I Have To Say It

You completely ignored the point of my post - 2004 was the middle of a tire war! The tires were the difference, not the cars!

 

How many 3 liter cars did prost drive? Come on, that was 40 years ago now. The last 3 liter era was a procession fest (but exciting for other reasons),so 3 liter na motors won't all of a sudden change the racing.

 

Really? What was the gap to mercedes beginning of 2014 - 1 minute plus at the end of a race with them cruising? Gap in Brazil was 7 seconds 3 laps from the end with the mercs pushing. They also got beaten outright on pace in Singapore. They've closed the gap from 1.5 seconds a lap to .2-.3. But yeah, the regulations don't let them catch up.

 

All I am saying is that in spite of more years of existence, F1 has come up with regulations that result in reduced speed and lower lap times 10 years later, even with increased technology and cost!!

If F1 was a business, it would go bust !!

The tyre restrictions are part of the regulations.

 

If you forget, it was intentional. The cars were attaining speeds, particularly cornering speeds, that were getting to the point that they were worried drivers were going to start getting killed again. That was the impetus for the reduction from 3 liter engines to 2.4 v8's and the reason they no longer allowed multiple tire manufacturers.

F1 cars are still the fastest on the planet,and they're doing it with less fuel and less tire grip than they used to have.

 

Yeah they don't. 2014 and 2015 show MB 1 & 2 in the wdc. Singapore was an anomaly-SF needs to bring it on power courses.

I can easily say Ferrari have surpassed Red Bull seeing as how RB won 3 races in 2014 and SF won 3 this year but in the end It was still an ass kicking by MB. It's the one thing Fred has said that I agreed with this year re whether he regretted leaving Ferrari-as he said they are still losing to MB.

That said, I'm hoping that Allison can work magic On the 2016 chassis; 2015 he modified the work of tombazsis/fry. Hoping a clean sheet chassis design together with a further updated engine can really take the fight to the MBs-but I doubt MB will be resting.....

 

In F1, most of the time Ferrari had slavishly followed the new technologies brought up by other teams and constructors. In most of cases, the Ferrari have been built using conservative technology.

Enzo Ferrari himself resited the rear engine, disk brakes, aerodynamics and independent suspensions.
Mike Hawthorn fitted D-typ Jaguar disk brakes to his F1 car and Ferrari ordered him to have them removed!!!
When Mercedes quit F1 in 1955, Ferrari was offered their fuel injection system and he turned it down! "No known here, I prefer carburetors"
Swiss engineer Michael Mays tried to convince him of the benefits of aerodynamics, only to be laughed at! "Aerodynamics is for those who don't know how to make engines!"
It's only after Cooper won 2 WDC with Brabham on a rear-engined Cooper that Carlo Chiti was allowed to design a F1 one.

Long after Lotus and others, Ferrari had to abandon tubular chassis in F1. Mauro Forghieri couldn't find in Italy a skilled workforce to fabricate the first monocoque Ferrari: he had to sub-contract the work to Thompson in England. The next in-house Ferrari monocoque was copied from a Lola chassis.

Ex-Chaparral and ex-McLaren John Barnard brought the paddle-shift gearchange to Ferrari. That's about the only innovation their pioneered.

Innovations that burst on F1 cars may appear quickly on Ferrari road cars, but they are very often copied from other sources. Explain why an Italian team only seems to succeed when its technical staff is British, Australian, South African, etc... at one point, they had a Japanese designing their engine !

 

If it was intentional to kill the speed, then it's highly suicidal on the FIA's part.

Who wants to see a show that is worse than in the past? I don't!

That's what I am saying, the regs and the rules are completely bonkers, but it's still claimed to be the pinnacle of motor racing and you think it's good!

The technology claims are just a smokescreen. Nobody but you cares about technology; most fans want speed, action and noise !!! Technology is for the white-coat boffins, not the man who pays money and watches from the grandstand.

A bunch of low-tech sprint cars wheel-to-wheel at speed on opposite lock on a shale oval track provide more show to the spectators than F1 !!!

 

So not only does Ferrari have to come up with every innovation for cars in order to matter to you, they also have to do it using only Italians or it doesn't count? Sure, that makes sense. There's also a word for that.

 

What, so you're ok worth drivers getting killed? Or runoffs so big spectators can't actually see the track anymore? That'd make for a great show.

It was very intentional as the tracks and safety equipment couldn't handle 1000hp cars on gumball tires so they slowed them down. Remember Ralf breaking his back at indy when the tires were so on edge they blew up at 220mph? Remember villeneuve flying through the air at 180mph and his tire killing a Marshall? They had to slow them down or more people were going to start getting killed. That's not entertaining to me. I guess at this point the safety may allow the speed to go back up, but the last thing we need is body counts like 'the good old days.'

As to your crazy xenophobic rants on who invented what and of what nationality they were, who cares? I didn't realize that Williams and McLaren only hired brits,or that mercedes only hired Germans, or that Honda only hired Japanese. Ferrari most be breaking some rules - and better tell McLaren and Williams to give back all those titles they won without a brit driving for them,they're all tainted, the horror.

 

I get it, you only quote the bits of a discussion that you feel you can exploit, and then you present the wrong conclusion.

You are not working in "investigative" journalism, by any chance?

They have developed the technique to a fine art.

The argument is if Ferrari has been an innovator, and my opinion is that it has not.

 

So now you are moving the goal post and invoking safety to explain silly rules and defend the high cost of hybrid technology in motor racing.
I stated a fact: the cars are slower now than 10 years ago on some tracks.

Explain why most private teams are strugling financially and have to pay up to 4 times more than before for their power units when their cars are slower. You could explain the slower speed if it had come at no expense; but no, it is the result of introducing a costly new technology that has no place in F1. Not a very good showcase for hybrid technology, is it? How is that going to keep the spectators interested and attract new ones?

You maybe be enamoured with hybrid technology and I have to say that it can have applications on road cars, but on the track, it's an unnecessary gimmick that doesn't make the racing safer, better or more spectacular. It happens to make racing duller, more expensive and too predictable. Under the present set up, Mercedes has gained an advantage it may keep until the end of the formula - 2020, and that isn't a good thing.

These rules have to be changed before they do irreparable damage to the sport.

 

These cars are NOT slower than the v8's they replaced, they're faster. The v8's were intentionally slower than the 3 liter v10's.

Mercedes advantage is almost gone now, there's no way they maintain it another 4 years.

 

Sauber and Manor seek early F1 payouts from Bernie Ecclestone - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com - Sauber and Manor seek early F1 payouts from Bernie Ecclestone

The shoestring teams now beg for money early.....again. Becoming the norm. F1 is beyond broken when objectively viewed.

The sport does not need 1000bhp to be successful. Its needs good racing-- road cars be da$$%%

 

Nice try, but I picked out the only statement that I considered racist. It doesn't take investigative anything to see that one coming a mile away.

May I ask since you apparently have nothing but contempt for Ferrari, why are you on this forum?

 

If you consider my comments as "racist", maybe you should look more closely at the definition of that word.

I do not see Ferrari through rose-tinted glasses, but that is not contempt.

Did I answer that to your satisfaction?

 

Not really. Stating that Ferrari innovation only counts if Italians create it is not cool anytime or anyplace. So what if a Japanese couple, who are Italian citizens, have a baby in Italy - is that child Japanese or Italian?

My point is WHO works for a company is never what's important. Their intellectual pursuits belong to the company paying them.

I suppose you've researched the exact individuals who contributed to every innovation by other manufacturers and made certain they were born in the country of the manufacturer and have lineage to back that up? Do you even begin to see how that has absolutely nothing at all to do with racing or racing development?

 

The definition of racism has many forms william and not just the one that is in the dictionary.

 

Yes, I know. It's now like a joker card used in an argument when the accuser thinks the label will stain enough the recipient to dismiss his opinion as worthless. Never mind.

I still fail to see how giving my opinion that Ferrari the man wasn't an innovator, but a conservative individual, or that the firm has never looked to me at the cutting edge of new technology can be seen as racist. I gave examples too...

I appreciate both Enzo Ferrari and the cars at their just value, but I don't wax lyrics on them.

 

Oh brother you hit the nail on the head with that and I could not agree with you more.

These are strange days my friend. Remember that saying "Ones perception is ones reality"? Well I find that to be a 50/50 thing simply because reality is not based upon perception for some people.

Agreed.

 

Enzo was all about big engines...the innovators (chassis/aero guys) were the "garagistas" in his mind, and it wasn't meant as a compliment.

I think the company is far more embracing of new technology, even if they aren't always at the front of the line.

 

Let me clarify. Not racist, but discriminatory against nation of origin. How's that?

Again, may I remind you of the statement I found outlandish?

"Explain why an Italian team only seems to succeed when its technical staff is British, Australian, South African, etc... at one point, they had a Japanese designing their engine !"

So I ask one last time. Why does it matter where the people came from that worked FOR Ferrari? Why does it matter who works(ed) for any team? How can this statement be interpreted any other way except "Italians obviously cannot innovate?"

Mind you, I'm not Italian, so I have no dog in this hunt. And if I was only interested in innovation, I'd be driving a GT-R.

 

Serious question - why are Brits so good at racing and so terrible at running car companies?

I kid, I kid...not really : )

 

No you are not, you are right.

I think car companies have ceased to be attractive for UK investors, with high risk and slow return. Therefore most British managers don't touch them.

Most of the British car industry is foreign-owned and the public doesn't seem to mind at all.