Mercedes-Benz will enter the Formula 1 World Championship with its own team, beginning with the 2010 season, and Daimler AG and McLaren Group will change their form of cooperation with effect as of 13 November 2009. This was announced by Daimler AG today.

Daimler AG together with Aabar Investments PJSC will take over 75.1 per cent of the Brawn GP team, with Daimler taking 45.1 per cent and Aabar 30 per cent. The rest of the 24.9 per cent will remain with the current stakeholders. With 9.1 per cent, Aabar is the biggest single shareholder of Daimler AG. This transaction is subject to the approval of the EU and the Swiss cartel authorities.

The background to this decision are the new terms and conditions for Formula 1. The “Resource Restrictions” set by FOTA and FIA effectively limit expenditure for the design, construction and running of the racing cars. In addition, there will be a significantly higher income available for a Formula 1 team generated by the commercial rights of the racing series following the signing of the new Concorde Agreement.

The partnership between McLaren Mercedes has been in place since 1995 and endedits 15th joint Formula 1 season in 2009. The change to the form of cooperation is taking place by mutual agreement. Mercedes-Benz and McLaren will continue to co-operate with each other and the supply of engines could continue until 2015.

The McLaren Group have set themselves new targets, especially in the automotive sector, and Daimler understands and respects these new strategic objectives. For this reason, it has been agreed that the buy-back by the McLaren Group of the 40 per cent McLaren share owned by Daimler AG will be completed by 2011.

By taking this decision, Mercedes-Benz resumes its marvellous motor racing history on the 75th anniversary of the Silver Arrows, the world’s most unique racing cars. Mercedes wants to continue the tradition in the style of these flawless Silver Arrows, which put their stamp on each era by winning the majority of the races they competed in.

“Mercedes-Benz is the most valued and best-known premium automotive brand in the world. This brand looks for competition of the utmost quality in all relevant fields in order to continually improve its performance in the face of such new challenges”, explains Dr. Dieter Zetsche, CEO of Daimler AG and Head of Mercedes-Benz Cars.

“Due to the new Formula 1 environment, we will face the competition in future on the most important motor sports stage with our own Silver Arrow works team.

Read more... (8334 bytes more) 22 Comments

The FIA Gala in Monaco provided the grand finale for a dramatic season in the FIA Formula One World Championship. The winning trophies were presented to Jenson Button and Ross Brawn for the drivers’ and constructors’ titles respectively, whilst Sebastian Vettel and Rubens Barichello took the stage to collect their second and third place trophies.

It was a season of records for all of those on stage. Having won six of the first seven races of the championship, Brawn became the first team to claim the Constructors’ title in its debut season.

Vettel, at age 22, became the youngest Drivers’ Championship runner-up in Formula One history. Rubens Barichello, at age 37, attained his fourth top-three finish in the Formula One Drivers’ Championship, whilst maintaining his position as the most experienced driver in F1 history, having competed in 288 races and counting.

Jenson Button said:

“I am honoured to be here in Monaco this evening to collect the Drivers’ Championship trophy and to see my name engraved alongside the famous racing legends of the past. Motor racing has been a part of my life since my father bought my first go-kart at the age of eight and to have achieved my dream of becoming World Champion makes me incredibly proud.

“This has been a fantastic year for myself and Brawn GP. Just 23 days before the start of the season, we didn't even know if we would be at the first race and now I am the World Champion with the team winning the Constructors' Championship. Everyone at the team deserves our success so much.

“I would like to say a very big thank you to everyone at Brawn GP and at Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines for all of their hard work and commitment and for producing such a great car. It has truly been a fantastic year and I am very proud of the success that we achieved together.”

Read more... (4559 bytes more) 27 Comments

The first United Nations Global Road Safety Week will be held from April 23 -29 and the sport of Formula One will demonstrate its support for the UN initiative with a number of activities.

The objective of the week is to raise awareness of the scale of the global road safety problem, especially amongst young people. The human tragedy contained in the accidents statistics is simply overwhelming:

Read more... (5343 bytes more) 149 Comments

Toyota Motorsport and its Technical Director Chassis, Mike Gascoyne, have reached a mutual agreement which will see both parties terminate their working relationship with immediate effect. Gascoyne will remain a fully contracted employee of Toyota Motorsport until the end of October 2006.

