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

2010 F1 seasonPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the original statement in full:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. 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 ;)

  9. 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?

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

  11. 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.

  12. 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

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

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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 ?

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply

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

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