Montezemolo: ‘F1 needs credibility’

Posted on

| Written by

Luca di Montezemolo wants more innovation in Formula 1

Luca di Montezemolo believes F1 must to “recover its credibility” in 2010.

Speaking at the launch of Ferrari’s 2010 F1 car the company chairman said the sport should be a “test base” for cutting edge automotive technology and urged the sport to adopt more stable regulations.

Montezemolo argued for greater technical freedom – and more testing:

The first point: a lot of technology is changing because of the environment and pollution. Second, we need consistent regulations that are not misunderstood. And third, the role of justice.

F1 should be a test base for state-of-the-art technology, where we can develop innovations which go onto our cars.

Drivers cannot stop racing on the first of November and then go back racing, or testing, on the first of February.
Luca di Montezemolo

He criticised F1’s increasingly restrictive rules, saying: “I don’t like F1 levelling out performance.”

And in a clear reference to last year’s row over double-diffusers Montezemolo said the technical regulations need to be clearer:

The federation must ensure safety, and this has been done, and also ensuring the right interpretation of the regulations by everybody. They must be clear and not grey.

To do this we need independent sport justice that does not provide judgements without real basis.
Luca di Montezemolo

Ferrari struggled last year because their F60 was not designed to exploit the regulations which allowed double-diffusers to be used.

He also welcomed Mercedes’ return to the sport as a full constructor, saying:

I regret that other teams have gone in the opposite direction. These teams gave credibility to Formula 1. I don’t know if all the small teams are as interested in testing.
Luca di Montezemolo

Asked about Michael Schumacher’s return to F1, Montezemolo said he had urged Schumacher to come back in August last year.

He repeated his belief that F1 should allow teams to run three cars and, perhaps in the hope the FIA will listen, hinted he might offer one to Valentino Rossi in 2011.

Ferrari 2010 launch

Image (C) Ferrari spa / Edoardo Colombo

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

86 comments on “Montezemolo: ‘F1 needs credibility’”

  1. Call me mad, but I’d like to see Formula 1 experimenting with Hydrogen fuel cells (not particularly fond of the engine sounds since the V10’s were lost) even though I imagine it would be difficult to do safely.

    And smaller brakes to increase distances but an automatic variable incidence rear wing, one which would fall flat when the driver accelerates (would it produce less turbulence?) then be pushed up when the brakes are applyed.

    I have more mad ideas than Ecclestone.

    1. The smaller brakes is an excellent idea:the most cost-effective and easiest way to more pasing

      1. Smaller brakes wont help passing. The only way to increase braking distances is to decrease downforce. Smaller brakes could still presumably lock up the tires just like big rakes, so the real limiting factor is the traction (i.e. downforce. Giving the cars smaller brakes would only make them get hotter and fail more frequently.

        1. That makes sense, what about removing a piston or two from the calipers? or only using one brake on the rear axle like a go-kart?

          Would bringing back active suspension and fitting thicker rear tyres help recoup some mechanical grip if aerodynamic grip is diminished as it probably should be?

          1. considering how fast the cars goes at the end of a normal straight, the clever thing would leave the brakes as they are and limit the aerodinamic effect of the wings and stuff…

            imo, the best way should keep the brakes like they are NOW (a sort of “brake-freeze”) and continue decreasing the amount of downforce (which they are already doing, but with the DDD, things went the other way around)

  2. F1 will recover its credibility when the teams and the FIA stop having silly arguments and the rules stay stable for a long period of time. I think the constant fiddling and changing of the regulations (points system, qualifying tyres, refuelling etc) makes F1 look like a joke and destroys the interest of casual fans who simply can’t be bothered to keep up with the never ending changes.

    Ferrari really need to let this three car idea go. There is a full grid of 26 cars and plenty of teams (Prodrive, Lola, Stefan GP etc) ready to snap up any spaces that emerge. If they want to put Rossi in a car they need to drop another driver. Some teams with three cars will not work.

    1. Credibility comes with integrity, not something that Ferrari are particularly good at…..

  3. I agree with di Montezemolo about F1 being a test base for state of the art technology and also about the easing of some of the restrictions but I cant see how these could be achieved while at the same time reducing costs.

    1. I’m not convinced F1 really needs to cut costs, teams need to see more of the money that the sport generates and spend it more efficiently balancing it with sponsorship and other commercial interests. Modern globalised sports spend a lot of money, that’s the reality. If you wanna run an F1 team on less than what leading football teams are willing to spend on a top players transfer fee then you’re not gonna have much of spectacle. Teams like Honda and Toyota wasted money massively does that mean teams that doen’t waste money like Ferrari, Renault and McLaren should be punished?

  4. Luca does seem to enjoy telling us exactly what should and shoukldn’t be done in F1… I predict he’ll try and depose Jean Todt as FIA President before long!

    I just wish he would sometimes take his Ferrari hat off when giving interviews. Obviously you’d want more testing if you own two test tracks. Obviously you’d want third cars when you sign contracts with more than two drivers (as Ferrari did). Obviously you wouldn’t like Double Diffusers because you didn’t think of them first.

    1. Testing is the most effective and efficient way of developing a car. He’s not saying he doesn’t was double diffusers he’s saying he wants rules that are written more clearly. I’m not a champion for the three car cause but it’s one of the more sane ideas out there. We could have seen Alonso, Massa & Schumacher in Ferrari this season, I can think of worse suggestions that have been proposed.

      1. Instead, we’ve got Alonso, Massa, Schumacher, Hamilton, Vettel, Button, and Webber in different cars where engineers have to be clever and adaptive.

        Yeah, that’s a lot worse than having 3 or 4 Ferraris on the track with unlimited testing, all the best drivers and a veto on the rules…..

        1. They’re not all in different cars. I think your kind of augmenting the context a bit there. I’m not saying Ferrari should be the only team allowed to have 3 drivers (not 4). F1 hasn’t always had only two drivers per team. There are more than 3 good drivers in the world.

          McLaren could have had Hamilton, Button, Raikkonen. Red Bull Webber, Vettel, Coulthard. Mercedes Schmacher, Rosberg, Heidfeld. Ferrari Massa, Alonso, Rossi.

          No one said testing should be unlimited.

          It wouldn’t mean that engineers would have to be any less cleaver and adaptive, in all probability they would need to be more so because they’d face more competition from evenly matched equipment.

          1. I don’t like that 3 cars idea, I prefer good drivers driving for different teams, there’s more challenge there, it would be boring to see a podium full of ferraris or mclarens..

          2. I’m exaggerating for effect, but not by much. At one point last year Ferrari had 7 drivers signed on – Kimi, Massa, Alonso, Schumacher, Fisi, Badoer and Gene – in an era where no testing is allowed.

            Luca’s “generous” suggestion that Ferrari might be allowed to run 3 cars with, say, Alonso, Schui and Massa in them, with another 3 drivers in reserve and Rossi on the way would be funny if he weren’t so serious. Driver salaries are outside the budget cap, so Ferrari can buy up as many as they want. This is nothing more than another attempt by Ferrari to stifle competition. Allowing the rich teams to run 3 race cars (plus associated reserve chassis), plus simulator and testing time, and get even more control of the driver market isn’t good for F1 as a whole – only good for the team allowed to run 3 cars. As usual Luca is being disingenuous at best.

          3. Just stating they had seven drivers signed is a bit misleading. 2 were injured and unable to drive, 1 was driving for another team, 2 were considered to not be good enough leaving Kimi and Fisi.

            Ferrari don’t have too much control of the driver market. I don’t see Williams crying because they can’t give Gene a drive after they decided he wasn’t good enough.

            The suggestion is that all could run 3 cars not just Ferrari. If Ferrari’s car was as good as the F60 it wouldn’t matter how many they had.

  5. He’s only moaning because Ferrari had a dog last year.

    1. Indeed – I know this is probably naughty and bad of me, but when I hear old Luca saying F1 must recover its credibility, my mind fills in the following words: “…with a Ferrari double world championship.”

  6. I agree with what di Montezemolo is saying. He sounds more like a real fan of F1 than Ecclestone or Moseley ever has.

  7. F1 needs credibility = Luca wants more money from Bernie

    He is absolutely right. A 50% cut for Bernie and the rest for the teams is not acceptable in modern business

    However I dont agree with many of the other things. Ferrari has money to test year round while other teams dont.
    I think the balance of power in F1 has shifted towards teams with a star technician like Ross Brawn or Adrian Newey

  8. “I regret that other teams have gone in the opposite direction. These teams gave credibility to Formula 1. I dont know if all the small teams are as interested in testing.”
    Luca di Montezemolo

    Translation: “We were the ones that started the massive spending race in the first place, and now we can’t do it. What if these small teams are cleverer than us and we can’t spend and test our way out of trouble?”

    Ah the old Ferrari arrogance – if Ferrari aren’t doing well, then the sport as a whole is doing badly. If Ferrari lack credibility because all their foreign staff have left, then the sport lacks credibility. Etc etc etc.

    Maybe the sport wouldn’t have lost credibility in its “justice” if there hadn’t been quite so many examples of blatent cheating by and favouritism towards a certain red team? Like handing out vetos? Or by “financial partners in football teams of the commercial rights holder”? Or destroying the american market so that a dismally underperforming red team could win a race? Stuff like that? Noooo, it’s all down to manufacturers leaving the sport. The sport had no credibility when privateer teams like Williams and McLaren were winning it in the 80’s. Toyota – now there was a massive breath of credibility into the sport. Wall-to-wall “These guys know their stuff” moments, with massive success along the way, culminating in the release of an F1 inspired – err… expensive Lexus.

    Nice to see Italian is the official team language again, after that long period of English – where, let’s face it, things were going so badly. Now that Luca’s got his hands back on the reins, Ferrari are going back where they belong!

    1. Not sure about your “translation” there.

      When he talks about credibility and small team he’s talking about teams like Campos turning up to Bahrain admitting that they are there not to race but to test. That does knock the sports credibility. Not that a veto doesn’t, I don’t condone that either.

      1. The FIA handing out entries to outfits that can’t fulfill them is bad. That’s got nothing to do with the loss of manufacturers.

        Luca’s argument is “You lose big spenders like BMW, Toyota and Honda, and whoever replaces them are losers. Only big spenders should be allowed in.” Brawn replaced Honda and did a much better job with a much smaller budget. The only reason his specious argument has any weight is because of some of the particular teams that Max chose to hand licenses to. Would we be having these doubts if Lola or Prodrive, or even Stefan GP (who have enough finance to buy Toyota’s designs) had got the nod? Nope. If anything, he should be glad that weaker teams are coming into the sport, it will make his own weakening Ferrari squad look better.

        1. Bernie and Max/Jean want the weak privateer teams in because they can control them. They’re already doing what they’re told. Williams and Force India are indebted to the FIA and have already been forced to side with them. The manufacturers stood up to the FIA and Bernie.

          You lose big spenders like BMW, Toyota and Honda, and whoever replaces them are losers. Only big spenders should be allowed in

          I don’t believe di Montezemolo is saying this.

          BMW, Toyota & Honda are recognised world wide brands. Their participation generates publicity and interest in the sport and makes it more easily accessible. Higher interest means higher revenues. If Mercedes beat Honda, Toyota and BMW then they look really good. If they beat Campos, USF1 and Virgin it’s not really the same. Beating well know manufacturers makes you look good not struggling teams that no-one has heard of.

          1. the Sri Lankan
            29th January 2010, 2:20

            loosing Toyota is a big knock out punch to F1. if these privateer team loving imps cant realise it then too bad. the pinnacle of motorsport contested by teams called Force india, campos, virgin which has no input towards the automotive industry is what i call a joke. reminds me of champcar

        2. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Honda pretty much finance the 2010 campaign with a frankly massive investment? I’m surprised so many F1 fans believe they did it on a shoe string budget.

          1. It’s true. Brawn had an advance from Bernie also

        3. brawn had a near identical budget to honda, they got give 200 million by honda to support the team in its first season.

          1. Honda gave Brawn a running budget of approx 100m is the average estimate. This is about what it would have cost Honda to shut down the operation altogether in severance payments and breach of contracts, so in effect they didn’t fund the team, they just walked away with honour. Their previous budget was over 4 times that, spread across the globe, with twice the staff. Brawn went further and sacked about a third of the remaining brackley workforce.

            So, I didn’t say shoestring budget – I said smaller budget, smaller staff. He ran a more successful, more credible, and more respected team as a result. Don’t blame it all on wind tunnels either – the weekend pit crew went from 80 to 20 or 30 – that’s the crew that runs the races all year round, and that’s an example of how “more money” doesn’t mean more success. Quality, and focus, counts for everything.

            “loosing Toyota is a big knock out punch to F1. if these privateer team loving imps cant realise it then too bad. the pinnacle of motorsport contested by teams called Force india, campos, virgin which has no input towards the automotive industry is what i call a joke. reminds me of champcar”

            In the Golden age of F1, it was contested by teams called Lotus, March, Brabham, Lola, McLaren, Williams…. none of them major manufacturers. Those mainstream car makers that did get involved all ran big motorsport divisions, were well known as motorsport companies, and knew what they were doing. Even at that, those divisions were essentially private operations run outside the main company.

            Toyota are not a loss at all to the sport – they were never a winning operation, they were never taken seriously inside or outside the paddock, and they never threatened to do well. Beating a no-hoper money pit fly by night operation like Toyota or Honda means nothing. Beating Mclaren, or Williams, or Ferrari – that means something in this sport. Force India are a team with a lot more racing credibility than BAR/Honda/Toyota ever had.

          2. Whatever Brawn’s budget was it was backed up by a massive investment from Honda in the previous year that went into developing the car. Something that Virgin F1 etc don’t have.

            I agree money doesn’t doesn’t but success, Renault in their championship winning years are a prime example.

            In the Golden age of F1, it was contested by teams called Lotus, March, Brabham, Lola, McLaren, Williams

            Lotus there not a car manufacturer. And Renault, Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Porche. Also Honda, Ford, BMW all produced engines.

            Beating a no-hoper money pit fly by night operation like Toyota or Honda means nothing

            Nearly 4 million people world wide bought a Honda car last year. To the casual viewer to see names like Honda or Toyota helps them engage in the sport.

          3. Lotus were not a major manufacturer, and the only involvement major manufacturers had was in parts supply or as part of a dedicated motorsports programme, to which the public was already aware. My point remains – F1 didn’t need high street car dealer names in the 80’s to get public interest, nobody thought less of the champions of that time because they didn’t beat a car with Ford or Vauxhall on the front of it.

  9. The simple solution to the testing issue is to introduce MotoGP style official test days.

    Get all the teams to the same track (possibly in a country which doesn’t have F1 to gauge interest in the sport), let the public in (generate some revenue), and let the teams run as many or as few cars as they want (lets test drivers get a run, and lets us see loads of cars on the track.)

    Anyone agree?

    1. I agree, provided they run at Kyalami :P

      Agree with me Geemac? :D

      1. Definitely!

        BAR and Williams had a test at Kyalami a few years back and it was awesome. The reports said they got something like 70 000 spectators over the 5 days.

  10. I, for once, agree with Montezemolo. F1 is starting to resemble more A1 GP, with everything being standardized. I also can’t understand this obsession with slowing the cars down. As long as safety increases, speed should increase too! Now safety has increased, but speeds have gone down. This is NOT right! We are moving away from the essence of racing. Bring it back!

    1. This is more a question of Tilkeland tracks than due to the cars

      1. Completely untrue.

  11. Matthew McMahon
    28th January 2010, 14:30

    This is a typical response from Ferarri. When things aren’t going their way they complain. Montezemolo’s speech roughly translates as “FIA, get back into our backpocket.”

  12. I agree that in a bad time for the manufacturer Mercedes showed some bravery & came in F1.

  13. Ferrari have never actually liked a level playing field throughout the history of F1. They have always preferred to gain their edge by spending more money and do more testing than other teams – that’s the whole reason they built Fiorano ! and they have always moaned about small teams and others coming up with clever ideas…. they were moaning about the garagistes for that back in the 1960s and its continued ever since. So Montezemolo is not actually saying anything new, just repeating the Ferrari party line from the past 50 years….. and Im sure all the other teams will ignore it as usual!

  14. Whilst trying to wade through the inevitable “things should change to benefit us” rhetoric from Luca (which isn’t a crticism – of course he wants his interests furthered), there’s a lot to agree on. I’m divided myself on whether F1 should be more standard or more open. Personally I’d like to see the aero tightened and become more standard (since they all start copying each other anyway) and the mechanical side opened, as a compromise which I think would improve F1 as a whole. If F1 is to become more open, then having less teams with three cars makes more sense, whereas a closer F1 would (and does) benefit more from many two-car teams, since this environment gives more opportunity for different teams to compete at the sharp end.

  15. Yeah, credibility! But with Todt as president???

  16. I don’t think some comments have been entirely fair in my opinion.
    Ferrari backed FOTA completely last year when it came to spending and risked their relationship with the FIA. It was Ferrari’s move so I don’t think they are saying ‘FIA get into our back pocket’ more like ‘FIA stop messing about with rules and let’s make things better’.

