Bernie speaks up!!!

[manchild]

Ha! Bernies has his own column in Sport-Bild!

Wonder if Max will summon Bernie before the FIA Council for putting the sport into disrepute

[gogglesp]

FIA should have let the little people catch up all on their own

The little people do catch up and surpass, only to be knocked back to give the upper hand to Ferrari. Mass dampers definitely come to mind here.

Also to claim that mass-dampers gave an unfair advantage to Renault is ridiculous in that the mass-damper system was most likely developed as part of entire 'package' taking into account all the other aspects of the 2006 car design most notably the tires. To take away a key component that was developed as part of strategic tire choice would result in a .5 second lap penalty.

I like Ferrari, I think MS is ok but let’s not let our judgment be clouded by personal bias.

[Tom]

Its true, some people just can't be pleased unless they're complaining!

[boban-mk]

Also to claim that mass-dampers gave an unfair advantage to Renault is ridiculous in that the mass-damper system was most likely developed as part of entire 'package' taking into account all the other aspects of the 2006 car design most notably the tires. To take away a key component that was developed as part of strategic tire choice would result in a .5 second lap penalty.

Mass dumper was developed in mid 2005. Also ferrari used that also, not so offen like Reno but they had such device also. I think that other teams maybe knew about it. FIA probably knew but they react on someone's appeal. Ferrari was to far behind Reno before the mid of a season and they just use that to move Reno from place. They lose a little but Reno lose more that that. So they are now probably equaly fast. Now the tires plays a bigger role and thats why ferrari looks stronger. From all this struggle of two best teams maybe Mclaren is a winner. They are now really close with performance to Reno and Ferrari. Maybe this is a low kick from Ferrari, but they have a right to do that.
When you have a problem you have to deal with it. Not to freak out. Ferrari last year had a big tier problems but thay were quiet. Mclaren last year also had a problem and loose all even they had a quick car and only one driver. But every one must pay for mistakes. Reno will probably pay the mistake of using something that can be proved as ilegal, as did happend.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Just goes to show that the FIA shouldnt have changed all the rules bit by bit from the start of the ferrari domination, so that YOU other poor people could get to see another driver or constructors win....

FIA should have let the little people catch up all on their own. You just cant please anyone these days

I totally agree. Nobody looks back at the Mclaren domination of 1988 as a bad period in F1 history. As much as I liked to see somebody else doing well, F1 is a sport, and you shouldn't change regulations in an attempt tp help / hinder players / teams. The battle should be sorted out on the track / pitch / field and ONLY there unless of course somebody breaks the rules and a penalty is incurrd (for example schumi had is points deducted from the 1997 championship) btw I'm not saying that was right or wrong...just using it as an example.

It was wrong to change the rules in 2003 to hinder Ferrari, and its wrong to do it now to hinder Renault (if you believe that's the case of course )

But you have to admit, Bernie has issued some harsh words, and if he thinks something is amiss then surely there's something to it. Then again, this being Bernie, could it be some sort of political game? I can't see how it could be, but then again, I'm not a poletitial, and Bernie seems to be a political genius.

[Rob W]

It was wrong to change the rules in 2003 to hinder Ferrari, and its wrong to do it now to hinder Renault..

Just to clarify, you're referring to the one set of tyres per race change right?

I actually think the intention of that was to appear to be levelling the playing field when in-fact it should have actually been a benefit to Ferrari.

The reasoning, as I see it, is that a team which has the full and sole support of a tyre manufacturer will have an advantage over teams who have to all share a common tyre which has been developed with all of their needs, feedback and test data in mind. Ferrari could get tyres which suited them alone - the other Bridgestone runner merely had to accept the tyres supplied to them and make them work as well as possible on their car.

The only hitch with this all is that Bridgestone couldn't deliver. Their tyres, whether due to inferior construction or compounds weren't good enough. But they gave Ferrari a way to subtly 'encourage' the re-introduction of tyre changing. They actually should have been in a position of advantage in many ways - but the tyre company simply got out-done by Michelin.

All this aside, I think next year will be the hard one. Every bit of data Bridgestone will use to plan and construct next year's tyres will be sourced via Ferrari. Therefore I suspect there will be a period before the ex-Michelin runners can sort their balance and handling out re: the tyres.... meaning, once again, an unfair Ferrari advantage caused not by anyone's innovation or others slackness, but by rules.

Rob W

[saam]

At last Spencifer_Murphy someone with a bit of sence in here, it took a while but I will slowly start to have intelligent conversations soon.... At least i hope

[Spencifer_Murphy]

It was wrong to change the rules in 2003 to hinder Ferrari, and its wrong to do it now to hinder Renault..

Just to clarify, you're referring to the one set of tyres per race change right?

No actually I was reffering to ALL changed made. Tyres, quali the whole shabang.

They said the changes where to take the sport more appealing, tpo make it more of a spectacle.

Well I'm sorry but F1 has done perfectly well for nearly 56 years now (52 at the time) without the need for rule changes in order to make the sport more of a spectacle. Up until that point all rule changes where for safetly aspects (well ALMOST all rule changes anyway). Just because one team was doing a better job than others does not mean that the rules need to change. It means that the other teams best start doing their jobs properly.

And just because they are trying to hinder Renault now (are they?/are they not?....best not to discuss THAT in this thread) does not make up for the mistake they made back ion 2003. 2 wrongs do NOT mke a right.

Anyway, my main point was to point out that all this name calling is pointless, Flavio & Alonso have had their say, lets leave it at that. IF Schumi was to give an answer on the track, my opinion is Willi Weber shoulkd have left it to that, not spoken out as some sort of forthright school teacher fighting Michael's battles for him.

If Michael sees Alonso's comments as a problem I'm sure he is big, old and ugly enough to say so himself. Willi Weber's comments simply mount more pressure on Michael to do well now. And surely that's not benificial to Schumi's cause.

At the end of the day, al this name calling won't decide the championship. So lets get those cars racing (insted of getting those mouths racing!)

what next? Title ends as a draw so Max Mosley decides it will be settled in a cussing contest.

On your marks,
Get set
Go

"Yo momma is so...."

Gimme a break. lol

[mcdenife]

Well I'm sorry but F1 has done perfectly well for nearly 56 years now (52 at the time) without the need for rule changes in order to make the sport more of a spectacle. Up until that point all rule changes where for safetly aspects (well ALMOST all rule changes anyway). Just because one team was doing a better job than others does not mean that the rules need to change. It means that the other teams best start doing their jobs properly.

True. But the question needs to be asked, as to the reason why it seemed they were always able to do a better job? That the sport was less appealing was the FIA own doing and they knew this else would not have felt obliged to change something that had worked for decades. The dominance of one team is nothing new in F1 but the other teams soon caught up after one or two seasons. But this time they couldnt because the goal post kept being moved so when this backfired with the sport becoming less appealing, the "goal post" shifters decided on rule changes to give the impression that they are trying to level the the playing field.

[DaveKillens]

I do agree that the rules changes a few years back were to shake up the status quo. e.g. level the playing field and give someone else a chance at challenging Ferrari. What happened was that with the one tire per race rule, both Bridgestone and Michelin pretty well had to start from scratch. And this is where the cozy arrangement Ferrari had with Bridgestone backfired. because the new tire required lots of testing, and since Bridgestone basically had just one team to get valid feedback, Michelin had quite a few teams to spread the testing around. I'm sure we all remember the frantic testing Ferrari were doing in the period, in an attempt to keep up with the tire data wars.
But both Ferrari and Bridgestone learned from that dismal season, and quickly brought a few more teams on board. So now both tire companies are relatively equal, with each taking turns at being the better tire every few races.
If Bridgestone had a few more teams back during the '05 season, Ferrari would have shown better competitiveness, and who knows what would have happened. Personally, I believe the rules weren't intended to cripple Ferrari, but because of the weird situation of Bridgestone and Ferrari, it really hurt them. I don't think either the FIA or Bridgestone or Ferrari saw it coming.

[mini696]

Nobody looks back at the Mclaren domination of 1988 as a bad period in F1 history.

Just to clarify, that 'period of domination' only lasted one year, and McLaren dominated because there were major changes in the rules to come into effect the next year.

McLaren were the only team to specifically design and build a car for 1988, therefore their domination. Yes the other teams built new cars, but they didnt put the effort in that McLaren did purely because they didn't see it as "worth their time".

[Spencifer_Murphy]

True but likewise Ferrari's only year of MAJOR domination was 2002, 2001 was dominant, but others had a slim chance. 2003 was close, 2004 was much like 2001.

2002 was the only real piece of total domination like Mclaren's 1988 season. So why do people think Ferrari's domination is so bad? It won't last...it hasn't tbh, Renault are fighting for this, they took both titles last year.

When i say it won't last, I mean that purely becuase no team has ALWAYS dominated in F1, every team has ups and downs. Ferrari are on an up, but will eventually have a down period.

[mini696]

I have no problem with domination. I would prefer it if it was Mark Webber. LOL.