digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at time.com

Can Formula One Run Without Ferrari?

time.com — The sport's governing body is trying to put a cap on technology upgrades, infuriating the premier participant of the championship.

Who dugg this? Made popular May 16, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

76 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • CyclonusRIP, on 05/16/2009, -1/+66Why would you cap technology upgrades for F1? What's the point of F1 if you cut out innovation? Why not just grab some Minis or something off the show room floor and have them drive a few laps. The level of technological innovation is what makes F1 unique, without that why bother.
  • DamnedSaint, on 05/16/2009, -3/+32Yes, with half the media coverage and half the spectators. I'm sure it could survive.
  • MrInfallible, on 05/16/2009, -0/+24Do you even know what Forumla 1 is?
  • ThantiK, on 05/16/2009, -1/+24If they restrict innovation, next they'll restrict it to oval tracks, then we'll have nascar...

    And we all know what nascar is. A bunch of old men occasionally failing to turn left.
  • wtfhacksDan, on 05/16/2009, -2/+23F1 is not and should not be a spec series. If you don't have the money or resources to be at the front that's too bad. Max Mosley should have been fired a long time ago. Give the position to someone who actually knows something about racing like Jackie Stewart.
  • syn3rgyz, on 05/16/2009, -0/+19this isnt nascar
  • DirtyBinLV, on 05/16/2009, -1/+19We already have one NASCAR. Formula 1 fans don't want to see boring equal cars, they want exciting cutting edge cars.
  • damack, on 05/16/2009, -0/+13This is true a lot of people are hanging onto the whole "Ferrari said they will leave if the rules are not changed" but Ferrari is not the only one to make that threat.

    Toyota, Renault and Red Bull(which field 2 teams) are all saying the same thing.

    The problem here is F1 is a sport watched by approximately 300 million people around the planet and the majority of them tune in to watch Ferrari. Ferrari has been there since the beginning and is practically synonymous with F1 racing.

    Ferrari won't be out of the door alone and when all these teams leave F1 will be full of teams with second rate cars that have technical advantages in a two tier system which is unrewarding for a team that is willing to spend more money to develop a faster car.

    If Renault, Ferrari, Red Bull and Toyota all leave by next season F1 will be as good as dead without a doubt.
  • DirtDog, on 05/16/2009, -4/+16No Ferrari, No F1 for me. Dead.
  • saucy05, on 05/16/2009, -1/+10You seem to forget Toyota, Red bull, BMW and Renault have all expressed their disdain about the new rules. And i'm pretty sure Mclaren will not stay in f1 without their bitter rivals, Ferrari.

    So you are pretty much left with Braun, Force India and Williams to duke it out for the championship.

  • DirtyBinLV, on 05/16/2009, -2/+10With the internet and satellite TV, I'm sure anyone in the world that really wanted to watch NASCAR could. They just don't, because it's dumb.
  • inactive, on 05/16/2009, -0/+7No it wont. I know for a fact that out of 9 friends of mine who watch formula 1, 7 would stop watching F1 if the Ferrari leave. This is F1 not Nascar. We don't give a crap about equal opportunity. All we care is about cars being at tehir best.
  • RansomHoldiay, on 05/16/2009, -0/+7i'm curious as to what your definition of sport is if you don't include auto racing?

    or are you just being a dick?
  • rodrigo74, on 05/16/2009, -1/+8F1 has always been a spec series, that's why it has "formula" on its name.
    I am not sure Sir Jackie Stewart would be able to run FIA, but I agree that Max Mosley is nuts and should have been fired long ago.
  • Falldog, on 05/16/2009, -0/+7Races with stock Mini's are a lot of fun...
  • sonicpentatonic, on 05/16/2009, -1/+8***** THE FIA!!!!!
  • zebrapoo, on 05/16/2009, -1/+7Half of teams aren't even REAL TEAMS...as in they develop their own engines.

    Look at the top 2: Brawn and RBR....seriously, gtfo

    Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, Renault and Toyota (and maybe bring back Honda)

    And that's it.
  • beloitpiper, on 05/16/2009, -0/+6Could you imagine if they decided to cap innovation back in the 70's or 80's? This is ridiculous! This will just turn it into a stagnant sport.
  • samadcit, on 05/16/2009, -0/+6umm....it is Brawn, not Braun. Ross Brawn the owner, not some cosmetic company
  • inactive, on 05/16/2009, -0/+6what about the engine development freeze, gearbox freeze. isn't that capping technology? ***** Bernie and Max. I want my glory days of the 90's back. Do waht ever it takes to win.
  • Jeepinator, on 05/16/2009, -0/+6Most of what comes out of F1 is computer related these days. Some of the newest traction controls and transmission controls wouldn't exist without F1. Transmissions also tend to derive from Formula 1. It takes a while to filter down, but it's true.
  • retop56, on 05/16/2009, -1/+7Bernie and Max are both stupid. Come on and just let the teams do what the hell they want and let them start developing the engine. I want to see cars like how they were at Monza 2002. I want to see Formula One like how it used to be in the late 90's-early 2000's
  • gsnedders, on 05/16/2009, -0/+5Until around twenty years ago, most teams didn't even build their own chassis. They are real teams insofar as what a team was several decades ago.
  • burketo, on 05/16/2009, -0/+5You've given me an idea... a V1 competition!

    Ah who am i kidding, I wouldn't be able to get something like that off the ground.
  • twilightzone, on 05/16/2009, -0/+4Sport - an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition.
  • Jeepinator, on 05/16/2009, -3/+7F1 is the space program for the auto industry. Capping technology is ridiculous. Capping power output is somewhat reasonable since that reduces speed and therefore can increase safety. However, caps that are put in place to decrease the cost of competing in F1 so that more companies may compete is ridiculous.
  • Hellahulla, on 05/16/2009, -0/+4BRAWN! Just saying.
    Toyota, Red bull, BMW and Renault won't leave if the budget cap stays, they are just joining the big guy in complaining. Briatore has already said Renault won't be abandoning F1.
    However I agree with you on some level, with regards to McLaren, in the Dennis days they'd not care who they were racing against, but in these new days, I think they'll not be bothered if they can't beat a big name like Ferrari.
    And don't knock Williams, they are more successful than McLaren, they are just having a long rebuilding period :)
  • Minters, on 05/16/2009, -5/+9Ferrari are a big name. Its a blow for any sport to lose a big name participant. But can it run without Ferrari? Absolutely. Since the rule changes this season, there is some fire and competition back into the races, as evidenced by the new team Brawn (Im aware they were Honda last season) absolutely thriving. A situation such as the one Brawn is in, simply wouldnt have been possible a few seasons ago due to their lack of finances in comparison to the big teams. Thats why Ferrari is so upset. They have more money than the other teams and they want to show it off.

    If they want to go, I say let them go. Formula 1 hasnt been as exciting as it is so far this season in YEARS.
  • mleh, on 05/16/2009, -0/+4"There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games."
  • dsmx, on 05/16/2009, -1/+5It's no coincidence that the teams that spend the most are the ones that are opposed to this, the budget cap would stop big budget teams in their tracks and would make the racing more competitive.
  • sdcarter, on 05/16/2009, -6/+10Ferrari is just starting to get out of the back of the pack this year. They've barely got any constructors points and both drivers have all but written off their driver's title efforts. Who's replacing them? Braun. Red Bull. Toyota. Formula 1 can exist without Ferrari. It pains me to say that, since I'm a Ferrari fan. But the truth is, the sport can live on. It'd be somewhat different without all that red; but it'd still live on.
  • ripple123, on 05/16/2009, -3/+7yeah i must say, braun has been a cut above the *ducks* rest.
  • gsnedders, on 05/16/2009, -0/+3Article 19 of the 2009 LMP rules (this clause has existed ever since the LMP1 and LMP2 classes were created):

    "The ACO wants to maintain the LMP1 on a performance level slightly higher than the one of the LMP2. Consequently adjustments will be carried out at the end of each race season if a variation of less 1.5% is observed on several races between the faster LMP1 and LMP2 (average of the 30 best lap times during the race).

    These performance adjustments are exclusively the responsibility of the ACO."

    (Technically the only de-jure rules are those in French, but most people here will probably understand the English better.)

    If you enter LMP2, don't expect to beat the LMP1 class cars. The rules say so.
  • smacksaw, on 05/16/2009, -0/+3And sportsmanship, something that is a big issue in F1.
  • DirtyBinLV, on 05/16/2009, -0/+3It's not laziness, it's just money. Honda is trying to survive a major worldwide economic downturn. Is their limited money better spent doing R&D on small, fuel efficient, well designed passenger cars, or race cars?

    Ferrari is a niche automaker that has always been marketed as "do you have enormous amounts of money and want to drive a race car on the street?" The only way they can perpetuate that marketing strategy, is by building top notch race cars. Money is no object to accomplish that, because if they don't, the company is dead. Because of that, they're not going to quit F1.
  • brucealmighty, on 05/16/2009, -1/+4The question really is whether it is about the cars or the drivers. Drivers in comparable cars are more competitive and fun to watch....but that doesn't do much to advance the technology. Seems like at the F1 level there should be more emphasis on the cars than the drivers because that's the only place that can happen.
  • gsnedders, on 05/16/2009, -0/+3The problem is even the top teams like Ferrari and McLaren agree the current spending is totally unsustainable: only the privateers which don't have other financing are actually trying to break-even within the sport, and haven't been doing very well for a number of years as a number of result. If you want the sport to only be competed by large manufacturers who can afford to run a racing team at a large loss, then go ahead with the current spending. If you want to continue the tradition of private teams in F1, which have been there since the start, then something needs to change.

