Need More Be Said?

Need More Be Said?

  July 09, 2009    MamaeyaYT

---

Well I guess you've heard it by now. All eight FOTA teams recently walked out of a meeting with the FIA on the 2010 rules. I'll leave it to you to read the articles in the Guardian and another in Pitpass. Should it come as a surprise?

By any means possible, Max Mosley wants nothing more than to impose himself on Formula 1. This has happened before and through some really sneaky chicanery and technicalities (typical of a lawyer) he's managed to exclude the FOTA teams from the rule making and instead involved the new teams Manor, Campos and USF1 plus the traitor Williams and wannabe Force India. Which was always his intention.

Shame on those who had argued for compromise. For really, there is no peace and compromise possible as long as that dictator stands as head of a long corrupt organisation. Nothing but a hard line is required in dealing with Premier Max. And for the good of grand prix racing (for the lack of a better word to signify motorsport's pinnacle) there has to be a fresh start, from ground up, focussing on fundamentals. Not this rehashing and replaying of a broken record that is the FIA Formula 1. To hell with sentiments. It was a good run while it lasted and now the time has blow away the cobwebs of entrenched and vested greed and ego. Are you listening already? The powers will do just that, try to keep their power and try to impose their will regardless of any form of process or good governance. Never mind also, that the old senile men and these old institutions spell the death of the sport as we know it.

And so precious time has been wasted in the hopes of some false peace. Time that could have been better spent planning for a breakaway series that fully caters to the needs of the teams and spectators instead.

I really grow tired of this. Tired of saying it again and again. I told you so, idiots.

Read More

So They DO Have The Minerals

So They DO Have The Minerals

  June 18, 2009    MamaeyaYT

---

I woke up happy this morning. Still in a slumber I stumbled straight to the laptop and lo and behold. A new breakaway series was announced. My eyes lit wide, I thought I was dreaming. I had been fully expecting the teams to cave in to Mosley's demands. They always do. But as I stated in my last post, there was just no way they would sign up to race under a set of regulations that as it stood today, would allow the FIA to walk all over them.

Simply put: The FIA want the teams to sign up unconditionally and then a satisfactory governance structure would be put in place (or so the FIA says). This even though an unconditional entry would mean they are obligated to race without proper governance and the FIA would under the entry be under no obligation to change such structures.

The teams on the other hand wanted such governance structure in place before signing up. As well they should. I mean how could you trust the FIA president who could at any point after the signature change his mind and decide any which way simply on his whims? The teams would be negligent in their duties to safeguard their operations if they did so. Yet, that is what Max was asking him to do.

Speaking of governance, here's what the FIA had to say:

"Formula One needs a strong and impartial regulator because of the nature of the sport, the high stakes and the competitors - people who want to win (literally) at any cost."

This is true but over the years the FIA have not been impartial in dispatching its duties as a regulator. Furthermore, strong arm tactics as deployed by Mosley and the FIA do not consititute strength. Its bullying and that is not good nor fair governance.

"Good governance does not mean that Ferrari should govern. "

Huh? Thats pure smoke and mirrors to confuse the public. FOTA are not suggesting that Ferrari govern the sport. In fact, through the veto, this was something the FIA had in a way allowed Ferrari to do. As many commentators point out, this is not sporting and certainly would not be allowed in other sports. Who let Ferrari have the veto? Why, it was the FIA and further demonstrates how dubious and facetious their governance has been.

"Ferrari now claim that the procedures followed by the FIA are contrary to their agreement with the FIA, but in reality they never objected to these procedures (indeed they voted for them)..... "

Again, more finger pointing to Ferrari and more distractions. The fact is the FIA have failed to demonstrate in this or any other statement, how great and how well their current governance structure is or ever has been. Pointing to Ferrari's failures in fact incriminate the FIA and provides more evidence of their mismanagement.

".....until they were not happy with the decisions themselves. Ferrari has been officially (as well as unofficially) represented on the WMSC since 1981 and never objected to the process or decisions until April and May this year"

So you have actually allowed them special privileges this long and let them get away with it? Again, how does this prove the FIA's ability to properly govern Formula 1?

And on the subject of commercial revenues, the FIA only claim that the teams wish "to expropriate the commercial rights for itself" Even if they did, so what? They deserve it. As it is, the FOM have for years denied the proper share of revenues to the teams. Bernie Ecclestone, that crook, who was supposed to look after these rights on behalf of the teams, took all of it for himself and up until a few years ago, gave only 25% of the revenues back to the teams. Most of which went to Ferrari.

So now, without waiting any further the teams have announced their own breakaway championship. Will they really go through this? Max doesn't think so. Well, he would wouldn't he?

Make no mistake, the FIA and FOM are losing a lot here. What I am surprised to see is that the FIA, instead of trying to make ammends actually came out with the hideous press release and following the breakaway announcement have announced plans to sue FOTA for trying to organise their own series. I mean, thats a helluva way to make peace and attract these teams back to the FIA championship. Whilst FOTA attempted a compromise with the FIA, the FIA have so far only responded with hostility, typical of tyrants and despots.

So what would a breakaway championship look like? Much the same as now I would imagine, for now. I should think in order to provide stability and therein save costs, they would probably adopt this year's rules. And really, that is fine by me.

Circuits are plentiful and much as I would miss seeing the FOTA teams in Malaysia (assuming they can't get to or won't race in Sepang) nevertheless I am glad they'll be pulling out of hideous places like Bahrain and this new stupid Abu Dhabi circuit. Hopefully, they'll never arrive in India, too. Bernie can have his race among the impoverished on the streets.

Here's where I hope they'll do races: Imola, Magny Cours, Estoril, Sachsenring or the Nurburgring (where else in Germany?), Indianapolis, Montreal, Jacarepagua, Suzuka (of course!), Spa (its a must, they somehow must get this one), Silverstone (the drivers admittedly love this one and having driven on it, so do I), Brands Hatch, Portero de los Funes (wishful), Jerez, Adelaide (always fun over there), A1-Ring (I wish it was still the Oesterreichring), Monza or Mugello, Hermanos Rodriguez and Kyalami to name a few. There, enough venues to make a nice 16-17 race championship. Its a pity Bernie owns Paul Ricard in France but that would have been a fantastic venue to be in as well.

I was always a believer in a breakaway championship having written about the possibility even back in the cowardly GPMA days. There will be difficulties but there is nothing to fear. FOTA will have the best teams and the best drivers. They will have the choice of visiting all the classic fast and challenging circuits I grew up watching in front of passionate fans who really care about the sport rather than silly Arab circuits full of sand.

And what of attracting new, independent teams? Well, if only they would relax the customer car rules, there could be more of them particularly with a more equitable distribution of the commercial revenues of the sport. Its interesting to note that poor N Technology have withdrawn their application to enter the FIA championship based on the fact that the manufacturers will not be present. How much longer before the rest do the same and leave the FIA with nothing?

What have the FIA championship got? Has-been Williams and wannabe Force India. And a whole bunch of teams unheard of. Where will they find the sponsorship to finance their racing? I find it hard that all of them will successfully procure the necessary funds.

For now, we should not get too excited. Lets see what happens. With Brawn still insisting on negotiating with the FIA and Bernie yet to play his hand, things could still change. I do hope though the breakaway series does happen and we can get rid of tyrants like Max and parasites like CVC and Bernie.

Read More

No End In Sight

No End In Sight

  June 16, 2009    MamaeyaYT

---

"You do prefer it this way, don't you, as it was meant to be? No peace in our time" -- General Chang

Now take a look at the latest press release from the FIA:

"Indeed, [FOTA] were not prepared to discuss [financial] regulation at all."

"In default of a proper dialogue, the FOTA financial proposals were discussed but it became clear that these would not be capable of limiting the expenditure of a team which had the resources to outspend its competitors. Another financial arms race would then be inevitable."

While FOTA talks about governance, the FIA are still pressing on about budget caps. As I understand it, FOTA works towards cost reductions through technical measures but the FIA still talks about imposition of absolute limits to budgets. Something that the FOTA teams are absolutely against.

The point is subtle but therein lies the loggerheads. And lets not even discuss the matter of governance, something that the FIA, barring a passing mention of reverting back to the 1998 Concorde Agreement, still has not been properly addressed at all by the FIA.

Put it simply. The FIA says agree to the 2010 rules including the budget cap and we'll all then sign the Concorde Agreement. FOTA's position is sign the Concorde Agreement that governs the sport (including how the rules are shaped and made) then we'll talk about rules.

Max of course does not want this because then he'd have a very very hard time imposing the budget cap. In fact, with the Concorde in place the only way the FIA could bulldoze any rule is on the grounds of safety.

Meantime of course, Max has sent his thug, Alan Donnelly to try and break the unity between the FOTA teams which met with some stern retaliatory statements from FOTA. The fact that Mr Donnelly is also chief steward, seriously calls into question his ability to remain impartial in applying the rules at races.

Essentially Max there trying the divide and conquer strategy once more. But the teams aren't buying it. Thank God.

The differences between FOTA and FIA are subtle in form but huge in substance. And as it stands, I fail to see how this will be resolved unless one of the parties compromise.

Read More

Funny Stories

Funny Stories

  June 15, 2009    MamaeyaYT

---

Max Max Max. You're so predictable these days its hilarious mate! So now there's a new press release from the FIA. And in this press release the FIA claim that:

"The FIA believed it had participated in a very constructive meeting with a large measure of agreement. The FIA was therefore astonished to learn that certain FOTA members not present at the meeting have falsely claimed that nothing was agreed and that the meeting had been a waste of time. There is clearly an element in FOTA which is determined to prevent any agreement being reached regardless of the damage this may cause to the sport."

Ok so given that in that Thursday meeting the ones present were Toyota, Ferrari, Red Bull and Brawn GP, the "element in FOTA" could be one or more of BMW, Mercedes or Renault. But strange that following this meeting on Thursday you had Ferrari, Toyota and Red Bull voicing out strong opinions against the FIA particularly on the issue of governance. Seems that those present in the Thursday meeting weren't pleased with the issues as well, never mind some strange "element in FOTA."

And to this, a FOTA spokeman has responded:

"FOTA, whilst reserving its position on the specific issues, does not intend to comment the FIA press release issued on the 15th of June and to be involved in a prolonged series of polemical statements that generate confusion and does not help create a positive environment for the ongoing contacts"

Max Max. Still trying your best to divide and conquer? Are there no other strategies in the play book?

The FIA have also seen fit to respond to the ACEA statement, again driving the issue of costs and how the FIA proposals would save the manufacturers a ton of money (should be nice after years of screwing the manufacturers with constant rule changes). No mention of the FIA poor governance though. But again, Max simply couldn't resist the good old highlight on the one dissenting voice in ACEA. In this case:

"The FIA understands that Porsche did not support ACEA’s Formula One resolution and has instructed the ACEA secretariat to make this clear in response to any press enquiries"

You just couldn't resist it eh Max?

Meanwhile, Bernie has urged calm and restraint: "I would just ask everyone, instead of throwing mud at each other in public or behind each other’s backs, to just be quiet and let things settle down a bit."

In other words, help help! You are ruining the free lunch for me and my CVC Pedigree Chums. Yeah, its been quite a funny weekend alright.

The funniest story so far must be about poor N Technology who had their application for a spot on the Formula 1 grid rejected by the FIA. According to N Technology's Mauro Sipsz : "The applications have been used by the Federation as pawns to move in the fight against the teams."

Wha.. What the f...? You just knew this now? You mean you really thought the FIA would take you seriously? You poor sod or should I say cannon fodder. Autosport goes further : "Sipsz and Codignoni reveal that they were informed by the FIA about having missed deadlines for submitting financial and technical details of their teams - even though they are adamant such information was sent in on time."

Reminds me of when you send an invoice to your customer who doesn't want to pay up. But we never did get your invoice... could you please send it again? Oldest trick in the book except in this case its oops sorry you can't enter now.

Max, what sort of joint are you running here?

Read More

FIA / GPMA And Rule Making

FIA / GPMA And Rule Making

  November 17, 2006    MamaeyaYT

---

Two articles ago, I stated that a specialist engine maker like Cosworth would not be able to effectively compete in grand prix racing's new future due to the technical challenges. Having read the Mosley/Goschel Q & A in full, I think I was completely wrong on that one. The way it looks, I think they would be able to do so on technical grounds. The difficulty for a company like Cosworth would be mainly financial and political.

In future, the manufacturers will be dominant and together with the FIA will set the technical direction and rules of the sport. Lets not underestimate what the consequences. The technical agenda for all future rules will be driven by the needs of the manufacturers and in relation to developments in road cars.

In the past it was the teams that made the rules and this was not lost in the Q & A. Repeatedly, references were made to how the teams never got anything done and how the rule making process frequently degraded into argument and shouting. Again, this is slightly deceitful. For the rule making process is defined in the Concorde Agreement, a document that Max Mosley himself helped in its formation. According to the Concorde, rules can only be made with a unanimous decision among the teams and frequently, one or two interlopers could simply raise objections and kill a particular rule. Some red coloured team apparently was quite famous for doing this.

To address this problem, the FIA itself formed a Sporting Working Group in addition to the Technical Working Group whose members include the teams, the FIA, CVC and other representatives. These working groups required only simple majority to push through a piece of regulation. And yet, wasn't it Max Mosley who recently vetoed (and in contrary to the FIA's own regulations) a motion to scrap the engine homologation rules in May of this year? And yet he says that all the teams do is bicker. Oh the duplicity of this man.

And wasn't it Max who once said that manufacturers come and go but it is the independents who soldier on in the sport and their welfare should therefore be protected? And yet here we are now, power is given to these manufacturers, all of whom have only in recently times become team owners themselves. From the Q & A, we learn that in future "we now have a mechanism for sitting down with the manufacturers at board level to agree on objectives... That is the most important point, that discussion takes place at board level and not at team level."

In future rules would be made using a "three stage process." At the first stage is to define objectives at the board level. Now this means exactly as it says. The decisions are made by the FIA and the board of directors of the manufacturers. Then at the second stage "technical experts from the major manufacturers... will flesh that policy out." At the final stage, "you would have input from the technical experts at the teams on the details of the rules.. work[ing] out how to achieve the predefined objectives." After being pressed, Goschel admitted that "if this means we bypass Ron Dennis, then so be it." Meaning to say, tough luck to the teams.

Regular meetings are planned to define future rules and objectives and "to define the next areas we should look to introduce into F1 which are relevant to the car industry." But this "has to be driven from the manufacturer level alongside the FIA, not from the teams. It will be a common working group made up of GPMA and FIA members."

So you might ask, what's the problem? Especially since teams these days are all owned by or closely associated with the manufacturers. I can't quite explain it but I always thought there was something wrong with Max ramming regulations down the throat of the teams. An FIA/GPMA board of directors alliance setting the agenda doesn't make it any better if you ask me. The teams should be the ones to come up with the rules. Again, this is back to the overall point of grand prix racing. I think it ought to be purely sport and speed but these people think there should be industrial and social relevance. And so, it is industrial captains that now set the pace.

The only good thing about this is that it should lead to better governance. The keyword is "should." One of the bones of contention in the past between the FIA and the GPMA was a lack of transparency in the rule and decision making process. The GPMA then argued that the sport was poorly governed on all fronts be it technical, sporting or commercial. This was not good for their collective image but was also costing them billions because some rules were arbitrarily decided by Max and cohorts with apparently no consideration to the costs of compliance and to the objectives of the car makers. And not to mention, rules or decisions made in favour of certain teams, which was my personal gripe. The latest developments will hopefully result in a more balanced governance.

Still I cannot help but feel that the sport has been usurped from the independent teams. I bet Ferrari would want to call themselves a manufacturer now after years of insisting that they are independents. But teams like Toro Rosso, Red Bull and Williams will not be represented at the "board level." This simply wrong, for they too should have a say in how they will compete in the future.

If one wanted to change the rules of football, shouldn't the football clubs be consulted? And of course the players themselves? If Nike, Reebok or Adidas in their capacity as equipment makers and sponsors, made the rules, you know there would be an uproar worldwide. Why should motor racing be any different? The manufacturers say that the environment are at the forefront their concerns these days. Puh-lease. This is only insofar as it projects a better image to their customers and helps them sell cars. At the end of the day, money is the real objective. And sport of Formula 1 has been truly raped and turned into a marketing tool for the manufacturers own purposes. We have forgotten that it is a sport.

Back to Cosworth and their like, I can imagine it could get quite frustrating for them if they had no say in the future direction of the sport. And would they even be allowed to compete should someone want their engines in the future?

Read More

Latest News From The Frontlines

Latest News From The Frontlines

  November 15, 2006    MamaeyaYT

---

In the battle for the future of grand prix racing, peace seems such an overused word. Seen it too many times in the past so naturally, I'll take the latest peace declaration with a large grain of salt. Having come to terms with commercial arrangements, the GPMA have finally (or so it seems) kissed and made up with the FIA and Max Mosley. In a meeting in Munich which up until now had been kept under wraps, some significant details emerged.

Social relevance, green technologies, road car relevance were all hailed as the major objectives for the future. All very nice but significantly, the governance of the sport and decisions over the rules will be made by the FIA and the manufacturers, which indeed bypasses the teams. Of course, many teams now are owned by the manufacturers but this really puts folks like Frank Williams in a spot.

Of course they FIA and the manufacturers say they will make decisions in consultation with the teams. But then Max Mosley has rammed down things people's throats in the past in direct contradiction to clauses in the Concorde, so I doubt if teams like Williams will take it too kindly. And really, for a person who supposedly was championing the cause of the independent teams, this latest development seems like a big discrepancy. From this article in ITV-F1 :

"In future individual teams’ management will relinquish their involvement and instead be represented by the manufacturers themselves, who will discuss prospective rules with the FIA at main board level."

Though the teams may hate this but they brought it upon themselves by not uniting strongly against Bernie, Max and indeed, even the manufacturers. Though indeed many team bosses have already cashed out and made lots of money in the process. And it seems increasingly likely that Ron Dennis will be making even more money than all of them when he and Ojjeh finally sells out to Mercedes.

But there are some good points about this latest development. One of Max Mosley's plans was to see a return to the old fuel consumption formula of the eighties but with a significant twist. Consumption of fuel would be defined in terms of energy content rather than volume of a specific fuel type. Instead of limiting fuel to say 150 litres of pump petrol for the duration of a race, it would be defined as limited to say xxx Kilojoules of energy for the race. This is significant for it means that alternative fuels could be used.

Also, the engine type and configuration would be free. And this means the possibility of vastly different types of engines and of course technical innovation and most of all, variety. There would no longer be just V8s or V10s in the field. There could be a methane powered turbocharged V16 and it wouldn't matter. But of course, in focusing on energy consumption, it is the manufacturers who have the advantage. They have been researching these technologies for decades now. At the beginning, I foresee many technologies introduced will not be new ones but simply redeveloped and redeployed for racing purposes. And in the broader scheme of things, as marketing tools.

There are many factors involved with Cosworth's departure from grand prix racing but I wonder if this new future is not one of them. Though they have built alternative fuel powerplants in the shape of methanol Indy race engines, I wonder how their comparatively meager budget could cope with the full weight of different technologies from manufacturer labs, already in advanced state of development. The effort required by the likes of Cosworth to catch up would I think be too much for them.

Change can create new opportunities. There are literally dozens of small, highly innovative companies out there whose main purpose is to develop alternative powerplants. Perhaps from these companies will emerge the new Cosworths and Ilmors of the future. Personally I feel that they should simply specify a simple hydrogen internal combustion (IC) engine formula. It is far easier to adapt your road car to burn hydrogen than it is to say, methanol. In fact, BMW themselves have made significant research into this and if I'm not mistaken, some buses in Los Angeles already use hydrogen IC. Fuel cell technology is expensive so why not use a cheaper, proven technology instead? Hydrogen combustion is clean and the technology is already in use everyday by you and me. This would have been better for it meant that companies like Cosworth could still be relevant to grand prix racing.

So much for Cosworth but what of Ferrari? I mean, they are a manufacturer of road cars as well to be sure. But theirs are high performance road cars. I mean, I love Ferrari road cars (in stark contrast to the racing team) but try defining the social relevance of a Ferrari 599 GTB. Ferrari are in many ways are in the same boat as Cosworth. Though their business be highly profitable and thus affords them a larger R & D budget but how will they steal an edge over the manufacturers who, as I said, already have alternative technologies long in development. That will be interesting. And as far as governance in the sport is concerned, it will be interesting to see how they plan to get their way what with the GPMA scoring such a significant victory by being at the "board level" in future decision making.

It seems slightly sinister then that the sport will effectively become a manufacturer testing facility. What started as a championship to find the world's best driver and racing team have now been infused with new objectives of road, social and industry relevance. In the past, I have condemned this as an unnecessary corruption of what is racing's pinnacle. But I am in the minority I know. Predicting the future one way or another is often foolish, so I'll just hope that at least the (new) Establishment will form detailed regulations that bring about more spectator excitement, such as measures to improve overtaking.

Read More

Sanctions and Licenses

Sanctions and Licenses

  November 03, 2006    MamaeyaYT

---

Interesting story on GrandPrix.com caught my eye today. To summarize, the Toro Rosso drivers Vitantonio Liuzzi and Scott Speed have been prohibited from taking part in the forthcoming Supernationals X kart race in Las Vegas. The organisers of the race Superkarts USA have been advised by the FIA that both Liuzzi and Speed would stand to lose their superlicenses if they proceed with participation.

Wow. The similarities between the FIA and their worldwide affiliates, specifically their Malaysian ASN, are indeed striking. Allow me to elaborate further. You see, Superkarts USA are not affiliated with the FIA. This means that races organised by Superkarts USA are not sanctioned by the FIA. And the FIA it would seem frowns upon drivers competing in these non-sanctioned events. In this case, both Liuzzi and Speed who do hold FIA licenses have been told that their licenses would be docked if they did.

The question is, why should the FIA prohibit drivers from other motorsports competition? Even ones that do not fall under their jurisdiction. In Malaysia, we have had extensive experience of this type of phenomenon. The local ASN in Malaysia is the Automobile Association of Malaysia (AAM). Competitors (both the rich and well connected and the poor and anonymous), race organisers and though they would surely deny it, even the Sepang International Circuit (SIC) management are united in their hatred for the AAM. Just like its international parent, this is a very closed, autocratic and very domineering organisation run by the very egotistical. Curiously, their tagline is "Your No. 1 Motoring Friend in Malaysia." Uhuh.

But unlike the FIA, the AAM have been accused of doing very little to champion the cause of motorsports in the country. But if you run any motoring event, then they love to make it their business to take part in it, under the guise of safety (but in actual fact contributing very little to this). Oh and of course, not forgetting charging exorbitant sanction fees which they insist on doing whether you like it or not. Many a race organiser have felt their heavy handedness. And that ladies and gents, includes the SIC. Heh heh.

Even when a race organiser has obtained proper permits from local authorities and in some cases, even encouraged to do so by the local authorities, the AAM insist on stepping in. In some cases, they have even attempted to totally stop the event from taking place. AAM officials have been known to attend these events and attempted to lay down the law and in the most overbearing manner you could think of. I think that that is a little more than arrogant on their part. But thankfully, most events do manage to happen despite their best efforts to put an end to it.

On the flip side, drivers who do hold AAM (FIA) competition licenses are afraid of competing in these non-sanctioned events. The AAM, just like the FIA, have been known to issue threats to these drivers. Compete and you will stand to lose your licenses. And this happens to the dismay of many competitors. Racers being racers, any form of motorsport competition is good. Even drag and drift events. No harm in participating and its all good fun. The effect of these prohibitions are that most of these smaller events are missing the top drivers.

I say "smaller" because of the size and budgets of the organisers. But in actual fact, attendances at these local events far outstrip any AAM sanctioned race bar the Malaysian Grand Prix and the Cub Prix. Just check out the Saturday night drift events at the Elite Karting circuit and you'll know why. The MME organisers would kill for crowds like that.

The big question is why? Why should the FIA and its affiliates stop licensed competitors from competing in non-sanctioned events? Of course, they have the power to do so and its within their rights as license issuers. But is it fair? Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to their reasons. The official line from the AAM is on the grounds of safety. The AAM ensures the proper safety of competitors and spectators. Hmmm..... I should like to ask Eric Yeo (a local racer) whether he thought the Jugra event at Shah Alam was... "safe" what with that misplaced pole lying about on the circuit making a hole on his windscreen and poking right through the passenger side?

