Could there still be an F1 without Ferrari? (merged)

[Knowlesy]

I was saying that the statement "Ferrari is the heart of our sport" is rubbish, ie totally untrue.

[luke]

But Ferrari is the heart of the sport, and agwiii's post was not rubbish, he made some good points.

[pitcrew]

F1 without ferrari, i would rather not think about it to be honest, i think F1 and Ferrari go hand in hand "full stop" i wouldnt like to see any teams leave F1

[Knowlesy]

Well agwii, I don't mean it like that. I meant the point of ferrari being the heart of F1 is rubbish. To me, that is just an opinion and I didn't mean that in a nasty way.

It's not that I disrespect your opinion, merely I strongly disagree. I'm not great at hiding feelings, so maybe I said it a bit bluntly.

And there aren't really any facts to support anybodies opinions on this topic as it is pretty subjective. Hence the strong disagreements with no real conclusions.

Anyways, let's forget it.....

[Inigo Montoya]

*Posts deleted*
Can we please bury the hatchet guys... and move on.. And lets leave the moderating to the mods

Thanks

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

Well agwii, I don't mean it like that. I meant the point of ferrari being the heart of F1 is rubbish. To me, that is just an opinion and I didn't mean that in a nasty way.

It's not that I disrespect your opinion, merely I strongly disagree. I'm not great at hiding feelings, so maybe I said it a bit bluntly.

And there aren't really any facts to support anybodies opinions on this topic as it is pretty subjective. Hence the strong disagreements with no real conclusions.

Anyways, let's forget it.....

Knowlsey:

Ok - I'll buy you a virtual drink - what ever you like!

(I lean toward single malt scotch - Lagavulin in particular!)

[Inigo Montoya]

That's more like it fellas!

[Son of Jor-El]

The original question was "Could there still be an F1 without Ferrari?"
Of course there could. It would be rather narrow minded to believe otherwise.
Ferrari has achieved an awful lot since the official WDC and WCC were introduced, and that can't be belittled. Due to this it's quite obvious that F1 and Ferrari has benefitted from each others success, in commercial and publicity terms.
Currently there are 9 OTHER teams participating in F1, all with varying degrees of success. To suggest that F1 won't really be F1 without Ferrari is condescending to all other teams, past and present. It's the combined achievements of EVERY team that constitutes F1.
I appreciate that many posters are suggesting that popularity will wane, to whatever amount, and I agree. But I believe that most people watch F1 because it's the pinnacle of motorsport, for driver ability and for technology. It's for this reason that it will maintain it's popularity.
Someone mentioned that the US is a huge market for Ferrari, which gives the impression that if it were to withdraw from F1 the series will suffer greatly. But what if there was a US driver competing?!

The question again: Could there still be an F1 without Ferrari? Yes.

[joe rossi]

Originally Posted by kdr

its not a difficult equation...

ferrari v mercedes v bmw v honda = F1

mercedes v bmw v honda = touring cars

all imho of course.

Good point, but also

Ferrari minus F1 = Maserati

They need F1 as much as F1 needs them..they won't be going anywhere unless something cataclysmic happens

[Testure]

Guess I just don't get it. I watch Formula because of the sport; the racing and the machines. I cheer for Sauber and Renault and Jordan and every team because I want to see good competition. Not sure about that "lovable loser" tag - they've won races in most seasons they've competed in. Minardi are lovable losers, Ferrari have generally been a pretty strong team. I get a bit annoyed when people describe the 1996 Ferrari as junk, for example.

So, I don't really care about brands or logos or any of that stuff and have always secretly thought that people who spend hundreds of dollars on t-shirts, hats and whatnot are nuts (sorry, GP ) For me, Mal summed it up best - F1 as a business needs Ferrari considerably more than F1 as a sport does. They do attract casual fans (surely not 3/4 of the ones at the races I've been to, though). It would be less popular. I wouldn't care.

What an interesting thread

[GP Racer]

The only thing I can afford from Ferrari are the hats and shirts Testure, barely!

Jor-el, if Ferrari left F1, would this still be the pinnacle of motorsports? Could either Williams, or McLaren carry on as the marqui team that people would tune in to watch?
Would we see a sea of Jordan fans all dressed in yellow suddenly appear at GP's carrying on wildly to make up for the missing waves of red? Would Sauber be able to stir up the passion that Ferrari does? Does Toyota's race history turn you on, like Ferrari's does? The answer to me is a resounding no.

There are simply no teams left that can take their place IMO...

[Gt_R]

I am a fan of F1 as much as i am a fan of Ferrari. I like teams like Sauber and respect teams like Williams and Mclaren. They've achieved an awful lot.

Would i still watch F1 if Ferrari leave? I would. I am so much an F1-man..i could miss a round or two of other series..but not F1.

And what about the commercial side of F1? The tee-shirts and caps? I don't buy them. It is not what i like about F1. It's the racing, the politics, the atmosphere.

Ferrari was born with F1. It grew with F1. It has now reached a stage where it's a global name, as strong, if not stronger than F1.

F1 will survive. I'm pretty sure of that. But how much of it?

Will it remain as the pinnacle of motorsports? I'd say that with Ferrari's departure, it will be vunerable to being overtaken. Why do i say that? Because Ferrari lends itself to F1's image as the pinnacle. The general public view Ferrari as the symbol of great supercars, and a racing series that features Ferrari will give the additional touch of glamour. The likes of Renault and Toyota just cannot match this.


Look at most, if not any, races. Ferrari fans are more often than not in greater numbers than any other teams/drivers. The atmosphere at events such as Monza is electric compared to other races. Take away Ferrari, and you're left with a crippled man.

Ask Bernie which big team he'd want to lose if he had to choose. It'd be the likes of Williams and Mclaren before Ferrari is even mentioned.

[SetikX]

Gt_r HONESTLY I think that the reasons 50% of the crowds (id guess), are ferrari fans, is because of current success, and not traditional ties. Wait until ferrari hits a relative slum, will there be as many people waving the prancing horse? Hardly.

I do agree however, that ferraris image helps Formula 1 in the global market.

PS - a previous poster said "does saubers formula 1 history turn you on like ferraris", OH PLEASE! Mclaren has an equally, if not better record as ferrari IMO, and noone in the PUBLIC would of heard of Mclaren. The average v8 supercar driver in Australia, would be hard lucked knowing who Mclaren or Williams are.

To the lay person, Williams is just as famous as Red Bull Racing. Keep it real guys, 50% of the fans who flock to races wearing the prancing horse are lay watchers. I doubt 5% of those who attend the Aussie grandprix, watch the actual races.

Thats my input.

[Mattracer]

The road car thing must have undeniable pulling power. The fact that BMW and Mercedes dance at the same party as Ferrari is very significant but the name that prefixes theirs on the entry lists may have an influence. Ferrari is soul and passion, as well as current domination. Some people would not know or care about what happened in F1 10 years or 20 years ago. Soul and passion are on the one hand unquantifiable yet on the other indeniable. Especially nowadays. You choose.

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by Mattracer

The road car thing must have undeniable pulling power. The fact that BMW and Mercedes dance at the same party as Ferrari is very significant but the name that prefixes theirs on the entry lists may have an influence. Ferrari is soul and passion, as well as current domination. Some people would not know or care about what happened in F1 10 years or 20 years ago. Soul and passion are on the one hand unquantifiable yet on the other indeniable. Especially nowadays. You choose.

Mattracer:

You hit the nail on the head when you said, "Ferrari is soul and passion."

[Son of Jor-El]

Originally Posted by GP Racer

Jor-el, if Ferrari left F1, would this still be the pinnacle of motorsports?

Of course it would, Ferrari are not the ONLY reason for F1 being the top end of motorsport.

Originally Posted by GP Racer

Could either Williams, or McLaren carry on as the marqui team that people would tune in to watch?

I for one do not tune in to watch F1 because of Ferrari, I watch it for the competition and the spectacle, and I imagine most die hard fans do as well. Yes Ferrari can be considered the most *glamorous* team due to it's longevity and romance, but if it wasn't for the other teams there would be no spectacle or competition. The *sea of red* that is seen at every race is largely due their current success, not because they've been in the sport for so long.

Originally Posted by GP Racer

Would we see a sea of Jordan fans all dressed in yellow suddenly appear at GP's carrying on wildly to make up for the missing waves of red?

No, of course we wouldn't see a see of yellow. A reactionary statement if I may say! The casual Ferrari fan that enjoys the all the winning will find something else to do. The core of F1 fans will remain.

Originally Posted by GP Racer

Would Sauber be able to stir up the passion that Ferrari does?

No, see above.

Originally Posted by GP Racer

Does Toyota's race history turn you on, like Ferrari's does?

No, but then again neither does Ferrari's history.

Originally Posted by GP Racer

There are simply no teams left that can take their place IMO...

You're thoroughly entitled to your opinion......and so am I !

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

I was saying that the statement "Ferrari is the heart of our sport" is rubbish, ie totally untrue.

Totally agree with you Knowlesy, even if put overly bluntly. F1 might be the poorer without Ferrari but then as far as I am concerned it was the poorer for the loss of Alfa, Maserati, Vanwall, BRM, Lotus, Ligier, Tyrrell etc. You still go on following it if you are an F1 fan. To say that Ferrari is the heart of our sport really is to fail to understand what our sport is, since F1 is only one part of it.

I also rather like the comment that one contributor made comparing the current increased support for Ferrari with that for Manchester United when they are doing particularly well. Fair weather fans you might say. Some Ferrari fans may stop watching F1 if Ferrari leave but F1 fans won't.

Of course Bernie would risk losing one of the other top teams rather than Ferrari but that is because he is taking a commercial position. However, there could easily be F1 without Ferrari.

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by Mal

It is not as simple as all that. F1 is a very commercial sport. In fact its hardly a sport at all. It is a business run by Bernie for his own good and the key supplier is the marketing requirements of the major manufacturers and sponsors. The key customers are the TV audience, the corporate sponsors and their customers. It survives on the huge sums of money it draws from Sponsorship and TV revenue.

The prancing Horse logo is one of the most recognised trademarks in the works and this is essential when F1 is selling itself to the new emerging markets which are very important to the way F1 raises its money. In these markets Ferrari is far more recognisable than F1 itself. There would be large falls in viewing figures in these areas if Ferrari was not part of it. This would reduce revenues and exposure for the sponsors and consequently reduce the influx of commercial money.

The result would be that F1 would have to scale down significantly. Whether this would be good or bad for the sport is debatable. But it is certainly bad for Bernie (the Business owner) and the corporate sponsors (suppliers), which is why Bernie is so against losing Ferrari (The biggest customer draw)

Simple economics in my view and nothing to do with F1 as a sport.

Mal:

On target. The characterization of F1 as a business is similar to JohnSSC's image of F1 as a revenue generating engine.

We are no longer racing Gordon Bennett's national racing colors (except Ferrari). Who was the last amateur/gentleman racer? Jo Siffert for Rob Walker?

[Rich R]

i don't believe that there are more ferrari f1 fans now than there were in the past, even with the modern teams sucess, except maybe the younger fans who weren't around circa 1979-2000. if anything there seems to me, to be less support for ferrari from casual fans than before for whatever reasons ie; austria 02, jerez 97.

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by agwiii

Who was the last amateur/gentleman racer? Jo Siffert for Rob Walker?

Giovanni Lavaggi

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Giovanni Lavaggi

The last successful amateur/gentleman racer?

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by JOHNSSC

agwii: I would be happy to!



I have posted in these types of threads a number of times about how F1 has become almost ridiculous - Teams bring rolling offices, caterers and their own trees to races. I realize now these things are just part of the "problem." Teams have these things because they need them - the revenue has to go somewhere and importantly on something very tangible.



Here is why I see F1 as an exercise in revenue generation.



As has been correctly pointed out, the paradigm shift (from clubby, gentlemanly racing to the more "corporate" model really took a big step forward with Colin Chapman and also Bernie. We tend to forget that Bernie was a Team Owner, don't we?



At that time F1 drew large crowds but had the usual problems with promoters as entertainers all over the world have found: "if a zillion people attend my 'performance,' where is the money?" F1 traveled all over the world but there was always an ad hoc feel to it: promotion was spotty and the Teams really depended on prize rather than appearance money for survival - or Lord Fauntleroy's deep pockets. The promoter's had $$, but how much? Bernie quite correctly saw that if F1 were to grow, controlling the revenue was paramount to success.



Colin cultivated the corporatization of the team, but Bernie took things a step further and cultivated the corporatization of F1. As time went on he developed F1 into a product - an industry if you will. Participation in the Series by the Teams was rewarded by Bernie by giving them access to the revenue generated by the product. The rise of TV and the sale of rights thereof at this same time is no coincidence.



The emphasis on the product showed a need to "professionalize" the Teams. Teams then went out and sought sponsors not just for this season but for multiple seasons again to ensure continuity and level (or increasing) levels of funding. This allowed for greater numbers of full-time staff and F1 became eventually a full-time, 12 month out of the year proposition.



As the quality of the show increased the demand for the show increased. Revenues from TV deals and from the advertisers/sponsors brought in undreamed of $$. Like any good corporation/industry F1 thrived on the growth and in a sense, became addicted to the $$$. I say this because now there was an expectation by fans/Teams/sponsors to maintain the status quo. Things that just a few years ago were unheard of (PR people, revenue development people, etc) became standard issue - every team had them. Every team NEEDED them.



The industry has grown tremendously. Enormous sums of money are now required to even be a midfield team, let alone a podium team. But the bottom line is that the racing is secondary to the revenue retention/development. Capital projects like wind tunnels are thought of now as a necessity. McLaren's HQ was visited on it's opening by the Royal Family. Racing has, finally achieved cache, acceptability it is now in fact an important economic generator rather than a sort of sporting play toy populated by rich people with $$$ to burn.



The rules are not important. Emphasis on the technical or human end is almost irrelevant. Ensuring the survival of the industry and the economic viability of that industry is everything. F1 will not it cannot change as long as the economic model remains the same.



The only thing that will change F1 structurally and in a permanent sense is that if something catastrophic happens to the revenue sources.



Just my thoughts, anyway.

JohnSSC:

I thought this was where you were going with this thread. We are in agreement.


Most people do not apply Kuhn to Formula One, but you are correct. In the Post WWII era, we went through a period of ‘normal science’ in Formula One. Some of the races were of the “run what you brung” type. This was a reflection of the weakened European economics due to the war.



Enzo Ferrari began building and selling street cars to pay for his racing. His partnership with Luigi Chinetti made them very successful for about twenty years, when they needed more money. That led Mr. Ferrari to Fiat, after that brief flirtation with the late Henry Ford. The Ferrari approach was intra-industry.



The Gold Leaf Team Lotus was a quantum level shift – a new paradigm for the racing world. It was an inter-industry move, linking Formula One with the tobacco industry. There were many who strenuously objected to the change. They argued that Formula One was a sport and that commercialization would somehow corrupt the purity of the sport.



I believe they are mistaken. What is the meaning of sport? According to Merriam-Webster, sport means:



1: an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition

2: the occupation of athletes who compete for pay



The meanings of words evolve to reflect society. Whereas sport may once have been the “pure” amateur of the Greek sporting events, today it includes professional athletes “who compete for pay.” They may “love” the sport, but they compete to make money. Thus, baseball, soccer, football, hockey, etc are sports, just as is a biathlon.



Today’s Formula One is a team sport with professional athletes who compete for pay. Some of these professional athletes are much more successful than others. Compare the pay of Michael Schumacher to Jos Verstappen.



When Bernie moved from being a racer, to racing management, he continued the commercialization that was started by Enzo Ferrari and continued by Colin Chapman. Ferrari’s step was intra-industry, Chapman’s step was inter-industry, Ecclestone’s step was inter-industry, but on a global scale.

[John Turner]

Well that's that then! Having had the history of the evolution of the commercialism of sport shouted at us, I'm totally depressed. What an indictment of modern society - commerce has swallowed sport and redefined it, although I guess most of us had subconciously absorbed this this long ago. How sad!

Oh, and F1 would still survive without Ferrari but whether F1 survives the commercial onslaught or continues to have any relevance to true motor racing enthusiasts, is another matter.

[jj2728]

Back in 1987 Ferrari built a single seater to compete in the CART series. IIRC that was enough impetus to get everyone together and sign the Concorde Agreement at the time. It was the mere threat of a Ferrari pull out that got everyone to the table. 30 years ago, yes F1 may have survived with out Ferrari, but not today. Take them out of the equation and you may as well shut down Monza and Imola. The tifosi won't be there. Malaysia, China, Bahrain? Forget it, Ferrari is THE draw for these venues. The USGP? Not likely, it's tough as is to draw fans to a formula one race in the states and without Ferrari the lustre is gone. Neither Mclaren, nor Williams, nor any of the other teams no matter how much wishful thinking some may have, these teams without Ferrari on the grid might as well call themselves formula spec. Ferrari IS the heart and soul of F1, no matter how many might think otherwise.

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by John Turner

<snip> ... whether F1 survives the commercial onslaught or continues to have any relevance to true motor racing enthusiasts, is another matter.

John:

You raise an excellent question.

When Formula One began moving away from true road courses to track events, there were many that announced this was the end of Formula One. The great road course of yesterday and we hold races on tracks that almost prevent passing.

Perhaps part of the answer lies in the meaning of racing to the 'true enthusiast.'