Ferrari slams quality of proposed new teams

[John S]

I wonder if this is just annoyance on Ferrari's part or could they be right? IMO a lot of these teams can make the grade, but will they appeal to a mass market. All these new teams are excited about F1 because they want to mix it with the big boys, will it be a true test on them if the big boys have left?

Ferrari has blasted the quality of entries being lined up to join Formula 1 next year - even going so far as saying the sport would perhaps be better off rebranded as 'Formula GP3'.

Shortly prior to finding out that it had lost its legal bid to prevent the FIA introducing a £40 million voluntary budget cap in F1 for next year, Ferrari vented its frustration at the teams hoping to make the step up to motor racing's premier category.

As AUTOSPORT revealed earlier today, the court case that took place in Paris yesterday revealed the list of teams serious about joining F1 was Wirth Research, Lola, USF1, Epsilon Euskadi, RML, Formtech, Campos and iSport.

Ferrari has said it is shocked at the entries – and does not believe they are the kind of teams that will enhance F1's image.

"They couldn't almost believe their eyes, the men at women working at Ferrari, when they read the papers this morning and found the names of the teams, declaring that they have the intention to race in Formula 1 in the next year," said a statement issued on Ferrari's website.

"Looking at the list, which leaked yesterday from Paris, you can't find a very famous name, one of those one has to spend 400 Euros per person for a place on the grandstand at a GP (plus the expenses for the journey and the stay) [to see]."

The statement added: "Can a world championship with teams like them - with due respect - have the same value as today's Formula 1, where Ferrari, the big car manufacturers and teams, who created the history of this sport, compete? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it Formula GP3?"

By Jonathan Noble, Today autosport .com

[lkjohnson1950]

Agreed. Without Ferrari (love 'em or hate 'em) it ain't the same. And if BMW, Toyota, et al follow through as well, F1 is a totally different animal.

Follow

[Jericoke]

Yeah, it would embarassing to have a team that comes and goes from the sport, or sells out to another company to fund racing, or go years without any measure of success.

Oh wait, that's Ferrari.

No team is going to start on top and if Ferrari expects them to they have no business dictating who belongs in f1

[Andy B]

Thats just a little arrogant of Ferrari were they not a lesser team once?
The reason the racing is so out of balance is down to bugets so something needs to be done but stability is also needed.

[lkjohnson1950]

Again, love 'em or hate 'em, no other team has the history or the fan following of Ferrari. Only McLaren of the current teams comes close. I think Ferrari is right, to swap Ferrari, BMW, Renault, Toyota for even Lola or USF1 is nothing like an even trade. If those teams leave, F1 is diminished. Like baseball without the Yankees.

Lonny

[Jericoke]

Again, love 'em or hate 'em, no other team has the history or the fan following of Ferrari. Only McLaren of the current teams comes close. I think Ferrari is right, to swap Ferrari, BMW, Renault, Toyota for even Lola or USF1 is nothing like an even trade. If those teams leave, F1 is diminished. Like baseball without the Yankees.

Lonny

Could you just imagine baseball without the New York Giants!  The Brooklyn Dodgers!  Impossible.

All sports gain and lose marquee names over time.  It would be wise to keep them as long as possible, but always important to remember the sport comes first, not the names.  Keeping Ferrari is ideal, but is it worth keeping Ferrari to force out a half dozen teams?  If I want to watch Ferrari win every time, I'll watch A1

[Willy]

[Thats just a little arrogant of Ferrari were they not a lesser team once?
/quote]

I will go a tad farther and say thats very arrogant of Ferrari. Every team had to start somewhere unlike Ferrari who seem to believe they started at the top right off the bat.

Looking at the list, which leaked yesterday from Paris, you can't find a very famous name, one of those one has to spend 400 Euros per person for a place on the grandstand at a GP (plus the expenses for the journey and the stay) [to see]."

And just how are the drivers and team personel to gain this famous stature without the world-wide exposure of F1.

Every time someone from Ferrari opens their mouths, I dislike the team more and more.

The best thing about Ferrari in the past 40 years has been Gille Villeneuve and more recently, Kimi Raikkonen.

[Chameleon]

Again, love 'em or hate 'em, no other team has the history or the fan following of Ferrari. Only McLaren of the current teams comes close. I think Ferrari is right, to swap Ferrari, BMW, Renault, Toyota for even Lola or USF1 is nothing like an even trade. If those teams leave, F1 is diminished. Like baseball without the Yankees.

Lonny

Could you just imagine baseball without the New York Giants!  The Brooklyn Dodgers!  Impossible.

All sports gain and lose marquee names over time.  It would be wise to keep them as long as possible, but always important to remember the sport comes first, not the names.  Keeping Ferrari is ideal, but is it worth keeping Ferrari to force out a half dozen teams?  If I want to watch Ferrari win every time, I'll watch A1

Don't fall for Max's lies.  It is not a matter of a straight choice between Ferrari and a bunch of GP2 wannabes - other established teams will follow Ferrari if they leave and F1 will be left with a few genuine privateers plus a horde of beginners who will be lucky to survive financially in their first year, even with a budget cap.

Ferrari is important to F1 and so are Renault, Red Bull, Toro Rosso and Toyota.

[Alianora La Canta]

From the perspective of 2011-2012, it's the choice between the ten teams we currently have bar Toyota (plus USGPE) or USGPE alone. The regulations have been written in such a way that a team which does not know its exact staffing, consultancy, agency and supplier arrangements over a year in advance will get disqualified if it takes the cost-capped option. So if budget caps come in as Max wants them to be placed, all the cost-capped teams will be disqualified for breaching that specific rule. Either that, or the FIA will have contradicted itself to the point where the aggrieved parties could easily sue the FIA and thus collapse Formula 1 anyway.

[Jericoke]

From the perspective of 2011-2012, it's the choice between the ten teams we currently have bar Toyota (plus USGPE) or USGPE alone. The regulations have been written in such a way that a team which does not know its exact staffing, consultancy, agency and supplier arrangements over a year in advance will get disqualified if it takes the cost-capped option. So if budget caps come in as Max wants them to be placed, all the cost-capped teams will be disqualified for breaching that specific rule. Either that, or the FIA will have contradicted itself to the point where the aggrieved parties could easily sue the FIA and thus collapse Formula 1 anyway.

It's not possible for an organisation as large as BMW, McLaren or Ferrari to not know where every penny is spent.  The board would be out on their ass after years of failed audits.  As for smaller teams like Williams, they can't afford to not know how every penny is spent.  RBR, STR and FIF1 are a little different, they're run for vanity as much as anything.  They probably keep excellent records, but I'd believe it if they didn't.

The thought that an F1 team cannot operate within a cap doesn't resonate with me.

Enforcing the cap would certainly be difficult, but the bigger teams would be easier to police, given that BMW, Ferrari and Mercedes are publicly owned companies and already have to publish most of the information anyways.

[lkjohnson1950]

On the contrary, the bigger teams would have scores of places to hide F1 expenses. Who will know if the road cars engineers do a bit of aero work on the computer, or if someone in special projects machines a widget or two? As I understand what Ali is saying, the teams have to predict their budgets 2-3 months early, and if they stray from those figures, they are in violation of the cap.

Lonny

[Scott]

I agree.  Even if the large manufacturer's know where every penny is spent, there are too many ways for them to adjust workloads and projects within the parent corporation.  A CFD workstation could be set up easily just about anywhere, as well as wind tunnel use could be allocated to "special projects" without a specific name on it and how would the FIA have a clue?  If Ron get's his permit for his new sports car manufacturing plant, it would be just too simple to create just about anything for the F1 car there, since they will be working with carbon fibre, models and of course CFD as well.   

[Jericoke]

On the contrary, the bigger teams would have scores of places to hide F1 expenses. Who will know if the road cars engineers do a bit of aero work on the computer, or if someone in special projects machines a widget or two? As I understand what Ali is saying, the teams have to predict their budgets 2-3 months early, and if they stray from those figures, they are in violation of the cap.

Lonny

Yes, it's true that teams can fudge engineering from other divisions to cover F1.  There will be cheats to the cap.  It'll be tough to police but a) not impossible and b) I'm willing to bet there will be plenty of under the table spending that gets winked at as long as the big teams aren't flagrant about it.  (Maybe part of McLaren's budget includes a PI who keeps track of Ferrari's spending, lol)

An F1 team already sets their budget ahead of time.  It's not like Toyota adds up the books on Dec 1 to see what the year cost.  Jan 1, they know what they have to work with for the whole year.  Currently a team could conceivably increase their budget if required, but the more 'corporate' teams aren't likely to sink any more money.

[Alianora La Canta]

The specific problem I referred to in the item Jericoke quoted is not the enforcement of the money (though I do not believe sufficient thought has been put into that by the governing body). It is the obligation for all cost-regulated teams to exercise a considerable amount of prescience concerning those they work with. If no team can know what they need to know to comply with the regulations as far in advance as the regulations demand, then no team can compete within the regulations and therefore all teams will get disqualified.

I have yet to hear a word suggesting the problem will be resolved during the compromise talks. This is why I think the FIA is setting a trap that neither it nor the teams appears to be aware (or want to be aware) exists.

[Jericoke]

The specific problem I referred to in the item Jericoke quoted is not the enforcement of the money (though I do not believe sufficient thought has been put into that by the governing body). It is the obligation for all cost-regulated teams to exercise a considerable amount of prescience concerning those they work with. If no team can know what they need to know to comply with the regulations as far in advance as the regulations demand, then no team can compete within the regulations and therefore all teams will get disqualified.

I have yet to hear a word suggesting the problem will be resolved during the compromise talks. This is why I think the FIA is setting a trap that neither it nor the teams appears to be aware (or want to be aware) exists.

Absolutely a cap needs to be in place with enough lead time for teams to adhere to it.