Mosley lays down the law...

This is required reading. And this...

Comments

[McCheets]

I can not disagree with what he is proprosing, but a cynic would question the motives.

[Stelmara]

I am sorry Ed but just seeing him going about his business as though nothing has happened turns me off F1.
I no longer believe a word he says and am always questioning his motives, I also can't get this image out of my head, better not say any thing else (but it's hard).

[F1-Insider]

What gives him the right of telling any company what they can spend and what they cannot? It's nothing but a joke.

There are so many ways money can be spent that could be invisible.
The last I knew we lived in a free world.

It is not the FIA's role to dictate to the teams how much they can or cannot spend.

Is it just me or are others finding MM more and more odious by the day?

[Trent in Dallas]

You really have to question the structure of the sport after seeing the events of this spring and summer.

I don't think there's any doubt that if it was the F1 teams voting for or against Max in June he would be gone now.

Someone tell Max that one step to keeping costs down would be to quit changing the regulations (radically!) every two years.

I hope the teams side with Bernie and 'breakaway' from the the FIA. With those two groups you at least you know their motivation: providing entertainment in return for MONEY. With Max, god only knows what drives that megalomaniac, or what he had to do to secure his "vote of confidence".

[Aaron James]

Seems Max and BMW, then, have buried the hatchet.

What is it Sir Jackie was saying about Max not being able to do his job? If anything the whipping he got literally and figuratively he seems more focused on what is important - and achievable - than ever before.

[KoJ Finland]

@ Stelmara
I know what you mean; I don't think this could happen in any other business in the world?

@ Trent in Dallas
I agree, it is all just crazy. F1 is the pinnacle of motor sport and for it to be run by anyone who has al but zero support of the F1 is madness.
The teams should be allowed to run their teams as they see fit, what the hell has it got to do with Mosley?

@ F1 Insider
Yes I think he is.

[Felipe]

It all seems very sensible to me...

[McCheets]

Towards the end of last year, Mario Theissen stated that BMW spends less as a constructor and engine manufacturer now than what it did a few seasons back when it acted solely as an engine supplier. This was because of the changes in engine regulations. So I think it should be acknowledged that Mosley's efforts to reduce costs has had a positive effect.

Any move to keep the costs of competing down should be welcome. Of course, teams should be allowed to spend whatever they want.

[Nickie D]

I don't see how a governing body can tell a company how much money it can spend. Surely a company knows how much money it can spend for it to be viable.

As for the comment about the major manufacturers employing up to 1000 people (read McLaren and Ferrari there) just to put 2 cars on the grid is madness. You will actually find that those 1000 people don't just put 2 cars on the grid they work on the road cars and the various other parts of the companies. Ferrari make road cars as well and McLaren are a technology company as well.

Max and Bernie need to stop messing with the sport. I agree with cutting costs to help the teams lower down the grid compete with those at the top but making sweeping statements is not the way to go.

[PeteW]

I'd totally agree with the idea of making the sport fuel efficient. How about limiting the refuling rate? Then teams would have a tradeoff between a much longer pit stop or building a more efficient engine.

[Ray]

So Max still thinks he's in the finance game and not the regulatory game. One thing is for sure, nothing is ever going to change Max Mosley. Still banging on about KERS. Clearly he hasn't spoken to Renault or Honda about their reservations with regard to cost.

Why would any team agree to this...

"Teams which design and develop their own drive train (usually manufacturer teams) must be prepared to supply a complete and fully competitive drive train to an independent team at very low
cost."

And this statement is just about as funny as it gets...

"One possibility is that the car behind should be faster by virtue of being behind not, as at present, slower."

So we are going to see the cars constantly leap-frogging each other on their way to the finish line. Woo-hoo! Someone pass the popcorn.

More madness...

"costs of the manufacturer teams come down by at least 50% and that the independent teams become financially viable"

When is he going to realize that the manufacturer teams are competing against this independent teams and they don't give a damn about helping them become financially viable?

It looks like Max has blown his wad. I think he is baiting the teams into coming up with a few good cost saving ideas for his Formula 2 fantasy.

The man has blinkers on.

