Let's put it another way. Imagine a company where one of the stockholders tries to block a board decision and ask to receive a bigger part of the profit than his shares entitle him to give his agreement. He would argue that he is the oldest shareholder left in the company; he would argue that the company benefit to be associated with his good name, bla, bla, bla... From the President, or the CEO, he would obtain what he wants, plus complete obscurity over the deal. Once the trickery would be uncovered, how would that go down with the board? How the other shareholders would react at the announcement that one of them is treated differently, and at their expense? Surely there would be a demand for clarification, an exceptional shareholders meeting, and who ever accepted that deal would be questioned, dismissed and probably taken to court. In a nutshell, that is what happened between Bernie and Ferrari. The "mutually beneficial business agreement" you seem to accept is certainly not to the benefit of other teams in F1, and throw a cloud over any success Ferrari may enjoy. There are 11 teams in F1; Ferrari is just one of them.
Thats not what happened at all. In fact, using your analogy, what you say happens in boardrooms all the time - the 'important' players are granted more shares, options and so on - with the full knowledge, support and approval of the board - in this case, the teams. Beg to differ. In short, the other teams sometimes bask in the reflected glory of beating the only one that really matters. No Ferrari, no F1, that's why they ALL agreed, back in the day, that Ferrari should get 5% right off the top. Cheers, Ian
I am not a particular team's fan or a particular driver's fan ; I like watching a race. Ferrari is just like any other team to me. I am not one of those flag-waving folks all dressed in team colours who get disappointed when their favourite doesn't win at all cost. I have problem understanding the tifosi phenomenon; it hardly existed when I started following motor racing. I am a motor racing enthusiast who tries to appreciate the sport for what it is.
Your opinion, and I respect it for what it is. You seem to forget that many of those who agreed for Ferrari to have 5% "off the top" aren't with us any more, but that anyone entering F1 now has to submit to that injustice. How long that will carry on, who knows...
Indeed. But don't forget that they're now in rev 4 (maybe 5?) of the Concorde. At least rev 3 anyway. Plenty of opportunities to change it if they wanted. Some of the newbies may baulk, but I very, very much doubt they do - they all recognize that without Ferrari there is no F1. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. IMO anyway.... Cheers, Ian
Geez, I wish I'd said that! (Except for the last part. NASCAR and Indy cars put me to sleep). Having said that, on those few occasions that F1 does produce wheel to wheel racing, it's riveting (thinking of the Vettel / Button duel at Montreal a few years ago).
I'm trying to figure out how one person can be so wrong. Why did the other teams sign if it was not to their benefit? Ferrari put a gun to the head of McLaren, RB, and Mercedes and said "stay in F1 and accept my terms or I pull the trigger"? You see, they also know that without Ferrari the series dies or is greatly diminished and therefore there are fewer crowds going to races, fewer people following the series, and fewer people watching F1. Guess what... that means less money for everyone. Before you said basically Ferrari can bully Bernie into doing whatever they want. Please show us this bullying because from an average of 5th and 9th place on the grid for many years in a row, I sure don't see any advantage from it.
Like the Roman Empire after Nero? Or maybe Marie Antoinette after saying "let them eat cake" Or maybe this... Image Unavailable, Please Login
I am confused. We are supposed to embrace all of the new technology, but the on board feeds seem to provide us with less information than in the past. We used to get RPMs, braking, KERS and DRS deployment graphics on the on board cameras that seem to be missing this year. I don't remember seeing these this year, anyone else notice this?
FWIW, I've seen literally every session since 1991 that was televised in the US. Most of them live, when available. I wouldn't watch F1 without Ferrari. But nor would I watch a breakaway series.
+1 Even if Ferrari were 'involved', it would have a *hard* time 'taking over' from F1 IMO. Even if they all jumped ship - something they've never managed in the past, it's still not the 'FIA World Championship'. FWIW, the 'F1 Teams Asoociation' was recently dissolved again BTW.... Many (including me on occasion ) may B&M about it, but it's still the best form of the sport there is. Again IMO of course. Cheers, Ian PS - I '+1' your view, not your 'dedication' - Not even I can make that claim! I'm impressed!.
I am not old enough to have watched Caracciola, but I saw Phil Hill, Clark, Surtees Bandini Brabham, and others racing. I saw Baghetti winning the French GP at Rheims in 1961 (my first GP), and among others Jacky Ickx at Rouen, Surtees at Spa, etc... Over 2 decades, I attended mostly the French, British and Belgian GPs (I lived in Belgium then), but I went once to the German GP at Hockenheim (as a guest of SHELL) and saw Scarfiotti winning at Monza. Apart from Monza, there were very few tifosis about then; hardly anyone sported Ferrari regalia. At Monza, the Italian crowd roared every time a Ferrari went by. In the 60s, Ferrari was hardly dominating after 61. People used to attend motor racing dressed in their Sunday best, just like football matches. If you watch John Frankenheimer's film "Grand Prix" you will have an idea of the atmosphere then. I miss that era terribly.
Well, World Champion is not a FIA trademark. Teams and manufacturers racing in FIA championships often take part in non-FIA races at the same time (i.e: Honda in CART and soon in F1). Of course, FIA could "blackmail" those teams, but you were the one complaining about Ferrari "blackmailing" Bernie a while ago, so I don´t know what´s your point.
I am WAAAY younger, but interesting you say this, as it is also the feel I got from the movie. Aside from some of the staged scenes at slower speeds (Really only noticeable if re-watching), I felt it painted a very real scene. It is my go-to raceing movie. A pity they weren't able to use their film from a few more tracks they shot at - but couldn't work out the rights to use it in their film. Given that driver's have some one following them around with a microphone recorder practically everywhere, I doubt we'll ever see it "real" again, instead it will be PR combed from top to bottom.
But it will be totally unrecognizable from today and I suspect the current mistakes they are making now will be corrected to bring people back and expand it's audience.
Neat. However that's not the case today, period. Losing Ferrari would be a horrible blow to the sport.
World Champion isn't a FIA trademark, but WORLD DRIVERS CHAMPIONSHP and WORLD CONSTRUCTORS CHAMPIONSHIP surely are, so is FORMULA ONE. Almost each and every country as a motorsport organization which is affiliated to the FIA, sometimes several. I believe that 2 at least are affiliated in the States - USAAC, I believe is one. Apart from sprint cars and dragsters, I think that all motorsport in the USA comes under the FIA umbrella through one of their affiliated club. That's why racing outside FIA sanction or in a series held against a FIA world championship could have serious consequences. The most eager to create their own GP series in 70s and 80s were Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone; they didn't manage that and instead made their way through the FIA hierarchy!
