why is Ferrari FIA's favorite?
Discussion
I have been watching F1 since roughly 1986, and what surprises me all the time why everybody is convinced that Ferrari is being favoured by the Organisation, but nobody ever addresses the point “why?”
Why would FIA like Ferrari so much more than the others? Wasn’t Ron Dennis not one of the spin doctors who created modern F1 together with Frank Williams, Max Mosley, and Bernie Ecclestone?
Why would FIA like Ferrari so much more than the others? Wasn’t Ron Dennis not one of the spin doctors who created modern F1 together with Frank Williams, Max Mosley, and Bernie Ecclestone?
It all about envy of their recent success in the MS era, what people forget is the large number of lean years that they had when they won SFA.
William and Mclaren have had successful periods also, the Mansell/Hiil days and Senna/Prost respectively, but then they are British teams so can do no wrong in some people's eye's. Whereas it all different for the red's and anyone that drivers for them is the spawn of the devil.
William and Mclaren have had successful periods also, the Mansell/Hiil days and Senna/Prost respectively, but then they are British teams so can do no wrong in some people's eye's. Whereas it all different for the red's and anyone that drivers for them is the spawn of the devil.
They got screwed in 2003 with late rule changes, screwed again in 2006 when FIA switched to single tyre rules.
Then there are numbers of other incidents where their flexy wing, flexy floor rules have suddenly become inflexible and Ferrari have not profited.
Isn't this Ferrari/FIA ideology ultimately just tall poppy syndrome?
Then there are numbers of other incidents where their flexy wing, flexy floor rules have suddenly become inflexible and Ferrari have not profited.
Isn't this Ferrari/FIA ideology ultimately just tall poppy syndrome?
zac510 said:
They got screwed in 2003 with late rule changes, screwed again in 2006 when FIA switched to single tyre rules.
Then there are numbers of other incidents where their flexy wing, flexy floor rules have suddenly become inflexible and Ferrari have not profited.
Isn't this Ferrari/FIA ideology ultimately just tall poppy syndrome?
Let's not forget mass dampers, which IIRC Ferrari were using to, but, to a leser extent so banning them has a lesser effect than on the Renaults.Then there are numbers of other incidents where their flexy wing, flexy floor rules have suddenly become inflexible and Ferrari have not profited.
Isn't this Ferrari/FIA ideology ultimately just tall poppy syndrome?
allegerita said:
I have been watching F1 since roughly 1986, and what surprises me all the time why everybody is convinced that Ferrari is being favoured by the Organisation, but nobody ever addresses the point “why?”
Why would FIA like Ferrari so much more than the others? Wasn’t Ron Dennis not one of the spin doctors who created modern F1 together with Frank Williams, Max Mosley, and Bernie Ecclestone?
money, ferrrai brings in the fans. simple as that. the FIA know the are screwed with out ferrari and ferrari know they are screwed without support from the FIA...Why would FIA like Ferrari so much more than the others? Wasn’t Ron Dennis not one of the spin doctors who created modern F1 together with Frank Williams, Max Mosley, and Bernie Ecclestone?
pablo said:
money, ferrrai brings in the fans. simple as that. the FIA know the are screwed with out ferrari and ferrari know they are screwed without support from the FIA...
i don't think the FIA know they are screwed without ferrari - would F1 crumble if there were no more red cars? max has said in the past that he feels sorry for ferrari cos they are italian so he has to stick up for them IIRC!
It is historical.
There have always been factions in F1. They have normally revolved around the big manufacturers on one side and the ‘kit car’ grouping on the other. Or to put it another way, rich and poor.
In the ‘olden days’ it was not much of a problem as McLaren, Williams, Tyrell et al have regularly trounced the big manufacturers on the circuit. Then came the turbo era and tensions mounted. Then the two factions virtually had their own different groups. Williams were hard hit at one time, ending up with a Judd engine knocking out half the power of the turbos.
With the resurgence of Williams and McLaren, the major manufacturers fell back. Up until 1999, Williams:Ferrari:McLaren had won 9:8:7 championships respectively. However, since then Ferrari have won another 7. That has got to show that things are not well in the sport.
Ferrari have the backing of FIAT and some fag company. That’s a lot of money. I know Italian politics are renowned for the honesty and integrity and there seems little doubt that there are no financial irregularities. But what is true is that Ferrari not only have the most money coming in from sponsors but also are paid money by every other team on the grid. So whilst $1m might not seem a lot to Ferrari, it is an incredible amount to lose for one of the teams at the back of the grid.
MRM has said that Ferrari are the most important team on the grid. This is of course financially. There is a fear that if they should pull out then millions of dollars would disappear from F1’s coffers. And they are probably right as FIAT are hardly likely to put money into another team and Marlboro likewise.
But F1 has survived lots of failures of teams. Lotus and Brabham for instance. It is hard to appreciate how important these teams were to the sport in the days when they were in the ascendant but the sport hardly missed their passing and the same will go for Ferrari.
Remember that Ferrari have been on the rise since MRM took over. It’s not so much whether the FIA favours them as much as whether MRM does as he is the FIA as far as F1 is concerned. It was he who said that Ferrari are the most important team on the grid.
If there is a new concord agreement that has the backing of the teams without MRM’s ability to run roughshod over it, in the manner that he did with the engine regs, then Ferrari might well feel the cold. There has got to be a reason why they have deigned to talk with Eccs and the other teams on a new agreement. Whatever the decision, I can’t see Ferrari getting quite the proportion they have at the moment. That they will get the biggest slice is probably a forgone conclusion as any new concord agreement will need them on board, at least in the early years.
If there is a change in the organisation of F1 that limits MRM’s influence then there is little doubt that Ferrari will have to change fundamentally. They’ll still get the backing of FIAT and fags probably, but they’ve had years where they haven’t had to bother about money. I remember Frank Williams being exasperated in the days of active suspension to find that Ferrari had brand new reservoirs for its cars every race whereas Williams had theirs refurbished, and at 1/10th the cost. It is very hard not to be proliferate when it has been the norm.
But circumstances have changed quite remarkably in recent years. Nowadays there are many more big manufacturers in the pits. If, as seems more possible by the day, Eccs and the teams decide any agreements amongst themselves, the independents will find it even harder to move into F1. Had it not been for MRM the FIA could have been a moderating influence. I’m not so sure now.
Feeder series are there not only for drivers but it should be for manufacturers as well.
Ferrari are the most important team in the sport because they are considered the most important team. This means that they can demand more money from sponsors and the organisation, which means they are even more important and can demand for concessions.
MRM needed Ferrari on his side when he organised his break from the concord agreement and F1 Commission. This was a shrewd move but there has been a perceived shift in power in a sport where perceptions are everything. In the same way that when the USA sneezes, Britain catches a cold, when MRM’s influence becomes problematical, Ferrari . . .
The only real challenger to Ferrari’s dominance was McLaren. $100 million out of their coffers must be like increasing the frontal area of their cars by 50%. It’s something they will have to overcome. That they have overcome this to an extent, and the restrictions on development placed on them, is remarkable. I’m not sure that Ferrari will be able to overcome the turbulent times their money supply will have if a new concord agreement is signed without MRM’s influence in the drafting.
There have always been factions in F1. They have normally revolved around the big manufacturers on one side and the ‘kit car’ grouping on the other. Or to put it another way, rich and poor.
In the ‘olden days’ it was not much of a problem as McLaren, Williams, Tyrell et al have regularly trounced the big manufacturers on the circuit. Then came the turbo era and tensions mounted. Then the two factions virtually had their own different groups. Williams were hard hit at one time, ending up with a Judd engine knocking out half the power of the turbos.
With the resurgence of Williams and McLaren, the major manufacturers fell back. Up until 1999, Williams:Ferrari:McLaren had won 9:8:7 championships respectively. However, since then Ferrari have won another 7. That has got to show that things are not well in the sport.
Ferrari have the backing of FIAT and some fag company. That’s a lot of money. I know Italian politics are renowned for the honesty and integrity and there seems little doubt that there are no financial irregularities. But what is true is that Ferrari not only have the most money coming in from sponsors but also are paid money by every other team on the grid. So whilst $1m might not seem a lot to Ferrari, it is an incredible amount to lose for one of the teams at the back of the grid.
MRM has said that Ferrari are the most important team on the grid. This is of course financially. There is a fear that if they should pull out then millions of dollars would disappear from F1’s coffers. And they are probably right as FIAT are hardly likely to put money into another team and Marlboro likewise.
But F1 has survived lots of failures of teams. Lotus and Brabham for instance. It is hard to appreciate how important these teams were to the sport in the days when they were in the ascendant but the sport hardly missed their passing and the same will go for Ferrari.
Remember that Ferrari have been on the rise since MRM took over. It’s not so much whether the FIA favours them as much as whether MRM does as he is the FIA as far as F1 is concerned. It was he who said that Ferrari are the most important team on the grid.
If there is a new concord agreement that has the backing of the teams without MRM’s ability to run roughshod over it, in the manner that he did with the engine regs, then Ferrari might well feel the cold. There has got to be a reason why they have deigned to talk with Eccs and the other teams on a new agreement. Whatever the decision, I can’t see Ferrari getting quite the proportion they have at the moment. That they will get the biggest slice is probably a forgone conclusion as any new concord agreement will need them on board, at least in the early years.
If there is a change in the organisation of F1 that limits MRM’s influence then there is little doubt that Ferrari will have to change fundamentally. They’ll still get the backing of FIAT and fags probably, but they’ve had years where they haven’t had to bother about money. I remember Frank Williams being exasperated in the days of active suspension to find that Ferrari had brand new reservoirs for its cars every race whereas Williams had theirs refurbished, and at 1/10th the cost. It is very hard not to be proliferate when it has been the norm.
But circumstances have changed quite remarkably in recent years. Nowadays there are many more big manufacturers in the pits. If, as seems more possible by the day, Eccs and the teams decide any agreements amongst themselves, the independents will find it even harder to move into F1. Had it not been for MRM the FIA could have been a moderating influence. I’m not so sure now.
Feeder series are there not only for drivers but it should be for manufacturers as well.
Ferrari are the most important team in the sport because they are considered the most important team. This means that they can demand more money from sponsors and the organisation, which means they are even more important and can demand for concessions.
MRM needed Ferrari on his side when he organised his break from the concord agreement and F1 Commission. This was a shrewd move but there has been a perceived shift in power in a sport where perceptions are everything. In the same way that when the USA sneezes, Britain catches a cold, when MRM’s influence becomes problematical, Ferrari . . .
The only real challenger to Ferrari’s dominance was McLaren. $100 million out of their coffers must be like increasing the frontal area of their cars by 50%. It’s something they will have to overcome. That they have overcome this to an extent, and the restrictions on development placed on them, is remarkable. I’m not sure that Ferrari will be able to overcome the turbulent times their money supply will have if a new concord agreement is signed without MRM’s influence in the drafting.
Seems to be somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy the whole Ferrari/FIA/F1 symbiosis.
Am not an opposer of Ferrari per se and would waaaay rather have them in F1 than not, but do oppose this perception that without them F1 would be a lesser sport and that's what the FIA seem to have bought into lock, stock and barrel.
It's a bit like saying if any one of Man U/Barca/Real/Inter/Juve pulled out of UEFA that the Champions League would be a less interesting event...not really.
Am not an opposer of Ferrari per se and would waaaay rather have them in F1 than not, but do oppose this perception that without them F1 would be a lesser sport and that's what the FIA seem to have bought into lock, stock and barrel.
It's a bit like saying if any one of Man U/Barca/Real/Inter/Juve pulled out of UEFA that the Champions League would be a less interesting event...not really.
Edited by DrTre on Friday 13th June 15:58
E30M3SE said:
It all about envy of their recent success in the MS era, what people forget is the large number of lean years that they had when they won SFA.
William and Mclaren have had successful periods also, the Mansell/Hiil days and Senna/Prost respectively, but then they are British teams so can do no wrong in some people's eye's. Whereas it all different for the red's and anyone that drivers for them is the spawn of the devil.
Correct IMO.William and Mclaren have had successful periods also, the Mansell/Hiil days and Senna/Prost respectively, but then they are British teams so can do no wrong in some people's eye's. Whereas it all different for the red's and anyone that drivers for them is the spawn of the devil.
Zac510 said:
They got screwed in 2003 with late rule changes, screwed again in 2006 when FIA switched to single tyre rules.
Then there are numbers of other incidents where their flexy wing, flexy floor rules have suddenly become inflexible and Ferrari have not profited.
Isn't this Ferrari/FIA ideology ultimately just tall poppy syndrome?
Correct again IMO.Then there are numbers of other incidents where their flexy wing, flexy floor rules have suddenly become inflexible and Ferrari have not profited.
Isn't this Ferrari/FIA ideology ultimately just tall poppy syndrome?
The FIA made a flurry of changes over a long period several years ago that disadvantaged Ferrari and MS, to IMO stop the title being won mid season, which would have resulted in a loss of revenue for the FIA.
So IMO the FIA have made rule changes, and tailored penalties (for drivers and teams) depending on the state of the championship, so as to keep the public interest (and therefore revenue) at a high level for the longest possible time.
out of interest, how did the tyre change go against them (them being Bridgestone runners and everything?). Genuine q ( by which I mean, I'm not being argumentative)
And the flexi floor...c'mon. That was cheating, but they took the ban without complaint IIRC.
And the mass damper? A tin foil wearer might suggest that it was Ferrari not being able to get it to work that spurred its banning
Although i do agree that I thought they made certain changes to stop the "season over half way through the season" shenanigans.
And the flexi floor...c'mon. That was cheating, but they took the ban without complaint IIRC.
And the mass damper? A tin foil wearer might suggest that it was Ferrari not being able to get it to work that spurred its banning
Although i do agree that I thought they made certain changes to stop the "season over half way through the season" shenanigans.
Edited by DrTre on Friday 13th June 17:45
Let's not forget that Ferrari:
- receives money from every other team wanting to compete in F1
- has a handful of representatives in high positions in the FIA
- pays for Mosley's office in Monaco
- gives secret info to other teams and the other teams get punished for it
- has raced illegal cars without penalty, despite the FIA knowing about it at the time
- etc...
- receives money from every other team wanting to compete in F1
- has a handful of representatives in high positions in the FIA
- pays for Mosley's office in Monaco
- gives secret info to other teams and the other teams get punished for it
- has raced illegal cars without penalty, despite the FIA knowing about it at the time
- etc...
This is an interesting question. There wouldn't be a single, overarching reason. There is not normally a single dominant reason why two people are friends, or why X married Y.
In addition to what others have said,
- The guy who runs Ferrari took control there at the same time that Mosley took control of FISA. Effectively, they started in the big time together.
- Most of the folks in positions of importance in F1 are self-made, and came from the working class: Ecclestone, Dennis, Williams. They are commoners.
In contrast, the guy who runs Ferrari is the scion of "aristocrats", as is Mosley. Members of the superior race tend to stick together.
- One cannot know if it is relevant to Max, but the biggest, most reliable supporter of the British Union of Fascists was Mussolini and the Kingdom of Italy.
- Of the top teams, Ferrari seems by far to have been the most biddable. The FIA have been very supportive of Ferrari, but so too have Ferrari been very supportive of the FIA. It was Ferrari who worked with Bernie and the FIA, behind the backs of the other members of the GPMA, to compose a secret deal for a new Concorde Agreement. This agreement saved the bacon of the weakest player of the three, the FIA.
- What are the chances that a Frank Williams or Ron Dennis would even entertain the idea of getting into bed with the regulator, in order to improve his team's position? On this question, people may have different opinions; mine is that there is no chance that either would stoop that low.
Jean Todt used to boast that his team understood and exploited the FIA's structure, processes and mentality better than any other team did, and that this was one of their edges. No doubt it was an edge, even if an unsporting one.
- Over time, these things develop a momentum of their own. Ferrari do a favour for the FIA, the FIA do a favour for Ferrari. After a while, each is so indebted to the other, and has so much on the other, that it becomes infeasible for them to divorce. As there is no middle ground, the result is that they will continue to work for each other's benefit - at least until the cast changes and the personalities on neither side have leverage over those on the other.
In addition to what others have said,
- The guy who runs Ferrari took control there at the same time that Mosley took control of FISA. Effectively, they started in the big time together.
- Most of the folks in positions of importance in F1 are self-made, and came from the working class: Ecclestone, Dennis, Williams. They are commoners.
In contrast, the guy who runs Ferrari is the scion of "aristocrats", as is Mosley. Members of the superior race tend to stick together.
- One cannot know if it is relevant to Max, but the biggest, most reliable supporter of the British Union of Fascists was Mussolini and the Kingdom of Italy.
- Of the top teams, Ferrari seems by far to have been the most biddable. The FIA have been very supportive of Ferrari, but so too have Ferrari been very supportive of the FIA. It was Ferrari who worked with Bernie and the FIA, behind the backs of the other members of the GPMA, to compose a secret deal for a new Concorde Agreement. This agreement saved the bacon of the weakest player of the three, the FIA.
- What are the chances that a Frank Williams or Ron Dennis would even entertain the idea of getting into bed with the regulator, in order to improve his team's position? On this question, people may have different opinions; mine is that there is no chance that either would stoop that low.
Jean Todt used to boast that his team understood and exploited the FIA's structure, processes and mentality better than any other team did, and that this was one of their edges. No doubt it was an edge, even if an unsporting one.
- Over time, these things develop a momentum of their own. Ferrari do a favour for the FIA, the FIA do a favour for Ferrari. After a while, each is so indebted to the other, and has so much on the other, that it becomes infeasible for them to divorce. As there is no middle ground, the result is that they will continue to work for each other's benefit - at least until the cast changes and the personalities on neither side have leverage over those on the other.
uktrailmonster said:
The Ferrari "favouritism" is also widely exaggerated by cynics. It probably does exist in fairness, . . .
Where a few tenths of a second can cover the first few rows of the grid, a slight advantage is worth killing for.There are skilled, imaginative, intelligent and well educated engineers on all teams designing new bits for the cars and feeling that they have earned their wages if they can decrease the lap times by half a tenth. And then, after all that work, one's competitors can photograph your advantage and then work out themselves what it does and make their own, and probably a bit better.
What every team needs is an advantage the other teams can't copy. For instance a flexible floor. Or, of course, special consideration from the legislators. Any slight advantage there is a massive one because other teams can't copy it.
RD has a weakness. One of the important things in sport, as is seen in football and rugby type games, is that you have to play the referee to be successful. RD seems to put the backs up of the posh mob and MRM, of course, has posh parents. Sir and lady Ozzy M. His mother was the daughter of an earl, viscount, equerry or something similar. All rather pathetic but vitally important to those to those who think such things are vitally important.
But Ferrari, with the help of the Italian government, put on the style. They play the FIA and MRM cleverly in a way that no other team can. I suppose you can't blame them but you can blame those they influence.
Before MRM took over the running of F1 it didn't matter as Ferrari needed every bit of help it could get. But with MRM came Todt, MS, Ross Brawn, Rory Byrne and the rest. Once the Italians were removed from the Italian team they started winning. The current team bosses reckon they are favouring Italian nationals and MRM is losing influence so there would appear to be little hope for them for the future. Their willingness to speak with Eccs and the other teams shows that there are concerns in the Ferrari camp.
I can’t help but feel their advantage is slipping away. I would assume the days of $100,000,000 fines for their major challenger are over. MRM just doesn’t seem to have the same clout now.
Why Ferrari is the FIA’s favourite team would appear to be an historical question.
While I agree with all of what has been posted here in regard to Ferraris current favourite status & its relationship with MRM, its worth noting that historicaly they have always had a degree of influence.
When the 3.5 atmos were going to be introduced for 1989 they were originally going to be limited to V10s. Ferrari say they are thinking of going CART racing and even build a prototype, magically 12 cylinders are allowed.....
When the 3.5 atmos were going to be introduced for 1989 they were originally going to be limited to V10s. Ferrari say they are thinking of going CART racing and even build a prototype, magically 12 cylinders are allowed.....
Bitter'n'Twisted said:
The FIA made a flurry of changes over a long period several years ago that disadvantaged Ferrari and MS, to IMO stop the title being won mid season, which would have resulted in a loss of revenue for the FIA.
So IMO the FIA have made rule changes, and tailored penalties (for drivers and teams) depending on the state of the championship, so as to keep the public interest (and therefore revenue) at a high level for the longest possible time.
And you just reminded me of the biggest one of all, the changing of the points structure, formulated to stop one MS winning the title mid season!So IMO the FIA have made rule changes, and tailored penalties (for drivers and teams) depending on the state of the championship, so as to keep the public interest (and therefore revenue) at a high level for the longest possible time.
zac510 said:
Bitter'n'Twisted said:
The FIA made a flurry of changes over a long period several years ago that disadvantaged Ferrari and MS, to IMO stop the title being won mid season, which would have resulted in a loss of revenue for the FIA.
So IMO the FIA have made rule changes, and tailored penalties (for drivers and teams) depending on the state of the championship, so as to keep the public interest (and therefore revenue) at a high level for the longest possible time.
And you just reminded me of the biggest one of all, the changing of the points structure, formulated to stop one MS winning the title mid season!So IMO the FIA have made rule changes, and tailored penalties (for drivers and teams) depending on the state of the championship, so as to keep the public interest (and therefore revenue) at a high level for the longest possible time.
Yes, the change was made to prevent anyone from winning the title mid-season. It was not, however, made to make it less likely that Schumacher or another Ferrari driver won the title at the end of the season.
The F1 points structure has been changed several times. The most recent instance was indeed when Ferrari and Schumacher were riding high, but it was not changed in order to benefit Ferrari's competitors. There is no reason why this change would have benefited Ferrari's competitors more than it benefited Ferrari.
If anything, it was more likely to benefit Ferrari. The change was made for 2003. In the previous season, Schumacher had not had a single DNF. If his (or anyone's) record had been a pattern of win-or-bust, then that driver would have favoured the previous scoring system that had a wider points gap between 1st and 2nd. The driver of a car that always finished, but did not win whenever he finished, would want a narrower gap, making it more likely that he always got big if not maximum points.
The '03 change was made in order to prolong the competition, but that is entirely different from the change's making it more difficult for a Ferrari driver ultimately to win the championship.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff