Ferrari’s latest FIA rant attacks “Serbian vultures” and Mosley’s “holy war”

2010 F1 seasonPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

The attack on the FIA published by Ferrari on their website has already drawn some reaction in the daily round-up.

Ferrari has made several such criticisms in the past months but this is the most vociferous yet. It claims Lotus and Virgin “will limp into the start of the championship”, calls Stefan GP the “Serbian vultures” and leaves no-one in any doubt where Ferrari believe the blame lies:

This is the legacy of the holy war waged by the former FIA president.

Last week the team marked the 112nd anniversary of founder Enzo Ferrari’s birthday. It published a short interview with his son Piero Ferrari which was light on reminiscences about Enzo but heavy on the politics:

Q: What would he have thought about a Championship where the test sessions are concentrated in four weeks and obstructed by lots of rain?

A: He would have been completely against it. That’s for sure. […]

I completely agree with Luca di Montezemolo when he says that there should be the possibility to start a third car, which can be managed by smaller teams, or maybe even do it like we did in the 1970s, considering the stable rules, private teams often used cars from the bigger teams from the previous year. I really think that it’s absolutely possible thinking about introducing a third car, which could guarantee more suspense and lower costs.

It is clear the Ferrari and the FIA have different interpretations of what caused manufacturers to leave F1 and what the solution should be.

The FIA believes high costs drove the car manufacturers out and the remedy is to change the rules so teams with smaller budgets can compete.

Ferrari believes Mosley’s governance of F1 drove the likes of Toyota and BMW away (and Renault in all but name) and the solution is to allow teams to run more cars.

The problem with Ferrari’s ‘three car teams’ solution is it will stifle variety, make it easer for a single team to dominate the championship and make it harder for existing small teams like Williams and Force India to compete.

Allow teams to enter more than two cars and it’s not hard to see F1 gradually degenerating into a DTM equivalent with just two car makers supplying the entire field.

That scenario would be far worse for F1 than having a couple of uncertain entries at the back of the grid. And it would bring the added problem of races being spoiled by team orders which the DTM has struggled with in recent years (more on that here: Why three-car teams isn’t a great idea).

But what is most surprising is that Ferrari are happy for their point to be put across in this fashion. The hectoring style and grandiose language in the statement verges on comical at times. Perhaps something has been lost in translation.

The wording may be odd but the meaning is clear. The question now is whether Jean Todt will heed the words of his former team.

Here’s the original statement in full:

Maranello, 22nd February – Only less than three weeks to go until the ultimate form of motor sport, the Formula One World Championship, gets underway, while celebrating its sixtieth birthday this year. For many of the teams, this coming week is a crucial one, as the bell rings to signal the final lap, with the last test session getting underway in Barcelona. It is one last chance to run the cars on track, to push reliability to the limit and to try and find some performance. That’s the situation for many teams but not for all of them. Of the thirteen teams who signed up, or were induced to sign up, for this year’s Championship, to date only eleven of them have heeded the call, turning up on track, some later than others, and while some have managed just a few hundred kilometres, others have done more, but at a much reduced pace. As for the twelfth team, Campos Meta, its shareholder and management structure has been transformed, according to rumours which have reached the Horse Whisperer through the paddock telegraph, with a sudden cash injection from a munificent white knight, well used to this sort of last minute rescue deal. However, the beneficiaries of this generosity might find the knight in question expects them to fulfil the role of loyal vassal. All this means, it is hard to imagine the Dallara designed car showing its face at the Catalunya Circuit, with Sakhir a more likely venue to witness the return of the Senna name to a Formula One session.

The thirteenth team, USF1, appears to have gone into hiding in Charlotte, North Carolina, to the dismay of those like the Argentinian, Lopez, who thought he had found his way into the Formula One paddock, (albeit with help from chairwoman Kirchner, according to the rumours) and now has to start all over again. Amazingly, they still have the impudence to claim that everything is hunky-dory under the starry stripy sky.

Next, we have the Serbian vultures. Firstly, they launched themselves into a quixotic legal battle with the FIA, then they picked the bones of Toyota on its death bed. Having got some people on board, around whom there was still a whiff of past scandals, they are now hovering around waiting to replace whoever is first to drop out of the game, possibly with backing from that very same knight in shining armour whom we mentioned earlier.

This is the legacy of the holy war waged by the former FIA president. The cause in question was to allow smaller teams to get into Formula One. This is the outcome: two teams will limp into the start of the championship, a third is being pushed into the ring by an invisible hand – you can be sure it is not the hand of Adam Smith – and, as for the fourth, well, you would do better to call on Missing Persons to locate it. In the meantime, we have lost two constructors along the way, in the shape of BMW and Toyota, while at Renault, there’s not much left other than the name. Was it all worth it?

Do you think he should? Is replacing car manufacturers with the likes of Virgin Racing really such a bad thing for F1? Have your say in the comments.

Read more: Why three-car teams isn’t a great idea

240 comments on “Ferrari’s latest FIA rant attacks “Serbian vultures” and Mosley’s “holy war””

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4
  1. Jarred Walmsley
    23rd February 2010, 8:57

    The third car would only work if it was ineligable to score points and it was the last to recieve any aero updates, this way the teams would recieve little or no benefit from it.

    1. Wrong, it could still hold up the other cars, therefor giving the team an advantage anyway.

      1. It would work if all the teams had £300m budgets and they all had three point scoring cars, however the small teams don’t have that much and it wont work.

        1. A third car would also consume a grid-spot, a garage and would be an extra cost in transport costs. Ferrari would not have to pay for ferrying the extra baggage around the F1 World.

          1. OK, so most people are against 3 car teams, what about 1 car teams?

            USF1 only have 1 driver ( and no car just now) so should they be allowed to compete with 1 car?

            Would 1 car teams have worked for Toyota and BMW?

          2. Why don’t we let USF1 compete without any car and Lopez can just run.

          3. Jarred Walmsley
            24th February 2010, 8:45

            One car teams are an awful idea as well, they will stand no chance of getting any where in the constructors championship and hold up other cars as the development opportunites are limited.

            And with the 3 cars what about if they could only run the 3rd in Free Practise, i.e. to give F1 experience to their test drivers?

  2. Aleksandar Serbia
    23rd February 2010, 9:08

    Oh really ”vultures”, how about them being leeches and sucking the blood of F1 by extracting money for years, just because Bernie needed them in the sport!
    He admitted that F1 had a special contract with Ferrari, that had given them substantial money just to stay in the sport!
    If that is not prerogative for the spaghetti Bolognese team from Italy i don’t know!

    This kind of behavior is nothing but monopoly based thinking which says, we do not want another team taking sponsors. Stefan Gp is likely to be dropped to the favoritism of the Us team, since the Burger crowd is what they are after, but i cannot wonder how does Ferrari think they can get admission?
    Through a team vote? LOL We all know teams don’t like more new teams taking more sponsorship money, and if the way in is through buying out another team so be it?
    Isn’t F1 created on the Darwinian principle…survival of the fittest?

    1. couldn’t agree more

      1. couldn’t agree less

        1. mfdb- if there are so many ferrari fans, then Ferrari don’t need any money from Bernie, because all these ferrari crowds will buy ferrari products and will be a good response group for ferrari sponsors, so more money anyway.
          *** AND if they want so madly to keep ferrari in the sport they should give Ferrari just money AND NOT ON TRACK HELP ( as jackie steward uncovered some months ago) ***
          Also ING fan survey which took place in 2008 ( before lewis winning the championship) showed that McLaren fans are more than Ferrari fans !!!

      2. If I could note – it is estimated that 1/3 of all Formula One fans are Ferrari fans; if Ferrari left then arguably Formula One would be no more so I for one cannot argue against Bernie trying to keep them.

        Maybe instead consider the massive quantity of money that CVC and Bernie remove from the sport each year. Much of the sponsorship money put into the sport through its outrageously high fees to any would be circuits is removed and never seen again. How about CVC stop taking 50% and maybe take 20%, put the rest of the money back into the sport and at the same time ensure that come the end of the year they still have a sport to own the commercial rights of. F1 is dying, and CVC need to see past their greed and keep it alive – because their income is bonded to Formula 1’s continued existence.

        1. Surely then they are not Formula One fans then, they are simply Ferrari fans.

          A true Formula One fan would be a fan of the whole sport, many of the teams and drivers, maybe with a preffered team or three, but to stop watching an entire series because one team leaves surely means that they wern’t a fan of the series in the first place.

          1. couldn’t agree less ;)

          2. Well said. It’s Formula 1 and not Ferrari 1!!!
            Real fans are about the whole sport. Not all Ferrari fans are nutjobs btw. Some are real fans and understand the same as we do. It’s the sport as a whole.

          3. Personally I can’t wait to watch F1 without a cheating Team like Ferrari.
            I am also not to wrapped in seeing M.S. back in the sport as I also believe he is a cheat!

        2. Not to mention that Ferrari had the right to impose veto to any thechnical regulation change since 2000!!! Ferrari is the fiasko not F1

        3. Mark. I think E.I. has the split more accurately! but then I have never thought Ferrari had the lager share of the F1 Fan base.

          I do agree with your thoughts about CVC & Bernie Thou, their greed is killing the sport.

          1. lengy if you don’t want cheating teams, would you get rid of Mclaren as well?? I thinks I know the answer.

    2. who writes these statements? can you imagine McLaren writing something like this? no didn’t think so.

      1. This was also puplished in one of KEith’s articles!! First time it was mentioned by Mosley in order to cause confusion in FOTA

        1. i’m saying that i could never see Mclaren call stephangp ‘vultures’ or that virgin are ‘limping’ into F1. so why do ferrari do it?

    3. Stefan Gp is likely to be dropped to the favoritism of the Us team, since the Burger crowd is what they are after, but i cannot wonder how does Ferrari think they can get admission?
      Through a team vote? LOL We all know teams don’t like more new teams taking more sponsorship money, and if the way in is through buying out another team so be it?

      Sorry, mate, but you get it wrong here. It is very simple: Ferrari just don’t want his brand value been diminished in a battle with teams that do not have the same heritage and prestigious.

      They want to race and fight McLaren, BMW, Renault or Toyota, great brands. Winning or losing against those teams will always bring value to Ferrari business. What is the glory in rubbish… Campos or Stefan GP?

      1. I wasn’t referring at this article mate

        1. If you pay attention, will discover that my reply was to Aleksandar, mate…

    4. Absolutely on the nail !

      Ferrari has a leadership which really does believe that the team has a God-given right to be treated as a superior species of F1 competitor.

      Such arrogance is simply nauseating.

      I’m old enough to remember Enzo Ferrari’s struggles with debt, bad drivers, lethal circuits, and powerful opposition from Maserati, Lancia, Mercedes-Benz, Brabham, Lotus, Vanwall etc etc… In those days no-one strutted because they were all real racers with dust on their faces and oil and sometimes blood on their hands.

      Montezemolo comes accross as an arrogant diletante. A complete loud-mouthed sham.

      1. Ahhh the good old days where men were men, women were in the kitchen and an F1 driver died every season, the best of times.

        1. Don’t read sexist remarks where there are none. If you knew me even distantly you’d realise how daft your remark was….but let it pass. My remarks are in fact aimed at the kind of people both of us despise. People who clearly believe they are of a superior caste.


    5. no ferrari in f1 would kill the sport

      1. Rubbish! Cheats Kill the sport!

        1. More of this “Ferrari are cheats” rubbish?

          1. not really rubbish tho is it….

          2. with that in mind they’ve also signed the biggest current cheat in the sport in Alonso. Team him up with de la rosa and you’ve got the cause of the entire spygate saga.
            cant wait to see how they cheat this year, hidden traction control – again… flexible wings – again?….. making the no.2 drive practically stop before the line to let the lead drive take max points – again?…..

          3. “not really rubbish tho is it….”

            Well, the way people bang on about it, you’d think no other team has ever done anything that could be considered cheating, so leave Ferrari alone.

          4. really? let me guess you support mcclaren. do i need to list the number of infringements they have done in the past ooo lets see two years… most of which hamilton got caught up in big time. the wing was no more illegal than the DD – the rules were just amended to stop it the next season.

      2. Maybe for you, If Ferrari quit now, I’ll still tune into Bahrain at 1 in the morning and happily do so! (actually being in AUS means all races are 1 in the morning…)

        I understand what Leon meant completely,

    6. Isn’t F1 created on the Darwinian principle…survival of the fittest?

      This is a pretty glaring misconception.

  3. i Don’t agree with 3 car teams purely from a domination perspective. Look at last year if we had 3 car teams Brawn would hav done a Ferarri an wrapped it up by June-July! Smaller budget? Yes and No. Yes for the actual operation of the team on site at a grand prix, but back home I think it should be limited full scale wind tunnel testing to equivalent of 10 days per calender month in season (adjust for summer break); unlimited or 20 days off season; unlimited CFD (eg what Virgin used to create their car) and no limit on homeward staff and analysis and design teams. Yes to tire changes as even Nascar has them and their longer races than F1, but i think there should just be to dry tires like Australian V8 supercars. 1 normal tyre ans 1 “sprint” that can be used at any 1 point during the race itself with the freedom of choice to start on either tyre. But hey thats just my thoughts…..

    1. Racing in the rain and occasional torrential downpour results in some of the most exciting races I have ever seen. ex. Hungary 2006 when Jenson got his first win and Alonso and Schumacher had an epic battle at a track that never sees passing. Granted, ther will be the occasional f-up like at Malaysia in 2009, but lets be honest, the end result of that race was a result of a bunch of bad decisions by the FIA/Bernie.

  4. I love this I really do. It’s so nice not to have to try and see through the PR talk for a change and actually have a bit of passion in front of us. It’s refreshing, makes the sport a bit more human and evokes just as much passion from fans as Ferrari have just given.
    Ferrari do have some valid points.
    I don’t like the 3 car idea at all, Toyota and BMW leaving was probably a mixture of high costs, governance and their own ways of tackling F1 which failed. I agree about the new teams but if they have a solid foundation to work on so they can really make a commitment then that’s better but if they’re juust going to wobble constantly then leave it really just is a pointless exercise which does nothing for the sport.

    1. You see it as passion. To me it looks like a bad attitude, even a desperate attempt for the ‘big guy’ to throw their weight around to get what they want, and I don’t buy it.

      1. Of course they’re trying to get what they want. Every team will do what they can to get what they want in F1 just they have different methods and styles.
        They have a ‘strop’ then great, better to see and read this (especially when it is quite comical) than wonder just what is going on behind closed doors.
        I, and plenty of other fans, regularly complain about many different things in F1. Ferrari are right there experiencing it so they can say what they like. I would say the same if it was Mclaren or Williams or whoever else.

        1. *if they have a ‘strop’ that is…

      2. I agree. It makes Ferrari look like a bunch of snobs. Perhaps they are. What you see is what you get.

        1. LOL, this is F1 mate, not soccer. Everyone is a snob.

    2. It’s so nice not to have to try and see through the PR talk for a change and actually have a bit of passion in front of us.

      I agree – it’s pretty rare these days.

      1. Well yeah, but cutting through PR talk is one thing, going too far and poisoning your working relationship with new FOTA colleagues is another. Sure there is truth in in all that, but it is condescending to the bone.

      2. You have to admit it’s pretty near to a childish display of petulance, Keith.

        Not very adult at all….

        Think Prisoner Monkey’s has the situation summed up precisely !

    3. Normally I’d agree Steph but I’m starting to get bored of Ferrari and their cryptic press releases. I wish they’d just accept that there stupid 3 car idea isn’t happening and shut up.

      1. I agree completely. Perhaps they need to hire some logical thinkers.

  5. Rule #1 of Ferrari is that they don’t welcome competition in any form – they’re only happy when they’ve got things their own way. They don’t like to beat other teams, they like to make sure other teams aren’t allowed to challenge them. Give them a straight fight, and they’ll lose. Hence the petulant attitude. I for one don’t believe that they are anywhere near the cornerstone of the sport they think they are.

    A bunch of big-spending manufacturer teams sitting at the back of the grid scoring no points is a lot worse for the sport than a couple of engaging private teams sitting at the back of the grid scoring no points, at least they’re not losing shareholder value in the process.

    1. “I for one don’t believe that they are anywhere near the cornerstone of the sport they think they are.”

      It’s nice to see someone else with this opinion too. If Ferrari left F1, I really, really don’t beleieve that the formula would come crashing down around itself like so many people seem to think.

      This is just bullying.

      3 car teams is not a good idea, and having a privateer running the 3rd car doesn’t make it a 3 car team, it makes it a 2 car works team, and a 1 car customer team. And I thought we just went through a whole flip-flop about whether that was allowed or not, which it isn’t.

      Serbian vultures? Yeah, whatever Ferrari. There are plenty of vultures in F1 already, mostly Italian.

      I’d rather have a brimmed 26 car grid with 3 or 4 of the new teams limping for a while whilst they build up to speed, and in a year or two, having them in amongst the pack, than a 20 or 18 car grid, which just looks anorexic on TV. I doubt Virgin and Lotus will be limping, no more than Minardi used to anyway.

      If you want to make the rules, go form a breakaway championship. Oh wait, you tried, then you caved in and failed, so now you’re having to live with being a part of a Championship where you throw the toys out of the pram when you don’t get your own way, even though you’ve won more championships in the last 15 years then everyone else put together.

      Go away.

      1. Aleksandar Serbia
        23rd February 2010, 12:21

        thanx ajokaj, big hug ok, a really big one!

        1. Aleksandar Serbia
          23rd February 2010, 12:22

          oh wait a minute here’s another one ;)

    2. I agree with you Hairs 100%

  6. Keith, being Italian my first language I can tell you that the English translation is not literal and there are several differences between the two versions.
    In Italian, the “Serbian vultures” become “owls that have their lair in Serbia”! While “chairwoman Kirchner” is given her correct title of president in Italian. That said, the hectoring style is common to both versions.
    Ferrari, typically, is probably trying to put pressure on Todt and make clear who the boss is in F1!

    1. That’s very interesting! I’m trying to learn your language at the moment, for obvious reasons :-)

      1. You after Luca’s job Keith?

    2. Thanks for that Paul. I wondered how much of this had been lost in translation. I wish they employed an English journalist to rewrite their press releases.

      Quotes like “everything is hunky-dory under the starry stripy sky” just sound weird in English!

      1. Actually that quote is brilliantly insulting I think, dodgy translation or not.

        1. Yeah I liked that line too, lucidly cynical.

    3. Interesting and considered comment Paul, makes a nice change from most of what has gone before.

      So when Ferrari say “owls that have their lair in Serbia” do they mean “Serbian vultures” or similar?

  7. I may be Italian and a Ferrari fan of 40 years but I can’t see much wrong with this statement (in Italian and English). Let us all be realistic here, what are the new teams going to bring to the sport? It is going to be the champion’s league with 3 4th division teams thrown in to mess it all up. Ferrari are right about the reasons for BMW and Toyota leaving. BMW had a very good and competitive car in 2008 but after more messing with the rules and the introduction of KERS which cost up to 40 million in development for most teams it’s away. So much for saving money! The 3rd car is another point. While a third full team car is not the answer selling last years cars to private teams could be. I said this before, leave the rules for 5 years (even if they are poor) and let teams and privateers have a 5 year programme. This is how it used to be and it did no harm to the likes of Enzo Ferrari, Bruce Mclaren, Frank Williams, and Colin Chapman etc. We will end up with a series sport with 1 chassis and 2 engines if we are lucky. Please let F1 be F1 again

    1. You can’t blame the FIA for BMW’s overspend. It wasn’t just KERS.

      “Let us all be realistic here, what are the new teams going to bring to the sport? ”

      Ask that question in 10 years time. Manor (Virgin) are not a BMW or a Toyota who are going to leave after 4 or 5 years. Think more long term and you might understand these teams are not to be written off immediately in an arrogant ‘Ferrari “we own F1” like’ fashion.

    2. What will these teams bring to F1?

      Maybe the same that McLaren or Williams brought to F1 in the late 60s/early 70s? Who knows.

    3. These new teams may also bring to the sport the same things that were brought by Spyker, Jordan, Super Aguiri, Midland, etc, etc….

      I think Ferrari are saying the same things that I’ve been reading from all the people who post on this website. The FIA did not due diligence with its selection process, included teams that where willing to side with them during ‘the holy war’, and successfully pushed out the manufacturers in order to regain control of F1 over FOTA.

      Don’t fool yourselves, FOTA joining together and leaving the FIA to start it’s own championship would have been the worst thing imaginable for the FIA. Mosley did what he had to do to make sure this didn’t happen.

      1. Well said Vince. Everyone posts the same thing Ferrari did, then complains when they say it….

        1. Apart from three cars it’s not what there saying, see most posters alluding to the valid points made, it’s the way they say it.

          Also the post covers a massive amount of different arguments, you can’t genralise like that, i have posted in agreement before with about half of what is said, other bits ive disagreed with.

          But because they deliver from so far up high we all imediatley resent it.

    4. It may be the only part of what you said that I agree with, but I do agree with this:

      “leave the rules for 5 years (even if they are poor) and let teams and privateers have a 5 year programme”

      STOP CHANGING THE ****ING RULES EVERY ****ING SEASON. That way, cars can evolve, rather than having to be redesigned every bloody year. And if a team is running low on funds, it can use last year’s car and improve it over the course of the season.

      THAT’S how to reduce costs in F1.

      *cough* sorry, rant over…

      1. YES! Dr Mouse his the nail on the head there!
        5 yearly rule changes would save so much money.

        1. But it won’t!

          Ferrari will spend so much improving the existing car that they will just be too fast for the smaller teams,

          changing the rules, means that innovation, which can come from even smaller teams, can be rewarded, It rewards the designers like Newey, over the funds of a corporation.

          I don’t like many of the rule changes that happen, I think the FIA are numpties, but without it. we won’t have any excitement.

      2. Thank you Dr. Mouse! The rules must remain stable!

  8. i agree with the fact that the fia can be blamed for this mess. But on the other hand, montezemolo is just interested in ferrari, like always has been. For him the new teams are worthless. He said so before.

  9. As much as I despise Mosley, this is just one more reason to dislike Ferrari’s arrogance.

    Of course Virgin and Lotus will struggle this year. It’s more about the long term, but if your as arrogant as Ferrari sometimes you forget the bigger picture.

  10. Ferrari don’t do themselves any favours talking like this. Even though they make a few solid points it imediatley splits opinion into people who think they’re hilarious and people who think they’re arrogant.

    Three car teams upsets me as an idea, I think it would simply mean that we loose teams like Williams and Force India, who are exctiting to watch, unlike Toyota.

    Also it would simply mean factory teams in the lead with their customers shortly behind, it certainly wouldn’t improve racing or suspense, look at Moto GP. They’re changing the rules to try and fight this.

  11. As I said in the daily round up, Ferrari made some good points (although not in respect of the exit of Honda et al from the sport) but surely some decorum, tact, sportsmanship and professional courtesy must be used when making official statements on your website.

    You have to show some respect for all those involved in your sport (and this extends to those just coming in and those who want to be involved) regardless of whether or not you agree with what they say or do. Heck, when we all discuss issues like this we can leave our various biases at the door and focus on the issues. I’d expect the same from the sport’s most successful team.

    1. When we all discuss issues like this we can leave our various biases at the door and focus on the issues. I’d expect the same from the sport’s most successful team.

      Well said.

        1. Are you serious? How many unbiased, objective, rational opinions do you see in these comments? At least have of the comments here are so short sighted they can’t even see their own nose.

        2. Are you serious? How many unbiased, objective, rational opinions do you see in these comments? At least half of the comments here are so short sighted they can’t even see their own nose.

  12. Like many over here I wonder how usf1 and campos got an entery when they don’t have the funds… And on the other hand you have stefan gp that seems to have more than enough. They can buy and ship equipement without being sure they can compete, that imo looks like they have big funds!
    Crazy pickin’

  13. Ah…the good old Ferrari we all love! More please!

  14. Like Keith says, I believe having three car teams would have the effect of stifling the sport and cut back on variety, not a good thing IMO. I think it’s far more exciting the way it is this year, with Booth’s Manor team and a new ‘Lotus’ irrespective of how competitive they turn out to be. Despite this, I commend Ferrari on being so direct and outspoken as it’s a breath of fresh air amidst the mediocre cooperate speak of most teams.

  15. While I agree with the sentiment that the FIA are (most liekly) to blamne, the manner of the execution leaves a little to be desired. Just typical Ferrari bluster, methinks.

  16. “he says that there should be the possibility to start a third car, which can be managed by smaller teams, or maybe even do it like we did in the 1970s, considering the stable rules, private teams often used cars from the bigger teams from the previous year.”

    Now I never thought about it this way. I always assumed the 3rd car would be the same spec as the other team cars, and I would disagree with this. Now if the 3rd car was a previous years car then that would work, but surely that would go against the principle of teams designing their own car. Does this mean that Ferrari are pro customer cars?
    The 3rd car would also be very slow in comparison and nowadays may be even slower than some of these minor teams that Ferrari loathe so much.
    Perhaps Ferrari only want Lotus \ Virgin to use old Ferrari cars?

    1. Thinking back to Sauber being instructed to do Ferrari’s bidding at Jerez in 1997 because they were using the same engines as Ferrari, would a team using the same chassis be subject to similar pressures? I think so.

      1. HounslowBusGarage
        23rd February 2010, 11:00

        Precisely. It would just be too tempting.

  17. While I was defiantly no fan of the FIA under the Mosley regime, I am tired of Ferrari slating the new teams. Of course the new teams will struggle this season and, assuming we do have four new teams this season, I wouldn’t be surprised if they are not all still in F1 under their current ownership in 5 years time, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be given a chance.

    Manufacturers may bring big name recognition to F1 but if they don’t have success they are more likely to pull the plug than a privateer team.

    Personally I would prefer more two car teams than three car teams, the only circumstances I would support three car teams would be if F1 lost a few teams and it was the only way to keep the numbers up.

    Regarding customer cars, I am not really in favour of it but am open to the idea of new teams using a year old car for their first few seasons but then they would have to make their own car after that.

    Also assuming this is what Ferrari really want and it is not just a smokescreen, I wouldn’t have thought this was the best way to for them to try to get their way, as surely Todt and the FIA would not want to be seen to go along with Ferrari after such a public attack on them.

  18. 3 Cars would never generate popularity.

    It would decrease interest in teams to concentrate on limited vehicle, the constructors may find it easier(Only teams with high funding Eg- Ferrari, Mercedes).

    The Smaller teams will never ever compete. Henceforth the overall interest and popularity of the sport would die . The more teams compete the more the sport gets popularity. The more competition and loads of entertainment.

  19. Here’s a thought: why not allow one-car teams again?

    Perhaps new teams could be allowed to run a single car for their first season only while they get started?

    1. Aleksandar Serbia
      23rd February 2010, 10:20

      Just like Moto gp,hmmm, it would get even more teams in ,but the problem is when they decide they got enough money to stand on both feet rather than one, will Fia build more garages for them?

    2. I had actually considered this.

      Why force a new team to run two cars? If the team runs one car, you would half the construction costs (the actual manufacture of the car, as research and development costs would, I’m assuming, be the same if you were designing 1 car or 15), engine supply costs, tyre supply costs, fuel supply costs, transport costs etc etc etc. I’d even consider running a team if that was the case! ;-)

    3. William Wilgus
      23rd February 2010, 10:42

      YES! But why just for one season? Given enough cars, also let qualifying determine whether or not they get to race—not just their grid position.

    4. Keith theoretically allowing a team to run as a one car operation will save costs, but it will still cost them the same to develop and build the car, be it one or 10. USF1 haven’t even been able to complete a single car. They are already out of funds. Campos was having similar problems albeit a bit better off than USF1.

      The unique problem here is that some these new teams are not experiencing financial ruin from operating and F1 team over a season, but rather they are facing financial ruin before the commencement of racing.

      Even Campos, that chose the less risk oriented approach, by having Dallar design and build the chassis for them, is also having problems. Then you can imagine a team like USF1 that wanted to build everything from scratch.

      I do suppose USF1 might not be in this state, had they contracted out the development of the car to an experienced 3rd party, then gradually brought everything in house.

      1. It won’t save on development costs, but it will easily slash travel and material costs in half.

        Could this be done through customer cars? A teams could run lasts years cars, carry on updating themselves and use this as a base to start developing there own cars.

    5. Ha! I just seen this comment, it is the same 1-car idea I had but you posted 2 hours or so before me!

  20. Kicking a rolled up newspaper about the street is a cheap sport F1 is not! If the sport continues to look to save money and cheapen the sport the sponsors who pay for most of the teams will all walk away and F1 will be left with 20 year old road cars racing in front of 500 fans with the words F1 hand painted on the cars.
    If you don’t have the money you can’t compete. How much clearer does it have to be?

    1. So the reasoning is that sponsors will walk away if they have to contribute less funding…?

      1. I think the reasoning is if in the name of cost saving you standardize f1 too much it will turn into a glorified GP2 and loose it’s appeal and people won’t want to invest in it. People like BMW for example might decide that their money could be better spent in other ways that yield a more positive exposure.

        1. This is one possible outcome, sure. But from what we’ve been hearing about big names pulling out, it’s the expenditures that scare them off. So the solution would be to seek a balance somewhere. That’s why a fairly strict budget cap without (too many) aero and mechanical restrictions would be a good thing. I think that it would promote mechanical solutions rather than electronic ones (of which I think there are too many in F1).

          I guess what I mean is that the sport could use some streamlining – and I think that it can be done without sacrificing racing or competitiveness. Indeed I think that the racing could improve if budgets cuts are implemented correctly.

          1. I don’t think it’s as straight forward as saying expenditure pushed the big names out, firstly BMW never said the sport was too expensive they said the sport wasn’t forward looking enough, that it wasn’t technologically relevant. But if people are saying that expenditure pushed out Toyota and Honda (which they are) then I would ask them how Williams, a company with a turnover of around £120m, can afford to race and Toyota, who from September last year posted a three month net profit of £146m in the middle of a “global recession”, cannot afford to go racing?

            There is no doubt you can produce a very competitive racing series for relatively little money but if we were really interested in competitive racing above all else this blog would be called Formula Renault Fanatic or similar.

          2. could you please please go onto the FIA website maciek – look at the regulations. they already restrict aero; and a lot of money is spent seeing how they can get around these restrictions. imposing even more isn’t going to cut spending – it will just give more places for disputes to rise up.

    2. Sponsors maybe falling all over themselves to sponsor the fashion accessory that is Ferrari, but not the other teams it would seem. I predict the demise of Mercedes at the end of the season and that Brawn will once again be looking for engines and money.

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4

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.