Mercedes-Ferrari rule stranglehold could destroy F1

The funniest part of that article:

"We're trying to save the sport and these people are trying to save it for their own good," Ecclestone said.

Kettles and pots spring to mind!

 

Very true.

However, I'd have to say that he has an at least somewhat valid point...... As much as I'm a Ferrari fan I believe their veto rights are wrong; No single team, not even Ferrari, is, or should be, bigger than the sport.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Bernie can go an **** himself in the arse!!! Now he is playing the little defensless poor girl against the big bad wolf??? Screw you!!! Bernie doesn't give a damb about f.1, if it's good or bad, as long as he get's payed, that's all he cares about money.....as Gilles said in 82 (at the season's opener when the drivers went on a strike), the diference between me and him (bernie) is that if the money is gone, tomorrow i'll be here racing just the same...he won't!!!

 

Bernie is upset because Ferrari as a right to veto? Well he wasn't that much upset when he payed them to ditch the f2004, alowing Renault and Alonso to win the title in 2005!! Maybe he can try and bribe them again!!

 

He needs to dictate if he wants to save F1.

If it doesn't work, fine..enough billions to retire on.

If it does, awesome. FWIW I do think he is right. Mercedes and Ferrari the only 2 with a strong engine and deciding who gets it (i.e. anyone strong enough to mount a challenge or a chance to beat them, doesn't get an engine, or gets given an old one). Their engines are so strong, others with a weaker engine don't have a hope in hell in developing in other area's to be stronger than them.

You NEED a current spec Merc or Ferrari engine to mount a challenge to win, or even get on the podium (3 out of 4 contenders dropping out is not a challenge). Only way to get that engine is if your team is ****, thus not able to develop a quick enough car to get near the podium.

 

And why is this?? Testing ban, engine freeze, wind tunnel cap, forced summer break. You can have a (relatively) cheap series or a competitive one, but not both. It happened last year after winter testing (but we had to see it play out) & this year after winter testing (Mercedes had a lock, everyone knew it). This is largely Mosley's fault, it just took a few years for the (un)intended consequences to play out.

How much "cost savings" do you get when you lose constructor's $$$? How much cost savings do you get with a reduction or total loss (ask Ron) of sponsorship money?? Pay me now (spend bucks on development IN SEASON), or pay me later (crap results all year, loss of above $$). It's still a loss & an expense.

Maybe Honda has no ideas. Maybe Honda has bad ideas. Maybe they have great ideas. We will never know since they were not allowed to dig their way out of the hole. And McLaren would not be allowed to throw them in a car & test them. Hence we see an entire season wasted (& paid for) in the name of cost savings.

The costs are still the same, it just changed which column of the ledger they got written down in. Season decided by who did it best over the winter, running the races is just a formality and exercise in tire & fuel rationing.

 

Give this guy a cigar!!!

 

I have to agree, saying exactly what we've been seeing for several years. F1 should be about money, that's what it is, the best, the fastest, the most innovative. To make it about doing this for a set dollar amount is absolutely ridiculous.

Where would the world of medicine be if we told the richest labs in the world, hey, you can develop new drugs, but you can only test on a Wednesday if the month starts with a J, and then only if it rains between 9 and 9.15 in the Sahara, and by the way, you can't use your own test facilities that are paid for and need running costs only, you can only test in generic labs thousands of miles away, and we will limit how many hours of testing even if you qualify for it. We'd still be dieing from the flu!

 

Excellent post.

 

Costs have actually increased, hence the stress on those without sufficient resources.

 

+1

Same here. I can not understand the notion of "exceptionalism" attached to Ferrari, and the privileges attached to it.

 

Really?

To My mind it highlights the importance that Ferrari still has for F1, and the continued fear that they might one day decide to walk away from the sport.

Let's face facts here, if Ferrari were to walk away from F1, it wouldn't affect their car sales one iota, and it would save the companies hundreds of Millions of Dollars per year!

But if Ferrari left F1, the drop in revenue for F1 and those businesses related to F1 would be massive!

Straight away they'd lose at least half of the fans who go to races, putting pressure on the circuit owners, the merchandise sales would drop significantly, and people like Mercedes and Renault would have less interest in competing in the sport (there's far less glory in beating Red Bull and McLaren than there is in beating Ferrari).

No other team in F1 even comes close to generating the amounts of revenue for F1 that Ferrari does!

(That's not to say that F1 wouldn't survive without Ferrari, but it would be a much poorer race series - Literally!).

The FIA felt a need to appease Ferrari to help guarantee that they stay in the sport and so gave them a right of veto, and to this day they still feel the need to appease them.



As for blaming Mercedes and Ferrari for having a "stranglehold" on F1, they don't make the rules (even though Ferrari can veto them), and they do not run the race series!

The FIA and FOM between them have created the situation that they now find themselves in, so blaming it on Mercedes and Ferrari is hardly fair!

 

IMO Formula One is broken--the formula, the rules, insane budgets and the revenue sharing. Time for a re-boot.

 

This.

But with the power that Ferrari and Merc have, I don't see how it happens.

 

+1 Id watch without Ferrari. I like racing. They are not at LeMans as a challenge to Audi/Porsche etc so whats the problem. Ferrari are not F1. History is nice but reality is a different. I watch without BMW etc. Ferrari just another team in the larger scheme. Special. Maybe a bit but not to a degree they feel.

 

I too can't see the ''privilege'' of Ferrari in F1. I'd still watch without them. If Ferrari stops racing in F1 tomorrow, I don't think Ferrari fans will suddenly all flock to watch them race 488 GT2's in FIAWEC etc.

Sure some will leave, but I bet 90% of those are the ones that turn the TV off when neither are a decent position or out of the race altogether.

 

I would have expected a bias comment from you, and this is yet another one.

 

+1

 

+1


Ferrari hasn't been at Le Mans for decades, and the audience grew to watch other cars winning.

 

IMO, F1 would just not be the same without Ferrari.

 

+1

However, I'd continue to watch no matter.

Sure, they're the only guys that have always been there, but the sport is bigger than even them IMO.

Cheers,
Ian

 

I would surely quit without Ferrari, and would hapilly folow them if they went to wec instead.....when i was young i had to time to watch and keep up with rally (lancia) , group c (jaguar) and f1 (Ferrari)...now i have i wife and 2 kids on wich to spend time with.....still love the sport, but i like Ferrari better, a rece can be great, if there isn't a ferrari fighting for something i wont bother watching....oh...i also like moto gp..rayney vs Shwantz vs Lawson vs was top!!!

 

+1 Audi is more 'special' I suppose lol!

 

I have never followed F1, and the title of this thread reminds me of why.

It's all about as interesting as a self-driving car show.