Ferrari's 2005 f1 Season

Probably not

 

Because of the tyres, which you have forgotten in the equation. The Bridgestones were hopeless in most of the races that year; or not suited to the car.

 

The year I started watching F1. I jinxed it and all because I bought a Mondial and a friend a Ferrari in F1 book for me at Christmas. I had genuinely had never watched a full F1 race from start to finish (and qualifying) until that first 2005 season race.
I only watch F1 because Ferrari take part. I even recall before actually owning a Ferrari but having a baseball cap, being asked by people if I was a Schumacher fan. "No" I said "but I love Ferrari cars".

Definitely jinxed it for Ferrari, perhaps I need to give-up F1.

 

That year was "fixed" before it started. bernie wanted to end Ferrari domination because it was geting "boring", so he and teh fia decided to change the rules, so they could favour Renault....one of the most important rules was teh fact that tires had to last the whole race. Of course Ferrari had teh power to veto those ideas but They simply "bought" Ferrari...can't reveal much but basicly they robbed the bank to pay Ferrari so they would allow teh rule changes, and also Ferrari was forced to ditch the f2004 (i heard that at the time it still had 30% more of possible development ). Luca was convinced he could still win the championship, so he took the money and hoped for the best....the f2005 proved to bevery fast right in the first race, but somehow, only managed to be competitive again at Imola and of course Indy....So basicly Ferrari was payed to give Renault a chance to win...wich they did.
If Ferrari could perform like they did at imolo, they would surely win teh title, as would Kimi and Mclaren if only his car was reliable and not a hand grenade that lost bits and pieces in most races....

 

Well, remember Niki Lauda's answer when someone asked him if he wasn't slightly disappointed, at the end of the 1984 season, to be crowned World Champion with only 5 victories against 7 for Prost, and an advantage of only half a point:
"The rules that prevail say that the one who ends up with more points is World Champion; the number of victories do not enter in question. These are the rules that prevail; I fighted in accordance with these rules, which were the same for everyone and I won. Were the rules different, I would have adapted to different rules"

Or, as we say in French: "If my aunt got some, well she would be my uncle" (meaning: it is useless to speculate about what could have been, otherwise everything could have been different)
Rgds

 

It was, but Ferrari was so much in front of everyone else (the f2004 was probably the best car in f.1 history) that he probably figured Ferrari could still retain some advantage over the rest, even with the tyre rule change.....unfortunatly he misjudge te full efect of those changes....just as he did with the current hybrid regulations...

 

It was Michelin + Alonso. And, Michelin pushed things so far that their tires were useless in Indianapolis. MAJOR worldwide embarrassment for Michelin. Anyway, I wouldn't read too much into from Ferrari's end of it other than that.

Did I mention that the 2005 race was the only time I went to Indianapolis for F1? Argggghhhhhh . . . . . . !

 

100 million was the figure I think.

 

Thats the figure i also heard

 

Regardless Schumacher and the Ferrari were very competitive together. The year he broke his leg would of been another WDC. Remember they changed the point system also. You can call me biased, but if Ferrari was dominating today instead of Mercedes today. I wouldn't mind a bit. But we need the screaming engines back.

 

Presumably he thought ahead of the sport, didn't want the sport to lose too many viewers. Something the current lot in F1 clearly aren't doing.

They also didn't want to lose their Veto for something relatively minor. They didn't know of course that Michelin build a tyre that was unsafe, it was much lighter than Bridgestones tyre (and where is the best place to save weight? That's right...the tyres). If Ferrari was on Michelins they likely would have kept dominating, their car was quite simply another evolution of the F2004, a great platform to start with.

Ferrari missed their chance to veto the silly engines we've got now. They've held on to it too long and now Todt wants to take it away. Eejits.

 

if they didnt come up with the ridiculous tire regs MSC would have walked to the 2005 title

 

Indy in 2005 has left a sour taste in my mouth that still remains to this day. Even with the free tickets for 2006 I did not want to go. I did make it to the first year of the MotoGP race at Indy but even then I really did not care for the trip even though it was all expenses paid including a very nice 2 room suite for the weekend.

Needless to say I will never own a Michelin tire ever again as well.

 

I have not been back since as well. And I just took the refund from Michelin and ran.

 

The farce in 2005 was clearly due to fear of liability in the United States. As I recall Toyota was running less than recommended tire pressures and that was the cause of the failures; Ferrari on Bridgestone tires wouldn't agree to a temporary chicane so we were left with this charade of a race. A big FU by everyone in F1 to the fans, an absolute disgrace. It still pisses me off.

 

I liked it, 2 Ferraris in the top step and a third for a Portuguese...what's not to like