Ferrari's lack of pace

Tom · Post 10 Apr 2006, 14:37

I'm sure many of you will remember Williams and Benneton in the mid 90s
and before long both cars found themselves near the middle of the grid, but now both are climbing up again.

Ferrari will do the same. The problem is that if you sit still for one winter it will take three seasons to climb back up, such is the pace of F1.

Ferrari sat still in 04 testing and it may take Raikonen and a couple of good engineers to help them back up.

Lightspeed · Post 10 Apr 2006, 18:40

Well, let me quote supremo Max Mosley before the 2006 season began (sniping at the proposed breakaway 2008 series by 5 manufacturer teams)

"For half a century the most glamerous and valueable assets of the FIA World Championship have been Ferrari as the star team and Monaco as the outstanding race venue. Any series which attempts to set itself up without these two features would have to expect sivere resistance from fans and sponsors"

And i agree with that completely. Ferrari's sucess is a compulsory cornerstone for Formula 1's sucess IMHO.

It will IMHO not be too far fetched to say that over 60% of all F1 enthusiasts the world over are Ferrari well wishers. The remaining 40% may dislike these comments but the dudes at FIA who matter take Ferrari very importantly as a pillar that holds up F1 ... and it is pretty obvious that most rule changes are intended for Ferrari.

Here's my prediction : If Ferrari dont start getting compititive soon, we might look to see a few more rule changes that intend to help Ferrari in this regard. Sure nobody likes boring monopoly but a competitive grid with Ferrari as the winner....nothing can be more better for F1 that this.

Cheers.

manchild · Post 10 Apr 2006, 19:11

Than people say that I’m hypocrite and biased

… Even if so I’m only F1 fan – not president of F1 governing body that should be completely impartial.

Ferrari was if F1 since day 1 but it is unfair to mention Ferrari as single pillar of F1. Lotus has contributed to F1 at least same as Ferrari (I think much more). Than there were Tyrell, Mclaren, Cooper, Cosworth, Williams, Ligier, Brabham, Renault, Matra, Lola, Alfa, Mercedes...
Without all these and many unmentioned F1 wouldn't be what it was.

Revival of Ferrari in mid '90s was conduced by Mosley and Co. based on statement similar to one Lightspeed quoted and it was "F1 needs Ferrari". Ferrari managed to get out of 2 decade long abstinence but unfortunately they way it was done caused problems that F1 faces even today and will face in years to come. For the sake of Ferrari's salvation all other teams were treated like second rate participants by FIA and that still continues causing constant problems and ruining the sport.

I really don't understand why Mosley as an Englishman never took any action to help Lotus or Tyrell when they were in problems? (ok, ok I know why

)

Tom · Post 10 Apr 2006, 20:07

F1 would struggle without Ferrari, but as long as true fans still watched F1 it would still be the best.

I like Ferrari because of their heritage, but that doesn't make it fair that Mosely is trying to make them win.

I support DC, but I would be livid if the FIA gave him more revs so he could win more races. Its just not fair.

Jason · Post 11 Apr 2006, 09:31

Agreed Tom

NickT · Post 11 Apr 2006, 10:43

Hi Guys,

While I love thier road cars and their heritage, I hate the way they are looked after by the Max and Berrnie

This year's tyre changes were introduced for Ferrari's benifit and to a lesser extent Bridgestone's who will almost certainly be supplying the control tyre for next year

Also they have also made a major contribution to the driving the cost of the sport into the stratosphere by refusing to limit testing and being one of the first teams to run a full time test team

However, without Max and Berrnie securing Ferrari for the new Concord agreement, they would never have been able to bring the other manufacturer's to heal and ultimately enforce the regulations that will reduce the teams overheads and remove driver aids

Hopefully the playing field will level off more and the cars will become much closer and the removal of driver aids will return the sport to a true driver's championship, where a talented driver can really make the difference

Hmmmmm....... pre-driver aids oooohhhhh heavanly bliss

Scuderia_Russ · Post 11 Apr 2006, 20:19

NickT wrote: This year's tyre changes were introduced for Ferrari's benifit

If you look at the F1 Technical poll on the subject of long life tyres you will see why they were not used this year.

NickT wrote: Bridgestone's who will almost certainly be supplying the control tyre for next year

This is far from certain actually. Pirelli and one other manufacturer will be tendering also. It would be great if it was given to a new manufacturer as it would effectively level the playing field in this respect unless a particualr team found them selves with a chassis remarkably suited to the rubber.

peroa · Post 11 Apr 2006, 20:53

Scuderia_Russ wrote:
NickT wrote:

This is far from certain actually. Pirelli and one other manufacturer will be tendering also. It would be great if it was given to a new manufacturer as it would effectively level the playing field in this respect unless a particualr team found them selves with a chassis remarkably suited to the rubber.

For 2008 ->? Maybe...
2007 is a certain BS year.

Spencifer_Murphy · Post 12 Apr 2006, 19:51

I agree with manchild, other teams such as Lotus have contributed more to F1 than Ferrari...BUT (and its a big But) Ferrari are part of F1, they are interwoven into F1's tapestry if u like.

F1 without Ferrari wouldn't be quite the same. For me though this is also true with Williams & Mclaren now. But still more so with ferrari.

ketanpaul · Post 13 Apr 2006, 18:47

F1 without Ferrari will be BAD, REALLY BAD. I cant even imagine a ferrariless F1. Whenever Montezemelo decides to call it a day, there will surely be some international mourning and the viewership of F1 might suffer too.

sandaflo · Post 14 Apr 2006, 00:21

on the subject of control tyres, while other companies may submit a tender for the contract, I think it is a near certainty Bridgestone will end up the winner. While Pirelli has a history in F1, I believe Toyota and Ferrari will informally endorse Bridgestone. Toyota on the basis of their relationship with roadcars, and Ferrari, well, we really don't need to say much more on why the FIA would listen to Ferrari, do we

While I can appreciate not wanting to set off a spending spree due to tyre testing in order to understand the characteristics of a new tyre, this would give Max and the FIA an opportunity to introduce an environment of competitve balance (everything else considered). How equitable would it be to have a longtime Michelin runner (i.e. Renault) develop a car with with no first hand experience on Bridgestones? I know the Michelin/Bridgestone teams pool data that is made available to everyone, but I would imagine this sort of scenario would leave existing Bridgestone runners with an advantage in 2007.

saam · Post 14 May 2006, 07:04

This leaves a bitter taste in many peoples mouths...........F1 will never be the same without FERRARI

Who will people bag about then ha???

captainmorgan · Post 14 May 2006, 09:41

It sounds like it is agreed that Formula 1 cannot exist without Ferrari. Even though it sounds descriptive of F1, it is disappointing.

If Ferrari, even with its pedigree and legacy and whatnot, if they get special treatment in the form of rule changes or a favorable stake of the commercial revenue just so they won't leave F1, then it means that its not a real competition. It's basically a rigged game of King of the Hill. Sure they might change the rules around occasionally to make it look honest, but F1 will never be a real sport unless the playing field is actually even.

Fans of other teams get short changed due to the disadvantage, and what's the point of rooting for a team that gets special treatment? I guess it's easy to root for the winner.

I'm not sure how I got on that rant, but I was trying to get to the following question. Why is Lotus not in Formula 1? I wouldve guessed that people would pay to see the brand, rather than Lotus having to pay its way in

manchild · Post 14 May 2006, 13:38

It exists without Lotus so it could exist without Ferrari too.

Scuderia_Russ · Post 14 May 2006, 20:41

captainmorgan wrote: If Ferrari, even with its pedigree and legacy and whatnot, if they get special treatment in the form of rule changes or a favorable stake of the commercial revenue just so they won't leave F1, then it means that its not a real competition. It's basically a rigged game of King of the Hill. Sure they might change the rules around occasionally to make it look honest, but F1 will never be a real sport unless the playing field is actually even.

Most of the rules changes of the last few years have been brought in to work against Ferrari's dominance, not the other way around.