    I don’t agree with some things that have happened in the passed-the veto rule- but that doesn’t mean Ferrari should just be dismissed.

    Everyone knows they had a terrible time last year and they are desperate to get back on top but I’m sorry but of course they are arguing for rules which will suit them (and they probably believe will suit the sport), it’s what every team would do so can Ferrari stop being the big bad guys all the time? With the whole diffuser rule you didn’t hear Brawn saying ‘oh well this is an advantage we saw but other teams are hurting so we’ll just put it in the cupboard and won’t use DDDs’. Everyone pushes for what will benefit them.

    LdM has some very good points too. I’m happy for the new teams really but I can see why Ferrari have criticised the new teams before and now. What casual fans will be able to name every team? It’s the big teams that bring in a lot of support and interest and most importantly, the new teams have appeared rather shaky. We have no idea who will make it nor for how long so their will be a bit of distance with them. I don’t agree with the comment about testing as I think if the new teams can get around it then good for them, it’s their choice.

    ‘He criticised F1s increasingly restrictive rules, saying: I dont like F1 levelling out performance. ‘
    Many of us have said we want more freedom and therefore less restriction (which is how the cars are being levelled out) so I don’t see why it is so wrong when Ferrari say it. Ok their intentions will be to get an advantage and make the most of it but in the end if it results in F1 being as innovative again as it used to be then that is fine by me.

    I do think the 3 car rule is madness however. I don’t agree with every word spoken by the team and I am bias as a fan but I do get tired with this idea that they are the big bad wolf of the F1 world. Oh well with Max gone someone has to be :P Sorry for the rant and please feel free to reply as I do love a good debate especially Ferrari ones :)

    1. I dont think some comments have been entirely fair in my opinion

      That’s putting it mildly.

      1. I dont think some comments have been entirely fair in my opinion

        Sorry just testing the blockquotes

        1. I really fail to understant why LDM is so anti-smaller F1 teams?

          He seems to have forgotten what happened at SPA last year. Force India( smallest of all the F1 teams in 09) almost snatched away victory from Ferrari.

          He’s a real idiot to overlook the smaller teams. Even Ferrari started out as a small team back in the 40’s, so did McLaren & Williams.

          Problem with Luca is his false ego. He’s lost Todt,Brawn,Schumacher & all the rest of their best employees & doesn’t seem to have gotten over that.

          Its in his & Ferrari’s best interests that he maintains silence. What if Virgin do a “Brawn” this year & beat Ferrari comprehensively? Where would LDM hide his face?

          1. The big problem with the new teams is the uncertainty. The new teams could collapse and there is the small chance that they could go begging for money or help from the FIA or Bernie. If the FOTA vs FIA lines are still drawn (it’s a bit unclear now Todt is president) then that possibility, no matter how small, isn’t good for the strength of FOTA. The manufacturers and big names have much more power and a solid foundation. It also doesn’t look too good if the teams -small and large- keep leaving the sport.
            There’s a chance the new teams may be a massive success but it’s like a doctor will always look at the reality and worse case secario. Sometimes a bit of cynicism is needed. Smaller teams can make it but more have come and gone than stayed and made a success of themselves.

          2. Agree with the points you make about the smaller teams Steph, but we’ve gotta give them time before we completely dismiss them off.

            Lotus(I hate its run by Proton) seems to have a strong technical line up & a long term commitment. Jarno Trulli himself was impressed with the facilities at their HQ.

            Virgin is the dark horse here. I know it from experience(worked in automation & design industry) that they can click big time. Their all CFD approach might be actually the way forward. Can’t dismiss them as they are owned by multi-billionaire.

            USF1 represents all of the American passion for Formula one. I need not do a discourse on American patriotism. If need come arises, there are plenty of corporations that will step in. Americans cannot stand their pride being hurt. Can’t even rule the possibility of the US govt secretly funding them :P

            Campos are the only team that faces uncertainty.Such a shame cos I desperately want Bruno to outperform all of them.

            Very wrong of LDM to ridicule(he’s done it on numerous occasions) the smaller teams.

            He just has to remember Spa 2009 before he passes judgment on others.

        2. Quote me all you like, I stand by it :P

          1. I’m not writing them off I just can understand scepticism. I think this could be politics more than anything. If you want something to fail or thnik it may break then the best way to find out is to pile on the pressure. The strongest survives and then they can move on and work with the teams. I could be very wrong though and I would like it if the teams were just left to it but I can understand what is being said.

          2. I really appreciate McLaren & Martin Whitmarsh. Of course “RonSpeak” can get a bit tedious at times, but they don’t look to impose themselves over others like Ferrari.

            It was Ferrari,BMW & Red Bull that made all the noises over the DDD during the season.

            Since then Red Bull have recovered very very strongly, BMW chickened out & Ferrari? They don’t seem to have gotten over it.

            Luca’s is confused up. He is mixing up issues here. DDD-three cars-rossi-schumi-pollution-justice etc etc.

            And surely NO ONE wants a podium to be filled up with three Ferrari or Mclaren drivers.

          3. Why is a team that only uses CFD going to get the better of a team that uses CFD, wind tunnels and testing?

            CFD is old now, Smoothed-particle Hydrodynamics with Large eddy Simulation is the way forward (or so I read).

            Brawn weren’t a new team last year, they had years of development and investment from a major manufacturer behind them. Virgin aren’t gonna rock up and “do a Brawn”. Likewise Force India are a well established team who while small have all the infrastructure in place as well as significant F1 experience and use of the best engine on the grid.

            I’m not saying small teams shouldn’t be allowed to join but for Campos and USF1 the situation doesn’t look too great, maybe Prodrive and Stefan GP would have been better choices.

            I think di Montezemolo’s is sees big manufacturers involvement as a good thing in terms of public interest. He would like F1 to be more experimental with a view to developing more relevant technology for road cars as well being relevant to increasing support amongst the population for “green” ideals. I don’t think any of that sounds that bad.

            His comments about the clarity of rules may be born out of a bias but greater clarity is in the interest of everyone especially the fans.

            Also Ferrari were founded in 1929 and were (basically) a division of Alfa Romeo.

  17. Typical LDM nonsense. He moans when Ferrari get it wrong & it appears from his saintly talk that his team might have messed up again.

    I mean why is he going on about pollution & stuff. Formula One post 1992 has never been road relevant to the average man on the streets of NY,London or Paris.

    Then he talks about consistent regulations that are not misunderstood. Of course! It was LDM’s mistake to let of of Ross Brawn in the first place.Would he have been complaining if Ferrari were the first ones to implement DD-Diffusers ?

    And finally he ridicules himself be talking about the role of justice. Why? Why does he indulge in God-Fatherism?

    They now have a Ex-Ferrari man in charge of the FIA & ex-ferrari staffs in technical advisory positions. And still LDM moans?

    Not the first time LDM’s moaned. He’s been doing it for the past 36 years or more:

    1. By “moan” you simply mean criticize? You seem to do quite a bit of it yourself! Did you listen to his talk? It sounded pretty reasonable, not at all saintly, nor nonsense. And lots of people on the street are interested in “pollution & stuff”.

      1. You tell me what has Formula one gotta do with Pollution? It happens all the time.You gotta burn hydrocarbons to move a vehicle & there is nothing we can do about it,except planting more trees.

        Tell me what component of a current F1 car is road relevant.KERS was such a waste of time. It can never be road relevant & sadly all the road relevant stuff were banned after the FW14b.

        I agree F1 is about innovation, not in the sense LDM means. His idea of innovation is an innovation that completely favours Ferrari.

        He’s just got to accept that the glory days are over.

        Welcome back 1979-2000

  18. This a quote from LDM himself:

    “I believe had the third car been there, with all respect to Mercedes, Schumacher would have been promoting not Mercedes, but Ferraris.”

    You see, he hasn’t gotten over the post-schumacher stress syndrome. This isn’t healthy for Ferrari. They have relayed far too heavily on Schumi,Brawn & co to achieve Success.

    Time to move on dear Luca. Mercedes’ heritage in motor sport is far far greater that your company’s.

    After all it Luca who forced Schumi in to retirement in 2006.

    Sour grapes Luca,very very sour indeed.

    1. How do you justify that Mercedes have a greater heritage in motor sport than Ferrari? I don’t think any manufacturer has a greater heritage of racing than Ferrari – they exist purely to race, with the road cars merely being a way of funding the race team…

      1. Spot on there DanThorn! As much as people like it or not, there is no motor company with greater motor sport heritage than Ferrari!

  19. The phrase ‘self interest’ springs to mind.

    I do hope that Ferrari have a good season, otherwise we can expect more of this sort of drivel from the man at Maranello.

  20. The worst thing about F1 is that everything is standardised yet unique, which is the worst of both worlds.

    So a Merc engine and a Ferrari engine are different and yet homologates to be (approximately, not exactly) the same. Everyone could build their own KERS

    If you are going to level the playing field then have the balls to level it by simply having everyone run the same thing. Sure, stick different manufacturers badges on it if you want…homologating different things to the same level is simply pretending, and a more expensive way to achieve a similar objective.

    Either complete freedom or complete standardisation should be the way.

    I think most of the teams would even rather we said “ok, X, Y and Z will be fully standard, but A, B and C will be fully free from a technical point of view”. That way we could at least select certain areas for full freedom, e.g. KERS or an engine or whatever, and yet other things just wouldn’t be touched at all in the regs.

    This half-way house thing we have right now is just a bit, well, pathetic.

    1. Complete freedom!

  21. Oops, jsut to finish the sentence…”Everyone could build their own KERS, but only to the same limits as defined by the FIA in terms of energy recovery and power usage”.

  22. Complete freedom of technology and budget…..hmmmm.

    I do hope that Ferrari will allow diesel engined cars into F1 the next time that manufacturers want a say in what sort of innovative, fuel efficient, relevant technologies should be allowed. In the meantime 4 mpg isn’t a lot less than you get from most road going Ferrari’s!

  23. I think teams should be able to spend what they want I think the biggest problem is Bernie and his prices.

    1. The teams were spending what they wanted. Usually on millions eeking out another couple of horsepower or 800 for an ever-so-slightly-lighter-than-a-50 wheelnut.

      You can’t have free budgets and free regulations. The cars would simply get too fast.

      You can have free budgets and tight regulations or tight budgets and free regulations. But you certainly can’t have both!

      Free budgets and tight regulations results in what we have seen over the past 18 months, teams leaving because it’s getting too expensive and only one team in any given season can win a championship.

      Tight budgets and free regulations never got to see the light of day. More’s the pity really, because the best ideas usually always come from people who don’t have large wads of cash.

      1. Complete freedom of technology and budget..hmmmm

        Teams would have the freedom to find cheaper solutions as well as spend more.

        The teams were spending what they wanted. Usually on millions eeking out another couple of horsepower or 800 for an ever-so-slightly-lighter-than-a-50 wheelnut.

        That’s because they can’t spend the money on more effective solutions.

        You cant have free budgets and free regulations. The cars would simply get too fast.

        What’s wrong with fast cars? Isn’t that the point of F1? The only real barrier is safety but it’s currently very good and could be significantly improved.

        1. Why not make the teams find cost effective solutions? Wheelnuts are wheelnuts and one of the points of F1 isn’t to try to unlearn the lessons that were learnt from accidents in the past. Just because F1 is safer doesn’t mean to say that you should push your luck. Just because your road car has ESP doesn’t mean to say that you should drive it faster.

          1. Just because your road car has ESP doesnt mean to say that you should drive it faster.

            That’s because it’s illegal and you might hit someone.

            In F1 slower speeds do not equate to better safety.

            I don’t think a budget cap is a bad idea but it doesn’t need to be that low.

      2. I agree, for Formula One the best solution is a budget cap (since technical innovation is what differentiates it from other open wheel series), but it should be higher than the smaller teams can afford, say 100-120m.

        As for the other issue, I think F1 cars could probably afford to become 5% or so faster, much more and they would be too difficult to drive.

        1. Why should a budget cap be higher than the smaller teams can afford!!!!?????

          And what ‘real’ difference would 5% ‘faster’ have on the spectacle that is F1 ?

          5% faster could also possibly mean 50% less safe. ‘Faster’ and ‘Safer’ are not linear properties in F1. 5% faster doesn’t necessarily mean 5% less safe.

          And could anyone really tell the difference of ‘5%’ unless they were using some sort of timing system ?

  24. Prisoner Monkeys
    28th January 2010, 22:56

    He repeated his belief that F1 should allow teams to run three cars and, perhaps in the hope the FIA will listen, hinted he might offer one to Valentino Rossi in 2011.

    Excellent disguise, Flavio!

    Has anybody else noticed that a by-product of Luca’s calls for “more credibility” is the fact that Ferrari will be in a better position? Favio Braitore used to do this: whenever Renault was not winning, he’d claim the sport was in dire straights,but when they were winning, the sport was stronger than ever.

    I disagree with di Monetzemolo because I feel he is trying to manipulate things in Ferrari’s favour. Why has he suddenly decided that Formula 1 needs this extra credibility? What changed between the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2010 to prompt this? The answer is simple: Ferrari had their worst season in nearly twenty years. With three-car teams, Ferrari could afford the three best drivers. They’d stand a better chance of cemeting a position as the top team (or runner-up). It’s the same with his calls for USF1 to be allowed to run a Ferrari chassis: that way, if the teams succeed, they’ll have Ferrari to think for it.

  25. I am sick of hearing about three cars. He only came up with that to try and get Scummy back, when they forced him out of the car in the first place, he was undecided about retirement when Ferrari took the opportunity to sign Kimi, a move which he obviously now sees as a big mistake. Same as he is only moaning about the regulations because Ferrari dropped a ******** there as well. He has not got a clue what F1 needs, only what Ferrari needs.

    And I think MS would have chose Merc anyway, cos of RB, and cos its a home team.

  26. “In F1 slower speeds do not equate to better safety.”

    I wasn’t aware of the fact that only in F1 did the laws of physics not apply.

    1. Newton’s laws of motion don’t govern personal safety!

      Speeds in F1 have continually risen (with the odd initial blip when new rules have been introduced) but safety has improved. A faster car can still be safe if safety is prioritised.

      1. That’s true, in theory, but at some critical point, speed + type of materials used + human flesh = really too freakin’ dangerous.

        1. Actually, speed doesn’t kill. Near-infinite deceleration (or as you could say: hitting a wall)does.

        2. I suppose we could give them turbos, ABS, TC, ESP and all of those things just to feed some peoples thirst for more speed. I would personally be happier to see better racing rather than more speed.

      2. The “odd blips” are there to slow the cars down.

        A good way to improve safety would be to equip all of the cars with ABS, ESP, TC and a hundred or so other acronyms that would no doubt make F1 more akin to a roller-coaster ride than a racing series.

        If you want more speed then expect the drivers to be even more ‘cocooned’ than they already are.

        1. I know being an open top formula is a big part of F1 but it is fundamentally dangerous.

          There’s a lot more technology like ground effect, un-neutered KERS etc. If you open up the rules anything becomes possible, hybrid/”green” technologies.

          I know new rules are often introduced to to slow cars down but it only ever works for a year at best, we’d be better off focusing on safety.

          I think you can have better racing and greater speeds.

          1. “If you open up the rules anything becomes possible, hybrid/green technologies.”

            Opening up the rules is great. Watching the richest teams with more money spending it on refining other peoples inventions is not.

            KERS was not an invention of F1, but many wanted to see Ferrari, BMW, Renault and McLaren use unrestricted systems to decimate those who could not afford to use them. Result..four teams in F1.

  27. american stig (but thinner)
    29th January 2010, 1:33

    i don’t know why everybody wants all the downforce taken off the cars. I you took the downforce off f1 would be incredibly slow, and giant tires would not make up the difference. The main reason i watch f1 is because it is the fastest thing out there, i personally do not want to see glorified go karts that lap slightly faster than touring cars, even if that would mean more overtaking.

    1. ‘The main reason i watch f1 is because it is the fastest thing out there’
      my thoughts exactly!

      1. The fastest thing out there isn’t F1. Go to a Dragster meeting if you really want to get ‘blown away’ by ‘speed’. Believe me, there is a difference! And even IRL cars, on average, give their fans more ‘speed’ than F1 cars do. So there are other ways of getting your “fastest” fix. MotoGP bikes also reach ‘faster’ top speeds than F1 cars do at the circuits they both use. MotoGP bikes don’t have the aid of downforce however, which means that they go around corners much more slowly, but far more interestingly.

        1. american stig (but thinner)
          3rd February 2010, 5:09

          well yes i know cars go faster…but take a f1 car, and indy car, and a dragster, or any other car on the same track (not a drag strip obviously) and the f1 will be fastest, so therefore..they are the fastest cars which is why i watch.

  28. Doh! Well here’s a thought… how about developing kers and stop moaning about it. F1 needs credibility and so does Montezemolo…

Comments are closed.