planetf1.com

I think it works both ways, sort of a catch 22...

Ferrari wouldn't be the same without f1 and f1 would not be the same without Ferrari.

Could f1 survive without Ferrari? possibly but it would be harder for Bernie to charge the races so much, you would get less fans watching on TV, less fans buying tickets and merchandise, but remember Ferrari exist to race, the only reason they sell road cars is to fund their racing, so if they quit racing... what would be the point in still producing road cars?

Poetry in motion?

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota

[quote=" Ferrari exist to race, the only reason they sell road cars is to fund their racing, so if they quit racing... what would be the point in still producing road cars?[/quote]

Profit, to keep people in a job, Pride to name a few.

Their pride is racing. You eliminate racing and they're nothing more than a brand like Bugatti or Rolls Royce, shadows of their former selves.

Its not just F1, its the road cars, the sports cars. The 250TR and the 330 P3 and the battles at LeMans, its the CanAm cars of the 70s.

The history goes on and on. The personalities, the drivers.

If you don't understand history, you miss a lot.


Another bit, to think that Ferrari is the only team with skeletons in their closet is fooling themselves.

why'd you ruin it for them by bringing truth and logic into the equation.

_________________
My Top 5 drivers of all times:
1) Prost/ Schumacher
3) Fangio
4) Lauda
5) Brabham

if you don't like it, too bad! There's a reason why it says "My Top 5"

Their Pride should be in every single item they produce not at all just racing, I have never done any job that I wasn't proud of the results that is what drives me and according to Ferrari them too.

We have a cleaner for our house and she is superb and VERY proud of her work.

I love the way that certain people try to make out that Ferrari are the evil team in F1 & the only one

I like how people talk about Ferrari and team orders but forget McLaren were one of the main reasons that a ban was brought in a while back making coultard practically stop to give up the win and red bull told Webber to move for vettel only for Webber to refuse and have a sister team that moves, every one is guilty of it im afraid.

If McLaren do it how come Alonso threw his dollies and left because McLaren would favour him over Hamilton remember when he threw his dollies and said he'd report Ron Dennis for the scandle Alonso and Pedro De Larosa concoted with Ferrari?
He got away with it as he did when Piquet crashed into the wall to let him win, with Alonso follows these things until he gets to Ferrari and they work together brilliantly a match made in heaven they think and work the same so eventually the results will come.

PS I didn't see Webber doing Vettle any favours when he took them both off the other year.

This
Ferrari needs F1 far more than the other way around.
The FIA just need the wherewithall to call Ferrari's bluff.

LOL, so many haters.
F1 without Ferrari = not F1. =)

what??? I said McLaren HAVE done it and gave an example coultard had a race in the bag and got made to slow right down to let... Mikka past i think, also i said red bull did tell MW to move "mark seb is faster than you" ring any bells couldn't be more clearer read between the lines? Where did i say ANYWHERE that Alonso didn't have team orders? Stop looking through your rose tinted glasses and stop needlessly defending your driver from what wasn't even an attack i said everyone has done it basically they are ALL as bad as each other so maybe people should stop targeting one team.

For the record I don't support any driver or team I watch and enjoy but sometimes I don't enjoy the politics I don't like Alonso's do anything to win attitude though, a true win is when you have beaten the opposistion, I couldn't understand why Alonso wanted preference over Hamilton he would have beaten him if he had got on with the job like he did this year.
I didn't like the gearbox job that Ferrari did which put other drivers on the wrong side which I didn't think was fair, that was as close to cheating as you'll ever get in my view it's motor racing not a court case where some smart arse lawyer looks for loopholes. I thought that did Ferrari a lot of harm, a friend who has a Ferrari wasn't impressed and he's a die hard Ferrari supporter.

The McLaren thing I think your talking about was when they lapped everyone, and Mika and DC had an aggreement that who made it to the first corner would take the win DC did it out of is own will, I actually know DC's sister we stayed at theirs last December, it's amazing when you get to know what really does go on!

n/a

The scandle Alonso and De La Rosa concocted with Ferrari? What? You have your facts seriously messed up if you believe Spygate was of Alonso and De La Rosa's doing.

Crashgate, the FIA found he was innocent and didn't punish him. Why can't you? Do you have evidence that the FIA don't? Or are you merely going on an anti Alonso tirade.

_________________
Forza Fernando !

If you look he did a deal to give information and in return was left out of it, spygate wasn't exactly Alonso's doing but he knew all about it Ron Dennis didn't.

Few believe that Ron Dennis didn't know about Spygate, in the same way as few believe that Alonso didn't know (or find out long before the rest of us) about Crashgate.

Back to the point - as others have pointed out, if Ferrari left F1 it would damage the sport immeasurably.

But it would damage the Ferrari brand too, (as Ferrari are now a true business interested in profit, not just racing), and their reputation is partly/largely due to F1.

sounds like he was fine about it yeah.... Right. I think it happened in Jerez when he was TOLD to move and let Mika past and he was fuming, while Mika looked and sounded completely embarrassed post race.
my point was people label Ferrari this giant cheating organisation, to a point they do push the rules the gearbox a prime example but that is no different than letting your driver pass except its pre race to get a better start place. Every big team has its share of controversy, red bull bend the rules on their cars, McLarens spygate, Benettons crash gate or 1994 keeping traction control etc. It happens all the time and isn't limited to Ferrari so if you don't like loopholes you don't like probably 3/4 of the most successful teams in f1 history.

I don't remember the Jerez incident so my apolagies for that, I thought it was the opening race 1998 using the 3rd brake pedal.
I do think though that something that is done in a manner that doesn't poke you in the eye is better, the gearbox issue wasn't good because of the other drivers between Alonso and Massa, must have been very disapointing for them.
I wouldn't like to see F1 without Ferrari because it would take away a huge slice of the top quality of F1 leaving it easier for the rest to win, I don't see them leaving at anytime though they love the tiffosi and wouldn't want to ruin that.

Anyway Happy New Year to everyone.

Mercedes? Also most of the other car manufacturers are racing in other series and I imagine they pay for it with money earned by selling cars?

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas

true but i think he meant which other manufacturers toad car division exists solely to fund their racing team. It was true of Ferrari in the past but i think they would still sell road cars now even without racing, it becomes too profitable not to.

Ah ok, but like you I don't think Ferrari manufacture toad ( ) cars solely to fund their racing team.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas

Does that surprise you considering how many people have propped up in the last 3 years as hardcore Red Bull and Sebastian Vettel fans?

It's a cattle mentality.

How about this, let Ferrari leave, and then see what happens, is F1 better off without Ferrari? and is Ferrari better off without F1?

My guess is they're both better off with each other.

Without Ferrari:

Less corporate interest and therefore less money in the sport.
A fairer distribution of the commercial revenue.
No single team to have the advantage of vetoing rules, therefore a fairer sport.
No cigarrette money in the sport.
Arguable less animosity, politics and bullshit.
No Luca di Montezemolo.

They are essential to the bloated game of image maintenance and international money-hoovering that F1 has become, but they are not essential to the racing or the health of the sport.

_________________
Klaus Kinski: making me question my heroes since January 2013

Ferrari leaving would also mean no more Ferrari engines. So the entire field would be split between Mercedes and Renault engines and it could end up being like another tire war, which track suits which engine and half the field is disadvantaged. Better to have at least 3 competitive engines, then it's too confusing for the media and they just shut up on the issue.

The bolded part is all that matters.... if it pays of for both parties, they'd continue. The racing would suffer, there'd be one less top team for top drivers. The health of the sport is measured on the financial side, so that would suffer very much too.

And the usual ignorance of Ferrari being the only team with skeletons in the closet persist i see. Sad and getting kindda amusing to read.

I agree three competitive engine suppliers would be preferable, but I don't think it's essential or even inevitable should Ferrari leave. Looking at the big picture, potential new engine suppliers may be attracted by the fairer playing field, fresh landscape, and lower costs that Ferrari's departure would theoretically induce.

I think the sport should progress and I don't want to return to the 60's era in terms of funding and sponsorship, but I would like to see big money play a smaller part in F1. If the sport's value were halved overnight (as some say would happen should Ferrari go) I think it would be positive in the long run. In such circumstances everyone, engine suppliers included, would have to reappraise their approach to F1 and cut budgets significantly. That could allow a PURE or Cosworth to compete, and would create interest among manufacturers. Granted, with the 2014 regs seeming to nail down the engine situation for the next few years, it's hard to see how any of this could happen in a reasonable timeframe. But Ferrari aren't going to quit tomorrow either.

I see your point but I guess it comes down to how much a fan values Ferrari and wants to risk uncertain waters without them. As I said I'd never 'kick them out' if I were omnipotent, but I can't help but think the future could be brighter without them.

_________________
Klaus Kinski: making me question my heroes since January 2013

_________________
Lewis Hamilton - 2008 World Drivers Champion! Mercedes - 10 Grand Prix Victories.

Beg pardon?

_________________
Klaus Kinski: making me question my heroes since January 2013

I think this question has been answered by a few already.
They are the only team to have participated in all F1 seasons since the start of F1 in 1950.
They are the most recognizable brand thanx to the road cars and merchandise.
They have the largest fanbase worldwide.

_________________
F1 fan since 1989

Ferrari need F1 just as much as F1 needs Ferrari, I call bullshit whenever they threaten to leave the sport.

Not so sure about this either anymore.
In this century, specially over last 4-5 years, their road cars have been piece of art, loud, magistic rumbling piece of art. Way ahead of most cars in the category as far as driving experience is concerned and they are now selling on their own merit. This is more evidence with their largest ever sales year happening when they have not won championship in 5 years.
Sure Ferrari value F1 greatly, but they value racing and winning, not F1 in particular anymore and that is why you are getting these threats or hints for FOM from them. They have capacity to break away and create a new top tier racing series without involvement of FOM and F1. Not just that but take some top teams from F1 with them if the time comes.
But it is not in best interest of either party. But the Ferrari needing F1 more or even point is fast becoming less and less relevant.

Ideally we want a compromise which is somewhere in the middle from point of view of both parties. And that will most likely happen. Rest of these BS arguments will be laid to rest when new agreement is signed..

I do see the point behind the original post, and do question the importance accorded to Ferrari. I understand that their departure would be a blow to the sport given their involvement since it's start, but I really think that the sport will move on.

There was plenty of talk in 2006 after Schumi announced his retirement that the sport would suffer from his loss and Bernie at one point even suggested that the Schumi+Ferrari dominance was good for the sport. However, when 2007 produced one of the closest championships in history along with some of the biggest off-track dramas in the sport, most fans were caught up in the drama and hardly had the capacity to remember Schumacher. F1 viewership is affected by a lot of other factors such as the level of on-track action (note the increase in viewership in 2011), it's availability on television (note the drop in viewership in 2012) and how close the championship is. The presence of the venerated Ferrari brand is just one factor in the overall appeal of the sport.

To me, the fear of a Ferrari departure is akin to how a lot of businesses fear uncertainty. All successful businesses, Formula One included, are afraid of any change to the status quo since the status quo has served them well. But given that over the last 33 years, Ferrari has won 6 constructors titles and 5 WDCs and lags behind McLaren and Williams in this regard, I doubt their leaving the sport will much more catastrophic than either of these other big names quitting F1. It will be blow, but I think F1 will easily recover from it.

That's really cute. After Ferrari, the most "corporate" team on the circuit is, yeah, McLaren, who are now trying to imitate Ferrari, with their road cars that look like they came out of a Hot Wheels package. Fairer distribution of commercial revenue, well, it helps that Ron Dennis, who went on a crusade to drive Minardi out of business, is out of the sport now. The cigarette money was originally brought in by Lotus and from a certain point of view the current McLaren team was founded by a cigarette company, when you consider that Marlboro orchestrated the takeover of McLaren by Dennis' Marlboro Project Four. You may also recall that Ferrari didn't put non-technical sponsors on their cars until very recently. There would be no less animosity, politics and bullshit, but there would, as you say, be no Luca di Montezemolo.

I think what has damaged the sport more than anything else, aside from Bernie Ecclestone, has been the emphasis on aerodynamics over the last 40 years, which has made close racing more difficult and sent design costs skyrocketing. It's arguable that it's had an impact on road cars, but only to a certain extent; I don't think you'll be seeing front wings and diffusers on your Ford Focus anytime soon. So yeah, anti-Ferrari rants are cute, but often lack real substance.

Sports car racing would welcome Ferrari back, given how mind-numbingly boring it's become, one manufacturer dominates each series because it's hardly worth the others' while to pour money into races that don't mean too much anymore.

If F1 is soda, then Ferrari would be Coca-Cola I guess...

_________________

It's easy to imagine F1 without Ferrari if you don't have to worry about marketing and finance. A global sport requires global brands as it enters the marketplace. More people understand the word Ferrari than they do "Formula 1". Do some homework about how businesses operate. It's healthy to have multiple global brands as your products. Look at the dominance Procter and Gamble has in the house hold needs segment. It's smart business. F1 wouldn't die without Ferrari it just wouldn't be as strong as it is today. If anything F1 could use another big brand to come oboard.

So, you're a big fan of ferrari. Can you imagine if Celtic or Rangers in the SPL were relegated? Well yes actually because it is happening right now and no, it's not a big deal everyone just gets on with a very similar life!

There is plenty of mystiue surrounding The great Team Lotus and further the Cooper F1 team, they have both arguably done more for the sport than the team that Enzo created!
Can anybody name a team that has been in F1 since 1950? Why on earth is that of any importance what so ever? Enzo used to drive for another team.
Anonima Lombarda Fabbrica Automobili which were my grand fathers favourite F1 team the great Alfa Romeo, so his opinion was more that they were not great in fact they (he) just took as much technical information from Alfa as possible. As for the statement Manufacturers road cars to fund it's racing? It's a MYTH! What a load of rubbish. It's business and they race because it's all they do to support the brand. I find it quite shocking that some people actually believe the drivel that comes from the Ferrari team propoganda office. If they only manufactured road cars to support racing then they would have gone bankrupt in the 80's
Frankly they would be significantly less with out F1 so where would they go? sportscars

What? Do you mean it's not interesting now? Is that because by hook or by crook the red mob cannot win?

It's history which is inexorably linked with time, and amongst others Jesus Christ and Adolf Hitler.

***To the Alfa Romeo days you mean? pfft!
Reference to the in bold/\ : How far up your own ass can you actually get? Really? That far?


E F A: ferrar1sta i think this is what you meant:
Also not really related, but i'm typing it anyway so there can be no doubt and no interference from someone, or indeed anyone whom may feel i'm not absolutely 100% correct Therefore, no one else's opinion can be right.
So with your last paragraph in mind would you rather i called you post a complete load of allevamento rifiuti tra?.

So You can pick bits that you may be able to understand. I know the other post was somewhat difficult to read but i was in a hell of a hurry, you didn't really want to understand it though, you would rather make another be littling and throw away smart arsed comment, as is your want and need!.
Edited to make it clearer, Maybe i (A) shouldn't rant quite so much but it's pure passion and (B) shouldn't post when i know i do not have sufficient time to post my views in the correct order.

...

Did you take your pills today, amico? :/ You're probably tired of hearing this, but it would be a lot easier to take your posts seriously if you could make them a little... more... coherent.