[FAQ] Frequently asked questions to rec.autos.sport.f1.moderated - Part 1 of 2

[FAQ] Frequently asked questions to rec.autos.sport.f1.moderated - Part 1 of 2

$Revision: 2.144 $, $Date: 2008/04/15 23:56:13 $

This FAQ is posted approximately twice a month. (The subject should be
the same; if you do not want to retrieve it, kill the subject.) Between
postings you can find a reasonably current copy at
http :// www .alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson/rasf1m.html. For more information
about the operation of this newsgroup, and a nicely-formatted version of
this FAQ, see the rec.autos.sport.f1.moderated website at
http :// www .rasf1m,net /.

*NOTE* The FAQ has been split into two parts to avoid it being too long
for some people's rules.

This FAQ originated on rec.autos.sport.f1, where it was ably maintained
through mid-2001 by Stephen M Baines. Special thanks to him, and
thanks also to the following people who, amongst others, have had
contributions culled to make the FAQ:

Kim Andrews, Paul B, Sven Baumer, David Betts, Sergiusz Boron, Alessio
Bragadini, Lord Tim Brent, Stênio F. Campos, Simon "Bumble Bee Boy"
Cossar, Andrew Cosstick, Emma Crawley, GD, BF Dehay, Doug Farrow,
Pete Fenelon, Ken Fletcher, Mark J Frusciante, Tony Gartshore, Alan Gauton,
GD, Thomas Gmuer, Lutz Goerke, Paul Harman, Ian Hill, Mark Jackson, Jak,
Alan Jones, Brian Lawrence, Jeff "Eskimo Joe", Olav K. Malmin, Julie Miles,
Ciro Pabón, Dave Parker, Jon Petersson, Barry Posner, Rob, Duncan Rollo,
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro, Martin Schmidt, Peter Scoular, Johan V,
Mike Whooley, Paul Winalski.

Apologies to anyone whose name was missed - it's not deliberate!

The FAQ may not have answers to everything you need - it is just a
collection of *frequently* asked questions and their answers, not the
answers to everything ;-)

Corrections and additions are especially welcome. I do try to keep up
with the newsgroup, but to make sure of something being considered for
the FAQ mail me at mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu.

The FAQ is divided into several sections.

This introduction (Part 1)
1. Rules, regulations and governing body (Part 1)
2. The teams and cars (Part 1)
3. The drivers (Part 2)
4. The races (Part 2)
5. The circuits (Part 2)
6. Television (Part 2)
7. Sponsors (Part 2)
8. Manufacturers (Part 2)
9. Technical stuff (Part 2)
10. Miscellaneous (Part 2)


1. Rules, Regulations and Governing Body
==========================================
Q: Who is the governing body of Formula 1?
A: The Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), headquartered
in Paris (F) and whose president is currently Max Mosley. In 1904
various national motor clubs organized the Association Internationale
des Automobile Clubs Reconnus (AIACR) to run international motor sport
(reserving control of national events for themselves). The AIACR first
issued an international sporting calendar and regulations in 1908, and
in 1922 formed a Commission Sportive Internationale (CSI) to formalize
the oversignt of Grand Prix and other forms of international racing.

The term Formula 1 came into use in 1947, when the AIACR reorganized
itself as the FIA. The World Championship of Drivers was begun in 1950.

Q: Where can I find the regulations to Formula 1?
A: The FIA's web site has the technical and sporting regulations; see
http :// www .fia,com /sport/Regulations/f1regs.html.

Q: What are the main changes for 2008?
A: In March 2006 the World Motor Sport Council, anticipating the
expiration of the Concorde Agreement (see below), approved
far-reaching changes to the sporting regulations for 2008.
Proposed changes to the technical regulations followed; after
considerable struggle some modifications were put in place
and most provisions were brought forward to 2007. During 2007
further changes were announced from time to time by the FIA,
some of which seem to have been invalidated by agreements
reached with the teams in early 2008. Here's what remains:

An FIA-standard engine control unit (ECU) will become mandatory,
enabling (in principle) effective enforcement of a ban on launch
and traction control systems. Gearboxes will have to last for
four events, with a five-place grid penalty for early replacement.
(Gearboxes are complex things. The regulations permit changing
some components to get the right ratios for each track, and to
repair damage; time will tell whether this is abused.) The first
engine replacement of the season for each car will not result in
the usual 10 grid position penalty - unless it takes place for
the final race, in Brazil. Engine development is frozen for 5
years (reduced from 10 years) relative to a reference engine the
teams must hand over early this year. As a cost-reduction
measure spare cars have been banned; a spare chassis can be
brought to races but can only be built up as a replacement
overnight. The third qualifying period has been shortened from
15 to 10 minutes and refueling afterwards has been banned, which
eliminates the laps spent burning off fuel. (What was
introduced to give the spectators more track time to watch is
now judged unacceptably eco-hostile!) Unintended consequences
in Malaysia (cars that made their last run before the absolute
end of the session crawling back to the pits to save fuel,
thus impeding and endangering others still on qualifying pace)
led to the imposition of a minimum partial-lap time from
Bahrain.

"Customer" cars - one team using another's chassis - were
supposed to be legalized, but the use of such cars in 2007
by Toro Rosso and Super Aguri triggered litigation; this
led to the abandonment of Prodrive's planned 2008 entry of a
customer McLaren chassis.

Q: Are further changes planned?
Yes, but it's hard to be sure exactly what. Although the
purported 2009 technical regulations have been on the FIA
website since December 2006 their relevance is unclear,
since during 2007 a number of proposals were floated,
then revised or dropped. The most recent announcement -
of limits on the use of wind tunnels and aerodynamic track
testing and other restrictions on resources dedicated to
computational fluid dynamics (CFD), rig testing, other
technical development areas, and the number of personnel
brought to races - ran into strong opposition and seems
to be off the table. This was followed by reports of
serious discussion of a budget cap - to which Ferrari
is known to be opposed.

It has been reported that all have agreed that every team
must again be a legitimate constructor (no customer cars)
by 2010; this leaves the status of Toro Rosso and Super Aguri
somewhat uncertain in the interim. A negotiated solution is
being sought before the arbitration set in motion last year
by Spyker reaches court in July.

Team announcements of their 2009 efforts indicate that there
will be significant restrictions on aerodynamics (targeting
a 50% downforce rediction) and the introduction of a
"Kinetic Energy Recovery System" (KERS) for which open
choice of technology is promised. The grooved dry-weather
tires used for several years are on the way out (Bridgestone
is testing compounds and constructions for slicks); the
elimination of tire-warmers is also planned.

Q: What is the Concorde Agreement?
A: The original Concorde Agreement (so-called because it was signed
at the FIA headquarters on the Place de la Concorde in Paris)
was between the Formula One Constructors Association (FOCA)
and the Fédération Internationale du Sport Automobile (FISA).

FISA, reorganized from the old CSI by Jean-Marie Balestre after
he became its chair, was the arm of the FIA involved in
sanctioning motor sport and had direct sanctioning responsibility
for F1. FOCA was, as its name implies, an organization
representing most of the F1 teams (but not all of them--Tyrrell
and, I think, Ferrari were not FOCA members). Its president was
Bernie Ecclestone, then owner of the Brabham F1 team.

Through the 1970s the FIA had gradually allowed FOCA to
take a greater hand in the financial, promotional, and
organizational aspects of the F1 Championship. By 1980
FOCA was organizing the races and the FIA's role was limited
to rules-making and officiating. When Balestre took over
as head of the CSI he set about trying to get control of F1 back
from FOCA. FOCA baulked at some of Balestre's proposed rule
changes, particularly the ones limiting ground effects, and
a very ugly dispute ensued that threatened to split the sport.
(One race was boycotted by the FOCA teams; another, organized
by FOCA, was excluded from that year's Championship.)
The sponsors and manufacturers (engines, tires, fuel) had the
last say and forced both sides to hammer out the Concorde
Agreement, which covers the whole financial and organizational
side of F1 racing, rules stability, collection and distribution
of monies, etc.

FISA is no longer, its duties now being performed by the FIA's
World Motor Sports Council. FOCA has evolved into Bernie's
complex of companies; see "Who owns F1," below. Since the
original Concorde Agreement there have been several revisions
to it. In recent years the CA has required unanimous consent
from the teams (almost impossible to obtain) or a couple of
years' notice in order to change the regulations.

The current, three-party version (FIA, Bernie, the F1 teams)
expired at the end of 2007. In mid-January 2005 the FIA,
Ferrari, and Bernie announced the signing of a revised Concorde
Agreement, giving signatory teams a larger share of revenues,
effective 2008-2012. Bernie gave the other teams an
end-of-February deadline to sign on, which was ignored.
Instead the remaining teams signed a memorandum of
understanding with Bernie covering financial arrangements in
mid-May 2006. Agreement between manufacturers and the FIA
over governance and technical objectives was claimed by Mosley
and BMW in November, and this was touted as having cleared the
way for a fresh 3-way Concorde Agreement. However as of the
beginning of the 2008 season such had yet to be signed - and
may not be, both because it may run afoul of European Union
antitrust holdings and because Max may not want to continue
restrictions on the FIA's rule-making powers. Bernie's
people are reported to be working to unify the various
interim agreements between FOM and the individual teams.

Q: Where can I see the Concorde Agreement?
A: You can't. It's secret, although some of its known or suspected
provisions are described in this FAQ. More detailed speculation,
and pointers to an alleged copy of the 1997 agreement divulged
in 2005 by a certain motorsport newsletter, can be found at
http :// www .concordeagreement,com .

Q: How much do the teams get for winning races?
A: The FIA doesn't get involved in money, which is controlled by
Bernie through what used to be called FOCA. I believe that the
Concorde Agreement describes the "prize money" for each race,
and I think there are payments for the leading teams at quarter,
half, three-quarter and full distance. Maybe something for most
laps led too?

The revenue from TV rights is partially distributed to teams using
a points system derived from historical performances. As I understand
it points are awarded for:

* Placing in the constructor's championship (last 3 years)
* Number of years in F1 (1 year = 4 points, 10 years = 165 points
[Ferrari 50 yrs = 1200 points])
* Constructor's titles (25 points each)
* Constructor's championship points (last 2 years x 2)
* " " 2 (all-time / 10)
* Number of wins (last 2 years, 10 points each)
* All-time number of wins (1 point each)

Teams with points get a proportional share of the money. There is
also a separate pool of money distributed based on the previous
years constructor's championship. The *size* of the total payout
(reportedly 47% of TV revenues, nothing from the sanctioning fees
and other income realized by Bernie) was one of the issues behind
the breakaway manufacturers' movement (see next question).

Q: Who owns F1?
A: The FIA owns Formula 1, but licensed the commercial rights
through 2110 (yes, for over a century) to a complex of companies
effectively controlled by Bernie Ecclestone. The actual structure
was Byzantine; in discussing it /The Economist/ used the words
"complex tax-avoidance scheme."

The key elements were:
* Formula One Management (FOM), owned by the Jersey company Petara
* Formula One Administration (FOA), which owns Petara and is in turn
owned by Formula One Holdings (FOH)
* SLEC Holdings, a Jersey company (evidently named for Bernie's wife
Slavica, who controls Petara) which owns FOH.
* Bambino Holdings, another Jersey company controlled by the
Liechtenstein-based Bambino Trust (whose beneficiaries are members
of the Ecclestone family).

A few years ago Bernie sold 75% of SLEC for a very large sum,
while retaining a 25% stake through Bambino Holdings - as well
as effective control through arcane directorship arrangements at
FOM and FOA. Due to financial difficulties ownership of this 75%
passed through the hands of German media companies EM.TV and Kirch
and, following the latter's default, to three creditor banks.
The banks were unhappy with the return on their unwilling
investment and lack of the control that usually comes with 75%
ownership; legal actions followed.

In November 2005 Ecclestone and the British private equity firm CVC
Capital Partners agreed to form a new company, Alpha Prema, which
was to reunite the bank and Bambino holdings with
Ecclestone continuing as chief executive of the F1 group. Details
were then worked out with the banks, conditional approval was
granted by the European Commission (CVS being required to divest
itself of its interest in MotoGP), and in March 2006 the purchase
was completed. As of that date:
* the Formula One Group is still 100% owned by SLEC
* SLEC is 75% owned by Speed Investments (the former bank holding
vehicle); and 25% by Alpha Prema UK
* 100% of Speed is held by Alpha Prema UK
* Alpha Prema UK is 100% owned by yet another Jersey-based holding
company, Alpha Topco
* Alpha Topco is 75% owned by CVC Fund IV and 25% by Bambino Holdings.

2. The teams and cars
====================
Q: When was the last time a privateer won a race?
A: The last privateer to win a GP was either Jo Siffert in the Walker
Lotus-Ford at Brands Hatch in 1968, or Jackie Stewart in the Tyrrell
March-Ford in Spain in 1970. (Although Tyrrell bought both chassis
and engine that season some feel that the support he was receiving from
Ford, Elf, and Goodyear place him at least among the semi-works ranks.
It's a judgement call, there being no official body empowered to bless
privateership.)

There has never been a privateer World Champion. Moss came closest in
the Rob Walker-entered Cooper in 1959 when he finished third. Walker
was the first privateer entrant to win a World Championship Grand Prix
with Moss in a Cooper-Climax, in the 1958 Argentine Grand Prix.

The Mugen-Honda engine used by the 2000 Jordan was a factory engine
in all-but-name. The last World Champion to use an off-the-shelf
engine was Keke Rosberg (1982, Williams-Ford).

Q: Who owns whic

Re: [FAQ] Frequently asked questions to rec.autos.sport.f1.moderated - Part 1 of 2

G'day Mark,
Thank you very much for your FAQ, it's great.

Can I suggest, instead of posting the full FAQ so frequently you just
post revisions with a link to the full FAQ? Just a suggestion.

beers,
build

Mark Jackson wrote:
> $Revision: 2.144 $, $Date: 2008/04/15 23:56:13 $
>
> This FAQ is posted approximately twice a month. (The subject should be
> the same; if you do not want to retrieve it, kill the subject.) Between
> postings you can find a reasonably current copy at
> http :// www .alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson/rasf1m.html. For more information=

> about the operation of this newsgroup, and a nicely-formatted version of
> this FAQ, see the rec.autos.sport.f1.moderated website at
> http :// www .rasf1m,net /.
>
> *NOTE* The FAQ has been split into two parts to avoid it being too long
> for some people's rules.
>
> This FAQ originated on rec.autos.sport.f1, where it was ably maintained
> through mid-2001 by Stephen M Baines. Special thanks to him, and
> thanks also to the following people who, amongst others, have had
> contributions culled to make the FAQ:
>
> Kim Andrews, Paul B, Sven Baumer, David Betts, Sergiusz Boron, Alessio
> Bragadini, Lord Tim Brent, St=EF=BF=BDnio F. Campos, Simon "Bumble Bee Boy=
"
> Cossar, Andrew Cosstick, Emma Crawley, GD, BF Dehay, Doug Farrow,
> Pete Fenelon, Ken Fletcher, Mark J Frusciante, Tony Gartshore, Alan Gauton=
,
> GD, Thomas Gmuer, Lutz Goerke, Paul Harman, Ian Hill, Mark Jackson, Jak,
> Alan Jones, Brian Lawrence, Jeff "Eskimo Joe", Olav K. Malmin, Julie Miles=
,
> Ciro Pab=EF=BF=BDn, Dave Parker, Jon Petersson, Barry Posner, Rob, Duncan =
Rollo,
> Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro, Martin Schmidt, Peter Scoular, Johan V,
> Mike Whooley, Paul Winalski.
>
> Apologies to anyone whose name was missed - it's not deliberate!
>
> The FAQ may not have answers to everything you need - it is just a
> collection of *frequently* asked questions and their answers, not the
> answers to everything ;-)
>
> Corrections and additions are especially welcome. I do try to keep up
> with the newsgroup, but to make sure of something being considered for
> the FAQ mail me at mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu.
>
> The FAQ is divided into several sections.
>
> This introduction (Part 1)
> 1. Rules, regulations and governing body (Part 1)
> 2. The teams and cars (Part 1)
> 3. The drivers (Part 2)
> 4. The races (Part 2)
> 5. The circuits (Part 2)
> 6. Television (Part 2)
> 7. Sponsors (Part 2)
> 8. Manufacturers (Part 2)
> 9. Technical stuff (Part 2)
> 10. Miscellaneous (Part 2)
>
>
> 1. Rules, Regulations and Governing Body
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Q: Who is the governing body of Formula 1?
> A: The F=EF=BF=BDd=EF=BF=BDration Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), he=
adquartered
> in Paris (F) and whose president is currently Max Mosley. In 1904
> various national motor clubs organized the Association Internationale
> des Automobile Clubs Reconnus (AIACR) to run international motor sport=

> (reserving control of national events for themselves). The AIACR firs=
t
> issued an international sporting calendar and regulations in 1908, and=

> in 1922 formed a Commission Sportive Internationale (CSI) to formalize=

> the oversignt of Grand Prix and other forms of international racing.
>
> The term Formula 1 came into use in 1947, when the AIACR reorganized
> itself as the FIA. The World Championship of Drivers was begun in 195=
0.
>
> Q: Where can I find the regulations to Formula 1?
> A: The FIA's web site has the technical and sporting regulations; see
> http :// www .fia,com /sport/Regulations/f1regs.html.
>
> Q: What are the main changes for 2008?
> A: In March 2006 the World Motor Sport Council, anticipating the
> expiration of the Concorde Agreement (see below), approved
> far-reaching changes to the sporting regulations for 2008.
> Proposed changes to the technical regulations followed; after
> considerable struggle some modifications were put in place
> and most provisions were brought forward to 2007. During 2007
> further changes were announced from time to time by the FIA,
> some of which seem to have been invalidated by agreements
> reached with the teams in early 2008. Here's what remains:
>
> An FIA-standard engine control unit (ECU) will become mandatory,
> enabling (in principle) effective enforcement of a ban on launch
> and traction control systems. Gearboxes will have to last for
> four events, with a five-place grid penalty for early replacement.
> (Gearboxes are complex things. The regulations permit changing
> some components to get the right ratios for each track, and to
> repair damage; time will tell whether this is abused.) The first
> engine replacement of the season for each car will not result in
> the usual 10 grid position penalty - unless it takes place for
> the final race, in Brazil. Engine development is frozen for 5
> years (reduced from 10 years) relative to a reference engine the
> teams must hand over early this year. As a cost-reduction
> measure spare cars have been banned; a spare chassis can be
> brought to races but can only be built up as a replacement
> overnight. The third qualifying period has been shortened from
> 15 to 10 minutes and refueling afterwards has been banned, which
> eliminates the laps spent burning off fuel. (What was
> introduced to give the spectators more track time to watch is
> now judged unacceptably eco-hostile!) Unintended consequences
> in Malaysia (cars that made their last run before the absolute
> end of the session crawling back to the pits to save fuel,
> thus impeding and endangering others still on qualifying pace)
> led to the imposition of a minimum partial-lap time from
> Bahrain.
>
> "Customer" cars - one team using another's chassis - were
> supposed to be legalized, but the use of such cars in 2007
> by Toro Rosso and Super Aguri triggered litigation; this
> led to the abandonment of Prodrive's planned 2008 entry of a
> customer McLaren chassis.
>
> Q: Are further changes planned?
> Yes, but it's hard to be sure exactly what. Although the
> purported 2009 technical regulations have been on the FIA
> website since December 2006 their relevance is unclear,
> since during 2007 a number of proposals were floated,
> then revised or dropped. The most recent announcement -
> of limits on the use of wind tunnels and aerodynamic track
> testing and other restrictions on resources dedicated to
> computational fluid dynamics (CFD), rig testing, other
> technical development areas, and the number of personnel
> brought to races - ran into strong opposition and seems
> to be off the table. This was followed by reports of
> serious discussion of a budget cap - to which Ferrari
> is known to be opposed.
>
> It has been reported that all have agreed that every team
> must again be a legitimate constructor (no customer cars)
> by 2010; this leaves the status of Toro Rosso and Super Aguri
> somewhat uncertain in the interim. A negotiated solution is
> being sought before the arbitration set in motion last year
> by Spyker reaches court in July.
>
> Team announcements of their 2009 efforts indicate that there
> will be significant restrictions on aerodynamics (targeting
> a 50% downforce rediction) and the introduction of a
> "Kinetic Energy Recovery System" (KERS) for which open
> choice of technology is promised. The grooved dry-weather
> tires used for several years are on the way out (Bridgestone
> is testing compounds and constructions for slicks); the
> elimination of tire-warmers is also planned.
>
> Q: What is the Concorde Agreement?
> A: The original Concorde Agreement (so-called because it was signed
> at the FIA headquarters on the Place de la Concorde in Paris)
> was between the Formula One Constructors Association (FOCA)
> and the F=EF=BF=BDd=EF=BF=BDration Internationale du Sport Automobile =
(FISA).
>
> FISA, reorganized from the old CSI by Jean-Marie Balestre after
> he became its chair, was the arm of the FIA involved in
> sanctioning motor sport and had direct sanctioning responsibility
> for F1. FOCA was, as its name implies, an organization
> representing most of the F1 teams (but not all of them--Tyrrell
> and, I think, Ferrari were not FOCA members). Its president was
> Bernie Ecclestone, then owner of the Brabham F1 team.
>
> Through the 1970s the FIA had gradually allowed FOCA to
> take a greater hand in the financial, promotional, and
> organizational aspects of the F1 Championship. By 1980
> FOCA was organizing the races and the FIA's role was limited
> to rules-making and officiating. When Balestre took over
> as head of the CSI he set about trying to get control of F1 back
> from FOCA. FOCA baulked at some of Balestre's proposed rule
> changes, particularly the ones limiting ground effects, and
> a very ugly dispute ensued that threatened to split the sport.
> (One race was boycotted by the FOCA teams; another, organized
> by FOCA, was excluded from that year's Championship.)
> The sponsors and manufacturers (engines, tires, fuel) had the
> last say and forced both sides to hammer out the Concorde
> Agreement, which covers the whole financial and organizational
> side of F1 racing, rules stability, collection and distribution
> of monies, etc.
>
> FISA is no longer, its duties now being performed by the FIA's
> World Motor Sports Council. FOCA has evolved into Bernie's
> complex of companies; see "Who owns F1," below. Since the
> original Concorde Agreement there have been several revisions
> to it. In recent years the CA has required unanimous consent
> from the teams (almost impossible to obtain) or a couple of
> years' notice in order to change the regulations.
>
> The current, three-party version (FIA, Bernie, the F1 teams)
> expired at the end of 2007. In mid-January 2005 the FIA,
> Ferrari, and Bernie announced the signing of a revised Concorde
> Agreement, giving signatory teams a larger share of revenues,
> effective 2008-2012. Bernie gave the other teams an
> end-of-February deadline to sign on, which was ignored.
> Instead the remaining teams signed a memorandum of
> understanding with Bernie covering financial arrangements in
> mid-May 2006. Agreement between manufacturers and the FIA
> over governance and technical objectives was claimed by Mosley
> and BMW in November, and this was touted as having cleared the
> way for a fresh 3-way Concorde Agreement. However as of the
> beginning of the 2008 season such had yet to be signed - and
> may not be, both because it may run afoul of European Union
> antitrust holdings and because Max may not want to continue
> restrictions on the FIA's rule-making powers. Bernie's
> people are reported to be working to unify the various
> interim agreements between FOM and the individual teams.
>
> Q: Where can I see the Concorde Agreement?
> A: You can't. It's secret, although some of its known or suspected
> provisions are described in this FAQ. More detailed speculation,
> and pointers to an alleged copy of the 1997 agreement divulged
> in 2005 by a certain motorsport newsletter, can be found at
> http :// www .concordeagreement,com .
>
> Q: How much do the teams get for winning races?
> A: The FIA doesn't get involved in money, which is controlled by
> Bernie through what used to be called FOCA. I believe that the
> Concorde Agreement describes the "prize money" for each race,
> and I think there are payments for the leading teams at quarter,
> half, three-quarter and full distance. Maybe something for most
> laps led too?
>
> The revenue from TV rights is partially distributed to teams using
> a points system derived from historical performances. As I understand
> it points are awarded for:
>
> * Placing in the constructor's championship (last 3 years)
> * Number of years in F1 (1 year =3D 4 points, 10 years =3D 165 points
> [Ferrari 50 yrs =3D 1200 points])
> * Constructor's titles (25 points each)
> * Constructor's championship points (last 2 years x 2)
> * " " 2 (all-time / 10)
> * Number of wins (last 2 years, 10 points each)
> * All-time number of wins (1 point each)
>
> Teams with points get a proportional share of the money. There is
> also a separate pool of money distributed based on the previous
> years constructor's championship. The *size* of the total payout
> (reportedly 47% of TV revenues, nothing from the sanctioning fees
> and other income realized by Bernie) was one of the issues behind
> the breakaway manufacturers' movement (see next question).
>
> Q: Who owns F1?
> A: The FIA owns Formula 1, but licensed the commercial rights
> through 2110 (yes, for over a century) to a complex of companies
> effectively controlled by Bernie Ecclestone. The actual structure
> was Byzantine; in discussing it /The Economist/ used the words
> "complex tax-avoidance scheme."
>
> The key elements were:
> * Formula One Management (FOM), owned by the Jersey company Petara
> * Formula One Administration (FOA), which owns Petara and is in turn
> owned by Formula One Holdings (FOH)
> * SLEC Holdings, a Jersey company (evidently named for Bernie's wife
> Slavica, who controls Petara) which owns FOH.
> * Bambino Holdings, another Jersey company controlled by the
> Liechtenstein-based Bambino Trust (whose beneficiaries are members
> of the Ecclestone family).
>
> A few years ago Bernie sold 75% of SLEC for a very large sum,
> while retaining a 25% stake through Bambino Holdings - as well
> as effective control through arcane directorship arrangements at
> FOM and FOA. Due to financial difficulties ownership of this 75%
> passed through the hands of German media companies EM.TV and Kirch
> and, following the latter's default, to three creditor banks.
> The banks were unhappy with the return on their unwilling
> investment and lack of the control that usually comes with 75%
> ownership; legal actions followed.
>
> In November 2005 Ecclestone and the British private equity firm CVC
> Capital Partners agreed to form a new company, Alpha Prema, which
> was to reunite the bank and Bambino holdings with
> Ecclestone continuing as chief executive of the F1 group. Details
> were then worked out with the banks, conditional approval was
> granted by the European Commission (CVS being required to divest
> itself of its interest in MotoGP), and in March 2006 the purchase
> was completed. As of that date:
> * the Formula One Group is still 100% owned by SLEC
> * SLEC is 75% owned by Speed Investments (the former bank holding
> vehicle); and 25% by Alpha Prema UK
> * 100% of Speed is held by Alpha Prema UK
> * Alpha Prema UK is 100% owned by yet another Jersey-based holding
> company, Alpha Topco
> * Alpha Topco is 75% owned by CVC Fund IV and 25% by Bambino Holdings.
>
> 2. The teams and cars
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Q: When was the last time a privateer

Re: [FAQ] Frequently asked questions to rec.autos.sport.f1.moderated - Part 1 of 2

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:40:16 +0100, build <buildy@gmail,com > wrote:

>G'day Mark,
>Thank you very much for your FAQ, it's great.
>
>Can I suggest, instead of posting the full FAQ so frequently you just
>post revisions with a link to the full FAQ? Just a suggestion.

The posting does say " if you do not want to retrieve it, kill the
subject".

Re: [FAQ] Frequently asked questions to rec.autos.sport.f1.moderated - Part 1 of 2

Ian Dalziel wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:40:16 +0100, build <buildy@gmail,com > wrote:

>> Can I suggest, instead of posting the full FAQ so frequently you just
>> post revisions with a link to the full FAQ? Just a suggestion.
>
> The posting does say " if you do not want to retrieve it, kill the
> subject".

I suspect "build" is looking for help with spotting new or revised
material, not complaining about repetitive postings clogging his newsreader.

I don't have a good solution. For rec.arts,com ics.strips I mark the
topic listing to flag changes, but that's a much shorter FAQ. The one
for rasf1m is already overlong.

--
Mark Jackson - http :// www .alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
This paper, then, is a serious analysis of a
ridiculous subject, which is of course the opposite
of what is usual in economics. - Paul Krugman

Re: [FAQ] Frequently asked questions to rec.autos.sport.f1.moderated - Part 1 of 2

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:50:12 +0100, Mark Jackson
<mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

>Ian Dalziel wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:40:16 +0100, build <buildy@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>>> Can I suggest, instead of posting the full FAQ so frequently you just
>>> post revisions with a link to the full FAQ? Just a suggestion.
>>
>> The posting does say " if you do not want to retrieve it, kill the
>> subject".
>
>I suspect "build" is looking for help with spotting new or revised
>material, not complaining about repetitive postings clogging his newsreader.
>
>I don't have a good solution. For rec.arts,com ics.strips I mark the
>topic listing to flag changes, but that's a much shorter FAQ. The one
>for rasf1m is already overlong.

Make a separate post under a different header if there's an update?

--

Ian D

Re: Frequently asked questions to rec.autos.sport.f1.moderated - Part 1 of 2

On Apr 22, 6:55 am, Ian Dalziel <iandalz...@lineone,net > wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:50:12 +0100, Mark Jackson
> <mjack...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> >I suspect "build" is looking for help with spotting new or revised
> >material, not complaining about repetitive postings clogging his newsreader.
>
> >I don't have a good solution. For rec.arts,com ics.strips I mark the
> >topic listing to flag changes, but that's a much shorter FAQ. The one
> >for rasf1m is already overlong.
>
> Make a separate post under a different header if there's an update?

How would that be better than the existing Date tag, which will be at
least two week old if neither part of the FAQ has changed?

--
Mark Jackson - http :// www .alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
This paper, then, is a serious analysis of a
ridiculous subject, which is of course the opposite
of what is usual in economics. - Paul Krugman

Re: Frequently asked questions to rec.autos.sport.f1.moderated - Part 1 of 2

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:10:05 +0100, Mark Jackson
<mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

>On Apr 22, 6:55 am, Ian Dalziel <iandalz...@lineone,net > wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:50:12 +0100, Mark Jackson
>> <mjack...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>> >I suspect "build" is looking for help with spotting new or revised
>> >material, not complaining about repetitive postings clogging his newsreader.
>>
>> >I don't have a good solution. For rec.arts,com ics.strips I mark the
>> >topic listing to flag changes, but that's a much shorter FAQ. The one
>> >for rasf1m is already overlong.
>>
>> Make a separate post under a different header if there's an update?
>
>How would that be better than the existing Date tag, which will be at
>least two week old if neither part of the FAQ has changed?

It would get to someone who has simply killfiled the header, wouldn't
it?

--

Ian D

Re: Frequently asked questions to rec.autos.sport.f1.moderated - Part 1 of 2

Ian Dalziel wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:10:05 +0100, Mark Jackson
> <mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

>> On Apr 22, 6:55 am, Ian Dalziel <iandalz...@lineone,net > wrote:

>>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:50:12 +0100, Mark Jackson
>>> <mjack...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

>>>> I suspect "build" is looking for help with spotting new or revised
>>>> material, not complaining about repetitive postings clogging his newsreader.
>>>> I don't have a good solution. For rec.arts,com ics.strips I mark the
>>>> topic listing to flag changes, but that's a much shorter FAQ. The one
>>>> for rasf1m is already overlong.

>>> Make a separate post under a different header if there's an update?

>> How would that be better than the existing Date tag, which will be at
>> least two week old if neither part of the FAQ has changed?

> It would get to someone who has simply killfiled the header, wouldn't
> it?

1) I am unaware that this is an actual problem for anyone.
B) The output of "CVS log" tells me that about nine times out of ten
the posting includes *some* change. Your proposal would be more
work for me and have almost no discriminatory power at all.

--
Mark Jackson - http :// www .alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
This paper, then, is a serious analysis of a
ridiculous subject, which is of course the opposite
of what is usual in economics. - Paul Krugman