BARCELONA Grand Prix 2009 - Race 5/17

JRS said:
Love you too, gord.

Question - if the FIA have been assisting Ferrari, then don't you think they've done a pretty poor job of it? I mean, they've got very few points on the board this year, they're threatening to leave the sport altogether.....it just doesn't seem like they've had any overwhelming assistance from the FIA.
Click to expand...

The FIA assisted Ferrari in the past by influencing certain rule changes. Thats a fact. It seems somewhere along the line the FIA and Ferrari have fallen out so no longer assist Ferrari and Ferrari set up FOTA - so the state of play in this years championship is moot. Your argument is tenuous at best. "it just doesn't seem like they've had any overwhelming assistance from the FIA" - Firstly, ANY assistance completely flies in the face of sportsmanship secondly, it doesnt seem like they have had much assistance because we dont know the full details yet!

JRS said:
It wasn't necessarily known, but it was certainly rumoured and suspected. And again, I'd have thought people would be happy that at least one team had the power to stop some of the more bizarre and crappy rule changes. But because that team is Ferrari, people are wailing and gnashing their teeth and stamping their feet and saying how unfair it is.
Click to expand...

Rubbish! Surely a group of teams should have the power to veto rules not 1, its completely irrelevant that its Ferrari. If 1 team have the veto then very obviously they will try to skew the rules in their favour, why would anyone be 'happy' with that.
 
Last edited:
Over Clocker said:
How can you say that the FIA have not been favouring Ferrari!! This has abviously been soured this year, but if you look at the past few years - more money, secret vetos etc. How can we now be sure that Ferrari was not pressuring the FIA into harsh McLaren penalties etc etc? Renault Mass damper situation etc etc
Click to expand...

It's quite easy Over Clocker. Watch:

The FIA haven't been favouring Ferrari.

See? Simple. Though if you actually read my post, you'd know that I didn't say they hadn't favoured Ferrari. I said that they hadn't DIRECTLY favoured Ferrari. The crusade against Ron Dennis and McLaren did end up favouring Ferrari, of course it did. It would have to, since they were McLaren's chief rival. I just dispute that they've been actively assisting Ferrari - they haven't, it was just a consequence of going after McLaren.

As for the mass damper - the FIA and pants-on-head retarded rulings go hand-in-hand. Nothing to do with a pro-Ferrari bias.
 
JRS said:
It wasn't necessarily known, but it was certainly rumoured and suspected. And again, I'd have thought people would be happy that at least one team had the power to stop some of the more bizarre and crappy rule changes. But because that team is Ferrari, people are wailing and gnashing their teeth and stamping their feet and saying how unfair it is.
......
Click to expand...

it is GROSELY unfair!!! Why should any one team have more say than others?

All it has done in the past has enabled Ferrari to veto anything that would give other teams the edge. Fair enough if say the top 4 teams had a veto, but for just ONE team, whatever team it may be, is completely ridiculous. I cannot beleive that you are defending this! Take off the blinkers.....
 
JRS said:
It's quite easy Over Clocker. Watch:

The FIA haven't been favouring Ferrari.

See? Simple. Though if you actually read my post, you'd know that I didn't say they hadn't favoured Ferrari. I said that they hadn't DIRECTLY favoured Ferrari. The crusade against Ron Dennis and McLaren did end up favouring Ferrari, of course it did. It would have to, since they were McLaren's chief rival. I just dispute that they've been actively assisting Ferrari - they haven't, it was just a consequence of going after McLaren.

As for the mass damper - the FIA and pants-on-head retarded rulings go hand-in-hand. Nothing to do with a pro-Ferrari bias.
Click to expand...


How is giving them more money and a veto, something no-one else gets, and doing it all in secret, not DIRECTLY favouring them??!!
 
JRS - I have always had respect for you, even if I have not always agreed with you, but you seem to be defending the indefensible at the moment, even when presented with the bare faced facts.

It takes a bigger man to admit he was wrong that to stand up for what you thought was always correct.
 
JRS said:
It wasn't necessarily known, but it was certainly rumoured and suspected. And again, I'd have thought people would be happy that at least one team had the power to stop some of the more bizarre and crappy rule changes. But because that team is Ferrari, people are wailing and gnashing their teeth and stamping their feet and saying how unfair it is..
Click to expand...

Not really they didn't stop any of the rule changes that I didn't like. Narrower cars, fuel stops, groove tyres, pretty convient to have an engine freeze when you currently have the best engine ;)

There was often talk that the rules that came along in 98 favoured the driving style of schumacher, well when you have a veto on the cars it's certainly easier to make it so. :p

I wouldn't care which team had the veto it's just plain wrong. Like Manu having a veto on liverpools signings.

It gives further evidence to what I've been saying all along regards the teams in a breakaway formula. They couldn't agree on anything for 5 seconds let alone come up with rules that suited them all.
 
I shall rephrase since my poor wording has torpedoed my own argument :)

All those contentious on-track decisions (penalties and the like) that have been applied to McLaren weren't done to directly favour Ferrari. They were done to knock McLaren back. Yes, Ferrari get extra money when they win - one would think that this was then an incentive to have them not win but never mind, mine not to reason why. Yes, they are now confirmed as having had a veto against rule changes that they don't like - didn't seem to do them much good in '05, or have they only had this veto since then?

But at the end of the day, for all this supposed pro-Ferrari bias - they didn't win the '06 title despite Renault's mass damper getting banned, they only won the '07 drivers title because McLaren and Hamilton choked, they didn't win the '08 title despite all this assistance they're supposed to be getting, and they're now mired in the second half of the table so far in '09 with very few points, look like being well out of the fight and are making noises about pulling out of F1 if the (from their point of view) retarded budget cap rules aren't abandoned. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear they were a team who wasn't getting much in the way of assistance from the governing body ;)
 
to my mind, the only reason this is all now comming out

is because this agreement has gone sour. Who knows what ferrari have veto'd in the past

there obviously was some ferrari bias in the past, only question is, how much ?
 
JRS - You are COMPLETELY missing the point. Whether Ferrari won or not is beside the point. The disgusting, unsporting fact is they have been given advantages by the governing body. I am not disgusted at Ferrari, I am disgusted at the FIA for giving one team an advantage over others.
 
Over Clocker said:
JRS - You are COMPLETELY missing the point. Whether Ferrari won or not is beside the point. The disgusting, unsporting fact is they have been given advantages by the governing body. I am not disgusted at Ferrari, I am disgusted at the FIA for giving one team an advantage over others.
Click to expand...

I'm not "COMPLETELY missing the point", I'm choosing to not pay a huge amount of attention the aforementioned point because at the end of the day - Ferrari aren't winning much despite this huge, overwhelming bias in favour of them. If they aren't winning, why get worked up over a bias that (if it exists) isn't having anything like the desired effect?

I could probably make a much stronger case for a pro-Brawn GP bias right now than you lot could make for a pro-Ferrari one. Case in point - since Ferrari have a veto regarding the rules, why didn't they use it against the ruling of the 'double diffuser'? Or does this veto not extend to stuff that was (still is, in fact) helping rival teams gain a significant advantage over them? Pretty poor attempt to gift them an advantage if that's the case....;)
 
JRS said:
I'm not "COMPLETELY missing the point", I'm choosing to not pay a huge amount of attention the aforementioned point because at the end of the day - Ferrari aren't winning much despite this huge, overwhelming bias in favour of them. If they aren't winning, why get worked up over a bias that (if it exists) isn't having anything like the desired effect?

I could probably make a much stronger case for a pro-Brawn GP bias right now than you lot could make for a pro-Ferrari one. Case in point - since Ferrari have a veto regarding the rules, why didn't they use it against the ruling of the 'double diffuser'? Or does this veto not extend to stuff that was (still is, in fact) helping rival teams gain a significant advantage over them? Pretty poor attempt to gift them an advantage if that's the case....;)
Click to expand...


Probably because their relationship with the FIA is quite soured at the moment, and also other teams (inc Ferrari) had lodged appeals withthe appeals court, so that had to happen.

This situation can be likened to a school boy who is given some aswers for an exam by his teacher - doesn't mean he will come top of class does it?

Whatever way you look at it, it is wroing and unsporting....
 
JRS said:
I'm not "COMPLETELY missing the point", I'm choosing to not pay a huge amount of attention the aforementioned point because at the end of the day - Ferrari aren't winning much despite this huge, overwhelming bias in favour of them. If they aren't winning, why get worked up over a bias that (if it exists) isn't having anything like the desired effect?

I could probably make a much stronger case for a pro-Brawn GP bias right now than you lot could make for a pro-Ferrari one. Case in point - since Ferrari have a veto regarding the rules, why didn't they use it against the ruling of the 'double diffuser'? Or does this veto not extend to stuff that was (still is, in fact) helping rival teams gain a significant advantage over them? Pretty poor attempt to gift them an advantage if that's the case....;)
Click to expand...

You completely avoided my response to you earlier addressing this very point. This season or prior to this season Ferrari and the FIA seemed to have fallen out.
 
Christo said:
This season or prior to this season Ferrari and the FIA seemed to have fallen out.
Click to expand...

Well, they certainly don't seem friendly at all right now do they? So which is it guys - are the FIA pro-Ferrari or anti-Ferrari? And if they're now anti-Ferrari, can we please, please, pretty please with a cherry and sprinkles on top, drop that tired old Ferrari International Assistance crap? Because they can't be pro-Ferrari and anti-Ferrari at the same time!

Duke said:
snip
Click to expand...

As long as he stays away from motor racing then it's alright!
 
JRS said:
Well, they certainly don't seem friendly at all right now do they? So which is it guys - are the FIA pro-Ferrari or anti-Ferrari? And if they're now anti-Ferrari, can we please, please, pretty please with a cherry and sprinkles on top, drop that tired old Ferrari International Assistance crap? Because they can't be pro-Ferrari and anti-Ferrari at the same time!
Click to expand...

Twisting the argument/selectively listening to comments doesnt do you any favours. You are either trying to be clever (unsucessfully) or arent the brightest which is it!? I tend to favour the former.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom