Newsgroup: it.sport.formula1.moderato
Titolo: [ENG] The Gospel According to Max

Source: 
grandprix.com
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14356.html
Max Mosley has taken the opportunity of the first race of the new
Formula 1 season to give his position on the current state of Formula 1
politics. The questions and answers have been supplied by the FIA.
Why did you make a deal just with Ferrari and FOM and not with anyone
else?
"We have said that we are prepared to renew the Concorde Agreement from
2008. We would have preferred to have no Concorde Agreement and to
regulate Formula 1 like the rest of motor sport, but all the teams and
the commercial rights holder (FOM) seem to want an agreement."
Yes, but why just Ferrari?
"It's not just Ferrari. We have told them that if they compete in the
Formula 1 World Championship after 2008, they will retain the rights and
privileges they currently enjoy under the Concorde Agreement. The same
goes for all the other teams."
But haven't Ferrari been promised extra money?
"The money is not the FIA's business, but our understanding is that all
the teams which sign up for 2008 will get the money that was originally
agreed between FOM and GPWC in their so-called Memorandum of
Understanding of December 2003. Apparently this will be paid from 2008
together with money from 2004 to 2007 under a formula with compound
interest over the five years from 2008 to 2012. We understand the money
will be split among the teams with the same percentages as for the last
25 years."
But haven't Ferrari been given a "sweetener"?
"We understand that money which would have been paid to Ferrari had FOM
floated three years ago is involved and that the other teams concerned
are to be dealt with similarly, but this is not really our business."
You have been accused of dictatorship. What do you say to that?
"It's difficult to describe anything done by the FIA as dictatorial. Of
the three major changes for 2005 and 2006, two (tyres and aerodynamics)
had the unanimous support of the teams and one (engines) had a majority
of 7 to 3. This is hardly dictatorship. The only unilateral FIA action
was the introduction of procedural changes at the start of 2003. Even
then we had the support of most of the teams and only acted when the
teams themselves had repeatedly failed to agree on how, for example, to
eliminate the danger and cost of qualifying cars and engines. It has been
generally acknowledged that the 2003 changes benefitted Formula 1."
The new tyre, aerodynamic and engine rules have been widely criticised?
"The tyre and aerodynamic rules for 2005 and 2006 were agreed unanimously
by the teams, the engines by a large (7 to 3) majority. The tyre
companies, also, are pleased and will be bringing (we are told) 4 sets
per car to a race compared to 19 sets per car last year. All rules can be
criticised, but we must wait for a few races before we can be sure if we
and the teams which supported us were right."
It has been said that car speeds could have been reduced much more easily
and cheaply by introducing control tyres from a single manufacturer?
"If it were that simple, the Technical Working Group (or at least the
necessary 8 out of 10) would have suggested it - either during their
initial two months of reflection on how to slow the cars or, at the
latest, during the 45 days when they were looking at the FIA's three
packages. The fact is that with engines passing the 1000 bhp mark, the
current circuits and cars could not cope, even with a control tyre. It is
for this reason that the teams' technical directors repeatedly and
unanimously asked for a reduction in engine power in meetings of the
Technical Working Group."
Going back to the proposed 2008 Concorde Agreement, how could you sign
this with just FOM and Ferrari and without consulting the other teams?
"We haven't signed the 2008 Concorde. It has not yet been drafted. We
have simply confirmed to Ferrari that if they continue to compete in the
World Championship and/or enter into a new Concorde Agreement from 2008,
they will continue to enjoy their current rights and privileges. We have
made it clear that the same applies to all the other teams."
But why did you not involve the other teams?
"There was no need because the same offer is open to all. The other teams
have never suggested they are not happy with their own current rights or
privileges or those of Ferrari. Don't forget they all signed up for these
for ten years in 1998."
They are certainly not happy with the money?
"That's between them and FOM. They were apparently happy with the money
on offer under the December 2003 Memorandum of Understanding. We are told
that FOM have now put that money back on the table for anyone who
competes through to 2012. It is reasonable to assume that the teams would
still be happy with this money, but it is their right to bargain with FOM
if they wish. The FIA has to remain neutral."
You say the teams are happy with their rights and privileges, but some of
them complain about the FIA's governance of the sport?
"This is what we read in the press, but we have heard no specific
complaint. It is natural that when a team fails it looks round for
someone to blame. This will probably stop if it starts winning."
Some say you favour Ferrari?
"The Ferrari accusation is a myth and does not stand up to scrutiny. What
we did in 2003 actually disadvantaged Ferrari. Last year things ran
smoothly with no controversies involving Ferrari or any other leading
team."
They also say that the FIA lacks transparency?
"We are probably the most transparent organisation in international
sport. We have never refused admittance to a meeting or access to
documents to anyone with a legitimate interest. Our Court of Appeal is
open to the press, which we believe is unique among international
sporting bodies."
Some teams say the FIA Court of Appeal is not independent?
"This is just nonsense. A team could easily check by asking one of the
big law firms they all use, to look into the question. They would soon
find that the FIA Court of Appeal consists of independent professional
lawyers and judges who help the FIA without pay. For example, the judge
from the UK is actually a full-time professional judge in England. Anyone
in any doubt should investigate before making absurd and unsustainable
accusations and insulting the judges who give their time voluntarily for
the good of motor sport."
Even if the Court is independent, aren't the rules made to favour
Ferrari?
"That's easy to say, but can we have an example? New rules are all agreed
by a majority of the teams and, more often than not, unanimously. The
procedural changes in 2003 positively hindered Ferrari. It is not the
fault of the FIA that Ferrari have been so successful in recent years,
nor will the FIA be entitled to the credit if other teams now start to
win. The rules are made for the majority. Winning depends on outstanding
competence."
The majority of the teams say they should make the rules, not the FIA?
"Provided the rules do not compromise safety or fairness this is entirely
reasonable and the FIA would almost certainly accept their proposals. The
problem is that they frequently fail to agree, leaving the FIA to try to
find a compromise. The FIA has never refused a proposal which has the
support of all the teams. Indeed, under the Concorde Agreement the teams
already make the rules. Technical rules need 8 out of 10 in favour in the
Technical Working Group. The FIA does not even have a vote in the Group.
Then the proposed rules go to the Formula 1 Commission, where the teams
have 12 votes and the FIA just one."
Some of the teams are going to meet on 7 and 8 April to agree their own
rules for 2008 with the manufacturers?
"If they can, so much the better. The problem is that two of the
manufacturers want unlimited technology (or at least minimal
restrictions), which means virtually unlimited costs; two want costs kept
down to enable them to stay in Formula 1; and two are somewhere in the
middle. There are similar divisions among the teams. The problems will
come when detailed technical and sporting rules have to be agreed."
But they have already published a comprehensive list of principles?
"Indeed they have, but these are not detailed rules. No-one could dispute
these published principles and objectives. The problem is writing rules
to achieve them."
Haven't you gone too far with the new engine rules? Couldn't you reduce
power without placing so many restrictions on technology?
"Up to now it has always been the chassis engineers who have had to cope
with restrictions. The engines were sacrosanct. But restrictions were
necessary to slow the rate of increase in power. Don't forget that back
in 1994/5 we were told by the engine builders that "the laws of physics"
would prevent a 3-litre engine going much above 600 horsepower. A very
helpful side-effect of the technology restrictions is that commercial
engine builders like Cosworth or Mecachrome will be able to supply
engines for the new formula (2.4 litre V8) which will be at, or very
close to, the level of performance of even the highest-spending major
manufacturer."
Why is that helpful?
"Because Formula 1 can only survive if a competitive commercial engine is
available for any team which wants it. Without that you will only have a
full grid as long as there are enough major car manufacturers able and
willing to provide engines for all the teams."
But we have seen in a recent press release that the manufacturers are
willing to supply second teams?
"Without wishing to be unpleasant, one must remember that a group of
well-known manufacturers promised to supply engines for ten million Euros
(letter of 14 January 2003) and then failed to do so. A short time later
they promised "affordable" engines if the FIA abandoned attempts to stop
traction control. Again, they failed to deliver. In the end a
manufacturer did supply engines (Toyota to Jordan), but was not one of
the manufacturers which made the promises. Toyota did this as a gesture
of goodwill to Formula 1. They were not part of the group which made
promises to the FIA and the independent teams but failed to keep them."
That may be true of the past, but the newly-constituted manufacturers'
group are now clearly serious?
"They undoubtedly mean well and probably intend to do as they say. But
circumstances change, bosses come and go. There is a simple test. Ask the
manufacturers to enter into a binding legal agreement jointly and
severally to supply all the teams up to a maximum of 24 cars for the five
years 2008 to 2012 inclusive. They will refuse for the same reason that
led to the breakdown of their 2003 Memorandum of Understanding with FOM.
They cannot take on the potential liability of a long-term commitment to
supply engines or to participate in Formula 1. Their boards will only
allow them to commit for a year or two at a time, and even then only for
one or two teams. It would be utter folly for the FIA to bet the future
of the Formula 1 World Championship on the willingness of major
manufacturers to provide unlimited cost engines to a full grid of cars
for the foreseeable future."
So what is your answer to this?
"We have to find a way to accommodate major manufacturers when they come
into Formula One without putting teams out of business when they leave.
We very much want manufacturers in Formula 1, but we must recognise that
we cannot stop them leaving when they want to. This means we have to have
commercially available engines which are competitive with those of a
major manufacturer, even one which can spend 250 million dollars a year
or more. We believe the 2006 engine regulations achieve this."
Are you saying that if one of the top teams were to lose its engine
supplier for 2006, it could go to, say, Cosworth or Mecachrome and get an
engine capable of winning the 2006 Championship?
"Yes. This is fundamental to the future health and stability of Formula
1. It would not be possible with the 2005 engine rules, or indeed any
engine rule we have ever previously had for Formula 1, but we are told it
will be possible with the new engines from 2006."
Are you against the possible manufacturers' series which might compete
with Formula 1 from 2008?
"No. Part of our deal with the European Commission is that we should be
fully prepared to accept and regulate a series in competition with
Formula 1."
But some of the "rebels" say they don't want the FIA involved?
"In real life it would be impossible to run outside the current motor
sport structure. There are innumerable reasons for this. Indeed it is
precisely because of this impossibility that the European Commission
insisted that we must be prepared to admit any new series into the
structure, rival to Formula 1 or not, provided it meets the standard
criteria for safety and fairness. I think it unlikely we will have two
championships, because of the obvious commercial problems. But we cannot
rule out the possibility of two series based on rival philosophies:
unlimited technology and unlimited cost on the one hand versus technical
constraints and cost-effectiveness on the other. One of these would soon
gain the upper hand, but the after-effects of the initial rivalry would
probably reduce the teams' income from race organisers and television for
many years to come."
So are you against GPWC or the new manufacturers' grouping?
"Absolutely not. They, and indeed the teams, are entitled to try to get
more money from FOM or from anyone else. That is not our business. Nor is
it our business if they fail or even end up with less than is currently
on offer. They are also fully entitled to set up their own championship
if they wish to. If they can agree on a realistic approach to technical
rules, we might even adopt their ideas for the World Championship. The
only thing we will not do is agree technical rules for the Formula 1
World Championship which might make it impossible for a top team to find
a competitive engine were it to part company with its current supplier."
What about the Formula 1 rules after 2008?
"We will agree these over the next few months with all the teams which
commit to the 2008 Championship, and publish them before the end of this
year as required by the Concorde Agreement."
Finally, what's your reaction to Paul Stoddart as the Formula 1 shop
steward?
"I think Paul is a bit too trusting, even na?ve. One or two team
principals who now pretend to be his best friends are the same
individuals who tried to grab his Minardi money a couple of years ago.
They were only stopped because the FIA insisted he should get what was
due to him. They then said Paul had no place in Formula 1. They are using
him now, but will turn on him as soon as it suits them. Paul is doing the
best he can, but in the end only the FIA protects the independent teams
in Formula 1."
And what about his problems with his cars?
"Paul has known about the new bodywork regulations since September 6 2004
- in fact his team voted for them that day in common with all the other
teams. We understand that he has the latest bodywork in Melbourne, even
if he has not yet tested it fully. We also understand that at least three
teams would object to him running outside the regulations (which it is
also our job to enforce). If he decides not to run, we think it unlikely
that the Melbourne organisers will seek compensation from him."
Copyright 1988-2005, Inside F1, Inc.
-- 
Automatically gathered from the web
Subscribe/unsubscribe/info at
http://www.grandprixpassion.com/mailman/listinfo/webnews

 constraints and cost-effectiveness on the other.
Che bello, ritorna la migliore formula cart !  :)
Luca