ferrari veto

[FoxHound]

Mercedes has blocked every single attempt to open up engine development untill now after they have won 2 championships

Prove this, if you can.

go look for Wolff"s quote yourself its out there

You mean you can't find it to share with us? Are you sure it's real....

[toraabe]

From my perspective of view no It is a brand like Mercedes or Red Bull, and after their veto, it will only bounce back on them. Regarding Ferrari, I couldn't care less.

There is no difference between Ferrari, Williams or Mercedes.
Why should Ferrari win on behalf of the rest ?
If Ferrari were winning like Mercedes is doing today,
Is that your dream ?
.

The simple answer is that, as unpalatable a fact as it may be, F1 needs Ferrari, now more than ever, and every other team knows it.

Do you belive that there is no difference between Ferrari, Williams, Mclaren and Mercedes? From a commercial view, Ferrari is the most important brand for F1. Even when they don't win people talk about them. In the grandstands people wave flags from ferrari, they wear caps and t-shirts.
All the teams support the veto from Ferrari, i belive that Mercedes is grateful to them by using that power.

[Vasconia]

I agree that Ferrari is more important than Mercedes to the F1, because Mercedes like Renault and Honda may quite in the future if things go wrong for them.

I dont agree with this veto power but if someone should have it it should be Ferrari, Williams and Mclaren which are the historic F1 teams and the ones which will continue to be part of this in the future.

[Phil]

There is one big difference between Ferrari and the other teams. Ferrari are commited to the sport so its future is really important for them. All the other manufacturers are there just for the publicity and might quit at any time.

So why do they need a veto? Sounds like Ferrari relies much on F1 as F1 does on Ferrari. Having said that, I don't agree that Ferrari is no less in "just for the publicity". They are a big team and arguably their heritage and their image of selling beautiful red cars are rooted in their participating of F1. So yes, they are using F1 to promote their image.

If you want a team that does not do that; it's Sauber. They are purely a racing team with little to practically zero involvement outside F1. Not that it matters what a team does inside or outside of F1. If the sport is built around having to give veto power to one of its competitors or any premium payments to keep them inside the sport... something is seriously wrong with that sport.

The sport should be built up in a healthy fashion that makes it attractive for competitors to want to join the competition. Not offer an incentive that's more like holding a gun to your head to stay in it.

[mertol]

The veto has nothing to do with staying in the sport. It's about avoiding bad decisions.

[Phil]

I disagree. It's a form of power. Also an incentive. The more you have, the better and more that binds you to the sport. Think of it this way - why did they get it in the first place? Because at some point, it was deemed that Ferrari are important to the sport and that they could have an active means to dictate in what direction it goes. I see no reason to justify it.

You either have an attractive sport and your competitors, even those that have invested decades into it, stay because the means justify the ends or you don't. If it's attractive, people will want to come. If it isn't, then yes, premium payments and veto-rights are required to make it more attractive than it is.

To the point again; I see Ferrari no more important than the sum of all the other players. Ferrari will not be able to keep the sport alive by themselves if all the others leave.

[turbof1]

The veto has nothing to do with staying in the sport. It's about avoiding bad decisions.

Is one single, selective team both capable and admissible to keep the sport from avoiding bad decisions? No it is not. It was an incentive to stay in the sport given to Ferrari, just like Phil said.

We should be lucky however that Ferrari only uses its veto very sporadically.

[mertol]

This entire thread is just hate on Ferrari. I don't see any of the teams complaining about Ferrari's privileges.

[turbof1]

This entire thread is just hate on Ferrari. I don't see any of the teams complaining about Ferrari's privileges.

That's childish. Nobody spoke ill of Ferrari as the team; there's only a disagreement that it has an exclusive veto right.

For the record, the times they did used their veto I generally agreed with them. I just don't agree them having that veto right; not a single team should have that.

@Foxhound: Mercedes did block last year's attempt on engine development, forcing Ferrari to use the loophole instead. They have been much lenient this year by not opposing it again. However, I wouldn't trust them or anyone else with that veto since Ferrari atleast proved it played that card very conservatively. We don't know how agressive or passive or Mercedes would use it. Not withstanding of course that nobody should have that exclusive veto, not even Ferrari.

[mertol]

There needs to be a way for the teams to refuse stupid decisions and what better way than giving the veto to the team most interested in the good future of the sport? Teams mostly concerned with their short-term publicity should not have that kind of power.

Childish? Like my first post in this thread labeled fanboyism? Give me a break there is downvoting for anyone trying to stand up for Ferrari in this thread.

[turbof1]

There needs to be a way for the teams to refuse stupid decisions and what better way than giving the veto to the team most interested in the good future of the sport? Teams mostly concerned with their short-term publicity should not have that kind of power.

Because it's subjective: you can't give that to a party that will be looking for its own interests. This might sound cold and cynical, so please do not take this as an attack on Ferrari, but Ferrari sees F1 nothing more as a marketing platform for its products, just like about almost every team (we can debate on that concerning Marussia and Sauber). Everybody is concerned for the good future of the sport, as long as it gives themselves a good future in the sport. Again, this not an attack on Ferrari: this is basic assumption for all teams, who will handle in their own interests. And again: Ferrari only used that veto right very sporadically, which I'm extremely glad about.

There are ways for teams already to refuse 'stupid' decisions. If they unanimously, so all teams togethers, vote against particular rule changes, those rule changes will not happen. Back in the days of the FOTA, they have done it several times.

Childish? Like my first post in this thread labeled fanboyism? Give me a break there is downvoting for anyone trying to stand up for Ferrari in this thread.

Which someone else upvoted again, let's not forget that. I do not agree with the downvote, however I also do not agree with your assessment:

There is one big difference between Ferrari and the other teams. Ferrari are commited to the sport so its future is really important for them. All the other manufacturers are there just for the publicity and might quit at any time.

What makes you actually believe that Ferrari is more committed then teams like Williams, Sauber or Mclaren? They all have proven to be long timers. Again the downvote was unnecessary, but I don't really agree that Ferrari is better placed then other teams to have a veto right. We cannot measure that infact.

[mertol]

So if the decision is bad for 10 out of 11 teams it could still pass. Great way indeed.

[SiLo]

When you think about it, its reasons like the Veto that probably help keep Ferrari in F1 in the first place.

[turbof1]

So if the decision is bad for 10 out of 11 teams it could still pass. Great way indeed.

Not necessarily. Even without formal stopping power teams still very much have their weight on the rules. Look back at 2009, when the FOTA temporarily dislodged Williams and Force India, who signed up for the budget cap the FIA wanted to introduce. It decapitated FOTA's formal blocking power, but they threw their weight into it and forced Max Mosley to resign his position as president of the FIA, as well as scrap the budget cap rules.

Turn it around: "if a decision is bad for only 1 out of 11 teams it can still be blocked. Great way indeed."

[mertol]

What makes you actually believe that Ferrari is more committed then teams like Williams, Sauber or Mclaren? They all have proven to be long timers. Again the downvote was unnecessary, but I don't really agree that Ferrari is better placed then other teams to have a veto right. We cannot measure that infact.

Ferrari are both longer in the sport and are engine manufacturer giving them that point of view which might lack to the other 3. What makes you think any of the other teams are better fit for the veto than Ferrari?