MOSLEY: F1 Can Survive Without Ferrari

FIA president Max Mosley has insisted that Formula 1 could live without Ferrari in response to Luca di Montezemolo's criticism of the budget cap regulations.

The Ferrari chairman hit out at the introduction of the budget cap in a letter to the FIA revealed by AUTOSPORT yesterday.

In the letter di Montezemolo said the budget cap could undermine the credibility of the sport and be difficult to implement. He suggested that "all aspects of the new regulations should be carefully reviewed."

But Mosley insists that the £40 million budget cap is vital for the health of F1, saying that if Ferrari was to be lost to F1 it would simply be "sad". He added that he expects it to be difficult for the team to justify its opposition to the budget cap to the Ferrari board given the amount of money it could save.

"The sport could survive without Ferrari," Mosley told the Financial Times. "It would be very sad to lose Ferrari. It is the Italian national team.

"I hope and think that when a team goes to its board and says, 'I want to go to war with the FIA, because I want to be able to spend £100m more than the FIA want me to spend,' the board will say, 'Why can't you spend £40m if the other teams can do it?'"

Mosley emphasised that the FIA would not back away from the budget cap and that it is vital for the financial health of F1 in both the long and short term.

"The cost cap is here to stay," he said. "There is room for discussion, it might go up or down in 2011 and if the economy picks up, say in 2014, then it might go up. You might adjust the cap in the interests of the sport, but you'll have everyone on a level playing field.

"The credit crunch hasn't really hit F1 yet. Obviously we lost Honda, but the real crunch will come when current contracts come to be renewed.

"Those contracts were signed before their share prices took a dump. I believe FOM [Formula One Management, the commercial rights holder of F1] will not be able to give the teams as much money as they have."

Mosley admitted that policing the budget cap would be difficult, but that any suspected irregularities would be thoroughly investigated.

"The difficulty and danger of cheating would be enormous," Mosley told the FT. "If we had the slightest suspicion that anyone was cheating, we'd send a team in to check. That's part of the deal.

"The [Inland] Revenue can't put even one tax inspector into each business on a permanent basis, we can put several in."

 

Mosley makes a good point, F1 could survive without Ferrari, but there is a difference between survival and prospering.

These budget caps have enticed the likes of David Richards as Aston Martin, and the Lola factory to seriously consider entering F1 in 2010. Certainly a budget cap would help the new USA team. This is the kind of shot in the arm that F1 needs to survive. F1 can not afford another Honda loss, it can not even afford for Force India to leave.

Personally, I would not be excited to watch a 16-18 car grid, possibly even a 14 car grid if things do not change. It needs to be at least 20-22 cars. The days of 24 were much better.

The worldwide economy is not going to improve in the next two years to the point that F1 can once again have unlimited budgets.

For the good of the sport, I don't believe that di Montezemelo is correct, there needs to be budget caps to entice new teams and to keep the existing teams. I can not say that $40 million pounds is realistically enough for a two car team, but conversely with FIA budget caps, Bernie Ecclestone will have to limit travel to distant countries in order to show that he is serious about the teams cutting costs. And surviving.

I can not understand why the F1 schedule spends so much time in the Middle East, goes to Europe, then South America, and back to the Middle East to finish the season. Multiple events in the Middle East are obviously unneccessary, spectator attendance is limited most of the time. The cost savings of avoiding this global cris-crossing would go a long way to adding to the technical budgets of the teams under budget caps. Not to mention how adding timely North American venues would reduce the single race cost of going to Brazil.

For this to work so we can see F1 exist in 5 years, Ferrari needs to come in line with the budget cap proposal, and the teams must pressure Eccelstone to eliminate some of these useless races and for the FIA to prepare a schedule condusive to cost savings.

For me, I am old fashioned. F1 has its roots in Europe, I think it should stick to its roots in Europe. F1 has prospered to date because of Ecclestone's and Mosley's often questionable decisions. But adding Bahrain, etc, is ridiculous. Hardly anyone attends those races. Where I personally draw the line is the talk of budget caps for the teams, yet Bernie continues to only consider lining his pockets with money from promotors with more cash than common sense.

Cut back to 3-4 events in the Middle East and Asia, forget Russia, India, and Kazatstan (this is for real) for now, support the British GP, make sure there is a GP in France and Belgium, and add USA and Canada to Brazil. Anyone want to bet that the grandstands for the final race this year in Abu Dahbi will be nearly empty? 16-18 races with a schedule that is ruly condusive to travel cost savings makes much more sense to the talk of budget caps with the current calendar.

Just my opinion.

 

Well I think its time Ferrari called the FIA's bluff, do what Enzo did back in the 1980s with the Indy Car project, this whole statement from Mosely stinks of utter arrogance. Me, I would love to see Ferrari back in sports car racing as a works team....F1 survive without Ferrari, well these rules and meddling F1 has like Luca says almost no credibility....

 

Sports car racing today doesn't have the prestige it did have back in the 60s. And in LMP1, Diesel cars are massively favoured by the rules.

 

Let's see: F1 (or, rather, FOM) can survive without .... Ferrari, Lotus, Mercedes, Jaguar, Spa, Silverstone, Indy, Canada, car development, refueling, competitive engines, team-built ECUs, reasonable tire choices, competition, honest results, ....

Well, the BernieMax show can survive without all those things -- somewhere out in the boonies where they're taking the races.

But that just leaves the door open to create a series that looks a lot like what F1 used to be -- with all the teams that the BM boys chased off, and all the venues they abandoned, with cars the teams build themselves (instead of being built to spec).

Mad Max must be into S&M games: he keeps shooting himself in the foot. With bigger and bigger calibers.

You're eating your capital, guys.

 

Well without a doubt its perhaps time a new series was forme because F1 is becoming more and more of a joke in my opinion...Ferrari uses F1 as a test bed for road car developement, so if one cannot innovate and one has a budget cap I really dont see much engineering benefit in taking part.

I really do hope Luca takes a very firm stand, its about time someone stood up to B&M.

 

Now if Ferrari and Monaco can both agree to go to a new series, F1 as we know it today would be officially dead. It's been a joke for several years now and I'd really like to see it fail, and I mean really fail so that we can get some new leadership in the sport.

 

The thread title is pretty much what it all boils down to. And quite frankly I don't have an answer.

Yes, F1 can financially survive without F1. But how much fun would it still be?

And if Ferrari is not in it anymore, Ferrari will likely go to whatever new formula (free of Bernie and perhaps Mosley) evolves. I would start watching that and then what becomes of F1?

A split is never a good thing. It burnt IRL/CART and gave NASCAR a big boost.

Back in the early eighties we were at this cross section with the pirate races. Bernie back then was wise enough to end the rift and bring them all back together and F1 was more popular than ever. Not sure the Bernie of today is still as wise a man.

The underlying problem is the cap on finances: If Ferrari cannot use its full power of development researches, then they're toast. If they can use it, but aren't allowed goodies like the small teams, then they will suck like this year. So for them either situation is a loose/loose. That's why I don't think LdM is bluffing, but serious about quitting.

 

+100

 

But he certainly is a rich man....

 

True. But that's the point I don't get: He is already rich enough for 10 consecutive life times as a Prince. Yet has maybe 10 more years left, so why isn't he finally doing what is right: Give everybody a fair share of the treasure chest and stop plundering the race organizers.

Answer: He is senile. And senile men don't change their ways. Which is why the current Bernie might not do the right thing for F1.

 

Andreas, I would like to think that Ferrari has the ability to be competitive even within a controlled budget. If they can't, and the only way Ferrari can win is with unlimited spending, maybe they need to go to another series. Ferrari had the opportunity to look closely at the rules, and knowing that Ross Brawn offered to correct loopholes, and still missed out on the diffusers, Ferrari has no one but themselves to blame. And when you have the money to correct such blunders, you end up depending on money to bail you out. If Red Bull can do it on their budget, then Ferrari can also.

If they can't, too bad.

 

Well you see he doesnt seem to know when enough is enough.....

 

I don't know, but I'm not sure they can.

Just look at their dominant Schumacher years: Why were they so successful? Because they had the best resources (dream team) and a German robot as the workforce who was relentlessly testing and improving. Of course he had talent to boot, but I seriously believe it was ultimately his work ethics that took him and the Scuderia over the top. If you put a cap on that, well performance will suffer.

PS: What I forgot to mention earlier:

I'm not sure Ferrari can survive without F1.

Financially yes, but their image has always been tied to F1. F1 was the very reason they started street car production in the first place. If Ferrari would leave F1, my passion for the prancing horse would take a dive: I only want to drive a car of a manufacturer who competes in the pinnacle of motor racing. That's also the reason why I don't have a Lambo (although I find those cars a bit more exotic and cooler).

 

Ferrari needs to leave F1 and get more involved in other things. Get into LM for a decade or so, let Berni and Max retire, and then move back into F1.

 

"Luigi follow only the Ferraris"

F1 can survive, but look at the stands. 50% or more in red. No, Lola and USGPE and the others won't make a difference.

Grab McLaren and Ferrari and start a new series; the rest would follow pretty quickly. If one thinks a long-standing series cannot fall, I merely say "CART"

 

I think that a budget cap is ridiculous even from a moral standpoint. It's communism applied to sports.

It's like telling a successful firm that it can't invest more than $xyz because otherwise it will hurt its competitors.

Ridiculous IMVHO.

 

There is no cap on talent, work ethic, or innovative thinking. Ferrari should be at the top because they deserve to be at the top, not because they have more money to spend than the others. If they can't compete successfully on a level playing field with the other teams then they don't deserve to be at the top.

 

F1 needs to continue to be the pinnacle of motorsports through technology.
If you start holding the teams back and standardizing everything, then what's
the point? All the races where no one attends just because the governments cough
up the cash,no races in America..... If Ferrari leaves F1 who would watch? Love them
or hate them,,it's like watching baseball with the Yankees.You're either rooting
for them or not. I'm sure if you're one of the other teams, tell me what would mean
more,beating another team on the grid or beating Ferrari? Andreas, I have to disagree
with you that your interest in the road cars would drop if Ferrari are not in F1.
Maserati,Bently,Lamborghini seem to be doing well despite not having competed for a
long time.

 

Not a good analogy, I think. In the case of firm $xyz it doesn't matter if its investment hurts its competitors, even if it puts them out of business, it's very different for F1, which is supposed to be a sport. For F1 to continue to exist as a sport it has to have a reasonable number of competitors and a decent level of competition. The cost of being competitive in F1 was becoming prohibitive and the very future of the sport was in doubt; something radical had to be done.

 

If Fiat completes the deal with Chrysler, can we expect a Ferrari badged Nascar? That could really shake things up with Bernie et. al...

 

No.

 

Ferrari need F1 and F1 needs Ferrari..Mosley is full of BS. F1 does not need him.

 

Imagine what would happen if Ferrari went to the IRL though...it would give that series instant credibility. OTOH, I think Ron has a good point...it seem like Bernie Max is distancing modern F1 racing from its heritage already by ditching historical circuits in favor of spreading out to the Middle and Far East. I don't think Ferrari matters as much to them if the series migrates from North America/Europe to the new regions. That said, I still believe this is about keeping the max number of cars on the grid versus appeasing a single significant team.

 

I think that's what we would all like to see, but Bernie Max is probably correct in suggesting that only a limited number of players can compete due to costs. I would personally like to see it though...if I wanted to follow a spec series I could just latch onto IRL and actually attend many of the races.