Random Thoughts...[F1 edition]

It's the quintessential ESPN style of slander, it's subtle at first but when you watch enough sportcenter and enough of the bullshit they spew on their network in general, it becomes clear.

There was an article on Autosport stating the exact same pretty much.
 
Funny how, whenever someone criticizes something about Ferrari, it is slander. I don't see much slander in that article. I see someone raising a few valid questions.

And yet again, you waltz in trying to poke at me. I too raised only a valid point. The word slander was used since I see no substantial evidence and on the basis of the reporter not being a very well praised type.

And of course, you didn't even read ma point or reply to my point. Only came in to very subtly highlight without need that I'm a Ferrari fan writing something about them.
 
Ferrari deserves what it gets as far as "preferential treatment", they have invested a ton into F1, hell, its their main business!

A lot of history of F1 is those red cars, or the people that beat them through blood, sweat, and tears. Yeah, the Tifosi zeal can get annoying, but the Tifosi, collectively, put a lot of money into the sport, allowing us to see these awesome races.

What would F1 be without the red cars on track? A pale shadow of its former self like Indycar? A stupid spectacle like NASCAR? A defunct racing league like CART?
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm all for a bit of preferential treatment, but it's gone a bit overboard. According to the new scheme : if Lotus become world constructors champion and Ferrari become 10th - Ferrari will still get more money than Lotus. That's a wee bit wrong, isn't it?
And the veto right on rules is wrong, too. Either you grant such right to more than one team (for instance the three longest serving teams) or none at all.
 
The problem is that we (the outsiders) can't know for sure whether there is a veto (okay, probably does exist), but what we cannot argue about is how much power and what kind of power the veto has, whether it benefits only Ferrari or other teams too...this is some deep rooted political shit.

I do maintain, if Ferrari had a veto that bends the rules for them, we would not have seen an end to their power after 2004... :)
 
Could be..but I'd imagine a bunch of Italians would get so pissed of because of that, they'd just steamroll over the FIA for 2006 and win every single race. :lol:
 
Well, I'm all for a bit of preferential treatment, but it's gone a bit overboard. According to the new scheme : if Lotus become world constructors champion and Ferrari become 10th - Ferrari will still get more money than Lotus. That's a wee bit wrong, isn't it?
And the veto right on rules is wrong, too. Either you grant such right to more than one team (for instance the three longest serving teams) or none at all.

I wouldn't call it wrong, Ferrari has invested a hell of a lot more into F1 than Lotus has, or any other team for that matter. It's just them getting their share of the profits, like any other business.

As far as the veto, I want to see where that rabbit hole goes, but if they have one, they have been pretty clandestine in its use.



Maybe they neglected to veto the tire rules for 2005 because they trusted Bridgestone too much and it backfired. :lol:

You know, I can understand most F1 rules and the (possibly flawed) logic behind them. The whole "one tire set per race weekend" thing had me scratching my head and asking what the fuck were they thinking? I'm glad that stupid idea went away quickly.
 
2005 rules = stopping Ferrari from ruling for another year. Simple. When the F2005 had a nice set of rubber on it and was on a track that the rubber liked, it was business as usual. They changed very little coming from the monster that was the F2004, just enoguh to satisfy 2005 rules. But the Bridgestones could not for the life of them do a fast race. Not on one set.
 
Last edited:
2005 rules = stopping Ferrari from ruling for another year. Simple. When the F2005 had a nice set of rubber on it and was on a track that the rubber liked, it was business as usual. They changed very little coming from the monster that was the F2004, just enoguh to satisfy 2005 rules. But the Bridgestones could not for the life of them do a fast race. Not on one set.

Didn't think of it that way, but you're probably right. That was just a messed up season, period. One of the low points in F1 in my view.

I ALMOST bought tickets to Indy that year, work prevented me, and that's probably the only race I can think of that I am glad to missed live.
 
Last edited:
I do maintain, if Ferrari had a veto that bends the rules for them, we would not have seen an end to their power after 2004... :)

If I understood the Autosport article correctly, the Ferrari veto was intoduced with this year's contract. They didn't have it so far.
 
I'm bored of Vettel.
 
As are most of us. That's why I'm going to Le Mans next week, it's a major motorsport event that should be a Vettel-free zone.

That sounds awesome, I'd love to go one of these days... Have fun there man!
 
^each year i try to follow GTE, but after an hour i'm totally lost...

have no idea who's who, and all the cars are the same!
 
^each year i try to follow GTE, but after an hour i'm totally lost...

have no idea who's who, and all the cars are the same!

GTE? They're not the same. They just aren't. You've got Ferrari, Porsche, Viper, Corvette, Aston Martin... I'm sorry, but how the hell are they all the same?
 
yeah, but there are like 20 ferrari 458s
and half of them is red!
i don't remember what team had the green line on the hood, or the white air intakes, or the yellow wheels, ....
it's just another red ferrari...
 
Top