“Ferrari is F1” and should be paid more – Ecclestone

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Bernie Ecclestone defends F1’s huge bonus payments to Ferrari as progress continues on a complaint from two teams to the European Union over F1’s payment structure.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Expect the new aggregate qualifying format to be approved today, but don’t expect the row to end:

There’s one thing that shocks me about this whole ordeal: qualifying was great as it was. There was nothing wrong about it: it was exciting and there were always cars on the track even after chequered flag. But because of this hardly anyone is talking about F1 for the racing, the results or even the real F1 problems: just this lunatic issue.

About the aggregated system: it’s just an added point of complexity and I believe it will make everything even more predictable. While now a driver usually does a ‘banker’ lap before doing a second one more on the edge, we will see drivers doing both laps conservatively, which will provide, for sure, a better average result than risking with laps on the edge. In the end everyone will be perfectly ordered with quite less unpredictability than before.

Curiously ‘added unpredictability’ is exactly the argument they are using for this system…
James Coulee

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Macleod, Josie Maunders, Bob and Bob!

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

Damon Hill made it three wins in a row at the start of 1996 by winning the Argentinian Grand Prix. Jacques Villeneuve made it a one-two for Williams while the race was disrupted when Pedro Diniz suffered a major fire following a refuelling pit stop.

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.

139 comments on ““Ferrari is F1” and should be paid more – Ecclestone”

  1. Hamilton is the real example of the word Hypocrite
    You want a proof:

    “I wasn’t controlling his race, I was controlling my own,” Hamilton had explained before Rosberg’s outburst. “I’m really happy, as going into the race we thought it would be much closer with Ferrari. My real goal was to manage the tyres and there was no real threat from Nico throughout the whole race”.

    1. I’m not sure how this makes Hamilton a hypocrite, unless you read with blinkers on.

      He is saying that F1 should be set up so the drivers are on the limit all the time, but that it is not the case right now. He doesn’t say that he pushes all the time, because that would give a disadvantage the way F1 is right now. He wants the rules and regulations changed so that a drive must push, or at least gains an advantage by pushing, rather than the current disadvantage.

      Some people just like to hate.

    2. If you want to prove him a hypocrite you would have to provide a second quote that … well …. shows him to be a hypocrite. All you have actually done there is shown Hamilton can answer a question in an interview.

    3. I must admit Hamilton’s comment does seem inconsistent with his own racing style. Aryton Senna said you should drive as slow as you can to win the race. This is exactly what Hamilton himself does when he is winning, he drives as slow as he can to win the race, and it appeared to me that last year Vettel also did this as well.
      Rosberg not only won at Bahrain, but also had the fastest lap time as well, which suggests he was going faster than he should have, at least according to Senna.
      Rosberg and Raikkonen happened to put in first and third fastest lap times at Bahrain respectively, and happened to do this while just cruising their way to first and second on the podium, so I guess they did their jobs exceptionally well that day.

    4. petebaldwin (@)
      7th April 2016, 10:51

      @malik – I think you missed the point somewhere along the line… Hamilton isn’t saying that Rosberg and Kimi should have pushed 100% in Bahrain, he is saying the regulations should mean that pushing 100% is the fastest option….

      The cars should be close in terms of pace so that they can race – not be 30 seconds apart on the road and cruising around at 50%.

  2. We all know that McLaren has been in F1 for only 16 years less than Ferrari, it is their 50th anniversary this year. This begs the question, why do Ferrari only get a veto? Why do Ferrari only get an extra historical payment?

    Under the circumstances, shouldn’t McLaren and Williams? They are obviously not and they shouldn’t.
    This makes clearer that the Ferrari veto and extra historical money should be scrapped. That will never happen without serious reform to F1, from the top down.

    1. Andre Furtado
      7th April 2016, 0:35

      I would disagree 100%. Ferrari has been the longest team there period. That gives it the right. Doesn’t matter if it’s the longest by a day or 16 years.

      1. RaceProUK (@)
        7th April 2016, 1:17

        Being around the longest is one of the weakest possible reasons to give any team veto power, yet it is the sole justification for giving Ferrari veto power. That alone should be enough to prove the Ferrari veto is unfair.

        1. Not to mention that we don’t have any other sport on the planet which favors one competitor over others in any sense.

          1. @Bommerang and that is why F1 is not a sport. Sports are fair and reward good players, F1 changes the rules to noble good players (unless you are Ferrari). Think of F1 as WWE on wheels but only 2% as entertaining.

          2. Financial Fair Play rules in football play in to the hands of historical big teams? When Audi moved to Diesel engines at LeMans the rules leaned heavily towards diesel entrants no one would enter with a petrol engine in LMP1 if they are a large company looking for victory.

          3. RaceProUK (@)
            9th April 2016, 14:53

            no one would enter with a petrol engine in LMP1 if they are a large company looking for victory

            Porsche won Le Mans last year with a petrol-powered LMP1.

        2. As a huge Ferrari fan I have to agree with you the veto is not needed, it brings nothing but bad publicity and as Red Bull have shown and Merc when a team is large enough their threats work the same as a veto so no need to have an official one which just brings bad press towards you.

          As for the money arrangements it’s such a hard one as teams that have been round for so long will require some form of loyalty bonus but currently it is disproportionate to the money received for actual results, so my view is their should be a loyalty payment just no so large and the rest goes on actual results.

      2. christopheraser
        7th April 2016, 1:49

        You sir are wrong, that kind of preferential treatment based upon how, who you know, who your related to or who you’re banging and not based upon merit represents everything wrong with the world. It leads to corruption and underhanded tactics by the incumbent in which they will use whatever influence they have to twist things advantage in this case to the detriment of the sport we all love.

      3. Yeah. Then F1 would be unable to improve because Ferrari always vetoed any good ideas..

        1. One thing people tend to forget is that Ferrari have also been supplying their own engines. The whole time. If you look at other teams, manufacturers have come and gone. Engine suppliers have come and gone. Some teams may have been a fixture for a long period of time but their sustained commitment to the sport has not been the same.

          And let’s be very clear – Ferrari is definitely an F1 icon. McLaren and Williams periodically change colors for their sponsors. Sponsors bend the rules – and their brand logos – to get on a Ferrari.

          While I don’t agree with Veto power, I think there is far more to be said about Ferrari, and it’s commitment and status in F1 than simply to measure the time the name has been involved.

      4. I thought Ferrari were owned by Fiat.

      5. petebaldwin (@)
        7th April 2016, 12:57

        Sauber have the bluest car. Should they get more? Williams are the only team to start with a W… That’s got to be worth something?

    2. That’s actually not correct. Ferrari has been in F1 for the longest time- but they have been around even longer than that- even before Grand Prix racing became Formula One. The Scuderia Ferrari has actually been around longer than Ferrari the carmaker- Scuderia Ferrari was started in 1929, as a private entrant when Enzo Ferrari was entering and running Alfa Romeo Grand Prix cars. Tazio Nuvolari’s legendary 1935 win at the Nurburgring- his Alfa was a Scuderia Ferrari entrant. Enzo Ferrari only started building his own cars in 1947. Mercedes was actually racing in Grand Prixs in the 1900’s with people like Christian Lautenschlager and Max Sailer (the guy who was the president of the Merc racing division in the 1930’s)- even before that company became Mercedes-Benz- but have done so on a far less consistent basis.

      1. So which bit of the comment you replied to was incorrect?

    3. “Why do Ferrari only get an extra historical payment?”
      Can’t you read the chart? Mclaren finished 9th last year and got 82 millions, Force India came 5th and got only 67 million, how about that?
      Every historical team get more than a “regular” one in proportion of how historical they are, it’s not just a Ferrari thing.
      Regarding the veto I’ve already mentioned here many times and Ecclestone made it very clear, it’s an “insurance” to prevent the english cartel to rule the F1 even more than they’re doing since the late ’50s.
      It’s been like that since the early ’80s, it’s like that now and it will be like that in the future so get over it, you’re becoming really annoying with this argument.

      1. Very true.

      2. William Jones
        7th April 2016, 10:49

        If you look at the results from the last three years, there is a one to one correlation with the combined results and the payments, with only two exceptions, Ferrari, who go from third place to first and McLaren who go from 7th place to 5th.

      3. petebaldwin (@)
        7th April 2016, 13:00

        Slavery was common back in the day and smoking was legal on busses and trains…. Things move with the times…. Just not F1.

        1. So? Stay on topic please, I’m talking apples you’re replying oranges. 7 teams out of 11 are british or british based (don’t tell me Renault is a french team) plus 2 have close ties with UK; Haas with their European hq in Banbury and Toro Rosso which is controlled by a british-austrian team (Red Bull). Only two teams are fully independent from the UK, Ferrari and Sauber. In the early ’80s when the veto was granted the ratio was even more biased towards british teams who could decided whatever they wanted having the vast majority of votes in the FIA council. To counteract this power and balance things the FOCA (basically the association of british based teams) led by then Brahbam F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone agreed to give Ferrari this veto power you are constantly talking about. The majority of votes to one side, the veto to the other, fair enough to me. I don’t know what this fuss is all about…

        2. And btw, if something is good enough you don’t necessarily need to change it just for the sake of it…

          1. To the admin: why you drop my comment? I didn’t post anything offensive and this one alone doesn’t get any sense without the previous one. It’s getting quite ridicolous…drop everything then.

    4. @ambroserpm, @malivis, @raceprouk

      You focus on the wrong points, obviously because Bernie himself doesn’t communicate it correctly (Does he even know it consciously?). It is absolutely fine to pay one team more than another since an owner can decide this, everyone who is not fine with that can leave F1. However but is that reasonable? If you would do it just randomly than obviously that would wreck your business model, and your racing series will probably go bankrupt. Is there a way in which it is not only reasonable but even useful to give one team for the same performance more money than another? Yes there is, and it only has indirectly to do with who is longest in F1.

      The one and only reason to give one team more than another is, because this team, say Ferrari, is increasing the revenue of F1 only by being in F1 a lot more than any other team! Ferrari has tons of Fans (probably most of all car brands) which means having Ferrari in F1 means a ton of extra revenue coming in (Imagine they would switch to Indycar, what would happen with the revenue of each racing series). So how much extra payment is useful to give to Ferrari? Well you would need to think/guess how much revenue F1 loses if Ferrari leaves and is replaced by another other team. That figure is negotiable, if Ferrari is paid more than that then they get too much, and they are overvalued.

      Historical payment is just one way of saying, they had a lot of time getting tons of fans (and oh boy did Ferrari use that time, while others didn’t or to a lesser extent), but concluding from this that you can arithmetically calculate this additional value by looking at the amount of time being in F1 compared to others leads to wrong conclusions.

      Does that mean any extra payment to certain teams as it is now is reasonable and useful for F1? Well I don’t know because I have no idea how much extra value each of those teams bring to F1. It is in the responsibility of the owners to determine this. If they get it wrong they lose money with each Dollar paid too much to those teams and hurt their own racing series which means they also reduce the market value of F1.

      1. RaceProUK (@)
        7th April 2016, 12:08

        @skylien, if you read my comment again, you’ll notice I made no comment whatsoever on the issue of payments; all I talked about was the veto power.

        1. @raceprouk,

          Additional rights or something are similar to additional money. Instead of addionl money that other teams do not get they can also negotiate abaut additional rights. Basically it is the same story. Obviously it is harder to quantify that, which is to say: Is the addional revenue we get through Ferrari worth it to give them a veto power on rule changes. Again the owners need to decide that.

          1. RaceProUK (@)
            7th April 2016, 13:04

            No, they’re two different issues. Fixing the distribution of money isn’t going to have an effect on the veto issue, and vice versa.

          2. @raceprouk

            You can have monetary advanteges and nonmonetary advanges, but both follow from generating extra revenue for F1 (except the owners just like you much more than all the others).

            BTW: I don’t like the veto thing either I would try not to give it to Ferrari if I were the owner, because I think it decreases the value of F1 for fans and therefore also the revenue. However imagine Ferrari said having a veto right is a precondition for us to stay in F1 (and let’s say they really mean it). What do you prefer, F1 with Ferrari having Veto Power or F1 without Ferrari?

          3. RaceProUK (@)
            7th April 2016, 13:56

            How does the veto generate revenue?

          4. sorry *advantages*

          5. @raceprouk

            The veto doesn’t generate extra value, I would even say it rather decreases it because people like you and me think this is wrong which may put us off watching F1, hence less fans, less revenues..

            However Ferrari are generating extra revenue just for being in F1 compared to another team (whoever that might be). And since Ferrari knows that, they can negotiate for special advantages be it extra money or extra rights, and that is what they are doing.

      2. Probably the reason is much simpler. By saying that Ferrari must always get more money (and fighting for it) Bernie exercises divide and conquer. Having Ferrari on your side and rest 10 teams on other is much better than facing all 11. By giving all of them perks he can persuade any team to ally with him on some cases and that is all that is really required to rule.

        1. A bit late but that’s COTD to me.

    5. knoxploration
      7th April 2016, 16:30

      Giving any team a payment its rivals wouldn’t get is unsporting. Ecclestone should be fired by CVC and replaced by someone with a sense of sporting fairness. Ferrari’s sweetener should be canceled immediately, and if they quit — SO WHAT? Plenty of great teams have left F1 over the years, and how many are even remembered by most fans? Ferrari needs F1 more than F1 needs Ferrari.

  3. Here’s a crazy idea. Forget about the extra downforce and just add the extra mechanical grip. Cars will be 2 seconds a lap faster and not 4, and much easier to follow. How crazy is that?

    1. Sounds eminently sensible, and for that reason it’ll never happen.

    2. How do you suggest they do that?

      1. As they already propose for 2017. Wider tyres, wider cars.

        1. How will wider tires help when the compounds dont change?

          1. RaceProUK (@)
            9th April 2016, 14:56

            Larger contact patch == more grip

    3. It’s not just extra down-force, the chassis will be considerably change. So keeping the old levels of down-force will be no less tougher.

    4. Nah, far too sensible an idea for F1 @john-h. And it will be another one of those things they decided knee jerk which suddenly cannot be stopped even when half the people involved already warn about the stupidity. Now it will again be about power.

    5. That’s a great theory but very hard to put into practice from a technical viewpoint. Same as saying a black box survives a plane crash so why not build a plane like a giant black box.

  4. Oh the irony of Renault now wanting to extent the partnership with Ilmor. Last year they wanted nothing to do with them and had their heads stuck in the sand, resulting in nothing but failure. Glad they’ve now come to accept help, and are making progress. I think Bob Bell is spot on regarding it being an organizational development process equally as much as an technological one.

    1. I don’t see much irony in there at all @me4me. It started out with their customer pushing a solution on them (that probably would have involved RBR owning part of the IP rights to the new development) while they were considering either pulling out or upping their game.

      Now there is new management, a committment to participate in F1 for a good few years and the wish to get into winning form. And the Illmore contract is directly with Renault, making sure that it is THEIR engine.

      1. @bascb, It started out with Renault messing up. And then again in 2015.

        I fail to see where your sympathy for Renault comes from. You condem Red Bull for “pushing a solution on them”, wanting to find a solution to lift performance, while happily stating Renault were in a state of consideration and didn’t up their game. As a manufacturer can’t be in F1 like that. Letting your costumers down, destroying your own brand, and then complain how the costumers are upset and how they’re bashing your brand. It’s was all of Renaults own making.

        Like i said; they didn’t know what to do, didn’t want to accept help, failed miserably. Now they have moved on, and are finally starting to talk some sense.

        1. I think you confuse several things here @me4me.

          Its clear that after having been spot on ( but still critisized by Red Bull for it) in 2010-2013 and investing a lot of effort into their winning cooperation with Red Bull, they failed to agree with the team about investing into the hybrid engines and therefore their engine was clearly under par.

          Red Bull reminds me of the automotive customers who instead of allowing me to look into a problem demand it be solved RIGHT NOW, NO we cannot wait a second etc. They pushed Renault into putting solutions out on track that were not properly bench tested (and failed on track in 2015). And then RBR went “at it alone” to bring in a solution with Illmore. Including (this is not certain, but it was mentioned in several places last year) RBR taking a part of the IP to that re-developed power unit at the same time that Renault were considering their options.

          Now, I do not mean to say that the illmore thing wouldn’t have worked, and that it would not have given Red Bull a better engine last year, or at least this year.

          But try to look at it from the perspective of a large cooperation like Renault. A manufactuer with a boss who feels he is very successfull.

          Why on earth would you let your multinational be forced to do something by an arrogant millionair selling drinks with great marketing? One that had critisized you even when they were winning, one that was openly talking about going at it with your competitor (VW at that time) and then tried to force you to give them access to your IP on the engine?

          AGain, i do not want to judge the situation. I think its clear that both sides saw their own perspective and the relationship had turned sour because of mistakes made in the runup to introducing this 2014 engine.

          But now that Renault have decided to (finally) invest in F1 again to get back to winning, i see no irony in using all means they can find to get there. Red Bull was probably right that they needed Illmore, Renault certainly seems to agree. But the way they were pushed to do do earlier by RBR and the timing of it were just not it

          1. @bascb, I don’t confuse anything here, I just disagree with most of what you’re saying. Which I know I would, since we’ve had this discussion before.

            You clearly think very little of Red Bull and in particular Mateschitz, in the way you describe him and his company, while highly respecting Renault as a brand. Myself I have huge respect for the technical excellence of RBR, while not rating Renault’s Viry operation very highly after what they did.
            So let’s leave it there .. for the sake of not overloading this page with single-topic debate..

          2. AGain, you completely misunderstand what I wrote there @me4me. I am describinghow a guy like Goshn, big wig in a (or even 2) multinationals with tens of thousands of employees around him doing his bidding would view an eccentric self made guy like Mateschitz and the Red Bull team.

            Now, I certainly do not have a high opinion of the social skills of a Helmut Marko, I clearly don’t see Horner as a great team principal but with the money at hand and the targets set they did a great job of bringing Newey on board and creating one hell of a team. Shame they lost the fun factor in the process.

            I also don’t rate them high for putting the nails in the FOTA coffin first (followed almost immediately by Ferrari) and going with that super lucrative Bernie contract.

            I do think that Renault got far less praise for the job they did with the engine in those title winning years. They were key in getting the blowing thing working. And their engine worked very well with the cars Newey made. But they started late with their 2014 development, seemed unfocussed on the targets and almost certainly put too little time, talent and money behind that development.

            Nowadays, I think we can see that Renault is putting back talent and money in their engine building, and it was badly needed too. PArt of that is taking the opportunity and getting Illmore on board, because they themselves clearly lacked something.

          3. @bascb, You’re hopeless. I understand fine. I just don’t share nor care about your opinion at this stage. We have been over this before. It should be clear by now where we stand. Please stop forcing your opinion upon others.

          4. @me4me @bascb
            Both your points make sense, and it’s just a matter of point of view wether on likes Renault or Red Bull, so I don’t see where the anymosity comes from.

        2. I think what maybe is hard to understand @x303, is that I neither like nor dislike either point of view. I can understand both views (in the sense that I see where both are coming from) and I see faults in both of their views on the whole affair.

          To me there is no great team, or great driver. All have their positives as well as worse sides, and that mix is what makes life interesting.

  5. James Coulee
    7th April 2016, 0:47

    Thanks for the COD: worrisome times in F1.

    1. It is said Iiars use more formal or complicated language.

      Perhas “added unpredictability” is an example.

      1. Probably more to do with the layman’s distrust of well spoken people. Which is historical in nature I suspect, less relevant now.

  6. Was told by someone a few hours ago that as it stands Sauber are ‘very likely’ to miss the next race & may well be done for the season unless they find someone able to pump a lot of cash into the team within the next month.

    There’s talk going around that Marchionne is in talks to buy the team & run it as Alfa Romeo & James Allen recently wrote that there is even talk that Sauber will exit the sport as a competitor & instead use there facilities (Wind tunnel, CFD, Staff etc..) to enter into partnerships with automotive companies similar to what Prodrive do.

    1. Well, Sauber have a good experiences in Group C era with Mercedes.

    2. I have to say, under the current management I’m not remotely surprised. Now I don’t think they’ve been treated fairly, but Kaltenborn hasn’t helped their own situation in the slightest.

      But why doesn’t Sauber count as a historic team? They’ve been around several decades, had a share of small success along the way. Bernie isn’t botherd about them

      I really hope that Alfa Romeo does save them.

      1. Bernie has never given anyone in life something for free.

        Ferrari ‘took’ thier historical payment during contract negotiations long ago.

        Red bull ‘took’ thier historical payment from Bernie when the iron was hot.

        Mercedes bet thier historical payments against thier performance and won. Bernie is not happy.

        Sauber and the other teams do not have these payments because they are weak. Weak in performance, finance, and legal representation. Weak against Bernie most of all.

        1. One mans negotiated payment is another mans bribe.

          1. Elaborate. I dare you :-)

      2. @strontium, Bernie was reported to have helped the team in the past when Peter Sauber managed the team, but it seems that has come to an end since Kaltenborn took over.

      3. @strontium In fairness to Kaltenborn a lot of the problems that have led to the current situation stem from before she was running it.

        The biggest problem Sauber have had the past 2-3 years is a lack of big sponsorship deals to help fund them & the primary reason for that is that all of the big sponsors left when BMW pulled the plug. They have had a number of smaller sponsor deals since Peter Sauber brought back the team in 2010 but they haven’t produced the sort of funding that the team need & no larger brands have been willing to come forward & offer sponsorship.

        One of the biggest things that hit Sauber which you don’t hear talked about is Jules Bianchi’s accident at Suzuka as Ferrari had worked out a deal with Sauber to put Jules in the car for 2015 along with a substantial amount of backing to help them through that year. That along with Giedo Van Der Garde’s extra backing would have been more than enough to keep the team in the black, But when Jules had his accident they lost the backing from Ferrari & thus had to go looking for drivers that brought more backing as VDG suddenly wasn’t bringing enough (Nasr & Ericsson) which is why they ended up in the situation they found themselves in a year ago with 3 drivers signed to race.

        Had Jules not suffered his accident & had they got the funding from Ferrari they would more than likely not be in the trouble they are in now.

    3. @gt-racer, Maybe Sauber should move into endurance racing also, I’m sure they’d be a established brand within 4/5 years.

      1. @praxis, in which class could Sauber compete in though? The cost of competing in the manufacturer LMP1 class would be ruinously high for a team like Sauber, and I cannot see how they could hope to compete against VW’s corporate musclepower and political influence.
        They could compete in the LMP1 privateer class, but that class has been progressively marginalised by the ACO’s policies and there have been a lot of rumours that the proposed 2018 chassis regulations might well cause that class to collapse altogether.

        Furthermore, would they really become an established brand in only a few years? Rebellion have been around in sportscar racing for longer than that and yet there is very little popular acknowledgement of their existence.

    4. Can’t blame the team with how the cards are stacked currently. But really sad if we do lose a team like that

    5. So Sauber is the new Lotus huh?

      I blame it all on Kaltenborn, from the moment she took over, she stopped hiring exciting drivers (which had become the Sauber trademark IMHO) and the teams’ downward spiral begun.

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        7th April 2016, 13:06

        That’s the problem. The more you use pay drivers, the less people want to sponsor you so you have to get even higher paying (and often, worse) pay drivers and you get even less tv time and therefore, less logos on the car.

        It’ll be sad to lose the team but in it’s current state, it’s not a huge loss to the sport.

  7. Yeah. Then F1 would be unable to improve because Ferrari always vetoed any good ideas..

    1. When was the last time ferrari’s veto use made the sport worse?

      Correct me if I’m wrong but they’ve only used the veto once? Twice?

      1. Jimmy Price, supposedly Ferrari have only been able to use their veto once in all the time that they have had it (when the FIA tried to force the manufacturers to sell the current V6 engines below the cost of manufacturing them). In reality, it seems that Ferrari’s veto powers are a lot weaker than most people seem to think they are.

    2. Don’t know if they used a veto for this one, but they definitely used their political muscle power to scrap the rule saying you need to supply a current PU to customer teams; that’s how Toro Rosso ended up with the 2015 Ferrari power unit.

      1. I suspect that if it is accurate to claim Ferrari have only used their veto power once or twice, it is because they usually get their way through favouritism and extra weight in voting, before it becomes necessary to veto anything. They are likely consulted first and foremost such that when it comes down to changes being instigated, said changes have already been vetoed ahead of Ferrari having to formally do so, just by their nod or head shake.

        As to the comparison to the Stones, or top football teams, who draw more audience…all well and good but the problem is the extra money the Stones get won’t help them produce a winning album the next time around. Won’t change their product whatsoever, just their bank accounts.

  8. Neil (@neilosjames)
    7th April 2016, 3:19

    Yes, Bernie, I totally agree with you. Ferrari have been around longer and they have the most fans.

    It’s the same in other sports. If ‘Ferrari are F1’, teams like Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool ‘are the Premier League’. They’ve got more fans, a richer history and generally bring more value to the league than the likes of Leicester, Crystal Palace or Swansea. I would strongly argue that United, Liverpool and Arsenal (just using these three, don’t kill me Chelsea fans) have a far, far greater impact on the popularity and marketability of the Premier League than Ferrari have that of on F1.

    Yet, disgracefully, they receive prize money in exactly the same way as their small-name rivals. Disparity in income for Premier League teams is small, and it only comes about due to a small portion of the shared revenues being awarded based on league position and the number of televised games.

    While the system does reward success and commercial attraction, there’s a relatively small difference between the top earners and the bottom. As an example, Chelsea received £99m for winning the league last season. QPR, who finished bottom, got £65m. Which is absolutely ridiculous, and as a result they’ve ended up with a thing called ‘healthy competition’ and ‘financial stability’ for most participants. Ugh.

    Compare that to F1, which does things the proper way – Ferrari, who were second, got £192m. Manor, bottom, got £47m. Perfecto, just the way it should be! Drive those minnows to the breadline, no one wants to see them win anyway!

    It breaks my heart, it really does, that those silly football idiots don’t realise they could drive at least half their league into insolvency, ensure only a couple of teams could compete and take more money for themselves if they did things the proper way.

    It’s so very, very sad.

    1. Neil (@neilosjames)
      7th April 2016, 7:50

      Sorry, got £ fever. F1 figures should be in dollars.

    2. petebaldwin (@)
      7th April 2016, 13:12

      @neilosjames – haha. And what’s going on in the Premiership this year? A crazy season with unexpected teams at the top. Something the big teams in F1 would never want and will therefore always vote against!

      Until the right person takes control of F1 and tells the teams the rules and says “like it or leave”, we’ll be left in this political cycle where the broken things are left alone and the things that already work are destroyed.

    3. There is disparity in football as many teams have struggled financially in recent years. This year in England is a once in 3 generations occurance, most years the richest win and due to financial issues therelating is the financial fair play rules which favours historically successful teams who have bigger stadiums and sell more merchandise but at least that stops teams spending what they have not got. I do not understand how F1 teams get in this message at the back of the grid. Yes they do not get what they should but why do they knowingly spend more than they receive? They are very poorly ran if they do this.

      1. @petebaldwin, that would be a football club whose chairman has a personal fortune estimated at nearly $3 billion and is backed by an organisation with an annual turnover exceeding $100 billion a year? It’s not really a case of “rags to riches”, is it…

        markp, as you say, in the case of the Premier League, most of the teams – even those who would take the title – traditionally lost money over a season and only survived because they were underwritten by wealthy owners who could write off those costs.

        The flat payment structure has been in place for a long time, but it did not produce financial stability given that the teams collectively ran at a loss for nearly 20 years in a row, despite collestively receiving billions a year in TV rights revenues. As you note, the real reason why the teams are in more robust health is because strict “break even” rules prevent teams from overspending in the first place – but we know that most teams in F1 hate the idea of financial controls. Even several independent teams hate the idea – Frank Williams has previously stated that he would rather shut down his team than allow any outside party interfere with the running of the team by imposing cost control measures.

  9. Just to inform you all, Lewis Hamilton will be making my comments for me from now on.

    1. @hohum

      Haha, nicely put…..:)

      I am on EXACTLY the same page too.

    1. Unless it can be deciphered, I’d imagine it very hard to punish.

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        7th April 2016, 12:30

        They should ask Alonso; he’s good with coded messages ;-)

    2. Nothing will happen as the FIA were aware of the message and the reasons for it.

      A number of teams had problems after the restart, following the red flag in Australia due to “glitches” with the standard ecu failing to reset the fuel calculations.

      Charlie Whiting: “There were a few glitches when the race was stopped. A lot of the fuel recalculations weren’t reset, and stuff like that, so we had to fiddle about with a few of those with the teams. Teams had to tell the drivers to do a couple of things they wouldn’t normally have been allowed to do, but that was all done in consultation, so that was fine.”


      “Vettel had a problem with his dashboard at the time and, in light of the race circumstances, Ferrari had sought permission from the FIA to use the pitboard to convey information its German driver should have had anyway.”


      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        7th April 2016, 12:44

        correct Anon – Pit Board was in Melbourne (with image), and not Bahrain as thisisf1.com claims.

  10. Interesting to see Bernie now suddenly supporting giving Ferrari more money again. Surely this is another one of his attempts to play the teams and divide them?

    1. Ding ding ding.


    2. I thought he was more ambivalent, in that he didn’t hold any particular bias on how the money hand out should be done. He said he did it this way because of certain reasons, but he was happy to change it if the need arose.

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        7th April 2016, 13:14

        If you delete “the need arose” from the end of your sentence and replace it with “it made him more money”, you’d have hit the nail on the head.

        1. Maybe I would have been more correct, but that isn’t the essence of what he said.

  11. The problem is, when you give a team, before sponsorship, more money than several other teams entire budgets. Then it’s not fair at all. I think there should be a bonus equivalent to how long teams have been in the sport. (No Renault, you shouldn’t get that, you left). Should you reward success? Well, no, I think not. Sponsorship opportunity is related to results. That is enough I think.

    But my underlying belief is that the baseline has to be more. If you can’t run an F1 program on 50m then it’s not sufficient.

  12. “If we were pop people I’d want to have The Rolling Stones because they’re the number one.”

    Bernie… you old donkey. Just goes to show how out of touch Bernie is with both, business stakeholder relations, and current ‘pop culture’

    Since Bernie decides to compare it with the music industry, let’s draw some parallels.

    1) Music and fashion constantly evolve. The Beatles or Rolling Stones might be the greatest band ever, but are they still earning more money than current pop stars?? No, they’re not, because artist’s revenue depends on their current performance (music, concert sales). Similarly, a F1 team’s performance depends on their performance (points and WCC standing).

    2) Ferrari has the power to veto rules of the sport. Does Mick Jagger have the right to evolve the music industry? Will he ban EDM or Hip Hop, and force Jay-Z and Calvin Harris out of the industry?

    3) I agree that there are a lot of Ferrari fans who show up at races. Just like there would be a lot of Rolling Stones fans to show up a music festival, but would all those fans show up JUST for the Rolling Stones? Maybe or Maybe Not.
    Would all the fans show up just to see 2 Ferrari’s race? Most Probably Not.
    This just goes to show that Ferrari is nothing without it’s competitors and the rest of the teams in the sport.

    While I agree that maybe a slightly higher proportion of the earning to heritage teams like Ferrari are slightly justfied, the ridiculous disproportion that Bernie is talking about is just ridiculous. It seem’s unfair already when teams like Ferrari take a $200 million pay cheque, while a team just 3 positions behind in the standings takes only $47 million. To be completely honest, the next ‘Rolling Stones’ or the next ‘Beatles’ could be in the sport right now! The only thing it is lacking is good investment, which is something the owner of the Record Company (Bernie) should be looking in to.

    P.S. On a side note. I thought it was a funny comparison to have Musicians compared to current teams. If Ferrari is the Rolling Stones, my guess is ..
    Red Bull is Coldplay. Cause they’re really good with their compositions (aero) but not always relevant to today’s pop culture (engine regulations) :P
    Mercedes is Justin Bieber . They really got the current formula right, and are dominating the music charts
    Mclaren is Madonna. Had a lot of success in the 80s and 90s, but has been nowhere for over a decade.
    Williams is U2. Awesome in the 90s and come up with an occassional hit now and then

    1. People evolve. I would definitely keep watching F1 if Ferrari left, though I admit it might give newcomers in the sport less reasons to watch it (but so does the move to pay TV …)

      Anyway, Ferrari already gets better sponsorship deals ‘because they are Ferrari’, they don’t need extra money from Bernie ‘because they are Ferrari’.

    2. I absolutely love the Williams/U2 comparison – I’m more of a Williams fan than a U2 fan but the parallels between the two are uncanny:
      1980 – Williams wins its first world titles, U2 releases its first album Boy.
      1985 – Williams-Honda wins the last three races of the season to mark the start of its most successful era yet, U2 get great media attention for their performance at Live Aid to mark the start of their most successful era yet.
      1987 – Williams dominates the season, U2 releases the hugely successful The Joshua Tree.
      1988 – Williams has a poor season with the Judd engine, U2 releases the less acclaimed Rattle and Hum.
      1991 – Williams launches the FW14 and becomes the fastest team in F1, U2 reinvents itself Achtung Baby and wins critical acclaim and many new fans.
      1997 – Williams wins its last world titles to date, U2 releases Pop, the last album of their more experimental era.
      2000 – Williams starts a new era with BMW (and reverts to a blue and white car), U2 goes ‘back to basics’ with All That You Can’t Leave Behind.
      2003/04 – This one doesn’t work quite as well as some of the others, but the 2003 season marks Williams’ most recent title challenge, while in 2004 U2 release How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb, the last album that gave them #1 (or top ten) single.
      2014 – Williams enjoys relative success after several years in the doldrums, U2 releases its first album for five years.

      As for a couple of other F1 teams=musicians example, to use a defunct team I’d suggest Lotus is Pink Floyd – great in the 1960s and on into the 1970s despite losing their talisman (Jim Clark/Syd Barrett). They both had their last major triumph at the end of the 1970s (1978 world championship/The Wall album). After this they didn’t do anything for another four years (Lotus didn’t win another race until 1982, Floyd did not release another album until 1983). 1982 was also the year that Colin Chapman died, and The Final Cut was the last Roger Waters album so both continued without their ‘leader’, and although they enjoyed some success there were never as good as they were with Chapman/Waters. It seemed to end in the mid-1990s, although in both cases there was an unexpected revival of sorts recently (the modern Lotus team/release of The Endless River) but it’s over now. Admittedly I’m mostly into older rock music so I can’t think of so many good recent examples.

    3. Michael Jackson songs generate more money than many current music artists make. Rolling Stones likely make more money a year than many current top line performers.

      1. I would be suprised if Rolling Stones made 1/10th the money Justin Bieber made in 2015

        1. They did they and Paul McCartney was at number 17, don’t know if Forbes count Royalty payments from past songs though. Katie Perry was the top earner in 2015, something like 136 million dollars. (I had to look this up and in no way know this from the top of my head)

    4. @todford, (2) Mick Jagger veto- If only !

  13. I like Bernie’s shirt.

    1. petebaldwin (@)
      7th April 2016, 13:18

      Yeah it’s just that horrible wrinkly disgusting “thing” they have modeling it that puts me off….

    2. Every race weekend if by 11PM local time on a Friday you can guess what Colour, style and make of T-Shirt Bernie will wear on Saturday you get pole position.

  14. Interesting how Horner was blatantly admitting that most probably Max might get the 2nd Red Bull seat.

    I think Kvyat needs to step up his game this year if he wants to hold on to that Red Bull seat. I think he did a pretty solid job last year, but if Ricciardo maintains his form, as he has shown over the last 2 races, he could easily out score Kvyat this year. Plus, Ric is a more marketable chap and a proven race winner, so Kvyat could see him lose the seat to Max.

    What will be interesting though, is if Sainz outscores Max and if Kvyat again outscores Ric. There will be a serious dilemma among Horner and Marko for 2017 line ups

    1. @Todfod I do not think points will play any role here. Kvyat outscored Ricciardo last year, yet it was obvious that Ricciardo was the better driver.

      I like Kvyat a lot but I am afraid he will have to go after this season. His performance so far makes me think that he is a very capable driver but not good enough to lead a top team to titles. Maybe he was promoted to F1 too soon but when you have someone like Max Verstappen waiting in the wings, then such arguments become irrelevant. If there were other circumstances, then Kvyat might have a future at Red Bull but right now things look rather bleak for him.

      1. @girts

        I don’t know why people rate Kvyat so low. Last year, I thought he did a pretty solid job against Ricciardo. Sure Ric was more unlucky and missed out on a few good opportunities like Hungary, but for most of the year, Kvyat was quite a good match for Ricciardo. There were races where he really did have the upper hand on Ric such as Monaco etc.

        Personally, I think Max is quite an unknown yet. His only benchmark is Sainz, who is a rookie himself. Kvyat went up against the tried and tested JEV and really showed much more pace and promise than JEV. Ricciardo went up against JEV and they were pretty evenly matched, with Ricciardo just edging JEV in quali pace.

        I had predicted a really close battle between Ricciardo and Kvyat last season, and I thought it was pretty close among them. Which is why I’m shocked when you say Ricciardo was a far superior driver.

        Although I really like Ricciardo, his worth is definitely slightly inflated due to the beating he gave Vettel in 2014

      2. Don’t know how if 1 driver beats another 2 years in a row on points you can consider the beaten driver better as at the end of a day championships are based on points in a season not on subjective things like good performance but bad luck. 1 season is not enough to tell but 2 wins by Kyvatt over Ricciardo it would be very harsh to throw out Kyvatt as that would mean 3 seasons in F1 beating Vergne once and Ricciardo twice. There is a long way to go this season so will be very interesting to see if Red Bull in a move to 100 percent keep Verstappen on board just promote him for next year then have to get rid of one of the current drivers. Ricciardo seems to be clear favourite to stay despite having a 50/50 record v teammates but should Kyvatt beat him again I could well see it being Ricciardo out as you would have someone with a 40/60 record against someone with a 100 percent record versus teammates.

    2. ColdFly F1 (@)
      7th April 2016, 12:15

      Interesting how Horner was blatantly admitting that most probably Max might get the 2nd Red Bull seat.

      I’ve heard that VES has a 3-year contract, which promises him a RBR seat next year or he can walk (<a href="http://www.totalsportek.com/f1/formula-1-driver-salaries/&quot;)Verstappen's contract is with Red Bull and ‘loaned out’ to STR). @todfod
      And based on his performance so far Horner would be unwise to let VES believe that he should start serious discussions with other teams.

  15. I think I may be in the minority when I say aerodynamic downforce needs to increase as well in 2017 – an increase in cornering speeds can’t just come from the tyres. I think there is a false truth in thinking increasing just the mechanical grip will still force drivers to work hard at the wheel, but apart from early 2014, I don’t think this has really happened. You rarely see drivers struggling on the exit of corners, Gilles Villeneuve style – our knowledge of aerodynamics is too good for that, coupled with how driveable the engines have become to control the torque.

    Yes tyres definitely need to become more grippy (I think another tyre supplier is the best way to do this, along with more testing), but cornering speeds through downforce needs to increase too. GP2 and Super Formula cars look faster through the corners and that just isn’t right. I think increasing cornering speeds in this manner will actually force drivers to work harder. Alonso and Webber for example cite the early 2000’s as when a driver would get exhausted behind the wheel of the car. Again, I stress this has to come from aerodynamics AND tyres, otherwise we’ll get what we had from 2009 – 2013: mounds of downforce and frail tyres to manage.

    With regards to the effect this will have on overtaking: is what we have at the moment so bad? We still get overtakes up and down the field. Overtaking has never been easy. Whenever Hamilton and others say we need more overtaking, what era of Grand Prix are they referring to? I remember watching races in 1994/5 and drivers were talking about how hard overtaking was even back then. Nothing’s changed, overtaking is meant to be difficult, it’s what makes an overtake special when we see a genuine one on track: Hamilton on Raikkonen Monza 2007, Mansell on Berger Mexico 1990, Villeneuve on Schumacher Portugal 1996, Schumacher on Alesi Germany 1995, Webber on Alonso Spa 2011, Alonso vs Vettel Silverstone 2014.

    Not every race is going to be spectacular, with overtakes up and down the field. There were some great races in the ‘80s, 90’s, 2000’s with amazing overtakes and non-stop action; and there were also some downright boring ones in the same eras. This is absolutely normal, we shouldn’t lose our minds when we have one or two dull races. At least when we have these somewhat dull races, I want to see the drivers staggering from the cars with the exhaustion of going 11/10ths for 40 laps around Sepang, and that just isn’t going to happen by increasing mechanical grip alone.

  16. petebaldwin (@)
    7th April 2016, 10:47

    “If it’s shared in a way like Ferrari benefit a bit because they’ve been racing a lot longer than anybody else.”

    I cannot think of a single other example in sport where this sort of idea is used…. Having said that, no other sport is run by people who couldn’t care less about the sport itself… Most sports (and businesses) are always looking to grow whereas F1 isn’t bothered – it’s rulers are just looking to extract whatever they can out of it.

    1. No other sport is run by people who couldn’t care less about the sport itself

      You’ve clearly never heard of Indonesian football……… @petebaldwin

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        7th April 2016, 12:50

        @davidnotcoulthard – If it’s run like F1, I think we’ve just established why I’ve not heard of it!

        1. @petebaldwin Well not exactly like F1, but the end result is at best the same, if not worse.

  17. ColdFly F1 (@)
    7th April 2016, 11:09

    If F1 would pay according EPL distribution rules ($EPL) then it would be a lot healthier:
    team name _ $F1 _ $EPL diff.
    Mercedes _ 171 _ 135 _ -36 (+43)
    Ferrari . . _ 192 _ 136 _ -56 (+24)
    Williams . _ 87 _ 105 _ +18 (+80)
    Red Bull . _ 144 _ 115 _ -29 (+39)
    Force India _ 67 _ 91 _ +24 (+77)
    Renault . . . . _ 64 _ 86 _ +22 (+73)
    Toro Rosso . _ 57 _ 80 _ +23 (+70)
    Sauber . . . . . _ 54 _ 75 _ +21 (+65)
    McLaren . . . _ 82 _ 78 _ -4 (+42)
    Manor . . . . . _ 47 _ 64 _ +17 (+55)

    – $F1=current distribution; $EPL=same total distributed according to EPL distribution methodology;
    – variances in brackets if FOM would pay 100% instead of keeping some 37% themselves;
    – Bernie always pays 1 year late (and teams miss out when they leave/fold);
    – EPL ‘live’ coverage payment assumed as per current F1 payment (i.e. pay Ferrari a hefty bonus)

    This seems a lot ‘fairer’ way to share the TV/racing fee income than the current structure, especially if Bernie would not keep so much for himself.
    PS – even if Bernie kept 11% & used EPL distribution then all teams (incl. Ferrari) would be better off.

    1. Haas have not been included?

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        7th April 2016, 15:10

        “There’s no money in the first year,” Mr Ecclestone told Forbes

        1. Well that’s a great model to use. It’s fantastic that none of the EPL teams are very much in debt either..

          I suppose the old way would have been to say, oh but wait.

          Hang on a minute!

  18. it actually shows how Bernie looks at f1. Like a festival, not a sport where things should be equal. He feels Ferrari is the main act and they should get payed more, cause they have history, a lot of fans and so make him more money.

  19. I’m just waiting for Ferrari to push back against Ecclestone if he gets serious over dropping Monza. His tone will change instantly.

    1. Ferrari has threatened to leave f1 on multiple occasions, but they need f1 more then f1 needs Ferrari.

      1. I agree entirely, but Ecclestone is a hypocrite and will use that fact if Ferrari start pushing back. That being said, without Ferrari F1 will be worth much less to those who would pay Ecclestone’s fees as Ferrari generate so much passion. Both entities would lose out if they split up but I agree Ferrari would stand to lose more, at least in the short term while they sorted themselves out in another sport.

    2. petebaldwin (@)
      7th April 2016, 12:55

      Ferrari are no better than Ecclestone. I don’t see them complaining that they’re getting an unfair advantage and I certainly don’t see them using their veto when the “sport” tries to everything the fans want it not to.

      1. I think BE said it all. Ferrari is F1. So the way F1 is, is thanks in no small part to Ferrari wanting it this way. They don’t generally need their veto power because they are consulted first on changes and get to have extra say before anyone even knows of the changes pending proposal. They have likely vetoed far far more things than we will ever know about. Oh I’m sure there are times when the entity simply has to do some things without Ferrari’s permission, and they complain, and try to make themselves sound just as much the victims, but that is smoke and mirrors compared to what I have little doubt is huge advantage overall.

      2. Read up on their veto they cannot use it for anything. They cannot propose new sporting rules or veto a sporting rul unless they can prove it directly affects their finances. In terms of quali changes every team has veto power as with a number of issues as they need unanimous agreement.

        1. In terms of Ferrari and their special veto power, I think it is much more nudge nudge wink wink than that. They consult with Ferrari first behind closed doors of course, before anyone even knows a rule change is being considered, so they have already ‘vetoed’ or vetted ideas before anyone has even heard of them. We only hear of them once they have been run through Ferrari, at least that is what I suspect happens in many cases.

  20. I have a doubt. In the current qualifying, one needs to do 3 laps to get 1 timed lap. But what if the timed lap was started at end of sector 2 of outlap? 2/3rd lap will be enough to warm up the tyres, then 1 full flat out lap and then a slow 1/3rd lap back to the pits? Thus, they will need just 2 laps to get 1 timed lap.
    It will solve the problem of traffic, will help in doing laps quicker, save tyres also and hence, more teams will do more than just 1 timed lap.

  21. I think I may be in the minority when I say aerodynamic downforce needs to increase as well in 2017 – an increase in cornering speeds can’t just come from the tyres. I think there is a false truth in thinking increasing just the mechanical grip will still force drivers to work hard at the wheel, but apart from early 2014, I don’t think this has really happened. You rarely see drivers struggling on the exit of corners, Gilles Villeneuve style – our knowledge of aerodynamics is too good for that, coupled with how driveable the engines have become to control the torque.

    Yes tyres definitely need to become more grippy (I think another tyre supplier is the best way to do this, along with more testing), but cornering speeds through downforce needs to increase too. GP2 and Super Formula cars look faster through the corners and that just isn’t right. I think increasing cornering speeds in this manner will actually force drivers to work harder. Alonso and Webber for example cite the early 2000’s as when a driver would get exhausted behind the wheel of the car. Again, I stress this has to come from aerodynamics AND tyres, otherwise we’ll get what we had from 2009 – 2013: mounds of downforce and frail tyres to manage.

    With regards to the effect this will have on overtaking: is what we have at the moment so bad? We still get overtakes up and down the field. Overtaking has never been easy. Whenever Hamilton and others say we need more overtaking, what era of Grand Prix are they referring to? I remember watching races in 1994/5 and drivers were talking about how hard overtaking was even back then. Nothing’s changed, overtaking is meant to be difficult, it’s what makes an overtake special when we see a genuine one on track: Hamilton on Raikkonen Monza 2007, Mansell on Berger Mexico 1990, Villeneuve on Schumacher Portugal 1996, Schumacher on Alesi Germany 1995, Webber on Alonso Spa 2011, Alonso vs Vettel Silverstone 2014.

    Not every race is going to be spectacular, with overtakes up and down the field. There were some great races in the ‘80s, 90’s, 2000’s with amazing overtakes and non-stop action; and there were also some downright boring ones in the same eras. This is absolutely normal, we shouldn’t lose our minds when we have one or two dull races. At least when we have these somewhat dull races, I want to see the drivers staggering from the cars with the exhaustion of going 11/10ths for 40 laps around Sepang, and that just isn’t going to happen by increasing mechanical grip alone

    1. @He Man Well you do admit you are in the minority I’ll give you that, so it won’t surprise you that I disagree. I am not for just increasing mechanical grip, I am also for reducing cars’ dependency on clean air. Smaller, less bitey wings will increase straight line and top speeds, and good tires will make for exciting cornering action, and I don’t care if the cornering is a little slower if I’m watching genuine driver vs driver action.

      And you speak of overtakes up and down the field these days but those are for the most part from cars on very different tire status’s or from DRS. Not driver vs driver which was much more the case in the past eras you cite.

  22. Well this explains Ecclestone it. He only wants Ferrari’s to win. That’s why he’s so eager to fool around with the whole quali debacle after only two years of dominance by Mercedes. He want the golden years of Schumi & Ferrari to return. The Ferrari International Assistance days.

    1. No he doesn’t. You are being too simply minded here. Sure he will be happy seeing anyone beating Merc right now but he does not like the current Ferrari because they get in his way too. His current favorite team is Red Bull because they are big supporters of him.
      He just again trying to use his divide and conquer tactics.

  23. I did some research on the cost of engines last year, and had found a reference from about 2007 or 2008 in which the engines and transmission cost something like 50% of a teams budget, but then someone said I was wrong and that it was about 25% of a teams budget.
    The problem with a statement like “the engines are too expensive” is we aren’t able to actually get an idea of what “too expensive” means.
    According to a report on the GPUpdate website, the cost of the current engine spec is about 20M Euros per team per season, which equates to around $22.7M in US dollars (using the current exchange rate of 0.88 US dollar to 1 Euro). This equates to around 48% of Manor Racing’s payout, and about 11% of what Ferrari are paid.
    The total F1 Management payout was $965M, meaning the average payout over 10 teams was $96.5M, meaning that $22.7M cost of engines equated to 23.5% of that budget.
    I don’t know whether things like MGU-K, MGU-H, are included in this “engine” price or not.

  24. “Ferrari is F1” what total BS and a typical Ecclestone insult to everybody else.

    Yes they have been around the longest and have certainly provided us with some great entertainment and a few champions along the way, but they are NOT the only team in the sport, if they left they would certainly be missed and F1 would suffer for a short while, but the sport would recover and carry on.

    In my view no team should have the right of veto unless you are prepared to give that right to all teams regardless of the time they have been in the sport, it should be remembered that all the teams past and present have or contribute to the sport we love .. not just Ferrari.

    Reverting to 2015 qualifying format? ……. what great news …. if it happens.

  25. I don’t think the question is “if they (Ferrari) left F1” but more, where would they go?

    If they helped form a breakaway series they would definitely mortally wound F1, so they answer to the question
    “Is Ferrari F1?” I would have to answer yes, as it is an integral and vital component, and lets be fair, their entertainment value over the years has been immeasurable compared with the rest of the po faced field…

    1. Everyone easily forget that Ferrari kept there name brand high by getting those nice Schumacher years. They were really losing their big name at the time in terms of global marketing. Mclaren and Williams etc were becoming really big names against them.
      And if any championships were helped by FOM and FIA were those. Ecclestone and Mosley desperately wanted Ferrari to win at that time because Ecclestone used Ferrari name power for his divide and conquer tactics.

      Of course this has nothing to with the comment said here since Ecclestone isn’t very fond of current Ferrari. Now his just saying such things to annoy fans and other teams against Ferrari and make an issue of their power since their power is currently not in his interest.

Comments are closed.