Existing Users: Because of an update to the forum software you will need to reset your password. Please use the "Forgot?" link on the sign in form to do so. If that doesn't work, send me an email at feedback@forzaminardi.com and I'll sort you out!

TOIT / FIA Meeting minutes


Last Updated: Thursday, 03, February, 2005, 14:22

Motorsport’s governing body the FIA has published minutes of the meeting it held with Ferrari at Heathrow last Friday and distributed copies to the other nine teams who chose not to attend.

The range of issues discussed ran the gamut from tyre and testing regulations to a major reduction in downforce, long-life components and a standard ECU. The key points of the meeting are summarised below.

Under the heading of “possible technical and sporting measures to reduce costs”:-


The FIA was in favour of a standard electronic control unit to cut costs and to enable an enforceable ban on systems such as traction control. Ferrari “supported the principle” but proposed that a feasibility study be carried out. Implementation proposed for 2008.


The FIA supported standardised braking systems. Ferrari preferred to retain discretion and proposed long-life brakes as an alternative. Implementation proposed for 2008 but would be possible in 2006.


The FIA proposed bodywork regulations to reduce the potential for aerodynamic development. Jean Todt accepted that this would make the car simpler to design but said that in the short term it could increase expense and therefore should be introduced as part of a package of measures in 2008. This was agreed.


Jean Todt explained that Ferrari was in favour of designs being homologated and fixed for specific periods of time as it would make component production more efficient and thus reduce costs. Implementation proposed for 2006.


Ross Brawn had calculated that Ferrari would save at least 1.6 million euros if long-life transmissions and uprights were introduced. The FIA was in favour of this proposal and said it could be implemented in 2006 if a decision was taken by April 2005.


Ross Brawn suggested that this matter be reviewed once the effects of the new 2005 rule could be assessed.


Ross Brawn said that Ferrari felt there should be some means of constraining engine performance but not necessarily through a rev limit. This was noted and the FIA will seek the views of other engine manufactures.


It was argued that cutting downforce very substantially – to, say, 10 per cent of current levels – would allow closer racing, promote overtaking and increase safety in high-speed corners if done in conjunction with a major increase in mechanical grip (e.g. by reintroducing wide slick tyres).

It was agreed that the FIA should commission an independent expert to study this issue in more detail. Implementation proposed for 2008.


The FIA and Ferrari both supported these proposals for cost-saving reasons and the FIA said that they could be introduced in 2006 if a decision was taken soon.


The FIA was strongly in favour of this. Jean Todt proposed that the FIA invite the tyre manufacturers to a meeting to discuss this in further detail. This was agreed.


The FIA proposed a return to slick tyres, with only three fixed compounds for the entire season. It was agreed that this matter should be discussed at the proposed meeting with the tyre manufacturers.


The FIA argued that a ban on tyre blankets and other tyre-warming devices would result in significant savings. Ferrari felt this could be introduced in the future as long as the teams were given enough notice. Implementation proposed for 2008.


This was supported by both the FIA and Ferrari for cost-saving reasons. Implementation proposed for 2006.


The FIA said there was a case for using the Friday of a GP weekend as a test day and that it was more natural to have the practice and qualifying sessions on Saturday and the race on Sunday. It was agreed that this should be looked at in the future discussions of race and testing formats.


The FIA was in favour of this if the GP weekend was still to include running on Friday. Jean Todt argued that if there was a sound commercial reason for a small team to run a third car, e.g. in terms of sponsorship, this could be allowed as it could represent a significant income stream. Implementation proposed for 2006.

Under the heading of "possible general regulatory measures to reduce costs":-


It was agreed that short-term technical changes did incur significant costs but that a freeze of regulations for three years could be too long.


It was agreed that this was important to reduce the transitional cost of regulation changes.


The FIA said that the only way to regulate testing effectively would be to introduce a rule, rather than attempt a voluntary agreement between the teams.

The following restrictions were seen to be the most feasible in order to reduce costs:

that testing should be regulated by the FIA
that it should be based on mileage rather than days
that there should be no testing on GP circuits other than Barcelona, Monza and Silverstone
that testing should be split into in-season and out-of-season.
Ross Brawn restated Ferrari’s opposition to the 30-day testing rule and argued for a testing limitation based on mileage rather than days.

Implementation date would be suggested following proposed meeting of tyre manufacturers.


A proposal requiring engine suppliers to make engines available on a similar basis to the current tyre supply rules was rejected by both the FIA and Ferrari, who preferred to leave engine supply to market forces.


The FIA and Ferrari were both in favour of allowing teams to sell components (including entire chassis) and transfer intellectual property rights. Implementation proposed for 2006.


This was rejected by both the FIA and Ferrari.


This was rejected by both the FIA and Ferrari.


Jean Todt said that the Formula 1 Commission didn’t function as well as it should and questioned whether it served any useful purpose. It was agreed that its role should be reviewed.


It was agreed to hold the next meeting on Friday April 15 at the FIA headquarters in Paris.


  • Note the engine supply rules bit.
  • I did, and I pissed off about it.

    Economical engine supply is a prerequisite not only for the survival of independant teams, but also for future entrants.

    FIA & FOA need to find someway to guarantee this.
  • The FIA argued that a ban on tyre blankets and other tyre-warming devices would result in significant savings. TOIT felt this could be introduced in the future as long as the teams were given enough notice. Implementation proposed for 2008.

    Are tyre blankets really expensive ???

    This was rejected by both the FIA and TOIT.
    News Flash 2040
    The geriactric F1 driver MS wins another championship
  • GrandPrix.com quotes from PS's letter to the FIA:
    The FIA documents - and what they really mean
    Having now had time to examine the documents released in recent days by the FIA, an interesting picture has emerged of the ongoing dispute between the federation and the majority of the Formula 1 teams. By far the most interesting document is a letter that from Minardi boss Paul Stoddart to Max Mosley on January 19 which attempted to address the issues that are causing such distress. It is clear from this letter that Stoddart is representing the views of the others teams in his letter.

    "Rightly or wrongly," Stoddart wrote, "the events of the past six months have left the vast majority of the team principals feeling that the FIA and indeed yourself are working against the teams on most issues and are moving further and further away from the role of independent regulator. The purpose of this letter if to try to avert a further season of conflict and controversy."

    The letter went on to detail the recent history of FIA decisions which highlight what the teams believe to be the problem. This included controversial decisions, rulings and quotes from the FIA and Mosley. Stoddart went into much detail about the cancelled F1 Commission meeting in December and said that there was a widespread belief that this was done to help Ferrari.

    "It cannot look good for the sport when on the face of it one team can exert so much influence particularly as it appears, in the absence of any other credible explanation that this influence may have caused the FIA, a so-called independent body to abandon its stated objective."

    Stoddart also raised questions about the fax vote in October which voted through the 2005 sporting and technical regulations after they had received the approval of the FIA World Council.

    "Many teams were concerned that the process and procedure had not been followed, notably that the fax vote had been sent on 19 October requiring a response three days later and stating that if no such response was received, the FIA would consider that the proposals meet with the approval of the non-respondee".

    In another document the FIA said that Mosley had given the details of the controversial fax vote at his meeting with Ferrari which the other teams declined to attend. The vote had been questioned by two teams, he said, which suggested that fewer than 18 members of the commission had replied by the deadline. Mosley said he had the votes. The voting system of the commission is a complicated business because one member does not necessarily have one vote. The details of how it works remain shrouded in secrecy. Whatever the case, Stoddart concluded, the fax vote had not been legal because the Concorde Agreement "clearly states" that 14 days are required before a meeting can take place and a vote taken.

    In his conclusions Stoddart said that "the whole debate has done little to dissuade the teams from an ever-increasing view that the FIA only exists to protect Ferrari and Ferrari's interests".

    Stoddart went on to make it clear that it was not a personal attack but rather a genuine attempt "to help avert a disaster".

    The 20-page letter was backed up by an opinion from Gavin Griffiths QC, which analysed the legal questions and gave an opinion. Griffiths concluded that "the new sporting and technical regulations are invalid and the previous regulations remain in force".

    Stoddart received a two-page reply from Mosley which addressed a few of the points raised but ignored the rest.

    "Because of time constraints I will not attempt to deal with a number of other points in your letter with which I disgree," Mosley wrote.

    Perhaps it would have been wiser for the FIA president to take the time to answer all the questions.

    The other point worth noting is that although transparency is a good thing from the FIA it is clear that not all of the documents in the dispute have been made public. There is no sign, for example, of a letter from the teams pointing out that the FIA has no right to create rules for 2008 without involving the Formula 1 Commission and, we understand, that there is a great deal more correspondence relating to the cancelled F1 Commission meeting in December which has not yet come to light.

    The other point which must be made is that the whole dispute between the FIA and the teams is to a large degree a question of trying to sway the opinions of the F1 media. Many members of the F1 press are not sufficiently interested in the arguments to wade through all the paper and so cannot accurately assess what is going on and even then it is hard to reach any conclusions because both sides say that their legal advice shows that they are right.

    When all is said and done, such positions mean that it may all end up in the law courts. This is probably not a bad thing for Formula 1 - which is about motor racing, in case anyone has forgotten - because it will mean that we will know one way or the other who is right and who is wrong.
  • "Because of time constraints I will not attempt to deal with a number of other points in your letter with which I disgree," Mosley wrote.

    Perhaps it would have been wiser for the FIA president to take the time to answer all the questions.
    Motherfucking son of a bitch :spank:
    Not happy, not happy at all.
Sign In or Register to comment.