Montezemolo speaks

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Red
That was the end for Rubens' season.

Did it ever start

[Red]

Yes. Unfortunately for him it only lasted till first lap first corner.

[Korr]

Here's the article online:
http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=02118600

I like the chap.

[Damon]

Originally posted by Russfeld
And Michael has been consistently the fastest Ferrari driver since 1996.

How can he not be when they consistantly hire drivers no where near his equal?

[Red]

Originally posted by Damon
[...]when they consistantly hire drivers no where near his equal?

D'uhh..... don't attack the drivers...

That's easy, when all the drivers who could be a match for him repeatedly refuse to join Ferrari. )Jacques, David, Pablo...)

[Damon]

I thought you said they were never asked? And BTW, they want a fair crack at the whip, something you know they won't get at Ferrari alongside Schu.

[racingdick]

who would want to go to a team built around your potential team mate.
only a relative novice would, not a proven race winner

[Red]

Originally posted by Damon
I thought you said they were never asked?

Ahh-hAA! They weren't, so their refuses look more like sour grapes... but anyway...

And BTW, they want a fair crack at the whip, something you know they won't get at Ferrari alongside Schu.

Well, no. I do not 'know' that. That's what you say.

Originally posted by racingdick
who would want to go to a team built around your potential team mate. only a relative novice would, not a proven race winner

Hmmm. A proven race winner. Which brings us back to the original topic: since Mr. Montezemolo said that (and I quote) "At Ferrari, the status of the No. 1 driver is determined by the time sheets. It is not decided by God or what the journalists or what the team might think, but by his sheer speed.", shall I assume that the 3 drivers (who refuse to drive, whithout being asked) are afraid to take the challenge.

[Damon]

how can you refuse to drive without being asked? That doesn't make sense :confused:.

[Red]

Yep, that's what I aaaaaaalways said!

[Damon]

you been drinking Red?!

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by Damon
How can he not be when they consistantly hire drivers no where near his equal?

How is that relevant?

Schumacher is the fastest Ferrari-driver since 1996, thats the only thing relevant. DeMontezemolo doesn´t say Schumacher is the fastest F1-driver in F1 since 1996, although he is.

Anyway, the fact that Schumacher´s teammate will never be an equal, is first and foremost in Ferrari´s interest. Ferrari wants the drivertitle and since only one can clinch that title, there is no point in betting on two. So naturally, Ferrari is betting on one, and therefore Schumachers interest will always be prevaling over the interests of whoever his teammate may be. That strategy will succumb when you bring in a driver of a certain status. A driver like that will be there to beat Schumacher, not to help the team fulfill its goals. Plus, it won´t be possible financially, because a driver like that simply won´t settle for a quarter of Schumachers salary. Once you pay a driver an exceptionally high salary, this is the only possible strategy. Look at BAR/Villeneuve for instance.

So, you can whine all you want about Ferrari´s tactics in terms of getting what they want (titles) but Ferrari will always be the one with the last laugh. Rightfully so, because they are paying the bills and taking the risks, and lets not forget....the strategy is WORKING!!!!!!!!!!

[Damon]

Yes its working in so much as they are getting results but at what cost to the Ferrari name and the sport itself. Their "we're doing fine and screw everyone else" attitude doesn't exactly adhere them to the fans and isn't the whole point of the endeavour to provide a spectacle for the many millions of people paying huge amounts of money to see some RACING.

[Red]

Originally posted by Damon
[...]whole point of the endeavour to provide a spectacle for the many millions of people paying huge amounts of money to see some RACING.

(No Damon, I'm not drinking.)

That's where you go wrong. This is a SPORT. Not a SHOW. Racing means beating competitors. Not providing stunniong overtaking maneuvers. If! But only IF! All cars are equal, and the drivers are great (and they are great) then you will be able to see show, but this is not their goal. Not even Ron's or Frank's, who are renowned for 'letting them race'. It's just stupid split the resources and benefits between 2 guys when it's clearly visible that one of them has much more chances to win. To win for you, the manufacturer, not for driver's personal glory. All that just for the sake of 'show'? I agree, such an attitude is not good for business, as it might drive some part of the audience away, but, as Liz might brilliantly say "this is a sport not a business. That's why it's called motorsport and not motorbusiness".

Furthermore. I keep reading that "Rubens was not given a chance" etc etc. He DOES NOT DESERVE A CHANCE. Neither does Schumacher. What Rubens and Michael or any other driver deserve is their paycheques. Nothing else. The manufacturers build the car, they might have pretensions and deserve something. Not the driver. The driver has some services to offer and all that he deserves is his salary. After that he is just an employee and he has to obey the boss.

PS: Juke, if blame has to be put on someone's feet, for both Austria-gate, then I'm afraid that the most damage was done by Rubens Barrichello, with his ostentatiously 'last-corner-I-won-that-race' move over. In both occasions.

[JohnSSC]

Red, I couldn't agree more. RB was goofy to wait 27 feet before he got to the finish to move over - but that has been endlessly debated...

The point is here that Ferrari is not in the entertainment business. They are in motorsports. They have chosen F1 to compete in. They design, execute and build a car(s) that will hopefully be the best possible according to the formula. They hire drivers who will compete against the other teams and hopefully, bring Ferrari cars in ahead of the others. We as fans can want this or that type of on-track action. Providing that is the domain of the sanctioning body. They are the ones who set the formula. You want better racing, send your suggestions to the FIA.

The point was well made by NiceGuyEddie that the point is not to have racing within the team. You obviously want to position yourself for the best chance at the WDC AND the WCC, but internecine rivalries have always been shown to be destructive. Exactly how long have some of the great inter-team rivalries lasted? Not long! Before long someone slinks off to another team.

Egotistical as drivers are, they are likely not stupid. Therefore they will not be eager to go to a team where they are likely to get a driving lesson. I wonder how many of the current crop decided not to express interest when the seat RB was hired for was open.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by Damon
Yes its working in so much as they are getting results but at what cost to the Ferrari name and the sport itself. Their "we're doing fine and screw everyone else" attitude doesn't exactly adhere them to the fans and isn't the whole point of the endeavour to provide a spectacle for the many millions of people paying huge amounts of money to see some RACING.

Like Red i think this is were you go wrong. Ferrari isn't responsible for bringing you spectacle. Ferrari is only responsible for making sure that their investment in Schumacher pays off. And it does. Hugely. Besides that, the 2002 season was boring because Ferrari was way ahead of everybody else. Same could be said of Williams in 1992. And yes, back then teamorders were used too.

If you really think that the Austrian GP of 2002 would have been any diffrent if Rubens had won it, than you'd be naive in thinking that the 'quality' of a GP is determined in the last few yards. Of course, it isn't. Plus the fact that both drivers weren't allowed to race eachother. So how would Rubens have deserved a victory? Ferrari were in the position to determine the winner. Naturaly they pick the one that is most likely to be contributing yo their interest. So Schumacher gets the vote for being well ahead in points. Simple as that.

Ferrari is in it for the money, not to bring you the entertainment. When Formula 1 isnt providing entertainment, than the FIA most do something about the rules, but you cannot attack Ferrari for securing their goals in the way they do.

[Damon]

You're contradicting yourselves here guys. I agree to some extent with what Red has said. No Ferrari are not there to provide a show but their existance as a Grand Prix team pulling in many millions of $$ each year is down, in no small part, to the people that watch them. There is no way Ferrari (or BWM, Toyota, Ford etc. etc.) would compete if this sport had the same coverage as a local go-kart event.

As I've said before, regardless of how many points JPM achieves he's currently the second most bankable comodity (behind Schu of course) in F1. Why then does FW and PH care so much about letting their drivers battle and race purely and making sure they reach their full potential? - because they care about the sport. Di Montezemelo on the other hand clearly doesn't. If everyone had the same ethos as Ferrari then god help grand prix racing.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by Damon

As I've said before, regardless of how many points JPM achieves he's currently the second most bankable comodity (behind Schu of course) in F1. Why then does FW and PH care so much about letting their drivers battle and race purely and making sure they reach their full potential? - because they care about the sport. Di Montezemelo on the other hand clearly doesn't. If everyone had the same ethos as Ferrari then god help grand prix racing.

FW and PH have set other goals than Ferrari has. Williams is in it for the constructorstitle, Ferrari is in it for the driverstitle (which is logical, because it generats most promotion). It's total bull**** to even suggest that there is something as ethos between teams. An ethos which is merely coming to the surface when a team is really dominating. Well, how often does that really happen? You keep failing to see the point that the teams are NOT responsible for putting up a spectacle. The spectacle isn't the priority, winning is. When the sport doesn't put in a spectacle, it is because one contestant is way ahead of the others, as was the case with Ferrari in 2002. Ferrari totally did what one can expect from a dominating team, which is winning and deviding the points effectivly over their drivers.

Ferrari is making the best of a very good situation. Smart, because creating that situation cost them a helluva lot of money. And when it's not in the best interest of the general public who aren't capable of buying their products anyway, then so be it. The stakes are higher than that. Ferrari is better off being a winner in a dull season than a mere contestant in an 'interesting' season. Everybody remembers about 2002 that it was boring, but that it was boring because Ferrari blew the competition away. Good enough for Ferrari me thinks.

I was not amused when Mansell walked all over the '92 season. Destroying everybody else, including his teammate. But did I expect him to lift off to let Patrese, Senna and Schumacher come a bit closer? No, of course not. Mansell has other priorities than to make it all look exciting, when it actually isn't.

[Liz]

Originally posted by Russfeld
Im not provoking a bash. The bashes are based on incorrect facts.

(1) There is no such thing as an "incorrect fact." If it is incorrect, it is not a fact.

(2) WHO GIVES A ANYWAY?

[Speed]

I thought every "Ferrari No. 1 driver status" were banned...

[Damon]

Eddie, a more acurate comparison would be with 1989. Mclaren absolutely blew the field away and could quite easily have employed a similar tactic as Ferrari did this year. But instead they chose to let their drivers take their dominent car and race each other and as a result Senna, Prost and Mclaren will have far more lasting respect from the fans than the current Ferrari lot can ever hope for. Of course that doesn't really matter to them, as long as the balance sheet at the end of the year looks good...

[JonesF1]

I dont agree that teams arent required to put on a spectacle because technically they have to. People watch racing for the racing and if nothings going on like this year then people turn off their TVs. These big manufacturers arent in F1 for the spirit of racing but for recognition. If no ones watching no one cares and thus the whole project becomes a moot point.

[JohnSSC]

But it is the sanctioning body that sets the rules and creates the "environment" for racing if you will. Individual teams are not there to ensure the series is successful. That is like saying McLaren is responsible for F1's success or Penske for IRL or Puegeot for the WRC.

The teams create excitement for and interest in the series, but ultimately, decisions on what needs to be done to make things more entertaining is up to the sanctioning body.

[JonesF1]

Originally posted by JohnSSC
But it is the sanctioning body that sets the rules and creates the "environment" for racing if you will. Individual teams are not there to ensure the series is successful. That is like saying McLaren is responsible for F1's success or Penske for IRL or Puegeot for the WRC.

The teams create excitement for and interest in the series, but ultimately, decisions on what needs to be done to make things more entertaining is up to the sanctioning body.

I see your point and I cant believe I skipped over the regs.

[JohnSSC]

I do see YOUR point though that the teams and the sanctioning body go together like hand-in-glove though, they should be working together to produce a good product!