- 07 Apr 07, 22:33#6740
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. 
Formula One Turns From Grand Prix Courses to Semantics
By BRAD SPURGEON
Published: April 8, 2007
SEPANG, Malaysia, April 7 — As the BMW Sauber team shows off its Formula One cars not only at the Malaysian Grand Prix this weekend, but also at daily demonstrations in a park in Kuala Lumpur, it is clear why the team stands where it does in the sport’s latest controversy.
For some people, the rule that requires teams to build their own cars is what makes Formula One more exciting than any other racing series. Rich car manufacturers like BMW can spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build their cars, then show them off.
That is why some say the rule makes Formula One an elitist game, with the same few winners and a band of losers filling the minor roles.
Since the first Grand Prix of the season, March 18 in Melbourne, Australia, the rule has been at the center of a battle that will shape the sport.
The focus in Sunday’s race will be on the fight for victory between Ferrari, McLaren-Mercedes, Renault and BMW. But a spotlight will be on how the poorer teams — Spyker, Super Aguri and Toro Rosso — fare at the back of the grid.
Two weeks ago, race stewards rejected Spyker’s contention that the cars of Super Aguri and Toro Rosso were illegal, so Spyker went to arbitration. Spyker said those teams had not designed and built their cars, but had bought them from other teams.
On Thursday, Spyker lodged another complaint with the stewards, against Toro Rosso. The stewards said it was not appropriate to make a decision while the issue was being arbitrated elsewhere.
The complaints may be about who makes the car, but the real battle comes down to finances. Race results determine a team’s share of Formula One television income.
The Super Aguri team finished 11th, or last, in the team standings last season. It was excluded from a cut of the television money because only the top 10 teams are eligible.
This year Super Aguri is using a developed version of the Honda car that last season won the Hungarian Grand Prix and finished fourth in the championship. Super Aguri’s cars qualified 10th and 11th in Australia and finished the race 12th and 16th of 17 finishers.
By comparison, Spyker, which invests millions annually to build its cars, had the bottom two qualifiers in Australia. One of the cars did not finish the race; the other came in last.
A few days after the race, Spyker filed a complaint in Switzerland, where the International Chamber of Commerce oversees Formula One contract disputes. The agreement under which teams currently operate reads in part: “A constructor is a person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) who owns the intellectual property rights to the rolling chassis it currently races and does not incorporate in such chassis any part designed or manufactured by any other constructor of Formula One racing cars except for standard items of safety equipment.”
Teams have always interpreted this to mean that they must design and build their cars. But Super Aguri and Toro Rosso now emphasize the words “owns the intellectual property rights.” Their suppliers — Honda for Super Aguri and Red Bull for Toro Rosso — have granted them those rights.
Of course, it is more than just a game of words; it also involves television money. Last season, Spyker finished 10th, just behind Toro Rosso, and one spot ahead of Super Aguri.
Speculation by the news media has suggested a compromise in which the three teams would pool their television money, which is estimated at more than $20 million. But Super Aguri is clearly set on doing things its way.
“To finish the season in the top 10 would make a big difference to us,” Daniel Audetto, the managing director of Super Aguri, said last week. “Super Aguri F1 is a small team that has to work to a tight budget and with capped technical resources.
“However, we have entered this season much better prepared than we were in 2006, and finishing within the top 10 would make a huge difference to us — in monetary terms and also in prestige.”
Mario Theissen, the director of the BMW team, said a trend of smaller teams buying their cars could threaten the prestige of the series because it could lead to the six car manufacturers in the sport supplying the rest of the teams with chassis. Mike Gascoyne, the chief technical officer for Spyker, predicted that all the teams would buy the best chassis from one team.
For the rich car manufacturers, it also has to do with economics.
Last year, Toyota had 64 people in its aerodynamics department. Super Aguri had two. BusinessF1 Magazine estimated that Toyota spent $60 million on aerodynamics, while Super Aguri spent $1.7 million.
A team that buys its cars can operate on about $60 million a season, but a car manufacturer’s team spends about $400 million.
Spyker’s complaint has become a test case because it comes while the teams are in the final stages of writing a new agreement that will govern the sport until 2012. The current agreement expires at the end of this year. The new agreement must be signed by Jan. 1. Without it, there will be no Formula One in 2009. The teams are committed to racing in 2008 under a memorandum of understanding signed last year.
Bernie Ecclestone, the chief executive of Formula One, suggested allowing new teams to buy chassis for two years, but they would be unable to score constructors’ points or earn television money. After that, they would have to build their cars.
If the rule at the heart of the sport is changed, however, some people would be unhappy.
“You’re changing the DNA of the sport completely,” said Xander Heijnen, a spokesman for the car manufacturers. “If it is no longer the pinnacle, if it’s no longer extremely difficult to get in and even more difficult to survive, then what is it?”
To the people who drive the cars, it is a different story. Robert Kubica, a driver for BMW Sauber, said he did not care where his car came from. “I have a job to do,” he said. “It doesn’t matter what color it is or where it comes from, it just has to be reliable and be fast.”
By BRAD SPURGEON
Published: April 8, 2007
SEPANG, Malaysia, April 7 — As the BMW Sauber team shows off its Formula One cars not only at the Malaysian Grand Prix this weekend, but also at daily demonstrations in a park in Kuala Lumpur, it is clear why the team stands where it does in the sport’s latest controversy.
For some people, the rule that requires teams to build their own cars is what makes Formula One more exciting than any other racing series. Rich car manufacturers like BMW can spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build their cars, then show them off.
That is why some say the rule makes Formula One an elitist game, with the same few winners and a band of losers filling the minor roles.
Since the first Grand Prix of the season, March 18 in Melbourne, Australia, the rule has been at the center of a battle that will shape the sport.
The focus in Sunday’s race will be on the fight for victory between Ferrari, McLaren-Mercedes, Renault and BMW. But a spotlight will be on how the poorer teams — Spyker, Super Aguri and Toro Rosso — fare at the back of the grid.
Two weeks ago, race stewards rejected Spyker’s contention that the cars of Super Aguri and Toro Rosso were illegal, so Spyker went to arbitration. Spyker said those teams had not designed and built their cars, but had bought them from other teams.
On Thursday, Spyker lodged another complaint with the stewards, against Toro Rosso. The stewards said it was not appropriate to make a decision while the issue was being arbitrated elsewhere.
The complaints may be about who makes the car, but the real battle comes down to finances. Race results determine a team’s share of Formula One television income.
The Super Aguri team finished 11th, or last, in the team standings last season. It was excluded from a cut of the television money because only the top 10 teams are eligible.
This year Super Aguri is using a developed version of the Honda car that last season won the Hungarian Grand Prix and finished fourth in the championship. Super Aguri’s cars qualified 10th and 11th in Australia and finished the race 12th and 16th of 17 finishers.
By comparison, Spyker, which invests millions annually to build its cars, had the bottom two qualifiers in Australia. One of the cars did not finish the race; the other came in last.
A few days after the race, Spyker filed a complaint in Switzerland, where the International Chamber of Commerce oversees Formula One contract disputes. The agreement under which teams currently operate reads in part: “A constructor is a person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) who owns the intellectual property rights to the rolling chassis it currently races and does not incorporate in such chassis any part designed or manufactured by any other constructor of Formula One racing cars except for standard items of safety equipment.”
Teams have always interpreted this to mean that they must design and build their cars. But Super Aguri and Toro Rosso now emphasize the words “owns the intellectual property rights.” Their suppliers — Honda for Super Aguri and Red Bull for Toro Rosso — have granted them those rights.
Of course, it is more than just a game of words; it also involves television money. Last season, Spyker finished 10th, just behind Toro Rosso, and one spot ahead of Super Aguri.
Speculation by the news media has suggested a compromise in which the three teams would pool their television money, which is estimated at more than $20 million. But Super Aguri is clearly set on doing things its way.
“To finish the season in the top 10 would make a big difference to us,” Daniel Audetto, the managing director of Super Aguri, said last week. “Super Aguri F1 is a small team that has to work to a tight budget and with capped technical resources.
“However, we have entered this season much better prepared than we were in 2006, and finishing within the top 10 would make a huge difference to us — in monetary terms and also in prestige.”
Mario Theissen, the director of the BMW team, said a trend of smaller teams buying their cars could threaten the prestige of the series because it could lead to the six car manufacturers in the sport supplying the rest of the teams with chassis. Mike Gascoyne, the chief technical officer for Spyker, predicted that all the teams would buy the best chassis from one team.
For the rich car manufacturers, it also has to do with economics.
Last year, Toyota had 64 people in its aerodynamics department. Super Aguri had two. BusinessF1 Magazine estimated that Toyota spent $60 million on aerodynamics, while Super Aguri spent $1.7 million.
A team that buys its cars can operate on about $60 million a season, but a car manufacturer’s team spends about $400 million.
Spyker’s complaint has become a test case because it comes while the teams are in the final stages of writing a new agreement that will govern the sport until 2012. The current agreement expires at the end of this year. The new agreement must be signed by Jan. 1. Without it, there will be no Formula One in 2009. The teams are committed to racing in 2008 under a memorandum of understanding signed last year.
Bernie Ecclestone, the chief executive of Formula One, suggested allowing new teams to buy chassis for two years, but they would be unable to score constructors’ points or earn television money. After that, they would have to build their cars.
If the rule at the heart of the sport is changed, however, some people would be unhappy.
“You’re changing the DNA of the sport completely,” said Xander Heijnen, a spokesman for the car manufacturers. “If it is no longer the pinnacle, if it’s no longer extremely difficult to get in and even more difficult to survive, then what is it?”
To the people who drive the cars, it is a different story. Robert Kubica, a driver for BMW Sauber, said he did not care where his car came from. “I have a job to do,” he said. “It doesn’t matter what color it is or where it comes from, it just has to be reliable and be fast.”
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point.