ferrari veto

[mertol]

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

How is that a bad thing?

[Jonnycraig]

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

Eh? If it's bad for 10/11 teams, they will vote it down with a majority.

Ferrari can veto a passed resolution, they can't pass a rejected resolution.

[turbof1]

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?

So if I am 59 years in the sport and you are 60 years in the sport, you are by default better positioned to block decisions? If you want to look at commitment to the sport, then we can say that all the teams I mentioned are committed to the sport. In my opinion, a veto right requires much more then just being committed to the sport. In my eyes a veto right should only be given to someone who's interests do not weight on the sport. None of the teams qualify for that.

What makes you think any of the other teams are better fit for the veto than Ferrari?

I don't. I am simply stating not one single team is qualified to have it.

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

How is that a bad thing?

Because now the veto can be used not for the good of the sport, but for the good of the self interest. Again, this is not a specific attack on Ferrari. This is a specific attack on a veto right own by a team, no matter who could have the veto.

[mertol]

Nice how you only chose to read the first half of my statement. It's a good thing to have and Ferrari is the best fit there is. The difference might be little but it's there.

[turbof1]

Nice how you only chose to read the first half of my statement. It's a good thing to have and Ferrari is the best fit there is. The difference might be little but it's there.

I don't see how being an engine manufacturer is relevant. It increases one's involvement in the sport yes; it does not increase one's quality of using a veto right properly. I can agree to some level that Ferrari might the be the 'best' there is, given how conservatively they use it, but it's not a good thing to give one single team more power over the sport's rules then the others. Infact rule making should be solely kept to an independent party, with enough power to the teams as a group and not as individual teams to block rule changes. That's ethical, that is correct, and places power in the hands of an entity not benefiting from the rule changes themselves (for the record, the FIA is not such an entity. Not anymore).

[mertol]

Because now the veto can be used not for the good of the sport, but for the good of the self interest. Again, this is not a specific attack on Ferrari. This is a specific attack on a veto right own by a team, no matter who could have the veto.

You are trying to protect F1 from something that never happens - a change that is bad for Ferrari but good for everyone else. By removing the very good possibility of blocking a change that is bad for only part of the teams or any parties involved for that matter.

[mertol]

I don't see how being an engine manufacturer is relevant.

Would Sauber have blocked the engine cap prices to 12M? Would they even care that Renault might leave the sport if that was the case?

[Phil]

Since I brought up Sauber in my last reply, I just want to clarify that I didn't mean that they or any other team are more worthy of a veto. I don't. IMO - the sport should be attractive for what it is and the incentive should be competition and beating your opponents on that basis.

Giving any team the right to veto is just asking for trouble, as that and any team will always put its own interest first. If you want the competitors to be part of the rule making process, then fair enough, give them a single vote to give them some influence. That way, if the majority finds it worthy, it might pass, otherwise it might not.

I really don't see much discussion on why Ferrari should be deemed more worthy than the rest. They are but one team in a pool of around 10. They all are part of it. What I find most disturbing is that this veto isn't something new, it's effectively a long old agreement made under different circumstances and reasons. They don't apply today anymore. It's like the premium payments - once settled, no team in their right mind would want to give them up, so the sport just moves a long with it as long as it can. Doesn't mean it's just, or fair.

People that are impartial to the outcome should make the decisions for all.

[turbof1]

Because now the veto can be used not for the good of the sport, but for the good of the self interest. Again, this is not a specific attack on Ferrari. This is a specific attack on a veto right own by a team, no matter who could have the veto.

You are trying to protect F1 from something that never happens - a change that is bad for Ferrari but good for everyone else. By removing the very good possibility of blocking a change that is bad for only part of the teams or any parties involved for that matter.

No this is exactly what can happen. Red Bull had it happening during 2012, when cold and hot blowing got almost completely removed from the picture. Brabham had it happening when they saw their 'cooling' fan banned. There are more of such examples where one single team got hurt, or by far the most hurt, by a rule change. It can happen to Ferrari as well; probably has already happened to them in the past. And you run the risk that one day they hit a rule change that'll hurt them so much they'll use that veto right. However you twist or turn it; Ferrari, or if in the hands of an other team, will always use that veto right in their own interests. Whether it aligns with the others their interests or not, it does not matter.

Again: not one single team should have this kind of blocking power. Too much for one entity.

Would Sauber have blocked the engine cap prices to 12M? Would they even care that Renault might leave the sport if that was the case?

Would mclaren have? probably, because it otherwise would have freed up budget of their competitors. Hence why an individual veto right is not the correct thing to do. Put in in the hands of all teams; make them for instance only able to use it of 66% or 75% agree with it. Academic research showed that this democratic way gives the better and more optimal solution.

Since I brought up Sauber in my last reply, I just want to clarify that I didn't mean that they or any other team are more worthy of a veto. I don't. IMO - the sport should be attractive for what it is and the incentive should be competition and beating your opponents on that basis.

Indeed Phil. I only used Sauber as an example that there other teams also committed to the sport, to show you can't just hand out veto rights based on commitment.

People that are impartial to the outcome should make the decisions for all.

Which I have been saying to Mertol too: Ferrari will always make veto decisions in their own interests, for the better or the worst. I'm not saying Ferrari made bad use of it, I'm saying you do not give this kind of power at all to an entity who is involved into the game.

[mertol]

If you want the competitors to be part of the rule making process, then fair enough, give them a single vote to give them some influence. That way, if the majority finds it worthy, it might pass, otherwise it might not.

As I said the majority is there for the short term so your suggestion is not better for the sport despite being more fair.

[turbof1]

As I said the majority is there for the short term so your suggestion is not better for the sport despite being more fair.

That's your claim - all are bound by the concorde agreement which makes the teams atleast have to stay until 2020, or pay 100 million in fines for every year to 2020. I think the majority is in the sport for the long term.

[Phil]

I think that's hardly a fair assessment mertol. What is short-term for you? Most teams on the grid have been in F1 for decades. Maybe not always under the same name, but inside F1 one way or another. I'd argue many F1 fans here haven't been watching F1 for more than 10 years, let alone 15. I'm 32 - and I've more or less started watching during the Schumacher period. Even if the average F1 fan is older, I doubt most used to watch during Niki's years.

EDIT: And guess what? Teams are only as long in F1 as it is in their interest. That includes Ferrari too. If Ferrari one day deem that the market has moved on and that F1 is not attractive for them anymore, they will abandon it just like every other manufacturer before them who has. The sport owes nothing to Ferrari and nor does Ferrari owe the sport.

[santos]

Can somebody tell me how many times Ferrari used the power they have with the veto? Because i only hear about one time with Jean Todt and now.

[turbof1]

Can somebody tell me how many times Ferrari used the power they have with the veto? Because i only hear about one time with Jean Todt and now.

2 or 3 times, I believe.

[mertol]

Do they not change their agenda when changing names/ownership? Why would Mercedes care what will happen to the sport if they decide to sell the team tomorrow. Not long ago it was Brawn and Honda how is that long term?