planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:44 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:54 pm
Posts: 1036
guardiangr wrote:
I find it amusing how people always hated Bernie with a passion and they never believed anything uttered from his mouth but suddenly his word is the absolute truth only because they hate Ferrari more than him.


I find it funny that people use any comment to support their own arguments. The FIA for along time has had questions regarding penalties and it stems from what actually happens which is summed up in one word : inconsistency.

I take everything Bernie says with a pinch of salt. He is not going to say anything that damages F1 and probably wouldn't till the day he died. He's more loyal to F1 than any fan around the world.

It also means he's loyal to the sport from a business point of view. Do you think Bernie would have wanted Ferrari to leave F1? Do you think Bernie would sacrifice a few other teams to keep Ferrari in F1? Do you think it's interesting that two ex F1 Ferrari senior members are important FIA members? We've seen in history that bias existed in F1 (think Senna/Prost) and it wouldn't surprise me if it still did. After-all none of us could NOT be bias. We all support certain teams and drivers.

So I say this - do you think it's a 0% chance that they favour Ferrari in some way? Ferrari have probably the biggest fan base in F1. I think the sport would miss Ferrari and might struggle without them. You may use every excuse under the sun to dismiss the 'assistance' but it really doesn't help that the stewards are already inconsistent (that word). And at times the inconsistency is in favour of Ferrari.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:43 pm
Posts: 187
Location: Greece
Teddy007 wrote:
guardiangr wrote:
I find it amusing how people always hated Bernie with a passion and they never believed anything uttered from his mouth but suddenly his word is the absolute truth only because they hate Ferrari more than him.


I find it funny that people use any comment to support their own arguments. The FIA for along time has had questions regarding penalties and it stems from what actually happens which is summed up in one word : inconsistency.

I take everything Bernie says with a pinch of salt. He is not going to say anything that damages F1 and probably wouldn't till the day he died. He's more loyal to F1 than any fan around the world.

It also means he's loyal to the sport from a business point of view. Do you think Bernie would have wanted Ferrari to leave F1? Do you think Bernie would sacrifice a few other teams to keep Ferrari in F1? Do you think it's interesting that two ex F1 Ferrari senior members are important FIA members? We've seen in history that bias existed in F1 (think Senna/Prost) and it wouldn't surprise me if it still did. After-all none of us could NOT be bias. We all support certain teams and drivers.

So I say this - do you think it's a 0% chance that they favour Ferrari in some way? Ferrari have probably the biggest fan base in F1. I think the sport would miss Ferrari and might struggle without them. You may use every excuse under the sun to dismiss the 'assistance' but it really doesn't help that the stewards are already inconsistent (that word). And at times the inconsistency is in favour of Ferrari.


You're putting too much faith to Bernie, simple as that. The man never did anything for F1 except only when his pocket would get a lot of money. He managed to enslave the sport for 100 years so no, I don't believe a thing for anything his mouth utters. The only fact is the extra payment that Ferrari is getting from FOM, that is not Ferrari's fault though.

Lastly if technical regs were made according to Ferrari's wishes, it wouldn't have only 5 WDCs to show the last 30 years. Don't be so naive and believe anything the little trolls says, that's grudge because Liberty kicked him out of the sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: Nebraska, USA
Make that 6 WDCs, I think you forgot Kimi's, guardiangr.

to answer Teddy. Of course, Ferrari have had some stewards decisions go their way, and they have had some not go their way as well. That is true of most teams, but it works better for some to only see it one way.
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:43 pm
Posts: 187
Location: Greece
Blake wrote:
Make that 6 WDCs, I think you forgot Kimi's, guardiangr.

to answer Teddy. Of course, Ferrari have had some stewards decisions go their way, and they have had some not go their way as well. That is true of most teams, but it works better for some to only see it one way.
;)


That is true, I totally forgot Kimi's WDC :blush:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2062
It is obviously about 1993 - 2009, the era of Max Mosley's and Ecclestone's common reign. Probably, it did not start immediately, though. Still, this time did see Ferrari exceptionally successful from 1997 on, significantly more so than in any other decade. So, Ferrari's record does not work as a counter-argument. ;)

I completely agree the Ecclestone does not always tell the truth. But it is also evident that he does not always lie.
What he says here fits to several other indications, the infamous veto, a long chain of strange pro-Ferrari decisions during those years, things that Mosley and Brawn said, etc. pp. The picture is actually quite clear - Ferrari enjoyed unique influence on the technical regulation and prior information about changes, giving them a significant advantage over their competitors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: Nebraska, USA
The used but once "infamous" veto and even then it was not only to Ferarri's benefit... tbat one? Unique influence on technical regulations... such as? Which ones do you have in mind?

Prior information about changes to give them an advantage over their competition... perhaps they were warned in advance that use of their own test track would not be allowed? Perhaps they were warned that park ferme was going to be implemented negating what was thought to be a Ferrari advantage? Limited testing us something that I suspect they were not totally pleased about

Was it advanced warning that the scoring system was ro be changed minimalizing the win in an effort to keep Schumi from clinching the WDC early when he/they were on a run?

The point is, that they may have had some things happen beneficial to them, there also decisions that were to their detriment... and not insignificant ones at that.

Some in here try to make it sound as though the only reason Ferrari won is because of FIA/Bernie gifts which is simply not true. Again, they do/did have influence on F1, no argument, as the only team to be in F1 every year of its existance is bound to have, but most of the Ferrari International Assistance stuff is merely blind jealousy on the part of detractors. Or, as we saw two weeks ag , someone like Jos texting Ferrari International Assistance to suggest that Max's penalty was an example of the FIA making an unfair ruling in order to help Ferrari rather thsn accept his own son's error.

This thing can drag on forever... people finding supposed example of Ferrari advantages and others showing counterpoints. There will be "ammo" for both. And we could go into the influence or supposed favors/rulings/ regulations favoring one team or another. However, it will always come back to Ferrari... once in a while maybe even deservedly so.
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6645
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
It is obviously about 1993 - 2009, the era of Max Mosley's and Ecclestone's common reign. Probably, it did not start immediately, though. Still, this time did see Ferrari exceptionally successful from 1997 on, significantly more so than in any other decade. So, Ferrari's record does not work as a counter-argument. ;)

I completely agree the Ecclestone does not always tell the truth. But it is also evident that he does not always lie.
What he says here fits to several other indications, the infamous veto, a long chain of strange pro-Ferrari decisions during those years, things that Mosley and Brawn said, etc. pp. The picture is actually quite clear - Ferrari enjoyed unique influence on the technical regulation and prior information about changes, giving them a significant advantage over their competitors.


But at the same time, they tried to stop Ferrari and Schumacher by stirring the rules. I can't remember where it was, but at the time there were suggestions (serious or not!) to add weight to Schumacher's car after every win! They almost managed to stop the Ferrari behemoth in 2003; they finally did it in 2005. So did they build up a monster and then tried to stop it as it was killing the viewership? Sounds like it. But to say that they only helped Ferrari is wrong. They also did a lot to bring them down.

For example the FIA allowed the mass dampers, third pedal or the expanding tyres. Only when Ferrari or others complained were these things banned. Until they got banned, they were clear advantages to Williams, McLaren and Renault. I think that the fact that they were banned after Ferrari complained made it look like Ferrari had the FIA in their grasp. Which I don't believe it is the right assessment. Max was many things, but he wasn't unfair. He may have liked to stick carrots in naughty places in his spare time, but his rule in the F1 was not bad. Of course there were some dodgy stuff going for them, like the Malaysian GP overturning decision.

By the way, according to Todt the veto originated in the 80's from Enzo himself, before '93. It was his way to "fight the English teams", stopping them ganging up on him, being "isolated" in Italy. And it's not a veto exactly, it has some conditions, caveats. I think they were thinking of omitting this, can't remember what happened with this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
Blake wrote:
The used but once "infamous" veto and even then it was not only to Ferarri's benefit... tbat one? Unique influence on technical regulations... such as? Which ones do you have in mind?

Prior information about changes to give them an advantage over their competition... perhaps they were warned in advance that use of their own test track would not be allowed? Perhaps they were warned that park ferme was going to be implemented negating what was thought to be a Ferrari advantage? Limited testing us something that I suspect they were not totally pleased about

Was it advanced warning that the scoring system was ro be changed minimalizing the win in an effort to keep Schumi from clinching the WDC early when he/they were on a run?

The point is, that they may have had some things happen beneficial to them, there also decisions that were to their detriment... and not insignificant ones at that.

Some in here try to make it sound as though the only reason Ferrari won is because of FIA/Bernie gifts which is simply not true. Again, they do/did have influence on F1, no argument, as the only team to be in F1 every year of its existance is bound to have, but most of the Ferrari International Assistance stuff is merely blind jealousy on the part of detractors. Or, as we saw two weeks ag , someone like Jos texting Ferrari International Assistance to suggest that Max's penalty was an example of the FIA making an unfair ruling in order to help Ferrari rather thsn accept his own son's error.

This thing can drag on forever... people finding supposed example of Ferrari advantages and others showing counterpoints. There will be "ammo" for both. And we could go into the influence or supposed favors/rulings/ regulations favoring one team or another. However, it will always come back to Ferrari... once in a while maybe even deservedly so.
;)


Who?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2953
Location: UK
guardiangr wrote:
I find it amusing how people always hated Bernie with a passion and they never believed anything uttered from his mouth but suddenly his word is the absolute truth only because they hate Ferrari more than him.

I think it's more that many of us have suspected for a number of years that this level of favouritism existed at that time, so we're naturally going to latch onto anything that backs up our suspicions. Just off the top of my head I'd cite the following examples where I found the ruling in Ferrari's favour to be suspicious. I'm sure there are more.

- Alonso being penalised in Monza qualifying in 2006 for allegedly holding up Massa. Alonso was Ferrari's lead challenger in the drivers' championship.
- Montoya's penalty in Indy 2003 following the clash with Barrichello. Montoya was Ferrari's lead challenger in the drivers' championship.
- Massa being handed the win in Spa 2008 due to Hamilton's demotion based on a rule made up after the race. Hamilton was Ferrari's lead challenger in the drivers' championship.
- Michelin having to change the fundamental construction of their tyres in 2003 after they were suddenly declared illegal. Ferrari won all 3 races following the rule change and took both championships.
- Renault's mass damper ban in 2006. Astonishingly, the FIA appealed against their own stewards' decision after it was initially declared legal. Ferrari won 5 of the last 7 races, with Schumacher having an engine failure while leading in Japan and Hungary being a wet weather lottery
- Malaysia barge board controversy in 1999. To paraphrase Ross Brawn's long-winded defence: "Yes it seems to be illegal but if you look at it from THIS angle it's OK...". The barge boards were declared legal and Ferrari won the constructor's championship.


It all stacks up with the well-documented favouritism that Ferrari get in the revenue distribution. That's not to mention Ferrari's incredible superiority in the early 2000s when all the top teams were spending equally ludicrous amounts of money; Bernie declaring that they were getting help through the regulations would explain a lot. It's comparable to the level of dominance Mercedes have had in recent years. Well now that I think about it Bernie did say on numerous occasions how Lewis Hamilton is a great ambassador for the sport, I guess him winning is good for business ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: Nebraska, USA
Yet you have ignored the times things did not go Ferrarus way while pointing out times it did. And from that you conclude that Ferrari was favored.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2062
Add to jman's list
- MS was allowed to serve a drive-through after the end of the race and keep the win
- widespread witness report hearing and seeing TC at work while it was actually banned
- many overlook that the duration tyre rules for 2005 were done because Michelins were quick but not durable and Bridgestones the other way around. Yes, it backfired, but that was not predictable ...
- flexi wings and floor

How often the veto was used, we do not know. But in order to be able to use it w/o public backlash, Ferrari needed to get rule change information ahead of everyone else, giving them a significant development advantage.

There was very little changes against Ferrari in those years. When the domination started to hurt business, changes were done to keep the wdc open beyond season's half while keeping Ferrari winning like modifying the points system. That's about all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2953
Location: UK
Blake wrote:
Yet you have ignored the times things did not go Ferrarus way while pointing out times it did. And from that you conclude that Ferrari was favored.

I am struggling to think of many examples. Of course penalties have been dished out to Ferrari drivers where they were warranted but these were for obvious offences. Schumacher parking up in Monaco qualifying and the team fitting the wrong tyres in Fuji in 2007 come to mind. Now you may be right and perhaps my memory is a little selective but I cannot think of any examples of controversial penalties being awarded to Ferrari drivers, particularly in a manner that would influence the championship, nor can I think of any mid-season rule changes from that time that benefitted Ferrari's rivals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:06 pm
Posts: 224
You are also forgetting that only Ferrari had access to the latest Bridgestone tyres which gave them at least 0.5 seconds advantage over other Bridgestone teams.
Ferrari also forbid any other team that uses a Ferrari engine to beat (win) the official team. A position that is unique only to Ferrari. This is one of the reasons Ross Brawn did not pick Ferrari engines for his 2009 car. (of course this is there own paranoid position and nothing really to do with the FIA)

I doubt Bernie would say these type of things without being able to back up such accusations. It's pretty much slander. If some ex athletes boss said person x only won all his/her gold medals because they took drugs, there would need evidence to back up such claims.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: Nebraska, USA
So many things here being spouted without a bit of proof. A few posters have posted exceptions to the so-called Ferrari International Assistance and they are just ignored as the people keep repeating the same accusations in response.

j man "Penatlies have been dished out to Ferrari drivers where they were warranted" Your own words, but then you follow it up with but these were for obvious offenses. OK... so how is that favoring Ferrari? So, because you can't think of any penalty dished out to Ferrari drivers that would adversely influence the championship, it must be a case of the FIA and FOM helping Ferrari? Seriously?

cmberry, you bring up the Bridgestone tires... and "only" Ferrari having them. You do realize that McLaren had Bridgestones and made the switch to Michelin if I remember correctly. Pray tell where is the proof that Ferrari has a policy that "forbids any other team that uses a Ferrari engine to beat" them. And that they are the ONLY team that has such a policy. Proof please. Slander? Bernie has made a career out of things that could be considered "slander"...

Lasardi,

MS was allowed to serve a drive-through after the end of the race and keep the win. and you have never seen any other driver/team benefit by a strange decision?
- widespread witness report hearing and seeing TC at work while it was actually banned. Witnesses reported hearing and seeing the TC. What witnesses? Rivals? Media? More importantly what proof?
- many overlook that the duration tyre rules for 2005 were done because Michelins were quick but not durable and Bridgestones the other way around. Yes, it backfired, but that was not predictable ...And Ferrari demanded these new rules and the FIA kissed their backsides and said "OK? and in 2005 the same FIA that had changed the point system to the detriment of Ferrari went out of their way to help Ferrari??
- flexi wings and floor, - and your point is? I believe that policies were put in place to address the measurement of the flexing floors, and Ferrari had to work it out, did they not? Flexi wings? Like the McLaren wings that flew off?

How often the veto was used, we do not know. But in order to be able to use it w/o public backlash, Ferrari needed to get rule change information ahead of everyone else, giving them a significant development advantage. - You don't even know if it the veto was used, but yet you bash them over it? Yeah, that makes sense. And you have NO PROOF that Ferrari was getting information ahead of everyone else, only your belief that they must have. You make no sense in saying that Ferrari would have to have advance information in order to use the veto. The one time that they DID use the veto, all the teams knew about the idea to limit what manufacturers could charge for their engines/technology.

There was very little changes against Ferrari in those years. When the domination started to hurt business, changes were done to keep the wdc open beyond season's half while keeping Ferrari winning like modifying the points system. That's about all.
Yeah, about all. You, Lasardi, have determined that the F1 went so far as to make changes to keep the WDC open, BUT kept Ferrari Winning by MODIFYING the point season. Seriously? they changed the point system to HURT Ferrari and you spin it the other way around. The donnie trump method in full strength. The FIA cut down the point advantage for the win over second to somehow keep Ferrari winning, when it was Ferrari who would be the most affected as they were doing the most winning.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
Between 93-09.how many times were Ferrari or Ferrari drivers on the wrong end of contreversial judgements? How often did these judgements negatively effect Ferrari's chances in the WCC or WDC ?

I mean, real shocker stuff like Alonso being penalised in Monza 06.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: Nebraska, USA
j man wrote:
guardiangr wrote:
I find it amusing how people always hated Bernie with a passion and they never believed anything uttered from his mouth but suddenly his word is the absolute truth only because they hate Ferrari more than him.

I think it's more that many of us have suspected for a number of years that this level of favouritism existed at that time, so we're naturally going to latch onto anything that backs up our suspicions. Just off the top of my head I'd cite the following examples where I found the ruling in Ferrari's favour to be suspicious. I'm sure there are more.

- Alonso being penalised in Monza qualifying in 2006 for allegedly holding up Massa. Alonso was Ferrari's lead challenger in the drivers' championship.
- Montoya's penalty in Indy 2003 following the clash with Barrichello. Montoya was Ferrari's lead challenger in the drivers' championship.
- Massa being handed the win in Spa 2008 due to Hamilton's demotion based on a rule made up after the race. Hamilton was Ferrari's lead challenger in the drivers' championship.
- Michelin having to change the fundamental construction of their tyres in 2003 after they were suddenly declared illegal. Ferrari won all 3 races following the rule change and took both championships.
- Renault's mass damper ban in 2006. Astonishingly, the FIA appealed against their own stewards' decision after it was initially declared legal. Ferrari won 5 of the last 7 races, with Schumacher having an engine failure while leading in Japan and Hungary being a wet weather lottery
- Malaysia barge board controversy in 1999. To paraphrase Ross Brawn's long-winded defence: "Yes it seems to be illegal but if you look at it from THIS angle it's OK...". The barge boards were declared legal and Ferrari won the constructor's championship.


It all stacks up with the well-documented favouritism that Ferrari get in the revenue distribution. That's not to mention Ferrari's incredible superiority in the early 2000s when all the top teams were spending equally ludicrous amounts of money; Bernie declaring that they were getting help through the regulations would explain a lot. It's comparable to the level of dominance Mercedes have had in recent years. Well now that I think about it Bernie did say on numerous occasions how Lewis Hamilton is a great ambassador for the sport, I guess him winning is good for business ;)


j man, As I said, Ferrari have benefited at times, I don't deny that, and have been disadvantaged as well. I am not going to discuss each of your points because, to be honest, I don't remember all the situations that well. I would like to point out a couple of things though.

I don't think that Michelin had to change the their tires. They were questioned and the tires were tested, but in the end, as I recall it, Michelin did not change the tires. BTW, Ferrari questioned the tires at Bridgestone's request as they were the ones who thought that Michelin's tires "expanded" the contact patch with wear.

The barge board controversy was not inspected by the FIA because none of the teams requested it within the time frame allowed at that time, if I remember it correctly???

The mass dampers were being questioned by many teams if I believe, not just Ferrari, but Ferrari gets the blame.

Again, I would point out that there were FIA decisions that hurt Ferrari, but few here seems to care. Ferrari lost the use of their test track.. a track that they paid for, just as McLaren paid for their factory and Toyota paid for a sophisticated wind tunnel. Park Ferme was installed which negated what was thought to be a Ferrari advantage. Practice was restricted which hurt Ferrari (and other big teams). There is the restructuring of the Points awarded... why do that if they wanted Ferrari to keep on winning?

You can always find examples of questionable decisions and you probably can find more, if not, I am sure there are some who will be glad to help. The thing is, Ferrari did win with one of the largest budgets against some other huge budgets (Some even larger) ... and they won with great talent... on the track in management, and in the design & engineering departments. They also won against teams that were free to develop their cars during the season, test frequently, and that is not insignificant. The McLarens, Williams, Toyotas, Hondas, BMWs all had resources and talent... and they weren't really restricted much in the use of that talent.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: Nebraska, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
Between 93-09.how many times were Ferrari or Ferrari drivers on the wrong end of contreversial judgements? How often did these judgements negatively effect Ferrari's chances in the WCC or WDC ?

I mean, real shocker stuff like Alonso being penalised in Monza 06.


I have no idea, mikey. you tell me.

While you are at it, perhaps you could explain how, just one year later (within your time frame), the two biggest challengers to a Ferrari WDC (Alonso & Hamilton) were allowed to score WDC points driving cars that were disqualified for the season? Probably somehow that was the FIA helping Ferrari again. Of course, one could say that the Ferrari drivers were on the wrong end of THAT "controversial judgement".

This can go on forever, and I am certainly outnumbered, of course, that is nothing new. Ferrari are not the cheatin' devils that they are often portrayed as in this forum. They are not perfect, have never been, never will be. We can play this game with each long surviving team if that is all we wish to do, find flaws and mistakes. Ferrari are naturally a target, just as Lewis finds himself a "target" with each successful year. Those on top are always going to have people seeking to whittle at that pedestal. And like Lewis, Vettel, Schumi, Mercedes... Ferrari has made mistakes, has had advantages and they get bashed for them. In some ways, all the afore mentioned are to a degree victims of their own success.. and their own failures.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
Blake wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Between 93-09.how many times were Ferrari or Ferrari drivers on the wrong end of contreversial judgements? How often did these judgements negatively effect Ferrari's chances in the WCC or WDC ?

I mean, real shocker stuff like Alonso being penalised in Monza 06.


I have no idea, mikey. you tell me.

While you are at it, perhaps you could explain how, just one year later (within your time frame), the two biggest challengers to a Ferrari WDC (Alonso & Hamilton) were allowed to score WDC points driving cars that were disqualified for the season? Probably somehow that was the FIA helping Ferrari again. Of course, one could say that the Ferrari drivers were on the wrong end of THAT "controversial judgement".

This can go on forever, and I am certainly outnumbered, of course, that is nothing new. Ferrari are not the cheatin' devils that they are often portrayed as in this forum. They are not perfect, have never been, never will be. We can play this game with each long surviving team if that is all we wish to do, find flaws and mistakes. Ferrari are naturally a target, just as Lewis finds himself a "target" with each successful year. Those on top are always going to have people seeking to whittle at that pedestal. And like Lewis, Vettel, Schumi, Mercedes... Ferrari has made mistakes, has had advantages and they get bashed for them. In some ways, all the afore mentioned are to a degree victims of their own success.. and their own failures.


Blake, I think your persecution complex my even rival Hamilton's! I don't think many people blame Ferrari for being favoured. They aren't likely to turn it down are they?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
Just because I'm bored - Lets have a look at the seasons where Ferrari were in a championship battle between 93-09.

97 - Villeneuve gets DSQ from the Japanese GP for ignoring yellow flags. Nobody before or since has received such a heavy penalty for such a thing.

98 - Mclaren's Third pedal gets banned. S|chumacher gets a stop/go which he is allowed to serve after the chequered flag and race completion.

99 - Ferrari get DSQ from Malaysia handing Mclaren the championship. Ferrari get reinstated because the FIA didn't impound the car.

00 - Can't think of anything

03 - Michelin tyres that had been legal now suddenly illegal. Montoya given very odd penalty at a time when penalties for on track incidents were rare.

06 - Banning Renault's mass damper and Alonso's bizarre penalty in Monza.

07 - Ferrari handed the WCC as Mclaren are DSQ'd

08 - Some very strange stewarding toward the end of the season, especially in Fuji.



In this period I honestly can't think of any majorly controversial decisions that have gone against Ferrari.


Last edited by mikeyg123 on Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: Nebraska, USA
Whatever you say, mikey. Over 15 years in here and I never realized that few blame Ferrari for being favored. Certainly, this thread has shown no resentment for perceived "favors" on behalf of Ferrari. I notice that you and others have ignored nearly any posts (mine or others) showing examples of actions not beneficial to Ferrari in a thread claiming F1 has helped Ferrari. Instead you, not for the first time, choose to personally analyze my mental health... why heck, Doc, that could almost make one . . .have a "persecution complex".
;)

You gave an example of an F1 action in 2006 that favored Ferrari, I responded with one a year later that helped Ferrari two primary WDC competitors, and your response is to attack me about a persecution complex???

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: Nebraska, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
Just because I'm bored - Lets have a look at the seasons where Ferrari were in a championship battle between 93-09.

97 - Villeneuve gets DSQ from the Japanese GP for ignoring yellow flags. Nobody before or since has received such a heavy penalty for such a thing.

98 - Mclaren's Third pedal gets banned.

99 - Ferrari get DSQ from Malaysia handing Mclaren the championship. Ferrari get reinstated because the FIA didn't impound the car.

00 - Can't think of anything

03 - Michelin tyres that had been legal now suddenly illegal. Montoya given very odd penalty at a time when penalties for on track incidents were rare.

06 - Banning Renault's mass damper and Alonso's bizarre penalty in Monza.

07 - Ferrari handed the WCC as Mclaren are DSQ'd

08 - Some very strange stewarding toward the end of the season, especially in Fuji.



In this period I honestly can't think of any majorly controversial decisions that have gone against Ferrari.


Of course you can't.
:lol:

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
Blake wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Just because I'm bored - Lets have a look at the seasons where Ferrari were in a championship battle between 93-09.

97 - Villeneuve gets DSQ from the Japanese GP for ignoring yellow flags. Nobody before or since has received such a heavy penalty for such a thing.

98 - Mclaren's Third pedal gets banned.

99 - Ferrari get DSQ from Malaysia handing Mclaren the championship. Ferrari get reinstated because the FIA didn't impound the car.

00 - Can't think of anything

03 - Michelin tyres that had been legal now suddenly illegal. Montoya given very odd penalty at a time when penalties for on track incidents were rare.

06 - Banning Renault's mass damper and Alonso's bizarre penalty in Monza.

07 - Ferrari handed the WCC as Mclaren are DSQ'd

08 - Some very strange stewarding toward the end of the season, especially in Fuji.



In this period I honestly can't think of any majorly controversial decisions that have gone against Ferrari.


Of course you can't.
:lol:


I did ask for your help with examples earlier. I am sure I am probably forgetting some things.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
Blake wrote:
Whatever you say, mikey. Over 15 years in here and I never realized that few blame Ferrari for being favored. Certainly, this thread has shown no resentment for perceived "favors" on behalf of Ferrari. I notice that you and others have ignored nearly any posts (mine or others) showing examples of actions not beneficial to Ferrari in a thread claiming F1 has helped Ferrari. Instead you, not for the first time, choose to personally analyze my mental health... why heck, Doc, that could almost make one . . .have a "persecution complex".
;)

You gave an example of an F1 action in 2006 that favored Ferrari, I responded with one a year later that helped Ferrari two primary WDC competitors, and your response is to attack me about a persecution complex???


I didn't really want to bring it up but the saying one swallow does not a summer make springs to mind. A few outliers doesn't change the general trend. I know I am personally not arguing that Ferrari are always favoured by everyone. Just for that period I think a 50/50 decision would always go to Ferrari. In the instance you site even, they were left to fight the WDC but were handed the WCC.

I didn't mean to attack you. Just enjoying a fun discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: Nebraska, USA
You didn't pay attention when you got answers... such as 2007 Not benefitting Ferrari as regards the WDC. BTW, Ferrari was the team that was the victim in that Spygate, not the cause.

I am going to bed, its all yours, mikey

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
Blake wrote:
You didn't pay attention when you got answers... such as 2007 Not benefitting Ferrari as regards the WDC. BTW, Ferrari was the team that was the victim in that Spygate, not the cause.

I am going to bed, its all yours, mikey


But as I said, did hand the team the WCC. It can hardly be used as an example of a decision going against Ferrari can it.

I know you might not like to think that Ferrari have enjoyed advantages others have not but all things considered it appears uncontrovertible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6645
mikeyg123 wrote:
Just because I'm bored - Lets have a look at the seasons where Ferrari were in a championship battle between 93-09.

97 - Villeneuve gets DSQ from the Japanese GP for ignoring yellow flags. Nobody before or since has received such a heavy penalty for such a thing.

JV was on a suspended ban, that's why he got penalised while other drivers didn't. Also, Williams appealed, he got the pole position back but Williams then withdrew the appeal after the end of the race after Mosley's comments that they may stand to lose more if the appeal goes ahead.

98 - Mclaren's Third pedal gets banned.

It was a steering mechanism, rightly so.

99 - Ferrari get DSQ from Malaysia handing Mclaren the championship. Ferrari get reinstated because the FIA didn't impound the car.

Fully agreed, it was a shambles

00 - Can't think of anything

03 - Michelin tyres that had been legal now suddenly illegal. Montoya given very odd penalty at a time when penalties for on track incidents were rare.

Tyres were expanding during the race. A BS employee spotted it and raised it.

06 - Banning Renault's mass damper and Alonso's bizarre penalty in Monza.

Mass damper was a moveable object within the car. The FIA were at loggerheads with their own stewards. Notice that it was many teams that tried to copy it and when they couldn't copy it to that extent, they complained about it.

07 - Ferrari handed the WCC as Mclaren are DSQ'd

How is this help from the FIA exactly??? How could the McLaren drivers keep their WDC points with a car that led to the DSQ?

08 - Some very strange stewarding toward the end of the season, especially in Fuji.



In this period I honestly can't think of any majorly controversial decisions that have gone against Ferrari.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Just because I'm bored - Lets have a look at the seasons where Ferrari were in a championship battle between 93-09.

97 - Villeneuve gets DSQ from the Japanese GP for ignoring yellow flags. Nobody before or since has received such a heavy penalty for such a thing.

JV was on a suspended ban, that's why he got penalised while other drivers didn't. Also, Williams appealed, he got the pole position back but Williams then withdrew the appeal after the end of the race after Mosley's comments that they may stand to lose more if the appeal goes ahead.

98 - Mclaren's Third pedal gets banned.

It was a steering mechanism, rightly so.

99 - Ferrari get DSQ from Malaysia handing Mclaren the championship. Ferrari get reinstated because the FIA didn't impound the car.

Fully agreed, it was a shambles

00 - Can't think of anything

03 - Michelin tyres that had been legal now suddenly illegal. Montoya given very odd penalty at a time when penalties for on track incidents were rare.

Tyres were expanding during the race. A BS employee spotted it and raised it.

06 - Banning Renault's mass damper and Alonso's bizarre penalty in Monza.

Mass damper was a moveable object within the car. The FIA were at loggerheads with their own stewards. Notice that it was many teams that tried to copy it and when they couldn't copy it to that extent, they complained about it.

07 - Ferrari handed the WCC as Mclaren are DSQ'd

How is this help from the FIA exactly??? How could the McLaren drivers keep their WDC points with a car that led to the DSQ?

08 - Some very strange stewarding toward the end of the season, especially in Fuji.



In this period I honestly can't think of any majorly controversial decisions that have gone against Ferrari.


Yeah I agree. You could explain away them all individually. It's when it all adds up, along with Ferrari getting away with everything that it starts to look funny.

I forgot Schumacher being allowed to serve a drive through after the completion of the race in Silverstone 08 as well. I'll add it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6645
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Just because I'm bored - Lets have a look at the seasons where Ferrari were in a championship battle between 93-09.

97 - Villeneuve gets DSQ from the Japanese GP for ignoring yellow flags. Nobody before or since has received such a heavy penalty for such a thing.

JV was on a suspended ban, that's why he got penalised while other drivers didn't. Also, Williams appealed, he got the pole position back but Williams then withdrew the appeal after the end of the race after Mosley's comments that they may stand to lose more if the appeal goes ahead.

98 - Mclaren's Third pedal gets banned.

It was a steering mechanism, rightly so.

99 - Ferrari get DSQ from Malaysia handing Mclaren the championship. Ferrari get reinstated because the FIA didn't impound the car.

Fully agreed, it was a shambles

00 - Can't think of anything

03 - Michelin tyres that had been legal now suddenly illegal. Montoya given very odd penalty at a time when penalties for on track incidents were rare.

Tyres were expanding during the race. A BS employee spotted it and raised it.

06 - Banning Renault's mass damper and Alonso's bizarre penalty in Monza.

Mass damper was a moveable object within the car. The FIA were at loggerheads with their own stewards. Notice that it was many teams that tried to copy it and when they couldn't copy it to that extent, they complained about it.

07 - Ferrari handed the WCC as Mclaren are DSQ'd

How is this help from the FIA exactly??? How could the McLaren drivers keep their WDC points with a car that led to the DSQ?

08 - Some very strange stewarding toward the end of the season, especially in Fuji.



In this period I honestly can't think of any majorly controversial decisions that have gone against Ferrari.


Yeah I agree. You could explain away them all individually. It's when it all adds up, along with Ferrari getting away with everything that it starts to look funny.

I forgot Schumacher being allowed to serve a drive through after the completion of the race in Silverstone 08 as well. I'll add it.


I'm sorry Mikey, I'll have to disagree. It can either be explained individually or Ferrari getting away with everything, it can't be both.

Ferrari haven't been getting away with everything. Being the only team on the latest tyre is hardly a crime, nor the first time it has happened. It was done since Jackie Stewart's time, POB had a nice article in his blog about it. Plus, Michelin were doing the same, they had their lead teams.

Schumacher's penalty in '98 was a weird thing, but I think it wasn't disallowed anywhere in the rules. It was a clever thing from Brawn. The stewards messed it up by handing the penalty too late, or something like that.

Ferrari have been also the victim, if not by decisions, then by changing the rules many times to stop advantages that they had during their dominant period. I can accept that a 50-50 situation would probably go towards them. But it is far from "Ferrari are getting away with everything".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: Nebraska, USA
???

they can all be explained, and somehow, Ferrari gets away with everything? You have in effect, made McLaren's scandalous actions an FIA benefit to Ferrari? Mikey, you look at that and see it as collective body of evidence of Ferrari favoritism, but meanwhile seemingly refuse to see examples where Ferrari was NOT benefited as a counterpoint.

You have said that "I know you might not like to think that Ferrari have enjoyed advantages others have not but all things considered it appears uncontrovertible."

Yet, I have repeatedly said that there have been times when Ferrari benefited from certain decisions, some of them quite strange. I have also accepted that there is some financial issues that are out of balance (but not to the level many seem to suggest). Would you deny that other teams have also enjoyed advantages at times? But Ferrari, as I stated last night, is a target, but then that is probably just me being.... well, you know, Doc.
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
Blake wrote:
???

they can all be explained, and somehow, Ferrari gets away with everything? You have in effect, made McLaren's scandalous actions an FIA benefit to Ferrari? Mikey, you look at that and see it as collective body of evidence of Ferrari favoritism, but meanwhile seemingly refuse to see examples where Ferrari was NOT benefited as a counterpoint.

You have said that "I know you might not like to think that Ferrari have enjoyed advantages others have not but all things considered it appears uncontrovertible."

Yet, I have repeatedly said that there have been times when Ferrari benefited from certain decisions, some of them quite strange. I have also accepted that there is some financial issues that are out of balance (but not to the level many seem to suggest). Would you deny that other teams have also enjoyed advantages at times? But Ferrari, as I stated last night, is a target, but then that is probably just me being.... well, you know, Doc.
;)


I agree that Mclaren's punishment could be viewed as supporting evidence from either angle. I don't really think it's a big thing. It happens in a lot of sports. The bigger the name the more they will get away with. I think in that period Ferrari used their influence to sway the outcome of a lot of borderline decisions and were allowed to get away with some eye raising things.

That's about as far as I would go. I don't think it takes much away from their huge accomplishments during that time. Aside from perhaps 2003 it didn't really gain them much in the long term.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2651
Location: England
Blake wrote:
I have also accepted that there is some financial issues that are out of balance (but not to the level many seem to suggest).


Gonna have to call you on this Blake; By most accounts that i've come across in the last few years, Ferrari pretty much break even on the back of their extra financial 'incentives', if not turn a profit, something that until very recently hasn't been afforded to any other team (and even then, the sweetheart deals that Mercedes/Red Bull have still pale in comparison). I think even you can admit that there is a problem along the line when Ferrari would get paid more over the next 2 seasons just pulling a start and park operation than if Sauber suddenly became a WDC/WCC winning car for those 2 years. The justification that Ferrari is a bigger name is moot for me, if they bring so many fans/eyeballs to the sport then let them make the extra money from all the branded merchandise they must shift, rather than throwing money at them from the source.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Final positon: 1st | 3 Podiums | 2 Wins
2018 Pick 10 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6645
Flash2k11 wrote:
Blake wrote:
I have also accepted that there is some financial issues that are out of balance (but not to the level many seem to suggest).


Gonna have to call you on this Blake; By most accounts that i've come across in the last few years, Ferrari pretty much break even on the back of their extra financial 'incentives', if not turn a profit, something that until very recently hasn't been afforded to any other team (and even then, the sweetheart deals that Mercedes/Red Bull have still pale in comparison). I think even you can admit that there is a problem along the line when Ferrari would get paid more over the next 2 seasons just pulling a start and park operation than if Sauber suddenly became a WDC/WCC winning car for those 2 years. The justification that Ferrari is a bigger name is moot for me, if they bring so many fans/eyeballs to the sport then let them make the extra money from all the branded merchandise they must shift, rather than throwing money at them from the source.


Agreed, I never understood these agreements with CCB payments, historic payments, heritage bonus payments or the "other" payments...

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/12364 ... 6-revealed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
Flash2k11 wrote:
Blake wrote:
I have also accepted that there is some financial issues that are out of balance (but not to the level many seem to suggest).


Gonna have to call you on this Blake; By most accounts that i've come across in the last few years, Ferrari pretty much break even on the back of their extra financial 'incentives', if not turn a profit, something that until very recently hasn't been afforded to any other team (and even then, the sweetheart deals that Mercedes/Red Bull have still pale in comparison). I think even you can admit that there is a problem along the line when Ferrari would get paid more over the next 2 seasons just pulling a start and park operation than if Sauber suddenly became a WDC/WCC winning car for those 2 years. The justification that Ferrari is a bigger name is moot for me, if they bring so many fans/eyeballs to the sport then let them make the extra money from all the branded merchandise they must shift, rather than throwing money at them from the source.


If Williams win the WCC and Ferrari finish last Ferrari still get paid more by some margin. That's a case of massively being favoured by FOM.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: Nebraska, USA
It seems as though every few months we go through all of again. I should just can my response and repost them. I am using my phone so i cant post a link, but I think thst you should read the Racer magazine article "F1's big teams should retain revenue distribution privileges". It would be a starting point. And yes, I do know that Haas runs Ferrari engines, but he addresses more than just Ferrari.

Those crying about the "manors" of F1 dont take into account that those those teams bring little to the bottom line of the sport and dont fill the stands. It is Ferrari and McLaren, Mercedes, Red Bull, and Williams that bring in the fans. And it is Ferrari, McLaren and Williams that really powered the growth of the sport to where all the teams chase tens of millions of dollars.

While there perhaps should, and maybe will be, adjustments to the distrbution, there is a reason why the big teams get a larger share... and likely will continue to do so. I don't expect many of you to agree with me, or even understand what i am trying to say, but again I will hope you think it through... and read that article.

Also, F1 doesn't owe any team its survival... they know coming in that it is a tough go. If I start up a local business am guaranteed to make money and survive?

One last thing... would someone care to go find one of the previous threads on money distribution and bump it? Think how much typing it will save us if we can just copy and paste all of our old posts!
;)

Now back to work.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2651
Location: England
Blake wrote:
It seems as though every few months we go through all of again. I should just can my response and repost them. I am using my phone so i cant post a link, but I think thst you should read the Racer magazine article "F1's big teams should retain revenue distribution privileges". It would be a starting point. And yes, I do know that Haas runs Ferrari engines, but he addresses more than just Ferrari.

Those crying about the "manors" of F1 dont take into account that those those teams bring little to the bottom line of the sport and dont fill the stands. It is Ferrari and McLaren, Mercedes, Red Bull, and Williams that bring in the fans. And it is Ferrari, McLaren and Williams that really powered the growth of the sport to where all the teams chase tens of millions of dollars.

While there perhaps should, and maybe will be, adjustments to the distrbution, there is a reason why the big teams get a larger share... and likely will continue to do so. I don't expect many of you to agree with me, or even understand what i am trying to say, but again I will hope you think it through... and read that article.

Also, F1 doesn't owe any team its survival... they know coming in that it is a tough go. If I start up a local business am guaranteed to make money and survive?

One last thing... would someone care to go find one of the previous threads on money distribution and bump it? Think how much typing it will save us if we can just copy and paste all of our old posts!
;)

Now back to work.


Yet no one is crying about the 'Manors' here, one of the historic teams you mention, Williams, would get utterly shafted as per the scenario mikey lays out. Mclaren aren't far behind anymore either, and your sudden addition of Red Bull to the mix smacks of trying to twist the facts to your favour.

You are right insomuch that F1 owes no team its survival, but I think it owes them a fair chance. Your analogy about starting up a local business is surprisingly apt; if it grows to the point where it is a major player (a la Ferrari) then they would soon get slapped down by anti-trade commissioners for non competitive business practice if they enjoyed the same benefits Ferrari have had down the years financially.

It's indefensible on any scale, and has only come about in recent history (the last 20 years or so) because Ecclestone (a man you appear to despise, despite apparently having a large hand in bringing Ferrari in from the cold) knew that if he bet on keeping the boys in red sweet, he would be sitting pretty, as much aluded to by the comments in the OP.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Final positon: 1st | 3 Podiums | 2 Wins
2018 Pick 10 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
Blake wrote:
It seems as though every few months we go through all of again. I should just can my response and repost them. I am using my phone so i cant post a link, but I think thst you should read the Racer magazine article "F1's big teams should retain revenue distribution privileges". It would be a starting point. And yes, I do know that Haas runs Ferrari engines, but he addresses more than just Ferrari.

Those crying about the "manors" of F1 dont take into account that those those teams bring little to the bottom line of the sport and dont fill the stands. It is Ferrari and McLaren, Mercedes, Red Bull, and Williams that bring in the fans. And it is Ferrari, McLaren and Williams that really powered the growth of the sport to where all the teams chase tens of millions of dollars.

While there perhaps should, and maybe will be, adjustments to the distrbution, there is a reason why the big teams get a larger share... and likely will continue to do so. I don't expect many of you to agree with me, or even understand what i am trying to say, but again I will hope you think it through... and read that article.

Also, F1 doesn't owe any team its survival... they know coming in that it is a tough go. If I start up a local business am guaranteed to make money and survive?

One last thing... would someone care to go find one of the previous threads on money distribution and bump it? Think how much typing it will save us if we can just copy and paste all of our old posts!
;)

Now back to work.


Blake, It's Williams I specifically mentioned. It is Impossible for them to get paid more than Ferrari by FOM. How is that anything other than FOM favouring Ferrari? Do you thin that's right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2953
Location: UK
Blake wrote:
Those crying about the "manors" of F1 dont take into account that those those teams bring little to the bottom line of the sport and dont fill the stands. It is Ferrari and McLaren, Mercedes, Red Bull, and Williams that bring in the fans. And it is Ferrari, McLaren and Williams that really powered the growth of the sport to where all the teams chase tens of millions of dollars.

This I strongly dispute. As much as I dislike the man, it was Bernie alone who powered the growth of the sport by commercialising it and bringing it to TV. Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and the others just happened to be on track at that time and were largely along for the ride. Indeed the reason why Bernie became so powerful was that the teams wanted nothing to do with the commercial promotion of the sport and left Bernie to do it himself.

So what exactly is that the top teams do that apparently brings so much money into the sport? People buy their merchandise because they just happen to be the teams at the front competing for championships and/or, in a lot of cases, are the team that their favourite driver drives for. If Manor by some miracle had produced a rocketship of a car one year (or perhaps if they'd done so through having been given a fair share of the revenue pot to develop their car) then I guarantee that they'd have become a commercial giant overnight. And I'm so sure of this because it happened before with Brawn in 2009; I was at Silverstone that year and there was a hell of a lot of Brawn merchandise on display and a huge number of fans of a team that barely even existed just 6 months earlier simply because they were winning and a British driver drove for them. They had no brand or racing heritage to speak of.

So teams generate a lot of fans by being successful, and therefore apparently deserve a big slice of the revenue, which keeps them successful. It's a vicious cycle based on, in my opinion, an illusion that it is these teams in particular that bring in the fans rather than the appeal of the sport itself, and serves only to make F1 a closed shop to new teams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2953
Location: UK
Blake wrote:
j man wrote:
guardiangr wrote:
I find it amusing how people always hated Bernie with a passion and they never believed anything uttered from his mouth but suddenly his word is the absolute truth only because they hate Ferrari more than him.

I think it's more that many of us have suspected for a number of years that this level of favouritism existed at that time, so we're naturally going to latch onto anything that backs up our suspicions. Just off the top of my head I'd cite the following examples where I found the ruling in Ferrari's favour to be suspicious. I'm sure there are more.

- Alonso being penalised in Monza qualifying in 2006 for allegedly holding up Massa. Alonso was Ferrari's lead challenger in the drivers' championship.
- Montoya's penalty in Indy 2003 following the clash with Barrichello. Montoya was Ferrari's lead challenger in the drivers' championship.
- Massa being handed the win in Spa 2008 due to Hamilton's demotion based on a rule made up after the race. Hamilton was Ferrari's lead challenger in the drivers' championship.
- Michelin having to change the fundamental construction of their tyres in 2003 after they were suddenly declared illegal. Ferrari won all 3 races following the rule change and took both championships.
- Renault's mass damper ban in 2006. Astonishingly, the FIA appealed against their own stewards' decision after it was initially declared legal. Ferrari won 5 of the last 7 races, with Schumacher having an engine failure while leading in Japan and Hungary being a wet weather lottery
- Malaysia barge board controversy in 1999. To paraphrase Ross Brawn's long-winded defence: "Yes it seems to be illegal but if you look at it from THIS angle it's OK...". The barge boards were declared legal and Ferrari won the constructor's championship.


It all stacks up with the well-documented favouritism that Ferrari get in the revenue distribution. That's not to mention Ferrari's incredible superiority in the early 2000s when all the top teams were spending equally ludicrous amounts of money; Bernie declaring that they were getting help through the regulations would explain a lot. It's comparable to the level of dominance Mercedes have had in recent years. Well now that I think about it Bernie did say on numerous occasions how Lewis Hamilton is a great ambassador for the sport, I guess him winning is good for business ;)


j man, As I said, Ferrari have benefited at times, I don't deny that, and have been disadvantaged as well. I am not going to discuss each of your points because, to be honest, I don't remember all the situations that well. I would like to point out a couple of things though.

I don't think that Michelin had to change the their tires. They were questioned and the tires were tested, but in the end, as I recall it, Michelin did not change the tires. BTW, Ferrari questioned the tires at Bridgestone's request as they were the ones who thought that Michelin's tires "expanded" the contact patch with wear.

The barge board controversy was not inspected by the FIA because none of the teams requested it within the time frame allowed at that time, if I remember it correctly???

The mass dampers were being questioned by many teams if I believe, not just Ferrari, but Ferrari gets the blame.

Again, I would point out that there were FIA decisions that hurt Ferrari, but few here seems to care. Ferrari lost the use of their test track.. a track that they paid for, just as McLaren paid for their factory and Toyota paid for a sophisticated wind tunnel. Park Ferme was installed which negated what was thought to be a Ferrari advantage. Practice was restricted which hurt Ferrari (and other big teams). There is the restructuring of the Points awarded... why do that if they wanted Ferrari to keep on winning?

You can always find examples of questionable decisions and you probably can find more, if not, I am sure there are some who will be glad to help. The thing is, Ferrari did win with one of the largest budgets against some other huge budgets (Some even larger) ... and they won with great talent... on the track in management, and in the design & engineering departments. They also won against teams that were free to develop their cars during the season, test frequently, and that is not insignificant. The McLarens, Williams, Toyotas, Hondas, BMWs all had resources and talent... and they weren't really restricted much in the use of that talent.

The FIA decisions that you mention that hampered Ferrari were only brought in after seasons like 2002 where they won at such a canter that TV viewership dropped. As someone wrote earlier in the thread, it's as if the FIA created a monster and then felt the need to clip its wings to make the championship more watchable. Some changes, such as the ban on in-season testing, were brought in primarily to curb the unsustainable spending of the time, something that Mosley was particularly passionate about.

Michelin did have to change their tyres. I stand corrected on my previous statement though: the rule change did not require a total re-design according to Michelin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/13/sport ... 47579.html

I am still looking for an example of a controversial ruling that influenced a particular championship to Ferrari's detriment. You mention 2007 and the failure to disqualify the McLaren drivers; it is my personal belief (and I have expressed it in the past on this forum) that the McLaren drivers were instructed to throw the championship and we were served up a façade of a championship showdown that year because if they'd disqualified them then nobody would have watched the final few races. The way both Hamilton and Alonso threw away a heap of points in the final few races never quite sat right with me, nothing more so than the mysterious loss of drive that Hamilton had in Brazil which suddenly fixed itself and posed no further problem for the rest of the race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2062
Blake wrote:
You didn't pay attention when you got answers... such as 2007 Not benefitting Ferrari as regards the WDC. BTW, Ferrari was the team that was the victim in that Spygate, not the cause.
G
I am going to bed, its all yours, mikey


Well, Ferrari - more precisely a Ferrari employee (Stepney) - was also the cause of the scandal. He sent information to McLaren without being asked to do so. Of course, Coughlan was criminal as well by accepting them - and later joining forces with him to collect material in order to offer it to Honda.

The McLaren car was never illegal. No part of it was ever a copy of any Ferrari part. What was used - and this is bad enough! - was set up- and strategy-information sent by Stepney via sms.

The infamous dossier evidently did not land at McLaren but in a copy shop - where Coughlan and Stepney were preparing an offer for Honda.

I am okay with the wcc dsq. De facto, the scandal-related turbulences also decided the wdc. IMO, it is good that Ferrari won it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2062
So, no examples of anti-Ferrari decisions?

The point system change, apparently the only one, did only " hurt" Ferrari in the sense that they had to wait longer for securing the titles since it obviously did not touch their technical superiority.

For me, however, the really big issue that the technical regulation and its changes were apparently biased towards Ferrari. In the meantime, there is much more evidence in support of this than against it. The pure existence of the infamous veto right implies a huge advantage through the corresponding information advantage and the unique influence on rule changes. And that is not even denied by any party anymore!
Add to that Ecclestone's claim that FIA actively biased regulations to help Ferrari, in line with several comments hinting to something similar ( including Mosley and Brawn).
And there is basically no evidence to the contrary.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: breathemyexhaust, dompclarke and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group