Newsgroup: it.sport.formula1.moderato
Titolo: [ENG] Mosley press conference transcript

Source: Motorsport.com F1 News
http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=153824&amp;FS=F1
Monaco: FIA President Max Mosley answers questions from the press after
giving anupdate on the proposed regulation changes for 2008
Q: Two points, what would your personalpreference be for a revised
qualifying format and would the FIA perhaps giveconsideration to perhaps
banning refuelling stops to make the racing moreinteresting because,
quite frankly, there is a body that suggests refuellingstops have just
turned the whole thing into a tactical affair and the actualissue of cars
racing wheel-to-wheel is academic as long as we have gotrefuelling.
Max Mosley : Well, on the first point, my personal preference would be
just foreverybody to go out for an hour and whoever does the fastest lap
during thathour has got pole position. And I would like to see a light on
the car, avery bright light, that they switch on when they are doing a
hot lap so thatwe all know they are on a hot lap and so do the cars they
are overtaking andso do the spectators but I don't suppose any of the
teams would agree withthat, it is very much a personal view.
On the refuelling, I have to say I don't agree. I think the reason that
weall tend to think back in the past, and you are thinking of an era
whenpeople had brake problems, people had tyre problems, and somebody
like AlainProst driving in a certain way at the beginning of the race
would be verystrong at the end. The engineers all say those days are in
the past -- but Imust say one of the engineers that said that at the
meeting did have a brakeproblem at the last race. But in principle those
problems don't arise.
I think the reason the cars don't overtake is nothing to do with the
fuelstops, it is to do with the fact that the car behind is not currently
fasterthan the car in front. And until we solve that problem, everything
else issecondary because what we do now is we line the cars up in order
of theirspeed having spent two days finding out which is fastest, and we
then aresurprised when one doesn't overtake the other.
Well, in the past this workedbecause people had all sorts of problems
with brakes, with tyres, cars brokedown, they lost gears, all sorts of
things happened. That happens less andless now, they are spending a lot
of money so that reliability is there, sothe only sure-fire way is to
make sure that, when they are racing, the carbehind, for whatever reason,
has an advantage over the car in front, andthen you get racing. There is
no other way to do it, in my opinion, and Ithink that is now a widely
held view among the Formula One engineers aswell.
Q: Max, it is fairly clear from talkingaround the paddock that there is
not going to be any change, not matter whatyour deadlines are, unless
there is a commercial deal. Is there anything youcan do to get a
commercial deal and will you be doing anything?
MM: The answer is that, answering the second question first, I can't
makepeople do a commercial deal. It is not my job. I am the regulator.
But Ithink you will find there will be agreement, with or without a
commercialdeal, partly because in any event there will be a commercial
deal, butsecondly, there are all sorts of ways in which we can bring
pressure to makevarious things happen and I think that all of the teams
recognise that youcan't continue like you are until 2008, it is not
possible. So I think wewill get change. But the commercial things will
sort themselves out, theyalways do. I mean, in the end, both the teams
and FOM and Bernie andeveryone concerned, need Formula One to be
successful, otherwise they aregoing to have a problem. So I think there
is a very strong incentive to dothe necessary.
Q: You used the words a couple ofminutes ago that you want to improve the
show, if I understood correctly, onthe chassis area. Do you maybe look
seriously back seriously to whathappened in Formula One in the 1970s,
when you were running the Marchcompany, to maybe make available customer
chassis?
MM: Yes, one of the things that I hope will happen is that we will
persuadethe teams to sell cars to other teams, parts or whole cars. I
think that isessential in order to get new people into the formula, but
we can only dothat with unanimous agreement because there is a clause, an
appendixstrictly speaking, in the Concorde Agreement, that prevents that
fromactually happening at the moment. But I am very optimistic that will
happenand I think it is the only way nowadays that a new team could come
in.
Q: You said a unanimous agreement or justhaving to wait until 2008 for
changes in the engine formula to beintroduced. There may be a third
option, which I think is roughly the sameas 1993, with the changes being
introduced in the interests of safety. Isthere any chance we will see
this happen?
MM: We can't change the size of the engine for safety under the
ConcordeAgreement because the Concorde Agreement allows us to do
something dramaticfor safety only in those areas that concern the
protection of the driver, orwhat you might call passive safety. On the
other hand, to extend the life ofthe engine is a sporting rule. Some
people might dispute that, but as far asI am concerned how often you can
change the engine in the season is asporting rule not a technical rule.
It means we could, with the majority ofthe teams, bring that sort of
change in sooner. We couldn't go from 3 litresto 2.4 litres, but we could
go from a one-race engine to a three-or-morerace-engine. Just for the
record, even a six-race engine, a V10 3 litre, youare looking at over
700hp and you are looking at about 17,000 rpm, so peoplewho say this is
like a road engine, it is complete nonsense, absolutenonsense. It would
be the same as a Formula One engine of about six yearsago.
Q: Max, the drivers had a meeting yesterday evening todiscuss ways in
which they could have a better dialogue with the FIA interms of things
like these proposals. They don't want to take part inrulemaking but want
to offer their advice as to how cars might betterovertake each other etc.
In the past their feeling has always been that theFIA isn't particularly
interested in the drivers' point of view. Is thereany reason for them to
believe that might change?
MM: We have always, always listened to the drivers. Any time a driver,
forexample, rings me up I always speak to them, I have regular meetings
withsome of them, the ones who want to do it. In the past we have had
drivers onvarious commissions. At one moment, before my time, there were
two driverson the Formula One Commission. But what happened was after one
meeting theystopped coming, so (Former FIA President Jean Marie)
Balestre, this was inhis day, gave up. But we have a lot of informal
meetings and where thedrivers are very active, and particularly Michael
Schumacher, whoreligiously goes to all the safety commission meetings and
plays an activepart and now Mark Webber has joined the commission as well
and I think hewill.
Our position is, as far as the commission is concerned, as long as they
areprepared to attend regularly, like Michael does, we would like to have
themon. Where they don't want to - and that is usually the rule -- there
tends tobe informal discussions. But we have unlimited informal
discussions bothwith the Formula One drivers and with the World Rally
Championship drivers.There has never been a case of a driver calling me,
from either worldchampionship, where I have not either spoken to them
immediately or calledthem straight back.
Q: Some people say that the newFormula One would be like Formula 3000 is
now, and Formula 3000 now is notvery exciting. Also the new GP2 would
assumingly have engines of 600hp sothere would not be that much
difference between 'Formula Two' and FormulaOne.
MM: I think you will find that in real life there is an enormous
difference.First of all, the F3000 engines rev at, I think, about
9,000rpm and it has asingle make chassis. In fact, if you made all the
changes that I am talkingabout for Formula One tomorrow, you wouldn't
notice any difference betweenan individual car going around now to then.
The only difference you wouldsee is that on a lot of circuits, perhaps
not Monaco but a lot of circuits,there would be much more overtaking and
much more racing. It is a completelydifferent thing. It would have racing
engines going at pretty much the samespeeds they go now and you would
have lots of different chassis, hightechnology, tremendous competition.
It is interesting that when we broughtin the single weekend engine that
was, for some of the teams, the end oflife. And now here we are with an
engine that has to last all weekend andthe top runners have actually got
more power now than they had last year,with changing the engine two or
three times a weekend. They don't have asmuch power as they would have
had had we not brought the rule in, but theprogress is still there. You
will see an inexorable increase in power,whatever we do, and in
spectacle, I believe.
Q: How is the single tyre proposal progressing.It seems Michelin were not
very keen on it in Spain, they said they had someconcerns about it.
MM: Absolutely. Both of the tyre companies would prefer to go on
withcompetition, unquestionably. In fact, what they would really like
isGoodyear and Pirelli and everybody else to come in and give them even
morecompetition. I fully understand that. And also, no tyre company is
going toagree with a single tyre because what you are saying to each of
them is youeither won't be in Formula One at all or you will be in with
about half thedepartmental size you have got at the present time. But the
arguments infavour of the single tyre from the point of view of Formula
One as a wholeare so overwhelming that I don't think anyone apart from
the tyre companieswould really argue very seriously with the single tyre
rule.
In a nutshell, the argument is safety -- that you can control the amount
ofgrip and the amount of grip is directly related to safety. On top of
thatyou have cost, you would eliminate the test teams and all this
massivetesting which costs just as much to run a test team as it does a
Formula Oneteam but nobody watches, it is just, effectively, money thrown
away. And youhave got the fairness point that, it could happen, if one of
the tyrecompanies comes up with a magic tyre tomorrow it would turn the
wholechampionship on its head. That's fine, but is it right that an
engine mancould work all winter to find enough power, the usual four
percent increaseto give him a tenth or two tenths of a second, but you
can put on adifferent set of tyres and it could be as much as a second a
lap. It throwsthe championship out of balance and I do think the teams
are unanimous onthat.
For what it is worth, the two things to me that are completely
fundamentalare a single tyre, or equivalent, but having the result of a
single tyre,and point two, the standard ECU, or at least the electronics
completelyunder the control of the FIA. Those to me are the two
fundamental things.Everything else you can talk about -- whether it is a
V8 or a V10 is not theend of the world, but those things are. Because, if
you control the tyresthere is an argument that -- and this is very
technical and I don't want topre-judge what will happen -- says if you
control the grip of a tyre itdoesn't matter how much power they have they
can't put it on the ground andeven the best driver is going to be in
difficulty. But those two things, thetyres and the ECU, are what we have
got to stick at.
Q: We are all aware that the currentContract Agreement seems to constrict
the way Formula One is run, so what isyour blueprint for the next deal we
will see from 2008 onwards. How will itwork on the sporting side and the
commercial side?
MM: What I think we should do in 2008 onwards is not have a
ConcordeAgreement at all, I think the FIA should simply run the
regulatory side ofthe sport and all the commercial questions -- how much
they get paid, whatshare they get -- should be a matter between the teams
and FOM and the teamswould act as a group and FOM would act as a group
and they would sort it outbetween them and we keep out of it, just like,
back in the 1960s, the FIAkept out, or should have kept out, of the
disputes between the teams and theindividual organisers about start money
and so on. It is not our business.
Then, as far as regulation is concerned, I would see a situation where
weconsulted the teams and, indeed, those who have signed up for a long
timeshould have a vote for a long time. But it would be more of a
consultationprocess. Why do I think that? Because, if you look at the
best experimentgoing on at the moment, it is in the United States, where
you have got threemajor series -- NASCAR, IRL and CART. In NASCAR, the
teams have virtually nosay at all about the rules, and it is by far the
most successful series.And, at the other end of the scale, CART, it is
completely run by the teamsand it is in serious difficulties. I do
believe that if you have got adisinterested and reasonably competent
regulator that you are more likely toget a properly run championship than
in any other way.
In the end, the FIAhas to make sure Formula One works because it isn't
just prestige and thingslike that, also, in the defence of the ordinary
motorist, there are an awfullot of politics and Formula One is a key that
opens the door to virtuallyevery politician and that is extremely
important to us. But at the same timewe have to make sure it works and if
it works the teams will all do wellanyway, just by itself, and FOM will
make money. But that is their problem.We just have to make sure the
championship has a constant and growinginterest of the public and I think
we are better placed to do that, lookingat it carefully, than to be
completely constrained at all stages by anagreement that stops everything
being changed without everyone agreeing, atleast in the short term.
Q: Max, how much has Michael's total domination thisseason hurt the sport
and, also, have you found the racing boring?
MM: I don't think Michael's domination has hurt the sport because
thishappens in many sports -- you get a supremely gifted performer in the
rightteam and they win everything. Even in things where the man is on his
own -like heavyweight boxing - you get eras where there is just nobody
that canchallenge the person for a number of years, and I think that is
part ofsport. I think what hurts Formula One is the fact that even down
the fieldthe actual racing is often not as good as we would like. On some
of the newcircuits, which are more suitable for overtaking, then it works
better. Butwe need to change the cars, and then we will get better
racing. Michael?They have just done a brilliant job and when people do a
brilliant job theydeserve to be successful -- it is just that simple,
really, in my view.
Q: A question about the new teams that may come toFormula One. Is there
any chance we could get one or two by 2006? Have youhad requests about
that?
MM: I would really hope we could see a new team in 2005. There is no
reasonwhy we shouldn't if we could get agreement. But they need to know
veryquickly. We can't wait much longer - 2006, certainly. The trouble is
theexisting teams -- and one can understand it -- want to defend their
situationand they don't want somebody taking some of the money that could
otherwisego to them. They have to recognise that it is unhealthy, if you
just keep alittle cartel of people getting steadily older and you don't
let anybody newin, it is not a particularly healthy situation,
particularly in sport, andat a certain point it probably isn't even
legal, let alone moral, so I thinkwe can persuade them to open up, I hope
we can.
Q: I would like to come back to the single tyremanufacturer proposal. I
got your arguments regarding safety and fairness,but on fairness don't
you think this argument could be turned around that ifa chassis engineer
found a magic solution it could be once again faster thanthe other
chassis engineers. Regarding engines, it is the same problem -- allof a
sudden somebody can find a solution. So why do you apply this
argumentjust to tyres? Formula One is all about competition so isn't it
against thesheer spirit of Formula One to run a single tyre manufacturer?
MM: Perfectly true, but we have two championships. We have a
championshipfor drivers and a championship for car constructors. So there
is a carchampionship and a drivers' championship, and a car consists of a
chassisand an engine and the tyres are simply an accessory but a chassis
isfundamental and the engine is fundamental, so it is legitimate to have
acompetition between chassis manufacturers and between engine
manufacturers,but to have a championship that is effectively a tyre
championship doesn'tseem right. Now, the tyre is such a vital part of the
make-up, in fact adisproportionate part, so seen from the viewpoint of a
chassis manufacturerand an engine manufacturer it isn't there, it is out
of balance. But,obviously, from a tyre point of view they will say well,
they are stoppingme competing. Well, the competition comes at the
beginning, when we put itout to tender and the tyre company which puts in
the most attractive tenderfrom the point of view of the teams would be
the one that got it.
Q: Just going back to the point about the new teams,with the getting rid
of the Concorde Agreement, what would the deal be aboutthe bond new teams
have to pay to get into Formula One?
MM: The bond at the moment is merely a sporting regulation and that could
beabolished, at the moment, for 2005. It was simply a device to stop
endlesspeople putting in frivolous entries. That could be changed
tomorrow, it isnot part of the Concorde Agreement, it is just a sporting
regulation. So itwon't be a problem.
Q: Max, there has been a lot of talk aboutimproving the show. The pit
lane walkabout for the fans in Barcelona is ahuge success, last year the
biggest day for traffic in Indianapolis was theautograph day on the
Thursday. I know things have moved on since you couldwalk into the
Silverstone paddock in the 1970s and get Patrick Depallier'sautograph or
whatever and get stickers, but what can you do to make thedrivers less
sealed from the public?
MM: I think there is a general willingness to do something in that
area,certainly the organisers and promoters all want more driver
involvement andI think the drivers are prepared to do that. Indianapolis
was a very goodexample and I believe a discussion is going on between
Bernie, well, FOM,and the various promoters about improving that. We
would certainly like tosee that happen, but we couldn't really say that
is something that is underour direct responsibility because it is a
commercial matter for the drivers.All we can do is encourage it, and we
have certainly said that anything wecan do to encourage that, we would.
But clearly you cannot go back to theold days where anybody could come
into the paddock -- it would be chaos if wedid that, just like backstage
at the Olympic Games you can't, but at clubraces and ordinary national
races it is still possible.
Q: Max, you mentioned the risk of a manufacturerpossibly leaving the
sport. Would you include Ferrari in that and do youfear a future without
Ferrari?
MM: Ferrari have said that under certain circumstances that they would
stop,and I am sure they are telling the truth when they say that. And
certainly,from Ferrari's point of view, there could be an argument for
stopping ifthings are not as they wish. I think it would be a great
tragedy for FormulaOne because the two basic elements of the Formula One
World Championship,really, are the team Ferrari and the Monaco race. One
has to say that, theseare two things that everybody knows about
worldwide. It would be a greattragedy if Ferrari were to stop. I don't
think they will stop. If FormulaOne is well managed and properly run and
they can run fairly and nobodydisadvantages them in some particular way I
don't think there is any dangerof them stopping. Clearly, if the costs
are allowed to get completelyridiculous I think a lot of manufacturers
will stop because it simply won'tbe possible for them to keep up.
Q: Mr Mosley, what is it in acompetition when you have one team testing
every day and another never testsand at the weekend they are competing
for the same goal?
MM: The testing is something that we need to stop - it is that simple.
Weneed to get the testing down to a level where people can do it with the
raceteam and they don't have a separate test team and one of the
greatadvantages of the standard ECU is that we would know exactly how
muchtesting they were doing and we could limit it by mileage rather than
by daysand you would just be given, we would agree with the teams, so
manykilometres you would be allowed and that's it. And then everybody
would bein the same boat and we would be inclined to keep it right
down,particularly during the season, because it is enormously expensive.
It costsmore than 1,000 Euros per kilometre to test one of those cars -
well over1,000 Euros per kilometre -- and it is just simply absurd to do
that, becauseit is the same for everybody, particularly on the circuits
now where testingis allowed, say Barcelona. They go round and round and
round and all thathappens is they are faster than they otherwise would be
by a few tenths andthey don't run quite so much on Friday as they would
if they hadn't tested.It is a complete waste of time and money. So the
standard ECU is a very,very useful tool there because it gives us
complete control over what'shappening.
Q: The logjam in decision-making, you were saying you can'tchange the
engine capacity on the grounds of safety. Can you explain whathappened in
1994?
MM: We got agreement. What we did in 1994, we had a whole lot of
changesmade after Senna and we did that with a fairly simple manoeuvre --
we said tothe teams: 'We want these things changed and if you don't do it
we are notgoing to organise a World Championship in 1995.' Then, anyway,
everybodybegan to see the sense and people agreed, but it was done by
unanimousagreement, with the little threat of not running a championship.
Now, thecurrent agreement has got a clause in it saying we will run the
championshipbecause that particular manoeuvre has now been stopped. There
are one or twoothers that we could probably deploy but I would rather not
talk about themat the moment. I think that is rather too confrontational.
Q: Max, Adrian Newey said yesterdaythat if you go down the route of
letting people buy other teams' cars andparts you will very quickly end
up in a situation with, perhaps, three orfour manufacturers and the rest
buying, in a CART-type or IndyCar-typescenario, which he said he didn't
think was good for Formula One. What isyour view?
MM: I don't think he has thought it through properly. Erm, he is probably
abit busy trying to make the McLaren work at the moment. Sorry, I
shouldn'thave said that. If you take teams like say Arden or Carlin, but
there are alot of other teams, they are not coming in to Formula One to
buy chassis andrun round at the back half of the field, they are coming
into Formula Onebecause they want to end up where Williams and McLaren
and BAR and so onare, and they will start off by buying a chassis, they
will get very goodyoung drivers, they will run a very good team, they
will be successful, theywill start increasingly to modify the chassis
they buy and then graduallymove in to building their own.
They will certainly get an engine from a major manufacturer because I
don'tthink anyone believes that in five years time we will still have
seven majorengine manufacturers supplying engines, that is one of the
reasons we needthese cheap engines. It gives people a route in whereas at
the moment youhave to go from zero to a full competitive Formula One
chassis, with all theresearch and development that implies, and that is
just not possible foranyone except a big car company and we need the new
blood from theindependent teams because in the end the independent teams
are the backboneof Formula One and our job is to make sure the
independent teams can get inand, when they have got in, they will have a
competitive engine.
The whole of the strategy depends on inexpensive competitive engines and
away in that isn't prohibitively expensive. I am very confident. I can't
seeanybody settling for being a satellite team or for any of those
things. And,of course, we are the people who decide who gets an entry and
who doesn't,and that is quite important and obviously we will keep an eye
on them. If wewant to, we can keep people entering year by year to begin
with to make surethat they are going down the route, or we can have rules
that sayincreasingly they have to make their own chassis. But this thing
from zeroto immediate full Formula One status is virtually impossible.
Q: I wonder if you will excuse mefor raising the British Grand Prix. I do
so because you have personallyaligned yourself with the damning criticism
of Silverstone that has beenmade by the commercial rights holder. I am
concerned that Formula One isgoing into new countries that I don't see as
being long-term prospects,necessarily. In some cases I am sure that what
they are doing is they aregoing into Formula One for national PR
purposes. At the moment we have gotsome nonsense in London with a parade
in Whitehall or something with FormulaOne cars, which I see as being a
rather aggressive move by the commercialrights holder against
Silverstone. Don't you think that Silverstone deservessome sort of
special consideration given the fact it doesn't have anygovernment
backing and is being demanded to make a large investment thatmight only
be worthwhile for two years?
MM: Well, I can see that, except that I don't think anyone would
besympathetic if one said the Olympic Games bid in the UK has got no
publicfunding and therefore deserves special consideration from the
IOC(International Olympics Committee). I mean, in fact, it has got
publicfunding because the government wants it to happen, but having said
that Idon't think that we can say to the commercial people, that is to
say to FOMand to the teams and so on, you have got to do a special deal
forSilverstone, that would be unwarranted interference in a commercial
matter.
However, although that is the case, in fact I believe a deal has
actuallybeen done or is very close to being done that will assure the
Grand Prix forthe next 2005 and 2006, and I believe the buildings are
going to be built, Ithink there is a plan in place, and the UK government
actually have played amajor role in that. Richard Caborn, the sports
minister, has been active intrying to get this to happen, and obviously
they are not in a position todole out lots of public money but they are
in a position to use theirinfluence. They have done that in all sorts of
areas and as a result of thatI think that it will happen. But it is not
something we control and it isnot something in which I have got any say
but, as I say, the best evidenceis that it is going to get sorted out.
The chance of having some sort of Grand Prix in London is about nil,
Ithink, but, you know, there is nothing to stop people putting in a bid.
Theyhave made a bid for the Olympic Games, they could make a bid for the
GrandPrix, why not? But I think Silverstone will be alright.
Q: In Barcelona, Bernie Ecclestone was saying that tobaccoadvertising
would stay in Formula One beyond 2005 and 2006. Don't you thinkthe sport
has dropped the ball by not agreeing to accept the convention andwhat is
the future for tobacco in Formula One and how long will it stay?
MM: Everything was fixed, as far as we were concerned, for the end of
2006,and then, unfortunately, the health department, what was then DG5 in
thecommission, went and moved the date from their original date to the
end ofJuly, 2005, and, of course, that interfered with all the contracts
so thenarrangements have to be made to keep racing despite what the EU
has done,this has driven some of the races outside Europe and now, of
course, peopleare saying, well, why stop in 2006?
Meanwhile, we were told by our lawyersthat we were not in the position to
impose a ban because that would beinterfering with the commercial side of
the sport, which we promised theEuropean Commission we wouldn't do, so,
in a nutshell it is a complete messthanks to the health people in the
European Commission and I think itprobably will go on after 2006 and they
are 100 percent to blame and we arejust dealing with impossible people.
It is quite annoying actually becausewe did everything and then, as I
say, they messed it up.
So I think it is apity, I think it would have been better if we had a
clean break at somepoint because then on that date everyone would know
that it would stopcompletely and other industries, like the
pharmaceutical industry, the foodindustry, and various other people who
at the moment are reluctant to comein would be in and that perhaps would
be better. But, again, it is out ofour control, it is not something that
we can deal with because it isentirely a commercial matter between the
teams, their sponsors and, ofcourse, the laws of the countries where we
race.
Q: But isn't it bad for the sport's image?
MM: What can you do? It is a commercial matter. I mean it is just the
sameas if somebody sues a big company and loses, it is bad for the image
ofFormula One but we can't interfere with it.
Q: I am interested in the challenge of the standard ECU fromyour point of
view. Obviously, you are going to have to make it work withthe software
and hardware of all the different types of engine. What wouldhappen in
the event of a failure? The only standard piece of equipment thatis
imposed on all the teams, as far as I can think of, is the fuel rig andwe
do quite often see those things malfunctioning or failing which
doesdirectly then affect a team's chances of winning a race. What would
happenif a standard ECU failed?
MM: It would be bad luck on the team, and also, if you look at the fuel
rigsand you do an analysis of which teams have had failures and which
teams havehad no failures and you compare that with their general success
rate theyare quite closely related. And the thing is that what you do get
is a riskof that but in all probability, and I don't want to wander into
an areawhere I don't know what I am talking about, we will have a basic
unit, thespecification of which we will agree with the teams, and I am
sure it willhave at least two degrees of redundancy, it would be unlikely
to fail, andthe teams will then be told all sorts of things they can and
cannot do, howhot it can be, vibration levels, all those things,
actually, are alreadyunder discussion and yes, there may be failures, but
if there are, it isjust bad luck. There won't be many that's for sure. It
will be veryefficient.
Mosley givesupdate on 2008 proposals
-fia-
Copyright 1994-2004 Motorsport.com, Inc.
--
Automatically gathered from the web by rssizer
Subscribe/unsubcribe at
http://radiobox.kenobi.it/mailman/listinfo/webnews
Contact 
ale...@kenobi.it
 for any problem

 
leggetelo è molto interessante.