[colin grayson]

quite right too max ; you may have pushed through a lot of changes during your tenure , but a lot more is still to be done ...how many cars on the grid now ? 20 is it ? how long before it is 18 , or 16 , and will then go the way of CART ; companies like daimler benz / BMW /honda /toyota aren't in it for the good of their health !!who would give enough sponsorship to start a new independant team as things stand ? could frank williams start today ?

when well funded , professional companies like Prodrive can't afford to enter , something is seriously wrong

my idea is more standard items at a reasonable price , all fixed for a season perhaps , fixed range of tyres [ no more special treatment like bridgestone for ferrari and michelin for renault , clutches , gearboxes , brakes , various electronics etc ; engines standard for a year , any manufacturer must guarantee to supply at least 4 teams ...well you get the idea ; all to be selected by a technical committee on the basis of quality and price ; consultation with the teams of course

I accept that to be F1 , chassis and engine must remain an individual design , otherwise there will be nothing in it for the big boys

but the teams will never agree to the necessary measures by themselves....you will have to get your whip out max

[McCheets]

AARON JAMES

I have never understood why Sir Jackie's views on Mosley have been treated with such reverence. After all, since attacking Mosley Jackie has been quite happy to contact Roman Polanski regarding potential collaboration.

Recent events have demonstrated just how irrelevant the likes of Stewart and Hill are.

[Stelmara]

To F1 Insider
I'm certain you are not the only one finding him more odious by the day, he makes me cringe.

To Nickie D
I agree, they need to stop messing, better still just bugger off.

To Ray
I agree with what you are saying. I like your words 'more madness' just says it all.

Stella

[martinb]

I can't see a 50% fuel saving, ever.

When you think about it, a F1 car doesn't do too badly. A normal saloon car consuming 7.5 L/100 km and putting out 80 BHP is not unreasonable, so scaling up, 75 L/100 km while putting out 800 BHP is also reasonable.

The only way to cut consumption is to cut power, which will cut speed and excitement.

[Anon]

Finally, some good, solid rules.

Max is right. Whether he likes prostitues, he is right.

F1 is too expensive. True, and it needs correction. If we ever want to see teams like Williams winning races, his rules are needed.

F1 is not environmental enough. Absolutely true. Once again, perfect makrs, just what is needed.

The teams will stay with Mosley.

[Jordi]

@Stelmara
What it’s hard for me to understand is why you can’t believe a word Max says. His sexual preferences have nothing to do with his word. He was not caught lying, he was caught having sexual activities between consenting adults.

[Kohque]

One thing we all agree is that F1 is too expensive.

If improving fuel efficiency could cut costs, then why would a manufacturer wait for the president of a sport association to recommend such a move? Saving fuel is not going to make F1 much cheaper... On the contrary, it would increase the R&D costs of developing more efficient racing cars.

I suppose that Mosley can see the trend of the car industry and he is trying to use F1 as a platform to develop technologies that can be later use in private cars.

F1 must give something in return for the huge investments that manufactures make every year. As far as I know, the independent teams neither sell private cars nor they are in F1 to develop new technologies. They just want to race. So in order to get enough teams to compete every year, manufactures must share their components with independent teams.

Aerodynamics should be standard for all the cars. This way, manufactures would save the costs of wind tunnels and related research (one of the most expensives). Moreover, F1 aerodynamics have no practical use in developing private cars (maybe jets...). And from a F1 perspective, it makes overtaking almost a struck of luck.

In any case, Mosley should give a clear direction for the sport and its relationship with manufacturers in the future. Coming up with new rules at 'whipping' speed only makes every one involved in F1 annoyed and confused.

[McCheets]

A decade ago, Max claimed that environmental issues were not of concern to F1, that F1 engines were fairly efficient already. It has taken him quite some time to come to terms with the fact that developing technologies which reduce F1's impact on the environment is essential, but later late than never. My only concern is that the primary concern is merely to give the image that F1 is reducing its environmental impact (a la Honda, and Jenson's ill-informed and patronising comments at the start of last season).

Of course there are those out there, of a certain vintage, who couldn't give a damn about the environmental impact of motor racing.

[Stelmara]

So its another one of the best race tracks that is being taken off the calender.

