F1 is ruined!

I can't believe you even bothered to ask this question. The answer is so obvious--

Its because: how is F1 going to survive when all the big oil companies drop support because it no longer promotes GASOLINE brands and sales? You think Shell is going to spend millions to help Ferrari show that hydrogen is a better fuel than gasoline?

You guys really don't get it, do you? It's not about "green energy" or researching new auto technologies for the future.

It's just advertisement. That's why Mercedes is in, that's why Ferrari is in, that's why Renault still holds a toe and why Honda wants a piece. Its why there's a Shell logo on the uniforms of everyone working in the Ferrari factory.

It's just a way to get your brand out there in a market of a billion people watching a year.


But.... if that billion becomes 500 million -- F1 is in deep trouble. Tracks that aren't making money will close, advertisers will go away, and the dog and pony show will stop dead.

This is F1's future: bankruptcy. It cannot continue to sustain itself. As soon as Mercedes wins a WCC, look for it to get out. It will have made it's goal and no see any benefit to continue spending millions.

Look also for Renault to drop it's engine program when Honda has theirs available.

F1's only hope is that Honda becomes the modern version of the Cosworth DFV where you have it in 8 teams versus a Ferrari engine in one team. Otherwise, it's history 4 years down the road.

And Bernie will say "I told you so" as he retires on his billions on his own private island.

 

You forget that Ferrari threatened to leave and start it's own series -- and Bernie knew F1 would drop like a stone if that happened. He had no choice but to give into Ferrari because no one really cares about Force India even if they win.

F1 needs Ferrari more than Ferrari needs F1. That's how you get the Concorde agreement and why it's secret.

 

No, I didn't forget.

I just think that Bernie made a bad judgement call when he bowed down to blackmail.

The FIA is the sole owner of the Grand Prix and Formula One brands, and the only organization that can hold the World Drivers Championship and the World Constructors Championship.

Whatever series Ferrari or any dissident would have created would never have had the prestige, the history and the continuity with the FIA Formula One! It just would have been another single-seater series, and would have had to come under FIA jurisdiction in the long run.

Not all of Bernie's decisions make sense, and he often works in his own interest, not the interest of the sport in general.

 

It wasn't blackmail. It was the weakness of the fan base of F1 that caused it.

He had no choice. Without Ferrari there is no F1. Both parties knew it.

Bernie could have said "hit the road jack" -- and F1 would no longer be in existence or recognizable today.

Why? Because without Ferrari there are fewer eyeballs watching and fewer eyeballs watching mean less advertising cash coming in and less advertising cash coming in gets you Indy car racing.

You forget there are many people rooting AGAINST Ferrari as for. The measure of a hero is how big and powerful the enemy is.

If Luke Skywalker defeated a little ol' lady with a walker instead of Darth Vader, no one would care.

Every time Ferrari loses, there are those who cheer. They watch also. It happens in sports all the time. Two teams that probably have no chance to win a championship play against each other and it gets good ratings. Examples in American football are the Dallas Cowboys and Oakland Raiders. People just like to watch them win --- or lose.

 

"No F1 without Ferrari", that's an opinion, but only an opinion.

I am sure that F1 would have accused the blow, seen its audience go down for a while, and soon recover.
Many sports don't have anything like a Ferrari in their mist and they thrive just as well.

The World Championship is bigger than Ferrari, IMHO. It's the ONLY recognized global motor racing series.

Ecclestone had 7 or 8 teams on his side, and without the FIA WDC and WCC, Ferrari would have had nowhere to race!

Remember the Indy race where all the teams withdrew but the Italians Ferrari and Minardi carried on racing. What a farce that was! An empty victory for Ferrari, and Schumacher booed by the "fans".
That gives you a taste if a Ferrari-led series!

 

A breakaway series started by Ferrari will get quite the following. I would bet on a few big teams following (namely Red Bull and Williams). The rest will then simply follow.

The one thing (apart from the following of the name Formula 1) F1 has currently is all tracks aren't allowed to have similar race series on. Circuit organizers rarely make a buck with the amount they have to pay to F1, they're rather lucky to break even most of the time!

In the couple of years it'll take for the contracts to dry up, races can be held immediately at:

Mugello
Imola
Phillip Island
Portimao
Jerez
Laguna Seca/Indianapolis (if LS is not wide enough)
Zandvoort
Valencia (either the street track or the proper track)
Hockenheim or Nurburgring (since it swaps yearly)
Dubai
Qatar
Fuji
Paul Ricard
Donington Park
Argentina has a brilliant street circuit in Santa fe
Moscow raceway
Enna Pergusa (very high speed track)

All these tracks are loved by many.

Now we are missing big hitters like Monaco, Monza, Spa, Albert Park and Suzuka, but here comes the following:
F1 can't keep asking big money fees if no one will come, especially with a real alternative series now. If ''GP1'' charges a third or even a quarter of F1 in the opening years, and as usual a fair share on performance from the yearly money pot, F1 can have a very serious competitor.

Then you look at F1's shareholders...their (massive) stock will drop a lot because of lack of money coming in, and current tracks not wanting to pay the F1 fee and some flocking to GP1. A few of the big hitters leave and they'll all follow (the important ones, anyhow. The state run GP's not so much initially). Suddenly the tracks are starting to make money again.

Now I am making this all sound rather simple, but it is quite possible.

All they really need is a big enough ''headline'' for reason of leave, the new series being created and the F1 powerhouse could simply topple over. It will get so much news coverage it's not like a new series quietly starting up like A1GP or Superleague formula (both where flawed in any case, and had no hope of survival).

6 or 7 teams with 3 cars each, a very clear set of rules. I can see it. FIA needs to be rather careful what rules they come up with soon...

 

It's an unlikely scenario in my book.

Any rival series against the FIA would have to create a complete new organization, from top to bottom, not just a few races.

The FIA could prevent any of licenced circuits, teams, manufacturers or drivers to participate in a rival series under threat of being banned from any sanctiionned FIA races.

The rival series would be banned to call it World Championship, and the winning team and driver would be deprived of that prestige.

F1 teams are the main recipient of the WCC/WDC proceeds. They would have to be convinced of more monies from a rival series.


My opinion is that when Ferrari refused to sign the Concorde Agreement, they were hinting they wanted to leave F1. Ecclestone convinced them otherwise by bribing them.
Now they think they can dictate F1.
But it's only my opinion.

 

Well, I fail to see how they are dictating as 1) they haven't been winning since the agreement and 2) they were against the Turbo V6 change but lost anyway so that Honda could be enticed to come back as an engine supplier and Renault would stay onboard by promising to reduce costs.

If Ferrari is dictating F1 to their liking, they sure aren't doing a very good job.

I will say this.... the Concorde agreement gets Ferrari the lion's share of the money, even when they are losing -- that's for sure.

 

You make good points I haven't thought about.

But surely they can go through other governing bodies?

In any case, it doesn't matter as I'm sure F1 will be fixed properly and Ferrari will still not leave.

 

Change world to Global, whats the difference? Piss off enough drivers/teams, and losing FIA clearance might not matter.

As for the track list posted - I doubt many of those tracks could support similar races with the speeds open wheel cars can attain today.

 

Ferrari more than any other team gives F1 a claim to a historical tradition.
Without that aura F1 would have little legitimacy these days.

 

No, they wouldn't. You don't seem to grasp how hardcore and important the Tifosi are. Probably because you are not a Ferrari fan.

 

All would with the possible exception of Zandvoort.

 

Certainly Imola. It's even FIA certified.

 

And this is different from the last 20 years how? NOW you are whining? Where ya been?

 

As are all others. I mention Zandvoort because the track is fairly narrow. Even Enna and the argentinian street track had FIA sanctioned races last year.

All others are more than up to the job. Mugello had F1 testing last year.

 

They got that financial advantage because they blackmailed Ecclestone and dictated their terms.

As usual, you seem to enjoy splitting hair ...

 

Which ones?

The FIA has a quasi worldwide monopoly in motorsport.

Most, if not all, national governing bodies are affiliated to the FIA.

Any WORLD championship in circuit racing, rallying, endurance, or else has to be sanctioned by the FIA.

 

Any series not sanctioned by the FIA would lose the continuity, the historical link and the prestige attached to a World Championship .

Losing the FIA sanction WOULD matter.
Imaging that participating teams, manufacturers, drivers and circuits being banned by the FIA for participating in a rival series.

A circuit holding a rival race would be banned from having any other FIA race during the year; no touring car, no GT, no F3, no GP2, nothing. It would go bankrupt.

A driver would lose his FIA license and maybe banned for life from participating in FIA-sanctioned races. His career would be finished.

The FIA could refuse to homologate cars from "rebel" manufacturers in FIA championships (think Ferrari 450, McLaren M12, Mercedes AMG in GT). That would make them think.

Even national governing bodies could lose their accreditation if they tolerate a rival series to visit their country. No right to inspect circuits, to organise national races, etc...

It could go as far as that. The FIA has those powers.

This discussion started with Ferrari receiving more money than other team and dictating its conditions. Ecclestone accepted that deal because Ferrari baulked at signing the original Concorde Agreement and threatened to start a rival series unless they got more money than other teams.
In my book, Ecclestone had all the cards in his hands, plus the FIA backing.
Why he submitted to blackmail, I don't know but nothing surprise me anymore.
Didn't he face 2 trials for corruption recently ?

 

No not really. What is the FIA without participants? What is the FIA without venues? What is the FIA without drivers?

Manufacturers can create a governing body if they set their minds to it. The FIA can't make other participants when it needs to. If it were to become a stand off between manufacturers and the FIA, the FIA won't stand a chance.

 

forgot this.

The fact that Ecclestone was forced to pay Ferrari extra to keep them on board, is proof that he doesn't have all the cards in his hand.

 

The FIA can choose another category and call it World Drivers Championship: it did that in 1952/53, when the WDC was ran with F2 cars and not F1.

Beside, not all teams would join Ferrari in a rival teams, and some new ones could join. Think Champcar v. IRL!
A Ferrari-led rival championship wouldn't hold the TV rights either; where the money would come from to redistribute to the teams?

Ecclestone knew that setting a rival championship is almost impossible: he tried to do it years ago when President of FOCA!

Most of the F1 teams aren't large car manufacturers; most are just small engineering firms like Williams, Sauber, Marussia, Caterham, RB and TR, etc...).

The FIA's powers extend far more than F1 anyway.

 

Splitting hairs? That would be you, not me.

Since when is a mutually beneficial business agreement called "black mail"?

Bernie needed Ferrari to stay in F1. Luca thought it was better to take the money than go on his own. It's called negotiation.

Its too bad if one side of that negotiation happens to be in a stronger position than the other. It happens every day.

It's just business. What kind of businessman gives up his advantage he worked years to get? Not much of one, that's for sure.

I'll say it one more time because you don't seem to understand. The reason why Bernie needed Ferrari to agree is because of the weakness of F1, not because of the goodness of his heart or some burning passion to keep Ferrari in F1.

If no one cared about Ferrari he'd have tossed them away and kept the money for himself. Because people do care if Ferrari is on F1 (by liking them or hating them), he needed Ferrari to sign. Ferrari means eyeballs whether you like them or hate them. Eyeballs mean cash -- for every team who compete against them.

Luca knew that, and so did Bernie.

 

With all due respect, that's nonsense.

When they hammered out the original Concorde, all the teams (for they are the signatories) agreed unanimously that Ferrari should get 5% of any 'profits' before the remainder was divided between them all based on WCC positions the previous season.

Why? They all recognized how important Ferrari is to F1.

5% is hardly 'the lions share'.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Exactly. I put zero credibility in any of the negative comments here about the state of F1 today. I do not watch F1 for excitement, I watch it for its poetic beauty. I do not hold my breathe for side by side competition in F1, or any road racing series for that matter.

If I want to see real competition, I watch NASCAR or even IndyCar. If I want to watch technology in motion, I watch F1.