86 replies to this topic

[Piif]

So Bernie finally said what everyone knew to be true: Ferrari was (and probably still is) favoured by the FIA. Takes away the sporting angle of the sport but then again, it never was a level playfield to begin with.

 

https://www.autospor...-helped-ferrari

 

From the article:

 

Ecclestone also revealed that there were moves when he ran F1 with Max Mosley to give Ferrari special assistance from on high.

"Helping Ferrari has always been the smartest thing to do," he said. "And it always has always been done through the technical regulations.

"Teams are important for the F1, but Ferrari is the most.

"That's why over the years, many things have been done that have helped Maranello win."

Pushed further, and asked whether F1 race director Charlie Whiting went out of his way to help British teams, Ecclestone said: "No. Charlie has always done what he was supposed to do.

"Instead, Max has often helped Ferrari. And I too. We all wanted the Ferrari to win.

"A season won by Ferrari is more valuable than a season won by others."

 

What do you think? Is this still happening, would Ferrari be able to win on merit or is it in their nature to need help from others?

[loki0420]

He devalues F1 on purpose? Or Ferrari itself? Well i hope these days are gone anyway but ferrari assistance was there to see anyway.

[DaytimeUTT]

Surely he's trolling. The technical regs for 2003 had the specific intention to stop Ferrari's dominance and mix up the grid. And in 2005 they changed the regs late on which hindered Ferrari's car the most, just as they were almost ready to launch it, which set them back months. It left the team scrapping for points the whole year. "FIArrari" was always an old-wive's tale perpetrated by conspiracy theorists. Bernie is just trolling here.

[Darth Sidious]

Yep, in 2007 Max conspired with Jean to send Nigel to Ron with secret data that got everybody in McLaren in hot water to the tune of $100,000,000 dollars and strong-armed them into throwing the championship by making Lewis drive on canvas. Then in 2008 Max's lapdog Alan over-ruled Charlie and gave Felipe a race win that wasn't really his and would have won him the championship but for Timo not reading his emails. Thank heavens Max is gone now and nobody linked to Ferrari took his place.

 

Oh, wait........

 

This post rated "tongue in cheek."

Edited by Darth Sidious, 28 October 2017 - 09:33.

[Nonesuch]

 

That must be why they moved mountains in the early '00s to stop Ferrari.

 

Changed the points. Changed qualifying. Changed tyre regulations.

 

Also, Ferrari last won a WDC in 2007. Ten years ago. Mosley has been gone almost as long.

 

Since 2009 three teams have won more races than Ferrari - including McLaren.

 

Meanwhile, the FIA failed to disqualify illegal Red Bull cars in 2012 - instead offering them the chance to 'fix' their issues for future races.

 

Adrian Newey revealed Mosley favoured a double-diffuser interpretation in 2009 that would must hurt McLaren and Ferrari.

 

The FIA refused to maintain its EBD clampdown of Silverstone 2011 (which Ferrari won).

 

The FIA only accepted Ferrari's argument about engine tokens because it had to admit its regulations were badly worded.

 

The FIA only brings Ferrari drivers to its Paris offices for swearing at officials, and not those of any other team.

 

But sure, the FIA helps Ferrari.

Edited by Nonesuch, 28 October 2017 - 09:14.

[GoldenColt]

Water is wet, ice is cold, etc...

[labarte]

This season I would say that Ferrari have been the most hindered by the new oil burning regs. Now it could be that the FIA tried to make things worse for merc with this ruling and it backfired or it was a chance to help Renault and thus Red Bull and try to keep Dietrich 'two teams' Mateschitz sweet. Having said that, the suspension changes forced on Merc and Red Bull before this season even began were definitely done to help the boys in red.

 

I get the impression the FIA tries to even up the field a bit artificially at times, they don't always help Ferrari though. In the Todt, Brawn and Schumacher era there were rule changes designed to reduce Maranello's advantage.

[ensign14]

 

That must be why they moved mountains in the early '00s to stop Ferrari.

 

Changed the points. Changed qualifying. Changed tyre regulations.

 

The point change actually helped Ferrari.  Put the emphasis on reliability which Ferrari had in spades.  Partly because McLaren were still playing catch-up after the FIA banned all their technical advantages.

 

And they changed the tyre regulations late in 2003 to guarantee Ferrari the title - which had the result of making 2004 a waste of time because every Michelin runner had already designed their cars.

 

Note how after Ferrari had a bad year the FIA changed the tyre regs back to how they were...

[steferrari]

[labarte]

 

Adrian Newey revealed Mosley favoured a double-diffuser interpretation in 2009 that would must hurt McLaren and Ferrari.

 

 

I remember reading that the DD was supposed to be a gift to the Japanese teams, Honda and Toyota, because there were worries they would leave the sport.

[Nonesuch]

The point change actually helped Ferrari.  Put the emphasis on reliability which Ferrari had in spades.

The 8 points for second kept McLaren's "one race win" Räikkönen (seven second places) in the battle until the final race, while Schumacher won half the races that year (and never second). He did pick up three points for finishing 7th and 8th once, sure.

[andrewf1]

 

That must be why they moved mountains in the early '00s to stop Ferrari.

 

Changed the points. Changed qualifying. Changed tyre regulations.

 

I fail to see how changing points and qualifying systems were supposed to disadvantage Ferrari.

 

Meanwhile the changing of tire regulations - say, mid-season 2003, banning Michelin's tire spec which had been perfectly legal for 2,5 years - was meant for Ferrari and Bridgestone exclusively and ruined a very thrilling season.

 

Also on the subject of technical regulations, banning Renault's 2006 mass damper system also had a clear favorite in mind.

 

 

Since 2009 three teams have won more races than Ferrari - including McLaren.

 

Meanwhile, the FIA failed to disqualify illegal Red Bull cars in 2012 - instead offering them the chance to 'fix' their issues for future races.

 

Adrian Newey revealed Mosley favoured a double-diffuser interpretation in 2009 that would must hurt McLaren and Ferrari.

 

The FIA refused to maintain its EBD clampdown of Silverstone 2011 (which Ferrari won).

 

The FIA only accepted Ferrari's argument about engine tokens because it had to admit its regulations were badly worded.

 

The FIA only brings Ferrari drivers to its Paris offices for swearing at officials, and not those of any other team.

 

But sure, the FIA helps Ferrari.

 

All you're doing is arguing beside the point. Ecclestone mainly refers to his rule together with Mosley. 

 

Also, Ferrari last won a WDC in 2007. Ten years ago. Mosley has been gone almost as long.

 

What a coincidence 

[Nonesuch]

I remember reading that the DD was supposed to be a gift to the Japanese teams, Honda and Toyota, because there were worries they would leave the sport.

 

That wouldn't surprise me, but Newey said “Ultimately whether the double diffuser was legal or not was not actually a technical decision. It was down to the fact that Max Mosley at that time wanted to teach a lesson to Ferrari and McLaren. And because they didn’t have a double diffuser, he said it is legal."

[steferrari]

The point change actually helped Ferrari.

 

Not really, Michael would have won the 2003 title more easily with the old points system:

 

 

With the old 10-6-4-3-2-1:

 

[Nonesuch]

What a coincidence

It's not a coincidence, it has everything to do with Ferrari losing most of its best employees that made those early '00s so successful - from its senior technical leaders to Michael Schumacher.

 

Similarly, the FIA isn't helping Mercedes now (although it's failing to enforce various regulations that multiple teams have exploited) - Mercedes is just doing a great job, much better than anyone else.

[Henri Greuter]

 

 

Also on the subject of technical regulations, banning Renault's 2006 mass damper system also had a clear favorite in mind.

 

 

 

What a coincidence 

 

Ferrari was one of the team against the mass dampers but it was printed in Autosport magazine that it was actually McLaren who filed the protest against the mass damper first, which was then seconded by Ferrari since the protest was filed by now. But they were not the ones who had it take off, that was according Autosport: McLaren.

Ferrari gained most of it compared with anyone else, but again: it was McLaren who instigated the protest.

 

Henri

[sopa]

Surely he's trolling. The technical regs for 2003 had the specific intention to stop Ferrari's dominance and mix up the grid.

 

I think Bernie was happy to see Ferrari mixing it at the front, but he was unhappy if it was a dominance with no competition, because it affected viewing figures badly. 

 

However, leaving regulations aside as you could always question, who benefitted from it most (i.e 2005 tyre rules benefitted Michelin), FOM's 100M $ payment to Ferrari is a clear indication of "special treatment".

[Mc_Silver]

We already knew that.. Come with something new Bernie!

[DaytimeUTT]

Some of the points being made have a "but mass dampers can't melt steel beams" vibe to them. Any rule changes in Ferrari's favour were just the normal to and fro that also had Red Bull get away with in other years (i.e., just normal politics, not favoritism).

 

1) I fail to see how changing points and qualifying systems were supposed to disadvantage Ferrari.

 

2) Meanwhile the changing of tire regulations - say, mid-season 2003, banning Michelin's tire spec which had been perfectly legal for 2,5 years - was meant for Ferrari and Bridgestone exclusively and ruined a very thrilling season.

 

3) Also on the subject of technical regulations, banning Renault's 2006 mass damper system also had a clear favorite in mind.

 

1) Changing the points to tighten the difference between positions kept a championship closer. 1 lap qualifying added potential to mix up the grids on two fronts - a. one mistake adds randomness, and b. the early form of 1-lap qualy had the winner of the previous race (eg Schumacher) go out first when the track was at it's slowest. Not "disadvantage" as the word you used, but to stop Ferrari's dominance of the previous year and mix up the show. How is that "FIArrari"?

 

2) That's just to & fro fortunes. The Michelin spec ban was mad in the same season as the above raft of rule changes designed to end Ferrari's dominance.

 

3) Ditto to number 2, to and fro, not Ferrari International Assistance.

[DaytimeUTT]

I think Bernie was happy to see Ferrari mixing it at the front, but he was unhappy if it was a dominance with no competition, because it affected viewing figures badly. 

I think that's about right. Bernie is a businessman who cared about the money coming in. He knew the dominance was bad for business and the "F1 is boring" comments of the time was having a hard impact on the sport's image. A combination of a competitive sport, with Ferrari being somewhere there abouts was probably his only hope.

Edited by DaytimeUTT, 28 October 2017 - 10:02.

[SCUDmissile]

If that is the case, they did an awful job of it and it's good he isn't in charge now.

Apart from the money thing which is a gisgrace and is hopefully changing now.

Edited by SCUDmissile, 28 October 2017 - 10:07.

[ANF]

Here's another thread about the same interview: http://forums.autosp...ews-ecclestone/

[andrewf1]

Some of the points being made have a "but mass dampers can't melt steel beams" vibe to them. Any rule changes in Ferrari's favour were just the normal to and fro that also had Red Bull get away with in other years (i.e., just normal politics, not favoritism).

 

 

1) Changing the points to tighten the difference between positions kept a championship closer. 1 lap qualifying added potential to mix up the grids on two fronts - a. one mistake adds randomness, and b. the early form of 1-lap qualy had the winner of the previous race (eg Schumacher) go out first when the track was at it's slowest. Not "disadvantage" as the word you used, but to stop Ferrari's dominance of the previous year and mix up the show. How is that "FIArrari"?

 

2) That's just to & fro fortunes. The Michelin spec ban was mad in the same season as the above raft of rule changes designed to end Ferrari's dominance.

 

3) Ditto to number 2, to and fro, not Ferrari International Assistance.

 

 

So let me get this straight:

 

You think that everything which strapped away any potential advantage that other teams had - banning Michelin's tires, Renault dampers - were just random "to & fro" fortunes, or tough luck for Ferrari's competitors.

 

But every small thing which might have hindered Ferrari's dominance was very specifically designed that way, and definitely not "to & fro fortunes". 

 

I'm sure you'll agree that's a rather biased and unfair way of looking at things    

 

The change in points system and qualifying format affected every team on the grid.

The change in tires and dampers affected only a selected few. Namely Ferrari's competition, to be more precise. 

[Paul Parker]

'He knew the dominance was bad for business and the "F1 is boring" comments of the time was having a hard impact on the sport's image. A combination of a competitive sport, with Ferrari being somewhere there abouts was probably his only hope.'

 

 

So what about the last 4 seasons up to date, Mercedes Benz and Lewis supporters are rightly very happy, yet most of the F1 enthusiasts I know are fed up with the status quo.

[sopa]

'He knew the dominance was bad for business and the "F1 is boring" comments of the time was having a hard impact on the sport's image. A combination of a competitive sport, with Ferrari being somewhere there abouts was probably his only hope.'

 

 

So what about the last 4 seasons up to date, Mercedes Benz and Lewis supporters are rightly very happy, yet most of the F1 enthusiasts I know are fed up with the status quo.

 

Before Bernie was de-throned ( ) he repeatedly mentioned that he is opposed to V6 Hybrid and wants V8 engines. But FIA has had none of it. So Bernie isn't quite as powerful as made up either.

[Disgrace]

Also, Ferrari last won a WDC in 2007. Ten years ago. Mosley has been gone almost as long.

 

[wookles]

Extremely old news and it didn't need Bernie to say it for us to know about it.

 

In many ways F1 needs Ferrari more than Ferrari needs F1. I'm not a fan of the red cars myself but for the good of the formula, they need to be on the grid.

 

It'd be like the Premiership without Man Utd. 

[DaytimeUTT]

So let me get this straight:

 

You think that everything which strapped away any potential advantage that other teams had - banning Michelin's tires, Renault dampers - were just random "to & fro" fortunes, or tough luck for Ferrari's competitors.

 

But every small thing which might have hindered Ferrari's dominance was very specifically designed that way, and definitely not "to & fro fortunes". 

 

I'm sure you'll agree that's a rather biased and unfair way of looking at things    

 

The change in points system and qualifying format affected every team on the grid.

The change in tires and dampers affected only a selected few. Namely Ferrari's competition, to be more precise. 

In the case of the 2003 rule changes, yes. They were in response to the dominance of the previous season. But they would have done the same if it was Ferrari or Williams. If the accusation is that the FIA was helping Ferrari, why try to shake things up after such a successful season for them, hmm? And they weren't exactly that small either, they were fundamentally changing the framework of the sport to unsettle the dominance.

 

But you keep using words like "hindering " or "disadvantage" Ferrari, which isn't what we're saying the aim was. FIA were trying to shake things up and manufacture a more competitive competition in response to Ferrari's successful dominance, from which Ferrari suffered. That is what is in contrast with the "FIArrari" conspiracy theories.

Edited by DaytimeUTT, 28 October 2017 - 11:24.

[DaytimeUTT]

'He knew the dominance was bad for business and the "F1 is boring" comments of the time was having a hard impact on the sport's image. A combination of a competitive sport, with Ferrari being somewhere there abouts was probably his only hope.'

 

 

So what about the last 4 seasons up to date, Mercedes Benz and Lewis supporters are rightly very happy, yet most of the F1 enthusiasts I know are fed up with the status quo.

There hasn't been nearly the "F1 is boring" backlash from mainstream fans about Mercedes dominance as there was with Schumacher era dominance, probably because there was tough competition between the Mercedes drivers for the WDC from race to race.

Edited by DaytimeUTT, 28 October 2017 - 11:14.

[PayasYouRace]

If this thread demonstrates anything is that Ferrari probably get their fair share of rulings both for and against them. I’m sure we all know never to take anything Bernie says at face value.

[Risil]

If this thread demonstrates anything is that Ferrari probably get their fair share of rulings both for and against them. I’m sure we all know never to take anything Bernie says at face value.

 

This times a million.

 

Remember that Liberty are still trying to negotiate with the teams about their share of commercial revenue in the future, and Ferrari's historic "special treatment", in terms of remuneration, is bound to be Topic A.

[SCUDmissile]

2007 would have been another pretty dominant Ferrari year, but the FIA banned their floor and the nitrogen gas they used to inflate their tyres and a bunch of other stuff based on stolen blueprints of their car used by McLaren to make protests.

Another great way to help Ferrari I'm sure.

Edited by SCUDmissile, 28 October 2017 - 11:41.

[Zippel]

Of course the FIA favours Ferrari. They were given a technical veto after all. All this arguing and no one remembers that?!

Edited by Zippel, 28 October 2017 - 12:01.

[pRy]

“A season won by Ferrari is more valuable than a season won by others."

 

A very dangerous line for any sport that claims to be impartial and fair.

[Eff1]

Surely he's trolling. The technical regs for 2003 had the specific intention to stop Ferrari's dominance and mix up the grid. And in 2005 they changed the regs late on which hindered Ferrari's car the most, just as they were almost ready to launch it, which set them back months. It left the team scrapping for points the whole year. "FIArrari" was always an old-wive's tale perpetrated by conspiracy theorists. Bernie is just trolling here.

Fully agree, I never understood the whole Ferrari-FIA conspiracies. Ever since I started watching F1 tech regs have been changed and mid season clarifications made to the benefit and detriment of Ferrari (and other teams). There hasn’t been an overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting favoritism or collusion (in my opinion).

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Of course the FIA favours Ferrari. They were given a technical veto after all. All this arguing and no one remembers that?!

And haven’t they used it at least once?

[baddog]

“A season won by Ferrari is more valuable than a season won by others."

 

A very dangerous line for any sport that claims to be impartial and fair.

 

A line from someone 'fired' from what he viewed as his personal fiefdom.. Just saying.

[statman]

btw folks, today is Bernie's 87th birthday!

 

[Whatisvalis]

i was more interested in the 'Mercedes helping Ferrari' comment. 

[GrumpyYoungMan]

i was more interested in the 'Mercedes helping Ferrari' comment.

Didn’t they send some PU people there way?

[1Devil1]

Ferrari was helped like any other big team in the past. Mercedes (Tire test), RedBull (Flexi Wings, etc.) or McLaren (SpyGate). It's funny its only Ferrari International Assistance when FIA was know to favor all big players when it suited them

[teejay]

SPA 2008  NEVER FORGET

 

But for real, there was several decisions during Max's rule that seemed to benefit the mobile malboro packe imho. 

[guiporsche]

Of course the FIA favours Ferrari. They were given a technical veto after all. All this arguing and no one remembers that?!

 

Actually, according to Ross Brawn (in his book) Ferrari did not use it a single time. 

 

https://www.f1fanati...veto-f1s-rules/

Edited by guiporsche, 28 October 2017 - 13:30.

[Marklar]

Actually, according to Ross Brawn (in his book) Ferrari did not use it a single time.

https://www.f1fanati...veto-f1s-rules/

They were threatening to use it though, which caused rules to be tweaked before they were proposed. It's a strong tool even if you technically dont use it.

IIRC they used the veto two years ago for the customer/alternate engine matter.

Edited by Marklar, 28 October 2017 - 13:39.

[prty]

Surely he's trolling. The technical regs for 2003 had the specific intention to stop Ferrari's dominance and mix up the grid. And in 2005 they changed the regs late on which hindered Ferrari's car the most, just as they were almost ready to launch it, which set them back months. It left the team scrapping for points the whole year. "FIArrari" was always an old-wive's tale perpetrated by conspiracy theorists. Bernie is just trolling here.

 

You being right about 2003 doesn't mean he's wrong, because one thing doesn't exclude the other. F1's objective is to have Ferrari always in the mix, but of course no complete domination is wanted.

[gillesfan76]

Surely he's trolling. The technical regs for 2003 had the specific intention to stop Ferrari's dominance and mix up the grid. And in 2005 they changed the regs late on which hindered Ferrari's car the most, just as they were almost ready to launch it, which set them back months. It left the team scrapping for points the whole year. "FIArrari" was always an old-wive's tale perpetrated by conspiracy theorists. Bernie is just trolling here.

 

So for a general comment about FIA assistance to Ferrari to be true, does it have to mean that the FIA must have never tried to actively stop Ferrari's dominance at any time? No of course not and I suspect you realise that.

 

You are absolutely correct that at certain periods when Ferrari were very dominant, the FIA have tried to even the contest up and actively disadvantaging Ferrari. But what Bernie is saying is that there is a strong recognition within the FIA, a supposedly independent regulatory and sporting body, that Ferrari is very important to F1. That Ferrari brings a tradition, nostalgia, passion and status to F1. It's a symbiotic relationship where F1 is seen as the pinnacle of motorsport with one of the reasons being that a legendary team like Ferrari is at the forefront while simultaneously benefitting Ferrari to be involved in the pinnacle of motorsport. Each reputation feeds off the other and works to boost the other.

 

Based on the importance that Ferrari bring, the FIA have actively tried to also advantage Ferrari in those times where Ferrari was not dominant and especially when they were struggling and uncompetitive. Essentially the FIA doesn't want any team to dominate and especially dominate season after season, such as Ferrari were doing during the Todt/Brawn/Shumacher era. So while they recognise the importance of Ferrari being competitive and even successful, that doesn't override their even higher priority of disadvantaging teams, including Ferrari, from dominating season after season.

[guiporsche]

Sure, if your competitors know that you have a veto on regulations that conditions discussions. But the case remains that there were significant changes in regulations which they let pass, starting those concerning tyre regulations in the mid-2000s.

 

Regarding the customer engine veto that was in 2015, and according to Todt it is not something that you can use at will, that is, without a proper rationale behind. More interesting is Todt's claim that: "And I was surprised because Bernie as commercial rights holder was in favour of Ferrari having the veto right. All the teams were in favour of giving the veto right too. So it would have been a bit strange that myself, I would have been against."

 

https://www.motorspo...is-engine-veto/

Edited by guiporsche, 28 October 2017 - 13:44.

[guiporsche]

Essentially the FIA doesn't want any team to dominate and especially dominate season after season, such as Ferrari were doing during the Todt/Brawn/Shumacher era. So while they recognise the importance of Ferrari being competitive and even successful, that doesn't override their even higher priority of disadvantaging teams, including Ferrari, from dominating season after season.

 

Absolutely spot on. It goes both sides, as it did in the well noted case of 2005. For not being accused of distributing my symphaties unfairly a factual example of when Bernie did try to help Ferrari to improve competition was 1988:

 

http://mccabism.blog...off-valves.html

 

Pardon me for the bluntness, but in the end all this polemic is caused by jingoistic British journos who think that F1 is exclusive British property. As someone posted above, there has not been half the polemic about F1 being boring and predictable in these Mercedes-Hamilton domination years that there was in the Ferrari-Schumacher period. 

Although I suspect that Adrian Newey's forthcoming biography will once more fuel the 'Ferrari International Assistance' conspiracy theory... 

Edited by guiporsche, 28 October 2017 - 13:53.

[maverick69]

In light of this, I hope that the circumstances of the conclusion of the 2007 WDC are investigated.

[Tombstone]

Yep, in 2007 Max conspired with Jean to send Nigel to Ron with secret data that got everybody in McLaren in hot water to the tune of $100,000,000 dollars and strong-armed them into throwing the championship by making Lewis drive on canvas. Then in 2008 Max's lapdog Alan over-ruled Charlie and gave Felipe a race win that wasn't really his and would have won him the championship but for Timo not reading his emails. Thank heavens Max is gone now and nobody linked to Ferrari took his place.

 

Oh, wait........

 

This post rated "tongue in cheek."

 

A transfer of secret data initiated by a ferrari employee.

 

Yet ferrari were never accused of bringing the sport in to disrepute.

 

And ferrari did awfully well given the financial and publicity hit to their main rivals of the time.

 

And we will never know the full truth due to Stepney's untimely demise, and the withdrawal of his 'threat' to publish a book exposing ferraris dirty laundry as, it is suspected, part of a plea bargain to avoid jail.

 

Max Mosley opined that Stepney (and Coughlan) had been minor players in the scandal. Given it all started at ferrari I suspected, and still do, that it was all part of maranello's machiavellian machinations to destabilise their rivals. It work a treat, with them coming up smelling of roses in the eyes of their blinkered acolytes.