Max Mosley Autobiography
Discussion
StevieBee said:
Just finished this. Quite a good and interesting read.
He had / has his faults but can't help thinking he got more right than wrong during his tenure at the FIA.
You think so?He had / has his faults but can't help thinking he got more right than wrong during his tenure at the FIA.
Just compare the state of motor sport before he took over to how it was when he was ejected. It is still suffering from his attentions even now. We've got grids of 20 cars and most of those are struggling, and that's just F1.
Balestre was hardly the epitome of careful management but he left motor sport in a healthy state.
When Mosley acted as gopher to Ecclestone, things went well. It was when Mosley did things that it all fell apart. Indianapolic, the Verstappen fire, the Mclaren travesty of justice. All those down to Mosely and all three irritated Ecclestone. I've no doubt that he tells a good story, but he was a disaster for motor sport in general and F1 in particular. Did he mention that the FIA losing all its income from F1 apart from super licences was his idea? Smacks of genius that one.
He's a great spin doctor. Two drivers die in one weekend when he was in charge and he lauds himself for 'his' safety initiatives. They were forced on him. They should have been in place at the time of the race.
The way to judge Mosley is to look at motor sport before he took over and in what state he left it.
That's not to mention him bringing the sport into disrepute.
I'd have a read of the book Derek. You may well be right on some of your observations but the context on many points has not really ever previously been explained that well.
The McLaren issue is one example. Like many, I harboured the thought that they were hard done by but when you read the evidence (including the independent review documents that Mosley provides links to), you realise that if anything, they got off very lightly. I never realised, for example, that Nigel Stepney was texting McLaren people during races with Ferrari strategy decisions upon which McLaren were acting and that when the FIA went to the McLaren factory, they discovered huge amounts of Ferrari data and designs on their computers. Had McLaren admitted guilt, they would have most likely been given a modest fine and a two or three race ban but even with irrefutable evidence, they denied the charges put to them and it was this that led to the $100m fine.
Cost capping was being pushed hard by the FIA under Mosely as far back as 2009 but each time it was put to the teams, they refused. The reason we have 20 car grids is because of the team's reluctance to reduce costs, not as a result of any action or inaction by the FIA.
The McLaren issue is one example. Like many, I harboured the thought that they were hard done by but when you read the evidence (including the independent review documents that Mosley provides links to), you realise that if anything, they got off very lightly. I never realised, for example, that Nigel Stepney was texting McLaren people during races with Ferrari strategy decisions upon which McLaren were acting and that when the FIA went to the McLaren factory, they discovered huge amounts of Ferrari data and designs on their computers. Had McLaren admitted guilt, they would have most likely been given a modest fine and a two or three race ban but even with irrefutable evidence, they denied the charges put to them and it was this that led to the $100m fine.
Cost capping was being pushed hard by the FIA under Mosely as far back as 2009 but each time it was put to the teams, they refused. The reason we have 20 car grids is because of the team's reluctance to reduce costs, not as a result of any action or inaction by the FIA.
StevieBee said:
I'd have a read of the book Derek. You may well be right on some of your observations but the context on many points has not really ever previously been explained that well.
The McLaren issue is one example. Like many, I harboured the thought that they were hard done by but when you read the evidence (including the independent review documents that Mosley provides links to), you realise that if anything, they got off very lightly. I never realised, for example, that Nigel Stepney was texting McLaren people during races with Ferrari strategy decisions upon which McLaren were acting and that when the FIA went to the McLaren factory, they discovered huge amounts of Ferrari data and designs on their computers. Had McLaren admitted guilt, they would have most likely been given a modest fine and a two or three race ban but even with irrefutable evidence, they denied the charges put to them and it was this that led to the $100m fine.
Cost capping was being pushed hard by the FIA under Mosely as far back as 2009 but each time it was put to the teams, they refused. The reason we have 20 car grids is because of the team's reluctance to reduce costs, not as a result of any action or inaction by the FIA.
I've read the full document on the investigation. Whilst much was, and I assume, still is, redacted, the way they put it online allowed anyone to read the bits deleted. Typical incompetence. The McLaren issue is one example. Like many, I harboured the thought that they were hard done by but when you read the evidence (including the independent review documents that Mosley provides links to), you realise that if anything, they got off very lightly. I never realised, for example, that Nigel Stepney was texting McLaren people during races with Ferrari strategy decisions upon which McLaren were acting and that when the FIA went to the McLaren factory, they discovered huge amounts of Ferrari data and designs on their computers. Had McLaren admitted guilt, they would have most likely been given a modest fine and a two or three race ban but even with irrefutable evidence, they denied the charges put to them and it was this that led to the $100m fine.
Cost capping was being pushed hard by the FIA under Mosely as far back as 2009 but each time it was put to the teams, they refused. The reason we have 20 car grids is because of the team's reluctance to reduce costs, not as a result of any action or inaction by the FIA.
You suggest that McLaren should have admitted guilt. One wonders how as, Mosley admitted, although seems to have omitted, that he accepts that Dennis had no idea of the actions of his chief of design.
It has been done to death on here and there can be no doubt that whatever Coughlan and Stepney were up to, it was not to help out McL. They were in it for what they could get out of it.
The only real offenders were the two instigators, those running the test simulations, Alonso and pdl Rosa.
As i say, it has been done to death. It was a fit up.
YHM.
Stevie,
You don't have mail. PH seems to have problems.
I think there are a number of reasons why the grid is limited and costs is just one. Most of the other reasons are failures of the FIA/CVC. This has not been a sudden thing, but has grown over the years. There are no teams, such as Jordan, who have come through a successful F2 and are knocking on the door of the premiere league, and that is down to Mosley.
As for cutting costs, F1 is one of the richest sports around. There is lost of money involved. If you are suggesting that the teams don't get their fair cut of the profits, then that is something I would agree with.
One of the problems with F1 is that the small teams are marginalised. They have little influence. They have no say. They get no money. Ferrari gets the lion's share.
There are ways around the cost problems other than unworkable regulations and rules and the reason nothing was done to address the problem is open to debate. However, I accept the problem was a difficult one. It was one which, the evidence we see at each race, MM was not the equal of.
I still stick by what I say though: if F1 is in a bit of a mess, especially as regards the future, the blame lies in one place, and that is MM.
MM concentrated on F1 to the exclusion of all other formulae. Many reasons have been put forward for this, and we all have our own suspicions.
For all the criticisms leveled at Balestre, and I accept that that includes by me, motor sport was in a much stronger position at the end of his tenure that at the beginning. His effects on F1 were not, let us suggest, 100% positive, but he took it from the problems of the middle 80s to the professional standards of the 90s. The difference between MM and JPB were many. JPB got very little in damages when he sued after being called a nazi. He was also a successful businessman in his own right, a newspaper magnate.
MM on the other hand took over a successful motor sport portfolio and ended up with just F1, and that a shadow of its former self, at least at times.
Regarding the PM, I was going to send you an extract from an article I wrote about Stepneygate that had been passed by a lawyer. I'm afraid your disappoint it something you will have to bear as stoically as you can. But is must contradict what MM has had written for him in his biography if your conclusion is that McL had lots of info in its computers about the Ferrari. Or that there was any direct influence on any F1 car produced by them.
MM has approached Google and has demanded deletions of various bits from search engines. Perhaps they edited his memory as well.
You don't have mail. PH seems to have problems.
I think there are a number of reasons why the grid is limited and costs is just one. Most of the other reasons are failures of the FIA/CVC. This has not been a sudden thing, but has grown over the years. There are no teams, such as Jordan, who have come through a successful F2 and are knocking on the door of the premiere league, and that is down to Mosley.
