F1 will “lose several teams” if costs aren’t cut – Todt

F1 Fanatic round-up

Ma Qing Hua, HRT, Monza, 2012In the round-up: FIA president Jean Todt warns further cost cuts are essential in F1 to keep teams in the sport.

Links

Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:

Todt sets 2015 F1 costs target (Autosport)

“Costs are my main objective, because they must be lowered by a further 30 per cent in the next three years, otherwise we’ll lose several teams.”

Ferrari chief Montezemolo admits his team could pull out of Formula One (CNN)

“If Formula 1 is not any more an extreme technology competition, where the technology can be transferred to the road car, maybe we can see Formula 1 without Ferrari.”

Montezemolo, Todt and Ecclestone meet in Maranello (Ferrari)

“As has happened before on the occasion of the Italian Grand Prix, Ferrari President Luca di Montezemolo invited FIA President Jean Todt and FOM CEO Bernie Ecclestone to a meeting at Maranello today.”

Renault in running for surge in engine sales (FT, registration required)

“Team bosses predict only Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari will supply engines from 2014, when new rules will stipulate that cars must use less fuel-hungry V6 engines to better align F1 with environmental concerns.”

Zanardi Grabs Another Gold At London Paralympics (Speed)

“The 45-year-old Italian claimed his first gold medal in the 16-kilometer H4 Time Trial on Wednesday, and added gold in the 64-kilometer Individual H4 Road Race competition at the Brands Hatch circuit.”

Alonso fears McLaren Monza threat (BBC)

McLaren looked very strong so we need to find something extra.”

Kubica set for rally return (Crash.net)

“Former BMW and Renault F1 star Robert Kubica looks set to make his return to competition this weekend, with reports suggesting he will take in the Ronde Gomitolo di Lana rally in Italy.”

Whitmarsh on Hamilton’s McLaren future (F1.com)

“I think Lewis is going to develop his brand and we don?t have a problem with that. We are happy with that. But first and foremost he is a race driver – and the best way to develop his brand is to win on Sunday and then win in two weeks? time and so on and so forth. First and foremost Lewis Hamilton is a world-class athlete and a race driver – and that is how we think he should develop his brand.”

Mercedes may make sense for Hamilton (The Telegraph)

David Coulthard: “We are heading for some fairly major changes in the sport. The new V6 1.6-litre engine, due to be introduced in 2014, means that it may make sense for a star such as Hamilton to align himself with a manufacturer.”

Belgium 2012 – race edit (F1)

Highlights from the Belgian Grand Prix, including Kimi Raikkonen telling his race engineer “I know what I’m doing!” after being warned about Michael Schumacher behind him.

Forza Ferrari (F1 Speedwriter)

“‘Ferrari is a disease,’ according to Scuderia Ferrari President Luca di Montezemolo, ‘a nasty, contagious illness. This is the most prestigious, the best known racing team in the world. For our fans Ferrari amounts to a sort of inebriation. Ferrari is so special because it provides such great emotion.'”

Tweets

http://twitter.com/PaulHembery/statuses/244080610879086592

Comment of the day

@Cduk_Mugello on Eddie Jordan’s clearance sale:

I think this is really sad. He?s selling his genuine trophies? Like Monza ’99? These were won through determination and hard work, and I think it?s very bizarre that he would want to frivolously sell them. Does he need the money? I?m led to believe not, I think he has money in property etc…

But not only is he selling trophies he?s won, he?s selling personal gifts from drivers too. Like the Schumacher helmet, with it?s personalised message on. For me, it?s akin to selling a letter someone writes you. I would?ve hoped that Eddie Jordan would attach more sentiment to them than this.
@Cduk_Mugello

From the forum

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today.

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

Stirling Moss scored a dominant win for Vanwall in the season finale at Monza on this day in 1957.

The only other driver on the same lap was Juan Manuel Fangio, who had wrapped up his fifth drivers’ championship title two races earlier. Wolfgang von Trips was third for Ferrari.

Here’s highlights from the race:

Advert | Go Ad-free

59 comments on F1 will “lose several teams” if costs aren’t cut – Todt

  1. Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 8th September 2012, 0:39

    Ferrari chief Montezemolo admits his team could pull out of Formula One

    FACEPALM. Not again, Luca. Be a man, and do it, then ! DO IT !

    • JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III said on 8th September 2012, 2:10

      You know it’s silly season when montezemolo says ferrari could leave f1.

      • sanjaa said on 8th September 2012, 7:38

        What do you expect of a team from a country who go through presidents like I do disposable lighters, its in their blood

      • Maksutov (@maksutov) said on 8th September 2012, 7:43

        But he is right about a few things. As he states: “Formula 1 is becoming a sort of satellite, or aeroplane aerodynamic research – I want to do car research. ” .

        That is one of the funniest (and direct to the point) comments he has ever made. Furthermore, while Todt keeps talking about cost cutting, he doesn’t realise that costs are constantly being increased by rule changes. You want to cut costs, then stop introducing new rules all the time. Furthermore, he should pay more attention to what Montezemolo is saying about aeroplanes. If rules aren’t fixed ,teams will start spending more and more money on aerodynamics. And soon F1 cars will indeed look like aeroplanes.

        • Todfod (@todfod) said on 8th September 2012, 7:49

          then stop introducing new rules all the time

          THe introduction of new rules is what keeps f1 interesting though. Look at the shake up the grid got in 2009, 2010 and 2011. If there were no new rule changes it would be the same Ferrari vs Mclaren battle at the front forever.

          I do agree that aero development should have some sort of capping, and more road car related development should be encouraged

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 8th September 2012, 10:37

            If there were no new rule changes it would be the same Ferrari vs Mclaren battle at the front forever.

            Exactly. For how long would people be interested in Formula 1 if the rules had been frozen at the end of the 2011 season – we’d be looking at Red Bull dominating indefinitely.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 8th September 2012, 3:24

      Once upon a time, the thread of Ferrari withdrawing from Formula 1 was a serious threat.

      These days, it’s usually just a sign that we’re on a day of the week ending with “y”.

    • foleyger (@foleyger) said on 8th September 2012, 10:08

      Ferrari shud just leave if they want to . They get mmore money than any other team as they are in F1 since 1950 which makes no senses to me.

  2. HoHum (@hohum) said on 8th September 2012, 0:59

    So now we know what the FIA will use the 20 million Euro they want to charge the teams next year, they will use it to look for ways to lower costs for the team, well that will be worthwhile then.
    Funny how someone as successful as Luca Di Montezemolo has the same delusion as I do that F1 technology should have some relevance to improving road cars in order to justify the cost, guess we are just a couple of old out of touch dinosaurs.

    • When people say that, they mean regular road cars, that you and me would drive every day. There are some differences between those and Ferraris. :P

      But F1 shouldn’t be about developing technologies relevant to daily life, though. It should be about developing technologies to make cars go faster and safer. Anything that happens to be applicable to road cars is a fortunate by-product.

      It’s a bit like space exploration in that regard. We don’t do it for the non-stick frying pans.

      • ivz (@ivz) said on 8th September 2012, 2:30

        The tech in a Ferrari/Mercedes road car eventually ends up in every standard road car if you haven’t noticed!?
        As for the whole cost issue, does anyone have stats on how much money F1 made in 2011 vs how much was given to the teams? And a rough idea on most team budgets?

      • Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 8th September 2012, 3:38

        But F1 shouldn’t be about developing technologies relevant to daily life, though. It should be about developing technologies to make cars go faster and safer. Anything that happens to be applicable to road cars is a fortunate by-product.

        Well, it’s not a “fortunate by-product”. Making cars go faster, more efficiently, and safely, it’s road car development too.

        Motorsport should always try to push the limits a bit, year after year. And F1 should do it more often, as it’s the pinnacle of motorsports. But I don’t know what Luca’s saying… I mean, 2.4 V8s are not the future. That’s what they’ve been doing since the car was invented: lower the capacity, make it more efficient, and bring up the power and reliability.

        I hope he’s not talking about the engines, because if he is, then his statement is plain stupid.

      • Julian (@julian) said on 8th September 2012, 4:21

        It’s a bit like space exploration in that regard. We don’t do it for the non stick frypans.

        Or the material in our fleshlights. ;)

        Sorry, couldn’t help myself :p

      • Yes, do not see why because this sport semmes to use 4 wheel that it must be relevant to road cars (even Ferrari).
        All electronic stuff, -the revolution in road cars that never finish- that are in the road cars are forbidden in F1 cars. Road cars become to be designed as automatic device to go from one point to the other, like train or streetcar. All aerodynanmic stuff in F1 cars do not exist in road cars, including Ferrari. All materials used in F1 cars are never used in road cars because they are 10 times more expensive. All other things are well known everywhere (liike recovery energy) . The F1 cars are “special machine” designed to go fast on a special track, there is no one piece shared with road cars. The only one motorsport does look like to do this purpose is rally cars, and we know that it is just a look like, they build a frame, use special stuff, make them look like a Citroen DS3, but no one componeent is shared too.
        When we have advertisment on F1, does it mean that the brand has a connection with the sport ? Of course not (especially tobacco, a deadly thing in totla opposition to athletic things) but people who do the ads are not stupid, they know that consummers make a connection (for example an insurance ad on the car) and it is bad because it is just a lie. The same lie that Renault wil make us believe that their uggly cars imported at 40% from low cost countries are made in France and that their technology come from F1. F1 is an ad, a simple way of communication, like everything then it is not new.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 9th September 2012, 0:25

          All those things in road cars that are “forbidden in F1″ were first developed in F1, before being forbidden because of the advantages they had, lessons learned in F1 and MotoGP were used to to make small, bulletproof, high output engines for cheap hatchbacks.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 9th September 2012, 12:41

        But F1 shouldn’t be about developing technologies relevant to daily life, though. It should be about developing technologies to make cars go faster and safer. Anything that happens to be applicable to road cars is a fortunate by-product.

        I would say that unless a company would expect to only put money IN and nothing out, then it should use what it learns and apply it in other businesses where they can make money from it (which can then be put back to finance further racing, inclusive development) @aseixas.
        Exactly what Williams and McLaren are doing with resp. hybrid systems and their electronical products and Caterham (and Lotus before that) does with their aero department and composites arm. Sure, some use the things they learn mostly on road going cars, like Ferrari itself, or Red Bull working together with Nissan, or Renault and Mercedes (although Daimler Benz is in EADS as well), but its not the only place for using the know how.

    • Novotny (@novotny) said on 8th September 2012, 3:27

      I honestly don’t think that the purpose of Ferrari in F1 is to make better hatch-backs for the M26.

      Colour me cynical, but I thought it was all about being the bestest, fastest and most of all – the most prestigious. I could be completely wrong though, and maybe all they’re working to do is better the Nissan Micra.

      Maybe old Luca is being slightly disingenuous? I know that’s a shocking thing to consider of an F1 team.

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 9th September 2012, 0:32

        Any improvements in power, reliability, and efficiency discovered by Ferrari engineers will eventually find their way into FIAT hatchbacks, Pandas don’t need downforce but they can always use more efficient , more reliable , and smaller, lighter engines.

        • xjr15jaaag (@xjr15jaaag) said on 9th September 2012, 10:50

          But since 2006, the engine regs were frozen; the engine you had at the end of 2006 you had until now pretty much.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 9th September 2012, 18:35

          I think even the diffuser does get onto more and more of those super-fuel efficient cars lately, as everyone gets how having better traction and aero with low drag helps save them fuel on those.
          Didn’t Mercedes also boast about how they had been able to significantly improve the profile of their big SUV to get it from a horrible gas guzzling car towards an acceptable fuel economy?

  3. Aimal (@aimalkhan) said on 8th September 2012, 1:03

    does anyone know the name of the show the video above is from ?

  4. Colossal Squid (@colossal-squid) said on 8th September 2012, 1:13

    There’s only so many times you can make the same threat and make it sound believable. Once again di Montezemolo trots out this threat whenever he doesn’t like any aspect of F1’s proposed future, major or minor.
    I’m reminded of a small child who constantly says he’ll run away from home if he doesn’t get what he wants.
    Ferrari and F1 have a near symbiotic relationship as I see it. Both can survive independent of one another, but to my mind in doing so both would become lesser creatures.

  5. davidnotcoulthard said on 8th September 2012, 1:18

    at COTD: I think I sense something bad happening based on that.

  6. JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III said on 8th September 2012, 2:14

    Best comment from kimi at spa.

    “engine room give me full power give me full power”
    “she canne take it cap’n!”

  7. schooner (@schooner) said on 8th September 2012, 2:53

    I guess we have to hand it to Hamilton. The “will he / won’t he” leave McLaren story (or non story) has certainly gained him and his “brand” a lot of press recently. I’ve been a fan since his GP2 days, but for me, he’s been losing a bit of his luster. I’d actually like to see him leave McLaren, and show us what he’s really made of in terms of helping a 2nd tier team develop and become a regular visitor to the podium. Spice things up a bit! Hamilton/McLaren is getting old.

    • Todfod (@todfod) said on 8th September 2012, 7:58

      I do not know if Hamilton joining a team outside the top 3 teams really spices up things. I would much rather see him in a top team battling at the front. For some reason I think the Vettel at RB, Alonso at Ferrari and Lewis at Mclaren is just a brilliant setup, as we have the 3 best drivers in the 3 best teams. I think it would be a tragedy to have a driver such as Button lead a team like Mclaren.

  8. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 8th September 2012, 3:22

    “Costs are my main objective, because they must be lowered by a further 30 per cent in the next three years, otherwise we’ll lose several teams.”

    But if costs are cut, Red Bull will lose their competitive advantage! And that would be bad for the sport!

  9. insider said on 8th September 2012, 3:26

    Pit to Kimi : Don’t ask for any more Warp 9 speeds. Our star drive is completely burned out. The only thing we have left is impulse power.

  10. Thomas (@infi24r) said on 8th September 2012, 3:30

    Red Bull just ignore the costs agreements why bother.

  11. Kimi4WDC said on 8th September 2012, 4:40

    No they wont. I know its bit far fetched but this is to certain extend same as bailing out banks, just leave them they will adjust and know better, because top teams do not exist with out lower teams. Instead of creating artificial circus.

  12. Pelican (@pelican) said on 8th September 2012, 4:42

    Way to get back on the horse, Robert Kubica…

  13. Paul McCaffrey said on 8th September 2012, 4:54

    Yes, I have an idea. Why not bring most of the fly away races back to Europe so the teams don’t have to fly the cars to godforsaken Abu Dhabi? Oh yes, then Bernie would not get the race fee. Screw the teams, then! When GrandAm and the American LeMans series merge, and Audi and Peugeot come back when the economy improves, those teams mentioned in the article should leave F1 and join GrandAm building Daytona/LeMans prototypes. Those cars look effin’ sweet and the racing is frickin awesome. And their is an effort at tech transfer (frickin Diesel Hybrids at LeMans, y’all).

    Bernie needs to control his greed. Look at the state of the sport. Engine development is frozen. KERS is restricted. DRS is unsporting. The cars are fugly and Alonso almost got hit in the head with one. When two cars touch, one of their wings falls off. If there were more prestigious marques and more prototype cars on the grid in Endurance sportscar racing, I’d be all over it.

    I’m still a more than casual American F1 fan, and really, it’s not because of the tech, it’s because F1 has great personalities. Alonso, Hamilton, Button, Weber, I frickin love those guys. They make the NASCAR drivers look like Honey Boo Boo children (except for JPM, he’s got diplomatic immunity).

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 8th September 2012, 6:36

      I find it incredible that you can blame Bernie for the escalating costs of the sport. Restricting the championship wto Europe will do nothing – if anything, it will encourage more spending because teams will have more money to put into development. Some of the top teams are said to be spending $200 million per year; I’ve heard rumours suggesting that Red Bull is spending almost twice that. Each team’s budget to transport themselves around the world is only a fraction of that.

      When the grid was expanded in 2010, Bernie put aside $30 million to aid the new teams in getting to every event on the calendar; each of them got $10 million to spend before they had to start raising the money themselves. Lotus (the Lotus that is now Caterham), Virgin and HRT all managed to attend every race without needing to put up any of their own money to make it to any of the Grands Prix.

      While restricting the championship to Europe and therefore cutting out the need to spend money hauling a team around the world would not doubt fit a loose definition of “cost cutting”, it is not the kind of cost cutting Jean Todt wants. He does not want penny-shaving here and there to give the illusion that Formula 1 is fiscally responsible – he wants to stop teams from spending hundreds of millions of dollars at a time.

      Once again, someone has blamed Bernie for something that he has absolutely no responsibility for and no power to influence or control. How, exactly, are the engine development freeze and restriction of KERS Bernie’s fault? He controls the commercial side of the sport, and has absolutely no say in the introduction or enforcement of the rules. How are ugly cars Bernie’s responsibility? That was a byproduct of teams looking for a loophole in the regulations for 2012, trying to find a way to keep a high monocoque but meet the demand for a low nose so that they didn’t have to give up the advantages of having a high monocoque. I’m pretty sure Bernie even commented at the start of the year that he thought the cars were ugly. And as for Alonso coming close to being hit in the head by a car, I’m fairly certain that Bernie wasn’t driving that Lotus at the time of the accident, so how on earth can you reasonably blame him for it?

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 9th September 2012, 0:50

        @prisoner-monkeys, it is true that you can’t blame Bernie for the amount of money the teams spend but you can blame Bernie for the need to restrict things like engine development because half the income FOM earns goes out of the sport to investors Bernie sold out to for $2.5 BILLION, none of which Bernie gave back to F1.
        When you say Bernie provided $30.Million for the new teams, that money was earned by the teams not by Bernie.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 9th September 2012, 1:02

          you can blame Bernie for the need to restrict things like engine development

          Engine development was not restricted because of Bernie. Engine development was restricted because it is almost possibly to police effectly. At one point there, Mercedes were using exotic alloys based on beryllium in their cylinders to make them run smoother, and there was virtually nothing the FIA could do to enforce it because there was no way they could practically check parts of the engines. Engine costs were escalating exponentially, the gains returned were minimal at best (though just enough for manufacturers to justify the costs), and it was getting to the point where one engine would soon cost more than the GDP of Swaziland. The FIA cracked down on it because they didn’t want the sport to become unsustainable.

          When you say Bernie provided $30.Million for the new teams, that money was earned by the teams not by Bernie.

          That money – which I believe came from race sanctioning fees – was actually put aside before the FIA had accepted any grid entries, much less chosen the three teams. All the teams had to do to “earn” the money was be accepted onto the grid.

  14. Phil T (@phil-t) said on 8th September 2012, 6:21

    Montezemolo and his meaningless rantings. It seems like its every few weeks. What purpose do they serve ? Must do wonders for morale and feelings of job security at Maranello, coming out with statements like that all the time. It totally goes against Enzo Ferrari`s ethos too, who only started selling road cars to pay for going racing ! You would think he would be in touch with the past, if not the present. I think its high time he went instead, Ferrari, and F1, would be better off without him.

  15. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 8th September 2012, 7:43

    I wonder if we’re going to see the end of the Canadian Grand Prix in the near future.

    Just this week past, Quebec have gone through a series of general elections, and Parti Quebecois assumed power. PQ are known for their seccessionist views, calling for Quebec to break away from Canada and form its own nation. Given that Montreal is a major city in Quebec, then should Quebec secede from Canada and become independent, the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve would go with it. This means that the Canadian Grand Prix would come to an end, and would potentially be replaced by the Quebecois Grand Prix (assuming the new nation can afford a race).

    Of course, this could all be years away – in order to secede from Canada, PQ would need to call a referendum, but they only have a minority government, so they would need to do a lot of work to make it happen.

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.