

#68 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,112 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 08 January 2008 - 12:06

Originally posted by Clatter


Michelin have consistently said they were not interested in being in F1 as a single supplier. They wanted the competition that MM has removed, so it is MM's fault.

All teams except one wanted a single tire supplier in 2005 (read pressuring the FiA to make the necessary changes), because that other team was beating them into the dust. If you take the time to find the news of that time you'll find that a single tire supplier would have been in place already in 2005, if not for a veto from Ferrari.

And that despite of Michelin already insisting at that time (2004), they don't want to be single supplier.

#69 Johny Bravo

Johny Bravo
  • Member

  • 2,599 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 08 January 2008 - 12:07

Originally posted by Clatter


Michelin have consistently said they were not interested in being in F1 as a single supplier. They wanted the competition that MM has removed, so it is MM's fault.


So Michelin blackmailing the FIA is MM's fault. Rrrright.

#70 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 26,854 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 January 2008 - 12:28

Originally posted by Johny Bravo


So Michelin blackmailing the FIA is MM's fault. Rrrright.


How did Michelin blackmail the FIA?

#71 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,600 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 12:40

Originally posted by HP
All teams except one wanted a single tire supplier in 2005 (read pressuring the FiA to make the necessary changes), because that other team was beating them into the dust. If you take the time to find the news of that time you'll find that a single tire supplier would have been in place already in 2005, if not for a veto from Ferrari.

And that despite of Michelin already insisting at that time (2004), they don't want to be single supplier.


My memory is that for 2005 tyre changes were banned and the Bridgestones couldn't compete with the Michelins. Renault fought McLaren for the championship. Then for no given reason (but actually for Ferrari and Bridgestone) tyre changes were reintroduced for 2006. Then Michelin got no cooperation at all at Indianapolis, a lot of criticism and threats, then the single tyre supplier decision was made. In that climate, Michelin had no chance.

#72 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,112 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 08 January 2008 - 12:48

Originally posted by undersquare


My memory is that for 2005 tyre changes were banned and the Bridgestones couldn't compete with the Michelins. Renault fought McLaren for the championship. Then for no given reason (but actually for Ferrari and Bridgestone) tyre changes were reintroduced for 2006. Then Michelin got no cooperation at all at Indianapolis, a lot of criticism and threats, then the single tyre supplier decision was made. In that climate, Michelin had no chance.

It's still true that before all that happened what you mention, every team besides Ferrari wanted a single tire supplier for 2005. And that Michelin wasn't interested in being a suingle supplier. I do agree on your view of 2005, but what I wrote happened before that. Had Ferrari not thrown in a veto (their strong point obviously was their close working relationship with Bridgestone) Michelin would have been out of F1 earlier. In any case the single tire decision came from the teams (once Ferrari gave in), not the FiA.

#73 Johny Bravo

Johny Bravo
  • Member

  • 2,599 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 08 January 2008 - 12:50

Originally posted by undersquare


My memory is that for 2005 tyre changes were banned and the Bridgestones couldn't compete with the Michelins. Renault fought McLaren for the championship. Then for no given reason (but actually for Ferrari and Bridgestone) tyre changes were reintroduced for 2006. Then Michelin got no cooperation at all at Indianapolis, a lot of criticism and threats, then the single tyre supplier decision was made. In that climate, Michelin had no chance.


Your memory comfortably drops 2000-2005 when Michelin were so badly spanked that they had to cheat (2003) and ask the FIA to ban tyre changes.

#74 JForce

JForce
  • Member

  • 13,840 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 08 January 2008 - 13:08

1) If Magnetti Marelli had won the tender you Mac fans would be in the streets shooking AK-47s in the air and calling for a jihad

2) Of course McLaren will have an advantage. But shit happens. It's the same with Ferrari/Bridgestone. Swings and Roundabouts.

To deny Mac would have an advantage is to show your true lack of perspective. But the flip side is that so far I haven't seen anything that suggests its a huge deal. Yes it's something to deal with, but changes happen.

#75 Maldwyn

Maldwyn
  • Member

  • 1,486 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 08 January 2008 - 13:15

Originally posted by Raelene
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/61758

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/64536

#76 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 08 January 2008 - 13:26

Given the advantage that Ferrari gained through their relationship with Bridgestone - a much, much greater advantage - as in on a different scale entirely - and one which none of the other teams (including McLaren) whinged about, I find Todt's words frankly pathetic.

Given what has gone on over the last year, and the implied accusations of Todt, the FIA should offer a 'slap across the wrist' punishment for bringing the sport into disrepute and tell the little toad to STFU, and get on with racing.

#77 Johny Bravo

Johny Bravo
  • Member

  • 2,599 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 08 January 2008 - 13:37

Originally posted by Maldwyn

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/64536


Well, to expect no problems with the ECU is not the same as not having to spend hundreds of workhours [and thousands of euros] on adapting to the ECU.

It's not that Mclaren will be 2s/lap quicker because of the ECU suits their car better but the time and money needed [by the other teams] to adapt to the new ECU is spent at Mclarean for other competitive areas.

But I guess everyone knows this, this thread's sole purpose was to provide opportunity for bashing Ferrari. Just look at the first few posts.

#78 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,600 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 13:43

Originally posted by JForce
1) If Magnetti Marelli had won the tender you Mac fans would be in the streets shooking AK-47s in the air and calling for a jihad

2) Of course McLaren will have an advantage. But shit happens. It's the same with Ferrari/Bridgestone. Swings and Roundabouts.

To deny Mac would have an advantage is to show your true lack of perspective. But the flip side is that so far I haven't seen anything that suggests its a huge deal. Yes it's something to deal with, but changes happen.


Well I for one am not denying that Macca have an advantage. I'm saying that there's nothing unfair about it, given that an existing F1 supplier was (apparently) required and so it was either Marelli or MES.

The tyre issue was around at the time the decision was made, along with the mass damper, Fernando "impeding" at Monza etc., so in that context the MES choice was a lot less contentious than Marelli.

I suspect actually most of us are in some danger of agreeing about this :eek:

#79 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,600 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 13:55

Originally posted by Johny Bravo


Well, to expect no problems with the ECU is not the same as not having to spend hundreds of workhours [and thousands of euros] on adapting to the ECU.

It's not that Mclaren will be 2s/lap quicker because of the ECU suits their car better but the time and money needed [by the other teams] to adapt to the new ECU is spent at Mclarean for other competitive areas.

But I guess everyone knows this, this thread's sole purpose was to provide opportunity for bashing Ferrari. Just look at the first few posts.


Well personally I draw a distinction between Ferrari and Jean Todt.

For me Todt was trying to misrepresent the SECU situation, as propaganda against McLaren, so criticism is due. I don't have a problem with what Gilles Simon said, just the spin that Todt and Montezemolo put on it - for example that it's triangular and somehow deliberately difficult to integrate, and that it needs "monitoring".

Advertisement

#80 Lazarus II

Lazarus II
  • Member

  • 4,527 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 08 January 2008 - 14:01

Originally posted by Chiara

... really IMO Jean should be quiet and let the team do the talking on track.

That would be the mature thing to do and we know that no one in the pit lane can possibly live up to those standards.

Just wait till LdM has his say, it will make Todt's comments look amateurish. That guy is an A #1 real slimely polemic pile o' crap.

#81 ATM_Andy

ATM_Andy
  • Member

  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 14:02

Originally posted by undersquare


Well I for one am not denying that Macca have an advantage. I'm saying that there's nothing unfair about it, given that an existing F1 supplier was (apparently) required and so it was either Marelli or MES.


Just to clear something up, there was nothing in the tendor document about being an "existing F1 supplier".

TENDERING CONDITIONS

10.1 Tenders must comply with the terms and conditions set out in this Part III. Any tender not so complying will not be considered for the award of the CONTRACT.

11. TENDERS

11.1 Tenders must be submitted in a closed and sealed envelope addressed to Maître JAQUIERY, Huissier de justice, 6, Place des Eaux-Vives – 1207 Geneva – Switzerland (telephone number: +41.22.849.59.49), no later than 5pm on 23 June 2006.

11.2 The TENDERER is requested to send four copies of his tender.

11.3 TENDERERS are advised to submit tenders by registered mail, recorded delivery or by hand. Whatever method of tender delivery is chosen shall be entirely at the TENDERERS’ risk.

11.4 By submitting a tender, the TENDERER agrees to keep that tender open for acceptance for THIRTY days following the 23 June 2006 deadline for submission of tenders.

11.5 Any envelope received after the 23 June 2006 deadline shall not be considered.

11.6 A receipt will be issued to the TENDERER at his request and shall serve as an acknowledgement of receipt.

11.7 On 25 June 2006, Maître JAQUIERY shall present all the envelopes to the FIA and shall open them during a public meeting. Each TENDERER may attend the opening of the envelopes and may personally verify that the seals of each envelope are firmly secure prior to their official opening.

11.8 The selected TENDERER shall be informed by fax no later than 7 July 2006.

11.9 The FIA has taken reasonable care to ensure that this invitation to tender is accurate in all material respects. This invitation to tender is provided solely by way of explanation of the ECU supplying conditions and neither the FIA, nor any of its representatives or employees make any representation or warranty, or accept any responsibilities for the accuracy or completeness of any of the information contained in this invitation to tender; nor shall they be liable for any loss or damage suffered by any TENDERER in reliance on this invitation to tender or any subsequent communication.

11.10 The FIA reserves the right to change any aspect of this invitation to tender at any time, to issue an amended invitation to tender or to provide the TENDERERS with clarification in relation to the content of the invitation to tender and the proposed process. Such change, amendment or clarification may be provided by the FIA in such form as the FIA considers appropriate. For the avoidance of doubt, in the event that potential TENDERERS find any aspect of this invitation to tender unclear, questions should be directed to the FIA. The FIA will not be responsible for any misunderstanding that could have been avoided or remedied by the potential TENDERER posing a suitable question to the FIA. Should the FIA agree that any aspect could usefully be clarified it will provide such clarification and where appropriate will publicise that clarification.

11.11 Nothing in this invitation to tender nor any communication made by the FIA or its representatives or employees shall constitute a contract between the FIA and any prospective TENDERER. The FIA shall be under no obligation to accept any tender offer submitted in response to this invitation to tender if, in the sole discretion of the FIA, the FIA considers that no tender offer meets with the FIA's criteria for the supplying of the ECUs.

11.12 Each TENDERER is responsible for all costs, expenses and liabilities incurred in the preparation of its tender, including any responses to requests for further information by the FIA and any travel or negotiations with the FIA (whether or not the TENDERER is ultimately selected).

12. Mandatory contents of tenders

12.1 Each tender must contain precise details of the name, address and contact person of the TENDERER as well as sufficient information to allow the FIA to identify the corporate group to which the TENDERER belongs.

12.2 Each TENDERER shall submit its proposed SUPPLY CONDITIONS which should include price per unit, details of technical support (see paragraphs 7.8 and 9.1), maintenance, annual refurbishment and any other associated charges for:
(a) ECUs with the requirements set out in Section 6.4 of the ECU Hardware Requirement Specification, and
(b) ECUs without the requirements set out in Section 6.4 of the ECU Hardware Requirement Specification.

12.3 Each tender must contain a statement indicating why, in the TENDERER’s submission, it should be selected by the FIA for the award of the CONTRACT. This statement should indicate the TENDERER’s experience in the manufacture of ECUs for sporting use, its experience in supplying national and/or international motorsport competitions and indicate any other facts which the TENDERER believes should be taken into account by the FIA.

12.4 Each TENDERER must present a document explaining in precise terms how, if selected, it would meet the requirements set out in Part II above.

12.5 The tender must contain detailed technical documentation on all the qualities and specifications of the ECUs to be supplied.

12.6 Each tender must contain the following declaration signed by a senior officer of the TENDERER on its behalf: “We certify the contents of this tender offer to be true and complete in all material respects. If, following submission of this tender, there is any change in circumstances which may adversely affect our ability to perform the tasks as we have proposed, we shall promptly notify the FIA in writing, setting out the relevant details in full”.

13. SELECTION

13.1 The FIA shall select the TENDERER which, in the FIA's sole opinion, most closely satisfies the scope of the task described and the requirements and interests of the CHAMPIONSHIP.

13.2 The FIA will not be required to give reasons for the acceptance or refusal of any particular tender.

13.3 The completion of the process of selection of a TENDERER shall be subject to the FIA and the TENDERER entering into the CONTRACT appointing the TENDERER as MANUFACTURER in accordance with the procedure set out herein.

13.4 A draft CONTRACT will be provided to the selected TENDERER which reflects the terms agreed and required in this invitation to tender and the terms set out in the tender offer that is accepted. The selected TENDERER will have 10 calendar days from the delivery of the draft CONTRACT in which to send any comments and to supply the documents necessary for the finalisation of the CONTRACT. No variation to the central terms or themes of this invitation to tender or the offer submitted will be permitted at that stage and the opportunity to comment will be provided only to allow technical amendments that are necessary to give the CONTRACT full force and effect. If this time limit is not respected, the FIA reserves the right to revise its position on the award of the CONTRACT resulting from the invitation to tender, and by submitting a tender the TENDERER agrees that it waives all right of legal action in the event of such a revision.

13.5 It will be a term of the CONTRACT that neither the CONTRACT nor any part of it may be assigned, subcontracted or transferred under any circumstances whatsoever without the express prior written agreement of the FIA.

14. GUARANTEE

14.1 It shall be a pre-condition to the completion of the CONTRACT that the MANUFACTURER shall produce an attestation certifying that it has a first demand guarantee in place which provides for at least the following terms, together with an executed copy of the said first demand guarantee.

14.2 The guarantee must be issued by a top-ranking international financial institution and must guarantee a payment in favour of the FIA of a minimum of 100,000,000 (one hundred million) euros.

14.3 The guarantee may be called upon by the FIA in the event that a payment is demanded (whether in damages or otherwise) by any third party or the FIA for any breach of the MANUFACTURER’s legal or contractual obligations, including any payment or compensation that might arise from any flaws in the MANUFACTURER’s product or the MANUFACTURER’s negligence or any costs, damages or expenses arising from its failure to supply the requisite ECUs (including a failure to supply ECUs which are fit for purpose and a failure to supply sufficientquantities of ECUs).

14.4 The CONTRACT shall contain the following clause releasing the MANUFACTURER from liability if such failure to supply is due to a force majeure event:
“In the event that the MANUFACTURER is unable to supply the quantities of ECUs required in accordance with the provisions of this CONTRACT, the MANUFACTURER shall not be liable if such failure to supply is due to a force majeure event, such as war, insurrection, earthquake, riot, or depletion of stocks of raw materials, if such depletion affects all the companies which are rivals of the MANUFACTURER and blocks the entire industrial production of ECUs typically used for motor racing. Depletion of stocks of raw materials which does not affect the entire ECU manufacturing industry shall not be considered a force majeure event. Strikes and other social strife or problems which prevent manufacture of the ECUs in the factories of the MANUFACTURER are also not considered to be force majeure events.”

14.5 No occurrence other than the force majeure events referred to above shall release the MANUFACTURER from liability in case of failure to supply.

14.6 The first demand guarantee must be irrevocable and in a form that allows the FIA to enforce and call upon that guarantee with its first demand by sending a fax to the guarantor, indicating the contractual or other breach which has arisen and which justifies enforcement of the first demand guarantee without the need for any substantiation or further justification of such demand and without any further judicial or administrative formalities.

14.7 Upon receipt of the said fax and without the right to dispute or question the justification for the demand the guarantor shall be obligated to release the amount demanded to the FIA (subject always to the maximum of 100,000,000 (100 million) euros.).

14.8 The reliance and enforcement by the FIA on the first demand guarantee given by the MANUFACTURER’s financial institution shall not itself lead to the presumption that the MANUFACTURER is ultimately responsible for the breach of obligations identified by the FIA, in whole or in part. The MANUFACTURER shall retain the right, if it deems this necessary to defend its interests, to lay any dispute before any courts having appropriate jurisdiction. However, this right shall only be exercised after the guarantee payment has been released to the FIA and shall not entitle the MANUFACTURER to seek to prevent the payment of the guarantee amount if that amount has been demanded in accordance with the terms hereof.

14.9 If a competent court makes a final determination which is not subject to appeal or has not been appealed by the FIA within six months, that the MANUFACTURER had not breached its obligations, then the FIA shall reimburse all or part of the amount paid under the performance guarantee as appropriate

14.10 The FIA may call upon and enforce the first demand guarantee referred to above once for full payment, or several times for partial payment, of the amount of the performance guarantee, i.e. up to a total maximum of 100,000,000 (100 million) euros.

14.11 The first demand guarantee must enter into force at the latest on the day of execution of the CONTRACT and shall remain in full force and effect for the entire term of the CONTRACT.

14.12 The first demand guarantee is a payment obligation and not a collection obligation, and it shall not be affected in any way by the absence of any action on the part of the FIA to obtain payment from the guarantor.


#82 Lazarus II

Lazarus II
  • Member

  • 4,527 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 08 January 2008 - 14:11

Originally posted by JForce
1) If Magnetti Marelli had won the tender you Mac fans would be in the streets shooking AK-47s in the air and calling for a jihad

2) Of course McLaren will have an advantage. But shit happens. It's the same with Ferrari/Bridgestone. Swings and Roundabouts.

To deny Mac would have an advantage is to show your true lack of perspective. But the flip side is that so far I haven't seen anything that suggests its a huge deal. Yes it's something to deal with, but changes happen.

Magnetti Marelli had no chance of competing with MicroSoft now did they? Be honest. Talk about jumping into the lions den. Every team has had the SECU for close to a year, it's not like the design (pacakging) has changed. Every team (McLaren included) used a different ECU, therefore EVERY team will require adaption to that NEW product. The only constant of the design is its shape so McLaren have that advantage.


Role play
Everyone here owns an f1 team.
- you have the opportunity to have an advantage such as Mclarens with pacaking the SECU.
- you have the advantage of the new sole tire supplier being the same supplier that you have worked "exclusively" with for the past 7 years. The bond is so deep that they actually have engineers on your staff.

Gee that's sure a tough one for me :rotfl:
Your electronics can be second to none and if you have no grasp of what holds your car to the road you'll be _ _ _ _. (fill in the blanks)

#83 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,600 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 14:21

Originally posted by ATM_Andy

Just to clear something up, there was nothing in the tendor document about being an "existing F1 supplier".
[I][COLOR=blue]
13. SELECTION

13.1 The FIA shall select the TENDERER which, in the FIA's sole opinion, most closely satisfies the scope of the task described and the requirements and interests of the CHAMPIONSHIP.

13.2 The FIA will not be required to give reasons for the acceptance or refusal of any particular tender.

OK thanks, I'm just quoting Ross Brawn from 2006....

"Ferrari technical director Ross Brawn says that Ferrari is not concerned about having to switch to the Microsoft MES standard ECU system in 2008.

The FIA revealed earlier this month that Ferrari’s longtime partner Magneti Marelli failed to win the bid, and all teams will have to use a system effectively developed from that currently used by McLaren.

It’s a case of win some/lose some for Ferrari, as the team will at least benefit from continuity with Bridgestone tires.

“I think the fact is that like the Bridgestone tires, whoever [used MES before] will have some experience with that system,” said Brawn. “If it had been the Marelli system we would have had the experience with that. It’s a McLaren a system, they’ll have experience with the McLaren system. That’s unavoidable.

I think it’s still a preferential system than trying to introduce someone with no experience of F1, so whoever was going to get contract, somebody would have some experience of. But I don’t think it’s a competitive problem because the [FIA] is quite clear on the requirements, from what I understand.”

Brawn says he expects the new supplier to work fairly with all the teams, because the FIA will keep a close watch on events.

“There have been no discussions between the teams and the supplier, I think the contract is being drawn up or is about to be signed. Until the formalities are done the teams have no contact with the supplier, and in fact the contact will be through the FIA in order to make sure that there’s no confusion and the situation is managed properly.

“As I understand it the teams will make their requests for information through the FIA, and then the FIA will liase with Microsoft MES, and presumably collect all the requests together and organize the meetings and discussions that will happen. I believe the intention is that those communications will be open to all the teams, and the discussions will be open to all the teams, to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding.

“Obviously, Microsoft MES is based on a platform that’s running around now in F1, so we’ve got less concerns about having a system ready. I think the document was very specific about what was required, and it was generated with the FIA’s knowledge of all the individual teams’ requirements. "

http://www.speedtv.c...rmulaone/29216/

So I am inferring that it may well have been an unwritten requirement, or at least that the non-F1 suppliers knew not to waste their time and energy generating a bid.

This attitude of Brawn's is a perfect example of what I mean when I say Ferrari the sporting team is not the same as the unsporting Todt and Montezemolo.

#84 ATM_Andy

ATM_Andy
  • Member

  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 14:29

Originally posted by undersquare

So I am inferring that it may well have been an unwritten requirement, or at least that the non-F1 suppliers knew not to waste their time and energy generating a bid.

This attitude of Brawn's is a perfect example of what I mean when I say Ferrari the sporting team is not the same as the unsporting Todt and Montezemolo.


The nearest requirement was as followes:
Each tender must contain a statement indicating why, in the TENDERER’s submission, it should be selected by the FIA for the award of the CONTRACT. This statement should indicate the TENDERER’s experience in the manufacture of ECUs for sporting use, its experience in supplying national and/or international motorsport competitions and indicate any other facts which the TENDERER believes should be taken into account by the FIA.

So this allowed for the the likes of Bosch, Porsche, Motec etc etc to apply...

#85 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 14:42

How does Standard ECU benefit McLaren?



All of the other teams have to pay for it. McLaren get it free.

Hey, it may not be much, but when you are as cash starved as poor Ron, every little helps. :)

#86 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,620 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 08 January 2008 - 14:47

I looked but I didn`t find a list of companies that responded to the tender.

#87 Certified Half-Wit

Certified Half-Wit
  • Member

  • 181 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 14:50

Originally posted by Josta


All of the other teams have to pay for it. McLaren get it free.

Hey, it may not be much, but when you are as cash starved as poor Ron, every little helps. :)

Heh - maybe we should have Ron doing the Tesco ads!

#88 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 14:55

Originally posted by Certified Half-Wit

Heh - maybe we should have Ron doing the Tesco ads!


Just so long as it isn't the Asda ads. The last thing I want to see is him patting his wobbly arse.

#89 SirSaltire

SirSaltire
  • Member

  • 781 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 08 January 2008 - 15:00

Originally posted by Lazarus II

Role play
Everyone here owns an f1 team.
- you have the opportunity to have an advantage such as Mclarens with pacaking the SECU.
- you have the advantage of the new sole tire supplier being the same supplier that you have worked "exclusively" with for the past 7 years. The bond is so deep that they actually have engineers on your staff.

Gee that's sure a tough one for me :rotfl:
Your electronics can be second to none and if you have no grasp of what holds your car to the road you'll be _ _ _ _. (fill in the blanks) [/B]

:up: You hit the nail on the head!

#90 Certified Half-Wit

Certified Half-Wit
  • Member

  • 181 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 15:23

Originally posted by Josta


Just so long as it isn't the Asda ads. The last thing I want to see is him patting his wobbly arse.

Heh - I reckon Norbert Haug for Asda...just so long as they give a warning before it comes on screen.

#91 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 26,854 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 January 2008 - 15:40

Originally posted by Josta


All of the other teams have to pay for it. McLaren get it free.

Hey, it may not be much, but when you are as cash starved as poor Ron, every little helps. :)


Are you sure about that?

I would'nt have expected Mac to get a direct supply of the ECU. The contract is with the FIA for their supply, so presumably the teams are given/buy/hire them from the FIA.

I would expect it to be the same with the supply of tyres, now that the one manufacturer rule has kicked in.

#92 metz

metz
  • Member

  • 9,587 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 08 January 2008 - 16:00

Originally posted by Johny Bravo
this thread's sole purpose was to provide opportunity for bashing Ferrari.

This is incorrect.
The sole purpose of this thread is to explore if or how the SECU benefits McLaren.
Since you have trouble understanding the thread title, maybe you should post elsewhere... :wave:

#93 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,600 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 17:19

Originally posted by ATM_Andy


The nearest requirement was as followes:
Each tender must contain a statement indicating why, in the TENDERER’s submission, it should be selected by the FIA for the award of the CONTRACT. This statement should indicate the TENDERER’s experience in the manufacture of ECUs for sporting use, its experience in supplying national and/or international motorsport competitions and indicate any other facts which the TENDERER believes should be taken into account by the FIA.

So this allowed for the the likes of Bosch, Porsche, Motec etc etc to apply...


I'm not saying they weren't allowed to apply. But they wouldn't bother unless they got some encouragement from informal contacts - it would be a lot of work to get to a point of having that tender done and being in a position to meet the requirement if they got it.

And if all we know is what Ross Brawn thought about it, then we have to think other Tech Dirs would have gone through the same thought processes, reached a similar conclusion, and so in the course of some informal conversations Bosch and the others would have been told they were unlikely to get it if they weren't in F1 already.

From what Gilles Simon said, MES has had to spend time with each team to help with integration, so knowing F1 cars must make a lot of difference.

#94 AyePirate

AyePirate
  • Member

  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 08 January 2008 - 18:14

Todt maneuvering for a last minute ECU change to MM? Now that would be fun :lol:

#95 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 12,224 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 19:24

Excuse me for such a n00by question, but wouldn't it be easier to ban any kind of ECU and let the teams work a way around that?

#96 Johny Bravo

Johny Bravo
  • Member

  • 2,599 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 08 January 2008 - 20:09

Originally posted by metz

This is incorrect.
The sole purpose of this thread is to explore if or how the SECU benefits McLaren.
Since you have trouble understanding the thread title, maybe you should post elsewhere... :wave:


The only question You raised in your thread opener was this:

Is this just JT being JT?



Sure You were interested in how the SECU benefits Mclaren...

Seems You have trouble understanding your own thread title.

Hipocrisy at its best. :wave:

#97 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 26,854 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 January 2008 - 20:10

Originally posted by Risil
Excuse me for such a n00by question, but wouldn't it be easier to ban any kind of ECU and let the teams work a way around that?


Back to carburettor then.

#98 Jacquesback

Jacquesback
  • Member

  • 1,678 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 08 January 2008 - 20:19

Originally posted by Clatter


Back to carburettor then.


And pushrods, and H pattern transmissions. Then they can mandate a standard bodystyle for the cars and they can call it the "Car of tomorrow".

:rotfl:

#99 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 12,224 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 20:50

But on the other hand, that would limit performance while allowing a relatively open formula in most areas except electronics. Which the teams have never really controlled, and will now be prescribed by the FIA. It would be a challenge, who could design the best space carburettor or laser-manual-transmission.

Advertisement

#100 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,737 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 22:04

Wow thank ATM_Andy,

The FIA may call upon and enforce the first demand guarantee referred to above once for full payment, or several times for partial payment, of the amount of the performance guarantee, i.e. up to a total maximum of 100,000,000 (100 million) euros.


McLaren better hope the thing is good or it could end up being even more expensive than 2007!!! :lol: