Subscribe

Sign up for free

  • Get quick access to your favorite articles

  • Manage alerts on breaking news and favorite drivers

  • Make your voice heard with article commenting.

Autosport Plus

Discover premium content
Subscribe

GPMA criticises FIA, warns of legal action

The Formula One manufacturers have criticised the FIA's position on future engine format and have hinted that continued insistence by the FIA to ignore the wish of the majority of the teams could lead to legal action

Ten of the 12 teams that have entered the 2008 Formula One World Championship (which includes all current teams bar Midland, with Prodrive also in the minority) have put their support behind a proposal to freeze engine developments for a period of up to four years, but with one engine update allowed per season. The proposal suggests this 'freeze' could begin as early as next year.

Allied with this freeze, the car makers involved in Formula One have agreed to set up an engine fund of €40 million (EUR) to assist independent teams, not owned by a car manufacturer, with their customer engine contracts.

But FIA president Max Mosley has made it clear the €40m would not be enough, and with no unanimous agreement by all teams, the FIA has made it clear it would continue with its own plans for a minimum three-year engine freeze, with no in-season developments, starting from 2008.

In a brief explaining their stance, the manufacturers have criticised Mosley, saying his position now represents "yet another U-turn" from the FIA, and the manufacturers have made it clear a unilateral move by the FIA could well be followed by legal action for breach of contract.

"A clear majority of the twelve teams that are due to participate in 2008 voted against the engine freeze, as suggested by the FIA, and were in a position to vote in support of a engine compromise which would be more appropriate for Formula One," a statement by the manufacturers said.

"However, as the FIA did not want to implement any other engine format but their own, they refused the teams their right to formally vote on their compromise prior to the 30 June deadline.

"The FIA-President is quoted as saying that the teams could merely make proposals to change the regulations - but never make changes to the regulations themselves.

"This represents (yet another) U-turn by the FIA President.

"Expecting/Perceiving to enter into a democratic process, the teams then submitted their entries and looked forward to a fair process of majority voting in the Sporting Working Group and ratification and acceptance by the Formula One Commission and World Motor Sport Council prior to 30 June.

"To this date, however, all majority votes which went against the FIA's interests have either been rejected to ignored, and neither the F1 Commission nor the WMSC has even met to discuss the SWG votes yet."

The statement, which was issued by the Grand Prix Manufacturers Association (GPMA) in the format of a question-and-answer, further suggests the manufacturers could challenge the FIA's position legally.

In response to the question, "If the full freeze format gets accepted, will the teams and manufacturers support its implementation in 2007 or 2008?", the GPMA states:

"Due to the various inconsistencies, irregularities, breaches of agreements shown by the FIA over the engine issue, the GPMA manufacturers wish to reserve their position and refrain from any speculation."

Q: What is the Indianapolis Proposal?

A: An engine format, created by teams and manufacturers that are due to participate in Formula One in 2008. It combines the strategic objectives of reducing costs and maintaining Formula One as the pinnacle of global motor sport.

On 24 March 2006, Ferrari, Renault and Cosworth drafted the so-called Maranello Proposal, which suggested to homologate engines from 2008 for a period of five years, and to allow one annual update each season, on a small selection of components.

During the 2006 Monaco GP weekend, four major car manufacturers and the majority of the teams agreed on the so-called Monaco Proposal, which suggested to homologate engines from 2008 or 2007 for a period of three or four years, and to allow one annual update each season, on a large selection of components.

During the 2006 Indianapolis GP weekend, all six car manufacturers and their teams agreed on the Indianapolis-Proposal, which suggests to homologate engines from 2008 or 2007 for a period of three or four years, and to allow one annual update each season, on a selection of components .

Q: Why is the Indianapolis Proposal more appropriate for Formula One than the full freeze on engine development, as suggested by the FIA?

A: The Indianapolis Proposal would significantly reduce costs but retain the spirit of competition, i.e.:

• no team/manufacturer would be locked into current performance;

• fans and other stakeholders could witness continuous change;

• F1 would remain more technically challenging for current and future engine manufacturers;

• and it could be introduced from 2007 - one year earlier than the FIA?s full freeze.

Q: Which manufacturers and teams support the Indianapolis Proposal?

A: All six car manufacturers and ten of the twelve teams

Q: Why did not all teams support the Indianapolis Proposal?

A: For individual reasons, of commercial nature

Q: Why didn't the manufacturers and teams manage to agree on a new engine format prior to the 30 June deadline?

A: They did. A clear majority of the twelve teams that are due to participate in 2008 voted against the engine freeze, as suggested by the FIA, and were in a position to vote in support of a engine compromise which would be more appropriate for Formula One.

However, as the FIA did not want to implement any other engine format but their own, they refused the teams their right to formally vote on their compromise prior to the 30 June deadline.

Q: The FIA-President is quoted as saying that the teams could merely make proposals to change the regulations - but never make changes to the regulations themselves.

A: This represents (yet another) U-turn by the FIA President. In a personal letter from 22 March 2006 and published on the FIA's website, he wrote:

"Although the Sporting Regulations are now fixed, any element could be changed on proposal of a simple majority of the entered teams sitting in the Sporting Working Group (Appendix 5) and - the F1 Commission or World Motor Sport Council would only reject such proposal in the overall interests of the Formula One World Championship or of motor sport in general."

Expecting/Perceiving to enter into a democratic process, the teams then submitted their entries and looked forward to a fair process of majority voting in the Sporting Working Group and ratification and acceptance by the Formula One Commission and World Motor Sport Council prior to 30 June.

To this date, however, all majority votes which went against the FIA's interests have either been rejected to ignored, and neither the F1 Commission nor the WMSC has even met to discuss the SWG votes yet.

Q: Why doesn't the GPMA just pay €15m (EUR) each year to financially support an independent engine builder?

A: As ever, the GPMA is willing to make investments that are in the best interests of the sport. Such investments always need to be made on the condition that the balance between supporting individual participants and maintaining a fair competition are met.

The €40m offer is the most significant effort to help individual participants ever seen in motor sport and represents the absolute maximum the GPMA can commit.

Q: If the full freeze format gets accepted, will the teams and manufacturers support its implementation in 2007 or 2008?

A: Due to the various inconsistencies, irregularities, breaches of agreements shown by the FIA over the engine issue, the GPMA manufacturers wish to reserve their position and refrain from any speculation.

Q: But would it not be a waste of money to develop new engines for and during 2007, only to return to a homologated 2006 engine for 2008, 2009 and 2010?

A: The question should be why the Indianapolis Proposal was rejected by the FIA, as its implementation from 2007 for four years would hardly cost more than full development for 2007 followed by a 3-year engine freeze.

And needless to say regular engine development would greatly improve the sporting spectacle.

Be part of the Autosport community

Join the conversation
Previous article GPMA urges FIA to accept engine proposal
Next article McLaren: de la Rosa can be a benchmark

Top Comments

There are no comments at the moment. Would you like to write one?

Sign up for free

  • Get quick access to your favorite articles

  • Manage alerts on breaking news and favorite drivers

  • Make your voice heard with article commenting.

Autosport Plus

Discover premium content
Subscribe