I should think the average drift or drag event is no more dangerous than say rallying, which is sanctioned. So why the big fuss? We could test it on the assumption of legal liability. The FIA and affiliates are recognised as the authorities on motorsports and motoring in general. One could, not unreasonably then, that legal indemnity and insurance is easier to obtain should a race be sanctioned by them. However, any event organiser worth his two cents would remember to paste disclaimers on tickets and signboards. And so far, no local race organiser I know of has failed to obtain insurance cover for their events, whether these be sanctioned or not. Especially since all organisers obtain permits from the police and local councils and have firemen and ambulances on standby.

Whilst insurance and indemnities do cover financial liability, there is also the question of possible criminal liability due to negligence. There really hasn't been a case as yet in Malaysia and none that I can think of world wide but to cover such cases, it is perhaps wiser for organisers to have their events sanctioned and then if anything went wrong, the FIA can and must step in for it would be their responsibility already. But surely an organisation such as Superkarts USA would already have thought about this. And surely any number of insurance companies who have provided cover for non-sanctioned events are also aware of these risks.

As for the driver's safety... well, motorsport in any form and in any event is inherently a dangerous activity. Any competitors knows this and deals with it appropriately. But really, even the London Marathon has been know to suffer fatalities.

At the end of the day, I know Max Mosley is incredibly obsessed with safety and that is a good thing. I'm not sure if the FIA affiliates are quite so passionate. To the cynics, affiliates such the AAM are only interested in the enormous sanctioning fees. You may ask, why not simply pay them? Well, with the prices they charge most organisers simply could not afford it, particularly since these organisers charge very little entrance fees. Such fees would then need to be covered by higher entrance charges that in the end keep the crowds away.

In the case of Superkarts USA, they did attempt to make their Las Vegas event sanctioned by the CIK but this, for whatever reason, simply did not happen. And as such the two Toro Rosso drivers have been forced to exclude themselves. But this is a pity for fans in the USA. And I'm sure Liuzzi and Speed would have welcomed the opportunity for a little bit of fun.

Read More

Justice

Justice

  October 08, 2006    MamaeyaYT

---

From GrandPrix.com's Japanese Grand Prix race report:

"One day perhaps some worthy sociologist will write a dissertation to explain what happened in the Media Centre at Suzuka when Michael Schumacher's Ferrari blew its engine during the Japanese Grand Prix of 2006. There was a roar of approval. A loud roar. The F1 Media - the representatives of the fans (in theory at least) - did not want Michael to win this one. Why did they react as they reacted? Here was a great champion coming to the end of his era and the chroniclers of F1 history were cheering his demise.

Yes, Michael has always been a controversial soul but this seemed to be more than that. This was about natural justice - the phrase even came up in the press conference. It was about overturning the advantage that Michael had gained from the mass damper decision and the penalty against Fernando Alonso at Monza. Alonso talked about God. The non-believers talked about Fate. The ever-efficient Jean Todt talked about failure."

God, fate, the universe, whatever you want to call it, but I have a feeling the divine powers must have been pretty sick of the FIA and Ferrari and decided to give Fernando Alonso a helping hand. It could not have come at a better time. Now its all up to the Spaniard and Renault to collect. Whats most ironic, is that the Ferrari team are the ones blessed by the pontiff but I shall say no more on this....

Read More

On Team Orders II

On Team Orders II

  October 02, 2006    MamaeyaYT

---

In the wake of the Chinese Grand Prix last weekend, there seems to have been some discontent especially among the tifosi. The source of that discontent being Renault's own team orders during the race.

I've never been against team orders. I think thats just part and parcel of racing for the longest time. But I'm very much against unsporting behaviour and therein lies the difference between Ferrari and Renault (and pretty much everyone else). Other teams at least give both their drivers an equal shot at the championship. Team orders come into play only when one of the drivers no longer has any chance of winning the title. At which point, that driver, not unreasonably, will be asked to lend a hand to his teammate.

At Ferrari, all drivers at any time during the championship will be asked to subsume themselves to Michael Schumacher. The most blatant occurrence of that happened at the 2002 Austrian Grand Prix, when Rubens Barrichello, despite being quicker than Michael all weekend was asked to move over by the Ferrari management. At that point of the season, Michael had already built up such a lead in the championship that such actions were simply uncalled for.

The F2002 was such a vastly superior car that the rest of the field had simply no chance. Why not then, let the Ferrari drivers sort themselves out? As for the FIA, I think they were very much concerned that Ferrari's action had "brought the sport into disrepute." But in this case, they had a point. It was completely unsporting and the fans in Austria let it be known by jeering the Ferrari team during the podium ceremonies.

Its hard to regulate against team orders because for one, teams will find a way round it. But the criteria to be applied, and this is by no means easy, is whether such team orders consistutes unsporting behaviour. In many cases its very hard to tell. The criteria for judging unsporting behaviour is itself undefined. One cannot simply apply the "disrepute" criteria that the FIA loves so much. Disrepute in whose eyes?

However, its easy to see that in the case of the Scuderia, anyone else except Michael has simply no chance at their own ambitions. I find that aspect very repulsive though I suspect that that is Michael's requirements and not necessarily that of Ferrari.

Read More

Safety and Gravel Traps

Safety and Gravel Traps

  September 13, 2006    MamaeyaYT

---

Several years ago, a friend of mine was practising for a saloon car race at Sepang. Rain was pouring down that day and of course he wanted to have a go and get the feel of the car in the wet. Now, my friend has been accused of dubious sanity at times and so it was that day. Coming into turn 12, normally one would stay in third and power out of the turn in the wet. But not he. He decided it to try it in fourth and hope for the best. Well, the tail went and went really fast and he sat there hapless in the driver's seat whilst the car decided it was time to say hello to the gravel.

Now, anyone who's ever built sandcastles would know that a little moisture on the sand will compact the stuff. Well, the gravel on the run off for turn 12 was very wet which made it pretty firm. The car hit the gravel which then sent it rolling over. Thankfully, the roll cage did its job and he was able to walk out and back home to him pregnant wife. No sign of distress or shock, his only complaint was the roof had caved a little and touched his helmet. Incidentally, my friend holds the dubious honour of being the first ever driver to roll over his car at Sepang. Way to go mate! But the point is gravel can indeed be a little dangerous in the wet.

In the dry, it stops a saloon car dead in its tracks with no way out. And formula one cars as well. But sometimes its not unknown for a smooth and relatively flat bottomed single seater to skip over the gravel and plunge directly into the wall. Flipping over can also happen. Wings can break send shards into the cockpit and god knows what other effects incidental to the laws of physics. Which was the argument made by the driver's represented by the Grand Prix Drivers Association for Sunday's race at Monza.

The Monza officials, the FIA and even Bernie jumped in and argued that the high speed safety barriers were state of the art being able to absorb the impact of a Formula 1 travelling at 125mph and yet still be able to keep deceleration forces to tolerable levels for the driver. The Monza officials said that they had no duty to the drivers and only to the FIA. The FIA concurred and said that local officials were under orders to ignore everyone else (including the drivers) when it came to matters of safety. The FIA statement read:

"The owners of circuits licensed for Formula 1 are required not to discuss safety measures with third parties (including drivers)." Pompous arrogant shits. Howzabout they strap themselves into a single seater and crash test the barriers and see if it is a pleasant experience. The GPDA argued that high friction asphalt as used in places like Istanbul was far safer and they would have liked to see them in use in Monza.

But of course that makes sense for given even the slightest whiff of grip and a grand prix car will slow right down to a halt. But if its skipping over gravel (not an unknown occurrence) then no AP Racing calipers and pads will be able to stop a nasty smack in the barriers, which can be a very painful experience. Even crashing into unsecured polystyrene foam can hurt a driver travelling at very high speeds. I've seen that happen at Hockenheim back in the late 80s.

Whatever the case may be I think its one helluva way to treat drivers who are risking their lives out there. Yes, safety improvements have grown leaps and bounds since the 70s but no one wants to be in pain unnecessarily. I think the drivers have legitimate concerns and the FIA and circuit officials need to listen to them. Or at least give some respect to them and meet up as they had agreed at Monza that weekend. The drivers were simply ignored and thats simply not right. Remember it was drivers that started this crusade of safety that the FIA likes to take full credit for in the first place.

Read More

Well Well Well....

Well Well Well....

  September 13, 2006    MamaeyaYT

---

Very interesting story concerning Bernie Ecclestone's recent comments in The Bild. According to the article Bernie describes the Alonso penalty as a farce. Whilst not going so far as to call it a 'fix' nevertheless he admits that "Ferrari is the only team 'that gets political support' from the FIA." I'm sorry Bernie, would you please repeat that? There are some mindless scarlet fans out there who didn't quite hear you. Now, shall we wait for Bernie to give a statement claiming that his comments were merely jest?

