Montezemolo still banging on about third cars

[Giblet]

It doesn't take a genius to predict that climate would change

But Max, genius or not, did in fact predict it, a full year before it happened. Before Lehman Brothers collapsed triggering the crash. He warned everyone that if spending was not curbed, the sport could collapse, and manufacturers could leave. he invited FOTA to do something about it, and they did nothing.

The teams under FOTA and Luca's expert leadership failed to see the writing on the wall, and when they did, they acted like babies threatening a breakaway that never could have happened and worked. Max knew this and let them throw their toys around until they got all tuckered out and needed nappie time.

[WhiteBlue]

Why do we have to retrospectively got into the issue of manufacturer participation, the constructor status and the role of private teams? The history is behind us and we are discussing what is supposed to happen in the future. People will not agree now on the role Max Mosley played any more than they agreed at the time of his presidency. So why not look forward?

Third cars have always been seen as a list ditch action to prevent the number of cars to drop below the figure FOM is contractually bound to supply to TV stations. My view is that this role should not change because there are overwhelming negative aspects and very little positive aspects to third cars.

[Steven]

Guys can we please stick to the topic as in Monty blaming slow teams and wanting third cars?

From my point of view, third cars are a solution to nothing. If not enough teams can be found to fill an 18-car grid, then questions must be asked about the system and solutions must be found to improve interest from other teams.

[Belatti]

Guys can we please stick to the topic as in Monty blaming slow teams and wanting third cars?

From my point of view, third cars are a solution to nothing. If not enough teams can be found to fill an 18-car grid, then questions must be asked about the system and solutions must be found to improve interest from other teams.

100% true

[WhiteBlue]

The solution obviously is already found. So the only thing we need is Luca di Montezemolo to stop his drivel about a non issue.

[WhiteBlue]

The solution obviously is already found. So the only thing we need is Luca di Montezemolo to stop his drivel about a non issue.

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2010/06/ ... hird-cars/?

So see you the next time he does it again.

[WhiteBlue]

Monte at it again
Joe Saward answers

[andrew]

I sense an anti LDM/Ferrari agenda here.

Of course Luce di Montezemelo is correct. Third cars are the way to go and would help new team develop quicker. A "rental" from a front running team would do wonders for the likes of HRT, Lotus and Virgin.

[autogyro]

[...]

[Giblet]

The issue here is not a third car as he likes to word it, what he is really talking about now is customer chassis.

If this was allowed, we would now have Prodrive running Mclarens, and Algusuari and Buemi would be regularly punching above their weight instead of HRT running around in the backyard aimlessly.

I would rather see a team like Lotus build something out of nothing, and make a name for themselves without needing a 'third car' from Ferrari. And as we know with their customer engines, the customers don't seem to get parity, so why would they with customer chassis?

[WhiteBlue]

It is all about the money.

[strad]

See...For my money I'd like a return of so many cars and teams that we have to have pre-qualifying.

[747heavy]

See...For my money I'd like a return of so many cars and teams that we have to have pre-qualifying.

+1 , could not agree more
everybody should get a fair go at it, but teams which are simply too slow or not good enough (as HRT atm) should not be allowed to race.
Like it is now, a team as HRT can buy a "seat" and then just use it to run a non F1 worthy car to skim money off paydrivers.
There should be no place for this in F1.
You should not be allowed to be there, just because you bought a ticket (franchise) once.
I´m happy the 107% rule is back, because it "forces" teams to get their --- together or go home.
I don´t think, that a 3rd car/customer car situation is a bad think fo F1.
I guess even if they run a year old design (think STR) it would make the new teams more competetive then trying to build their own car.
I would take Prodrive running a McLaren customer car any day of the week over HRT/Virgin.

I have nothing against the new teams, and I do have respect for them, but if you are not good/fast enough, then you should have no place in F1.
If you take most other sports, to be allowed to compete at the top level, you need to qualify for it with results, not just buying your place on the grid.

If you can do a half decent job (as Lotus did this year), then it´s fair game, but if you did nothing before, never proved that you did anything in racing (GP2, F3 etc) and just showed up, because you could buy a cheap seat at the right time (as HRT did), but neither have the budget nor the technical infrastructure to be a decent F1 team, you should no be allowed to just cruise around, for the sake of it.

As a driver needs a "Superliciense" to be able to race in F1, teams should also prove that they are worth to be in F1, by showing some kind oft track record (e.g. winning/racing F3, GP2, DTM or LeMans etc).
IMHO

[WhiteBlue]

In this case I go along with Joe Saward

Very rapidly Formula 1 would cease to have 12 solid teams, and the field would be reduced to eight teams, each manufacturing three cars, but what chance would there be for those at the back to move forward? And how easy would it be to find funding? The next logical step to support the sport would be six teams making four cars each. But look what happened when multi-car teams dominated Grand Prix racing in the 1930s or early 1950s. The opposition simply died out and when the dominant manufacturers decided that they had used F1 enough, they pulled out and left the sport in a mess.

In any case, Formula 1 has already been through this cycle of development with Red Bull Racing providing machinery for Scuderia Toro Rosso, and McLaren coming close to a supply deal with Prodrive. The other teams recognised the danger of what was happening and the idea was abandoned, particularly after Scuderia Toro Rosso won the Italian Grand Prix, something which would have been inconceivable a few years earlier.

The sport is better off with more two-car teams, even if some are weak.

The manufacturer cycle mechanism is well known due to more than 100 years of observations in motor sport. The lesson is learned and must not be forgotten. Manufacturers are good for the sport but they must be prohibited to take control of it.

[myurr]

+1 (this is becoming a nasty habit!)

This is all about money. If Ferrari supply other teams that then earn constructors money and sponsorship then in a round about way a large part of that money flows back to Ferrari. This isn't about what's good for the sport, it's about what's good for Ferrari's balance sheet and their win at all costs attitude, even when it's to the detriment of the sport as a whole or to their public image.