Ferrari are wrong to oppose new teams

Posted on | Author Keith Collantine

GP2 teams like Racing Engineering and iSport could enter F1 next year
GP2 teams like Racing Engineering and iSport could enter F1 next year

As has been widely reported, Ferrari have lost their case against the FIA in France but vowed to continue fighting their corner.

It remains to be seen whether the other F1 teams will continue to back Ferrari or take this as their cue to either make peace with Mosley or exit the sport.

Ferrari also issued a startling broadside against the new teams tipped to enter F1 in 2010. I?ve had some sympathy with their point of view now, but I don?t agree with their opposition to new teams joining Formula 1.

The 11 tipped for 2010

The 11 names linked with new F1 entries in 2010 so far are:

Lola – Have several past F1 projects to their name.
Racing Engineering ?ǣ Took Giorgio Pantano to the GP2 crown last year.
Epsilon Euskadi ?ǣ Active in World Series by Renault, conceived a striking sports coupe for last year?s Le Mans 24 Hours.
Team USF1American F1 project.
Prodrive ?ǣ David Richards’ team nearly entered F1 in 2008, considered buying Honda?s team for 2009, possibly branded as ??Aston Martin? in 2010.
iSport ?ǣ GP2 champions with Timo Glock in 2007.
Litespeed – F3 team planning a tie-up with MGI with assistance from ex-Jordan/Renault/Toyota/Force India F1 designer Mike Gascoyne.
Ray Mallock Limited – Over 70 years’ experience in a range of motor sports, currently run Chevrolet’s World Touring Car Championship cars.
Nick Wirth – Boss of former Grand Prix team Simtek.
Formtech – Automotive parts builder.
Campos Racing/Addax – Formed by ex-F1 driver Adrian Campos, compete in GP2 (where they were teams’ champions last year) and Spanish Formula Three. Have now said they’re not entering.

Ferrari has patronisingly denounced the prospect of F1 allowing teams like the above in the sport as ??Formula GP3?.

Inevitably some of these entries look more viable than others. But a common thread among many of them is their participation in junior or alternative racing categories. I think we need more teams like this in F1.

It would strengthen the link between F1 and other championships, which badly need greater public exposure. It would provide a ladder of progression for junior drivers and engineers.

And, most importantly, it would allow the F1 grid to expand to a decent number of cars. The FIA has been woefully tardy in addressing the problem of small grid sizes that has persisted since the mid-1990s (in fact, it has done much to exacerbate it).

The best solution isn?t to have Ferrari, BMW and Mercedes replaced by Racing Engineering and USF1. Nor would it be best for F1 for the same ten teams to remain and these potential new competitors get left behind.

F1 needs both ?ǣ the manufacturer teams with their history and popularity, and the independent outfits that could be the McLarens and Williamses of the future.

Two-tier on paper, one-tier on track?

Although I am unhappy with Ferrari taking a stand against the new teams, I am still not convinced the FIA has a viable solution in budget capping.

The only way the FIA can legally impose budget capping is by making it voluntary. If it is voluntary, they have to offer some form of advantage to the teams that take it up.

That leaves us with the deeply unsatisfactory ??two tier? system. It?s true that many other racing series offer different classes for their competitors ?ǣ but they also have different championships for each, like LMP1 and LMP2 at Le Mans.

Is F1 going to go down this route? It has done before, in 1987, when non-turbo-engined cars had their own championships.

But this will inevitably be seen as an acknowledgement that one set of teams are racing at a disadvantage. How many F1 history books even bother to record the winners of that year?s Jim Clark and Colin Chapman Cups, respectively for non-turbo drivers and teams?

The proposed 2010 technical rules are massively weighted in favour of the capped teams. It seems the FIA wants F1 to be a two-tier championship on paper only ?ǣ and operate as a de facto one-tier series, with every team running to the ??40m limit.

Is this the compromise the teams will agree to at Monaco this weekend? Or is there another solution to the impasse?

Image (C) Glenn Dunbar / GP2 Media Service

Read more: Stalemate: Ferrari taking FIA to court but who is in the right? (Poll)

134 comments on “Ferrari are wrong to oppose new teams”

  1. I hope there is another solution, but what that solution will be is anyone’s guess. i am no expert and cannot offer any other suggestions. I agree with you Keith, that Ferrari should not be scoffing at the new teams.
    But which 3 teams would you choose? If you say the 10 already on the grid stay.

    I’d pick Team USF1/Lola and Prodrive.

    Though, as i have asked in an earlier comment i would like to know more about the backgrounds to all the teams.

    1. I’d put organisations that are already up and running ahead of 100% new projects like USF1. And those that are based in Britain – along with most of the other F1 teams, have an obvious advantage. I’d definitely put Prodrive top, then Lola. Intrigued to see what RML are planning…

  2. I don’t think it’s so much an opposition to new teams as pointing out their relative relevance. More like “You’re saying that having these ******* entries are more important than Freari, Toyota, Red Bull, etc?” Because in a sense that is what Max is saying. He’s said that the sport can live without Ferrari and no matter what, there will be new teams.

    Well I’m all for new teams, but not if it means losing the present crowd. After all, if the newbies aren’t joining to attempt to beat Ferrari, then what’s the point of joining F1? And if you beat Ferrari with an advantage, again, what’s the point?

    The approach needs to be: Look FOTA, things are getting too expensive for all concerned, what do you think is the maximum you can to to cut costs in order to run a viable business both for yourselves and for others who want to join? What are you willing to do to get new teams in, and what do you think we should do? What realistic compromises should Bernie make in order to help both the old and new teams financially?

    Of course this is not the Max way, so we are forced to sit by and watch both sides flog the horse and hope it doesn’t lose too much blood. We live in interesting times…..

    1. That’s how I read Ferrari’s statement too.
      I don’t think they have any problem with new teams coming in, they’re just pointing out that some (relatively) unknown group of teams isn’t going to attract the same number of non-fanatical fans as the likes of Ferrari, McLaren etc and that many fanatical fans may be turned away if all of their favourite teams disappear from the Championship at once.

      While it was sad to see the likes of Lotus withdraw, it was generally an individual team leaving, if we lost four or five teams in one go it could turn a lot of fans off for good.

    2. Nomad Indian
      21st May 2009, 21:10

      Very well put Arnet. I think that is exactly how FOTA wants to tackle it but they are being pushed by Mad Max…

      The manufacturers are already doing their bit for keeping the smaller teams. Would ForceIndia have been able to be on the grid if Ferrari (last season)had not supplied them engines? Would BrawnGP be on their winning spree without the Merc engines? It is the FIA’s incompetence that they allowed such situations to be created which were then salveaged by the sporting support of the older, successful manufacturer teams.

      The FIA should play the role of the umpire/referee and the rules should be written only by an organisation like FOTA.

      The only pleasure I get in the current scene is watching Bernie cringe at the thought of Ferrari leaving the sport as it would make a huge dent on his revenues from F1.

  3. Once again, in releasing this patronising statement, Ferrari have shown themselves in a terrible light. It is a hugely unprofessional thing to do. This sort of behaviour explains why people always use the phrase ‘throwing toys out of the pram’ when referring to Ferrari.

    My 3 teams would be the same as Scunnyman’s: Lola, because they have previous (if sometimes disastrous) F1 experience, USF1 because they seem professional and an American team would be a good thing for F1 and Prodrive, who were pretty much offered a space on the grid, but turned it down on the basis of cost (I think).

  4. sunny stivala
    20th May 2009, 21:05

    Keith Collantine if you are reporting your personal feelings should be kept for yourself,First it will have to be seen if the new teams have the finances to go F1, Secondly I bet that even the FIA itself is worried about the situation and BE might be wanting to throw up.thirdly the problem is not over yet as nothing is won yet.whatever the outcome the FIA will be the biggest loosers.

    1. Keith Collantine if you are reporting your personal feelings should be kept for yourself

      I’ve always used this site to share my opinions and will continue to do so – in fact that’s often where we get some of our best discussions from!

    2. Mark Hitchcock
      20th May 2009, 23:32

      This is a blog, it’s all about Keith’s opinions. Just with a bit of news mixed in.
      People come here because Keith’s opinion is often well thought out and balanced.

    3. Hey sunny stivala, this is the BEST website to put forward your personal opinion.

      I reckon if there was a new government to replace the FIA, we could have plenty of choice from people who comment on this website.

      Keith’s website has plenty of intelligent people, including himself, that comment on various subjects to do with F1, and I would say a fine government could be chosen from them with Keith at the helm.

      And I’d say if they were to be involved in such negotiations, like the one where Max and the teams are now, all of the issues would be resolved, Ferrari and everyone else would not be threating to quit and F1 would be in a much, much better place at the moment.

      I suppose what I’m trying to say is that F1 needs a fresh approach to it’s governance. Teams and the FIA need to work together, not clash every time new rules a suggested I mean forced onto the teams.

      In some countries when a law needs to be changed,
      there is a referendum, so why can’t they do the same here. Not just a team vote. Every member of every F1 team could vote. A mini referendum if you like. Then it would be up to each person to make up his/her own mind as to what they would like to do.

      Democracy is the way to go. Dictatorships are never a good thing. Never!!

      Keith for President!

  5. Oh come on, do people HONESTLY believe that F1 will be better if we have a bunch of no-name teams just scraping by on the cast offs of the true players?

    Look at this year, we might have a different order but the racing is nowhere near as exciting as it was last year. At least then we knew who was at the front and what an ‘upset’ would be.

    I’m glad Ferrari have made this statement. I don’t watch F1 to see a bunch of amateurs trying to field a car after being sponsored by Leeds County Council’s anti bullying initiative, if I wanted that I’d watch GP2 or BTCC. I watch F1 to see the best people in the world create the best cars in the world and race them on the best circuits in the world.

    I really wish everyone would get over the idea that more cars = better races. It’s not true.

    1. I think you’ll find that even Ferrari, McLaren, Renault, Williams, Lotus and Tyrrell were all new once. You have to start somewhere. Who’s to say Prodrive can’t be the best single seater racing team in the world? There are several better than Ferrari this year already.

    2. do people HONESTLY believe that F1 will be better if we have a bunch of no-name teams just scraping by on the cast offs of the true players?

      No, that isn’t what I said. F1 needs the existing teams and it needs new teams.

    3. So true we all wish everyone could see the point here…..
      Its F1 because of the big teams how can Mosley say f1 can do without Ferrari, how people!!??

  6. Completely agree with James G, what a public relations disaster Ferrari is at the moment, but i would put i-Sport ahead of USF1, the more British teams the better. I can understand where Ferrari are coming from in terms of cutting it’s workforce, but why not relocate some of them to another racing series, Ferrari back at Le Mans anyone?

    1. And I would just as quickly put USF1 ahead of iSport- the more American teams for me, the better ;)

      Aside from that, I like the concept of Ferrari taking on Le Mans- dose anyone think they have the capacity to do so and still operate in F1?

  7. Leahonard_e
    20th May 2009, 21:13

    To me it is clear that regulations will help capped teams, even under the limitations that the cap impose. But that is a bet every team has to take… and when they do they won’t be able to change it.
    The difference beetween the proposed capped/non-capped season and the turbo/non-turbo era, is the fact that a team cannot change their approach to fight for the championship, so if they are on the loosing side they’ll have no chance.
    One possible solution would be to let capped teams become non-capped during the season, obviously with no-turning back… it’s just an idea (though it doesn’t sound that cool to me)

  8. I think Ferrari’s comment was a clumbsy attempt to discredit the potential 2010 championship, rather than patronize the new entrants.
    It is hard not to admit that a championship with Lola, iSport, Formtech, etc. teams that I had never heard of until reading the news the past couple days… Will be as interesting ECONOMICALLY as the current one. Note that I’m not talking about racing here, but about attraction.
    Ferrari’s comment, the important part of it, is “you can’t find a very famous name, one of those one has to spend 400 Euros per person for a place on the grandstand at a GP (plus the expenses for the journey and the stay..).” And that, I have to agree with them. We would see more passionate fans maybe if the sport is more appealing, but none of those would want to pay that kind of money.
    Also, nowhere do they “oppose” the new teams in their comment, they ridicule the idea of a F1 championship with those teams only.

    So, I agree that the statement is a little arrogant, but I do think it has a point.

  9. F1 isn’t as exciting this year??? Surely only if you are a die hard Ferrari or Mclaren fan, who cannot see beyond huge budgets, Glamour and over paid drivers(sorry Kimi)

  10. Never heard of Lola, i-Sport, Prodrive ????? People who love their motorsport have, and i believe would welcome them to F1.

  11. Ferrai’s arrogance is breathtaking and disappointing but hardly surprising. As has been said previously on this blog, “no one should be above the sport”, and frankly they have had it all their own way for too long.

    Honestly I think budget capping is Max’s opening gambit in his armour of fluid tactics of forcing the teams to make further and deeper cuts as well as to standardising more areas within the sport…

  12. Ferrari’s livelihood thrives because of their involvement in F1… F1 would not be the same without Ferrari… but equally Ferrari would not be the same if it were not in F1. They need each other. They would both survive no doubt, but not in the manner we are accustomed to.

    I’ve said this before, at the moment this is all positioning, it may continue for a few more months but we’ll see F1 continue… and with Ferrari and the other big teams. I just hope the solution is palatable enough for Dave Richards to return with Prodrive, that for me is the only team of the list that has any chance of taking it to the big boys in the short term.

    1. Dont think so, Poeple dont decide to spend upward of $100,000 to buy a Ferrari. People buy a ferrari because the love the car. Ferrari is an established named and brand, people already know who and what it is. F1 needs Ferrai because of its fans and following. Thats what people forget. Ferrari are not always right, but on this occasion they are. If ferrari leave so do 100million potential viewers. Same goes if the other big teams leave. Inturn sponser leave inturn money dries up really quick. Ferrai sell cars because people want one and can afford one. They are the only car company making a profit. Even in this economic climate.

    2. Nomad Indian
      21st May 2009, 21:14

      I dont see Lamborghini anywhere on the F1 grid. Does that prevent them from selling their expensive but amazing supercars?

  13. “I’m glad Ferrari have made this statement. I don’t watch F1 to see a bunch of amateurs trying to field a car after being sponsored by Leeds County Council’s anti bullying initiative”

    And I’d rather see the teams who are there to race and actually make money, than teams who go on a spending binge just to raise the value of their brand name.

  14. HounslowBusGarage
    20th May 2009, 21:32

    You might be right about Max, Chaz.

    It’s never smart to make enemies of people for no reason at all. Now every one of those aspiring F1 teams will have the aim of spiking Ferrari somehow.

    1. I think ALL F1 teams (at least in modern days) have that objective in mind :P

      Ferrari is the most successful team in history.

  15. If you watch and enjoy Premier league football, you would still watch it if Man U were relegated, unless of course you were a Man U fan. Sure, the Premier league is better with Man U than without them, but do you think football supporters would stop watching/going to games if Man U were no more? No, football supporters, like motorsport/Formula 1 supporters, support the sport, not just one team. I accept ferrari fans would be gutted if their team pull out, and i expect Honda fans felt the same at the tail end of last year…..

    I don’t understand the ‘dissing’ of the ‘ small, unknown ‘ motorsport teams, where do people think all the current F1 drivers came from, university and then straight into an F1 seat?

    1. Do you watch A1 GP, Lee?
      Who does here, incidentally?
      If not, why not? Could it be because you think it is inferior?
      I watch it. It sure as hell isn`t F1 but it doesn`t pretend to be.
      F1 with the proposed regulations & a cap which restricts the quality of entrants (I`m not talking people here but machinery & technology) is going to be more like A1 than the current F1.
      Will you still watch it just because it`s called F1?

    2. I do (well, not right now because the season’s finished. And I wouldn’t put much money on them making it to a fifth, but that’s another story).

    3. I don’t watch A1GP because it isn’t readily available to watch without paying for Sky, and I’m never going to pay a penny to Sky for anything.

      I guess it’s downloadable from some magical torrent site somewhere.

  16. I agree with Ferrari, and I hate Ferrari, So I hate myself for agreeing with them, but really, F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport technology, but with all the rules it’s been slowly becoming a spec series, and now what a budget comparable to the average NASCAR team?

    1. I do (well, not right now because the season’s finished.

      Blame the swine flu. :)

      And I wouldn’t put much money on them making it to a fifth, but that’s another story.

      You may well be right unless Dieter Rencken knows something we don`t. ;)

  17. Ferrari has definitely shown some arrogance in this statement, but you have to admit they have earned that right to a certain extent over the last several decades. Sadly a lot of truth in their statement though. The big teams bring the casual fans to the sport, and they constitute most of its commercial value. Im all for having new teams in F1, but not at the cost of losing the manufacturers like ferrari. One of the most appealling aspects of formula 1 is that you have to be the best of the best of the best. Whether its williams or McLaren or Toyota or whoever, F1 should be the best cars, best teams, and best drivers. I worry that trying to entice TOO many smaller outfits all at once, is going to damage the integrity of F1 as we know it. Cost caps are not only unrealistic, but they go against the inherent nature of F1, and that is not what we need, no matter what shape the global economy is in.

  18. Maybe there`s more than a hint of difference in culture about this?

    The way I read it the jibes were directed at the sort of F1 that the FIA intends.
    Granted, it wasn`t written in tactfully phrased perfect English.
    As I`ve said elsewhere, it`s easy to see comparisons between this & the “monkeys at the back” reference by Lewis Hamilton. Neither being the best way to make friends & influence people.

    I am disappointed that you chose to take it in the worst context, Keith.

    What was raised was the point that, should Ferrari (& for that matter other big teams) leave F1 then the fans would not want to pay over 400 Euros to watch teams many people will never have heard of.
    I can`t see anything wrong with that.
    Many modern fans won`t have heard of Lola even if us older ones knew them well.

  19. Regarding the Barwa Addax née Campos Racing bit: you’re right that Barwa Addax today confirmed they have no plans to be in F1 in 2010. However, Campos Racing, as it is called in reports from the FIA vs Ferrari case, is since this season a seperate entity. Adrián Campos Suñer still runs his Formula 3 team, and the October 2008 report on his sale of the GP2 team to Alejandro Agag quotes Campos: “I will start another project that excites me, one which I have a lot of hopes for the future and that I hope to make public very soon.” Perhaps this is that project?

    1. Ah, that’s where I’ve gotten confused then! Thanks for that Lustigson…

  20. I’d love to see Ferrari left alone and all the rest joining the party in 2010 :-) They used to enjoy a big-time-favoritism, which spoiled them and it hurts now … which is good – can help them enter the real world again :-)

    1. too right – call their arrogant bluff.

  21. I fail to see how this series can be called Formula One if it only has 3 or 4 “real” teams.

    The new wannabes can not and never will be able to contend with McLaren, let alone Brawn.

    I would love to see 6 or 7 teams withdraw if it meant mosely went too.

    1. And remember Brawn didn’t came up overnight, they were BAR and Honda previously. So no, Brawn doesn’t count as a newcomer.

  22. most of those teams are paper tigers, and will likely never enter f1. there are some legit ones, however, and f1 needs new blood.

    if i may repost something from Maciek:

    News flash: F1 already is a two-tier sport. The only reason Ferrari don’t want a capped budget is because they can’t face the prospect of playing on an even field with 13 other teams.

    and if anyone thinks toyota’s support is solid, i’ve got some news for you:

    after losing $7.7B in the 1st quarter, heads are rolling and no-one is safe. either toyota will get in line to control spending, or they will take advantage of this situation to perform a face-saving exit. your guess is just as bad as mine.

  23. In F1’s history, is there a team who came into the sport as virgins, and in their first year went on to win multiple races, or perhaps the championship. Note, that team must have been built up from scratch, i.e. they did not buy out or take over a previous team. I ask this because I’m flabgasted by the comments of people who deride the potential new teams and teams lower down the grid.

    In any sport there will be people at the top and people at the bottom of the ladder so I think it’s unfair to deride the potential new entrants without giving them a chance. A few years ago Torro Rosso languished near the bottom of the grid and then Vettel won a great race in Italy for them. Who would want to get rid of them now? Teams know that it takes time to achieve results. So come on folks, lets be positive for F1 and give the benefit of doubt to the new guys. After all, who in their right mind wants to waste away $100m a year for a laugh…

  24. jinthehouse
    20th May 2009, 22:21

    Yes. They are have viable racing backgrounds. But there is a big difference from selling $600 grandstand to Ferrari fans, and trying to move them to fanatical Wirth Research fans. This plan by the fia has flaws…
    1) Who’s gonna pay F1 prices for CART Teams?
    2) Do you actually expect these teams to move merchandise the way BMW, Renault and Toyota do?
    3) I read magazines about Lola and iSport…”who cares”.

    I all the fear mongering is true. F1 will just be another racing series i watch for free on tv. They’ll make lots of money off that….sure hope so.

  25. What are people talking about! Ferrari were a small outfit running from a garage in Modena once. Williams started with a customer car. McLaren was a rather hasty self built entry once.

    What absolute arrogance and stupidity from a team that fear the loss of their huge bufget to but themselves prestige – let them go.

    And let a new era of garagistas begin – thank god a chance to reclaim the soul of this sport back from the corporate blandishments. Bring it on.

    1. As long as the TV companies agree with you then you may be OK, steve.
      If, however, they follow their usual agendas & aren`t actually bound until their teeth drop out by contracts with Bernie you may find yourself paying to travel long distances for your fortnightly F1 fix.

    2. F1 is really way past that era, we can’t go back… I can’t imagine anyone seriously wanting that, that’s one of the reasons why we watch F1. Pinnacle.

    3. Haplo,

      Yes, F1 is the pinnacle, but in my view that should mean we want to see the best racers, and not the biggest spenders.

      It’s great to have Ferrari and McLaren in the sport because they win, have won, and carry a great deal of energy from the fans. But to me, I want to see teams that can build a good car and drive a good race because they have talent, not just because they have a big name and loads of cash.

      Here’s to the big companies staying in F1- if the Toyotas of the world want to come out and race, great. But don’t stop the little guys from challenging them….

  26. If i want to see fake sports i watch Tour de France….

    Ferrari is in absolute right position

  27. I agree Keith. This is your site , you say what you want. And it’s right a lot of the best discussions have come your opinion.

    1. I agree Keith. This is your site , you say what you want. And it’s right a lot of the best discussions have come your opinion.

      I admit, I’ve been irked in the past by the lack of clarification between fact and opinion on this site.

      Don’t get me wrong, it’s the first site I come to for my F1 fix, and I completely respect that this is a blog for an opinion to be voiced (and appreciate the massive effort it must take to maintain a blog like this), but article titles like “Why F1 will be better without refuelling” and “Lewis Hamilton is moral victor in Spa thriller” would, in my opinion, be better titled “Why I THINK F1 will be better without refuelling”, or “IS Lewis Hamilton the moral victor?”.

      I feel like it should be “here’s what I think” rather than “this is how it is”.
      It’s worth noting that I disagree with the two examples used above (Refuelling better/Hamilton victor) – possibly part of the reason I was slightly annoyed by them. At the time, it felt more like enemy propaganda or a FOX news item. :)

      After that rant, I should thank you for a great blog Keith. I’ll continue to visit daily – the above is an unhappy drop in an ocean of appreciation, and is hopefully received in the spirit it was intended – user feedback so you know more about those who visit the site.

      Peace. See you tomorrow. :)

  28. I’m also a Ferrari hater but I’m totally with Ferrari on this, this is Formula 1 the pinnacle of motorsport. If I want to watch a standardised racing series then I have plenty of choice – IRL, A1, GP2 etc

    F1 remains the only pure open wheel series and Mad Max is doing his best to get rid of it. And anyone read what Alonso said? If the big teams leave so will he, and what of McLaren?? If Ferrari and the others open a rival series you can bet every penny they won’t be wanting to supply engines to F1. That leaves an entire field of Cosworth engines because I’m 100% sure that Mercedes will go wherever BMW goes.

    And where Mercedes goes I’m sure McLaren will go because they don’t like the FIA either, right now they are just sitting quiet.

    As for the comment about ManUtd being relegated the premier league will still be watchable that’s not the case here. To put it in the CORRECT context your talking about Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Aston Villa dissapearing, then what we’ll be stuck with watching teams like Spurs, Man City and Everton. I wouldn’t imagine many Sky subscriptions being renewed or large sponsorship contracts being sold. Same with F1.

  29. If Ferrari leave and the FIA put in a budget cap, the following could happen:
    Less casual fans and less Ferrari fans (some will still watch)
    Less ticket paying customers at circuits

    Then the circuits and TV will demand to pay less.
    Bernie either agrees to lower his price or has to work harder to get the deals.

    F1 gains:
    Initially – More independant teams
    Better technical freedom \ so maybe future cars do not all look similar for so long.

    and if Bernie can’t get circuits to sign up…
    Maybe us fans get:
    Cheaper ticket prices
    Alternate race circuits that provide better racing spectacle. Maybe like a US GP \ Canadian GP.

    I find it unfortunate that Ferrari had to make this statement. However, unless a budget cap can be workable for Ferrari, how will it stay in the sport? It has a whole page dedicated on it’s site to how much technology transfer occurs from F1 to its road cars.

    Will people still buy Ferrari’s if they are no longer in F1? I reckon yes. Ferrari will not give up racing, but will move to another series.

    Can Ferrari reduce it’s budget? How does it do it fairly when it needs the R&D for it’s prime business of developing sports cars?
    Well, it can’t. The only way they will agree to a budget cap is if R&D is left out, and that’s the most expensive bit. It’s anyones guess how this will go.

    1. Very well put, Chalky.
      Let`s not forget that cutting millions from budgets also means slashing the workforce.
      That goes for the men & women at Woking & Enstone as well as those with bases abroad.
      USF1 were saying they have 20 so far. The big teams have hundreds.
      Natural wasteage would be better than wholesale redundancies which, in itself would cost a fortune in redundancy payments & definitely not be catered for in the FIA cap.
      Think beyond the obvious & you start to see the problems.

  30. First of all, whoever thinks Keith should keep his opinions to himself needs to find another venue to express themselves. We don’t all come to the best F1 site for “reporting”.

    Secondly, anyone that thinks that Ferrari are over-reacting: It’ F-reakin-errari! Are you people forgetting who we are talking about here? It’s an Italian team, to start with. Ask any present and former Ferrari driver how they feel about the Italian press on Monday after a race they lost. The outrage! Then take a look at Ferrari’s history. I don’t care what anyone says or how many wins anyone else has, no one has the complete racing heritage that the red cars have. Did anyone else sell one of their old race-cars for over $12 million over the weekend? Because of all this, they’ve always had the attitude, even when they were losing, but especially when they were winning with Schumi. Difference now is, when they had the upper hand, they had leverage. Now that they are with FOTA, they have abdicated certain automatic rights. They are currently finding their feet in this new era, but I for one like how they started.

    As for new teams, why is everyone drinking Max’s Cool-Aid? The US team claims to be fully funded beyond $60 million, mainly because they started this venture before Max started drinking his cheap tea. Lola have an idea of what building a race-car is all about, no doubt about that. They say they’ve done a feasibility study and are prepared to go ahead. What I don’t understand is how these teams factor in the cost of all they extras they are allowed. Higher revving engines, more KURSE power, extra bendy wings. Where is all of this development money going to come from? They are going to spend their allotted budget and then not be able to afford to race. As for Prodrive, just because Richards was prepared to be a McLaren B team a few years ago, doesn’t make him a viable team today. His financial partners in Aston are defaulting on mega million payments, so in this financial climate, where is he going to find the money to field a team?

    1. Arnet,

      The system you are referring to is spelled “KERS” my friend :)

  31. Two quick things for everyone on the new teams…

    First, for those of you so opposed to the new entries and who are so protective of the big teams, just remember that every new team had to start somewhere. I’m all for seeing the big names in the sport, but if a bunch of good drivers and engineers can show up and kick their tails, why be opposed to that? Everyone loves an underdog, so if you just want the big teams, why not propose an amendment to the sporting regulations that prohibits new teams from entering?

    Second, for any of you who think that USF1 should be left out in favor of the GP2 teams and others, I urge you to consider the following…..
    – The parties behind USF1 has been planning this for several years, and they have been onboard and intending to enter long before the floodgates opened and the F1 entry process became a free-for-all backyard party.
    – The team has a budget in place, with a factory established, and may be ahead of even some of the current teams in having their 2010 car in the design process as we speak. Their entry is as credible as anyone else’s, at least on paper.
    – With regards to the currently-established racing outfits, what’s to say that they will be better equipped to handle the rigors of F1 than a completely new entry? Indeed, some of those teams have been competing in spec series for years and may be even worse off when it comes time to design their car, for just one example.
    -As for the arguments against the team being based in North Carolina, or employing one or more American drivers, I won’t even waste my time addressing such petty sticking points.

    I’m not saying that USF1 or anyone else should get special treatment, but I am saying something along the lines of GP2 teams should not just be handed an F1 entry because they are a GP2 team.

    1. If I gave the impression that I`m against new teams then I`m sorry. I`m not at all. Of course F1 needs new blood.
      What it doesn`t need is Max` idea of what F1 should be & the threat of constantly changing rules combined with handcuffs on how much you may spend to keep up with those changes.
      I really can`t see how people can think this is a good idea. I`m guessing they haven`t actually read the proposed regulations but, maybe, I`m wrong.

    2. persempre- My post was no intended towards you or anyone else in specific, but was just a general bit of info. While I believe that costs do need to come way down in running an F1 team, I agree with you that Max could go about it in a far better fashion than his current crusade, in a manner that work for both the existing teams and the new entries.

  32. who won the Jim Clark and Colin Chapman Cups in 1987?

    1. Jonathan Palmer and Tyrrell romped it.

  33. If there will be 2 tier and these teams enter Formula 1, it will no longer be the most prestigious race and pinnacle of motorsport anymore. F1 will be exploited. I think it should be limited to the elite groups/teams to maintain its respect. at least this is only my opinion which in any case everybody is entitled to.

  34. Gman-look up “sarcasm.” I believe the system is a total curse, as in, Max decides to go “green” while trying to cut costs and hundreds of millions of dollars are flushed down the toilet, with absolutely no benefit to the world at large, unless Williams can sell the system they’ve never used.

    1. Now that you defined it as sarcasm, I get your point ;) I know some people aren’t always caught up on things like that, so I was just trying to lend a helping hand if you really did have it mistaken.

      While I supported the idea from the start, KERS really dose look more and more like a waste to me, especially with almost no one using it, and the teams that are using it aren’t doing quite so well.

  35. I don’t oppose new teams in Formula 1, I even encourage it. What I oppose (and I’m not even close a Ferrari fan) is news teams in Formula 1 that are NOT Formula 1 teams – they are GP2 teams, projects on the shelves, low budget ideas, GP2 teams that can now afford to put 2 cars on a F1 race grid… that only will have (I still hope not) this opportunity to even dream entering Formula 1, because of those ****** rules with a budget so low that EVEN these team will have the reduce their actual budget to enroll…

    Now imagine what happens to F1 teams – like for example Toyota, that, from the begging of all theses budget news, was said that they will have to cut 90% of their 2009 budget, to enroll on Mad Max Championship next year.

    And that’s right, stop calling it Formula One – 2009 will be Formula One last year. I’m already prepared to see the last Formula One Monaco Grand Prix ever…

    Can you imagine Monaco being shut down for some kind of a GP2 race ONLY? This weekend there are Formula One, GP2 and I’m sure other smaller competitions on the program, but the main show is no doubt Formula One. Now imagine it, without Formula 1 on the program, only with GP2 and other small events. They will NEVER close down and organize another Grand Prix du Monaco for that!

    So may friends, give thanks to Mad Max (I say this because what I want to say would be deleted) for destroying this sport we all love, better yet, used to love…

  36. Prisoner Monkeys
    21st May 2009, 1:10

    Damn straight they’re wrong to be opposing the new teams. Methinks that most of it is because they’re sore over the fact that they lost their injunction, but also because they’re not doing so well this year. I’d be very interested to see what Ferrari would be thinking of it all if they and Brawn swapped places. Because if they show up next year, the’re likely to be racing the new teams, and Ferrari clearly think they’re above them.

    While I do hope they don’t go – while Formula One wouldn’t be the same without them, it would still survive – I wouldn’t be too broken up over it if they left tomorrow. This criticism of the other teams (for essentially not being Ferrari), combined with their injunction and their veto rights has been a display of arrogance that the sport has never seen before. And then people wonder why the FIA and FOTA don’t get along. Max Mosely might be an idiot on every day ending with the word “day”, but FOTA isn’t exclusively populated by saints.

    What happened to the Ferrari that had a soul and passion and why is there a team in their place with egos the size of their budget?

    1. Great commentary on that one :)

  37. Keith, Ferrari might have made a mistake in their comments about smaller new teams, but their argument regarding the rules of the sport and the recognized validity of FOTA is valid. At the time Simtek, Pacific and others were in F1 I believe Mosley and Ecclestone were the ones commenting that these teams did not belong in the sport because they did not add to the prestige and “cache” of the sport. That, of course, is BS. All teams that meet whatever the entry criteria is should be welcomed into the sport. One of the best loved teams in the history of the sport never made much of a dent as far as results. That team was Minardi. It acted, if nothing else, as a feeder team for the larger teams. Ferrari is a team whos management sees F1 going down a very bad road and is trying desperately to change that direction, along with the other manufacturers. Their reaction is nothing more than the emotion we have become used to seeing from a passionate Italian team.

    1. Influenced
      21st May 2009, 1:49

      I Totally Agree With Leaf.

      I Think We Are Also Forgetting That Ferrari Was The 3rd Biggest Spending Team Last Year According To An Article On This Site. With Renault Honda And BMW Not Far Behind.

