Nothing is over, yet?

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76783

Before FOTA's decision to walk out of yesterday's Technical Working Group meeting, the President of the FIA wrote twice to the President of FOTA to remind him that any amendments to the 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship regulations were subject to the unanimous approval of the five teams that had already entered for next season under the rules as published. This is because of the International Sporting Code and also because the entered teams have a contract with the FIA which not even the General Assembly or the World Council can abrogate.... It follows that the agreement of the five teams currently entered in the 2010 World Championship to all 2010 rule changes is required...

This explains what I had already thought was the reason for the conflict.

It explains to a certain degree what is going on with the 2009 Concord. The FOTA walk out on the Nürburgring technical working group appears largely to be a political manoever to delay telling the non Fota teams the deal on resource restrictions.

I wonder what is being achieved by this?

[DaveKillens]

FOTA will want wide front tires in 2010 to make their anti-KERS position effective. The FIA will want the narrower fronts to make their pro-KERS position effective. Anybody hear anything about FOTA's position on tire width?

In order to find the balance that was lost by the change from grooved tires to slicks, one remedy is to either widen the rears or narrow the fronts. Bridgestone has no tooling for wider rears, so they would have to spend money to build new tools. But they have old front molds of the correct dimensions left over from years ago. To me, this decision appears to favor Bridgestone.
Pretty soon we won't see custom dimensions in Formula One, choices will be dictated by whatever size molds the manufacturers have lying around.

[DaveKillens]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76783

It explains to a certain degree what is going on with the 2009 Concord. The FOTA walk out on the Nürburgring technical working group appears largely to be a political manoever to delay telling the non Fota teams the deal on resource restrictions.

I wonder what is being achieved by this?

Just a few weeks ago FOTA was 100% ready and comitted to walk away. Part of the process is preparing for setting up their own series. That takes time and resources to sign up tracks and broadcast rights, and all the many other details. Since it appeared a solution was reached, FOTA must have cancelled all those plans. The more time passes, the more difficult it is for FOTA to create their own series for next year.
My belief is Max agreed to Monty's presentation only in order to stall FOTA's preparations for setting up their own series. he never intended to honor the agreement.
There has to be a point in time where it becomes impossible for FOTA to set up a breakaway series. Max is just trying to keep FOTA believing they should stay in Formula One until it is too late. Then, it's game on again by Max. But this time, FOTA does not have the leverage of threating a breakaway.

[timbo]

This explains what I had already thought was the reason for the conflict.

It explains to a certain degree what is going on with the 2009 Concord. The FOTA walk out on the Nürburgring technical working group appears largely to be a political manoever to delay telling the non Fota teams the deal on resource restrictions.

I wonder what is being achieved by this?

This explains nothing.
Another load of bullsh*t.
a) is there a difference between ALL 13 and ONLY 5?
b) how can FIA impose rules without ANY voting and request that amendment of those rules should be voted?

[WhiteBlue]

a) I think there is a difference between 13 and 5. Its 8. Those 8 already got their way in Paris. Now the 5 would have to agree to the Paris deal which they were not involved in. There is still hope that the 2009 Concord gets sorted out soon and Fota will give the 5 a deal.

b) I think this is simply application of a rule and fairness and not an imposition. The result of the vote of the 5 shows that there are no unreasonable demands being made. They simply ask for clarification of the FOTA promises.

So as Ciro proposed we should perhaps reserve judgement until things work out with more detail. Tomorrows FiA press conference should be informative.

[timbo]

a) I think there is a difference between 13 and 5. Its 8. Those 8 already got their way in Paris. Now the 5 would have to agree to the Paris deal which they were not involved in. There is still hope that the 2009 Concord gets sorted out soon and Fota will give the 5 a deal.

Thing is FOTA teams ARE on 2010 entry list. Not the "provisional" entry list or something. They have a right to vote and participate on all meetings.

[WhiteBlue]

Thing is FOTA teams ARE on 2010 entry list. Not the "provisional" entry list or something. They have a right to vote and participate on all meetings.

How do you arrive at that statement? I do not think their participation is denied. They were invited. They already voted for the Paris amendments to the original 2010 rules because the WMSC adopted their rules proposal for implementation. Only the five have not been heard and that should not been voted down by teams that already got their way. So restricting the vote on the acceptance of the new FOTA 2010 rules to the five make total sense.

[timbo]

"During the course of this meeting, the team managers were informed by Mr Charlie Whiting of the FIA that, contrary to previous agreements, the eight FOTA teams are not currently entered into the 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship and have no voting rights in relation to the technical and sporting regulations thereof.

[The FOZ]

"During the course of this meeting, the team managers were informed by Mr Charlie Whiting of the FIA that, contrary to previous agreements, the eight FOTA teams are not currently entered into the 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship and have no voting rights in relation to the technical and sporting regulations thereof.

Is everyone from the FIA an idiot, or is there some sort of actual team effort to be as contradictory as humanly possible?

The morons published a list with the teams all on it, how the hell are they now not entered in the 2010 series?

Asshats.

[timbo]

You can also remember that Max invited FOTA teams to make unconditional entries to have a vote on rule changes.
Apparently even when you are on published entry list it is Max who decides whether you have a vote or not.
The way I see it the whole situation is a "capitalist against trade-union" thing. The only difference is that capitalist actually owns his factory and invests in it's future, whether Max is only a secretary.

[WhiteBlue]

"During the course of this meeting, the team managers were informed by Mr Charlie Whiting of the FIA that, contrary to previous agreements, the eight FOTA teams are not currently entered into the 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship and have no voting rights in relation to the technical and sporting regulations thereof.

Then, that is caused by the ambiguity of the Paris agreement. At the point where consent to the FOTA plan was required the FOTA teams were not part of the championship. How do we know that the FOTA quotation is really accurate. It makes no sense to me.

The FOTA teams were told repeatedly before the meeting that their rules proposal would require the consent of the 5 teams already in the championship before them.

Please read the linked article from 7th July 2009. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/vi ... nanimously

You never seem to adress that point. Do you think Williams isn't entitled to know what FOTA proposes in detail before they accept the FOTA Paris rules that they have not signed up to? It woud have been better to sort that out in Paris but they didn't and now things must be sorted somehow.

[gibells]

This explains what I had already thought was the reason for the conflict.

It explains to a certain degree what is going on with the 2009 Concord. The FOTA walk out on the Nürburgring technical working group appears largely to be a political manoever to delay telling the non Fota teams the deal on resource restrictions.

I wonder what is being achieved by this?

This explains nothing.
Another load of bullsh*t.
a) is there a difference between ALL 13 and ONLY 5?
b) how can FIA impose rules without ANY voting and request that amendment of those rules should be voted?

Exactly. Just remember Max's 2 tier championship. Would that not have required all teams to unanimously agree to this championship. If this were the case FOTA would've had nothing to worry about because not 1 of the 8 would have signed up to it, and therefore the changes would not have been made.

Max just changes his rules all the time.

[bill shoe]

White Blue,

I largely agree with your positions here. It must be difficult to discuss/argue against everyone else who posts, but you're doing pretty well.

You earlier suggested the FIA-5 teams voted against the slightly higher minimum weight due to wanting less ballast (and presumably less ballast cost). GrandPrix.com says the FIA-5 teams will agree to all FOTA rules changes (reverting back to previous 2009 rules) except that the FIA-5 teams insist on 1. The higher minimum weight, and 2. Legally binding agreement to put the cost reduction statements ("level of the early 90's") into effect.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns21616.html

My best guess is that the low budget FIA-5 teams see this as a cost effective competitive advantage. The FOTA teams have already "agreed" (amongst themselves) not to use KERS and I think they will stick to this internal agreement even if KERS remains in the rules. If KERS remains ineffective next year due to low minimum weight and wide front tires then FOTA teams don't lose out on any competitive issue. However, if the FIA-5 can use KERS in an effective way due to narrow front tires and higher minimum weight then there will be times when the FIA-5 will be quite fast against FOTA.

KERS in 2010 could be an awkward but effective assist for the FIA teams. FOTA can't just come out and say "we want no KERS in 2010" because for public relations reasons they have to keep repeating "we want the 2010 rules to be the 2009 rules plus changes made prior to April 29".

[timbo]

You never seem to adress that point. Do you think Williams isn't entitled to know what FOTA proposes in detail before they accept the FOTA Paris rules that they have not signed up to? It woud have been better to sort that out in Paris but they didn't and now things must be sorted somehow.

The FIA said at the time that the rules for 2010 onwards would be the 2009 regulations "as well as further regulations agreed prior to 29 April 2009."

That was FIA's position.
Not something that only FOTA said.
Moreover, ain't published entry list mean that every name on the said list is entrant?

I wonder how this and this may come from the same sourse

[WhiteBlue]

Fota had the option not to sign. That is different. The five had allready signed up when the table was turned on them by the FOTA ähm..forcefull argument, to name it politely. Some would perhaps use stronger language.