The WMSC are set to rule on the Ferrari team orders case today, and we may learn more about the 2011 F1 calendar, rules and whether there’ll be a 13th team too.
Here’s today’s round-up:
Links
The Guardian and Die Welt side with Ferrari (Ferrari)
Cast your mind back to the row last year between FOTA, then led by Ferrari’s Luca di Montezemolo, and the FIA.
At the height of the dispute Ferrari posted an article on their website to draw attention to an F1 Fanatic survey showing 83% of 2,300 fans supported them and FOTA.
Fast forward back to today and once again they’re scanning the press looking for supporters, digging up articles in The Guardian and Die Welt.
Any mention of the 78% of 2,600 F1 Fanatic readers who agreed in the aftermath of the German Grand Prix that Ferrari had used team orders and should to be punished? Astonishingly, no.
I can only imagine this is some oversight on their part. Anything else would be hypocrisy, and they’ve reminded us many times in recent weeks what a terrible thing hypocrisy is.
Ferrari face fate at FIA hearing on team orders charge (BBC)
“There is also a feeling that the teams would prefer the rule banning team orders to be abolished because it is difficult to enforce. If the rule was removed, the teams would instead tacitly agree not to use team orders as much as possible.” A gentlemen’s agreement not to use team orders? Yeah, that’ll work.
The rights and wrongs of team orders (Joe Saward)
“One can argue that the new demands on the sport are being driven by people who are ignorant of the past, but this is not really the point. Any sport must adapt to suit its fans. If it does not, then it will suffer. The skill is to find the correct solution that does not leave the fans feeling cheated, but at the same time does what is best for the team. The rule perhaps needs to be changed, but perhaps it would be wiser to try to make teams understand that they must respect the sport above all else and that there are times when they will gain more if they do not interfere.”
Fernando Alonso faces his D-day in race fix storm (Daily Mail)
“The debate over whether or not the rule should be scrapped is for another day. The rule stands and Ferrari broke it. The FIA merely have to enforce it.”
F1 sponsors call for top marketing role (Brand Republic)
“Speculation has linked ex-Vodafone global brand director David Wheldon with the role, but Ecclestone has denied negotiations are under way.”
Ferrari si oppone al motore del 2013 (Autosprint, Italian)
Ferrari’s Luca Marmorini puts the case for F1 to use 1.8-litre V6 engines instead of four-cylinder turbos from 2013. He says they would be more closely related to the current engines and therefore cheaper.
Interview with David Coulthard, September 2010 (YouTube)
[On his crash with Michael Schumacher at Belgium in 1998]: “You know, the team told me Michael was coming up and we’ve already been in a big crash at the start, so I was in the spare car and I’ve tried to allow him to overtake, but Michael made a mistake. It is as simple as that. He thinks I am to blame. The reality is that he run into me, I did not reverse into him. And even today… Michael, come on, it was your fault, it was your fault.” Read the original interview in Lithuanian here.
Whitmarsh: F1 must get its act together (Autosport)
“I personally believe that in F1 it is remarkable we are sat inside a successful sport. I am not pointing fingers at CVC, because we, those involved, have really badly managed this sport. There is no central marketing – no strategy. There is no real cooperation. It has been divide-and-conquer. We don’t look at developing young talent. We don’t look at developing young people’s interest in the sport. How many multi billion dollar businesses don’t spend one dollar centrally marketing themselves?”
Comment of the day
Lots of people were happy to see Kamui Kobayashi get a second season with Sauber, including Ide:
Excellent news. He’s impressed me this year. Though he needs to work on qualifying, he and the team seem to have their heads screwed on during the races and it’s bringing them some good points now.
Hope he can continue his good form into next year!
Ide
From the forum
GeeMac asks if F1 advertising means anything to you?
Happy birthday!
No F1 Fanatic birthdays today. If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.
On this day in F1
The result of the Italian Grand Prix did not go down well with the home crowd on this day 25 years ago. Alain Prost won for McLaren while title rival Michele Alboreto’s Ferrari blew its engine six laps from home while he was running fifth.
Icthyes (@icthyes)
8th September 2010, 0:06
Keith you are my new hero for your comments on the first link! But I guess I’d say that because I live in Britain and obviously slavishly follow every opinion my biased British journalists hold, right?
Surprised you didn’t include Murray Walker skateboarding:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrQg7vVKtDI&feature=player_embedded
US_Peter (@us_peter)
8th September 2010, 0:12
Especially this bit:
Joe Saward also nails it:
Icthyes (@icthyes)
8th September 2010, 0:52
I really liked this from Ferrari:
The Guardian is about as influential in sports opinion as Noel Edmonds is.
Scribe (@scribe)
8th September 2010, 1:12
To be fair the guardians sports website is damn good. Fiver, Football Weekly etc. Nice cricket writers, The Spin.
Who truly is influential in sports matters, all the tabloids have been calling for Capellos head since the WC and whats he doing at the mo?
MouseNightshirt
8th September 2010, 7:40
The Guardian has one of the best sport sections of the British papers and their F1 coverage is second to none.
But in terms of its position, no-one actually pays attention to them!
Steph (@)
8th September 2010, 12:21
“The Guardian has one of the best sport sections of the British papers ”
That’s a bit like saying swine flu is better than bird flu. I generally find all sports coverage except football but especially F1) to be pretty poor in the newspapers. The Guardian’s is by far the best and sometimes has good interviews but I usually try to get a sneaky look in the newsagent’s rather than pay for it :P
MouseNightshirt
8th September 2010, 7:40
That first quote had me laughing too!
BasCB
8th September 2010, 7:25
Very good work i think. Surely Ferrari is not being hypocritic themselves?
I think they are doing a lot to discourage casual fans this year with their rants and strange logic.
Hamish
8th September 2010, 0:26
From what I read – no 13th team
Michael Griffin
8th September 2010, 0:33
My stance on team orders is simple. It should be illegal whilst both drivers in a team have a mathematical chance of being world champion.
Once one driver is out of the title equation, then team orders are permitted. Very simple really, common sense, but not much of that exists in F1 today.
matt90 (@matt90)
8th September 2010, 0:39
What if, as in Germany 08, one driver has the potential to win if allowed through, whereas the other driver can only achieve 3rd or 4th?
Mike
8th September 2010, 3:22
I think that could be justified, because if they don’t swap, that’s Alonso out.
I think a big part of what Ferrari did wrong is that they tried, and are still trying to hide it.
If they had come on the radio and said, “Fernando is in a better position in the championship than you, we would like you to let him through.” I believe 100% that the reaction would be completely different.
Oliver
8th September 2010, 3:53
As regards Germany 08, if the the team had not tried to protect the second driver, he would have probably ended up in 13th place after the safety car pit stop as the leading driver would have had to stop first and car no two forced to wait behind for a considerable number of seconds
Icthyes (@icthyes)
8th September 2010, 0:43
The teams will still try and sneak around it, though.
patrickl
8th September 2010, 11:55
and the FIA should investigate every suspicious swap of positions between team members.
They can check telemetry, fuel levels, complete radio conversations. With all that information, it will be a lot harder to sneak one through.
Scribe (@scribe)
8th September 2010, 1:21
It’ll be so annoying if FIA don’tstamp their feet a little bit, my prefered punishment would be a suspended ban (nor more than McLaren got for liegate) andconstructors poitns from the meet docked. It’d send a fairly strong message, I’m not entirley sold on docking drivers points but so be it if thats what the councill goes for. Significantly less than that an I’ll be well ticked off.
BasCB
8th September 2010, 7:21
Thing is, you might be right. With Ferrari on the receiving end of a penalty, any penalty given will shock them and make them rage in public about it, even if it would be something like another fine and a suspended ban.
But if the FIA wants to stop this kind of things happening, the penalty should affect the WDC points for both drivers as well. I am not sure i like it, but it would be the right choice
Skett
8th September 2010, 8:57
I definately think it would be the right choice. If they removed both drivers points, maybe it would make the two drivers think twice about switching places during a race as well as the team
patrickl
8th September 2010, 11:56
McLaren got disqualified for Australia. Besides the suspended ban.
I’d say the same would indeed be e perfect penalty for Ferrari on this occasion too.
