The FIA meeting in Monaco/teams agree! (merged)

[Super Tourer]

Today in Monaco, the FIA and team representatives meet to try and map out then 'future of F1'.

This is where the poker game starts in earnest and the political players come into their own.

In the last week or so positive noise towards the new proposals have come from Ferrari and BMW. Ferrari choosng to 'back' the new order may seem curious to some, but peeling away the layers you can see why.

Ferrari is heavily dependant on outside sponsorship, particularly tobacco, as a car business Ferrari could never justify the the current expense of F1 on an operation that sells 3000 cars per year. Similarly FIAT is in no position to bank roll Ferrari to the same extent that the other major manufacturers are.

As we have seen from some of the recent budget threads, teams like McLaren and BAR are heavily funded by the car makers they represent, if and when tobacco sponsorship does dissapear, it's likey that Mercedes (for example) would make up the shortfall. This could leave Ferrari heavily comprimised on funding in the future.

According to pitpass http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpa...s_art_id=20768 - Max Mosley's opening gambit could be to double the TV revenue the teams currently receive, with the obvious full agreement of BE.

According to Max "This is like drawing a line in the sand," he added. "Formula One needs a strong, independent regulator who can run a proper championship. We cannot have ten teams with ten ageing team principals with no ideas except protecting their own interests. They all realise now that if Formula One is going to succeed commercially and retain its hold on the public, then something must be done and this meeting is where we start"

One unhappy bunny is reported to be Ron D and McLaren Mercedes, however as BMW and Williams are believed to be supportive of the new proposals, this remove's Ron D's usual ally in matters against the FIA, and puts them rather out on a limb.

Meantime I don't think anyone believe's we will anymore of the GPWC, this deal was effectively ended when the small teams discovered that under the GPWC they would be in more or less the same boat as they are under the current Bernie/FOM arrangement, as the leading teams of the GPWC carved up the majority of any revenue between themselves.

Another take on it:http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns12817.html

An interesting period in prospect I think.

[Mattracer]

Williams have in recent years been clever in attracting non-tobacco sponsorship, particularly in light of the fact they'll certainly be needing it when the rules are changed, just like all the other teams will.

If Ferrari struggle to find sponsorship from non-tobacco sources, then much of the world's mega-conglomerates must have been asleep since 2000, perhaps longer if the heritage of F1 and Ferrari is considered.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Mattracer


If Ferrari struggle to find sponsorship from non-tobacco sources, then much of the world's mega-conglomerates must have been asleep since 2000, perhaps longer if the heritage of F1 and Ferrari is considered.

Not so, alot of big companys would come into F1, but not while F1 has anything to do with tobacco sponsorship.

Once tobacco sponsership goes, expect to see the likes of Coca-Cola or Maccy D's at least, take an interest in F1 to see if it's viable for them.

[Super Tourer]

Originally posted by Mattracer
Williams have in recent years been clever in attracting non-tobacco sponsorship, particularly in light of the fact they'll certainly be needing it when the rules are changed, just like all the other teams will.

I agree they have, I was going to use them as an example.

The only problem is that these new deals are very small beer....

On the figures I have, Williams 2004 budget is $276M ,of which $125M comes from BMW in both cash and supply of engines. By contrast their recent deals attracted a lot less. The Bud deal is worth $4M a year, the NiQuitin $6.5M.

Whilst F1 teams will still be able to attract some new sponsors on an nogoing basis, it's unlikely (IMO) that they would ever fund the teams to the current, and if uncontained , future spending levels.

Non-tobacco brands have a much wider spread of marketing available to them and therefore less to inject into F1, whereas tobacco has Formula One as one of it's few remaining marketing outlets and can justify the huge sums it spends on it.

It's clear to see that if the FIA get costs down substantially whilst increasing the revenue to the teams, the reliance on tobacco and the car makers would be less important and these sponsorship deals at $5M a time to add to the mix suddenly make F1 commercially viable.

[cos]

shock horror - Teams agree on something!

http://www.autosport.com/newsitem.asp?id=27086&s=5

I like the mention of a return to slick tyres and a banning of TC

[ASCII Man]

I would rather have a more open formula instead just being limited to the choice of either a V8 or V10.
Why not have open it up and have the choice of a 3litre V10, a 3.5litre V8, a 1.5litre Turbo V6 or a 2.5 litre V12?

Just imagine those engines with all their distinctive sounds roaring past the grandstands...

[Mr V]

Which tyre supplier is going to have to drop out of F1 then?

[ASCII Man]

Bridgestone!
Please, let it be Bridgestone!

[Mr V]

In the grand scheme of things, and, i admit, looking from an "outsiders" point of view, i believe that Bridgestone dropping out would be fairer to all teams.

[Kicking-back]

From autosport:

"Formula 1's team principals have fallen into line over Max Mosley's proposals for a revolution in the sport at a summit called by the FIA in Monaco today.

The rules aimed at reducing costs and making the sport more entertaining have been met with widespread acceptance by the teams and 95 percent of them are expected to be ratified in time for 2006, two years earlier than expected."


Well done to the teams for putting the sport before self interest.

[Inigo Montoya]

We'll see what they actually agreed to.

[Knowlesy]

Definitely Bridgestone.

I like the sound of that Autosport article. They look to have agreed to some good ideas and it also looks like we may keep the current V10's. Better than those bloody 2.4 V8's, although I'd like to see the regs opened up to allow V8's and V12's.

[Mr V]

I notice that the new Qualifying format is to be agreed between the teams and Bernie (not the teams and the FIA). Obviously whatevers best for TV is (hopefully from our point of view) what they will agree on.

[Gt_R]

Not really surprising..Max had a good talk with Ferrari and BMW and possibly others before the meeting, and they had a compromise... the official meeting i believe is just a formality to tie up small ends among all teams.

[ralf fan]

Plz. be Bridgestone.... but supposing none of them want to dropout?

[Gt_R]

Hmm.. Bridgestone had recently stated they are looking to stay in F1 in the long term, and committed to stay beyond 2008. Michelin on the otherhand are still pretty unsure about the route they are going to take, and seem unwilling to commit considering the lack of championship-winning results... won't be surprised if they drop out and re-divert their attention to their other series..

[Knowlesy]

Who's to say it will be Bridgestone or Michelin though? It may be that Goodyear are chosen by the FIA, as they have expressed interest in a return. As long as it's not Kwik-Fit budget tyres, I'll be happy though. Although they may offer similar wet weather performance to a Michelin.

[ralf fan]

Minardi testing Avons!! we could see crazy Gp's with lack of grip and with only Minnie knowing how to drive them they could win

[TeddyG]

I was just reading an article that says teams agreed to virtually eliminate electronic aids, slash engine costs by 50% (making them last longer than one race), have standard brakes, and only one tyre supplier!?!? I had no idea this meeting had such lofty goals...I'll believe it when I see it but this could be a great step forward in making F1 more exciting for the fans!

[Super Tourer]

A summary of the meeting.http://www.autosport.com/newsitem.asp?id=27086&s=5


ENGINES

Discussions to take place over size of engines, with change expected to take place from 2006

Standard ECUs will be mandatory from 2008 and discussions are now taking place about whether these can be introduced for 2006

TRANSMISSION, BRAKING AND STEERING

Agreement that the ‘least expensive solutions' to be implemented as soon as possible for braking, steering and transmission

The return of manual gearboxes has been rejected because the current semi-automatic units are more economical

Standard brake discs, pads and callipers will be introduced as soon as possible

CHASSIS

The weight limit reduction could be greater than the proposed 50kg because of the increased weight loss caused by the loss of heavy electronic systems

Discussions have taken place about reducing the number of electronic sensors on the cars and the possibility of introducing a standard data logger

SPORTING

No spare car as it is currently known will be allowed – only a spare monocoque in a pre-packed box

Cars will be held overnight in parc ferme and teams will be allowed to adjust the car but not rebuild it

The creation of new championships, like engine manufacturer or constructors with more teams is open for discussion

A ban on tyre changes in races could happen by 2005

A dramatic reduction in testing will be imposed – to the extent that teams will no longer need to run second test teams alongside their race outfits

The FIA has instructed the teams and Bernie Ecclestone to come up with a better qualifying system to replace the current format

Tender to go out to tyre manufacturers for a single tyre supplier by 2006. The tyre width will be reduced at the front and increased at the rear – with slicks most likely returning

GENERAL

The teams are open to the idea of no restriction on the sale, loan or exchange of chassis and components between teams or new entrants, but require certain guarantees about not devaluing Formula 1 or their own teams' financial situation

Unanimous voting on short term technical rule changes to be replaced by majority voting

There will be no new Concorde Agreement to replace the current one, which runs out at the end of 2007

[Super Tourer]

FIA Press Release:http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press...040504-01.html


Transcript from a Press Briefing with FIA President Max Mosley
Monaco, May 4th, 2004
04.05.2004

“Thank you very much for being here. It was a very good meeting. Where I had expected very significant dispute and debate, there wasn’t any. It was very constructive. In a nutshell the proposals for 2008 we simply announced. We went through them all with the teams and discussed them all in some detail.

“As far as doing things sooner than 2008, there was a wide measure of agreement that we need to bring in changes much sooner. I think we are going to see a new engine formula in 2006. The engine manufacturers are going to make proposals in addition to those that we have made to reduce the engine costs by 50 percent. It was pointed out by one of the major manufacturers that we are currently spending one thousand million Euros a year to provide engines to 14 of the 20 cars and it therefore should not be too difficult to reduce that by 50 percent. That will make a big difference. Conversely, a thousand million Euros is simply not sustainable, it is not sustainable by any calculation. The only discussion on the engine was whether it was more economic to extend the engine life of a V10 rather than to have a 2.4. That's to say a V10 three-litre doing three races, four, five and eventually six races, rather than a 2-4 V8 doing at least two races and possibly more races later on. But the multi-race engine principle is completely accepted; the need to reduce the power is completely accepted. Even the standard ECU may come in before 2008, that is part of the package of cost measures they will be discussing and of course a standard ECU means standardizing all of the electronics on the cars. The other engine proposals I think will go through as a matter of course and come in before 2006.

“On the transmission, braking and steering, the only discussion there was whether it would be more economic, given the current state of knowledge, to stay with an electronically controlled differential but with the electronics completely under the control of the FIA, so that there were no traction control or anything of that kind. And whether we would be better staying with modern gearboxes rather than purely manual gearboxes, it was pointed out that we would never go back to the old 'H' and missed gears and all of that. That is in the past. But on the transmission, braking and steering, complete agreement that we would simply go for the least expensive solution and perhaps most importantly complete agreement that there will be no traction control, no electronic driver aids, they are going to go.

“We also had agreement on standard brake discs, pads and calipers and agreement on reducing the weight limit. The weight limit may come down even more than we had thought because eliminating a lot of the electronics and the technology from the cars will in turn make the cars much lighter, so the final reduction in weight may be very significant, and therefore the energy going into a crash. But with that comes the need for very substantial reductions in aerodynamic downforce and changes to the tyres, and also an increase in the drag of the car.

“On the sporting aspects, again agreement that we would not have a spare car as it is currently known, they would have a spare chassis (a spare monocoque rather) ready in a box, like the Formula 3000 teams, but there would be no third car in the pits. The cars would certainly be in parc ferme overnight, you would be able to adjust the car but not rebuild it. There was complete agreement for the need of a single tyre supplier. There was just one question about current contractual commitments, which we think could be resolved. But there was no question that all of the teams recognised that if we had a single tyre supplier it would be far less expensive, because of testing, it would be fairer, because everybody would be on the same basis, and there would also be a very important safety aspect in that with a single tyre we would be able to control the degree of grip and therefore preventing excessive cornering speeds. We might even be able to give up the grooves and go back to ordinary slick tyres. The wheels will be wider at the back and narrower at the front, that results from the abolition of the ballast.

“There is agreement that we need a new qualifying system. I reminded them all that the current qualifying system was proposed by the teams. The suggestion now is that they should come forward with new proposals for qualifying, but these must take into account the needs for television for people like me, who watch most of the races on television.

“There was a lot of discussion about the scoring of points, whether we should have a constructors championship with more than two cars scoring, or another suggestion that has come forward is whether there should be an engine manufacturers championship and this is something that we are going to consider carefully. But everyone is agreed on the need to strongly encourage the major manufacturers to supply engines to the independent teams and I think we will have no difficultly in coming up with a good solution there.

“There was a lot of discussion also on allowing the sale of chassis to encourage smaller teams to enter the Championship, but reservations in that there are fears that if we allow the free selling of chassis, Formula One might become like other racing series with one or two or three makes and lots of people in the same cars. There was a feeling we would come up with solutions to these problems and I think that will certainly prove to be the case. But there is a strong desire to encourage new teams to come in, but understandably the existing teams do not want to give up any money or privileges as a result of that. But we will now see a much easier entry route for new teams, it is recognised that we do need 12 teams to take part.

“The idea of guaranteed entries for teams that contract for a long time, agreed by everybody. The idea that we should have majority voting on rule changes but only those teams voting that were contracted to take part in the season in which the rule change applies was agreed. We may have to introduce some sort of reserve there because it is reasonable that the people who make the engines should have a vote on the engines, and the people who don't make the engines should perhaps not dictate what they should be, but to be discussed. The basic principle will be that the person who has an interest in something has a vote but if you have no interest in it, either because you are not in the championship or because it is something you don't do - you're not an engine manufacturer or whatever, those with no interest would have no vote. What that comes down to is a much more open and flexible system for changing the rules than we have at present. It would be much more, actually, under the control of the FIA, as perhaps it should be.

“The idea of technical rule changes being made before July 1 to come in not the following year but the year after, and the sporting changes before July 1 to come in the following year was generally accepted. What it all comes down to I think is that, except for minor details, virtually complete acceptance of these very revolutionary proposals, agreement on the objectives and agreement that the engine manufacturers - the seven companies concerned with engines - are going to sit down together to reduce the costs of the engines by 50 percent. I think really I couldn't have asked for more from the meeting.”

[ralf fan]

man a big big shake-up for f1... lets hope it brings the desired results...

hopefully we can look forward to the NO tyre changes from next year then... hopefully re-fueling will be banned too..

[Peter Mallett]

Can I pick up on something here?

As somebody said what is best for tv may well be good for us. That is of course suggesting that nobody goes to the track and therefore one qualifying hour on Sunday morning followed by the race in the sfternoon would provide a more intense and therefore (in terms of "good" tv exposure) the best solution. The trouble is it downgrades a GP weekend to a clubbie at Mallory park.

The rules do need a review. Driver aids need to go but we mustn't let them reduce the "endurance" aspect of the events. It is a weekend festival of motorsport and should remain so. The current format is bad enough but to reduce it firther takes away the whole essence of Grands Epreuve.

Sorry if this seems a rant but I hark back to the days of three day grands prix and entertainment all the way through.

[Adam43]

Peter I couldn't agree more.

[Sodemo]

Originally posted by Super Tourer
A summary of the meeting.http://www.autosport.com/newsitem.asp?id=27086&s=5


- Standard brake discs, pads and callipers will be introduced as soon as possible

CHASSIS

- The weight limit reduction could be greater than the proposed 50kg because of the increased weight loss caused by the loss of heavy electronic systems

SPORTING

- No spare car as it is currently known will be allowed – only a spare monocoque in a pre-packed box


-A ban on tyre changes in races could happen by 2005

-Tender to go out to tyre manufacturers for a single tyre supplier by 2006. The tyre width will be reduced at the front and increased at the rear – with slicks most likely returning

Brakes - I just hope they use steel brakes, not carbon - better for racing.

Why a weight reduction? Why not a weight increase? If they increased the weight by 100Kg, we would see more overtaking.

No spare car is a bad bad bad idea. What happens when a driver smashes his car to bits in Saturday qualifying - does he sit out the race?

Ban on tyre changes, im unsure on this one. Would this mean that the tyre company would be forced to make hard compound tyres with reduced mechanical grip? If so its a bad idea.

Slick tyres is great news. Now all they need to do is widen the cars back to the pre - 97 levels...