[Stelmara]

To Jordi
Well just for starters he claims he does not have anything against either Ron Dennis or McLaren when we all know that not to be true (I would love to see him take a lie detector test and be asked a few simple questions). There are mountains of other examples that could be given many of which have appeared on this blog in recent months and that's just what we know about.

Stella

[Nick]

Bringing two threads together, My suggestion would be that no car should generate power when on a down hill slope. This would be fuel efficient and improve the spectacle at Donington especially through the Craner Curves !

[Weasel]

Al Gore to head special FIA commission on Formula Eco.

Yeah right, this is going to make a huge dent in the global oil consumption and the fuel savings will more than repay the teams the cost of complying.

Max, here's some new marbles for you.

FIA = Fear In Action

[Jordi]

@ Stellamara

You said

"Max ...does not have anything against either Ron Dennis or McLaren when we all know that not to be true..."

Speak for yourself.

"There are mountains of other examples..."

Which ones? can you give us one. "Montains" of "we all knows" means nothing, really.

[Ian]

This smacks of self importance - and is it me or is the point about fuel efficiency plain bonkers?

Surely the "footprint" of flying the whole F1 circus around the world and earning Max & Bernie so much is the real issue rather than the cars themselves? PC gone mad.

[McCheets]

IAN

It is every aspect associated with F1/motorsport that should be addressed. This includes the fans travelling to and from the tracks, what they purchase at the tracks, the people at home watching on TV, the specialist publications that are purchased, the internet resources used. There are a number of areas that need to be addressed. Unfortunately Jenson "one-win" Button does not appreciate that the followers of F1 are often way ahead of those who are directly involved with it. Of course there are some followers, including a few who regularly post messages on this site, who have no regard whatsoever for reducing the environmental impact of motorsport.

This is one of the issues that really matters and are what we really should be debating and resolving. Another is where the centre of motor sport will be in 20-30 times. Relative newcomers to the F1 scene (individuals, circuits, teams) will be the future, regardless of the views that some of the cognoscenti have on their inclusion.

Moslely/Ron, FIA/McLaren, Mosley/NOTW, Lewis/Jenson, the old boys club that runs Silverstone, etc. are peripheral issues.

Let us not bask in the halcyon days.

[Mike]

If I've understood it correctly, the Mosley proposal is to limit power by restricting the amount of fuel used rather than limiting engine capacity. This will inevitably result in a competition to get more power from less fuel (ie fuel efficiency) rather than more power from a given engine capacity.

Only someone exceptionally stupid could quarrel with that. You may not like Mosley (Stella is so virulent I wonder if she's not secretly in love with him) but when he gets it right we should all say so.

Some bloggers have suggested costs do not need to come down because the manufacturers can make their own minds up about costs. The problem is they will - and they will leave the sport. Mosley has spotted this He seems to be trying to solve he problem before it's too late.

[McCheets]

MIKE

It is rather strange that some people imply that Mosley has a moral obligation to the world-at-large to stand down, but who also seem to think that neither F1, nor motor racing in general, have a moral obligation to the planet. The double standards, both within F1 and amongst many staunch followers of F1, is astounding.

Excellent point about manufacturers and costs, but I think that cost matters relate as much to the privateers, the sine qua non of motorsport.

The reaction of some to the proposals suggest that perhaps there was some truth to the remarks of Al Gore-wannabe, Jenson Button, when he stated that the people within, and those who follow, F1 are the hardest people to convince about environmental matters.

Whilst people may question whether or not it was appropriate for Mosley to get up to what he did, especially considering that he is married, there are far more important issues to be addressed. If they are not addressed, then we shouldn't be surprised if F1 goes the way of cricket (re: IPL 20/20 series).

[McCheets]

F1-INSIDER

“Is it just me or are others finding MM more and more odious by the day?”

You bitterness is clearly increasing by the day.

Like it or not, Mosley is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Don’t be surprised if he serves another term. Either make the most of the situation, or set up the breakaway series that you crave. Just remember the comments that were made by an anonymous team figure a decade ago when Mosley attempted to get teams to agree on solutions for cutting costs – “the cost reductions that we were able to agree on wouldn’t have covered the price of the sandwiches supplied at the meeting”. Do you really think that such people could run their own series?

[Derek Smith]

A fuel efficiency formula is not the route to cost cutting. This was proved in the turbo ear when £oodles of research went into limiting fuel consumption and the solution was more and more expensive materials and technology.

Most teams will pay what they can afford and some teams will pay what is necessary to win.

One team has its own race circuit, some teams have full size wind tunnels, and I believe, more than one in a couple of cases. Unless MM is going to do away with the laws of physics, aerodynamics will always be vital.

And what’s all this concentration on personnel? In the days of active suspension Williams employed one chap to refurbish the reservoirs while Ferrari just stuck new ones on each race.

Every time the rules are meddled with teams have to pay out a fortune just to keep pace with the others. The best way to keep costs down is to limit rule changes. It works in business and it will work in F1 as well in the rather unlikely event that power mad legislators can curb their enthusiasm to meddle.

The reason teams win is that they have the money to find those extra hundredths of a second. And that takes money and will always take money. Can you imagine what KERS is likely to cost? Not in its original concept but in research to get that couple of extra horsepower from it.

One wonders how much research each team had to put in to manage this new universal chip. One wonders just how much the change to the smaller V8 engines has cost the teams. The answer just has to be much, much more than it would have cost them to stick with the V10s.

F1 used to have a ‘standard’ engine, the delightful DFV, but even in those days it was the teams that had the money which won. But, of course, MM’s changes to the concord agreement as regards to engine size and layout meant that Cosworth could no longer afford to continue in the sport. If it was not one MM’s intentions to kick the firm, one of F1’s stalwarts, out of the competition then the change can only be seen as inept surely?

Teams win because they manage their money well. Ferrari went through a period when they were the richest in the pitlane but still managed to fail. Williams and McLaren, with considerably lower funding, took over the sport for ten years.

There will not, as everyone knows, be a consensus amongst the teams as to what they want in a new concord agreement so the new one will be just what it has been since around 2004 – what Mosley wants. This has proved less than optimum. I see no change.

The sport has some of the most inventive minds in the developed world. It is a tribute to Man’s inventiveness. Whatever the rules are the engineers will find ways around them. MM is a lawyer by trade and his mindset is entirely different from the practical dreamers that have graced our sport. MM can tinker with the rules but the engineers will flummox him. The history of the sport shows that. By bringing in something new he’s handing the initiative to those who thrive on such things.

My suggestion is that each individual team should open up all research to the others in the pitlane. The cars should be open to examination after each race.

This would not, of course, suit Ferrari so there seems little chance of it happening. But it stands a much better chance of working than all this twisting and changing.

[McCheets]

Mario Theissen has reiterated over the weekend that BMW spends less now as a constructor and engine manufacturer than what it did when acting solely as an engine supplier. He also went so far as to say that the lower costs associated with the 'engine freeze' and the environmental angle being brought in is likely to attract other manufacturers such as Audi, VW, Porsche and Asian manufacturers. (Read article by Richard Rae in Sport section of The Sunday Times for further information.) Pat Symonds recently indicated that Renault's operating costs have lowered as a result of the engine freeze.

This demonstrates how out of touch some posters are with their comments – particularly those with tacit claims that they have inside involvement with the sport.

Comments about KERS only generating a couple of extra horsepower are questionable. Teams will initially be allowed to recover up to 60 kW from one axle, and this limit will be doubled in 2011. From 2013 teams will be allowed to draw recover energy from both axles (200 kW limit). What the initial allowable 60 kW equates to will take time to manifest, but short-term inefficiencies will soon be overcome, and by 2013 the benefits will be considerable.

There is talk of engine cooling recovery, and exhaust recovery also. Such concepts have particular relevance to the real world.

I can not see any team handing over knowledge that it has attained at its own expense, or even information that is has obtained free-of-charge, to rivals. I am also sure that few want to see F1 go down the same route as IRL/NASCAR.

Rightly or wrongly, F1 is, in comparison with other sports and forms of entertainment, supreme cannon fodder for those with an environmental agenda. Given the contribution of motor sport valley to the UK economy, it would take a brave politician to crack down on motor sport in the UK, but it could very easily happen elsewhere. Motor sport needs to be at the forefront of change if it is going to survive.

[Derek Smith]

McCheeter,

What engine freeze? The concord agreement dictated that the engines would remain at V10s until this season. MM changed this to the current V8s making the engine manufacturers design, build and develop and entirely new product. The chassis designers had to cope with the new package, the aero teams had to do a complete redesign. One wonders at the total cost of MM's whim.

If, as suggested, the intention was to lower costs then why not something simple, along the lines of limiting revs of the V10?

If you change something, it costs. With every little alteration to the regulations, some little team drops behind the bigger ones.

One should remember as well that at the moment there is the promise of stability of rules. Just as there was under the old concord agreement and look what happened to that. It was ignored. One wonders if the large car manufacturing boardrooms might consider a sport that is run more sensibly rather then one which promises much and then, when the boss has a bad day, he changes it all.

There is no concord agreement. Given MM's history, there will never be one at least while he's in charge.

The only thing that will bring down costs to teams is a recession as they all put in a balance between what they can and what they need to.

[McCheets]

DEREK SMITH

I refer you to a quote attritubted to Pat Symonds, which appears in the June 2008 issue of The Paddock. Clearly Renault is banking on the freeze.

"In view of the engine freeze, it would be very nice if the budget was a bottomless pit, because you could keep everyone employed and you could keep working on 'blue-sky' research for the day when the freeze comes off. But that's not the way we work at Renault."

No disrespect intended, but I give more credence to the views of Pat Symonds, and the actions that Renault have implemented.

As for the broader issue of the costs and the manner in which F1 is run, perhaps you should also read what Theissen reiterated over the weekend. The article has been posted on The Times website.

Congratulaions to your team at Silverstone. Lewis certainly drove like a cheetah! (No, the spelling is not intended to be phonetic!)

[McCheets]

DEREK SMITH

I refer you to a quote attritubted to Pat Symonds, which appears in the June 2008 issue of The Paddock. Clearly Renault is banking on the freeze.

"In view of the engine freeze, it would be very nice if the budget was a bottomless pit, because you could keep everyone employed and you could keep working on 'blue-sky' research for the day when the freeze comes off. But that's not the way we work at Renault."

No disrespect intended, but I give more credence to the views of Pat Symonds, and the actions that Renault have implemented.

As for the broader issue of the costs and the manner in which F1 is run, perhaps you should also read what Theissen reiterated over the weekend. The article has been posted on The Times website.

Congratulaions to your team at Silverstone. Lewis certainly drove like a cheetah! (No, the spelling is not intended to be phonetic!)

[Jeff Bellamy]

Could it be that this is simply another of Moseley's games? He knows that each team will have its own projects underway and will want whatever is agreed to include that development, or the money is wasted. So the chances of getting the majority of the teams to agree on new rules is unlikely to happen. This will leave the door open for Max to wade in with the set of rules he's had in his back pocket all the time, which will include KERS and anything else he thinks is a good idea, and present them to the teams and the world as a done deal. The justification will be "Well I asked them what they wanted and they couldn't tell me. I couldn't let things drift on so I've had to come up with the rules myself".
The new rules will be trumpeted as the way forward, including green and cost cutting initiatives that in reality will prove expensive to implement. Remember that when the 2.4 litre V8 engines were introduced Mosely dismissed any discussion with the comment that he'd made it easy for the manufacturers as all they had to do was remove two cylinders. It sounds good to the public but the reality was different in that new engines had to be designed because a V8 and V10 have different characteristics.
Whatever rules are introduced they will always favour the better funded teams, despite Max's claim to want to level the playing field. You also have to question how serious he is about cutting costs as it was only a few years ago that when asked what could be done about the boring spectacle (Ferrari were winning everything) and spiralling costs he said that the public were more concerned about the technical excellence of F1 than the spectacle. I suspect he didn't ask any of the public what they thought before making that remark because no one I know enjoys the technically excellent processions we get you get from time to time.
Getting back to Max's latest game, it's nonsense asking the teams what rules they want to see introduced. The FIA are supposed to introduce rules as part of the governing process, albeit after consultation with the teams as to what's workable and cost effective. however, It's going to be interesting to see if anyone responds.
The Independent reported yesterday that the FIA had broken its own voting rules when it imposed the $100m fine on McLaren. If that's the case, will it have to be repaid and if some of it has already been promised by Mr Schumacher, will that FIA have to make up the shortfall?