Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
DaveKillens wrote:Yap, yap, yap....yap, yap, yap... And the problem is, every team in Formula One all started equal this year, and while some succeed, some run mid-pack, and some struggle, Ferrari have found themselves with just 3 points, all because of their decisions. They are responsible for their situation.
No, every team in F1 did not start equal this year. Honda, sorry Brawn, started development more than a year ago. Same with Williams, RBR and a few others to a lesser degree. Ferrari and Macca have at least 6 months less of development than the winning cars so far this season. So for you to say that all of them started equal is outright pathetic.
Now, for the second bold comment, Ferrari knows it far too well that the reason why they have only three points is their fault. I don't think they need to ask Dave Killens about their poor performance.
jddh1 wrote:If Ferrari does leave it will be a huge blow to F1, no question in my mind. Just look at the Ferrari fans on the stands on each GP weekend.
That wont happen... my post above basically explains why they're tied to F1... F1 is their primary marketing effort - that is what their machine is geared up to do/support. The Ferrari company charm and sales pitch is based around 'we are in F1.. our cars are derived from F1 cars' etc.. They would be pissing away half a century of effort to decide that is not working in one season they aren't performing as well as hoped.
I think personally that the team, under Jean Todt, raised the expectations too much in the eyes of the management. Perhaps Todt's rather quick departure from his follow-on role was the end of result of him being perhaps unhappy that the powers that be didn't quite realise or appreciate the positive effect he had on the team year to year. Once he had left it took about a year before slight cracks started showing and now they're really showing Luca d M is getting testy about it. Naturally... he's probably pissed that Todt is on a beach with Michelle Yeo and Brawn is whipping him so far..
Last edited by Rob W on 29 Apr 2009, 15:25, edited 1 time in total.
Ferrari have thrown their toys from the pram before and it has never been for long. They are undoubtedly unique in F1 and for many they are absolutely essential. But this relationship is mutual. If Ferrari was to exist outside of F1 it would equally damage their brand as it would damage F1, if not more. Their product is closer to a race car than any other road car brand in the world.
Ferrari's commercial success with road cars is closely related to their brand reputation that feeds from F1. When the source of the brand reputation dries up so will the value of the brand. Ferrari are a real premium brand with a unique pricing power despite an enormous growth which normally would have led to dilution of brand value.
This is a multiplier that will hurt Ferrari more than any other manufacturer who could pull out of F1. Just about the only other motor sport platform would be Le Mans and that has no comparable publicity. Montezemolo's BATNA is not credible and his threats are hollow. The only profit for both sides is in finding a win/win solution or a decent compromize.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
This is clearly part of a political move to gain some leverage in preventing the budget caps to be implemented in a radical way, allowing to much technical freedom to the teams that agree on the future budget caps.
However, one may realistically think which kind of of marketing advantage a sportscar manufacturer like Ferrari can achieve in a heavily regulated and standardized F1 environment.
We must realise that Ferrari has always made a point on, somehow, taking advantage of F1 to display their engineering competence. Even when most of the teams (including those more sucessful in those days) used "standardized" engines and gearboxes (the Cosworth-Hewland formula that dominated the nineteen-seventies), Ferrari made a point on distinguishing themselves by using their own V12's and gearboxes.
In their market, Ferrari faces competition from competitors like Lamborghini, Pagani, Ascari, Koenigsegg, Fisker or Tesla that never relied (or very little) in motor racing as a way to promote products.
Other competitors like Porsche or Panoz perceive other forms of motor racing as more relevant to display their products, rather than open-wheel racing.
One may also consider that Formulas stress more the relevance of drivers than manufacturers (you just have to consider how many remember the Constructors championship results in years past). It's not also like someone is going to choose to go to a Brawn, Williams, Force India or Red Bull dealership instead of going to Ferrai's to buy their new sportscar, questioning the relevance that, for the consumer, Ferrari's eventual F1 sucesses may have. This is likely to get worse, in years to come, with most of the announced or considered future F1 entries coming from dedicated racing manufacturers, milionaires or other non-vehicle constructors (USF1...).
DaveKillens wrote:Yap, yap, yap....yap, yap, yap... And the problem is, every team in Formula One all started equal this year, and while some succeed, some run mid-pack, and some struggle, Ferrari have found themselves with just 3 points, all because of their decisions. They are responsible for their situation.
No, every team in F1 did not start equal this year. Honda, sorry Brawn, started development more than a year ago. Same with Williams, RBR and a few others to a lesser degree. Ferrari and Macca have at least 6 months less of development than the winning cars so far this season. So for you to say that all of them started equal is outright pathetic.
Now, for the second bold comment, Ferrari knows it far too well that the reason why they have only three points is their fault. I don't think they need to ask Dave Killens about their poor performance.
I think that Ferrari and McLaren had the same opportunity to start development early (like Brawn), but chose to wait till later.
There are no regulations stating how early a team can start, and to be honest, any team that started late with the HUGE rule change deserves to be behind. Ferrari chose to start late, and they are now paying the price. Their desire to win the 2008 WCC/WDC has cost them any shot at the 2009 WCC/WDC. So, yes, it IS in fact 100% Ferrari's fault that they only have 3 points after 4 races.
Conceptual wrote:There are no regulations stating how early a team can start, and to be honest, any team that started late with the HUGE rule change deserves to be behind. Ferrari chose to start late, and they are now paying the price. Their desire to win the 2008 WCC/WDC has cost them any shot at the 2009 WCC/WDC. So, yes, it IS in fact 100% Ferrari's fault that they only have 3 points after 4 races.
Ron Dennis said that Macca spent 7 mil dollars to get 0.15 secs per lap for Lewis car in Brazil. You think Ferrari or McLaren have unlimited budget? Ferrari rarely had the biggest budget. Last couple of years it is Toyota and Honda who are richest guys. And by committing to 2007 they won WCC.
Yes, it is their choice that affected their pace so far, but at Australia they were second fastest non-DDD team and it is only bad luck and some questionable tactical decisions that prevented them from getting more.
Conceptual wrote:There are no regulations stating how early a team can start, and to be honest, any team that started late with the HUGE rule change deserves to be behind. Ferrari chose to start late, and they are now paying the price. Their desire to win the 2008 WCC/WDC has cost them any shot at the 2009 WCC/WDC. So, yes, it IS in fact 100% Ferrari's fault that they only have 3 points after 4 races.
Ron Dennis said that Macca spent 7 mil dollars to get 0.15 secs per lap for Lewis car in Brazil. You think Ferrari or McLaren have unlimited budget? Ferrari rarely had the biggest budget. Last couple of years it is Toyota and Honda who are richest guys. And by committing to 2007 they won WCC.
Yes, it is their choice that affected their pace so far, but at Australia they were second fastest non-DDD team and it is only bad luck and some questionable tactical decisions that prevented them from getting more.
Sure, but you wouldn't hear that in all of their bellyaching. It is all about how "others" interpreted the rules differently, and has nothing to do with their lack of an early commitment to the 2009 car.
Conceptual wrote:
I think that Ferrari and McLaren had the same opportunity to start development early (like Brawn), but chose to wait till later.
There are no regulations stating how early a team can start, and to be honest, any team that started late with the HUGE rule change deserves to be behind. Ferrari chose to start late, and they are now paying the price. Their desire to win the 2008 WCC/WDC has cost them any shot at the 2009 WCC/WDC. So, yes, it IS in fact 100% Ferrari's fault that they only have 3 points after 4 races.
For sure. Remember when Toyota built and tested a car for a full 12 months before they even entered F1. At the time there was a bit of talk that this was not fair. In the end it didn't really help them build a winning car.
Ultimately the best car will be the one created with the "best ideas". A long development time only allows you to try more ideas but doesn't necessarily dictate you will end up with the best solution on the grid.
I think I heard Peter Windsor say that USF1 is already starting to design their car but I would seriously doubt they will be the fastest car if they make the grid next year.
Conceptual wrote:
I think that Ferrari and McLaren had the same opportunity to start development early (like Brawn), but chose to wait till later.
There are no regulations stating how early a team can start, and to be honest, any team that started late with the HUGE rule change deserves to be behind. Ferrari chose to start late, and they are now paying the price. Their desire to win the 2008 WCC/WDC has cost them any shot at the 2009 WCC/WDC. So, yes, it IS in fact 100% Ferrari's fault that they only have 3 points after 4 races.
For sure. Remember when Toyota built and tested a car for a full 12 months before they even entered F1. At the time there was a bit of talk that this was not fair. In the end it didn't really help them build a winning car.
Ultimately the best car will be the one created with the "best ideas". A long development time only allows you to try more ideas but doesn't necessarily dictate you will end up with the best solution on the grid.
I think I heard Peter Windsor say that USF1 is already starting to design their car but I would seriously doubt they will be the fastest car if they make the grid next year.
I think it has ALOT to do with what engine package.
People still belive that USF1-nonsense? No American has ever been able to design and build a decent chassis for their own different kit-car racing over the decades, what makes anyone think they would even get close to F1?
Unless the EvilTwins manage to dumb it down enough, which might be what they have in mind with the new "budget cap".
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
The purpose of USGPE is not winning races but supplying a backdrop for a TV series like American Chopper or Pimp my Ride. It doesn't matter what happens on track. What matters is that they get viewing figures for their reality show.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