Toyota Motorsport and Mike Gascoyne have developed different opinions about the future direction of the technical operations in the team's chassis and engineering areas, which have resulted in the need for a change on both sides. Toyota Motorsport and Mike Gascoyne have both agreed that a separation has become necessary.

Gascoyne has been based primarily in Germany since he joined Toyota's Cologne-based Formula 1 team in December 2003. After such a long period of time based away from home, this decision will enable him to spend more time with his family.

Mike Gascoyne said: "Obviously, it is the end of an era but nobody can dispute that Toyota has made a big step forward over the last two seasons. We have now reached a crossroads in our working relationship and I believe that it is the right time for us to part ways amicably and for me to move back to the UK where I can also enjoy spending more time with my family. I extend my thanks to all members of the team and wish them a successful future in Formula 1."

Tsutomu Tomita, Chairman of Toyota Motorsport said: "Although we have reached a joint decision to go our separate ways, I wish to extend my sincerest gratitude to Mike for the indisputable contribution he has made to our team over the last few years. This separation should in no way undermine the work he has done, nor reflect his technical expertise. We all wish him well for the future."

214 Comments

The Belgian National Sporting Authority, the RACB, has written to notify the FIA of the withdrawal of the 2006 Belgian Grand Prix from the FIA Formula One World Championship.

The withdrawal has been made in order to allow the completion of extensive improvement work to facilities at the Spa-Francorchamps circuit.

The FIA hopes that the event will be included once again in the Formula One World Championship calendar from 2007 onwards.

158 Comments

12 March - Grand Prix of Bahrain (Bahrain)
19 March - Grand Prix of Malaysia (Sepang)
2 April - Grand Prix of Australia (Melbourne)
23 April - Grand Prix of San Marino (Imola)
7 May - Grand Prix of Europe (Nürburgring)
14 May - Grand Prix of Spain (Barcelona)
28 May - Grand Prix of Monaco (Monaco)
11 June - Grand Prix of Great Britain (Silverstone)
25 June - Grand Prix of Canada (Montreal)
2 July - Grand Prix of USA (Indianapolis)
16 July - Grand Prix of France (Magny-Cours)
30 July - Grand Prix of Germany (Hockenheim)
6 August - Grand Prix of Hungary (Budapest)
27 August - Grand Prix of Turkey (Istanbul)
10 Sept. - Grand Prix of Italy (Monza)
17 Sept. - Grand Prix of Belgium (Spa)
1 October - Grand Prix of China (Shanghai)
8 October - Grand Prix of Japan (Suzuka)
22 October - Grand Prix of Brazil* (Sao Paolo)
*To be confirmed

170 Comments

N° Driver TEAM CONSTRUCTOR

1 Fernando ALONSO (E) MILD SEVEN RENAULT RENAULT
2 Giancarlo FISICHELLA (I) F1 TEAM

3 Kimi RAIKKONEN (FIN) TBA McLAREN McLAREN
4 Juan Pablo MONTOYA (CO) MERCEDES MERCEDES

5 Michael SCHUMACHER (D) SCUDERIA FERRARI FERRARI
6 Felipe MASSA (BR) MARLBORO

7 Ralf SCHUMACHER (D) PANASONIC TOYOTA TOYOTA
8 Jarno TRULLI (I) RACING

9 Mark WEBBER (AUS) WILLIAMSF1 TEAM WILLIAMS
10 Nico ROSBERG (D) COSWORTH

11 Rubens BARRICHELLO (BR) LUCKY STRIKE HONDA HONDA
12 Jenson BUTTON (GB) RACING F1 TEAM

14 David COULTHARD (GB) RED BULL RACING RBR
15 TBA FERRARI

16 Nick HEIDFELD (D) BMW SAUBER SAUBER
17 TBA F1 TEAM BMW

18 Tiago MONTEIRO (P) MF1 RACING MF1
19 Christijan ALBERS (NL) TOYOTA

20 TBA SCUDERIA TORO STR
21 TBA ROSSO COSWORTH

202 Comments

B.A.R Honda, BMW Williams, Renault F1 Team, Sauber Petronas, Team McLaren Mercedes, Toyota Motorsport GmbH

Paris, France, Wednesday 29th June 2005

The six Formula One Michelin teams identified above are very disappointed by the decision of the World Motor Sport Council to find them guilty of two of the five charges brought against them by the FIA in relation to the 2005 U.S. Grand Prix at Indianapolis.

1) In relation to the finding that they failed to ensure that they were in possession of suitable tyres, the Teams point out that they reasonably relied on Michelin, an approved FIA tyre supplier and a highly reputable manufacturer of tyres worldwide, to provide suitable tyres for that race. As Michelin have already acknowledged, they were responsible for the supply of unsuitable tyres for the Indianapolis circuit. The FIA's decision accepts that there were "strong mitigating circumstances" for the Teams. In truth, those circumstances provided a complete answer to the charge, given that the Teams cannot be held responsible for what occurred.

2) In relation to the finding that the Teams wrongfully refused to allow their cars to start the race having regard to their right to use the pit lane on each lap, the Teams respond as follows. The charges suggested only one means by which the Teams could safely have raced (the use of a speed restriction). On that charge, the Teams were found not guilty. The Teams cannot understand how they can be found guilty by reference to another proposed solution, which was not part of the charges brought against them, which was not suggested by the FIA at Indianapolis, which was considered unsafe and which, in any event, would not have achieved a satisfactory race for the fans.

The Teams therefore will be lodging an appeal against each of these findings.

The Teams explained to the World Motor Sport Council that, in the light of the clear and written advice from Michelin that it was unsafe to race at Indianapolis on the tyres supplied by that company, the Teams had no choice but to decline to race. Any other decision would have been irresponsible. Nineteen of the current Formula One drivers have expressed their agreement with the decision of the Teams.

The Teams much regret that the American public were unable to enjoy a race involving all ten Formula One teams, and would like to express their thanks to the many fans who have communicated their support for the stance taken by the Teams and by Michelin on grounds of safety.

The Teams are pleased that Michelin have agreed to compensate fans who attended the race.

The Teams very much look forward to the next Grand Prix on Sunday.

183 Comments

Official FIA Press release

Formula One is a sporting contest. It must operate to clear rules. These cannot be negotiated each time a competitor brings the wrong equipment to a race.

At Indianapolis we were told by Michelin that their tyres would be unsafe unless their cars were slowed in the main corner. We understood and among other suggestions offered to help them by monitoring speeds and penalising any excess. However, the Michelin teams refused to agree unless the Bridgestone runners were slowed by the same amount. They suggested a chicane.

The Michelin teams seemed unable to understand that this would have been grossly unfair as well as contrary to the rules. The Bridgestone teams had suitable tyres. They did not need to slow down. The Michelin teams’ lack of speed through turn 13 would have been a direct result of inferior equipment, as often happens in Formula One. It must also be remembered that the FIA wrote to all of the teams and both tyre manufacturers on June 1, 2005, to emphasise that “tyres should be built to be reliable under all circumstances” (see correspondence attached).

A chicane would have forced all cars, including those with tyres optimised for high-speed, to run on a circuit whose characteristics had changed fundamentally – from ultra-high speed (because of turn 13) to very slow and twisting. It would also have involved changing the circuit without following any of the modern safety procedures, possibly with implications for the cars and their brakes. It is not difficult to imagine the reaction of an American court had there been an accident (whatever its cause) with the FIA having to admit it had failed to follow its own rules and safety procedures.

The reason for this debacle is clear. Each team is allowed to bring two types of tyre: one an on-the-limit potential race winner, the other a back-up which, although slower, is absolutely reliable. Apparently, none of the Michelin teams brought a back-up to Indianapolis. They subsequently announced they were flying in new tyres from France but then claimed that these too were unsafe.

What about the American fans? What about Formula One fans world-wide? Rather than boycott the race the Michelin teams should have agreed to run at reduced speed in turn 13. The rules would have been kept, they would have earned Championship points and the fans would have had a race. As it is, by refusing to run unless the FIA broke the rules and handicapped the Bridgestone runners, they have damaged themselves and the sport.

It should also be made clear that Formula One Management and Indianapolis Motor Speedway, as commercial entities, can have no role in the enforcement of the rules.

810 Comments

“Each driver may use no more than one engine for two consecutive Events. Should it become necessary for a driver to use another engine he will drop ten places on the starting grid at that Event and may not use another engine until the end of the next Event. Any driver who failed to finish the race at the first of the two Events may start the second with a different engine without incurring a penalty.”

The purpose of including the final sentence in the first paragraph of Article 85 of the 2005 Formula One Sporting Regulations was to ensure that if a driver failed to finish the first of two races he would not be penalised in the second if the engine was changed, the principle being that failing to finish a race was sufficient penalty.

As a result of what happened on the last lap of the race in Melbourne a distinction will now be made between failing to finish and choosing not to finish, the former is normally accidental or beyond the control of the driver while the latter is not.

In order to ensure the purpose of the regulation is fully respected, and unless the reason is completely clear, in future we will require the team of any driver who fails to finish the first of two races to explain the circumstances surrounding the retirement to the Stewards of the meeting.

200 Comments

Why did you make a deal just with Ferrari and FOM and not with anyone else?
“We have said that we are prepared to renew the Concorde Agreement from 2008. We would have preferred to have no Concorde Agreement and to regulate Formula One like the rest of motor sport, but all the teams and the commercial rights holder (FOM) seem to want an agreement.”

Yes, but why just Ferrari?
“It’s not just Ferrari. We have told them that if they compete in the Formula One World Championship after 2008, they will retain the rights and privileges they currently enjoy under the Concorde Agreement. The same goes for all the other teams.”

But haven’t Ferrari been promised extra money?
“The money is not the FIA’s business, but our understanding is that all the teams which sign up for 2008 will get the money that was originally agreed between FOM and GPWC in their so-called Memorandum of Understanding of December 2003. Apparently this will be paid from 2008 together with money from 2004 to 2007 under a formula with compound interest over the five years from 2008 to 2012. We understand the money will be split among the teams with the same percentages as for the last 25 years.”

But haven’t Ferrari been given a “sweetener”?
“We understand that money which would have been paid to Ferrari had FOM floated three years ago is involved and that the other teams concerned are to be dealt with similarly, but this is not really our business.”

You have been accused of dictatorship. What do you say to that?
“It’s difficult to describe anything done by the FIA as dictatorial. Of the three major changes for 2005 and 2006, two (tyres and aerodynamics) had the unanimous support of the teams and one (engines) had a majority of 7 to 3. This is hardly dictatorship. The only unilateral FIA action was the introduction of procedural changes at the start of 2003. Even then we had the support of most of the teams and only acted when the teams themselves had repeatedly failed to agree on how, for example, to eliminate the danger and cost of qualifying cars and engines. It has been generally acknowledged that the 2003 changes benefitted Formula One.”

The new tyre, aerodynamic and engine rules have been widely criticised?
“The tyre and aerodynamic rules for 2005 and 2006 were agreed unanimously by the teams, the engines by a large (7 to 3) majority. The tyre companies, also, are pleased and will be bringing (we are told) 4 sets per car to a race compared to 19 sets per car last year. All rules can be criticised, but we must wait for a few races before we can be sure if we and the teams which supported us were right.”

It has been said that car speeds could have been reduced much more easily and cheaply by introducing control tyres from a single manufacturer?
“If it were that simple, the Technical Working Group (or at least the necessary 8 out of 10) would have suggested it – either during their initial two months of reflection on how to slow the cars or, at the latest, during the 45 days when they were looking at the FIA’s three packages. The fact is that with engines passing the 1000 bhp mark, the current circuits and cars could not cope, even with a control tyre. It is for this reason that the teams’ technical directors repeatedly and unanimously asked for a reduction in engine power in meetings of the Technical Working Group.”

Going back to the proposed 2008 Concorde Agreement, how could you sign this with just FOM and Ferrari and without consulting the other teams?
“We haven’t signed the 2008 Concorde. It has not yet been drafted. We have simply confirmed to Ferrari that if they continue to compete in the World Championship and/or enter into a new Concorde Agreement from 2008, they will continue to enjoy their current rights and privileges. We have made it clear that the same applies to all the other teams.”

But why did you not involve the other teams?
“There was no need because the same offer is open to all. The other teams have never suggested they are not happy with their own current rights or privileges or those of Ferrari. Don’t forget they all signed up for these for ten years in 1998.”

They are certainly not happy with the money?
“That’s between them and FOM. They were apparently happy with the money on offer under the December 2003 Memorandum of Understanding. We are told that FOM have now put that money back on the table for anyone who competes through to 2012. It is reasonable to assume that the teams would still be happy with this money, but it is their right to bargain with FOM if they wish. The FIA has to remain neutral.”

You say the teams are happy with their rights and privileges, but some of them complain about the FIA’s governance of the sport?
“This is what we read in the press, but we have heard no specific complaint. It is natural that when a team fails it looks round for someone to blame. This will probably stop if it starts winning.”

Some say you favour Ferrari?
“The Ferrari accusation is a myth and does not stand up to scrutiny. What we did in 2003 actually disadvantaged Ferrari. Last year things ran smoothly with no controversies involving Ferrari or any other leading team.

They also say that the FIA lacks transparency?
“We are probably the most transparent organisation in international sport. We have never refused admittance to a meeting or access to documents to anyone with a legitimate interest. Our Court of Appeal is open to the press, which we believe is unique among international sporting bodies.”

Some teams say the FIA Court of Appeal is not independent?
“This is just nonsense. A team could easily check by asking one of the big law firms they all use, to look into the question. They would soon find that the FIA Court of Appeal consists of independent professional lawyers and judges who help the FIA without pay. For example, the judge from the UK is actually a full-time professional judge in England. Anyone in any doubt should investigate before making absurd and unsustainable accusations and insulting the judges who give their time voluntarily for the good of motor sport.”

Even if the Court is independent, aren’t the rules made to favour Ferrari?
“That’s easy to say, but can we have an example? New rules are all agreed by a majority of the teams and, more often than not, unanimously. The procedural changes in 2003 positively hindered Ferrari. It is not the fault of the FIA that Ferrari have been so successful in recent years, nor will the FIA be entitled to the credit if other teams now start to win. The rules are made for the majority. Winning depends on outstanding competence.”

The majority of the teams say they should make the rules, not the FIA?
“Provided the rules do not compromise safety or fairness this is entirely reasonable and the FIA would almost certainly accept their proposals. The problem is that they frequently fail to agree, leaving the FIA to try to find a compromise. The FIA has never refused a proposal which has the support of all the teams. Indeed, under the Concorde Agreement the teams already make the rules. Technical rules need 8 out of 10 in favour in the Technical Working Group. The FIA does not even have a vote in the Group. Then the proposed rules go to the Formula One Commission, where the teams have 12 votes and the FIA just one.”

Some of the teams are going to meet on 7 and 8 April to agree their own rules for 2008 with the manufacturers?
“If they can, so much the better. The problem is that two of the manufacturers want unlimited technology (or at least minimal restrictions), which means virtually unlimited costs; two want costs kept down to enable them to stay in Formula One; and two are somewhere in the middle. There are similar divisions among the teams. The problems will come when detailed technical and sporting rules have to be agreed.”

But they have already published a comprehensive list of principles?
“Indeed they have, but these are not detailed rules. No-one could dispute these published principles and objectives. The problem is writing rules to achieve them.”

Haven’t you gone too far with the new engine rules? Couldn’t you reduce power without placing so many restrictions on technology?
“Up to now it has always been the chassis engineers who have had to cope with restrictions. The engines were sacrosanct. But restrictions were necessary to slow the rate of increase in power. Don’t forget that back in 1994/5 we were told by the engine builders that “the laws of physics” would prevent a 3-litre engine going much above 600 horsepower. A very helpful side-effect of the technology restrictions is that commercial engine builders like Cosworth or Mecachrome will be able to supply engines for the new formula (2.4 litre V8) which will be at, or very close to, the level of performance of even the highest-spending major manufacturer.”

Why is that helpful?
“Because Formula One can only survive if a competitive commercial engine is available for any team which wants it. Without that you will only have a full grid as long as there are enough major car manufacturers able and willing to provide engines for all the teams.”

But we have seen in a recent press release that the manufacturers are willing to supply second teams?
“Without wishing to be unpleasant, one must remember that a group of well-known manufacturers promised to supply engines for ten million Euros (letter of 14 January 2003) and then failed to do so. A short time later they promised “affordable” engines if the FIA abandoned attempts to stop traction control. Again, they failed to deliver. In the end a manufacturer did supply engines (Toyota to Jordan), but was not one of the manufacturers which made the promises. Toyota did this as a gesture of goodwill to Formula One. They were not part of the group which made promises to the FIA and the independent teams but failed to keep them.”

That may be true of the past, but the newly-constituted manufacturers’ group are now clearly serious?
“They undoubtedly mean well and probably intend to do as they say. But circumstances change, bosses come and go. There is a simple test. Ask the manufacturers to enter into a binding legal agreement jointly and severally to supply all the teams up to a maximum of 24 cars for the five years 2008 to 2012 inclusive. They will refuse for the same reason that led to the breakdown of their 2003 Memorandum of Understanding with FOM. They cannot take on the potential liability of a long-term commitment to supply engines or to participate in Formula One. Their boards will only allow them to commit for a year or two at a time, and even then only for one or two teams. It would be utter folly for the FIA to bet the future of the Formula One World Championship on the willingness of major manufacturers to provide unlimited cost engines to a full grid of cars for the foreseeable future.”

So what is your answer to this?
“We have to find a way to accommodate major manufacturers when they come into Formula One without putting teams out of business when they leave. We very much want manufacturers in Formula One, but we must recognise that we cannot stop them leaving when they want to. This means we have to have commercially available engines which are competitive with those of a major manufacturer, even one which can spend 250 million dollars a year or more. We believe the 2006 engine regulations achieve this.”

Are you saying that if one of the top teams were to lose its engine supplier for 2006, it could go to, say, Cosworth or Mecachrome and get an engine capable of winning the 2006 Championship?
“Yes. This is fundamental to the future health and stability of Formula One. It would not be possible with the 2005 engine rules, or indeed any engine rule we have ever previously had for Formula One, but we are told it will be possible with the new engines from 2006.”

Are you against the possible manufacturers’ series which might compete with Formula One from 2008?
“No. Part of our deal with the European Commission is that we should be fully prepared to accept and regulate a series in competition with Formula One.”

But some of the “rebels” say they don’t want the FIA involved?
“In real life it would be impossible to run outside the current motor sport structure. There are innumerable reasons for this. Indeed it is precisely because of this impossibility that the European Commission insisted that we must be prepared to admit any new series into the structure, rival to Formula One or not, provided it meets the standard criteria for safety and fairness. I think it unlikely we will have two championships, because of the obvious commercial problems. But we cannot rule out the possibility of two series based on rival philosophies: unlimited technology and unlimited cost on the one hand versus technical constraints and cost-effectiveness on the other. One of these would soon gain the upper hand, but the after-effects of the initial rivalry would probably reduce the teams’ income from race organisers and television for many years to come.”

So are you against GPWC or the new manufacturers’ grouping?
“Absolutely not. They, and indeed the teams, are entitled to try to get more money from FOM or from anyone else. That is not our business. Nor is it our business if they fail or even end up with less than is currently on offer. They are also fully entitled to set up their own championship if they wish to. If they can agree on a realistic approach to technical rules, we might even adopt their ideas for the World Championship. The only thing we will not do is agree technical rules for the Formula One World Championship which might make it impossible for a top team to find a competitive engine were it to part company with its current supplier.”

What about the Formula One rules after 2008?
“We will agree these over the next few months with all the teams which commit to the 2008 Championship, and publish them before the end of this year as required by the Concorde Agreement.”

Finally, what’s your reaction to Paul Stoddart as the Formula One shop steward?
“I think Paul is a bit too trusting, even naïve. One or two team principals who now pretend to be his best friends are the same individuals who tried to grab his Minardi money a couple of years ago. They were only stopped because the FIA insisted he should get what was due to him. They then said Paul had no place in Formula One. They are using him now, but will turn on him as soon as it suits them. Paul is doing the best he can, but in the end only the FIA protects the independent teams in Formula One.”

And what about his problems with his cars?
“Paul has known about the new bodywork regulations since 6 September 2004 – in fact his team voted for them that day in common with all the other teams. We understand that he has the latest bodywork in Melbourne, even if he has not yet tested it fully. We also understand that at least three teams would object to him running outside the regulations (which it is also our job to enforce). If he decides not to run, we think it unlikely that the Melbourne organisers will seek compensation from him.”

255 Comments

Following votes of the FIA World Motor Sport Council and the Formula One Commission the following qualifying system will apply from the 2005 season.

Two sessions The first from 1300 to 1400 on Saturday; the second from 1000 to 1100 on Sunday. The first session is single lap qualifying, with the cars going out in the reverse order of their finishing positions at the previous race. The second session is also single lap qualifying, with the cars going out in the reverse order of the qualifying on Saturday (i.e. the fastest car on Saturday runs last on Sunday).

The cars run on Saturday with unrestricted fuel. The go into parc ferm after this qualifying session and for the Sunday qualifying session they run with race fuel, having been allowed to refuel before the second qualifying session, but are not allowed to refuel again before the race starts.

The times of the two sessions are aggregated to determine the grid, with the shortest aggregate time in pole position.

759 Comments

In a very constructive meeting of the Formula One Technical Working Group in Monza on Sunday, September 12, 2004, the Formula One Technical Directors unanimously agreed to propose the following measures to the Formula One Commission and the World Motor Sport Council for introduction from the beginning of the 2005 season.

Wheel tethers

Each wheel will be restrained by a tether system which is capable of absorbing more than four times the energy of existing tethers.

This has been made possible by research carried out by the newly-established FIA Institute for Motor Sport Safety into the development of metallic tethers, rather than the fibrous tethers used currently.

Headrests

Research conducted by the FIA at the Transport Research Laboratory in the UK has demonstrated that an increase in the thickness of side headrests would offer significant safety benefits to drivers.

The thickness of side headrests will therefore be increased from 75 to 100 mm.

Debris containment

Following a number of incidents where sharp shards of debris have been blamed for tyre damage, all front wing endplates, ‘barge boards’ and other turning vanes will be manufactured using outer skins of materials such as Kevlar which tests have shown can reduce debris by as much as 80%.

152 Comments

Panasonic Toyota Racing has today announced that its third driver Ricardo Zonta will be promoted to the role of race driver with effect from the upcoming Grand Prix of Hungary. Zonta will replace Cristiano da Matta and race alongside Olivier Panis.

The team's test driver Ryan Briscoe will in turn assume Zonta's role during the race weekend, running the third car during Friday's free practice sessions.

Read more... (1131 bytes more) 179 Comments

Toyota Motorsport GmbH has today announced that it has signed a sponsorship deal with US-based IT company BMC Software Inc, effective 1 July 2004, which sees BMC become a sponsor and technical partner for the Panasonic Toyota Racing Formula 1 team.

As part of the deal, the BMC Software Inc. logo will appear on the front wing end plate of Panasonic Toyota Racing's TF104 race cars, as well as on the team's motorhome, garage pitboards and MAN technical trucks starting from this weekend's French Grand Prix in Magny-Cours.

BMC Software, Inc. is a leading provider of enterprise management solutions that empower companies to manage their IT infrastructure from a business perspective. Delivering Business Service Management, BMC Software solutions span enterprise systems, applications, databases and service management.

President of Toyota Motorsport John Howett: "This exciting new partnership with BMC (Using the BMC Software) will enable us to understand how we can optimise our IT resources to ensure they support both our performance and business objectives. This will enable us to improve the speed and quality of IT services, to improve strategic planning activities and concurrently provide operating cost reductions. All essential ingredients to support our quest to achieve long term success in Formula 1."

Hans van Stek, Vice President, Europe, Middle East & Africa, BMC Software said: "By sponsoring Panasonic Toyota Racing, we are universally promoting teamwork, reliability and performance.. We also chose Formula 1 because it places the BMC Software brand within a dynamic, appealing environment, which has tremendous cachet. Toyota is one of only two teams on the F1 circuit that undertakes the entire end-to-end design and manufacturing process in-house, This places an even greater need for IT to be closely aligned with the team's racing goals: which fully supports our strategy of Business Service Management," he added.

120 Comments