Ferrari should have vetoed V6 engines – Ecclestone

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Fernando Alonso, Ferrari, Spa-Francorchamps, 2013In the round-up: Bernie Ecclestone says Ferrari should have used its political clout to veto the new 2014 engine regulations.

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

For Bernie Ecclestone, Business as Usual (The New York Times)

“The one that could have stopped [the 2014 engine rules], really, was Ferrari. Ferrari had a veto over a lot of these changes when they were made, and they didn?t veto it. If they had, I?d have completely supported it.”

Fernando Alonso quashes rumours of return to McLaren (The Guardian)

“I repeat it more or less every weekend and I keep repeating it ?ǣ I love Ferrari and I will stay at Ferrari until the end. It’s nice to hear comments from all the team principals every year saying they respect my job and personality, especially McLaren.”

Ecclestone’s corruption trial delayed (The Telegraph)

“According to the Munich prosecutor’s office, it is still waiting for additional information from Ecclestone?s lawyers and a decision this year is ‘no longer expected’.”

2013 Singapore Grand Prix – Friday Press Conferece (FIA)

Eric Boullier: “The truth is that yes, we owe [Kimi Raikkonen] money so that?s true. He?s going to be paid, that?s true too and if you want to have a little bit more of the story, last year in the same period it was the same story: we were owing him some money but at the end of the year he was fully paid. It?s just the way we manage our cash flow. Unfortunately we are not as rich as some other teams on the grid.”

Perez not worried about McLaren future (Autosport)

“I am here for next year, and let’s see – hopefully we can be back to fight for a championship next year.”

Grand Prix boss Ron Walker close to sealing new deal to keep F1 race in Melbourne (Herald Sun)

“A well-placed F1 source said an offer was now on the table. ‘The deal is pretty much done,’ the source said, ‘and will now go to the cabinet for approval.’”

Brawn dismisses Williams link (Sky)

“I’m planning to be here next year so there’s nothing else happening, I can guarantee it.”

Lewis Hamilton column: Singapore Grand Prix an incredible challenge (BBC)

“I won here in 2009 and feel like I have been the moral victor twice as well. Last year, I was leading comfortably when my McLaren’s gearbox broke, and in 2008 I was second behind Ferrari’s Felipe Massa and on a strategy that could have won me the race – then came the Safety Car period after Nelson Piquet [Jnr] deliberately crashed his Renault and I ended up third behind Fernando Alonso and Nico Rosberg.”

Pat Symonds has ??unfinished business? with F1 (FT, registration required)

“Symonds and Flavio Briatore, Renault?s team principal at the time, were involved in giving the order. Symonds was banned for five years, later reduced to three. He refuses to discuss the incident.”

David Coulthard – make opportunities happen (Mario Muth via YouTube)

http://youtu.be/HSdoEMa8bkk

Tweets

Comment of the day

Thoughts from @Garns on the prospects for the rest of the weekend:

We have seen a few times this year that Mercedes lead first practice, Red Bull second practice then its a battle for pole – hopefully the same tomorrow night. Mark Webber needs one in his final year!

What is happening with Jules Bianchi of late? It seems to me he is off the great fine form he saw in his first few races now not looking as strong against Max Chilton.
@Garns

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

Jim Clark capped a successful year by winning the International Gold Cup trophy at Oulton Park in his Lotus 25.

Here’s some rare onboard footage of him in action on the Cheshire track:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LnMJflV5sA

Image ?? Ferrari/Ercole Colombo

Advert | Go Ad-free

57 comments on Ferrari should have vetoed V6 engines – Ecclestone

  1. OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 21st September 2013, 0:10

    So when Bernie doesn’t agree with something, he wants to lbby for a “solution” that makes him feel better? And he is in the middle of a corruption scandal, so Bernie should, just, close his mouth.

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 21st September 2013, 1:01

        Typically Bernie tries to distract attention from the biggest expense in F1, him, that is the deal he and his buddy Max Mosely concocted to lock the teams into a 100 year deal where Bernie (or whoever he sold the rights to) got to keep $1.00 for every 9 cents a team got from the revenue the teams created by building the cars and racing.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 21st September 2013, 1:08

          Yes I know he says the teams get 62%, but they haven’t yet got it, and it still means that for every $1.00 the rights holders will get the individual teams will get less than 13 cents.

          • When was the last time an 83 year old man ran and made crucial business decisions for a billion dollar corporation? When most of your peers are in old age homes I think it’s time you moved on.

            Despite what many people think, I believe that whoever comes in to replace him will do just as good if not better a job than he is doing at the moment. At least whoever will replace may be more reasonable with race hosting fees.

          • You really need to back that one up if you are going to say it, I’ve not seen anything that would lead me to believe that is the case.

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 21st September 2013, 5:13

            Bernie is very good at what he does, I just wish he was doing it for for the teams on a remuneration package commensurate with the size of the business and with an emphasis on long term growth rather than short term profit.

          • Hamish said on 21st September 2013, 7:38

            Does somewhat make sense, if by Bernie you mean CVC.

            If Bernie gets $1 for every 9c a team gets that means the top 10 teams that get the prizemoney shared up amongst them would equate to roughly 90c compared to Bernies $1. Does make sense now why he’d want to limit new entrants into the sport. If it was a $1 for every 9c you can understand why he would only ever want to distribute prizemoney to 11 teams (99c), and not 12 ($1.07). I think 2010 onwards was the limit we will ever reach, having 12 teams and therefore the top 11 getting the gold.

            I understand the winners and Ferrari get more each year, but obviously the amount of cars on the grid would determine what split of prize money goes to the teams. 9c for each team does make sense……..up to 11 teams of course.

          • Eric (@baron-2) said on 21st September 2013, 8:51

            The top 10 teams get prize money, it doesn’t matter if there’s 10 teams on the grid or 20.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 21st September 2013, 3:21

          This isn’t misdirection from Bernie. He has been staunchly opposed to the new engine formula since its inception. For a man with a reputation for getting his way come hell or high water, his inability to stop the new engines is a major failure on his part.

        • Hamish said on 21st September 2013, 7:41

          $1.08*

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 21st September 2013, 8:48

            But in most sports the teams share near 100% of the income with only a small percentage or fixed fee to pay for the expenses of the promoting association, so the teams should be getting more like 18cents each for every $1.00 Bernie/FOM keep for themselves.

          • Hamish said on 21st September 2013, 8:58

            And sadly no one gets as much as this thing called “interest” in their P&L

        • Yes, but when HRT was still around the top 11 teams got the loot – 99c

    • Nevertheless If you believe that F1 is about racing why sacrifice a crucial part of it for marketing. Bernie wouldn’t falter to other brands interests, the other guy’s would falter for him.

  2. Nick.UK (@) said on 21st September 2013, 0:23

    I think that article by Andrew Benson about McLaren seeking Alonso was a whole new level of absurd, even for Benson. How he managed to publish something like that based on quotes from Witmarsh that were clearly intended as a simple and respectful regard to Alonso, is beyond me. I think a story about how Sauber had appointed a loaf of bread as team principle would have had more credibility. There’s circulating interesting rumours, and then there is putting out purely irritating garbage. The BBC should sack Andrew Benson, not based solely on the latest article, but because he is generally aweful.

  3. Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 21st September 2013, 0:27

    It sounds like most of these changes for 2014 are because of the teams can never find an agreement on anything. Despite the majority of teams in favour of cost cutting, sans 4 (RBR, Ferrari, Merc, Mclaren).

    For me I don’t really like these new changes. It seems like too much too quickly.
    They say they’re doing it because they want Formula One to be more relavent to road car production.

    But for me, I love Formula One because it’s so far from my road car. I love the extremes it produces. I don’t watch it to see which one is most like my road car. I couldn’t care less about that. I just want to see them go insanely quickly with a sound that nothing else on earth can compete with.

    I’m not trying to say that these 2014 changes will make the cars like a fleet of Kia Rio’s. But it seems like a sign of things to come in the distant future.

    So long V8′s. You will be missed.

    • Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 21st September 2013, 0:35

      I could be wrong, but it just seems like such a huge change in a short time span.

      I am really really really looking forward to 2014 though.

    • Fisha695 (@fisha695) said on 21st September 2013, 7:09

      But for me, I love Formula One because it’s so far from my road car. I love the extremes it produces. I don’t watch it to see which one is most like my road car. I couldn’t care less about that.

      Exactly, if I wanted to see something like my road car I’d watch Sports/Touring Car racing or in a very long stretch NASCAR style Stockcar racing. F1 & Indycar along with all their junior formulas should be looked at as extreme GoKarts because that’s what they are. I mean I have no problem with stuff from F1 finding it’s way to production cars but that should not be the goal or even an objective along the way to the goal.

  4. Atticus (@atticus-2) said on 21st September 2013, 0:28

    That video of Jim Clark is great, I watched it numerous times – although most of it came from a documentary on him. Here it is, from 4:39.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z0-0U8Fk-8&list=PL88B5B07683D3509B

    I just loved the speech during the footage.

    Besides, Oulton Park is such a great race track with all its still-present undulations and cambered corners – here with the original Knickerbrook, a class of its own. I don’t like it was chopped up by chicanes as well.

    *

    On another topic, I think it’s not quite creative to fill the WEC calendar with F1 tracks (bar Le Mans, of course). Take the ALMS for example: it races on such historic tracks as Road Atlanta, Lime Rock, Long Beach, etc. Obviously, all American track, but I think most of them are greater than the COTA – and I like COTA a lot.

    • I enjoyed inmensely that video. I was awestruck with his smoothness at the entry AND the exit of each corner. And oh man, how I miss the F1 with manual gearbox.
      Awesome, awesome video.

  5. I think Ferrari will benefit from the changes, from what it looks like they are failing in creating a successful car, RBR seem to be one step ahead on aerodynamics (Adrian Newey’s work basically), therefore with this new changes and raising the importance of the engine they probably feel confident about it, and that is probably why they agreed with the new rules.

    Obviously my opinion is only based on the actual sport and results, probably a lot of other factors played a role in their decision

    • Agree. The only area they can beat Newey is by producing new engine, remember in 2000 when Mclaren-Mercedes still dominant at Belgium but in the next race Ferrari new engine brought half second faster already. Between 2000-2004 Ferrari engine dominated, only because the can always produce a new version without engine freeze.

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 21st September 2013, 2:01

        Yes, Enzo was always an engine man first and a chassis man second. Unfortunately there is no room in the new rules to produce a significantly superior internal combustion engine.

        • Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 21st September 2013, 3:25

          Between 2000-2004 Ferrari engine dominated, only because the can always produce a new version without engine freeze.

          Actually, the Ferrari engine did not dominate 2000-2004. In fact, it was said that BMW might have equaled Ferrari in horse-power. However, Ferrari dominated the mechanical grip and reliability department during this period of time.

  6. Wow, the Lotus 25 onboard really drives it home how small the cars were, a really tight fit. Clark had barely enough room to shift gears. I guess Webber would not be able to race F1 those days :-).

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 21st September 2013, 1:16

      @ph, I don’t know about Clark but in that era the drivers were more normal in size, Phill Hill I know was considerably taller than both Webber and the average, todays jockey sized drivers have evolved as a result of the dimishing area of gains available.

      • @hohum Thanx for the info, I am more of a car fan than drivers fan. I was just amazed that he would have more room in a coffin than in his car (symbolism originally not intended but immediately spotted).

  7. Stefanauss (@stefanauss) said on 21st September 2013, 2:36

    Does Raikkonen have a base salary at Lotus or He just earns on a points basis?
    In that’s the latter: If It’s so tight on money, could it be that Lotus really underestimated Raikkonen consistency in scoring points and podiums and that emptied the pockets faster than anticipated?

  8. Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 21st September 2013, 2:54

    AAAAAAAAAAH ! The enormous face of that square-headed driver freaked me out !

  9. Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 21st September 2013, 3:23

    Don’t be ridiculous Bernie, did you really expect Maranello to veto this opportunity? Ferrari rarely beat Newey in an aerodynamic battle, but they do however, tend to outclass everyone in the mechanical grip and engine department. 2014 should be a fresh start for the Scuderia.

  10. DK (@seijakessen) said on 21st September 2013, 4:06

    I agree with Bernie that the V6 turbo engines should have been vetoed by Ferrari. However my reasoning is likely different from his. He fears the engine costs being so great, that it may result in even less teams on the grid when they cannot afford to pay the bills for these insanely priced units.

    Ferrari should have vetoed for two reasons in my opinion.

    1) Even though each year new developments will be allowed, the restrictions on engine design have all but ensured more of this spec race garbage that is the antithesis of what F1 is about. Instead of pushing forward into new frontiers, there will be little, to no difference between the engines. They may as well have sourced out a single engine supplier and then let the teams rebadge them with different valve covers. This is nothing like the 1980s turbo era where the engines were different, and would run upwards of 74lbs of boost in qualifying. It’s more silliness to take away any potential advantage one engine might have over another. The end result being the field is still bunched up, and aerodynamics remains the name of the game.

    2) Mario Illien said that for what it costs a single team to purchase 8 engines in today’s F1, for the same amount of money he could produce 100 engines in the year 2000. So much for the idea that freezing the engines would somehow be cost effective eh? Simple rule of economics is that the more of something that is produced, the lower the cost per unit becomes. Next season’s 5 engine limit is more stupidity that only further drives up costs. If the teams were really that interested in driving down costs, they would have taken all of this into account. Yet sadly they seem to be their own worst enemy.

    Max Mosley may not be running the FIA anymore, but his influence is still felt…and not for the better.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 21st September 2013, 5:34

      Amen to that, and for those that don’t know, Mario Ilien was a founding partner of Ilmor the private engineering company that made money from designing and building racing engines, including the modern era “mercedes” F1 engines, before Mercedes bought them out Lock Stock and Barrel.

    • Roald (@roald) said on 21st September 2013, 5:49

      @seijakessen Sorry, but you are 100% wrong on Ecclestone’s reasoning. He doesn’t care about team finances, just recently he was quoted as saying he doesn’t care about giving teams
      more money because they’ll just spend it all. Besides, he actually WANTS at least one team to leave, he wants 10 teams at
      most and that’s probably why Marussia still has no commercial deal in place with him, unlike all the other teams. I have no idea where you got the idea that he cares so much about the costs of the engines, because he doesn’t. Look it up.

      His sole reason to boycot the turbo engines is the sound. Again, look it up. He was against losing the V10′s as well, but we all know he didn’t win that fight either.

      • DK (@seijakessen) said on 21st September 2013, 13:07

        @roald Yes he does care about team finances. To say he does not is to disregard the contracts he has with the race organizers at each circuit. He has to field a minimum of cars on the grid to meet the terms of the contract on his end. I forget what the exact number is, but there is a minimum.

        Trust me, I dislike the man, but to say he doesn’t care about the cost of the engines is ignorant as it comes. It goes back to needing the 10 teams on the grid. The cost involved with these engines is astronomical. He says the sound, but over the decades, what one must learn with Bernie is some of what he says is a smokescreen for something else. There is no doubt he would like to not see the turbo engines, but the reasons are different from what you are implying.

  11. Hamilfan (@hamilfan) said on 21st September 2013, 5:57

    Phew ! brawn is not going next year . Now that’s a big relief !

    That Hamilton column is nice .

    I don’t get you Bernie ? you want Red Bull to keep winning ? I know you are a Seb fan , backgammon and all , but this ?

  12. Funkyf1 (@funkyf1) said on 21st September 2013, 6:02

    I was under the presumption Ferrari were against the V6 engines as it doesn’t suit there development program.

  13. kcarrey (@kcarrey) said on 21st September 2013, 6:12

    is bernie suggesting that smaller teams should borrow money from richer teams when the need arises?

  14. dragoll (@dragoll) said on 21st September 2013, 6:16

    I am wondering why anyone would even contemplate ALO going to McLaren? As far as he’s concerned, they burned him when he was teammates with HAM. I don’t think ALO will let that slide…

  15. AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 21st September 2013, 6:59

    Also in the Bernie article:

    I think there have been 54 teams in Formula One. We’re 10 now.

    He never lets an opportunity slip to deny the existence of Marussia.

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.