Bernie Ecclestone

Bernie Ecclestone attempted to qualify for a single World Championship event. He was in a Connaught-Alta, one of a fleet of three entered by himself. He finished qualifying 265.2 seconds off the pace, and his two team-mates failed to qualify as well.

He is, however, the most important single person in Grand Prix history. He took charge of Motor Racing Developments in 1972, from Ron Tauranac. He was the team principal for Nelson Piquet's two drivers' titles, but he'd lost interest by the time Brabham missed the deadline to enter the 1988 World Championship.

Into the governance of the sport he went, and he modernised it, and quickly controlled Formula One. He is now the leader of a billion-dollar industry. He is a divisive figure, but he's not done badly for someone who was four minutes off the pace on a Saturday in Monaco.
 
And on the subject of Bernie keeping all those egos in check within the teams, he does this by playing them all off against each other. Just look at the way he used his new best friend forever, Christian Horner, to utterly scupper the cost cap and financial fair play rules that Max Moseley tried to introduce.

Not only did Bernie stab his old friend Max royally between the shoulder blades (Et Tu Bernie?) He also dumped Horner like a hot brick when his bidding had been done.

That climate of suspicion, mistrust and looking after number one is stoked by Bernie.
 
Whilst I accept a lot of the things being said about Bernie, I really fear for F1 if there Isn't someone of his ilk with his influence who is able to control the manufacturers. Jean Todt has made it clear he is not going to do it.

Without someone to talk them into and out of doing stuff F1 is just going to become a big car advert.
 
The problem here is a self-defeating one because the reason why Bernie exerts so much influence in the first place is mostly because he put himself decades ago into a position of effectively holding the purse strings and everybody has to suck up to him.

There's nothing surprising about the teams, drivers, journalists, you name it, falling over themselves to toe the line and aknowlege his influence. If you're an office manager with a bit of ambition you had better keep on the chief exectutive' s good books, right?
 
Last edited:
Whilst Bernie's money hunt is a problem for F1 I Don't think it's formula 1's biggest problem. I think it's biggest problem is the dominance of manufacturers and their control of the sport.

Back in the 90s, other than the anomaly of Ferrari, there were no manufacturer teams. They supplied engines to racing teams. Because of this you got a fairly competitive system and teams not voting on rules and regs with 'target markets' to consider. It also meant if one engine was dominant it didn't wipe out competition because more than one team could have that engine and be 'allowed' to win.

Think how competitive the last few years would have been if Merc engines had been in the sport but not Merc the team?

Bernie is a tyrant but he at least has some control over this guys running the sport how they want it. They want Bernie gone as much as anyone. If he does go and someone strong doesn't come in then we'll have a 4 car teams, 2 engine formula with 12 cars on the ride before you know it.

Be careful what you wish for when getting rid of Mr Ecclestone.
 
Last edited:
Back in the 90s, other than the anomaly of Ferrari, there were no manufacturer teams. They supplied engines to racing teams. Because of this you got a fairly competitive system and teams not voting on rules and regs with 'target markets' to consider. It also meant if one engine was dominant it didn't wipe out competition because more than one team could have that engine and be 'allowed' to win.

---------------------------

You areanswering a few points but in the process you are also raising a few thousand others and unfortunately the way they woul be accurately answer go way beyond the realms of F1. You are raising points that you cannot look at from an F1 point of view but a global one.

Why is Ferrari an anomaly and why is the powerbase now almost exclusively handled by specialists based in a little corner of Middle England? The answer to that particular question can be summed up in two words: TAX BREAKS.

There did use to be a handful of micro-teams from France and Italy in the late-eighties/early nineties period and 40 cars or so competing for 26 places on the grid, complete with pre-qualifying etc... These teams did struggle but they made it onto the grid on several occasions. Then came wordwide recession in 1991/92 and with the level of taxation in vigour in France or Italy for the kind of business that is the running of an F1 team there was no way these teams could survive. theeconomic downturn.

Bernie could hardly be blamed for wordwide recessions but his attitude towards new teams or the smallest outfits has never struck me as being a particularly supportive one, wuite the opposite to put it mildly. He even went on record as to say teams that can't afford the financial demands of F1 should simply leave it., instead of setting upany kind of initiative to help them get a foothold in.
 
Last edited:
Whilst Mr. Ecclestone has had many successes and failures in F1 it is now time for him to go. On his own admission he is simply not capable of mastering new methods of running the sport any more. He simply doesn't understand anything about the internet and social media; he even has problems with rotating doors.
 
Sure they are.

99% of the audience of F1 are never going to be able to afford a Ferrari. 80% of the audience have probably owned a Merc, Renault or Honda made car.

Ferrari are there to add prestige to their brand, not to be a billboard.
 
Last edited:
Yes and no.

In the early days Ferrari were in it to sell cars; but that was because the small audience that supported Grand Prix (and the Grand Tour that it was) could afford a Ferrari, Maserati, Alfa, Etc.

What has changed is the size and spread of the audience for F1. It is the bigger, pleb, audience that has attracted the mass market manufacturers; and consequently why Ferrari is now special: The last link to the golden age.

I cannot think of any team on the grid that ever raced Cooper engines; or any of the other original garagist supply engines, gearboxes, etc. There are a handful that raced with Ford Cosworth DFV's - the second golden age. Those that raced Ford are now revered (Williams and McLaren).

Now we have another generation of manufacturer teams; that started really with Renault. They have been in and out so many times because they flog low margin cars; the best economic pattern for them is as an engine supplier but the team they had the most success with just pissed all over their chips; leaving them no choice but to come back as they are now.

Mercedes have the premium status margins to support their F1 team and have the greatest chance of becoming the next generations classic team.

There is, of course, the elephant in the room that is Red Bull. A team whose sole purpose is lead sponsor brand awareness. In many ways they epitomise what went wrong with F1 AND why it is such a global phenomenon now. They appeared at just the right time to maximise the loss of the last garagists and mass market manufacturers from the sport and make a big noise for relatively little outlay. I think this (and Horner) is why they are so disliked by long time F1 / GP fans.

And where does BE fit in?
He is the ultimate salesman and phenomenally good at reading the market; spotting the next source of income... or was until recently. Ironically, I see F1 returning to it's elitist roots of flogging exclusive products for the world's rich playboys and billionaires. We the public just watch the telly, place the odd bet and hope to buy a couple of race tickets every few years. In all honesty, we're pretty bloody worthless to BE and his mates.
 
Ferrari started selling cars to fund motor sport. All the other manufacturers use motor sport to sell their cars. It's very different, although the modern FIAT-Ferrari probably isn't.
 
Yes and no.

In the early days Ferrari were in it to sell cars; but that was because the small audience that supported Grand Prix (and the Grand Tour that it was) could afford a Ferrari, Maserati, Alfa,

-----------------------------

Sorry Andyoak but that simply isn't true. Ferrari were a racing team who only began manufacturing road cars as a means of funding the racing team, not the other way around, and it remained so pretty much until Rnzo's death. It certainly wouldn't be true to say that the early road-going Ferrari models were affordable by Grand Prix audiences because right until the late sixties pretty much all Ferrari GT's were essentially racing cars adapted to road usage and the production units were of the order of a few dozens or hundred units, and many were used to race on in the various GT competitions. So it wasn't so much a case of them being totally unaffordable, it's more that there were comparatively very few of them ever produced to begin with. Certainly no mass production involved here. The first "affordable" (it's all relative of course) Ferrari was probably the Dino 206, which didn't even the official Ferrari designation and was produced in greater number. It wasn't even considered a "real" Ferrari because it wasn't created for racing and its power output was much lower than the ultra-exclusive 12-cylinder models that had been Ferrari's trademark. The Dino was intended by FIAT to take on the Porsche 911 in that market sector.

Enzo Ferrari famously had absolutely no interest in his road car division and was more than happy to cede complete control of it to FIAT in the late sixties. More money in the bank for the racing.

Of course everything is probably quite different today but FIAT are in a position where they can't simply do what they want with Ferrari because the team has such a following and status behind it they are forced to maintain its tradition and heritage, and that involves keeping it in F1 come what may, because the real link to the past comes from the fact that historically Ferrari more than any other team, are a team for whom racing is an end in itsellf. Or at least that is the image they need to maintain.
 
Last edited:
As things are going it will not be long before the only people watching will be the outright fans who are willing to pay hundreds of pounds a year. The result would be that the audience would shrink (I have seen figures showing that the Sky viewing figures are only one eighth of the number watching on the BBC), sponsors would reduce their payments in proportion, the manufactures would decide that it is too expensive to continue and F1 would collapse.

One way to overcome this and even enlarge the demand would be on call streaming for a reasonable fee but Mr. Ecclestone has shown no sign of doing anything except put up charges to existing circuits and bring in more races when imo there are already too many. I am sure that the new owners would not want their investment to shrink and if Mr, Ecclestone cannot do this then they will bring in someone who can.
 
Back
Top Bottom