Don't talk to me about football, as I haven't the slightest idea about ball games. Ferrari signed Raikkonen at the end of 2006, when they already had Massa and Schumacher. 3 drivers won't go in only 2 seats ! It was obvious that Ferrari wanted to evict Schumacher.
@william @DeSoto Didn't Schumacher "lie" to LdM after LdM called Schumacher's home and Schumacher's little girl answered the phone saying that daddy was outside doing some kind of errand when all the while LdM was led to believe that Schumacher was not able to do anything....according to Schumacher's doctors since Schumacher was "bed ridden. " Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe I read that some where. IF the above is true, then LdM had it out for Schumacher for lieing to him no?
Our chief advisor also looks after some F1 drivers Yes Schumacher was consulted on all matters while at Ferrari, including driver signings. "Evict" - come on William, deep down you secretly admire Schumacher's achievements
Ferrari broke Schumacher's leg due to brake failure. Schumacher was rehabilitating with some light football practice when LdM phoned. Seems reasonable conduct all things considered. And LdM's reaction to such resonable healing and fitness ? His ego created red mist
Can't vouch for accuracy, but the "usually accepted" version is that Michael was offered by LdM the opportunity to stay after 2006, but on equal treatment with Kimi Räikkönen (= no "number One" status, etc...) Räikkönen was then considered as the "fastest driver alive" and younger by ten years, so M.S choose not to accept the challenge. M.S had strongly vetoed the idea to have Mika Häkkinen as a team mate at the end of the nineties. He always thought that the team would work better with an undisputed "Number One" driver in the team, and I can see the logic for that: considering the comploting always strong at Ferrari, better be safe on that side at least. Rgds
As a fan one can dislike the idea of a designated #1 and making #2 subservient. But as a team proposition it can make a lot of sense. This can be especially true when what the drivers need for car characteristics are quite different. There were reports back when that Schumacher's ideal car characteristics were like a go cart. As #1 that is what Ferrari developed to so he had maximum performance ability and #2 needed to adapt. If both drives share the basic characteristic then great. But if not, it is not good for the team to handicap both with a middle ground compromise.
Yes, I think I read something along these lines at the time, which obviously gave some ammunition to LdM to get rid of him. . Also that Schumacher told the journalists he decided to leave "to protect Massa's career". It's so generous of him ! Any BS to save face and satisfy the media. The fact is that Schumacher departed against his plans. So much for being rewarded for his loyalty to Ferrari.
We all know our Formula One history, do we? I have to say that "no hierarchy between the drivers, equal cars, no bias" is very satisfying for the sportsmen in us, but we all know that it could end in loosing the title: Fittipaldi vs Peterson at Lotus in 1973; Reutemann vs Jones at Williams in 1981; Mansell vs Piquet at Williams in 1986, etc... Ferrari is already a snake pit, I really can't blame Michael S. who, at the time, had spend ten years in the team and knew how it worked, to have decided not to take that challenge. Sorry for the Ferrari fans here, but if I had been a racing driver in my life, the ONLY place where I would have accepted the "equal status, no holds barred" with my team-mate would have been in a british team; but certainly not at Ferrari, God's forbid! Enough trouble here already... (Even if that most gentleman of all gentlemen Tony Brooks once said that the only thing he asked for when signing for Ferrari was "a car equal to those of my team-mates", and that he indeed got it) Rgds
I don´t know if the daughter´s story is true, but back in the day in the press some said that Schumacher had preferred to stay out for the rest of the season but Luca told him to drag his ass back into the car as soon as he was fit to drive. Fair, as he was getting paid to do that. Later Schumacher admitted that although he made his best to help Irvine, he was not happy about not being the one who won the championship after years of being so close, so it´s possible he tried to delay his comeback with some excuse about his leg. Of course that is not related to his retirement 7 years later. In 2006 Schumacher said that he wanted to delay the decision about his retirement as long as possible but that in the end he had to make up his mind "to protect Massa´s career". I though that it was a weird statement, but later I guessed that Luca´s plan A was a Schumacher-Raikkonen pairing but keeping Massa around, just in case Schumacher decided to leave. That would leave Massa without a seat or demoted to Sauber or whatever if in the end Schumacher decided to stay. Some say that Luca betrayed Schumacher; I think that´s not fair: he was (rightfully) thinking in the post-Schumacher era.
Schumacher acted like "The Emperor" at Ferrari and obviously wasn't going to accept willingly a strong team mate. Echoes of Senna who barred Derek Warwick at Lotus. Alain Prost, in the other hand, had no problem recommending Senna with equal status at McLaren. Different folks, different strokes !
I absolutely agree; it was Luca's duty as the boss to think about the future, even if it implied hard decisions to take. DISCLAIMER: I do not know LdM personnally, but absolutely love the guy; he had a lot of faults - and is a wily old fox, an ultra-clever italian politician (well, if that's not enough...) - but he was, to me at least, Enzo's only true spiritual son; and he saved the racing team twice, in 1974 and again in 1993, and the road car business also. For all his faults, Luca loves Ferrari. Bernie Ecclestone nailed it once, when he said "the first few weeks (after Luca took Ferrai back in charge) I saw Luca Di Montezemolo, I saw Luca; then after these few weeks, every time I saw him, I only saw Ferrari". With all his faults, and he has some, Luca was the last figurehead for Ferrari. The spiritual son. The bridge between the past and the present and the future. All the other bland corporate managers that followed, bah! Ferrari hasn't been the same since he left. Rgds
After 10 years at the Scuderia and 5 titles, being "offered" equal status with Raikkonen must have felt like a slap in the face for Michael Schumacher. It must have been very demoralising to be so quickly "demoted". No wonder he left.
That´s a very simplistic view. British football hooligans are often the craziest (and most brutal). The thing is that Ferrari has: #1 Cool corporate image that has stayed invariable: red, horsey, etc... Look at McLaren corporate logo... for God´s sake, only a bag of meat with eyes like Ron Dennis could like that. #2 Build an entire car, something not very common, even today, where the Mercedes or Alpine teams are two separate factories owned by the same parent company. #3 Cool road cars associated with them. McLaren also... but too late. #4 Already racing in the romantic days of motorsport. That brings a colorful lore, including the looney founder, etc... And above all, at least for me #5 Continuity in time. the same company, the same factory gate. Others brands have cool corporate image. There have been other colorful characters like Enzo Ferrari. Other brands have their loyalists too: porschephilles are the absolute worst, there are bizarre feuds between Ford and GM, there are even Volkswagen fans who flock by thousands to their Wörthersee meeting, go figure. .. But only Ferrari meets all the above criteria, so it´s normal that in F1 they have the most fans, even in not latin countries. Ferrari brings more spectators than Honda even in Japan. Then, and only then, the Italian flavour comes into play, but as a consecuence, not as a cause. Something similar to Ferrari could have been appeared in Britain, it´s just that all British car makers screwed it up before becoming Ferrari.
Of course you don't, if you did, you would be a ferrari fan, and you'd be around a Ferrari forum....oh wait!
I have to agree with that. Luca de Montezemolo was really the true successor of Enzo Ferrari from whom he inherited the machiavelism. It's a great pity he was finally ousted from Ferrari and the Scuderia.
Boy George is still less experienced than Charles, as Charles is in relation to Max...he somethimes looks clumsy in some evertaking manouvers, but there's no doubt the talent and raw speed are there...if he refines himself, he can do great things...but i agree that right now he's not in the same level as Max and Chuck.
Football hooligans are not football fans. They are not a British phenomenon only; you find them in many countries. They are the same violent thugs who infiltrate any large crowd to create mayhem, like they do at demonstrations, concerts, and other public gathering. They will travel far afield to congregate and indulge in disturbing the peace, attacking real football supporters, just like they use the cover of social unrest to join unions protests, confront the police and vandalise an area for kicks.
We like them for that, not because they win races. Many others have won races, but have not that following. Or do you like people just for their money? And actually, all I´ve said has helped them to win: it brings sponsorship, and gets them through the bad streaks. Others just would have thrown the towel.
No team….no team….has the history and charisma that Ferrari does. That doesn’t necessarily “win them races and championships” but they have the history and charisma in large part because of the races and championships that they have won. It’s worth something. How many buyers of MBs have any idea that MB-AMG even has an F1 team? In the U.S. I’d wager no more than 25%. Do people decide not to buy a Ferrari because the scuderia hasn’t won a championship lately? Very, very few, I imagine.
I personally hope he goes. Year in year out, at Ferrari, its just disappointment, incompetence, politics. Nothing has changed at all. Back in the Schumacher-Ross-Todt days, there was a burning desire to be successful, within the whole team. Slowly, but surely, they team did started to taste success and and was the dominance era. Today, it's like just Charles that wants to be successful, whereas the rest of the team are so comfortable with the fact they are just mediocre team. Time waits for no man. If i was Charles, i definitely would start looking out.
To be honest, I couldn't care less about the size of the following. I watch F1 for the sport, and I am not in awe of any team in particular. Like one said, "Every dog has his day". Some teams that don't exist anymore were very interesting to me.
I suppose many people, like me, disassociate completely car buying from F1. I bought Mercedes before they were in F1, for example. F1 success wouldn't influence me one bit.
