Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Interlagos, 2017

Ferrari to lose Santander sponsorship at end of 2017

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Ferrari will lose its backing from Spanish bank Santander, which began in 2010, at the end of this season.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Esports remind us appearances shouldn’t matter, says Tom:

I think the reason Esport is gathering followers is that ultimate skill, without any attachment to socially accepted norms for appearance/behavior, which [some] seem to require, is the key requirement.

These guys might not look like superstars, but they possess ultimate skill at their specialty – which in this case is a semi-arcade racer. Most of the rest of us possess zero ultimate skills at anything.

If, on a sports website, you choose to not appreciate skill over looks, then that is a choice – but a somewhat sad one.
Tom

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Goldenboy, Lucas, L_A_Munro and Simon Stiel!

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

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

  • 67 comments on “Ferrari to lose Santander sponsorship at end of 2017”

    1. It is an evolution.

      I don’t think they know what evolution means.

      1. Even though those mockups are supposed to show logo’s potential in case of trackside and TV graphics application, I gotta say that in all those graphics, the logo itself is actually the most indistinguishable element. And it should be completely opposite.
        The typeface they’ve developed as well looks so dated and immature in terms of quality. Reminds me of something an amateur designer would get attached to when thinking about modern and hi-tech typefaces.

        1. Did anyone else notice that even during the race the TV billboards were doing the “new logo flicker”? I was watching “the race” and observing the advertising and my only thought was, “oh boy, their billboard is on the fritz, that’s embarrassing for a multi-billion-dollar company.”

      2. Evolution and progress are not the same but I’ll keep an open mind.

        What can we decipher from what’s been said today. Daniel wanted Kimi’s seat and Santander doesn’t believe in the future of f1.

    2. Lets just be honest, that eSports finale was way more exciting than the real thing. I always had a hunch professionals tend to ruin the show. Lets get some complete amateurs driving the cars. And running them. It will be hillarious. A bit like Baku this year, but all season long :D

      1. Exactly the reason why the comment section is so entertaining here

    3. To be honest (mandatory beginning of a critique) I thought the old F1 logo was rather clever and the new one rather banal, but what do I know, business’ all over the world love to spend $millions changing the logos their predecessor spent $millions on a short while ago, must be good for something.
      Secondly, if you want good racing on a track like Abu Dhabi you kneed cars that can follow closely equipped with tyres that can take a thrashing without melting. Take todays F1 chassis, instal either Chevy LS7 or alternately Merc/Audi/BMW 4L turbo engines, ban wings and you’ll get great racing on any track, not as fast as F1 but more exciting, not as technical as F1 but more accessible.

      1. PS just don’t call if Formula Hohum.

        1. I’d call it Hohum Spec Racing.

      2. @hohum, by “not as fast as F1”, you mean producing a car with performance characteristics that means it would be several seconds a lap slower than a Formula 3 car? That is not a joke, by the way – Toet, the former head of Sauber, simulated the effects of producing a car with those sorts of performance characteristics, and estimated a lap time in the high 1m41s around the Circuit de Catalunya – whereas current Formula 3 cars are in the high 1m37s.

        No offence, but if the sport is yoked to the memories of the past, it will become nothing more than a pathetic joke. When you first started watching F1, you probably would have thought it crazy to look back to pre-WW1 races such as the 1907 Peking to Paris race and say that the sport should look back to that era – yet races like that are closer in time to you than your first season is to the modern era.

        1. @anon, yes slower, but the cars would be able to race, aaaaaaaaand faster than NASCAR/SUPERCARS which a few people still like to watch. Not the solution, I know, but it highlights the problem.

    4. I will miss the NBC Sports announcing team. In my opinion they were the best at any sport in the US. I watch them all.

      I do hope Buxton and Matchett can find a way onto the new team ESPN will have. I imagine Diffey goes back to IndyCar full time again. Hobbs is retiring, but it would be nice if he did an IndyCar race or two. Road America isn’t far from his home. His sense of humor will be missed.

      1. Supposedly there will not be an ESPN team. It will just be the world feed with Sky commentators (ugh).

        1. I was tweeting back and forth with Steve the other day and he said don’t give up hope and that’s he don’t know what’s happening but stay tuned so we will see

    5. If it means less white on the Ferraris, I’m all for it. Bring back the 2007-2009 livery! Or even better, the 94-96 one!

      1. I’d be happy if they got rid of the Marlboro red and went with the actual Rosso Corsa

        1. The Red they use looks better on TV(The prime audience).

    6. The one things I picked out of the Ferrari Santander article was the number of times Fernando Alonso was mentioned.

      Could Santander be returning to Mclaren? Zak Brown mentioned over the weekend that Mclaren have tied up a number of new brands and details will be shortly announced.

      1. I remember when Ron Dennis was saying almost the same thing for about a year, and nothing materialized. Let’s hope Brown actually has something coming up.

        1. Didn’t Zak mention in 2016 that McLaren would have a new title sponsor in 2018?

          Or has this story changed again after coming second to last this year.

          1. Egonovi, you must have misread the reports at the time then, because Zak never promised in 2016 that McLaren would have a new title sponsor in 2018. What he said back in 2016 was that 2018 would be the earliest opportunity for McLaren to sign a new title sponsor but, even then, he expected that it would still be very difficult for him to actually secure a title sponsorship deal for 2018.

            Here is a quote from Zak dated Nov 2016: “Clearly a title partner is something that on a commercial basis, and it is something that I am most linked to, is going to be critically important. But I would start taking a look at 2018. 2017 is already here and I don’t have any tricks up my sleeve on that one yet. […] We had a couple close opportunities, so it is hard. Very hard. By no means do I have a magic wand and think having a title partner for 2018 is going to be an easy feat.” https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/brown-rules-out-mclaren-title-sponsor-before-2018-853662/

            In the articles that I have seen, Zak’s line has been fairly consistent from 2016 through to now – that he was working to try and secure a new title sponsor, but making no firm promises that McLaren would have a title sponsor for 2018 and accepting that they could fall short.

            1. Anon, if it is “critically important” and he does not deliver then he failed. Simple as that.
              He already got away with not having a title sponsor in 2017.

              Of course he was/is slick enough not to pin a date to it; but critically important does have some urgency linked to it.

        2. Your comment just reminded me of an interview I saw with Ron Dennis sat on a chair infront of the pit garage. It was the end of the 2013 season, and he was describing the new Honda engine. I’m not even kidding when he said in these exact words “the engine is like a Swiss timepiece” and went on to impress that it was the bees knees – ROFL!!

      2. @jaymenon10 – good spot. Santander being a Spanish bank, it would help their marketing efforts to bankroll Alonso (and by extension, Alonso’s team). No point spending money on Ferrari, especially when they’re not title sponsors (so no Santander name on the car).

        1. Eh, @phylyp actually Santander is quite prominently on the rear wing of the Ferrari …

          1. @bascb – sorry, should have been clearer – I meant the car/team is not named “Scuderia Ferrari Santander” or likewise, unlike Red Bull, Mercedes & Williams who’ve got title sponsors that reflect the sponsor’s name.

            I agree that Santander itself adorns the rear wing.

            1. Right, yeah that is correct @phylyp and really, I admit that i had sort of forgotten that they did actually adorn the Ferrari from the back (could have asked Max, he must be sick of looking at Kimis rear wing :-) ) since they never get mentioned.

              Also, from the front, I can see how Zak Brown would rather like to cut the sharkfins away, as they do obscure the view of the rear wing when we look at the cars coming towards us a bit.

            2. I found it interesting that on Skys coverage Zak was very non-commital on the colour of the car. This could well mean Santander and a red & while Mclaren (90s era Marlboro colours anyone?).

              ZB is the man to find sponsors in F1 so its quite likely that he has got the little black book out to sort out the Honda shortfall. I don’t think this McLaren team would of made the jump without ensuring that they had some sponsors coming on board to cover the loss of the manufacturer money.

        2. Alonso doesn’t need ‘bankrolling’ . As Zak Brown himself pointed out, Alonso earns his salary back with the performance bonuses. His efforts last year increased their income by 20 odd percent.

          Maybe the ‘bankroll’ jibe could be used if McLaren ever produce a car a monkey could drive. Something like the 2015 and 2016 Mercedes, A pair of cars that Rosberg put on pole 15 times.

          1. Oh, I didn’t mean ‘bankroll’ as a jibe.

            Spanish bank. Popular, personable and highly respected Spanish star. It makes a ton of sense to sponsor Alonso. And if it means sponsoring a team that Alonso drives for instead of just the individual himself (like BasCB mentions, for on-car visibility which translates to TV views), it still would make sense.

      3. The headline actually says “Santander will abandon F1”

        Not sure that could be an option

    7. ‘There really are much bigger problems in F1, let alone the wider world, than a logo. Get a grip, and some perspective.”

      Scott Mitchell’s tweet is a classic example of the fallacy of relative privation.

      Yes, there are larger problems in F1. Yes, there are larger and worse problems in the wider world.

      However, if the logo was deemed significant enough to warrant a change, fans are entitled to comment on it, either in support of or criticize it.

      1. After reading the article and seeing how they have tied things in like that “hook” for attaching sponsor names, the graphics around it etc, I get what they are going for.

        It’s probably not even so much about the logo itself (unless Bernie does in fact own rights to that one) but really about making a more coherent overall presentation of the sport in different media. And I LOVE the look of those ideas for merchandise, they really look a lot better than a plain shirt with the old F1 logo.

        1. @bascb – I agree. That article did a much better job of explaining the vision for the “F1 brand”, and not just the logo that was revealed yesterday.

          The link to that article was posted in the comments about the logo, and reading that has softened my negative stance towards the logo itself. It’s not a great logo, but as you said, there’s a coherent plan to it.

          1. i know taste is a subjective thing, but i think you’re wrong, there is nothing that stands out about that logo, the merch mockups look very cheap.

            I’d much rather have a plain T with the old logo on it, than any of the nee proposed stuff.

            All the coherent plan looks like some amateur trying to come up with something ‘futuristic’ in late 90s

            1. Well, those are just mockups from the design agency, let’s see how it evolves. I have to admit that even among the various mockups (e.g. how the various GPs are titled) the logo is the weaker design element.

              All the coherent plan looks like some amateur trying to come up with something ‘futuristic’ in late 90s

              Yes, there definitely is some of this at play. Especially the lowercase ‘a’ where the horizontal stroke is angled. I recall that back in the 80s this was the “thing to do” to make a typeface look sci-fi/computery. Notwithstanding that, it makes it harder to read!

        2. An excellent article that takes you inside the process behind the new presentation. Personally I am glad to see the back of the old logo and although the new logo is simple – you can see this was a design goal to provide versatility wherever it is used. I do like the three typeface variants this helps create consistency and familiarity towards the F1 brand.

          People generally reject change, especially when it impacts something that is comfortingly familiar, or when they felt it didn’t need to change, it’s human nature, within a season or two we will look back and wonder what the fuss was about.

    8. Had Haas not been privileged to receive the massive assistance they got from Ferrari, I am almost certain they’d be finishing dead last and looking for a way out.
      He made it seem like the slower teams didn’t know what they were doing. Where did all the bravado go.

      1. “Privileged”? I thought they paid for it? And that the FIA scrutineers looked at the Ferrari/Haas dealings and came away satisfied that it was all legal and within the sporting regulations.

        I liked the interview. I can totally understand the “not invented here” mentality, and how Steiner has had to work around that.

        1. The FIA later closed that loophole that allowed Haas to essentially get a customer car from Ferrari, something no other recent team was allowed to benefit from.
          What the FIA investigated and later cleared Ferrari off, was the allegation Ferrari was using HAAS wind tunnel time to circumvent the restrictions placed on all teams.

          1. Thanks for pointing that out, Oliver.

    9. The Creative Review article was a great read. Thanks for linking.

      As that article outlined, the new logo is bold and can be applied to so many different F1 paraphernalia and in different colours and markets.

      The reference to ‘WipeOut’ fonts and styling in that article is also great to see. That style of futuristic, high speed adrenaline you get playing the WipeOut games is exactly what I think Formula 1 should move towards. The futuristic concept Formula 1 designs from the teams (LINK) point towards such a future aesthetic, so how come Ferrari and some other teams feel the need to criticise such a direction by Liberty when they drew up those concepts to begin with?

    10. @Keith Collantine I don’t really understand this: You’ve acknowledged a few races and even 1 qualifying session from last season in the ‘on this day in F1’ section of these daily round-ups even though you generally only acknowledge races/qualifying sessions from 5, 10, 20, 25, 30 years ago, etc., so why, for example, you didn’t make the same exception to the rule that you’ve made with a few certain 2016 races with Seb’s first WDC by acknowledging it in the round-up of the 14th day of this month?

      1. @jerejj I do give priority to five-year multiples, chiefly so that it’s not just the same thing popping up in ‘on this day’ every year. But it’s not always possible or convenient to find a suitable example, which is why it’s not a hard rule.

        1. @keithcollantine OK, thanks for letting me know.

    11. Can anyone explain why Kimi holding that Ferrari seat is still justified?

      1. Besides the obvious he’s slower than Vettel?

        He’s a great promoter for Italian ice cream and the guys at Maranello need a good drinking buddy.

      2. Same way Massa holding that seat till 2014 was justified. An obedient #2 driver who isn in the #1 driver’s good books for being uncompetitive and docile.

        1. @todfod, the reason I personally have issue with Kimi is that he got a championship and does have many more fans than Massa. Statistically he has achieved more than Massa too.

          It is sad to see a world champion fall behind so much. This is specially painful when I compare the Kimi of early 2000 and now.

        2. @todfod

          Correct. Kimi is perfect as he’s now obedient and also has a big fan-base and will sell a lot of merchandise/attract sponsors.

          Both Ferrari and Mercedes don’t have the management to cope with a Senna/Prost Alonso/Hamilton partnership that the likes of Ron Dennis relished. They’ve both admitted it.

      3. Because there’s no better driver than Kimi available? Is not that simple finding an available driver who you know for sure could occasionally on par with Vettel. Kubica? Maybe Ricciardo but not before 2018 or Perez, or Ocon, or Sainz, but certainly not Hulkenberg, Bottas or Grosjean. Better wait for Leclerc.

        1. Yeah, probably that.

        2. But surely Leclerc would want to win himself, just as the likes of Ocon, Sainz or Perez (and the three you disregarded) would want to. @ruliemaulana, @praxis.

          It’s not that there is no good driver available, but that apart from Kimi there is no servile driver out there of any capability comparible to Kimi, who is willing to be the stool for Vettel to win on.

          1. @bascb, it is a rare combination indeed, a perfect number#2 would be the most obedient sheep and a world-champion to boot! Yeah, I see the justifications now…

        3. @ruliemaulana

          Both Ferrari and Mercedes have admitted they can’t cope with the pressure of having a Senna/Prost Alonso/Hamilton type partnership. Both Mercedes and Lewis look visably more relaxed without Rosberg banging wheels with them.
          If Ron Dennis had been at either team we’d have seen Alonso, Hamilton and Verstappen all signing different contracts ealrier this year and partnered with each other or Vettel.

          1. As things stand, Mercedes can afford that approach – they have a dominant car, and a driver pairing that seems to secure their WCC title with a comfortable margin.

            Ferrari – as the challenger – should not be that complacent, and should be chasing the WCC with two capable “alpha” drivers.

            I believe having two alpha drivers really boils over only when the WCC is (almost) assured, and it is the individual drivers chasing after the WDC.

            And this is why Red Bull’s driver pairing offers a greater threat to Ferrari in the constructors standing, than Ferrari do to Mercedes.

            1. I believe having two alpha drivers really boils over only when the WCC is (almost) assured, and it is the individual drivers chasing after the WDC.

              And this is why Red Bull’s driver pairing offers a greater threat to Ferrari in the constructors standing, than Ferrari do to Mercedes.

              @phylyp
              Completely agree. I believe that if Max and Dan were racing for Ferrari in 2017, we’d see Ferrari as the WCC. It’s hard to say whether they would win the WDC, but they would keep it a heck of a lot closer than the current Ferrari drivers did.

          2. @BigJoe I don’t think it is accurate at all to claim Mercedes ‘don’t have the management to cope’, nor that they have ‘admitted it’ nor that they ‘can’t cope with the pressure.’

            I think you are forgetting that they were absolutely thrilled to re-sign Nico for 2017 and 2018, and it should have been two more seasons of two roosters there were it not for the unexpected retirement of Nico. So suddenly Nico retires, their hand is forced to scramble for the best they can do in a replacement driver, and now they can’t cope?

            Not only can they cope, and did they cope, but they wanted to do much more coping. VB was never going to offer the same level as Nico as the newbie on the team and one who had never competed near the sharp end of the grid before. He was most likely going to be a breeze for LH to deal with compared to Nico. Of course that lightened the psychological load on the team. But as a result, they also didn’t get a driver 1-2 in the WDC, and SV took the second spot.

            I think, and truly hope, but am convinced, that TW would indeed have much preferred having the challenge of two roosters on the team, as difficult as that can be sometimes (but not dire), and have the odds higher of shutting out the competition, than to have to forgo the spirit of racing, and the show for the fans, in order to coddle one driver and have to make excuses and tiptoe diplomatically around the other.

            He said as much while the LH/NR rivalry was on, and they’d clash, and the media would ask isn’t it time to bring out the team orders and settle things down? And TW’s response always leaned toward respecting both drivers by giving them both an equal opportunity, by letting them settle it on the track, which in turn respects the viewing, paying audience with the maximum show, like we were to have again in the still dominant Mercedes cars, for this season and next. I am convinced that is why VB is only on a one year extension until more possibilities arise for TW in 2019.

        4. Because there’s no better driver than Kimi available?

          @ruliemaulana

          Nonsense. There’s Verstappen, Ricciardo, Alonso, Sainz and possibly even Hulkenberg, Perez and Ocon. That’s nearly half the grid who is a better candidate for that #2 seat.

          Kimi is in the team for 2 reasons –
          1) Ferrari have never been a 2 driver team. They always want a #1 driver who is expected to deliver titles and the other driver is just supposed to rack up points on a regular basis without fighting for poles, wins or championships. He will be used as an aid to the #1 driver’s title chances.
          2) Vettel likes having a teammate he can beat. Vettel wanted a driver he can beat convincingly in that other seat. He doesn’t want to play the politics or the teammate battle especially after getting thrashed by Ricciardo in 2014. If possible, Vettel would have Karthikeyan as a teammate.

          1. Verstappen, Ricciardo, Alonso, Sainz, Perez and Ocon are not available for 2018. That’s why Kimi holding that Ferrari seat is still justified.

          2. @todfod — Just as @ruliemaulana says, Verstappen and Ricciardo were not available. Nor Sainz. Nor Hulkenberg (who would probably be in the Merc instead of Bottas had he not signed with Renault before Rosberg retired). Ferrari possibly could have had Perez, but he’s not top tier (imo) and may have been under contract. Ocon is a Merc junior driver, no? And as interesting as it would be to see Alonso back in red, I think he’s burned that bridge.

            Bottas was under contract and only the Merc/Williams/Wolff relationship allowed that to be broken. So unless Ferrari had a wunderkind hidden away or somehow lured Rosberg out of retirement (probably impossible anyway due to contract when he retired and his connection with Merc), they really had nowhere to go but with Kimi. Sad to say, as I like Kimi, but he isn’t what he used to be.

          3. @todfod I’m not sure how much SV wants or needs to have a non-rooster for a teammate, but I can see why it appears that way. Many think MW was a number 2 to SV at RBR, by intent, even by MW’s own opinion during ‘wing-gate’ lol, but I’m not convinced MW was anything but a natural number 2, not a forced one. I could be wrong. But MW didn’t seek out a different ride either.

            And of course being at Ferrari, a famously one-rooster team much of the time, makes it seem that suits SV fine too. Of course any top driver is going to have a much easier time of it if his teammate just can’t (due to being inferior or less experienced), or isn’t allowed to compete (by team intent). Hard to say how much SV insists on inferior teammates, or if that is just the way it has happened, and why would he complain?

            With respect to 2014 and DR ‘thrashing’ him, I will once again defend SV for that year. The cars were night and day different, some say by design to stop the RBR dominance. He went from having a 4-time WDC level car, fitting like a glove, to having something that resembled what he had become accustomed to in no way shape or form. Including very poor reliability. You try driving a rocket that was like a best friend for 4 years of glory, to then have that ripped away and be handed an unreliable underpowered Lada and be asked ‘what’s the problem?’

            Along comes this massive down step that had to be not just physically night and day to the negative, but mentally so frustrating and demoralizing, especially under the context that this was somewhat designed by F1’s reg changes to try to stop the RBR train…and it did just that. Along comes DR with the biggest opportunity and the best car and team he’s ever had, so a step up for him, under no pressure, SV with all of it. Don’t beat SV and it’s no surprise, beat SV and it’s gravy. DR didn’t beat SV up. The regs and the car did. The utter change from winning rocket, to enraging Lada did.

            1. DR is hugely operated. Living off 2014 ever since. Max is crushing the grin performance wise. DR is a 1 season wonder. Kvatt and Verge both beat him.

    12. Lewis Hamilton: “I think Red Bull will probably step up their game next year and they really have in the second half of this season. Ferrari, next year, are going to be there.”

      So tired of hearing this the last few years, it’s just boring, gives me no hope whatsoever that things will be any different again.

      1. @Tristan But things were different this year, and I think LH is accurate in what he is saying, and what else is he to say? Nothing? Something that makes less sense?

        Ferrari were indeed, unlike recent years, a challenger at least for some of the season. They made a big step forward over last year. RBR indeed even as the third best WCC team have impressed on occasion for being in a car noticeably underpowered and obviously with too much unreliability.

        There is solid reason to hope and believe that Ferrari is heading in the right direction, and no doubt Renault is as bound and determined as ever to provide a better unit for themselves, Alonso, and RBR. Many think the problem is not the Mac nor the RBR chassis’, and the thought of how much better those chassis’ can be when cutting through the air more quickly, hence with more downforce, is enticing.

        There are only so many possibilities for next season, so if it is boring to hear the same things, I’d look a little deeper. It’s only year one of these new dimension cars and tires and there is quite a bit of stability in the regs, so I don’t see things as ‘the same’ whatsoever.

    13. Hearing that Liberty have told German FTA Broadcaster RTL not to expect there contract to be renewed for 2018, No word on who else they could be talking to though.

      Also saw that Niki Lauda quit as a pundit live on RTL’s post race program yesterday not only having not informed RTL of this beforehand but also not long after having an exchange with some people from Liberty.

      1. Also hearing that virtually nobody within the paddock likes the new logo & that team owners fear that since it isn’t immediately recognizable as F1 (Many also see it as bland & unexciting) it may make it a harder sell with sponsors.

    Comments are closed.