Manu
8th September 2010, 13:09
Ferrari didn’t try to ruin an opponent’s race as far as I remember. Hardly the same thing.
Filip
8th September 2010, 2:00
David Coulthard (in 2003): “I lifted to let Michael past me but I did it in heavy spray on the racing line – I would never do that now.” :)
Jameson
8th September 2010, 2:11
I agree with Ferrari regarding the 1.8 litre V6. Not only is it closer to what performance engines will be in the near future, it also keeps alive the 300cc per cylinder of the past two generations. Also a larger displacement motor, in theory, should be more reliable as the parts aren’t being pushed so hard to produce the required power. Reliability is going to be key if the FIA really wants to limit the teams to five engines per car.
Alex
8th September 2010, 8:12
Problem is they won’t be pushed for power. I don’t think FIA will make new engine regulations in a way where the new engines produce more horsepower than they do now. They will say it is more dangerous, it isn’t environmental friendly and that it isn’t close to normal road cars. The first shouldn’t be a problem because power is nothing when you can’t put it on the road properly (because of less grip). The second is a heap of cow poo, if they say they do it to save fuel (It will run out eventually), then I will accept it. And the third is crap. Normal road cars are about twice as heavy as a formula 1 car. Even a typical small car has about a 100 bhp because it is so heavy. So they should just push the new turbo engines to the max, producing around 1000 horsepower. Or they should give the teams a constant amount of fuel for a race, and let them use it in whatever way they want. Maybe then we’ll see innovative solutions to save it, and then road cars can actually benefit from the technology developed.
Dev
8th September 2010, 4:24
Today Ferrari will be at WMSC for the team orders… but i was wondering about how Alonso has always been involved with some controversy or other he was there for spygate, for crashgate & now for team orders… does he attract trouble or is it simply bad luck?
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
8th September 2010, 9:59
There’s a sixty-four thousand dollar question if ever I heard one.
patrickl
8th September 2010, 11:58
They say the same about Hamilton and for that matter Schumacher. Maybe it’s related to championship battles that controversy arises. At the very least it puts the spotlight on them.
Red Andy
8th September 2010, 12:23
Alonso’s role in Spygate is known, but the FIA found no evidence of his involvement in Crashgate, and equally there is no evidence that he was involved in the instruction for Massa to move over in Germany.
People can (and do) believe what they like about his involvement in the latter two cases, but a lot of those suspicions are informed by preconceptions people have about him. What really matters is the evidence, and there isn’t much of that.
So really, being directly involved in one major controversy in a ten-year F1 career isn’t so abnormal, especially as he has spent most of that period at the very top of the sport – hence with more attention directed towards him.
RaulZ
8th September 2010, 12:59
That’s because people seem to be obssesed with him. For Example, Hamilton is in the middle of most controversy but he is not guilty of anything. FIA is guilty and he’s just a victim of the rest of the people acts.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
8th September 2010, 13:05
Is that what you think, or are you saying that’s what other people think?
Either way, I disagree. Hamilton has been justly punished on some occasions (Melbourne 2009, Magny-Cours 2008), unjustly punished on others (Spa 2008, Fuji 2008) and has had a lighter punishment than might have been expected on others (Sepang 2010).
Regarding Alonso, he clearly did benefit from what happened at Singapore in 2008 and Hockenheim in 2010. That’s why people may suspect he was involved, regardless of proof, I don’t think it has anything to do with “obsession”.
DC
8th September 2010, 5:41
The Wall Street Journal has an article about team orders in F1 and the current Ferrari controversy:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704358904575477972268624014.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_MIDDLEFourthNews
The people they interview are a bit more sympathetic.
GeeMac (@geemac)
8th September 2010, 6:24
I still stink that the engine regs should be drafted in such a way that teams have various options when deciding how to build their engines. Manufacturers would then be able to show off the technology they are famous for. If the aim is to get manufacturers back into F1 (which I don’t think is necessary, but most do) you need to let them show off the technology they use in their road cars in F1. So silly examples include letting Honda use a small normally aspirated VTEC engine that revs to hell and gone, let VW use a 1.6l turbo and supercharged engines, let Chevrolet or Ford use a lazy V8, ,let Porsche use a flat 6 tuerbos, or Subaru use a 4 cylinder boxer and 4 wheel drive (with some homologation of course).
That way you get manufacturers getting a direct benefit from F1 and we get the variety we need to ensure good racing. Variety is the spice of life, and it leads to good racing because some tracks would suit certain cars more than others, making the racing a lot more unpredictable.
BBT
8th September 2010, 6:51
Agree but the only problem is on team/engine getting a massive advantage.
It would be good if some were good in Quali but weaker in the race. Makes for better racing come race day. (btw that makes it sound like I support reverse grids, which I don’t)
GeeMac (@geemac)
8th September 2010, 6:57
If the situation is correctly policed and homologised (is that even a word?!?) it shouldn’t be a problem.
And besides, what’s wrong with one team having a power advantage? Back when I started watchimg F1 the Honda and Ferrari V12’s and the Renault V10’s had a massive power advantage over the rest of the field, and that didn’t stop Benetton winning the odd race with their Ford Cosworths, hell it didn’t stop MSC from winning his first WDC in 94 (although we all know that B194 was tricked up, but lets not go there!). It all helps make the races more intriguing because teams have to get more invetive with strategy or exploit other areas of the cars design to make up for the power deficit.
BasCB
8th September 2010, 7:23
I like what Withmarsh is saying about the coming Concord Agreement negotiatons and what the teams want from it. Seems they have the sponsors on their side as well about that.
Let’s hope it wont be as messy as with the last 2 times they argued over it.
Rob
8th September 2010, 7:54
When I read Richard Williams’ article on theft Guardian website yesterday I had to check I hadn’t accidentally stumbled upon the latest Horse Whisperer posting!
His logic for why Ferrari didn’t do anything wrong is that Peter Collins handed over his car so his team mate could win the title at the last race if the season decades ago.
I wouldn’t take seriously the views on F1 of anyone that thinks that argument stands to to any scrutiny…
Rob
8th September 2010, 9:10
of course ‘theft’ should read ‘the’, and ‘if’ should be ‘of’
khurshid
8th September 2010, 7:57
I want a gud job in f1. What shall i do ?
GeeMac (@geemac)
8th September 2010, 8:00
Start racing karts at 4 years old? ;)
Skett
8th September 2010, 9:01
Get yourself a first class engineering degree? And learn how to spell.
RaulZ
8th September 2010, 13:08
Try to have Santander on your side and then everybody will obbey your orders. Of course, you’ll have British media against you. But who cares? ;)
DGR-F1
8th September 2010, 8:21
‘A Gentlemen’s Agreement’ just about sums up the complete FIA/FOTA/FOM/CVC attitude to F1 generally. Look at all the ‘unwritten’ rules everybody has to remember, look at all the instances where different officials can interprate the same rule, and all have a different interpretation to what the teams think it means. This isn’t organised sport, its a shambles.
I’d like to see all the interested parties (yes, this includes you Bernie) start a proper discussion about where they think the sport is going and who they really really want it to appeal to.
I’m pleased to see that Martin Whitmarsh might just be starting to be thinking along the same lines as me (without any coaching either), so maybe there is going to be light at the end of the tunnel.
As for Ferrari, about the only good thing to come out of their little sideshow is that we are all sitting up and paying attention now, even if it is about 10 years too late.
Ady
8th September 2010, 9:58
It’s rare that I agree with anything written in the Daily Mail, but that quote is exatly to the point.
matt88
8th September 2010, 10:57
Marmorini is not totally wrong about the engine issue. 2 years to build a brand new reliable engine (4 engines per season) is too little, they have to completely review their car from scrap as well.
maybe it’d be interesting to see both solutions fighting in the same championship (1.6 turbos vs 1.8 V6 naturally-aspirated). At last, one of the solutions will be the best (as happened in the early 80s) but in the first seasons we could see interesting battles.
BasCB
8th September 2010, 19:02
After the hugely disappointing news brought out by the Italian FIA counsil member about Ferrari getting off with the fine they had today i found some much more enjoyable news.
Seems the Karting event in Milton Keynes to get funds together for racer van der Drift was a huge succes. A load of drivers from all sorts of racing made it a nice show.