Stewards vs. Ferrari @ Japan

axle · Post 02 Oct 2007, 13:16

This issue with starting on the wrong tyres....is it just me that thinks that Ferrari were actually saved some embarrasment by being hauled in for being on the inters? Instead of bemoaning the already apologised for breakdown in communications, they should be looking at their own decision to gamble on the inters. If they'd have tried to race on them they would have been no where. I think they would have crashed, Massa's spin under the safety car should have had them scrabbling for the extreme wets, after all if they didn't they'd have ended up at the back anyway.

So in a way the FIA stewards tried to do them a favour and stop them making a stupid mistake, it's unfortunate that the message didn't get through, but Ferrari made a huge error anyway, the fact they continue to blame the stewards afterwards seems like they are trying to shift the focus off their screw up.

I'd just love it after all this it was Ferrari's own mail server that caused the delay lol.

Fan Solo · Post 02 Oct 2007, 14:02

I found it highly amusing that Ferrari would take this very odd gamble starting on inters (wet's)? better to be 3rd & 4th than last with an extra pit stop - Kimis pace & Massa's for that matter was plenty good enough to keep the Mclarens honest on the same tyre.

I dont get it but hey - carry on shooting yourselves in the foot, see if I care.

Maybe they had some information that made the desision make sense? - disinformation hopefully, the'll be taking the weatherman to court next. lol

As for emails..... it funny & ironic but paper is more reliable for this kinda thing - I guess CW didnt think anyone would be stupid enough to start on anything other than the extreme wets!

Fan Solo · Post 02 Oct 2007, 14:02

double post sorry

Spencifer_Murphy · Post 02 Oct 2007, 14:48

I totally agree. After the FIA failed to get the info to Ferrari (as we are supposed to believe) I was praying for the race to stay wet, cause if it had dried within say, 10 or 15 laps, then there would have been uproar about an FIA cock-up handing the title to a Mclaren driver, then that in turn would bring up they spy scandal ("They should have been thrown out in the first place" blah-blah-blah).

Thak god that didn't happen, this season has been blighted by politics far too much already.

But as it turned out the Ferrari's were never going to perform well on the inters at all, what on earth where they doing on them? I mean sure, you might think the track will quickly dry - but how quickly, surely with THAT MUCH water on the track it would have been prefferable to start in full wets no matter how soon you thought the rain would stop?

As a final comment, I don't buy the idea that Ferrari didn't know about the FIA's decision to force teams to start on the full wet tyres. ITV's pitlane commentator, Ted Kravitz, knew about it, even Martin & James in the commentary box knew about it. And after all this talk about "Team personel always talk between themselves" (due to the spy-scandal) I find it hard to believe that nobody at Ferrari had even heard a rumour that they would ahve to start on wets. At best the email didn't get to them, but surely they must have heard SOMETHING? I mean if they can find out that a 780page document has been leaked, surely they can find out that there's a reason every other team in the pitlane has been told to start on wets.

Not that it matters anyway, they were less competative on the inters and mix-up by the FIA or not they'd have had to pit to change tyres.

zac510 · Post 02 Oct 2007, 15:32

It's fairly obvious - the safety car was out there to lap until the water had been cleared and the rain stopped.
Once those two conditions had been met, the track conditions would be perfect for inters.

However the race control ended up starting the race in the conditions anyway, hence the racing requirement for wet tyres.

joseff · Post 02 Oct 2007, 15:42

Plus, wouldn't Bridgestone ppl tell Ferrari mechanics to put on wets?

Spencifer_Murphy · Post 02 Oct 2007, 16:04

zac510 wrote:However the race control ended up starting the race in the conditions anyway, hence the racing requirement for wet tyres.

Exactly, so surely it would have been easy enough to slap on some wets?

zac510 · Post 02 Oct 2007, 16:41

Spencifer_Murphy wrote: Exactly, so surely it would have been easy enough to slap on some wets?

They didn't know that at the time..

Rob W · Post 03 Oct 2007, 00:38

Spencifer_Murphy wrote:I don't buy the idea that Ferrari didn't know about the FIA's decision to force teams to start on the full wet tyres. ITV's pitlane commentator, Ted Kravitz, knew about it, even Martin & James in the commentary box knew about it.

Exactly. As I said elsewhere, Ferrari took a gamble.. If the rain had stopped and the track dried they would have been in an awesome position - and every other team would cry foul - Ferrari were banking on being able to plead ignorance to the race director and avoid being forced to come in and change their tires to even it up for everyone. Ferrari, using the same defense as they've used now, would just say: "we didn't know about it, you can't penalise us."

This was a clear and cunning attempt at ignoring the race director for unfair advantage over every other team. This really should the basis for a news item about poor sportsmanship.

Moreso, Bridgestone knew about it surely... Ferrari's side-kicks forgot to mention it to them too? Give me a break

Rob W

DaveKillens · Post 03 Oct 2007, 01:07

Some ask the question.. "Just why would they want to start on intermediates in the first place?" Well, you have to understand the goals Ferrari had set for the Japanese GP. They had already won the Manufacturer's Title, but Kimi had a slight, but slim, chance at winning the Driver's Title. But to do that, he had to win. Nothing else mattered, third or anywhere behind any McLaren was undesirable. So they weren't there just to do well, their only and prime goal was to get Kimi the win. Nothing else, nada. But in order to win, especially when you start on the second row, chances have to be taken, high risk decisions have to be made. Because if you just follow the pony and race conservatively, you're not going to finish ahead of the McLarens.
So just before the start of the race, there was a possibility that the rain may diminish, and the track clear up. So you do something different from the rest, you have to, you're doing everything possible to get Kimi the win.
Do I believe the email was never delivered to Ferrari? If I did, I would also believe in the Easter Rabbit, the tooth fairy, and anything else from the land of fantasy and make-believe.

mini696 · Post 03 Oct 2007, 01:56

Ignorance is never an excuse, and would never stand up in a public court. But the FIA and stewards dont rule by public standards or public opinion. If they did McLaren would not have been punished for the spy saga.

So if Ferrari's tactics worked and the track dried, everyone (the teams) would call foul. The stewards would investigate, Ferrari would play dumb, and be let off.

However that didn't happen, and the stewards did get on Ferrari's back and tell them to change. So this is all a bit of a mute point.

Rob W · Post 03 Oct 2007, 02:48

mini696 wrote:So if Ferrari's tactics worked and the track dried, everyone (the teams) would call foul. The stewards would investigate, Ferrari would play dumb, and be let off.

However that didn't happen, and the stewards did get on Ferrari's back and tell them to change. So this is all a bit of a mute point.

The point is it looks like their intention was to benefit from unsporting conduct. The point is moot I agree - but only because their gamble on the weather didn't pay off.

Rob W

West · Post 03 Oct 2007, 05:19

I guess it wasn't obvious to Ferrari when everybody else was wearing wets...

For SPEED watchers, didn't Steve Matchett say that Ferrari didn't "sign up" for email alerts? Something like that?

mx_tifoso · Post 03 Oct 2007, 05:35

West wrote:For SPEED watchers, didn't Steve Matchett say that Ferrari didn't "sign up" for email alerts?

What I dont understand about this is why was Ferrari's decision to start the race on intermediate wet tires "unsportingly conduct"

Sure, it was a huge risk in both safety and strategic terms, but why was it "unsportingly conduct"

Rob W · Post 03 Oct 2007, 05:44

mx_tifosi wrote:What I dont understand about this is why was Ferrari's decision to start the race on intermediate wet tires "unsportingly conduct"

It's simple. The race director made the call for everyone to start on full-wets (for safety reasons I imagine). Ferrari thought, "let's gamble on the rain stopping - just ignore the old guy"...

If it had stopped raining they would have been in a great position - being able to avoid that extra pit-stop that every other team would have to do. They intended to gain an unfair advantage over every other team in this manner. That is unsporting without doubt.

Now, the issue at hand is: did they really not know or were they just gambling on the rain to stop? Likelihood and indications are that it was the 2nd scenario but it really depends which team/news/article you believe. I struggle to believe that, given the regularity with which Ferrari has been in touch with the race director of the years (during races), they now suddenly don't get his messages.

Rob W