Grand Prix Rejects

ImissJORDAN wrote:I dislike the idea of a two tier series the most.

I love the idea. Sports car racing is great, but to do this in F1 would be mindbogglingly idiotic. But then again, there was the Jim Clark Cup of 1987...

The new sporting regulations for next year already feature the controversial rule.
Article 6 states that the drivers' title 'will be awarded to the driver who has been classified first in the greatest number of races'.
The news has until now slipped the attention of the media because - unlike all other changes to the rules - the amended rule was not highlighted in pink and underlined in copies of the 2010 sporting regulations.

see here: http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 4-2009.pdf

and 2010 Tech Regs here: http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 4-2009.pdf


...the sneaky ?xo!@# (fill in the expletive).

That is a yucky regulation change. I missed it when writing about the changes in my blog, probably because I was still so miffed at the FIA shortening the entry window so that teams must sign up in the fourth week of May?

Also, what's the betting that the change was not highlighted on purpose?

Alianora La Canta wrote:That is a yucky regulation change. I missed it when writing about the changes in my blog, probably because I was still so miffed at the FIA shortening the entry window so that teams must sign up in the fourth week of May?

Also, what's the betting that the change was not highlighted on purpose?

F1 is the most ridiculously crooked sport in the world, top to bottom.

thehemogoblin wrote:

Alianora La Canta wrote:That is a yucky regulation change. I missed it when writing about the changes in my blog, probably because I was still so miffed at the FIA shortening the entry window so that teams must sign up in the fourth week of May?

Also, what's the betting that the change was not highlighted on purpose?

F1 is the most ridiculously crooked sport in the world, top to bottom.

Trying to slip stupid rules under our noses!! I vote for the FIA as ROTY if even more insanity is found. Bernie, I fart in your general direction!

I vote for the FIA as ROTY if even more insanity is found. {tristan117 - previous post}

How about the requirement that cost-regulated teams tell the FIA by December 15 of the year preceding competition who all their "key" staff, consultants, suppliers and agencies will be for the upcoming season, implying that the teams know exactly who they will be? Note that no exceptions are permitted for people moving after the declaration is made. Either sales of crystal balls and the like will increase exponentially over the course of this year or every team signing up for the cost cap will be excluded every (or nearly every) year simply because they were subject to some strange thing called "real life"?

Alianora La Canta wrote:I vote for the FIA as ROTY if even more insanity is found. {tristan117 - previous post}

How about the requirement that cost-regulated teams tell the FIA by December 15 of the year preceding competition who all their "key" staff, consultants, suppliers and agencies will be for the upcoming season, implying that the teams know exactly who they will be? Note that no exceptions are permitted for people moving after the declaration is made. Either sales of crystal balls and the like will increase exponentially over the course of this year or every team signing up for the cost cap will be excluded every (or nearly every) year simply because they were subject to some strange thing called "real life"?

I bet that team's will have to add a team psychic to their "key" staff.

Team psychic salaries are contradictory to cost-cutting. Then again, that's the FIA for you...

The FIA has dropped the "most wins" system. It has gone unnoticed by the media. THis is true. Bernie can go apply this idiocy in his own mind.

You do realise it may have been intended to fail all along? Bernie's done it before with Sepang to get them to upgrade the facilities and track surface.

Captain Hammer wrote:You do realise it may have been intended to fail all along? Bernie's done it before with Sepang to get them to upgrade the facilities and track surface.

Bernie and Mosley are specialists in using this system. You often see it in politics as well: present a very radical proposal, have everyone else freak out, and then water it down to the point you want it, saying you've conceded and that the teams must concede something themselves for the good of the sport, la la la.

My favourite so far is Max's idea of the single engine for all formulae, including the rally cars!

CarlosFerreira wrote:

Captain Hammer wrote:You do realise it may have been intended to fail all along? Bernie's done it before with Sepang to get them to upgrade the facilities and track surface.

Bernie and Mosley are specialists in using this system. You often see it in politics as well: present a very radical proposal, have everyone else freak out, and then water it down to the point you want it, saying you've conceded and that the teams must concede something themselves for the good of the sport, la la la.

Yep, it's one of their favouite tactics. I think on this occasion it was to push the budget cap through; they knew it would be unpopular, but they started with an even more unpopular proposal - winner takes all - and bargained them down from there. Bernie did it with Sepang an Melbourne, suggesting they should go for night races (when night races were out of the question given the shadows that would be cast due to the run-off areas and trees etc.) and then working them down to twilight starts.

Captain Hammer wrote:

CarlosFerreira wrote:

Captain Hammer wrote:You do realise it may have been intended to fail all along? Bernie's done it before with Sepang to get them to upgrade the facilities and track surface.

