Ferrari: The rest of the world does know what's wrong
Discussion
Even Ferrari have rarely scored three undeserved FIA regulatory wins in a single month, but in September they managed it:
1). Renault's mass dampers banned as "moving aerodynamic devices"
2). Ferrari's wheel frisbees approved on the basis that they are NOT "moving aerodynamic devices"
(Btw, is there any person on this earth who can reconcile 1) and 2)?)
3). For the first time since the rule was written ages ago, it was decreed that it's OKAY to take advantage by cutting a chicane. This novel interpretation of a potential penalty related to the Hungarian chicane cutting that was done by - and this is truly amazing - a Ferrari driver!
It all seems more than a bit unFIAr.
1). Renault's mass dampers banned as "moving aerodynamic devices"
2). Ferrari's wheel frisbees approved on the basis that they are NOT "moving aerodynamic devices"
(Btw, is there any person on this earth who can reconcile 1) and 2)?)
3). For the first time since the rule was written ages ago, it was decreed that it's OKAY to take advantage by cutting a chicane. This novel interpretation of a potential penalty related to the Hungarian chicane cutting that was done by - and this is truly amazing - a Ferrari driver!
It all seems more than a bit unFIAr.
With Schumacher retiring from the Hungarian GP not really sure how they were going to penalise his race....
Sure you could argue they might roll something forward but I guess it depends if someone protested his moves?
Re: technical stuff - just been reading a nice story in the latest Motorsport magazine about their mid-90's 2nd brake pedal.. Point is all the teams are pushing with new stuff, some of it gets accepted some of it pitched out.
Sure you could argue they might roll something forward but I guess it depends if someone protested his moves?
Re: technical stuff - just been reading a nice story in the latest Motorsport magazine about their mid-90's 2nd brake pedal.. Point is all the teams are pushing with new stuff, some of it gets accepted some of it pitched out.
p490kvp said:
With Schumacher retiring from the Hungarian GP not really sure how they were going to penalise his race....
Sure you could argue they might roll something forward but I guess it depends if someone protested his moves?
Re: technical stuff - just been reading a nice story in the latest Motorsport magazine about their mid-90's 2nd brake pedal.. Point is all the teams are pushing with new stuff, some of it gets accepted some of it pitched out.
Sure, if you're not pushing the boundaries then you're not doing your job. Sure you could argue they might roll something forward but I guess it depends if someone protested his moves?
Re: technical stuff - just been reading a nice story in the latest Motorsport magazine about their mid-90's 2nd brake pedal.. Point is all the teams are pushing with new stuff, some of it gets accepted some of it pitched out.
The problem is that there seems to be a pattern of rulings that favour Ferrari either directly, or indirectly by penalising or constraining their competitors (such as by banning the McL. "fiddle-brake" in your example).
There have been so very, very many of these occasions when Ferrari was advantaged that many observers believe that it is not sheer coincidence. Certainly the % of times that they have benefitted is greatly disproportionate to what simple probability would suggest.
Combine that with Bernie's expressed interest in buying into Ferrari, the fact that the other teams are required by the current CA to subsidise Ferrari, and the fact that the FIA conspired with FOM and Ferrari to agree a private deal for a new CA, and it is hard to believe that the Italian Scallions do not benefit from preferential treatment.
I think the point about the Hungarian incident is not that it was not punished retrospectively, but rather that it was allowed in the first place, and then justified retrospectively in a rule re-interpretation that left many of the other drivers gobsmacked.
p490kvp said:
With Schumacher retiring from the Hungarian GP not really sure how they were going to penalise his race....
No points (rather than inheriting one) if not running at the finish due to own actions seems reasonable.
Given that Kubica's exclusion was related to being slightly underweight, iirc, which probably had little or no effect on the result in the circumstances compared to MS's actions, why should BMW be penalised and MS/Ferrari not?
Andy Mac said:
I wish they would just open up F1 to initiative, and inventiveness, rather than stifling ingenuity with regulation, upon regulation. If F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, then surely it should be the pinnacle of design, and technology.
Maybe (naively) I think that they are just trying to maintain a level-er playing field - otherwise money would win, all the time and there'd be no competition after a few years.....
But that's a good point - a lot of the F1 technology will eventually feed into the sportscar market - if the initial development is hampered by rules then perhaps we won't be seeing anything too radical on road cars except for gadgets (sat-nav etc) in the future....?
andy_s said:
Maybe (naively) I think that they are just trying to maintain a level-er playing field - otherwise money would win, all the time and there'd be no competition after a few years.....
But if you want a level playing field then make it level - all drivers run the same cars - it's a fine formula --- but it's not Formula One Grand Prix (or at least not what it is supposed to be).
I grew up thinking that formula 1 was the pinacle of technology and motor racing, which in reality it is, yet some of the changes introduced over the last few years are trying to take steps back in technology, although i do understand the money side of things is a big bone of contention, some changes are certainly in favour of the RED team and their favourite driver.
The race i will always remember, although not the year(feel free to let me know) is the Silverstone race where he got issued with a stop and go penalty, but was still able to win the race as his pit box was past the finish line. There was talk at the time that the decision of the penalty was delayed in order that this would be possible.
I also fail to understand that with a sport that so many people worldwide enjoy, watch and in some cases are involved in, how the agreement(concorde) is top secret.
The race i will always remember, although not the year(feel free to let me know) is the Silverstone race where he got issued with a stop and go penalty, but was still able to win the race as his pit box was past the finish line. There was talk at the time that the decision of the penalty was delayed in order that this would be possible.
I also fail to understand that with a sport that so many people worldwide enjoy, watch and in some cases are involved in, how the agreement(concorde) is top secret.
Andy Mac said:
I wish they would just open up F1 to initiative, and inventiveness, rather than stifling ingenuity with regulation, upon regulation. If F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, then surely it should be the pinnacle of design, and technology.
Depends on whether you want it as a technology test bed or as entertainment. I hate to sound like Brundle, but the technology can, and does, detract from its value as entertainment. If you watch the race in the flesh rather than on the box, then GP2 for example, where the cars really are on the ragged edge, is much more exciting than F1 where the cars have become robotic. (Unless you throw in the only cold, wet race of the season on a track which is normally one of the hottest and driest, the robots hadn't been programmed to handle that combination and they all looked like amateurs!) At the other extreme, if you really want to see some exciting motorsport, then get along to your local kart track!
So yes , we want more technology if it adds to the spectacle. But unbridled technology if left to the teams who are more interested in winning than putting on entertainment, could merely add to the boredom of F1, and I for one, would stop flying around Europe to watch.
Yes was McLaren with the 2nd brake pedal - sorry my post before read like it was Ferrari.
Anyway...I think the solution is a simple one. If Ferrari are given favours by the FIA/FOM or Michael is not called to account by the GPDA then my only conclusion is that either it isn't true or if it is then it isn't bad enough as the other teams not to act.
Ferrari might be a big player but they are not bigger than the combined corporate might of BMW, Daimler Chrysler, Toyota, Honda all backed up by the sporting influence of McLaren, Sauber, TTE and even Williams (who granted don't have a factory deal but they would be affected by a Pro-Ferrari FIA just like anyone else).
Anyway...I think the solution is a simple one. If Ferrari are given favours by the FIA/FOM or Michael is not called to account by the GPDA then my only conclusion is that either it isn't true or if it is then it isn't bad enough as the other teams not to act.
Ferrari might be a big player but they are not bigger than the combined corporate might of BMW, Daimler Chrysler, Toyota, Honda all backed up by the sporting influence of McLaren, Sauber, TTE and even Williams (who granted don't have a factory deal but they would be affected by a Pro-Ferrari FIA just like anyone else).
andy_s said:
Andy Mac said:
I wish they would just open up F1 to initiative, and inventiveness, rather than stifling ingenuity with regulation, upon regulation. If F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, then surely it should be the pinnacle of design, and technology.
Maybe (naively) I think that they are just trying to maintain a level-er playing field - otherwise money would win, all the time and there'd be no competition after a few years.....
But that's a good point - a lot of the F1 technology will eventually feed into the sportscar market - if the initial development is hampered by rules then perhaps we won't be seeing anything too radical on road cars except for gadgets (sat-nav etc) in the future....?
Doesn't money win in most sports? Look at the premiership as a prime example, how many times have Chelsea bought the title. Im with Andy Mac on this one less rules would open up F1 to some ingenious ideas and inventions, im sure we would see the power developed under breaking used for example. Ok some rules are required to limit engine size or turbos, god knows what kind of power F1 would be developing if Turbos were allowed again.
boRED S2upid said:
andy_s said:
Andy Mac said:
I wish they would just open up F1 to initiative, and inventiveness, rather than stifling ingenuity with regulation, upon regulation. If F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, then surely it should be the pinnacle of design, and technology.
Im with Andy Mac on this one less rules would open up F1 to some ingenious ideas and inventions, im sure we would see the power developed under breaking used for example. Ok some rules are required to limit engine size or turbos, god knows what kind of power F1 would be developing if Turbos were allowed again.
But regenerative braking is one area the new rules are specifically designed to exploit from 2008 onwards and is being actively encourgaed by Mosley, as is use of alternative fuels.
Some of the "restrictions" are there specifically to ban some of those very clever innovations which merely added to the boredom of the sport. Ground effect and active suspension spring to mind. The seemingly endless lapping of the two red cars at Hockenheim with the cars never an inch out of place and glued firmly to the track,is as near technical perfection as I have seen, but 'kin boring. To be honest the Midlands were more interesting to watch, at least their imperfections allowed them to get out of shape now and then.
I'm not saying the restrictions are right, far from it, but what I as a spectator who spends a great deal of money to watch this sport, want, is development which makes it more interesting to watch. I don't see how taking off the handcuffs and glueing the things down even harder, will help.
rick.e said:
... is being actively encourgaed by Mosley, as is use of alternative fuels.
Could you expand on that, please? AFAIK, the wooly words in article 19 that permitted the use of new technology / alternative fuels have been removed. Are you, perhaps, referring to the mandatory inclusion of bio-derived material?
WilliBetz
PS. Quite agree with those that think it's great to see new technologies make it to the racetrack, before the regs ban them. Mass dampers are a good example. But mega-money is poured into developments that never see the light of day - wouldn't it have been glorious to hear a CVT Williams or a Toyota V12! Sometimes, it seems to me, the FIA go too far to ensure close racing (otherwise known as queuing) by stifling innovation.
p490kvp said:
If Ferrari are given favours by the FIA/FOM or Michael is not called to account by the GPDA then my only conclusion is that either it isn't true or if it is then it isn't bad enough as the other teams not to act.
Ron Dennis was livid when Bridgestone, who were the only tyre supplier, favoured Ferrari and produced tyres to their needs, regardless of what the other teams wanted. The farce of secret intermediates that gave about 2 seconds a lap was really scandalous. Part of the problem is the fickle Italian crowd. If Ferrari don't perform, they stay away in their thousands and, with two Italian GPs each year, this costs Bernie quite a bit. I was at Silverstone when MS broke his leg at Stowe on lap 2. A number of Ferrari supporters in my stand left before the restart!
There does seem little doubt that Ferrari is the favoured one, either consciously of unconsciously. It never used to matter because, when Enzo was around, the team were something of a joke. Once FIAT money was thrown at them and the coporate interferance lessened they became what they are today. In the old days when they were given concessions that were not extended to other teams, it didn't matter as they'd make some horrendous mess of a pit stop or they'd try to design and build a clutchless gearbox, and they'd be back amongst the also-rans.
F1 is not Ferrari but I get the feeling that those who run F1 are. There seems to be this belief that what is good for Ferrari is good F1 but no team is as big as the sport. Who would have thought that when Lotus and Brabham left there would be scarcely a ripple but (sadly?) it was true.
The recent decline in viewing figures of F1 corresponded with the rise and rise of Ferrari and their single driver policy. It cost the sport Sky coverage as well. As one of the few interactive F1 subscribers, I was a bit upset when they withdrew but I could see their point. All that investment and viewers deserting in their droves - it must have cost them millions.
Still, we can always look on the bright side - there've been a few different winners this season, Massa, despite coming in first and in front of MSchuey, did little wrong in the eyes of the Ferrari management so might well be allowed to qualify well for the rest of the season. And the best news is that MSchuey will, in all probability, be team management himself next season and not driving. Raikonnen has a different style and might well allow a team-mate who has not been emasculated.
If Ferrari are not favoured to the extent that they have been then will FIAT put quite so much money in, especially at a time when they are struggling financially? Will Todt and the rest of his enforcers stay with a lower budget? Will they stay without MSchuey? The next few months will be fascinating. The first shots have already been fired - rumours of MS retiring - and there will be more excitement off the circuit than on it I reckon.
Derek
willibetz said:
rick.e said:
... is being actively encourgaed by Mosley, as is use of alternative fuels.
Could you expand on that, please? AFAIK, the wooly words in article 19 that permitted the use of new technology / alternative fuels have been removed.
You may be right. Energy recovery and re-use is definitely in, but the specific wording about alternative fuels has been removed and replaced with wooly words about a committee looking into fuel efficiency and changes to engines etc. It all sounds as if they realsied they'd gone too far and now aren't sure what to do.
I don't have a problem at all with engine development by the way, and the proposed 19000 rpm limit is nuts. I just think that aerodynamics and traction control in particular have gone too far, and make the cars boring to watch. As several have said in other threads, the dynamics of GP2 make it a much better format for the spectator.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff