Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez, 2015

All teams support Ferrari’s veto power – Todt

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: FIA president Jean Todt says all of Ferrari’s rivals supported them continuing to have a power of veto over F1’s rules when it was discussed two years ago.

Tweets

Comment of the day

Nico Hulkenberg, Force India, Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez, 2015
Hulkenberg was hushed up on the radio
@Lockup interprets that surprising radio message to Nico Hulkenberg:

I took it as “shut up we do not want to be telling Charlie we’re on a warm-up lap so we could be accused of impeding“. Hence the urgency and emphasis on ‘a timed lap’.

I have no idea if Hulkenberg would have minded though. There are all kinds of relationships and we know so little about this one.
@Lockup

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Joe Jones, Rits and Tara!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Ricardo Rodriguez was killed on this day in 1962. He was driving a Lotus during practice for the first, non-championship Mexican Grand Prix when he suffered a suspension failure as he turned into the Peraltada corner. He hit two barriers and was thrown out of the car, suffering serious injuries, and died in an ambulance while being taken to hospital. He was 20 years old at the time, and had started his first world championship race 12 months earlier for Ferrari. The circuit is now named after him and his brother Pedro.

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

  • 53 comments on “All teams support Ferrari’s veto power – Todt”

    1. Vettel is spot on!!! Hahahaha

      1. he’s looking more human? i can’t be fair, i must admit some Ferrari bias myself…

        1. There’s like nothing different about him. It’s getting boring that people keep repeating he seems more blablabla.

        2. Vettel hasn’t changed actually, only the circumstances are different. He is a very nice and funny guy off-the track. Currently he is thriving at Ferrari, destroying his team-mate and driving with absolutely no pressure as the Mercs are too far ahead. But come the 2010 or 2012-style title fight and don’t be surprised to see a return of cucumbers, hand waving, finger twirling and endless screams on the radio.

    2. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
      1st November 2015, 0:31

      I’ve huge respect for Todt, in his support for Schumacher. I would not the person I am today if i hadn’t have seen Schumacher as my hero whilst growing up. Michael showed then as now that you should never give up no matter how tough / challenging things get. I still believe he will improve to a point where he will be ok out in public some day.

    3. That Alonso tweet is a real eye opener, I know they were bad on the straight but that is outrageous, once they get that cleaned up they’ll be a force to be reckoned with

      1. @frankjaeger I think now is more a question of ‘if they get that cleaned up’ than ‘when they get that cleaned up’…

        and I’m a McLaren fan…

        1. Surely they will get it right, or thereabouts, next year, they wont want to look as bad as Renault do now. I also doubt Renault will fail again next year. @arrows98

          1. Probably strongly depends on what the tokens will let them do…

            1. Here’s a thought. Why don’t RB switch to Nissan engines? It would be a new supplier, not constrained by tokens. Nissan could get their technology from their Renault partnership, but learning from mistakes and making all the improvements they want.

      2. @frankjaeger Many people actually praised McLaren chassis as much better than 2013 and 2014 one. Its apparent from Australia, despite they’re almost as same pace as Manor, no one can really catch them at the corners.

      3. One must not forget that McHonda specifically decided for a very tight chassis and they compromised on the engine size because of which they are in the current situation.
        Next year, while the engine may become better.. It is likely that to make it better the size zero chassis concept will have to be discarded as the engine size will be larger. So, they will become slower in the corners than they are this year.

      4. Having been to the FIA’s website and checking the best sector times for qualifying, Alonso’s sector times were 28.396s for the first sector, 31.948s for the second sector and 21.216s for the final sector, leaving him 17th fastest in S1, 13th in S2 and 16th in S3.

        Per sector, the deficit to the fastest driver was 0.995s in S1 (to Rosberg, 27.401s), 0.740s in S2 (to Rosberg, 31.208s) and 0.419s in S3 (to Hamilton, 20.797s). Of course, there is the caveat that Rosberg’s times would probably have been coming from the final qualifying session when the track was at its best.

        It is true that McLaren are losing out badly through the first sector, but those time losses are still high around the rest of the track – he was only just about matching the two Lotus drivers and Ericsson’s Sauber through the middle sector, and we know that the Lotus chassis is not particularly strong this year.

        @sonicslv, it is interesting that you raise that point, because I know that there have been a few individuals who have questioned McLaren’s claim that the chassis is the second best in the field. Brundle, when watching the car on track, has stated that he doesn’t believe McLaren and thinks the chassis is not as good as they claim it is, and for what it is worth the BBC also think that the chassis is weaker than McLaren do (they suggested it was, at most, the 4th best in the field).
        There has also been a suggestion from Honda that, whilst their powertrain does have its flaws, McLaren’s aero package is also not as efficient as McLaren expected it to be, suggesting that perhaps McLaren themselves should perhaps be taking slightly more of the blame for their performance than they are perhaps willing to admit to.

        1. I do agree it was not second best in the field. However, I believe it’s still better than midfield team chassis. The Honda and size zero problem are indeed related and I also agree McLaren has some blame on how things turned out. To be fair with McLaren though, since Honda is ridiculously bad this season, I believe many aero development plans also got delayed. We’ll see how it goes next year, but I do think they most likely gonna scrap size zero concept.

      5. Nasr who dropped in Q1 was 1 tenth quicker in S3…

    4. @lockup, I agree with your interpretation, spot on!

    5. Vettel absolutely steals the show at press conferences! he’s been trolling Nico and Lewis all year! what a guy, very funny!

      Also, sad to see Bob Bell leaving Manor too. What’s going to happen with them?

      1. ROFL. He’s the best.

      2. And don’t forget, Vettel is being humorous in English, which is not his native language. That is DIFFICULT, and it shows how incredibly intelligent he is.

    6. If the teams wanted to revoke ferrari’s veto, wouldn’t Ferrari just veto that? ;) ;)

      1. Spot on, actually, but i don’t think Ferrari, for all their history and heritage, can veto all the teams’ decisions in F1..

      2. It has been suggested that Ferrari’s veto powers are more limited than most parties seem to think it is, which might be why it is tolerated.

        The indication is that Ferrari can only veto a restricted set of regulations – changes introduced by the FIA on safety grounds cannot be blocked – and Ferrari can only exercise that veto if they can prove that there would be demonstrable harm to their organisation. Furthermore, Ferrari can be overruled if it is judged that exercising that veto would be “prejudicial to the traditional values of the championship” or would, in turn, bring about demonstrable harm to the FIA.

        In the case of Ferrari recently using their veto rights to block a cost cap on the current engines, the argument that Ferrari used was that they were supplying the engines at cost price. Being forced to sell engines at a restricted price would therefore cause them to lose money – i.e. the FIA’s decision would be harmful to their business, and therefore Ferrari was in a position where it could, and did, exercise that veto right.

        However, in that instance it would seem that Ferrari was being supported by Mercedes as well – Wolff made it rather clear that Mercedes would be selling at a loss if the FIA introduced a price cap and were also opposed to the FIA’s proposal – and possibly had tacit support from Renault and Honda too.

        1. Yeah I get Ferrari’s right to not be forced to sell power units below cost, but you’d think the extra mega-millions they get could cover that off. Might sound naive but you’d think for the long-term health of the sport FIA/F1/Ferrari would find a way, such as spreading their R&D costs over a few more years. Otherwise I’ll just assume then that the high costs of the power units is indeed not a problem. Ferrari didn’t veto them 4 or 5 years ago when talks of the new chapter began. Capping costs in general was a hot topic 5 years ago too, and yet they went ahead with this new and expensive direction. Seems a bit silly now for Ferrari to be crying the blues.

          1. @robbie, it seems that the introduction of the V6 engines was something that Ferrari were not allowed to veto in the first place – as Ferrari could not prove that there would be any harm to them by the change in engine regulations, there were no ground under which they could object to the introduction of that powertrain. If anything, Ferrari were keen on a change in engine format given that, under the V8 era, the regulations meant that the engine has become a minor performance differentiator – something that did not sit well with them.

            As for the question of spreading the cost, one of the problems is the fact that there does not seem to be long term certainty over the future of the current engine format.
            With public pressure from the race promoters, FOM and from a vocal minority of the fan base to change the engine format – whether that is to return to the V8’s or to introduce a different type of engine – the manufacturers, understandably, seem to be desperate to try and recoup as much of their initial outlay on those engines as quickly as possible.

            If the manufacturers knew that these engines were going to be in use for, say, 10 years, then they might be able to bring down their prices by being able to aim to recover their expenditure over a long er period of time. Instead, they are in a situation where the engine format might be being changed as soon as 2017 – barely 3 years later – and the FIA’s decision to introduce a budget engine format, if anything, seems to be making the situation worse given that the manufacturers are now worrying about their investment being devalued.

    7. there’s no space for run-off, not at all. It’s not possible to have only one metre in this direction.

      I’m curious, how they run in Indycar without run-offs? (sarcasm)

      1. Fritz Meulders
        1st November 2015, 9:15

        No runoff in Indycar but look at the safety record of late…

        1. @pedrocr That’s not the exact same thing though (in fact quite a few people here think that’s what F1 should’ve dobne rather than this mad complex of turns we’ve got).

          1. @davidnotcoulthard you can quibble about the exact turns they added, but to the original point what they did about Peraltada was the same, bypass it.

            1. @pedrocr In all fairness…..yeah, I guess – definitely close enough not to be called Peraltada proper (though one can still argue non-run-off :)

        2. No, I mean standard american oval tracks. Yes, more banking but still plain walls and the speed is much more. Let’s face it – this was done just for that “oh wow the track goes right through the grandstand!”

          1. The wrecks usually slide down the banking, off the track, and onto the apron on the inside.

            Let’s face it – this was done just for that “oh wow the track goes right through the grandstand!”

            And there we all were, thinking it was because of the public road that cannot be moved and the active stadium on the inside that prevented them from making the corner safe…

    8. I was surprised because the commercial rights holder was in favour of the veto right, and all the teams were in favour.

      As a guy who’s blood runs Rosso Corsa, I find that very hard to believe; I can’t see how the teams can agree to give any one team veto power over anything.

    9. Best F1 crowds:
      Monza
      Mexico City
      Montreal
      Melbourne

      It’s an “M” thing I guess.

      1. Silverstone, Suzuka and Spa might disagree.

      2. So it’s an M and S thing. You can probably add São Paulo to that as well.

        1. These are not just races; they’re M&S races

          Sadly, I think only Brits will get that joke…

      3. Gaston (@gastonmazzacane)
        1st November 2015, 9:32

        And Monaco and Singapore :D

      4. @mtlracer so let’s have a race at Sentul and ruin that…..oh wait there’s Sepang and Shanghai already…..

    10. Can someone explain to me why key personnels on Manor suddenly just quit? And this is right when they going to get Mercedes engine next year, which should be their best chance yet to join the fight at the middle pack.

      1. There’s some disagreement with the new owner this year, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

        I don’t know much more so if anyone could enlighten us that would be much appreciated ^^

      2. It leaves me cold after all the work done by Booth and others to keep the team – that it now seems (to me, anyway) to be ebbing away. I hope that’s not the case, F1 needs more racers and less big business.

        The Manor team have been the perfect example of a team of racers, just doing the best they can. I genuinely hope they continue, but it doesn’t look good.

      3. I think Bell never was more than an external consultant, I think he was more or less expected to go back to Enstone with the return of Renault.

        The other two (and potentially further people leaving) seems to be about unrest within the team/with the owners though, not looking good for them at all.

      4. The new owners have been pushing the team in a direction that people within the team are not happy with.

        They apparently decided they wanted to switch to Renault engines half way through this year without consulting with anyone about how that would require big changes to the chassis & despite knowing that John Booth & Graeme Lowdon were in talks with Mercedes.

        There is a feeling with the team that the new owners are not going to be there for the long term & that everything they have been doing has been to ensure that the team is worth more when they come to sell it.

        The biggest issue will be what happens in the next few months because a large portion of the workforce are people that have been working for John Booth & Manor for a long time & there all people that are loyal to him. When Marussia shut down last year a lot of people left & found other work & only came back out of loyalty to John Booth. If he does indeed leave I wouldn’t be surprised to see more of those people leave with him.

        1. @gt-racer That’s really weird thing to do. Do you have links where I can find more about this? Switching engine mid-year alone is already ridiculous, but switching to Renault when not only won’t make them any better, but also even if next year they still use 2015 Ferrari engine (because you said the owner don’t aware of Mercedes talk yet), it’s most likely much better than Renault.

          When respected names (and basically the essence of the team) are leaving, you can bet there is no future for Manor. I can imagine they quit mid season next year. Ugh.

    11. So many problems with F1….. but the only thing I see is how nice looking that Force India is! I know that it’s not as good as it could be but their design with the colour scheme looks really good. Also, I feel more and more sympathy for this team that against all the odds is still hanging out with the big boys.

      1. Might be the last year we see Indian inspired colours with all the Aston Martin rumours!

      2. @toxic I love Force India and before them, Jordan (and Sauber while Peter Sauber still the team boss). A lovable midfield team where you often see young drivers trying to justifying their position in F1. Also, they can occasionally bring us surprises with unlikely podiums and wins. The sad thing is even when they regularly got healthy points for midfield, their financial situation is never good. At least Monisha’s Sauber prove to us that bringing pay driver actually makes things worse.

    12. Vettel when funny is really good.. A delight to have him at the press conferences

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.