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. The Nude Wizard said on 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.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 23rd February 2010, 12:58

      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.

      • The Nude Wizard said on 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

    • 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!

      • The Nude Wizard said on 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 ;)

        • 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!

          • 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.

          • David A said on 26th February 2010, 16:53

            “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.

    • 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 :)

    • “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.


    • donwatters said on 23rd February 2010, 15:55

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

  2. 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!

  3. Bartholomew said on 23rd February 2010, 13:03

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

  4. 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.

  5. Robert McKay said on 23rd February 2010, 13:08

    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?

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 23rd February 2010, 14:07

      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.

      • Robert McKay said on 23rd February 2010, 14:13

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

        • 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.

  6. 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

    • GeeMac said on 23rd February 2010, 13:51

      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.

  7. JHunt123 said on 23rd February 2010, 13:10

    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 ?

  8. Patrickl said on 23rd February 2010, 13:13

    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?

  9. Rachel said on 23rd February 2010, 13:37

    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.

    • maciek said on 23rd February 2010, 13:46

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

      • Rachel said on 23rd February 2010, 13:50

        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.

        • maciek said on 23rd February 2010, 16:42

          “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.

      • FLuidd said on 23rd February 2010, 13:50

        Ferrari knows that they are 51% of F1.

        • 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)

          • 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!!!)

    • 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.

      • “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.

      • Scribe said on 23rd February 2010, 18:55

        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.

  10. HounslowBusGarage said on 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.

  11. GeeMac said on 23rd February 2010, 13:49

    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!

    • FLuidd said on 23rd February 2010, 13:57

      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.

      • 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) ;-)

      • GeeMac said on 23rd February 2010, 14:58

        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.

        • FLuidd said on 23rd February 2010, 15:53

          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.

          • Patrickl said on 23rd February 2010, 17:31

            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

          • 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.

  12. 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.

  13. Rob R. said on 23rd February 2010, 14:07

    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.

  14. Accidental Mick said on 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.

    • Patrickl said on 23rd February 2010, 17:38

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

      • David A said on 24th February 2010, 0:59

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

        • Patrickl said on 24th February 2010, 15:01

          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.

  15. Espressogrind said on 23rd February 2010, 14:37

    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.

    • “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.

      • FLuidd said on 23rd February 2010, 15:55

        Wrong !

        Necessity is the mother of compromise.

        • 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.

      • ‘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

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.