F1 links: “Puerile grandstanding”
12th May 2009, 22:05 by Keith Collantine 12 Comments »
"What is going on is the kind of puerile grandstanding that typifies Formula One politics. Ferrari wishes to continue in Formula One, but on its own terms, and with its own special rules. The FIA wants F1 to get serious about cutting costs. Cue the bluffing, as Luca de Montezemolo of Ferrari and Max Mosley of the FIA strut their stuff in the schoolyard."
Four interesting things from BCE
"Bernie's solution, yet to be approved by the FIA, is to have the scrutiny role fulfilled by each team or company's own firm of auditors or accountants. So the idea of the FIA trawling through the books looks to be in retreat."
British Grand Prix faces gap year because of work delays
“'If the work at Donington is not finished in time, we would be happy to skip a year,' Ecclestone told The Times yesterday."
If the British GP isn't on the calendar in 2010 I don't believe it will be in 2011 either.
So, is Brawn favouring Button over Barrichello? Go figure…
"The insistence that Jenson Button’s victory in the Spanish Grand Prix was earned without favouritism from his Brawn team has been cast in a new light by computer analysis obtained by Sportsmail."
Wow, they used one of those new-fangled computers…
"We brought Sebastian in very short in the second stint and they (Ferrari) again picked the same lap. So the first two stints were just looking at the back of a Ferrari and that completely killed his race."
We want to attract new teams and my feeling is that if we pushed it much more, the number of new teams, which has already thinned going from £30 million to £40 million, would just disappear. So, the objective of attracting new teams, we cannot lose sight of it.
Lewis Hamilton Vs Steve McQueen who will win?
Very cool ad by Tag Heuer splicing Lewis Hamilton into the classic film "Le Mans" with Steve McQueen
Paddock Life: Barcelona edition
"If you wanted a sure-fire sign about the art of cost-cutting in the sport then you only needed to go down to Renault. The main team motorhome remained the same, but they had a 'new' second unit. Those who have been in the paddock for a while instantly recognised it. The unit had originally appeared more than five years ago in the hands of Jordan Grand Prix."
These are links I’ve bookmarked using Delicious. You can see my Delicious profile here.
mfDB said on 12th May 2009, 22:51
Does anyone agree that Mr. Baker’s article about Ferrari’s “puerile grandstanding” is a joke? Does he not realize that other teams are claiming they will withdraw too? It’s just that Ferrari is getting the press.
I’m not in the UK, so I am wondering if this guy is considered a good F1 writer.
John H said on 14th May 2009, 14:07
I agree with you.
It’s funny that 1 year ago people used to say FIA stood for Ferrari International Assistance. Seems a bit ridiculous now!
F1Yankee said on 13th May 2009, 0:58
i liked what tony purnell had to say, although he may be over-simplifying.
bonus: i can now name a 4th fia employee:
max
charlie
bernd maylander, safety car driver extraordinaire
tony purnell
scunnyman said on 13th May 2009, 1:09
It’s excuses excuses excuses all the time from Bernie.
To me the reason he does not want silverstone to hold the grand prix is the strife he has had with the BRDC who run Silverstone, and especially when Jackie Stewart was president.
Bernie Ecclestone, just like his bosom buddie Mosley, don’t like these strong intelligent types who challenge them at every turn.
He would rather have NO british grand prix than let Silverstone have it again. He doesn’t care about the fans of the sport at all.
There is no practical reason for not letting the race be held there if Donnington fails. If it can be held there this year then it can be held there in 2010.
scunnyman said on 13th May 2009, 1:41
I do not think that Ross Brawn is favouring Button right now. I think at the Spanish race he calculated that they may have had a better chance of getting a one two if they changed button to a 2 stop and leaving Rubens on his 3 stop. If Rubens had not had tyre issues then maybe he still would have stayed out in front of Jensen.
Now i am sure it won’t be long before Brawn decide to back jensen over Rubens. In my eyes though they need to give Rubens the chance to catch up with Button and if he can’t then put all their effort into Jensen.
Now i totally understand Barrichello not wanting to adhere to any team orders because of his treatment at Ferrari, but that is something he should have stood up for long ago.If not at his contract renewal at Ferrari, then when he first signed for them. It’s not like he didn’t know he was playing second fiddle to Schumacher.
The world knew Scumacher had it in his Ferrari contract to be total number one. And nearly all Scumachers team mates have been second to him, even if not in his contract. Even at benneton.
Rubens is a good driver and i like him, but is he capable of a title challenge really? Maybe if he had gotten the start to the season that Jensen has then he would have the momentum.
Anyway who’s to say it’s gonna be either of them by the end of the season taking the title.
manatcna said on 13th May 2009, 2:55
Keith, would you please delete my last post?
scunnyman said on 13th May 2009, 2:57
There is one thing about the budget cap that i find strange. FIA keep saying the budget cap needs to be low to entice new teams to the sport.
But the emphasis is on “CAP” which means the teams can spend upto the amount set. For example £100m.
So a team wanting to come into F1 does not automatically HAVE to spend £100m. Maybe they could spend just £40m and still do a good job on the technical side.
It would be better to let the teams reduce their budgets over time, say 3 years and a reduction of say £20m per year.
I hope that this ridiculous situation is resolved soon.
F1Yankee said on 13th May 2009, 4:58
a 60M pound difference, at roughly 10M per second, that’s a delta of 6 seconds per lap. curiously, if the leader posts a 90 second lap, 96 seconds would be 107%.
DGR-F1 said on 13th May 2009, 8:50
Bernies Solution: Is this how CVC do things? By allowing the Teams own auditors to go through the books (a thing which they are doing anyway) would mean that the FIA have no control over the expenditure at all, since the auditors are paid by the Team.
Or would the FIA be able to penalise the auditors too? Are the FIA that finacially savvy to understand what the auditors tell them?
So, Bernie, just who audits your books?
antonyob said on 13th May 2009, 9:39
Its damaging for f1 if Ferrari pull out, that is why they are highlighted. No one cares if Toyota pull out, they may do anyway. Ferrari’s position is a starting point to negotiations and why shouldn’t they try and protect their unique place in the sport. I dont like their stance but i dont blame them for taking it but they will never pull out, its the cheapest marketing budget on the planet per minute of coverage they get.
Chaz said on 13th May 2009, 16:35
Accountants keeping tabs on the various teams budgets? These would be the same accountants who get paid substantial amounts to cook the books and help companies and individual to creatively pay as little tax as possible. Hmmmm!
Ahh yes I quite liked the Lewis Steve McQueen Tag advert…
scunnyman said on 14th May 2009, 17:02
I’ve just read a post on Joe Saward’s blog page where there is a quote from Enzo ferrari’s son “we want the rules to be the same for evryone”.
That kind of stuck in my throat. Since when in recent F1 history has Ferrari ever wanted things to be equal. They have always wanted the upper hand.
Though i do hope that Ferrari are honest in wanting equality now.
It would be bad for F1 if they are bluffing and get called on it by FIA.
With so many teams saying they will quit over the way the budget cap rule is being forced on them, maybe it is time for those supporting Max Mosley to rethink things and see how much he is damaging F1 and call for Mosleys resignation from the FIA.