Interesting Article...

I have indeed read most of his stuff and yes while there is some enthusiasm, ultimately as another poster mentions his bias for Porsche appears. Perhaps the videos are better than the print because the Porsche bias doesnt appear...

BTW, enjoy your reports on AutoJournals!

One does wonder who's reputation has been harmed more with this article...that of Ferrari or that of Chris Harris.....

 

Have you considered that in the instances where Mr. Harris declared Porsche "the winner" that he genuinely believed it was the better car?

Leveling of charge of bias should be done with a little more consideration of the facts: Mr. Harris has generally written about Ferrari in very glowing and favorable terms. His comments on video are likewise glowing and favorable. Not to mention he's actually OWNED several Ferraris.

Given that fact pattern, how one makes the intellectual leap to Mr. Harris having an "anti-Ferrari" bias is remarkable.

If anything, one would logically surmise exactly the opposite.

 

I agree 100%.
That's why I stated "stock adjustments to the stock setup".

 

Perhaps read his Porsche articles and read his Ferrari ones, read them closely and tell me the fact he adores everything from Porsche is but a myth. I have no problem at all him adoring Porsche, he does get to race works race cars for them afterall so I am sure his enthusiasm for the marque would have nothing to do with that.

As I mentioned many posts back I fully accept by nature motoring journalists are going to exhibit bias, its hard not the be taken in by the lifestyle, the exotic launches, the fancy hotels and then after all that say the car is no good.

Make no mistake as a video journalist he is fantastic, he really provides insight but as a print journalist I am not so sure, particularly when Ferrari and Porsche are involved but this is subjective, ironically motoring journalism is subjective too.

Bottom line is whether we like it or not the motor manufacturers are always going to influence the press, its up to us the owners and enthusiasts to decide what we prefer and what we like.

Again its unfortunate this article in question wasnt more rounded regarding the industry as a whole as then it would have informed, in fact all this article does in its current format is just look like a case of sour grapes.

I ask you this when you climb into a Ferrari, take it around a track or over a mountain pass, enjoy the sound of the engine and the driving experience, do you really care about an article like this or what manufacturers do? Me, well, I couldnt care less and I suspect few if any buy cars based on performance numbers alone.

 

Respectfully, if there is a charge of "bias" to be leveled, its more accurately aimed at the handful of people who have attempted to defend and excuse Ferrari's flagrant and egregious attempts to manipulate automotive journalists and cheat on performance tests. Cheating isn't winning. Cheating is cheating. And it's wrong whether it's a kid copying off the person next to him during his 4th grade spelling test or a stock broker trading on inside information or an automotive company showing up with race-prepped "ringer" cars and claiming they are stock. Or, worse, attempting to blackball a journalist because they don't like what he might write when he gets behind the wheel of a true stock vehicle.

As i wrote earlier, it's not the bending of a rule here or there, its the complete abandonment of the principles behind the rules that is so disturbing. When a company's image becomes more valuable than its integrity, something is very wrong. Persons attempting to defend this behavior as "protecting a brand" entirely miss that point. It's an argument that hasn't worked too well for Barry Bonds or Goldman Sachs. And it doesn't work well for Ferrari, either.

I do, however, agree that Mr. Harris' article could have, should have been more broadly critical of the industry as a whole and not so focused on Ferrari. But that is not bias. That is simply an article that is not as well-written as it should have been. Frankly, the fault for that result really lies with his editor as it was his editor's job to reign him in and give him more direction. Even Woodward and Bernstein needed Ben Bradlee.

However, that fact in no way lessens Ferrari's guilt in the matter. And we must recall that Mr. Harris writes that he singled out Ferrari because Ferrari is the worst offender of the group and thusly deserving of the exposé. A difficult point to refute.

 

Excellent post. I can't agree more with how you made your point. Your last paragraph is the most topical, as it correctly refutes the 'noise' of most of the responders regarding bias: CH singled out Ferrari because they are the worst offenders in the industry. It amazes me how blindly supportive many Ferrari owners are of the company, seemingly willing to overlook behaviour that we wouldn't accept in nearly any other business or company. I love Ferrari's, but from a pure sporting point of view it's tough to beat a Porsche GT2RS around a race track....and from that reality comes CH's overall opinion of Ferrari vs Porsche. Doesn't mean he does not like Ferrari....

 

How do we know this? There could be many worse offenders out there but nothing have been reported?

I fail to see how sending technicians as observers can be called "cheating".....

 

You mean some of you take this stuff seriously? I have been reading car and motorcycle mags since the 60s. Frankly, the only reason for reading any "review, impression, or test" is to look at the pictures.

Dale

 

What's your point?

Let's assume Ferrari isn't the worst offender. That doesn't make their actions any less deplorable.

You're attempting to split hairs, my friend.

And Mr. Harris had a lot more to say than just Ferrari "sending along some technicians." You're either missing his point entirely or ignoring it.

Assuming it's the former, I encourage you to read the article again and give Mr. Harris his due. As I have already noted, his regard for Ferrari's machines has always been high. That he's reached the breaking point with Management's lies and duplicity, and finally decided to expose both, is the heart of the matter.

It seems logical to me that people who are truly enthusiasts of the Ferrari brand will want Ferrari's management to set the very best example in the industry, to be leaders, rather than being low-life bullies who <wink, wink> know how to game the system and blackball journalists who don't follow the charade.

As someone earlier wrote, if Ferrari feels the need to have their cars race-prepped before an evaluation, Ferrari should simply DISCLOSE how they have modified their cars and invite SAE-certified automotive engineers to verify that these are the only modifications made. That kind of transparency and openness would serve Ferrari extremely well and would set an example for every other manufacturer to follow.

Leading with principle and integrity. How novel.

 

But it only opens you up for civil claims if it doesn't match the brochure...

 

I have read the article a few times and all it amounts to me is a tirade against one manufacturer, reason for it: unknown. If it was such a big issue why has he waited until now to write the article, more the point, why is the article not in EVO?

I am indeed splitting hairs because none of us knows the extent to which other manufacturers provide assistance, why dont we know this because its never reported and why is it never reported...why has it taken Chris Harris 10 years to report this, why was nothing said about the 360 that was 2 seconds quicker than a customer car, "its sounded like a race car", well thats purely subjective isnt it?

Of course Ferrari should be setting an example but its tad unfair if the rest continue as usual.

The only issue which I agree with Mr Harris is the fact the press cant drive privately owned cars, that in my opinion is just paranoid on Ferrari's part.

 

Let's see:

a) Rule #1 in racing: If you're not cheating, you're not trying.

b) Ferrari is a racing company that sells cars to go racing.

You don't have to be Fellini to figure out the conclusions...

 

LOL

We're about the same age I suppose, Dale, and I understand your point.

But may I offer an analogy?

I split my time between St. Louis and SW Florida. In St. Louis, baseball is a Big Deal. So, as you can imagine, it was really disheartening when the Mark McGwire steroids scandal broke. Sure, baseball is "only a game" but a lot of people felt betrayed by somebody they had admired and cheered and spent their money to support.

People invest a lot of themselves in sports and other passions. Is it really asking too much for the people involved with these endeavors to act with principle and integrity? I sure hope not. And we only cheapen ourselves by excusing bad behavior in exchange for "our team" winning.

And one more point: Obviously, these magazine reviews are very important to Ferrari, otherwise Ferrari wouldn't go through such bizarre lengths to race-prep their cars and blackball journalists from having access to true production cars. If the reviews were meaningless, why would Ferrari bother with all the shenanigans?

 

I find it ironic that whenever there's a controversy with Ferrari, people stand up and proclaim "Enzo is rolling in his grave!" -- except this time.

Actually Enzo is laughing out loud behind those cool shades right now.

 

Thank you.

And your point about not accepting this kind of behavior in any other endeavor is really what is at the heart of this matter.

Let's be honest, in terms of bias, if the story was about Porsche or McLaren, most of the people who are excusing Ferrari would be excoriating the other two.

 

Harris' videos were very positive on Ferrari. But this 'cats out of the bag' is silly. Manufacturers have been stacking the deck as best they can for as long as I can remember.

Chris' rant is not news, but it might be professional suicide, since he relies on these manufacturers loaning him cars in order to make his living.

Thanks for the props for www.auto-journals.com, it's much appreciated.

 

Yes except at the BMW store you probably can take a picture without being forced to pay...

 

To be fair, "auto journalism" has gotten better. I just read a review of a new BMW motorcycle I had some interest in buying. But once the reviewer wrote that the bike buzzed like an old Brit bike, I turned the page. Been there, ain't gonna do that no more.

But still, the purpose of these publications (print, online, and F-Chat) is to sell ad copy. There's nothing wrong and everything right with that.

But to believe ad copy, that's another thing all together. I haven't been around Ferraris as much as some here, but I've been around enough not to believe a word Ferrari says.

And, frankly, it doesn't matter. My old Maranello was supposed to have 500 some odd horsepower, maybe it did and maybe it didn't. But none of this mattered when I got behind the wheel.

Dale

 

WOW! Writing that on a Ferrari board... You ARE an Infidel.

Perhaps I'm wrong but often see debates like this as an subconscious litmus test. The people who excuse unethical behavior often partake in it. Whereas with the people who have genuine moral outrage, usually that outrage is because the behavior in question is an anathema to their own moral code.

I don't like cheaters therefore I don't like when Ferrari does this. -- Not saying everyone defending Ferrari is unethical, just saying I often see debates like this breakdown that way.

But I will say this... Before I bought a car from anyone on this board I'd read their comments on this thread. knowhatImean?

 

Either way, they are great cars.

Here's a brief follow-up with this graphic...

http://jalopnik.com/#!5762315/heres-the-secret-ferrari-track-setting-you-never-knew-about

Edit: Like Ferrari would respond to the original blog post?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The reverse side of the dirty coin:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Baseball analogy may be a lil tough. If there was a nitrous tank I would agree.

BTW - the lawmaker who pushed to rename part of I-70 "Mark McGwire Highway" now wants McGwire's name taken away.

In the same light - Cards made him a hitting coach

 

And where did you get that graphic?

Natan

 

I ask the question without passion or prejudice. It appears a few people do not think well of Ferrari's "advertising". Am I late to the party?

I was introduced to the article below and then read the comments following on the Corvette Forum.

http://jalopnik.com/#!5760248/how-ferrari-spins


As I have posted many times here I long ago lost respect for Ferrari because this sort of thing goes back to about 1995 when they discovered that the F50 could neither outaccelerate nor outrun the F40 it was supposed to replace. To protect themselves Ferrari hatched a plan to hide the awful truth. It was a plan so disgraceful that it taints the company to this day. I detailed this scheme back in 2005.

Many years later Car and Driver, which like all motoring journalists was also banned from instrument testing the relatively slow F50, commented archly during their test of the Enzo that, &#8220;Recall that with the last Ferrari supersled, the 1995-97 F50, the factory, for reasons unknown, forbade owners from allowing journalists to test one. Ferrari could do that: The F50 was leased for two years to customers rather than sold outright. Also, the threat of denied perks, such as factory tours and first crack at future cars, was enough to elicit whimpers from even the most steel-spined business titans. We did manage to test an F50, but that's another story.&#8221;

If you read nothing else here, read that &#8220;another story&#8221; CD was referring to. They detailed what happened to them and recounted specifically how Ferrari directly intimidated the entire U.S. F50 owner base almost down to the last man when they dared try to help CD get numbers on the F50. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/..._f50-road_test This is when I learned that the emperor had no clothes.

Car and Driver has also openly accused them of supplying a ringer 599 which was as quick as an Enzo. My analysis of the impossibility of this is here. Likewise, Car and Driver, to their credit smelled a rat and called them out.

When CD went to test an F430 against the Porsche Turbo and Corvette Z06, Ferrari refused to lend them a car because the Z06, which had proved devastating in the past was involved in the test. Car and Driver said this as specifically as they dared at the time saying, &#8220;For various reasons, Ferrari couldn't provide us with a car because the company was at full stretch with the launch of the 599GTB, but we suspect it was gun-shy about putting its car up against the Corvette&#8221;

There are many more examples of this.

This sort of subterfuge by Ferrari is well known in the industry. So why outside of the dropped hints at various magazines have we not seen something like Chris Harris&#8217; explosive piece before? Because though the magazines are well aware of these things and who the worst offenders are they dare not say it openly for the same reasons Harris gave in his piece. Excommunication. This is a small industry and the proposal is a lot like being able to prove your boss is having an affair. Sure you may be right. You may even be able to prove it. But what&#8217;s your upside? Not only will you never see another Ferrari test car, and by you I mean the magazine you work for, a fact that will generally preclude your editors from even allowing you to pen such a piece, but any editor who actually pulls off such a feat may not be able to find employment at another car magazine. Ferrari covers draw big numbers. Few magazines will pass up those dollars on principle.

But with Harris&#8217; detailed and devastating expose the façade is now badly cracked and on Ferrarichat even Ferrari&#8217;s staunchest defenders are now starting to ask some hard questions.

 

UGH! Are you late to the party? How many threads do we need on this? I think there's been like 10 now...

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=313836

And... like I give flying fart what Corvette owners think.