FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[bud]

Jesus christ you talk alot of s*** mate! you really do! but answer me this, how was my reply to scotty seen as a reply to an insult to me?

i even through in a joke FFS yet you had to come along and have a go at ME.


what ever tickles your fancy but its clear you have a thing for me mate, im flattered!

[billindenver]

bud...you are already a lap down, there is no point in even racing him. He isn't going for your attack-counterattack thing...can't you see that? Argue the merits, or give it a rest.

[bud]

how so? i was happily enough talking to Scotty but this jerk seems to be fixated on me and thus wasted alot of the forums bandwidth discussing me....see im not vain

[EwanM]

Enough.

[racechick]

Here is the article by mark hughes that first alerted me to the ferrari veto.
http://www.autosport.com/features/article.php/id/2169
Sorry you can only access the link if you subscribe to autosport.
Here's the article;-

The bitterness of history must be set aside if Formula 1 is to find a way forward, but the latest bombshell makes that challenge all the harder

Ferrari has had veto of F1's technical rules since at least 1998. Let's spell that out: any F1 technical regulation has had to meet Ferrari's specific approval – because that's what the FIA has been contractually bound to do. That's the latest bombshell to emerge in the ongoing fight over the sport's future between the governing body and some of the teams. It's suspected this little gem of information was leaked by the FIA, almost certainly in an attempt to cause a rift between the so-far united FOTA teams. Picture the scene as the teams now met.

"So, unknown to us for all these years, you have been pulling the strings. We have been clowns running around in your private fiefdom thinking we were competing against you when really we were just there to make some noise and provide a backdrop for you. And now you want us to come with you to do a different championship because you don't like that the FIA has said it doesn't want to play to your rules any more in this one."

Far from being embarrassed about this being made public, Ferrari is conceding that yes, we do have veto, and furthermore it is the very fact that we do that disallows the FIA from doing what it is trying to do. What the FIA is attempting to do, of course, is steer F1 down a cost-capped path, a very understandable course of action in the current economic environment and one that offers the only hope of F1 not becoming a full spec formula.

We are now at an impasse and it looks like things could get bloody. The governing body has to impose a cost cap. Ferrari cannot accept it, for reasons that are not entirely clear, and is for once probably serious about withdrawing from F1. Without Ferrari, F1 takes a huge hit. It's going to take a lot of diplomacy and more goodwill than seems apparent to find a way past this impasse.

At the moment, even the spectre of a rival championship is back on the radar. Ferrari feels it is no longer contracted to F1 until 2012 because in imposing the proposed 2010 regulations the FIA would be breaking its contract with Ferrari. Toyota has gone public with its dissatisfaction about the way F1 is run and is therefore potentially allying itself to Ferrari.

If all the FOTA teams were to get behind Ferrari on the idea of going it alone without Bernie Ecclestone or Max Mosley, then this would be an overwhelming position of power. But, as outlined in this column last week, it looks extremely unlikely. Take a sounding from the teams in the paddock about that idea and you quickly see it will be a non-starter; if Luca di Montezemolo refuses to blink and pulls Ferrari out, even if Toyota and another couple of teams do follow, the rest will be staying put, FOTA or no FOTA, and will be topped up by the new teams.

The pity of it is that both 'sides' – teams and governing body – now seem to broadly agree about what F1 needs to do. Now that the FIA is backing away from the idea of a spec formula, their vision of the future and that of the teams is similar – drastically reduced costs while retaining technical innovation. What they are arguing about is only the way of doing it - the idea of outside auditors having access to their books. But behind the facade of those arguments runs historical discontent with Max and Bernie and the way they have gone about controlling and running the sport.

What the whole sorry episode is showing is the tawdry, shady way of doing things the sport has long embraced is wrong. It always has been and now it has come back to bite. There would have been no shady 'rules veto' by one competitor over all the others had the powers of F1 not needed to entice them. They would not have needed to entice them if they in turn had not been so greedy in the past that a nucleus of teams wanted to break away to form their own series. It's time to drop the bitterness of history, but that's a very difficult thing to do.

[billindenver]

My take on the veto thing is this, and I could very well be wrong, but sitting in a lot of negotiations between companies I don't think I am too far off.

Ferrari were threatening to break off and run their own series not all that long ago. The FIA was vulnerable and they knew it, so they sat Ferrari down and negotiated a peace. One of the reasons Ferrari wanted to break away was that they had zero control over regs and no input at all (much like what the FIA is trying to do now)...so to appease them they were offered the veto. When Ferrari came back into the fold, the rest of the teams followed....so this move was a good one by a governing body about to lose their paychecks.

Now...those who have always hated Ferrari still do...and now they claim that Ferrari has been cheating with the rules veto. Ok, I'm no fan of Ferrari either...but show me the veto's they have used. Remember, they can veto a rules change...they do not have the power to create rules or create investigations into rules violations...they can only veto a change made.

