mo1965:

So you think 8 teams start organising circuits and market F1 internationally.

You think FIA lays the rules for inspecting F1 cars after each race? Have you ever thought about how Mclaren new about fuel temperature in williams car???? There you go again, is this another assumption you are making similar to your statement on Costworth engines?????? 

Do you think if FOTA were capable of running a series, they wouldn't do that????

Do you know how much money is involved in F1 (think about it), and you really think these teams would refuse to take it, if they were capable of doing it??? 

The problem is, you have made up your mind on FOTA and everything they say has become de-facto (good for you).  I just wait for you to come back and say "prove it"???????????????????????? 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I extracted the following from ITV's website:

The deal was hammered out in a two-hour meeting between Montezemolo of FOTA/Ferrari, Ecclestone and Mosley.

The meeting took place in the FIA building and the three then went across to the World Council meeting room to get everything ratified.

The three men broke out of the WMSC meeting part way through to finalise a few details and then returned to report their agreement.

Both sides have achieved much of what they wanted. By pushing the teams over the brink, Mosley has got new teams into the sport, forced the manufacturers to commit and got them and the teams to wake up and smell the coffee when it comes to budgets.

FOTA, meanwhile, was prepared to stand and be counted and extracted major concessions from the FIA as a result of this new-found unity.

So what provided the breakthrough? Well, on the FIA's side it was FOTA's acknowledgement of the FIA's authority, its right to govern and regulate F1.

On FOTA's side it was Mosley's agreement not to stand again and the return of the F1 Commission for setting new rules. 

------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

 

 

"So you think 8 teams start organising circuits and market F1 internationally"

No, and that isn't what I said, if the breakaway occured of course the teams would start organising circuits and marketing internationally.

 

"You think FIA lays the rules for inspecting F1 cars after each race? Have you ever thought about how Mclaren new about fuel temperature in williams car???? There you go again, is this another assumption you are making similar to your statement on Costworth engines??????"

The FIA write the rules into the rulebook, the FIA administer them.

I dont need to think about McLaren knowing about another teams fuel temperatures, it has nothing at all to do with who administers the rules.

You stated that Williams dropped Cosworth (and it is Cosworth btw, not costworth)

"They used Cosworth for one season (after BMW left) and they dropped it due to lack of performance and unacceptable reliability. "

I asked you for proof that Williams dropped the engine due to a lack of performance and unnaceptable reliability, I provided details of every race that season in which Williams ran the Cosworth, complete with retirements, and the reasons for those retirements, If you can show me where Williams have said they dropped the Cosworth due to a lack of performance and unnaceptable reliability I'll have no hesitation in apologising.

 

"Do you think if FOTA were capable of running a series, they wouldn't do that????"

FOTA always said it was a last resort option, and they still may yet go down that route, but even if they dont, yes I believe 100% that FOTA are more than capable.

 

"Do you know how much money is involved in F1 (think about it), and you really think these teams would refuse to take it, if they were capable of doing it???"

 Yes.

 

"The problem is, you have made up your mind on FOTA and everything they say has become de-facto (good for you).  I just wait for you to come back and say "prove it"????????????????????????"

 

There you go again, apparently knowing me better than I know myself, your arrogance is astounding, as for me asking you to "prove it" I will, every time you state something that is factually incorrect, so you shouldn't have long to wait.

 

 

 

Mo, you have time and time again posted innacurate details of many things, and time and time again I have attempted to prove you wrong, in fact every time I've pointed out your errors I've provided proof to back it up,

Another poster mentioned that you "change tune", and conveniently pass over comments that question the validity of what you say, I would go just little further than saying you "change tune", I think you sing in a different arena. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

redfrog:

violator101:

redfrog:

violator101:

I recommend you read the original post most clearly because I do not support the FIA I support a regulator full stop whoever that may be. Fact is Ferrari is not a regulator and cannot dictate a series simply to run in their favor. Thats not a sport thats a showroom promotion. and you know it dom.....oops sorry redfrog

I think you took my post the wrong way LOL . I am neither a Ferrari or FOTA fanboy , and do my best to let everyone know.........read some of my posts

As so many have previously pointed out, sarcasm just does't work on the internet

 

 

 

 

yeah neither does hipocracy. that was a poor bit of sarcasm to say "sure your not max" simple because someone does not like the idea of an unregulated series. The fact is frog you tried to unmined my original post with that remark and totally missed that fact that I do not support FIA but if I had a choice of who upholds the rules in the sport the a 3rd party regulator is more logical than letting the teams do their own rules.

I think the big     after "sure your not max"  was pretty clear it was meant in jest

 it's still sarcasm which you say does not work here.

mo1965:

Last time I made a statement about "Costworth's lack of performance" (I refered to both performance and reliability), you told me to prove it. I couldn't at the time, but just by coincedence, I saw an article on F1-live (29-6-09) and remarks made by Patrick Head regarding coswroth and one of the problem with their engine. It is worth a look. 

 

You still haven't proved it, here's the article in full, can you explain where or how this backs up your insistence that Williams dropped the Cosworth engine "due to lack of performance and unacceptable reliability".

 

 

"It is not true that small teams equipped with Cosworth engines next year will enjoy an unfair technical advantage.

That is the insistence of Williams' Patrick Head, amid a recent controversy between FOTA members and the FIA about Formula One's mandatory 18,000rpm rev limit.

The FIA is proposing that, with Cosworth returning to F1 in 2010 as a supplier of cut-price engines to independent teams, the British engine maker be allowed to run with unlimited revs.

Cosworth last raced in F1 with Williams in 2006, when its 2.4 litre V8 on occasion surpassed the 20,000rpm barrier.

But while a 2,000rpm bonus might seem like a huge advantage for new entrants US F1, Campos and Manor next year, Head insists other drawbacks of the Cosworth will more than offset the benefit.

document.write('');

The Briton insists F1's Formula One Teams' Association should have ‘no fear’ of the four-year-old Cosworth, while FIA President Max Mosley worries that with a rev-limit, the engine will be sorely off the pace.

"The (2006) Cosworth engine uses clearly more fuel than the current engines," Head is quoted as saying by Auto Motor und Sport. "The cars will have to carry 15 kilograms more (fuel) for a race distance. That means half a second on the lap time and higher tyre wear.” "

I wonder why people create these aliases over and over, makes me wonder if it's out of desperation to convince others that there are people that share their view.  Sad tbh

andy karter:

Welcome to the forum. I fear you may ruffle a few feathers with that. Words like light and blue touch-paper spring immediately to mind. Forgive me if I just stand back a little!

ooooohhhh yes!!!  well spoken andy 

pt71:

I wonder why people create these aliases over and over, makes me wonder if it's out of desperation to convince others that there are people that share their view.  Sad tbh

Do you think violator is an alias, pt71?  I thought he sounded original but could well be wrong. 

violator101:

I must admit I am one of the many fans who have returned to this sport after years of predictable results. It has been a massive criticism of the sport for years and each time there have been promises to do away with the unpredictability and make the sport exciting again like it was back in the day.

And how is this year 'exciting again like it was back in the day' exactly?  The racing itself is no more exiting this year than it has been for the last few.  Instead of seeing Ferrari or Mclaren out front by miles, we are simply seeing a Red Bull or a Brawn.  Whoopie!  Nothing has really changed other than the names and liveries of the leading cars.  

Since 2005 there have been very small changes to make this happen again but it is only this year that F1 has really provided a true unpredictable sport. Don't shout Brawn either because everyone knows red bull are just about in sync with them now which was no where near the case in Monaco.

 Again, hardly a unique experience.  Yes, the big teams have been caught on the hop by the new rule changes (or perhaps the vagueness of them) but how is the Brawn/Red Bull battle any different to the Mclaren/Ferrari battle of the previous two years?  On some tracks the Red Bull is stronger and goes cruising off into the distance, on others it is the Brawn doing the same. The actual racing is no more exciting or unpredictable though.  Whilst ideally I'd like to see the likes of Kimi, Lewis and Alonso back out front I really wouldn't mind so much if there was great racing at the sharp end, but it's been duller than dishwater for the majority of the time at the front.   You seem more interested in the big teams doing badly than in the racing itself.

Brawn don't act like a team relaxing as the season goes on no matter how much of a lead they have and this is good this is unpredictable. No one can realistically say they have it in the bag at this stage and the point is if this was July 2004 everyone would know who was going to win.

And?  Why are you referencing 2004 when your point is that this year is somehow different from the previous seasons?  Yeah, in 2004 perhaps.  What about this time last year though?  What about the year before that.  Both of those years the championship was actually closer at this point than this years and nobody was 'relaxing' then either, which is where your point falls down.

 I have watched all the press updates from Ferrari as this year has progressed and I agree with Eddie Jordan they are acting like a team that has been used to buying their way out of trouble in the past and they simply are not used to being in a situation where money cannot buy them a championship. They simply do not know what to do with themselves and throwing their weight around about the rule changes is the best thing they could come up with.

 Meaning the double-diffuser legal action?  Were they the only team to have issues with that then?  I do not see any critique of the other teams involved.   It's not like F1 does not have a history of teams complaining about other's cars either.

They speak of their brand and everything the Ferrari means which basically boasts "a reputation to uphold on the road and on the track". All that we are seeing is ego, jealousy, desperation and disbelief.

Meh.

When Ferrari started the whole idea of boycotting 2010 they were the only team doing so for a short time and when the other jumped on the band wagon they said they wanted to race with the best drivers and the best teams - excluded force India no doubt and the idea of new teams that would add more unpredictability to the sport.

Did they exclude Force India?  I don't recall that happening.   As for Ferrari excluding the idea of new teams, I would be interested in knowing your source for that also.  Direct quotes please.

These new teams that were to enter the 2010 grid were not in so many words described as a joke by Ferrari and that just goes to show this school yard bully aspect to their quest to regain dominance on the sport - something they consider their right simply because they are Ferrari.

Again, I must have missed that bit.  What exactly did he say?  could you print his quote so that everybody can understand his and Ferrari's horrible arrogance?

They just don't to be associated as losers or non competitive because they feel it will tarnish their whole image off the track too and that would be a disaster for them. They need new rich people to buy their road cars which have a reputation influenced by their performance as winners in F1. If they don't win and then have their most uncompetitive season in years don't you think it's expected that they would try someway to steel control over the sport. The whole FOTA breakaway idea is clearly an idea sparked by Ferrari or at least pushed more than any other team because they need to suit the rules to make it easier for them to win. Remember the FOTA organisation is not a 3rd part regulator as it is run by the teams and this would be like watching a football match where both managers to take position as ref.

Speculative nonsense based on nothing.  Yes, of course Ferrari want their cars to do well on the track, but to suggest that them having a bad season would lead them to try to "steel control over the sport" is a massive leap.  If Ferrari were as all-powerful within FOTA as you suggest and that by leading a breakaway series they would garner so much benefit...well, then why has the breakaway not happened? Isn't it just a tad more feasible that they were simply unhappy with the budget cap (in the same way that other teams also were) and were tired of constant, stupid rule changes and being dictated to by the FIA and in particular Max Mosely?

That will not work as a sport and if anything would just be a show for Ferrari, Renault and McLaren to take it in turns to uphold their reputation. Notice I only mention manufactures because the others rely on them without their own supply chains.

So how would the other teams rely on the manufacturers more as a result of a breakaway?  Take the Merc engine out of the Brawn and see how fast it is.  I'm betting It'll struggle equally regardless of whether it's run under the FIA or FOTA

I feel the FOTA thing is just one great big manufacturer mafia trying to bring the sport back into repetition because for them repartition on the track means more sales on the road. Trust the FIA or an alternative 3rd party regulator if you like F1 to remain a proper sport I say.

Huh? So you think that FOTA just want the same old repetition to continue and that it is a 'manufacturer mafia' so better to trust to the FIA?  Who has the sport been under for the past decade, during which time this repetition of which you speak has been happening?  Oh yes, that's right, the FIA. 

God, I'm really glad that I'm drunk at the moment.

.

If you are a die hard supporter of the breakaway farce I say good luck to you because who will fund that show? who will regulate the rules? how will they alone afford to run a non budget capped tour in a world recession?

violator101:

redfrog:

violator101:

redfrog:

violator101:

I recommend you read the original post most clearly because I do not support the FIA I support a regulator full stop whoever that may be. Fact is Ferrari is not a regulator and cannot dictate a series simply to run in their favor. Thats not a sport thats a showroom promotion. and you know it dom.....oops sorry redfrog

I think you took my post the wrong way LOL . I am neither a Ferrari or FOTA fanboy , and do my best to let everyone know.........read some of my posts

As so many have previously pointed out, sarcasm just does't work on the internet

 

 

 

 

yeah neither does hipocracy. that was a poor bit of sarcasm to say "sure your not max" simple because someone does not like the idea of an unregulated series. The fact is frog you tried to unmined my original post with that remark and totally missed that fact that I do not support FIA but if I had a choice of who upholds the rules in the sport the a 3rd party regulator is more logical than letting the teams do their own rules.

I think the big     after "sure your not max"  was pretty clear it was meant in jest

 it's still sarcasm which you say does not work here.

I don't understand what you're having a go at redfrog for? He's one of the few people who agree with you!

When he said:

"No posts questioning the validity of Ferrari to win everything

No posts questioning the validity of FOTA's status as demi gods"

...he was joking!

He then criticised himself by saying sarcasm doesn't work on the Internet... that wasn't a criticsm aimed at you!

violator101:

redfrog:

violator101:

redfrog:

violator101:

I recommend you read the original post most clearly because I do not support the FIA I support a regulator full stop whoever that may be. Fact is Ferrari is not a regulator and cannot dictate a series simply to run in their favor. Thats not a sport thats a showroom promotion. and you know it dom.....oops sorry redfrog

I think you took my post the wrong way LOL . I am neither a Ferrari or FOTA fanboy , and do my best to let everyone know.........read some of my posts

As so many have previously pointed out, sarcasm just does't work on the internet

yeah neither does hipocracy. that was a poor bit of sarcasm to say "sure your not max" simple because someone does not like the idea of an unregulated series. The fact is frog you tried to unmined my original post with that remark and totally missed that fact that I do not support FIA but if I had a choice of who upholds the rules in the sport the a 3rd party regulator is more logical than letting the teams do their own rules.

I think the big     after "sure your not max"  was pretty clear it was meant in jest

 it's still sarcasm which you say does not work here.

Hello violator, welcome.  To post on this forum, it helps if you have a sense of humour.  It also helps if you read previous posts.  There has been a humungous amount of debate here about the whole FOTA breakaway issue.  I think it's fair to say that stigga supported the breakaway and redfrog didn't.

Redfrog's post to you was as follows:

"Welcome to the forum......................Youv'e now learnt the house rules

No posts questioning the validity of Ferrari to win everything

No posts questioning the validity of FOTA's status as demi gods

Good luck with your next post........................are you sure your not Max?"

 

I thought that redfrog was actually supporting your stance, violator.  His gentle sarcasm or humour was directed, not at you, but  at previous posts in favour of Ferrari and FOTA.  You said:

 Quote violator: "I do not support FIA but if I had a choice of who upholds the rules in the sport the a 3rd party regulator is more logical than letting the teams do their own rules"

I think from reading previous posts by redfrog, that he would support that statement (please correct me if I'm wrong, froggy).  And in fact I think that almost all of the FOTA breakaway supporters who have posted here, would also agree with that statement of yours.  I think we all acknowledged the need for an independent third party regulator, and there was some discussion of how such a body could be set up.

 

Anyway redfrog, sorry for butting in on your very able defence of yourself, you didn't need me but I just had to get my word in!!! 

raikkster:

violator101:

I must admit I am one of the many fans who have returned to this sport after years of predictable results. It has been a massive criticism of the sport for years and each time there have been promises to do away with the unpredictability and make the sport exciting again like it was back in the day.

And how is this year 'exciting again like it was back in the day' exactly?  The racing itself is no more exiting this year than it has been for the last few.  Instead of seeing Ferrari or Mclaren out front by miles, we are simply seeing a Red Bull or a Brawn.  Whoopie!  Nothing has really changed other than the names and liveries of the leading cars.  

Since 2005 there have been very small changes to make this happen again but it is only this year that F1 has really provided a true unpredictable sport. Don't shout Brawn either because everyone knows red bull are just about in sync with them now which was no where near the case in Monaco.

 Again, hardly a unique experience.  Yes, the big teams have been caught on the hop by the new rule changes (or perhaps the vagueness of them) but how is the Brawn/Red Bull battle any different to the Mclaren/Ferrari battle of the previous two years?  On some tracks the Red Bull is stronger and goes cruising off into the distance, on others it is the Brawn doing the same. The actual racing is no more exciting or unpredictable though.  Whilst ideally I'd like to see the likes of Kimi, Lewis and Alonso back out front I really wouldn't mind so much if there was great racing at the sharp end, but it's been duller than dishwater for the majority of the time at the front.   You seem more interested in the big teams doing badly than in the racing itself.

Brawn don't act like a team relaxing as the season goes on no matter how much of a lead they have and this is good this is unpredictable. No one can realistically say they have it in the bag at this stage and the point is if this was July 2004 everyone would know who was going to win.

And?  Why are you referencing 2004 when your point is that this year is somehow different from the previous seasons?  Yeah, in 2004 perhaps.  What about this time last year though?  What about the year before that.  Both of those years the championship was actually closer at this point than this years and nobody was 'relaxing' then either, which is where your point falls down.

 I have watched all the press updates from Ferrari as this year has progressed and I agree with Eddie Jordan they are acting like a team that has been used to buying their way out of trouble in the past and they simply are not used to being in a situation where money cannot buy them a championship. They simply do not know what to do with themselves and throwing their weight around about the rule changes is the best thing they could come up with.

 Meaning the double-diffuser legal action?  Were they the only team to have issues with that then?  I do not see any critique of the other teams involved.   It's not like F1 does not have a history of teams complaining about other's cars either.

They speak of their brand and everything the Ferrari means which basically boasts "a reputation to uphold on the road and on the track". All that we are seeing is ego, jealousy, desperation and disbelief.

Meh.

When Ferrari started the whole idea of boycotting 2010 they were the only team doing so for a short time and when the other jumped on the band wagon they said they wanted to race with the best drivers and the best teams - excluded force India no doubt and the idea of new teams that would add more unpredictability to the sport.

Did they exclude Force India?  I don't recall that happening.   As for Ferrari excluding the idea of new teams, I would be interested in knowing your source for that also.  Direct quotes please.

These new teams that were to enter the 2010 grid were not in so many words described as a joke by Ferrari and that just goes to show this school yard bully aspect to their quest to regain dominance on the sport - something they consider their right simply because they are Ferrari.

Again, I must have missed that bit.  What exactly did he say?  could you print his quote so that everybody can understand his and Ferrari's horrible arrogance?

They just don't to be associated as losers or non competitive because they feel it will tarnish their whole image off the track too and that would be a disaster for them. They need new rich people to buy their road cars which have a reputation influenced by their performance as winners in F1. If they don't win and then have their most uncompetitive season in years don't you think it's expected that they would try someway to steel control over the sport. The whole FOTA breakaway idea is clearly an idea sparked by Ferrari or at least pushed more than any other team because they need to suit the rules to make it easier for them to win. Remember the FOTA organisation is not a 3rd part regulator as it is run by the teams and this would be like watching a football match where both managers to take position as ref.

Speculative nonsense based on nothing.  Yes, of course Ferrari want their cars to do well on the track, but to suggest that them having a bad season would lead them to try to "steel control over the sport" is a massive leap.  If Ferrari were as all-powerful within FOTA as you suggest and that by leading a breakaway series they would garner so much benefit...well, then why has the breakaway not happened? Isn't it just a tad more feasible that they were simply unhappy with the budget cap (in the same way that other teams also were) and were tired of constant, stupid rule changes and being dictated to by the FIA and in particular Max Mosely?

That will not work as a sport and if anything would just be a show for Ferrari, Renault and McLaren to take it in turns to uphold their reputation. Notice I only mention manufactures because the others rely on them without their own supply chains.

So how would the other teams rely on the manufacturers more as a result of a breakaway?  Take the Merc engine out of the Brawn and see how fast it is.  I'm betting It'll struggle equally regardless of whether it's run under the FIA or FOTA

I feel the FOTA thing is just one great big manufacturer mafia trying to bring the sport back into repetition because for them repartition on the track means more sales on the road. Trust the FIA or an alternative 3rd party regulator if you like F1 to remain a proper sport I say.

Huh? So you think that FOTA just want the same old repetition to continue and that it is a 'manufacturer mafia' so better to trust to the FIA?  Who has the sport been under for the past decade, during which time this repetition of which you speak has been happening?  Oh yes, that's right, the FIA. 

God, I'm really glad that I'm drunk at the moment.

.

If you are a die hard supporter of the breakaway farce I say good luck to you because who will fund that show? who will regulate the rules? how will they alone afford to run a non budget capped tour in a world recession?

 

 Well said Raikkster.

coops3:

violator101:

redfrog:

violator101:

redfrog:

violator101:

I recommend you read the original post most clearly because I do not support the FIA I support a regulator full stop whoever that may be. Fact is Ferrari is not a regulator and cannot dictate a series simply to run in their favor. Thats not a sport thats a showroom promotion. and you know it dom.....oops sorry redfrog

I think you took my post the wrong way LOL . I am neither a Ferrari or FOTA fanboy , and do my best to let everyone know.........read some of my posts

As so many have previously pointed out, sarcasm just does't work on the internet

 

 

 

 

yeah neither does hipocracy. that was a poor bit of sarcasm to say "sure your not max" simple because someone does not like the idea of an unregulated series. The fact is frog you tried to unmined my original post with that remark and totally missed that fact that I do not support FIA but if I had a choice of who upholds the rules in the sport the a 3rd party regulator is more logical than letting the teams do their own rules.

I think the big     after "sure your not max"  was pretty clear it was meant in jest

 it's still sarcasm which you say does not work here.

I don't understand what you're having a go at redfrog for? He's one of the few people who agree with you!

When he said:

"No posts questioning the validity of Ferrari to win everything

No posts questioning the validity of FOTA's status as demi gods"

...he was joking!

He then criticised himself by saying sarcasm doesn't work on the Internet... that wasn't a criticsm aimed at you!

Thanks for that coops

 In an internet poll 8 ouf 10 people thought sarcasm did work on the internet

pedekay:

pt71:

I wonder why people create these aliases over and over, makes me wonder if it's out of desperation to convince others that there are people that share their view.  Sad tbh

Do you think violator is an alias, pt71?  I thought he sounded original but could well be wrong. 

I was thinking that myself.............after I jokingly acused him of being Max, and given the argumentitive replies I began to wonder if it could have been our friend avelli

pdk

"Anyway redfrog, sorry for butting in on your very able defence of yourself, you didn't need me but I just had to get my word in!!!  "

 

Thanks pdk, your'e welcome to butt in anytime, as is anyone else.

I was taking a bit of a battering from all quarters last night.......and then along came violator.........I thought I had become the anti christ ( or at least FOTA's equivilent )

Nevermind, I live to fight another day..................and I always have my little pet to fall back on

 

Violator.......Dont go away........I need as much back up as I can get to fight the good fight against the evil FOTA

pt71:

I wonder why people create these aliases over and over, makes me wonder if it's out of desperation to convince others that there are people that share their view.  Sad tbh

 

To Troll ?

stigga:

pt71:

I wonder why people create these aliases over and over, makes me wonder if it's out of desperation to convince others that there are people that share their view.  Sad tbh

 

To Troll ?

 lol aye... funny thing is you always seem to get the loudmouths in society that scream look at me look at me, this forum has more than its fair though it seems