Panto Season starts early!

Skeeter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Renault want to compete in F1 against names like Ferrari and Mercedes

Renault will be gone if there is no Ferrari and Mercedes as you agree with, F1 would be a much lesser sport and tv revenue would drop, track fees would be slashed, advertisers gone, grandstands empty and every team knows it :)

F1 needs to get back to having manufacturers, they need to stop tying the hands of the big teams behind their backs in order to keep HRT and Virgin in the sport, they offer nothing. As already said in this thread, if Martin Whitmarsh had said these comments then everyone would be nodding along in agreement.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
So F1 would not suffer without Ferrari?

They do not say the same thing year after year, they do not backtrack, they get things done with the backing of other teams such as FOTA.

Seems the only thing childish is you making things up :)
 
Mr Men said:
Yeah until you ask yourself where the likes of Mercedes and Renault will go without Ferrari....they are there to compete with the Ferrari name :)
Click to expand...

McLaren would stick it out -with Merc (or possibly their own engines), which MIGHT be a factor in other teams staynig , and the on off rumour of Audi/Porsche coming in (again?)

Ferrari's loss rather than F1's

Not to mention that Merc (at the moment at least) is FIRMLY routed in the midfield (leading midfield maybe) , until they prove they can be race winners.....or even regular race winners, surely its another Honda /BAR story isnt it (ie what could have been)
 
Last edited:
Mr Men said:
Audi and Porsche are not going to come into F1, especially not without Ferrari :)
Click to expand...

1stly they are the same company so you are right they both wont come into F1 :D

2nd VW as the parent company have different target audience (and to an extent so do Audi) so they wouldnt necessarily want to target Ferrari in the first place
 
I introduce you to Torro Rosso and Red Bull, not the same company right :)

If they come to F1 it will be to beat the big boys, that is Ferrari.
 
Mr Men said:
I introduce you to Torro Rosso and Red Bull, not the same company right :)

If they come to F1 it will be to beat the big boys, that is Ferrari.
Click to expand...

They are a sponsor - not an engine manufacturer

Mercedes arent likely to own and run two seperate teams, its not in their interest to do so

Its all about marketing and brand awareness, it would be little loss to VW to enter if Ferrari were not there, if they are multiple CWC after x many years THAT is what counts not who they necessarily had to beat

If its a sports car brand I see your point, but if its not (which it doesnt have to be givne how many brands VW own) it wouldnt be that much of a detriment if Ferrari werent there
 
both are owned by Red Bull, who do not make engines either?

Merc has big shares in McLaren don't they?

If Ferrari are racing with Merc, Renault etc in another series then who is going to want to race in F1?
 
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.
 
who owns the other half of Torro Rosso then?

Merc are still tied to them for engines though right?

Ferrari would quit F1 and race in another series, and the rest will follow. But in the end F1 will go with what Ferrari want, as they know they need Ferrari.
 
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.
 
sure Red Bull took full control a few years back.

So they are tied to them in terms of engine deal.

Ferrari does not need F1, they can race in another series, F1 needs Ferrari which is why they bend over backwards when Ferrari get political. Maybe it's not right or fair, but it's the truth.
 
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:
Shame really, the threat hides really good points, change is needed, just not for the sake of VW ect, miss the old days when it was about speed, not money and green credentials. Surely testing will only help everyone out and lets be honest the new teams have really failed, Lotus are only now looking like they could make the leap just now, people were saying they would be fine in a season. Shame that FOTA spilt never happened, might have been for the best if things keep going on the way they are going. Lets not even start on the V4 idea.....
 
The points I think of are these two conflicting priorities:

- F1 must be pushing the boundaries every single year in order to stay as the top motorsport.
- How can you push the boundaries when you have such little freedom to create designs.

If they want more fuel efficient cars, then they absolutely must give the teams much more freedom to create different designs. The only innovative design in F1 last year was the F-Duct and they banned that this year.

There must be different engines on the grid - A few might be 4 cylinder turbo, a few 3 litre V8 N/A etc. They need refueling and they need to stop limiting tyres in F1. It is pathetic that every race a few cars in Q1 can't be bothered to put a lap in to save the super soft tyres.

F1 is fun, but it sure as hell could be a lot more fun. Why the heck do all the cars finish races now?!
I want to see 1 engine per race - That way they wil lget tuned so highly that some will go bang.
 
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:
Skeeter said:
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 had joined the sport 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they could have a rule where a design can be requested by other teams 12 months after it is released.

I realise it would make costs spiral out of control but F1 needs innovation and slacker rules, which will never be cheap. I just want F1 to be like I remember it when I was a child - Sparking cars as they bottom out on the track, blown engines, screaming V10s/V8s and refueling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom