Championship already decided?? Options

[Ender]

according to marc surers latest column in "MOTORSPORT aktuell", normaly a very thrustworthy source concerning F1 things, this years bridgestone tyre is directly based on the 2004 version of the japanese tyre! you remember that year which ferrari dominated even worse than 2002

Sadly there is no inet source with which i can prove this claim, but anybody in the german-speaking area can buy the the latest edition of MSA until tuesday.

if this is true, bridgestone didnt lie to us when saying that the 2007 racing tyre is completely different to last year ones, nontheless this leaves a very shallow taste, and might explain why ferrari went such a different way in constructing their 07 car. the new ferrari has a bigger weelbase and much more weight in the back of the car, and quite some people recently wondered why they did this.

if this report is true, there is a big chance that this years F1 championship is already decided, and the "most exciting championship since ages" wont be that exciting.

What do you think about?

[Ross Stonefeld]

Except everyone will be on the same tire as Ferrari.

[jokuvaan]

I remember(faintly) BS saying that 2007 tyre is based on 2004 but harder. But I could be wrong.

[wingwalker]

this is interesting... i recall quite a few articles saying that ferrari either screwed-up or knew more than other teams...

[peroa]

Skinny french guy:

Ej güd tajer is ej güd tajer!

[Haddock]

Originally posted by wingwalker
this is interesting... i recall quite a few articles saying that ferrari either screwed-up or knew more than other teams...

Certainly everything I've read says the 2007 tyre is based on the 2004 tyre. And Mark Hughes in particular said that it should theoretically favour a short wheelbase, so Ferrari's decision to go long suggests that they either knew something that nobody else did, or screwed up big time. Testing rather suggests the former.

Given all the top teams bar Ferrari were on Michelins when the single-tyre supplier was chosen, the very fact that Bridgestone got the deal suggests Maranello-centrism on the part of the FIA...

[HSJ]

I thought Michelin did not want to be a sole tyre supplier. They wanted competition, and since there wasn't going to be any, they left. Michelin could have also stayed for 2007 regardless, but left early (which IMO is poor attitude/behaviour from them, a decision I don't support at all).

[Chubby_Deuce]

Originally posted by wingwalker
this is interesting... i recall quite a few articles saying that ferrari either screwed-up or knew more than other teams...

Screwed up what?

[Haddock]

Originally posted by Chubby_Deuce


Screwed up what?

The design of their car. Everyone said short wheelbase was the way to go, and they came out with a long wheelbase car.

[Chubby_Deuce]

How long is it compared to everyone else's?

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Haddock

Given all the top teams bar Ferrari were on Michelins when the single-tyre supplier was chosen, the very fact that Bridgestone got the deal suggests Maranello-centrism on the part of the FIA...

Gerraway.

[peroa]

Originally posted by Haddock


The design of their car. Everyone said short wheelbase was the way to go, and they came out with a long wheelbase car.

Relatively longer to what they had before, it`s still average comapred to other teams

[Chubby_Deuce]

Oh snap

[kNt]

Actually, the championship was decided at the last meeting of all the team bosses.




(Seriously though, the Ferrari Wheelbase is not even the longest, and Sauber / BMW ran on the 2004 tyres quite well (if you consider their ressources then and now))

[ASD]

Obviously Ferrari should have saved their money and run their 2004 chassis...

[kar]

Oh Christ. Not again.

If the Ferrari sucked, it was because Aldo Costa was a moron, and Ferrari were falling apart due to the loss of Ross, Rory and Michael.

If the Ferrari was a rocketship, as it seems it is, it's not down to the team work, engineering talents of Costa, Tombazis et al, but rather some unwritten but obvious ploy by the FIA and their friends at Bridgestone to rort the championship in favour of Ferrari.

Honestly, the paranoia and cynicism towards Ferrari borders on the xenophobic.

I don't understand why when Maranello does a good job, after all they've been doing a good job for all but 2 seasons in 10 years, why people can't just go 'well done, let's work out what you're doing and do it better'.

Sheesh!

[Juan Kerr]

Originally posted by kar
Oh Christ. Not again.

If the Ferrari sucked, it was because Aldo Costa was a moron, and Ferrari were falling apart due to the loss of Ross, Rory and Michael.

If the Ferrari was a rocketship, as it seems it is, it's not down to the team work, engineering talents of Costa, Tombazis et al, but rather some unwritten but obvious ploy by the FIA and their friends at Bridgestone to rort the championship in favour of Ferrari.

Honestly, the paranoia and cynicism towards Ferrari borders on the xenophobic.

I don't understand why when Maranello does a good job, after all they've been doing a good job for all but 2 seasons in 10 years, why people can't just go 'well done, let's work out what you're doing and do it better'.

Sheesh!

Its because of the paranoia unfortunetly, all these negative posters think someone's out to get them.

[RDM]

Black 'elicopters! Getcha black 'elicopters here!

Tinfoil hats, bargain price on tinfoil 'ats!

Everything for the paranoid F1 fan right here. Roll up! Roll up Getcha black 'elicopters and yer tinfoil hats right 'ere!

[harsha_vardhan]

Originally posted by kar
Oh Christ. Not again.

If the Ferrari sucked, it was because Aldo Costa was a moron, and Ferrari were falling apart due to the loss of Ross, Rory and Michael.

If the Ferrari was a rocketship, as it seems it is, it's not down to the team work, engineering talents of Costa, Tombazis et al, but rather some unwritten but obvious ploy by the FIA and their friends at Bridgestone to rort the championship in favour of Ferrari.

Honestly, the paranoia and cynicism towards Ferrari borders on the xenophobic.

I don't understand why when Maranello does a good job, after all they've been doing a good job for all but 2 seasons in 10 years, why people can't just go 'well done, let's work out what you're doing and do it better'.

Sheesh!

Yes! Guys.. Its time to give the ferrari team some respect for the fabulous work they do..

But i do think, if Ferrari are 0.5 secs faster than everybody... it will turn out to be a championship fight between Massa and Raikkonen

[HP]

There would be many millionaires on this BB if someone pays them for each excuse brought forth.

Having said this it's rather obvious that Ferrari and other Bridgestone teams that still have data from the 2004 season have a slight advantage. Even Toro Rosso, the Ex-Minardi team has done better than Red Bull at some tests. And in 2004 TR they were on Bridgestones.

But that doesn't mean the championship is over. See Mclaren in 2005, how they almost managed to turn the season around, after initially getting not enough heat into their tires for qualification.

I'm happy that the folks involved with F1 don't shrug their shoulders and get their book of excuses ready. After all the teams got an example of this years tire shortly after the last season ended. No matter which tire Bridgestone had taken as a basis for 2007, for the Michelin teams there was no data available that could help them in the early design stages of this years car.

Some ways that could have been considered for this year are:

A 3rd tire supplier taking over. It seems that there were no other serious tenders for 2008 (and BS having a contract for 2007 as well). So not much to do here. Even the FIA cannot force tire manufacturors to produce tires for them.

The Michelin shod teams could have asked to move the 2008 rules in regards to tires and downforce a year forward. Altough I'm not sure about the current situation, there is mention of reintroducing slicks from 2008 onwards, because of downforce reduced being by 50%.

I wouldn't mind that at all, but how many team bosses, including those from Michelin backed teams would have agreed to that, after they started to design this years car?

[Jacquesback]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Except everyone will be on the same tire as Ferrari.

But if Ferrari had prior knowledge of the compound when the car was in the design phase then that is an unfair advantage. But I said "if", and this can't be proven, so although there may be conspiracy theories none of them will ultimately mean anything. Besides I think McLaren and Alonso will catch up and join the fight even if they are not right there for the first fly away races.

[G. Piezano]

A few points-

There is a logical reason to have this year's tires similar to 2004. As a result of the tire war last year, a 2006 style tire probably doesn't have a large margin of safety, nor would it lead to reduced speeds, which are both key reasons the FIA wanted to go to a single supplier. Plus, a 2006 tire would lead to even louder cries of bias towards Ferrari. A 2005 tire was designed to last a full race distance and is not suitable in a race that allows for tire changing. Hence, we go back one more year to 2004. We know they are slower than 2006 style tires-Ferrari proved that at the beginning of last year when they ran 2004 specs. The 2007 tire is, however, only similar to 2004 tires so it is reasonable to assume it is more durable than the 2004 spec. We will have a slower and safer tire.

Also, as it pertains to 2004, I recall reading somewhere that Ferrari had something like a 12% aero advantage at the beginning of 2004. I think they were the first team to run the airbox mounted wing. I think in the same article, it was said that teams look for a 1-2% aero improvement over the course of the year.

I'm not saying the tire didn't have anything to do with Ferrari's dominance in 2004-I suspect it played a big role in their success, but with an aero advantage like that they still would have won both the titles even if they were on Michelins.

Remember too, that Ferrari had pace in reserve that year. At the Italian Grand Prix, both drivers came from the rear of the field to finish 1-2. IIRC, Rubens spun on the first lap and Michael suffered a tire puncture or a front wing failure. I remember reading or hearing that both drivers turned the engine settings from zero to two on their steering wheels and other team bosses saying that while they got beat, at least they forced Ferrari to show the maximum that the F2004 was capable of.

As a Ferrari fan, I will say that one of my favorite memories from 2004 was during FP1 at Melbourne when Michael went out, ran an installation lap, stayed out on the track instead of returning to the pits and blitzed the field, posting a time 2 seconds better than anyone else. The reactions on this BB were priceless. We had pages of ":eek:" "OMG!" and "The WDC is over!" The outcome of an F1 season has never been decided that early in the year.

As good as Ferrari looks right now, I just don't see Felipe or Kimi doing something similar this year. Ferrari may be strong early, but there are a lot of very, very good teams that ran Michelins last year that I believe will come to grips with the Bridgestones as the year progresses. At a minimum, McLaren is awfully close and you can't ever discount the strength that Fernando, as a two-time WDC, will bring to the team. I think we will have a good year.

Finally, and I'll apologize for getting so windy, it's simply quite likely that the Ferrari engineering team has gotten it right. As an example, look at Toyota. Their 2003 car was a replica of the F2002, perhaps the most dominant F1 car ever built. Comparing the development paths of the two teams demonstrates that Ferrari has made the right choices as their cars have evolved while Toyota has not. Ignoring the final championship standings and any of the conspiracy theories people like to kick around, an honest evaluation would show that Ferrari has had one of the top three cars going back at least to 2000, and perhaps further. It looks like that will again be the case in 2007.

Roll on, Melbourne!

[Limits]

Would it not have been more reasonable to base it on the 2005 tyre? After all, that was supposed to be durable and all which would be quite good for the both teams and Bridgestone who wants to go around the season on as few tyres as possible. Or maybe the 1999 tyres? Imagine the margins of safety they would have...

[AFCA]

Originally posted by kar
Oh Christ. Not again.

If the Ferrari sucked, it was because Aldo Costa was a moron, and Ferrari were falling apart due to the loss of Ross, Rory and Michael.

If the Ferrari was a rocketship, as it seems it is, it's not down to the team work, engineering talents of Costa, Tombazis et al, but rather some unwritten but obvious ploy by the FIA and their friends at Bridgestone to rort the championship in favour of Ferrari.

Honestly, the paranoia and cynicism towards Ferrari borders on the xenophobic.

I don't understand why when Maranello does a good job, after all they've been doing a good job for all but 2 seasons in 10 years, why people can't just go 'well done, let's work out what you're doing and do it better'.

Sheesh!

Hear hear

[HoldenRT]

Ferrari fans vs everyone else.

Round 1..

*FIGHT*

:\

It's really simple, everyone who likes Ferrari will defend their team, everyone else will not. We saw this in the flexi wing topic after Malaysia. We saw this during the Monaco weekend. The truth and what is actually said is two polar opposities due to their allegiance either way. There is nothing worth reading in this topic. Good thing the whole board isn't like this otherwise it wouldn't even be worth visiting. Although sometimes it does seem that way.

Btw, there hasn't even been one race yet. Nothing is decided. Not even the pecking order of pace or reliability from the other non Ferrari teams.

[kar]

Originally posted by HoldenRT
Ferrari fans vs everyone else.

Round 1..

*FIGHT*

:\

It's really simple, everyone who likes Ferrari will defend their team, everyone else will not. There is nothing worth reading in this topic.

Btw, there hasn't even been one race yet. Nothing is decided. Not even the pecking order of pace or reliability from the other non Ferrari teams.

Michael may have retired, but the hatred of Ferrari lives on. Forza :-)

[HoldenRT]

Maybe it was Ferrari that is hated and not Michael. Just a theory.

"It's the way Ferrari manage", we know Flav's opinion on that, at least.

It's just all a bit pointless. It's like going into a buddhist temple and asking them to become Catholic. Do I expect everyone to change their allegiance of team because of some article making claims? No. Can you have a truthful conversation about it though? No, that would be giving the haters more ammo. So your between a rock and a hard place with topics like this.

[Wouter]

There may be paranoia against Ferrari, but things like the mass damper affair and the farce of a penalty for Alonso in Monza doesn't help. Nor does the fact that Ferrari gets paid more than all the other teams just to participate. Non-tifosis are practically beaten over the head with how this team is worth more than all the others put together, as some here liked to preach during the hottest days of the GPMA/FIA conflict. It breeds resentment.

Holden; the Monaco weekend is a very bad example mate. It was clear what happened there, and contrary to what you claim quite some tifosis agreed with the penalty and said as much here.

[Anomnader]

No one hates Ferrari, just the FIA Ferrari collusion that has being in open evidence through the many years of the sport

[Jacquesback]

Originally posted by kar


Michael may have retired, but the hatred of Ferrari lives on. Forza :-)

Poor Ferrari how will they survive.

[powered_by_M-B]

basically as a mclaren fan i don;t hate ferrari and michael....they worked very hard during the domination years and deserve their success. WHat i don't like about them is how they tryu to get unfair advantages by getting things banned/complain to the FIA.
However, mclaren are to blame for their lack of success due to crapo reliability etc...though one could argue the berillyum ban hit them hard (but thats in the past....they should have found solutions ages ago lol).

Anyway here is to a fair fight...WITHOUT any politics this year.

oh and to answer the thread's title....no way. Atleast not yet.

[kar]

Originally posted by Anomnader
No one hates Ferrari, just the FIA Ferrari collusion that has being in open evidence through the many years of the sport

Open 'evidence'? Surely if there were open evidence someone would have litigated. So there is in fact, no evidence at all. Just speculation, conjecture and ultimately paranoia.

If there was a 'fix' Michael would have escaped penalty at both Monaco and Hungary, and Alonso would have been punished even further for his outbursts following Monza.

Any suggestions of a 'fix' or of collusion is just that. Suggestions. And frankly anyone buying into this sort of tin pot conspiracy nonsense in a sport as ruthlessly pursued as F1 is, well... Let's just say if there was even the tiniest SHRED of support for such conspiracy theories the lawyers would be all over it thick and fast.

[RDM]

Originally posted by powered_by_M-B
basically as a mclaren fan i don;t hate ferrari and michael....they worked very hard during the domination years and deserve their success. WHat i don't like about them is how they tryu to get unfair advantages by getting things banned/complain to the FIA.

And you think McLaren haven't done exactly the same thing in the past? C'mon, take off the blinkers.

[RDM]

Originally posted by Anomnader
No one hates Ferrari, just the FIA Ferrari collusion that has being in open evidence through the many years of the sport

As above. Any evidence you can produce to support your assertion - or are you just riding on the same bandwaggon as many others who make the same, frankly rather lame, claim?

[powered_by_M-B]

okay give me an example of mclaren banning something? if you're going to say the mass dampers then, i heard from the world of F1 that it was ferrari....i've only heard ferrari fans say it was mclaren. If it was mclaren then show me the evidence and i'll accept it...and honestly i will be disappointed in mclaren since thats not how i like my team to win (though mclaren still didn't win! lol)

okay as for the michael monaco incident...umm the telemetry which the monaco stewards analysed showed that michael had cheated....nothing else. also the stewards in each country have their own power...they aren't dictated to by the max and the FIA. (proof- max said he wouldn't have given alonso his penalty in italy).

oh and look....you guys think we're 'stupid' for believing these 'theories'....while we think you're stupid for being blind and thinking ferrari are 100% fair. how about we let go of the past and move on!

p.s. i have nothing against ferrari fans (some of whom i respect a hell of a lot fo5r their input)

[kar]

Originally posted by powered_by_M-B
okay give me an example of mclaren banning something? if you're going to say the mass dampers then, i heard from the world of F1 that it was ferrari....i've only heard ferrari fans say it was mclaren. If it was mclaren then show me the evidence and i'll accept it...

Flavio Briatore, the Long Interview with Matt Bishop, F1 Racing October 2006.

Briatore states, clearly, that it was McLaren that complained. They couldn't get it to work. Ferrari didn't need it, they found the traditional damper route more effective.

[Wouter]

Any suggestions of a 'fix' or of collusion is just that. Suggestions

The mass damper thing and the Alonso penalty in Monza are not suggestions, they happened and Ferrari gained bigtime. That Alonso wasn't punished even heavier, by banning him from the WDC perhaps, doesn't change that the FIA was influencing things in the first place. It only proves that even they didn't dare to be yet more openly.

That the mass damper thing was a sham was agreed upon by many F1 insiders and by the technical forum regulars. You will not agree that is was or you will insist that it was McLarens doing, but non-tifosis - even those who are neutral - will find that hard to believe.

edit: well, you already claimed McLaren did it. Never mind that Alonso, Briatore and Symonds made bitter attacks on the FIA and Ferraro over it, and McLaren gained nothing while Ferrari gained bigtime. And no, Ferrari didn't need the mass dampers, but their big opponent needed them. A dirty trick indeed.

[kar]

Originally posted by Wouter

The mass damper thing and the Alonso penalty in Monza are not suggestions, they happened and Ferrari gained bigtime. That Alonso wasn't punished even heavier, by banning him from the WDC perhaps, doesn't change that the FIA was influencing things in the first place. It only proves that even they didn't dare to be yet more openly.

That the mass damper thing was a sham was agreed upon by many F1 insiders and by the technical forum regulars. You will not agree that is was or you will insist that it was McLarens doing, but non-tifosis - even those who are neutral - will find that hard to believe.

What I believe, and indeed what insiders believe as well is irrelevant. What can be proved is what matters, and circumstances such as Alonso's penalty and the Mass Damper banning in no way constitute evidence of a FIA conspiracy.

Anyway, you can argue all you like, but if you can find a quote from Symonds or indeed even Briatore contradicting what he told F1 Racing, I'm all ears and eyes.

[Ivanoff]

Originally posted by powered_by_M-B
okay give me an example of mclaren banning something? if you're going to say the mass dampers then, i heard from the world of F1 that it was ferrari....i've only heard ferrari fans say it was mclaren. If it was mclaren then show me the evidence and i'll accept it...and honestly i will be disappointed in mclaren since thats not how i like my team to win (though mclaren still didn't win! lol)

Sorry, but...

Q: Ferrari ran a mass damper sometimes and other times not, but did not get the same advantage as Renault…


MS: I don't know the benefit they had. The fact is that funnily enough it was Fernando’s new working area which protested the system, so it wasn't really in our situation at the time.

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=Ge...=37097&PO=37097

Besser informiert dürfte Ecclestone im Fall der Schwingungstilger sein, deren Verbot vergangene Woche vom Berufungsgericht bestätigt wurde: "Es ist schwer zu verstehen. Renault hat das System im vergangenen Jahr benutzt und in diesem Jahr auch, wie auch viele andere Teams. Und plötzlich hat McLaren Protest eingelegt und dem wurde stattgegeben. Es ist eigentlich eine Schande, dass so eine Entscheidung in der Mitte der Saison getroffen wird. Die FIA hätte es, wenn es illegal ist, nach der letzten Saison stoppen müssen."

http://www.f1total.com/news/06082801.shtml

[Ivanoff]

some more from Flavio:

Renault-Teamchef Flavio Briatore ist sich nicht sicher, aus welcher Ecke der Konkurrenz der Hinweis gekommen war ("Ich habe keinen Beweis, vermute aber, dass es McLaren war") und meint, dass die Konkurrenz das System mittlerweile akzeptiert hat, denn Renault war auch auf dem Hungaroring eine Klasse für sich - auch ohne Schwingungstilger.
"Wenn McLaren oder irgendein anderes Team ein Problem damit gehabt hat, dann hätten sie gegen uns protestieren sollen", so der Italiener weiter. "Wenn du protestierst, dann gibt es eine Untersuchung durch die Stewards. In Deutschland haben die Stewards gesagt, dass unser Auto legal war." Das wusste natürlich die Konkurrenz auch, weswegen es wohl auch keinen offiziellen Protest gab. Renault jedenfalls hat Grund genug, der Verhandlung in rund zwei Wochen gelassen entgegenzublicken.

http://www.f1total.com/news/06080908.shtml