News

Bernie E's post-Australia comments

Discussion in 'F1' started by smsmd, Apr 6, 2004.

  1. smsmd

    smsmd Karting

    Nov 12, 2003
    150
    San Jose, California
    Full Name:
    Steven Scates MD
    I just received the FCA books for the month and there is a post-race analysis re Australia in which Bernie E. is quoted as calling the race a "disaster" because Ferrari won and he wanted a new, different champion. He was hoping Ferrari would have tire or engine problems.

    I think the current point system was already designed to randomize the rankings by giving minimal benefits to the winner of each race vs second place.

    The other F1 competitors need to get their acts together, but I thought the bias in Ecclestone's comments were frightening and a bit pathetic.

    Did anyone else catch this or have a different take on his comments?

    Thanks, steve
     
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. 62 250 GTO

    62 250 GTO F1 Veteran

    Jan 9, 2004
    7,732
    Nova Scotia Canada
    Full Name:
    Neil
    Wishing some one blows up is quite lame. I don't think I have ever wanted that. As for BE saying it out loud, it's much much worse. WTF is wrong with that guy?
     
  4. ferrari_kid

    ferrari_kid Formula Junior

    Jul 5, 2003
    768
    I think a few of us here on this board have come to the conclusion that Bernie is in it for the money, at least I have. He's out there hoping for a new champion through attrition. I don't see how he could have thought that a one engine rule would hurt Ferrari. They've had the most reliable car through the past how many years?

    It seems like the new rules have only made it harder for other teams to compete. Which means instead of making the sport cheaper for smaller teams, he's made it more expensive. The more rules they have the more money teams spend to get around them.
     
  5. Tifoso1

    Tifoso1 F1 Rookie

    Nov 18, 2003
    2,572
    Pacific NW
    Full Name:
    Anthony C.
    Bernie E. is an IDIOT!!! In case he hasn't noticed yet, Ferrari IS F1.
     
  6. bobafett

    bobafett F1 Veteran

    Sep 28, 2002
    9,193
    To BE's defense, F1 wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today w/o him. He has done more than any other individual for this sport. Yes, he's made a crapload of money along the way, but his interest in the sport is genuine, or so it seems.

    --Dan
     
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. tifosi12

    tifosi12 Four Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Oct 3, 2002
    46,082
    @ the wheel
    Full Name:
    Andreas
    Bernie has F1's interest in mind and they are not really met by Ferrari dominating the sport.

    Bernie has nothing against Ferrari (he himself has one of the world's leading Ferrari collections). When Ferrari was in the dark years and couldn't get the title year after year Bernie tried in many ways to influence the FIA and the sport to help out Ferrari. Mc Laren and Williams were very harsh to him in those days.

    So don't jump on Bernie too hard. He looks at it from a bigger perspective.
     
  9. writerguy

    writerguy F1 Veteran

    Sep 30, 2003
    6,786
    NewRotic
    Full Name:
    Otto
    Idiot??? Indedeo well i wish i was that stupid so i could mindlessly go back to my villa or my castle and stupidly roll naked in my massive wads of loose change. Buddy listen Bernie may rub some the wrong way and stoke fires every now and then but he is far from an idiot
     
  10. tifosi12

    tifosi12 Four Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Oct 3, 2002
    46,082
    @ the wheel
    Full Name:
    Andreas
    According to Bernie, he actually doesn't own much of anything. And that might even be true. It is all in a fonds in the name of his wife Slavica and his daughters. I guess that way they won't have to pay inheritance tax once Bernie meets Jim Clark and Senna.
     
  11. smsmd

    smsmd Karting

    Nov 12, 2003
    150
    San Jose, California
    Full Name:
    Steven Scates MD
    I think what bothered me was that it implied he would penalize those that work hard to be successful rather than hoping the competitors would improve to match Ferrari. The incentives seem to be in the wrong direction, similar to saying I could improve the PGA by crippling Tiger Woods.

    It helps to know he has not always been anti-Ferrari, however.

    steve
     
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. tifosi12

    tifosi12 Four Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Oct 3, 2002
    46,082
    @ the wheel
    Full Name:
    Andreas

    He really isn't. He has made many statements in favor of Ferrari when they were down. He has also said, that Ferrari is F1 and that there would be no F1 without Ferrari. He is a smart man, he knows the value of Ferrari.

    He is just concerned about the popularity (and the TV quotes) right now. And he should be concerned.
     
  14. Tifoso1

    Tifoso1 F1 Rookie

    Nov 18, 2003
    2,572
    Pacific NW
    Full Name:
    Anthony C.
    There are a lot of people that became interested or became aware of F1 racing because of Ferrari, and you can bet that the Formula 1 revenue went up dramatically when they started to win and challenge for the WC.
    Yes, there were rule changes (ie. elimination of turbos, allowing re-fueling, banning of active suspension etc.) in the 80's and 90's that were geared to "help" Ferrari out, and I think he even played a hand in M. Schumacher coming to Ferrari in 1996 as he realizes that the health of team Ferrari is in direct correlation to the health state of F1 and that also translates to the state of health of his bank account. It has also been well documented in magazines and newspapers that Bernie E. is one of the wealthiest person in UK and he has long been know in the F1 community as the Czar. And if you think that all the rule changes only helped out Ferrari, then I think you are a little naive. Case in point, Honda's turbo-charged marvel was destorying everybody (the smaller teams that had to use NA engines because of cost were nothing but fillers on the grid.) Re-fueling allows a race to be broken down to 2 or more sprints instead, so they don't need to carry a huge load of fuel to start the race, which also means that fuel efficiency is not as vital as it was before (NA is more thirstier than T-charged), Williams' active-everything cars were so far ahead of everyone on the grid, even Andre DeCesaris could have won a race or two if he was in them (I hope he is not a member on this board..... :) And the new point systems, at one time, the system was set up so that not all races counted, as you only take a driver's 8 out of 10 best race results or so toward the WC. If that had been the case, Kimi would have been way down the line in the 2003 WC. Bernie E. also preaches last year that a team should not have a number 1 and 2 driver, and yet, the new qualifying format clearly forces a team to chose a number 1 driver, as in one of the driver will have to carry a little more fuel onboard in order to pit later than the other. The one with lighter fuel load will probably qualify higher than the one that is not, and on a circuit like Monaco, qualifying position is extremely vital.

    Anyway, I am all for a good competition but only if it is done in a healty sort of way. As I stated before on one other threads, I believe that parity is good, but it should only be achieved in the right way. It can not and should not be forced upon on. It is not Schumacher's fault that Senna died and it is not his fault that there wasn't another driver on par with him, but then again, who is really on par with Fangio, Clark, Senna and Schumacher?? If you watched the last GP, even Jean Todt himself stated that Ferrari is not always going to be on top, that there will come a time when they don't win the WC, as everything is cyclical and another team will soon dominate. A championship has to be earned, not given. I find it comical that F1 world is trying so hard to "find" the next Schumacher that every single new driver is promoted as "The Next Great One". Much in the same way that Penny Hardway, Grant Hill, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan and now Lebron James to so call take over the mantel from M. Jordan. As someone who holds the kind of position as Bernie E. does in the world of F1, he really should becareful about what he says. It is not right for him to single one team out like that. Can you imagine the baseball commissioniar saying things such as, "I wish that Derrick Jeter would get injured and that Yankees would not be in the pennant race." or David Stern saying, "I was hoping that Kobe would be found quilty and that Malone, Shaq and Payton would not get along with each other so that they would have no shot in winning the NBA WC." ? Come to think of it, you were right, I was wrong in saying that Bernie E. is an idiot, he is an absolutely brilliant man. Wouldn't you say? :)
     
  15. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    Yep he has added money and tarted the show up, but I seriously believe he has harmed the sport of racing more than he has done any good.

    The best racing for racing sakes days were before Bernie, and he did not create the sport and the excitement he just realised that it was there and made a fortune out of it. Since then we have watched it slowly go down hill (the sport, ie. racing for racing sakes) but the SHOW go up and down.

    All of you that think Bernie created F1 are wrong! Pure sport and racing created F1, Bernie has created the TV show that is slowly undermining the sport, and like or other sports is the end of real sport as we know it.

    While I like being able to watch all the races, etc. I pray for the day when racing will say fnck off to the TV time frames and allow the sport to be boss.

    I went to an Adelaide GP many years ago that had to start in pooring rain. The weather guys stated that if they just delayed the race for 1/2 an hour it would be fine again. In the end TV time frames ruled and the race was a joke ... and as we left the race track we were bathed in beautiful sunshine!!!!

    Money does not make a sport guys and girls, passion does and passion was there many, many year before Bernie and will be there many years after Bernie too.

    Pete
     
  16. Turb0flat4

    Turb0flat4 Formula 3

    Mar 7, 2004
    1,234
    Singapore
    Full Name:
    RND
    That was very well put, and I agree.
     
  17. Tifoso1

    Tifoso1 F1 Rookie

    Nov 18, 2003
    2,572
    Pacific NW
    Full Name:
    Anthony C.
    Here in US, he was also responsible for taking F1 racing off ESPN and gave the rights to Fox Sports instead, which if I recall correctly, had some major screwups with their airtime scheduling back in 1996. I remember there was one race that was taped delayed so they can show Bass-fishing. Not that I have anything against fisher-people, but I so freaking pissed that day. Didn't he also wanted to make it pay-per-view over in Europe and US as well? The irony is that Speedvision was then created, which took over from Foxsports, but Foxsports eventually bought Speedvision and call it Speed channel. :)
     
  18. cairns

    cairns Formula Junior

    Nov 13, 2003
    421
    Potomac MD
    Full Name:
    George Williams
    PSK I totally agree- penalize the winner is a NASCAR concept that has no place in F1.

    But.... I am sick of watching Ferrari's domination and, frankly, F1 in general. It's just plain boring- there is very little real racing, next to no passing and the celebrity side show, God-awful Porsche truck and Armor All commercials and Speed's crappy coverage are just disgusting to me. Bahrain, Indianapolis, 15inch wheels and now.... China.... after another short break of course.

    The only saving graces are JB and JPM. And they're nowhere near the Ferrari juggernaut.

    PS: Is it possible for MS to lap himself?
     
  19. Mitch Alsup

    Mitch Alsup F1 Veteran

    Nov 4, 2003
    7,070
    What evidence can you supply to substantiate this.
     
  20. Tifoso1

    Tifoso1 F1 Rookie

    Nov 18, 2003
    2,572
    Pacific NW
    Full Name:
    Anthony C.
    What evidence? am I on trial here or something?! :)

    Are you saying that you do not know that turbo-charging allows a smaller displacement engine to achieve similar level of power output as its larger displacement cousins and at the same time allows a lighter, more compact engine with better fuel efficency? Feel free to search the local libary or via internet. Here are two sites to get you started if you like:

    http://www.ukcar.com/features/tech/Engine/turbo/forced_induction.htm
    http://www2.arnes.si/~pflorj2/cars1980.html

    Also as you know that refueling was baned in the 80's and re-introduced in 1994. Before that, a car starts the race with only one tank of gas. Hence the manufactures has to design a car with a big enough fuel tank to last for the whole race. On the 2nd site, notice the fuel tank capacities of the 1989 car being at least 192 liters, and the NA V12 producing about 600hps. When compare to the 87/88 T-charged car with a fuel tank of only 150 liters in size and produces a similar 620hp at 2.5 bar. Yes, higher boost also means more fuels needed, and yes, you may argue that the cars from 1986 and back has an equally large or larger tank as the NA V-12, but look at the power output. The NA engine doesn't even come close to them. And keep in mind, the these T-cars are close to 20 years old. And yes, they all ran on the same majority race tracks.

    And from the site: http://www2.arnes.si/~pflorj2/cars1980.html

    you will see the following:
    Refuelling was first banned in the early 80's after a spate of dangerous pit lane fires. After that, Formula One engine makers were forced to build engines that could drive the 300 kilometres distance with a set amount of fuel in the fuel tank. Drivers kept an eye on the fuel status via a readout of the fuel economy the car was achieving.

    If you would only accept actual fuel milage numbers from Ferrari SpA or any other F1 teams, than I will not be able to give you the EVIDENCE you crave. And if you expect me to sit here and calcuate the actual energy loss from a NA engine and turbo engine with similar power output, I would have to say to you the very same words that all medical students/residents hate to hear: "Go look it up yourself." b/c I am simply too lazy to do so. And yes, you can not make direct comparsion between a forced-induction engine vs. a NA engine, but there are obvious advantages from one to another that can be used to compare the two.

    If you truly knows nothing about turbocharged engines than do a little research first, and if you already know everything about turbocharged engines and knows for certain that they do not have an advantage in fuel economy, than please, feel free to educate me and in your very own words, "What evidence can you supply to substantiate this?" :)
     

Share This Page