[video=youtube;_XASXJaMX24]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XASXJaMX24[/video] [video=youtube;Wm5w-H6SYPk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_347166&feature=iv&src_vid=_XASXJaMX24&v=Wm5w-H6SYPk[/video] Lucky indeed!
**** sakes Kubica! Don't want to see one of my favourite drivers of all time die in an accident thanks.
Just an interesting little animation that came up online, it's interesting to see how much the cars have changed: please log in to view this image
been cut off for a while but came back to find this: http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?optio...uigi-martini-dies-at-66&catid=1:f1&Itemid=157 (I think the headline is a bit confused though) RIP
Pastor is more relaxed than ever http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/106471 Maybe a bit too relaxed after his first two races this season!?
Shock.. Horror.. Gasp! http://www.pitpass.com/48762-Confirmed-Ferrari-has-veto-over-Formula-Ones-regulations
It's an awful long time since I wrote about this in a British forum. Having spoken of it in fora around the world for a long time, it was only the wonderfully ignorant BBC606 'controllers' who saw fit to see my report as warranting removal. Laughably, they also saw fit to supply me with a list of spurious justifications, none of which made sense in the context of what was written. I concluded at the time that the BBC – who must surely have issued guidelines to their deliberately out-sourced (to indemnify themselves? (one wonders for the briefest of moments…) moderation team – were simply afraid of the big bad wolf (scratch that: I mean big bad horse and its various riders), and that they did not really want to be seen as providing a platform for public debate about such goings-on; preferring instead to reinforce the veil which often separates the public from the truth. Propaganda? Surely not? This is the BBC! Then again, perhaps I'd not helped my cause by naming some of the most prominent riders; those sitting right at the top of their particular, all-powerful mounts. Let's not beat about the bush: in F1, Ferrari play by their own rules*. They demand and they get. And some of the flagrant examples on show to the whole world have been so outrageously arrogant as to make one almost physically sick*. Such behaviour is blatantly insulting to the intelligence of the oppressed. To put it mildly, this is hardly a level playing field. Never was this more evident than during the Schumacher years, when the FIA bent over backwards to show solidarity. I'll refrain from providing a list, if I may be so excused, but little wonder some consider so many of his victories and cumulative (ahem) achievements to be somewhat hollow (if not downright invalid!). I'll say no more on the matter for now but I hope those who vehemently challenged what I was saying at the time (before its removal) can now see a little more of the truth I was attempting to wake them with. However, there is something we would do well to remember: right now we have another team determined to 'out-Ferrari' Ferrari… * The horse may have bolted but I'm just revolted. Having followed their lead, my own rules were re-written long ago; never again will I buy a Ferrari.
I think the reason for giving them more prize money is valid given the way they commit to the sport. Not sure what to make of the vetoing of regulations, surely they'd have vetoed the ban on in-season testing?
Aren't other teams similarly committed? How about McLaren – or, for that matter, Williams? In terms of Ferrari's veto(s), clearly they will pick and choose according to their own ideas of what is reasonable; after all, it is obviously not in their interests to publicise their privileges in what is sold to the public as a sport – which holds the basic premise that competition should be fair and therefore conducted on a level playing field.
Yeah it's slightly different though, they wouldn't exist without F1. If their teams weren't profitable they'd fold, whereas Ferrari as a car company would have to prop up the F1 team if it started tanking. I think offering a financial incentive, even just a token gesture, to make sure they keep that bond with the sport is pretty fair. If the sport stopped giving them that payment they could re-enter the sport in the way other manufacturers do, and in some ways that would give them more power and influence in that it would give them an easy way out of the sport if they threatened to leave. Good point.
Thanks, AG. You are quite right that there are differences with Ferrari. However, if the claim that Ferrari as an entity would not exist without F1 is true (which incidentally, I do not actually agree with), then equally, making such a choice â i.e. for its business to be entirely reliant upon a sport â is also entirely their decision. One might counter that other teams come and go according to successes and failures, or a change in corporate business plan; perhaps most notably 'honourable' Honda: a company which also sees motorsport as providing the pinnacle to its marketing;, so why should Ferrari be given special dispensation or be protected through insurance labelled as 'life assurance'? The simplistic argument goes that 'they've always been there so they should be protected', but since it would not seem to apply to any other legitimate 'sport' (at least, to my knowledge), this claim is either spurious or plain romanticism*. Furthermore, I know of no other legitimate business which (when the cat finally leaks out of the bag) publicly justifies its existence as the result of its requirement for protectionism. Let's make no bones about it; that's effectively what this is! I'm steering clear of the danger of excusing such an expectation or demand through the historic practices of a nation (and its collective mentality of acceptance of such practices); because such rationale would seem unfair, especially upon its millions of subjugated individuals; but it is not difficult to see the ground for those who might choose such an argument. More to the point, if the Ferrari company â which claims its existence through publicising itself solely through participation in competition â really wants to be seen as a fair player within that competition, there is a very simple solution: participate in the same manner and with the same rules as fellow competitors. After all, if Ferrari's claim is to be believed in its entirety, the company is absolutely dependant upon rivals to provide the platform, for without rivals there is no competition at all! To put it simply: if the Ferrari company really requires competition for its existence, it should never be regarded as a 'special case' which necessarily prescribes influence upon the 'competition' it claims to need! It's nonsense in its purest form! *It is interesting to consider the origin of this wordâ¦
When I said "they wouldn't exist without F1" I was referring to McLaren and Williams. OK they have interests outside F1 but on nowhere near the scale of Ferrari. Unlike Ferrari, McLaren and Williams don't realistically have the option of entering the sport through a subsidiary. Ferrari are the only team with this option who don't take it. This is probably part of the reason Ron Dennis wants to expand McLaren's road car business, it would make them less reliant on F1 and give them more leverage in negotiations.
My apologies for not reading your post properly, AG; I've now read it again and see my error. However, my point is that powerful organisations such as Ferrari do not need to exert extra influence, or to have 'special' protection when compared to the smaller ones they rely upon! Perhaps my ideals are too philanthropic but giving the strongest player the backing of advantages from those overseeing the competition is a bit like giving Barcelona FC or Manchester United extra money and preferential decisions, simply to ensure that they do not wave goodbye! (Please, I don't know much about football, so my analogy might not be as accurate as I'd like). The point is that I believe stronger competitors have no right to demand other advantages. I also consider Ferrari's demands (dare I say threats?) not that far removed from holding the whole sport to ransom. In my opinion – painful as amputation of the red team might be – in the long term, F1 would be better off without them; so you can guess what I'd be telling di Montezemolo if I were to take charge of the FIA: I'd be calling his bluff with "go on then, leave; and good riddance!"* *Don't worry: there's not the slightest chance of either! Thanks again for pointing out my misunderstanding of your previous post.
[video=youtube;yrmzr2Y52pA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yrmzr2Y52pA#![/video] Been a long day....
