Montezemolo still banging on about third cars

[andrew]

You are not actually suggesting the breakaway had anything to do with Max and BE are you?

You understand that was FOTA right? Max attempted a breakaway series a long time ago, and even had a breakaway race, but realized it was doomed to fail.

Mosley was pushing the teams into it.

Anyhoo, back to topic, I'm all for 3rd cars and/or teams like Ferrari, Renault or McLaren being able to provide (sale or lease) cars for smaller teams. Works in bikes.

[Giblet]

Drove them to threaten to leave when they were never serious? You see history different it appears.

I ask the same question I asked you before, where is the incentive for a team like Mclaren to put resources into a third car for another team? They will have less staff, and they will suffer on the track. Or should teams be allowed to allocate more staff for the third car program, driving up costs yet again?

[andrew]

Like I said, it works in bike racing so there is no reason why it shouldn't work in F1.

I'm not particularly concerned with the costs as I don't see how there can be a series that is meant to be the pinnicle of motorsport but it is run on a shoestring.

[therealjackson]

I cant see three car teams being viable at the current time with the apparent interest of new teams joining F1 and the drive to reduce costs, neither am I in favour of customer teams having the potential to buy a car and instantly being competitive. As far as I can see this could prove a threat to some of the medium size teams like Williams that will be pushed further down the grid by customer teams, eventially reducing f1 to a kind of DTM with only 2/3 constructor teams.

If Ferrari/Fiat are so desperate for three car teams they could effectivley run four cars within the regualtioins by doing exactley what Red Bull have done with Toro Rosso. They could enter a 'B' team in the guise of Alfa Romeo/Maserati enabling two extra cars to run their development drivers and potentially Valentino Rossi. The ability for junior teams to compete on the same level as their parent teams was reducedhis season with the ban on the transfer of technical info from team to team but with Montezemolo seemingly so adament that Ferrari want to run more than two cars this is surly the best option for them at this time.

[WhiteBlue]

TRJ, I agree. A junior or American team is possible if they are constructors in their own right. It is not so desirable to have dependent junior teams but it was accepted to help keeping teams on the grid that went bust like Minardi. The current new team initiative is far better for F1 with independent new teams.

[Giblet]

Like I said, it works in bike racing so there is no reason why it shouldn't work in F1.

I'm not particularly concerned with the costs as I don't see how there can be a series that is meant to be the pinnicle of motorsport but it is run on a shoestring.

It doesn't matter if you are concerned or not, and if you can't see costs are important, you are wearing blinders. F1 almost imploded cuz nobody had any money. As much as you wrongly think Mosley drove out the manufacturers, it was the world financial collapse and the teams like BMW, Honda, and Toyota that chose to leave for financial reasons.

Costs are not the same resources. The teams are going to be staff limited next year. They will have to move resources (people) from Lewis's and Jenson's cars.

Building a motorcycle is not in the same league as building an F1 car.

[WhiteBlue]

Building a motorcycle is not in the same league as building an F1 car.

Running motorcycles on a GP track isn't the same as running F1 cars either. They cost different money, they take up different track space and bikes haven't by a long way been screwed with anyway near as cars have been in the past.

[autogyro]

Building a motorcycle is not in the same league as building an F1 car.

Running motorcycles on a GP track isn't the same as running F1 cars either. They cost different money, they take up different track space and bikes haven't by a long way been screwed with anyway near as cars have been in the past.

Only in the concealed vested interest, like when the Japanese manufacturers who dominate Motor Bike Racing managed to sructure the regulations so as to get the Norton Rotary banned. A technology far superior to anything they have even today.

It is the big vehicle manufacturers who effectively control what goes on in motor sport. With Max no longer President of the FIA, we have yet to see if Todt can put up a good enough fight against them to ensure F1s survival.

[andrew]

Mosley nearly killed F1 not save it. F1 needs the manufacturers to survive. Without them it is not F1.

[Giblet]

Costs and the global financial meltdown almost killed f1, not mosley. If he didn't bring in these new teams, the manufacturers still would have left, and the grid would be pathetic in it's numbr of cars.

You constantly miss this most fundamental point. You think there was a war against the manufcaturers, but he could see these teams were going to leave while Luca made promises he could not keep. He ( the fia!) acted to save f1 in spite of the manufacturers.

Mosley did not drive out these companies, they left. Why don't you see that?

[WhiteBlue]

F1 has had private teams and manufacturer teams. Manufacturers will come and go based on their own decisions. They take such decisions based on the macro economic conditions and how much F1 fits their advertising.

One thing is for sure. The introduction of third and fourth cars are not helpful to attract more manufacturers to F1. It is a tool for existing rich manufacturers or private teams to gain more influence or eliminate the influence of independent players. So it is basically contra productive to the objective of more manufacturer involvement.

[Giblet]

Exactly. Mosley did a lot of boneheaded things, but he did not drive out the manufacturers.

People conveniently forget, or somehow never knew, that it was under his term as FIA president that these same manufacturers entered the sport. Toyota, BMW, and Honda all entered as full manufacturer teams while he was in charge.

F1 needs teams that are here to race first, not bolster their corporate image.

[timbo]

People conveniently forget, or somehow never knew, that it was under his term as FIA president that these same manufacturers entered the sport. Toyota, BMW, and Honda all entered as full manufacturer teams while he was in charge.

exactly

F1 needs teams that are here to race first, not bolster their corporate image.

That's why I blame him.

[autogyro]

You are not making sense timbo.
When Max and Bernie encouraged the manufacturers to enter teams, the economic climate was far better and the results made F1 the huge sporting series it is.
It is only F1s huge importance built by Max and Bernie that has kept it going to today.
I also do not always agree with the FIA but Max always worked for the best of F1 before anything else.

[timbo]

When Max and Bernie encouraged the manufacturers to enter teams, the economic climate was far better and the results made F1 the huge sporting series it is.

It doesn't take a genius to predict that climate would change.
Besides, if there were only manufacturers in F1, which one of them would readily tolerate the embarrassment of finishing last?
He always was acting according to the situation with little to no forward-thinking and ultra-autocratic methods.

I also do not always agree with the FIA but Max always worked for the best of F1 before anything else.

So, why do people have problems with Ferrari preferences etc?
It was all Max and he was always acting for the good of F1.