Devildog

I hate to dissapoint all those in denial, but hey....

As reported in this weeks Autosport, in return for committing to the FIA championship until 2012, in a deal signed four years ago, Ferrari recieved financial inducements (as was known) and, and this is a cracker, an ability to veto technical rule changes ( which was suspected but until now unconfirmed)

Effectively a deal that adds up to a technical advantage for Ferrari

Not my words, but those of respected autosport writers.

And to think that mclaren got penalsed for bringing the sport into disrepute

FlightMan

ChrisPurvis100 and F1Fan will be along in 5 to explain why you've got this all wrong.

Devildog

No doubt. LOL

ScoobyWon't

Hasn't this been well known for ages?

And the bit about Ferrari having a special relationship.

Devildog

Not the techical veto. That was only leaked this week

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

LOL, well seeing as my presence has been requested I wouldn't like to disappoint you all.

Firstly Autosport and respected writers being mentioned in the same sentence??? Anyway I digress

OK so in 2005 F1 was in danger of splitting apart. On one side were the teams and on the other side was the FIA (Mosley) and Ecclestone. The Concorde Agreement was expiring and the FIA wanted the new one signed, but the teams weren't sure and were pondering a breakaway series. Sound familiar?

On that occasion Ferrari broke the deadlock by negotiating themselves a deal that included extra money and it would seem, if Autosport are to be believed, the right to 'veto any technical regulation changes'. With this in place they signed the agreement. As (whether you lot like it ort not) Ferrari are far and away the most important (commercially) team in F1 the other teams knew the game was up and signed the agreement.

So it would seem that the FIA having backed themselves in to a corner dangled a carrot at the key party in the deal and said party seized that carrot and the future of F1 was at least secure for the next few years. Now whether that is fair or not is not up to me to decide, but it is the way business goes and mark my words F1 is business first, sport second these days (sadly).

Who do we blame for this grossly unfair situation Ferrari for getting themselves a good deal or the FIA for offering it. I can't answer that, but maybe the alternative of a break up would be even less palatable than Ferrari seemingly getting a better deal than anyone else.

Anyway at the end of the day I think the power of veto while not particularly fair on the other teams is not as much of an issue as a more far reaching demand by Ferrari could have been. By that I mean it isn't like they can have technical regulations changed because they are working well for another team, it just means they can stop them being introduced if indeed this agreement does exist.

And why do I keep saying that. Well sitting here now there are two major points that puzzle me if such an agreement does exist.

Firstly the flexible Ferrari floor on the 2007 Ferrari. Surely if Ferrari had this agreement in place then the floor would never have been banned after just one race win and despite passing scrutineering in Australia.

Secondly why are they threatening to quit F1? They say it is because the technical regulations being offered under the budget capping rules are unworkable and will lead to a two tier F1 series. Well surely according to the Autosport revelation they have the power to veto them don't they?

Finally while it may be fun to stoke the fires of the pro and anti-Ferrari lobby on Scoobynet with posts like post 2 above I am firstly and fore mostly a fan of Formula 1 before that of Ferrari and am in the process of watching a sport I have loved since 1976 be ripped apart by greedy and in some cases power crazed men (Ecclestone, Mosley and the team owners). Sorry, but right now I am not too interested in whether you all think Ferrari are the spawn of the devil or not, but more interested in whether or not my beloved sport survives this latest mess.

Thanks for reading and sorry for the long post.

Miniman

iTrader: (2)

While not particularly a Ferrari fan and I am disappointed that they think themselves so important to the sport that it could never survive without them (it can, as has been shown by the number of teams that are planning to join the 2010 season under budget rules). Personally if someone said to me, F1 without Ferrari, Renault, Toyota and Red Bull, but with Lola, Lightspeed, the American teams, Prodrive, would you still watch it, you know what my answer would be?***

However I digress...

Have Ferrari ever actually veto'd any regs? I've not heard of it - they appear to work well with FOTA and the other technical working groups. One could say that there are bunch of rules this year that they should have veto'd - diffuser changes, other areo changes, KERS.






*** yes I am aware they they have not actually formally signed up yet, but neither have those teams actually quit

stilover

Just to add to F1_Fans comments.

I too am an avid F1 fan, and enjoy reading about the Politics of the sport and what goes on behind the screens.

F1_Fan is right. Ferrari did break the deadlock. Each team have their own deals regarding money. Williams did another deal with Ecclestone, that saw them recieve a better deal than others as they committed to the championship too.

Ferrari ARE the biggest name in F1. They put bums on seats, sell tickets etc that no other team can match. They bring more money into F1 (Ecclestone's pocket) than probably all other teams put together.

EddScott

The veto story doesn't make sense does it?

Many people think the cap is a silly idea but its the only way to bring in new teams. There hasn't been a NEW team since Super Aguri and they didn't last very long even with unofficial support. All the other new teams are effectively renames (Brawn, Foce India, Red Bull, BMW, STR)

The idea behind the option on the cap is because you can't scale down a major organisation like the big teams into a $40 price tag. I would think they could come up with a way of limiting car development costs. The cars need the same technical rules - thats obivous, but F1 needs new teams and the only other option is further standardisation and quite frankly no ones a slightly faster, slightly longer F3000 series.

r32

The veto story may well be true, The FIA were backed into a corner and so like the unfair group they are offered one (or some teams) a beneficial unfair deal.
As the flexible floor broke regulations they had it banned as it was (I think) classed as a movable aerodynamic device.

With the proposed new changes to the sport and the refusal of Mad Max to let them veto these. The agreement is now in tatters, broken by the FIA and so they are able to walk away from the contract, presumably without any legal ramifications.

I think that today will be interesting as a significant number of the major teams have decided to not compete if these significant changes take place. F1 is an expensive business (hobby) and there wont be that many people queing up to take part. The total number of cars allowed to take part in a race is fixed anyway, sadly. Plus any one new trying to get up to speed and be competitive with the well established teams would require many years and significant initial expense. Something the cap actually might hinder. The cap is almost impossible to police in any case.

I look forward to the news............

Devildog

Apparently Ferrari's statement as to why they may quit cites "breach of contract" as one reason why they may quit, and expands that the breach arises becasue the FIA can't simply impose a two tier set of regs (as the budget cap creates) without their say so.

Despite your misgivings as to the quality of Autosport, the story is appearing elsewhere now.

I fully understand the background to Ferrari's special deal, however the fact remains that if it exists, Ferrari are (by contract) treated differently from the other teams.

A right of veto gives advantage simply because it permits the exclusion of regs that other teams may exploit more fully.

Makes the whole double diffuser issue quite ironic, as far as Ferrari is concerned, and perhaps explains just why they are so pissed off about it, as evidenced by the manner in which their legal counsel approached the court of appeal.

Irrespective of the importance of Ferrari to F1, a financial inducement is one thing, a right of veto over regs giving the ability to exclude regs that wouldn't suit Ferrari is another.

Markus

It's very simple, it's called "Cheating"

Neanderthal

iTrader: (6)

I'd like them to scrap the budget caps, let the teams spend as much as they want and let the cars develop so they can go round Monaco like a Scalextric track, then that tech can eventually filter down to normal cars, then perhaps Scooby's will really be good in the twisties

Imagine if they'd been allowed to develop the cars from the 92 season with their active suspension and stuff. They'd have had to breed a new type of human with neck muscles as thick as a tree trunk to withstand the G-forces

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

As I said DD I am not saying that if such an agreement exists that it does not favour Ferrari, I just can't get too worked up about it in the grand scheme of things.

If you and others wish to castigate them then be my guest. As you have pointed out with double diffusers, differing technical regs for budget capped teams and adding my comment on the flexing floor it hasn't done them much good whether it exists or not.

My concern right now is for the future of F1 as a whole. I fear it is about to fracture into 2 lesser series and that might make an agreement between Ferrari and the FIA no matter how unpalatable to some including yourself seem like a better option at the end of the day.

We will see!

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Joking aside I am with you up to a point here. F1 should be about innovation and engineering excellence as much as it is about the drivers. It should not have endurance engines, fixed ECUs, fixed engine configurations etc. etc.

darts_aint_sport

What's the point in that when there'd only be two teams in it.

F1 these days is all about how fast teams can afford to go rather than how fast they can innovate their cars to be.

Leslie

I agree fully with that.

One of the original intentions was and always has been that F1 was a test bed for the general improvement of automobile design.

It is every bit as important to me that F1 continues in that vein and that advanced design principles in all departments are encouraged.

Les

RA Dunk

Appears there was a meeting in london today between Ferrari and the FIA, Ferrari didnt get their way and are now taking it too court!

pitpass - the latest, hottest F1, GP2, GP2 Asia & A1GP news

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Not quite so simple as that I think as they instigated the proceedings before the meeting

Markus

Sounds a lot like "If you don't do what WE want then we will throw a tantrum and sue you!" Aww, poor ickle Ferrari, things not going your way? What an absolute shame

Leslie

Whatever the eventual outcome, F1 without Ferrari would be a travesty and I very much hope they will come to some kind of agreement.

Les