Ferrari's "Special Deal" with Bernie.. The Truth is out!

[timbo]

I for one hvae always failed to understand Ferrari's "special" position within F1, as well as who decided that was the case.

Look at ANY GP grandstand, not even Italian. How many Williams, Renault, McLaren etc banners or caps you see? And how many Ferrari?

[xpensive]

I agree, it's actually somewhat reminicent of a Football game in La liga.

[mcdenife]

xpensive wrote:
Besides, for long periods of time, most recently in 91 - 95, they were basicically nowere and F1 was still there as far as I can recall, no?.

Agree, the truth of the matter is/was that ferrari needed F1 for its survival more that F1 needed ferrari. Its was well known, and probably still is to some extent, that Ferrari made/sold road cars to go racing, so its a nonsense saying they were paid or get preferential treatment so they stay in F1. He may have paid them 80m but the benefit to FOM/Bernie would have been many times that as long as Ferrari were either winning or were always in a position to fight for the championship. And btw that money belongs to all the team and was not out of his own pocket.

Having said all that, bhallg2k is right, ie

di Montezemolo would not be an effective chairman of the FOTA if he did not demand for the teams a greater share of the revenues generated by F1, regardless of whatever side-deal Ferrari has with FOM.

[ernos5]

It is fair enough to say that after Indy, Michelin were not given much encouragement in F1. By the time the tendering process moved on to the award of the contract, there was not much money being placed on Michelin getting the deal. It is debatable whether Michelin were forced out, but it is a valid viewpoint.

A single tyre supplier has been very bad for F1 IMO.

yer i thought it would be good cos i hated Hungary 2006 when Alonso overtook Schumacher around the outside just because of the superior Michelin's so i thought i tyre would be good, non of this crap like above going on. But with one tyre supplier Bridgestone think to themselves "oh were the only company now, so however shitty the tyres are the teams will use them" so they make average tyres, back in 2006 bridgestone were forced to keep up with Michelin in terms of tyre performance and made the cars much faster which was awesome, if only they still used those tyres from late 2006 at least

[jamsbong]

It is fair enough to say that after Indy, Michelin were not given much encouragement in F1. By the time the tendering process moved on to the award of the contract, there was not much money being placed on Michelin getting the deal. It is debatable whether Michelin were forced out, but it is a valid viewpoint.

A single tyre supplier has been very bad for F1 IMO.

yer i thought it would be good cos i hated Hungary 2006 when Alonso overtook Schumacher around the outside just because of the superior Michelin's so i thought i tyre would be good, non of this crap like above going on. But with one tyre supplier Bridgestone think to themselves "oh were the only company now, so however shitty the tyres are the teams will use them" so they make average tyres, back in 2006 bridgestone were forced to keep up with Michelin in terms of tyre performance and made the cars much faster which was awesome, if only they still used those tyres from late 2006 at least

Is true, the single tyre supplier rules makes racing more fair so there is no more unfair racing. I really felt bad for Michael in the rain when the Michelin were having it so easy, although Michael qualify was incredible in China 2006.

Now, bridgestone is using low quality tyres and in many occasions unsuitable tyres for the race. either too soft or too hard.

[bettonracing]

All this talk about Ferrai "selling out"... Do any of You believe for a minute that ANY team would turn down the extra $80mill a year for their allegiance?

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

[xpensive]

What another team would or wouldn't do is hardly the point here, is it now?
The way I see it, the point is that Bernie/FOM decided that one team was worth more money than the others, all based on some mysterious market-value analysis.

Having said that, among the top-teams at the time of a break-away threat from the manufacturers side, there is little doubt in my mind that Ferrari was the team most susceptible to such an offer.

[andartop]

I guess Michelin might have not been "kicked" out of F1 if they hadn't presented themselves in Indy 2005 with a tire that was so inappropriate that it was dangerous, and then tried to blackmail their opponents and FIA to CHANGE THE TRACK in order to fit their tire, effectively holding the spectators hostages! Imagine what might have happened since in F1 if the FIA had succumbed in this completely unreasonable request: every time someone felt they wouldn't be competitive they might threaten to withdraw in the name of safety if last minute changes were not made in the track to suit them better..
It would be interesting to see not what the other teams would have done in Ferrari's place, but whether the other teams KNEW about this deal ALL ALONG, and consented to it because they were "offered" other benefits in return.. or simply because they get more sponsors by participating in a Championship along with Ferrari than they would otherwise!

[Scuderia_Russ]

Yeah, it might sound nice to say that but there have been many rulings and rule changes which have benefited Ferrari especially.

For a start:
- The fast-tracked banning of the use of beryllium in engines which McLaren had sorted out... suddenly it was outlawed - hugely to McLaren's detriment, their closest rivals.

Nothing to do with it being stupidly dangerous and expensive then?

[Scuderia_Russ]

I guess Michelin might have not been "kicked" out of F1 if they hadn't presented themselves in Indy 2005 with a tire that was so inappropriate that it was dangerous, and then tried to blackmail their opponents and FIA to CHANGE THE TRACK in order to fit their tire, effectively holding the spectators hostages! Imagine what might have happened since in F1 if the FIA had succumbed in this completely unreasonable request: every time someone felt they wouldn't be competitive they might threaten to withdraw in the name of safety if last minute changes were not made in the track to suit them better..
It would be interesting to see not what the other teams would have done in Ferrari's place, but whether the other teams KNEW about this deal ALL ALONG, and consented to it because they were "offered" other benefits in return.. or simply because they get more sponsors by participating in a Championship along with Ferrari than they would otherwise!

Exactly! Michelin are no longer in F1 because of their obvious inability to produce a safe tyre. With all of the money and the future of the sport at stake, no one could afford to have Michelin get it so wrong again that they would have to withdraw fro an event. This is unacceptable.

[xpensive]

Question remains, would those unobtanium engines and mass-dampers been outlawed if invented by Ferrari?

But the most outrageous stunt of them all, was to in 2003 send Italian aerodynamicist Antonia Terzi from Ferrari to Williams, which at the time was a serious threat, to lead them on the wrong track with the "walrus" nose.

[timbo]

Question remains, would those unobtanium engines and mass-dampers been outlawed if invented by Ferrari?

Moving floor was banned after Australian GP last year, X-wings were banned at 1998 after Ferrari used them at Imola GP.

But the most outrageous stunt of them all, was to in 2003 send Italian aerodynamicist Antonia Terzi from Ferrari to Williams, which at the time was a serious threat, to lead them on the wrong track with the "walrus" nose.

you've made my day!
I have a worser story, Willy Webber (at alliance with Ferrari because of MS) sent Michael's lesser brother to Williams for a significant drain in team's finances!

[xpensive]

Would you believe me if I tell you that her birth-name was actually Antonia Montezemolo?

[Scuderia_Russ]

But the most outrageous stunt of them all, was to in 2003 send Italian aerodynamicist Antonia Terzi from Ferrari to Williams, which at the time was a serious threat, to lead them on the wrong track with the "walrus" nose.

It's Manchilds son I think... or are you a Daily Mail journalist? So Ferrari sent Terzi to Williams to sabotage heir design efforts....riiiiiiiight.

[Rob W]

Question remains, would those unobtanium engines and mass-dampers been outlawed if invented by Ferrari?

Moving floor was banned after Australian GP last year...

This is quite different because the FIA could not justify in any way, shape or form not immediately banning them without it causing a massive uproar - since the rules were pretty clear-cut. The discovery of the floor, through McLaren's possession of Ferrari documents (correct? or have I got it wrong) led to this. The Renault mass-damper and McLaren use of Beryllium were different scenarios. In McLaren's case the use of berylliun wasn't at all against the rules until the rule-makers stepped in and ruined their party. It put McLaren at a huge disadvantage as they'd developed their engine within the rules and woke up one day to discover they'd had the carpet ripped out from under them.

In Renault's mass-damper case the scenario was even more ludicrous - to have the rules studied over for weeks, if not months, (without doubt with the help of Ferrari) to find any way at all to justify arguing they were outside of 'allowed' devices. Naturally, outside of this small circle, hardly anyone on earth would come to the conclusion that it was an 'aerodynamic device' any more than a steering wheel was (as someone here put it). It was a blatant attempt to help Ferrari - nothing else.

The whole point being - on average Ferrari do very well out of ambiguous rule interpretations, marshal rulings/leniency and technical rule changes over time. Not every case works in their favour, but few don't.