In a related story Pitpass discusses the F-word. Perception according to them is everything and the mere perception that the sport is rigged could have serious reprecussions. Good read.

Meanwhile our friend Checkpoint10 has decided to take a little sabbatical from blogging but leaves us with his vision of racing. Something he's asked me to do once before but I have yet to come to that. Hopefully someday when I've stopped being so angry with the current situation. Hope to see you again soon mate!

Read More

Disrepute

Disrepute

  September 10, 2006    MamaeyaYT

---

It may have been an academic argument once Fernando Alonso's engine expired in a cloud of smoke in Monza yesterday but nevertheless his grid penalty after Saturday's qualifying was still the subject of some very heated words from both the world champion and his team boss. Most damning of all was Alonso who said : "I think one per cent of people here will be happy today - those who yesterday decided the race. I hope they sleep well tonight." Furthermore, he "no longer consider F1 is a sport."

No doubt Fernando is more than a little upset about the entire affair and why shouldn't he be? As mentioned numerous times everywhere, little retard boy was no where close to him either on the straights or in the corners. Even if, as Ferrari argues, that the aero turbulence caused delay to Massa, Fernando cannot be penalised for the behaviour of the laws of physics. The world champion himself was trying to catch the start/finish line with mere seconds remaining on the clock to start his banzai lap. Massa was clearly from the television pictures at least 100 metres away.

Understandably, even Flavio Briatore, who is normally sympathetic to the FIA (being of course a good friend of both Max and Bernie) was livid. "This is a world championship which has already been decided at the table," said the supermodel dater. "We have understood how things go – it has all been decided...they have decided to give the world championship to Schumacher and that is how it will be.” And , “Compared to what is happening in Formula 1, ‘Calciopoli’ just makes me smile.” He would later recant this last statement saying that it was all a joke taken out of context. I doubt if Max would actually penalize Flavio for this but he could under the heading of "bringing the sport to disrepute." I say bring it on. For the actual fact is, it is the bloody FIA that has brought the sport into disrepute.

Max though had this to say when talking to Martin Brundle. In the interview:

Brundle: "I’ve looked at it very closely, I’ve raced 158 GPs, I commentated on it live, Alonso was so far ahead that you wouldn’t have known whether it was a Toyota, Renault or a McLaren at one point…"

Mad Max: "That is exactly where you are wrong. You see we have the advantage that we have the actual data from the car. We can look at what actually happened to the car, we can see whether it was a driver error or whether it was an aerodynamic problem and so on.He was destabilised in the Parabolica because of the wake of the car in front. That wouldn’t have happened if Alonso had had more time."

In the end even Max admitted the need for a change of ruling. But consummate politician he said : "What we are thinking very seriously about is to say next season that we will only look at these questions only if there is evidence of deliberate impeding - or in other words, intent. I don't think there was intent, but what they [the stewards] did was absolutely consistent with the rest of the season." Furthermore : "Now the rule is, rightly or wrongly, that if you are on your out-lap then you move over for the man who is on his hot lap. He did not do it - one driver suffered, and he gained an advantage."

Like all good politicians Max has a wonderful way of deflecting arguments to suit his purpose. For one thing, in the Brundle interview he claimed that the Renault team was late in sending him on his way and therefore Fernando had to hurry it up and in the process delayed Massa. Or at least, his aero turbulence did.

Both arguments are spurious. For one thing, Renault's delay was caused by a puncture suffered by Fernando. He was driving on his wheel rims and shedding bodywork all the way. Surely Renault would have had to do at least a quick check and then seeing that time was still available sent him on his way. And yet, if we follow the idiot's words, Renault should have simply hurried it up and let him go.

As for aero turbulence causing delay to Massa, a driver should be penalized for blocking and not for his bloody aerodynamics. And lastly, I do not recall any other situation this year where the stewards came to this same conclusion. In the case that I do remember, the one involving Fisichella and Villeneuve, the pair was much closer together and therefore Fisichella did have some case.

Given how critical this decision was to the world championship, you can see why the conspiracy theorists are having a field day. This coupled with the whole mass damper affair gives plenty of ammunition to those who believe that this championship is being rigged for a big finale, if not to give Ferrari and Schumacher (and the legion of tifosi) one last hurrah before Schumi leaves.

In the end though, it did not affect the outcome of the race per se for as we all know the Renault engine blew up. Fernando may have attributed that to having to use more revs than needed but the fact remains that his car retired. But still it has yet again left a bitter taste and once again calls upon the need for better governance of the sport. Except that the teams and manufacturers are such cowards that they will simply let this one slide yet again.

Someone recently accused me of being pessimistic. Well, if I am then I have every right to be. Yes, FIA presidents have always caused controversy but none to the extent of bloody Mad Max. He has single handedly changed the face and spirit of Formula 1 racing with his new technical rules that have upset and alienated most die hard fans. He has made greater errors in vast numbers in applying the sporting regulations. And he has even stooped to deliberate lying and gross misrepresentation. Disrepute? If anyone has put the sport to disrepute not once but on countless occassions then it is the FIA president himself and his cohorts who should stand trial.

Pessimistic? I shall not count the ways here. But you give me a reason to smile. Perhaps if you could lend me your rose tinted glasses so that I can.

Read More

So Much For Image

So Much For Image

  August 30, 2006    MamaeyaYT

---

Following the Turkish GP podium controversy, the Cyprus Mail newspaper was moved to write this piece of commentary regarding Formula 1. Comments about the Cyprus Mail article also appears on GrandPrix.com. Whilst the FIA and Formula 1 in general is so ultra careful in these corporate infested days to keep a professional, clean and politically correct image it seems that there are many who know otherwise. Hint: they are probably not Ferrari fans.

Ignoring the political bits, the article distills the current state of the sport almost to perfection. From the Cyprus Mail article:

"FORMULA 1 is a sport that makes as many headlines off the track as on it. Races are rarely decided by audacious overtaking manoeuvres, rather by split second actions in the pits and strategies devised by men staring at computer screens. Key championship points have been decided in the courts, victims falling foul of ever-changing technical rules, deductions and disqualifications.

It’s a sport over which hovers a cloud of conspiracy, a constant suspicion of manipulation of rules and results to suit the hidden agendas of shadowy backstage figures. And yet in spite of this, it is regarded as the pinnacle of motor sport, a multi-million pound industry commanding a vast global audience."

Furthermore:

"Formula 1 is..... a sport where competitors go round and round in circles, as compulsive to its addicts as it is bewildering to the non-initiate, a sport where the substance, the raw racing, has long given way to the self-interest of its organisers and participants, pulling arcane strings in an ultimately pointless yet strangely mesmerising ballet."

To which I would add that the sport is fast losing the "purist" fans and entertainment seekers. Its new rules alienate purists, its lack of track action distance fans looking for thrills. Some job the FIA is doing then. But its heartening to see evidence that even the mainstream press is not buying into the Max and Bernie WWF show, of which the "mass damper" issue was but the latest episode.

Read More

Spirito Di Corsa

Spirito Di Corsa

  July 30, 2006    MamaeyaYT

---

Those who have been following this blog will know that lately I have been very disillusioned by some of the developments in grand prix racing. In particular with matters pertaining to the future rules and regulations. The new rules dreamt up and forced down the throats of teams and fans are to my mind an affront to the very spirit of racing. The question I have been trying to grasp with even as I watched and enjoyed the very human endeavour of the World Cup (in total disgust of racing) is this: Just what exactly is the spirit of racing?

Where to begin? If we look back in the distant past to the dawn of the automobile age, motor racing started with the Paris to Rouen Trial in 1894. As the title suggested, it wasn't so much racing as a trial of different methods of engine propulsion. We all know about the internal combustion engine today but back in those days there were other ways of sending a horseless carriage down the road. And that included bloody steam engines and you'd be surprised to know,even electricity was being used even way back then. As to the other technologies used, I have no idea what they were but suffice to say, they never passed the test.

The first actual motor race as we know today, that is first past the finish line, began with the 1895 Paris-Bordeaux-Paris motor race. Over 700 miles long, the race took three days to complete. The winner apparently averaged a breakneck 15 mph! But the whole point of these first few races were to provide a proving ground for automobiles against other means of long distance travel such as the horse and the locomotive.

The point to prove of course, was that the automobile was just as fast if not faster than the aforementioned alternatives. In those days, people were still very much sceptical to the whole idea of the horseless carriage. They were viewed as slow, noisy and not very reliable. The first races were held as way to prove their worth by covering large distances and in the process prove that they were superior to the horse and at least be able to compete with the locomotive as a quick enough means of long distance travel.

Even in those days, cars were being divided into classes depending on whether the vehicle were a tricycle or had four wheels and also dependent on the number of seats it had. Everything else though was pure innovation, with the emphasis being on speed. Cars had to be seen to be quicker than all other means of transport. Up until the Great War, cars turned up with a variety of engine configurations of various different sizes. Ridiculous as it sounds today, capcities of 12 litres or more were not unheard of. Those cars maxed out at a stately 1,500 RPM. Today we have 2.4 litres and 20,000 RPM.

In a very short period of time, the automobile no longer needed to prove its worth but the culture of racing had already been created. The point of those races was speed and any development or innovation that helped those cars go faster was only to be encouraged and applauded. For the next 100 years, this culture of speed and innovation persisted and has given us all many wonderful creations from some rather brilliant engineers.

Some of those technologies developed for racing spilled over to everyday road cars. Take the now ubiquitous double overhead cam engine. It was first introduced by Swiss engineer Erenst Henry in the 1912 French Grand Prix on his Peugeots and soon adopted by the other manufacturers. Story has it, it was developed at huge cost. Heck, if the DOHC engine had not been invented till today and if poor Ernst wished to bring it to play, you can be sure that Max would concoct some sort of safety and cost excuse for its exclusion. Its true that usage of DOHC technology did not appear in mass produced automobiles until 50 years later on Fiats, yet its creation was as a result of competition and the need for yet more speed and today its benefits spillover to the cars you and I drive.

Its important to distinguish between the needs of racing cars and those of the everyday automobile. The former is simply obsessed with going faster whilst the latter needs to take care of a vast variety of requirements including safety, economy, refinement and environmental protection. If racing provides the technology applicable for road cars then so be it. But you can bet that Ernest Henry did not give a flying f*** about road car applications when he thought of the DOHC engine.

If there is no application for road cars then that too should be alright for in racing we are celebrating the art and science of going faster. Racing really is a two fingered salute to social norms. There is inherently something rough and rebellious about the whole activity.

More than a racing fan, I'm also a car enthusiast. Performance car enthusiast. And when I'm fixing Toda cams, Motec ECUs or HKS exhausts in my car, I really couldn't give a goddamn about bloody fuel consumption or stinking noise levels or indeed the environment. (Though I assure you, otherwise normally I would be deeply concerned about trees and whales). When the Bilstein sports coilovers go on the car I really don't care if you think the ride sucks. The most important thing is how fast she'll do on the Sepang track day.

Fitting high performance parts generally result in better passive safety due to better grip (from the big gumball Michelin Pilot Sport - never Bridgestone), better braking (courtesy of AP Racing or Project Mu - never Brembo) and quicker acceleration but you can bet that safety was furthest away from my mind when I had it installed. A decrease in lap time is my only concern. And if Tein produces a better coilover, then you can bet that I'm going to switch to that. And if my mechanic knows how to tune it to give me greater performance, then I'm surely going to pay him to do it.

Though my exploits on my everday banger are light years removed from Michael Schumacher's Ferrari 248, yet to me this is the spirit of racing. Innovation and development for the quest of speed and beating your rivals. Of course, I'm limited to what I can afford but then that's always the case in any endevour. But nobody tells me that I should not or cannot spend my cash or indeed try to stop me from doing it. Nobody but the bank manager but even he will wait till the balance is severly in debit.

Yet today after more than 100 years, we are experiencing a fundamental shift in racing culture. Increasingly we are seeing some variation of spec formulas in nearly all branches of racing. Spec tyres, spec brakes, spec transmissions not to mention chassis and engines. In the pinnacle of racing, we see a halt to the spirit of innovation (dont' believe me? Simply read the 2006 technical regulations) and in 2008 we will see a halt to the spirit of continous development in engines and in 2009 that will be extended to bodywork and aero.

THAT IS NOT RACING. Its bullshit. Perhaps fans new to the sport will not detect this fundamental shift or in the case of the oft mentioned "casual fan", even care. Perhaps the sport is being catered to and taken over by a new generation of fans or those who think that vibrating wing mirrors represent an unfair aero advantage. Perhaps I'm turning into an old grump who can't move with the times but really I cannot bear to watch any longer.

When they banned active suspension, I thought that was fine. When they took away sliding side skirts I agreed that maybe they were a little too dangerous. When they removed the spectacle of titanium skid plates I thought that maybe it was for the best. But all the while I knew that the engineers will always have something else up their sleeves. But now, even that ability is to be taken away. Crap. It really doesn't matter too much if all these restrictions were applied to the junior formulae or touring cars (however disgusting I think it is) but to apply it to Formula 1, at the very top level simply cannot be tolerated.

For the long term, Max Mosley hopes that his rules (post 2011) will result in Formula 1 being "positioned at the cutting edge of fuel efficiency research and development, demonstrating environmental relevance to the world's policy makers and accelerating environmental benefits for the world's motor consumers." Again, perhaps I am ancient and about to be extinct but for 100 years the emphasis of racing has always been speed, speed and yet more speed. Everything else was secondary. Now it seems the powers deem a cultural shift as a necessity. I'd rather not be a part of that. And for what? To please dirty politicians? Banning SUVs would have a far greater immediate impact on the environment than trying to make racing cars go green. Racing consumes only a tiny proportion of fossil fuels on sale. And racing cars only run for a few hours on the weekend. Limos, SUVs and big barge exec saloons favoured by politicians are on the road day after day, year after year and there are inifinitely more of them on the road and contributing to global warming. Let Formula 1 and racing in general be about racing technology. And let roadcar technologies like hybrids be the domain of company laboratories and soccer mums.

The FIA should not be worried that they have lost this fan but I can assure you that I'm not alone. Plenty of people I know have stopped watching since the World Cup, perhaps never to return. But we came from the old school and as I said, perhaps its time to go. To the next generation, try to have fun then.

Whats most sad is that the FIA isn't the only culprit. The teams, the engine suppliers and manufacturers are also to blame for failing to preserve the spirit of racing in Formula 1. They talked a good fight but at the end of the day, they simply didn't have the minerals to go up against Max and Bernie. Well, the hell with you lot. Le Mans here we come.

Read More

An Unsatisfactory Situation

An Unsatisfactory Situation

  June 02, 2006    MamaeyaYT

---

Finally the FIA, read Max Mosley has finally decided to name the members of the Formula 1 commission. In the past, all teams had representation, together with a representative of an engine manufacturer, a tyre maker, Bernie, Max and a couple of promoters. Now he's decided to change the make up of the commission, insisting that the FIA has always been about countries. So now, we have representatives from various countries in the form of teams and promoters. Of course, Bernie and Max still retain their votes.

The commission members are as follows:

Teams
Austria : Red Bull Racing (Friend of Max)
France : Renault (Headed by a friend of Max and most likely to leave the GPMA)
Germany: BMW Sauber
Italy : Ferrari ( Big time friend of Max)
Japan : Honda
United Kingdom : Williams (on the fence but probably a friend of Max)

Grand Prix Promoters:
Australia (Friend of Bernie and by association a friend of Max)
Brazil (Would a promoter of a crime infested GP they really go against Max?)
Hungary (No way!)
Monaco (Hmmm.....)
Spain (I guess they all must be friends of Max)

Conspicuosly absent is the the second oldest and most successful team in Formula 1, McLaren. But really, even if they were called to the commission, what difference would it make? Look at the composition. BMW and Honda are probably the only dissenting voice in the commission. Even if all the teams came together, the combination of promoters, Max and Bernie would mean they would simply be shot down. And even if they all unanimously agreed a motion against Max, the dictator would have it overruled by the World Motorsport Commission, where they are all Max's spineless bitches. Yes, the championship may belong to the FIA but aren't the teams fielding just about all the money to compete and make the championship happen in the first place? This is some bullshit. In addition, as Racefax correctly pointed out, if Max Mosley claims that he wants to stand up for the rights of the independent teams, why aren't more of them on this so called commission?

Ideally, they should just dispense with this multilevel process of making the rules. At the moment, the process is majority vote at the Sporting Working Group, then another vote at the F1 Commission and finally the WMSC. Why the need for such a long winded process and why the hell should bloody promoters be involved in setting the regulations? Throw it all out. I'd rather have a single committee fielded by all the teams, all the independent engine manufacturers like Cosworth, additional votes given to a manufacturer for each non-works team they supply and all the tyre manufacturers (if more than one). And yeah, we can throw a couple of votes and seats to Max and Bernie to save face. All decisions made by simple majority. Now that'd get things moving along in a fair manner by the people who actually make the entire show happen. And of course, no prima donna Italian team could then throw its pompous weight around.

I'm starting to get really disillusioned about Formula 1. Sure, Formula 1 today is far removed from the one I started watching years and years ago. The inevitable march of time cannot be stopped and of course, things must evolve, that's just life. But all along, the spirit, the soul of sport has remained largely intact. But that spirit has started to leave. I think it happened a couple of years ago when the most restrictive set of engine regulations yet seen were proposed and is now being run. It happened when the single tyre per weekend regulation was introduced. It happened when the two race engine regulation were implemented.

In the FIA fan survey last year, the majority of participants indicated that technical innovation was a major factor attracting fans to the sport. But with these regulations we have today, to be made even more restrictive in 2008, where is the innovation going to come from? There is little or no scope for it. And even if geniuses like Adrian Newey (yes, I still believe in superstar designers) had an epiphany and produce something spectacular, the FIA have already indicated within the rules that such innovations will be banned.

I can't help but think that if aluminium honeycomb monocoques or spaceframes were still in use today and someone suddenly thought of using carbon fibre, you can bet that Max would have it banned. He'd have it banned under the heading of "cost," regardless of any safety or innovative advantages it would confer.

The media scream for greater levels of marketing and promotion for the sport. All very well. But just look at the product. I've always believed that if you make a superior product, marketing issues are strictly secondary. Or in the case of Google (when it first began), absolutely superfluous. I for one, was not attracted to watch the sport more than 20 years ago by stupid marketing gimmicks. I started watching because the cars were bloody quick, the drivers were superhuman and reading and discovering the technology behind it all was absolutely fascinating. The product was high tech and it had bags of character. Human character. Drivers walloped one another when they got miffed and everyone said what they meant and meant what they said. Team owners included. It was competition. It was battle. It was bloody fun to watch. Nowadays..... well, you know the drill.

So, we have crappy regulations that will soon get even crappier. And with Max ruling the roost and with everyone including the media so afraid of speaking up, absolutely no way to changing them. Go ahead then. Promote it to death. Formula 1 will need all the marketing gimmicks and gloss for it to sell.

Jeez, I think I've said all of this so many times, I'm getting so sick about writing about it as well. In all my years of watching this sport, I've never had so many bad things to say about it. The situation sucks with a capital "S".

Read More

There May Be Trouble Ahead

There May Be Trouble Ahead

  May 15, 2006    MamaeyaYT

---

Well, it was always going to happen wasn't it? The Sporting Working Group voted over the weekend to scrap the engine homologation rules but unsurprisingly, this has now been rejected" by Max Mosley. According to Max: "By entering the championship, a team accepts the regulations as published and, of equal importance, is entitled to rely on them when deciding whether or not to enter." Thats true enough and sounds reasonable. But then, errr.... whats the point of the Sporting Working Group Max?

It seems that Max is going out of his way to protect the interests of the minority here. The SWG motion was passed by majority vote with Ferrari, the two Red Bull teams and Prodrive voting against. Significantly, independents Super Aguri, Midland and Williams voted for the motion. Max Mosley cites spiralling costs as a reason to overrule the SWG together with protecting those teams that had entered the championship on the basis of the published rules. Funny how the 3 independents didn't seem to be very concerned by "costs."

Its also very significant that Max Mosley had said that he would stand by whatever changes and proposals were made by the SWG. Well, looks like he's gone back on his word saying that teams entered the 2008 world championship agreed to abide by the rules as published.

And this will greatly upset the manufacturers. Do I hear the sound of MOU pages being ripped apart? Its a real pity. The SWG process provided a mechanism to decide on the rules in a very fair manner. In the words of Ron Dennis, it was a very democratic process. After years and years of requiring a unanimous decision to change anything (as required by the Concorde Agreement) here was a way to ensure that things got done and done in a proper manner.

Well, it looks like it was all for show. I guess Max was hoping the SWG would publicly reaffirm his position and show people that he can be a reasonable man. But in the face of a major U-turn by the majority, he's gone and shown his true colours once more. Quite where this leaves Formula 1 is anybody's guess.

An excellent article appears on GrandPrix.com explaining the issue in greater detail. And if you receive Racefax, you should check out the latest in your mailbox.

Read More

Peace In Formula 1?

Peace In Formula 1?

  May 15, 2006    MamaeyaYT

---

One of the biggest news over the weekend in Barcelona was the announcement that the GPMA have signed a memorandum of understanding with CVC affirming their commitment to Formula 1 in 2008 and beyond. Perhaps prompted by this announcement, Renault themselves have confirmed their commitment to race at least until 2012.

"Peace In Our Time," declared ITV-F1. GrandPrix.com. "Peace breaks out in Formula 1" ran the proud headline on GrandPrix.com. A sentiment echoed pretty much everywhere in the media. Well, the racing media at least.

If I had a dollar for every MOU I've seen that in the end never amounted to anything..... An MOU really means bugger all if you ask me. In my experience its just a piece of paper that says hey we've met and talked a bit about this venture. It looks interesting so, lets we work together to make it happen. We'll spend time drawing up the legal paperwork and discussing the commercial agreement.

And that's basically it. You can't enforce an MOU in court and the parties can walk away anytime they want. Its a nice gesture but really corporations walk away from MOUs all the bloody time. So I wouldn't be too quick to say that peace has arrived. Not until there actually exists an actual legal document that has been signed by all the parties involved. It seems extraordinarily naive for the racing media to make such claims of peace in the meantime.

However, in related news this weekend was the inaugural meeting of the Sporting Working Group at Barcelona. The group is made up of representatives of all the teams competing in the 2008 world championship. This group includes Prodrive. It was significant because it can be considered a success by the GPMA. The way it works these days (at least for 2008) is that rather than requiring unanimous decision among the teams before a regulation is adopted, nowadays a majority vote is enough.

It should be noted that one of Max Mosley's complaints was that the technical directors can never agree on anything. Not a hundred percent true. I can recall plenty of times when they did agree on a regulation with the exception of a single interloper among their ranks. The guilty party? You guessed it. Ferrari. Take these V8s they run these days. If the teams had their way, it would have been law since 1989 when turbos were banned and engines had to be normally aspirated. But those smart alec boys from Maranello wanted to run V12s so it had to be dropped. Same thing with refuelling. Those V12s are thirsty little buggers. In fact, the teams were all shouting for a single tyre manufacturer not long ago. Only Ferrari dissented.

The majority rule in fact is a real godsend and should pave the way for quicker resolution of technical regulations. And the GPMA teams, joined by Williams used it to great effect last weekend.

First the proposal for increasing the engine homologation period from 3 to 5 years was rejected by a vote of 8-4. The four in support being the "Friends of Max" brigade that is Ferrari, Red Bull, Toro Rosso and Prodrive. Nice to see that good old Frank decided to go with the GPMA, despite the fact that he's signed up with Bernie. Surprisingly, Midland also joined up on the side of the GPMA. Perhaps Shnaider is not so useless after all but then again, he's running Toyota engines which might explain things.

Second, the proposal for penalty ballasts in place of the current penalty of grid positions were also rejected by majority vote. Third, everyone agreed on standard ECUs to be used for testing and racing.

Then Ron Dennis decided to propose that engine homologation be trashed altogether. And this was supported by the GPMA teams, Super Aguri, Midland and Williams with the Friends of Max voting against. Now thats a GPMA victory in my book.

But ultimately the FIA have the power, through various commitees such as the kangaroo World Council, to veto any motion that it decides as being against the interest of the sport. Now there's the big catch. I can forsee it now. The teams decide on a regulation. Ferrari doesn't like it and makes a call to Max who decides to veto the whole damn thing. Putting that aside for the moment, nearly everything the FIA proposed has now been washed aside by the SWG. As Pitpass notes, will Max accept that?

Well I think he better. Otherwise the GPMA teams will be the first to rip that MOU up and shove it up his ass. But if he does accept everthing the SWG decides I think the GPMA will fall over themselves to sign whatever commercial agreement CVC, FOM and the FIA come up with. Over to you Max.

Read More

No Peace In Our Time

No Peace In Our Time

  April 24, 2006    MamaeyaYT

---

Ah, the murky world of Formula 1 politics. Rather than having a public display of the issues surrounding various commercial and governance issues, everything these days is kept behind closed doors. Many publications out there are actually in support of this. The usual suspects, grandprix.com, Pitpass, Autosport et al. But then a headline like this one comes along and the rest of us are left wondering what the hell is going on between these the teams, CVC/FOM and the FIA.

Apparently now, a major stumbling block is in the way preventing a commercial agreement between the GPMA teams and CVC/Bernie. But given how unhappy the GPMA are with the 2008 rules and rule making processes, was there really any chance of a peaceful accord between the warring parties?

The press is very much party to it all as well being led this way and that by the factions involved. Prior to Imola, Autosport was reporting Flavio Briatore's comments that a deal was seemingly on the verge of being signed by all parties. Flavio has been trumpeting peace ever since Bahrain but really it was never in any danger of coming true. Not until the GPMA members agree to the 2008 regulations and they are still very much against it.

Case in point was the Maranello meeting a few weeks ago attended by the FIA, Ferrari, Renault, Cosworth and others, where a 5 year homologation was discussed, put forward and attendees seemingly pleased by it. One could be forgiven into thinking (especially after reading comments in the media) that Renault were there as representatives of the GPMA but clearly this is not the case as reflected by Otmar Szafnauer of Honda during the Friday Imola press conference where he declared: "We didn't attend the meeting so we only know what was written in the press." Errmmm.... does that mean that the rest of the GPMA aren't speaking with Renault?

Furthermore, according to Szafnauer, Honda "believe an artificial engine freeze would not be beneficial to Formula One and to racing in general. We can appreciate the engine freeze and cost reductions, but how we do it though, we think there are ways alternative to an engine freeze." Honda, like Toyota three weeks ago aren't very happy with the way things are looking. One would also imagine the two German manufacturers are in agreement with their Japanese counterparts.

Now, even if the attendees of the Maranello meeting were in favour of the homologation rules, it was quite obvious that some, okay one of them, was not happy with the rule making process a.k.a. the governance of the sport. And it wasn't a manufacturer or a supposed "independent" engine maker who makes premium sports cars. It was Cosworth. As Bernard Ferguson remarked at Imola: "What I'm altogether unsure about is what the mechanism is now for discussing and modifying the 2008 regulations. Whilst they are a draft proposal, they are not a modification in the 2008 regulations." But he quickly added that "this doesn't really matter." Then why did you bring it up Bernard?

Governance is at the heart of the argument from the manufacturers' standpoint. Whilst Max is a busy little bee trying to win back rule making powers for the FIA, the GPMA members have long stated their desire for transparency in the sport's governance. A good reflection of that comes from this article in the New York Times.

The latest headlines on Pitpass brought to us by the UK's Sunday Express (the self styled World's Greatest Newspaper) is yet another twist in the tale of the sport's future. Bernie Ecclestone is insisting that the manufacturers themselves (the parent companies) and not their racing team subsidiaries sign the agreement with CVC. Failing which, Bernie would take back his offer of 60% revenue share to the GPMA teams and leave just 50%. That 10% difference means half a billion bucks over 5 years.

Pitpass notes that the manufacturers could, if they chose to, easily disolve their racing subsidiaries and leave CVC for dead. Then it really makes their statement in this article a couple of weeks ago about world championship entries being legally binding with "no excuses" totally redundant. As I said before, if the manufacturers want to leave there really is nothing the FIA or anyone else can do about it.

The latest threat from Bernie means a loss of about 20 million dollars per GPMA team per season. I don't know, perhaps that means a lot to Renault. But to the rest of them? I'm not so sure if they're not laughing about it. These stupid regulations that Max has been throwing at everyone for the last few years (last minute V8 and aero regs) have cost them a helluva lot more and all for very dubious reasons and made in a most dicatorial fashion.

Back to the headline at hand, apparently the manufacturers have apparently based their commitments and agreements on the 60% offer and this latest threat represents a major stumbling block to the deal with CVC. But hang on. If Bernie is offering the GPMA teams 60% of the revenues then how much will teams like Ferrari, Red Bull, Williams and Midland receive? And how much is left for CVC itself? This doesn't make sense at all unless there's some mistake in the Pitpass and/or Sunday Express news article.

Nah, something's not right here. I think the real issue is still the 2008 rules and how those rules are made. But neither you nor I will know the true issue because most of it is behind closed doors. Before I leave, do you know how much revenue the teams receive at the moment? Just 23 percent. Yup, despite it being the teams that are throwing the most amount of money putting on the Formula 1 show they get a paltry twenty three. How little from the man originally charged back in the 1980s to ensure the teams get their fair share. Oh how he screwed them all over for his own personal gain. You suck Bernie.

Read More

Spirit Vs Letter Of The Law

Spirit Vs Letter Of The Law

  April 03, 2006    MamaeyaYT

---

It seems that some teams at the back of the grid aren't happy at all about Toro Rosso's performance this season. According to the news, Midland and Super Aguri wrote to the FIA demanding that Toro Rosso be made ineligible for constructors points this season. They propose however, that the their drivers be still eligible for points scoring in the drivers champsionship.

As we all know, special dispensation was given to Minardi last year to use a rev limited V10 engine for this season due to the Faenza team's extreme financial constraints. However, when Red Bull took over the little team, along with the right to compete in Formula 1, they inherited that dispensation from the FIA. Now we all know that Red Bull is not exactly in financial difficulty. In fact, one could argue that a so called "independent" that can afford to effectively field 4 cars, two of which have the latest Ferrari powerplants, have very little constraints at all.

It is controversial. The letter of the law states that the FIA have the right to allow the use of a V10 engine. Herein lies the controversy. Its up to the FIA to make such allowances. However, in the spirit of things one could argue that the FIA should not have allowed that in the case of Toro Rosso.

One comment that I have over this is that, the backmarker teams are implying that Toro Rosso's performance is solely due to the engine and nothing else. This overlooks the fact that Toro Rosso are using what is effectively a Red Bull RB1 chassis. This in itself is another source of discontent. For if I'm not mistaken, Super Aguri was prevented from using ex-BAR chassis or even designs but Dietrich Mateschitz being a buddy of Max is allowed to do whatever he damned well please. However, the main point here is, the performance is also due to the chassis and not solely where their fingers are pointing, that is to the engines. I'm saying this based solely on the news stories which do not make any mention of protest over the chassis.

Super Aguri and Midland should be reminded that their respective Honda and Toyota engines work fine when fitted to the works cars. In fact, I'd venture they'd do well anywher else except on the woefully obsolete Super Aguri and the simply woeful Midland.

Of course if the Toro Rossos didn't do so well in Melbourne, when they made the "mistake" of overtaking Michael Schumacher, this issue would probably not have arisen. (Incidentally, Michael Schumacher himself did not attribute getting passed to some V10 performance advantage. Unless he's trying to help a Ferrari ally.) Still, it does not mean that Toro Rossos have no right at all to do well, which what the backmarker alliance seem to imply. Of course, they deserve whatever they get and hell, its a joy to see them actually doing so good. After all, it is a V10 thats limited to 16000 RPM which is well away from the stratospheric 19000 RPM it did last year.

I'd guess that either Max will do nothing because he needs friend Mateschitz on his side or the rev limits will come down. 15000 RPM? That sounds a bit much given that a 1989 Honda V10 revs to that limit. Surely their not suggesting that sort of performance level? That would be unfair to Toro Rosso.

Its hard to make a judgement here. Whatever decision is probably the right one. But in closing I have to reiterate my point about Red Bull. Now Max makes such a big issue about protecting the "independents." But really, a company that can buy out two teams, run four cars a weekend, afford to steal the top engineers from the manufacturers and in the process drive up salaries all round not to mention spending more money than the so called "manufacturers" in the last 12 months. Is this Mosley's definition of an independent? Oh thats right according to him Ferrari aren't a manufacturer.

Red coloured crap.

Read More