Even if it were, why should it be? It was never intended as a platform to develop technology for road cars. It was intended to develop technology to go fast as hell. It was intended to be a sport, not a lab exercise in engineering navel gazing. They already have a few geeky series to **** around with fuel consumption, energy regeneration, etc. F1 should be about sheer speed and excitement, not about managing fuel consumption or tire wear.
Exactly! Also if you notice; ldM wasn't even complaining about the technology, he's just complaining about the total restrictive nature of the rules. As is, Newey etc.... The freedom to design crazy things is what made me fall in love with F1 in the first place. Just think of the 6 wheel Tyrrell.....no way in hell anything like that can be introduced anymore.... Which is wrong....meanwhile, the crazy delta wing is at LeMans.....
This man has the answer. F1 should cut the environmental crap completely. Who cares if they save fuel. Priorities should be speed handling and safety and that's all. Sick of the green movement: emission standards forcing car manufacturers to forced induction. No one cares
Report: Liberty and Discovery in talks to buy 49% F1 stake » Digital TV Europe Liberty Global, Discovery in talks regarding F1 stake -report | Reuters Anyone see the brewing of daily battles between broadcasters and FIA? (Anyone remember why they started the 1976 Japanese GP when they did?)
From Joe Saward - JOEBLOGSF1.COM How not to lose gracefully June 14, 2014 by Joe Saward Luca Montezemolo says (again) that Formula 1 is not working and claims that it is declining because the FIA has forgotten that people watch the racing for the excitement. Nobody watches racing for the efficiency. Montezemolo might see himself as a campaigner for true sport, but there are a few things which are wrong with his arguments. Firstly, Ferraris only real option if it wants to have any exposure in the sport is to go Le Mans, where the key to success is efficiency. If the overall viewing figures of Formula 1 are falling it is because the commercial rights holder is putting some of the sports biggest TV markets behind pay-walls. Fans are objecting and rather than paying, they have either ceased to watch F1, or have found nefarious ways to acquire satellite signals that allow them to watch the racing, albeit with foreign commentary. This is easily overcome by using radio commentary instead. The pay-TV deals are successful financially and the sport is pulling in more cash than ever, although finding sponsors is not easy, particularly as the teams are competing with the Formula One group in this respect, as it is keen to squeeze more money out of the sport by maximising the revenues from the trackside advertising. However, if Montezemolo is going to argue for better sport, he needs to look at the situation he is arguing from. Lest we forget, Ferrari has negotiated a financial deal with the Formula One group that means that no less than five percent of the total revenues of the sport go straight to Maranello. And this is before prize money is even calculated. It is not easy to put that into real numbers because the revenues of the sport of hidden away in accounting gobbledygook, but the accepted number for 2013 is around $1.7 billion, following on from $1.5 billion in 2011 and $1.6 billion in 2012. Whip out a calculator and this will tell you that Ferrari must be getting around $85 million just for turning up each year at the races. The fact that this is not widely known is because two and a half percent of the money comes from the half of the revenues that is allotted to the teams; and the other two and half percent comes from the money that goes to the Formula One group, with all of its financial gymnastics involving loans, dividends and so on. This is why the Formula One group now says that the teams are getting more than half the money. There are believed to be special incentive deals for Red Bull and Mercedes as well although these seem to have been fixed payments to get them to sign up to the bilateral agreements that have replaced the old Concorde Agreement. Now, add the $85 million to the usual share of the prize money schedules, the payments from which depend on how well a team does in the Constructors Championship which range from around $100 million for the winner to $50 million for the 10th placed team and one arrives at a situation where one can see that Ferrari always comes out on top in terms of finance, even if it finishes last in the Constructors Championship! In addition the Italian team has the right to veto the introduction/modification of any technical or sporting regulations (except for safety requirements). Ferrari is entitled to exercise this right of veto only if the exercise of the right of veto is not prejudicial to the traditional values of the Championship (whatever the hell that means) and it reasonably considers that the new regulations are likely to have a substantial impact on its legitimate interest, another essentially meaningless legal phrase. This veto is not new and dates back to January 2005 when Ferrari was granted the right until the end of the 2009 Concorde Agreement (in December 2012). Think about that for a minute: this means that, one way or another, Ferrari agreed to the switch to the new engine regulations, or at least did not use its veto rights. I like Ferrari, in principle. It has history and generates passion that adds value to the F1 World Championship. Having said that Ferrari exploits that in its merchandising, earning far more than all the other teams in this respect (while not working with them, of course). All things considered F1 and its fans look after Ferrari far too well. You have to take your hat off to Montezemolo for getting people to agree to all of this, but I personally believe it should stop. Ferrari depends on Formula 1 as much as Formula 1 depends on Ferrari and thus there is no reason for the Italian team to be treated so favourably. No team has a divine right to make money or to stop rules being changed. It is just unfair and I would love to hear from a lawyer as to why it is not anti-competitive because from where I am sitting it would seem to give Ferrari a massive advantage over the opposition. I also dont see any possible justification for Ferrari claiming, as it has done in the past, that it is only a small manufacturer and cannot compete with the big-spending majors. Ferrari announced earlier this year that its revenues rose five percent in 2013 to a record $3.16 billion and it posted a pre-tax profit of $500 million. The company even said that it has a cash pile of $1.87 billion, despite an increase in research and development spending. When one considers that the company, despite all these advantages, has not won a title in five years and is currently third in the Constructors Championship, fighting for the place with minnows such as Force India, McLaren and Williams, one has to say it is a pretty poor effort. I fear that the buck for this must stop at Montezemolos office door. He is the man in charge and he is not backward in coming forward when there is success to be enjoyed. Thus when there is pain to be endured he must be the man standing up and taking the slings and arrows. Deep down honest people know that winning with an unfair advantage is not winning at all and this is why they strive to compete on a level playing field. I think Ferrari should do the same.
And therein lies the rub. They would have to use significant amounts to beat Audi and that would go to the detriment of their F1 program which has a MUCH greater worldwide audience. It makes no sense for them to commit on a big scale. Plenty of Ferraris already racing there for folks who like cars closer to the road cars.
I would love to see Ferrari throw tons of money into endurance racing. Not only would they build an amazing car it will also greatly impact their road cars a bit more
I dunno, they throw a lot of money at F1 and are only mediocre there. Should they really suck in 2 top of the line categories?
Ferrari sell everything they make without throwing money into Endurance racing so what's it going to do for them? It's not as though Ferrari's technology is lagging behind other manufacturers because it's based on F1 technology. Added to that, Ferrari's La Ferrari isn't based on endurance racing design/technology and yet it is rated as one of the greatest cars available today. By the same token, AUDI spend huge amounts on endurance racing but nobody buys an AUDI because they win Le Mans. Even their top car, the R8, isn't based on their endurance race car, it's a Lamborghini in a sombre German dress! The only company that has ever really benefited from endurance racing is Porsche. Toyota didn't really gain much from it. Peugeot didn't really gain much from it. Nissan didn't really gain much from it. Bentley didn't really gain much from it. The truth of the matter is, Ferrari don't really need endurance racing to benefit their road cars, but their history does mean that they need F1.
The R8 is a bit more than just a Lambo copy---"The car was exclusively designed, developed, and manufactured by Audi AG's high performance private subsidiary company, quattro GmbH, and is base to the Lamborghini Gallardo platform.[10] The fundamental construction of the R8 is based on the Audi Space Frame,[5] and uses an aluminium monocoque which is built using space frame principles. The car is built by quattro GmbH in a newly renovated factory at Audi's 'aluminium site' at Neckarsulm in Germany.[5]" --Audi R8 Wiki-- Ferrari can sell without F1 and they sell when the team is hardly noticeable in performance in a bad year. They dont 'need' F1 at all. Its a brand way beyond one form of racing.
With that approach, technically every race is an endurance race, including NASCAR. That isn't what the call for participation in endurance racing is referenced to in this thread and you know it. A 6, 12 or 24 hour race (LeMans/ Sebring/ Rolex 24 hr @ Daytona), or an extended multi-circuit series like world rally is the type of endurance race that is being discussed here.. And yes there are already Ferraris participating but no factory teams that I see.
I mentioned this in the Le Mans thread, I'd love to see a "Super" GT or GT "Open" class that the LaFerrari, P1, 918, etc would fit into. Make them very closely related of their road going variants with added safety/endurance equipment and the class would be huge. Racing needs a true "race in Sunday, sell on Monday" class. IMO, that's what top tier GT racing should be. I hate seeing cars such as the Corvette, Viper, and others heavily limited in search of parity. My dream will never happen, but I can dream. Mark
FIA should make new class in Le Mans 24 where track version of cars like Laferrari and P1 can race: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCKFyrBDLWw]Porsche GT1 versus McLaren F1 GTR Le Mans 1996 - YouTube[/ame]
I don't think they will have much to lose. I also think it will gain that much more of a following if they decided to join
Okay, so how much of the R8 design/construction is owed to AUDI's endurance racing car, and how much is owed to Lamborghini? I've not heard much about it being based on their race car, but I've heard a lot about how much Lamborghini DNA is in the car! As for Ferrari not needing F1 any more, their company pride means that they need F1! F1 hasn't been about selling road cars for God knows how long! However, there is still a prestige about being an F1 team (if there wasn't then why would the likes of Caterham and Marussia bother to be in F1? - Because they genuinely feel they can win the Championships?). For Ferrari, that prestige is enhanced by being the one team that has been in F1 since its inception (as LDM often says: "This is the history of Ferrari"). Were they to walk away now, it would look far too much like a case of: "We can't win so we're not playing any more!" , and that would be far too embarrassing for Ferrari! They walked away from Endurance racing because they could no longer afford to be competitive and couldn't match the spending of Porsche. Company pride means that they simply couldn't cope with the ignominy of doing the same in F1!
Meaning they would not be filing for BK anytime soon. There is no doubt that Ferrsri could test eventual new technologies. I think it would be awesome.
