Luca di Montezemolo, Ferrari, Monza, 2011

Montezemolo: F1 must change

F1 Fanatic round-upPosted on | Author Cari Jones

In today?s round-up: Luca di Montezemolo says ??If Formula 1 still wants Ferrari it must change??, saying they will not back down over technical regulations, testing rules and third cars.

Links

Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:

Luca di Montezemolo says Ferrari could leave Formula 1 if rules do not change (Autosport)

??Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo has warned that his team’s continued presence in Formula 1 is dependent on major changes to the rules – as he declared it would not back down over technical regulations, testing rules and third cars.??

2012 Team Name Changes (FIA)

??The FIA, on the basis of the support expressed by its F1 commission chaired by Bernie Ecclestone, which had a meeting in Geneva on November 3, has agreed the following team name changes as from 2012:

Team Name ?ǣ New Chassis Name
Caterham F1 Team ?ǣ From Lotus to Caterham
Lotus Renault GP ?ǣ From Renault to Lotus
Marussia F1 Team ?ǣ From Virgin to Marussia

Williams confirms Raikkonen talks (ESPN)

??Williams shareholder Toto Wolff has confirmed that the team is negotiating with Kimi Raikkonen over a potential return to Formula One.??

LRGP to adopt Lotus chassis name from 2012 (Lotus Renault GP)

Eric Boullier: ??We are very pleased that our chassis name change has been approved. We have said all along that, in the interests of the sport, it is important that we remove any ambiguity on this matter. It is also important that there are clearly identifiable teams on the grid, and today?s announcement goes some way towards ensuring that.

??It is the start of another chapter for Enstone, but not a whole new beginning. The team?s history and experience will allow us to take up this challenge with a controlled and swift process. We?re very much looking forward to 2012.??

Vehicle Design Department (Red Bull)

??Red Bull Technology is inviting candidates to apply for Industrial Placement positions within its Vehicle Design Department.??

Follow F1 news as it breaks using the F1 Fanatic live Twitter app.

Comment of the day

Lots of great F1 memories have been shared on your favourite F1 drivers & teams. alan93rsa says:

I started watching F1 in the mid 60???s. I quickly developed a huge respect for the drivers of those small fragile cars with the skinny tires. Circuits with trees at the edges and fans separated by maybe a fence in the corners. There wasn?t a lot of room for error and I feel they raced one another with a level of respect that has somehow gone missing in today?s field.
alan93rsa

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to AlonsoWDC and Paul!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Red Bull won their first constructors’ championship one year ago today in the Brazilian Grand Prix. They went on to seal their second within 12 months of the first.

125 comments on “Montezemolo: F1 must change”

  1. Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo has warned that his team’s continued presence in Formula 1 is dependent on major changes to the rules

    Sorry keith you appear to have put up an old round-up… oh, wait…

    1. @jleigh, it really is getting more and more of a hollow phrase from repetition of this line.

      The last time they said so, I could see some logic in it.

      But leaving because you were not able to convince the other teams to go for simpler aero (ditching most development of the past 10 years – I like that Idea, but they already voted not to even with the new engine), the plain stupid 3rd car Idea that no one but Ferrari likes and a return of testing cars that reliable we had 2 races without any retirements the amount of retirements for mechanical reasons have been far between is just not on the table when teams are trying to save money.

      If they leave, they will just be deemed poor losers, pulling out the plug after over 50 years because they have stopped thinking out of the box for the last 3 years and were not fast enough.

      1. I’d have more time for him had he not been amongst those protesting against the return of ground effect. Nothing could have improved the racing as much as aero grip not banjaxed by the proceeding car.

        The new aero regs are such a backwards step, so disapointing.

        1. Wow, @basbc, harsh – but pretty much true, and as @scribe says, they voted against changes that would have made earo less sensitive.

          A lot of people have made the point that you can’t put something you learned back in the box, seems Ferrari would like to put everything but their own engine in that box though. But instead the put they seem to have put themselves in it, and can’t think outside of it anymore.

          Their cars last year and this year weren’t bad cars, nothing like the lack of pace they had at the start of the 90ties, but competition is much fiercer now.

          I guess Ferrari mostly wants to be able to test new aero developments to avoid things like Spa upgrade being a step back, but somehow other teams manage, for the most part, so perhaps they should just amend their evaluation process?

          I would like Ferrari to stay around, but this nonsense doesn’t make me very supportive.

    2. Calm down.
      It’s nothing to do with Ferrari – this is all about the Italian economy with Berlusconi on the ropes, di Montezemolo’s political career and getting him in the headlines as a decisive thinker.
      How Ferrari “voted” in the past is irrelevant.

  2. I agree with Luca on allowing limited testing, and perhaps a lower reliance on aerodynamic grip (or higher dependence on mechanical grip) could improve the racing without the need for DRS.

    I still disagree with him on 3rd cars. I have nothing else to say on LdM’s comments.

    1. Ferrari only want three cars because it would make it easier for them to win the World Constructors Championship. Because despite his talk that they want third cars for the sake of the sport, it’s fairly telling that the example of its historical success that he gives is of a customer Ferrari. The only way that third cars will work is if all teams can/have to enter a third car, and there is no way that some of the circuits on the calendar can accomodate thirty-six cars

    2. I agree with Luca on allowing limited testing, and perhaps a lower reliance on aerodynamic grip (or higher dependence on mechanical grip) could improve the racing without the need for DRS.

      Those are the only things he said that make sense. the rest is garbage.
      Problem is everyone is going to talk about the garbage

    3. Yep, with you on all that. I really wish he’d let that three-car obsession go…

    4. I think he is right in many aspects F1 cars must be the pinnacle of cars not planes or shuttles It should be all about mechanics not aerodynamics.

      F1 cars are getting less and less related to the normal cars, in the past F1 created and improved some technologies of the modern day cars but that aint the case today despite that Im not saying that F1 should abandon aerodynamics.

      New compounds and new ways of increasing efficiency are still paramount on the modern day car industry F1 needs to get more pratical but not much, concerning that, the FIA has annouced some changes for the future of F1 (news that Ferraris boss has faiiled to read he seems only to read FOTA) next years will prove those changes so I dont think Mr Montezemolo should get worried, 3 cars per team! dont banalize F1 either Mr Montezemolo I think WTCC is the one for you.

      1. F1 is about making cars go as fast as possible, not about improving road car technology. If that happens then it is a good side-effect. And aerodynamics are becoming increasingly important on road cars anyway. It is a good way of making cars more stable/fast/efficient.

    5. Exactly. Can you imagine team orders with three car teams? That would absolutely kill the sport. Either way I highly doubt Ferrari will leave F1 and even if they do, the sport will survive just fine.

    6. There do need to be some changes, I believe there’s provisions in the 2014 rules to cut aero grip? Someone correct me if I’m wrong..

      The limited testing has been a bit of a downer, but there’s a very fine line between testing car parts (and younger drivers) and throwing money out the window…

      And 3 car teams, that problem is sorted easily… All the teams must enter 3 cars, and only the fastest 22 (or thereabouts, possibly the fastest in each team, plus 10 extra?) in Qualifying get to race. Of course, that might mean that Quali has to get redesigned, but it’s the best way I can find for 3-car teams…

      1. And 3 car teams, that problem is sorted easily… All the teams must enter 3 cars, and only the fastest 22 (or thereabouts, possibly the fastest in each team, plus 10 extra?) in Qualifying get to race.

        The problem with that it that teams who cannot get onto the grid will not race. Formula 1 is so expensive that teams who have no guarantee of a race start will not compete at all, so you effectively limit the grid to just 22 cars. And if we have three-car teams, that means that only seven teams will actually take part.

        The only effective way to run three car teams is to split the points. The drivers in a customer team will be eligible to score driver points, but any constructor points that they score will be credited to the constructor of the chassis. So if Marussia buy a McLaren chassis, and Timo Glock scores points, McLaren will get the constructors points. The record of the total points scored will be retained for the purposes of sorting out the final WCC standings, but they won’t be credited to the team.

        1. Yes, something like that. Still leaves room for top cars to take away points from the regular contenders, but a bit less problematic than just having a grid full of top teams.

          What you describe is a nice way to separate the constructors championship from the teams I guess – it would allow Manor to just run their F1 team with another chassis.

          I’m not sure I like it entirely, but it is clearly better than what Ferrari seems to want. It still makes it harder for starting teams to grow up to be a constructor of their own though, and for a team to get sponsors, as they are less than a full F1 team then.

          PS: back to your old name again @prisoner-monkeys? The experiments were interesting :)

        2. If you read my comment @prisoner-monkeys (nice name changes by the way, I didn’t get a chance to say) the ‘only 7 teams’ comment is over-ruled, if you take the fastest car from each team (11 cars under 2011 team lists) then the fastest 11 ‘other’ cars (making 22, or 13 to make it 24, or whatever FIA think is appropriate) then you at least get 1 car from each team, and most teams will get 2 of their 3 cars in. It also gives teams a chance to test younger drivers more, and if the younger drivers get a good enough time, they get a race under their belt aswell.

          All the ‘testing for rookies’ problems are sorted, F1 will have more people involved, all that needs to be sorted is a minimum budget for three car teams to be made possible with.

  3. Again, Luca, really?

    Give it a rest. We all know you aren’t going anywhere. The Scuderia would be ripped apart by the worlds media if they got anywhere near it.

    His justification for 3 car teams is awful. Who says I don’t want cars on the grid that are 7s behind? How on Earth do I expect other teams to get a look in edge ways if the constructors are filling up the grid?

    You can’t be sensitive to wanting to keep a cap on costs while running a third car.

    This to me sounds like Luca saying ‘hey, don’t forget us. We’ve had a pretty awful season but we’re still in charge…right?’.

    It’s rare you see a comment like this from me :D

    1. I would like to see the FOM and FIA call Ferrari’s bluff on their threats to leave F1. I say push on with the planned rule changes, and let Ferrari moan and groan about it, and then watch them fall into line when the new rules are introduced. The value of Ferrari’s brand is their association with F1, not the other way around.

      And if for some strange reason they aren’t bluffing, let them pull out, Formula 1 will survive without Ferrari.

      1. The value of Ferrari’s brand is their association with F1, not the other way around.

        I don’t do this very often, but that has to be the comment of the day.

      2. F1 is there because of the teams.
        Without Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, Mercedes, Renault etc, what is F1?
        A bunch of HRT’s and Virgins’s? No thanks!
        If FOTA ever started their own series with those teams, I would be watching that, not Bernie’s overpriced scam.

        1. @Pinbal 10 on 10 for your comment I also think F! will survive very well without Ferrari.

        2. If FOTA ever started their own series with those teams, I would be watching that, not Bernie’s overpriced scam.

          @ivz – If FOTA ever established their own series, it would collapse within two years. And that’s a generous estimate. You simply cannot have the teams controlling the rulebook and controlling the commercial rights and competing. All that will do is turn the sport into a bloated political mess as teams wrestle for the ultimate control of the sport, and when one of them gets it, they will dictate the future of the series in such a way that they are the only ones who win. It would be the same as having football players referee the game as they play it. You need that separation of powers to keep things fair. Why do you think the 2009 breakaway folded quickly? Because it was a political move. It was a bluff to make the FIA cave in – it was never going to happen.

          F1 is there because of the teams.
          Without Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, Mercedes, Renault etc, what is F1?

          Except that Ferrari are the only ones threatening to withdraw. There hasn’t been boo from any other teams, much less all of them.

          Besides, Luca isn’t complaining that he thinks the rules are bad for the sport (whatever he may say). He’s complaining because he thinks the rules are bad for Ferrari. Ferrari believe that, because they have been a part of the sport since 1950, they deserve a free pass. It’s Animal Farm all over again: all of the teams are equal, but some of the teams are more equal than others, and Ferrari is Napoleon the pig. Luca has a habit of holding Formula 1 hostage every time Ferrari struggle in comparison to the other teams – he starts demanding changes, and uses the threat of withdrawal (as he believes Formula 1 cannot survive without Ferrari) to get what he wants. He claims the changes are for the good of the sport, and maybe they are – but his demands will always help Ferrari before they help the sport.

          Pinball put it best when he said this:

          The value of Ferrari’s brand is their association with F1, not the other way around.

          1. Except that Ferrari are the only ones threatening to withdraw. There hasn’t been boo from any other teams, much less all of them.

            Have you forgotten Toyota, BMW and, effectively, Renault already? They’ve all come and gone. Only Mercedes have returned and only because they bought out a successful but cash strapped team.

            All that will do is turn the sport into a bloated political mess

            Yeah because F1, past/present/future, has never been a bloated political mess??
            Anyone without hate in their eyes can see that Luca is playing politics by saying these things.
            For the people high up in the F1 circus, there is so much more to the game then just making cars go round tracks.

          2. Have you forgotten Toyota, BMW and, effectively, Renault already? They’ve all come and gone. Only Mercedes have returned and only because they bought out a successful but cash strapped team.

            I mean that Ferrari are the only team that have given any indication that they will withdraw this year. This is not an ongoing thing. This is Ferrari saying “we’ve had a bad season, and we want changes that are good for us”. Nothing more complex than that. Nobody else is talking about leaving Formula 1 – it’s just Ferrari trying to get their own way, and using the threat of withdrawal (which they believe will be a devastating blow to the sport) to do it.

            Yeah because F1, past/present/future, has never been a bloated political mess??

            Believe me, if the teams start their own series with their own rules and regulations and no separate organisation to run things, it will make the 2009 spat look like a simple disagreement.

            Anyone without hate in their eyes can see that Luca is playing politics by saying these things.

            That’s what I’m saying – Luca is trying to influence the rules to favour Ferrari.

          3. I mean that Ferrari are the only team that have given any indication that they will withdraw this year.

            Well all the teams that said they would leave have left except Ferrari. I’m sure that Luca is just saying they are going to leave just to try and gain leverage when it comes time to renew the Concorde agreement. He’s bargaining.
            When you bargain you start off with an unreasonable price and haggle your way down. It’s an empty threat of sorts. I highly doubt they are going to throw away 60 years of heritage because they haven’t won a championship in 4 years

            That’s what I’m saying – Luca is trying to influence the rules to favour Ferrari.

            Yes and what I’m saying is they all do it. Whether its bendy wings, f ducts DD diffusers etc, all the team principles/owners try to have the rules changed to benefit their team. It’s all part of the politics of F1

            Luca just has a way of doing it that come across as obvious, pretentious and arrogant and down right stupid.
            But he is not the only one playing politics

      3. Nowadays if you take all thsi big giants F1 will be left alone to be watched by themselves, people who are fan of the new teams for example Red Bull are most lickely fans of Ferrari or Mclaren or Williams F1 made this teams but now F1 cant live without them, the historical value of F1 cant be denied even if you erase it, F1 would always start writing another story.

        1. Load of codswallop, what made F1 F1 was the developmental side of the rule. No-way can any new series with near one-design cars expect to gain the following F1 has today, many have tried but none have succeeded.

      4. Of course they will fall into line. I fail to understand why they think F1 would crumble without them?

        It doesn’t really put much faith in their fans or indeed fans of the sport as a whole.

    2. Yeah your starting to sound like that Ted Bell complainer…

      1. If you look at list of teams 10 years ago only 5 times from back then are still on the grid. If you go back 20 years only Ferrari, McLaren and Williams are still present.
        That alone can show that F1 has and shall go on without the teams who think they are bigger then sport itself. Sure, it would be strange to have a F1 without Ferrari but other big teams left before and octane circus still races around the globe every year.

  4. OOOOOOOOOOOOOh, come on, Luca… it seems you’re scared, because it’s been years since you started this “F1 must change, or we’ll leave” rant and you’re still very much around.

    Leave it then… I bet you won’t be that popular round Italy if you do.

  5. Luca di Montezemolo says “If Formula 1 still wants Ferrari it must change”, saying they will not back down over technical regulations, testing rules and third cars.

    That just begs the question: does Formula 1 need Ferrari? Every time the team wants change, Luca drags this up again, trying to hold the sport hostage with the threat of Ferrari’s departure, and I think it’s getting a little tiresome. Especially since we all know that Luca would probably be saying the opposite if Ferrari was dominating the way Red Bull were. I can smell the hypocracy from here.

    1. Formula 1 would lose a significant part of its soul, it’s history and its identity if it lost Ferrari and as much as I dislike the team, I would hate to see them go.

      But does Formula 1 need Ferrari? Absolutely not. The sport is much bigger than one team. If Ferrari announced they were leaving the sport after this year and weren’t racing from 2012 onwards, it honestly wouldn’t affect my love of the sport or my loyalty as a viewer one single bit.

      1. Formula 1 would lose a significant part of its soul, it’s history and its identity if it lost Ferrari and as much as I dislike the team, I would hate to see them go.

        I feel much the same way, but the question has to be asked – which is the lesser evil: seeing Ferrari go, or bowing to demands that will only benefit them (or at the very least, be of benefit to them more than anyone else)?

      2. Im British and a Ferrari fanatic, I could say that I wouldnt watch formula1 again in the event of Ferraris withdrawal but I would be lying, F1 would probably keep fanatics but exclude national supporters in this case millions of italians.

    2. F1 needs Ferrari as much as the Premier League needs Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and all those. It would survive without them, but it’ll be different.

      In F1 it’s the same. But Ferrari needs F1 more than the F1 needs them. Just imagine the italians and the media in Italy destroying Montezemolo appart for the decision to leave F1… it’d bring them back in a minute.

      1. @fer-no65 – didn’t you know that “Liverpool” is an offensive word in, let’s say … Bhutan?

        1. It didn’t feel right while typing…

      2. Perhaps the first four letters of the North London football team flagged it.

    3. Thinking about it @prisoner-monkeys, I came to the conclusion that we have to answer a slightly different question here.

      The real question is, why does Luca want to keep staying on the front pages (in Italy and abroad) – answer is probably more to do with being seen to have influence as an entry to politics than with the bussiness of F1 (will anyone in F1 believe a word of it?)

      1. Heh, that’s another good point @bascb; I can certainly believe there’s something of that in this too.

    4. @Magnificent-Geoffrey @Prisoner-Monkeys

      But does Formula 1 need Ferrari? Absolutely not. The sport is much bigger than one team. If Ferrari announced they were leaving the sport after this year and weren’t racing from 2012 onwards, it honestly wouldn’t affect my love of the sport or my loyalty as a viewer one single bit.

      I’d continue to watch too, but Formula 1 does need Ferrari, in a way.

      I can’t think of another team that has a bigger following than Ferrari. They are the reason why a huge percentage of the sport’s fans even tune in. The Italian Grand Prix without Ferrari, for example, wouldn’t be the same. It would feel lifeless and without its charm and attraction.

      Commercially, I’m sure Formula 1 would survive, but there’d need to be some changes, as I’m sure a large percentage of people would lose interest. Ferrari is Formula 1. Everyone knows who Ferrari is. Red Bull are the best team at the moment, but the average person on the street probably doesn’t even know they have an F1 team.

      1. Oh, I forgot to add; I don’t think this “threat” means anything. Ferrari know they can’t pull out. They’ve been here since the start and it would look incredibly childish and be an enormous shame if they gave up now. It won’t happen. They have too much pride to leave.

  6. c’mon Luca, Micheal and Brawn made your team dominant by hard work not moaning, lead by example and take your team back to the top! Don’t moan to achieve your goal, work hard!

    1. Well said.

  7. “The FIA, on the basis of the support expressed by its F1 commission chaired by Bernie Ecclestone, which had a meeting in Geneva on November 3, has agreed the following team name changes as from 2012:

    Team Name – New Chassis Name
    Caterham F1 Team – From Lotus to Caterham
    Lotus Renault GP – From Renault to Lotus

    I think I speak for everyone when I say THANK HEAVENS THIS IS OVER WITH. This battle of egos was interesting to begin with, then it was briefly and unintentionally hilarious, and then it was tiresome. So, basically, it was every Cameron Crowe film since Almost Famous.

    1. Although I was hoping it would be Team Caterham as a link to Team Lotus. Oh well, as you said at least it is over now.

      1. Yeah, “Caterham F1 Team” isn’t super-imaginaitive. It’s also remarkably similar to “Marussia F1 Team” and “Force India F1 Team”. You would think they would come up with something a little more individual – maybe “Marussia Motorsport”, “Caterham Grand Prix Engineering”, “Marussia Factory Racing” or “Caterham Race Works”.

        1. but what imagination you can expect from a person who thought his name was not Tony but Colin.

          1. Hope springs eternal.

        2. oh i tot he;s changing caterham to west ham *joking*

        3. Oh I miss the days of Super Aguri.

  8. Only one word is appropriate for Luca’s latest rhetoric – tosh.

    1. I can think of several words to describe it, but most of them will be blocked by the swear-filter.

      1. Ahaha, well put.

        For me, one thing stands out in all of this.

        We race not just for the publicity it brings us but above all to carry out advanced research aimed at all aspects of our road cars

        That is not the sound of Ferrari, that is not the passion that F1 should inspire in it’s leaders.

        I used to love Ferrari, and once Luca’s era is over I may do again. But the passion that Ferrari inspires in it’s supporters does not come from someone who says this.

        It’s a disgrace to Ferrari.

  9. I’ve found this video of Vettel in Turkey 2010, I find it interesting:

    Just for F1 fanatics :D

    P.s. I’m new here, great work Keith!

    1. Great find!!!!!

      in Australia he’d have been fined, tho!

  10. Luca should keep his mouth shut.

    Ferrari don’t do marketing/advertising, Formula One is there marketing. They would start to die a death without it (yes ok,m thats an exaggeration i know) not vise versa like that arrogant so and so thinks.

  11. What di Montezemolo fails to realise is that F1 is irreversibly aero-dependent and will be for the rest of eternity. The more rules are used to cut downforce, the more effort and ingenuity will be put into getting it back – this is the cutting edge.

    If Ferrari want to compete in a sport with less aero they can stick to GT racing selling as many cars to customers as they please.

    1. @Bernard I’ve stood by that point many, many times.

      It depends on what you call ‘development’. Gone are the days of ridiculously inefficient engines and now we have hybrid systems like KERS which are far more applicable to road cars than some silly V12.

      Personally, I take more pleasure in the teams extracting more and more power from the car (aero and engine included) while actually fighting for greater efficiency, reducing costs and reducing RPM.

      That to me is development, anything else is just bravado.

      I’m far from an environmentalist, but i’m not into wasting resources and money either.

      1. Being green is such a waste of time. This is Grand Prix racing and the recent trend to act like modern F1 cars should be sensitive to the environment is ruining the sport. The filtering down of what racing does to how it affects my everyday life is off the mark. Yes we should do more to help the environment but to make our race cars into what they have become is nonsense. Subing Kers for a more powerful engine is stupid. Suggesting DRS as a solution to “soft” F1 cars and their inability to pass is just as bad. Race cars are meant to race and money is made from that because the fans want to see fast race cars. Nobody asks the military to use greener jet engines because the purpose of the military is to protect us by the use of unbelieveable force. Leave the getting greener stuff to washing machines and better lawn mower engines. Let Formula One do what it is intended to do, entertain people who spend money to see it.

  12. Luca is right, more testing should be allowed, as for the third car issue, who wants to see backmarckers 3 seconds of the pace? how fantastic would it be to have more competitive cars? i hope they do it one day…

  13. On another note, Please come back Kimi !!!!

    1. Here I can agree with your comment.

    2. @t3x Er, why? He’s been excluded from the WRC because he didn’t want to travel to the Australian Rally, what team in their right mind would sign a driver who wants a huge salary, no PR days, has previous of not caring at all, and is in general a bad example of a WDC to other drivers…

      I just hope we saw the last of him in 09..

      1. @keeleyobsessed From what I understand Kimi was financing his own team in WRC this year and he found an Australian flyaway too expensive.

        I think that a motivated Kimi is one of the best if not the best driver on the grid. If a driver can extract more performance from the car and put it higher on the grid then it should be who gives a damn about PR stuff…

        1. @gabal – Raikkonen entered ICE1 Racing as a WRC team. He was obligated to compete in at least two of the four flyaway races – and he knew it. He went to Jordan, but he ignored Mexico, Argentina and Australia. If he was so concerned about the cost, he could have gone to Mexico, since that was the closest of the three to continental Europe. And that’s without considering the way he simply gave up as soon as he hit trouble in France and Spain.

          1. I have to agree with @prisoner-monkeys that Kimi’s track record with WRC isn’t a good retort to questions about his motivation and perseverance that rose after the 2009 F1 season.

            I would like to see a greatly motivated and fast Raikkonen back in F1, but I’m not sure that’s possible.

            And I wonder about his fit in Williams – they never showed much patience for an unmotivated/too needy driver at all, so that seems like a risky plan. But we’ll see.

          2. @bosyber

            And I wonder about his fit in Williams – they never showed much patience for an unmotivated/too needy driver at all, so that seems like a risky plan.

            If Raikkonen wants back into Formula 1 for the foreseeable future, then he needs to give his all at Williams. Otherwise, they’ll drop him, and he won’t get a chance at moving back up the grid.

            But that raises another problem: if Raikkonen makes it clear that he intends to race at Williams for a year with a view to getting a better drive in 2013, Williams lose a year of development because it takes time for a driver’s influence to be felt within the team. If Sir Frank has any sense (and you don’t get to where he is without it), he’ll be sure to offer Raikkonen a two-year contract at the very least.

          3. Indeed, that’s the whole problem – yes, there isn’t a better seat available for Raikkonen right now, and Williams can’t get a better driver (but maybe a more dependable and even one isn’t out of the question?), but it seems like quite a risk for both. I agree that a two year contract would be the minimum as Williams will not be back in 2012 yet, even in the best of cases.

  14. Seems most here agree on Luca’s latest grand standing rhetoric; time to call his bluff I say. F1 is NOT Ferrari’s personal pram and he can’t threaten to take his toys and go home and have anyone believe him.

    Also seems like this kind of rant materializes from him whenever Ferrari struggles for wins.

  15. Instead Luca should say “Ferrari will leave F1 if we win a WC in next year” I don’t think we need Ferrari to make F1 exciting,if he wish he may leave & I got no trouble with it.

  16. Interesting http

    ://www.espnstar.com/motorsport/f1/news/detail/item702935/Williams-admit-Raikkonen-talks/

    1. Sorry for accidentally posting it here as I couldn’t let the forum work. I guess time has come for things to turn but if I was Kimi why would I go in a team that is no where near to the front-runner?

      1. It’s very unlike Kimi.

        But to me, it seems like his reputation has taken a big hit. So if he wants to get back into F1 he’ll need to start somewhere lower down.

        But even as a fan I admit that Williams isn’t the best team to sign for. Better of going to Sauber, It’s where he started, and against the rookies he will probably look good.

      2. @wasiF1 At the moment, Williams is the best team he can sign for. It is a public secret that Renault was considering Raikonnen as Kubica’s replacement this winter but decided to go with Heidfeld instead. There simply isn’t room for him in current top teams.
        Besides, who knows – maybe he likes a challenge of taking Williams back to the top.

  17. Yes yes yes!!! I hate Ferrari, till now. Billions spent trying to make race cars be able to race. Rather than save millions and get rid of airplane wings and the associated aerodynamics, lets spend BILLIONS and try to make them work (puke). Proven over and over you can’t pass an airplane while its on the ground. Ok then, lets taint F1 with gimmicks (DRS). It’s been a wonderful season.. to fools. It’s been a NON season. F1 is the laughing stock of the racing community this year. Are airfoils written in stone? Oh the blasphemy to get rid of em. They are such wonderful devices (blark). No they are not! They have ruined all of racing, and nobody in charge will admit it. Till now. I hope and pray that they get rid of aerodynamic independence. Till they do, everybody will be happy being fooled by the farce that F1 is today. K, I’m done.

    1. Oops, no I’m not done (heh). Want proof who builds the better chassis? When it rains, that’s who has REAL grip and good suspension and balance. When it’s dry, airplanes win.

      1. Ehh…. well no.

        When it rains the grip provided by the tyres and suspension, i.e. the mechanical grip is cut drastically. As the tyres simply do not grip the roas as well.

        However, Aerodynamic grip is not dependent on contact patches unlike the tyres. It works as long as the cars can drive fast enough… So when it rains, it is even more important I would think.

        1. A fast chassis is totally dependent on mechanical grip. When the speeds are low through the turns cause of the rain, aerodynamic dependence goes low. All that is left is the chassis. The rain does not shake up the field because these guys cant drive in the rain, it get shook up because the aero teams lose there advantage. And then you get to see who has better mechanical grip. In other words, who has built better road hugging suspension. Some of them luck into both, but when the back runners are beating the top teams (due to rain), its cause millions have been put into aero and they missed out on suspension. After all, get the aero right, then force it to the ground rather than let the tires grip. I think its hilarious when Ferrari lose the millions of bucks they put in when it rains. So much so that they know they are in trouble. They are so aero its stupid. But then, airplane wings on road suspended cars are stupid. Unless of course you plan on not passing anybody. Cause you cant pass anybody if your wings cant fly in clean air. They know it. They just spent too much to dump it.

          1. So a fast car is dependent on mechanical grip instead of aerodynamic grip? So why are the slowest teams the ones with lower downforce and worse aerodynamics? And if you have ‘ground-hugging’ suspension on a wet track you will aquaplane off as soon as you hit any standing water. You claim that ‘backmarkers’ beat the top teams when it rains – when has this happened? And the reason for this imaginary situation is because some of the best engineers in the world ‘missed out’ on designing suspension?

            If you don’t like aerodynamics there are plenty of other series you can watch. You have had since the 60s to find one, since F1 cars have had wings.

      2. Considering Ferrari’s lack of pace when it rained in recent seasons, either they are, according to you, not so good, or you are simplifying things a bit too much.

        Since one needs an outside of the car there will always be a better aerodynamic shape for it. With road cars practicality, drag, and space inside limit how much use one can make of it. But better aero will always help in F1 now teams have learned about it. If the rules forbid it, it will become more subtle and hidden, but it won’t be gone.

    2. So, your theory is that Formula 1 has no credibility unless Ferrari are the only ones winning?

      1. What part of I hate Ferrari did you miss?

      2. So F1 won’t have any credibility until the cars look like 50s F1 cars or Touring Cars?

  18. i agree with ldm:

    no testing is ridiculous

    racing improves the breed. f1 must adopt philosophies and technologies that translate into benefits for road cars.

    the power of aerodynamics must be reigned in.

    customer cars would be great for f1.

    1. @f1yankee – the problem with customer cars is that they create an imbalance in power.

      Before 2010, there were only ten teams in the sport, and a handful of engine suppliers. The engines were supplied by the manufacturers, so the more customer teams an engine supplier had the more power they got. Ferrari in particular had a lot – they led FOTA, and they supplied two established teams. Mercedes asupplied three, but one of those was Brawn. Renault and Toyota supplied two, while BMW only supplied the one. All of the manufacturers were close.

      But then the three new teams arrived in 2010, and they all used Cosworth power. And while Ferrari picked up Sauber as a customer team, both Toyota and BMW withdrew, Renault scaled back their involvement, and Mercedes split with McLaren to focus on their own team. The net result was that Ferrari lost a lot of political power. Where they could use their influence to command half the grid in 2009, they could control, at best, just one-quarter of it in 2010. Ever since then, they have been lobbying to gain more control through customer teams.

      The problem with customer cars is that it will give them even more control over the grid. With Cosworth and Renault being external suppliers, the manufacturer power base is thinned out, and the power-sharing between the manufacturers was what kept one of them from getting too much power before 2010. That is now gone, so Ferrari will have an unprecedented amount of power – they could command up to half of the grid, because the success of customer teams would be attributed to Ferrari, and they could use that to their advantage. And with the accusations that Red Bull overspent according to the RRA (which could have them stripped of voting powers in FOTA), they would have an almost unlimited ability to control the future of the sport, and they will invariably control it in a way that is good them first and everyone else a distant second.

      That’s what Ferrari really wants – power.

      1. COTD for sure.

        The only thing I’d say is…

        Ferrari and the political ambitions of Luca aren’t necessarily the same.

      2. How many times has F1 survived after losing a 2 car team? There would be so many people saying YEAH we got a chance, and then EVERYBODY is gonna want in. Besides, that little secret bonus they get makes F1 and Ferrari look bad. Let em go. F1 will survive.

        1. Oops sorry, that was meant as a reply to yankee. With all due respect even.

  19. Well, can’t say that i agree more about testing, third car may be not so much. However, F1 has degenerated a whole lot than the pinnacle of sport as it used to be about a decade ago. What we have is limited development, but that’s hardly cutting edge by F1 standards. I only wonder what we could have running (1100 bhp? on 3 liter V10) if they didn’t impose engine rpm limits etc…

    I really wish they went back to drawing board and remove certain silly restrictions on testing and development. Thing is, some teams will always have more money/ resources than others, and will spend more. People have to learn to be adults about it, rather than saying “oh, you’ve got more, so let us make you do less!”

    Really, don’t you think F1 did enough damage to its reputation by all that flaming rule changes all the time? They’ve got to come to some agreement and make some rules and stick with them for say 5 years or so. Change may be a couple of things as needed, but as it is, there’s a little too much meddling for my liking.

    1. The number of people who seem to somehow be unaware that you have to limit the speeds a Formula is capable of so it can race on currently existing circuits is really quite incredible.

      Of course if you prefer a season that doesn’t go to any of the European racetracks feel free, but continually evolving rules and it actually being safe to race in Spa, Monza etc. are definitely my preference.

      1. Well, motor racing is not without risk. I agree it doesn’t mean we should have to sacrifice choice drivers every now and then but seriously, the lure of motor racing has something to do with getting over impossibilities. I understand that speeds need to be controlled, but neutering F1 is not an answer. I love Spa, Monza, Silverstone and some others… but i also want to see motor racing at its best. Seriously if you’re thinking what now is, is good enough. Well, look over some of the older footage bud.

        Cheerio!

        Also, may be you could try and be a little less condescending next time when making a point.

  20. The Ferrrari threat is just hot air, they aren’t going anywhere, there won’t be three car teams ….yes some rules need revisiting but otherwise it is nothing more than seeking some media attention before the greatest race on Earth, Formula One at the YAS MARINA.

    1. It’s not all hot air. Let’s see what Bernie says. Luca knows that Bernie loves to divid e and conquer, just look at those new engine rules, which was à one two between Luca and Bernie, to show both FIA and FOTA who are powers that be.
      So Luca just gets his usual weekly shopping list and will bring some things home…

  21. I cant help but agree with everything he said.

  22. I agree with most fans here on the latest di Montezemolo’s manifestation, I think Luca’s just trying to strengthen Ferrari’s positions before the decisive talks over the new Concorde Agreeement.

    Talking about Raikkonen, I think it’s a bit unusual for a team to openly admit that they’re trying to hire a particular driver. Normally you’d expect denials or “no comment”. This is why I think that we rather see a show than serious talks here.

  23. Ok, call me insane, but I see a way that we can get rid of the third car and customer car debates in one fell swoop, thus shutting up Luca Di Monte for the foreseeable future: Why don’t the FIA allow “privateer” entries who have full “factory” backing (kinda like MotoGP).

    What I mean is that a team could run one or two cars (whatever they choose), which is supplied to them by a manufacturer. The privateer team would be allowed to develop the car themselves or with “factory” backing (i.e. they only get upgrades 2-3 races after the factory team gets them). The privateer team could even have to use a restricted budget to stop smaller independent manufacturers like Team Lotus, HRT and Virgin from being disadvantaged. This way we get more cars on track, Luca gets his third car (and shuts up for a while), and we get more young promising drivers into F1.

    Reading this back I think it’s actually a nonsense idea, full of pitfalls and problems, but I’ve taken the time to type it up, so I’ll post it anyway! ;)

    1. All you are talking about is customer cars. And the effect you would have is that within four seasons there would only be four chassis manufacturers – Red Bull, McLaren, Ferrari and Mercedes. Maybe you’re fine with that. I prefer 12 chassis to four.

  24. F1 could happily survive without Ferrari. LdM is just having another rant. It needs someone to call his bluff and ignore him.

  25. Luca wants to change the rules because Ferrari is not capable of dominate the championship as it happened in the past with Schumacher. This is hipocrisy as its best. :)

    Anyway ,I agree with these changes, less aerodinamy downforce will be helpful to see better races(withour artificial elements like the DRS). Free testing will be also good for the new drivers.

    1. it’s true that luca is looking after the interests of his team but it seems that you forgot the era of michael sumacher in the ferrari because your words about “Ferrari dominating because of rules as it happened with shumacher” demonstrate that
      ferrari dominate because it has the best cars(f2002-f2004…..),the best team(Todt,Brawn,Byrne..)& the best driver(shumi)
      ferrari also suffered from the rules (testing restrictions-reducing costs-engine restrictions…….)

      1. Also Ferrari had more control over the rules than any other team, being given a veto over technical regulations they did not like.

        1. i’ respect you’re opinion & maybe in some part of it it’s true but what i’m trying to said is that the team didn’t won because of th regulation

          1. When testing was allowed, they had two private test tracks.
            When budgets were allowed to explode, they were one of the biggest spenders.
            When tyre manufacturers didn’t work individually with the team, they had Bridgestone’s full weight behind them whilst Michelin was split between McLaren and Williams.
            When engines mattered, they had one of the most powerful and reliable engines around.

            Their personnel counted for a lot too but so did the regulations of the time. They did a pretty good job with them but it played to their natural strengths and advantages.

          2. I mean when the tyre manufacturers didn’t have independent relationships with each team but were allowed to ignore all but one to that team’s benefit.

          3. Their personnel counted for a lot too but so did the regulations of the time. They did a pretty good job with them but it played to their natural strengths and advantages.

            Well said @icthyes – yes, they made good use of things (in that period, in the early 90ties they also had those tracks, didn’t they?), but they also made sure that the in the Schumacher period, the rules were such that they played to what were Ferrari’s strengths.

      2. Excuse me Tifoso1989 but I havent said exactly this. Ferrari dominated between 2000 and 2005 because they had the best driver and the best team. But also because their budget was the biggest one, they had a track only for them and an excellent aerodynamic enginner as Rory Bryne.

        But this success cant be explained with the huge amount of work they did between 1996 and 2000 to improve all the areas of the team and of course because of Michael Schumacher. The german was not only the best one driving but also the best one developing cars in the free tests, he worked so hard in this area that all the championships he won were well deserved.

        So its clear that Ferrari took advantage from its strenghts to build a perfect team. But nowadayw with the rule changes they have lost almost all of them(free test+track, unlimited bugget), and the rest have been lost due to other cincunstances(the absence of MSC and Rory Bryne).

        In conclusion, Ferrari needs to adapt itself to these new times, forget the old era and modernize the structure and working methods as RB has done.

        1. Exactly, its time to move on Ferrari. A new era needs some new skills and only thinking originally and taking some risks can help get onto the right path.

  26. i don’t think that Luca’s threat about leaving F1 is a joke (even if their real intention is to continue with F1),maybe he knows that his words will influence the FIA to change the regulation or for strengthening their position before the new Concorde agreement or just trynig to remember some history(the ferrari 637 1986) i don’t know,these are politics of the sport which i don’t understand
    but the thing that i know that Formula 1 one cannot be the same without the SCUDERIA!!!!!!!!!

  27. Luca’s comments about the 3rd car are the same as those of every team boss bar Horner. We can’t win with the current rules so change them. Or team X has a barely legal device and we don’t, so ban it because it’s unfair/expensive for us to make/bad for the sport/not within the spirit of the rules (hate that last explanation!). Though it is sad it’s always Ferrari making those comments now. With their history they should know that they are capable to build a championship winning car, so quit whining and do so.

    And while testing can help other teams catch up, it also makes the leading team keep their advantage. In the Ferrari dominance era no team could even catch up with them, while now as the year progresses you can see the leading team lose some of it’s advantage (most notably Brawn in 2009).

  28. Do I agree that aero has become WAY too important? Yes.
    Do I want engine regulations to be more free (with only fuel load made standard, to encourage efficiency, as @red-andy has suggested before)? Yes.
    Do I like the idea of 3-car teams? Yes, but there wouldn’t be enough room (or money from some teams)for 36 cars and Luca knows this.

    In F1 they say you are only as good as your last race. Ferrari’s history is something to admire (and squirm at sometimes), but it has zero to do with their place in F1. They’re just another team and if they don’t like it, then they can go.

    Without F1 Ferrari would be less than F1 without Ferrari. it’s the only major series they do consistently well in and have a massive fanbase for. I’m sure a lot of that energy and some of the fanbase would go into LMP or whatever they moved on to, but it would be suicide for their marketing and sales. If you want the regulations changed, try to get them done instead of making empty threats.

  29. Happy birthday to AlonsoWDC and Paul!

    1. Good point, happy birthday to you two AlonsoWDC and Paul!

      1. Paul was my username before the site became way too large to use it as my handle.

        But I’m the only F1F with 07 November as a birthday!

        Thanks all. :)

        1. And you must be the first to get a double birthday shoutout from Keith! Congratulations ;-)

  30. Okay Luca…. Goodbye!

  31. kenneth Ntulume
    7th November 2011, 13:57

    I feel for Luca, because the time Ferrari where all that, are gone, chances are the brand of the driver surpasses the brand of a team(in terms of fans) not market value)……..
    For example if Ferrari quit say next year Alonso and Massa, could get drives and chances are there fans would follow them, and other teams would go up in terms of positions, However i must admit, Ferrari is as important to f1 as what Real-madrid is to the Champions league, but if it left the sport, it sure would go on

  32. I started watching F1 in the mid 60′s. I quickly developed a huge respect for the drivers of those small fragile cars with the skinny tires. Circuits with trees at the edges and fans separated by maybe a fence in the corners. There wasn’t a lot of room for error and I feel they raced one another with a level of respect that has somehow gone missing in today’s field.
    alan93rsa

    I agree with this. Don’t get me wrong, I’m happier if drivers don’t need to risk their lives, but the way drivers headed into a race was very different back then.

  33. sid_prasher (@)
    7th November 2011, 17:12

    Luca is suggesting things that will clearly help the manufacturers more than the private teams.
    If Ferrari leaves it will be a loss for F1 – just like it will be if McLaren leaves…it just won’t be the same without these teams but Ferrari outside F1 will also lose out. If Ferrari could have run a series on its own successfully then it would have (didn’t they kind of try that in A1GP) already done that.

    But I think a little bit of in season testing will help teams to catch up – especially in seasons like the current one where no one could come close to RBR.

  34. On the subject of the third car: I don’t want to see three Ferrari’s entered by the Ferrari team per se.

    What I wouldn’t mind seeing, though, is a relaxation on the rules on customer cars.

    Think of it like this: if it were not for customer cars, Sir Frank Williams would not have been able to break into Formula 1 and learn from the back with his Brabhams and De Tomasos.

    Look at the history of the Williams team and all it has achieved now. If Sir Frank had been looking to do what he did 40 years ago in today’s F1, he would have been told to lump it.

    The way things are, we will never see another team like Williams in F1 which is a crying shame. A team that oozes F1 to its core and exists for no other reason. The rules are too restrictive to build such a team nowadays. F1 has too many bureaucrats restricting everything and anything that moves (sometimes literally!). From teams to technical regulations, theres a rule for absolutely everything.

    Although I have no desire to see third cars on the grid for the purposes that Montezemolo wants to see them (two years ago it was to give Herr Schumacher a plaything without compromising the two main Ferrari drivers when Felipe Massa returned, now it’s to put an Italian car in Stars and Stripes apparently), I wouldn’t mind a relaxation of the rules to the extent that teams like Williams could once again be conceived in the sport.

    If they don’t do it, isn’t there a danger that Formula 1 will just be filled with commercial companies (i.e Red Bull) who ultimately have more important commercial matters on their mind than building their racing heritage?

  35. The sport must change. Especially when Ferrari lose badly to a team founded off the back of a major energy drink company! Ofcourse, and Vettel should start every race from the back aswell I suppose just for good measure? What a crybaby.

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.