Bernie and Mosley are specialists in using this system. You often see it in politics as well: present a very radical proposal, have everyone else freak out, and then water it down to the point you want it, saying you've conceded and that the teams must concede something themselves for the good of the sport, la la la.

Yep, it's one of their favouite tactics. I think on this occasion it was to push the budget cap through; they knew it would be unpopular, but they started with an even more unpopular proposal - winner takes all - and bargained them down from there. Bernie did it with Sepang an Melbourne, suggesting they should go for night races (when night races were out of the question given the shadows that would be cast due to the run-off areas and trees etc.) and then working them down to twilight starts.

Yup, and I believe the "single engine for all categories" is another mechanism to push the budget cap through.

Interesting that the FIA introduced cost reduction because it was worried about tams leaving the sport, and now it has both Toyota and Ferrari threatening to leave.

Everyone agrees about the need for cost control. Its just the FIA lead-footed approach thats stirring things up.

I can' really see how a budget cap will be enforced anyway. The manufacturers can play games with this so easily.

And two sets of technical regs will just be a farce. Its going to end up with cars been handicapped to even things out.

I presume legal costs are excluded from the budget cap, as Paris will be full of team lawyers permanently arguing about the new regs.

Ross Prawn wrote:Interesting that the FIA introduced cost reduction because it was worried about tams leaving the sport, and now it has both Toyota and Ferrari threatening to leave.

They won't. Like I said, there's no way anyone can justify running without the budget cap because of the raft of benefits. I think Ferrari and Toyota are styling themselves as the Devil's Advocates; everyone has accepted that running under the budget cap is the better option, but why Ferrari and Toyota are doing it is beyond me. Forty million pounds wasn't a number plucked from thin air. It's obvious the FIA had to do some kind of study to ascertain some kind of reference point for the budget cap, and they obviously feel a team can be run on that budget. It might be 10% of what Toyota ran, but a big budget does not guarantee success.

Ross Prawn wrote:And two sets of technical regs will just be a farce. Its going to end up with cars been handicapped to even things out.

But there won't be two sets of techinical regulations. In theory, there will be, but in practice everyone is going to go with the budget cap. There are simply too many benefits to be had from nominating to run under it. With unlimited testing time, greater aerodynamic freedom and unrestricted rev-limiters, they'll be hard-presed to even make a case for running under the old system. If anything, Ferrari and Toyota are kicking up a stink because they want the budget cap to be higher.

Ross Prawn wrote:I presume legal costs are excluded from the budget cap, as Paris will be full of team lawyers permanently arguing about the new regs.

I don't think so, but I also doubt there's much of a case to begin with. Ferrari and Toyota might be protesting the 'two-tier' regulations, but at the end of the day, they'll run under the budget cap just like everyone else.

I'm sure the protests are mainly posturing, but don't be too surprised if Toyota take the opportunity to nip out of the exit door without losing face. After all, if they've achieved not much with a mega budget over last few years, what are their chances of achieving when budgets are constrained?

Anyway, budget caps will favor the large manufacturers. Why? Because it will be so easy for them to build capability on ostensibly non-F1 projects, and the just move the results into the F1 team. For example, look at computational fluid dynamics. A large automotive company can easily justify developing a huge CFD capability outside F1. But it will have a huge influence on its ability to do F1 design.

Its the small teams that can't hide such extra effort who will be heavily disadvantaged. And the arguments about policing what is or is not acceptable outside effort will fill up the Paris courts.

I have a horrible feeling that most of the teams will sign for the budget cap, find their team psychics aren't as good as they need to be, with the result that the entire complexion of the 2010 championship changes in early March 2011 - about a week before the 2011 championship starts.

...as someone said above, the manufacturers will be gone real quick.
----------------
...here it is!

Red Bull has followed Toyota in declaring that it will not enter next year's world championship under the current regulations.

Toyota's team President John Howett made the threat this weekend in Barcelona, as other teams including Ferrari and BMW also openly baulk at the governance of the sport by Max Mosley and his plans for voluntary budget caps.

"Conditions at the moment are not so, that we would enter a team for next year," Red Bull team owner Dietrich Mateschitz, at the Spanish Grand Prix this weekend, said in an interview that will be published by Austria's Salzburger Nachrichten newspaper on Monday.

The billionaire suggested that the other ‘manufacturer teams’ will also not take part. "Of the teams now, only two or three will remain," Mateschitz added.

Red Bull leaving? But Red Bull is a constructor - they are exactly the kind of team which would benefit. I really want to get my hands on Autosport this week.

May 10/09

Bernie Ecclestone is said to want the World Motor Sport Council to reconsider his universally unpopular 'winner takes all' scoring system at its October meeting.