Todt resigns as Ferrari CEO

[Rob W]

If you wish me to make a list of things made by FIA that favors Ferrari, well, you looked for the wrong guy...

Good call Ciro. I'll save you the hassle and start with a couple, some glaringly obvious and some which tend to attract a bit of debate.

- 2006 Monaco Qualifying incident with M Schmacher. By all rights his actions should have seen him excluded from the grand prix completely. It was one of the most obvious, deliberate and despicable acts of unsporting behavior in motorsport history imo. That he was allow to race at all is a pretty shameful indictment on the FIA. (They had to punish him somehow after video and his silence started to make his porkies less and less believable - he was demoted on the grid).

- Alonso's qualifying penalty in 2006 - one of the most laughably silly decisions made in attempts to even the game up a bit. How convenient that it happened to the only real contender to Schumacher in the driver's championship.

- Ferrari's bargeboards incident in 1999. They were not within the rules and yet were successfully defended as being within a "5% fabrication tolerance" . This from a sport which can produce items to within 1/100th of a cm on the rest of the car. The stewards of the race-meet unanimously agreed that the barge boards were infringing. The FIA stepped in and ended the matter. A rival team asked if they could now make their engine 3150cc instead of 3000cc and get away with it under the 5% leeway grounds? Martin Brundle aptly commented "You can't be a little bit pregnant".

- The banning of Beryllium in 1999. McLaren had developed engines which used beryllium-alloy pistons - which allowed a longer stroke while retaining the high revs due to them being much lighter. It was within the technical rules at the time. The only team realistically set to benefit from the banning was Ferrari. In October, long after McLaren's 2000 engine was already designed and after some well-known Ferrari lobbying of the FIA on health/safety grounds*, Beryllium was banned - leaving McLaren no time to make a new engine for 2000. In 2000 consequently they ran engines designed with beryllium in mind but made with other materials. The 2000 calendar saw Ferrari win nine races, up from six the previous season. McLaren's Hakkinen suffered mysterious engine failures in the opening two races of the 2000 season. Coincidence?
(* Beryllium, when forged can put off a dust which is a health hazard.)

- The tires.. the tires... the tires. The changes in tire regulations when their were two manufacturers pretty much favoured the Bridgestone runners. More importantly the Bridgestone-shod cars all had to use tires developed in conjunction with Ferrari. Michelin teams all worked together on an 'average' tire based on all of their testing. Ferrari's obvious advantage in this respect wasn't a rule issue.. but after his time at Ferrari Eddie Irvine later mentioned to a number of reporters that their were "special tires" for Michael - which was an absolute infringement of the rules. Everyone has to have the same tires available. Ferrari were quick to stop Irvine repeating his calls... as they also were when Mika Salo claimed during his time with the team they often eavesdropped on other team's radio conversations - also against the sporting rules - and which Ferrari quickly asked Salo to clarify as being "inadvertent" eavesdrops a few days later. Salo's intitial quote is in no doubt despite Todt's attempt to clarify it as innocuous poor memory on Salo's part.

There are more examples too..

Anyway... argue, debate and deny these as you wish. I don't really hold out much hope of convincing anyone of things that aren't consistent with their existing beliefs.

R

[P_O_L]

I've just had time to skim the exacting posts of P_O_L and have noticed a pattern of challenge for authentication of fact which is not reciprocated in that his statements are not accompanied by reference, which is confusing, considering his habitual, constant appeal/standard -- called "SHOW ME" I do hope members will desist from all such submissions exhibiting this repeated....AHHH insufficiency of authoritative documentation ( Yeah - Thats the Ticket )
I am very sure P_O_L will happily document all further statements contributed to the F1Technical Forum. I do hope he will excuse me from responding to any and all of his future requests, as this one time submission is only intended as an example of research that I am very sure will prompt him to offer sources for his every opinion. May I draw the Forum's attention to my body of posts offering particular attention to the effectiveness of sighting original material. May I say I very much admire P_O_L's rejection of empty braggadocio for fact, a member that is certainly a credit to the F1Technical Forum.


Ferrari Revenue Parcel 2007 -- 100M CORRECT P_O_L
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/08/scud ... ge-needed/
http://www.formulamoney.com/


Please note that annum duration is delineated as a variable of renumeration.

Q: How much do the teams get for winning races?
A: The FIA doesn't get involved in money, which is controlled by
Bernie through what used to be called FOCA. I believe that the
Concorde Agreement describes the "prize money" for each race,
and I think there are payments for the leading teams at quarter,
half, three-quarter and full distance. Maybe something for most
laps led too?


The revenue from TV rights is partially distributed to teams using
a points system derived from historical performances. As I understand
it points are awarded for:


* Placing in the constructor's championship (last 3 years)
* Number of years in F1 (1 year = 4 points, 10 years = 165 points
[Ferrari 50 yrs = 1200 points])
* Constructor's titles (25 points each)
* Constructor's championship points (last 2 years x 2)
* " " 2 (all-time / 10)
* Number of wins (last 2 years, 10 points each)
* All-time number of wins (1 point each)


Teams with points get a proportional share of the money. There is
also a separate pool of money distributed based on the previous
years constructor's championship. The *size* of the total payout
(reportedly 47% of TV revenues, nothing from the sanctioning fees
and other income realized by Bernie) was one of the issues behind
the breakaway manufacturers' movement (see next question).
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.auto ... fd7f444af2
EDIT - Personal opinion removed.

Please note this post makes no reference to factual bonus renumeration offered Ferrari although it may suggest that this formula is a partial accounting of Television Revenue distribution and that additional monies are given to The Red Squad

The revenue from TV rights is PARTIALY DISTRIBUTED to teams using
a points system derived from historical performances. As I understand
it points are awarded for:

I like your post!! At least we can now conclude that the thesis 'ferrari gets loads of money every year from the fia on top of the normal allocation' belongs in disneyland. A fabricated story to fuel the paranoid behaviour towards the greatest team in F1 history. I didnt know they get even more money from the history though, thanks for the education.


I have to challenge your statement of me looking for 'authentication of fact wich i seem to refuse to reciprocate, hahah what a choice of words or the fact that i keep on saying SHOW ME. I think its very normal in a conversation or a debate to ask for a simple example to depict and back up an earlier claim. Without it remains elderly home nagging, redneck logic WE DON LIKE YOUR KIND, SON without saying why. Childish behaviour. Its also a show of bad manners and shows a lack of respect towards the people you try to have a conversation with. You make it out as if i ask for references or links in every post, wich simply isnt true. In all my 100+ posts i think i asked twice for some link or publication. Im sorry but you are exagerating to claim i ask for references all the time. I enjoy the try though.

The term ''my trick' is also one i resent ciro, its not a trick, its basic high school stuff on how to debate. I never asked for a whole list, you coudv sufficed with a few words or lines what it is that amkes you think like that. At least rob W takes the effort to give a few incidents why he thinks te FIA is based. Eventhough i might not agree with it, i respect his position and it makes it very clear why he thinks like he does.

The example of the mclaren events was to depict a situation where it sure looked to me the bias was towards the grey and black team, and not ferrari. Therefore it did belong in the debate.

In the example i asked for a reference as i simply had no clue and liked to be educated. Many thanks for clearing up the vieuw that ferrari mysteriously receives extra money every year. The only extra money seems to be the signing bonus to stay in F1 till 2012 and sounds pretty logical too.

im gonna have to find out how to implement modbarabans gift into my avatar as i kinda like it.

Now i must run and go to work. Have a great weekend all.

[Ciro Pabón]

At least we can now conclude that the thesis 'ferrari gets loads of money every year from the fia on top of the normal allocation' belongs in disneyland.

1 year = 4 points
Ferrari's 50 years = 1200 points

It reminds me of the old joke: "I buy them at 3 dollars, I sell them at 7 dollars, and with that 4% of difference I manage to keep the bussiness running".

Hey, look! Isn't that Mickey Mouse in the paddock?

Now, on thread, Ferrari stated:

- Luca di Montezemolo will replace Todt as company president.
- Amedeo Felisa will take over as CEO
- Todt will remain on the board of directors of Ferrari SpA
- Todt will continue as president of Ferrari Asia Pacific and Ferrari Western Europe.
- Todt will also continue to represent Ferrari on the FIA World Council, which is the way to get the presidency.

The board of Ferrari for the next three years is:

• Luca di Montezemolo
  Piero Ferrari (Enzo Ferrari's son)
  Jean Todt
  Amedeo Felisa
  Alfredo Altavilla
  Diego della Valle
  Christopher Gent (former head of Vodafone, ehem)
  Ferruccio Luppi
  Sergio Marchionne (from FIAT)
  Paolo Monferino
  Lindsay Owen-Jones (former CEO of L'Oreal)
  Marco Piccinini (the FIA Deputy President, for those that don't know)
  Sergio Pininfarina

The next FIA election for president will be in October 2009. "There is likely to be much opposition to Todt in FIA circles although the move may not be greeted with much enthusiasm in the F1 world." GrandPrix.com

The greatest fan of Todt for the presidency is... Max Mosley.

So, more of the same.

For those "activists" that are inundating the forum , what about joining your local FIA chapter and saying something to your local president? What about David Coulthard for President? After all, he will be free next year!

Now, if you want to be president, normally you need a "war chest" for elections, don't you? Allright, the McLaren fine (at least 60 million) will be used by FIA to "promote car safety". It's so much money that FIA has created a commitee to decide how to spend it, right?

Who's on the comitee? Here, the list of fortunate spenders:

- Max Mosley (rumored to favor Ferrari)
- Michael Schumacher (ex-Ferrari driver)
- Jean Todt (Ferrari boss)
- Norbert Haug (Mercedes)
- Nick Craw (neutral?)

No Super Aguri (sorry, Magna) representative this year. Damn!

[checkered]

At least rob W takes the effort to give a few incidents why he thinks te FIA is based. Eventhough i might not agree with it, i respect his position and it makes it very clear why he thinks like he does.

Yet in this case

you feel under no pressure to reciprocate in kind (in accordance with your stated "reasonable" requests, adhering to your view of "good manners" in a debate). Why? Because your position proved patently untenable and you don't wish to highlight that by further examination? Perhaps this just made a very good case of how one should prioritise the conditions, requirements and content of one's contribution when faced with the kind of an approach you've exemplified here. An economy of effort and restraint with regard to the general resources is certainly called for.

In fact, the word "debate" keeps repeating, but I see scant evidence of that. You'd rather have the general populace scurrying around and carrying information to your feet, despite your (self-implied) inability to even direct such an effort efficiently for your supposed ignorance about F1 in general. My experience of F1T is that educational ideals and aspects are indeed highly valued here. I cannot be satisfied about your motivation in this regard as you're willing to use the generous resources here for nothing loftier (or technical/factual) than your argumentation exhausting those before conclusively disproving or overturning statements that are fundamentally subjective/emotionally charged (and thus not subject to logic - e.g. "the greatest team in F1 history") to begin with. On closer inspection the discernable value of that, I'm sure, eludes you as much as everyone else. Which does raise further questions about your underlying motivation. On the upside, we're of course not collectively responsible about the security of your footing on that regard.

Besides, given that you've made intricate and detailed references (from a relatively long period) to F1 media and journalists in your previous (100+) posts your subsequent starry-eyed statements and questions ring hollow as far as the authenticity of those is concerned. For some very elementary and well publicised events having apparently eluded your attention while being able to nitpick your way through the more obscure personal histories and reporting of F1's fringe characters and their doings, I have to state I'm a bit more than incredulous about the image you've chosen to project here.

At least you recognise the motivational value of enjoying oneself, whatever the pursuit. While being entertained is certainly one method of pursuing happiness, I hope it's not the be all and end all use of F1Technical - by the general theme alone I'd suspect that most of the populace is at least somewhat attuned to finding satisfaction beyond the "show" of things. I hope this doesn't come over as unnecessarily harsh; that's not my purpose. The faith I have in F1T making use of any challenge - even belatedly - remains unchanged. That includes the entirety of this environment, one P_O_L included. I have no special preference in what direction anyone evolves here, for our collective imagination will always surpass our own. This is merely an invitation for further observation of the surroundings, something that is eventually harder to avoid than to accept as part and parcel of the "F1T life".

[donskar]

Been away for a few days, and I now return to find that F1T now seems to be receiving bizarre transmissions from some other planet.

Oh, sorry, my error. On careful reading I find that the participant explains the somewhat odd posts, in his own words:

basic high school stuff

I think Todt will be very good in his new role (if he really does replace Mosley). (My bias is that any competent replacement promises positive change.) Todt has the requisite political skills, has been undeniably successful in the sport (at Peugeot before Ferrari), and (as far as I know) is generally well respected. His stature is such that he is likely to be about as unbiased as we can expect.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, donskar, not everybody has read Larry Groznic, regular "columnist" at the Onion: if you wish, here you have the link. Apologies to everyone for going out of the subject.

I Appreciate The Muppets On A Much Deeper Level Than You

by Larry Groznic, August 11, 2005

Larry Groznic is a noted fan-community luminary and sought-after expert on the topics of British television, spy-fi memorabilia, cosplay, RPG adventuring, and limited-edition collectible maquettes. He lives in Cedar Rapids, IA, and is single

Excerpt:

Dennis, Dennis, Dennis.

This bitter eBay bidding war has gotten out of hand. Why should we tear each other apart like this? Yes, the Muppet Movie soundtrack has not been available on CD since 1993 and is highly sought on the collector's market. But is that any reason to drive the price north of the $52 mark, with two days, seven hours, and six minutes remaining, no less?

As I have said repeatedly, let me win this auction, and I will happily let you copy the disc to iTunes for your own use. Just let me get my CD at a fair and reasonable price. If we had joined forces on this, I could have used the "Buy It Now" feature and saved us both a lot of money—money that could have gone toward those rare Palisades Dr. Teeth figures we both want. But look where your pride has led us.

Why should you be the one to give in, you ask? The answer is simple: As the greater and more dedicated Muppets fan, by all rights the CD is mine. Plainly and obviously, I appreciate the Muppets on a much deeper level than you do.

...

Oh, and regarding your alt.tv.muppets post of a month ago: The Weezer video is not a "perfect" simulation of The Muppet Show. Among myriad other errors, Pepe The Prawn is a latter-day Muppet who made his debut on Muppets Tonight in 1996 and never appeared on the original show.

Now grow the hell up.

Sometimes I wonder if the result of our threads could be used by The Onion, without any retouching.

[P_O_L]

At least rob W takes the effort to give a few incidents why he thinks te FIA is based. Eventhough i might not agree with it, i respect his position and it makes it very clear why he thinks like he does.

Yet in this case

you feel under no pressure to reciprocate in kind (in accordance with your stated "reasonable" requests, adhering to your view of "good manners" in a debate). Why? Because your position proved patently untenable and you don't wish to highlight that by further examination? Perhaps this just made a very good case of how one should prioritise the conditions, requirements and content of one's contribution when faced with the kind of an approach you've exemplified here. An economy of effort and restraint with regard to the general resources is certainly called for.

In fact, the word "debate" keeps repeating, but I see scant evidence of that. You'd rather have the general populace scurrying around and carrying information to your feet, despite your (self-implied) inability to even direct such an effort efficiently for your supposed ignorance about F1 in general. My experience of F1T is that educational ideals and aspects are indeed highly valued here. I cannot be satisfied about your motivation in this regard as you're willing to use the generous resources here for nothing loftier (or technical/factual) than your argumentation exhausting those before conclusively disproving or overturning statements that are fundamentally subjective/emotionally charged (and thus not subject to logic - e.g. "the greatest team in F1 history") to begin with. On closer inspection the discernable value of that, I'm sure, eludes you as much as everyone else. Which does raise further questions about your underlying motivation. On the upside, we're of course not collectively responsible about the security of your footing on that regard.

Besides, given that you've made intricate and detailed references (from a relatively long period) to F1 media and journalists in your previous (100+) posts your subsequent starry-eyed statements and questions ring hollow as far as the authenticity of those is concerned. For some very elementary and well publicised events having apparently eluded your attention while being able to nitpick your way through the more obscure personal histories and reporting of F1's fringe characters and their doings, I have to state I'm a bit more than incredulous about the image you've chosen to project here.

At least you recognise the motivational value of enjoying oneself, whatever the pursuit. While being entertained is certainly one method of pursuing happiness, I hope it's not the be all and end all use of F1Technical - by the general theme alone I'd suspect that most of the populace is at least somewhat attuned to finding satisfaction beyond the "show" of things. I hope this doesn't come over as unnecessarily harsh; that's not my purpose. The faith I have in F1T making use of any challenge - even belatedly - remains unchanged. That includes the entirety of this environment, one P_O_L included. I have no special preference in what direction anyone evolves here, for our collective imagination will always surpass our own. This is merely an invitation for further observation of the surroundings, something that is eventually harder to avoid than to accept as part and parcel of the "F1T life".

You sure paint a pretty dark picture of my contributions to this forum. It is not my fault if contributors cannot find my flaws and weaknesses, wich there surely are. However i think theres a big difference in saying biased stuff like": the greatest f1 team ever ever ever'' in comparisment to defamatory stuff like: the FIA are ferrari based'' and then not even giving the slightest indication why one thinks like that. The unfounded, unargumentated anti-ferrari crap is starting to annoy me from some posters.

And while i agree many fora here have good educational value, in this general chat i find more and more people talk utter fiction and refuse to elaborate. If one asks for a simple argument it either stays silent or you get personal bile thrown at your feet. your feeling that i like people here to ''scurry around'' and throw evidence at my feet is also a very coloured conclusion on my contributions.

And wether its a debate or a discussion or a wikipedia style reference post..it remains bad mannered to counter well founded arguments with a single sentence without going anyfurther. That adds nothing to even the slightest debate. In fact you could consider it trolling. Adding negative vibe to a forum and should not be taken seriously. And from some normal contributors i may find that slightly annoying but ill just ignore it, i dont think a moderator like ciro should follow these steps and do the same. Either put up or shut up. Dont contaminate a good exchange of opinions. And stop accusing me of 'tricks' while it is commmon practise to back your vieuw up with an argument, however ridiculous that may be.

You can think of my posts what you like but at least i try to convince the other party of my vieuws with decent arguments.

[Ciro Pabón]

All right, another wasted thread, locked.