planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:49 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6141
Location: Nebraska, USA
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
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.


LMAO

I can always count on someone trying to turn Spygate on Ferrari. Their documents get stolen and passed on to their primary competitor. That is like a store being robbed with an insider as part of it, so the store is at fault too? What a joke.

You do not know if any part of that data was ever used. In fact I challenge you to prove it.

Also, the document and information went well beyond Coughlan...

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6141
Location: Nebraska, USA
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
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.


prove any of it. Give us irrefutable evidence that the FIA actively wrote biased regulations to help Ferrari. There were some curious steward decisions that may have benefited them, but regulations written to help Ferrari win? If they were going to do that, why then would they make changes that also hurt Ferrari. I cited some examples, but you just ignore them and continue as though were nothing said, even to the point of your opening sentence "so, no examples of anti-Ferrari decisions?" Why should anyone bother to respond when you are just going to ignore it anyway.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1818
Blake wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
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.


LMAO

I can always count on someone trying to turn Spygate on Ferrari. Their documents get stolen and passed on to their primary competitor. That is like a store being robbed with an insider as part of it, so the store is at fault too? What a joke.

You do not know if any part of that data was ever used. In fact I challenge you to prove it.

Also, the document and information went well beyond Coughlan...


Did you actually read what I am writing? Where do I put blame on Ferrari?

It is a fact, read FACT, that a Ferrari employee volunteered to give away data. Do you seriously want to deny it?

And no, there is no evidence whatsoever that the dossier entered McLaren. Please show me evidence to the contrary if you deny this.

Evidently, no part of the 2007 or 2008 McLaren copied any part of Ferrari. That was actually controlled by FIA.

Can you please stick to the facts and stop trying to rewrite history?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1818
Blake wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
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.


prove any of it. Give us irrefutable evidence that the FIA actively wrote biased regulations to help Ferrari. There were some curious steward decisions that may have benefited them, but regulations written to help Ferrari win? If they were going to do that, why then would they make changes that also hurt Ferrari. I cited some examples, but you just ignore them and continue as though were nothing said, even to the point of your opening sentence "so, no examples of anti-Ferrari decisions?" Why should anyone bother to respond when you are just going to ignore it anyway.


I am sorry if I overlooked anything but what examples did you give except the points system?

All available evidence points to FIA biasing technical regulations in favour of Ferrari. None to the contrary. Sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6141
Location: Nebraska, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
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?


Mikey, I fully understand that Williams may not be paid more than Ferrari by FOM, Williams has nowhere near the impact on the sport that Ferrari has. There was a time, but it was rather a brief time in the overall history of F1. Of course, in that sense, I can understand your point, but I see it more a case of FOM realizing the importance of Ferrari to the sport. As I have said many times before, bernie is not one to give away money because he loves Ferrari... he paid because they bring money into the sport, and you have to admit is is much more than does Williams.

Don't misunderstand me, I am in favor of the teams like Ferrari, McLaren and Williams being rewarded for their loyalty and for what they have done for the sport. They have invested heavily in F1, or as I said earlier, they have paid their dues. That is the historical aspect, and I am more in favor of that than some of the more recent bonuses. I understand why the later bonus have been given (and Ferrari is not the only recipient), but it would not bother me greatly to see them reduced, even dramatically.

All that said, the money does not guarantee success, nor does it mean that regulations were written to help Ferrari win. We can look at the Toyota and Honda budgets and technical advantages to see that money is not the only requirement to winning.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6141
Location: Nebraska, USA
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Blake wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
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.


prove any of it. Give us irrefutable evidence that the FIA actively wrote biased regulations to help Ferrari. There were some curious steward decisions that may have benefited them, but regulations written to help Ferrari win? If they were going to do that, why then would they make changes that also hurt Ferrari. I cited some examples, but you just ignore them and continue as though were nothing said, even to the point of your opening sentence "so, no examples of anti-Ferrari decisions?" Why should anyone bother to respond when you are just going to ignore it anyway.


I am sorry if I overlooked anything but what examples did you give except the points system?

All available evidence points to FIA biasing technical regulations in favour of Ferrari. None to the contrary. Sad.


Again, "none to the contrary" Yes, it is sad. Go back and read the thread, maybe you will find the posts that I made, as well as Saio7 that you have must have missed. Again, since you have all the evidence pointing to the FIA biasing technical regulations in favor of Ferrari, you should have no problem displaying them.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13379
Blake wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
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?


Mikey, I fully understand that Williams may not be paid more than Ferrari by FOM, Williams has nowhere near the impact on the sport that Ferrari has. There was a time, but it was rather a brief time in the overall history of F1. Of course, in that sense, I can understand your point, but I see it more a case of FOM realizing the importance of Ferrari to the sport. As I have said many times before, bernie is not one to give away money because he loves Ferrari... he paid because they bring money into the sport, and you have to admit is is much more than does Williams.

Don't misunderstand me, I am in favor of the teams like Ferrari, McLaren and Williams being rewarded for their loyalty and for what they have done for the sport. They have invested heavily in F1, or as I said earlier, they have paid their dues. That is the historical aspect, and I am more in favor of that than some of the more recent bonuses. I understand why the later bonus have been given (and Ferrari is not the only recipient), but it would not bother me greatly to see them reduced, even dramatically.

All that said, the money does not guarantee success, nor does it mean that regulations were written to help Ferrari win. We can look at the Toyota and Honda budgets and technical advantages to see that money is not the only requirement to winning.


I've never actually had a problem with Ferrari getting a bit more. I just think the amount extra is so anti competition. It should not be impossible for any team to out earn another IMO. Especially the third most historic team compared to the 1st.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6141
Location: Nebraska, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:

Mikey, I fully understand that Williams may not be paid more than Ferrari by FOM, Williams has nowhere near the impact on the sport that Ferrari has. There was a time, but it was rather a brief time in the overall history of F1. Of course, in that sense, I can understand your point, but I see it more a case of FOM realizing the importance of Ferrari to the sport. As I have said many times before, bernie is not one to give away money because he loves Ferrari... he paid because they bring money into the sport, and you have to admit is is much more than does Williams.

Don't misunderstand me, I am in favor of the teams like Ferrari, McLaren and Williams being rewarded for their loyalty and for what they have done for the sport. They have invested heavily in F1, or as I said earlier, they have paid their dues. That is the historical aspect, and I am more in favor of that than some of the more recent bonuses. I understand why the later bonus have been given (and Ferrari is not the only recipient), but it would not bother me greatly to see them reduced, even dramatically.

All that said, the money does not guarantee success, nor does it mean that regulations were written to help Ferrari win. We can look at the Toyota and Honda budgets and technical advantages to see that money is not the only requirement to winning.


I've never actually had a problem with Ferrari getting a bit more. I just think the amount extra is so anti competition. It should not be impossible for any team to out earn another IMO. Especially the third most historic team compared to the 1st.


As I said, I do understand what you are saying, and not totally opposed to it. It isn't the historical money that would keep Williams earning more than Ferrari though, it would be the bonuses paid to Ferrari and, i think Red Bull to keep them in the FOM fold so to speak. It is certainly a significant amount, and while, as you said earlier, Ferrari took as it as would others if offered. It was a business decision by a big business. However, as I said earlier, I would not be upset to see the numbers made more equitable and perhaps Liberty will do that.

Thanks for the discussion, but I need to go attend to Trick or Treaters....

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:48 am
Posts: 18
Blake wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Blake wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
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.


prove any of it. Give us irrefutable evidence that the FIA actively wrote biased regulations to help Ferrari. There were some curious steward decisions that may have benefited them, but regulations written to help Ferrari win? If they were going to do that, why then would they make changes that also hurt Ferrari. I cited some examples, but you just ignore them and continue as though were nothing said, even to the point of your opening sentence "so, no examples of anti-Ferrari decisions?" Why should anyone bother to respond when you are just going to ignore it anyway.


I am sorry if I overlooked anything but what examples did you give except the points system?

All available evidence points to FIA biasing technical regulations in favour of Ferrari. None to the contrary. Sad.


Again, "none to the contrary" Yes, it is sad. Go back and read the thread, maybe you will find the posts that I made, as well as Saio7 that you have must have missed. Again, since you have all the evidence pointing to the FIA biasing technical regulations in favor of Ferrari, you should have no problem displaying them.


Ross Brawn Quote:
"The one rule change that scuppered us was the introduction in 2005 of the rule that you had to do the whole race on one tyre. Over several seasons we had developed a sprint race philosophy where we did several stops. Bridgestone were developing soft, super-grippy, short life tyres. We were developing cars with small fuel tanks. we were optimizing that approach and we were focused on three or even four pitstops races." [Snip]
"We had gone down that route, and our cars and particularly our tyres had all been optimised.
Then we heard this clever argument built (my addition; by Bernie and Max) 'Wasn't it terrible for the environment that all these tyres are getting wasted and thrown away. We are going to have an environment where you can only have one set of tyres for practice and one for the race' [snip]
"We were completely screwed, we didn't have the knowledge of the rubber or technology to make a one-race tyre."

Ross Brawn states that the FIA and FOM specifically regulated to destroy Ferrari's entire 2005 Formula 1 season. I completely agree.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 7:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm
Posts: 105
^ I think the example above was more about trying to mix the grid up than being particularly anti ferrari. Infeel that if any team had dominated like that for so long then the rules would have changed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5979
BMWSauber84 wrote:
^ I think the example above was more about trying to mix the grid up than being particularly anti ferrari. Infeel that if any team had dominated like that for so long then the rules would have changed.


After the '04 season walk for Ferrari, you can bet your hat that it was aimed at Ferrari.

We don't know half about the politics behind the scenes in F1. Just enough that it would make the "House of Cards" look like "Desperate Housewives"... Ok, I'm exaggerating of course, but you get the drift. There would be surely so much pressure to the FIA by the other teams. They may compete with each other and be opponents on track, but when it is against the FIA they are working together like old army buddies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7113
Location: Belgium
Salvadoray wrote:
Ross Brawn Quote:
"The one rule change that scuppered us was the introduction in 2005 of the rule that you had to do the whole race on one tyre. Over several seasons we had developed a sprint race philosophy where we did several stops. Bridgestone were developing soft, super-grippy, short life tyres. We were developing cars with small fuel tanks. we were optimizing that approach and we were focused on three or even four pitstops races." [Snip]
"We had gone down that route, and our cars and particularly our tyres had all been optimised.
Then we heard this clever argument built (my addition; by Bernie and Max) 'Wasn't it terrible for the environment that all these tyres are getting wasted and thrown away. We are going to have an environment where you can only have one set of tyres for practice and one for the race' [snip]
"We were completely screwed, we didn't have the knowledge of the rubber or technology to make a one-race tyre."

Ross Brawn states that the FIA and FOM specifically regulated to destroy Ferrari's entire 2005 Formula 1 season. I completely agree.
Regardless of what "reason" the FIA/F1 gave for the change, I would like to advance the idea it might have been put in place to discourage Bridgestone from making tyres for a single driver/car. That it hurt Ferrari is without doubt. It also produced a fantastic season, and I see no reason whatsoever to make tyre stops mandatory.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1818
Salvadoray wrote:
Blake wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Blake wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
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.


prove any of it. Give us irrefutable evidence that the FIA actively wrote biased regulations to help Ferrari. There were some curious steward decisions that may have benefited them, but regulations written to help Ferrari win? If they were going to do that, why then would they make changes that also hurt Ferrari. I cited some examples, but you just ignore them and continue as though were nothing said, even to the point of your opening sentence "so, no examples of anti-Ferrari decisions?" Why should anyone bother to respond when you are just going to ignore it anyway.


I am sorry if I overlooked anything but what examples did you give except the points system?

All available evidence points to FIA biasing technical regulations in favour of Ferrari. None to the contrary. Sad.


Again, "none to the contrary" Yes, it is sad. Go back and read the thread, maybe you will find the posts that I made, as well as Saio7 that you have must have missed. Again, since you have all the evidence pointing to the FIA biasing technical regulations in favor of Ferrari, you should have no problem displaying them.


Ross Brawn Quote:
"The one rule change that scuppered us was the introduction in 2005 of the rule that you had to do the whole race on one tyre. Over several seasons we had developed a sprint race philosophy where we did several stops. Bridgestone were developing soft, super-grippy, short life tyres. We were developing cars with small fuel tanks. we were optimizing that approach and we were focused on three or even four pitstops races." [Snip]
"We had gone down that route, and our cars and particularly our tyres had all been optimised.
Then we heard this clever argument built (my addition; by Bernie and Max) 'Wasn't it terrible for the environment that all these tyres are getting wasted and thrown away. We are going to have an environment where you can only have one set of tyres for practice and one for the race' [snip]
"We were completely screwed, we didn't have the knowledge of the rubber or technology to make a one-race tyre."

Ross Brawn states that the FIA and FOM specifically regulated to destroy Ferrari's entire 2005 Formula 1 season. I completely agree.


Your conclusion sentence does not fit the quote.

Furthermore, keep in mind that Michelin and all the other teams were similarly focused on the sprint race philosophy. Actually, if you go back to 2004, then Michelin tyres were super quick but not durable. Bridgestone was winning over the distance, with a huge advantage. So, all you could have expected with the knowledge of 2004 is that this rule change would play into the hands of Ferrrari- Bridgestone and destroy the then upcoming sprint advantage of Michelin. In hindsight, but only in hindsight, it turned out differently.

What Brawn does confirm is that Bridgestone supplied tailor-made tyres for Ferrari, which was against the rules - but suspiciously never prosecuted by FIA...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5979
Sorry Paolo_Lasardi, which rule prevents the tyres to be made with specific teams in mind? All teams worked with the tyre manufacturers and Michelin had their favourites as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:48 am
Posts: 18
Paulo,

According to Ross Brawn you are wrong;

Q: "Do you think that Max introduced the new rule deliberately, because he knew that your car and tyres were built around sprint racing and this was the biggest spanner he could use to shake things up?"
A: " Well, Max and Bernie did it together. Bernie would not have had the idea. Max would have understood the implications. We were completely screwed" etc. etc.

and

Q: "How did the process of changing the rules work and how did you fight it"
A: "... So, we knew that the change in rules on the tyres was a serious threat, and it was on short notice, so I fought it basically on the technical front. But I'm sure we would have called the FIA to try and stop it politically also. We wouldn't have been passive about it. But the more we protested, the more they rubbed their hands"

So here is Ferrari, trying desperately to stop a sporting regulation that they know is going to screw them, with the FIA and Bernie in their pocket, and a Veto, and a dominant rocket ship the year before, and you still want to say it was a problem in hindsight, and it wasn't Anti-Ferrari? In fact you claim it was a sporting regulation change favouring Ferrari?

Why would Ferrari want to change anything from 2004? It defies belief.

I reiterate, Ferrari were completely screwed by the FIA and FOM in 2005.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6141
Location: Nebraska, USA
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Salvadoray wrote:

Ross Brawn Quote:
"The one rule change that scuppered us was the introduction in 2005 of the rule that you had to do the whole race on one tyre. Over several seasons we had developed a sprint race philosophy where we did several stops. Bridgestone were developing soft, super-grippy, short life tyres. We were developing cars with small fuel tanks. we were optimizing that approach and we were focused on three or even four pitstops races." [Snip]
"We had gone down that route, and our cars and particularly our tyres had all been optimised.
Then we heard this clever argument built (my addition; by Bernie and Max) 'Wasn't it terrible for the environment that all these tyres are getting wasted and thrown away. We are going to have an environment where you can only have one set of tyres for practice and one for the race' [snip]
"We were completely screwed, we didn't have the knowledge of the rubber or technology to make a one-race tyre."

Ross Brawn states that the FIA and FOM specifically regulated to destroy Ferrari's entire 2005 Formula 1 season. I completely agree.


Your conclusion sentence does not fit the quote.

Furthermore, keep in mind that Michelin and all the other teams were similarly focused on the sprint race philosophy. Actually, if you go back to 2004, then Michelin tyres were super quick but not durable. Bridgestone was winning over the distance, with a huge advantage. So, all you could have expected with the knowledge of 2004 is that this rule change would play into the hands of Ferrrari- Bridgestone and destroy the then upcoming sprint advantage of Michelin. In hindsight, but only in hindsight, it turned out differently.

What Brawn does confirm is that Bridgestone supplied tailor-made tyres for Ferrari, which was against the rules - but suspiciously never prosecuted by FIA...


LOL

Even when provided with a specific example, you attempt to turn it into a convoluted bit of FIA favoritism toward Ferrari.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1818
Salvadoray wrote:
Paulo,

According to Ross Brawn you are wrong;

Q: "Do you think that Max introduced the new rule deliberately, because he knew that your car and tyres were built around sprint racing and this was the biggest spanner he could use to shake things up?"
A: " Well, Max and Bernie did it together. Bernie would not have had the idea. Max would have understood the implications. We were completely screwed" etc. etc.

and

Q: "How did the process of changing the rules work and how did you fight it"
A: "... So, we knew that the change in rules on the tyres was a serious threat, and it was on short notice, so I fought it basically on the technical front. But I'm sure we would have called the FIA to try and stop it politically also. We wouldn't have been passive about it. But the more we protested, the more they rubbed their hands"

So here is Ferrari, trying desperately to stop a sporting regulation that they know is going to screw them, with the FIA and Bernie in their pocket, and a Veto, and a dominant rocket ship the year before, and you still want to say it was a problem in hindsight, and it wasn't Anti-Ferrari? In fact you claim it was a sporting regulation change favouring Ferrari?

Why would Ferrari want to change anything from 2004? It defies belief.

I reiterate, Ferrari were completely screwed by the FIA and FOM in 2005.


Finally something really interesting, thank you. Can you please provide the source?

Brawn says he is sure Ferrari would have protested - that's surprisingly vague.

Brawn says


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6141
Location: Nebraska, USA
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Brawn says


fair point... so that kind of validates those who say ... "bernie says" bernie's word is no longer bible on this stuff either? so that ought to end the thread.
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1818
Blake wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Brawn says


fair point... so that kind of validates those who say ... "bernie says" bernie's word is no longer bible on this stuff either? so that ought to end the thread.
;)


Sorry, the second Brawn says is a typo - smartphone writing ...
But nice that you found an interpretation f8r it ...
:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:28 pm
Posts: 730
I have a question - did Ferrari get any assistance pre - 1996?

I wonder if things would have been different if Michael had not gone there - I'm in no way saying he would have had anything to do with it (1996 onwards), but he was such a powerful force in the sport there's always the possibility..

_________________
Should I grow a beard?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:48 am
Posts: 18
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Salvadoray wrote:
Paulo,

According to Ross Brawn you are wrong;

Q: "Do you think that Max introduced the new rule deliberately, because he knew that your car and tyres were built around sprint racing and this was the biggest spanner he could use to shake things up?"
A: " Well, Max and Bernie did it together. Bernie would not have had the idea. Max would have understood the implications. We were completely screwed" etc. etc.

and

Q: "How did the process of changing the rules work and how did you fight it"
A: "... So, we knew that the change in rules on the tyres was a serious threat, and it was on short notice, so I fought it basically on the technical front. But I'm sure we would have called the FIA to try and stop it politically also. We wouldn't have been passive about it. But the more we protested, the more they rubbed their hands"

So here is Ferrari, trying desperately to stop a sporting regulation that they know is going to screw them, with the FIA and Bernie in their pocket, and a Veto, and a dominant rocket ship the year before, and you still want to say it was a problem in hindsight, and it wasn't Anti-Ferrari? In fact you claim it was a sporting regulation change favouring Ferrari?

Why would Ferrari want to change anything from 2004? It defies belief.

I reiterate, Ferrari were completely screwed by the FIA and FOM in 2005.


Finally something really interesting, thank you. Can you please provide the source?

Brawn says he is sure Ferrari would have protested - that's surprisingly vague.

Brawn says


Source:
Total Competition - Lessons in Strategy from Formula 1
Ross Brawn and Adam Parr
Simon and Schuster
Pp73 to 75 FP Reader


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:39 pm 
Yellowbin74 wrote:
I have a question - did Ferrari get any assistance pre - 1996?

Well, probably not the era you have in mind but there is this. In the middle of 1955, the Lancia company was in deep financial trouble and their star driver, Alberto Ascari, was killed in a testing accident (ironically and tragically in a Ferrari sports car) at Monza.
Out of these terrible events, Ferrari was successful in securing a deal whereby he was given six of the excellent Lancia D50s, spare engines, a large pile of spares, tooling and plans, as well as the car's brilliant designer, Vittorio Jano plus a five year financial injection from Fiat to fund the program.
There will be some debate about whether the Mercedes W196 or the Lancia D50 was the better car but what is beyond debate is that the Lancias, smartly rebranded Ferrari, were very significantly superior to the dire 555 Supersqualos he was fielding at the time.
A very nice piece of assistance for indeed for Ferrari. In the following year, 1956, Fangio won the Driver's Championship with team mate Collins third in the Lancias bearing a Ferrari badge.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6141
Location: Nebraska, USA
quere wrote:
Yellowbin74 wrote:
I have a question - did Ferrari get any assistance pre - 1996?

Well, probably not the era you have in mind but there is this. In the middle of 1955, the Lancia company was in deep financial trouble and their star driver, Alberto Ascari, was killed in a testing accident (ironically and tragically in a Ferrari sports car) at Monza.
Out of these terrible events, Ferrari was successful in securing a deal whereby he was given six of the excellent Lancia D50s, spare engines, a large pile of spares, tooling and plans, as well as the car's brilliant designer, Vittorio Jano plus a five year financial injection from Fiat to fund the program.
There will be some debate about whether the Mercedes W196 or the Lancia D50 was the better car but what is beyond debate is that the Lancias, smartly rebranded Ferrari, were very significantly superior to the dire 555 Supersqualos he was fielding at the time.
A very nice piece of assistance for indeed for Ferrari. In the following year, 1956, Fangio won the Driver's Championship with team mate Collins third in the Lancias bearing a Ferrari badge.


You are aware that Lancia was in financial straights and family sold their interests in the firm and shut down the race team? Also that initially the car was referred to as the Lancia/Ferrari D50?

In the era, private parties had access to F1 cars as well... an example being Stirling Moss drove his personal 250F in races that Mercedes works team chose not to compete. There were other "privateers" as well. If I remrmber correctly, Moss also put other drivers in his 250F on occasion when he had team commitments.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1818
quere wrote:
Yellowbin74 wrote:
I have a question - did Ferrari get any assistance pre - 1996?

Well, probably not the era you have in mind but there is this. In the middle of 1955, the Lancia company was in deep financial trouble and their star driver, Alberto Ascari, was killed in a testing accident (ironically and tragically in a Ferrari sports car) at Monza.
Out of these terrible events, Ferrari was successful in securing a deal whereby he was given six of the excellent Lancia D50s, spare engines, a large pile of spares, tooling and plans, as well as the car's brilliant designer, Vittorio Jano plus a five year financial injection from Fiat to fund the program.
There will be some debate about whether the Mercedes W196 or the Lancia D50 was the better car but what is beyond debate is that the Lancias, smartly rebranded Ferrari, were very significantly superior to the dire 555 Supersqualos he was fielding at the time.
A very nice piece of assistance for indeed for Ferrari. In the following year, 1956, Fangio won the Driver's Championship with team mate Collins third in the Lancias bearing a Ferrari badge.


No involvement of FIA (its predecessor), though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1818
Salvadoray wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Salvadoray wrote:
Paulo,

According to Ross Brawn you are wrong;

Q: "Do you think that Max introduced the new rule deliberately, because he knew that your car and tyres were built around sprint racing and this was the biggest spanner he could use to shake things up?"
A: " Well, Max and Bernie did it together. Bernie would not have had the idea. Max would have understood the implications. We were completely screwed" etc. etc.

and

Q: "How did the process of changing the rules work and how did you fight it"
A: "... So, we knew that the change in rules on the tyres was a serious threat, and it was on short notice, so I fought it basically on the technical front. But I'm sure we would have called the FIA to try and stop it politically also. We wouldn't have been passive about it. But the more we protested, the more they rubbed their hands"

So here is Ferrari, trying desperately to stop a sporting regulation that they know is going to screw them, with the FIA and Bernie in their pocket, and a Veto, and a dominant rocket ship the year before, and you still want to say it was a problem in hindsight, and it wasn't Anti-Ferrari? In fact you claim it was a sporting regulation change favouring Ferrari?

Why would Ferrari want to change anything from 2004? It defies belief.

I reiterate, Ferrari were completely screwed by the FIA and FOM in 2005.


Finally something really interesting, thank you. Can you please provide the source?

Brawn says he is sure Ferrari would have protested - that's surprisingly vague.

Brawn says


Source:
Total Competition - Lessons in Strategy from Formula 1
Ross Brawn and Adam Parr
Simon and Schuster
Pp73 to 75 FP Reader


Thank you very much. Is the book generally a good read?

Brawn doesn't seem to know whether Ferrari opposed, though. He merely says the technical department hated the change, understandably. Probably similar to the technical departments of the competitors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:48 am
Posts: 18
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Salvadoray wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Salvadoray wrote:
Paulo,

According to Ross Brawn you are wrong;

Q: "Do you think that Max introduced the new rule deliberately, because he knew that your car and tyres were built around sprint racing and this was the biggest spanner he could use to shake things up?"
A: " Well, Max and Bernie did it together. Bernie would not have had the idea. Max would have understood the implications. We were completely screwed" etc. etc.

and

Q: "How did the process of changing the rules work and how did you fight it"
A: "... So, we knew that the change in rules on the tyres was a serious threat, and it was on short notice, so I fought it basically on the technical front. But I'm sure we would have called the FIA to try and stop it politically also. We wouldn't have been passive about it. But the more we protested, the more they rubbed their hands"

So here is Ferrari, trying desperately to stop a sporting regulation that they know is going to screw them, with the FIA and Bernie in their pocket, and a Veto, and a dominant rocket ship the year before, and you still want to say it was a problem in hindsight, and it wasn't Anti-Ferrari? In fact you claim it was a sporting regulation change favouring Ferrari?

Why would Ferrari want to change anything from 2004? It defies belief.

I reiterate, Ferrari were completely screwed by the FIA and FOM in 2005.


Finally something really interesting, thank you. Can you please provide the source?

Brawn says he is sure Ferrari would have protested - that's surprisingly vague.

Brawn says


Source:
Total Competition - Lessons in Strategy from Formula 1
Ross Brawn and Adam Parr
Simon and Schuster
Pp73 to 75 FP Reader


Thank you very much. Is the book generally a good read?


Brawn doesn't seem to know whether Ferrari opposed, though. He merely says the technical department hated the change, understandably. Probably similar to the technical departments of the competitors.


It has large sections in a question/answer format so very easy to go to specific points of interest. Fascinating to me but my admiration for Brawn is pretty high. Ferrari owe him and the dream team too much.

He does make it clear that the tyre regulation was done specifically to hit Ferrari. I accept your position that there is nothing to state that Michelin cars could also have been affected, but that would have been coincidental. It may not have been underdstood by Bernie and Max what the actual impact would be, but it was always meant to stop Ferrari winning.

It was always the point of my posts to provide FIA FOM decisions targetted against Ferrari. I believe the tyre decision to be extremely significant (For me it's not even the most significant).

AS AN ASIDE, He also covers Brawn/Mercedes years in detail, including some comment on the deterioration of the McLaren/Merc relationship.

He is formidable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:42 am 
Blake wrote:
quere wrote:
Yellowbin74 wrote:
I have a question - did Ferrari get any assistance pre - 1996?

Well, probably not the era you have in mind but there is this. In the middle of 1955, the Lancia company was in deep financial trouble and their star driver, Alberto Ascari, was killed in a testing accident (ironically and tragically in a Ferrari sports car) at Monza.
Out of these terrible events, Ferrari was successful in securing a deal whereby he was given six of the excellent Lancia D50s, spare engines, a large pile of spares, tooling and plans, as well as the car's brilliant designer, Vittorio Jano plus a five year financial injection from Fiat to fund the program.
There will be some debate about whether the Mercedes W196 or the Lancia D50 was the better car but what is beyond debate is that the Lancias, smartly rebranded Ferrari, were very significantly superior to the dire 555 Supersqualos he was fielding at the time.
A very nice piece of assistance for indeed for Ferrari. In the following year, 1956, Fangio won the Driver's Championship with team mate Collins third in the Lancias bearing a Ferrari badge.

Blake wrote:
You are aware that Lancia was in financial straights and family sold their interests in the firm and shut down the race team? Also that initially the car was referred to as the Lancia/Ferrari D50?

Well hot damn! Who'da thunk? That may explain why I said, "In the middle of 1955, the Lancia company was in deep financial trouble..." :lol: :lol: :lol:

The car was, as you say, referred to as the Lancia/Ferrari D50 but I believe, too, that the Scuderia entered them from the start of 1956 as 'Ferrari D50'. Since the team progressively 'DeLancia-ed' the cars during the year, there came a point when the simple term Ferrari was not overly mischievous, but I can assure you that the cars were very significantly more Lancia than Ferrari at the start of the season.

Anyhow, these cars delivered Fangio a 4th World Championship but as soon as the season concluded, he was outa there like greased lightning. His fractious relationship with the boss is well documented so we'll leave it aside. But the distance between the two men remained for the rest of Enzo's life.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6141
Location: Nebraska, USA
indeed you did mention their financial difficulties. However, they had those difficulties while Ascari was alive as well. I don't see where I, or anyone else, argued that the Lancia/Ferrari D50 was more Lancia than Ferrari, even up the point where they were no longer competitive and Ferrari replaced them with a more competitive package. But who cares? They were great cars, and perhaps even the equal of the mighty Mercedes 196, and are among my favorite F1 cars, but they no bearing on this topic other than your misguided attempt to use them as an false example of Ferrari International Assistance.

So just what is your point with Fangio leaving because of difficulty with Enzo. Was that somehow Ferrari International Assistance too? It has no relevance to this discussion that I can see.

As I said, the Lancia D50 and subsequent Lancia/Ferrari D50 and the eventual Ferrari D50 have no relevance in this thread either other than just an interesting, very good car with an unique history. I am afraid that is all there is to it.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:02 am 
Whatever floats your boat pal.

And ... in breaking news -- https://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/2330 ... gine-rules

The beat goes on. :lol: :lol:


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13379
quere wrote:
Whatever floats your boat pal.

And ... in breaking news -- https://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/2330 ... gine-rules

The beat goes on. :lol: :lol:


:lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1939
mikeyg123 wrote:
quere wrote:
Whatever floats your boat pal.

And ... in breaking news -- https://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/2330 ... gine-rules

The beat goes on. :lol: :lol:


:lol: :lol: :lol:


Why would they rule it out? No news here...

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1288
Just when Bernie has been fading from the public eye, he comes out with a handful of manure. My first question is "why"? He doesn't do this stuff without a darn good reason. Maybe because he has been shuffled to the sidelines he wants to create a storm only he can dissolve. Regardless, he has a reason we have not figured out yet.

So, has Ferrari received assistance from the FIA in the form of technical assistance? That is how Bernie worded it, I am not looking at loud decisions but rather sneaky little technical regulations that favored Ferrari. Yes, the decision for 2005 was directly against Ferrari's technical evolution, but this also shows that the FIA were very aware of technical details and how moving the goalposts favored one team over another. Who can not say other such technical decisions favored Ferrari?

When the commercial rights owners and the FIA openly support Ferrari with an extra financial gift, that makes claims of favoritism stick. That is the part that sticks, that is the part where assumptions of additional assistance take root and favor the belief of bias.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6141
Location: Nebraska, USA
quere wrote:
Whatever floats your boat pal.

And ... in breaking news -- https://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/2330 ... gine-rules

The beat goes on. :lol: :lol:


So you had no worthwhile point on the previous discussion, and now you introduce this one for something that has not even happened and if they were to use it, they appear to represent ALL of the F1 engine manufactures who would likely be in favor of any change given their ineptitude.

Keep on laughing... pal.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5979
Blake wrote:
quere wrote:
Whatever floats your boat pal.

And ... in breaking news -- https://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/2330 ... gine-rules

The beat goes on. :lol: :lol:


So you had no worthwhile point on the previous discussion, and now you introduce this one for something that has not even happened and if they were to use it, they appear to represent ALL of the F1 engine manufactures who would likely be in favor of any change given their ineptitude.

Keep on laughing... pal.


Actually, I am not sure if Ferrari ever used their veto agreement. At least that we know of. As mentioned before, their veto is not a straight forward deal, it has caveats.

I remember one time that (I think) Ferrari tried to use the veto but didn't work, at the 2010 FOTA-FIA war. Ferrari were opposing the FIA budget cap, but the FIA plainly rejected them, or something like that. At least I think it was like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7113
Location: Belgium
Salvadoray wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Salvadoray wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Salvadoray wrote:
Paulo,

According to Ross Brawn you are wrong;

Q: "Do you think that Max introduced the new rule deliberately, because he knew that your car and tyres were built around sprint racing and this was the biggest spanner he could use to shake things up?"
A: " Well, Max and Bernie did it together. Bernie would not have had the idea. Max would have understood the implications. We were completely screwed" etc. etc.

and

Q: "How did the process of changing the rules work and how did you fight it"
A: "... So, we knew that the change in rules on the tyres was a serious threat, and it was on short notice, so I fought it basically on the technical front. But I'm sure we would have called the FIA to try and stop it politically also. We wouldn't have been passive about it. But the more we protested, the more they rubbed their hands"

So here is Ferrari, trying desperately to stop a sporting regulation that they know is going to screw them, with the FIA and Bernie in their pocket, and a Veto, and a dominant rocket ship the year before, and you still want to say it was a problem in hindsight, and it wasn't Anti-Ferrari? In fact you claim it was a sporting regulation change favouring Ferrari?

Why would Ferrari want to change anything from 2004? It defies belief.

I reiterate, Ferrari were completely screwed by the FIA and FOM in 2005.


Finally something really interesting, thank you. Can you please provide the source?

Brawn says he is sure Ferrari would have protested - that's surprisingly vague.

Brawn says


Source:
Total Competition - Lessons in Strategy from Formula 1
Ross Brawn and Adam Parr
Simon and Schuster
Pp73 to 75 FP Reader


Thank you very much. Is the book generally a good read?


Brawn doesn't seem to know whether Ferrari opposed, though. He merely says the technical department hated the change, understandably. Probably similar to the technical departments of the competitors.


It has large sections in a question/answer format so very easy to go to specific points of interest. Fascinating to me but my admiration for Brawn is pretty high. Ferrari owe him and the dream team too much.

He does make it clear that the tyre regulation was done specifically to hit Ferrari. I accept your position that there is nothing to state that Michelin cars could also have been affected, but that would have been coincidental. It may not have been underdstood by Bernie and Max what the actual impact would be, but it was always meant to stop Ferrari winning.

It was always the point of my posts to provide FIA FOM decisions targetted against Ferrari. I believe the tyre decision to be extremely significant (For me it's not even the most significant).

AS AN ASIDE, He also covers Brawn/Mercedes years in detail, including some comment on the deterioration of the McLaren/Merc relationship.

He is formidable.
I don't see why Max Mosley would have understood the implications, but Ecclestone wouldn't. Also, considering the format that favoured pitstops, how could anybody simply believe that Ferrari would be hurt more than the Michelin teams, knowing that Bridgestone would likely simply continue to develop its tyres for a single driver/car only?

I find it interesting that Brawn seems to say he had no knowledge of political Ferrari action taken towards the FIA. Not that he needed to be aware of it, but I doubt he was being completely truthful there.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1818
Siao7 wrote:
Blake wrote:
quere wrote:
Whatever floats your boat pal.

And ... in breaking news -- https://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/2330 ... gine-rules

The beat goes on. :lol: :lol:


So you had no worthwhile point on the previous discussion, and now you introduce this one for something that has not even happened and if they were to use it, they appear to represent ALL of the F1 engine manufactures who would likely be in favor of any change given their ineptitude.

Keep on laughing... pal.


Actually, I am not sure if Ferrari ever used their veto agreement. At least that we know of. As mentioned before, their veto is not a straight forward deal, it has caveats.

I remember one time that (I think) Ferrari tried to use the veto but didn't work, at the 2010 FOTA-FIA war. Ferrari were opposing the FIA budget cap, but the FIA plainly rejected them, or something like that. At least I think it was like that.


Out of curiosity: do you agree that no team should have a veto right for rule changes and that Ferrari's veto right should be scrapped immediately?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13379
Surely the fact that Ferrari even have a "veto" is undeniable evidence of special treatment from the FIA?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5979
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Blake wrote:
quere wrote:
Whatever floats your boat pal.

And ... in breaking news -- https://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/2330 ... gine-rules

The beat goes on. :lol: :lol:


So you had no worthwhile point on the previous discussion, and now you introduce this one for something that has not even happened and if they were to use it, they appear to represent ALL of the F1 engine manufactures who would likely be in favor of any change given their ineptitude.

Keep on laughing... pal.


Actually, I am not sure if Ferrari ever used their veto agreement. At least that we know of. As mentioned before, their veto is not a straight forward deal, it has caveats.

I remember one time that (I think) Ferrari tried to use the veto but didn't work, at the 2010 FOTA-FIA war. Ferrari were opposing the FIA budget cap, but the FIA plainly rejected them, or something like that. At least I think it was like that.


Out of curiosity: do you agree that no team should have a veto right for rule changes and that Ferrari's veto right should be scrapped immediately?


Yes I do. But it doesn't have anything to do with my post


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1818
Thank you for the answer!

Why was the veto implemented and why does it still exist if it was ineffective? I don't buy it. The veto right for Ferrari is the expression of a special relationship between Ferrari and the governing bodies. As Mikey writes correctly it is a special treatment in itself.

IMO, it is wrong to imagine the exercising of the veto as a formal, public procedure back in the Mosley-era. Instead, it is much more likely that it created a process of secret pre-information from FIA/FOM to Ferrari about planned rule changes. Then, Ferrari got the chance to threat their veto. In secret negotiations, then, rule changes were agreed upon. But in any case, it gave Ferrari an invaluable competitive advantage: more development time than the competitors.

The veto is an unprecedented scandal, unimaginable in any other sport. It is a massive violation of the integrity of the sport and it does put question marks over results in the relevant era.

All in all a very sad story.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6141
Location: Nebraska, USA
being a bit of a drama queen aren't you, paolo....

So, take away the veto, even if only used once, in agreement with other F1 engine manufacturers so that they could not be forced to sell their engines at an FIA specified price, even if it meant the manufacturers losing money on each engine. Or the threatened use of the veto that put an end to the totally asinine $60m budget cap that would have rendered F1 totally unrecognizable to the sports fan base.

Ironically, not that long ago, it appeared that all the teams and the FIA were in favor of Ferrari having the veto power... I really don't care if they were to give the Veto to one of the other major teams and relieve Ferrari of it. In many ways, it would be easier for Ferrari fans, that much less for you and your fellow thinkers to have to attack with. I do think that it is wise for the teams to have a team, or teams, with Veto power, if not, they have little to counter against unreasonable rules such as the silly $60m cap. Perhaps, it is things like that the teams appreciated at the time. BTW, how much complaining have we heard from the teams over Ferrari having the Veto? There may have been some, and i just missed it. Yes, Ferrari could have exercised the veto in the Mosely era, but it seems as though they did not.

Now to the trivial matter of your post. The fairy tale

YOU paint an IMAGINARY picture of "a process of secret pre-information from FIA/FOM to Ferrari about planned rule changes." You, of course, as it is fantasy, you don't know that any such thing happened, tis only your imagination until until something shows up to prove otherwise. Perhaps in your fairy tale, you got to sit in on these secret negotiations and disclosures? Hope you kept records on your imaginary note pad, or recorder.

And now, it is an unprecedented scandal, unimaginable in any other sport (of course you have proof of this too?), and it is a massive violation of the integrity of the sport (in your opinion, of course) and it puts question marks over results in the relevant era. What era is that, paolo?

What is the UNPRECEDENTED SCANDAL, paolo? Has Ferrari abused the privilege of the Veto? Is it a scandal when the other teams and authority knew of it and made no real effort that I can find to have it removed? I suggest it is only a 'scandal' in the mind of one who desires it to be so... Since, reportedly Ferrari has held this veto power since the days of Enzo, are you going lay this giant question mark blanket over a period of a period of 30 years, call into question Ferrari's results over that whole time. How damned convenient for you...

Sleep well, and may you not have any Ferrari success nightmares to disturb your sleep.
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


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: f1madman, Google Adsense [Bot] 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