Montezemolo: F1 must change

F1 Fanatic round-up

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.


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.

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.

Advert | Go Ad-free


125 comments on Montezemolo: F1 must change

  1. wasiF1 (@wasif1) said on 7th November 2011, 3:06

    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.

  2. wasiF1 (@wasif1) said on 7th November 2011, 3:19

    Interesting http


    • wasiF1 (@wasif1) said on 7th November 2011, 3:21

      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?

      • Mike (@mike) said on 7th November 2011, 5:53

        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.

      • gabal (@gabal) said on 7th November 2011, 8:49

        @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.

  3. Riffa said on 7th November 2011, 4:03

    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.

    • Riffa said on 7th November 2011, 4:09

      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.

      • Mike (@mike) said on 7th November 2011, 5:57

        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.

        • Riffa said on 7th November 2011, 6:19

          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.

          • Dobin1000 (@dobin1000) said on 7th November 2011, 9:24

            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.

      • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 7th November 2011, 11:51

        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.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 7th November 2011, 5:28

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

  4. F1Yankee (@f1yankee) said on 7th November 2011, 4:38

    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.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 7th November 2011, 5:47

      @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.

      • Mike (@mike) said on 7th November 2011, 5:59

        COTD for sure.

        The only thing I’d say is…

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

      • Riffa said on 7th November 2011, 6:55

        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.

  5. 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.

    • Ilanin (@ilanin) said on 7th November 2011, 11:34

      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.

      • 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.


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

  6. TED BELL said on 7th November 2011, 4:57

    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.

    • verstappen (@verstappen) said on 7th November 2011, 8:16

      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…

  7. infy (@infy) said on 7th November 2011, 6:50

    I cant help but agree with everything he said.

  8. Girts (@girts) said on 7th November 2011, 7:03

    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.

  9. GeeMac (@geemac) said on 7th November 2011, 8:05

    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! ;)

    • Ilanin (@ilanin) said on 7th November 2011, 11:35

      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.

  10. tobinen (@tobinen) said on 7th November 2011, 8:07

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

  11. Alain (@paganbasque) said on 7th November 2011, 8:41

    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.

    • Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989) said on 7th November 2011, 9:15

      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…….)

      • Dobin1000 (@dobin1000) said on 7th November 2011, 9:28

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

        • Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989) said on 7th November 2011, 9:34

          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

          • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 7th November 2011, 10:02

            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.

          • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 7th November 2011, 10:04

            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.

          • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 7th November 2011, 12:01

            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.

      • Alain (@paganbasque) said on 7th November 2011, 14:51

        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.

  12. Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989) said on 7th November 2011, 8:45

    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!!!!!!!!!

  13. SempreGilles (@sempregilles) said on 7th November 2011, 9:07

    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).

  14. Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 7th November 2011, 9:44

    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.

  15. BasCB (@bascb) said on 7th November 2011, 9:48

    Happy birthday to AlonsoWDC and Paul!

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.