The Concorde Agreement is (so we are told) a very detailed document that goes into lots of “what if” scenarios, not to mention a wildly large number of side letters, which give different parties special privileges. Part of all of this legal waffle is given over to how new rules are agreed. The structure is that if a change of rule has been published by the FIA by June 30 that alteration can come into force on January 1 of the next year. If things are not published by June 30 then it can only be done with unanimous agreement of the teams. Otherwise the new rule can only come into effect on the second January 1 after the rule is published.
However, as I understand it, all of this is irrelevant at the moment because the FIA has cleverly pointed out that it is not bound by any agreement for 2013 and thus can do as it pleases because there is no Concorde Agreement for next year until all parties sign one. This is why the entry deadline has been pushed back to September because when teams enter the championship they have to agree to abide by the rules and if the rules are not decided then they cannot easily enter, without a leap of faith that they are unwilling to take.
So, we have a new situation in which the teams have extra time to find agreements. It also opens up the possibility of the FIA agreeing to changes if the majority of teams them ask for something. Thus, for example, if more than half the teams would like to have the FIA policing a Resource Restriction Agreement, thus making it part of the regulations, a situation which would help to stop teams breaching the agreement, then that would be possible in the current hiatus. This may not please the big spenders but it is likely to be rather more effective than a gentleman’s agreement. It also demonstrates that the FIA retains some considerable power in F1 circles…
Joe,
Thanks for being the first to point this out, adds a very interesting new wrinkle to the F1 plot. Interested to see how it plays out. I hope Jean Todt flexes a little muscle for the underdogs, I mean smaller teams.
Adam
Ah, yes. Now it makes sense. So the FIA now both gives the teams the time they signalled they needed to agree and shows it will instist on its significant role in the sport.
The only comparison I can readily think of is Sheldon Cooper’s room mate agreement.
It is a a source of great disquiet and annoyance that the rules have anything to do with a secret agreement.
The technical and sporting rules, should be above board and open to inspection, they should be decided upon by the technical and sporting committees and should not be the plaything of commercial interests.
The rules are published but always include the statement that they are founded under the Concorde Agreement (currently 2009 version). Often during the season something happens or it is mentioned that something cannot happen because of the CA, the “something” not being covered in the rules. This effectively means there is another layer of secret rules which remain a mystery to us fans.
The commercial side and the technical/sporting rules should be completely separate and neither should have any influence on the other. The current system seems intrinsically underhanded.
I agree that for the sake of the fans I don’t see why the terms of the Concorde Agreements are kept secret – while I’d never expect more than a handful of the armchair fraternity to read them the better F1 journalists definitely would and it would give a better insight into what goes on behind the scenes.
I’m forced to wonder if certain terms of the regulations are essentially illegal according to trade laws or something.
As for sporting / technical regulations – there will always be and need to be an interaction between the two, and the technical rules are as much the rules of the sport as the driving rules are.
There are many, many legal contracts that are kept entirely secret from the public. It has nothing to do with illegality of trade agreements. It has everything to do with the fact that it is simply none of our business. Allowing external discussions and debate over internal contracts that you can’t change anyway is a pointless thing in my opinion (and it gives individuals the false assumption that they have a right to complain about it). Sure it would be cool to know… but again… you are essentially listening through the door with a styrofoam cup. Which is rude.
Joe, the FIA could really flex their muscles here and make life really difficult re the F1 flotation/sell-off – I sense you’re alluding to that a little bit?
That’s a done deal, ain’t it? The stalling the float thing? Another begging bowl being nudged forward . . .
Personally, I reckon the float is merely a sleight. The idea of class action suits and discovery across jurisdictions unpredictable from shareholders you cannot keep close tabs on . .
I’m surprised that there isn’t a copy of the concorde agreement floating about on the internet or on a misplaced usb stick, with the 12 teams we currently have plus the number that have came and gone over the years, with the amount of people in these teams with access to this agreement that it hasn’t been leaked to somebody over the years that was willing to make it public information.
I was thinking the same , nothing is secret now
If I wanted something secret, no copy would ever leave the room where it is negotiated. Pencil, paper, typist, done.
If it has to be edited on machines connected to anything else, look up Mandatory Access Control Labeling. There exist some extremely robust ways to prevent “accidental” copying.
If you look into it, deep dive, you can put some pretty impressive security on a windows box because, ahem, the origin of that is with a printout of a much better designed system.
Basically, security comes in layers. Layers can get very complex*. But not for just a contract.
All that guff with the misguided lad who leaked those cables is more to do with the fact the US Army got so fed up with procurement processes, they bought whatever “just worked”. Famously, the Gulf land war comms was a hardhack of commercial wifi and other off the shelf (modified) radios. Reason: waiting 15 years for the official radios sucked rocks. Though that kid likely won’t see the light of day for a very long time, he probably in the end did the system a favor.
*Networks have been hierarchical in nature for a long while. Forever, basically. But they don’t have to be. This is how things will work in the future, or do today, if you are Google. Or even l’il ‘ol me and you, if you care to suss it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenFlow
I’m sure there are copies out there in people’s hands but I also suspect that each copy made it slightly different to all of the others (watermarks, deliberate errors and various other techniques are available) to make it obvious the source of any leak and therefore the leaker would get in a bit of trouble (also likely outlined within the agreement).
I think you are talking about stochastic screening steganography.
Here is one such solution, many others exist: http://www.guard-soft.com/anticopy.html
I still go with the “No Copy Leaves This Room” plan, as it’s old and it works.
Oh, and embed RFIDs in your printout, so alarms ring if anyone tries to sneak a page away
It seems that without the resource restriction agreement included in the concorde agreement it would create a club within a club. Surley the portential for new technologies from universities and possibly new companies to express the latest wares and create new employment in these areas.Keeping F1 exclusive does not look good only to enhance new companies would invest in the projects. Without this included in the concorde agreement F1 will be very droll…..Jean todt is moving F1 towards the the road car technologies for the survival of F1 future is a good move…
The rules are very much against new technology and indeed new ideas, they include a specific clause that bans any new idea after one season unless it is beneficial to F1. (Article 2.5 of the Tech regs 2102).
It is a great shame that ABS is not allowed, together with brake steering; since the stability control now available on some road cars would have reached the market perhaps 5 years earlier and may well have saved lives.
Had it been allowed one would then argue that this would have taken some skill requirement away from F1 drivers, but I say that the action zone between the start of braking and “the edge” would have been made very much smaller and still require the same level of skill, indeed the whole is condensed into a time-frame possibly half or less of the current. F1 drivers will always push to the edge and just that bit over it to see if they can get it back.
The age of great innovation in F1 is long gone. It is simply not allowed any more.
All the same, in the future we need electric regenerative braking and smart surface aero, both of which will be hugely energy saving.
I couldn’t agree more with rpaco.
Almost any road car now seems overpowered, and just you try to buy a nice one without a huge engine in it. Hybrid tech and good diesel is not gong to make anything slower.
At the same time, I rather doubt the average driving skill is improving.*
I am only just old enough for this to make me sad:
“The age of great innovation in F1 is long gone. It is simply not allowed any more.”
Well said, Sir. But it stung.
If I tried to recall any proper nouns for the tech, I’d fail, but I was reading that non commercial Boeing 747′s have polymetal engine farings which bend one way to reduce noise, and return to reduce drag, electronically.
Crikey, that’ll be fun to explain to the punters ~ flex wing, flex everything, every day!
My own opinion is we should allow hybrids into F1 right away. Is not KERS effectively hybrid? Just let it rip.
I believe that would get some manufacturers back.
Let in diesel, Peugeot might take a look. VW would pay attention.
My fear is they took all the cool tech to La Sarthe. I certainly regained my interest there in recent years.
Though I am firmly in the fan club of Joe’s unbounded skill as a historian, I surely wish we could be more forward looking, here, and in F1.
*Combine that with the fun of being a bit older and affording nicer motors . . I now defer to a pal to drive us for all but cruising, because his eyes test – for the relevant stopping distances – far better for town driving. He nags me to buy a new MB S Class, because those effectively brake [do everything] for you . . . but that might just be a tease so he can impress the ladies on my ticket (yeah, he’ll get the joke, and often reads here) . .
“Excuse me stewardess, but could you tell the pilot that the engine seems to be bending!”
Wing warping too is back, the very earliest designs used this with limited success but apparently it is the most efficient way of controlling an aircraft.
Of course in F1, such electrically controlled surfaces would constitute “movable aero surfaces” and thus a whole avenue of research is cordoned off.
But just think what the yanks are working on now, we never saw, (or the US never admitted the existence of) the stealth planes for 10 years after the first prototypes. Even Aurora must have been superseded by now. Such “black” projects must generate new technology by the shed load, as by-products. As a comparison I remember Audi claiming they had filed a huge number of patents in designing the A8 (the nightmare in aluminium for electrical engineers and suppliers of ancillaries, where the first question was, “what is the atomic number of each dastardly component in what you want to bolt to our beautiful car?)
LOL at your “Excuse me stewardess. . “!
though the delightful ones with BA seemed to be more busy either sitting me next to some pretty girl*, or trying to get me smashed on grog ~ I swear on a flight back from Vienna, when I asked for a brandy, it came in a half pint glass** . . . business class is a dangerous experience . . but, ahem, they sure stiffed everyone’s airmiles programme lately***. . .
Wing warping is truly interesting stuff. Not claiming to understand a thing, but I was led to believe by my physics teacher that such developments have been going on for a fair few decades. I believe it’s crucial to creating a reduced drag profile, or cross-section, or whatever, but don’t trust my guesses . .
Didn’t the Russian dude who wrote the paper on RADAR section reflection have to wait 20 years for some Lockheed guy to read it and go “Aha!”?
Then there was a joint programme when NASA found they couldn’t vent an exhaust at the high temp they wanted, and they asked the Ruskies (this was early 90s, so more friendly) and the Ruskies laughed, because they’d spent a decade creating a new alloy just for the purpose. .
There simply must be amazing things out there, possible to fathom, but kept well hid in plain sight. What is truly amazing, is just how much is simply in the readily literature, to hand. My oil trader mate got a bit in a tizzy the other day, so we pulled Elsevier “Referex” from the shelf, to find out how a certain weight might be split.
Giggling at your AUDI info too. I keep thinking that Peach is the ultimate b’stard when it comes to annoying engineers!
cheers for the laughs, rpaco, much needed – - good on you for getting out there this weekend, sadly mine seem to be stuffed with family commitments this year . . long overdue. (Been shaking that one up a while, my bro is way too shy but held that job too long)
I think my regaining a love of learning has been long overdue also, and much encouraged by you lot, so here’s to you finding a proper butty and hopefully less mud!
*Listen up Tony F, this is how to sell expensive seats!
** Is that allowed any more? Also, shouldn’t that be “the waiter brought a tray” / Hotel California?
*** this of course means I have to book a couple of expensive flights again, so as to enjoy their insanely good facilities at LHR. That, or argue for days. Apparently even AA cold shouldered their best customers.
ppppps Also for Tony F, should he ever hear, you need to fly to Kalantan, mate. Preferably from Incheon and Narita. Pal of mine is nuts enough to be building a cool golf course thereabouts. Next to a little AFB. Not so hush I cannot speak..
But then why don’t FIA just impose the changes they want? Is it because Todt doesn’t want to look like the reincarnation of Max Mosley? Does he want to do things consensually?
I wonder if the FIA feel it might be wise to defer any agreements that will involve FOM until the picture is clear in terms of what the German and British authorities will decide (or not) in connection with Bernie. There may be big changes afoot in the commercial affairs of F1, and if so, the FIA will want to make sure they are in the driving seat when it comes to sporting regulations.
The term “legal waffle” is a registered trademark of the New Jersey Breakfast G.P. corp. – I’m just saying
I’m claiming prior art on “waffle”
Bless you John. Nearly always enjoy reading your stuff.