Will Ferrari's communication director ever stop moaning?

[autogyro]

Sour grapes, because they know full well they cannot build a winning car without five times the money of any other team.

And this is a provable statement?

Read my post again and do not mis quote me.
McLaren just pretends to be Ferrari, they are both working with unfair advantage.
If Ferrari or McLaren win this year, it will mean absolutely nothing.

[WhiteBlue]

In the long run, equalized spending may yield much more interesting competition, but it can't be enforced in such a short time! For the better part of '00s Max and Bernie did all they could to draw smaller teams away from the sport and to prevent smaller teams from entering, so the fact that only established and well financed teams stayed is not a teams fault!

This is a position that would be difficult to support by fact. Throughout the '00s the FiA has been concerned about the manufacturers driving up the price of going racing. You seem to have forgotten the FiA/GPMA war 2004-2006. It was exactly about this issue. The FiA has asked for affordable engines for a very long time and has taken even unpopular steps over the years to achieve them. They have created deminishing returns for the big budget teams which is one reason why a new team now can be 3 or 4 s off the pace instead of 10 or 20.

And many members of this site perpetuate the myth that all rules are entirely created by the FiA. This of course is rubbish. For most of the time the FiA operated under the constraints of a concord agreement which squarely puts the rule making powers into the hands of the teams. The only rules that are completely done by the FiA are safety related. They do consult on those as well. Otherwise they mostly rubber stamp what the teams wanted.

The common view of all forces in F1 is the need for resource restrictions in the form of head count limit mainly but delayed for 2 years due to the top teams politicking. If Ferrari now do as if they have not agreed to the resource restriction agreement and the entry of the new teams they are in fact bitching.

[timbo]

This is a position that would be difficult to support by fact. Throughout the '00s the FiA has been concerned about the manufacturers driving up the price of going racing. You seem to have forgotten the FiA/GPMA war 2004-2006. It was exactly about this issue. The FiA has asked for affordable engines for a very long time and has taken even unpopular steps over the years to achieve them. They have created deminishing returns for the big budget teams which is one reason why a new team now can be 3 or 4 s off the pace instead of 10 or 20.

In my view FIA/GPMA was about management of F1. Teams wanted a bigger piece of the pie.
The engine example shows how you can reach the goal gradually and by cooperation.
Not by "in 9 months you have to fire 70% of your staff and decrease budget 2-4 fold".

And many members of this site perpetuate the myth that all rules are entirely created by the FiA. This of course is rubbish. For most of the time the FiA operated under the constraints of a concord agreement which squarely puts the rule making powers into the hands of the teams. The only rules that are completely done by the FiA are safety related. They do consult on those as well. Otherwise they mostly rubber stamp what the teams wanted.

The rules we are talking about ($40 cap) were clearly set by FIA as a point in negotiation process.

The common view of all forces in F1 is the need for resource restrictions in the form of head count limit mainly but delayed for 2 years due to the top teams politicking.

Oh, so not only Ferrari politricking?
And also, why shouldn't them top teams politrick?

If Ferrari now do as if they have not agreed to the resource restriction agreement and the entry of the new teams they are in fact bitching.

Oh... Actually, we seem to have read different press-releases.
What Luca said --

Of the thirteen teams who signed up, or were induced to sign up, for this year’s Championship, to date only eleven of them have heeded the call, turning up on track, some later than others, and while some have managed just a few hundred kilometres, others have done more, but at a much reduced pace.

All true.

About Campos and USF1 -- not a baseless opinion.

On the cause of the ability or inability of the new teams to show up --

This is the legacy of the holy war waged by the former FIA president. The cause in question was to allow smaller teams to get into Formula 1. This is the outcome: two teams will limp into the start of the championship, a third is being pushed into the ring by an invisible hand – you can be sure it is not the hand of Adam Smith – and, as for the fourth, well, you would do better to call on Missing Persons to locate it. In the meantime, we have lost two constructors along the way, in the shape of BMW and Toyota, while at Renault, there’s not much left other than the name. Was it all worth it?

Yes, this is debatable, but that's just another side of the story.
And still the question holds about the selection. Why those teams and not, say, Lola or Prodrive?
If Stefan had money, why not him right off the bat?
Why FIA is keeping the Williams interest and won't allow client chassis? That could give a short and long term stability to F1.

[WhiteBlue]

The engine discussions shows how it took more than 10 years of insistence by the FiA to achieve a significant cost reduction against the manufacturer teams. At the moment only Cosworth serves as an instrument to prevent the three engine makers to form an oligopoly. The other point that shows the FiA is struggling is the fuel efficiency initiative. Teams play around with aero and ditch KERS while the FiA wants to reduce fuel consumption for many years without much attention by the teams. The 40 mil cap was having endless loop holes and the FiA was quite prepared to implement it in two years instead of instantly. They are equally prepared to do it based on resources as the restriction agreement shows. The core of the problem is Ferrari and other rich teams who never wanted to restrict anything and accept more competitors for the FOM money and had to be forced in the end by other stake holders.

Ferrari are supposed to do their preparations and leave the issue of the new teams to the federation. It is absolutely normal that new teams a struggling after a preparation of only 6 months. An established team complaints if the rules are changed later than 12 months from the first race and they have all the experience, resources and systems in place. How much more tasking is it to make a cold start with 6 months to go?

The selection process was affected by the FiA/FOTA war and the need for the FiA to establish Cosworth as an independent engine supplier. No need to explain this the umptheeth time. Lola, Stefan and Prodrive had no Cossie contract. In my view the selection was as good as it can be under the very difficult circumstances of the break away and the economic crisis. The constant criticism is unfounded. Bitching!

The question of client chassis has been taken to the courts and the FiA worked out a compromise between all parties. Competitors must make their own chassis because it is deemed to be the DNA of the series. This is why Toro Rosso must have their own chassis this year. It makes no sense to overturn that. We would only get satellite teams which would come under team order by the top teams. Independent new teams make a lot more sense.

[Fil]

This is the legacy of the holy war waged by the former FIA president. The cause in question was to allow smaller teams to get into Formula 1. This is the outcome..

It is absolutely normal that new teams a struggling after a preparation of only 6 months.
[..]
An established team complaints if the rules are changed later than 12 months from the first race... How much more tasking is it to make a cold start with 6 months to go?
[..]
In my view the selection was as good as it can be under the very difficult circumstances of the break away and the economic crisis.

And yet the FIA only ever planned to give the new teams from July 2009 to prepare for February 2010. Count the months.. its not even near the 12mths you admit the established teams demand.

The FIA put the new teams under undue time-stress, resulting in the outcome - this is part of the former FIA president's legacy.

[autogyro]

This is the legacy of the holy war waged by the former FIA president. The cause in question was to allow smaller teams to get into Formula 1. This is the outcome..

It is absolutely normal that new teams a struggling after a preparation of only 6 months.
[..]
An established team complaints if the rules are changed later than 12 months from the first race... How much more tasking is it to make a cold start with 6 months to go?
[..]
In my view the selection was as good as it can be under the very difficult circumstances of the break away and the economic crisis.

And yet the FIA only ever planned to give the new teams from July 2009 to prepare for February 2010. Count the months.. its not even near the 12mths you admit the established teams demand.

This was because of the FOTA debacle and the delay caused by their demands for dropping KERS. KERS was to be seperated from the team budget restraints anyway. So other than vested interest in the technology, I cannot see the reasoning by Ferrari in banning it. The FIA were forced to delay the introduction of the 2010 regulations until the 'essential' continuation of KERS was confirmed by Concorde.

The FIA put the new teams under undue time-stress, resulting in the outcome - this is part of the former FIA president's legacy.

It was FOTA that put the teams under stress and this is now obvious. It was in no way the fault of Mosley.

[audifan]

what rubbish from ferrari

toyota and honda left because years of big bucks produced nothing and the economic crisis gave them a get out with some sort of excuse , face is everything in the orient

renault quit because of the cheating debacle ...yes , we all know teams cheat if they can but this really was more than their image could take ....not much returne for their money now

what's it got to do with the new teams coming in ?

[Mr Alcatraz]

Sour grapes, because they know full well they cannot build a winning car without five times the money of any other team.

And this is a provable statement?

Read my post again and do not mis quote me.
McLaren just pretends to be Ferrari, they are both working with unfair advantage.
If Ferrari or McLaren win this year, it will mean absolutely nothing.

In what way did I misquote you?
I simply quoted the last line of your post!

[autogyro]

So far almost all of the posts about Ferrari moans are completely off the mark.
One thing is absolutely true about the press release statement of Montezemelo.
It was an absolute and provable lie.
ALL of the manufacturer teams that left F1 are on Official record as leaving F1 because of financial problems. Ferrari state that this was not the case.
Sour grapes, because they know full well they cannot build a winning car without five times the money of any other team.

You took the last line of my original post and suggested that I included it in the main body of the post which refered to Montezemolos obvious lies in his statements.
The last line was simply my opinion on Ferraris current financial situation.

[Fil]

FIA only ever planned to give the new teams from July 2009 to prepare for February 2010. Count the months.. its not even near the 12mths you admit the established teams demand.

The FIA put the new teams under undue time-stress, resulting in the outcome - this is part of the former FIA president's legacy.

It was FOTA that put the teams under stress and this is now obvious. It was in no way the fault of Mosley.

It was the FIA's decision to announce the 2010 tenders in June 2009. The FIA gave the new teams only 8mths to prepare for 2010.

FOTA only delayed this by a month.

It is obvious the FIA's 8mths was not enough for all successful tenders to prepare for 2010. Who was in charge of the FIA at that point? Today's 50% tender fail-rate is his legacy.

[autogyro]

Sorry I have to say it.
With all due respect 'Rubbish'.
I have never said that 8 Months is to short a time to build a new F1 team.
If you believe it is then please explain why.

FOTA did not just delay this by one Month.
The threats of starting a new series by FOTA and the refusal to accept the FIA budget cuts, resulted in further delay to the potential new teams which is unquantifiable and also placed undue pressure on them to match the level of technology enjoyed by teams such as Ferrari who spend many times more in budget than anyone else. This 'delay'/unfair advantage, continues today.
Motor mouth Montezemola proves this greedy selfish stance every time he speaks.
Like an old drone, jealous of the new young girls on the block.

[timbo]

and also placed undue pressure on them to match the level of technology enjoyed by teams such as Ferrari

Undue pressure? Why is that "undue" pressure?
If I gonna come to next summer Olympics sprint and I gonna challenge Usain Bolt is it undue pressure on me? Should I ask him to run slower?
Oh, and I have my day work and can't spend as much time and money on training as him, so should I ask him to downgrade?

[autogyro]

and also placed undue pressure on them to match the level of technology enjoyed by teams such as Ferrari

Undue pressure? Why is that "undue" pressure?
If I gonna come to next summer Olympics sprint and I gonna challenge Usain Bolt is it undue pressure on me? Should I ask him to run slower?
Oh, and I have my day work and can't spend as much time and money on training as him, so should I ask him to downgrade?

Where is the relevence of your argument?
We are talking about completely variable levels of potential technology based on available budget, not a physical athlete with fixed potential.
These new teams have had no idea on what level of technology to work towards, solely because of Ferrari and FOTA.
If that is not a 'delay' and unfair, then nothing is.

[Mr Alcatraz]

So far almost all of the posts about Ferrari moans are completely off the mark.
One thing is absolutely true about the press release statement of Montezemelo.
It was an absolute and provable lie.
ALL of the manufacturer teams that left F1 are on Official record as leaving F1 because of financial problems. Ferrari state that this was not the case.
Sour grapes, because they know full well they cannot build a winning car without five times the money of any other team.

You took the last line of my original post and suggested that I included it in the main body of the post which refered to Montezemolos obvious lies in his statements.
The last line was simply my opinion on Ferraris current financial situation.

No I didn't, I asked a question! Your post is your post,
and I quoted a part of it. I did not mis quote you.
Did you not notice the question mark after the sentence?
You have answered my question now. You iterated that it is an opinion.
I'm glad we got that straightened out!

[timbo]

These new teams have had no idea on what level of technology to work towards, solely because of Ferrari and FOTA.

Or maybe because the whole 2-tier championship and budget cap were a negotiation point for the first place?
If Mosley really wanted short term stability he could let smaller teams buy chassis, or at least a design.
STR, Super Agury did that and sky didn't fall.
But Williams is too afraid that someone like Super Agury will kick their butt.

It is not possible to reinvent F1 by 9 months.