Some have brought up the tires issue of years back. The tires were against the rules...nothing was changed, nothing was veto'd. Same with spygate. It can not be said there was no spying. Again...no veto used. So unless someone can show me a veto that happened in which Ferrari were tilting the playing field in their favor....I believe this entire thing is just another ploy by Max and Bernie to split the teams up. Some of the fans are falling for it, but I suspect the teams will simply say "Well, we want a voice in how the rules are dictated...and as it turns out, we have had one for a while....wish we had thought of that" They have probably already looked for the smoking gun veto I've just asked about and found nothing...there has not been any cheating with that veto....or the FIA would have let that slip by now as well.

Just my thoughts on it....those who love Ferrari will agree, those who love McLaren will not....those who love other teams will go either way.

[Gilles 27]

Some have brought up the tires issue of years back. The tires were against the rules...nothing was changed, nothing was veto'd. Same with spygate. It can not be said there was no spying. Again...no veto used. So unless someone can show me a veto that happened in which Ferrari were tilting the playing field in their favor....I believe this entire thing is just another ploy by Max and Bernie to split the teams up. Some of the fans are falling for it, but I suspect the teams will simply say "Well, we want a voice in how the rules are dictated...and as it turns out, we have had one for a while....wish we had thought of that" They have probably already looked for the smoking gun veto I've just asked about and found nothing...there has not been any cheating with that veto....or the FIA would have let that slip by now as well.

Agreed, I'm not exactly a Ferrari fan but I'm not one the conspiracy gang either, largely I feel because I have my respect for the British press and my patriotism well under control. I find the idea that only one team has a veto to be troubling but the fact that one exists is healthy imo. The fact that the one veto is in the hands of Ferrari is not surprising being the premier team of F1 and I can't think of an occasion in the past where they could have gained a decisive advantage using it. There seems to be a great deal of confusion on this forum, other websites and even in the BBC commentary during second practice at Monaco over exactly what a veto is.

[darwin dali]

Some have brought up the tires issue of years back. The tires were against the rules...nothing was changed, nothing was veto'd. Same with spygate. It can not be said there was no spying. Again...no veto used. So unless someone can show me a veto that happened in which Ferrari were tilting the playing field in their favor....I believe this entire thing is just another ploy by Max and Bernie to split the teams up. Some of the fans are falling for it, but I suspect the teams will simply say "Well, we want a voice in how the rules are dictated...and as it turns out, we have had one for a while....wish we had thought of that" They have probably already looked for the smoking gun veto I've just asked about and found nothing...there has not been any cheating with that veto....or the FIA would have let that slip by now as well.

Agreed, I'm not exactly a Ferrari fan but I'm not one the conspiracy gang either, largely I feel because I have my respect for the British press and my patriotism well under control. I find the idea that only one team has a veto to be troubling but the fact that one exists is healthy imo. The fact that the one veto is in the hands of Ferrari is not surprising being the premier team of F1 and I can't think of an occasion in the past where they could have gained a decisive advantage using it. There seems to be a great deal of confusion on this forum, other websites and even in the BBC commentary during second practice at Monaco over exactly what a veto is.

China in the United Nations Security Council.

[Gilles 27]

are they one of the veto nations? I didn't realise. It would make sense given that most of the world now owes them money

[darwin dali]

are they one of the veto nations? I didn't realise. It would make sense given that most of the world now owes them money

One of five: USA, GB, France, Russia, China. But I brought up China because it's almost proverbial how they used their veto in the past.

[Gilles 27]

Alrighty, let's hear about it DD. I mean hypothetically, i could think of a situation where they could have used but I meant i couldn't think of a specific occasion in which I could say 'that worked out in Ferrari's favour because of their veto'

[billindenver]

Alrighty, let's hear about it DD. I mean hypothetically, i could think of a situation where they could have used but I meant i couldn't think of a specific occasion in which I could say 'that worked out in Ferrari's favour because of their veto'

That is because no such veto has ever been used. If it were, the Bernie/Max show would have unearthed it by now in order to destabilize FOTA

[Big Azza]

are they one of the veto nations? I didn't realise. It would make sense given that most of the world now owes them money

One of five: USA, GB, France, Russia, China. But I brought up China because it's almost proverbial how they used their veto in the past.

Why is the USA in there? They have all the debt!

I find it funny how the USA want to tell the world what to do with there money.

[darwin dali]

are they one of the veto nations? I didn't realise. It would make sense given that most of the world now owes them money

One of five: USA, GB, France, Russia, China. But I brought up China because it's almost proverbial how they used their veto in the past.

Why is the USA in there? They have all the debt!

I find it funny how the USA want to tell the world what to do with there money.

What does the UN Security Council have to do with debts and money spending?

[Big Azza]

I'm not that well educated am I?