Panto Season starts early!

Skeeter

Skeeter

Skeeter

Caporegime
Joined
8 Mar 2007
Posts
37,146
Location
Surrey
TBH, your right, he raises some good points.

The problem I have with him, and the whole of Ferrari is there attitude that F1 would die without them.

It wont. What will happen however, is Ferrari will loose the global stage that they use to promote their brand accross the globe, and all the marketing by association they do based on their F1 involvement. Leaving F1 would be suicide for Ferrari.

This, in my mind, makes all these constant threats just pathetic moans. They could sit down and make the arguments in a structured way with the aim of improving the sport. Stomping your feet like a 2 year old and saying you will leave if you don't get your way is just childish.
 
MooMoo444 said:
While its ridiculous to throw around threats, his views on testing etc are completely accurate.
Click to expand...

But his views will just be brushed under the carpet as yet another empty threat from Ferrari to quit. His points would be listened to much more if he chose a more tactful way of putting them across.
 
Mercedes, yes.

Renault? Lol what? Since when were Renault a competitor in the car market with Ferrari?

The whole issue Ferrari have is that the FIA are trying to make F1 more appealing to car makers like Renault, VW, Honda, etc. Ferrari want an open formula with V12 engines and 3 or 4 car teams.
 
The original 2014 (2013 at the time) regulations.

I4 Turbo 1.6l Engines, much simpler aerodynamics, larger wheels, lower costs. All designed to get all the major car manufacturers who lumped ship back involved.

But Ferrari didn't like that (Inline 4's have zero relevance to Ferrari), so complained, got Merc on side too (for the same reasons), and now we have the mish mash middle ground V6 Turbo engine and no changes to wheel sizes and less radical changes to aero.

Every 'everyday' car maker on the planet either has or is planning to have 4 cylinder turbos in their cars. Does anyone run a 1.6l V6 Turbo in their road cars?

Ferrari are at one end of the scale, people like VW and Renault are at the other. The FIA aimed for an F1 closer to the VW/Renault camp, Ferrari complained, and we have ended up in no mans land in the middle.

But as always, Ferrari's views are valid, especially with regards to them as a road car maker and race team. Its the pathetic childish way they throw tantrums about them that annoys people.
 
If di Montezemolo had said these comments in a more structured, less childish way then everyone would be nodding along in agreement.
 
Mr Men said:
what was childish about them?
Click to expand...

The claim that if they don't get what they want they will storm off like a child.

The claim that F1 would suffer without Ferrari.

The fact they say the same thing year after year and yet are still here.

The fact that they then try to backtrack when the realise they have just looked like complaining children.
 
Red Bull own 50% of Toro Rosso

Merc does not own any of McLaren any more. They sold their shares back to the McLaren Group when they bought Brawn.

But the FIAs idea around getting car makers back in wasn't as team owners anyway, it was as engine manufactures.

VW, Renault, Toyota, and a few others all pricked their ears up when the I4 formula was announced, only to then turn their backs again when it was dropped in favour of the V6.

Ferrari will never quit F1 though. It is so much a part of their whole company ethos that leaving F1 would be suicide for them. Which makes all the threats even more hollow.
 
It used to be Gerhard Burger who owned the other half of Toro Rosso, but I know he had that up for sale. Don't know if it was sold.

Merc aren't 'tied' to McLaren. McLaren just pay them for their engines under and agreement that they will for the next few years.

Ferrari needs F1 more than F1 needs Ferrari.
 
Yep, November 2008 Red Bull bought back Bergers 50% share in Toro Rosso. Didn't realise that.

Didn't realise VW were a sponsor either...
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately a lot of your ideas would see costs spiraling out of control again, and teams then leaving as they can't afford to stay.

The FIA have the difficult task of keeping F1 at the forefront of technology, while also keeping costs controlled at a level that keeps 12 or so teams on the grid.

The testing ban is something they can sort though. The cost savings of not running a test team do not outweigh the disadvantage of loosing the additional test time. I wouldn't be surprised if Virgin, Lotus and HRT are 12 months behind where they would be if they were allowed in season testing.

Infact, some maths. Assuming that the team spends some time testing for the race, at most you could say the whole of Fridays at weekends were for 'testing', so 3 hours per car. With a 19 race season, thats 57 hours of testing.

One 3 day test provides 24 hours of test time. So a single in season test would provide almost 50% more testing time. Two tests would double test time.

So with only a single in season test, the new teams could have been at the stage they are at now (2 seasons in) by only 1 and 1/3rd seasons in, so the Canadian GP. Two in season tests could have seen Lotus getting into Q2 on merit in early races this season.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom