So who makes the rules?

[aral]

Don't forget McLaren. They have always had a manufacturer attitude and with the MP4-12C coming up for sale next year they are increasingly taking that view. So that makes it Ferrari, Mercedes and McLaren. Occasionally Renault is also remembering that they advertising for a manufacturers who makes their engines.

Personally I do not think that the manufacturers do rule FOTA these days. The independent teams won the tyre debate against the manufacturers who favored Michelin. But it is certainly a question of the issue on the agenda. If it is power trains the manufacturers can still mobilize some votes of their customers, not against explicit interests but in questions that do not touch their primary goals like cost containment.

Mclaren may become a manufacturer team in the years to come, but at this moment, they are not a manufacturer of cars (but soon will be) and they do not produce their own engines for F1, being a customer of Merc.

[aral]

I just think it's funny that in the seven or so years that I've known you, all you've ever talked about was the teams' inability to make decisions and how the FIA always has to step in and set the rules in their stead. Yet today, you've decided that the teams were making the rules all along, and only because you don't want to admit how obvious it is that FOTA has finally kicked the FIA president out of the process.

I mean, how much more evidence do you need than Todt's sheepish withdrawal from his puffed-up stance on the tire issue?

Time to wake up and admit the inevitable - the FIA/FOTA was is over; the teams won; and worst of all, they're actually governing well.

FOTA has never kicked any President out of the FIA, Max was retiring anyway.
It suits the teams to give the impression that the FIA make up the regulations, that way they can justify any commercial changes that come up. The FIA does make the final decision but it is little more than a rubber stamp these days.

F1 today is nothing like it would be if the FIA had the control it should have.
The present model aeroplane formula is solely to panda to the car manufacturers.

Until the scandal, Mosley had stated that he would stand for re-election. So the exposure of his delectations did force him out!

[andrew]

Mosley let his private life interfere with his professional life. Along with his personnal vendettas against various figures, he was the master of his owbn downfall.

The worst thing is, he is still cluttering up the FIA by creating a new position for himself on the FIA Senate. Reminds me of a limpet - won't let go. Wait, limpets are positively nice creatures compared to this crater. Limpets know when to let go!

[donskar]

FOTA is still very much controlled by the big manufacturer teams

"controlled by the big manufacturer teams"?

Other than Mercedes and Renault, who do you mean? With Toyota, Honda, and BMW gone, that leaves only M-B and Renault as manufacturers of any significance -- and I don't think many would agree that Renault has much influence over F1. (BTW, I'm a Ferrari fan of 50 years, but even I do not see them as a major manufacturer.) McL and Ferrari do have some influence, but I think it's based on success rather than manufacturing might.

[autogyro]

Care to highlight when I have insulted Mosley on this thread and what exactly I started?

Sorry andrew it was xpensive who wound it up.
I will ask Max what he thought of his comments.

[ISLAMATRON]

This thread confuses me.

Seems to me that you are confused about everything regarding F1 rules making for the last 25 years.

[andrew]

If you think someone is wrong, attempt to educate them. To resort to purile insults is just sad and dissapointing to those of us who are on here with the aim to discuss and learn.

Attack a post but not the poster are wise words.

We need Mod!!

[andrew]

Care to highlight when I have insulted Mosley on this thread and what exactly I started?

Sorry andrew it was xpensive who wound it up.
I will ask Max what he thought of his comments.

No worries, mistakes happen.

[mx_tifoso]

Grow up and respect each other or don't bother to post.

This thread was doing really well with informative posts until names staring being thrown around. Keep it on topic and respectful, because we don't like to be intrusive and have to clean threads up, but we will if necessary.

[WhiteBlue]

The users at F1technical can make up their own mind how the rule change mechanism works under the Concord Agreement (CA). A page named RaceFax have published the 1997-2007 CA as a PDF. You can join recefax as a free 30 day subscriber and download the CA at http://www.racefax.com/content/concorde.php

For the benefit of the average user I will copy the main points that deal with the rule changes here. I will also bold items that are particularly important to the structure of decision making.

Fl COMMISSION
6.1 The parties hereto agree that the FIA Formula One Commission, called the
“F1 Commission”, shall continue in existence and shall continue to resolve all
matters concerning the FIA F1 Championship (other than matters referred to in
Clause 6.2) and any changes to the regulations relating to such Championship,
subject always to Clause 6.3.

6.2 The Fl Commission shall continue not to resolve the following matters:
(a) matters not presently within the competence of the FIA World Motor
Sport Council (herein referred to as the “World Motor Sport Council”)
such as proceedings under the Code and regulations referred to in
Recital D hereof;
(b) matters within the competence of the FIA Circuits and Safety
Commission (that is safety measures regarding circuits);
(c) the nomination and/or appointment of the FIA Inspectors, Observers,
Delegates and Stewards of the Meeting, and
(d) the matters referred to in Clauses 6.2(b) and 6.2(c) shall remain under
the final and exclusive authority of the World Motor Sport Council or
its Secretariat,
6.3 Save as provided in this Clause 6, each of the FIA commissions concerned
with Formula One shall continue to report only on Formula One matters to the F1
Commission, which shall then submit its resolutions on matters so referred and
other matters within Clause 6.1 to the World Motor Sport Council for decision. The
World Motor Sport Council shall continue not to resolve matters referred to in
Clause 6.1: it may only approve or disapprove resolutions proposed by the Fl
Commission. If the World Motor Sport Council do not approve a resolution
proposed by the F1 Commission, it shall not modify such resolution, but shall
remit it to the Fl Commission for reconsideration with its recommendation. The
World Motor Sport Council can itself continue to submit matters within Clause 6.1
to the Fl Commission for consideration by the F1 Commission, which shall then
notify its opinion and its eventual proposal to the World Motor Sport Council for
decision.
6.4 Nothing in this Clause 6 shall prevent the World Motor Sport Council from
continuing to consult other FIA Commissions regarding Formula One matters.

7.3 The internal rules governing the F1 Technical Working Group shall be laid
down by the F1 Commission, provided always that:
(a) its Chairman shall be the FIA Technical Delegate;
(c) the quorum for meetings shall be six members;
(e) for any decision to be made as a recommendation to the F1
Commission it must be passed by an 80% majority;

7.4 The Fl Commission shall continue to have, to the exclusion of any other body, the power
to approve or reject technical regulations (which shall always and necessarily be recommended
by the Fl Technical Group) but it shall have no right to amend or alter the wording of such
technical regulations proposed by the Fl Technical Working Group. Notwithstanding-this
limitation, the F1 Commission may remit to the Fl Technical Working Group regulations which
it has rejected with proposals for their amendment, and may also suggest to the F1 Technical
Working Group new regulations for their consideration, which in both cases shall be referred
back to the F1 Commission for decision.
7.5 (a) It is hereby agreed that one of the principal tasks of the F1 Technical Working
Group is constantly to review and modify the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations in the
light of technical developments, so as to keep the performance of the cars within reasonable
limits taking safety into consideration.
(b) If, notwithstanding the work of the Fl Technical Working Group, the
average performance of the leading ten cars in the FIA F1
Championship should show an unacceptable increase over the
previous season, or a trend of increased performance over several
seasons which, in the opinion of the FIA, is such as to endanger the
public, trackside workers or drivers, the FIA shall give notice to the F1
Technical Working Group to propose measures to reduce the
performance of the cars.

If you have followed so far with our analysis of the CA you will agree that the exclusive right to make changes to the technical regulations rests with the Technical working group which is almost completely made up of the teams representatives and where decisions are made with a 80% majority. I believe the latest CA has reduced that figure to 70%.

The rules as written by the TWG are than formally passed through the F1 Commission and then rubber stamped by the World Motor Sport Counsil (WMSC). The F1Commission and the WMSC cannot make changes to the wording. They can only reject rules or pass them.

The only power the FiA has is to reject proposals by the teams until they are considered suitable for the sport. Only if the TWG does not fulfill its obligation to control performance within safe levels the FiA can impose rule changes to force the necessary safety.

I hope this contributes to the transparency of rule making in F1. The basic principle are the same since the first CA in 1981. The only time that a CA wasn't properly operational in the history of F1 since 1981 was for 19 months from 1.1.2008-24.07.2009. During that time a limited number of teams (Ferrari, Williams, Red Bull, Force India, Toro Rosso) had signed a 2008-2012 CA which was eventually superceded by the 2009-2012 CA that was signed by all teams. I usually refer to the incomplete 2008 CA as the "Interregnum". The interregnum CA was signed by the few teams between 2005 and 2006. Those teams took a great deal of influence on the course of the rule development in the short time of the interregnum. Williams stopped the introduction of customer teams which were all but agreed between the rest of the teams and the FiA. As a result Prodrive which had been given a license to compete could not race in 2008. Ferrari was able to influence the direction of the rules very heavily because the FiA had agreed a secret veto with them from 2005 when they had signed the 2008 CA.

[mx_tifoso]

The users at F1technical can make up their own mind how the rule change mechanism works under the Concord Agreement (CA). A page named RaceFax have published the 1997-2007 CA as a PDF. You can join recefax as a free 30 day subscriber and download the CA at http://www.racefax.com/content/concorde.php

For the benefit of the average user I will copy the main points that deal with the rule changes here. I will also bold items that are particularly important to the structure of decision making.

.....

You mean the ones with a real life and that aren't addicted to the internet and F1/forums?

But still, thanks for digging all of that up for us. It's appreciated.

[WhiteBlue]

People who have an interest in F1 rule making have known these things for some years. Unfortunately one has to read some relatively cumbersome documents to discover how the rule making really works and has worked in the past. It is by far easier to spread fairy tales and say that Max Mosley is the root of all problems in F1.

The CA text clearly shows that the teams are responsible for rule changes and can completely produce all technical regulations between themselves as long as they fulfill their obligation to curb excessive performance. Unfortunately they have failed that obligation several times in the past. In most of those cases dangerous cornering speeds due to excessive downforce levels were at the root of the problem. Some cases were related to too much engine power and led to capacity cuts from 3.5 L to 3.0 L and later to 2.4 L engines. I have observed that engine power approaching 800 bhp and cornering with lateral acceleration above 3G usually leads to curbing of performance. At 5G all the alarm bells are ringing.

I'm pretty sure that the 2010 level of cornering speeds is a concern to the FiA and we have seen that the TWG has been on the job to cut downforce by banning the DDDs and reducing diffusor height. Todt has publicly said that aerodynamics are currently excessive which is a clear warning. I am not convinced that the corrective actions for 2011 will actually lead to downforce levels that will satisfy the FiA. A majority of teams reportedly wanted to apply further cuts but the number wasn't big enough to bring the rule change through. As a result we may well see Jean Todt invoking the safety clause once again.

[timbo]

WB, thanks for the quote.
However, please tell, what would be an incentive for the teams to change the rules?
IMO there's basicly none.
So, the force behind radical rulechanges is almost exclusively the 7.5(b).
Now, we can only wonder which particular idea comes from which source.

[WhiteBlue]

WB, thanks for the quote.
However, please tell, what would be an incentive for the teams to change the rules?
IMO there's basicly none.

There is always the desire to improve performance and teams are always jockeying for rule changes that suit their strengths. Red Bull for instance will always go for maximum freedom on aerodynamics. Newey always profits when the aero config changes massively.

Mercedes has a good KERS unit to the old spec and other teams would naturally prefer to change the spec to have another new shot at the technology. I give you Ferrari's Aldo Costa on the issue.

Aldo COSTA: From my side I think the World Council voted for solutions that have been studied for a long time, a lot of work has been done by FOTA teams and a lot of the job has been done by the Technical Working Group. I think we achieved quite a lot of interesting innovation in Formula One. One point that no-one is underling but for me the safety aspect is important. The chassis with several little modifications would be safer for next year. The FIA as usual and the teams have looked at last year and this year's crashes and, as usual, reacted on that making the chassis safer. We will have the front part of the chassis more robust, the roll loop more robust, the side protection of the chassis more robust. Underneath the chassis in the driver area. The driver will be more protected, so all very positive aspects. KERS, we spoke about already last time here. Ferrari is in favour of KERS. Ferrari would like to do more about KERS but unfortunately the rule that we had last year will be the rule of 2011 which is for us a shame. In terms of aerodynamic change we will have a substantial reduction of downforce without the double diffuser that for us was never a legal option. We will simplify and clarify all the rear wing elemental stuff which I think will be good for the clarity of the rule itself. We will have the introduction of the new adjustable rear wing. I have the same mixed feeling like Mr Sauber. It is a completely new element. We have not tested it. We have studied very, very little about it. We are going with it next year, so we will see after a few races. Anyway it is a movable option, so the FIA and the teams can always decide to stop it in case it is not good enough or not good for some reason. All in all I think we have done quite a good movement (inaudible word) a rule which is safer, clearer in terms of definition and again trying, a genuine attempt to improve the show.

Ferrari clearly were against the DDDs from day one and you can bet they always voted against it and want to have that changed. So you get a pretty good idea of the many issues that require teams to fight for new rules. Sometimes the changes are inevitable like the tyre supplier change we have now.

The next big arena for rule changes will be the new for 2013 power train formula. The TWG/FOTA have been asked to finalize their rules for this until the end of the season/year.