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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. 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

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

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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.

  12. 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?

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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?

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

    This made me giggle.

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

  18. 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…

  19. 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.

  20. 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

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.