[F1] F1 nieuwtjes topic deel 48

quote:

Op vrijdag 12 juni 2009 17:03 schreef sasquatsch het volgende:

[..]

Manor is de naam waarvoor Wirth Research een F1 auto gaat bouwen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 12 juni 2009 18:40 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:
Ok het was al redelijk duidelijk, maar volgens mij heeft vosss de kijk op de realiteit volledig verloren.

quote:

Europese autofabrikanten staan achter FOTA

De European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) heeft haar steun uitgesproken aan de Formula One Teams Association (FOTA). De organisatie van Europese autofabrikanten zou graag zien dat de Formule 1 op een betere, transparante manier bestuurd zou worden door de FIA.

"De leden van van ACEA hebben de huidige situatie in de Formule 1 besproken en zijn tot de conclusie gekomen dat de hoogste autosportklasse niet langer op de huidige manier geleid kan worden", liet de ACEA in een verklaring weten. "De FIA zal het besluitvormingsproces moeten moderniseren en transparanter moeten maken. De leden van ACEA staan achter de FOTA wat betreft haar streven naar behoorlijk bestuur en duidelijke regels die de kosten in de sport omlaag kunnen brengen."

quote:

Last Thursday, the President of the FIA met a delegation from FOTA consisting of Ross Brawn (Brawn GP), Stefano Domenicali (Ferrari), Christian Horner (Red Bull), John Howett (Toyota) and Simone Perillo (FOTA).

During the meeting FOTA acknowledged that the FIA wanted to encourage the introduction of new teams in the championship to maintain its vitality and economic viability in the long term. Agreement was reached on technical regulations for 2010 which offered assistance for new teams from the currently competing teams in several key areas.

It was also agreed that the objectives of FOTA and the FIA on cost reduction were now very close and that financial experts from both sides should meet at the earliest opportunity to finalise the details.

It was proposed by the FIA that any perceived governance and stability issues could best be eliminated by extending the 1998 Concorde Agreement until 2014 thus avoiding lengthy negotiations for a new agreement. This was well received by those present who undertook to report the suggestion to the other FOTA members.

The FIA believed it had participated in a very constructive meeting with a large measure of agreement. The FIA was therefore astonished to learn that certain FOTA members not present at the meeting have falsely claimed that nothing was agreed and that the meeting had been a waste of time. There is clearly an element in FOTA which is determined to prevent any agreement being reached regardless of the damage this may cause to the sport.

The FIA will publish shortly a detailed and documented account of the facts in its dealings with FOTA.

quote:

Ross Brawn believes Formula 1 teams and the FIA should take on board lessons from the row currently engulfing the sport - as he remains hopeful a solution can be found before Friday in the dispute about future cost cuts.

Speaking ahead of a meeting with the FIA on Monday to try and finalise agreements reached in a meeting last week, Brawn said that he hoped both parties could sort out their difference and head into a situation of better relations in the future.

FOTA teams have been given until June 19 to drop conditions attached to their entries.

"All of us - and I mean this collectively - have got ourselves into a situation we need to learn from," Brawn was quoted as saying by the Press Association.

"What we want to get back and put in place again is an agreement between the teams and the FIA on governance for the future, and how we can avoid these situations ever occurring again. I think there are still opportunities this week to resolve the issues, and if they are, then we will be happy to enter."

Although Brawn's future as a team is dependent on it carrying on racing next year, he has said that he is not wavering from his support of FOTA's stance against the FIA's planned 2010 regulations.

"FOTA have been supportive of Brawn GP, and the reason we are in Formula 1 is because of the support we received, particularly from McLaren and Mercedes, and offers of help from Ferrari," he said.

"So we want to support the group in trying to find a solution. We, as small independents, balance up the group with the manufacturers and they want to support the small independents.

"So we've stayed together as a group, and we can present a balanced approach on what needs to be done. It's not a manufacturers' association, it's the Formula One Teams' Association. That's why we are staying with FOTA.

"We believe in the principals of FOTA, and that as part of FOTA we can be influential in finding the right solutions."

And proof about his optimism for the future is that work has already begun on the team's 2010 car.

"I'm completely confident (we will be in F1 next season), and you have to plan on that," he claimed Brawn. "There's nothing else to plan for. We cannot allow this row to be a distraction to our engineering and racing plans.

"I'm not supporting a breakaway championship, but if there was one, then it would be one with cars similar to what we are working on now, which will be without re-fuelling."

quote:

without re-fuelling

quote:

As agreed at the meeting of 11 June, FIA financial experts met yesterday with financial experts from FOTA.

Unfortunately, the FOTA representatives announced that they had no mandate to discuss the FIA's 2010 financial regulations. Indeed, they were not prepared to discuss regulation at all.

As a result, the meeting could not achieve its purpose of comparing the FIA's rules with the FOTA proposals with a view to finding a common position.

In default of a proper dialogue, the FOTA financial proposals were discussed but it became clear that these would not be capable of limiting the expenditure of a team which had the resources to outspend its competitors. Another financial arms race would then be inevitable.

The FIA Financial Regulations therefore remain as published.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2009 11:34 schreef sasquatsch het volgende:
Fota meeting
[..]

Dus geen overeenkomst en waarschijnlijk geen fabrikanten meer in de F1.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2009 11:48 schreef kriele het volgende:

[..]

Denk je? Ik heb wel vaker spierballentaal gehoord, maar uiteindelijk bond iedereen in.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2009 12:44 schreef Gijsje het volgende:
Mooi zo, eindelijk af van de arrogantie van die autofabrikanten die de sport alleen maar gebruiken voor eigen belang en promotie van het merk. Zodra ze daarmee klaar zijn of ineens niet meer zo goed voorin meedoen zijn ze weg.
Weer gewoon terug naar prive teams / echte race teams met motoren van fabrikanten en support. Maar geen teams meer.

Door die fabrikanten zijn juist alle prive teams weg door de mega budgetten waar niet tegen te vechten viel. FIA kiest eindelijk voor de echte raceteams ipv het grote geld.

De fabrikanten zijn gewoon bang dat ze straks moeten strijden met gelijke middelen.... Tegen teams met een zelfde budget...

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2009 13:09 schreef kriele het volgende:

[..]

Eensch...Al vind ik een budget limiet van 45 miljoen wel een keer heel drastisch.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2009 13:24 schreef Kleffe_Dop het volgende:

[..]

Dan komt het aan op innovativiteit en aanpassingsvermogen ipv. het grote geld er tegenaan gooien.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2009 13:09 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:
De F1 is voor mij al dood sinds begin dit jaar, dus laat dat FOTA kampioenschap maar komen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2009 13:09 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:
De F1 is voor mij al dood sinds begin dit jaar, dus laat dat FOTA kampioenschap maar komen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2009 14:58 schreef sasquatsch het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2009 15:19 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Er komt duidelijk geen oplossing, ik had altijd gehoopt op een compromis (geen budgetlimiet, of in ieder geval niet meteen met 45 miljoen beginnen maar langzaam afbouwen) maar dat lijkt onmogelijk.

En een kampioenschap met alleen Williams en Force India en nog een hoop random teams heb ik totaal geen interesse in.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2009 16:25 schreef Gijsje het volgende:

[..]


Dan ben ik alleen benieuwd wat Ferarri doet.... Misschien Lemans ?

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2009 16:36 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Ik hoop het. Alle fabrikanten terug naar Le Mans, als opvolger van de Group C era . Dan heb ik helemaal geen behoefte meer aan F1, sportscars zijn wat mij betreft nu al interessanter. Vergeet niet dat eind jaren 80 sportscars bijna net zo populair waren als F1 en de technologie net zo hoog.

Natuurlijk is dat allemaal verleden tijd maar misschien als de ACO het toe laat.... .

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2009 16:48 schreef nils7 het volgende:

[..]

Meer races en goede fabrikanten is voldoende om er een succes van te maken...
Pleur Laguna Seca, Spa, Suzuka, Singapore, Istanbul, Le mans, Sebring, Kyalami, Monza, Nurburgring en Assen er in en je hebt een prima uitgangspunt voor een topseizoen! (Oke monaco ook dan )

[edit]
Voorstel...
Een toffe titel voor de klasse
Sportscar kampioenschap met alle Prototype-fabrikanten uit Le Mans en de FOTA
Ferrari
McLaren
Brawn GP
Red Bull
Renault
STR
BMW
Toyota
Aangevuld met:
Audi (Joest)
Peugeot
Aston Martin (Prodrive)

Auto's een combinatie tussen F1 en LMP's (met of zonder dak)...

Endurance races van tussen de 3 en 24 uur (Laat Le Mans en Sebring maar de enige zijn)...
Bij grote endurance races ook support klasses op de baan (LMP2, GT's etc.)

Kalendertje (random order):

Melbourne
Monte carlo
Spa-Francorchamps
Sebring
Laguna Seca
Kyalami (een wereldkampioenschap dient gewoon ook in Afrika te rijden)
Istanbul
Monza
Singapore (was toch geinig in de nacht)
Nurburgring (hockenheim is toch failliet)
Zandbakkenrace (Dubai, Abbu Dabi of Bahrein, kies er 1 hehehe)
Suzuka
Assen
Shanghai

14 races zo!

Leuke klasse zo hoor... en live op tv... makkelijk zat op te zetten zonder weinig moeite!
Aangezien de F1teams al zelf auto's produceren!

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2009 17:07 schreef bodylotion het volgende:

[..]

quote:

The full statement from the FIA

Tuesday, June 16th 2009, 12:00 GMT


What is this dispute really all about? Is it about an attempt by some teams to take over the commercial rights to Formula One? Or to take the regulatory function away from the FIA? Or even just a clash of personalities? It has elements of all of these, but the real issue is philosophical; it goes to the fundamentals of Formula One. It is about technical freedom. It is recognition by the FIA and several teams that you can have technical freedom - the freedom to innovate - or you can have freedom to spend without limit. But you cannot sustain both.

The lesson which emerged from five years of attempts to contain engine costs was that real savings could only be achieved by the removal of technical freedom: the engine freeze. All attempts to limit expenditure by ever-tighter technical restrictions failed. This is why we currently have a frozen engine, which will soon have to be replaced. The consensus is that the replacement will have to have a budget - a limit on what can be spent on development and a limit on unit cost, just like the engines being developed for road cars. The alternative would be to go back to unlimited expenditure on racing engines by the major car companies. This was never a rational approach, but would be insane in the current climate.

If we apply these lessons to the rest of a Formula One car, we can see that attempts to rein in expenditure with detailed rules will not work. They did not work on the engine and they will not work on the chassis. Detailed rules stifle inventiveness and innovation. But, worse, they do not significantly reduce costs. As with the frozen engine, real savings could only be made with a frozen chassis, an obvious absurdity.

If we wish to see innovative technology in Formula One, the only way is to limit expenditure and allow the engineers freedom to do their best within a fixed budget. This is exactly what happens in the real world and it is the only way forward for Formula One. Without technical innovation, Formula One will wither and die. Without real cost constraints, Formula One will lose its teams. This is why the FIA is insisting on cost restraint as part of the Formula One regulations.

The final and overwhelming advantage of a cost constraint regulation is that it will provide technical freedom on a level playing field. With a limit on expenditure, the cleverest and most innovative engineering team will win. It will no longer be possible to substitute a massive budget for intellectual ability. In a technological sporting contest this must surely be the right way.

Setting the record straight

The FIA and FOM have together spent decades building the FIA Formula One World Championship into the most watched motor sport competition in history.

In light of the success of the FIA's Championship, FOTA - made up of participants who come and go as it suits them – has set itself two clear objectives: to take over the regulation of Formula One from the FIA and to expropriate the commercial rights for itself. These are not objectives which the FIA can accept.

Background

When Honda announced their withdrawal from Formula One in December 2008, they had already entered the 2009 Championship and were contractually bound to compete. Two things were then clear to the FIA. First, any of the manufacturers could stop at any moment. The FIA would have no recourse against the main company, only against the team which would have no assets in excess of its debts. Secondly, it was quite possible that other manufacturers would stop before 2010.

Renault was dependent on the French government. It seemed doubtful that taxpayers' money would continue to be used to contribute to this team's high levels of spending. Toyota's car manufacturing operations were facing their first loss in modern times and might not wish to continue to pour hundreds of millions into a race team while BMW, who were making sacrifices in their core business in order to cut costs, might not want to continue to spend heavily on their team.

Faced with the prospect of only 18 cars in Melbourne 2009 and the possibility of worse to come in 2010, the FIA had to act. There were two obvious steps. First, approach Mr. di Montezemolo to see if the car manufacturers would guarantee the presence of their teams in 2010 so that we would not have a repeat of the Honda situation. Secondly, begin talks with FOTA about reducing costs to the point where the manufacturers would be less likely to stop, the independent teams would be viable and perhaps some new teams would enter to fill the empty spaces.

Mr. di Montezemolo promised to secure the necessary guarantees from the main car manufacturing companies (not to be confused with guarantees from the teams). He continued to promise this all through the winter, most recently at a meeting he had with the FIA's President on 23 February 2009. Not one such letter has been forthcoming – not even from Mr. di Montezemolo's own company FIAT.

At the same time FOTA and Mr. di Montezemolo rebuffed all attempts to hold meetings to discuss cost reduction. There was no need, the FIA were told. FOTA's own measures were adequate and they would make up for the shortage of cars by each running a third car. By March it was clear that FOTA had no intention of facilitating the entry of new teams, indeed were opposed.

It was also clear that if the FIA wanted new teams in 2010, it had to publish regulations, otherwise it would be too late for a new team to build a car. The FIA also had to consider what level of expenditure would work for a new team and how to ensure that a new team with relatively limited resources would not be dangerously slow.

This led to the World Motor Sport Council (WMSC) decision of 17 March which introduced a voluntary financial regulation and technical freedoms for the capped teams to enable their cars to achieve Formula One levels of performance. Ferrari voted against the financial regulation at that meeting but not against special technical freedoms for the new teams (i.e. Ferrari did not vote against the "two-tier" system).

Even after this vote, FOTA were not prepared to talk. Neither was Mr. di Montezemolo, even privately. In the absence of any negotiation or any sign that the promised guarantees of participation from the car companies would be forthcoming, it was essential to publish detailed regulations and invite entries from new teams. Otherwise there was a real risk that there would not be enough cars for Melbourne in 2010.

The detailed regulations were discussed and voted on at the WMSC meeting of 29 April. The new Ferrari representative on the WMSC was Mr. di Montezemolo, replacing Jean Todt whose Ferrari contract finished on 31 March. Mr. di Montezemolo chose not to attend but gave a proxy to Mr. Macaluso, the Italian president of Karting, who also did not attend but joined the meeting by video link. His was one of two votes against the new rules but no reasons or alternative were offered.

An exchange of letters then began with Ferrari's lawyer and a meeting was arranged between all the FOTA teams and the president of the FIA on 15 May. John Howett as vice-chairman of FOTA led their delegation in the absence of Mr. di Montezemolo. As soon as the FIA raised the question of the financial regulation, Mr. Howett tried to lead a walk-out of the teams. This did not succeed but during the meeting it became known that Ferrari had begun emergency proceedings in the French courts seeking to prevent the introduction of the 2010 rules. It was clear that FOTA had no intention of negotiating anything but simply expected the FIA to agree to all its demands.

A further meeting was held on 22 May, this time with Mr. di Montezemolo present. FOTA explained that they had three major reservations. Rule stability, governance and the 2010 regulations, in particular the "two-tier" system. It was explained that it had already been agreed to substitute technical help from established teams for the two-tier system at the Heathrow meeting, so this was no longer an issue. This was pointed out to Mr di Montezemolo at least five times during the meeting but he and FOTA are still talking about it today.

The FIA also offered to extend the 1998 Concorde Agreement, which would take care of stability and governance at least to a degree that had satisfied all the teams for 10 years up to 2008. The FIA was asked to postpone its entry date. It was explained that the Sporting Code did not provide for such a suspension and that, in any event, potential new entrants needed to know urgently if they had a place in the Championship.

On 29 May, the eight remaining FOTA teams submitted conditional entries. Among the conditions were a requirement that the FIA forthwith sign FOTA's new Concorde Agreement (which diluted the Sporting Code, made an outside body, the CAS, the ultimate appeal court, allowed any team to veto rule changes and removed the FIA's right to insist on changes if the cars became dangerously fast). FOTA also crossed out references to the International Sporting Code on their entry forms and wanted the 2010 Rules rescinded notwithstanding that a number of new teams had already submitted entries.

A further meeting was held on 11 June at which FOTA were represented by Ross Brawn (Brawn), Stefano Domenicali (Ferrari), Christian Horner (Red Bull) and John Howett (Toyota). After nearly five hours of talks, it was agreed that the FOTA and FIA cost-reduction objectives were very close if not identical and that the financial experts from both side should meet without delay to seek a common position on detail. Also, the FIA's proposal to extend the 1998 Concorde Agreement in order to avoid interminable negotiations was well received. Agreement was also reached on some minor modifications and clarifications to the 2010 rules.

No sooner had all this been agreed than FOTA put out a statement saying no progress had been made in the meeting. This blatant falsehood demonstrates once again that elements in FOTA simply do not want agreement.

On 15 June, the meeting of the financial experts took place. However, the FOTA representatives had been forbidden to discuss the FIA's financial regulations, thus rendering it impossible to seek a common position. The meeting did examine FOTA's ideas on cost reduction, but, as presented, these amounted only to a voluntary system which would be incapable of preventing a wealthy team from outspending its competitors and triggering another financial arms race.

Governance

FOTA says, "the sport needs better governance." The FIA and Ferrari extended the 1998 Concorde Agreement back in 2005 and the FIA is prepared to do the same with all the teams that enter. Once that is in place the FIA and the teams can look at updating it to a 2009 version. But this is not the point. Formula One needs a strong and impartial regulator because of the nature of the sport, the high stakes and the competitors - people who want to win (literally) at any cost. There are several well-known examples of this - involving at least four FOTA members - over the past few years.

Good governance does not mean that Ferrari should govern. Ferrari now claim that the procedures followed by the FIA are contrary to their agreement with the FIA, but in reality they never objected to these procedures (indeed they voted for them) until they were not happy with the decisions themselves. Ferrari has been officially (as well as unofficially) represented on the WMSC since 1981 and never objected to the process or decisions until April and May this year.

Technology

FOTA says, "The new rules dumb down the sport". Not so, the 2009 regulations introduced greater technical freedom in several areas. The 2010 Regulations will allow even greater freedom. Compare this with the FOTA proposals: almost no testing, no KERS, homologated gearbox, homologated bodywork, limitations on factory activities, enforced shutdowns and so on. Instead of finding economic ways to do innovative things (which is the spirit of Formula One and also the challenge for the automotive industry) the FOTA proposals would impose restrictions on activities and minimise the technical challenge. When Brawn and others came up with the idea of the double diffuser, the other teams attacked them in the media, challenged them in front of the stewards at two race meetings and then took them to court. The FIA will ensure that Formula One is the most technologically challenging motor sport - and it will be financial restrictions that make this possible.

Two sets of rules

FOTA says, "Two sets of rules will ruin the sport." The 2010 regulations were structured so as to allow new entrants some technical advantages in order to enable them to get to the back of the grid. The original intention was not to have the 2009 teams race under those rules. What is interesting is that for several of the existing teams, the idea of greater technical freedom with financial constraints was very attractive. Left to their own devices, at least half the existing teams would have adopted those rules. In any event, it was agreed as far back as the Heathrow meeting that there would only be one set of rules and this was re-affirmed in Monaco and again last Thursday. Now that the new entrants are in place, one set of rules can be agreed.

Intrusiveness

FOTA says, "The FIA will be able to intrude on our businesses", referring to the FIA's proposal to regulate the amount of money spent. If there is no intention to cheat, regulation should not present a threat. The FIA already regulates every aspect of technical performance and deals with vast amounts of confidential proprietary technical information without partiality or 'interference'. In any case, the FIA has already agreed that the financial regulations will be managed primarily by self-verification by the team's auditors and directors.

DNA of Formula One

FOTA says "A budget cap will damage the DNA of Formula One." Setting a limit on expenditure on certain aspects of competing in Formula One evens the playing field. Isn't Formula One above all about competition? It also allows new teams to come in - the only new team into Formula One in the last several years was Super Aguri which could not survive even with manufacturer backing. But when you analyse the total cost for a manufacturer it will still be uncomfortably high, even with a ¤50 million cost cap. Take Ferrari: with ¤50 million on the chassis and racing, add the same again for drivers, about ¤80 million for engines and another ¤20 million for marketing and you have a total spend of ¤200 million. Perhaps that is less that the ¤400 to ¤500 million their lawyer said a top team is spending now, but surely it is enough for a team to spend on entering two cars in 20 races a year?

And finally

The FIA remains committed to finding solutions for Formula One and has always been ready to accept reasonable compromise whilst retaining the overall principle that it will continue to lead and regulate the sport for the benefit of all stakeholders. Formula One will have a full grid in 2010 with a single set of regulations. It is essential that these include clear and precise financial regulations.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2009 20:06 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:
De FIA heeft uiteraard een paar goede punten, maar meteen een costcap invoeren van 45 miljoen is echt geen oplossing.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2009 20:06 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:
De FIA heeft uiteraard een paar goede punten, maar meteen een costcap invoeren van 45 miljoen is echt geen oplossing.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2009 20:20 schreef ElmarO het volgende:

[..]

De commerciële rechten liggen bij de FOM, niet bij de FIA. Dus wat het probleem van de FIA is met laatstgenoemde snap ik niet helemaal.
[..]

quote:

Wat net zo goed voor teams zoals Force India kan gelden.
[..]

quote:

Waarop je kan zeggen dat op die manier de budgetten van de teams op natuurlijke wijze gaan zakken en er dus geen budgetcap nodig is. _{Vind overigens wel dat er één moeten komen, maar wel op een geleidelijke manier i.p.v. rücksichtslos naar ¤45 miljoen te gaan.}
[..]

quote:

Inderdaad KERS. Dat is inderdaad wel een enorm succes gebleken. Vier teams begonnen ermee, nu racen er nog maar twee mee. Zelfs het team dat er een enorme voorstander van was (BMW Sauber) gebruikt het niet eens meer. Het ultieme voorbeeld van miljoenen verspillen.

En als ik het mij goed herinner kwam de FIA zelf met de reglementen voor 2009 om het testen aardig aan banden te leggen. Komt bij mij een beetje over als de pot verwijt de ketel.
[..]

quote:

Volgens mij kwamen die juist in de problemen omdat Honda geen zin meer had om ze financieel te steunen.

Verder neemt het niet weg dat FIA op bepaalde punten wel degelijk een punt heeft.
[..]

quote:

Ik het het idee dat ze bij FOTA Mosley en kornuiten gewoon zat zijn. En met betrekking tot de verdeling van de tv-gelden vind ik het zelfs enigszins lijken op het ontstaan van de Engelse Premier League.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2009 21:42 schreef ElmarO het volgende:

Dus kon Super Aguri prima overleven zolang Honda er geld in bleef pompen. Ik lees in die zin dat ze zelfs met steun van Honda niet konden overleven. Ze kregen het pas lastig toen Honda de geldkraan dichtdraaide. Ik weet dat het mieren neuken is, maar dan hadden ze het maar anders moeten formuleren. _{En misschien lees ik de zin wel verkeerd, dat kan natuurlijk ook.}

quote:

If we wish to see innovative technology in Formula One, the only way is to limit expenditure and allow the engineers freedom to do their best within a fixed budget. This is exactly what happens in the real world and it is the only way forward for Formula One. Without technical innovation, Formula One will wither and die.

quote:

Mr. di Montezemolo promised to secure the necessary guarantees from the main car manufacturing companies (not to be confused with guarantees from the teams). He continued to promise this all through the winter, most recently at a meeting he had with the FIA's President on 23 February 2009. Not one such letter has been forthcoming – not even from Mr. di Montezemolo's own company FIAT.

quote:

No sooner had all this been agreed than FOTA put out a statement saying no progress had been made in the meeting. This blatant falsehood demonstrates once again that elements in FOTA simply do not want agreement.

quote:

Good governance does not mean that Ferrari should govern. Ferrari now claim that the procedures followed by the FIA are contrary to their agreement with the FIA, but in reality they never objected to these procedures (indeed they voted for them) until they were not happy with the decisions themselves. Ferrari has been officially (as well as unofficially) represented on the WMSC since 1981 and never objected to the process or decisions until April and May this year.

quote:

Op woensdag 17 juni 2009 16:33 schreef Peterselieman het volgende:
Mag je wel eerst die tikfout uit de TT laten halen voordat je serieus genomen wordt

quote:

Op woensdag 17 juni 2009 13:47 schreef Szixxx het volgende:
Als fan van de F1 ben ik tegen het budgetlimiet zoals
de FIA deze heeft voorgesteld. Ik ben van mening dat er meer over moet worden nagedacht en dat de FIA meer moet luisteren
naar de fans en de teams.
Voor alle fans die ook tegen het budgetlimiet zijn ben ik een onlinepetitie gestart:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/F1budgetlimit/