Ferrari behind, and now want parity and spec parts?

[donskar]

Did you miss the part where the A1GP chassis is designed and built by Ferrari as well?[/quote]

Well it's a slow day, so I'll stick my shovel into this pile. This is from the A1GP web site:

"Despite its youth, A1GP has already cemented its position in the upper echelons of international motorsport by signing a six-year deal with legendary Italian sportscar name Ferrari to manufacture and supply all A1GP engines and consult on the design and manufacture of all A1GP chassis from this season."

As I understand it, Byrne helped a third party base the A1GP design on the F2004 Ferrari, but I also believe it is NOT being built by Ferrari. And for the splitters of hair and pickers of nit: of course I meant that Ferrari as a team has not and is not competing in A1GP or other spec series. Sometimes an example helps clarify a statement: Can an A1GP race winner say, "we beat the Ferrari team?" I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say. And I'm the first to admit that many of you are much more "geeky"/obsessive about F1 than I am. I'm perfectly OK with that.

[shir0]

can you say A1GP?

Can you say, "selling engines is not the same as competing"?

Did you miss the part where the A1GP chassis is designed and built by Ferrari as well?

Donskar is correct.

The SCUDERIA FERRARI MARLBORO F1 Team is not competing in A1GP. Ferrari S.p.A., as a company who fields an F1 team (which obviously designs and builds F1 class engines and chassis), was consulted by the A1GP rights holders to 1) manufacture and supply high performance race (now V8) engines for all cars participating in the series, and 2) provide consultaton services to A1GP competing teams on how to design and manufacture cars/chassis as based on the F2004. They sell to the A1GP (as a series) and to the A1GP teams as well. They don't race in A1GP as a team nor as a company.


<EDIT:>
...plus the fact that Donskar posted an answer quicker than I did...

[Conceptual]

So, it is ferrari manufactured engines/chassis/consultants competing in a1gp, but it is NOT ferrari?

Sometimes somantics are the last resort of infinite precision.

Realistically, it has nothing to do with this thread anyways, so whatever.

The real story here is that Ferrari are whining about their talent deficiency, and are proposing spec parts and parity, and only because they have zero points after 3 races.

Anyone else care to comment on that?

[nudger]

have to say, after reading the quote, it dosnt seem to me he is calling for spec parts. To me it reads that he is talking of rule clarity and the managment of the intepretations of the rules. Its a dig at the FIA so far as im concerned.

[Conceptual]

have to say, after reading the quote, it dosnt seem to me he is calling for spec parts. To me it reads that he is talking of rule clarity and the managment of the intepretations of the rules. Its a dig at the FIA so far as im concerned.

How is this part NOT about spec parts?

what is not good in this situation is that we have too many things that are different from car to car and from team to team

I may be taking the mans second language skills incorrectly, but to me, he is clearly stating that since the cars are not the same from team to team, they are a problem.

[Giblet]

Parity? So they want to lose their special payment from Bernie?

[nudger]

have to say, after reading the quote, it dosnt seem to me he is calling for spec parts. To me it reads that he is talking of rule clarity and the managment of the intepretations of the rules. Its a dig at the FIA so far as im concerned.

How is this part NOT about spec parts?

.

how? because clarity of regulations does not equate to spec parts (clarify that as meaning standard spec). the wings have clarity, they are all within the rules, but are they a spec part? no of course not.

edit..sorry i miss read your quoting, but the SD part you quoted is talking of the differences in the interpretations, about having ddd and some cars running kers, others not. he is also talkimg of the proposed 2010 regulations of a two spec series, which he fundimentally opposes. It reads to me like a swipe at the fia, and to a lesser extent FOTA, nothing more

[vall]

it is ridiculous to say he calls for spec parts. I think it is about the clarity of the rules. I also think that he also meant the some teams are not running KERS, while some spent MEuros to develop it, but it proved unjustified and do not give any advantage.

I also cannot understand the statement that he complains "because of the lack of talent"!?!?!?! I don't believe what I am reading!!!! really.

[Conceptual]

it is ridiculous to say he calls for spec parts. I think it is about the clarity of the rules. I also think that he also meant the some teams are not running KERS, while some spent MEuros to develop it, but it proved unjustified and do not give any advantage.

I also cannot understand the statement that he complains "because of the lack of talent"!?!?!?! I don't believe what I am reading!!!! really.

If you can say that he is specifically speaking about the DDD3 without any specific reference, why is it rediculous for me to say that he is speaking about a talent deficiency for missing a HUGELY advantageous design philosophy, without the same specific reference?

Please show me where your interpretation has any more basis in fact than mine, and I will gladly concede your point.

Until then, it is rather childish to deem my interpretation as rediculous when you are basing it upon your opinion, instead of actual fact.

[The FOZ]

I'm not in a position to say what Stefano means more than anyone else here. That being said, I feel this is what the situation he's talking about is:

The rulebook, as it concerns the cars, has been torn up and rewritten, with radically different intent and regulations.

Like any new set of rules, it contains flaws. Particularly, the language used in describing regulations can be unclear and open to wide interpretation. Case in point, the diffuser situation. Two very different interpretations of the same rulebook.

As time goes by, the rules will be clarified, through the governing body, and through precedent in court decisions like we saw in Paris a week or so ago.

Further clarification will happen at the team level - teams will learn for themselves which way of doing things yields positive results, and any alternative interpretations will fall by the wayside.

In Stefano's position, as team principal, I would be unhappy that it's so very possible to spend millions of Euro going in the wrong direction, as in the diffuser issue. I would be unhappy that the rules were not written with more clarity. And I would be unhappy that my team is so very far off the pace, having been unable to create a competitive car based upon the new rulebook thus far.

Conceptual: To your questions "Would Stefano be saying that he's unhappy with his team's interpretation of the rules if they were interpreting the rules in a way that was resulting in winning?"

I don't think he would then, would he?

[Washngo]

I have no problem with this statement. Does anyone NOT agree that the field can be divided into two distinct groups: DDD and non-DDD? (Yes, RBR might be in a class of their own, but that's Newey for you!)

Well, there you go. You've both contradicted, disproven and disagreed with yourself in your own sentence. Doh!

Forgive me for not writing down to your level. Try this: the current F1 field can be divided into two groups: those with DDD and those without. There is one "exception that proves the rule": RBR, but then they have an exceptional designer..

Simple enough for you?

It's clearly simple for you, maybe, but unfortunately, you are wrong.

The rules are the same for everybody. Fact.
Red Bull are challenging for wins and they do not have a DDD. Fact.

So your inference the field at the moment is now split is wrong.

[vall]

it is ridiculous to say he calls for spec parts. I think it is about the clarity of the rules. I also think that he also meant the some teams are not running KERS, while some spent MEuros to develop it, but it proved unjustified and do not give any advantage.

I also cannot understand the statement that he complains "because of the lack of talent"!?!?!?! I don't believe what I am reading!!!! really.

If you can say that he is specifically speaking about the DDD3 without any specific reference, why is it rediculous for me to say that he is speaking about a talent deficiency for missing a HUGELY advantageous design philosophy, without the same specific reference?

Please show me where your interpretation has any more basis in fact than mine, and I will gladly concede your point.

Until then, it is rather childish to deem my interpretation as rediculous when you are basing it upon your opinion, instead of actual fact.

and which are the facts you base your conclusions on? That 3 teams exploit a loophole in the rules, while the other 7 stuck to what the rules were meant to achieve? To base your claim on that is ridiculous to me. And to go further and claim SD calls for spec parts????? I don't know what to say.

Should I remind you that among those 7 teams that you claim lack talent are those who won all WCs during last 10 year? What about thi fact? And also, where were all these talanted people in the DDD3 during those years? Especially Honda during last 2 years? Why with their HUGE talent and resources, last 2 years they were beaten by Super Aguri? Or Toyota who spent huge amount of money w/o any success? Williams on the other hand, even with the apparent lack of resources, managed from time to time to produce good car to challenge the big teams. So, I have great respect to this team, but they unfortunately suffer from insufficient cash.

If we go back to the DDD issue, RBR is a very good example how to design a car without a DDD and still to be fast.

[timbo]

All you apologists of DDD teams must remember that there was an IDEA behind the rules. The idea was - simpler diffusers, slicks and small rear and big front wings are there to help overtaking. So most teams who didn't created DDDs acted according to that idea.

[The FOZ]

All you apologists of DDD teams must remember that there was an IDEA behind the rules. The idea was - simpler diffusers, slicks and small rear and big front wings are there to help overtaking. So most teams who didn't created DDDs acted according to that idea.

Try technical writing sometime - it's easier said than done. It is an art; to fail in that art means confusion in the intended idea you're trying to communicate.

That's been the case here, I think.

[Conceptual]

All you apologists of DDD teams must remember that there was an IDEA behind the rules. The idea was - simpler diffusers, slicks and small rear and big front wings are there to help overtaking. So most teams who didn't created DDDs acted according to that idea.

It's not apologizing, especially now that it has been conclusively determined legal, and thus, shows that 7 teams missed the boat on which way to go with the diffusors.

and which are the facts you base your conclusions on? That 3 teams exploit a loophole in the rules, while the other 7 stuck to what the rules were meant to achieve? To base your claim on that is ridiculous to me. And to go further and claim SD calls for spec parts????? I don't know what to say.

Should I remind you that among those 7 teams that you claim lack talent are those who won all WCs during last 10 year? What about thi fact? And also, where were all these talanted people in the DDD3 during those years? Especially Honda during last 2 years? Why with their HUGE talent and resources, last 2 years they were beaten by Super Aguri? Or Toyota who spent huge amount of money w/o any success? Williams on the other hand, even with the apparent lack of resources, managed from time to time to produce good car to challenge the big teams. So, I have great respect to this team, but they unfortunately suffer from insufficient cash.

If we go back to the DDD issue, RBR is a very good example how to design a car without a DDD and still to be fast.

Still arguing that the diffusor's are not legal? Can you get over it? The talent deficiency that I speak of is the 7 teams NOT exploiting the rules to the fullest extent. Any team that said to themselves "Well, there is alot to be gained there, but we aren't going to explore the limits." deserve to be behind. F1 is all about pushing the limits. Your team missed out, and if it was by choice, that makes it even WORSE!

SD saying that the problem is that there are differences between cars/teams. That would logically lead to saying that for there not to be a problem, there would be no differences. I conceded that it was quite possibly an Itallian speaking in English that has made this look like a call for spec parts, but if taken by the vocabulary, he IS saying that he wants the differences between cars fixed, and that would mean removing the differences, hence spec parts.

I wonder how many of the 7 team principals that missed the boat on the DDD have had to answer to their superiors as to how and why they missed this competitive advantage. Even funnier, is how many of them defended themselves by saying that they were following the "spirit" of the rules? LMAO