WhiteBlue wrote:[...]
It is the legacy of the FOCA cartel and their power over F1 via the series of concord agreements that has driven manufacturers out of GP racing. The chassis constructors ultimately have the say and they will prevent power train developments to become a source of competitive advantage in a significant way.
Until that unbalance is addressed F1 will suffer. Ferrari can lament it, as Montezemolo usually does once or twice per year. But that will not help as long as Ferrari continues to stab any initiative like the GPMA in the back. The manufacturers can only hope for increased cooperation with the FiA in order to change the rule making powers in F1. Aero needs to be homologated to stop spiraling costs there. Then increasing funds can go back into drive train development.
[...]
Toyota left the sport in 2009 because its
net revenues had fallen nearly 22% from the year before. Honda left the sport in 2009 because its
net income had fallen 77% from the year before. BMW left the sport in 2009 because its
net profit had fallen nearly 50% from the year before. Renault sold the majority of its team to Genii Capital in 2010 because its
net income had fallen a whopping 612% in 2009. These were purely economic decisions brought on by the collapse of the world economy.
Automakers have a long history of using F1 as a marketing vehicle when conditions are suitable. When conditions change, they leave, but not before their expenditures drive up the cost to compete for the other teams. (see: F1 ca. 1999-2009)
Like it or not, the long-term health of F1 rests solely in the hands of those teams, or "chassis constructors," who have a long history within the sport. That means teams like Ferrari, McLaren, and Williams should absolutely be given priority treatment over the marketing interests of automakers, because they're the only teams virtually assured to stick around.
In my view, Formula One loses its way when it tries to be anything other than a racing series.
