PDA

View Full Version : Mosley is an idiot and will ruin F1



cameraman
07-03-08, 01:11 PM
Max's letters to the teams

Gentlemen

Formula One is becoming unsustainable. The major manufacturers are currently employing up to 1000 people to put two cars on the grid. This is clearly unacceptable at a time when all these companies are facing difficult market conditions.

Also, with attention on energy problems world-wide, Formula One cannot afford to be profligate in its use of fuel. Indeed, without the KERS initiative, some major sponsors might already have left.

The FIA is therefore inviting the teams to make proposals

• to reduce current levels of expenditure. New rules must ensure that the costs of the manufacturer teams come down by at least 50% and that the independent teams become financially viable. Both must be done without affecting the spectacle in any way;

• to extract more useful energy from less fuel. The target should be a (very challenging) 50% reduction from today’s levels of fuel consumption by 2015, while maintaining current speeds. The rules should encourage manufacturer teams to research technologies which are road-relevant rather than Formula One-specific;

• to improve the racing, including rules to ensure that cars remain aerodynamically efficient when in close proximity to one another.

The matter is now urgent. We need proposals which we can turn into detailed rules. These must be ready within three months and have the support of at least a majority of the teams, failing which the FIA will itself prepare new rules for 2011. Please also see the attached note.

Professor Goeschel has kindly agreed to hold meetings of FOMAC to discuss these issues directly with the manufacturers.


Yours sincerely

Max Mosley




We need proposals for regulations to come into force no later than 2011. These should be delivered to the FIA by 3 October 2008 and be sufficiently detailed to allow precise rules to be drafted.

Reduced Costs

It is for the teams to decide how to reduce costs and also to decide if there should be restrictions on the development budgets of the manufacturer teams and, if so, what these should be and how they would be enforced.

The rules must also allow a back-of-the-grid independent team to operate profitably.

Teams which design and develop their own drive train (usually manufacturer teams) must be prepared to supply a complete and fully competitive drive train to an independent team at very low cost. We would suggest about 2 million Euro per season per team. The complete drive train would include all the new energy-saving technologies (eg KERS) and cost would be a design constraint as it is in the car industry.

Among possible cost savings which the teams may wish to consider are: restrictions on simulators, wind tunnel use, CFD and other home-base facilities, together with long-life chassis components, up to ten-race drive trains, no gear ratio changes during life of drive train, current parc fermé rules extended for entire race weekend and other proposals to reduce the cost per kilometre of operating a Formula One car and the costs of going racing.

We would not object to shared technology, eg of core engine.

Measures to reduce costs must not affect the spectacle in any way.

Improved fuel efficiency

The objective is a 20% reduction in fuel consumption for 2011 progressing to 50% in 2015, while keeping lap times and top speeds at current levels.

We believe this can best be regulated by placing a limit on both fuel flow and the total quantity of fuel used in the race (thus limiting both maximum and average power). The road-relevant research objective would then be more power from less fuel.

We hope to see many new energy-efficient technologies deployed. We would like rules to maximise the incentive to develop road-relevant devices for improved fuel efficiency. Teams will need these in order to obtain maximum power from a limited amount of fuel. We would suggest limiting KERS to 200kw out and 300kw in, with maximum of 1.6 MJ stored energy. We would not exclude taking energy from the front wheels during braking.

We would not exclude the possibility of variable aerodynamics.

Again, it is for the teams to decide how these objectives can best be achieved and whether any, and if so which, restrictions should be placed on the drive train technology needed to produce the necessary improvements in efficiency.

Improved racing

The 2009 Technical Regulations are intended to improve the racing. We would like to go further, with developments to allow the cars to run in close proximity to one another without losing performance. One possibility is that the car behind should be faster by virtue of being behind not, as at present, slower.

Again, it is for the teams to decide how to achieve these objectives.

Ten races on a drive train? The same gear ratios for every track? way to ruin the sport max:flame:

Methanolandbrats
07-03-08, 01:38 PM
"Measures to reduce costs must not affect the spectacle in any way."

That tells ya he's a dimwit. :shakehead

"The 2009 Technical Regulations are intended to improve the racing. We would like to go further, with developments to allow the cars to run in close proximity to one another without losing performance. One possibility is that the car behind should be faster by virtue of being behind not, as at present, slower."

Can someone translate this into english?

Accipiter
07-03-08, 01:39 PM
• to reduce current levels of expenditure. New rules must ensure that the costs of the manufacturer teams come down by at least 50% and that the independent teams become financially viable. Both must be done without affecting the spectacle in any way;

• to extract more useful energy from less fuel. The target should be a (very challenging) 50% reduction from today’s levels of fuel consumption by 2015, while maintaining current speeds. The rules should encourage manufacturer teams to research technologies which are road-relevant rather than Formula One-specific;


So he wants teams to cut costs while they embark on an expensive R&D project. That's logical. :rolleyes:

chop456
07-03-08, 02:02 PM
Here's a proposal for Max from myself:

GFY. :gomer:

Or GFANH, if you prefer. :tony:

STD
07-03-08, 02:08 PM
It's been a long term toss up between Max and Tony for the most useless void in the history of auto racing.

Gnam
07-03-08, 02:37 PM
One possibility is that the car behind should be faster by virtue of being behind not, as at present, slower."

Can someone translate this into english?
Boogity! Boogity! Boogity!

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/8564/20070809pid35932aid3593bz0.jpg

Andrew Longman
07-03-08, 02:42 PM
Max is an idiot

But I like this


• to extract more useful energy from less fuel. The target should be a (very challenging) 50% reduction from today’s levels of fuel consumption by 2015, while maintaining current speeds. The rules should encourage manufacturer teams to research technologies which are road-relevant rather than Formula One-specific;

• to improve the racing, including rules to ensure that cars remain aerodynamically efficient when in close proximity to one another.

I don't really care about road relevance. The manufacturers will invest in it and apply it if it makes sense. Leave it at that.

But the fuel efficiency will have road relevance. And the aero crap has no road relevance while driving up costs and ruining the racing.

Ankf00
07-03-08, 02:50 PM
diaf old man. diaf.

nissan gtp
07-03-08, 03:37 PM
Here's a proposal for Max from myself:

GFY. :gomer:

Or GFANH, if you prefer. :tony:

don't you mean GFANW ? :laugh:

Insomniac
07-03-08, 03:44 PM
"The 2009 Technical Regulations are intended to improve the racing. We would like to go further, with developments to allow the cars to run in close proximity to one another without losing performance. One possibility is that the car behind should be faster by virtue of being behind not, as at present, slower."

Can someone translate this into english?

Being in the car in front of yours' slipstream should be beneficial, not detrimental is how I read it.

oddlycalm
07-03-08, 04:11 PM
So he wants teams to cut costs while they embark on an expensive R&D project. That's logical. :rolleyes:
Yes, and he also wants them to cut their staff while they embark on the project and have proposals ready in 90 days. :rofl:

Max needs to be black flagged.

oc

DagoFast
07-03-08, 06:37 PM
Max's letters to the teams should have read:



Gentlemen

My position in Formula One is becoming unsustainable. The major manufacturers are currently lobbying hard to get rid of me. Even kings, princes and presidents don't want me on the grids of their Grand Prix. This is clearly unacceptable at a time when I am fighting to save my tattered career and reputation.

So, with attention on energy problems world-wide, Formula One cannot afford to be profligate in its use of fuel. Indeed, without the current run up in oil prices to help distract attention from my hooker whipping ways, some major sponsors might already have left.

Please help me whip...um...make up some ridiculous mumbo jumbo to keep the focus off of me.


Yours sincerely

Max Mosley

mapguy
07-03-08, 06:56 PM
http://www.stickersbysandstone.com/images/sayings/3101spankmelikeyoumeanit.jpg

indyfan31
07-03-08, 07:55 PM
While I like Dago's translation, what I got out of it was: "I've run out of stupid ideas of my own, what stupid ideas has everyone else got?"

Tim
07-03-08, 08:24 PM
I guess orgies have been found to cause brain damage.

extramundane
07-03-08, 10:08 PM
I guess orgies have been found to cause brain damage.

Now that you mention it, my short-term memory isn't what it used to be.

:toomuchinformation:

Spicoli
07-04-08, 12:18 AM
While I like Dago's translation, what I got out of it was: "I've run out of stupid ideas of my own, what stupid ideas has everyone else got?"

+2.


GFY in der poopenhauser Maxie.

dando
07-04-08, 12:39 AM
"The 2009 Technical Regulations are intended to remove the racing. We would like to go further, with developments to allow the cars to run in close proximity to one another without losing performance. One possibility is that the car behind should be faster by virtue of being behind not, as at present, slower."

Can someone translate this into english?

There you go.... :gomer: :shakehead

-Kevin

chop456
07-04-08, 04:18 AM
don't you mean GFANW ? :laugh:

I was thinking of the one that rhymes with "looker" since it's a family forum. Otherwise I would have used yours. :D

Ankf00
07-04-08, 04:29 AM
can someone explain to me why a nazi lawyer is head of Fascists International?



HE'S A BLOODY LAWYER FOR ****'S SAKE!!!

B3RACER1a
07-04-08, 09:21 AM
Now they are talking about the British Grand Prix will be moving to Donnington Park and no more Silverstone. The press release was sent out this morning as practice started.

How is Silverstone not turning a profit?

So anyways, Tilke gets to rip up Donnington and they get to race there. :flame:

These two clowns need to go.

Spicoli
07-04-08, 09:57 AM
Now they are talking about the British Grand Prix will be moving to Donnington Park and no more Silverstone. The press release was sent out this morning as practice started.

How is Silverstone not turning a profit?

So anyways, Tilke gets to rip up Donnington and they get to race there. :flame:

These two clowns need to go.

No ****. listening to practice and thinking - wtf? 6 teams call this "home"?


All about the money.


But they also hinted that IMS peeps saying USGP may be back to Mindy next year. :eek:

pchall
07-04-08, 11:18 AM
Mosely was the "M" in the name and commercial director for March Engineering right from the start in 1969.


can someone explain to me why a nazi lawyer is head of Fascists International?



HE'S A BLOODY LAWYER FOR ****'S SAKE!!!

STD
07-04-08, 11:30 AM
^ He did a bang up job there as well. :laugh:
March did OK comparitively, once he was out of the picture.