F1Rejects.com

by **AndreaModa** » 02 Dec 2011, 23:18

I've started this thread having read the news today on Autosport that Ferrari and Red Bull are leaving FOTA.

This clearly puts the RRA agreement at massive risk of failure, and will no doubt lead to escalating costs once again. I see this moment in time as perhaps the watershed moment, when F1 finally took one wrong turn too many, but what to you guys think? Is this really the beginning of the slippery slope for F1 to slide into oblivion?

I (and I hope others) will keep this thread updated on news relating to F1's slide down the slippery slope, because I honestly can't see a way back once we get into an arms race again with world economies in the state they are in at the moment.

by **mario** » 02 Dec 2011, 23:49

AndreaModa wrote:I've started this thread having read the news today on Autosport that Ferrari and Red Bull are leaving FOTA.

This clearly puts the RRA agreement at massive risk of failure, and will no doubt lead to escalating costs once again. I see this moment in time as perhaps the watershed moment, when F1 finally took one wrong turn too many, but what to you guys think? Is this really the beginning of the slippery slope for F1 to slide into oblivion?

I (and I hope others) will keep this thread updated on news relating to F1's slide down the slippery slope, because I honestly can't see a way back once we get into an arms race again with world economies in the state they are in at the moment.

Funnily enough, I was just about to post the same article on this website and for much the same reasons. We've seen how the teams have been increasingly at loggerheads over the RRA in recent years, and although more than once we have seen a few tantrums and arguments, so far it seems to have worked reasonably well. However, it's perhaps not surprising that Ferrari and Red Bull might find the terms of the RRA constricting - true, they have some legitimate grievances over how it has been enforced and policed (because it is not just the technocal regulations which have been interpreted in creative ways - Bild, for example, accused Red Bull of witholding a significant amount of detail on spending when their accounts were audited (possibly as much as half of their accounts were left blank)).

Admittedly, I think that there is a chance that Ferrari and Red Bull are calling the bluff of the other teams to a certain extent - i.e. trying to force FOTA, and in particular McLaren, to give them some concessions on the RRA they've been demanding. Whilst they may be fairly wealthy teams, neither of them are totally immune to the current financial problems - Ferrari have seen their budget shrink noticeably in recent years - and even they accept that reducing costs is in itself a good idea (though they diasgree on how to cap them).

Ultimately, though, if it did come down to a spending war, Ferrari and Red Bull know that they are a fair bit richer than most other teams - Red Bull thanks to their current success, and Ferrari thanks to its greater cut of FOM's revenues - and that most of their rivals have been severely weakened (McLaren has seen Mercedes scale back its support, Renault's finances are already strained and there is only one other manufacturer (Mercedes), and even then that manufacturer has made it clear that it doesn't want to stump up the cash for a spending war). Those two probably assume that they would gain in the short term through a spending war by being far ahead of their rivals, but sparking a spending war could do a lot of damage to some already weak teams (Williams and Renault could be the first victims of a spending war), and to the sport as a whole.

by **FMecha** » 03 Dec 2011, 01:21

Had I smell Formula Elaborate Bluff mkIII? :roll:

by **Klon** » 03 Dec 2011, 01:25

Once again, it has been shown that Ferrari (and Red Bull) do not care about the sport at all. I have always thought so, and now I have the confirmation for it: Mosley should have forced the issue regarding the budget cap.

by **RealRacingRoots** » 03 Dec 2011, 01:51

This also shows that HRT are the hipsters of the F1 Paddock; leaving FOTA before it was cool.

by **East Londoner** » 03 Dec 2011, 02:39

Klon wrote:Once again, it has been shown that Ferrari (and Red Bull) do not care about the sport at all. I have always thought so, and now I have the confirmation for it: Mosley should have forced the issue regarding the budget cap.

This, plus the fact that had the budget cap gone through, the new teams wouldn't have been so bad in 2010. Hell, even USF1 might have found something to couple their two nosecones to! :lol:

by **TheBigJ** » 03 Dec 2011, 04:34

Here's hoping for a breakaway championship, with the Beeb getting the rights and Sky, Martin Brundle and Bernie looking like pillocks.

by **DanielPT** » 03 Dec 2011, 04:36

This cannot be good. Not in the short term (the concorde expires next year), neither in the long term (after all, we are in crisis!).

1- Bernie must be opening a few bottles of the most expensive champagne in the world. He fought for this and having the teams together meant bad news for him. Now that this will not happen, teams will lose their leverage with Bernie and perhaps end up with some bad deal.

2- Related with the previous point. This might not be bad for Ferrari though. They are seen as the team in F1 and receive for it. Perhaps they were facing the end of this era and thought they would get a better deal out of it alone. Who knowns if they were promised something by leaving FOTA?

3- This can only mean the RRA abandon. Now that Red Bull will decidely not comply with the cost reduction and Ferrari, well, were perhaps part of those who started rumours about RBR failling to cost-cutting, saw their chance to back down from the deal and perhaps win some competitiveness in the process by further expenditure. Expect FOTA to crumble in the next few weeks then.

Anyway, if this means that we are now at risk of falling through this slippery slope is hard to foresee. For the weaker teams, it is easy to conlcude that this is a disaster. Ferrari with their dreams of grids filled with Ferraris and RBR only interested in keeping themselves competitive cannot possibly know what is best for the sport.

by **Collieafc** » 03 Dec 2011, 04:52

DanielPT wrote:This cannot be good. Not in the short term (the concorde expires next year), neither in the long term (after all, we are in crisis!).

1- Bernie must be opening a few bottles of the most expensive champagne in the world. He fought for this and having the teams together meant bad news for him. Now that this will not happen, teams will lose their leverage with Bernie and perhaps end up with some bad deal.

2- Related with the previous point. This might not be bad for Ferrari though. They are seen as the team in F1 and receive for it. Perhaps they were facing the end of this era and thought they would get a better deal out of it alone. Who knowns if they were promised something by leaving FOTA?

3- This can only mean the RRA abandon. Now that Red Bull will decidely not comply with the cost reduction and Ferrari, well, were perhaps part of those who started rumours about RBR failling to cost-cutting, saw their chance to back down from the deal and perhaps win some competitiveness in the process by further expenditure. Expect FOTA to crumble in the next few weeks then.

Anyway, if this means that we are now at risk of falling through this slippery slope is hard to foresee. For the weaker teams, it is easy to conlcude that this is a disaster. Ferrari with their dreams of grids filled with Ferraris and RBR only interested in keeping themselves competitive cannot possibly know what is best for the sport.

Totally agree. The only way FOTA and the RRA will hold is if the other teams hold their line. If so, there is a chance (but only a chance) that Ferrari and RBR will fall back in line. But, well, if HRT can survive without being part of FOTA, well...

by **AndreaModa** » 03 Dec 2011, 06:46

I think the way it will work out for next year is that you'll have three non-aligned FOTA teams (Red Bull, Ferrari and HRT), with the rest still part of FOTA. There could be a potentially interesting situation in the future between the two sides, a la the FISA-FOCA war where we'll end up with only half the grid showing up for the race, but I admit that would be a very extreme circumstance and something will have to have gone majorly wrong for that to happen!

by **mario** » 03 Dec 2011, 07:20

Now, Red Bull and Ferrari have both issued a formal statement to confirm that they are leaving FOTA, and the attitude of the two teams is perhaps best summed up by their statements.

