Christian Horner, Bernie Ecclestone, Bahrain, 2013

Ferrari have power to veto Ecclestone successor

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Christian Horner, Bernie Ecclestone, Bahrain, 2013In the round-up: Ferrari can block Bernie Ecclestone from appointing a rival team principal as his successor.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Bernie Ecclestone reveals Ferrari has veto over his successor (CNN)

“We must obtain the written consent of Ferrari prior to the appointment of any person as our chief executive officer if, within the past five years, he or she has held a senior executive office or an ownership interest of 5% or more in any Team or automobile manufacturer which either owns more than a 5% interest in a team or is a supplier of engines to a team.”

McLaren Boss Dennis Plots ??125m Share Swoop (Sky)

“Ron Dennis, the McLaren supremo, is in talks about financing a buyout of a fellow shareholder in the automotive group as a possible prelude to a return to the helm of its Formula One (F1) team.”

Lewis Hamilton boost as Niki Lauda pledges to ‘kick’ Mercedes bosses until they give Briton winning car (The Mirror)

“I was sitting in front of the television [during the 2012 Singapore Grand Prix] and said, ‘Please crash. Please retire’ and bingo! Gearbox gone. I went to see him right after.”

F1 and NASCAR scheduled in Texas for same day in 2014 (Sports Illustrated)

“Our two NASCAR Sprint Cup races draw the two largest crowds in Texas sports. It isn’t the smartest move to try to compete with that.”

S.Korea to push for F1 return, says organiser (New Straits Times)

South Jeolla province governor Park Joon-Yung: “We will make steady efforts to achieve our goal, even though the race will not be held there next year.”

Benfield founder leaves Aon for new Gallagher venture (The Telegraph)

“Mr Chilton [father of Max] said his departure from Aon was unconnected to the broker?s decision to focus its sports sponsorship on a major deal to put its name on Manchester United?s Carrington training ground rather than motor sport.”

Hamilton’s father admits F1 managers ‘swerve truth’ (The Telegraph)

“In Formula One there is a huge grapevine. A lot of truths and untruths are spoken. A good manager is one who will fight for his client. If he has to tell a white lie that seems sensible if he is trying to get the best deal for his driver.”

Caterham eyes established star for 2014 (Autosport)

Cyril Abiteboul: “Heikki is one of the options and you see that there is a lot of movement in the paddock.”

More expectation on Ricciardo – Vettel (ESPN)

“In some ways it’s the same situation I was facing in 2009, but the team has had a lot of success since then so expectations might be a little bit higher.”

Pursuing uniformity (FIA)

F1 race director Charlie Whiting: “As a group, the F1 race stewards are clearly determined to continue improving the system of stewarding, which is extremely important to Formula One.”

Bottas relishing Massa battle (Sky)

“It is a very good reference. He’s got a lot of experience and if I manage to be competitive against him it’s a good thing for me as well.”

Post-season Bits and Bobs… (The Buxton Blog)

“Whoever is responsible for securing such funding [for Lotus] has a lot to answer for, because it is their failure that has led to the team hanging on to the promises of an outfit which, with each passing day, looks less and less likely to deliver.”


Comment of the day

Keith Campbell hopes Paul di Resta doesn’t lose his F1 seat:

I can?t defend his attitude towards his team, and often find myself cringing at his comments to the press. But his on track behaviour, where it actually counts, was very good and barring a few uncharacteristic incidents in the latter half of this season he was one of the cleanest racers out there.

I rate him around tenth best out of the current drivers, although maybe some of the rookies have more potential in the long run, so it doesn?t seem right that he loses his spot while others who have shown little talent remain, or worse, are moving to stronger teams. His problem is that most of the drivers he is competing with for seats bring financial backing, the notable exception being Hulkenberg who has admittedly shown more potential.

Nonetheless, if he is on his way out I hope he gets a seat in IndyCar or wherever he chooses to go and can still have a strong career.
Keith Campbell (@Keithedin)

From the forum

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

But happy birthday to 1982 world champion (and Nico’s dad) Keke Rosberg who is 65 today!

Image ?? Red Bull/Getty

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.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 82 comments on “Ferrari have power to veto Ecclestone successor”

    1. When were Ferrari’s vetoes on rules and the running of F1 signed off? It must have been on Bernie’s watch, but it seems out of character for him to let that happen.

      1. They need to go. I can’t understand how the sport has managed to get such a power imbalance. One team shouldn’t have this extra power.

        1. Implying F1 is a sport…

        2. However, all that power is not making them any faster…

          In the end of the day, it’s all down to building a good car and put the right man to drive it and bring home wins and titles.

          I was used to care, but as of late, I couldn’t care less about Ferrari’s super powers over FOM or FIA.

          1. @jcost

            all that power is not making them any faster…


            The power is reduced along the year which is a good thing. Before that was ferrari supremacy over the rules and F1, doesn’t feel too much like that anymore.

            1. before that was ferrari supremacy over the rules and F1

              Not really, Most of the rules introduced in the early/mid-2000’s were done to hinder, not help Ferrari & Ferrari were against practically all of them because of that.

              Ferrari never had the power in F1 that many fans believe they did & there was never the Ferrari-bias which its believed there was.

            2. @gt-racer indeed, it’s probably more about high level business than emmotional vetoes

            3. As I said, I was used to care, but I don’t care anymore @jeanrien

        3. Let’s imaging for a moment that the owners of one football club in the European Championship – let’s say Real Madrid – had a veto (that no other club enjoyed) over any adjustments to the rules of football. More than this, imagine Real also had a veto over the boss of FIFA. And on top of this, they also got special appearance fees other teams did not get, along with a guaranteed share of the prize fund, no matter how well or badly they played. Is it possible that such a special arrangement could go unreported and uncriticized? Does any other sport have such a blatant example of favoritism?

          I am astonished that Ferrari themselves continue to press for such special treatment, now that these arrangements are public knowledge, never mind the supine acquiescence of the other teams. The obvious conclusion is that Ferrari could not compete at the front without these special privileges, and worse, that this special authority is so meekly accepted by the other teams.

      2. I really dont understand everyones problem with this. It’s not like they can make up new rules they can just stop the current ones moving on in a way that they don’t like.

        They also get a bit more money than anyone else but alot of people who comment here say the teams dont get enough of the profits. The prize money they get ferrari bonus and all is not even enough to run the team for a year. whilst that’s a crazy prospect in f1, that a team should get enough money to run it’s self it is pretty much ridiculose compared to any other sport.

        Not like it’s helped them win any championships in the last 5 years anyways.

        1. How can you NOT understand everyones problem with this?

          No, thankfully they can’t impose new rules of their own. But to give one team veto power is just wrong. Why is it needed? Why is a democratic system not enough? Ferrari gets a special treatment, and it creates an imbalance. Now Ferrari-adepts will probably say they deserve it since they have always been there in F1, but I can’t agree. Firstly, F1 is important for Ferrari as well. And secondly, watch how successful F1 would be with only Ferrari aboard. F1 needs a complete competitor field, so they are all important.

          And yes, people say the teams don’t get enough of the profits. But giving Ferrari, and only Ferrari, more of them doesn’t work towards the opinion that teams should get more. If anything it just greates an even greater disparity: Ferrari is a rich team and gets more, while everybody apart from Ferrari, RBR, Merc and McLaren are strapped for cash.

          In short, there should be a better system to divide the cash, it should all be the same for everyone and, last but not least, they should all be treated as equal competitors.

          1. Tell me if I’m wrong, but aren’t things like Ayrton Senna, JP Lotus, Ferrari, Michael schumacher the names close to synonymous to F1? How many people outside Europe know of McLaren or Lotus? (I know Lotus F1 isnt related to Lotus cars).
            I dont think F1 without Ferrari will be the same, they have been here since the start. To lose Ferrari due to say, financial reasons will be a massive blow. Even if they can fund 5 more teams like Marussia with their budget, it isn’t guarenteed that they’ll have it 20 years later too.

            Yes, distribution of money needs to be MORE equal, but not necessarily more. Every team given 5 million euros extra will either spend it all on development, or spend most of it. We need to bring costs down, get more engines (less focus on Engine development especially for reliability) and less focus on aero. Wind tunnels are very expensive to run, maintain and the boost for there is just a few tenths even after running 24/7 the whole year. It will Reduce wastage of money, since everyone spends millions and every one goes a few tenths quicker.

            1. F1 without Ferrari wouldn’t be the same, as Ferrari wouldn’t be there. Now imagine F1 with only Ferrari.

              I could agree that F1 needs Ferrari, but F1 needs way more than that. They need a complete field of competitors in order for it not to become a joke. Teams like Marussia or Caterham could potentially be a whole lot better with better repartition of the money.

              And Ferrari doesn’t need it anyway. They’ll get the money they need.

              About the need to drive the costs down: that is another discussion. It doesn’t validate Ferrari getting more money just for being Ferrari.

            2. Yes, distribution of money needs to be MORE equal, but not necessarily more.

              What does that mean?

        2. I was used to care because I think it’s unfair, but I’ve realized that it doesn’t make them faster and my fear, making other slower did not happen either, so now I’m perfectly fine with this status quo.

          1. It’s not as unfair as the America’s cup rule (winner decides most of the next cup’s rules, with a minor imput from the challenger of reference). For years (nearly 100) the Britons were obliged to run boats who could arrive to the cup by sail (thus sailing accross the Atlantic) where they were soundly beaten by lighter vessels who only had to cross from the shipyard to the racing line. It’s only recently that the rules have been simplified (but only because Oracle and Alinghi wish to have people to compete during Louis Vuitton cup and you know, the SHOW !)

            1. @tango are you sure it’s not as unfair as that? If the rules are that the winner can impose lots of the next cup’s rules, then that is the same for everyone. Anyone who can overcome those rules imposed by the previous winner to win for himself, gets the next opportunity to do so.

              Here, that isn’t the case. It’s not the same for everyone. Ferrari gets more money, Ferrari gets a veto right. There’s an inherent and permanent imbalance.

            2. All depends how the winner shapes the rules. The same rule for every one can favour one team only (eg : you must sail from your shipyard to the racing line, or more F1 related : there shall be no budget cap and -this is just for the sake of example- only Italian windtunnels are allowed)

            3. I see what you mean, but there is still one deciding rule at the top that makes it the same for all: the winner decides. So there’s a possibility to break out of it.

              However in F1, there’s not. No matter who does what, Ferrari gets more money and more say.

          2. In all probability it doesn’t make them faster. I’m pretty sure the team gets the millions they want for performing at their optimum.

            However, I don’t see how you can state it doesn’t make others slower. Sure, just like Ferrari, the other big teams will likely get whatever budget they need to perform at the very top. For the small teams, however, the situation could be really different. The less rich teams do not have all the money they want to design and develop a new car, to hire the drivers they would like (just look at Lotus and Hulkenberg for that), and are probably staffed and equipped way below the top teams. I think these teams could use every extra million and turn it into better performance, better operation or a better driver selection. Any one of these could allow for better results.

            It’s just not a correct situation.

        3. It’s not like they can make up new rules they can just stop the current ones moving on in a way that they don’t like.

          That’s massively important. One team should not be able to dictate the direction pf the sport because it is “not in Ferrari’s interests”.

          They are a good team, but I’d still rather have two other teams than one Ferrari (as they as they merited their places).

          1. It was particularly Max Mosely who said Ferrari is F1, and without them there would be no F1. I’m sure there are some stats to back that up and I’m sure viewership globally would take a big hit without Ferrari there. I think of it like baseball in the U.S. without the Yankees. Viewership for the World Series is significantly greater when the Yankees are in it, so they are treated specially. That’s the reality but I’m not saying I like it or agree with it.

            The result of the favouritism toward Ferrari for me is that I do not honor MS’s numbers, nor do I buy the argument that rules were tailored to go against Ferrari in the 2000’s. The rules in fact had been tailored to ensure that MS could win races and WDC’s without even having to pass anyone other than through pit strategy, and the rules were only headed differently once Ferrari had achieved what Max and Bernie wanted, the end of the Ferrari WDC drought. So Max and Bernie created the monster that was MS Ferrari, and when that became so boring and predictable and viewership fell off, they knew they had to start heading in a different direction, but that didn’t happen until all the records had been smashed.

            So the bottom line for me is that with this kind of manipulation you can have your records, but that doesn’t mean everyone will honor them and won’t see through how they were achieved. What made me disrespect MS the most is that with all the advantages he had, he still couldn’t resist being a boor and a bully on the track, and got away with it.

    2. We must obtain the written consent of Ferrari prior to the appointment of any person as our chief executive officer if, within the past five years, he or she has held a senior executive office or an ownership interest of 5% or more in any Team…

      Haha! OMG that is absolutely brilliant. I’d say the chances of Horner being Ecclestone’s successor are less than zero, in that case — although I figured they were zero to begin with. (Why would he want it?)

      1. I agree with you on there being 0% of Horner succeeding BE at CVC.

      2. So.. what about Brawn then? Would Ferrari veto him!

        1. Hmm, possibly not! (But I doubt he’d want the job, either.)

    3. OmarR-Pepper (@)
      6th December 2013, 0:12

      If Ferrari has that power… well so let’s give the position to Mr Luca Di Montezemolo, no questions, no votes, no democracy in the sport, just as Ferrari like it.

      1. @omarr-pepper People pass the “hot potato” find the scapegoat as if that veto power hadn’t come from Bernie himself who as a tyrant has made F1 solid until these recent couple years were someone is having a go at him and who can save him Ferrari funny isn’t it.

    4. 5 teams making the roles of the sport, ugly phallus like front ends for next year, one of the teams having the ability to veto any rule change or the hiring of the sports next CEO, teams prizemoney up until last year being the same amount as the sports commercial right owners spend on debt interest a year, half the profit of the sport going to a hedge fund, proposed enforced team strategies, races in some of the worlds most corrupt nations, the sports CEO facing jail time for fraud and potential tax evasion, drivers input and skill and what impact it has on the race being at a minimum to the point where what budget the driver brings trumps skill, a fixation on something we can’t even see – aerodynamics, racing teams that are operating on a going concern are a minority….

      Come on, seriously. Some one grow some balls and start a new series. I am sick of this.

      Progress is made by those smart enough to challenge the status quo. Short term sacrifice, long term gain.


      This is unrelated to any of the articles here but it’s been a constant headline throughout the year.
      After seeing this video of vettel, as well as others, I’d have to say that Seb is the most interesting funny driver with a real personality on the grid. Is it because he doesn’t have a manager that is micro managing him? If we look at any other driver, (besides Kimi), all they ever sputter out is boring sponsor-speak.
      We complain when drivers sound like robots, but when one finally has a personality we hate on them.

      Yes there was multi-21, yes he did dominate.
      But he is a four-time world champion for a reason.
      He did have the best car and he made the most of it. If we were using V8s next year then I’m sure the other teams would have developed their cars far more than they did.
      Instead they all threw in the towel and gave the championships to Red Bull, so it’s as much their fault as it is Sebs for winning.

      1. @yoshif8tures For me, it was never his off-track personality, and it was never his on-track dominance. It’s always been his on track attitude. There’s something about him that makes me think he only wants to win in F1 for the sake of winning, just to win, rather than for anything else. It’s one of the reasons that looking back at Senna, and other similar drivers, that I never really liked their ‘on-track personalities.’ For example, with Vettel, one of the things this season that got under my skin was in Malaysia. Not Multi-21, although that did annoy me, but when he said ‘Mark is too slow, get him out of the way.’ It was the way he said it that I just can’t stand.

        Also, on Vettel’s dominance. He may have had the best car, but he was also the best driver. Based solely on the form of the other drivers shown this season, Vettel would have won the championship with any of the other drivers in the same car as his team mate. There’s no telling whether others would have performed better in the same car, but solely based on each drivers form in their own cars, Vettel would have taken it regardless. Also as you say, it was helped a lot by the fact other teams just didn’t bring the challenge. I think really, people aren’t annoyed at Vettel winning, but more so that no one else seems to be able to mount a challenge.

        1. OmarR-Pepper (@)
          6th December 2013, 1:59

          @philereid agree with all your comment. Well, I do like that on-track personality, the “ruthless” part of him, because I’m sure all racers need it. I guess all of them, even Chilton or Narain, try to dominate the others. That some are more talented makes the difference in how you hear those comments in context. “Webber is slower”: (Webber was slower indeed) is different to “I’m faster than my teammate but my team is playing with my car” (said by Maldonado it sounds as a sore loser). 4WDC and some people will loeathe him, but I think he’s already a great. He has beaten the other champions. Period.

        2. @philereid You don’t like drivers who race to win?
          What else would they be racing for? I don’t think many drivers are on the F1 grid so they can get a free ticket to India and try some authentic chutney.

          1. @bforth lets not get silly abot this, its very easy to understand what is being said. I cite schumacher in 1995 after winning his second title with benetton and could have continued winning races/titles and breaking all the records but opted to take up a challenge in going to Ferrari which took him 5 years to take to the title – winning can get boring for some who are good enough to win with a team of their choice. Vettel however is dead set on breaking records and milking his time at red bull for everything its worth…and thats good for him and his desires to break all the records to prove he’s the best ever…but not the sport. No one told seb statistics will never make him an undisputed best, no matter how many records he may break

        3. Spot on. Vettel is a very smart and funny guy away from the track. But on the track, he acts like a spoiled brat quite frankly. I know drivers say things in the heat of the moment, but Vettel does more than that. What really got under my skin was Vettel for the first half of last year when the car didn’t have the rear downforce he needs and he had some very spotty races (in his eyes) and he was very vocal about things not going his way. In Hungary he screamed something along the lines of “Do something!” to the team in the middle of the race when he was outside of the top 5.
          If all his victories were like Germany this year when he really had to fight for victory at the end, then it would be more enjoyable. But it does get boring to see nobody really be able to mount a serious challenge against him and RBR for more than a few laps.

          1. @philereid @swindle94 mmm I’m not a Vettel fan either but that self-entitlement he does (and most definitely will) show hasn’t really bothered me that much, calling Karthikeyan a cucumber and flipping him the (other) finger was for me the worse he’s done yet.
            But at least he hasn’t crashed against other drivers deliberately or insult his team or anything crazy like that so I really think it could be worse.

          2. I don’t get some people’s obsession with that “do something” call. That’s what any driver that actually thinks about his situation should do. Drivers do their part, but the team also has a role to play to. He was stuck with an RBR that was not an ideal machine for driving in the pack and overtaking (we’ve seen this happen to Lewis a few times this year as well) and was giving the message to his team to think of something to get him past.

            Isn’t that logical? Isn’t it normal? Isn’t it something that should be a trait to any great driver, as they will always want to maximize their result and think of the best way to improve on a situation?

        4. @philereid I don’t get this argument. Since I’ve been following F1 there was no driver winning multiple championships without this attitude.
          It’s like Senna said: “By being a racing driver means you are racing with other people. And if you no longer go for a gap that exists, you are no longer a racing driver because we are competing, we are competing to win. And the main motivation to all of us is to compete for victory, it’s not to come 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th. I race to win as long as I feel it’s possible. Sometimes you get it wrong? Sure, it’s impossible to get it right all the time. But I race designed to win, as long as I feel I’m doing it right.”

          1. This. You have to be self-centered if you want to be successful in F1. This isn’t endurance racing were your sharing the car with 2 to 3 other people or Indycar were it’s a spec chassis. You have the chance for an entire organization to develop a car that is based around your driving style, so being dominant over your teammate is a good way to do that. Plus, you don’t win multiple WDC by being sympathetic. Just ask Michael, Senna, Prost, or (in a cruel twist of fate) Alonso.

            1. @somethingwittyer

              I didn’t say anything about sympathy. I was talking about on track respect. Some drivers show that, some do not. A lot of Vettel’s on-track comments are very similar to ‘I’m coming through, move over and let me passed, I am entitled to this win.’ There is a lack of respect. Or as Jacques Villeneuve put it, a ‘lack of honour.’


              In fairness, Senna said that after going for a gap that was clear it was no longer going to exist, just to win the world championship. A cowards way to do it if you ask me. Same with some of Schumacher’s escapades, and one of the reasons I never really liked Schumacher on-track either. However, he did show respect to other drivers, especially Hakkinen. There are many champions of old who had much better attitudes than your select champions, Fangio, Clark, etc. I’d much rather see a driver win 2-3 champions respectfully, over a driver winning many more with a lack of respect for others. People view this differently, some will say it doesn’t matter, it’s all about the championships. I disagree, but then, that’s just my opinion on the matter.

          2. And if you no longer go for a gap that exists, you are no longer a racing driver

            Never liked that quote.

      2. @yoshif8tures
        Fantastic comment. I’ve never understood the strong dislike of Vettel. Off-track he seems likeable, funny, and down-to-earth and on-track he is fast and ruthlessly competitive.

        I have two possible explanations for Vettel hating. The first is that, for many fans, Vettel doesn’t fit their concept of what an F1 champion should be. I think for many fans, F1 champions are larger-than-life charismatic playboys who live in Monaco and date actresses, singers, or models. F1 champions are “drivers’ drivers” – hard men who live on the edge. They drive for F1’s great teams, like Lotus, Ferrari, or McLaren. The problem these fans have is that Vettel is none of these things. He is an affable German teenager with a quiet and modest private life who drives for an energy drink company… While he is a great driver – one of the all-time greats – because Vettel doesn’t live up to their concept, he isn’t enough for many fans.

        The other explanation is that many people feel that these last few years should have been the years of Alonso and Hamilton. Both drivers had so much success early in their careers that it seemed inevitable that this era would be defined by their rivalry – with each driver winning multiple championships. It would have been a great story, a great era, with Hammy vs. Nando and McLaren vs. Ferrari. Then, all of a sudden, that same affable German teenager turned up and ruined everything. Hence his success seemed unearned, or it didn’t belong in the history many expected. Therefore his success must be down to the car alone, or favoritism, or cheating, or Helmut Marko, or Bernie, or whatever… because surely, if it weren’t for some outside interference, Hamilton or Alonso would be champion and F1 would be as it was expected to be.

        The real shame of it is is that many F1 fans saw Vettel’s incredible performance this season as something other than what it was – an incredible accomplishment that was thrilling to watch. Also, many resent or dislike a driver that, as @yoshif8tures says, isn’t a PR robot and is genuinely likeable.

        1. @pandaslap I think the situation is a bit more complex than you think. I understand Vettel may be a likeable character away from the track – I think that’s why many journalists took such umbrage at fans expressing their displeasure about him winning, because they know him and think he’s a great guy.

          But as I’ve said several times before, Vettel simply doesn’t “feel” like one of F1’s all-time greats, notwithstanding the statistics. His dominance this year felt like the Williams cars of the mid-90s. Certain drivers dominated, but not necessarily the best ones.

          In addition, I think Vettel’s affable personality can sometimes come off as rather insincere, since fans are inevitably going to contrast it with his on-track behaviour. I understand that a driver must be ruthless in order to succeed, but in my opinion there is a fine line between ruthlessness and just being unsporting, and Vettel has crossed that line on occasion. For instance, the multi-21 incident, where Vettel waited until Webber had turned his engine down before attacking, or Korea 2010, where he used his team radio to try and get the race stopped, citing darkness, because his engine was about to fail.

          I guess it’s different for everyone. Some people may be able to look past all that, and some may see a spark of “legend” in Seb that I genuinely, honestly don’t see. But I don’t know how helpful it is to try and speak for other people, especially those who hold a different opinion to yours. That’s just my view.

          1. But as I’ve said several times before, Vettel simply doesn’t “feel” like one of F1′s all-time greats

            @red-andy I think the major reason for this is Sebs’ personality, I remember when Alonso won his WDCs and was asked if he is the best driver on the grid/in the world, he said yes without flinching, Hamilton has been carrying himself as if he is since he first entered the paddock, while Seb doesn’t do that, I think he’s too humble to be able to carry himself that way, if he does think he’s the greatest human to ever turn a wheel of an F1 car, he certainly doesn’t show it, and that effects peoples perception of him.

          2. @red-andy I certainly don’t mean to speak for other people. I am trying to put forward explanations/opinions, including my own, for the sake of discussion.

            While I respect your opinion and part in the dialogue, I am still left guessing when you say that Vettel doesn’t “feel” like a one of F1’s greats. What does an F1 great feel like? What more could Vettel do to demonstrate his worth?

        2. So what is it that the fans expect? Schumacher did the dodgy far more than Seb has thus far, yet he isn’t booed. He was guilty of pushing drivers off the track, he parked on the track at Monaco to deny Alonso a fast lap. He was responsible for race fixing and denied Rubens the opportunity to fight him. Schumacher was hardly even likeable outside the car either.
          Is this what makes a worthy champion?

          1. Your comment is very biased. Schumacher wasn’t ‘race fixing’ he didn’t ask for Rubens’ win and tried to give him back the placeon the podium unlike Vettel saying that webber didnt deserve it.
            Schumaher DID bring ferrari back to the top after 4 years of struggle. Yes he was paid handsomely but it was potentially a career destroying choice (Read: Jacques Villeneuve, BAR). I think he was a very worthy champion.

            Monaco was a pretty stupid action by him, honestly. But he isn’t the only WC to deny someone else a fair chance of racing

            1. @udm7

              Schumacher wasn’t ‘race fixing’ he didn’t ask for Rubens’ win and tried to give him back the placeon the podium unlike Vettel saying that webber didnt deserve it.

              I absolutely agree Schumacher wasn’t race fixing. But In Austria, the team gave the win to Schumi. In Malaysia, the team were giving the win to Webber. So if Schumacher didn’t “deserve” his “win”, nor did Webber.

      3. Ferrari/Merc didnt throw the towel till singapore, when with TC and a 1 second advantage (and being the best at both high and low ddownforce conditions) and a 100 points plus disadvantage, you’d be forgiven to stop development.

        And on Vettel, I agree a lot with @red-andy ‘s comment. Its basically like Seb is pretty affable off track and is very funny, yes, but on track, him saying “Mark is too slow..” clash. And during, like, Press Conferences, i dont watch or read his or LH’s comments since they sound very fabricated. Everything is ‘fantastic’ for LH and SV acts as if he had had to struggle for the pole/victory. Yes RB and SV worked very hard but isnt it that teams like Marussia and Toro Rosso have also given everything they had?
        Read this, for example

        “It was not my intention to say anything against someone else,” he said, “but only to show that our success is no accident.”

        These disappointed me.

        Yes, I dont like him, but its not because of multi 21 or his dominance I cant stand. Its him calling Karthikeyan a cucumber, pretending in the last few weeks that Webber “will be missed”, and especially, his finger and him screaming “YES!” after every win.
        Maybe his finger will be remembered for the next few decades, maybe more than his driving skills (No disrespect intended). The finger is a trademark for vettel and his fans, but i find it disrespectful now.

        1. I don’t find celebrations disrespectful. They are delberately designed as taunts: a signal to the other drivers, “catch me if you can”. It’s the nature of competition to try and destablise your rivals, and the simple raising of an index finger is far less brutal than Nigel Mansell’s technique…

          I believe it was at Suzuka, and he held a massive advantage over Patrese through the chicane. So naturally, the latter asked his temmate how he did it. His response? “I lean my elbows on the side of the cockpit to keep the steering wheel straight”.

          Patrese returned to the pits, elbows pouring with blood.

        2. Maybe his finger will be remembered for the next few decades, maybe more than his driving skills (No disrespect intended).

          Hahaha yeah, it’s good that you clarified that — because it sure could have been “misinterpreted.”

        3. Yes RB and SV worked very hard but isnt it that teams like Marussia and Toro Rosso have also given everything they had?

          You could argue that a League 2 footballer works as hard as Robin Van Persie or Cristiano Ronaldo. But they simply aren’t as good.

          1. That’s nonsense @david-a. Van Persie once played in a lower team as well before Feyenoord debuted him in their A-team and then he proved his quality there before moving over to better clubs, and Cristiano Ronaldo debuted in CD Nacional from Madeira before moving to Sporting Lissabon and getting noticed by ManU.
            They might be better football players know because they gained experience (just as a Vettel, or Alonso and Grosjean have improved over their careers so far), but to say they weren’t as good?

            1. @BasCB – Red Bull Racing were a “lower team” when they entered in 2005 (taking over the remnants of Jaguar, who took over Stewart GP). Now they are a top team. Drivers like Alonso and Vettel started in lower teams, and progressed to the top.

              The example given by @udm7 didn’t mention the possibility of Marussia or Toro Rosso becoming big, like those footballers as well as Red Bull/SV. He/she basically said “the smaller teams work hard too”. Yes they do, but if they don’t make the progress, can they be considered the best, like those at the top?

            2. But where does his comment imply that Marussia and/or Caterham can’t become the next Jaguar, or BAR (with Brawn) @david-a?

              Thats as if saying Manchester City or Chelsea would never be able to get anywhere near the championship a decade ago.

            3. His comment doesn’t imply the smaller teams can’t become big @bascb . But then, I don’t think it was referring to that possibility anyway. So yeah, while they obviously can progress, until they do, they can’t be considered to be as good as the best.

              Also, Ud went on to quote a response from SV regarding the TC allegations. That such unfounded allegations would spring up in the first place, is a sign that a certain people don’t want to accept that RBR/SV are the best at the moment, which again, was what I was addressing in the first comment.

            4. While there is a lot do heartily disagree in that comment by Ur, the part you highlighted and commented on in the post I was reacting to is not @david-a.

              These teams all do what they can, within the limits of the budgets and resources available to them, to work towards success. Yes, Vettel does work hard on it with Red Bull, and they are certainly putting the effort there where it matters most. But its unfair to say the others aren’t giving it as much (well, apart from not putting as much money in, but that is a different story altogether).

          2. @david-a
            We are not talking of Players but teams.
            The RVP was unable to get Arsenal to the top but he did it with United.
            Bianchi might do the same. He is unable to get a point with his car, but he can get WC with a good car. (I’m only implying it. Alonso didn’t get a point in 2001 with Minardi either. Look where he is now).
            Lotus have a budget much smaller than Merc or Ferrari, yet they could have taken 2nd. Maybe their poeple work much better and are more hard working. Or it might be due to tyres, Kimi, Allison and the failing of the bigger two teams.
            But it was wrong for Vettel to say that others dont work their ***** off.
            Alonso is the one not taking the break. He was the one who went mad trying to get fitt for 2013. Button trains harder than anyone else. Prost can still competitively climb Alpe d’huez (on a bike), challenging Webber in 2012. These people work atleast as hard as Vettel. So do their teams.

            As @bascb said,
            Marussia and Toro Rosso and Caterham don’t have the money to improve their team quality and quantity. Marussia did ‘progress’. So has Force India and Mercedes this year.

            And the SV quote was about this ^^ Not TC.
            I was saying that with TC and a massive speed and point advantage after Singapore, Merc and Ferrari got down to battle themselves and develop their 2014 cars since they would be unable to catch Merc.

    6. I get that people may think he’s a spoilt brat judged from radio communications between him and the team.
      I also think that FOM is only telling us a small piece of the puzzle.
      Just like Lewis’ moaning on the radio, I feel that probably most of the radio chatter is completely taken out of context thereby giving us a slanted point of view.
      This has only been broadcast for the past couple of years, no? I’d imagine we probably would have heard a lot more from previous seasons which would paint a similar picture.
      Schumacher, Piquet, Senna, Hill would probably have said similar things in the hear of the moment.
      All the drivers are there to win, some are more ruthless than others.
      Maybe Seb needs to swear more over the radio so he’s not broadcast for all of us to hear.

    7. It suddenly seems very pertinent that Ferrari recently commented on how unlikely Horner would be to replace Bernie. I also remember (maybe incorrectly, I admit) them saying that they ‘only’ had technical right to veto. That was both massively underplaying how significant being allowed that veto is (while lauding it over everybody), and apparently a lie if they can also veto the next leader. I find it disgusting that one team has that power. I thought we’d moved away from unfair Ferrari favouritism over the last decade. Apparently that was false, and my already weak faith in F1 just reduced even more.

      1. This may be an unpalatable truth but in many ways, Ferrari is,and always has been, F1.

        1. Well I, for one, am sick of their antics and would be glad to see them gone.
          How about Ferrari take a little sabbatical. See who needs who more.

        2. @baron – They really aren’t though anymore. If Ferrari left F1, it wouldn’t massively affect the sport (other than in Italy). I would argue that Red Bull and Mercedes are just as important to the sport as Ferrari are now.

          1. There is a fundamental flaw in that thinking. Ferrari sell cars to go racing – Ferrari is a ‘country’ . Mercedes & Red Bull are only in F1 to sell product funded by their respective marketing budgets. Whatever you might say, either team could flick a switch & and pull out instantly, like. Ford, like Toyota, like Honda and they wouldn’t even look over their shoulders. Ferrari, will never stop racing – it’s in their DNA. There are only 2 other teams left in F1 now with a similar passion & commitment to motor racing. Want to name them?

            1. In hindsight, three teams (other than Ferrari)

            2. I don’t know about that. In name, yes. But given that many teams have survived under different guises with the same factories, workers, and sometimes management, they can’t be discounted. Mercedes owners may be in it to sell products, but would the team actually disappear if Mercedes wanted out? Honda did admittedly come close, yet it still (just) kept going under a different name. BMW managed to resell to Sauber rather than killing the team.

              either team could flick a switch & and pull out instantly, like. Ford, like Toyota, like Honda

              As I said, that is a bit of a simplification. It might affect people’s opinions of the teams, knowing that their identity could change on the whim of their owners, but the team themselves have every ambition to race for the sake of racing. Formula 1 isn’t in a great way financially, yet 9 teams on the grid can trace their roots back to the ’90s or before. Whatever their name, they are established as racing teams. Teams with long histories don’t disappear regularly. Toyota was an exception, but although it raced for a reasonably long time (8 years), it was always poorly managed, poorly structured, under-achieving, and existed under just the one name- it isn’t surprising that the team disappeared completely when Toyota gave up. Despite Honda, Toyota and BMW being big names, their exits were not tragedies in the end and the last major casualties were actually Prost and Arrows.

              This got a bit rambling, but the gist is that all the current teams are important even if they aren’t one of your ‘three teams’, and at their core all they want to do is race, just like Ferrari.

        3. Not for me, nor for many people on the site. It was only a few days ago that there was a brief discussion about what Ferrari leaving would mean for F1. Since then I’ve gone from thinking that I’d be disappointed to probably not minding.

    8. @keithcollantine – Is the an F1F app at all? If not, are there any plans to develop one? Cheers!

      1. David not Coulthard (@)
        6th December 2013, 6:24

        Getting an RSS reader and having it read F1F’s seed is as close to it as you can get at the moment.

        1. If ever you changed opinions (or has an opportunity to develop one), please do it multi platform :D

      2. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the website works great on mobile, so I don’t really think there’s a great need for it.

    9. Mr Dennis is likely to be reluctant to see Alonso return to the McLaren garage after the driver was partly responsible for landing the British team with a $100m fine over the ‘Spygate’ affair in 2007.

      These were the kind of lies british F1 fans were served about whole Alonso-McLaren relationship back in 2007.

      Let’s look at the facts.

      The person who took Ferrari data from Ferrari was Nigel Stepney, while the person who smuggled it to McLaren was Caughlan. From that moment, I’m pretty sure that there were tens or even more than hundred McLaren employees who had access to those files and knew what they were.
      The guy who was responsible for steering the ship was Dennis, and he either messed up by not knowing about the files or he messed up by knowing about it and reaping the benefits of it instead of reporting it and setting the record straight right away.
      The guy who let the word out was Caughlan himself, by sending his wife to a photocopy shop with Ferrari papers.
      In the end, the guy who went to FIA and blew the whistle was Ron Dennis himself.
      I know a lot has been said about Alonso telling Ron about uncovering the whole thing, but I’ve never seen an article where either of those two, or someone like Whitmarsh said that.

      And “partly responsible” for landing a $100 million fine is Mosley-Dennis relationship. Mosley was anything but fair. He had it for Dennis and was just waiting for an opportunity. The fine was ridiculous.

      Alonso is responsible for fine as much as he is responsible for Hamilton lying to stewards back in Australia in 2009.

      1. 1) No one disputes that Dennis went to the FIA about it. It all turned pear shaped at the Hungarian Grand Prix when Alonso threatened to go to the FIA about it if he wasn’t given preferential treatment. Dennis, being a smart man and knowing Alonso could not be trusted with such information got on the front foot about it. It was inevitable to FIA was going to find out, so he did so voluntarily.

        2) Dennis got even with Mosley. Well played Sir.

      2. Stopped Reading after just the first few sentences – you claim to be looking at “the facts” and then you randomly assume there must have been “tens or even more than hundred McLaren employees” who knew about the stolen data. Stop making up your “facts”.

        1. “tens or even more than hundred McLaren employees”

          Not that many although its fair to say that there was more people that knew or suspected what was going on than Ron Dennis initially admitted.

          The fact the 2008 car was found to have systems on it which came from the Ferrari data & the fact there was simulator testing of things inspired by the data suggests more of the design team had access to the data than just a few rouge employee’s as was initially claimed.

          In fairness to Ron though there was never any proof that he was aware of it until the whole thing blew up.

          I remember when that story broke, The entire paddock was in complete shock & a lot of the other team members didn’t want to believe that something like that could actually happen.
          When it was proven that it was true there was a lot of anger & disgust amongst just about everyone.

          I know there were/are fans who never really saw it as that big a deal, However in F1 it was a very big deal & led to everyone tightening security around the design drawings & computer systems to prevent documents & data simply been taken away & copied.

          1. Mind you, during the enquiries the FIA made into the espionage scandal there were allegations that Ferrari had also acquired information from McLaren via the same relationship between Coughlan and Stepney. It’s also notable that Racecar Engineering claims to have received a similar, if not even more comprehensive, package of technical notes from a source at Ferrari, so evidently Ferrari’s security was not that robust even after that affair.

            It’s worth noting that Coughlan’s activity was small scale in some ways compared to what Spyker were alleged to have gotten up to.

            At the time that Spygate was rumbling on, Spyker were lobbying the FIA with claims that Red Bull was abusing the regulations on customer cars as Toro Rosso’s car used the same components as Red Bull’s car.
            Amongst the documents that Spyker submitted to the FIA were detailed plans of the chassis design of both Toro Rosso’s and Red Bull’s cars, along with other ancillary components, as a way of demonstrating that parts from one car were interchangeable with the other. Curiously enough, a few months later Spyker also launched a heavily revised “B” spec car which featured a revised chassis design…

        2. @roald
          Better make sure you don’t read what you don’t agree with.

          Here’s snippet from the Autosport article that @gt-racer linked.

          The FIA document also reveals that engineers within the team were aware of a Ferrari ‘mole’ passing information to them.

          One email exchange between engineers on April 13, 2007 discussing steering angles mentioned an exact figure for the Ferrari wheelbase. A response from a senior McLaren engineer was: “Is the Ferrari wheelbase an accurate figure? Did it come from photos or our mole?”

          The response was: “You will find it’s to the nearest ‘mm’.”

          McLaren have apologised to the FIA for not being aware of just how far the Ferrari information obtained by the team had spread within their organisation, and the report reveals that even a ‘Senior McLaren management figure’ was aware of what was going on.

          I find it hard to believe, although I’m not stating this as a fact, that whole McLaren top engineering didn’t know about this. You can’t just come and tell people what to do in the simulator, what systems to develop and what development directing to take unless you are the one of the people who are responsible for the overall direction of the development.

      3. Alonso has already said that he only ever had a problem with 1 person at McLaren, I can’t see him going back there if that 1 person is back in charge! ;)

    10. How will Mclaren legitimately claim carbon neutral status when they are expanding operations in the China?

    11. Happy birthday Keke and happy Independence Day to all Finns!

    12. What is up with Lewis´ tweet??? Seems like he wants to settup an expo sort of what Alonso did in Spain.

    Comments are closed.