Memo

[Russ-Turner]

Very interesting!

http://www.fia.com/resources/documen..._pstoddart.pdf

[Super Tourer]

There has been a lot of documentation released by the FIA recently, more than I can ever remember.

I'm sure this is an attempt to show where the main players stand in the overall scheme of things.

It certainly makes interesting reading.

[Inigo Montoya]

Thanks for the link Russ-Turner (and welcome to the forum)! I actually read the whole thing, and found it fascinating. But really... accusing Max of changing the rules on the V8 just because Ross commented that Ferrari could not maintain their level of performance on the V10 until 2008 - that is just plain silly.

[Logrence]

Surely Minardi can afford a decent typewriter?

[Wrex]

I cant believe this thread is falling to the bottom.

As per my thread titled "The Blame Game", this (and all the other documents being released) are a very interesting read.

From what I have read so far, what is released to the press and what is said during meetings can be very different.

I suggest all interested in the inner workings of F1, and those too ignorant to know better, to have a read of these documents at your leasure.

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press...sultation.html

[Marbot]

Couldn't agree more Wrex,the internal workings of F1 certainly have a larger effect on things than any team takeover or driver hiring or changing,interesting though that may be,and i too would urge anyone interested to read the documents at the link posted above.

[Adam43]

I can't help feeling that this openness might actually help in this case. Those documents that Wrex links too are good and worth getting into. I read the teams (er Ferrari) and FIA meeting minutes and they are great stuff. There is agreement and disagreement to both sides and it is interesting to see that there is more agreement that disagreement when talking about future rules.

I am working through the other documents.

[Gt_R]

Indeed. I am comforted to read the meeting minutes between Ferrari and FIA. I was intially worried that Ferrari or FIA would use the opportunity solely to promote their self-interest, but it showed that there are constructive disagreement, and the welfare of the privateer teams are also considered (3rd car as source of income for small teams, sale of parts etc), as well as rejection of controversial ideas such as "maximum age limit".

It's a sensible meeting, and as recognised by Max, a useful and fruitful meeting. I hope that the other 9 teams would attend, not neccessarily accepting what Max and/or Ferrari propose, but to establish their own preference.

In fact, it showed that more often than not, the media and rival teams are too paranoid of the Ferrari & FIA relationship (hello Paul). My disagreement with Paul's method should be left in another thread (regarding the team's direction, policy, ideology) but honestly, i do foresee, if the teams and FIA survive this conflict of interest, F1 would come out stronger and better.

[Russ-Turner]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

Thanks Russ-Turner welcome to the forum!.

Thank you

[neil_davidson2]

That's a fascinating read, and really shows just how much the internal machinations of F1 are like trying to herd cats.

I can understand Max's frustrations with the team principles - they didn't like the FIA proposals, couldn't come up with their own and then complain about enforced changes being pushed through. Likewise I think Max lost the moral high-ground by seeming to trample on the Concorde agreement, which for better or worse is the governing document.

[Testure]

grandprix.com have a useful analysis here: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14210.html I love this quote from Max in reply to Stoddart's letter: "Because of time constraints I will not attempt to deal with a number of other points in your letter with which I disgree". Sounds like Max is whistling with his hands over his ears and hoping the problem will go away

[strider]

This is fascinating stuff, but as noted in the grandprix.com article:

"The other point which must be made is that the whole dispute between the FIA and the teams is to a large degree a question of trying to sway the opinions of the F1 media. Many members of the F1 press are not sufficiently interested in the arguments to wade through all the paper and so cannot accurately assess what is going on and even then it is hard to reach any conclusions because both sides say that their legal advice shows that they are right."

If the F1 Media are not interested in this sort of thing (or cannot reach a conclusion about it), they will not write about it and people will remain in ignorance of what goes on behind the curtain.

[Logrence]

They will write about it - they just don't have any interest in researching and grounding their ideas properly.

[RWC]

Mmmm kind of interesting .
They've gone past scowling at each other accross the playground are are now recruiting moral support from the crowd.
It could be all abit pointless though if the big boys all leave the school as they are threatening to do
That will leave the school still working but it will be pretty silly only having a teachers pet and a few kindy kids in attendance

[RaceFreak]

The lack of unanimity among the team principals doesn't surprise me. The frustration Max obviously feels should give the GPWC folks pause...... Think it'll be any better in a new series with new players/agendas ? Not likely. The GPWC will have to have a "Concorde-like" agreement to provide stability and order. God forbid the team principals be cut in on the writing of it, or the same money and agenda politics will re-surface.

[Vicki]

I didn't get very far theough, the font was too hard to read. What's it about?

[RWC]

I gave up because he seemed to be taking too many years getting to the point

Those that could read it right through- could you give us your thoughts?

[Dixie Flatline]

Ferrari proposes, inter alia, the freedom to share intellectual property and components between teams, to reduce costs and increase the competitiveness of small teams.

Given that Ferrari has dominated the sport for the last few yeras, that is, superficially, a very magnanimous proposal from Ferrari - could you a team such as Midland-Jordan, Red Bull Racing or Minardi licensing from Ferrari the intellectual property rights to use the design of the Ferrari hydraulics systems?

For me, in what I've read so far, that was the most interesting suggestion.

[Dixie Flatline]

Audiences are most impressed by speed and sound. If some technologies are to be removed we must keep these main attractions of F1:

• Fast: High power, low mass, high grip (aero & tyres)
• Loud: High revving engines (19,000rpm+)

From the Williams response.

Williams also proposes a return to hard compound slick tyres, with 3 different compounds for the whole racing season (hard, medium and soft), estimating the savings as 8.0% of budget.

Williams also wants to mandate from the side view of the car the regulated minimum engine cover size to not be obstructed to increase value to sponsors - which would seem to go opposite to what Minardi appears to be doing with their "radical" car.

[Knowlesy]

Interesting read that! thanks Russ Turner!

[M Coupe]

I've had a decent read through a few of the documents, Paul Stoddarts letter, Max's respons and some of the additional documents, the Ferrari FIA meeting for one.

Max does seem to ignore a number of the comments put forward by PS and this I feel is the worrying point. PS has obviously got fustrated and is probably worried about the future with less engine manufactures on board and a sudden change of engine capacity.

The Ferrari FIA meeting was farcical, sorry, I know some people think the output was good, personally I feel it was more about what Ferrari could get out of it while conceeding a few points to make it look good. The big issues were left untouched, Tyres etc. I mean they even discussed the sponsors visability on the cars, shows the priority!

[Testure]

Ferrari are all in favour of lots of cost-reducing measures except the most important one - putting a cap on the number of test days. So they look good to people who don't read the details - "Ferrari propose $zillions in cost-reducing measures", etc. When you do read the details, though, you see that their proposals are arranged such that they would have a significant advantage over every other team.

[Gt_R]

Hhhahha...

It won't bother anyone when what other propose "are arranged such that they would have a significant advantage over" Ferrari. but ooh....not the other way round.

Putting a cap on the number of test days is NOT the most important, nor the most significant method, of achieving cost-reducing measures. By exploiting the loopholes of the regulation, it is actually more costly as teams try to maximise running time.

However, it seems like some of them just think that "track testing days limits" are the ONLY viable way to reduce cost...which is clearly not. Standard ECU, testing mileage limits etc could achieve just as significant, if not more, cost cuttings..but just because Ferrari proposed it, it's rejected without consideration.. Unfortunate.

"Sponsor visibility" is an issue which is of importance in the FIA/teams/sponsors point of view... M coupe.. even Williams right down to Minardi puts it in high priority... so how is it worse that Ferrari discussed it under FIA's request?

[Marbot]

I was under the impression ,having read the document,that Ferrari were in favour of a single tyre rule.They also said that this could be introduced in 2008 if the tyre makers agreed to it ,and if this was discussed at the next FIA meeting in April. But i suspect Max will want it in before then.

[RWC]

One question that i (dont think) has been asked yet-

If f1 goes for a single tyre supplier and that supplier is BS....
That will be seen as favouring ferrari won't it.
At first it will anyway


And what if BS WANTS to favour ferrari for marketing purposes??
This is gonna get very sticky i think