      I Was Asking My Friends To Day Non Watchers To Full On Fanatics To Name 15 F1 Teams. Most Struggled To Get To Ten With… All Saying Ferrari, BMW, Mclaren, Renault, Honda, Brawn, and surprisingly Jaguar shows how much a name means

      How Many People Here Would Watch A New Championship With
      Toyata, Renault, Honda, BMW, Ferrari Mclaren And Even Possibly RedBull. Would It Be Fair To Say 90%

  38. It’s fair enough to say that ‘Ferrari are wrong to oppose new teams’, but that’s not really what they are doing. They are opposing the replacement of the big manufacturers (who really make F1 what it is) with second-rate teams who aren’t going to be affected by the budget cap because they could never raise more than 40 million pounds anyway!

    F1 could survive (just!) without Ferrari, but it couldn’t prosper. The TV ratings wouldn’t be the same for 10 years, and the fan-base would scatter.

    1. Prisoner Monkeys
      21st May 2009, 1:53

      If this were a game of poker, Ferrari would be bluffing. Ecclestone has come out and announced that the two-tier system will be abandoned and that it was a stupid idea to begin with. Now that the major point of contention over the new regulations is no longer a problem, the manufacturers threatening to withdraw – like Red Bull, Toyota and Renault – could very well be more amenable to negotiations.

  39. De Nominator
    21st May 2009, 2:21

    I don’t agree with Ferrari opposing new teams to enter F1. Ferrari seem like they want to enjoy the technical benefits they always had.

    Why wouldn’t F1 expand the team list to 20 teams and have a revert back to those days of qualification where cars couldn’t pre-qualify wouldn’t be able to participate in the race?

    13 teams with 26 cars on the grid for race will be fun to watch, so why would Ferrari want to destroy F1? The fans want the fun, excitement.

    I won’t mind about the two-tier. We had turbo-charged, we had V8, V10, V12s engines before. Isn’t that multi-tiers instead? F1 cannot turn into equalisation. It’s not IndyCar, A1GP, GP2, Formula BMW, Formula Palmer Audi or the newly returning Formula 2. F1 is pinnacle of motorsport, technical freedom category.

    Minus the horrendous year 2008’s expansions of winglets, horns, bridges, ears and stuff like that. I would like to see the return of 26 cars on grid with simple plain aerodynamics but multi-tier system of turbo engines, non-turbo but V8, V10 and V12s.

    1. I you are talking about technological freedon on F1, the rules and regulations might as well be trashed.

      If there are no rules, team may run any type of car they want, even a car without wheels.

  40. If FERRARI do pull out it will not effect their car sales one jot.With there budget they could move easily into other open wheel series all over the world.Remember they supply engine’s and chassis for A1GP.Imagine if they entered the IRL and won the indie 500 with the technology they could bring the yank,s would fall over themselves.The loss to F1 is going to be greater than the loss to FERRARI. People seem to have a grudge against them because they are successful “tall poppy syndrome”.
    I see there being larger issue facing F1, with there departure revenue will be slashed so all the extra money that the team’s receive will be greatly deminishing over a short period of time.The new team’s are not going to be as financially stable as the current crop remember Force India is owned by a Billionaire so even at 40mill they may be stretched to compete over 3-4 seasons what’s max going to do then, pled with the manufacturers to come back.This could be the tragic end to F1 where do you think MAX will be.

  41. The arrogance of the FIA is alarming, hopefully it is just the reporting but I am astounded that they continue with this. People have different opinions on this however all I can see at the moment is everybody associated with F1 is going to lose. We have 10 teams on the grid, (the show), the people who spend $100million plus a year saying the new rules suck. 5 of those ten teams saying they wont sign up, and potentially 2 more that will leave. Why is it so hard for the FIA to understand what the teams are saying.
    If the teams carry on with there threat, next year championship will be Williams, brawn, force india, dodgy lola, usgp, and a bunch of other no names teams big deal, a worthless championship because they haven’t beaten the heart and the real f1 teams of Ferrari, Mclaren, Renault etc etc. What will f1 be without the manufactures, we will end up with potentially 8 no name teams, that have no manufacture support, will have no KERS, (apart from Williams, if they stay), and all running Cosworth engines. (this is not f1). F1 needs Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, etc etc.
    Some people think Ferrari are bluffing, but the reality is, Ferrari, who sell cars doesn’t need F1 to survive, People don’t decided to spend upward of $100,000 on a Ferrari by watching f1, Ferrari is established already, they can walk away and invest in another series, They choose to be there, they don’t need to be there. Them leaving the sport will only take viewers away from f1. They are the only car company making a profit to date.
    The only way this will work and costs decrease is standardisation in parts which is the best way forward, standard materials, wheels, brakes, electrics, control engines, etc etc. They can standardise front and rear wings to so cars can follow more closely, and teams can research areas of mechanical grip, efficiency only, etc etc.
    With the manufacture teams leaving so do the drivers, so we can safely assume half of the f1 viewing audience, the driving factor behind the money in F1 I might add, will leave. There goes Spain (Alonso), Italy (Ferrari), Germany (Merc, BMW and vetell) etc etc probably 50% maybe 60% of the viewing public will stop watching f1. Not only this, other manufactures will not be attracted to f1 as there is no direct competition. Why would Aston Martin join if there is no Ferrari, or Merc there direct competitors. I personally wont watch a glorified GP2 series, it will be a pathetic championship. Not only this, the viewing public will leave in droves so do the sponsors. Bernie and associated partners, go broke, the FIA will be the villain and the teams go to other series. The big winner out of this will be Lemans or potentially another championship. Has the FIA also considered the devaluation of f1. Sponsors attach themselves to a team because of their success and prestige. Williams has only survived because of its name, same goes with the other big names teams. Brawn has won 4 races this season and we only have Virgin on the car. Why is that, Vodafone attached themselves to Mclaren or Ferrari because people know the brand. Nobody knows the brawn brand. This will be the same for all the other small f1 teams, there names are known but not like Ferrari Mclaren. Sponsor wont attached themsevles to these teams if the manufactures leave, because the viewing public which sponsors require will be gone.
    F1 has become popular because of the manufactures and there promotion of the sport. I don’t see the FIA selling F1. For the fans sake, the people who watch f1, I hope the FIA listens to the teams.

    1. Prisoner Monkeys
      21st May 2009, 4:24

      You accuse the FIA of arrogance when Ferrari go ahead and file an injunction against them that serves their interests rather than the interests of all the teams. Ferrari are supposed to lead FOTA, yet they’re more concerned with protecting themselves than the interests of all the teams!

  42. yes F1 can accommodate as many team as they want, but i doesn’t mean that F1 will be as prestigious as before if the likes of Ferrari, Mclaren, BMW and other big name are not in the league. F1 isn’t for low end team racing. but if that will be the case, it wont be the pinnacle of motorsport anymore. (X-F1 — exploited F1)

  43. Prisoner Monkeys the FIA dont own f1, technically they are there to police rules not develop rules. Bernie has said this several time. Ferrari did not act without the consent of FOTA Ferrari acted on behalf of all the teams. All the teams actually supported Ferrari in this case. No body has spoken against them at all. Ferrari are protecting the interests of Ferrari, all the teams as well as f1, . This cap and FIA rules will only kill f1. As i explained, it will devalue the teams and sport so much. Frank Williams has even said this and he supports a cap. When you have 10 teams in agreement that this proposal is crap why cant the FIA listen. Instead they force the rules and inturn kill the sport. The commercial rights holder will step in soon. He relies on the income from f1 to pay debt. If all the teams pull out. Or the big ones that attract the big sponsers are the FIA going to pay the 2billion dollar loan. No they wont, they cant introduce rules that affect the commercial side of the sport. That is what this budget cap will do. And Bernie, and people who own f1 cant have some one outside the ownership of f1 affecting there revenue stream.

    1. Prisoner Monkeys
      21st May 2009, 7:09

      The teams need the FIA more than the FA needs the teams. If five teams withdraw, the FIA can find five replacements. Hell, the could replace the entire grid with that list above. I don’t think it devalues the sport at all: expanding the grid can only be a good thing.

      Formula One shouldn’t be about whoever can spend the most; that will kill the sport faster than anything. Rather, it should be about whoever is the fastest an all the teams should have an equal oportunity to do that. Forty million pounds is still a hell of a lot of money, and it doesn’t apply to absolutely everything.

      For all we know, this is a part of a masterplan that spans years: the diea being to introduce a budget cap for 2010 and get new teams into the game. Once the grid is full and the economic situation stablisies, the budget cap can be removed and teams can go back to spending the way they once did. But the new teams will have an equal chance there, because they’ve been able to prove themselves.

      If Formula One were to keep going the way it had been until this year, eventually there would be about two teams left over because no-one could keep up with the spending.

    2. Prisoner Monkeys you need to look at the big picture. F1 was not always the pinnacle of motorsport. , the reason Bernie made his money was because the big teams, have promoted the sport, and got a worldwide audience to watch f1. Before the big manufactures f1 was famous but only attracted a 1/3 of the viewers it attracts today. That is because of the big teams and big names. Yes I agree more people on the grid is good, but i bet of all the teams proposed only 1 maybe 2 will last 2 years in f1. If there is no money for the existing teams who the hell is going to waste there money on these no name teams.
      If the manufactures leave, so will all the big sponsors. Nobody knows who these no names teams are, everybody knows who Ferrari, mclaren etc etc are. If they leave F1, F1 is dead. Do you think Vodafone will go from Mclaren to Lola, no chance as the viewing public will disappear. It will no longer be worth for Vodafone to sponsor a team and spend 25million a year, when the viewing public is less then other sporting events, and the teams are only allowed to spend 40mil.

  44. Keith I fully agree that we need to increase the number of entrants into F1 and yes that F1 need to curb spending. The teams are well aware of this and have already agreed to a structured reducting which they hope will be fully introduced by 2012.

    I believe the proposed budget cap by Mad Max is exactly that mad and will devaluate F1. You just simply cannot run a F1 team on the proposed cap. I think a reasonable and realistic cap should be around $120 – 140 million which if I remember correctly is the proposed target set by the teams for 2012 anyway.

    Very few if any of the proposed teams set to join F1 would make an significant contribution to F1 and one has to question whether they will be their for the long haul or whether we will have a repeat scenario of the 1980,s where a team is there one weekend and gone the next. F1 is a completely different and complex technology driven animal today and teams with no existing developed F1 platform will find it extremely difficult if not impossible to develop a car which is able to compete against the likes of Ferrari, McLaren, BMW etc. – Especialy with the proposed butget cap.

    Lets introduce more teams yes, but with a realistic budget cap, lets ensure that their F1 participation is sustainable and most importantly DONT DEVALUATE F1.

  45. Arun...india
    21st May 2009, 6:51

    Like i have said before even if u hate ferrari ,if ferrari is not there then who would these people hate.Ferrari is required by ferrari fans as well as people who hate them.And ferrari are not against budget cap they are only against 2 tire series.I guess a little rise in the budget cap may be to 70 million could very well attract all the teams to participate under budget cap.

  46. Having had a long think about this, I have realised that it might be good for F1 if the big budget teams like Ferrari, Toyota and McLaren left the sport. Since they apparently aren’t able to live with any discussion of a reduced budget, let alone actually do the reducing.
    Thanks Ferrari for telling us all those teams who are interested in joining. Has anybody noticed that even with Max’s ‘transparency’ he hasn’t mentioned any names so far? Thats one good thing to come out of it, at least.
    So, bye bye big spenders, hello smaller teams, newer teams and a new set of rules. And congratulations to Max for getting Ferrari to put its corporate foot in its mouth!
    However, I still think that as engine manufacturers the likes of Ferrari, Mercedes, Toyota and BMW can still have a place in the sport. All they have to do is start negotiating with these new teams…….

    1. On the contrary. ALL teams have said they agree with reducing costs.
      As I heard someone recently say “There`s a big difference between a doctor telling an overweight man to lose weight gradually & chopping his hands & feet off to do it overnight”.
      First method is Ferrari`s preference. 2nd way is the FIA`s.

    2. Yes, ALL teams have said they would like to reduce costs, but so far NO team has suggested any other way of doing it. So they have to go with Max or go away.
      And why are they having such difficulty either telling Max to shut up or that they will find a way of handling the situation? Unless they speak as one voice and say something constructive in the next 6 days, why should they deserve to stay in the sport?
      Mind you, I think this is Max showing his claws and why he is head of the FIA. He has not given them any options and the onus is on the teams to either agree or disagree with him, and face the consequences.

    3. @ DGR-F1.
      In fact FOTA did come up with a whole raft of suggestions to cut costs (see their Press Release of 5 March here)
      It is just that the Max doesn`t want the teams to have power so is trying to force the issue.
      It`s like the KERS debate – one of the most expensive & hotly debated items of this year.
      The teams would be willing to have a spec KERS but Max wants a KERS-war because he thinks it will bring innovation.
      So, yes, Max wants savings but only where he thinks they should be!
      It`s about the power not the money.

  47. I think Ferrari have a point. Next year is shaping up to be quantity over quality. Do we really need a few new teams at the cost of the most established team with the biggest worldwide fanbase? As well as that, if none of the manufacturers enter for next year, as is their current position, then we’ll almost be starting again with a new series using the same name, same tracks, but no history.

    The teams can work together, get Bernie on board and launch GP1 for next year, and then we’re in the realm of IRL vs CART…

    The FIA have really dropped the ball so to speak, and I think at the end of this, Max will be the one we’re all blaming for it’s his intransigence. £40M was always too low, and to not work with the teams is typical of the way Max expects to get his way every time. It’s a shame Ferrari didn’t win yesterday.

    1. Yes, but racing series, and especially F1, change all the time as technology improves and teams come and go. This has been pointed out elsewhere.
      How do we know that these new teams won’t provide us with better racing and less politics in the years to come? I am assuming that most of the drivers will try to stay in the sport, and find new homes (and for once they will all have important experience to share with the teams), though we may get a few ‘rookies’ as well.
      We all seem to agree that SOMETHING needs to be done to improve the sport, and although Max had gone about it with the subtlety of an elephant, he has finally got the message through to the teams at last.
      Now lets wait for the 2009 compromise, and maybe see a much more diverse group of teams in 2010….

  48. HounslowBusGarage
    21st May 2009, 8:32

    Prediction time.
    Max will stay powerfully silent for a while if he’s got any sense.
    Next their will be some fairly feverish diplomatic negotiations behind the scenes, and a comproimise wil be reached on the 28th. The FIA will defer the budget cap (which will be raised to £100 million in the first year) until 2011 in order to allow the larger teams to downsize their operations with less dramatic impact on team personnel.
    Ferrari will sign up for next year and pretend that nothing else has changed. But I bet that Max will demand an end to their veto and special payments as his price for deferring for another year.
    And no new teams will enter for 2010.
    Ferrari will be happy, but FIAT will be secretly unhappy, so will the main boards of Toyota and Renault.
    If I’m wrong, we are in for exciting times.

  49. A budget cap puts F1 one step closer to a spec series. It takes money to be successful in F1, R&D for new technology doesn’t come cheap. I’d love to see some new blood in the series, but what does the series have to offer them? Perhaps if the payout percentage was higher, it might be a more sound investment for smaller teams to try and compete. I think that should be a much larger issue than a budget cap, but those in favor of the cap are making a ton of money the way it is now.

    Think about it, we’ve lost all racing in North America, the largest market for most of the manufacurers, so we can have more races in Asia where their share of the market is nearly nonexistant. The teams are getting the same share, regardless of where they race, but how much does a team lose out on by not racing in their profitable markets?

    I’m ready for the teams to leave and start a new series, going back to racing on race tracks, not theme parks in postcard settings.

  50. Siding with Ferrari could give some of the other wavering manufacturer teams a graceful way to bow out of F1. I would hate to see it happen, but taking a ‘principled stand’ alongside Ferrari would give Renault & Toyota an graceful and more ‘honourable’ exit, compared to the embarassment shown by Honda at the end of 2008 when they pulled out.

    1. HounslowBusGarage
      21st May 2009, 11:48

      I think that’s about right, MW.
      Incidentally, a worthy viewpoint here from Ed Gorman

  51. Ideally we would have the ten current teams and three new ones. I agree with Ferrari’s statement to a point, the new teams should be in addition to the current ones not replacements, and also that some of the teams who have announced their intention to join F1 don’t seem to be of that high a quality.

    When Mosley came out with the two-tier budget cap earlier this year he said that a team would virtually be able to be run on the money it receives from FOM, so I think this has attracted a lot of teams who never seriously considered F1 before and next season would probably be too soon for some of them.

    I like the idea of a racing team rising up through the lower formula like a driver does, but because of the money involved in F1 the gap has become too big in recent years, the last to do this was Stewart wasn’t it?

    Does anyone have any figures for how much it costs to go racing in other motorsport series?

    I would put USF1 ahead of most of the other potential new teams because they announced their intentions a while ago so seem more serious about it.

    1. PJM
      “When Mosley came out with the two-tier budget cap earlier this year he said that a team would virtually be able to be run on the money it receives from FOM”
      But did he mean it? Bernie is now offering £10m towards Max’ £40m without a word from Max about FOG’s charges.

    2. Not that it’s apples to apples, but I tried to find the average budget of a NASCAR team before making an earlier post, but the number was 120m USD for the average NASCAR team to run a full season.

    3. PJA- I agree 100% with what you have said about USF1, they have been serious about this for some time and look like they are going to do business in an efficient and cost-effective fashion, regardless of the budget cap.

      Rikadyn- Thanks for the info, but keep in mind that NASCAR budgets work a bit differently. For example, some teams run 3 or 4 cars, while others run just 2. Also, there are many more races per season in NASCAR, so you’ve got all the expenses for a race many more times over. Still, there are some useful applications from how NASCAR dose things to F1- hopefully the sport can pick some of those up in the future.

  52. Heckie

    who won the Jim Clark and Colin Chapman Cups in 1987?

    Jim Clark Cup – Jonathan Palmer
    Colin Chapman Trophy – Tyrrell Ford

  53. New teams should definitely enter formula one. But Mosely, being the misguided idiot he is, thinks that he can do away with Ferrari and Renault in favour of teams with no credibility to them like iSport and Lola. ***?

  54. Ferrari go to court to stand up for their and some other teams rights and low and behold Keith and his cronies are slandering away! I’m sorry mate but F1 would be nowhere in terms of it being the pinnicale of motorsport, from technology in the cars to the drivers that drive them without Ferrari in the modern era of F1 anyways. The driving force behind this has been the amount of money they have been able to spend on setting the standard, so to speak. If all the teams were forced to spend 80-90% less during these last few decades it F1 would be fighting it out with GP3 in terms of being the more technologically advanced and ultimately the pinnicale of motorsport. Last season you slandered Ferrari because they were seen to be getting favours from the FIA, everything that was said by you and anyone else of like mind has been proven wrong by the latest series of events yet you still have this desire to slander Ferrari. Furthermore, Mark Webber was asked, shortly after the latest appeal denial, what he thought of the possibilty of Ferrari leaving F1, his response:

    “I can’t think about it,” he said.

    “They are F1. For me, the red car has to be on the Formula One grid. It just would not be the same without them.”

    Oh and as was stated by MajorMilou:

    “Also, nowhere do they “oppose” the new teams in their comment, they ridicule the idea of a F1 championship with those teams only.”

    Of course you didn’t or rather couldn’t form a rebuttle because it calls you and this whole article out as just being part of a an anti-Ferrari blog, more than a F1 fan blog. Not once have I read a positive article on this blog about Ferrari.

  55. In a nutshell – Alonso is right. If Ferrari et al leave F1 to be replaced by the likes of the above, this will no longer be F1. I would be quite happy to see a breakaway series now.


  56. I think it would be easier to rename GP2 to F1…

    1. or maybe F1 to GP2..

  57. I have a question…I haven’t read a word from any of the heavyweight drivers… Mansel, Prost, Shumacher, Piquet…etc. Anyone read or heard any opinions from them regarding a breakaway series?

    1. Not on a breakaway series, as far as I knw, Alex.
      Prost is pretty tied up trying to sort out a new French GP circuit & Piquet with questions on his son`s career. Schumacher has backed Ferrari`s stance. Mansell has either not commented or I`ve missed it if he has. My guess is he`d be moaning ;)

  58. Maybe mf…I might be screwing up the math with my suggestion.

  59. It’s time for the FOTA to start a real F1 series without the corrupt FIA.

    1. Prisoner Monkeys
      22nd May 2009, 6:09

      Do you want to justify how you can call the FIA corrupt? That’s a very serious allegation to level at someone, especially when it’s untrue. Right now, all I think the FIA could reasonably beaccused of is trying to diminish Ferrari’s power, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing: in the past, Ferrari have been paid to remain within the sport, many stewarding decisions have gone their way and they have had a technical veto for years. No other team has that; it’s ironic given that Ferrari don’t want different teams playing by different rules on the track, but they’re more than happy do so when the racing stops.

      The FIA and FOTA need one another as they’re a check against the other. If FOTA created a rival series, it would fall apart simply because you can’t have the people playing the game being the ones to referee it. Most of the criticism levelled at theFIA has an historical context, with most people assuming they’re in the wrong simply because they don’t like them. That kind of thinking will kill Formula One faster tha anyting else I could care to think of.

    2. Nicely said especially in your first paragraph @ Prisoner Monkeys

  60. one good thing about this site is that opinions aren’t wasted as report.

    good for keith to express his mind. that’s what makes a readable text.

    i remember combac texts from french sportAuto and they were just great. and thing is that he did never hide his own feeling. a must for success in good writing.

    for me it’s a bit of a addition throw away. hope that f1 implodes: i’m really tired of this auto racing.

    the thing that keeps me following this is old fashion nostalgia. and that begins with ferrari and ends with williams.

    besides that cars are ugly.

    1. Do you want to justify how you can call the FIA corrupt? That’s a very serious allegation to level at someone, especially when it’s untrue. Right now, all I think the FIA could reasonably beaccused of is trying to diminish Ferrari’s power, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing: in the past, Ferrari have been paid to remain within the sport, many stewarding decisions have gone their way and they have had a technical veto for years. No other team has that; it’s ironic given that Ferrari don’t want different teams playing by different rules on the track, but they’re more than happy do so when the racing stops.

      If true it could be said that only a corrupt regulatory body would do what you are saying the FIA has done.

    2. Prisoner Monkeys
      22nd May 2009, 13:57

      If true it could be said that only a corrupt regulatory body would do what you are saying the FIA has done.

      Well, you’re wrong. Firstly, the FIA did not pay Ferrari to continue in the sport. FOM did, and they are not a regulatory body. They manage the commercial aspects of Formula One; while they have influence, they are not policy-makers the way the FIA are.

      Secondly, the technical veto existed before the formation of FOTA and was evidently created as a means to give at least one team a say in the creation of policy; now that FOTA exists, the technical veto afforded to Ferrari is an imbalance of power that should be rectified.

      Thirdly, whilst the conspiracy theorists might lap this stuff up, there is abslutely no evidence that the FIA has been favouring Ferrari in its decisions either on or of the track. The decision in favour of the Brawns, Williams-es and Toyotas is evidence enough of this off the track, whilst decisions like the ones against Hamilton at both Spa and Fuji are hardly proof of anything because there is simply no way a Ferrari-backed conspiracy could involve so many people and yet remain secret for so long. The broader a conspiracy, the more people that need to be invovled and the more money that needs to be paid to keep people quiet, and money trails lead everywhere. The notion that it would have gone un-noticed for so long instantly disproves it because it’s an impossblity in and of itself.

  61. and racing is a nonsense.

  62. sunny stivala
    21st May 2009, 17:07

    Keith Collantine,I am sorry I thought that you was a reporter for this site and not somebody out to share his personal feelings.

  63. sunny stivala
    21st May 2009, 17:17

    A breakaway series is in nobody’s interests and that includes the teams,What’s in everybody’s interest is good and proper governance of the sports.

    1. I think everyone who comes on this site and keith himself would have to admit that it is the governance of Formula One that is in need of change so it can govern properly.
      I doubt anyone really would want a breakaway series if we could just get F1 to be run properly.

  64. As far as I know, aren’t Ferrari the only team opposing the idea of the Budgetcap outright?

    Bernie and Max have both said the two-tier regulations are to be scrapped (although not as I understand worked out what they’ll be so I don’t know how teams can sign up in the next week) so Toyota, Red Bull, Renault, etc should be in F1 as far as I understand it…

    Now we just need Max to push up that £40m figure. Hmmmm… maybe not!

    1. I have not read anywhere that says ferrari are totally against the budget cap. From what i gather they are indeed willing to reduce costs, but think that the cap idea is unworkable and the amount too low.
      I also think that FOTA are quite annoyed that they are not being listened to. And Fota’s published reccomendations for regulation changes and cost reduction fell on deaf ears.

  65. I believe that new teams would be good for F1 but not at the expense of established teams. And that is what i read into Ferrari’s staement.

  66. I think that you are right Keith. F1 should consider new blood. Furthermore, let’s not forget outfits such as Porsche who, in the past, just got into F1 with a strong outfit, made an impact, and then left. Some of the new times might just be interested in doing that also.
    Considering Ferrari’s statement I believe that it has been misinterpreted. Clearly an F1 without the current big teams replaced with the new teams will look like one of the mini series.
    What I would like to see is some sense into both parties. I feel that Max has been draconian with the new rules. Whilst I believe that Ferrari have overacted. I would personally like to see no one leave F1 and some new teams.
    Hopefully FOTA would come up with some decent proposals which the FIA would be ready to consider and implement.

  67. Why not approve 3 new full-time teams and then let anyone else who show’s up and passed tech to try and qualify? Should be fun.

    1. I think the FIA’s reasoning for only allowing 13 teams is because there is only 13 garage spaces for the teams, or something like that. I could be wrong.

      But there used to be a lot more teams years ago, so where were they put? Or were those garages knocked down since then?

      Anybody know?

  68. It`s more complicated than that, scunnyman.
    The pit boxes we see are multiples of smaller boxes. These are allocated by the position in the previous years` constructors championship, In fact, the top end (more successful) teams are usually allocated more space than those at the bottom end of the grid.
    So, theoretically, there could be more teams.
    Years ago the set up was completely different. Go back far enough & the cars were worked on outside,often in the paddock.
    By the time they`d gone through pre-qualifying & then qualifying (when it really meant qualifying) the numbers had been whittled down.
    That`s a very superficial explanation but I hope it helps.

    1. Yes it helps you always do. thanks

  69. Superficial? I think I meant simplistic. Doh.

  70. Nomad Indian
    21st May 2009, 22:10

    After reading the various opinions of so many, I would like to add the following:

    New entrants: I dont think anyone is opposed to new entrants. Neither do Ferrari although it seems so from their Press release. They do however disagree to the manner and the idea of the two-tiered approach.
    Like many have noted, Ferrari are correct that it will take time for fans to fork out good money on tickets to watch Lola or Prodrive race. Mosley’s comment has definitely bruised their ego to mention it.

    Ferrari being favoured: Although it is debatable, it was never easy to form a break-away series (the incident when when Ferrari broke ranks), neither it is today. If you look from Ferrari’s POV, it made sense to take the benefit of that veto and continue so that they could use it in times such as this. The wrath of Ferrari is at being cheated as they are not being allowed to use it today. The veto could be used to favour all teams at times such as this. Although only five teams have spoken AGAINST the massive budget cap & two tier c’ship, why hasnt any team spoken FOR it? Ferrari are doing a favour to all teams and fighting on behalf of all.
    And Ferrari had to be important enough for them to be offered such a privilege. Mosley should mention if and when Ferrari have used it previously if he really has the “interests of the sport” in mind.

    EPL/football analogy: The EPL could survive if ManU were relegated for a year or two, coz the fans would still be rooting for them to be there next season. But what if they were to leave because they were denied the ability to sign 5-6 superstar players due to a budget cap on the revenues they received due to THEIR popularity?

    Budget Cap: No one denies cost cutting is required. It is virtually enforced voluntarily in these tough economic times. But nothing gives the right to the FIA to go through the books of the teams. Specially in the ruthless corporate enviornment of F1 with so many ties even between the FIA and many commercial entities.
    Cost cutting can be achieved by simple intelligent measures like the one of banning refuelling during races, using lesser tyre compounds, reducing testing etc. Not to mention the money that goes to the legal teams of the teams and the FIA for all this bickering.

    Level playing field: As this season has shown, the pecking order can be shuffled by changes to the rules related to design. The FIA can always try changing some rule every year like they did to stop Schumi from winning everything. Design changes/minor technical changes which dont cause steep rise in budget provide challenges that talented people can capitalise on.
    One can claim that Brawn are Honda by another name, but even Redbull did capitalise on the changes.

    Another point that fans are perhaps missing and FIA are trying to hide is that there would be more “competition” if FIA would focus on consistent stewarding of the races.
    Incidents like those involving Kimi & Sutil at Monaco, Massa & Vettel, Hamilton & Vettel at Fuji etc. if correctly investigated and ruled on could give fighting chances to smaller teams. (okay, someone can perhaps help me with better examples of incidents)

    Hope Keith doesnt ban me for such a rambling, long post ;)

  71. here i am advertising in a top boutique, top brands, i show off the quality of my first class watches…bla..blaa.bla.
    The shop is not selling so well. The shop owner decide to introduce “average” watches, good watches but not very well known…quality??…need to be proven.
    What am i doing in this joint with my top of the range watches…? Spend and keep the nice shop pretty for the new comers?
    Isn’t the same same with F1???

  72. I am all for bringing in new teams, regardless of who they are or where they are from, as long as the major teams are also involved. Have a ‘two tier’ championship, for me, makes the whole idea of the title pointless and for obvious reasons.
    In Formula One, rules are made and then counteracted at a nearly weekly basis, making the whole business both confusing for both fans and teams alike, and virtually impossible to police.
    The recent credit crunch has opened up everybody’s eyes, especially in Formula One. The sudden downturn exposed weaknesses in the sport that we all knew were there, but never put right, for many years.
    In many ways, I am glad that the sport has addressed these issues, but as we all know, must handle them carefully.
    New teams have to enter this sport, otherwise we risk losing Formula One for good. As a series, it can not go on as it did up until the end of the 2008 season without losing more competitors, which would be disastrous.
    At the same time we must respect existing marks, such as Ferrari, as they are without doubt one of the main reasons Formula One has become so successful.
    I am not a Ferrari fan myself, and find there attitude towards new teams entering the sport both disturbing yet predictable. I have always harboured deep suspicions about the major companies, such as Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, and Toyota, and their true visions of Formula One.
    It is only natural that people would want to hold onto a niche they had made for themselves, a dominance the like of which motorsport has seldom seen. My biggest fear, one greater than Ferrari or Williams or whoever leaving F1 would be for this sport to become a spec series.
    As has been said many times over the years, Formula One is a sport based around individual teams building their own cars set around rules which all must follow.
    It is what, in my mind, seperates Formula One from other major racing series around the world.
    Bigger grids would certainly bring more action, more sponsorship money, and more young talent to Formula One. That would benefit, in the long run, every team and fan Formula One has, including the Scuderia.
    Now if that is what you want, we are heading in the right direction?

  73. at midnight Campos Racing brought in the documents to join F1 in season 2010

    1. Prisoner Monkeys
      22nd May 2009, 15:10

      So, forty-eight hours after they vehemently deny it, they file an application.

      What changed? What does Campos know that we don’t?

    2. no addax denied to enter f1 but campos never said that…
      USGPE also have inscribed to season 2010 now

    3. HounslowBusGarage
      22nd May 2009, 21:54

      One place down and only twelve more to go.
      If just a couple more new teams enter quickly, the ten existing teams will be chasing nine spots . . .

      Actually, I’m very surprised that any new teams are entering because of the current uncertainty over budgets. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I might believe Max put Campos up to do this.

  74. @Nomad: The EPL analogy you’ve presented is much more simpler than what is happening. The true analogy would be something like Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea leaving the EPL to go play in a European Super League(ESL). What would happen to the glamour of the EPL without those teams? And what of the new ESL?

    That is more along the lines of a correct analogy to what is happening in F1.

  75. GooddayBruce
    22nd May 2009, 13:00

    Quite right with that last point. I’m surprised Max hasn’t actually put that into words. The intention of the two-tier rules is to FORCE everyone to adhere to the budget cap – not to create two categories.

    People keep writing about this but the fact is that this row is no longer about budget caps or two-tier regulations. It is about the teams finally reacting to Max Mosley’s piss-poor governance of the sport since his safety revolution in 1994.

    It is barely creditable that the man still had the job before this latest saga – even before it was revealed that the governing body under his leadership had a contractual agreement to allow one of the competitors a sporting advantage. How is this man still in office?

    I thought that a budget cap was a good idea when it was previously discussed last year but I am totally on Ferrari’s side on this one. If the teams can depose Mosley they can break the corrupt little union between the FIA and FOA, dictate terms to Bernie or get rid of him and try to get hold of some of that money that is being bled from the sport. If the money was returned to the competitors then F1 would become more affordable and there would be no need for a budget cap.

    Max can bitch about Ferrari, the need for new blood, John Howett, whatever – the weak link is you Max. Go away!

  76. Nice post Keith, I like that you take a stand one way or the other.

    The way I see it, nothing that is at the “pinnacle” of anything comes with an absolute budget cap.

    FOM and the FIA are willing to sacrifice the notion of “pinnacle”-ness and prestige because they can use the existing momentum (media contracts, tracks, relationships, etc.) to keep the show profitable even if that notion is gone. This is a business decision they have taken, and have presumably looked at all the risks that come with it. Time will tell if they did the right thing.

    The manufacturers and bigger teams rely heavily on the very prestige of the sport that Bernie and Max want to do away with, because it brings them huge marketing exposure while at the same time potentially being profitable within F1. They, very understandably, don’t want to see the prestige of the sport slip away.

    I believe that budget caps are completely at odds with DNA of the sport. I also don’t understand why there need to be more teams from a fans perspective.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.