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””

  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.

  21. HounslowBusGarage
    23rd February 2010, 11:09

    I’m really surprised that Ferrari seem to be denigrating the new teams. I would have thought that if you play down your rivals, it makes your victory over them look less impressive. Wouldn’t it be better for Ferrari to talk up the threat of the new teams and thereby look even smarter/better/stronger by beating them?
    But in these web posts of theirs, Ferrari seem determined to paint themselves as the bitchy team of F1. I wonder why?

    1. I don’t think Ferrari is denigrating any team. They are speaking out against a fiasco that threatens to devalue their sport.

      Ferrari can talk up threat of the new teams. But even you and I that are spectators can see that this is not the case. Why should they deceive themselves.

      When a major car company is experiencing financial setbacks, and also the governing body of the sport is telling them at the same time, it doesn’t care if they stay or leave, then they too will wonder why they should even bother if they are not treated with some respect.

      The FIA could have courted some of those manufacturer teams and perhaps they may have still had some commitments with the sport. But to openly ridicule such large organizations wasn’t going to be in the sports best interests.
      Anyway Mosley is gone now, but we are left with some of his legacy.

  22. Prisoner Monkeys
    23rd February 2010, 11:09

    Ferrari are hurting, and it shows. They’ve just come off the back of their worst season in fifteen years, and they’ve seen the balance of power shift from two teams to four. And some believe there could be as many as six who are fighting at the front. Ferrari are in their most vulnerable position since the pre-Schumacher years, and it’s not really their fault – the F60 might not have been the best, but even if it was, the other teams would have still caught up.

    Ferrari’s comments have nothing to do with the state of play in sport and everything to do with Ferrari and their pride. They blame the FIA for accepting teams Ferrari considers undeserving, and given their precarious position, they feel threatened by those teams.

    Hasn’t Luca di Montezemolo seen Pulp Fiction? To quote Marsellus Wallace, pride never helps. It only hurts. Ferrari need to learn that the balance of power has shifted. There’s no longer the Ferrari-McLaren cold war. The championship is more open, and they’re going to need to fight for the titles. It is no longer a foregone conclusion that Ferrari will be at the front, and I think it is deeply unfair of them to get stuck into the newcomers simply for being newcomers. If Virgin and Lotus and Campos and Stefan and/or USF1 are disappointments, so be it. But let’s at least give them an opportunity to prove otherwise.

    In short, Ferrari should shut up and race.

    1. Great comment.

      1. Prisoner Monkeys
        23rd February 2010, 11:25

        Thanks, Keith.

        There’s not much more I can say on the subject, except that this is proof that a FOTA series would have collapsed under its own weight very quickly. Ferrari have been peddling this three-cars agenda for a while now, claiming it’s for the good of the sport. But what would really happen? Ferrari being Ferrari could employ the three best drivers in the sport, therefore solidifying their position at the front. This is exactly what would have happened had FOTA – perhaps the Formula One Manufacturers Association would be a better name; FOTA is little more than a front for the manufacturer agenda – taken control of the rule book. Teams like Ferrari would have manipulated the rules to their advantage and claim it was for the good of the sport. The gap between the cars would have been even greater, it would have been even harder for teams to make up the difference, and privateer teams like Williams and Force India and Brawn would have died out as the manufacturer arms race got out of control. Manufacturers don’t care for the racing – they’re more concerned with their bottom line, with selling cars or developing new road technologies, and we’ve seen the effects of such behaviour.

        This is Ferrari pushing an agenda that is good for them and bad for the everyone else, but claiming that it is for the good of the sport. I think people unfairly attack Max Mosley: he might have been bad for the sport, but Ferrari have proven that they can be just as villainous with comments as loaded as these.

        And they have the nerve to claim to be the world’s best racing team.

      2. Wow Keith is this actually representative of your own views? I thought you were being provocative or ironic when you chose this as Comment of the Day.

    2. Aleksandar Serbia
      23rd February 2010, 11:24

      As i see your comments plausible, Ferrari has a substantial voting power, they have threatened F1 for years, and it all started when Enzo threatened to leave F1 for indycar just because their needs were not met.
      Bernie admitted giving them money just to stay in the sport, that being said,you have a clear picture how important is the marquee to F1.
      I would love to see my countrymen enter F1, it would do us honor, but the balance of power don’t do us justice!

    3. One very poor season is not quite a crisis.
      I love your optimisim of up to 6 teams at the front. That would be the first time in 40 years since that happened.
      Please remember the wilderness Ferrari were in for 21 years before the had a very good run in the last 15.
      This post was made by Luca Colajanni who is well known here for blowing his own trumpet. He does speak for Ferrari and as many here have said a lot of good points have been made. We have a situation that whenever Ferrari or Mclaren “speak” the world listens. The same cannot be said about the others in the sport. That reputation comes with results and is shown by teams like Williams who have won nothing recently but when Patrick Head or Frank Williams say something people still listen.

      1. Prisoner Monkeys
        23rd February 2010, 12:17

        Please remember the wilderness Ferrari were in for 21 years before the had a very good run in the last 15.

        Oh, I remember it full well. It’s Ferrari who seem to have forgotten it. Come to think of it, they’re very quick to forget that they have been faced with hard times. They’ve gotten complacent, and to claim that Enzo Ferrari would still be backing them up is a joke.

        1. Enzo would by no means have supported a test restriction or a budget cap. He very nearly pulled out for financial and then political reasons. I can’t see the complacency though. They were caught out last year with a mediocre car and the DD situation. Whether they have got their act together is yet to be seen. I can’t see anyone out with 3 or 4 teams being in the hunt this year.
          Let teams test drivers and cars set rules and if you have the cash race but for the sports sake have the 107% rule to keep it safe for the front runners. I remember cars being 10 laps down and it’s not very nice to see.

    4. The three car rule is nonsense. It would add absolutely NOTHING to the sport. It would only allow the top teams to get the constructors title with ten fingers up there noses. Imagine what the podium would’ve looked like in 2001 or 2002 if we had three car teams back then. And those “big guns” will just as easy pull out when f1 makes them no more money. And that is the problem with those teams. F1 is a sport, not a way to make some money as a car manufacturer.

      1. “F1 is a sport, not a way to make some money as a car manufacturer.”

        Absolutely spot on!

        Which is why we’ll see Mercedes leaving at the end of this season, should results not go their way.

        1. I guess all the major and strong succesful motorsport series involve car manufacturers when they are not there it simply fails. (or bikes in case of MotoGP)

          Motorsport is the sport of their industry and they want to support it – it is cost they do not do it to make money. 50% or more of the money from F1 does not go to the teams it goes to Bernie shareholders.

          Circuits loose money teams loose money but someone gains – check out all other major sports – is

        2. Who cares if they left? Brawn were much better and good enough, they should’ve never become Mercedes in the 1st place. I think Ross should’ve held on to Brawn GP. I’m sure they wouldn’t have had any sponsor issues this season. We win or we leave the sport… wow! That statement already makes them losers imho! They’ll play a second Ferrari if they won, that’s the feeling I get. Try to dominate and dictate…ah! I really wish F1 all the luck with all heart. I don’t want to see any more trash in F1.

          1. HounslowBusGarage
            23rd February 2010, 19:42

            “We win or we leave the sport… wow!”
            Yes but that kind of threat works. Quite a few years ago – those fans with a better memory than me will supply the details – Enzo Ferrari was so infuriated with the lack of success of his team, cars and drivers that he threatened to withdraw mid-season unless they got themselves together and became a lot more successful. And they did, the threat worked for a while at least.

          2. Quite correct Hounslow. But that was just the old man having a rant. Mercedes will do what he only threatened to do.If Fiat and Luca Di Montezemelo did not save Ferrri’s a** they would not have been in the sport.

          3. HounslowBusGarage
            23rd February 2010, 21:50

            Si capisco, Rampante. Ma non sono d’accordo che il vecchio padrone . . .

            Don’t you think the Old Man would have carried out his threat to make the point and preservare la sua dignità?
            Or do you think that was just an empty threat?
            Ferrari might be in it for passion and the other manufacturers might be in it for marketing, but corporate pride is just as strong as personal pride – see Toyota road cars at the moment.

          4. Corporate pride doesn’t add anything to the sport, Personal Pride does, Its what creates the good and the Bad,

            Ferrari I don’t think are in it for passion, not anymore, I think the time is come to look to Williams and the new Virgin team for that.

          5. If not for Mercedes and Mclaren and indeed the whole of the F1 fraternity, where would BrawnGP be at this very moment?

    5. Exactly. They’ve become far too accustomed to dominating F1, and have been lured into a false sense of security. Now that that security is under threat, they are merely lashing out in an attempt to strike before being stuck. Years of unrivalled success have brainwashed them into believing they have a divine right to be at the front.

      We saw last year that Ferrari don’t like change, as it brings with it the potential to unsettle their fragile stranglehold on F1. The new teams and rules represent change. No conclusions are foregone. There is uncertainty in the air and Ferrari don’t like it.

  23. i agree with ferrari in their statement. although i think the third car idea is not so great.

  24. It would only suit the top 3-4 teams, who would dominate even more, due to the extra data they can gather, and drive a bigger wedge between the top budget & lower budget teams.

    Ferrari seem to be the only team with a serious hang up about this……maybe peed off that they don’t have as much clout over the rules as they secretly did before.

  25. While it’s refreshing to see a top team issuing a no holds barred press statement, I do think that Ferrari has got hold of the wrong end of the stick here.

    The factors that drove Toyota and BMW out of F1 were strongly related to the world economic situation, falling car sales and lack of success on the track. The Toyota and BMW boards may have been able to justify spending several hundred million dollars per year if they were able to reap the PR benefits of winning. But neither were. Against that backdrop, issues with F1 governance fade into insignificance.

    Three car teams are an emergency measure at best – it puts more of the eggs into fewer baskets. It shuts out the less well funded independents like Williams, Sauber and Force India and puts huge amounts of power in a select few constructors, which puts the sport in a very fragile position. The DTM comparison is a good one – the quest for a third manufacturer in that series is well known.

    The new teams that make it onto the grid in 2010 will struggle – it’s part of what being a new team is all about, especially now that the era of lavishly funded manufacturer spending appears to be over. Long term sustainability of the new entrants is key, not whether they have a few teething problems in testing or getting to the grid in Bahrain. Someone has to finish last, and a modestly funded independent can more easily justify continuing that than a well funded car manufacturer.

    1. I’d consider 3 cars the sign of a dying series, with the mass manufacturer withdrawal from the Supertouring formula we saw the 2000 BTCC contested by 3 Vectras, 3 Mondeos and 3 Accords. With the rest of the field filled up with a different “Production Class” completely seperate race. Needless to say it was the final nail in the coffin, Supertouring was scrapped and the BTCC has never bene the same since.

    2. Prisoner Monkeys
      23rd February 2010, 12:09

      The factors that drove Toyota and BMW out of F1 were strongly related to the world economic situation, falling car sales and lack of success on the track. The Toyota and BMW boards may have been able to justify spending several hundred million dollars per year if they were able to reap the PR benefits of winning. But neither were. Against that backdrop, issues with F1 governance fade into insignificance.

      That’s another issue: Ferrari and the manufacturers.

      FOTA might be the Formula One Teams Accosiation, but it’s really a manufacturer initiative peddling a manufacturer agenda. Luca di Montezemolo was president, and he’s a Ferrari man. John Howett was vice-president and he’s from Toyota. And Flavio Briatore was pointman and he’s from Renault. But now BMW is gone, Honda were humiliated and Toyota are vamoose. Renault sold 75% to Genii, while Lotus are playing at being a manufacturer and Mercedes is another matter entirely:

      Ferrari have an unspoken policy of providing engines to teams that won’t challenge them. And with the engine supply, they can influence those teams. But Mercedes have shown a willingness to supply engines to anyone and let them go their own way. When push comes to shove politically, Ferrari will only be able to rely on Toro Rosso and Sauber – and that’s not saying much. They’ll be effective if Ferrari want something to happen, but only if other manufacturers are already doing it.

      The new teams are not manufacturers, so they’re not allied to Ferrari’s cause. And they’re not carrying Ferrari engines, so Ferrari cannot influence them. In the middle of 2009, Ferrari held a hell of a lot of power, but now they’ve seen it diminished. No wonder they’re upset.

      1. I’m sorry, I seem to remember Mclaren blocking Mercedes from supplying engines to Redbull, but it probably didn’t have anything to do with Redbull being competitive. (sarcasm)

        1. read it back plz… McLaren is not Mercedes!

          1. No, but they did stop Mercedes from supplying engines to Red Bull.

        2. Prisoner Monkeys
          24th February 2010, 1:13

          That’s beside the point: Mercedes hae already shown a willingness to let teams that use their engines do as they please. Ferrari, on the other hand, will lean heavily on Toro Rosso and Sauber to support their agendas. So if push comes to shove and Ferrari need Mercedes, they’ll only get Mercedes – McLaren and Force India will be free to do as they wish. The best case scenario Ferrari could hope for is six teams on their side (Ferrari, Toro Rosso, Sauber, Mercedes, McLaren and Force India) and it’s unlikely they’ll get all of them considering that McLaren are looking to go their own way. Even with Woking on-board, Ferrari only have six teams out of thirteen on their side. That’s less than half the grid. And that’s why they’re mad: because their power has been diminished.

          Which probably isn’t a bad thing given the claims the FIA has been subconscisously supporting the Scuderia to keep them happy.

          1. How can you claim that Mercedes has showna willingness to let teams that use their engines do as they wish when they’ve only been an actual team for four months!?!

            They obviously would want to provide engines to the better teams when all they did was PROVIDE engines! The actual team which was part of mercedes (mclaren) did NOT show that willingness. This is not something that only Ferrari are guilty of,
            as you may well see in the coming years now that Mercedes has it’s own actual team.

  26. 3 cars is a step towards homogenisation and should be avoided.

    Ferrari (and the rest of us) didn’t want standard engines, so why would we want standardised cars?

  27. Why can’t we have stable rules in F1 for a minimum of 5 years. Why must there be a need to keep making changes every single year.

    We do need new teams in the sport, but this shouldn’t be at the cost of devaluing the established teams or indeed the sport.
    Lets forget for one instance about how much we would like to see many cars on the grid and close racing. Some teams have spent countless years developing their brand and legend, you don’t turn that on its head over night.

    The rules should make it possible for a team to compete with minimal costs, without forcing everyone to run at the pace of the slowest one.

    Despite my dislike for Ferrari’s attitude sometimes, I find nothing wrong in what they have just said. F1 has been turned into a circus of clowns, and not a circus of wild cats.

    1. Aleksandar Serbia
      23rd February 2010, 12:17

      Yes by Usf1 not Stefan, which is able to fire up at will, Usf1 is still in wraps, and they are the one making playing Bozo the clown!
      Stefan has been pushing really hard and cannot be blamed, Bridgestone had not given them the tires, which can mean only one thing!
      Somebody gonna get favoritism from Fia and it looks like Burger nation has more sponsors than Serbia, yeah Serbs are vultures here, i completely agree ;)

      1. Well I have nothing against Stefan actually.

  28. I hate it when Ferrari do this. I personally find it quite amusing and I applaud them for speaking their mind, but they really should be far more diplomatic in the way they put their views across because they have some valid points which get overlooked and/or dismissed because of their attitude.

    1. “they have some valid points which get overlooked and/or dismissed because of their attitude.” Yeah I agree with that Dan.

    2. Aleksandar Serbia
      23rd February 2010, 12:30

      Thanx Dan u get a hug too ;)

  29. Piero Ferrari has a point in the way he presents the three car idea.

    Ferrari race a modern 2010 chassis while say Torro Rosso buy or lease the 2009 chassis, it makes sense, cuts costs and those sattelite teams can compete for the same points and ranking in the championship and be more profitable through selling ad space on their car. granted, that team orders are completely off limits and that each leading team cannot supply cars to more than one other team. this way current intermediates such as williams and sauber can still design their own chassis.

    however, the development of the older chassis is to be done by the sattelite team, not by the mother team…

    I think that’s fair… and better than the three car teams…

    1. satellite teams would lead to clearly defined ‘B’ class races in F1.

      The fact that Toro Rosso are developing their own chassis is a good thing for the diversity of the sport … surely?

  30. Have taken a few comments out of this thread. Please remember no personal attacks allowed: F1Fanatic Comment Policy

  31. The Nude Wizard
    23rd February 2010, 12:43

    I’ll put it to you all a different way, and I’m sure to cop flack but i dont mind haha as i honestly find it all rather funny.

    If you’re the boxing heavyweight champion of the world do you just stand in a ring all day and night and fight anyone who’ll front the entry fee and have a go? No. A real champion wants to fight the best fighters with the best records to prove they are the best at what they do.

    What people seem to mmiss who are mostly armchair critics and have probably never competed at any significant level in any sport is Ferrari have NOTHING to gain from beating garagista’s, their 60 year history and being the number one name in motor racing are proof enough of their qualities. They want to beat the best manufacturers in the world who design and build their own cars, no customer engines, no technology sharing. To them the loss of manufacturers just robs them of their REAL competition.

    It should be a pure sport of people who’s BUSINESS it is to design and race cars from the ground up. Not this current nonsense of upstart billionaires and playboys with some cash backing buying and selling this and that to get your brand name in the papers and your head on TV.

    I’ve had it up to the eyeballs with the cries of a level playing field and crying it isnt fair, and budget caps and tech restrictions. Ferrari didnt get where they are by sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

    Simply, stable rules over the long term are required if manufacturers are to ever return to F1 in numbers and bring any sense of dignity back to the sport. Until then its sponsor bought circle jerk by companies and billionaires who have nothing to contribute to motor racing.

    Remind yourself, this is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor racing, not a handicap race for the fat kids who never win anything where gold stars are handed out for effort.

    Losing names like Toyota and BMW and practically Renault from the field was a massive dissapointment for me i couldnt care less what Richard Branson, Vijay Mallya or some soft drink company can do when they apply their money and time to an advertising stunt. And as for Mercedes buying and selling their way back into a team I think it’s a disgrace, have some balls and build your own car, start from scratch and present your intentions to the world, Don’t just latch onto a winning team when the goings good.

    I have a serious waning interest in F1, it sure as hell isnt what it used to be… I dont want a “show” i dont need diversions to keep me entertained, I dont need the rules to change every year so i have something to talk about, I appreciate pure racing and the rich history that F1 has, Max Mosley did nothing but trample all over it and i think its great Ferrari have called a spade a spade.

    1. A real champion wants to fight the best fighters with the best records to prove they are the best at what they do.

      I don’t think Honda and Toyota’s attempts at F1 teams fit that description.

      1. The Nude Wizard
        23rd February 2010, 13:08

        A nit pick from the man, I’m honoured ;) Obviously I’m a Tifosi and i’ve given it all away at this point but i thoroughly enjoyed Renault taking it to Ferrari. And given Brawn were the Honda team in everything but name.. how’s that for a double nit pick? :P

    2. The trouble is, how do you know up front who will be good, say in a year or 2.

      When you compare it to other sports, one thing is the technical aspect, another is the (training) methods new entrants sometimes bring success not even dreame about before.

      Look at Armstrong returning to Cycling with a new team and fitness-program after suffering from cancer, or Polish ski-jumper Malysz arriving on the scene a couple of years back.
      Not allowing new entrants joining the competition is not the solution. As Keith stated, the “settled” teams were there, but those who left were hardly the best. Honda stopping allowed Brawn to get the team into winning!

      1. The Nude Wizard
        23rd February 2010, 13:49

        Sorry you’re missing my point and going off on a tangent, what i meant in my Boxing analogy is you have to prove you are good before you can compete against a world champion as with any real sport.

        You dont just flash cash at the federation who runs the sport and they give you a pass. Anyone who rises to the level of elite compeition in a real sport has done this, yes their methods might vary but it wasnt my point. F1 blurs the line completely because anyone with the money to compete at the moment can buy and sell what they need to get on track and to me there should be a vetting process much like the hard competition of actually qualifying to compete in an olympic sport etc.

        BrawnGP’s cars developement was paid for and worked on almost entirely by Honda and its staff, had their parent company not decided to pull up stumps because of the global finacial crisis we may have been celebrating Hondas glorious F1 victory (the merc engine aside granted which does muddy the argument a little)

        Mind you i think Ross Brawn is a genius and the best move Honda ever made was hiring him its just a shame they didnt hang around to see his plans out, Ross and team knew they had a winning car on their hands and why they fought so hard to stay in the sport and ultimately prevailed, im not taking anything away from them, but its hard to argue Honda didn’t play a role.

        Likewise can be said about StefanGP, if they manage to get the car together using Toyotas work as a base and do better than any other new entrant who start from scratch, once again a significant contribution was made by the company who left and it was merely money that got the car on the grid.

        I’m just not a big fan of garagista’s as Enzo called them and its not likely to ever change ;)

        1. Well I dont agree with you on the Garagistas.

          Isn’t one of the nice and refreshing things in this sport (or any other) seeinig the Minardis get poinst, the Force Indias almost winning a race etc.
          I think it get a lot of fans in as well.

          In a broader view, wouldn’t it be great, if Force India makes India watching this sport, and Lotus generating a sell-out crowd in Malaysia and Singapore, maybe even travelling to China or Korea for a race?

          Getting back to the sports side. The general agreement seen in this forum is, that FIA did not doe a good job on choosing the entrants and forcing them to have Cosworth engines.

          As you stated, entrants should show, that they are ready and good enough to get furter up (showing succes in other racing cathegories).
          But this does not guarantee succesfull entries, as Campos does arguably qualifies to join (GP2 and F3 succes) but still finds it hard to get to the grid.

          Glad you realized, that Brawn was helped by the engine. I would even suspect, that they would not have won the championship if the HONDA stuctures had still been in place, hampering the racing team spirit!

          1. If the Garagistas are so unworthy of Ferrari’s attention, how come they regularly beat Ferrari over many decades? Ferrari’s lead in F1 stats is solely and purely down to longevity – if you’ve been in the sport twice as long as your competitors you had better at the very least rack up twice the stats. I seem to recall they don’t have twice the wins, championships etc that their rivals do.

            Brawn’s success may have been funded by Honda but it was entirely down to bringing in Ross to run the team and fix what was wrong. That’s a prime example of why money != success. Honda spent the same money the previous 2 years and got nowhere.

            As the comment goes “This sport is about the clever people beating the thickos”. Last year Ferrari the big money manufacturing outfit got beaten by two teams that are run by cleverer men. That clearly smarts. I think that’s a feeling they’ll have to get used to.

            Ferrari are a team which are full of Italian Pride. They should have swallowed that pride and given Ross the job of Team Principal when he applied for it.

          2. “Ferrari’s lead in F1 stats is solely and purely down to longevity – if you’ve been in the sport twice as long as your competitors you had better at the very least rack up twice the stats. I seem to recall they don’t have twice the wins, championships etc that their rivals do.”

            Ferrari 210 wins/793 races x 100 = 26.5%
            Mclaren 164 wins/666 races x 100 = 24.6%
            Williams 113 wins/520 races x 100 = 21.7%

            In 60 years, Ferrari won 16 consturctors championships, Mclaren in 44 years have 8, which means that your least favourite team has been doing better against their rivals than you think, Hairs.

    3. I couldn’t have said it better myself!
      Well I may have but I don’t have the kind of time it takes to type it all out :)

    4. “A real champion wants to fight the best fighters with the best records to prove they are the best at what they do.”

      You’re right but no one is a born champion, every one graduates from lower level and rise to the level of champion.Even if you look at the career of so many F1 drivers they have not directly reach to the top of the list.The recent example is Jenson Look at his struggle before he became champion in 2009,that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have been in F1. Now don’t tell that Jenson is not a champion.


    5. I mostly aree with your take here…particularly your comment about stable rules.

  32. Great discussion, this is really for the F1 fanatics!

    Therefore I join the discussion with some statements/views of my own.

    1. FIA has really changed over the last year, with Mosley leaving and not pressing his rules on everybody. Todt has not (yet?) been able to get everybody so afraid of repercussion. Only 2 years ago, even journalists were avoiding directly critisizing the FIA, fearing for their accreditation.
    This is good, for now we can have innovation and improvements.

    2. I think it is great to see new teams fighting to join. This should not be a club of exclusive F1 teams, not having to bother about somebody new being better. I really like their new takes on this and seeing them grow over the next days/months/years etc. Lets hope, that other participants in the sport start speaking their mind on things as well. I would like hearing the thought of a Frank (or Claire) Williams on this!

    3. Personally i would like having teams fielding 1 car to get to grips (maybe running a partner team in GP2/F2/f3 etc. to get revenue/training) with this level of competition.

    4. The 3 car idea is bad, that would mean we make a team sport out of the racing, like cycling? Just wait for team orders to dominate the strategy.

    So lets have a vote for 1 car teams being allowed in!

    1. 4 very good points BasCB

  33. When Lou wakes up in the morning in a bad mood, everyone run for the hills !

  34. Ferrari really, really need to let this bizarre three cars idea go. We have a full grid. There are many teams waiting to take up any spaces that appear on the grid. We have enough cars and teams! There is simply no need whatsoever for teams to run three cars!

    They also need to cut the new teams some slack. Teams starting from scratch are always going to be slow to start with. McLaren weren’t brilliant when they started out. Red Bull were pretty average before their breakthrough year in 2009.

    I agree with Ferrari’s point about the stability of the rules, but not with the rest of what they say.

  35. I think on one hand Ferrari have a point. The process of bringing in new teams has been poorly implemented by the FIA and the chaos of USF1 and Campos is evidence of that – especially when there were so many other teams ready that would likely have been in much better positions. Prodrive, Epsilon Euskadi and Lola would have been better bets. The due dilligence of the FIA looks extremely dodgy right now.

    However on the other hand the FIA were forced, to an extent, by teams like BMW, Honda and Toyota all pulling out relatively suddenly despite continual reassurances that they wouldn’t, indeed, continual threats of creating their own series. If the FIA had not encouraged new applicants we would be looking at a very thin grid, although I’m sure Ferrari would actually have liked that.

    Commenting on StefanGP’s “quixotic legal battle” with the FIA is a bit of a laugh as Ferrari have had their own fair share of battles with the governing body and StefanGP are hardly picking over the bones of Toyota, they’ve taken a load of stuff that wasn’t going to be used anyway.

    All the new teams have had to set up at a difficult time when (a) the budget cap they were signing up for never happened properly and (b) the economic conditions mean sponsors are very thin on the ground to go spreading extra thinly, and it’s not just the new teams feeling that pinch – Sauber and “Renault” look in a similar struggle.

    And finally I think it’s harsh of Ferrari to denigrate the efforts of Virgin and Lotus, who have put themselves together in short periods of time, and turned up to pre-season testing with cars. They may have reliability gremlins and overall a lack of pace, but who said starting up an F1 team in a short time was easy?

    1. The process of bringing in new teams has been poorly implemented by the FIA and the chaos of USF1 and Campos is evidence of that

      It’s just been a repeat of 2007, when they tried to bring in customer car rules, but on a bigger scale. It may well be the case that US F1 and Campos’s business plans were based on the existence of a budget cap which, like the customer car rules, failed to materialise.

      1. Totally agree Keith. Given that, it’s extra impressive thar Virgin and Lotus are there at all.

        1. I don’t see whats wrong with customer cars, afterall Lotus’s first F1 victory came courtesy of Moss who was driving a customer car.

  36. im glad atleast one new car manufacturer has come into the sport..

    i have nothing against the likes of Virgin Racing and USF1. but im all for Manufacturers..

    bring on Aston Martin, Lamborghini and Skoda :p

    1. Aston Martin would have come in had Prodrive been let in. After the debacle that surrounded their first attempt to get onto the grid, I doubt they will ever get an entry.

  37. Unfair to say that the new teams are limping into the game, because how many teams in history have started as winners from scratch? If it happened it wouldn’t reflect very well on Ferrari would it? If their argument is correct that Max drove them out then why did Ferrari stay? why MB even bought another team ?

  38. If anything, it was Ferrari’s insistence that there would not be a budget cap for 2009 that drove the car manufacturers out. Honda, Renault and BMW stated already in 2008 that they would quit if there wasn’t a budget cap soon.

    I’ll agree that Mosley’s mishandling of it didn’t help either, but the budget cap proposal for 2009 was a pretty sensible one. The budget was too high back then, but it would go down on a sensible slope. Ferrari torpedoed it though and especially Theissen was furious.

    For the 2010 budget cap proposal, Mosley was forced to come up with something ridiculous to circumvent Ferrari’s veto.

    So all in all maybe we can blame Mosley for giving Ferrari that veto as the source of all evil?

    1. Ferrari’s veto was technical.

      1. Yeah, that’s why they went to court to have their veto put on the budget cap.

  39. Would there be a such outrage if another team other than Ferrari had said this? I think not, that says it all to be honest. Typical.

    1. Yes, I believe there would. Perhaps it’s because this is Ferrari’s recurrent attitude that there is so much backlash against them.

      1. Attitude? What compared to other soulless corporate driven teams? Fair enough, the piece could have been translated from Italian to English a lot better, but at least they are voicing their opinions rather than hiding behind PR talk. Perhaps they could have done it with less ********, but I agree with them.

        1. “at least they are voicing their opinions rather than hiding behind PR talk”

          I get your point there, don’t get me wrong. But voicing your opinion is not a good enough reason to insult other teams – especially since those new teams will be Ferrari’s partners within FOTA. It’s a bit hypocritical to talk about how others have had a negative impact on the sport while at the same time setting the stage for more acrimony.

      2. Ferrari knows that they are 51% of F1.

        1. Fluidd with the greatest respect Ferrari are not 51% of F1 and although it is one of the main teams F1 could and would continue without them if need be (as there are too many vested intrests) although it would be a big blow just as if any of the “Big” teams left for example (McLarren etc)

          1. I must be honest i find a lot of these Ferrari statements a bit like a baby throwing all the toys out of the pram after all Mosley has now left the FIA still has problems but they seem to be sorted (very slowly) and generally this had all but blow over.

            So in my view they should just pipe down and let us enjoy the season and (god forbid enjoy the racing!!!)

    2. I agree Rachel. Everyone is slagging off USF1 and Campos but as soon as Ferrari say it everyone turns on Ferrari.

      If Mclaren said this I imagine everyone would be agreeing with them and approve of them for saying it like it is.

      1. “If Mclaren said this I imagine everyone would be agreeing with them and approve of them for saying it like it is.”

        Possibly the point being that other teams wouldn’t do this in the first place and would hopefully have more respect for their competitors.

      2. Tommmy you know thats rubbish, for every Ferrari hater theres three McLaren haters, usually tifosi. Apart from the fact that McLaren just wouldn’t act out like this they would be nailed to the wall if they did.

        Ferrari are passionate, which is good, but this wasn’t passion it was points of vaired worth coated in bile and sacarsm. It’s been said above, respect your competitiors an this showed a distinct lack of respect.

        Also just because people on a forum have been attacking the new teams what gives Ferrari the right to do the same, they are a venerated racing leged, what they say people listen to, so normaly they’d be obliged to show some common courtesy rather than resorting to childing name calling. That fact that Ferrari ocasionaly losses its manners isn’t an example of its passion.

  40. HounslowBusGarage
    23rd February 2010, 13:38

    Well, at least it’s given us something to chat about until the next test session.
    Essentially, there’s nothing new from Ferrari and nothing they can really achieve with statements like that. But they’d better hope they never, ever get beaten by one of the ‘limping’ or ‘vulture’ teams.

  41. Since much of the focus of this debate is about the greed and arrogance of manufacturer teams and the poor independents begging for a place on the grid, I thought it would be nice to have a look at the entry list from the 1992 Season (the first full F1 season I watched.

    1992 Entry List: McLaren Honda, Tyrrell Illmor, Williams Renault, Brabham Judd, Footwork Mugen Honda, Lotus Ford, Fondmetal Ford, March Illmor, Benetton Ford, Dallara Ferrari, Minardi Lamborghini, Ligier Renault, Ferrari, Larrouse Venturi, Lamborghini, Jordan Yamaha, Andrea Moda Judd.

    This made for interesting reading. There was only 1 full manufacturer team (Ferrari), and 2 teams with “factory engines” (McLaren and Williams). The racing was great! Sure Williams dominated, but we had Senna in a McLaren, a young upstart German in a Benetton who everybody said would be the next big thing, and V12 Ferrari’s howling round the place driven by mad French-Sicillians! Many of the names from 1992 are gone, be it because they folded or because they morphed into new entities, and many didn’t even make it to the end of the season, but Formula One’s reputation as the pinnacle of motorsport wasn’t tarnished and the demise of small independents didn’t devalue the sport. And new viewers weren’t pushed away because a lot of the readers of this blog started watching F1 around the same time!

    Personally I think Ferrari is sadly mistaken if they think that the age of manufacturer dominated F1 is still alive and kicking. The world is still feeling the effects of the global economic crisis and no board of any major manufacturer is going to embark on an F1 project which will be won by the team with the biggest budget in these circumstances. Want proof? Mercedes bought Brawn GP with Aabar Investments to “share the risk” and if the team doesn’t win, they will pull the plug on the project. The days when the manufacturer teams could shout and the independents would tow the line are gone.

    Long live Formula Independent! It’s so good to have you back!

    1. You deserve a medal for what you wrote above … but and I must add a big BUT … the reason why F1 is going downhill is because of the independents. Those independents will never bring stability to the sport and prestige and because of that every year we will see an equivalent of USF1.

      1. To save Ferrari from tarnishing their name, maybe they should enter as Scuderia Maserati!

        That would even be in the best traditions of the sport, as all teams are being renamed continueously (for example:Tyrell- BAR- -Honda- Brawn- Mercedes) ;-)

      2. I respectfully disagree. The reason for the “downfall of F1” as you call it is that manufacturers like BMW, Honda, Toyota and Renault come into F1 as full manufacturer teams and think that they can win (and get us to buy their cars) by chucking bucket loads of cash at the sport, and it just doesn’t work like that. It never has. So I don’t actually blame Ferrari, they just happened to keep on beating the other manufacturers while they were spending like crazy.

        Thanks to them, F1 is no longer a battle of wits between very clever men with compasses, set squares and cups of tea slaving over blue prints until 3 in the morning. It’s just a spending race. The days when an independent team could rock up at any given track with a well sorted chassis and a Ford V8 and challenge the big boys (as Benetton did very very well for a number of years) are over. And the sport is worse off for it.

        And what exactly is wrong with having teams come into the sport, try, fail and go? That’s what sport is all about! I’m all for USF1 getting onto the grid. I don’t care if they last 5 minutes or win 5 constructors championships, it all adds to the flavour and helps make F1 what it is. If the FIA only let teams on the grid if they had a real chance of winning we would end up with 3 teams tops. If you used the same logic Ferrari is trying to get us to swallow and apply it to football, the English Premier League would only have 4 teams, and no one would ever be allowed to be promoted from the Championship, and that would be more of a farce than having a tem of Americans lapping 8 seconds slower than anyone else.

        1. Your soccer analogy does not apply in this case and you know why ? because there are no GP2 teams to promoted to F1 , that is why !

          I do know that is impossible to have only car manufacturers on the gird , but let them have the majority , let them battle for their own badges.

          It’s hard to bring them to compete in F1 , but when you get 1 then you know the sport will grow. Do you believe that is necessary that before every f1 season starts there should be this much fuss ?

          The controversy in created by those money-sucking independents that makes F1 cheap.

          1. There are GP2 teams promoting to F1. Stewart did and Campos Meta is trying it. Didn’t Williams come from a lower class too?

            I’m pretty sure it happens quite often that a GP2/Formula 3000 team (or whatever it was called at the time) makes the jump to F1

          2. Of the teams currently entered into the 2010 championship, all but 3-4 have graduated in some way from the lower formulas.

            McLaren were effectively taken over in 1980 by Ron Dennis and his Project Four organisation, which had run cars in the lower levels and was looking to move up to F1. Marlboro brokered the deal because they thought Project Four could do a better job than the original McLaren management.

            Mercedes has some fairly tenuous links with Tyrrell, via Honda and BAR, which started running cars in the lower formulas. I wouldn’t count them though, given that BAR bore no real link to Tyrrell beyond the entry.

            Red Bull was Jaguar and before that Stewart, which had started as a team running in Formula Opel/Vauxhall Lotus, British F3 and F3000.

            Ferrari were running racing cars before F1 was created.

            Williams in its current form started in F1, but Frank Williams’ first F1 venture (also called Williams before it was sold to Walter Wolf and renamed after him) ran cars in Formula 2.

            Sauber started in hillclimbing before progressing to sportscars and then F1.

            Renault was Benetton and before that Toleman, which started in British Formula Ford 2000 and progressed to Formula 2 before making the step up to F1.

            Force India was Jordan, via Spyker and Midland, which started running cars in F3, Atlantic and F3000.

            Toro Rosso was Minardi, which started in European Formula 2.

            Lotus and USF1 have been started as F1 teams, although many of the senior employees have considerable experience in F1 and other formulas.

            Virgin is being run by Manor Motorsport, which ran one Lewis Hamilton to the British Formula Renault title and also ran cars in F3.

            Campos have roots in F3 and GP2.

  42. Their problem is that people let Ferrari get away with comments like these simply because they are Ferrari – and nothing else.

    They have always been vocal about anything they don’t like and I think they are that way because of the arrogance of their status.

    Contrary to popular belief, Ferrari are a team who COMPETE in F1, they are NOT F1.

    And their comments and actions regarding the breakaway series, as echoed by other manufacturers was a complete empty threat, as the manufacturers got up and left, and if the series did occur, Ferrari would have been left as the virtual sole racer in the breakaway, and would probably been begging to get back into F1. (I would have loved to have seen that – the look on Ferrari’s face as the manufacturers took off towards the horizon).

    Their threats, comments and repeated contempt for other teams tells me and many others of the way that Ferrari operates: it’s because people let them.

    That’s why Max Mosely told them to leave F1 if they weren’t happy. I’m sure that if they did they would have been a lot more careful with their words today.

  43. I like Ferrari’s ideas except the third car idea. Apart from that they are making a lot of sense, the rules are stifling excitement and we could have more manufacturer pullouts if they don’t have something to aim for. Christian Horner also said something about this recently.

    di Montezemolo is a voice of sanity in the sport, even if you don’t like Ferrari’s “style”.

    I’ve learned from following Obama’s presidency, that just because you have good “articulation” does not neccessarily indicate intelligence or leadership capabilities. And likewise, having poor “communication skills” doesn’t mean you can’t have good substance.

  44. Accidental Mick
    23rd February 2010, 14:31

    That is a good point raised by The Nude Wizard (above). Drivers have to prove their ability in feeder series before they can apply for a superlicense, perhaps manufacturers should be required to do the same.

    1. Like Campos and Manor? Oh wait, no, they did prove themselves as GP2 or F3 Euroseries teams already.

      1. Correct, but how about USF1 or the new incarnation of Lotus?

        1. Lotus seems to be doing fine.

          USF1 seems a mess, but their employees (especially the designers and management) come from racing teams. Even from f1 teams.

          What I think is the problem is the short deadlines and of course the rush to get new team in.

          New teams should apply a lot earlier and take longer to prepare.

          Of course the problem is the rule changes, but then simply fix the rule changes earlier. Or simply don’t change the rules for a year.

  45. The issue at the heart of this lies in the fact there are two controlling factors in F1- money and technical regulation. Only one can be relaxed at a time otherwise the competitive spectacle would be over with the team with most cash winning every race.
    As I would much prefer to see innovative, technically challenging cars on the track and a limit on budget.
    What this sport needs is a budget cap of around £150m increasing at RPI. It is enough to put 2 cars on the track and feed the F1 development beast, it is enough for the manufacturers to have the built in advantage they seem to require as even the best commercialised non manufacturer teams generate £80-100m from sponsorship, licensing and FOM TV money.
    The issue is team that was most creative within the budget would win and allow the FIA to relax tech regs so that they could build a car with some real innovation. Teams estimated that if they were allowed active aero and 4WD that they could build a car that was 4secs a lap quicker than the cars of today at £60m pa)
    As for Ferrari’s posturing, there is no doubt that they are an important team who have stuck with F1 through thick and thin and that deserves recognition. But I don’t think any man is bigger than the team and any team bigger than the sport. If Ferrari were to leave I’d enter a VW backed team from Lambo F1, I’d livery the car in red and 10 years from then Ferrari would be a memory consigned to second tier championship like Le Mans or FIA GT.

    1. “What this sport needs is a budget cap of around £150m increasing at RPI”

      No offence intended, but £150m isn’t much less than they are spending now. And very,very, few established teams can currently guarantee that they will have £80 mil next season.

      It’s also more than possible to build faster F1 cars on a £40 mil budget than it is on the current £200 mil plus budgets. So nothing will be lost by teams spending less. Indeed, if you open up the regs on a budget cap, things will get more interesting.

      As for Ferrari’s comments…you would only think that they had come into F1 in 1996.

      Necessity is the Mother of invention.

      1. Wrong !

        Necessity is the mother of compromise.

        1. That’s not what is written in idium text books. ;)

          When people are faced with difficulty they will find innovative ways of getting around problems. Not so when you think that money can solve them all.

      2. ‘It’s also more than possible to build faster F1 cars on a £40 mil budget than it is on the current £200 mil plus budgets. So nothing will be lost by teams spending less. Indeed, if you open up the regs on a budget cap, things will get more interesting.’

        that’s curious because by golley if that was true I am sure we would see virgin MILES ahead of the top teams. what you mean to say it is possible to have fast cars at £40 million pounds if you open up restrictions. well yes this is true, but those same cars would be even faster for the same restrictions at £200 million.

        what they should do is have a money tier system whereby the restrictions change depending on the quantity of money spent i.e those who spend £20 million only can have a flexible rear wing but that really leaves them with little to spend on the rest of the car. it would improve variety amongst the cars (as that kind of car would for example be faster on straights) and allow smaller teams to compete

  46. i dont understand how they say 3 car teams will reduce costs..?

    i really dont like the idea. there is no doubt it will turn into 1 main driver and 2 defenders.. so to speak

    as for the 1 car entry.. again i dont know..?

    i think new teams should be given a dead line
    if you car isnt ready by a given date.. then tough you wont be on the grid..

    that way i think it will give other teams the chance to get a place rather than waiting in the wings and hoping for the best much like Campos are doing

  47. I think Ferrari is correct! This new teams are very, very drek!

  48. K. Chandra Shekhar
    23rd February 2010, 15:51

    Thank God the greatest driver Senna didn’t drive for Ferrari. (Luca will credit the car and not his driving abilities.)
    Solution for Lucas 3cars. Instead of 3 cars let him provide all the cars. Name the teams Santander Ferrari, Scuderia Ferrari, Fiat Ferrari, Maserati Ferrari, Aldar Ferrari, Shell Ferrari, AMD Ferrari, Mubadala Ferrari, Etihad Ferrari, Alice Ferrari and call the championship F1 (Ferrari 1 and not Formula 1). Like this its a guarantee for Luca that every year Ferrari will win.
    The original Formula1 can have teams like Williams, McLaren, Lotus, Benetton(renault), Force India, Red Bull, Mercedes, etc., Every company starts from scratch. If this wasn’t then we wouldn’t have seen some great teams like McLaren, Williams, etc. Yes there are some exceptions like USF1, etc., but we have to look for the cause. The one Blunder which FIA made was Cosworth. It should have left the teams to choose which ever engine they preffered.

  49. Another example of how Ferrari live in a world of their own.

    1. Aleksandar Serbia
      23rd February 2010, 18:08

      Well F1 let them, i wonder would they exit now when they got substantial cash?

      Bernie does not realize, Ferrari is not weak as it once was, and they need F1 to market themselves, so there is no need for exclusivity on their part.
      They should be pressured and whipped for arrogance, but how can it be?
      Troy has fallen, they have put Jean Todt in the wooden horse and infiltrated the city!

      1. In a rather pleasing reveresal Jean Todt is now presicely the man to give Ferrari the slap back to reality it so desperateley needs. After his falling out with Monty he sees Ferrari in relation to F1 rather clearer than the rest of us.

        Basically he knows it was him who made them great again, even rampante can’t deny that. He knows that more than a quarter of F1’s global audience is a Ferrari Fan. Far more than any other. F1 is Ferrari’s big marketing tool, they need it just as badly as we need them. He has the inside knowledge on quite how much Ferrari needs F1, especially considering the way they stuck with it through the bad times. But he also knows they’re just a team and sees set to treat them so, Ferrari’s deamands for fair governance is what we all want. An what he seems to want to deliver, their demands for special priveldge don’t look like cutting much mustard with Todt.

        Ferrari will find themselves treated fairly but no better than that. That way if they leave they look like spoilt kids, an if they stay we all benefit. Todt is obviously fond of Ferrari but knows how much they need him. He seems to be more fond of motorsport, his aim as FIA president is clear, turn the organisation into the body that motorsport needs, not the body the FIA wants to be.

  50. OK. Lots of people have said lots of things here, like one car teams, some even supporting the outrageous 3 car idea, but the truth is, FIA is killing F1. Ferrari or no Ferrari, F1 needs serious restructuring to save itself. First of all, management is terrible, absolutely terrible. USF1/Campos is the most recent example. Why were these teams granted an entry without proper assessment of funding/sponsorship? Why did Mosley (the killer) allow such poor judgment on behalf of the FIA? Look at F1, how unbalanced it is – one team in the shape of Ferrari is pitching for a third car whereas a team like USF1 isn’t able to produce even one! Why aren’t finances regulated properly? Budget caps are not such a bad idea afterall! Ferrari and McLaren were dead against it for obvious reasons, their insane budgets meant they were always ahead of the others in development etc. but that didn’t stop Brawn/Red Bull from whipping their behinds last season. So, if there was to be a serious budget cap, they’d have a very reasonable fear of losing! That means, these teams (Ferrari/McLaren) are totally incompetent, they don’t have enough belief in themselves. If a team like Force India could stun everyone with a competitive car and a team like Brawn (who were almost finished after Honda pulled out) could come and grab both titles, it means big budgets are just a farce and show the inability of the big-budget teams. A change in regulations swept ’em off their feet. Clearly, talent, innovation and a desire to be competitive in true means proved more fruitful than money and politics. A BIG lesson. Toyota spent INSANE amounts but hardly saw any success. So, I’m completely in favor of the budget cap for starters. What it’d do is, create a level playing field for all teams. Talent would matter more than the money and that makes sense to me.
    If Ferrari think that they rule the sport then they’re so wrong! Someone mentioned a third of F1 fans being Ferrari fans, I’d like to correct that statement, not Ferrari, but Schumacher fans. It’s absolute ******** to think that if Ferrari left, F1 would die! NO! WRONG! There’s much more to F1 than just Ferrari. The real fans love F1, not just Ferrari. Maybe we’d lose a lot of stupid people who don’t understand the sport and just ‘support’ Ferrari, but that certainly won’t kill F1.
    Same goes for McLaren, they need to stop spying, cheating, lying and all that. If you can’t compete on fair terms, then you can very well get the hell out of F1. Ferrari have been misusing their position for long, dictating terms to a certain extent and gobbling up a lot of the sport’s earnings, and that has hurt the sport.
    Toyota leaving F1 was party their own fault, spending mindlessly while not giving enough thought to what actually works. Same goes for BMW, they may not have spent as much, but undoubtedly didn’t invest in good management and brains.
    So, three car strategy, total BS.
    Teams like Virgin and Lotus should be encouraged and Ferrari should be slapped on the wrist for taking a dig at them. They’re becoming desperate, now that they see that they’ve got so much competition. All these years they pretty much had just one competitor, McLaren, now they’ve got atleast three, McLaren, RB and MercGP! Adding to that are teams like Force India and Williams which are coming up very strongly. Not to forget Renault who’ve proven their might more than once, it’s just a matter of time before they bounced back too! So much competition is probably too much to handle for Ferrari and they’re going bonkers over new teams entering as you never know what surprises they’d throw in their 2nd or 3rd season!
    It’s a very good thing to see new teams entering after a very bad phase in F1. Everything should be done to encourage these teams to do well. The sport needs competition, healthy competition and a level field. It’s high time people understood this.
    And Bernie, well… He’s terrible, he’s a lunatic! CVC need to cut down their greed and, for a change, try and think about the health of the sport. 50% of earnings is way too much. Bernie is not thinking about F1 beyond him and that’s very evident from his ways. If they took 10 to 15% and put the rest back into the sport, it could work wonders.
    Telecast has to improve by leaps and bounds to come to 2010 levels. (Atleast HD for starters!)
    There are a lot of things that need to change.
    Ferrari can keep their lame thoughts to themselves and people who think F1 would suffer if they left, are living in a pond. Ferrari would never leave F1, as it would hurt them more than it would hurt F1. Think about it.

    1. “Ferrari would never leave F1, as it would hurt them more than it would hurt F1. Think about it.”

      This is actually true , but if it were to happen then those “stupid people who don’t understand the sport and just ’support’ Ferrari” will no longer spend their money on F1.

      No money , no honey !

      As for the “independents” as long as they have big sponsors and the means to develop the car then I must say yes , join F1. Managing to contract a big sponsor is really hard for an independent and that is why FIA should “bend over” and do whatever it takes to make them join this prestigious automotive competition.

      1. When I say “them” I mean valid sponsored teams as independent entries or car manufacturers

  51. If I were a back-marker team this season, which team would I now be less willing to let lap one of my cars?

    1. HounslowBusGarage
      23rd February 2010, 19:44

      Can’t possibly imagine.
      Removes tongue from cheek.
      If I had a few billions to spare, it would be very tempting to start a F1 team called the Limping Vultures.

  52. Although a bit outrageous, Ferrari is right about the FIA not wanting to protect the manufacturers while they do intervene for the small teams. Lets not forget that if it were for Mosley, we would have teams running a single standard engine (the cosworth) which was imposed on all new entrants. That marked the way for prodrive to once again forget its F1 entry and the like of eventually seeing Aston Martin
    (owned by prodrive) back in F1 in the future. The Japs also left due to instability and sure maybe a bit the crisis and their lack of winning. But lets remember that its also hard to translate building fast cars into dull once on the road, or the other way around. BMW was another great name again lost and this time fully. At least before teams could purchase their engines. I believe the rules have to be stabilized, but also have to enable innovation. maybe leave free development of green technologies or other road development techs that can give the sport a bit more relevance and a bigger reason for the manufacturers to stay. This might go a bit to far, but maybe an Audi team running their diesel V12 for example. and definitely, they should stop tinkering with the aerodynamics so much (in a visual way) because the 2009 regulations with the tall and shorter rear wings and the funny looking front spoilers sort of screwed up the cars.

    1. Although Mosley’s standardisation drive was madness, F1 was never about manufacturers.

      Cast your mind back to the ‘glory years’ of F1.

      1. Is Cosworth a manufacturer?

  53. I’m in agreement with “Rits” on the big team thing. I think there is a lot in that statement about them having the insane budgets and not wanting to lose them. They are big teams, overly big, unwieldy and unnecessarily oversized.

    Virgin on a 50mill budget with a new untested car was lapping within 4 seconds behind the McLaren at one of the tests, so it goes to prove you don’t need a massive budget to go a long way. You need a team that manages its resources, which is something Mclaren (particuarly) and Ferrari are very bad at and something Red Bull are good at.

    if BMW and Toyota hadn’t overspent in the early 00’s, they may still be in the sport today. Toyota were throwing in something like $400m at one stage, it was just insane. Ultimately F1 is about racing cars and drivers, they don’t need big car manufacturers in the sport, or any team for that matter that only races in the good times.

    By the way F1 would survive without Ferrari, it’ll always be the pinnacle of motorsport whether ferrari are there or not. They won’t leave anyway, it’ll hurt them too much.

    1. there is a book you may want to read, although you can find the main fact of it on the web (in fact i think even on this site). its about the finance of f1 (i think the title is the money of f1) and it shows all of the facts about money. look at it; look at what you have written; then apologise…. your statement is so flawed it is comical.

      1. Why don’t you divulge what you know rather than just trying to make me look silly? Your talking like F1 fianances are common knowledge when they are clearly NOT.

        I was taking figures from memory.

        Red Bull’s budget didn’t used to be massive and Toyota were spending 400 million at one stage.

        McLaren’s budget is the largest up there with ferrari and they’ve only won a single title in fifteen years, bad resource management.

        1. Mark, which bits are you exactly upset about?
          you didn’t quite say….

          even if he said is not all correct his ideas and the point he’s trying to make are still valid.

          1. my apologies for much of what i said was unnecessarily blunt and harsh. the book to which i refer is called formula money (here is an example link which I personally found very interesting. it is an expensive book at almost $200 USD but very factually interesting. with a bit of googling you will find the team budget statistics on the web. if you look at the budgets their is certainly a link between performance and budget.

            John what i object tot is this idea that at present small budgets are competitive and that they go a long way. for the sum of £10 i could make a simple cart and tootle around barcelona in maybe 10 minutes representing a far better time / pound than any f1 team. all of that £160 million you spoke of goes into finding those 4 seconds because the laws of economics make it increasingly expensive to find an extra second over my cart. i object to this idea that virgin can even begin to be seen as competitive – 4 seconds a lap equates to 2 minutes over a very short 30 lap course or almost a lap an a half. Simply put – that is not competition.

          2. pardon me remove that last bracket to make the link work.

  54. I anyone is interested to know the meaning of Adam Smiths “invisible hand”:

    “He is most often recognized for the expression “the invisible hand,” which he used to demonstrate how self-interest guides the most efficient use of resources in a nation’s economy, with public welfare coming as a by-product. To underscore his laissez-faire convictions, Smith argued that state and personal efforts, to promote social good are ineffectual compared to unbridled market forces.”

    1. Yes, and look where it’s got the world economy.

  55. If Ferrari said that it was going to rain tomorrow this site would have 200 posts complaining that it won’t.
    F1 and premier racing has been here a lot longer than most pre pubescent teenagers that think all F1 info comes from play stations and google. This thread has had suggestions of “great” teams that can’t even make limited testing, single cars and lamentable tales of mediocre teams. Cars don’t go fast because they have nice colours or drivers have cool helmets. This sport was based on people who risked their lives for speed and passion and none of the new teams offer any of this.
    Ferrari do not need F1 to sell the very small amount of car they make every year(look at Aston Martin and Maserati who out with GT have not raced for 50 years) like others do. The true heroes of the sport like Chapman, Mclaren, WO Bentley, Jack Brabham and Enzo Ferrari must all be in a level of hell that not even Dante was aware of if they could see what is happening to the sport. F1 has a few people left to defend it and let’s all hope Frank Williams, Patrick Head, Peter Sauber, Luca Di Montezemelo and Ross Brawn can save it.
    I never thought I would hope that Uncle Ron would come back to support the credibility this sport once had.

    1. “If Ferrari said that it was going to rain tomorrow this site would have 200 posts complaining that it won’t.”

      Only Ferrari would have the arrogance to think that we all want to know from them what the weather is going to be like tomorrow.

      “Ferrari do not need F1 to sell the very small amount of car they make every year(look at Aston Martin and Maserati who out with GT have not raced for 50 years) like others do.”

      This is true, but the 200 million a year handout from Philip Morris comes in handy.

      “F1 has a few people left to defend it and let’s all hope Frank Williams, Patrick Head, Peter Sauber, Luca Di Montezemelo and Ross Brawn can save it.”

      One of them is fully in favour of a budget cap (another is in the same team). One is most definitely not. One has scraped together an F1 team and the other ‘sold out’ to a manufacturer that wants to stand on his ‘shoulders of success’.

      1. I forgot Hugo Boss, Vodafone, Mobil and the rest only give there respective teams 10 pounds(don’t have the sign on my keyboard) a year. Others were more than willing to take money from B&H, JPS, Mild Seven oh and West or were they a toy manufacturer? If Philip Morris are daft enough to continue with a bar code that is not a problem to myself or many others. If anyone here over the age of 30 can remember Williams without Rothmans or Mclaren without Malboro and most prominent of all the JPS Lotus they were not watching F1!

        1. “If Philip Morris are daft enough to continue with a bar code that is not a problem to myself or many others.”

          The fact of the matter is that a cigarette manufacturer is gaining from its participation in F1.

    2. “This sport was based on people who risked their lives for speed and passion and none of the new teams offer any of this”

      Umm, huh?

  56. “I never thought I would hope that Uncle Ron would come back to support the credibility this sport once had.”

    This made me giggle.

  57. La sua dignita’ non era mai in questione.
    His dignity was never in question(want to keep to forun rules with language)

  58. Perhaps something has been lost in translation.

    I wondered why it read like a bad translation through babelfish…

    When is Ferrari goping to stop playing this game? Like most, they make both good and bad points, some of both reflective of their own interests. But why do they think they can talk in this haughty manner? Okay Ferrari, we’ll go back to the glory days, you know, the ones where you were nowhere? Oh, I see, the other glory days…

  59. I may sound crazy but I think F1 should be a sports where I want to see more manufacturer than private teams.It’s the pinnacle of motorsports so the car companies can use this to develop their road car.Like many of Ferrari’s car have traction control which F1 cars used to have years ago.
    I think the third car idea is really bonkers,as it will push the smaller teams into bigger trouble.

  60. I personally quite enjoyed Ferrari’s little statement. Drivers these days are always getting hounded for their robot-ness and corporate-chat so it is refreshing to see someone speaking out even if I do not necessarily agree with all of it…

    I’m not keen on the 3-car idea, even if there was no points scoring for the 3rd-placed car, as pointed out the additional data gained from running another car would be pretty handy in today’s testing-limited era.

    I am quite keen on the idea of customer cars as mentioned by PF, but that particular concept would necessitate a sustained period of regulation freezes.

    And further to my first point – if a driver had said that we would all have applauded him.

    1. 100% agree with your comment James (about Ferrari as I’m not sure on customer cars :P ). Nice one

  61. 112nd?

    Haha. I got a kick out of that. simple things.

  62. To sum up everyone: We should get rid of Bernie, FIA, Ferrari, Mclaren, Renault

    1. Lets get rid of Formula 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!

  63. I think the problem here is that the championship has shifted away from the billion dollar manufacturers and more towards the independant teams. What we must remember is that twenty years ago, F1 was made up of a slew of independant teams of the ilk of Force India and Williams. Most of them either went to the wall, or were bought by the big manufacturers and rebranded.
    In Ferrari’s case, they have evolved from and independant team into a huge global brand. It bears remembering that Ferrari were a racing team first, and a car manufacturer second during the early years. That was very important to Enzo Ferrari, and he resisted many attempts by companies trying to buy him out.
    Ferrari are annoyed, as any dominant team would be, to see the grid full of emerging independant teams. They are simply looking after their own interests, which may or may not be in the best interest of the sport, but are certainly in the best interest of Ferrari as a team. When we look back to say 1992 through 1996, we saw the same politics from Frank Williams and his team, as they at that moment were the top dogs in the sport with the best performing racing cars.
    Three car teams would cripple the sport, and make both championships look like jokes. The one thing I don’t like about NASCAR is that teams run up to four cars at each event, and unless you are in a Rick Hendrick machine, you might aswell forget it. I say keep it as it is, and lower the running costs for the teams to try and encourage fresh independant teams into the sport.
    The likes of Honda and Toyota will return, as long as F1 remains a relevant championship.

  64. Couldn’t agree more.Mosley was the problem,ego & family history drove him over the edge.Been following F1 for morem than 30 years so I speak from experience.Said from day 1, USF1 was a dream, never goting to make grid.

  65. the writer of this article sounds like a Hamilton fan, me no like

  66. Get rid of Bernie , the vampire sucking the life out of F1 . Limit the cost and workforce . Open up regulations . Stop changing the rules just for the sake of changing them , let there be a review of rules at a fixed interval .

  67. The ferrari baby in the room is clearly not happy. I have begun to deeply loath ferrari. And this is all the more sad as I was a life long fan not so long ago. This latest rant should prove to anyone that no one team should be above or dictate the motorsports law.

    If ferrari ever decided to leave F1 (which would not concern me in the slightest and may well improve the sport), we would see unprofessionality and vitriol in its extreme, which the media will love. What is all the more sadder is that one would have thought that with all their experience, they should no better than this. Shamefull…

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.