Ecclestone: “Jean Todt is a poor man’s Max Mosley”

2011 F1 season

Bernie Ecclestone

Bernie Ecclestone

Bernie Ecclestone has criticised FIA president Jean Todt, calling him “a poor man’s Max Mosley” in an interview with the Daily Express.

Ecclestone said Todt, who became FIA president in October 2009, has “not so much had a positive effect on Formula 1.

“He has been travelling around the world doing what Max didn?t do too much ?ǣ kissing the babies and shaking the hands. It is probably good for the FIA but we don?t need it in Formula 1.”

Ecclestone said the new 1.6-litre turbo engines planned for 2013 “doesn?t sound anything like Formula 1″.

He also criticised Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems, which have been reintroduced this year, saying: “It has just cost an awful lot of money and I don?t know what it has proven.

“I don?t think anyone knows or cares what it is or what it does. I get upset with these things.”

How do you think Jean Todt has performed as FIA president? Vote here:

Image ?? Red Bull/Getty images

Advert | Go Ad-free

113 comments on Ecclestone: “Jean Todt is a poor man’s Max Mosley”

1 2 3
  1. Loetkoe (@loetkoe) said on 24th March 2011, 5:36

    FIA isn’t all about Formula One. Isn’t it supposed to be representing all motor car users, whether they drive their own Toyota Prius to the work and back or happen to be a Formula One driver?

    • Ben Curly said on 24th March 2011, 8:50

      To be fair though, Ecclestone raises some good points here. Mosley was obviously much worse than Todt, but I happen to agree with Bernie about KERS (especially in its current, artificially restricted form), and I happen to agree about 1.6l engines.

      What we need when it comes to engines was said a thousand times before. Unlock the regulations, put a limit on available fuel, introduce a budget limit, and watch what the teams will do with their resources.

      If something should be locked in F1, it would be aerodynamic regulations. We have reached a peak in this department. It would be far better to just introduce a spec front wing and rear wing, tightly restrict underbody regulations, and unlock mechanical restrictions. This would redirect resources to really interesting areas of development.

      • Mike said on 24th March 2011, 10:13

        But how would you keep the engines similar?
        Having a engine free for all isn’t going to improve F1.

        • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 24th March 2011, 10:31

          My solution (and Max Mosley’s, which he proposed a few years ago) would be to allocate each team a fixed amount of fuel and let them develop whatever engine they wanted. That would force engine manufacturers to become efficient as well as looking for performance.

          • Ben Curly said on 24th March 2011, 10:58

            Precisely. I didn’t know that Mosley proposed that. I might start to miss him… nah, that won’t happen, but the idea is grand.

          • DVC (@dvc) said on 24th March 2011, 11:33

            That’s my preferred solution too, but I doubt that it is Bernie’s. KERS is good, or would be if it wasn’t limited. You should be able to use as much KERS power as you can generate.

          • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 24th March 2011, 12:19

            I agree DVC. And you should be allowed to deploy KERS as you see fit, not just as a “push-to-pass” button.

          • Icthyes said on 24th March 2011, 13:23

            Nothing in the rules says you can only use it for passing. Although its general uselessness means it’s usually saved for that on that particular lap.

            This is the one area I agree with you about non-standardisation. The dirty secret is that wind tunnels, aero development costs, etc. contribute a huge chunk of the expense of F1. I would rather see these standardised and the engines opened within the limits you suggested.

          • Ben Curly said on 24th March 2011, 14:01

            I doubt we will see KERS used for passing. That’s the job of DRS (which I don’t like too, by the way).

            I think that just like in 2009, we will see KERS used first and foremost for defence. It was hindering overtaking instead of encouraging it. That’s partially the reason why 2009 was so boring. Apparently nobody learned anything from that, and the rules regarding KERS stayed the same.

            Now, KERS would be great if the drivers could use it anytime, but then you would have to somehow equalize the systems. In my opinion the best way to do it would be, again, with a budget cap.

            Another, not so good solution, would be to allow a limited number of uses per race, instead of uses per lap. If you can use KERS for five defensive manoeuvres during the whole race, versus five overtaking moves, it’s better to save it for overtaking. Defensively you could waste it, not knowing if your opponent will use it or not.

            However if you have it at your disposal all the time, and you know others have it too, it’s better to use it defensively. First rule in every fight is not to get hit, in this case: not to let the other guy pass you. Unfortunately with current rules KERS is a defensive tool.

          • DVC (@dvc) said on 24th March 2011, 20:41

            The development of KERS is one place F1 can make a genuine contribution to road relevant development – which is what you want the top level of motorsport doing. But the best way to do that is to make it completely unlimited.

        • Ben Curly said on 24th March 2011, 10:55

          Why would I want to keep them similar? Innovation isn’t driven by everything being standardized. Available energy would be the same for all in the form of fuel. It’s not “free for all”. Fuel restriction is incredibly important constraint in this scenario, as well as the budget cap.

          Teams would independently come up with the ways of making their engines most efficient. They results would inevitably be in the same ballpark, but the teams could explore different constructions, and once in a while a breakthrough would happen.

          It would be closer to “the old days” than anything we see today. On top of that it would be “green” and road relevant.

          • Mike said on 24th March 2011, 12:57

            You can’t limit budgets, allow innovation, and then expect one group not to be able to jump, and stay ahead.

            I like the idea, but it isn’t realistic.

          • Icthyes said on 24th March 2011, 13:30

            Actually, it’s quite realistic. How far ahead do you think they’d be able to get on a budget of £50m, for instance?

          • Ben Curly said on 24th March 2011, 13:40

            @Mike

            Well, I think the proposal is completely logical and quite realistic. All it needs is support of the governing body. Limited budgets are necessary for level playing field anyway. We can see it even now. Those who throw more money at development are ahead, those without the money trail on the back. Some even hire paid drivers, trying to catch their wealthy competition.

            With more relaxed rules and more options to investigate the disparity would be even more apparent. Without any budget limitation the costs for some teams would go through the roof. Their advantage on track would grow and others, those without ridiculous funding, would have almost no realistic chance to catch the front runners.

            If we are ever doing to relax the rules, then budget cap is the next logical step. And relaxing some rules will be necessary at some point, because as it is right now F1 is slowly becoming a spec series.

        • hohum said on 20th June 2011, 22:37

          What do you mean an engine free for all isnt going to improve F1, how do you think Ferrari became the legend that it is. The answer is for many years they had the best engine a V12 and it took a long time for other teams to catch up. Jack Brabham won his 3rd. WDC.the 1st year of the 3l.era with an engine based on the Rover ex Buick V8, it lacked top end power but was reliable and had a broad powerband. Engines are the heart and sole of F1 and going back to a formula that was abandoned last century and restricting it to less power than it had then is going to be a disaster for the sport. Question: what’s your favourite GP2 team and why? Take out driver or National interest and what do you have, answer; a favourite pit-crew, hard to develop a long lasting, deep seated passion for that.

      • Klon (@klon) said on 24th March 2011, 15:49

        Unlock the regulations, put a limit on available fuel, introduce a budget limit, and watch what the teams will do with their resources.

        Last time somebody tried this, it nearly led to F1 breaking apart. We must have these rules because Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren etc., being the arrogant entities that they are, refuse to cut down costs.

        • Ben Curly said on 24th March 2011, 23:05

          Some of them are already committed to cutting costs. Budget cap may be hard to imagine today, but reducing costs in F1 is an ongoing process. What was impossible yesterday might be a real option tomorrow.

          Ferrari doesn’t want the budget cap, but Ferrari doesn’t want 1.6-liter engines either. They would like to see more technological freedom, because whether you like them or not, they have a great deal of experience in that department. It might lead to interesting negotiations.

        • hohum said on 20th June 2011, 22:44

          Why should they limit cost, make Bernie give back more of the revenue that he takes and the teams will have money to develop engines, make the successful engines available to other teams the second year at an agreed price fair to both the engine building teams and the non-building teams.

  2. US_Peter (@us_peter) said on 24th March 2011, 5:51

    Bernie’s certainly very political in his use of the media, and I wonder if he isn’t trying to discredit Todt in preparation for a battle for F1′s commercial rights in the new Concorde Agreement.

    • BasCB said on 24th March 2011, 6:39

      Thats exaclty how I read this. It fits perfectly with some of the things he keeps saying in the last couple of weeks.

      And I must say, that exactly the fact that Todt is not as personally involved with each turn and line and decision in F1 but keeps to getting things working inside the FIA is what I like about him. And the FIA was badly in need of that as well.
      I’d take it as a compliment, if Bernie were to take the effort of critisizing me!