    (That said, I don't like the rule proposals, but change is needed, and almost all the F1 teams agree.)
  • Hellahulla, on 05/16/2009, -0/+3Radical but a fair point, F1 did used to be about technology. That technology would often get used to the advantage of the road car, without the technological level F1 is losing it's justification as an expensive and elite sport. It is moving in the way of the lesser formulae, soon we will have standard chassis, gearboxes, electronics and engines. What's the use of it then, it's just an international indycar championship.
  • pdileepa, on 05/16/2009, -2/+5No one has done more to increase expenditure in the past few years than Mad Max and the FIA. These rule changes are not inexpensive! They cost a huge deal and the FIA has been making big rule changes pretty much continuously for many years now.

    And F1 without Ferrari is F - 1 (F minus 1). There is no way Bernie the Greedy is going to let Ferrari go.
  • gsnedders, on 05/16/2009, -0/+3Honda had the most money for a number of years and basically got nowhere; certainly, Ferrari has been one of the richer teams, but it hasn't been the richest for a long time (to my knowledge, even in the dominance of the constructor's championship from 1999–2004 they weren't always the richest). Ferrari have quite frequently not been the top team, and haven't yet pulled out. It isn't bitterness over not winning.

    The WRC lost a lot of interest after Mitsubishi, Subaru, Peugeot and other prominent manufacturers pulled out, and I expect the same would happen to F1.
  • Jeepinator, on 05/16/2009, -1/+3Honda is doing plenty well money wise to continue competing in F1. They could put more money into R&D if they wanted to beat Ferrari. As DirtyBinLV says though, high performance IS Ferrari. Honda doesn't have the reputation to keep up and therefore doesn't have to have a big stake in F1. If companies want to win then they should have to compete with the companies that are putting a lot into it. I'm pretty sure Honda is a much larger corporation than Ferrari, which is owned by the FIAT group. Honda has twice the revenue of FIAT even.
  • aviazn, on 05/16/2009, -3/+5For crying out loud, they're not capping technology, they're capping COSTS. By capping costs, they'll actually be able to relax the restrictions on technology in the regulations because they know the teams won't be able to spend themselves into Can-Am-like bankruptcy.

    F1 ceased to be a "space program" for the manufacturers long ago--it doesn't advance road car technology, it's just advertising and branding. And that came about because capping technology is what F1 has been doing for the past 20 years to keep costs down and it hasn't worked--they've just been throwing away money into useless wind tunnel and CFD work that has very little road-going value. KERS aside, a cost cap is the best opportunity to come along to give F1 road-going relevance in a long time.
  • aviazn, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2You want the glory days back? That's what they say about Can-Am too.
  • aviazn, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2Jeepinator: Of course, traction control has been banned in F1 for the second year running. And as nice as better transmission programming is, does it really justify the $500 million a year Ferrari pumps into the Scuderia? Of course not. The exposure and television time does.
    Prophetpimp: The engine freeze is exactly the kind of technology cap that wouldn't be necessary with a cost cap. From a cost-cutting perspective, there's no need to stop the teams from working on engines if they all have a capped budget. It's up to the teams to decide where to spend their resources. See how much better a cost cap would be for innovation? The teams would be forced to get the most return for the least dollar, not throwing hundreds of millions on the latest aero device which doesn't advance technology, only affects how the car is shaped.
  • bryanduggan, on 05/16/2009, -1/+3You'd think Time would have a better website. Why are there completely irrelevant links at the ends of the paragraphs in the middle of the article?
  • Hellahulla, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2And branding of course.
  • eobet, on 05/16/2009, -2/+4Formula 1 has been about the state of the art, and the combustion engine is no longer it. If they would switch out all the engines for electrical fuel cell ones, I bet we'd all drive super fast and efficient electric cars within a few years.
  • smacksaw, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2Correct. It's motorsports.
  • Hellahulla, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2Of course it's a spec series, but those specs were pretty liberal not so long ago, nowadays the spec is getting more restricted, too restricted in many people's views. Innovation should still be rewarded rather than punished, but a budget cap is not a bad idea, however, it should be introduced a lot steadier than it is.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.