In the case of Ferrari, they have issued a lengthy formal statement reiterating their support for Whitmarsh as head of FOTA, and for the resource restriction agreement (and have even said that they are prepared to see it extended to cover engine manufacturers like themselves), but pointing out that they feel that the negotiations between the member teams of FOTA are going nowhere and are essentially a stalemate. Added to that, they've highlighted their frustration at not being able to hold formal in season tests, particularly for young drivers (i.e. they want more test sessions along the lines of the Abu Dhabi Young Drivers test).
Finally, and this seems to be another key sticking point, Ferrari are pushing for greater prominence and technical freedom for the engines in F1, for more road relevant technology, and a reduction in the importance of aerodynamics - whereas one would have to assume that Red Bull have been happy to keep things just as they are (i.e. with them dominating the sport). http://adamcooperf1.com/2011/12/02/ferr ... eave-fota/

As for Red Bull, their statement is a lesson in brevity - here it is in its entirety:

“Red Bull Racing can confirm it has served notice to withdraw from FOTA (Formula One Teams Association). The team will remain committed to finding a solution regarding cost saving in Formula One.”

http://adamcooperf1.com/2011/12/02/red- ... st-saving/
I have to admit, the first poster replying to Adam Cooper's post may be onto something when he points out that Red Bull have only agreed to "finding a solution" to cutting costs - which doesn't necessarily commit the team to actually agreeing with those restrictions...

Collieafc wrote:
DanielPT wrote:This cannot be good. Not in the short term (the concorde expires next year), neither in the long term (after all, we are in crisis!).

1- Bernie must be opening a few bottles of the most expensive champagne in the world. He fought for this and having the teams together meant bad news for him. Now that this will not happen, teams will lose their leverage with Bernie and perhaps end up with some bad deal.

2- Related with the previous point. This might not be bad for Ferrari though. They are seen as the team in F1 and receive for it. Perhaps they were facing the end of this era and thought they would get a better deal out of it alone. Who knowns if they were promised something by leaving FOTA?

3- This can only mean the RRA abandon. Now that Red Bull will decidely not comply with the cost reduction and Ferrari, well, were perhaps part of those who started rumours about RBR failling to cost-cutting, saw their chance to back down from the deal and perhaps win some competitiveness in the process by further expenditure. Expect FOTA to crumble in the next few weeks then.

Anyway, if this means that we are now at risk of falling through this slippery slope is hard to foresee. For the weaker teams, it is easy to conlcude that this is a disaster. Ferrari with their dreams of grids filled with Ferraris and RBR only interested in keeping themselves competitive cannot possibly know what is best for the sport.

Totally agree. The only way FOTA and the RRA will hold is if the other teams hold their line. If so, there is a chance (but only a chance) that Ferrari and RBR will fall back in line. But, well, if HRT can survive without being part of FOTA, well...

To a certain extent HRT's withdrawal from FOTA was, albeit a touch awkward for both sides, nevertheless of limited significance - HRT is not in a position to spark off a spending war, given they barely have enough funding as it is, their economic and political clout within the sport is insignificant, and to a certain extent you wonder if the team was even all that interested in being part of FOTA anyway (I do not recall HRT making any comments supporting FOTA, the RRA or indeed anything that the other teams were doing to cut costs before their withdrawal from FOTA).

As for Bernie, I do not think that he'll be opening any champagne just yet - for the next two months Red Bull and Ferrari will still be part of FOTA and have to abide by their rules, and with Mercedes and McLaren holding a private meeting with Ferrari and Red Bull, they may yet find enough common ground for both teams to reverse their decisions. He'll be happy to see FOTA crumble and the leverage of the teams diminish, but for now he might well be content to sit on the sidelines and watch the teams argue amongst themselves until FOTA has definitely collapsed.
Besides, there are suggestions from some quarters that negotiations on the new Concorde Agreement could not take place until next year anyway, given existing terms in the current Concorde Agreement to prevent either the teams or FOM approaching each other before that point. Of course, I do not discount the possibility that, like in the past, FOM have indicated that they will give much more favourable terms to those parties on their side if they defect, and managed to keep things quiet, but news of a deal of that kind would almost certainly have been leaked by somebody (probably FOM, because it would sow considerably mistrust and doubt amongst FOTA), yet nothing of the sort appears to have come to the fore just yet.

As far as FOM are concerned, it is in their best interests to wait and see what happens - as others have pointed out, there is a sizeable chance that Red Bull and Ferrari, for diametrically opposed ideas on engines and aerodynamics, are trying to call the bluff of the rest of FOTA and push them into making changes that favour them. There is going to be plenty more to come on this, I feel, and for now things are not yet clear enough to discern how this will pan out...

by **BlindCaveSalamander** » 03 Dec 2011, 08:12

AndreaModa wrote:I think the way it will work out for next year is that you'll have three non-aligned FOTA teams (Red Bull, Ferrari and HRT), with the rest still part of FOTA. There could be a potentially interesting situation in the future between the two sides, a la the FISA-FOCA war where we'll end up with only half the grid showing up for the race, but I admit that would be a very extreme circumstance and something will have to have gone majorly wrong for that to happen!

But it could potentially mean HRT score points! And even a podium if 2 of the Red Bulls and Ferraris take each other off or something! How awesome would that be?

by **JeremyMcClean** » 03 Dec 2011, 09:24

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
AndreaModa wrote:I think the way it will work out for next year is that you'll have three non-aligned FOTA teams (Red Bull, Ferrari and HRT), with the rest still part of FOTA. There could be a potentially interesting situation in the future between the two sides, a la the FISA-FOCA war where we'll end up with only half the grid showing up for the race, but I admit that would be a very extreme circumstance and something will have to have gone majorly wrong for that to happen!

But it could potentially mean HRT score points! And even a podium if 2 of the Red Bulls and Ferraris take each other off or something! How awesome would that be?

+1. I am all for a breakaway series if A) Ferrari doesn't control the league, but I'm sure Red Bull will stop that and B) If it's broadcasted in North America, which I'm sure it will.

by **Frentzen127** » 03 Dec 2011, 14:27

If american motorsport has taught us anything is that schisms are undesirable outcomes.
A lesson I feel many tend to forget in favor of political opinions.

by **AndreaModa** » 04 Dec 2011, 00:34

Frentzen127 wrote:If american motorsport has taught us anything is that schisms are undesirable outcomes.
A lesson I feel many tend to forget in favor of political opinions.

100% agreed, the worst possible outcome would be two rival series competing against each other, taking suppliers, spectators and money off each other, it just isn't desirable at all. I'd rather see F1 go down the pan entirely than have that happen.

by **MinardiFan95** » 05 Dec 2011, 21:22

RealRacingRoots wrote:This also shows that HRT are the hipsters of the F1 Paddock; leaving FOTA before it was cool.

I can just imagine Colin Kolles (yes, I know, he's gone home now) wearing an ironic T-shirt, thick plastic framed glasses and a trucker cap in the F1 paddock... :lol:

by **jackanderton** » 05 Dec 2011, 23:28

Neither can you have a sport where some teams decide they don't want to play by the rules, and not only that but they get special help from the sports governing body's and owners.

It seems to me that you have a majority of teams in the midfield who want to race on a level playing field and these are the ones who always bear the brunt of anti-competitive actions, with their results and finances.

If you did have a breakaway series then you would have at least Force India, Sauber, Williams, LotusGP, Caterham, Marussia, HRT and probably some new teams. This would be pretty competitive.

Presumably the alternative one would have Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren, Mercedes (even then not necessarily), Toro Rosso, and err...what? A bunch of ridiculous makeweights they'd have to fund themselves just to get onto the grid?

by **jackanderton** » 05 Dec 2011, 23:32

Back in reality- what would help right now would be for Mercedes and McLaren to make a couple of incredible racing cars (and then preferably another two or three).

Money isn't quite the be-all-and-end-all. Renault and Brawn won 3 titles between them in the big-spending era. If you have a reasonable resource base in terms of talent that can overcome it for a short while- but the lesson is, you have to capitalise on that.

by **Myrvold** » 06 Dec 2011, 08:45

The Brawn was one of the, if not the most expensive car ever.

by **East Londoner** » 06 Dec 2011, 19:15

Mercedes say they are 'firm' on FOTA, and have no plans to follow Ferrari and Red Bull.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/12/05/uk-motor-racing-fota-idUKTRE7B40Q420111205?type=formulaOne

And there is to be a meeting on 'Tuesday' (presuambly sometime today) by the remaining FOTA members. One team principal says that Red Bull and Ferrari leaving may actually be beneficial to FOTA...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96662

by **DanielPT** » 06 Dec 2011, 21:24

East Londoner wrote:Mercedes say they are 'firm' on FOTA, and have no plans to follow Ferrari and Red Bull.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/12/05/uk-motor-racing-fota-idUKTRE7B40Q420111205?type=formulaOne

And there is to be a meeting on 'Tuesday' (presuambly sometime today) by the remaining FOTA members. One team principal says that Red Bull and Ferrari leaving may actually be beneficial to FOTA...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96662

It is hard to see how FOTA members will benefit from this. If a spending war starts (which is very likely because of RBR), FOTA members might have their arms tied on this by some sort of their own RRA.

by **mario** » 06 Dec 2011, 23:31

DanielPT wrote:
East Londoner wrote:Mercedes say they are 'firm' on FOTA, and have no plans to follow Ferrari and Red Bull.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/12/05/uk-motor-racing-fota-idUKTRE7B40Q420111205?type=formulaOne

And there is to be a meeting on 'Tuesday' (presuambly sometime today) by the remaining FOTA members. One team principal says that Red Bull and Ferrari leaving may actually be beneficial to FOTA...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96662

It is hard to see how FOTA members will benefit from this. If a spending war starts (which is very likely because of RBR), FOTA members might have their arms tied on this by some sort of their own RRA.

It seems to be a little ambiguous as to what might happen next - although the initial reports suggested that RBR and Ferrari could start a spending war, it seems that it won't be quite that simple. Firstly, both teams are still bound by FOTA's rules until next year (because they cannot leave until two months after serving their notice), and secondly because the Resource Restriction Agreement might not just be a "gentleman's agreement" as originally shown, but a legally binding document (some reports suggest that the current RRA will remain in place until 2017).
Of course, you have to assume to a certain extent that the RRA will only remain in force provided FOTA also stays around - if FOTA breaks up entirely, then we might see the end of the RRA and the start of a new spending way (unless the FIA steps in to impose its own spending limits - Mosely did threaten to do such a thing (and that is the main reason why the RRA came into place to begin with), but whether Todt would be prepared to do the same thing is unclear).

As for whether FOTA can benefit from RBR and Ferrari withdrawing, I guess that it depends on what might happen in the next round of negotiations over the Concorde Agreement. Whilst RBR and Ferrari might be in a position to get a larger cut of the revenues via doing individual deals, by holding together FOTA could potentially drive a fairly strong deal with FOM through their combined financial strength. Either way, with more meetings taking place in the next few days, I think that we won't hear the end of this story for some time...

by **AndreaModa** » 08 Dec 2011, 05:58

Things get worse, as Sauber follow Red Bull and Ferrari out the door.

Incidentally the report also states that Toro Rosso could follow them too.

Something tells me that both Toro Rosso and Sauber are pulling out because of their customer deals with Ferrari, although it could also be the Red Bull money talking for the former.

Either way it's not good news for FOTA. If Toro Rosso do leave, that will mean half the grid aren't FOTA members any more.

by **mario** » 11 Dec 2011, 22:02

Now, albeit some time down the line since they announced they were leaving FOTA, Red Bull are now putting their side of the argument forwards to the media for why they are leaving. Whilst they, like Ferrari, have been affirming their support for cost control measures, Horner's response was that the team were leaving FOTA because the manufacturer backed companies were unwilling to accept further restrictions on other areas of development, particularly engine development (as Red Bull also wants engine development to come under the RRA). Perhaps quite tellingly, Horner rather unsubtly hinted that Red Bull were pulling out because Ferrari - who are known to want to increase the importance of engine manufacturers in F1 - were not keen to accept restrictions on engine development. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96709

"It needs to encompass all aspects of the car," said Horner. "Dealing with equivalence is always quite dangerous. Each of the teams has a different make up, different ownership.

"Some belong to motor manufacturers and some are independent and if you look at the things that work, like the testing, like the windtunnel hours, like the restriction in personnel, the things that you can touch and feel work quite well. But as soon as you start trading equivalence of hours versus external spend, that's where it seems to run into some difficulty.

"There's a willingness from all of the teams to try and contain costs, it's just the manner that you do it. And you can't exclude the engine from that with some teams producing their own engines, so it's important to look at the teams as a whole rather than cherry-picking the chassis."

[Yes, I am aware that he doesn't specifically mention Ferrari, though with only one other company producing both engines and running a team - Mercedes - and the fact that Mercedes have been particularly enthusiastic in their support for the RRA, it's not hard to guess who Horner is hinting at].
Added to that, Newey has been pitching in by attacking the other manufacturers:

"We all agree with budget control, we don't want to get into the arms race that happened with the manufacturers a few years ago and certainly with Red Bull we wouldn't be able to," Newey said.

"But if we can concentrate on the things that are tangible, the windtunnel and CFD restriction works very well because you can measure it. Testing restrictions are exactly the same.

"But with some of the teams involved being subsidiaries of major automotive companies, it becomes a bit difficult to know exactly how their resources are split. It's about transparency, it's about having things that you can genuinely measure. As soon as you can't have that you get all of the accusation."

Mind you, given that Red Bull have been accused of a lack of transparent accounting themselves, it seems a little hypocritical for them to be accusing others of a lack of transparency...

by **DanielPT** » 14 Dec 2011, 03:28

mario wrote:
"We all agree with budget control, we don't want to get into the arms race that happened with the manufacturers a few years ago and certainly with Red Bull we wouldn't be able to," Newey said.

"But if we can concentrate on the things that are tangible, the windtunnel and CFD restriction works very well because you can measure it. Testing restrictions are exactly the same.

"But with some of the teams involved being subsidiaries of major automotive companies, it becomes a bit difficult to know exactly how their resources are split. It's about transparency, it's about having things that you can genuinely measure. As soon as you can't have that you get all of the accusation."

Mind you, given that Red Bull have been accused of a lack of transparent accounting themselves, it seems a little hypocritical for them to be accusing others of a lack of transparency...

Not quite, mario. Thing is, while Red Bull as been accused of a lack of transparency, that was never proven. Those accusations could well been made out of jealousy from rivals or to undermine RBR position in the sport and bargaining power with other teams. We don't know and RBR should remain innocent until proven guilty. And even then a guilty entity can, sometimes, work as a whistle blower on others. It is like when someone is caught in corruption. If he accuses others of corruption and presents a sound point, people should investigate instead of dismissing his accusations because he was found guilty of the same crime. For me Newey makes some good points here and they should be taken into account. It's easier for a liar to know another, right?

by **sswishbone** » 17 Dec 2011, 08:30

Bernie being a total idiot again: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula ... 225954.stm

If it's not going to be big there then why bother organising two races you useless idiot!

by **Minardi Man** » 18 Dec 2011, 01:50

His reasoning for WHY F1 will never be big in the U.S is rubbish anyway!

by **eurobrun** » 18 Dec 2011, 10:25

Go home Bernie Ecclestone

by **Phoenix** » 19 Dec 2011, 08:20

sswishbone wrote:Bernie being a total idiot again: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula ... 225954.stm

If it's not going to be big there then why bother organising two races you useless idiot!

Reverse psichology much?

by **DanielPT** » 19 Dec 2011, 22:13

Phoenix wrote:
sswishbone wrote:Bernie being a total idiot again: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula ... 225954.stm

If it's not going to be big there then why bother organising two races you useless idiot!

Reverse psichology much?

Need to put F1 back on the news because people were starting to forget F1 existence?

F1Rejects.com

The Slippery Slope Thread

The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Re: The Slippery Slope Thread

Who is online