F1 team of the year?
Discussion
hostile17 said:
Bitter'n'Twisted said:
Team of the year - Ferrari.
Wasn't that what the various races were there to decide?
And just exactly how did Ferrari's actions in 2007 make them worthy of the Constructor's or 'Team of the year' titles?Wasn't that what the various races were there to decide?
They had problems near the start of the season, and got on with sorting those problems
out.
The team worked together as a team.
They pulled themselves back from a big points deficit to win both titles.
And they never gave up, when most people (including Hamilton and probably yourself and probably
most people on here) had written them off.
They showed great team work and fighting spirit right until the end of the last race.
If other teams had shown such qualities then the result at the end of the year may have been
different.
They had the nerve to complain when they found out that McLaren were using their information
which is terrible isn't it?
I guess I'm in the minority on this forum in that I will be watching F1 next year.
If a lot of the people on here actually mean what they say, then they won't be.
For the record, I don't support Ferrari, or any team. I just support whoever I think is the
best driver, which IMHO just happens to have been a Ferrari driver for the last 10 years or so.
Most improved team of 2007 has to be BMW (showed some real advances and potential) or
McLaren (who made a fantastic fast and reliable car, but were let down in other areas of the team).
Bitter'n'Twisted said:
They had the nerve to complain when they found out that McLaren were using their information
which is terrible isn't it?
There's a difference between feeling wronged and milking a situation for unfair gain. What Ferrari did was turn a questionable gain for McLaren into a definite gain for them. This is why people feel aggrieved about the whole situation and why the sport will ultimately be torn apart in the long term.which is terrible isn't it?
I admit that, in terms of racing in the last 2 races, Ferrari did do well. But......there's just too much going on outside the circuit to name them as team of the year. Plus they had a rogue employee, who was stupid:
I mean, when Coughlan and Stepney met, why was the flow of information only one way? Why didnt they both say "you tell me yours, I'll tell you mine..."
rather then "here, have this..."
I mean, when Coughlan and Stepney met, why was the flow of information only one way? Why didnt they both say "you tell me yours, I'll tell you mine..."
rather then "here, have this..."
Bitter'n'Twisted said:
They had problems near the start of the season, and got on with sorting those problems
out.
Interesting way to describe deliberately using an illegal design and getting found out so having to change it out.
Bitter'n'Twisted said:
They had the nerve to complain when they found out that McLaren were using their information
which is terrible isn't it?
They were within their rights to complain, but a much more honourable action would have been to look internally and shoulder the blame for the actions of their own employee rather than using their allies within the governing body to place accusations which were only investigated in one direction. These were not the actions of a team who had the interests of the sport overall, and fair play at heart. If they were confident enough in themselves they would not be worried about persuing these actions and for this reason I could not consider Ferrari to be team of the year.which is terrible isn't it?
For driver, I could, however, consider Kimi as he did a good, steady job all year and was there at the end. However, taking account of various actions by the FIA the fact that he became champion despite winning in an illegal car for which no punishment was given, and actions taken to damage the chances of McLaren drivers by the FIA following internal issues which affected no one else I am not sure that I could absolutely give him the top driver accolade.
andyps said:
Bitter'n'Twisted said:
They had problems near the start of the season, and got on with sorting those problems
out.
Interesting way to describe deliberately using an illegal design and getting found out so having to change it out.
andyps said:
Bitter'n'Twisted said:
They had problems near the start of the season, and got on with sorting those problems
out.
Interesting way to describe deliberately using an illegal design and getting found out so having to change it out.
now, what would be the fine for using an illegal car in a proper court?, not to mention openly using the fia for the own good AND for having the biggest dummy spitting session of the year (although it was close between them and the spantard)
i reckon around 200 million and thrown out of both wdc and cwc should do the trick......
WilliBetz said:
Odd that BMW isn't being tarred with this particular brush...
Thats because all of the woes of F1 are down to the Red Bast**dsat least on PH.
The cheating Spantard is ignored, "coz it's all down to Fe......"
I am really surprised how even Rod Dennis's alter ego on here doesn't mention how Spantard cost the team $100 mil and lost them all their points, travel costs for the first half of 2008 etc etc.
It's the Anybody But United syndrome.
Edited by air cooled on Wednesday 19th December 11:26
andyps said:
Bitter'n'Twisted said:
They had problems near the start of the season, and got on with sorting those problems
out.
Interesting way to describe deliberately using an illegal design and getting found out so having to change itout.
I'd probably got with either Williams or BMW.
WilliBetz said:
andyps said:
Bitter'n'Twisted said:
They had problems near the start of the season, and got on with sorting those problems
out.
Interesting way to describe deliberately using an illegal design and getting found out so having to change it out.
flemke said:
WilliBetz said:
andyps said:
Bitter'n'Twisted said:
They had problems near the start of the season, and got on with sorting those problems
out.
Interesting way to describe deliberately using an illegal design and getting found out so having to change it out.
I'm still having trouble getting my head round the approach, though...
Stepney: Look, I've tried taking this to the FIA, but they aren't interested
Coughlan: Fine. We'll raise it at the next TWG meeting, and see what the guys say
Stepney: Why wait? You guys have such a good relationship with the FIA I'm sure you could sort it out directly. Why not use the drawing I sent you...
35secToNuvolari said:
Disgusted with cheating? He was a Ferrari veteran. More likely upset at the promotions with-in the F1 team.
Sounds like you're saying that any Ferrari veteran would have been inured to that team's systematic rules 'bending' and favourable treatment from the regulator. I'd agree.As to his motivation, that probably did come from how he felt he had been treated. We'll know more when his book is published.
I do think it plausible, maybe probable, that how this team team treats the rule book and sporting ethics and how it seems to have treated Stepney were of a piece.
It's a bit like when they infamously forced Barrichello to slow down in order to gift Michael a win at Hungary (was it in '02?). They justified that act on the basis that it was in Ferrari's interests.
The ethos seems to be that Ferrari-the-team's corporate interest must be placed above all else. When it is placed above sporting ethics, honesty, and keeping one's word to one's employess, something is wrong.
WilliBetz said:
andyps said:
Bitter'n'Twisted said:
They had problems near the start of the season, and got on with sorting those problems
out.
Interesting way to describe deliberately using an illegal design and getting found out so having to change it out.
WilliBetz said:
flemke said:
WilliBetz said:
andyps said:
Bitter'n'Twisted said:
They had problems near the start of the season, and got on with sorting those problems
out.
Interesting way to describe deliberately using an illegal design and getting found out so having to change it out.
I'm still having trouble getting my head round the approach, though...
Stepney: Look, I've tried taking this to the FIA, but they aren't interested
Coughlan: Fine. We'll raise it at the next TWG meeting, and see what the guys say
Stepney: Why wait? You guys have such a good relationship with the FIA I'm sure you could sort it out directly. Why not use the drawing I sent you...
- Stepney observes years of rule-bending, but considers it within the unwritten rules, although contrary to the written rules.
- Stepney believes that he deserves to be treated a certain way but, in wake of departures of MS and RB, finds himself treated less well than expected.
- Stepney feels that, in contrast to systematic breaking of rules relating to the car, which are 'acceptable' within the sport, Ferrari have broken unwritten rules relating to treatment of loyal employees, which, at least in his mind, are not acceptable.
- Stepney reacts to disloyalty towards him by reciprocating, and tries to get those who 'betrayed' him into trouble by exposing to regulator an example of their technical rules-breaking.
- Regulator seems to turn a blind eye to what Stepney has exposed, so he tries either to force regulator's hand by bringing a third party, or witness, into the circle, or to enable the third party to benefit from Ferrari's illegal device, which would be another way of getting back at Ferrari.
The way I read it, this didn't have much to do with McLaren, except that they were Ferrari's greatest competitor, and therefore the logical choice for Stepney.
I would guess that the ongoing dialogue with Coughlan was not originally intended, but it evolved as Stepney imagined further opportunities to get back at Ferrari.
stephen300o said:
flemke said:
It's a bit like when they infamously forced Barrichello to slow down in order to gift Michael a win at Hungary (was it in '02?). They justified that act on the basis that it was in Ferrari's interests.
But of course, that was an internal matter
It was an internal matter.
I don't recall Schumacher's being penalised and being forced to start five places behind his true qualifying position in the next race, do you?
When Ferrari did that, the problem wasn't that it was against the rules, or that it affected any competitor outside of Ferrari. The problem was that it was a farce.
Barrichello deserved to win that race, full stop. Ferrari denied him that for the staggeringly selfish reason that, although Schumacher already had a huge lead in the Championship,and the Ferrari was plainly the dominant car that season, they wanted to give Mikey that little extra edge, to take his likelihood of a championship from 99% to 99.2%
It was a very weak thing to do, and contemptuous of the sport and of the fans.
Legal, but low rent, and so typically Ferrari.
flemke said:
stephen300o said:
flemke said:
It's a bit like when they infamously forced Barrichello to slow down in order to gift Michael a win at Hungary (was it in '02?). They justified that act on the basis that it was in Ferrari's interests.
But of course, that was an internal matterIt was an internal matter.
I don't recall Schumacher's being penalised and being forced to start five places behind his true qualifying position in the next race, do you?
When Ferrari did that, the problem wasn't that it was against the rules, or that it affected any competitor outside of Ferrari. The problem was that it was a farce.
Barrichello deserved to win that race, full stop. Ferrari denied him that for the staggeringly selfish reason that, although Schumacher already had a huge lead in the Championship,and the Ferrari was plainly the dominant car that season, they wanted to give Mikey that little extra edge, to take his likelihood of a championship from 99% to 99.2%
It was a very weak thing to do, and contemptuous of the sport and of the fans.
Legal, but low rent, and so typically Ferrari.
Did Fangio ever take over his team mates car during a race, or is that an old wives tale?
stephen300o said:
Did Fangio ever take over his team mates car during a race, or is that an old wives tale?
Not the same. He didn't have a clear advantage and although there were rumblings from team mates about this, Peter Collins' act was instigated by himself and therefore selfless.kevin ritson said:
stephen300o said:
Did Fangio ever take over his team mates car during a race, or is that an old wives tale?
Not the same. He didn't have a clear advantage and although there were rumblings from team mates about this, Peter Collins' act was instigated by himself and therefore selfless.flemke said:
I suspect it happened more like this:
- Stepney observes years of rule-bending, but considers it within the unwritten rules, although contrary to the written rules.
- Stepney believes that he deserves to be treated a certain way but, in wake of departures of MS and RB, finds himself treated less well than expected.
- Stepney feels that, in contrast to systematic breaking of rules relating to the car, which are 'acceptable' within the sport, Ferrari have broken unwritten rules relating to treatment of loyal employees, which, at least in his mind, are not acceptable.
- Stepney reacts to disloyalty towards him by reciprocating, and tries to get those who 'betrayed' him into trouble by exposing to regulator an example of their technical rules-breaking.
- Regulator seems to turn a blind eye to what Stepney has exposed, so he tries either to force regulator's hand by bringing a third party, or witness, into the circle, or to enable the third party to benefit from Ferrari's illegal device, which would be another way of getting back at Ferrari.
The way I read it, this didn't have much to do with McLaren, except that they were Ferrari's greatest competitor, and therefore the logical choice for Stepney.
I would guess that the ongoing dialogue with Coughlan was not originally intended, but it evolved as Stepney imagined further opportunities to get back at Ferrari.
The motivation seems plausible. But I still don't understand McLaren's decision to raise the matter with the FIA (when Stepney's approach had been rebuffed) rather than at a TWG meeting.- Stepney observes years of rule-bending, but considers it within the unwritten rules, although contrary to the written rules.
- Stepney believes that he deserves to be treated a certain way but, in wake of departures of MS and RB, finds himself treated less well than expected.
- Stepney feels that, in contrast to systematic breaking of rules relating to the car, which are 'acceptable' within the sport, Ferrari have broken unwritten rules relating to treatment of loyal employees, which, at least in his mind, are not acceptable.
- Stepney reacts to disloyalty towards him by reciprocating, and tries to get those who 'betrayed' him into trouble by exposing to regulator an example of their technical rules-breaking.
- Regulator seems to turn a blind eye to what Stepney has exposed, so he tries either to force regulator's hand by bringing a third party, or witness, into the circle, or to enable the third party to benefit from Ferrari's illegal device, which would be another way of getting back at Ferrari.
The way I read it, this didn't have much to do with McLaren, except that they were Ferrari's greatest competitor, and therefore the logical choice for Stepney.
I would guess that the ongoing dialogue with Coughlan was not originally intended, but it evolved as Stepney imagined further opportunities to get back at Ferrari.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff