New teams were forced to use Cosworth engines


Staff Member
An article in Pitpass claims that prospective new teams were told they must use Cosworth engines if they wanted a grid slot.
In addition, it was a minimum 3 year contract and they had to pay a non-negotiable upfront fee of £1.2m each.

Writing in the Telegraph, Pitpass' ' business editor Chris Sylt reveals that several of the teams which failed to get grid slots next year have accused the FIA of bias. They say that during the application process the FIA insisted they had to buy engines from Cosworth in order for their bid to be accepted.

This had previously not been a condition but in fact it was a crucial one. "We were told that if we wanted to take up the 2010 grid slot we would have to sign a three-year engine contract with Cosworth." said one team boss.
Full story here: 2010 F1 team selection: the cat is out of the bag

There's nothing in the online Telegraph yet so this article hasn't yet been verified.

Of course it is Pitpass but if true it raises all sorts of issues and questions about the selection process.
This really comes as no suprise.

We speculated on here before, during and immediatly after the selection process, that Max would only want those teams he could firmly call "on side" to be selected to join the grid.

In light of the previous news about Manor F1 and the alledged finacial asistance they have received and now these rumours it's just confirmed what many of us have thought.

Everyone's probably FIA-FOTA fatigued, Bro.

Ultimately it is a good thing to have Cosworth back in F1, even if the way the FIA went about it - allegedly - was not correct. The manufacturers cannot be relied upon to stay in F1 in the long-term, and in the absence of any independent engine suppliers the loss of Mercedes or Renault could have very serious repercussions.

That's not to say teams should be told which engine they must use, however.
Makes you wonder if the teams not selected will resort to legal action now this info is in the public domain. It would be quite ironic, given Max's love of resorting to litigation at any and every opportunity, if his last few months in office were further clouded by him and the FIA being bought up in front of the beak.
I agree that it's good to see Cosworth back in F1 but if the reporting is true, the FIA and Max have overstepped the bounds of the FIA remit.
Their job is to govern the sport, not dictate to teams what engine suppliers to go with.

Presumably Cosworth is still exempt from the rules governing max' rev's so we will still have a "2 tier championship" as far as engines are concerned.
We're still waiting for the new regulations to be published, but I suspect everyone will end up with the same rev limit in the end. Two tiers was one of the main bones of contention, and I doubt FOTA would be happy with letting the new teams have more powerful engines.

On the other hand, I read in last week's Autosport that the Cosworth is quite a thirsty unit, and with refuelling gone for next year that suddenly becomes a very major perhaps they'll give them a little bit of leeway, for one season only.
The last time a Cosworth engine won a race it was from the pits and in flames at the time. Hope they don't have to do that again.

It is good to see Cossy back in the sport and lets just hope they can compete on equal terms. It's been a long time since the DFV and since then we've had various efforts from the DFY to the Ford HB that have all been make weights. Cossy have a reputation to protect.
you go off for a few days to sunnier pastures, showing off your new orange spyker F1 cap and look what happens!

i am not at all surprised teams are 'forced' to use cosworth. i am actually more surprised some teams tried to get ferrari, renault and mercedes engines. cos somehow, a kinda generic cosworth to me seems to be cheaper then any of the alternatives.

and i thought the teams were dead against any form of two tier championship. using a standard engine to me seems one of the ways to achieve that.

or as thierry boutsen said on belgian tv some time ago: "who in any way thinks that drivers are really the most important thing in F1 should seriously think again. when i raced, we had no computers. when we wanted to change something, we talked to our engineer and together we tried to find a solution. now people just read out a computer and thats it. cars might as well not have a driver but a robot. the same with this two tier championship, this has always been there but never more then these days. money buys winning technology, winning parts, winning engines and winning cars. and if despite all that money you still cannot win in F1, then just start a rival championship so you can keep spending your money and keep on winning races. hypocrites."
Another team boss who failed to secure a slot on the 2010 grid has confirmed that they were told they must use Cosworth engines.

It didn't take long for reports to surface claiming that motorsport's governing body had insisted that all teams wanting a place on next year's grid use Cosworth power - and if they didn't agree, their application would not be considered.

Richards has now confirmed that the rumours, at the time backed up by an unnamed boss of one of the unsuccessful candidates, are in fact true.

"Exactly that was said to me," Richards told, "I must have a Cosworth engine if I wanted to be in the F1 World Championship.

"However, I had an agreement with McLaren and thought that we would not be as competitive with a Cosworth engine, so I was not ready to change partner.

"If the regulations had meant, from the beginning, that we were only allowed in if we used such an engine, then I would have known the situation, but I do not believe that it is appropriate for those in charge of the sport to say such a thing."
Source: Richard: Cosworth rumours are true

I'm not sure who is pursuing this but I seem to remember reading something about the FIA being investigated for anti-competitive practices?
the european commission have now recieved a complaint.

The biggest surprise for some may be the identity of the team making the complaint. This is Serbian engineering company AMCO which intended to enter F1 next year under the brand Stefan Grand Prix, named after its chief executive Zoran Stefanovic.

Stefanovic - pictured on the right above in the team's Belgrade windtunnel - was not widely-known to have put in a bid for 2010 with his name previously coming into F1 circles when he attempted to buy the Lola team's cars after the team went under in 1997. Stefanovic may have stayed off the radar before the 2010 selection but he is certainly not staying that way.

His explosive letter of complaint to the EC, which has been seen by Pitpass, says "AMCO Corporation was forced by the FIA to sign with Cosworth and AMCO is complaining because of that...There is an element of plot behind our back which we are not capable of getting rid of without the Directorate General for Competition."

AMCO originally planned to use an engine from one of F1's current suppliers and Stefanovic says he "even considered going with our own engine." He claims he was "forced to sign with Cosworth, even though we had two different options better for us...we were forced into a contract without our will, just to be 'eligible' for selection." Nevertheless, Stefanovic eventually agreed to use Cosworth but his application was rejected. He has now officially complained to the EC in a bid to get the selection process carried out again.

"AMCO wants the FIA 2010 selection process for new teams to be reviewed in an anti-trust investigation and declared 'automatically void' by the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission," says Stefanovic's letter of complaint. He claims that the justification for the selection process being declared void is that the FIA has broken Articles 81 and 82 of the European Treaty which are at the core of competition law.

"[The] FIA in said selection process restricted competition and conduct against the competition rules contained in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty," claims the letter. These competition rules prevent restrictive practices which "limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment." The rules add that "any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this article shall be automatically void," hence Stefanovic's demand. All the EC would say about the case is "we can confirm we have received the complaint." ... t_id=38607
I think the problem here is going to be the fact that the EU can only rule on European issues and since the FIA is a global organisation they can argue that they are not bound by EU competition legislation.
Isn't it also related to where the company is registered?

I'm not really sure but I expect it's all a bit complicated as to when the European Commission can get involved.
sorry CaT but the fia is indeed controlled by the european commission. actually, the reason why F1 has this seperation of sportive and commercial is cos of the european union demanding this! like railways, the whole structure needed to be dismantled to let other parties manage parts of F1.

cos like bro says, FIA is based in france.
No need to apologise Boga, I didn't know that. I knew, of course, that the FIA had it's headquarters in Paris but I didn't know to what extent that it fell under European Law.

If it does come so closely under EU regulation then it is in deep poop becasue the EU likes nothing better than anti-competition challenges.
European law covers all events in EU member countries. For example, UEFA is based in Switzerland but was forced to obey the Bosman ruling because its competitors/competitions were played out in the EU. I presume the FIA can force the teams to run the Cosworths in the fly-aways, but not in the European races, so the farce would be compounded!
I presume the FIA can force the teams to run the Cosworths in the fly-aways, but not in the European races, so the farce would be compounded!

There is a precedent for this. When a team that I won't mention but I'm known to be a fan of :whistle: had a protest over ruled by the stewards at Long Beach for their Type 88 car, the team in believed that this had resolved the issue however the FIA (FISA at the time) ruled that the ruling only applied to races being run on American soil and therefore did not apply anywhere else.

lotus, right? the 88 was not too bad actually. but are you sure you remember this right? in my memory the car was deceared legal but there were objections from other teams and the car was black flagged during training and never raced again. basically the chassis was seen as part of an aerodynamical device and that weas not allowed. or something like that.

the way i understand it. FIA is based in paris so all of its activities anywhere are subject to french law and are covered by any directive from the european commission. if a race is held in canada for instance, then the race is held under FIA rules and regulations. and those are the same anywhere in the world.
lotus, right? the 88 was not too bad actually. but are you sure you remember this right? in my memory the car was deceared legal but there were objections from other teams and the car was black flagged during training and never raced again. basically the chassis was seen as part of an aerodynamical device and that weas not allowed. or something like that.

LOL I was trying to play the Lotus thing down because one or two people on here think I'm obsessed.

You know who you are :whistle:

But anyway. There were two marks of the Lotus 88. The Lotus 88 and the 88B. In either form Lotus tried to get the car to run in Long Beach, Brazil and England.

In Long Beach the car ran in untimed practice after having been cleared to run by the stewards. The car was then black flagged due to protests from several teams. As a result Lotus appealed to the USMC who declared that the car was legal and could run in future races. The FIA declared that this rulling would only apply on US soil and did not apply elsewhere.

In Brazil the car was initially cleared to run again however it then failed scrutineering because the car bodywork touched the ground with two tyres on the same side of the car deflated. Apparently the steward checking the compliance here was leaning quite heavily on the car at the time.

Chapman flew home from the race in disgust and wrote a now infamous open letter to the FIA that saw him receive a huge fine. The letter talked of the sport being overtaken by people for whom the word sport has no meaning. It was a very astute observation of how F1 would change in the future.

Lotus made one final attempt to run the car at the British GP this time in it's revised form with a lot more of the car attached to the outer chassis. The RAC cleared the car to run and it did set a time in Friday practice. The FIA then informed the RAC that should the Type 88 be allowed to start the race then the FIA would declare that the race would loose it's championship status. Of course the other teams threatend to pull out if that happened and Lotus packed the car up for the final time.

At the time it was conceived the car was legal but the FIA issued one of it's "rule clarifications" that stated that "any part of the car specifically influencing it's aerodynamics must remain rigidly fixed to the entirely sprung part of the car, that is have no freedom of movement." This rule was designed to prevent flexing, suck up, suck down or sliding aero skirts but it also applied to the Lotus Primary/Secondary Chassis idea.

It didn't prevent the Brabham pnuematic jack that allowed the car to be the required 6cm above the track when stationary but lower the car and thus the skirts to the track when in motion.
Top Bottom