As for cutting costs, F1 is one of the richest sports around. There is lost of money involved. If you are suggesting that the teams don't get their fair cut of the profits, then that is something I would agree with.
One of the problems with F1 is that the small teams are marginalised. They have little influence. They have no say. They get no money. Ferrari gets the lion's share.
There are ways around the cost problems other than unworkable regulations and rules and the reason nothing was done to address the problem is open to debate. However, I accept the problem was a difficult one. It was one which, the evidence we see at each race, MM was not the equal of.
I still stick by what I say though: if F1 is in a bit of a mess, especially as regards the future, the blame lies in one place, and that is MM.
MM concentrated on F1 to the exclusion of all other formulae. Many reasons have been put forward for this, and we all have our own suspicions.
For all the criticisms leveled at Balestre, and I accept that that includes by me, motor sport was in a much stronger position at the end of his tenure that at the beginning. His effects on F1 were not, let us suggest, 100% positive, but he took it from the problems of the middle 80s to the professional standards of the 90s. The difference between MM and JPB were many. JPB got very little in damages when he sued after being called a nazi. He was also a successful businessman in his own right, a newspaper magnate.
MM on the other hand took over a successful motor sport portfolio and ended up with just F1, and that a shadow of its former self, at least at times.
Regarding the PM, I was going to send you an extract from an article I wrote about Stepneygate that had been passed by a lawyer. I'm afraid your disappoint it something you will have to bear as stoically as you can. But is must contradict what MM has had written for him in his biography if your conclusion is that McL had lots of info in its computers about the Ferrari. Or that there was any direct influence on any F1 car produced by them.
MM has approached Google and has demanded deletions of various bits from search engines. Perhaps they edited his memory as well.
Both MM and BE knew the thrill of racing a car before becoming team owners and saw the one sidedness of circuit owners calling the shots. For all their current failings, I still believe there are some core beliefs. BE has become obsessed by deal-making regardless of the dubious nature of the people who he works with. MM became just another self-obsessed megalomaniac before he jumped ship. JT seems to be following this route becoming a UN Ambassador for road safety while F1 self-destructs.
And yet, since he jumped the good ship FIA (or was he pushed?) I do think he strongly believes that without a level playing field the business of F1, whereby big brands Red Bull, FIAT and Mercedes and can only think in terms of absolute domination, rather than participating in a genuinely competitive sport, is actually worth nothing.
Budgets of $250million to travel 4 seconds a lap faster than a £3million GP2 car are simply obscene. F1 Hoovers up all the best engineering talent simply so that there is none available to the backfield competitors, or other fields of motor racing.
Regulating a sensible budget cap becomes easy if you limit every team to, say, 100 key personnel. Every other item or service then needs a procurement order and a paper trail. F1 wastes so much cash. The scale of waste of resources is unbelievable, how much did the fans miss FRICS last year? We did not. EJ's biography is interesting as he started racing with 20 personnel, most of whom were relatively close friends. By the time he sold out to Midland there were 250 people, most of whom he had no idea of their name. JYS's had a similar story before selling Stewart racing to Jaguar who decided that they could not justify the cost of failure. Now to be successful you need 600+.
When Brabham and March were active it was relatively easy to obtain sufficient sponsorship to cover your costs and maybe even make a profit. Now McLaren cannot even attract a title sponsor and Martini pay small change to William's compared to their actual race budget. SKY's £30million sponsorship of cycling is estimated to be worth £530million in equivalent advertising fees. These are the sort of figures F1 offered in the 70's.
The business is unsustainable, a European race in Azerbajan and none in France and Germany show just how crazy it has become. The sporting credentials are hardly worth a fig. After Malaysia I confidently predicted that the WDC would be HAM, ROS and VET, with the WCC being Mercedes, Ferrari and Williams. That should ha been worth good odds, but was probably odds-on even then.
The next big bet is if Renault can get their engine to work at Sotchi. If yes, they buy Lotus for its accumulated debts, if not, they quit and RB will eventually follow as they do not want to be a bit player especially without a Works engine deal.
Something has to change and I think MM's budget cap is really the only sensible option in town. I will certainly read his book and only then decide what I think his motor racing legacy actually was.
And yet, since he jumped the good ship FIA (or was he pushed?) I do think he strongly believes that without a level playing field the business of F1, whereby big brands Red Bull, FIAT and Mercedes and can only think in terms of absolute domination, rather than participating in a genuinely competitive sport, is actually worth nothing.
Budgets of $250million to travel 4 seconds a lap faster than a £3million GP2 car are simply obscene. F1 Hoovers up all the best engineering talent simply so that there is none available to the backfield competitors, or other fields of motor racing.
Regulating a sensible budget cap becomes easy if you limit every team to, say, 100 key personnel. Every other item or service then needs a procurement order and a paper trail. F1 wastes so much cash. The scale of waste of resources is unbelievable, how much did the fans miss FRICS last year? We did not. EJ's biography is interesting as he started racing with 20 personnel, most of whom were relatively close friends. By the time he sold out to Midland there were 250 people, most of whom he had no idea of their name. JYS's had a similar story before selling Stewart racing to Jaguar who decided that they could not justify the cost of failure. Now to be successful you need 600+.
When Brabham and March were active it was relatively easy to obtain sufficient sponsorship to cover your costs and maybe even make a profit. Now McLaren cannot even attract a title sponsor and Martini pay small change to William's compared to their actual race budget. SKY's £30million sponsorship of cycling is estimated to be worth £530million in equivalent advertising fees. These are the sort of figures F1 offered in the 70's.
The business is unsustainable, a European race in Azerbajan and none in France and Germany show just how crazy it has become. The sporting credentials are hardly worth a fig. After Malaysia I confidently predicted that the WDC would be HAM, ROS and VET, with the WCC being Mercedes, Ferrari and Williams. That should ha been worth good odds, but was probably odds-on even then.
The next big bet is if Renault can get their engine to work at Sotchi. If yes, they buy Lotus for its accumulated debts, if not, they quit and RB will eventually follow as they do not want to be a bit player especially without a Works engine deal.
Something has to change and I think MM's budget cap is really the only sensible option in town. I will certainly read his book and only then decide what I think his motor racing legacy actually was.
Edited by rdjohn on Friday 7th August 20:47
StevieBee said:
Appreciate your insight Derek. I would be interested to read your article on Nigel Stepney. I harbour what some might say is an unhealthy interest in some of the more dubious shenanigans that take place in F1 - but mainly from a human behaviour and motivational point of view.
Stevie,I've tried PM to you but without any joy.
If you'd like to send me an email address, I'll send the details. There's a fair bit I must warn you.
rdjohn said:
Something has to change and I think MM's budget cap is really the only sensible option in town. I will certainly read his book and only then decide what I think his motor racing legacy actually was.
I'm not having a go, John, but that seems an odd point of view. The legacy is now, we can see it. His book will merely give a very partial view on reasons. Would you expect 'A Journey' to influence your view on the wars he took us into?As I say, not having a go at you.
You suggest that a budget cap is the only option. There are others, many of which have been put forward time and again.
Budget restrictions tend to be equally unfair and there is every possibility it would harm the sport. Limits can be placed on teams via restrictions on what they can and cannot do. The restrictions on wind tunnels and testing were, in effect, a form of budget cap.
As an example, restrict aero variations for instance. Supply the team with the dimensions of a single plank at the front and tell them to build it. I've obviously not thought through all the regulations required, but just pointing out certain possible limitations.
The major problem I think is that Mosley increased costs over the years, and quite dramatically, and at the same time as saying costs were out of control. Take the changes to engines. 3.5-litres, 3-litre, 2.4-litre, then radically different. Change an engine and everything else changes. I read an article on what the cost of the change to 2.4 cost the teams. The current cost of engines is farcical.
If you keep stability in the regulations then the lower teams will be able to catch up. If the current regs were imposed for 10 years then the cost of a minor improvement would be unlikely to be worth it. Changes have to be made but they should be as transparent as possible in order to keep costs to the teams as low as possible.
I remember Frank Williams saying, in the days of active suspension, that they employed one person whose sole job it was to refurbish the reservoirs. The actual cost per unit was low after the initial build. (I felt sorry for the chap. Imagine his excitement when he got to work for Williams, and was dreaming of going around the world.) Ferrari, on the other hand, brought new ones to every other race, increasing the cost by a factor of over 10 according to FW. Poorer teams will manage on lower budgets through necessity. It is not as if Williams weren't successful.
Even so there will be rich teams and poorer teams. I think this good for the sport. I remember Jordan coming into F1 and then winning at Spa. Good days. Yet I'm a McL fan.
There was talk, 5 - 8 years ago, of a GP1, GP2 and GP3 series. That's another way of cutting costs, having stepping stones to the big league. It was a promise of the take-over in 2008, but that came to nought, probably because of the vote of confidence in Mosley.
And for something a bit off the wall, an idea I've had for some years: all teams to supply full technical specifications and read outs of their designs to all other teams on the Friday of the first race of the season. The idea is that it would be still worthwhile for teams to innovate but it would limit the harm to the lessor ones. It would take them some races to catch up, but they could still close the gap.
This was supported by Mosley at one time. When McL complained about one of their staff stealing lots of technical information he had no right to access, and giving it to Renault as part of the sweetener for joining them (I bet they watched him carefully before contract renewal time) Mosley reckoned that this had gone on for years. He oddly seemed to think that the much lower amount of information Coughlan received from Stepney was in some way different, and in fact worse, despite RD not being complicit.
There are alternatives to budget caps, and ones that can be easily policed where opportunities to cheat not being quite so available.
StevieBee said:
I'd have a read of the book Derek. You may well be right on some of your observations but the context on many points has not really ever previously been explained that well.
The McLaren issue is one example. Like many, I harboured the thought that they were hard done by but when you read the evidence (including the independent review documents that Mosley provides links to), you realise that if anything, they got off very lightly. I never realised, for example, that Nigel Stepney was texting McLaren people during races with Ferrari strategy decisions upon which McLaren were acting and that when the FIA went to the McLaren factory, they discovered huge amounts of Ferrari data and designs on their computers. Had McLaren admitted guilt, they would have most likely been given a modest fine and a two or three race ban but even with irrefutable evidence, they denied the charges put to them and it was this that led to the $100m fine.
Cost capping was being pushed hard by the FIA under Mosely as far back as 2009 but each time it was put to the teams, they refused. The reason we have 20 car grids is because of the team's reluctance to reduce costs, not as a result of any action or inaction by the FIA.
mosely is, and always was, a fanticist with an overblown sense of his own worth and importance. The McLaren issue is one example. Like many, I harboured the thought that they were hard done by but when you read the evidence (including the independent review documents that Mosley provides links to), you realise that if anything, they got off very lightly. I never realised, for example, that Nigel Stepney was texting McLaren people during races with Ferrari strategy decisions upon which McLaren were acting and that when the FIA went to the McLaren factory, they discovered huge amounts of Ferrari data and designs on their computers. Had McLaren admitted guilt, they would have most likely been given a modest fine and a two or three race ban but even with irrefutable evidence, they denied the charges put to them and it was this that led to the $100m fine.
Cost capping was being pushed hard by the FIA under Mosely as far back as 2009 but each time it was put to the teams, they refused. The reason we have 20 car grids is because of the team's reluctance to reduce costs, not as a result of any action or inaction by the FIA.
It was my understanding from what was available at the time that none of the ferrari dossier was at woking; that was why coughlan was using an "outside" print shop rather than mclarens own facilities, and why mclaren were given a "suspended" punishment the first time, (before ferrari made the spanky&the fia deliver a verdict that better suited them). Is there anything besides spankies tales that this was not the case?
hairyben said:
It was my understanding from what was available at the time that none of the ferrari dossier was at woking; that was why coughlan was using an "outside" print shop rather than mclarens own facilities, and why mclaren were given a "suspended" punishment the first time, (before ferrari made the spanky&the fia deliver a verdict that better suited them). Is there anything besides spankies tales that this was not the case?
Yes. There are various court documents in both Italy and London that set out the findings of criminal investigations carried out at the time (towards Nigel Stepney), investigations that were totally independent of the FIA. Criminal proceedings against Stepney were subsequently dropped but the details are there.I haven't read MM's book and won't do so until I can be sure he will make no money from my doing so. However, if anyone wants to see the transcripts of the McLaren hearing that concluded with the $100m fine with the redacted content intact let me know - as long as you have Acrobat writer it is possible to remove the black boxes redacting the information.
andyps said:
I haven't read MM's book and won't do so until I can be sure he will make no money from my doing so. However, if anyone wants to see the transcripts of the McLaren hearing that concluded with the $100m fine with the redacted content intact let me know - as long as you have Acrobat writer it is possible to remove the black boxes redacting the information.
Is that the 2 page statement with the infamous botched removable-secret-blacked-words that mclaren had emails discussing ferrari concepts/tech such as CO2 in tyres and dual bias brakes? That Mario Theissen commented was no worse than the inbox of any team in the pitlane?Not looking to re-ignite the row so much as understand exactly what is being referred to here...
hairyben said:
Is that the 2 page statement with the infamous botched removable-secret-blacked-words that mclaren had emails discussing ferrari concepts/tech such as CO2 in tyres and dual bias brakes? That Mario Theissen commented was no worse than the inbox of any team in the pitlane?
Not looking to re-ignite the row so much as understand exactly what is being referred to here...
Somewhat more than two pages but otherwise sounds correct. I have the full transcript of the hearing and it doesn't cover some of the areas apparently in the biography, maybe there is some selective memory from MM.Not looking to re-ignite the row so much as understand exactly what is being referred to here...
andyps said:
I haven't read MM's book and won't do so until I can be sure he will make no money from my doing so.
Seems a rather drastic notion to adopt. The McLaren Spygate matter commands just a single chapter and there is much interesting stuff on his career as a driver, the rise of March, the role of the FIA (of which Motor Sport is just a small part), road safety and very interesting stuff around press invasion of privacy.
You may not like the bloke but fact is he has been a very significant part of motor sport and if motor sport is your thing, then I'd suggest this is a must-read as it provides new insight and angles on many things about the subject.
StevieBee said:
andyps said:
I haven't read MM's book and won't do so until I can be sure he will make no money from my doing so.
Seems a rather drastic notion to adopt. The McLaren Spygate matter commands just a single chapter and there is much interesting stuff on his career as a driver, the rise of March, the role of the FIA (of which Motor Sport is just a small part), road safety and very interesting stuff around press invasion of privacy.
You may not like the bloke but fact is he has been a very significant part of motor sport and if motor sport is your thing, then I'd suggest this is a must-read as it provides new insight and angles on many things about the subject.
I'm sure it does have interesting content, I'm just not sure how much I would be able to believe as Mosley is very good at making himself out to be right on everything. As a simple example, he even justified his non-nazi orgy as normal behaviour despite him apparently not finding it to be normal enough to ask his wife to partake of such activities during 40 years of marriage. But then, he is a man who is very happy to use the press to his own ends, but not happy for the press to use him for their own.
If I ever read the book I'll let you know!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p031cz96
Reminds me of the discussion about establishment paedophiles.
Reminds me of the discussion about establishment paedophiles.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff