Okay my view on it;
First of all, he is talking about relevance to road cars. Has F1 ever had any relevance to road cars? No, so why should it start out of a sudden.
And about less spending, guess what is done the past 10 years already, and look what has happened. The costs have been cut drasticly so that a team like HRT could survive, yet you as Ferrari still spend more. Why? Because they have the money available. What a hypocrites there, they constantly complain about how costs should be cut, yet still spend the same amount of money. They make every effort that has done to reduce costs look like it never happened. If he wants to cut the costs that bad, why not start already? Yet he does not, so about that he seriously shouldnt say anything, but we all know it is for him to sound better to all those people who think costs should be cut everywhere, and then with this money saved he can fill his pockets a little more.
"So it's better to say we'll allow, due to the economic crisis in the world, use of a wind tunnel for example 10 days per month. If you are the best, you are the best; if you're not the best, then end...that's it.
Isnt that already the case, I mean if you arent in first you arent the best, simple as 1 2 3
"We have to look. For me Ferrari has been in Formula 1 for more than 60 years and success in Formula 1 is crucial. Ferrari will remain in Formula 1 if Formula 1 is Formula 1 - it's not a race for electric cars or for games.
And he wants F1 to have more relevance yet doesnt want to go electric, doesnt a lot road cars go electric? He is contradicting himself here.
"It's innovation technology and if we have to spend money, we spend money for advanced research and not to do something that has nothing to do with competition. We have a good dialogue and if we can continue like this then I have a positive opinion."
And here he suddenly wants it to have an effect on competition, but these 24hours wind tunnel jobs arent okay? Isnt that part of the competition?
"At that time BMW were there, Honda were there, Toyota were there...so it was a different moment. Today, we came out from FOTA because, to be honest, we don't want it that a lot of small teams don't permit us to look ahead. I'm the first person to say 'priority less cost' but this doesn't mean that we have all to be the same.
"In sport, it's good that if you have a Manchester United and you have a Fulham, just to make an example, you have Real Madrid and Seville. I don't want it that everybody has to spend exactly the same or you're not allowed to do testing. I want to have rules that permit us to spend less, because if I don't do that you say 'This is the limit to spend'...how can you control this?
And here he is saying how because of reduced cost an HRT could even win. Yet that is wrong? Didnt he jsut want reduced cost and competitiviness? Isnt a sport more competitive when more teams can go for the first place? also it sometimes happens that an Fulham defeats a Manchester United.
And from here on I am done. A whole article and he havent said a damn thing, he only says things people want to hear. He wants to cut costs by a large amount, but doesnt want it to give the ability for HRT to win due to the budgets. Also he wants to increase competitiviness, but doesnt want to give a lesser team the chance to win with this.
With every point he gives he contradicts himself on another. Just like a load of other articles he just says a lot of words, but in the end says absolutely nothing useful. And dont get me wrong, Withmarsh does the same, so does Horner, so does everyone.
And is a 65 year old seriously saying what would be good for the younger generation? Seriously? We all know how great that goes with the internet, where also people of this age are trying to manage something for the youth.
Give me a break (but not a summerbreak).
