News On F1 Forums - Talk Formula 1

Does they deserves the odds that have been given them??
Or is that cheat??

(GMM) According to Jean Todt, Ferrari deserves a bigger slice of Formula One's cash pie.

The Prancing Horse's managing director, amid rivals' frustration of an inferior new commercial deal, said Ferrari is 'special' and more 'tied' to grand prix racing than others.
''(We) helped create what F1 is,'' said the Frenchman.

''It's like in a movie where a big star gets paid more because the producer knows he will sell it all over the world.

''Ferrari is a star and wants to be paid like a star.''

Certainly NOT!

Perhaps they'll also convince the FIA to give Michael more points per race being the oldest driver on the grid

Sad to see the champions asking for more odds, sad to see the champions cheating, sad to see the champions are backed and not competing in the same conditions of the others, sad to see them afraid of do so in the future!!! How nice would be to see the best drivers of the world in equal-favored-teams REAL race!!!!!!
...

You guys are just envious of Ferrari's position

Even if you don't admit it, Ferrari is Formula 1. Without Ferrari there won't be Formula 1.

The teams - all the teams - will soon sign the concorde agreement

FerrariFan#1 wrote:You guys are just envious of Ferrari's position
Even if you don't admit it, Ferrari is Formula 1. Without Ferrari there won't be Formula 1.
The teams - all the teams - will soon sign the concorde agreement

!! F1 is competition (at least should be) , and ferrari doesn't like competition (they even forbid their 2nd driver to compete) they just like to win (even if they only cheating could did that) A WIN WITHOUT COMPETING IS NOT A WIN, That's why MShumierda for many years hasn't been a champion... (once he was!) now...a cheater rather. even if it's not his intention or fault.
would be nice to hear about ferrari racing itself in 2008...
and real competitors in the real F1 (GPWC could be named F1!):
--------------------
(GMM) 'GPWC' appear destined for a name change -- and it could be Formula One.
The rogue carmaker group, set to undrape the detail of a threatened 2008 world championship, looked likely to call it something like 'Grand Prix Motor Racing.'
F1's commercial rights holder Bernie Ecclestone owns the 'Formula One' moniker, according to conventional wisdom.
But the 'money' section of UK newspaper The Telegraph quoted GPWC spokesman Xander Heijnen as saying that Bernie cannot restrict GPWC's use of the 'F1' descriptor.
A Patent Office spokesman confirmed that 'Formula One' isn't fully controlled because it is more general than brands like 'Coca-Cola' or 'Marlboro.'
Indeed, 'F1' and 'Formula One' are already used legitimately in triathlon and powerboat racing.

Ferrari need to do more to help the smaller teams compete. I lot of people I know won't watch F1 because they know the rules are stacked too much in the Red machines favour.

there is a bloody good chance that if Todt doesn't mend fences we will see F1 in 2008 without ferrari

F1 without Ferrari would be well possible but less attractive, much less attractive. Every sensitive person knows that and also every sporting person appreciates their achievements.

When McLaren were over a second faster than the competition in 98 and made Coulthard move over for Hakkinen in Melbourne everything was fine but the underdogs of this world hate Ferrari because they also have the best driver.

It is ridiculous to state FIA makes Ferrari win, why didnt they make them win before 97???

Only the opposition is to blame if they dont beat them, anyway good luck for this year and I wouldnt mind a Renault F1 champion. However I dont see Michael beaten for the championship until he retires in 2 or 3 years.

Re. GPWC I see an arrangement with Bernie incl. buying the name F1.

F1greyhound wrote:When McLaren were over a second faster than the competition in 98 and made Coulthard move over for Hakkinen in Melbourne everything was fine but the underdogs of this world hate Ferrari because they also have the best driver.

Why on earth do you assume everything was fine ? Ask any of those who disagree with team orders and they'll tell you that was NOT fine.
It was wrong and we'll always be reminded of it by those desparate to defend Ferrari team orders but McLaren did it once. Anyone is allowed to slip once.
lets put in into perspective shall we ? Ask yourself how many times did teammates at McLaren genuinly fight for race wins and then tell me how many times were there team orders then ask the same of Ferrari. You'll be embarrassed to even give a figure.

F1greyhound wrote:Re. GPWC I see an arrangement with Bernie incl. buying the name F1.

Interesting, so what happens to Ferrari

They run in a one make series. Drivers will be Damon Hill,Mikka Hakkinen,ralf "chicane" schumaker,
,Pizzonia, Chris Amon, Jackie Stewart, Leila Lombardi,Sir Jack, and Paul Newman. Schuey will finish 2nd last with "chicane" 1 point further back

Teamorders dont look great but occasionally they make sense. All top teams have applied teamorders since I can remember(83), unless they had both drivers battling out the championship. Williams lost one or two titles through a "no teamorder policy" - fair enough but would they repeat it today? F1 is a business too and if you have many millions spent plus responsibility for your sponsors you do teamorders. If one driver can win the championship and needs each single point, a teamorder may be sensitve.

When Rubens had to move over in Austria that was bollocks, but to me the most interesting issue about that was how competitive he looked against Michael and Im sure that day he earned great respect nonetheless.

By the way even Ferrari apply teamorders very rarely, not even once every year and Michaels supremacy has never been based on them even if they helped him occasionally. He never had an equal competitor within the team because there is noone to match him. Rubens is as close as you can get, on his day he may even beat Michael on merit but not consistently. When Irvine complained about teamorders it was particularly funny...........

McLarens teamorder in Australia 98 was not their first or last one but it may have initialized DCs second driver role, but McLaren was never critisized in the way like Ferrari.

Because their drivers were, and are not arrogant on the track. The incident between Nick and schuey, I believe occured because Schuey genuinely believes that nobody has the right to "stuff it down the inside" on him

F1greyhound wrote:All top teams have applied teamorders since I can remember(83), unless they had both drivers battling out the championship. Williams lost one or two titles through a "no teamorder policy" - fair enough but would they repeat it today?

Hi F1greyhound,

You are generalising here! Apart from the McLaren thing in Melbourne, which team other than Ferrari applied team orders ?

To be fair to Frank, I am sure that he'll never apply team orders no matter what the circumstances. We've seen JPM and Ralf take each other out even last year. Some may call that stupid but I greatly respect those who stand up and give sport more emphasis than business because it is a sport first and foremost and then it is a business.

F1greyhound wrote:By the way even Ferrari apply teamorders very rarely, not even once every year and Michaels supremacy has never been based on them even if they helped him occasionally. He never had an equal competitor within the team because there is noone to match him. Rubens is as close as you can get, on his day he may even beat Michael on merit but not consistently. When Irvine complained about teamorders it was particularly funny............

Teamorders don't have to be on the race track. The preferential treatement Michael gets over Rubens within the team is much more important than actually moving over on the track.
Recall 2003 when Ferrari gave Michael the new car to race with while Barrichello raced with the old one ?
How can one be motivated that way ?

If Michael doesn't need team orders, why apply them then ?

McLarens teamorder in Australia 98 was not their first or last one but it may have initialized DCs second driver role, but McLaren was never critisized in the way like Ferrari.

Again, can you tell us other examples for McLaren team orders.

DC may have been the second driver but that is purley because he couldn't match Hakkinen. When he did, he was allowed to race him. Remember Spa 99 when Coulthard finished AHEAD of Hakkinen even though Hakkinen was fighting for the championship. Now a few races earlier (Germany) Irvine was handed the win by Sato (who was replacing Michael). If McLaren are about team orders they would have simply done the same!

That is why many F1 fans don't like Ferrari or Michael

julian mayo wrote:They run in a one make series. Drivers will be Damon Hill,Mikka Hakkinen,ralf "chicane" schumaker,
,Pizzonia, Chris Amon, Jackie Stewart, Leila Lombardi,Sir Jack, and Paul Newman. Schuey will finish 2nd last with "chicane" 1 point further back

Paul Newman ahead of the two Schumachers

in a silver and black hearse!