Newsgroup: it.sport.formula1.moderato
Titolo: [ENG] Mosley writes to the team bosses

Source: pitpass
http://www.pitpass.com/news2/news.cfm?newsid=4765
Mosley writes to the team bosses
10-02-2003
The following document is the text of a letter sent by the FIA President
to the FIAFormula One World Championship Team Principals on Friday,
February 7th, 2003:
Proposed new regulations for the FIA Formula One World Championship
Discussion of the 15 January meeting and its immediate effects has
obscured what Ibelieve are important proposals for 2004, 2005 and 2006.
The ideas behind these arenew and quite difficult to grasp, particularly
when one has been in Formula One a longtime. However, the Championship
needs a long-term solution to current problems. Thepurpose of this
letter, therefore, is to explain these proposals and invite your
thoughts.
Two significant difficulties
Currently, seven major car manufacturers are involved in Formula One.
They all deployvast technical and financial resources. This brings
benefits, but presents two significantdifficulties: first, any team not
backed by a major manufacturer is likely to find itself shortof money and
technology, particularly in an economic recession; secondly, there is
noguarantee that one or several of these manufacturers will not stop
racing. AlthoughFerrari have been in the World Championship since it
started and Toyota are in FormulaOne for the first time, the remaining
five (BMW, Ford, Honda, Mercedes and Renault)have a history of coming and
going over the years. There is nothing wrong with that -Formula One is
not their core business, merely one of a number of marketing
andtechnology options available to them. However, in planning for the
future we must takeaccount of the possibility of having only one or two
manufacturers in Formula One at anygiven time, or as many as eight or
nine.
The independent teams
If we are to achieve a stable Championship, we must ensure that the
independent teamscan survive as manufacturers come and go. The FIA
Formula One World Championshipis the core business of an independent
team. Unlike a manufacturer, an independentteam cannot just stop racing,
because to do so would be to close its business. Thus theway to guarantee
the long-term health and stability of the Championship is to make
surethere is a solid group of independent teams which do not depend on
the presence of themanufacturers for their survival. We can rely on the
independent teams. We cannot relyon the manufacturers. Although their
presence is very welcome, the car manufacturerswill come and go as it
suits them - they have always done this and they always will. Afterall,
they are responsible to their shareholders, not to motor sport.
The need for decision
On 15 January I outlined a number of steps the FIA intends to take in
order to applyexisting regulations more effectively. In addition there
were a number of proposals forchanges to the regulations to take effect
in 2004, 2005 and 2006. If we are to introducethese changes, we must
start to do so no later than 31 October 2003. However, it wouldbe much
better if the entire package, including measures which technically could
waituntil 30 October 2005, were decided and voted upon at an early date.
I am thereforewriting to you to explain the proposals more fully in the
hope that we can progressmatters quickly.
The cost of development versus the cost of racing
A manufacturer will spend hundreds of millions of dollars designing and
developing anew road car and production line. The result is a car which
costs relatively little toreplicate and can be sold very cheaply compared
to the cost of design and development.Similarly, we should separate the
costs of research and development in Formula Onefrom those of going
racing. No-one can control the costs of designing and developing acar or
engine; they are entirely in the hands of the team or manufacturer
concerned. Butwe can control the cost of going racing once the car has
been developed.
Why the cost of racing is the key
If the cost of competitive racing is low, we can have full grids and a
healthy Formula One.Provided the cost of going racing is very small
compared to the cost of design anddevelopment, there is no problem if
only one or two manufacturers are present. Theircars and engines can be
replicated at minimal cost so as to fill the grid. Equally, there isno
problem if seven or more manufacturers are present, because independent
teamscan still be equipped at minimal cost. An independent team may even
find amanufacturer ready to help it in return for an increased presence.
Reducing the costs of racing
So how do we reduce the cost of going racing? The answer is (i) by
eliminatingunnecessary and complex equipment and procedures at the races,
(ii) by requiring theuse of long-life car components and engines and
(iii) by allowing teams to usecomponents (or even entire chassis)
designed or built by other teams or outsidesuppliers.
Engines as an example
As an illustration, take the example of engines, probably the biggest
source of problemsfor the independent teams in 2003. If the proper price
for a season's engines for anindependent team in 2003 is about $20
million, it should be less than $10 million in 2004because a team will
use only one engine per car per weekend instead of two or three asat
present. Test mileage per rebuild will double and thus engine costs per
mile of testingshould halve, for the same reason. In 2005, the figure
will be closer to $5 million (if thenew proposals are adopted) because
engines will now last for two weekends. And in2006 the cost can be
expected to drop to about $1.6 million because the engine will lastsix
weekends. In three years we would have gone from an absurd and
unsustainable$20 million per team to just $1.6 million. At $100,000 per
race this is still very expensive, but is probably manageable. Also, with
fewer engine changes, fewer travelling personnelwill be needed.
An illustration
How helpful this would be to the economics of Formula One as a whole can
easily beseen when you consider that, leaving aside design and
development, it would cost amajor manufacturer no more to supply the
entire Formula One field with engines in 2006than to supply just one team
in 2003. Development costs are, of course, the samewhether one team is
supplied or several, and a manufacturer which wants a FormulaOne engine
has always to meet its development costs. But racing is far less
expensivebecause the engines last much longer.
The six-race engine
Of course, the first reaction of some Formula One fans to the idea of a
six-race enginewill be negative. An enthusiast may even claim it's
not Formula One. But we can expectwell over 700 horsepower and about
16,000 rpm from our six-race engine in 2006, aboutthe same as the best
Formula One engines as recently as 1996. (Remember that whenFormula One
went from 3.5 to 3.0 litres for safety reasons after the 1994 fatalities,
wewere told by the engine specialists this would mean a maximum of 600
horsepower, afigure which everyone at that time thought was about right.)
Despite a reduction inengine costs of more than 90%, no-one in the
grandstands or watching on television willnotice the slightest
difference. In fact the only real problem with the six-race engine
isfinding a well-balanced scale of penalties for premature engine change
which is enoughto deter systematic changes without putting the driver
concerned out of contention in theChampionship.
The technical challenge
No-one now seriously argues that the development costs of a long-life
engine are morethan marginally greater than the two-per-weekend variety.
The technical challenge is noless and is certainly more relevant to the
core business of a major manufacturer thanworking on a 400km race engine
or, worse, a 50km qualifying engine.
Long-life components
The arguments relating to the engine apply equally to other parts of the
car. Theintroduction of long-life gearboxes, suspension, bodywork and
other components willhave the same effect. A major team or manufacturer
will continue to spend large sumsdeveloping these items, but will not
have the cost of replacing them (in some cases) afterevery race. This
will not only save the major teams money, but free up productioncapacity,
thus providing every incentive to sell components to independent teams.
Theindependent teams, in turn, will save both the cost of development and
the cost ofconstant replacement. All teams, large and small, will also
save on personnel.
Safer components
Safety will be enhanced. If a component is designed to last one race, it
will (bydefinition) be near the end of its life and thus more likely to
fail at the end of each race. Ifit is designed to last six races, it will
only approach the end of its design life towards the end of the sixth
race, in other words twice per season rather than 16 or 17 times per
season.
A list of permitted materials
Add to this the proposed list of permitted materials and you reduce the
costs of racingstill further. By obliging everyone to use inexpensive
materials from an agreed list (whichwould include permissible coatings
and heat, etc, treatments), you ensure that the cost ofcomponents will be
low. This does not reduce the cost of development - it might insome cases
increase it - but it reduces the cost of the finished article and thus
the costof going racing.
Another technical challenge
The technical challenge of a restricted list of materials would be
greater than the existingsystem, where teams with enough money simply buy
expensive exotic materials fromspecialist aerospace laboratories. The
challenge is also more relevant to that met everyday in the car industry,
where engineering difficulties have to be overcome by cleverdesign in
cheap materials before a car goes into production. Production cars cannot
useexotic custom-made alloys - it would cost too much.
Separating the costs
Thus a combination of long-life engines, long-life components,
inexpensive materials andthe right for one team to sell to another can
very significantly reduce the cost of goingracing. It also enables us to
separate the cost of racing from the cost of research anddevelopment.
Those teams which cannot afford to spend large sums on research
anddevelopment will no longer need to do so. They will not have to
struggle to keep up. Butif an independent team progresses, there will be
nothing to prevent it doing its owndevelopment, making its own parts or
modifying someone else's. The entry level willbecome readily
affordable, but the route to the top of Formula One will still be open.
Long-term stability
If these measures are adopted, Formula One will be able to continue at a
very high levelwith 10-12 teams without being affected by the comings and
goings of the major carmanufacturers. The proposed system will work just
as well if we have only one or twomanufacturers in Formula One as it
would if every team were backed by a majormanufacturer.
Affordable and competitive engines for all teams
Independent teams will no longer be forced to use last year's
engines. For the first threeyears there would be no such thing - you
cannot use last year's engine in 2004 becausea 2003 engine would
not have been designed to last the weekend. The same principleapplies in
2005 and 2006. From 2006, the number of engines needed for a
season'sracing and testing would be so small it would require
almost no effort by a major team ormanufacturer to supply an independent
team with up-to-date engines. Similar argumentsapply to chassis and
drive-train parts.
Competitive independent teams
Thus independent teams would have chassis and engines very similar to
those of themajor teams. This would enable a well run independent team
with an outstanding driverto be competitive and even win races from time
to time. Combined with low costs, thiswill enable such teams to operate
in a stable and financially successful businessenvironment.
In summary: a fully viable championship
We believe the ideas outlined above are the only way to run a viable
racing series whenan indeterminate number of very rich and technically
advanced companies can becomeinvolved at any time on an ad-hoc basis. If
major car manufacturers decide to enterFormula One and spend large sums
producing very high technology engines andchassis, the only way to stop
this eventually putting the independent teams out ofbusiness is to
introduce regulations which make it expedient for each manufacturer
tosupply its chassis and engines to other teams at fully affordable
prices.
Other proposals
The 15 January proposals also included a standard rear wing and a
standard brakingsystem for 2004. We have not dealt with these in this
letter because we believe they arefully understood and not particularly
controversial. However, for obvious reasons theytoo should be discussed
and voted on as soon as possible.
In conclusion
I hope that this letter will initiate a constructive dialogue on the
medium and long-termfuture of the Formula One World Championship. To this
end it may be helpful to set up ameeting in the near future where
together we could look at these and other ideas in moredetail.
I look forward to receiving your comments.
Paris, February 10, 2003
Copyright 2003 Pitpass.com
--
Automatically gathered from the web by rssizer
Subscribe/unsubcribe at
http://radiobox.kenobi.it/mailman/listinfo/webnews
Contact 
ale...@kenobi.it
 for any problem

> In conclusion
va bene, va bene. Ma i pit-stops li abolirete?
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it