    • Mouse_Nightshirt (@mouse_nightshirt) said on 24th March 2011, 7:17

      But I don’t understand how he thinks this will help his corner. Talking like an idiot loses you respect Bernie…

      • BBT said on 24th March 2011, 7:46

        has he got any to lose?

        • Bigbadderboom said on 24th March 2011, 10:38

          Agree, Bernie drawing battle plans and beggining already to cause divides. Seems an agressive strategy to develop unless he is very sure of having a lot of support. I’m sure with the withdrawel of most of the manufacturers in recent years he probably feels confident in his ability to keep the teams on side should major disputes arise.

    • Maria said on 29th March 2011, 6:17

      You bet. The old same game.

  3. HxCas (@hxcas) said on 24th March 2011, 5:57

    KERS is bad but shortcuts, medals and artificial rain are good to go. Nice.

    • somerandomguy said on 24th March 2011, 6:17

      Lol. Bernies losing his marbles

      • BasCB said on 24th March 2011, 6:42

        That was when he threw them on track to “improve the show”.

        To be honest to the man, in that latest BBC interview he said there was not that much wrong with F1. But when asked about what to improve he continued to say the KERS, DRS and new engines were bad, why not look at his great ideas.

        • bobo (@bobo) said on 24th March 2011, 10:01

          Is there any way to get rid of this big mouthed clown / jester?

          I guess not till he makes f1 lose money, then it’ll have been obvious all along that his management was destructive…LOL

          God I hate myself.

    • GeeMac (@geemac) said on 24th March 2011, 6:23

      Exactly…I just shake my head whenever he suggests how to make the sport “better”.

  4. Butterfly said on 24th March 2011, 6:17

    No really, Bernie is right about the new engine & KERS.

    • John H said on 24th March 2011, 13:47

      I 100% agree. Problem his that his stupid sprinkler comments dilute his genuinely good ones.

      • Weal, that and it’s clear he’s stopped caring about F1. Seriously, for all he care’s F1 might as well be the WWE/F/C or whatever it’s called now. All that matters is the money, the Autralia debacle goes a fair way to proving that.

        I think four cylinder turbo’s with kersy and other electric extra’s sounds fine. So long as it produces around 750 to 1000 BHP and doesn’t weigh much more than the current cars. F1 exsits in a world that’s going to be experiancing climate disasters before to long. It won’t look good if we sit there with massive engines, admiring the noise and the finger for the rest, what do you care more about, the fastest racers in the world or what is essentially just a noise when it comes to spectating.

        Todt has been excellent for both F1 and the FIA in many respects. Not perfect but who is, the organisation was an absolute shambles under Mosley, corrupt and not fit for purpose. It’s improving, an fair doesn’t suit Bernie Ecclestone.

        I agree with some of the others above, sounds like the early shots of the comming Concorde War.

  5. GeeMac (@geemac) said on 24th March 2011, 6:21

    I’m surprised Bernie had time to talk to give an interview, doesn’t he have a Nicaraguan GP to organise or something?

    • BasCB said on 24th March 2011, 6:41

      LOL, right now he is possilby talking with Chavez about a race.

      • Andy C said on 24th March 2011, 8:43

        It would be funny if he probably wasnt already doing it.

        • GeeMac (@geemac) said on 24th March 2011, 10:20

          Exactly.

          His other projects probably include a combined “West Indies 5000km Marathon GP” on a route to be constructed on a massive road across the sea connecting Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, Grenada and Barbados. The most unusual feathure of the race will be that Ninja Dolphins will jump out onto the track every 500 kilometers and push the last placed car off the track into the sea.

    • hohum said on 20th June 2011, 22:49

      Zimbabwe I think, it will really cheer the people up.

  6. Pink Pirelli said on 24th March 2011, 6:53

    Maybe those marbles Bernie is losing could be poured all over the track as well, to spice up ‘the show’. Seriously, give me JT over S&Max anyday. More behind the scenes work and less showboating is exactly what F1 needs.

    • Salty (@salty) said on 25th March 2011, 0:31

      Agree 100%. One slight fly in the soup though… Bernie has been thorough and invested (read owns) in many of the circuits F1 hits today. Take away Bernie – lose tracks. The marbles arn’t so loose as we suspect.

  7. S2G-Unit (@s2g-unit) said on 24th March 2011, 6:56

    A lot of criticism about Bernie. I agree with a lot of things he says. He’s not made F1 what it is by being such a fool.

