92 replies to this topic

[SophieB]

Williams's stance was backed up by fellow team chiefs who joined her in Thursday's official FIA press conference in Monaco.
Red Bull team principal Christian Horner called Ferrari's veto "pretty outdated".
"You can view it two ways: it's a safety net because they're representing the teams but also they're representing Ferrari," he said.
"Probably, if we're going for a clean sheet of paper, it would make sense for it not to be there, as Claire says, the same rules for everyone."

 

 

https://www.autospor...veto-has-to-end

[Retrofly]

For those not familiar with the veto what can it be used for?

[SophieB]

Personally, I think hell yes it has to end. So what if there's other things wrong with the sport, it's crazy that one team gets to wield a gun in the rule negotiations. I think this one is pretty indefensible.

 

OR IS IT?

[f1paul]

Absolutely the Ferrari veto should end but so should the amount of power the teams have when negotiating new rules. 

[SophieB]

For those not familiar with the veto what can it be used for?

 

As it suggests, in theory any new rules if the right justification was made. In practice, and this is generally Ferrari's defence, rarely used. If you are a subscriber, here is Dieter Rencken looking at the veto in historical context.

https://www.autospor...t-its-1980s-war

 

 

 

This writer put the history of said veto, previously never publicly discussed, to current FIA president Jean Todt (Mosley disbanded FISA in 1993, with motorsport now a fully-fledged pillar of world motoring's governing body). Saliently Todt was Ferrari team boss from 1993 to 2006, and CEO thereafter, so is perfectly placed to comment.

"At the time I joined Ferrari in [1993] I tried to understand what was the story behind it, and the story was simple," he explained.

"Enzo Ferrari, the founder, said he felt very isolated in Maranello to all the British teams, so he needed a protection, because he was alone. You'll remember the time we are talking, it was [1981], Ferrari was the only full car manufacturer, engine, chassis. [ED: Renault and Alfa Romeo were also full 'works' teams at this point]

"And he was fighting private teams like Williams, Lotus, McLaren, which were all using the same engine, which if I remember was the Ford Cosworth. So he got that in his discussion, by implementing [the veto]."

 

 

Most recent use (I think) was in 2015:

 

https://www.autospor...-its-rules-veto

[Nonesuch]

The Ferrari veto needs to stay. It was Ferrari putting its foot down that saved F1 from the embarrassment of racing with an inline 4 cylinder engine like Renault wanted.

 

Ferrari has always been willing to compromise, and is a responsible wielder of its unique influence.

 

F1 must do everything to keep Ferrari on board. This is a small price to pay.

[SophieB]

The Ferrari veto needs to stay. It was Ferrari putting its foot down that saved F1 from the embarrassment of racing with an inline 4 cylinder engine like Renault wanted.

 

Ferrari has always been willing to compromise, and is a responsible wielder of its unique influence.

 

F1 must do everything to keep Ferrari on board. This is a small price to pay.

 

I don't really associate compromise with a team that readily threatens to leave when it doesn't get its own way.

Edited by SophieB, 23 May 2019 - 16:20.
typo

[Astandahl]

I don't really associate compromise with a team that readily threatens to leave when it doesn't get its own way.

Ferrari should have left already. They are still in F1 because they get a lot of money from FIA  and they are able to end the season without a huge loss.

[Nonesuch]

I don't really associate compromise with a team that readily threatens to leave when it doesn't get its own way.

 

Separate the drama from the result. Ferrari has a flair for theatrics, it's what makes them so loveable.

 

They raised a big stink (I4), put forward their ideal (V8) and agreed to a compromise (V6). It's working as intended, and F1 is better for it.

Edited by Nonesuch, 23 May 2019 - 16:25.

[Risil]

Ending Ferrari's veto would be a good step towards sporting fairness.

 

However, as Nonesuch suggests, please ensure that whatever you do, rule-makling isn't handed over to a small number of mega companies who sell sedans and hatchbacks. Ferrari at least represent a different vision to the Mercedes, Renaults and Hondas of the world.

[pitlanepalpatine]

I don't really associate compromise with a team that readily threatens to leave when it doesn't get its own way.

 

So does Red Bull and that's generally how haggling works. Even if you want the changes being implemented you still haggle to see if you can get something more out of it. In theory you could try to implement a majority veto but then you've got the issue with engine manufacturers and second teams coming around. So if Merc and Ferrari agree on something odds are they'll also get Sauber, Haas, Force India and Williams in the boat which is what williams seems to be after as the only 'Independent'. 

 

As long as Ferrari are handling it responsibly I don't mind it, but I'd also be open to a check/balance for the other teams, so if Ferrari is the only Veto the other teams get their way. 

[SonGoku]

And also the end of the financial bonus for them. Imagine Liverpool getting more money than other clubs for ''being so long'' in football, fans/clubs would be livid. Give that bonus to the team finishing last, instead of giving them almost nothing.

[SophieB]

Separate the drama from the result. Ferrari has a flair for theatrics, it's what makes them so loveable.

 

They raised a big stink (I4), put forward their ideal (V8) and agreed to a compromise (V6). It's working as intended, and F1 is better for it.

 

Again, if I watched someone in an argument wielding the only gun in the room until they got what they wanted, I don't think I'd be all 'yeah, but look at the result, I like it so it must mean that kind of behaviour is good'.

 

(And this is me being generous in agreeing for the sake of argument that what was agreed *was* that much better. I thought the V8 engines were horrible, personally. Sure, loud but ugly - like a million decibel wasp. None of the music of the V10s or whatever. However, I guess I'm wandering from the point there which is that one team having power over all the others in a competition is one of those things that makes F1 not really a sport.)

[HeadFirst]

Maybe the veto idea is all bad. Perhaps it's just time to pass the baton, and give a non-factory team the veto. I suggest Racing Point, or Haas.

[CountDooku]

The Ferrari veto needs to stay. It was Ferrari putting its foot down that saved F1 from the embarrassment of racing with an inline 4 cylinder engine like Renault wanted.

 

Ferrari has always been willing to compromise, and is a responsible wielder of its unique influence.

 

F1 must do everything to keep Ferrari on board. This is a small price to pay.

 

100% Ferrari's veto needs to stay! I have said this before but they more than any other team they GET the DNA of the sport. Without the veto the sport would be significantly worse! They are the last bastion against FIA tyranny. The F1 equivalent of the Night's Watch so to speak.

[SophieB]

Ending Ferrari's veto would be a good step towards sporting fairness.
 
However, as Nonesuch suggests, please ensure that whatever you do, rule-makling isn't handed over to a small number of mega companies who sell sedans and hatchbacks. Ferrari at least represent a different vision to the Mercedes, Renaults and Hondas of the world.

 
I would personally take my chances and hand it all back to the FIA. Let Ross do with F1 as he pleases! Even if, as things stand, I presume the FIA is still rather reliant on the goodwill of the commercial rights holder.
 

...the fact is that the FIA was forced by a looming cash crisis to cut whatever deals it could due to the 100-year extension, which provided for no additional cash to administer the championship as demanded by the terms of the deal, yet all proceeds had previously flowed into the (ring-fenced) FIA Foundation.
It is important to note here that the 10-fold extension did not provide incremental funding, yet obliged the FIA to continue with its duties. Thus, in order to 'save' the FIA financially, Todt had to concede certain rights.

That said, under the current structure the FIA has a one-third vote in the Strategy Group, which is more than it had under the old Technical/Sporting Working Groups and F1 Commission procedure, plus it still retains right of veto via the World Motor Sport Council which ratifies all regulation changes."

 
source: "Mosley's rallying cry will amuse teams" by Dieter Rencken http://plus.autospor...0634.1429773030 (£ or subscription)

 

I wonder if it's still the case.

[Anja]

Sure they might have that special aura around them, but that's no reason to treat them any differently within the rules. It's a dangerous precedent which should never be allowed if we want F1 to be a fair, competitive sport. In the end a team with power to influence the regulations will always use that to its own advantage, I've not seen anything to convince me otherwise. Both F1 and Ferrari aren't what they used to be, the "they need each other to survive" sentiment stopped being true a good while ago, and therefore I don't buy the argument that Ferrari will only use its power in F1's best interest. 

Edited by Anja, 23 May 2019 - 16:51.

[Garndell]

100% Ferrari's veto needs to stay! I have said this before but they more than any other team they GET the DNA of the sport. Without the veto the sport would be significantly worse! They are the last bastion against FIA tyranny. The F1 equivalent of the Night's Watch so to speak.

 

I can live with the veto staying but all the bonus money is untenable.  I'd like to see a 75% majority of teams be able to veto FIA diktats as well though.

[guiporsche]

It's going to be quite fun, this battle. But here's how it is going to end: or the veto is kept, or it will be replaced by much more bonus money - 'there's other ways of recognizing Ferrari's value to the sport', as Brawn says. Me says the veto will be kept at the cost of perhaps less bonus money. On verra. 

[Massa]

Be careful about what you wish for ..

[MikeV1987]

Yes teams should be treated equally despite seniority.

[Pete_f1]

Yes, end it.

[CountDooku]

I can live with the veto staying but all the bonus money is untenable.  I'd like to see a 75% majority of teams be able to veto FIA diktats as well though.

 

Yes, even the most ardent Tifoso won't defend the bonus.

 

Oh, anyone remember the $50m budget cap? The "world engine"? All stuff Ferrari thankfully vetoed! Mosely was seconds away from destroying the sport.

[ArrowsLivery]

Ferrari’s veto isn’t why the sport is in this mess.

[Marklar]

I go a step further: Teams shouldnt have a say in the rules at all. 

[mclarensmps]

The teams should not be involved in the rule changes at all. A proper structure within the FIA should exist for this. 

DAMN IT MARKLAR....

Edited by mclarensmps, 23 May 2019 - 17:33.

[Jones Foyer]

There was probably a time when people said that grand prix racing would not survive if Alfa Romeo dropped out...or Lotus...or Mercedes...certainly at one time, any team seemed very important and hard to visualize their absence. Putting Ferrari on some exclusive permanent pedestal is one of the anchors to progress in the sport.

[MasterOfCoin]

I'm fine with the veto as long as every team gets one......

[FormulaWin]

At best pro-Vetoers are guessing at what the non-veto alternate world might have looked like. If F1 was in rude health i'd understand looking the other way - as i stands, the sport is pretty unwatchable to the casual viewer - many, many changes need to be made - keeping something so fundamentally unfair in place looks absurd. 

 

F1 surely benefits massively from having Ferrari on board, I also think that the benefits do not run in only one direction.

 

Smaller teams need more help - under the current Ferrari-veto this has never really happened.

[P123]

100% Ferrari's veto needs to stay! I have said this before but they more than any other team they GET the DNA of the sport. Without the veto the sport would be significantly worse! They are the last bastion against FIA tyranny. The F1 equivalent of the Night's Watch so to speak.

The veto is a bit of self-serving nonsense and is one of the weak points in F1 having any claims to sporting integrity.

[P123]

Separate the drama from the result. Ferrari has a flair for theatrics, it's what makes them so loveable.
 
They raised a big stink (I4), put forward their ideal (V8) and agreed to a compromise (V6). It's working as intended, and F1 is better for it.

I've never read anything about Ferrari pushing for V8s. They were against the four cylinder because it was useless for their marketing. Merc and Cosworth were against it based on cost (ha!). Renault were the sole voice in favour, so it was never going to be ratified. No veto required.

[CountDooku]

At best pro-Vetoers are guessing at what the non-veto alternate world might have looked like. If F1 was in rude health i'd understand looking the other way - as i stands, the sport is pretty unwatchable to the casual viewer - many, many changes need to be made - keeping something so fundamentally unfair in place looks absurd.

F1 surely benefits massively from having Ferrari on board, I also think that the benefits do not run in only one direction.

Smaller teams need more help - under the current Ferrari-veto this has never really happened.

Eh? Why would we need to guess what a world with the Veto would look like? We have had of for three decades and all through F1’s most successful periods.

[CountDooku]

The veto is a bit of self-serving nonsense and is one of the weak points in F1 having any claims to sporting integrity.

Why? I would agree if Ferrari had the unilateral right to propose rules. They don’t, they can only prevent changes from the status quo! What’s more, they have used this right incredibly sparingly and it’s hard to point to any direct sporting benefit they have had from it.

[ArrowsLivery]

I go a step further: Teams shouldnt have a say in the rules at all.

Who should? FIA doesn’t have the competency for it, that is crystal clear.

[SophieB]

Yes, even the most ardent Tifoso won't defend the bonus.
 
Oh, anyone remember the $50m budget cap? The "world engine"? All stuff Ferrari thankfully vetoed! Mosely was seconds away from destroying the sport.

How did acting to protect the two major manufactuers’ commercial interests benefit F1 as a whole? Seems more like it helped Mercedes and Ferrari’s bottom lines and kept most of the grid in their power.

[Marklar]

Who should? FIA doesn’t have the competency for it, that is crystal clear.

Neither have the teams, who agreed to many of the silly rule changes we had. And they even have personal interests, which is much worse.

It's better to improve the structure, put competent people in place (Ross Brawn is already there) and at best allow the teams to make recommendations/suggestions, but never ever should they make decisions. In every other sport sjch a system would be laughed off.

[Fatgadget]

The Ferrari veto needs to stay. It was Ferrari putting its foot down that saved F1 from the embarrassment of racing with an inline 4 cylinder engine like Renault wanted.

 

Ferrari has always been willing to compromise, and is a responsible wielder of its unique influence.

 

F1 must do everything to keep Ferrari on board. This is a small price to pay.

Are you serious?

..Care to explain then what was so embarrassing about BMW's  inline slant 4 Turbo engine that produced nigh on 2000 HP? ....Yes I know ,the output numbers  keep going up year on year!

[noikeee]

100% Ferrari's veto needs to stay! I have said this before but they more than any other team they GET the DNA of the sport. Without the veto the sport would be significantly worse! They are the last bastion against FIA tyranny. The F1 equivalent of the Night's Watch so to speak.

I can't believe you're serious about this.

Ferrari acting benevolently on the sport's interests, really? Come on. Teams don't exist any more self-serving than them.

I don't see how can we justify this veto in any way whatsoever, and I wish it finally goes away even if taking it away means less negotiating power to implement other things Ferrari won't like (like slashing a couple dozen millions more of the incoming budget cap).

[loki]

I go a step further: Teams shouldnt have a say in the rules at all. 

Yep, 100%.  The only veto should be by Carey or Todt.  I understand from press reports the parameters of the new commercial deal do give them an extra $40 mil.  I find that unacceptable as well.

[absinthedude]

Ferrari doesn't compromise....they threaten to leave F1 if the rules don't go their way. I don't think anyone wants Ferrari to leave, having Ferrari is part of what makes F1 what it is.....that should be enough...

[P123]

Why? I would agree if Ferrari had the unilateral right to propose rules. They don’t, they can only prevent changes from the status quo! What’s more, they have used this right incredibly sparingly and it’s hard to point to any direct sporting benefit they have had from it.

It's generally unknown as to how they have used it and what for. But if you believe it's all been about what is good for the sport rather than what is good for Ferrari there is nothing more to be said.

