Stopping Ferrari dominance will be the norm...

[saam]

Stopping Ferrari's diminance in past years looks like it could quite be the norm with the FIA. If renault were to dominate for too long then the same will happen to them it seems.

This whole big thing on tire wars was introduced to level out the field but only worked to a certain degree...all of a sudden we see ferrari winning only 1 race in a season

We see in spain that the ferrari seem to have either an aero package that kills others or better engine performance or both, in straight line speed, yet when conering it looks like michelin still diminate

What is this going to mean if and when michelin pull out and leave bridgestone alone in F1??? This is a sport turned into a game of tug-a-war

[manchild]

FIA was stopping Ferrari dominance?

[kilcoo316]

FIA was stopping Ferrari dominance?

Why was the rules changed at the end of 2002 then?
Then again at the end of 2004?

You can see past your paranoia, go on, give it a go

[mcdenife]

The question is, what were the rule changes and how were the changes meant to stop Ferrari's domincance?

[RacingManiac]

The question is, what were the rule changes and how were the changes meant to stop Ferrari's domincance?

end of 2002 saw the point system changed from 10-6-4-3-2-1 to 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. Intend to not let them wrap up the championship too quickly. 2003 happen to be Bridgestone is struggling year and it seemed to work, but 2004 was a rerun of 2002 and the championship I think was wrapped up 2 races later than 2002.

end of 2004 was the introduction of 1 tyre per race rule and we all know how that went. The exclusive working relationship between BS and Ferrari backfired as Michelin got a heck of a lot more mileage from all their team to make the long life tire, while Ferrari despite not signing up for the test ban and running 2 test team cannot keep up....

[manchild]

Why was the rules changed at the end of 2002 then?

Then again at the end of 2004?

end of 2004 was the introduction of 1 tyre per race rule and we all know how that went. The exclusive working relationship between BS and Ferrari backfired as Michelin got a heck of a lot more mileage from all their team to make the long life tire, while Ferrari despite not signing up for the test ban and running 2 test team cannot keep up....

Sorry but that is not true. 9 teams voted against single tyre rule and only Ferrari supported it because they thought it will give them advantage. All it took for that FIA suggestion no to be implemented as rule for 2005 was unanimous vote of all 10 teams but Ferrari didn’t support them.So, it only turned out to be bad for Ferrari but not originally intended to cut their pace. Also, changes in sporting regulations have nothing to with reducing someone’s dominance so changes in point system had no influence in technical superiority of Ferrari.

One could also say that Renault was greater victim of rule changes so far than Ferrari ever was. They've just won WDC and WDC in 2005 when engine and tyre rules dramatically changed including the "Bridgestone for all in 2007" as imposed by FIA.

The only reason why tyre rules changed for 2006 were changed to 2004 rules was to help Ferrari get back their pace from 2004 and it was successful. So, talk about FIA's attempts to reduce Ferrari's dominance is just something Molsey and Ferrari bosses use to pollute the atmosphere because their words contradict their actions and consequences they create.

[Scuderia_Russ]

Actually Manchild if you look at the F1 Technical poll with regards to long life tyres you will see that the majority of people that voted said that they thought they were dangerous. This was even before Michelin showing up at Indy with unsafe tyres that led to six runners taking part, and the Raikkonen incident. Not to mention the many other tyre problems that happened throughout the year. There was no way that the F.I.A. could risk another Imola '94 again, but saying that long life tyres might very well have worked if there wasn't a tyre war.

As for 2003, Ferrari had already designed a car with a long wheelbase and large fuel tank to optimse the rules before the changes were brought in for qualifying etc. but this hampered the Bridgestone performance which is why everyone else was so close to them that year, otherwise it would have been business as usual.

At the time Ferrari were also developing an all in one engine and gearbox combination then the F.I.A. went and brought in the one race per weekend rule which meant if they had raced this all in one 'box and engine and during a weekend had a gearbox problem that meant it had to be changed, that would mean the engine would have had to have been changed meaning a ten place penalty. If this is the F.I.A pandering to Ferrari then I'm a God damn China man!

[manchild]

If this is the F.I.A pandering to Ferrari then I'm a God damn China man!

You got to give me tip how to eat with those sticks

[mcdenife]

If this is the F.I.A pandering to Ferrari then I'm a God damn China man!

That may not be the FIA pandering to Ferrari, but from the said said rule changes (discussed above) they were certainly not designed to stop Ferrari dominance as some would have every tom, dick, their sister harriet, their dog and grandma believe. As RacingManiac said, the change to the point system was intended to not let them wrap up the championship too quickly but was more importanly for commercial reasons, (a lot of fans switched off after the championship was decided). It was also indirectly related (a knee jerk reaction in my view) to the Austria 2002 fiasco.

[Ciro Pabón]

"Most people involved in the intimacies of Formula One place great value in the principle of stability in the technical regulations - from the rule makers themselves to their intellectual adversaries, the design engineers. Routine changes to the rules that govern the sport cost money and, from an engineer’s perspective, changes normally imply more restriction and less freedom to innovate, to exploit new materials or to pursue a promising development break. Generally, then, rule changes are the stuff of nightmares to most ambitious Formula One designers."
Williams F1

Rule changes will continue and it will seem they affect more one team than other. They should be judged by its:

- Necessity
- Logic

Wise Ferrari fans (it is said there are some in this forum) take Mr. Williams british attitude and behave like sportmen. "Intellectual adversaries", said Sir Frank. He didn't say "those evil guys".

Here are my 2 cents: continental europe seem to have lots and lots of rules. They could learn a little from those that argue for less, more clever (and human!) rules.

[DaveKillens]

Sometimes you just have to look at the results. So far this year, we are witnessing a very good battle between two teams, two drivers. Good stuff, and it benefits the fans with such drama and action.
The bottom line? Ferrari are not dominating, the game is wide open to anyone who can put together a good team, strategy, and driver.