    The new engine idea is stupid. The change in engines to such a small size won’t help the sport become more “green”. What about all the trucks & planes going to and from races?

    F1 wants to cut costs, yet it makes team develop KERS which does cost lots of money & have zero relevance to road cars.

    • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 24th March 2011, 7:19

      The idea is that one day the trucks and planes will use the same technology.

      It’s still BS in my opinion but maybe it might buy us enough time to come to our sense and do something about the real cause: overpopulation.

      • Maksutov said on 24th March 2011, 11:00

        errr… sorry, but a transport plane, one most responsible for emitting large quantities of pollutants, can not and will not EVER be able to use that technology.

        I agree with you on the overpopulation part. Completely aside from F1, but one day a world wide system will have to be introduced to regulate the population growth. Something similar to what china are doing.

        • Icthyes said on 24th March 2011, 11:43

          Well yeah, planes was a stupid thing to say, I wasn’t really thinking at the time.

          It does give me an excuse to point out that you can leave your car at home for a whole year, but once a plane takes off it’s negated. Green F1 has always been about sponsors, not facts.

          • Mike said on 24th March 2011, 13:01

            Green F1 has always been about sponsors, not facts.

            Bingo.

          • Green F1 may be about image. It can also be an enourmous help, the technology developed can be used around the world

            More efficient F1 engines might one day get us more efficient everyone, everyone knows it. Why fight it, it’s not like we’ll be able to get away with the V10′s we all really want anyway.

          • Snobeck said on 24th March 2011, 21:31

            Most people still don’t understand that, nor have they taken any time to actually research the negative impact we are having on the earth (they hear one news report or blog and think everything is perfectly fine… it’s not). Hugely capable bodies such as F1 need to lead the way; it’s not about F1′s footprint as a percentage of all consumption, it’s about how their technologies can translate into other industries; particularly the passenger car industy. Think of how many innvoations have spawned from motorsport; the direction of those developments are simply taking on a different note, a greener one. Most people are far too shortsighted ever to see past their TV or paddock pass…

    • Burnout said on 24th March 2011, 7:49

      He’s not made F1 what it is by being such a fool.

      That’s because he wasn’t a fool back in the FISA-FOCA days. F1 needed a shake-up and he was the one who spearheaded the change, for better or worse.

      Today however, he’s lost sight of what’s good for F1. He puts up races in countries with no grassroots motorsport history, bleeds the circuits dry and then comes up with ridiculous ideas like shortcuts and artificial rain. You just can’t take the man seriously anymore, as far as sporting regs go.

      • macca1977 (@) said on 24th March 2011, 13:17

        +1. Completely agree with Burnout. Bernie WAS great for F1 a long time ago, now his “management” is toxic for the sport and his greed has made a lot of good teams and brands retire from the sport for good.

    • hohum said on 20th June 2011, 22:54

      KERS is just another acronym for Hybrid, road cars already have it and Top Gear have demonstrated that a PRIUS running around a race track uses more fuel than a BMW M3 running at the same speed.

  8. Daniel said on 24th March 2011, 6:59

    I agree. KERS and DRS are not well suited for F1. Regarding turbo 1.6 liter engines, this may be good, but not with 4 cylinders (rather 6 or 8). But there’s more. What I do not like in F1 right now is the fact that the pilot contribution is minor. The pilot is too much asisted by all kind of systems. There shouldn’t be much electronics in an F1 car (ideally zero electronics). An F1 car ideally should be mechanics (engine, gearbox), aerodynamics (not too advanced either), with the driver having perhaps the most important contribution.

    • Mouse_Nightshirt (@mouse_nightshirt) said on 24th March 2011, 7:16

      The pilot is too much asisted by all kind of systems. There shouldn’t be much electronics in an F1 car (ideally zero electronics). An F1 car ideally should be mechanics (engine, gearbox), aerodynamics (not too advanced either), with the driver having perhaps the most important contribution.

      We can’t stay in the stone age forever. Although we hark back to “the days” on a regular basis, we can’t expect F1 to stand still whilst the world moves on around it.

      In terms of electronic assistance, there is very little and has been for some time. Power steering and semi-automatic gearboxes are completely appropriate for the sport and to go without anti-stall would be a pointless waste of a competitor who has minor off.

      Zero electronics really has no aim – engine management, monitoring is all done electronically, and no modern vehicles in this world have no electronics.

      We need some perspective.

      • Maksutov said on 24th March 2011, 11:05

        we can’t expect F1 to stand still whilst the world moves on around it.

        yes, but there is the tendency to move too quick and inconsistently, not to mention unnecessarily and costly.

    • Rob said on 24th March 2011, 8:05

      Could someone who understands engineering and engines please explain why there is so much difference between two turbo engines with different numbers of cylinders but the same displacement? I just don’t understand why people keep banging on that four cylinder engines are the work of the devil but six cylinder engines would be ok?

      The only argument I can see from these comments is that more = better, which sounds ridiculous to me.

      Anyone?

      • Andy C said on 24th March 2011, 8:46

        Sound more than anything seems to be the complaint. Many people believe that nothing less than a V10 or V12 is sufficient.

        I think they’ll be fine. I agree with you to be honest, but I’m in the minority. I’ve been watching F1 for 25 years (live and on TV) and what I like seeing is racing.

        Conveniently forgetting that the V12 Ferrari was dropped as it was too heavy/thirsty of course, why let facts get in the way of a good argument ;-)

      • Alex Bkk (@alex-bkk) said on 24th March 2011, 8:51

        Yes, the performance is there, but they sound a bit flat going around the track. Maybe like the difference of a helicopter and say a F-15 coming in to blow you away. The results will be the same, it’s just the sheer terror of the sound of screaming jet engines just before you’re vaporized that you remember. Well for a nano second or two…

        On your big screen… I doubt you’d miss it. Live, track side, well…

      • Maksutov said on 24th March 2011, 13:44

        The only argument I can see from these comments is that more = better, which sounds ridiculous to me.

        This is because you do not understand.

        For a four stroke internal combustion engine to complete its firing sequence on “all cylinders” concerned, it must rotate a total of 720°, which is 2 revolutions (this is the same in most 4 stroke engines whether it be a 4 cylinder, straight 6 cylinder, V6, V8, V10 or V12).

        Now, during these “two” revolutions, a 4 cylinder engine will complete a total of four firing sequences (that is, four internal combustion ignitions and subsequent explosions will occur and expanded gasses and “sound pressure” will go out the exhaust if you like). At say 12,000rpm (when the proposed 2013, 4 cylinder F1 car screams down the straight), a 4 cylinder engine will complete a total of (12000 / 2)*4 = 24,000 firing sequences in one minute, irrespective of whether it has turbos or any forced ignition system. That is irrelevant. This means that a “sound” of frequency ~24,000/60 = 400Hz will be released from the car. Whereas the current engines emit (18,000 rpm/2)*8/60 = 1200Hz. Also noting that this is much closer to the human hearing sensitivity. Now, depending on the overall output power limit of the engines in 2013 (being 600bhp i believe, which is less then now), the maximum “sound pressure level” (measured in dB) will depend on the absolute maximum sound pressure amplitude released by any one of the 4 cylinders (assuming correctly that all 4 will release the same sound pressure). So the sound pressure level will be directly related to the overall output power!

        However, the sound power and sound intensity (which is the product of the sound pressure and the particle velocity level) will definitely be less in the 4 cylinder, since particle velocity (don’t confuse with speed of sound or molecular velocity) given as PVL = d*(2*pi*f) is a direct function of the sound frequency!

        So, in terms of the sound, this proves that not only will the “sound pressure level” (dB) be lower with the 4 cylinder (depending on the maximum output power), but so will the sound power and sound intensity.

        the end.

        • Cacarella said on 24th March 2011, 19:00

          So… basically the sound difference.

        • HounslowBusGarage said on 24th March 2011, 20:59

          So, in terms of the sound, this proves that not only will the “sound pressure level” (dB) be lower with the 4 cylinder (depending on the maximum output power), but so will the sound power and sound intensity.

          Which means that those people who complain about ‘noisy F1 cars’ will have less to complain about. This will be a *Good Thing*.

      • John Cousins said on 24th March 2011, 14:32

        To simplify… It comes down to the number of “power pulses” at a given crankshaft RPM. If all engines are limited to the same RPM, then the engine with more cylinders wil have more “burns” per crank revolution which gives the f1 howl that we all love. A result of more cylinders is smaller pistons and valves which have less momentum which is extremely important when revving engines to huge rpm. Remember that pistons and valves have to accelerate inside the cylinder then stop all of a sudden and accellerate back the other way… hundreds of times a second. V6 egines have the advantage of symmetrical packaging inside a f1 body (good for twin turbo layout) where having an inline 4 cylinder means having the turbo on one side and the inlet and intercooler on the other. BMW, however used to run 4 cylinder inline engines and produced the highest power output ever acheived by f1 engines… (I think)
        These points aren’t the rule, just some examples of why v6 engines were chosen in the past. Another thing to think about is that the turbines (the exhaust side of the turbocharger) extract energy AND muffle the exhaust somewhat. It will be intersting to see whether future F1 will be allowed to adopt modern anti-lag systems? Water injection has been banned from WRC for a few years now, maybe we’ll see a return?

        • hohum said on 20th June 2011, 23:08

          The tragedy is not that it is 4 cylinders the tragedy is that we are going to have identical engines that put out less power than the smaller (100 cc) but otherwise same designs of 20 years ago. What’s next lawn-mower engines?

  9. unoc said on 24th March 2011, 7:18

    And Bernie is ******* rich.

  10. Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 24th March 2011, 7:21

    These days, Ecclestone is a poor man’s Ecclestone: crude, transparent and a liability to the corner he’s fighting for.

  11. Francuis said on 24th March 2011, 7:38

    Then Bernie is also complaining that there are too many teams on the grid. 10 is enough he said. No wonder, he needs to pay the bill for transporting the circus, and then there is less of a profit for him. All his stupid ideas to “improve the show”, someone else need to fit the bill. He does not care what the fans think.

    • Alex Bkk (@alex-bkk) said on 24th March 2011, 9:35

      Perhaps it’s the money, or he’s in bed with Luca that still wants three car teams.

      Remember his comments last week aout two things being important to F1, ” Ferrari and noise”

      Ferrari doesn’t want to build 4 cylinder engines, and Bernie seems all against it as well.

      I think we are seeing the beginning of a real power struggle in F1.

      Maybe Bernie wants it all?

  12. sw6569 (@sw6569) said on 24th March 2011, 7:43

    and thus, the concord agreement/argument negotiations begin

  13. Maciek said on 24th March 2011, 7:55

    Hmm, for a long time now Bernie’s gotten away with making outrageous comments because no one has been in a position to challenge him as head honcho. Perhaps these aren’t just attention grabbing stunts after all. Living in isolation will inevitably make anyone lose perspective. May we and F1 all live happily ever after when he goes away – he can’t be around forever… can he?

    • Bigbadderboom said on 24th March 2011, 10:49

      Don’t ne niaive in thinking anything he says are the ramblings of an isolated billionaire. Bernie mixes company and employs and mixes with some of the most astute business negotiators, he needs to with so much money at stake. Bernie often plays with fire but very rarely gets burnt. This is all staged, plotted and has a planned outcome for Bernie, CVC and the FIA. And that is his plan.

      • Burnout said on 24th March 2011, 17:20

        +1. We can rant all we like about how Bernie is losing it (I’ve done it myself elsewhere in the comments) But I fear there’s so much more going on behind all these comments by Bernie. The fact that he’s been against the new engine regs for a while means there’s a lot of politics in play.

        • hohum said on 20th June 2011, 23:20

          Every few years Bernie changes things around, to make obvious improvements, and several years later reverses the changes, to make obvious improvements, eg.re=fuelling, slick tyres, more points for a win.

  14. AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner) said on 24th March 2011, 7:56

    Yet again more drivel. Pack up and get lost Bernie, I don’t think this sport needs you as much as you think it does.

    • Mike said on 24th March 2011, 13:07

      As easy as it is to say that, what would happen without Bernie? Do you really trust the FIA to do the right thing? How sure are you that Ferrari won’t start doing the same thing to F1 that Holden has done to the V8s?

      • AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner) said on 24th March 2011, 13:25

        I considered what would happen to F1 if BE wasn’t around before I posted and I still came to the same conclusion. If we really are part of a sport that is ultimately controlled by one man then it’s a rather sorry affair. I don’t honestly think that F1 will end up in turmoil once he’s gone and i’m looking forward to the day when this sport is represented differently (notice how I didn’t say better or worse).

        I trust the FIA know what they are doing. Power is relative, it’s racing what matters. The question is whether or not F1 remains the pinnacle of motorsport 2013 onwards. I think it will.

  15. stren said on 24th March 2011, 8:00

    Bernie needs for shut it. I’ getting tired of listening to the ramblings of this relic of a by gone era.

1 2 3

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.