Jump to content


Photo

LdM on artificial racing and Ferrari continuing in F1


  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

#1 monacogp

monacogp
  • Member

  • 76 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 April 2011 - 11:21


Ferrari threatens to ditch artificial F1

The question is voluntarily provocative, though the conclusion quasi-inescapable.....

Advertisement

#2 sosidge

sosidge
  • Member

  • 1,669 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 15 April 2011 - 11:27

I agree with the sentiments although I doubt there is any serious intention by Ferrari to leave the sport at the moment.

It's the start of a bargaining process, no more.

#3 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 15 April 2011 - 11:31

More to do with the 4pot engine i think.. If it's a V6 then they can have a 166C...

#4 Stormsky68

Stormsky68
  • Member

  • 1,623 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 15 April 2011 - 11:43

Its just an opening negotiation position to counter Bernie's opening position which will no doubt be at the extreme opposite of the spectrum.

#5 wj_gibson

wj_gibson
  • Member

  • 2,249 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 15 April 2011 - 11:46

If Ferrari said "sod it, we're going to run at Fiorano all May" would they really be thrown out of the championship, do you think?

#6 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 15 April 2011 - 12:30

More to do with the 4pot engine i think.. If it's a V6 then they can have a 166C...


I agree.

It's the last line that suggests that:

Ferrari will continue to be there, so long as the sport gives us back something for the development of technology of our production cars. Otherwise not



#7 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 15 April 2011 - 12:37

Ferrari threatens to leave F1 every year.

#8 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,758 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 April 2011 - 12:40

Luca spouts this rubbish every week... uses the football training analogy and then says it would be better if the lower teams could run Ferraris...

F1 is as important to Ferrari as they are to F1. It's not worth them leaving for all the negative press they would get... I don't think the Tifosi would be so fervent in their support if the Scuderia was just racing in Le Mans or something...

#9 Les

Les
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 15 April 2011 - 13:16

If Ferrari said "sod it, we're going to run at Fiorano all May" would they really be thrown out of the championship, do you think?


Another year and another threat by Ferrari to quit the sport.

To answer the above question there's no way I could see Ferrari being thrown out of the championship. I think there would be a major hoo-ha between the teams (especially McLaren) if they did but I think it would probably just signal the end of the testing immediately.

Edited by Les, 15 April 2011 - 13:17.


#10 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 15 April 2011 - 13:19

I agree with the sentiments although I doubt there is any serious intention by Ferrari to leave the sport at the moment.

It's the start of a bargaining process, no more.



Perhaps, but the man has a point to make, and I do agree with him totally. Character of F1 today si not what drew me to the sport many years ago.

Edited by Sakae, 15 April 2011 - 13:19.


#11 Brandz07

Brandz07
  • Member

  • 3,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 April 2011 - 13:21

They wouldn't be giving these statements if they were 1st in the championship, bad losers tbh.

just like after singapore 2008, saying it was a joke because of their double DNF, i bet they weren't saying that after fernando won it 2 years later.

Edited by Brandz07, 15 April 2011 - 13:28.


#12 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 15 April 2011 - 13:22

Is it me or is the thread title a little, a by a little I mean very, misleading? :confused:

With regards to LDM, he will say and negotiate on behalf of his team and its interests. If Ferrari considers 4 cylinder turbo engines a waste of resources (which to be perfectly honest I agree with) then he will negotiate to try and get what he considers is the most beneficial deal for his company and team. And sometimes negotiations start by reminding the other party that it is a negotiation, not a unilateral decision. Bernie has already started buying his way into FOTA (HRT) obviously aiming at breaking them up, that's also a negotiating tactic.

#13 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,758 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 April 2011 - 13:28

They wouldn't be giving these statements if they were 1st in the championship, bad losers tbh.


Indeed, or even if they thought they'd be comfortably competitive within this new set of regulations.

Luca's braggadocio (from what I've learned is Italian for bollocks) often says to me that he's not that sure his technical department can guarantee success with 4-cyl engines and different aero regs. Screw his idea that it's down to these rules not applying to Ferrari road cars, neither do the 2.4 V8's, or the 3.0 V10's. Neither configuration has made it's way into a Ferrari road car, and nor will a 1.6 4cyl. But Ferrari are eventually going to have to justify building big supercars by introducing smaller, more frugal models (see Aston Martin and their IQ/Cygnet), and if they want power for capacity, small, turbo engines are the way to go...

Edited by DanardiF1, 15 April 2011 - 13:29.


#14 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 15 April 2011 - 13:35

Indeed, or even if they thought they'd be comfortably competitive within this new set of regulations.

Luca's braggadocio (from what I've learned is Italian for bollocks) often says to me that he's not that sure his technical department can guarantee success with 4-cyl engines and different aero regs. Screw his idea that it's down to these rules not applying to Ferrari road cars, neither do the 2.4 V8's, or the 3.0 V10's. Neither configuration has made it's way into a Ferrari road car, and nor will a 1.6 4cyl. But Ferrari are eventually going to have to justify building big supercars by introducing smaller, more frugal models (see Aston Martin and their IQ/Cygnet), and if they want power for capacity, small, turbo engines are the way to go...



Difference is that Ferrari is making money, selling big gaz guzzling supercars, Aston Martin isn't ;)

This notion that everything needs to be cut down and accessible to all never sat well with me. If you can sell $1500 shoes like Louboutin does and be successful, mo power to you. Not everybody needs to include themselves in the $50 bin. Same applies to cars. If you can charge $200,000 for your cars and make a profit you don't need to go sell cars to suburban housewives.

#15 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,758 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 April 2011 - 13:43

Difference is that Ferrari is making money, selling big gaz guzzling supercars, Aston Martin isn't ;)

This notion that everything needs to be cut down and accessible to all never sat well with me. If you can sell $1500 shoes like Louboutin does and be successful, mo power to you. Not everybody needs to include themselves in the $50 bin. Same applies to cars. If you can charge $200,000 for your cars and make a profit you don't need to go sell cars to suburban housewives.


I agree, but my point was that they'll find uses for the technology involved in making a 4cyl turbo engine. It wasn't any trouble for them in the 80's to make a V6 turbo, so why now?

#16 ashnathan

ashnathan
  • Member

  • 5,018 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 15 April 2011 - 13:53

Ferrari do this every year. I for one, am behind them this time (as i was in 2009 also), the FIA is position the sport for an 'electric championship' which i think, and i excuse my language, is total bullshit.

#17 Morbus

Morbus
  • Member

  • 450 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 15 April 2011 - 14:09

Difference is that Ferrari is making money, selling big gaz guzzling supercars, Aston Martin isn't ;)

This notion that everything needs to be cut down and accessible to all never sat well with me. If you can sell $1500 shoes like Louboutin does and be successful, mo power to you. Not everybody needs to include themselves in the $50 bin. Same applies to cars. If you can charge $200,000 for your cars and make a profit you don't need to go sell cars to suburban housewives.

The cygnet exists because of regulations that require all manufacturers have to have an average CO2 emitions rate or something. Ferrari are really big FIATS, so they have the panda. Aston Martin is independent. They need small cars.


#18 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 15 April 2011 - 14:09

Usual negotiation strategy by the F1 teams: create the regulatory problem figleaf to cover for what they're really after in the negotiations ... more cash.

#19 toxicfusion

toxicfusion
  • Member

  • 520 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 April 2011 - 14:11

As I said in the Ferrari thread this will never get as far as them leaving because Ferrari are important to F1 as F1 is important to Ferrari.

The World Motor Sport Council have approved the engine regs in 2013, bar some freak of nature I can't see them changing their minds. Everyone is going to have to adapt, simple as that.

In season testing, in some form, will have to make a return in 2013 with the new engine regulations, or we'll get races where over half the field retire because their engines give out. It could be that is what Ferrari are after and are making a lot of noise to get that from the FIA.



Advertisement

#20 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,105 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 15 April 2011 - 14:23

I agree, but my point was that they'll find uses for the technology involved in making a 4cyl turbo engine. It wasn't any trouble for them in the 80's to make a V6 turbo, so why now?


Quite so.

Ferrari aren't successful in Formula One because they make powerful road cars, they're successful in Formula One and make powerful road cars because they've got one of the most formidable concentrations of automotive engineering skill on planet Earth.

#21 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 15 April 2011 - 14:30

Usual negotiation strategy by the F1 teams: create the regulatory problem figleaf to cover for what they're really after in the negotiations ... more cash.


This :up:

#22 SRi130Brett

SRi130Brett
  • Member

  • 341 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 15 April 2011 - 14:44

Leave Luca, I dare you.

Boring, Ferrari trot this line out every time a reg changes that they dont like. The truth is they 'need' F1 as much as F1 'needs' them (Ive always felt this fact is overplayed and without Ferrari F1 would tick over much the same)

#23 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 15 April 2011 - 14:55

LdMs issues with F1 ATM have little to do with "Buttons on the steering wheel" or "artificial racing".

His real objections are:

1) Ferrari are not winning
2) Income spread vis-a-vis FOM
3) Budget restrictions
4) New engine proposals

#24 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,450 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 15 April 2011 - 16:32

I can, to some extent, agree with the sentiments, but other than that I don't believe there is any sincerity to his remarks. If anything, the powers that be should call his bluff.

#25 Callisto

Callisto
  • Member

  • 2,672 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 15 April 2011 - 16:38

LdMs issues with F1 ATM have little to do with "Buttons on the steering wheel" or "artificial racing".

His real objections are:

1) Ferrari are not winning
2) Income spread vis-a-vis FOM
3) Budget restrictions
4) New engine proposals

I agree :up:

#26 simplyfast

simplyfast
  • Member

  • 867 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 15 April 2011 - 16:54

I guess luca has figured out they cant win this year already and is throwing his toys out of his pram and demanding either make F1 so we win or we leave.
All i can say is please ensure the door hits you hard on the way out. :wave:

Edited by simplyfast, 15 April 2011 - 16:58.


#27 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 15 April 2011 - 16:58

I am puzzled why people cannot focus on what is being said, rather than why? The man has enough credibility to fill void in leadership which is missing in F1, and that is non-existent from British side. Notwithstanding speculation about his motives, he is absolutely on the target. Period.

Deal with it.

#28 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,484 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 15 April 2011 - 16:59

Whatever he says, Ferrari go where the money is regardless of anything else.

#29 Scudetto

Scudetto
  • Member

  • 8,047 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 15 April 2011 - 17:04

LdMs issues with F1 ATM have little to do with "Buttons on the steering wheel" or "artificial racing".

His real objections are:

1) Ferrari are not winning
2) Income spread vis-a-vis FOM
3) Budget restrictions
4) New engine proposals


As to points 1, 3 and 4, Luca would be doing his job as head of Ferrari if he didn't have objections to those issues. As to point 2, LdM is not alone among team leaders who want to see a larger income distribution.

It's obviously political posturing on his part but his sentiments are well grounded. Every KERS/DRS pass is a complete and utter falsehood. It's not racing when a leading car is regulated into a disadvantage merely for the purpose of engineering a pass for the benefit of "fans" without an attention span. F1 in 2011 is bullshit.

Edited by Scudetto, 15 April 2011 - 17:05.


#30 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 15 April 2011 - 17:05

I am puzzled why people cannot focus on what is being said, rather than why? The man has enough credibility to fill void in leadership which is missing in F1, and that is non-existent from British side. Notwithstanding speculation about his motives, he is absolutely on the target. Period.

Deal with it.


I tend to agree but Ferrari was very much involved in framing the current rules and was the most vocal critic of the only coherent alternative that was put forward (Mosley's budget cap).
It would be much easier to focus on what has been said if he put forward what he was in favour of, rather than what he is against.



#31 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 15 April 2011 - 17:05

@P123
Like Toyota?
Like Honda?

After several decades in F1 I think they own the damn thing. LdM is a leader for this automaker, and he must not allow value to be underminded by the nonsence at the end of the grid, just as some plans for the future. It's his duty to exert his influence upon the situation, and choose the best option. I think that I can understand that.

Edited by Sakae, 15 April 2011 - 17:07.


#32 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 15 April 2011 - 17:11

As to points 1, 3 and 4, Luca would be doing his job as head of Ferrari if he didn't have objections to those issues. As to point 2, LdM is not alone among team leaders who want to see a larger income distribution.

It's obviously political posturing on his part but his sentiments are well grounded. Every KERS/DRS pass is a complete and utter falsehood. It's not racing when a leading car is regulated into a disadvantage merely for the purpose of engineering a pass for the benefit of "fans" without an attention span. F1 in 2011 is bullshit.


I don't disagree but you make it sound as if Ferrari had no part in how the current rules are structured.
It was FOTA who proposed DRS, something that could not have happened if Ferrari had a strong objection


#33 Villes Gilleneuve

Villes Gilleneuve
  • Member

  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 15 April 2011 - 17:20

I am puzzled why people cannot focus on what is being said, rather than why? The man has enough credibility to fill void in leadership which is missing in F1, and that is non-existent from British side. Notwithstanding speculation about his motives, he is absolutely on the target. Period.

Deal with it.


I thought the Schumacher era of the secret technical veto was artificial racing.

While I agree with what he's saying, this guy is one of the main reasons why F1 is in the state it is.

Anyway, now he's off to Italian politics, that cornucopia of morality. Bunga bunga.

Edited by Villes Gilleneuve, 15 April 2011 - 17:23.


#34 simplyfast

simplyfast
  • Member

  • 867 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 15 April 2011 - 17:23

I don't disagree but you make it sound as if Ferrari had no part in how the current rules are structured.
It was FOTA who proposed DRS, something that could not have happened if Ferrari had a strong objection

It amazes me how many so called followers of F1 who support Ferrari all seam to think that all the rules are made by the FIA while fastidiously ignoring the fact that FOTA and OTWG probably have more input than anything else and who are the people in these two goups yup the teams.
Ferrari agreed to all these rules and when they suddenly dont work out for them they start crying its not fair either play our way or we will go home.
Sounds more like a spoilt brat five year old throwing a temper tantrum than a head of a multi-national company.
They can only do this so long before teh rest of teh sport say ok then go on leave we are bored of your antics you create more problems than you are worth.
No one and no team is irreplaceable no matter what a few fans think the sport is far bigger than any team Ferrari included.
Their fans may not like it but its a fact.

#35 chrcol

chrcol
  • Member

  • 1,010 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 15 April 2011 - 17:24

after seeing the farce that brings down a good driver like lewis in the last race I agree with his views.

#36 Stormsky68

Stormsky68
  • Member

  • 1,623 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 15 April 2011 - 17:26

I am puzzled why people cannot focus on what is being said, rather than why? The man has enough credibility to fill void in leadership which is missing in F1, and that is non-existent from British side. Notwithstanding speculation about his motives, he is absolutely on the target. Period.

Deal with it.


Because if he was really concerned he would have gone with the breakaway series, and had a lion's share say on how that series was run.

The FIA's version of F1 would be just about finished right now without the big names in it.

He didn't. This is just a bull5hit attempt to get maximum revenues from Bernie by taking a hardline opening negotiation position.

Ferrari leave FIA's version of F1? Do me a favour....

Edited by Stormsky68, 15 April 2011 - 17:26.


#37 Villes Gilleneuve

Villes Gilleneuve
  • Member

  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 15 April 2011 - 17:34

Ferrari leave FIA's version of F1? Do me a favour....


I think that would be an outstanding idea.
Mosley (Smithers) keeps sacrificing virgins somewhere to keep Bernie (Monty Burns) alive, and the rest of the sport is lousy with douchebags in yachts.

It's time for a real break away F1 series, away from the FIA.

Start with 12 races in Europe only ..hell, maybe even France!

#38 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,450 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 15 April 2011 - 17:52

I am puzzled why people cannot focus on what is being said, rather than why? The man has enough credibility to fill void in leadership which is missing in F1, and that is non-existent from British side. Notwithstanding speculation about his motives, he is absolutely on the target. Period.

Deal with it.


Because the words would carry more weight if the over-riding message wasn't we will take our ball away if we don't get our own way.

#39 Scudetto

Scudetto
  • Member

  • 8,047 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 15 April 2011 - 18:07

I don't disagree but you make it sound as if Ferrari had no part in how the current rules are structured.
It was FOTA who proposed DRS, something that could not have happened if Ferrari had a strong objection


Of course DRS was a FOTA concoction. Didn't mean to imply that it wasn't. But what sometimes looks good in theory often sucks in practice. Dominicalli, never mind several drivers, voiced doubts about DRS before a single 2011 car turned a wheel in testing.

Advertisement

#40 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,568 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 15 April 2011 - 18:09

our own way.


What it matters is if the "our own way" is or is not good. If what is said have merit jump in it and steer it too. Everyone is defending their interests.

#41 FlatOverCrest

FlatOverCrest
  • Member

  • 2,823 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 15 April 2011 - 18:10

I applaud Luca for raising it. He is right...a 1.6L 4 Pot Turbo has no place in the Ferrari lineup. While there is no 2.4 V8 road car, they do have V8's and that is a close enough link. Ferrari soul and spirit is often described by the sound their engines make. A 1.6 Turbo simply is not going to create that magic ingredient, a V6 certainly could.

But unfortunately, F1 is being hijacked now by minority view yet again, that wants to use it for their own aims, with even the EU now wanting F1 to go electric. If you take the millions and millions of people that watch F1 and enjoy the spectacle and 'sound' of a screaming V8-V10-V12 either today or in the past, I am pretty sure the number of people would significantly outnumber those trying to push F1 down this path. So much for democracy eh?

I can hardly see Mercedes hanging around too long using F1 to promote its A Class engine technology...or McLaren for that matter, will they really build an MP412C with a 1.6L Turbo?

Ferrari have left the championship before and I could see them doing it again, along with maybe Mercedes, but then I could also see several new manufacturers stepping in, like Honda, Toyota, VW, etc with product lines similar to the engine type.

So F1 could indeed change significantly IMHO from 2013 onwards, if the current planned format is indeed pushed forward. Question is... would it be for the better, or worse? and if FOTA decided to break away and run their own series based to the same format but with existing engine types, where would that leave the FIA? I can see this becoming a much bigger issue as this year goes on, as teams will have to have the prototype engines running by the end of this year if they are to be implemented by 2013, ready to race.

#42 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,489 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 15 April 2011 - 18:12

Ferrari are out of date.

Supercars are increasingly ridiculous and redundant.

4 cylinder turbos are where current technology is going and so should F1. Followed by increasing use of kers and, when they sort out energy storage, electric.

F1 has always been about cutting edge technology, V8's, V12's etc have as much relevance is american muscle cars.

Time to move on or become an irrelevant sideshow.

#43 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 9,347 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 15 April 2011 - 18:18

Montezemolo has been vocal about the current direction of F1 for some time now. He is just using Ferrari's standing in F1 as a bargaining chip.

Nothing new here but I am enjoying the constant digs at Ferrari despite Montezemolo being spot on with his assessment. Sad really.

#44 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 9,347 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 15 April 2011 - 18:24

The two most powerful voices in Formula 1 are opposing plans to introduce "green" engines as the sport counts the cost of developing expensive new technology.


http://news.bbc.co.u...ne/13090581.stm

Seems Ferrari are not the only team moaning. I don't have a subscription but I assume it would be Mercedes.

#45 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,450 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 15 April 2011 - 18:27

I applaud Luca for raising it. He is right...a 1.6L 4 Pot Turbo has no place in the Ferrari lineup. While there is no 2.4 V8 road car, they do have V8's and that is a close enough link. Ferrari soul and spirit is often described by the sound their engines make. A 1.6 Turbo simply is not going to create that magic ingredient, a V6 certainly could.

But unfortunately, F1 is being hijacked now by minority view yet again, that wants to use it for their own aims, with even the EU now wanting F1 to go electric. If you take the millions and millions of people that watch F1 and enjoy the spectacle and 'sound' of a screaming V8-V10-V12 either today or in the past, I am pretty sure the number of people would significantly outnumber those trying to push F1 down this path. So much for democracy eh?

I can hardly see Mercedes hanging around too long using F1 to promote its A Class engine technology...or McLaren for that matter, will they really build an MP412C with a 1.6L Turbo?

Ferrari have left the championship before and I could see them doing it again, along with maybe Mercedes, but then I could also see several new manufacturers stepping in, like Honda, Toyota, VW, etc with product lines similar to the engine type.

So F1 could indeed change significantly IMHO from 2013 onwards, if the current planned format is indeed pushed forward. Question is... would it be for the better, or worse? and if FOTA decided to break away and run their own series based to the same format but with existing engine types, where would that leave the FIA? I can see this becoming a much bigger issue as this year goes on, as teams will have to have the prototype engines running by the end of this year if they are to be implemented by 2013, ready to race.


That wasn't what the EU said at all.

#46 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,105 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 15 April 2011 - 18:28

http://news.bbc.co.u...ne/13090581.stm

Seems Ferrari are not the only team moaning. I don't have a subscription but I assume it would be Mercedes.


Maybe Bernie? Alongside Luca diM I mean.

#47 FlatOverCrest

FlatOverCrest
  • Member

  • 2,823 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 15 April 2011 - 18:28

Ferrari are out of date.
Supercars are increasingly ridiculous and redundant.
4 cylinder turbos are where current technology is going and so should F1. Followed by increasing use of kers and, when they sort out energy storage, electric.
F1 has always been about cutting edge technology, V8's, V12's etc have as much relevance is american muscle cars.
Time to move on or become an irrelevant sideshow.


Er..hate to burst the bubble...but...
Some of the latest V8's, especially the new Twin Turbo units from Mercedes are absolutely cutting edge technology!

Have we now turned into a communist state where people will be 'told' what they can and cannot drive? If people want to buy V8's why shouldn't they? as to the American muscle car, that market is alive and well. You may not agree with it, but surely its not your place to tell people whether they should or should not have such a car.

But I guess I am biased, as I am about to buy a 5.2l V10! :p At least my sideshow will sound good! :lol:

#48 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,489 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 15 April 2011 - 18:28

http://news.bbc.co.u...ne/13090581.stm

Seems Ferrari are not the only team moaning. I don't have a subscription but I assume it would be Mercedes.


Bernie and Ferrari I think.

#49 FlatOverCrest

FlatOverCrest
  • Member

  • 2,823 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 15 April 2011 - 18:30

That wasn't what the EU said at all.


I know, they said they wanted more Electric vehicles in FIA race series...but everyone knows where that would then head.

Edited by FlatOverCrest, 15 April 2011 - 18:31.


#50 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,105 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 15 April 2011 - 18:31

Ferrari are out of date.

Supercars are increasingly ridiculous and redundant.

4 cylinder turbos are where current technology is going and so should F1. Followed by increasing use of kers and, when they sort out energy storage, electric.

F1 has always been about cutting edge technology, V8's, V12's etc have as much relevance is american muscle cars.

Time to move on or become an irrelevant sideshow.


Where is current technology going, exactly? The last time fuel economy was a serious issue in Europe, the FIA responded by creating Group C. The Jaguar XJR-9 and Porsche 956 were nothing if not supercars. Racing creates supercars.

I suggest an appropriate compromise for the green lobby and the moar-power types would be turbocharged V8s and V12s with unlimited KERS. :)

If Ferrari are that concerned that F1's direction is totally without merit, it can build a car for Le Mans. Like it did when its brand actually meant something.

Edited by Risil, 15 April 2011 - 18:45.