planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:06 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6118
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Thank you for the answer!

Why was the veto implemented and why does it still exist if it was ineffective? I don't buy it. The veto right for Ferrari is the expression of a special relationship between Ferrari and the governing bodies. As Mikey writes correctly it is a special treatment in itself.

IMO, it is wrong to imagine the exercising of the veto as a formal, public procedure back in the Mosley-era. Instead, it is much more likely that it created a process of secret pre-information from FIA/FOM to Ferrari about planned rule changes. Then, Ferrari got the chance to threat their veto. In secret negotiations, then, rule changes were agreed upon. But in any case, it gave Ferrari an invaluable competitive advantage: more development time than the competitors.

The veto is an unprecedented scandal, unimaginable in any other sport. It is a massive violation of the integrity of the sport and it does put question marks over results in the relevant era.

All in all a very sad story.


Don't think I agree. I've explained above why and how this veto came into existence. The veto was given to Ferrari as it was the only team outside the UK and Enzo felt that he needed something up his sleeve should the other teams "gang up on them". It's not a far fetched scenario either; we've witnessed teams ganging up, like Williams and McLaren at Jerez '97. Further than that, it came with caveats, which I don't know what they include. It's not as straight forward as "Ferrari doesn't like it so it is banned" sort of thing.

Now there is no evidence (that I know of) that it has ever been used. I know that Ferrari tried to block the engine budget cap, but I am unsure if they used their veto rights or not. In any case it went to court and Ferrari were denied.

The likely secret negotiations that you describe make no sense. You have described a "likely" scenario and almost present it as it being what happened. Why would the FIA inform Ferrari of their intentions of rule changes and then give them the right to veto them? May as well give them a pen and paper to write down the rules themselves...

I think that so far the veto was a veto in name only. True, it is a thing that should never have happened. It doesn't make it look good for the sport. However there is no evidence (again that I know of) that it was used, and in the one case that Ferrari opposed a huge rule change, they got denied by a court. In fact, the FIA said that they forfeited their veto by being part of FOTA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1960
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Thank you for the answer!

Why was the veto implemented and why does it still exist if it was ineffective? I don't buy it. The veto right for Ferrari is the expression of a special relationship between Ferrari and the governing bodies. As Mikey writes correctly it is a special treatment in itself.

IMO, it is wrong to imagine the exercising of the veto as a formal, public procedure back in the Mosley-era. Instead, it is much more likely that it created a process of secret pre-information from FIA/FOM to Ferrari about planned rule changes. Then, Ferrari got the chance to threat their veto. In secret negotiations, then, rule changes were agreed upon. But in any case, it gave Ferrari an invaluable competitive advantage: more development time than the competitors.

The veto is an unprecedented scandal, unimaginable in any other sport. It is a massive violation of the integrity of the sport and it does put question marks over results in the relevant era.

All in all a very sad story.


Don't think I agree. I've explained above why and how this veto came into existence. The veto was given to Ferrari as it was the only team outside the UK and Enzo felt that he needed something up his sleeve should the other teams "gang up on them". It's not a far fetched scenario either; we've witnessed teams ganging up, like Williams and McLaren at Jerez '97. Further than that, it came with caveats, which I don't know what they include. It's not as straight forward as "Ferrari doesn't like it so it is banned" sort of thing.

Now there is no evidence (that I know of) that it has ever been used. I know that Ferrari tried to block the engine budget cap, but I am unsure if they used their veto rights or not. In any case it went to court and Ferrari were denied.

The likely secret negotiations that you describe make no sense. You have described a "likely" scenario and almost present it as it being what happened. Why would the FIA inform Ferrari of their intentions of rule changes and then give them the right to veto them? May as well give them a pen and paper to write down the rules themselves...

I think that so far the veto was a veto in name only. True, it is a thing that should never have happened. It doesn't make it look good for the sport. However there is no evidence (again that I know of) that it was used, and in the one case that Ferrari opposed a huge rule change, they got denied by a court. In fact, the FIA said that they forfeited their veto by being part of FOTA


Ferrari have used their veto:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/12152 ... engine-cap

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6118
Herb wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Thank you for the answer!

Why was the veto implemented and why does it still exist if it was ineffective? I don't buy it. The veto right for Ferrari is the expression of a special relationship between Ferrari and the governing bodies. As Mikey writes correctly it is a special treatment in itself.

IMO, it is wrong to imagine the exercising of the veto as a formal, public procedure back in the Mosley-era. Instead, it is much more likely that it created a process of secret pre-information from FIA/FOM to Ferrari about planned rule changes. Then, Ferrari got the chance to threat their veto. In secret negotiations, then, rule changes were agreed upon. But in any case, it gave Ferrari an invaluable competitive advantage: more development time than the competitors.

The veto is an unprecedented scandal, unimaginable in any other sport. It is a massive violation of the integrity of the sport and it does put question marks over results in the relevant era.

All in all a very sad story.


Don't think I agree. I've explained above why and how this veto came into existence. The veto was given to Ferrari as it was the only team outside the UK and Enzo felt that he needed something up his sleeve should the other teams "gang up on them". It's not a far fetched scenario either; we've witnessed teams ganging up, like Williams and McLaren at Jerez '97. Further than that, it came with caveats, which I don't know what they include. It's not as straight forward as "Ferrari doesn't like it so it is banned" sort of thing.

Now there is no evidence (that I know of) that it has ever been used. I know that Ferrari tried to block the engine budget cap, but I am unsure if they used their veto rights or not. In any case it went to court and Ferrari were denied.

The likely secret negotiations that you describe make no sense. You have described a "likely" scenario and almost present it as it being what happened. Why would the FIA inform Ferrari of their intentions of rule changes and then give them the right to veto them? May as well give them a pen and paper to write down the rules themselves...

I think that so far the veto was a veto in name only. True, it is a thing that should never have happened. It doesn't make it look good for the sport. However there is no evidence (again that I know of) that it was used, and in the one case that Ferrari opposed a huge rule change, they got denied by a court. In fact, the FIA said that they forfeited their veto by being part of FOTA


Ferrari have used their veto:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/12152 ... engine-cap


Thank you, wasn't aware of this. It's a very recent one though as it seems.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26408
Herb wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Thank you for the answer!

Why was the veto implemented and why does it still exist if it was ineffective? I don't buy it. The veto right for Ferrari is the expression of a special relationship between Ferrari and the governing bodies. As Mikey writes correctly it is a special treatment in itself.

IMO, it is wrong to imagine the exercising of the veto as a formal, public procedure back in the Mosley-era. Instead, it is much more likely that it created a process of secret pre-information from FIA/FOM to Ferrari about planned rule changes. Then, Ferrari got the chance to threat their veto. In secret negotiations, then, rule changes were agreed upon. But in any case, it gave Ferrari an invaluable competitive advantage: more development time than the competitors.

The veto is an unprecedented scandal, unimaginable in any other sport. It is a massive violation of the integrity of the sport and it does put question marks over results in the relevant era.

All in all a very sad story.


Don't think I agree. I've explained above why and how this veto came into existence. The veto was given to Ferrari as it was the only team outside the UK and Enzo felt that he needed something up his sleeve should the other teams "gang up on them". It's not a far fetched scenario either; we've witnessed teams ganging up, like Williams and McLaren at Jerez '97. Further than that, it came with caveats, which I don't know what they include. It's not as straight forward as "Ferrari doesn't like it so it is banned" sort of thing.

Now there is no evidence (that I know of) that it has ever been used. I know that Ferrari tried to block the engine budget cap, but I am unsure if they used their veto rights or not. In any case it went to court and Ferrari were denied.

The likely secret negotiations that you describe make no sense. You have described a "likely" scenario and almost present it as it being what happened. Why would the FIA inform Ferrari of their intentions of rule changes and then give them the right to veto them? May as well give them a pen and paper to write down the rules themselves...

I think that so far the veto was a veto in name only. True, it is a thing that should never have happened. It doesn't make it look good for the sport. However there is no evidence (again that I know of) that it was used, and in the one case that Ferrari opposed a huge rule change, they got denied by a court. In fact, the FIA said that they forfeited their veto by being part of FOTA


Ferrari have used their veto:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/12152 ... engine-cap

The engines proposed are a backwards step in technology, do they want to build such engines?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1298
Whether Ferrari has ever used their power of veto is no concern to me, what matters is that they enjoy this special status. IMO there are other words to describe this situation. Privilege, favoritism, bias, take your pick. Personally I find it hard to think of any any sport franchise that has teams with "special privilege".

Don't get me wrong Blake, I really, really like the team, the cars, and the many hard working people at Ferrari. But I have always been at odds with their management, one that does not play well with others and practice politics like we use toilet paper .... frequently. And this is a management thing, politics played out at the highest level.

To set the record straight, this is not the only bias practiced in Formula One. Sir Frank Williams is an independent, but he always knew what side of the toast was buttered, and when push came to shove, he always backed Mosley/Ecclestone. And in return, he never got dumped on.

After the 2013 season wrapped up, the inclusive Technical Working Group and Sporting Working Group were replaced with the Strategy Group, which isn’t inclusive at all. Five of the most successful F1 teams got a permanent spot on the Strategy Group: Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull and Williams. The sixth and final team space is the next highest-placed team in the constructors’ championship.

So while I do object on this veto granted to Ferrari, I also understand that Formula One is rife with such foul politics, and there is no level playing field for the competitors. I do understand that in any professional sports franchise that some teams enjoy more resources and wealth, and can do a better job. But you don't give Manchester United the power to make the slope of the pitch go downhill for them.

Boo to Ferrari management, but time for some Ferrari love.

Image
http://cloudlakes.com/data_images/models/ferrari-250-gto/ferrari-250-gto-01.jpg

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:37 pm 
Blake wrote:
Since, reportedly Ferrari has held this veto power since the days of Enzo, are you going lay this giant question mark blanket over a period of a period of 30 years, call into question Ferrari's results over that whole time.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2017 ... d53cec7ff1
As American broadcaster ESPN revealed in 2013, Ferrari has the power to veto any change to the regulations already announced or introduced (subject to certain exceptions). Ferrari founder Enzo Ferrari first requested the veto when his team was powered by a V12 engine despite V10s dominating the field. Ferrari asked for a right to block changes to prevent its engine from being banned and the rest is history. The veto was formally granted to it by the FIA in a letter dated January 17 2005 and the timing is no coincidence.

Unless I'm missing something here, one of these claims must be inaccurate. :-?


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26408
quere wrote:
Blake wrote:
Since, reportedly Ferrari has held this veto power since the days of Enzo, are you going lay this giant question mark blanket over a period of a period of 30 years, call into question Ferrari's results over that whole time.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2017 ... d53cec7ff1
As American broadcaster ESPN revealed in 2013, Ferrari has the power to veto any change to the regulations already announced or introduced (subject to certain exceptions). Ferrari founder Enzo Ferrari first requested the veto when his team was powered by a V12 engine despite V10s dominating the field. Ferrari asked for a right to block changes to prevent its engine from being banned and the rest is history. The veto was formally granted to it by the FIA in a letter dated January 17 2005 and the timing is no coincidence.

Unless I'm missing something here, one of these claims must be inaccurate. :-?

Did not Ferrari drop the V12 in the end because it wasn't as fuel efficient as the V10?

Sorry I used the fuel efficient word that apparently has no place in F1.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
pokerman wrote:
quere wrote:
Blake wrote:
Since, reportedly Ferrari has held this veto power since the days of Enzo, are you going lay this giant question mark blanket over a period of a period of 30 years, call into question Ferrari's results over that whole time.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2017 ... d53cec7ff1
As American broadcaster ESPN revealed in 2013, Ferrari has the power to veto any change to the regulations already announced or introduced (subject to certain exceptions). Ferrari founder Enzo Ferrari first requested the veto when his team was powered by a V12 engine despite V10s dominating the field. Ferrari asked for a right to block changes to prevent its engine from being banned and the rest is history. The veto was formally granted to it by the FIA in a letter dated January 17 2005 and the timing is no coincidence.

Unless I'm missing something here, one of these claims must be inaccurate. :-?

Did not Ferrari drop the V12 in the end because it wasn't as fuel efficient as the V10?

Sorry I used the fuel efficient word that apparently has no place in F1.

I think you are misinterpreting things here.

Fuel efficiency as a means for manufacturers to give themselves an edge is not unwelcome. Making fuel efficiency a fundamental part of the rules is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6118
quere wrote:
Blake wrote:
Since, reportedly Ferrari has held this veto power since the days of Enzo, are you going lay this giant question mark blanket over a period of a period of 30 years, call into question Ferrari's results over that whole time.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2017 ... d53cec7ff1
As American broadcaster ESPN revealed in 2013, Ferrari has the power to veto any change to the regulations already announced or introduced (subject to certain exceptions). Ferrari founder Enzo Ferrari first requested the veto when his team was powered by a V12 engine despite V10s dominating the field. Ferrari asked for a right to block changes to prevent its engine from being banned and the rest is history. The veto was formally granted to it by the FIA in a letter dated January 17 2005 and the timing is no coincidence.

Unless I'm missing something here, one of these claims must be inaccurate. :-?


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... gine-veto/

Originated from the 80's


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1878
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Thank you for the answer!

Why was the veto implemented and why does it still exist if it was ineffective? I don't buy it. The veto right for Ferrari is the expression of a special relationship between Ferrari and the governing bodies. As Mikey writes correctly it is a special treatment in itself.

IMO, it is wrong to imagine the exercising of the veto as a formal, public procedure back in the Mosley-era. Instead, it is much more likely that it created a process of secret pre-information from FIA/FOM to Ferrari about planned rule changes. Then, Ferrari got the chance to threat their veto. In secret negotiations, then, rule changes were agreed upon. But in any case, it gave Ferrari an invaluable competitive advantage: more development time than the competitors.

The veto is an unprecedented scandal, unimaginable in any other sport. It is a massive violation of the integrity of the sport and it does put question marks over results in the relevant era.

All in all a very sad story.


Don't think I agree. I've explained above why and how this veto came into existence. The veto was given to Ferrari as it was the only team outside the UK and Enzo felt that he needed something up his sleeve should the other teams "gang up on them". It's not a far fetched scenario either; we've witnessed teams ganging up, like Williams and McLaren at Jerez '97. Further than that, it came with caveats, which I don't know what they include. It's not as straight forward as "Ferrari doesn't like it so it is banned" sort of thing.

Now there is no evidence (that I know of) that it has ever been used. I know that Ferrari tried to block the engine budget cap, but I am unsure if they used their veto rights or not. In any case it went to court and Ferrari were denied.

The likely secret negotiations that you describe make no sense. You have described a "likely" scenario and almost present it as it being what happened. Why would the FIA inform Ferrari of their intentions of rule changes and then give them the right to veto them? May as well give them a pen and paper to write down the rules themselves...

I think that so far the veto was a veto in name only. True, it is a thing that should never have happened. It doesn't make it look good for the sport. However there is no evidence (again that I know of) that it was used, and in the one case that Ferrari opposed a huge rule change, they got denied by a court. In fact, the FIA said that they forfeited their veto by being part of FOTA


It is not surprising that we are disagreeing.

Still, it is the existence of the unique and unprecedented Ferrari veto that creates scope for speculation - either in my or in your direction. That's one of the reasons why it would be good and so important for the sport to get rid of it!

No team should have more influence on the technical regulations than any other!
It is a pity and jeopardizing the sport's integrity that this needs to be emphasized in F1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6118
Paolo, unlike you, I have not speculated at all. If you read the article above, Todt explains a lot. He mentions that the teams were in favour of the veto as well. I am not sure if he means in favour of the Ferrari veto or of having a veto right in general, but that's what he said.

And again, the veto is not straight forward. They have apparently tweaked it to make it more difficult to exercise without a strong rationale


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1878
Well, claiming that the veto never favoured Ferrari above its competitors is at least as speculative as claiming it probably did so.

Add to this the indication that FIA/FOM wantrd to / was willing to help Ferrari through the technical regulations at least at times (in the Mosley-Ecclestone era) and it appears to be highly unlikely that Ferrari achieved its results always fair and square.Highly unlikely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6241
Location: Nebraska, USA
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
it appears to be highly unlikely that Ferrari achieved its results always fair and square.Highly unlikely.


Prove it. Until you do, it is nothing more that your "vision" as you wish it to be and absolutely nothing more.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6118
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Well, claiming that the veto never favoured Ferrari above its competitors is at least as speculative as claiming it probably did so.

Add to this the indication that FIA/FOM wantrd to / was willing to help Ferrari through the technical regulations at least at times (in the Mosley-Ecclestone era) and it appears to be highly unlikely that Ferrari achieved its results always fair and square.Highly unlikely.

I never used that wording, not sure how you got that. I said that they never used the veto. Only recently as it transpires and that was against the FIA engine rules for a budget cap. Can't blame them when they are trying to protect their interests, but it has nothing to do with receiving help from the FIA. It is purely for the engine prices.

No unless you can prove that Max & co helped them through the regs, I'd say that you are widely speculating


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Well, claiming that the veto never favoured Ferrari above its competitors is at least as speculative as claiming it probably did so.

Add to this the indication that FIA/FOM wantrd to / was willing to help Ferrari through the technical regulations at least at times (in the Mosley-Ecclestone era) and it appears to be highly unlikely that Ferrari achieved its results always fair and square.Highly unlikely.

I think you're conflating two things here. Helping Ferrari through tech regulations is not the same as giving them unfair advantages . E.g. the original plan was to have four cylinder hybrids, but Ferrari were extremely unhappy and protested vocally against it. So they settled on a V6 instead. Now that could be seen as the FIA helping Ferrari, but it doesn't mean that they were given any unfair advantage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1878
Blake wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
it appears to be highly unlikely that Ferrari achieved its results always fair and square.Highly unlikely.


Prove it. Until you do, it is nothing more that your "vision" as you wish it to be and absolutely nothing more.


Prove that Ecclestone's witness is untrue. He is an insider, he must know. Prove that he is lying. Proof, not speculation.
;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1878
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Well, claiming that the veto never favoured Ferrari above its competitors is at least as speculative as claiming it probably did so.

Add to this the indication that FIA/FOM wantrd to / was willing to help Ferrari through the technical regulations at least at times (in the Mosley-Ecclestone era) and it appears to be highly unlikely that Ferrari achieved its results always fair and square.Highly unlikely.

I never used that wording, not sure how you got that. I said that they never used the veto. Only recently as it transpires and that was against the FIA engine rules for a budget cap. Can't blame them when they are trying to protect their interests, but it has nothing to do with receiving help from the FIA. It is purely for the engine prices.

No unless you can prove that Max & co helped them through the regs, I'd say that you are widely speculating


Not more than you, in reality. You cannot really know how often they used their veto and what informational advantage it gave them. You only know how often it was used in public - which is really not the same considering the reputation backlash.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6118
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Well, claiming that the veto never favoured Ferrari above its competitors is at least as speculative as claiming it probably did so.

Add to this the indication that FIA/FOM wantrd to / was willing to help Ferrari through the technical regulations at least at times (in the Mosley-Ecclestone era) and it appears to be highly unlikely that Ferrari achieved its results always fair and square.Highly unlikely.

I never used that wording, not sure how you got that. I said that they never used the veto. Only recently as it transpires and that was against the FIA engine rules for a budget cap. Can't blame them when they are trying to protect their interests, but it has nothing to do with receiving help from the FIA. It is purely for the engine prices.

No unless you can prove that Max & co helped them through the regs, I'd say that you are widely speculating


Not more than you, in reality. You cannot really know how often they used their veto and what informational advantage it gave them. You only know how often it was used in public - which is really not the same considering the reputation backlash.

It's a fair point, but I am not sure that it would have been kept a secret if Ferrari used their veto to block a rule. When they did it, it was reported


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], mds and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group