Ferrari behind, and now want parity and spec parts?

[Conceptual]

From the Friday Press Conference:

SD:
"I think that this year's situation - and I said that taking aside for one second our situation on performance, because it's pretty clear otherwise to say 'listen, you have to take care of that.' that's another story - what is not good in this situation is that we have too many things that are different from car to car and from team to team and it's difficult from the outside to understand that we are doing the same championship and this is one fundamental point that we have to avoid for the future. I think on that, both the FIA and FOM and the teams should make sure that this is not going to happen in the future. We need to have stability, we need to have the same profile for everyone."

So, Stefano says that there are too many differences between the cars/teams, and everyone needs to follow the same profile.

I wonder if he would be saying this if Ferrari were leading the Championships?

Discuss.

[CMSMJ1]

Out of context though mate..

He was on about cost cutting and how people have different money tied up in different things?

Or how did you read it?

[donskar]

Domenicali said:

what is not good in this situation is that we have too many things that are different from car to car and from team to team and it's difficult from the outside to understand that we are doing the same championship and this is one fundamental point that we have to avoid for the future.

I have no problem with this statement. Does anyone NOT agree that the field can be divided into two distinct groups: DDD and non-DDD? (Yes, RBR might be in a class of their own, but that's Newey for you!) SD made no mention of legality, and I won't, either. The cars in the two groups are, simply, quite different. We in this forum certainly understand the enormous influence of aero/downforce on F1 performance, and we know that the three DDD teams started the season with a clear advantage. not illegal, not unfair in any legalistic sense, but SD's commnets above are justified, IMHO.

I think on that, both the FIA and FOM and the teams should make sure that this is not going to happen in the future. We need to have stability, we need to have the same profile for everyone.

I don't think SD wants spec cars or more spec parts -- Ferrari has never competed in such a series and never would (IM VERY HO). And I doubt he is against innovation. Those of you who have followed F1 for more than a few years certainly know that Ferrari was first, or among the first, with innovations like wings and semi-auto transmissions. (There are lots more, but I'm "at work" . . .

What I think SD means is that there should be a level playing field, with rules clear enough to help prevent the bitterness, confusion, and EXPENSE of this year's controversial interpretation of the rules.

Remember: Ferrari (and others) spent millions on KERS, which is of questionable value and NOT required for victory. It can be argued that NOT having KERS is currently an advantage. How does that relate to the cost-cutting mania in F1? Now, all but three of the teams will invest further millions to adapt DDD to their designs, another expense that could have been eliminated if clearer rules, implemented earlier, had been in force.

[Washngo]

I have no problem with this statement. Does anyone NOT agree that the field can be divided into two distinct groups: DDD and non-DDD? (Yes, RBR might be in a class of their own, but that's Newey for you!)

Well, there you go. You've both contradicted, disproven and disagreed with yourself in your own sentence. Doh!

[sticky667]

I don't think SD wants spec cars or more spec parts -- Ferrari has never competed in such a series and never would (IM VERY HO). And I doubt he is against innovation. Those of you who have followed F1 for more than a few years certainly know that Ferrari was first, or among the first, with innovations like wings and semi-auto transmissions. (There are lots more, but I'm "at work" . . .

can you say A1GP?


where does the innovation come in when everyone is trying to build a similar car? "Hey look, Adrian and Ross have a DDD, I must have one too!! that's the reason they are fast!"

FOTA, the media and fans alike are the ones shooting themselves in the foot when they are complaining they want more innovation yet they are worried about b1tching and complaining that this team or that team has a unique part and contest it. maybe the teams need to take a look at their own staff to figure out why they aren't at the front of the grid.

[Giblet]

IMO, Ferrari waived their right to complain about other teams performance when Bernie put to light the fact that they get more money than any other team, because they are who they are.

[xpensive]

I don't know what Domenicali is really talking about, but I think the bottom line is that it has finally sunk in what it really meant to have inofficial status as the EvilTwins "preferred winner", as compared to team up with FOTA as everyone else?

I love Ferrari, belive it or not, while I'm afraid those dream-team years did them very little good actually, with people gloating now. Winning by default takes away the charm, to my mind anyway, when I wish to see peronalities with the team, like Villeneuve, Montezemolo (Hope he comes back to the pit-lane in person), Alesi or hell, how about Cesare Fiorio?

[kNt]

I would guess he's talking about next years "budget cap with different regulation" situation and using this years DDD KERS confusion to strengthen his point.

[WhiteBlue]

The important point is the level playing field. Teams should have the same chances regardless of historic successes or the wealth of their owners. It simply makes the competition more interesting for the public.

The current diffusor rift isn't really relevant in my view. The teams have opposed the rule proposals by the FIA and have implemented their own version. That was obviously not very well thought out. They have to live with the consequences and should stop whinging.

Domenicali's remarks are most likely aimed at the proposal of bringing in new teams with capped budgets and letting the teams with huge budgets compete on more rigid technical rules. What most observers fail to understand is the fact that the size of the budget has to be part of the definition of the playing field. There can be little doubt that F1 needs a set of rules for new teams that will enable them to compete sucessfully next year. It is equally obvious, that the teams with 1000 members will not be able to reduce the budget immediately. It will take some years in some cases to get there.

So it is clear that we will see a lot of propaganda from all sides to tweak the rules that will attract the new teams. In the end I expect a compromise which will see a short transition period of perhaps 1 or 2 years. During that time teams with a budget overrun must carry a handicap of some sort to compensate for their use of excess resources. The times of simply outspending the opposition should be over now.

[nudger]

all very well, but when it comes to budgets, people tend to talk off the top of their heads. You just dont know who spends what actually on the car itself. Mclaren are the best example. There we have an organisation whos budget is often speculated about in the press and on forums, but the figures given are not broken down between the companies within the group, nor are they seperated between corperate budget and actual development and production. the problem is, that becuase of their history in formula one, they now have a large and very expensive to run factory in the surrey green belt. the commercial rate for such a premesis is huge, and that would significantly eat into their capped budget with the proposalas as they are. not really fair so far as im concerned. the budget should be specifically design and production costs. As with any business, unless there is a route to betterment of the company they will die sooner or later.

[WhiteBlue]

McLaren, Ferrari and BMW should find it relativly easy to transfer resources to their road car projects. Renault, Williams, Brawn and Toyota I see as the teams which will have a challenge to adjust because they simply do not have a lot of alternatives. Williams have already gone into F2 but that will not be a big resource sink. I hope they will find other fields of activity like their new KERS design which could be a great technology in the automotive, elevator, automation and machine tool industry.

[donskar]

I don't think SD wants spec cars or more spec parts -- Ferrari has never competed in such a series and never would (IM VERY HO). And I doubt he is against innovation. Those of you who have followed F1 for more than a few years certainly know that Ferrari was first, or among the first, with innovations like wings and semi-auto transmissions. (There are lots more, but I'm "at work" . . .

can you say A1GP?

Can you say, "selling engines is not the same as competing"?

[donskar]

I have no problem with this statement. Does anyone NOT agree that the field can be divided into two distinct groups: DDD and non-DDD? (Yes, RBR might be in a class of their own, but that's Newey for you!)

Well, there you go. You've both contradicted, disproven and disagreed with yourself in your own sentence. Doh!

Forgive me for not writing down to your level. Try this: the current F1 field can be divided into two groups: those with DDD and those without. There is one "exception that proves the rule": RBR, but then they have an exceptional designer..

Simple enough for you?

[Conceptual]

Domenicali said:

what is not good in this situation is that we have too many things that are different from car to car and from team to team and it's difficult from the outside to understand that we are doing the same championship and this is one fundamental point that we have to avoid for the future.

I have no problem with this statement. Does anyone NOT agree that the field can be divided into two distinct groups: DDD and non-DDD? (Yes, RBR might be in a class of their own, but that's Newey for you!) SD made no mention of legality, and I won't, either. The cars in the two groups are, simply, quite different. We in this forum certainly understand the enormous influence of aero/downforce on F1 performance, and we know that the three DDD teams started the season with a clear advantage. not illegal, not unfair in any legalistic sense, but SD's commnets above are justified, IMHO.

I think on that, both the FIA and FOM and the teams should make sure that this is not going to happen in the future. We need to have stability, we need to have the same profile for everyone.

I don't think SD wants spec cars or more spec parts -- Ferrari has never competed in such a series and never would (IM VERY HO). And I doubt he is against innovation. Those of you who have followed F1 for more than a few years certainly know that Ferrari was first, or among the first, with innovations like wings and semi-auto transmissions. (There are lots more, but I'm "at work" . . .

What I think SD means is that there should be a level playing field, with rules clear enough to help prevent the bitterness, confusion, and EXPENSE of this year's controversial interpretation of the rules.

Remember: Ferrari (and others) spent millions on KERS, which is of questionable value and NOT required for victory. It can be argued that NOT having KERS is currently an advantage. How does that relate to the cost-cutting mania in F1? Now, all but three of the teams will invest further millions to adapt DDD to their designs, another expense that could have been eliminated if clearer rules, implemented earlier, had been in force.

Or if said teams had the talent to have incorporated this design from the start. I think that ANY complaint about the cost associated with "catching up" to the DDD3 is utter nonsense, and the only ones to blame are the talent deficient design departments of the teams that missed this exploit.

It simply sounded as if SD was whining, again, and saying that he wanted less chance for deviation in design (to cover Ferrari's apparent design talent deficiency). I don't agree with that view simply because if everyone had to adhere to the same "profile" as SD puts it, the cars will all be within 99.9% identical, with the only advantage being refinement investment which Ferrari is noted to spend enormously on.

It simply sounded like another crybaby whining that his teams money cannot put them on the podium this year, because other teams have developed a better car.

[Conceptual]

I don't think SD wants spec cars or more spec parts -- Ferrari has never competed in such a series and never would (IM VERY HO). And I doubt he is against innovation. Those of you who have followed F1 for more than a few years certainly know that Ferrari was first, or among the first, with innovations like wings and semi-auto transmissions. (There are lots more, but I'm "at work" . . .

can you say A1GP?

Can you say, "selling engines is not the same as competing"?

Did you miss the part where the A1GP chassis is designed and built by Ferrari as well?