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

2010 F1 season

Ferrari believes Virgin are "limping" into F1

Ferrari believes Virgin are "limping" into F1

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 ?ǣ you can be sure it is not the hand of Adam Smith ?ǣ 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

Advert | Go Ad-free


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

  1. Chalky said on 23rd February 2010, 9:54

    “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?

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 23rd February 2010, 10:09

      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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 23rd February 2010, 10:11

    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?

    • Aleksandar Serbia said on 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?

    • GeeMac said on 23rd February 2010, 10:32

      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! ;-)

    • William Wilgus said on 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.

    • Oliver said on 23rd February 2010, 12:17

      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.

      • Scribe said on 23rd February 2010, 18:32

        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.

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

  5. rampante said on 23rd February 2010, 10:43

    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?

    • maciek said on 23rd February 2010, 11:11

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

      • 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.

        • maciek said on 24th February 2010, 7:26

          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.

          • 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.

          • 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.

    • 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.

  6. HounslowBusGarage said on 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?

    • Oliver said on 23rd February 2010, 12:33

      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.

  7. Prisoner Monkeys said on 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.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 23rd February 2010, 11:15

      Great comment.

      • Prisoner Monkeys said on 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.

      • 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.

    • Aleksandar Serbia said on 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!

    • rampante said on 23rd February 2010, 12:12

      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.

      • Prisoner Monkeys said on 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.

        • rampante said on 23rd February 2010, 12:34

          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.

    • 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.

      • “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.

        • 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

        • 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.

          • HounslowBusGarage said on 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.

          • rampante said on 23rd February 2010, 19:56

            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.

          • HounslowBusGarage said on 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.

          • 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.

          • Oliver said on 24th February 2010, 8:33

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

    • 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.

  8. sato113 said on 23rd February 2010, 11:15

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

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

    • MuzzleFlash said on 23rd February 2010, 11:57

      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.

    • Prisoner Monkeys said on 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.

      • 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)

        • read it back plz… McLaren is not Mercedes!

        • Prisoner Monkeys said on 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.

          • 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.

  11. John H said on 23rd February 2010, 11:51

    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?

  12. Oliver said on 23rd February 2010, 11:53

    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.

    • Aleksandar Serbia said on 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 ;)

  13. DanThorn said on 23rd February 2010, 12:15

    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.

  14. Ronman said on 23rd February 2010, 12:27

    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…

    • John H said on 23rd February 2010, 13:21

      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?

  15. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 23rd February 2010, 12:33

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

Add your comment

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

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.