[Myrvold]

The Ferrari veto needs to stay. It was Ferrari putting its foot down that saved F1 from the embarrassment of racing with an inline 4 cylinder engine like Renault wanted.

The embarrassment by racing with the same kind of engines that was used in the 80's turbo era?

[guiporsche]

Only by BMW, and despite all the myths, with just one title (which Renault should have won had rules prevailed) and increasingly decreasing returns (see Brabham in 86)... All the other Turbo engines were V6's.

Edited by guiporsche, 23 May 2019 - 19:14.

[Jovanotti]

If they really cared about the sport they'd advocate for better distribution of TV and prize money, but guess what, they surely can't find a common ground where it actually would make a difference.

Edited by Jovanotti, 23 May 2019 - 19:32.

[PayasYouRace]

Either all competitors have an equal say in the rules of the sport, or none at all. It should be that simple.

 

Ideally the latter, but the competitors do need an avenue to counter any poor choices by the rulemakers, the FIA. But that needs to be unanimous, not on the whim of a single competitor. Ferrari's veto is unfair in the extreme.

[CountDooku]

It's generally unknown as to how they have used it and what for. But if you believe it's all been about what is good for the sport rather than what is good for Ferrari there is nothing more to be said.

What is good for F1 is usually good for Ferrari and vice versa. I will repeat: of all teams on the grid they are the only one I think are genuinely in line with Fan thinking on the sport. And I say this as a fan of ****McLaren and Mercedes.

[CountDooku]

How did acting to protect the two major manufactuers’ commercial interests benefit F1 as a whole? Seems more like it helped Mercedes and Ferrari’s bottom lines and kept most of the grid in their power.

It benefited F1 by not leaving us with Ford Fiesta engines or with budgets a quarter of LMP1 WEC teams.

[PayasYouRace]

It benefited F1 by not leaving us with Ford Fiesta engines or with budgets a quarter of LMP1 WEC teams.

 

Are you sure that's what "benefited" means? If F1 had a budget less than a quarter of an LMP1 team, we'd have a full grid for the first time since 1995, and possibly more competition at the front. F2/GP2 teams would have been able to make a jump into F1, as was customary in the past. More manufacturers might have been interested as their financial commitment would have been a lot less. I doubt many would care that much about having a four cylinder engine.

[CountDooku]

Are you sure that's what "benefited" means? If F1 had a budget less than a quarter of an LMP1 team, we'd have a full grid for the first time since 1995, and possibly more competition at the front. F2/GP2 teams would have been able to make a jump into F1, as was customary in the past. More manufacturers might have been interested as their financial commitment would have been a lot less. I doubt many would care that much about having a four cylinder engine.

BTCC has asthmatic engines, lots of competition, tiny budgets and full grids and I have absolutely zero interest in watching it. Lots of series for people who like that stuff.
F1 is the biggest, most outrageous series in the world. Why would I want it to be more like F2 when I could just change channels and watch that if I wanted?

Also, did you miss the massive and ongoing furore about the current engine???

Edited by CountDooku, 23 May 2019 - 19:52.

[PayasYouRace]

BTCC has asthmatic engines, lots of competition, tiny budgets and full grids and I have absolutely zero interest in watching it. Lots of series for people who like that stuff.
F1 is the biggest, most outrageous series in the world. Why would I want it to be more like F2 when I could just change channels and watch that if I wanted?

 

You might have zero interest in BTCC, but a lot of people do. Circuits are packed. The engines also sound pretty good compared to a modern F1 car.

 

F1 might be the biggest series but it has a pathetic four engine manufacturers (just compare to 20 years ago). Four might be good for a national series, but this is supposed to be the absolute top level, where constructors form around the world want to prove they're the best.

 

Your last question is like asking why anyone would watch the FIFA World Cup when they could go down their local park and watch people play, or watch the Olympic athletics finals when they could watch a school sports day.. It's not the equipment that makes the level of the sport, it's the level of competition.