Q. What is your explanation for the start of the season and the difficult situation Ferrari finds itself in? Luca di Montezemolo: Listen. First of all it is not so easy. I was thinking this morning in my car coming here from the airport that my first race as Ferrari team manager was at Silverstone in 1973. You were too young! Jody Scheckter was in the middle of a big crash and Jackie Stewart was in the lead. At that time, at that race, Ferrari started with Jacky Ickx in 16th and Arturo Merzario 18th. So in my life, I've seen a lot of difficult moments. This is part of competition, this is part of sport. We have won eight world championships in the past 10 years. In the last two years we won three titles out of four, and we lost the other one at the last curve, of the last lap of the last race. So we have to look ahead. But to answer to your question - I want to understand why we are there. Why we are in the middle of a black tunnel. And the main reasons are three. Number one, we have seen very bad written rules. They are what I call grey rules, with different interpretations. And if teams that have won the last three world championships, like Renault, McLaren and Ferrari, an important team and car manufacturer like BMW and even Red Bull, have done one interpretation, it means that at least the rules are not clear. So very unclear rules means different interpretations, means different cars in the field. Second, is KERS. KERS represents a lot of money. It represents something that has been introduced to have a link between Formula 1 and advanced research for road cars in terms of energy, and in terms of green [technology] and in terms of innovation as I like. And we have done immediately the KERS, even if KERS means a lot of money, it means a problem with the safety, it means reliability and it means to project a completely different car as McLaren has done and as a lot of other teams have done. But we have been surprised to see KERS was just a suggestion, not a real world. And today we are facing a very strange and in my opinion not positive situation. We have three different F1 on the grid we have F1 competition cars with KERS, F1 competition between cars with no KERS and a different floor, and third competitors with no KERS and no floor. I think this is bad, and it is one of the reasons why unfortunately we are not competitive and we are forced to invest time, and extra money in such a difficult moment, to do a heavy modification to our car. The other reason is that we have started to work in a hard way to the new car late. And this was a pity, particularly in a year in which the rules have been completely new. It is not, in other words, an evolution of last year's car, and this is a second reason why we have not been competitive. And the last reason is that I feel inside the team there has been a little bit too much of a presumptuous approach. Sometimes to put the head down in the ground is useful to looking ahead, but I must say that sometimes having your whole head, feet, everything in the ground, even more underground, is better. So I think these are the main reasons. We are working hard and I have a big confidence in my team. I am sure that we will go back very soon not immediately, but very soon. Q. You are a patient man but how long can you be patient before something has to change in the team? LdM: Of course I am totally unhappy, but stability of the team and confidence of the team for me since 1992 was my main goal and I will continue. This team is exactly the same team that was very close, crossed the line not 20 years ago but a few months ago winning the championship, so there is no problem. When I know the reason I am confident, and when I don't know the reason I am worried. I know the reason, my people know the reason and they are fully committed, so I am very confident. But then I am very upset for other reasons that are nothing to do with the team. Q. What has the present situation done for unity within FOTA? LdM: Well, I think that unity of FOTA is crucial. I think it is very good and we will have a meeting in London on May 6 to discuss. I call your attention to the fact that we are at the end of April and we don't know exactly next year's rules. For me, for us, stability is important to maintain costs down because we have done so many changes in the last year, so we need stability for the future. Some teams have taken the opportunity of very badly written rules for an interpretation. Somebody asked for a different interpretation, but it doesn't mean that we are all together. And until I will spend time, not for so long because I have too many things to do, as FOTA I will try and have all the teams together. This is very important, particularly in these difficult moments. Q. There has been discussions and confusion about Michael Schumacher's position in the team. Can you clarify that please? LdM: To be honest, I am sorry. This was a little bit invented by the press, because Michael's position is very clear since the beginning. When Michael stopped, I told him do you want to become a manager? Do you want to be for one year on the right arm of Jean Todt and then replace Jean Todt? Yes or No? No! I am sorry because I think Michael has got a good mentality, but I understand that his life is different. So we said to him, why don't you come sometimes to the races, but his main engagement was to work on the development of road cars Scuderia California he has done a lot of work, with very good relations and team spirit with our technicians. He came last year to a few races, and he came at the beginning of the season and he will come back. But he has no responsible role within the team because he has no time to be present in Maranello. Having said that, Michael is part of our family. Michael is part of our history. Michael is in very good relations to Domenicali and he will continue to give ideas and suggestions as a consultant no more and no less. Q. What were your feelings when watching the Australian Grand Prix and seeing the Brawn cars leading. Were you proud because Ross came from Ferrari, or disappointed with what your team did? LdM: Well, first of all I like Ross very much because he has been in our family in very important years, giving a very important contribution. Then I have seen a Honda car with the Brawn name, of a car manufacturer Honda that has invested a huge amount of money in two wind-tunnels deciding at the beginning of the [2008] season to concentrate very early on a completely new car, and then decided at the end of the year to stop. But this is a Honda with one of the biggest budgets to prepare this car in F1 with a different name and with a very good car. And, with an interpretation of the rules that is different from other teams. In my opinion, this was mainly due to this grey area of the rules and the demonstration is that important teams have done a completely different interpretation so at least the rules have been very badly written. I don't want to make any comments about the result of the appeal because I don't like to make comments this is a Ferrari attitude since forever, at least in the public. Q. You were talking about the presumptions at Ferrari. What do you believe was the effect of that? LdM: Well, there is sometimes when you win too much you think you are the best. I want a different attitude, and some time to have this approach is useful, particularly when you have fantastic people like we have in Ferrari. Some time we think that maintaining the top is easy. But we have done 10 years, showing that we are able to maintain the top. Except for 2005 where we were not competitive, we won or lost the championship at the last race. This year the main reason was that if we approached the rules in a different way, without KERS, and with a different floor, then today we will talk about a different Ferrari. Q. Max Mosley has asked for some input from teams about a budget cap. What do you think about that? LdM: Let me put it in a different way. We are in F1 since 1950 without stopping or going up and down. We have been there. We race and we continue to race in F1 for three historic reasons since the beginning. Competition is part of the Ferrari brand. It is part of our plot. We started as a team and then we became a car manufacturer...We have won and raced everywhere in the world in prototypes, except in go karts. Second, we want advanced research. We want F1 as a technologically competitive series, where there is competition, in which we can develop gearboxes, engines, electronics why not KERS? And then transfer it in our road cars. And third, we compete in Formula 1 because F1 is extreme competition. We rather prefer to have even shorter races in which there is really competition between drivers, between technology, between teams, between cars, between technicians. And we want to maintain, for what we can do, F1 at this level. This is why we have been against the standard engine and things like this. I personally have a lot of passion. Ferrari has a lot of passion, but this is not an endless story. So we will see. My attitude, and I think this is important. Stability, credibility of governance of F1 I think we have and we need a strong political authority. I am a legalist we need a strong political authority. As a regulator, we need clear rules. We need teams that are very close to each other outside the track, and with competition between them on the track. And we need a modern, efficient company for the commercial [rights] holder. Having said that, I don't like to do polemics. I don't like to answer particularly when I disagree. This is my approach with Ferrari whenever we decide to talk, we will talk once and not many times looking ahead. I don't want to do polemics at all. We don't need it, F1 doesn't need it. F1 is facing difficult moments but the direction of teams to reduce costs has been fantastic.
KERS on a road car could be very interesting, although the potential for a dunce to put himself in a bad position with it is very high! And of course, they would have to very thoroughly address the current safety and reliablity problems, and make sure it was relativley light. At 80 lbs on an F1 car, I'd hate to see what it would weigh on a 3800 lbs street car! I would love to see a 150 HP KERS boost however! Particularly if your engine is getting a bit tired late in a road roace session, it could take up the slack.
Personally I think that the utility of KERS in any car (race or street) is dependent on the power-to-weight ratio of the system. What I find disappointing with the F1 KERS is that the power-to-weight ratio of the system is fixed at the 'power' level. What would have been better is to just say " KERS is legal " and let the engineers of the teams determine the optimum power-to-weight ratio of the system. Only being allowed to use the present KERS system a few seconds a lap, then magically re-energizing the KERS battery symbol when you cross start-finish is just plain stupid.
Great guy. Without Luca, Ferrari would be just another team today. And the cars would probably suck. They sure did at the time he took over, and he has said as much.
It seems to me that the team is no better than "just another team" at the moment, they are certainly in some disarray. And the car sucks.
I don't think so, given the run they've had over the last decade or so. It is unrealistic to expect that a team will ALWAYS win. It just doesn't happen. But I should have clarified that when Luca made the comment about the cars, he was referring to Ferrari road cars. I think it may have been the 348 that left him underwhelmed after he had bought it.
True, but obviously they have been at or near the top for the last 10+ years until this year. No other team can really say that (McLaren had some awful years when Alonso was on top at Renault).
Interesting. Enzo would put the onus on the drivers and not the car. Obviously technology has changed drastically but it seems to be a difference in philosophy from LdM and Enzo. Lets face it, guys like Brawn have picked a more winning strategy and now F have to play catch up. LdM may be frustrated that the big F machine can't keep pace with the changes and it's more a function of them being too big and fat. A guy like Brawn & Co. has definitely been able to outsmart the red team.
I have to say, despite my criticisms of him I TOTALLY AGREE LdM's assessments. The inconsistency in F1 rules has turned the grid on its ear, and I think it sucks that the big teams like Renault, McLaren, BMW and Ferrari have been made to suffer because they are working with a different set of rules. Bernie's attempts to make this a spec-series has turned it into a wildly inconsistent affair that has rewarded perennial backmarkers with the championship leads. I like the interest of seeing different teams stepping up at races, but not so certain I appreciate what has happened to F1's traditional powers. It seems unfair to me. Luca may be arrogant, but he also understands the need for consistency in the sport. It's like the penalties and everything else...these guys are making/changing rules on the fly. I know it's easy to characterize LdM as a "sore loser" in this affair, but when you see Toyota and Red Bull, along with Brawn, also killing the likes of Ferrari, Renault and McLaren they you have to realize something is wrongly inconsistent with the rules of the sport. Again, I have criticized LdM as much as/more than anyone this year, but he is 100% correct in my estimation.
They kind of had it in the late 90's/early 2000's when Ferrari and Mac were dominating the scene. Then it became more restricted around '05 because the big teams could out-spend the lesser teams. My understanding last year was that 2009-2010 would force the teams into a more 'spec series' approach, but if anything it's created a very inconsistent construction standard (as Luca noted). I mean, BMW is at the BACK of the grid after briefly challenging for the WCC last year. What sense does that make?? If it were an open approach to construction, McLaren and Ferrari would be untouchable...
I completely disgree. What's unfair? What makes you suggest that the "big teams" are working with a different set of rules to the rest? All the teams were given the same rules and those rules apply to them all. They all knew what the specifications for this year's cars were, it just so happened that some made a better job of interpreting them than others. The changes to the cars for this year weren't made on the fly, they were well known by all the teams a long time ago. F1's "traditional powers" have no inalienable right to be at the top, they've got to work for it just like the rest, and if they aren't able to build a fast enough car they don't deserve to be at the top.
Ian, I think Ricksb, is talking in general about the grey area rules, I pose one question, just for example IF it were Mclaren that had the diffuser 1st, in other words they were in Brawn's position, do you think it would now be still legal. You can't start a motor race and it be up for interpretation whether or not cars are legal, and I don't buy this : it's to complicated or to late in the day. Max stated there would be protests,- isn't it his job to make sure these issues are sorted out! Bernie was clueless loving the mess playing straight into his divide and conquer hands, IMO it was bloody joke, Luca is right. Plus the fact a Race run at a stupid time of the day in fading light, medal's ect clueless.
Agree with some of what he says. He comments: "In my opinion, this (the Brawn team advantage) was mainly due to this grey area of the rules and the demonstration is that important teams have done a completely different interpretation so at least the rules have been very badly written." Earlier in the interview he said the team had been too complacent and presumptuous. So Ferrari is more "important"? Really? Presumption apparently starts at the top at Ferrari.
That´s Ferrari as it has always been. Enzo himself was no different, refering to the British teams as mere workshops.
Steve, I'd like to think it would make no difference who had the diffuser first. Given that it was deemed to be legal by both Charlie Whiting along with the stewards in Australia and the Court of Appeal, I'm inclined to believe it was a decision based on interpretation of the rules rather than one based on political considerations. There are ten teams designing cars and they are always going to come up with somewhat different designs, so there is no way to avoid the issue of whether or not the designs comply with the regulations. As I've said before, it's very difficult to describe something as complex as the specification for the design of a car in words and avoid any possibility of doubt about what's allowed and what isn't. The only way to circumvent that would be for the FIA to produce a design and drawings of, say, a diffuser and tell the teams "this is the diffuser you must use". No one wants that. I think the process that exists at the moment is the only 'real life' option - the FIA produce the specification, the designer designs his car and the stewards decide if the car complies with the specification. In line with natural justice, if the stewards' decision goes against him the designer can appeal to a higher authority (or other teams can appeal the decision if it goes in his favour against their interests!).
I have similar thoughts. When I first read this interview on Autosport yesterday, what came to mind is why is he whinning. . . . why??? -> because Ferrari is being displaced from their throne by a former employee?? by a team with only ONE spare nose for two cars for the first four races?? by a team with the best stratageist in the business?? by a team with the best F1 designer?? by teams with small financial resources that have worked dilligently to produce a superior product?? by employing a driver that's superior to his "ice man"?? The interview portrayed excuses, one after the other.... After Vettel's comment in an interview regarding the flex wing on the Brawn cars and him saying yes it would help him.....I wouldn't be surprised that Adrian Newey wasn't already working on that during or after the race! It seems that in several of the races, the commentator's focus seems to be about all the 'pretty people' hanging out with Ferrari, whereas, with Red Bull, Brawn, Mercedes, Toyota the comments are more directed to car development/drivers - the 'real nuts and bolts' of racing. As I previously mentioned in a couple threads regarding Vettel and to those who say Ferrari needs him - why on earth leave a winning team with the best designer in the business for a fame to claim as saving Ferrari from the worst record in history. Based on the interview on Autosport this morning, the race at Montmelo should show just how much credence one can put into what Domenicali says here: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74900 Carol
Point's taken on board Ian. I will never be convinced Bernie and Max rule the sport fairly. Charlie W stated twice last year the pass on Kimi by LH was fair and he was overuled. The rules IMO are left open for interpretation for a reason, and not one I think is right for the sport, considering all conflicts and heated debates usually have a common theme: inconsistant and grey area rules, I blame slappy happy Max.
Team cannot win every year no matter how much money they spend. Luca's assessment was spot on in particular with the honda $$$ and the early development of the 09 car. Honda are the real losers here. I can understand ferrari and mclaren getting late starts on the 09 cars but am mystified at BMW. Theissen should be on the hot seat.
Steve, I know you aren't Max's biggest fan but even you must accept that, as the President of the FIA, he doesn't do everything in the organisation. It's pretty certain Max didn't write the F1 rules or come up with the specification for the 2009 cars, a lot of people, many of them highly specialist, are employed to do most of the things that the FIA does. There are grey areas everywhere in life and F1 is no exception. It can be difficult to know that a grey area exists until a particular incident reveals it, and that, I think, is the case with the LH pass. I believe most posters here thought that pass to be within the rules (although some knew differently) but it was determined not to be and, to be fair, there was rapid clarification of what was required of drivers in those circumstances. Are the rules on overtaking and giving back places now completely watertight? I doubt it. At some point in the future something will happen that no one has thought of and we'll be debating the rights and wrongs of the incident on FChat - and you'll be blaming Max, or his successor!
What I'm agreeing with is that the FIA went through revolutionary changes on the cars this year in an attempt to control costs and balance the grid for the lesser funded teams. Based on the articles I read (and many of our comments when the changes were announced) this meant more restrictive rules around the construction of the cars so that a) teams couldn't spend their way to an advantage, and b) the cars would be more evenly developed to create more passing. The development of KERS was supposed to give drivers a strategic tactic to pass for brief moments around the track. You guys are focusing too much on Ferrari and Brawn. When I say the grid was turned on its ear due to inconsistent understanding of the rules, it was really turned on its ear. Force India is the only consistent story. Something doesn't smell right when there is such a dramatic shift in power. The rules were supposed to create a quasi spec-series, but we have more inconsistency than ever (3 kinds of cars on the grid). Obviously, the FIA is getting what they want as most people on this site seem to like the outcome of this shift (people root for the underdogs in general and like to see the whale/s harpooned). Obviously none of us knows what goes on behind closed doors but putting aside LdM's ego and the fact the current situation doesn't favor Ferrari, he's saying they were pushed to develop KERS because it's mandatory and that the development rules were concrete. Apparently, McLaren, Renault and BMW had that same conversation as all four have uncompetitive cars saddled with a hindering technology that the front runners didn't have to develop. The question should be "were they handcuffed in their development?" versus "why are they too complacent to develop a winning car?". Were it only one of those team, shame on them for being lazy and out-of-touch. When it's all four, something doesn't smell right. Seeing new faces challenging are great, but this was an orchestrated shift versus the apex of a development curve.
LOL ,Ian you highlighted the very problem The trouble is they are made on the fly, I mean... here's a first.. I really was aghast to see LH being lifted back on track by a crane with him sat in it..and allowed to continue...I mean what do these FIA men do in there work time .Ahh don't answer that one.. I know. You have it from me the day Max leaves the sport I swear I would not attack his replacement straight away.., I would be so happy for along long time. I really really detest the man, and so yes it may cloud my overall judgment.
