164 replies to this topic

[daishi255]

Seems that the FIA realeased a lot of documents today. Among them was the minutes of the meeting with Ferrari on 28/01/05 that the other 9 teams boycotted.

http://www.gp2003.co...nth=2&year=2005

Some very interesting propsals in there and I must say that I agree with most of them.

Enjoy all you conspiricy theorists

Edit: Link fixed now

[Jack Rabbit]

There were some good proposals. But I dont understand why the FIA/Ferrari went ahead with a meeting beforet he FOM market research had been done and with 9 of the 10 teams absent. It seems like a waste of time. And on the subject of MM's release of the documents: well it looks like some laundry is being aired in public. I dont remember Mosely doing anything like this in the past, but I could be wrong. Great fun for us, but it doesn't bode well for getting the teams together in the near future.

[Chubby_Deuce]

Engine suppliers to make engines available on similar basis to current tyre supply rules
The FIA was not in favour of this, preferring to leave engine supply to market forces. Ferrari agreed.

They'll sit on their hands, waiting for a better plan to magically present itself.

[senna da silva]

What a surprise, Ferrari and Max agree on everything!

[black magic]

seemed to be lots of talking, lots of coulda, maybe, the classic - form committee and come back with report......

little of substance.

did it not seem slightly facile some of the proposals. eg no spare car. save E 1million. what in a budget of 300 400???!!!

[hedges]

Originally posted by black magic
seemed to be lots of talking, lots of coulda, maybe, the classic - form committee and come back with report......

little of substance.

did it not seem slightly facile some of the proposals. eg no spare car. save E 1million. what in a budget of 300 400???!!!

Remind me again how much reduced testing will save.

No team will save any money with any of the current proposals. They will spend exactly as much as they get in sponsorship. I just don't know how anyone thinks costs can be reduced short of a spending cap.

[baddog]

the interesting question about the meeting is why didnt the other teams show up? I mean it cant have been any hardship, and they should have been able to take max and ferrari to pieces right?

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by senna da silva
What a surprise, Ferrari and Max agree on everything!

??

I can't recall Ferrari agreeing on all FIA ideas about how qualifying should become as from 2003 on, the parc fermé crap in particular.
If FIA really favours Ferrari as much as is suggested then they should have given Ferrari some notice about what was coming up so they could plan in advance and avoid the design errors on F2003.
"Like with the upcoming V8 formula"

Besides that, If Ferrari is so much favored, then wyn all these rule changes all of a sudden?
The situation at the end of 2002 couldn't be any better for a Ferrari favouring FIA?
5 double victories in the last 5 races of the year, you can't ask for anything better than that as a Ferrari biased FIA!
Why change those rules?


Now serious,
Max has done weird things but keep on claiming that FIA favours Ferrari. Yes to some extend with
the finances. But other than that? Not as much as many suggest I think because to favour ferrari, a retaining of the rules as they were (other than that front wheel size rule to combat the Michelin affair) would have done Ferrari much more good.


Henri Greuter

[Orin]

Originally posted by hedges


Remind me again how much reduced testing will save.

No team will save any money with any of the current proposals. They will spend exactly as much as they get in sponsorship. I just don't know how anyone thinks costs can be reduced short of a spending cap.

Does Ferrari rasie $300M+ (is it $300M just for the engine development?) in sponsorship and fees? I thought Fiat were complaining about having to deliver wheelbarrowfuls of money to Maranello each year?

If they spent only what they get through sponsorship they'd have to cut costs drastically... and with Tabacco sponsorship on the way out it's not clear whether they can find alternative sponsors with such deep pockets in the next few years.

[baddog]

Originally posted by Orin


Does Ferrari rasie $300M+ (is it $300M just for the engine development?) in sponsorship and fees? I thought Fiat were complaining about having to deliver wheelbarrowfuls of money to Maranello each year?

You thought very wrong then

Shaun

[djellison]

Salary cap for drivers on same principles as those adopted in other sports
The FIA was not in favour of this. Ferrari agreed.

Maximum age for second driver
The FIA was not in favour of this. Ferrari agreed.

