BrianKeithSmith

OK, I'll admit that compared to most of you guys I am a relative newbie to watching F1 racing.

And normally I really wouldn't care about the organizational structure of the sanctioning body, etc but after watching the F1 race on Sunday (which I was really looking foward to watching) I was in disbelief at what I was seeing.

So my question is - what is the organizational structure of the organization.

What exactly is Bernie's role?

What is Mosley's role?

Is FIA the sanctioning body, or (as I understood it) are they the standards body that defines the safety standards with which tracks/cars/equipment/procedures are designed.

Does Bernie Own the series, in the same way that Bill France owns NASCAR and Tony George owns IRL? If not, does the FIA own the series?

Like I said, I've never cared to know before. To me, when watching a race I could care less about the organizational and political hierarchy behind it, but like I said, after Sunday I am truly curious.

Brian

ColorChange

Boy have you stepped into a mess. Here is a very brief overview of just some of the issues. Team revenue sharing is an even bigger issue.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Indu...175.A1867.html

BrianKeithSmith

Thanks ColorChange, that is a pretty good bit of info.

Still doesn't explain Mosley to me though?

Brian

JCP911S

CC... excellent article from a most excellent source.

Bottom line... the loss of the Indy 500 spelled the slow and agonizing decline of CART, and the elevation of NASCAR to the pinnicle of American motorsport... (its hard to call yourself "Indycars" when you don;t race at Indy...)... without Indy, CART was just another racing series

And just so "Formula 1" is recognized around the world at the gold standard of auto racing (whether deserved or not) and the home of the "World Driving Champion" ... the brand name dominates regardless of what kind of crap might be in the bottle... and the FIA (and by extension Bernie) owns (by tradition and popular aclaim) the right to determine what racing series is "Formula 1".

Its my guess that.... should the manufacturer teams (the M-shod teams for lack of a better name) break away, that Bernie, armed with the F1 brand, the "World Driving Championship", and Ferrari will eventually evolve back into F1 as we know it, and the other will just have another racing series (as good or bad as it may be....)

Unless he runs afoul of some sort of international anti-trust action (which is hard to imagine in this fractious world where people can't even seem to agree whether it is a bad thing to kll people..) Bernie has it by the *****... and should any one country or even the EU go after him, he will simply threaten them with pulling their GP race... political suicide for whatever politician is stupid enough to pick that fight.

Most of the European countries are struggling to keep their home GP in the face of competition from Asia, South America, even East Europe.... they really don't have much leverage. Really, when you are sitting in front of the TV, do you really care that much whether the GP is from Belgium or Singapore?

Geo

Okey dokey.....

To truly understand all of this you should do a google on the FISA/FOCA war. FISA was the former sporting arm of the FIA and was headed by Jean Marie Balestre (sp?). JMB was about as bombastic and goofy as Max Mosley is today. FOCA is the Formula One Constructors Association and I believe it still exists today, if only in name mostly. FOCA was run by Uncle Bernie. At the time of the FISA/FOCA war, Bernie was the owner of Brabham team.

The FISA/FOCA war, which was largely over the division of money in F1, but not totally, was ended by an armistice called the Concorde Agreement (sound vaguely familiar?). The Concorde Agreement is a legal document that covers how F1 is run and how money is split (among other things).

Along the way Bernie sold Brabham (or simply closed it - can't remember) because there was more money in promoting F1. Bernie created Formula One Management (or perhaps something else prior, he has a lot of shell companies) to run F1. He also acquired the rights to promote F1 for 100 years.

Max Mosley is Bernie's lawyer buddy and Bernie's lap dog. Max was very much a part of FOCA and creating the original Concorde Agreement. Along the way, with Bernie's help, Max was elected as president of the FIA (the FIA having since done away with FISA and running F1 directly), thus ousting JMB.

In any org chart of F1, make sure you place Max on a short leash from Bernie. I don't believe for a second that Bernie wasn't in some way OK with what happened at Indy despite his public position. NOTHING happens in F1 w/o his at least implicit or tacit approval.

The FIA owns F1 and is concerned only with the sporting side of F1. Bernie has a 100 year contract with the FIA giving him the commercial (promotional) rights, including TV.

If they lived in trailers, this whole thing would simply be a soap opera. But, sadly it's high-stakes gambling.

Research the FISA/FOCA war if you really want to understand this. There was in fact a boycott of teams during the FISA/FOCA war and or course, at that time Ferrari was very much the fly in the ointment.

History repeats itself.

JCP911S

BKS... the FIA is a sanctioning body and the racing equivalent of the International Olympic Committee... they essentially "regulate" world-wide racing.... in effect they write the rule book. Interesting to note that neither NASCAR (France) or LeMans (the "other" France) officially recognize FIA as having any jusrisdiction over them... so in some respects, the FIA only has power insofar as people are willing to accept what they say.

Traditionally, the FIA wrote the rules for Formula 1, 2, 3 and whatever else was running at the time.. Historically they were a bunch of sporting gentlemen who ran a very exclusing club. Their power is really more tradition and convenience than anything else. They matter now becasue they (in theory at least) write the rules for F1... but as Geo points out... we know who pulls the strings.

RobNL

Max Mosley is the president of the FIA.

from the same site as mentioned by ColorChange, a more detailed explanation of all the organisations linked to F1.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Indu...175.A1866.html

Professor Helmüt Tester

This all provides an abject lesson in international politics. Think that the International Criminal Court is a good idea ? Think that the United Nations is anything other than a wasteful 'trade association' for government bureaucrats around the world that is only skilled in holding press conferences ? Wonder why the EU needs a fully staffed office in Brussels to monitor and regulate the texture and color of tomato paste ?

Many people now see the top dogs of F1 as the asshats that they are....good riddance...and bon voyage....and please consider taking along those worthless C students who couldn't run a grocery store or manage a refrigerator factory, but had the lucky genes to be born into families that would allow them to reach the pinnacle of their incompetence....Tony George and Brian France.

If any of these clowns ever had to hold a real job, they would have been thrown into a woodchipper within 6 months.

IMO.

mdbickell

not that it really matters but.....

Max's dad was the head of the British **** party during WWII.

I don't think people should be damned for the offences of their ancestors, but perhaps he learned his political philosophy from his old man.

Regardless, he and Bernie are ****ing ********.

Geo

This is not entirely correct. NASTYCAR and the sportying authority for the 24 hours of LeMans (cannot remember the acromyn at the moment) do indeed fall under the umbrella of the FIA. Ten years ago Bernie and Max tried to f*ck with sportscar racing and nearly killed it. The reason there are chicanes on the Mulsanne straight are thanks to Bernie and Max. I kid you not.

NASTYCAR is a national championship recognized by the FIA since NASTYCAR is a member of ACCUS, the ASN (national sporting authority) in the US which is a member of the FIA.

Recognition by the FIA is very important if the country or anyone from the country wants to participate in or host an international event. ACCUS represents the interests of US motor racing. If you wish to get a Superlicense (like Scott Speed now has) it is handled through ACCUS. If you wish to host a round of the WRC, it is handled through ACCUS. Back to the Superlicense, a driver may qualify for one by winning a recognized national or international professional championship. Technically, any NASTYCAR champion should qualify for a Superlicense. A Superlicense can be petitioned for, but the granting is NOT automatic. And if your ASN is out of favor with the FIA, or your championship is no longer recognized by the FIA, you're SOL on getting a Superlicense.

That said, there has always been a somewhat unusual relationship between the FIA and the various US championships because ultimately the US sanctioning bodies could actually get along quite well without the FIA. The FIA could get along quite well without the US sanctioning bodies as well, but it has always been in everyone's best interest to be on good terms.

That said, the fiasco in Indy will certainly make a lot of parties go "Hmmmm......."

I'm sure there is more rings in this circus to play out. If you haven't read the Minardi press release by Paul Stoddart, team principle for Minardi, you should.

NetManiac

Thanks for the tip Geo. Very interesting reading.

For those that can't, or don't want to google:

http://www.minardi.it/press/dettagli...omunicatiTipo=

ColorChange

Professor, we have disagreed on a bunch of things but your last post was great!

The FIA is a fairly (highly IMO) corrupt and political organization. There are huge conflicts of interest with cross ownership, bribery, kickbacks, etc. I can't stand it and Max and Bernie are at the center of it.

I am praying that the manufacturers walk away from Bernie AND the FIA and start their own, self sanctioned series.

BrianKeithSmith

Thanks guys! Good info and good history lesson all in one simple easy to find thread!

Brian

APKhaos

Just read the press release from Paul Stoddart - Team Principla at Minardi. It was posted on our local board earier today. Required reading for students of F1 history, a dark chapter of which is being written right now.

And then there is this, from a press conference given by Mr Mosley:

Max Mosley, President of Formula One racing’s governing body, the FIA, answers questions on the events of last weekend’s United States Grand Prix at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

Q: What about the American fans who travelled long distances and spent a lot of money to see a race with only 6 cars?
Max Mosley: My personal view, and it is only my personal view, is that Michelin should offer to compensate the fans on a fair basis and ask the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to coordinate this. Then Tony George and Bernie Ecclestone should jointly announce that the US Grand Prix will take place at Indianapolis in 2006 and that anyone who had a ticket this year would be entitled to the same ticket free-of-charge next year. But I emphasise, that’s just my personal view.

Q: Should you not have just forgotten about the rules and put on a show for the fans?
MM: You cannot do that if you wish to remain a sport. Formula One is a sport which entertains. It is not entertainment disguised as sport. But even more importantly Formula One is a dangerous activity and it would be most unwise to make fundamental changes to a circuit without following tried and tested procedures. What happened was bad, but it can be put right. This is not true of a fatality.

Q: Why did you refuse the request of some of the teams to install a chicane?
MM: The decision was taken (quite rightly in my view) by the FIA officials on the spot and notified to the teams on the Saturday evening. I did not learn about it until Sunday morning European time. They refused the chicane because it would have been unfair, against the rules and potentially dangerous.

Q: Why unfair?
MM: Because modern Formula One cars are specially prepared for each circuit. To change radically a circuit like Indianapolis, which has very particular characteristics, would be a big disadvantage to the teams which had brought correct equipment to the event.

Q: Is this why Ferrari objected?
MM: No, Ferrari had nothing whatever to do with the decision. They were never consulted. Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi, as the Bridgestone teams, were not involved.

Q: Why would a chicane have been unfair, it would have been the same for everyone?
MM: No. The best analogy I can give is a downhill ski race. Suppose half the competitors at a downhill race arrive with short slalom skis instead of long downhill skis and tell the organiser to change the course because it would be dangerous to attempt the downhill with their short skis. They would be told to ski down more slowly. To make the competitors with the correct skis run a completely different course to suit those with the wrong skis would be contrary to basic sporting fairness.

Q: Never mind about skiing, what about Formula One?
MM: OK, but it’s the same from a purely motor racing point of view. Suppose some time in the future we have five teams with engines from major car companies and seven independent teams with engines from a commercial engine builder (as in the past). Imagine the seven independent teams all have an oil surge problem in Turn 13 due to a basic design fault in their engines. They would simply be told to drop their revs or slow down. There would be no question of a chicane.

Q: All right, but why against the rules, surely you can change a circuit for safety reasons?
MM: There was no safety issue with the circuit. The problem was some teams had brought the wrong tyres. It would be like making all the athletes in a 100m sprint run barefoot because some had forgotten their shoes.

Q: How can you say a chicane would be “potentially dangerous” when most of the teams wanted it for safety reasons?
MM: A chicane would completely change the nature of the circuit. It would involve an extra session of very heavy braking on each lap, for which the cars had not been prepared. The circuit would also not have been inspected and homologated with all the simulations and calculations which modern procedures require. Suppose there had been a fatal accident – how could we have justified such a breach of our fundamental safety procedures to an American court?

Q: But it’s what the teams wanted.
MM: It’s what some of the teams wanted because they thought it might suit their tyres. They wanted it because they knew they could not run at full speed on the proper circuit. We cannot break our own rules just because some of the teams want us to.

Q: Why did the FIA stop the teams using a different tyre flown in specially from France?
MM: It is completely untrue that we stopped them. We told them they could use the tyre, but that the stewards would undoubtedly penalise them to ensure they gained no advantage from breaking the rules by using a high-performance short-life tyre just for qualifying. We also had to make sure this did not set a precedent. However the question became academic, because Michelin apparently withdrew the tyre after trying it on a test rig.

Q: Michelin were allowed to bring two types of tyre – why did they not have a back-up available?
MM: You would have to ask Michelin. Tyre companies usually bring an on-the-limit race tyre and a more conservative back-up which, although slower, is there to provide a safety net if there are problems.

Q: Is it true that you wrote to both tyre companies asking them to make sure their tyres were safe?
MM: Yes, we wrote on 1 June and both replied positively. The letter was prompted by incidents in various races in addition to rumours of problems in private testing.

Q: So, having refused to install a chicane, what did the FIA suggest the Michelin teams should do?
MM: We offered them three possibilities. First, to use the type of tyre they qualified on but with the option to change the troublesome left rear whenever necessary. Tyre changes are allowed under current rules provided they are for genuine safety reasons, which would clearly have been the case here. Secondly, to use a different tyre – but this became academic when Michelin withdrew it as already explained. Thirdly, to run at reduced speed through Turn 13, as Michelin had requested.

Q: How can you expect a racing driver to run at reduced speed through a corner?
MM: They do it all the time and that is exactly what Michelin requested. If they have a puncture they reduce their speed until they can change a wheel; if they have a brake problem they adjust their driving to overcome it. They also adjust their speed and driving technique to preserve tyres and brakes when their fuel load is heavy. Choosing the correct speed is a fundamental skill for a racing driver.

Q: But that would have been unfair, surely some would have gone through the corner faster than others?

MM: No, Michelin wanted their cars slowed in Turn 13. They could have given their teams a maximum speed. We offered to set up a speed trap and show a black and orange flag to any Michelin driver exceeding the speed limit. He would then have had to call in the pits – effectively a drive-through penalty.



Q: How would a driver know what speed he was doing?

MM: His team would tell him before the race the maximum revs he could run in a given gear in Turn 13. Some might even have been able to give their driver an automatic speed limiter like they use in the pit lane.



Q: But would this be real racing?

MM: It would make no difference to the race between the Michelin cars. Obviously the Bridgestone cars would have had an advantage, but this would have been as a direct result of having the correct tyres for the circuit on which everyone had previously agreed to race.



Q: Did the Michelin teams have any other way of running the race if the circuit itself was unchanged?

MM: Yes, they could have used the pit lane on each lap. The pit lane is part of the circuit. This would have avoided Turn 13 altogether. It is difficult to understand why none of them did this, because 7th and 8th places were certainly available, plus others if any of the six Bridgestone runners did not finish. There were points available which might change the outcome of the World Championship.



Q: But that would have looked very strange – could you call that a race?

MM: It would seem strange, but it would absolutely have been a race for the 14 cars concerned. And they would all have been at full speed for most of each lap. That would have been a show for the fans, certainly infinitely better than what happened.



Q: Did not Michelin tell them quite simply not to race at all?

MM: No. Michelin said speed must be reduced in Turn 13. They were apparently not worried about the rest of the circuit and certainly not about the pit lane, where a speed limit applies. If the instruction had been not to race at all, there would have been no point in asking for a chicane.



Q: Didn’t the Michelin teams offer to run for no points?

MM: I believe so, but why should the Bridgestone teams suddenly find they had gone all the way to America to run in a non-Championship race? It would be like saying there could be no medals in the Olympic rowing because some countries had brought the wrong boats.



Q: What about running the race with the chicane but with points only for the Bridgestone teams?

MM: This would start to enter the world of the circus, but even then the race would have been open to the same criticisms on grounds of fairness and safety as a Championship race run with a chicane. It would have been unfair on Bridgestone teams to finish behind Michelin teams on a circuit which had been specially adapted to suit the Michelin low-speed tyres to the detriment of Bridgestone’s high-speed tyres, and the circuit would no longer have met the rules.



Q: Have you ordered Michelin to produce details of all recent tyre failures as reported on a website?

MM: We cannot order Michelin to do anything. We have no contractual relationship with them. Their relationship is with the teams. However, we have an excellent understanding with both tyre companies and with many of the teams’ other suppliers. We find they always help us with technical information when we ask them.



Q: Wouldn’t Formula One be better if one body were responsible for the commercial side as well as the sport?

MM: No, this is precisely what the competition law authorities in many parts of the world seek to avoid. It is not acceptable to them that the international governing body should have the right both to sanction and to promote. This would potentially enable it to further its own financial interests to the detriment of competitors and organisers. Apart from the legal aspect there would be an obvious and very undesirable conflict of interest if a body charged with administering a dangerous sport had to consider the financial consequences of a decision taken for safety reasons.. You can be responsible for the sport or for the money, but not both.



Q: Didn’t this entire problem arise because new regulations require one set of tyres to last for qualifying and the race?

MM: No. The tyre companies have no difficulty making tyres last. The difficult bit is making a fast tyre last. There is always a compromise between speed and reliability. There have been one or two cases this season of too much speed and not enough reliability. Indianapolis was the most recent and worst example.



Q: Finally, what’s going to happen on June 29 in Paris?

MM: We will listen carefully to what the teams have to say. There are two sides to every story and the seven teams must have a full opportunity to tell theirs. The atmosphere will be calm and polite. The World Motor Sport Council members come from all over the world and will undoubtedly take a decision that is fair and balanced.

2BWise

Geo and NetManiac thanks for info on the Minardi press release. It really opened my eyes to the entire situation, and now have a better view of F1 as a whole. I just hope that we'll have a good formula series to watch in the coming years.