Purnell: Engine freeze good for F1

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

28th November 2007, 08:09
wmcot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I'm also sure that Purnell's opinions are not influenced in any way whatsoever by the fact that he is now employed by the FIA......

Maybe we shouldn't be so hard on Purnell - after all, didn't he do wonders for Jaguar??? ;)
28th November 2007, 08:45
millencolin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I'm also sure that Purnell's opinions are not influenced in any way whatsoever by the fact that he is now employed by the FIA......

as much as i respect Purnell, you stole the words right out of my mouth. He is an FIA employee now, i have to take everything he says regarding regulations with a grain of salt.

but he did do wonders for that shamble of a team we did call Jaguar.
28th November 2007, 09:18
passmeatissue

There was a time, not so long ago, that rule changes could only be made with the agreement of the teams, except on urgent safety grounds. Somehow I missed the transition to martial law. I have a vague memory of a piece about this in (probably) grandprix.com but I can't find it now.

Can anyone shed any light? I thought the Concorde Agreement had been rolled over pretty much unchanged.
28th November 2007, 09:22
SGWilko

Quote:

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

There was a time, not so long ago, that rule changes could only be made with the agreement of the teams, except on urgent safety grounds. Somehow I missed the transition to martial law. I have a vague memory of a piece about this in (probably) grandprix.com but I can't find it now.

Can anyone shed any light? I thought the Concorde Agreement had been rolled over pretty much unchanged.

This started (probably) when the GPWC/GPMA was being formed, and the FIA decided that they could change rules and regs under the very thinly guised veil of 'sporting regs'.

Now that the breakaway is no more, the FIA have conveniently forgotten to go back to playing by the rules. I bet Max votes Labour, probably donates via Bernie!!!!!!!

Sorry, politics is bad........
29th November 2007, 08:01
wmcot

Quote:

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

There was a time, not so long ago, that rule changes could only be made with the agreement of the teams, except on urgent safety grounds. Somehow I missed the transition to martial law. I have a vague memory of a piece about this in (probably) grandprix.com but I can't find it now.

Can anyone shed any light? I thought the Concorde Agreement had been rolled over pretty much unchanged.

That was before the ultimate rise to power by "Benito Ecclestone" which changed the government of the sport to a dictatorship.
29th November 2007, 09:36
passmeatissue

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmcot

That was before the ultimate rise to power by "Benito Ecclestone" which changed the government of the sport to a dictatorship.

Yes, originally Bernie represented the teams, didn't he, against the baddie Ballestre. Formule One Constructors Association.

How times change!

Now it's Formula One Management and he's in charge of exploiting them, while his buddy Max controls them.

A bit surprised the teams are so meekly bending over for Max, though.
29th November 2007, 12:23
SGWilko

Quote:

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

A bit surprised the teams are so meekly bending over for Max, though.

Do they realistically have a choice?
29th November 2007, 13:08
Malbec

Quote:

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

There was a time, not so long ago, that rule changes could only be made with the agreement of the teams, except on urgent safety grounds. Somehow I missed the transition to martial law. I have a vague memory of a piece about this in (probably) grandprix.com but I can't find it now.

Can anyone shed any light? I thought the Concorde Agreement had been rolled over pretty much unchanged.

I think what you're talking about is all in the Concorde Agreement and the FIA is taking advantage of the fact that it is lapsing to introduce all kinds of changes without the teams being able to oppose them.

I remember Spyker being able to change their name to Force India without all the teams having to agree which is odd given how STR and SAF1 would only accept that in exchange for a change in stance over customer chassis.
29th November 2007, 13:22
passmeatissue

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I think what you're talking about is all in the Concorde Agreement and the FIA is taking advantage of the fact that it is lapsing to introduce all kinds of changes without the teams being able to oppose them.

I remember Spyker being able to change their name to Force India without all the teams having to agree which is odd given how STR and SAF1 would only accept that in exchange for a change in stance over customer chassis.

That's right, the FI name was just "approved" by the FIA wasn't it.

Maybe there's saga coming about this, only 4 weeks till the Concorde Agreement expires, what is going on behind the scenes?
29th November 2007, 13:32
passmeatissue

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Do they realistically have a choice?

Well, Toyota, Mercedes etc., some of the most powerful organisations on the planet, compared with them Max' little empire is a straw hut on an atoll.

And from some points of view, FoM and the FIA are completely dependent on the teams signing something, otherwise the billion-dollar loans are not going to get repaid. They are seriously exposed.

And at the moment there is an active Concorde Agreement, as Dylan H says not being referred to at all, it seems.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page