LMFAO - No ****!! Their #1 driver would have to take a huge pay cut, and the only driver they can find who'll bend over to pick up the soap would have to be replaced

Doug

[red300zx99]

I remember reading a few years back that Ferrari was the only division of Fiat that wasn't operating in the red. Sponsership and other sources of revenue fuel Ferrari F1

[tifosi]

Originally posted by Orin


Does Ferrari rasie $300M+ (is it $300M just for the engine development?) in sponsorship and fees? I thought Fiat were complaining about having to deliver wheelbarrowfuls of money to Maranello each year?

You think wrong

[edit : oops didn't see shaun's reply.]

[tifosi]

Originally posted by djellison


LMFAO - No ****!! Their #1 driver would have to take a huge pay cut, and the only driver they can find who'll bend over to pick up the soap would have to be replaced

Doug

I'd be willing to bet there's 100s of guys out there that would take Reuban's seat.

[Gilles4Ever]

Originally posted by tifosi


I'd be willing to bet there's 100s of guys out there that would take Reuban's seat.

Besides Fisi, I wonder how many of the current drivers (that have racing seats) would take up the oportunity if it arose. My guess is more than half the grid.

[Williams]

Thought this was an interesting departure:

Driver must be able to start the car unaided with on-board system
Jean Todt said that Ferrari supported this proposal and that they could make savings in terms of the number of people needed to support the cars. It would also help with the sales of Formula One cars onto private buyers. The FIA was in favour of this for cost saving reasons and proposed that such a regulation could be introduced in 2006.

Starter motors on F1 cars ??

[baddog]

Originally posted by tifosi


I'd be willing to bet there's 100s of guys out there that would take Reuban's seat.

its easy to list the ones who wouldnt.

kimi
juan
ralf
alonso

the woulds

rube
david
fisi
jacques
trulli
massa
sato
heidfeld
pizzaboy
panis
davidson

all the possible jordan, redbull and minardi guys and assorted test drivers

maybes
jenson
webber

So I think they might not have trouble filling it eh?

Shaun

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by Williams
Thought this was an interesting departure:



Starter motors on F1 cars ??

Why not?
May wel avoid cars spun off in retirement because of the engine not running anymore. If you can restart on you own again, might avoid a number of situations like Nurburgring 2003 or (I whisper it...) Suzuka '89...

By the way, they had been part of the cars till up in the 70's. I forgot the year and occasion but on one occasion Lauda had asked ferrari For a air pressure starter but Forghieri would have none of it. The next race Lauda spun off, engine quit. He pushed the button an rejoined the race;
No further requests from Lauda regarding air pressure starters on Ferrari's from then on anymore....


Henri Greuter

[tifosi]

Originally posted by Williams
Thought this was an interesting departure:



Starter motors on F1 cars ??

No they'd still use external starters, just no systems to help them get moving.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by djellison


LMFAO - No ****!! Their #1 driver would have to take a huge pay cut, and the only driver they can find who'll bend over to pick up the soap would have to be replaced

Doug

Except we saw no mention of what the cap would be.

It is much reported that the bulk of MS salary, and JV's when he was at BAR was not paid by the team, but by the sponsers. Would this be a loop hole to the cap rule?

What about image rights etc. Is it a limit on a drivers income or just what he is paid directly by the team?

[e34fanatic]

I guess that all driver salaries are paid by sponsors. One way or other.

[RedIsTheColour]

FIA correspondence archive is here

There are no proposals from McLaren, Sauber, Jordan, Jag/RB or Toyota...

Williams include restricting the 3rd car rule as a cost saving even though they are not permitted to run one...

[daishi255]

Originally posted by RedIsTheColour
FIA correspondence archive is here

There are no proposals from McLaren, Sauber, Jordan, Jag/RB or Toyota...

Williams include restricting the 3rd car rule as a cost saving even though they are not permitted to run one...

Thanks for the link RedIsTheColour. Some light reading material there

[naiboz]

I still think the whole issue of saving money in F1 is a load of rubbish

if you read the minutes ferrari themselves say the proposals will only save them 6-8 million or something

which when your talking about most teams budgets is a drop in the ocean

and sure they mite save some money on one thing, but they will just reinvest it somewhere else

its not like they are gonna turn round to a sponsor and say "yeah mr sponsor we're only gonna need 20 mil from ya this year instead of 25"

while F1 teams are more like businesses now than ever before, they are in the business of spending every single last penny they can get their hands on to make cars go faster, and that aint ever gonna change

IMO the only way to really change the state of F1 is a freeing up of the technical regs, not constrictions

allowing the little teams that dont have half billion dollar budgets to "think outside the box"

at the moment its a textbook example of diminishing returns, having to spend more and more money and time for smaller improvements, the only way thats gonna change is with a freeing up of the regs

you cant buy genius

my two cents^

[pio!pio!]

Wasn't one of the sticking points was that Ferrari wanted to limit testing on mileage but not on number of days.. but the devil is in the details and I thought I read somewhere that Ferrari was refering to limiting testing on mileage per tire manufacturer, not per team! That would give Ferrari a lot more testing time as they pretty much are the only serious Bridgestone runner

[baddog]

ferrari made two seperate suggestions really..

1: They want testing per team, plus an allocation per tyre maker. (very controversial, too far the other way from the other teams suggestion I think)

2: They want all testing limits to be mileage based (hard to disagree with that one no?)

Shaun

[naiboz]

yeah ferrari wanted an individual team limit on km's tested

but they also wanted a limit for each tyre manufacturer

which effectively meant that ferrari got nearly twice as much track time as anyone else, as more than likely they would be doing the lions share of bridgestones work

which is cheeky crap if u ask me, and probably wasnt a really serious suggestion

the limiting by km's per team instead of day's though is fair enough and makes reasonable sense

[black magic]

I'm with you hedges.

the only other realistic solution is to allow nature to take its course. no one is forcing thesee teams to stay in the sport and sooner or later some are going to pack up and leave, now if the opposition becomes weak then ferrari are not going to need to have to outlaw as much to win, therefore the sport will get cheaper and sooner or later someone is going to see an opportunity to get exposure and win and therefore join.

its not as if f1 has always had 10 teams in the past and yet has survived thus far. privateers and manufacturers have all come and gone in the past and will in the future.

some of the ideas seem nuts. no spare car?. so what ms totals his car sat pm and then the thousands who have paid through the nose to see the wdc race, see him wearing jeans all day sunday?

is that what max means by cost saving?

I can see merit in both arguments re tyre vs team mileage. difficulty will again be in finding any common ground as each side tries to win at the expense of the opposition and we go back to square 1.

[baddog]

Originally posted by naiboz
yeah ferrari wanted an individual team limit on km's tested

but they also wanted a limit for each tyre manufacturer

which effectively meant that ferrari got nearly twice as much track time as anyone else, as more than likely they would be doing the lions share of bridgestones work

which is cheeky crap if u ask me, and probably wasnt a really serious suggestion

the limiting by km's per team instead of day's though is fair enough and makes reasonable sense

Yeah but you would have to accept that the proposal purely by team is cheeky crap also, given how important tyre testing can be. a balance/good idea is needed. whats REALLY needed is one tyre of course.....

Shaun

[SlateGray]

Originally posted by baddog
So I think they might not have trouble filling it eh?

But we are talking bootlick to the punter here not race driver. IMHO very few of the current non pay drivers would be willing to be MS's lap dog. Now if Ferrari suddenly developed into a racing team in place of the MS team they are now?? that may make things different.

Jacques would never be willing to take Rubens position at Ferrari, he may well be interested in a race seat at Ferrari but you can rest 100% assured that Jacques would not be interested in RB's current position at Ferrari.

[baddog]

Jacques said he would take the ferrari seat like a shot. He has the guts to go in and try to prove himself and the need to prove himself. As do most of the others who dont already have seats that are on a level with ferrari in status.

Only two types of drivers would refuse the ferrari second seat. ones who dont need it (IE already have a williams or mac or maybe renault contract) or ones who lack sufficient self belief to think they would rapidly be able to prove themselves to Ferrari management. (and Ralf for stated reasons)

I hesitate to put any current drivers in the second category.

Shaun

[SlateGray]

you miss my point.
Jacques in a "race" seat at Ferrari yes no brainer 100%
Jacques as a contracted #2 like RB no.

What you talking bout Ralf??

[baddog]

Ralf wont drive with michael because they are brothers.

As for jacques.. the point is he would sign the contract RB has right now, this moment. And if he was as good as he thinks he is then he would de-facto not be number 2.

Shaun

[SlateGray]

Originally posted by baddog
Ralf wont drive with michael because they are brothers.

As for Jacques.. the point is he would sign the contract RB has right now, this moment. And if he was as good as he thinks he is then he would de-facto not be number 2.

Shaun

Oh I never knew you had a copy of RB's contract. Please post the contents of the contract for us all to share. If not we will have to rely on the track record of Ferrari in this matter. Which is very clear if your eyes are not shaded behind red glasses, as yours ALWAYS are!
About Jacques you are 100% wrong as usual. No real racer would be happy as MS’s #2.

You can deny Ferrari team orders all you want, that does not change the perception which is based in solid observation over many years. But if, as you imply, you have a copy of bootlick’s contract then please post it and settle the team orders controversy once and for all.

[baddog]

ermm.. you are a hypocritical sod at times arent you? "Jacques as a contracted #2 like RB no."

Shaun

[hedges]

Originally posted by SlateGray

Oh I never knew you had a copy of RB's contract. Please post the contents of the contract for us all to share. If not we will have to rely on the track record of Ferrari in this matter. Which is very clear if your eyes are not shaded behind red glasses, as yours ALWAYS are!
About Jacques you are 100% wrong as usual. No real racer would be happy as MS’s #2.

You can deny Ferrari team orders all you want, that does not change the perception which is based in solid observation over many years. But if, as you imply, you have a copy of bootlick’s contract then please post it and settle the team orders controversy once and for all.

How about if you can't post it yourself you don't make yourself look like an @ss by expecting a higher burden of proof than your prepared to provide yourself. No one denies Ferraris team orders, just as noone with even a passing interest in F1 could deny Williams, McLaren or any number of teams using them.

Baddog pointed out and certainly it is my recollection that JV stated he would take the Ferrari seat, no conditions. If you have a quote from JV to the contrary post that instead of all the "number two" smoke and mirrors.

JV had a number one contract at BAR and probably knows better than anyone how that works. MS and RB get the same car (according to MS, Rubens and and Ferrari). Wether you believe that or not JV has the confidence he could do something with that situation that RB can not. Do you disagree with him?

[SlateGray]

Originally posted by hedges


How about if you can't post it yourself you don't make yourself look like an @ss by expecting a higher burden of proof than your prepared to provide yourself. No one denies Ferraris team orders, just as noone with even a passing interest in F1 could deny Williams, McLaren or any number of teams using them.

Baddog pointed out and certainly it is my recollection that JV stated he would take the Ferrari seat, no conditions. If you have a quote from JV to the contrary post that instead of all the "number two" smoke and mirrors.

JV had a number one contract at BAR and probably knows better than anyone how that works. MS and RB get the same car (according to MS, Rubens and and Ferrari). Wether you believe that or not JV has the confidence he could do something with that situation that RB can not. Do you disagree with him?

Jacques will never be bootlick to the punter! Do you understand that! RB is clearly happy to be a lap dog for MS. IMHO Jacques would not take RB's "team orders required contracted #2 position" at Ferrari. Bluster away about proof all you want any rational person who has watched the sport without red glasses can see that RB isn’t allowed to race MS period end of story. Until you can prove otherwise we will have to stick with the observed facts. Next.

[baddog]

hey youd better tell jacques that his position on the ferrari drive is unnaceptable to you then. Im sure he would change his mind to avoid upsetting you.

Shaun

[hedges]

Originally posted by SlateGray
Jacques will never be bootlick to the punter! Do you understand that! RB is clearly happy to be a lap dog for MS. IMHO Jacques would not take RB's "team orders required contracted #2 position" at Ferrari. Bluster away about proof all you want any rational person who has watched the sport without red glasses can see that RB isn’t allowed to race MS period end of story. Until you can prove otherwise we will have to stick with the observed facts. Next.

You seem confused, all F1 contracts carry a team orders clause.

I don't really disagree that RB has got the raw end of the deal, I just think it has been his own failings that have put him in that position. He's not as good as MS, and Ferrari are paranoid gits sometimes.

I certainly wouldn't expect JV to join any team to be the second driver, especially not after being a number one himself. He simply had/has the confidence he could beat MS and therefore wouldn't be in the position of second driver, good on him. I guess you don't have the confidence or belief in JV he obviously has in himself, shame on you. Interesting really, people often project their fears and shortcomings onto others.

[black magic]

in 1998 jacques maybe had the clout to get any contract other than ferrari no1.

in 2005 jacques is damn lucky to even have a seat. he's in no position to argue for any special clause or otherwise in any team let alone ferrari.

haven't you noticed how polite and non controversial he has been since getting back in.

[scheivlak]

OK..... what was the topic again?

[Jordan191]

Originally posted by SlateGray
Jacques will never be bootlick to the punter! Do you understand that! RB is clearly happy to be a lap dog for MS. IMHO Jacques would not take RB's "team orders required contracted #2 position" at Ferrari. Bluster away about proof all you want any rational person who has watched the sport without red glasses can see that RB isn’t allowed to race MS period end of story. Until you can prove otherwise we will have to stick with the observed facts. Next.

unlike your purple and pink and whatever other JVi helmet coloured glasses?

[Sakae]

I have read the Minutes of the Meeting (presumably accurate in transcription) about three times over, and admittedly, it's beyond my comprehension how any rational person could object to anything what was there discussed. It's one of the most sensible remedial approaches we have seen in a long time on the part of FIA. Big departure from their usually dictatorial approach.

I wish that someone other than Paul S. could supply explanation what' the problem in the camp of 9. I am afraid that either we aren't being told all facts by either side, or whole affair cannot be characterised in any other way but really bizzare. Do we know whether they are all committed to sit down together in April?



______________

Does anyone has a Hyperlink to both Minutes of Meeting (s) held in England and Brazil by The Group of Nine?

[daishi255]

Latest letter between FIA/PS

[Sakae]

Interesting reading, really. Best movie of 2005 yet by far.

[RedIsTheColour]

Memo

To: Stoddart, P
From: Mosley, M
Re: There's a hole in your bucket

Paul

You may have noticed that a couple of billionaires have turned up and rescued Jordan and Jaguar. As you represent the F1 teams not called Ferrari, perhaps you could ask them what the common position on cost savings is as they appear to be too busy to attend the FIA meetings on the subject. There are some ideas that benefit Minardi aren't there? I do hope so, it would be awfully embarrassing you had somehow forgotten your own team is staring at the abyss while you have been dashing around for the benefit of the sport as a whole.

Do give my regards to Ron and Frank.

Toodle Pip

Max

[Mox]

[FredF1]

Originally posted by RedIsTheColour
Memo

To: Stoddart, P
From: Mosley, M
Re: There's a hole in your bucket

Paul

You may have noticed that a couple of billionaires have turned up and rescued Jordan and Jaguar. As you represent the F1 teams not called Ferrari, perhaps you could ask them what the common position on cost savings is as they appear to be too busy to attend the FIA meetings on the subject. There are some ideas that benefit Minardi aren't there? I do hope so, it would be awfully embarrassing you had somehow forgotten your own team is staring at the abyss while you have been dashing around for the benefit of the sport as a whole.

Do give my regards to Ron and Frank.

Toodle Pip

Max

Poor old Paul doesn't come across as very bright does he? You can bet that Ron hasn't forgotten or forgiven him for Montreal 2003.

[pRy]

Well firstly I'd like to thank Max Mosely for giving us this valuable and rare insight into the behind the scenes going on of the sport we love. Sadly Max Mosely will probably never see this post, but I'm saying thank you anyway.

It's fantastic to get such a glimpse into the workings of the FIA President, and the Team Managers. At times I felt like I was there at the meetings, discussing engines, discussing tyres, seeing points of view from various sources and angles. Fantastic reading.

So why did he do it? Was it purely down to Max? Are they bound by some rule to release this information? I'm not sure, but either way, it's a deffinate bonus. More meeting minutes & notes!

I think it shows us a few things. Firstly, Max Mosley is clearly more intelligent than a Team Manager and his lawyer friend, which made me chuckle on a number of occassions. I do wonder if Paul Stoddart actually forsaw his letters and the replies ever being made public, probably not. To me it just makes Paul Stoddart look stupid and somewhat of an ameteur. However, I can't say I have enough knowledge to even judge the guy, but to me, he just seems like am ameteur after those exchanges. I can't really see Frank Williams or Ron Dennis making the same moves, can you? Can't quite see Ferrari doing the same either.. maybe thats why they are always the first to sign.

I still class Paul in the same group I classed Eddie.. people who are in Formula One for the fun, rather than for the business and the pure sport. And I still feel this is true to a certain extent. I never rated Eddie Jordan, I felt his priorities were all wrong, he wasn't professional enough and he would suffer eventually. Looks like thats already happened. And Paul just strikes me as being in there for perhaps the wrong reasons too. But if Minardi were to win the first race I'd be one of the first to punch the air and cheer, so maybe hes in it for the right reasons. That said, Minardi will never win a race in their excistance, nor will Jordan/Midland, so the point is mute.

It was just so easy for Max to rip this guy to pieces really, he was quoting and quoting and quoting some more documents & meetings that it seems Paul should really have known about. I doubt Paul cares to be honest, at the end of the day he'll just say "**** it" in his Aussie accent and really not be too bothered atall by Max. But it was interesting all the same to see Max does his business.

Great stuff.

[angst]

Originally posted by pRy
Well firstly I'd like to thank Max Mosely for giving us this valuable and rare insight into the behind the scenes going on of the sport we love. Sadly Max Mosely will probably never see this post, but I'm saying thank you anyway.

It's fantastic to get such a glimpse into the workings of the FIA President, and the Team Managers. At times I felt like I was there at the meetings, discussing engines, discussing tyres, seeing points of view from various sources and angles. Fantastic reading.

So why did he do it? Was it purely down to Max? Are they bound by some rule to release this information? I'm not sure, but either way, it's a deffinate bonus. More meeting minutes & notes!

I think it shows us a few things. Firstly, Max Mosley is clearly more intelligent than a Team Manager and his lawyer friend, which made me chuckle on a number of occassions. I do wonder if Paul Stoddart actually forsaw his letters and the replies ever being made public, probably not. To me it just makes Paul Stoddart look stupid and somewhat of an ameteur. However, I can't say I have enough knowledge to even judge the guy, but to me, he just seems like am ameteur after those exchanges. I can't really see Frank Williams or Ron Dennis making the same moves, can you? Can't quite see Ferrari doing the same either.. maybe thats why they are always the first to sign.

I still class Paul in the same group I classed Eddie.. people who are in Formula One for the fun, rather than for the business and the pure sport. And I still feel this is true to a certain extent. I never rated Eddie Jordan, I felt his priorities were all wrong, he wasn't professional enough and he would suffer eventually. Looks like thats already happened. And Paul just strikes me as being in there for perhaps the wrong reasons too. But if Minardi were to win the first race I'd be one of the first to punch the air and cheer, so maybe hes in it for the right reasons. That said, Minardi will never win a race in their excistance, nor will Jordan/Midland, so the point is mute.

It was just so easy for Max to rip this guy to pieces really, he was quoting and quoting and quoting some more documents & meetings that it seems Paul should really have known about. I doubt Paul cares to be honest, at the end of the day he'll just say "**** it" in his Aussie accent and really not be too bothered atall by Max. But it was interesting all the same to see Max does his business.

Great stuff.

Thing is though, that Max has made PS look amateur without really responding to all the points that were brought up. Max, with his legal training, has manipulated the media coverage of all of this very cleverly, but the reality is there are some important issues that he did not address - raising the question (for me at any rate) why?

A question that I would like to ask, above and beyond what PS et al did, is why is the head of the FIA - who should have no interest in the commercial aspects of F1 - fighting so vehemently against the GPWC, and so vehemently for the development of a new CA - a commercial agreement between the teams and SLEC/FOM/FOH? By rights he should be stepping back from the whole thing, but he isn't. He seems to have been fundamentally involved in the agreement between Bernie and Ferrari.