A Lack Of Respect

[teabagyokel]

As usual, Formula One retains 11 teams who show each other a modicum of respect and then one other team. I'm not going to say which team is showing a lack of respect here, but I know who is.

Based on that comment, it seems ridiculous for di Montezemelo to claim that Red Bull are showing Ferrari disrespect by saying that Seb Vettel would be unwise to go to Oviedo Maranello.

As for Ferrari's 'most successful team' claims, here are a few stats for you:

• Since McLaren's first race at Monaco in 1966, Ferrari have won 176 races to McLaren's 169, a trifling 7 wins ahead.
• In the years where the original Lotus team competed (Monaco 1958-Australia 1994), they won as many races (79) as Ferrari
• Since McLaren took to the grid in 1966, they have 12 Drivers' Championships to Ferrari's 9
• In the 1958-94 span of Team Lotus, Ferrari won 6 Drivers' titles to Lotus' 6 Drivers' titles

Although Ferrari are indeed F1's most successful team, their head-start over the rest of the field rather than actual success tends to account for that. Remember, these figures (whilst highly selective) do not account for McLaren or Lotus' start-up times or Lotus' long decline.

Essentially, a little more humility should be called for from the men in red, since their history is one of being bested on technical innovations for 60 years and spending their way out of various cul-de-sacs.

Ferrari's utter superiority has been an invention of a large head-start over all their rivals and four or five years at the start of the 2000s of vetoing rule changes and playing on an unfair playing field (Cheating). Red Bull's technical innovation and genius should be admired, especially given it was against the in-built advantages and experience of Ferrari and McLaren, and with an inferior budget.

Better a 'rough diamond' of a champion in blue than a 'complete driver' who has taken advantage of the most crooked race in F1's history in the team who took advantage of crooked rules in the past.

I'm sorry if this is a rant against Ferrari (which it is) and I'm sorry its taken up your time to read it. But I feel that di Montezemelo and his cronies need to learn the Number One lesson anyone can learn about respect.

Respect must always run in two directions.

 

[RickD]

And there was I thinking I was about to read something else about HRT..

I agree with everything you've said about the red team I also think the other team with red in its name is run by the devil though, so see these comments as tit-for-tat, who can give the devil the best head kind of argument..

 

[Speshal]

Well blow me down, that's pretty eye opening.

• Since McLaren's first race at Monaco in 1966, Ferrari have won 176 races to McLaren's 169, a trifling 7 wins ahead.
• In the years where the original Lotus team competed (Monaco 1958-Australia 1994), they won as many races (79) as Ferrari
• Since McLaren took to the grid in 1966, they have 12 Drivers' Championships to Ferrari's 9
• In the 1958-94 span of Team Lotus, Ferrari won 6 Drivers' titles to Lotus' 6 Drivers' titles

What they also forget is that respect has to be earned.

 

[Brogan]

Well blow me down, that's pretty eye opening.

Indeed.

If the stat's were percentage based rather than absolute values, I think we'd see that Ferrari aren't as successful (relatively).

 

[siffert_fan]

While I agree about respect, I do get tired of rants about Ferrari cheating while ignoring McLaren getting caught with info (possibly worth hundreds of millions of dollars) stolen from that very team. Depicting the Red Menace as the only "cheats" does nothing to lend credibility to one's position.

Having said that, Ferrari's favoured position in the eyes of the FIA proves that deMontezemolo has selective amnesia when he complains about "lacking respect".

 

[teabagyokel]

While I agree about respect, I do get tired of rants about Ferrari cheating while ignoring McLaren getting caught with info (possibly worth hundreds of millions of dollars) stolen from that very team. Depicting the Red Menace as the only "cheats" does nothing to lend credibility to one's position.

I find it interesting that McLaren charged Renault with containing a similar amount of information after their trial in 2007 and it was swept under the carpet.

If McLaren make a set of disrespectful, hypocritical and ill-timed comments showing disrespect to the sport and their competitors, then they will earn the same amount of opprobrium that I have reserved for Ferrari here.

I have never said that Ferrari are the only cheats, and technically they were not cheating in the early 2000s, but I believe that Ferrari's success is hollow while they had a disproportionate affect on the rules and regulations compared to their competitors.

 

[siffert_fan]

TBY,

I totally agree with you about the excessive influence of Maranello on the rules and regulations. I also object to their disproportionately large share of the TV money. This seems designed to ensure that they remain at the top. The money should be apportioned according to the finishing order in the previous seasons constructors championship, with some extra going to the bottom-feeders, to enable them to raise their game and truly compete.

 

[tooncheese]

TBY,

I totally agree with you about the excessive influence of Maranello on the rules and regulations. I also object to their disproportionately large share of the TV money. This seems designed to ensure that they remain at the top. The money should be apportioned according to the finishing order in the previous seasons constructors championship, with some extra going to the bottom-feeders, to enable them to raise their game and truly compete.

Its unfair, but I'd guess that about a third of F1 fans around the world support ferrari, and but ferrari related mechandise. If Ferrari left (as they frequently threaten to do) then FOM would loose quite a chunk of their profit. It is what it takes to keep ferrari on side I guess.

 

[Brogan]

Ferrari needs F1 more than F1 needs Ferrari.

The sport/FOTA would survive, and so would Ferrari as a manufacturer and participant in other series'.

 

[RickD]

I for one would like to see Ferraris bluff called soon, just so they are put in their place. Maybe then we can get a fair championship whereby the smaller teams can start on as level a footing as possible..

 

[fat jez]

I for one would like to see Ferraris bluff called soon, just so they are put in their place. Maybe then we can get a fair championship whereby the smaller teams can start on as level a footing as possible..

Not going to happen as long as they are Bernie's golden boys. But I agree with your sentiment.

 

[cider_and_toast]

I'm currently reading a fantastic book called "Tales from the Toolbox" which is a superb collection of tales from F1 Mechanics mainly from the 60's and 70's (it really, really is worth buying by the way) and there was a comment by one mechanic on the atmosphere in the pits in the 60's between all the teams which sounds like it was one big brotherhood of mechanics. In that quote though he does say that Ferrari tended to keep themselves to themselves and only really mixed with the BRM team. The mechanic speculates it may have had something to do with the fact that they were the only other team on the grid at the time that made their own engines.

I've also got a brilliant DVD called "If you are not winning, you're not trying" which looks at Lotus' 1973 season. In that season, Lotus became the first team to win 50 races. To quote Peter Warr as he gives Colin Chapman a massive slap on the back "We've done it!! We've beaten bloody Ferrari to 50 Races".

It's pretty clear then, that even back then, Ferrari was the team to beat. The thing is, when you get to the early 70's, Ferrari were the only team left from the birth of F1. The next oldest team would have been BRM who were in their final throws as a team and then it would have been the likes of Brabham and Lotus who were formed in the late 50's.

The teams that started in the first few years of F1 were by 1970, all gone. Alfa, Maserati, Vanwall, ERA, Aston, Cooper and Mercedes, to name a few had all pulled out of the game so for the second generation of teams Ferrari really were the team to beat. It's a bit like a new team being promoted to the Premiership in football today. No one says, wow, now that we are in the top flight we get to play Wigan. It's all about wanting to beat the best.

As far as the political game goes, Ferrari seem to be able to play it better than any of them. Two periods of dominance for the team 77 to 83 and 2000 to 2005 have also conicided with major periods of behind the scenes politicing with in the sport. All teams are motivated by self interest and if you look at the the FISA/FOCA fued of the early 80's,one of the key factors that motivated Ferrari were their continued use of a turbo engine while being behind other teams in the construction of wing cars. Who remembers that one of the only FOCA teams to break ranks in 82 was Tyrell who went to the FOCA boycotted Imola race on the excuse they had Italian sponsors and yet Ken Tyrell was Mr Anti Turbo's if ever there was one (mainly due to his inability to negotiate a supply of Renault Turbos' in the late 70's).

The FIA and FOCA both needed Ferrari onside for political reasons and the fact is that if any other team were offered the same position that Ferrari found themselves in, such as having extra payments and an almost total veto on new regulations, they would have jumped at the chance. Just exactly how that situation was allowed to occure within a supposedly independent governing body however, should have been one of the biggest scandels within not just F1 but any sport. No team in any sport or any league should have ever been given that much power to dictate the direction of the sport. At the end of the day, there does seem to be a view in F1 that as long as the money is still pouring in then what's the point of rocking the boat. Who knows what deals go on behind closed doors to keep the good ship F1 salling along.

Another major problem is that with an embaressment of riches when it comes to Formula One and it's relationship with Britain (most of the teams being based here for example), Ferrari have never been a major player in this country. It's not so noticeable when there is a major British driver with a chance of winning a title but even, for example,in the the late 90's / Early 00's when arguably the top British driver was David Coulthard, there still wasn't a massive groud swell of support for Ferrari. The fact is as has often been posted on here, outside of the UK, Ferrari are massive and are a big draw. It really is all in a name.

 

[Grizzly]

Interesting thoughts.

The fact is as has often been posted on here, outside of the UK, Ferrari are massive and are a big draw. It really is all in a name.

You have any idea why that may be? Is it something to do with our, err, Britishness?? If you know what i mean...

Or is it something to do with the way we love to support the under dog?

Or, is it to do with the fact we like to support drivers, where 'the rest of the world' likes to support a team? and like a raging bull, they GO RED!?

Or something else?

 

[cider_and_toast]

Or, is it to do with the fact we like to support drivers, where 'the rest of the world' likes to support a team?

I do think that's part of it, because when you look at the number of great teams that have left the sport over the last 20 or so years then it's far easier to be a fan of a driver if you are from the UK than a fan of a team. It's only really Mclaren and Williams (from the current grid) that have the same sort of history as Ferrari and Williams haven't really been a force in F1 for a good number of years now.

 

[DOF_power]

Interesting thoughts.

The fact is as has often been posted on here, outside of the UK, Ferrari are massive and are a big draw. It really is all in a name.

You have any idea why that may be? Is it something to do with our, err, Britishness?? If you know what i mean...

Or is it something to do with the way we love to support the under dog?

Or, is it to do with the fact we like to support drivers, where 'the rest of the world' likes to support a team? and like a raging bull, they GO RED!?

Or something else?

I do think that's part of it, because when you look at the number of great teams that have left the sport over the last 20 or so years then it's far easier to be a fan of a driver if you are from the UK than a fan of a team. It's only really Mclaren and Williams (from the current grid) that have the same sort of history as Ferrari and Williams haven't really been a force in F1 for a good number of years now.

Sir Stirling Moss said that for him Lotus meant the wheels falling off, and that the (true) teams he would have preferred to drive for were Alfa, Ferrari, Mercedes and such.

Ferrari are part of the old guard, the sole link to the past, one in witch the constructor team was seen as national champion like the (great) national football teams.
Building the greatest GP racecar even involved government subsidies (France, Germany, Italy) and were a source of national pride and international propaganda.

The british were drawn to GP racing mostly due to the personalities and tabloid story aspect (Moss said he'd get the front page if dated a beautiful woman but not if he won a race).
The car enthusiasm and nation champion/ constructor team pride was a Le Mans thing in Britain.

Or, is it to do with the fact we like to support drivers, where 'the rest of the world' likes to support a team?

I do think that's part of it, because when you look at the number of great teams that have left the sport over the last 20 or so years then it's far easier to be a fan of a driver if you are from the UK than a fan of a team. It's only really Mclaren and Williams (from the current grid) that have the same sort of history as Ferrari and Williams haven't really been a force in F1 for a good number of years now.

McLaren only appeared on the radar once it build the F1 supercar witch won Le Mans.

 

[teabagyokel]

Sir Stirling Moss said that for him Lotus meant the wheels falling off, and that the (true) teams he would have preferred to drive for were Alfa, Ferrari, Mercedes and such.

Sir Stirling Moss retired in 1961, which was at the start of Lotus Golden Age, so I find it difficult to extrapolate these comments over the 36 years Lotus were in Formula One. The Lotus 79 is probably the most evocative car in Formula One history.

McLaren only appeared on the radar once it build the F1 supercar witch won Le Mans.

They'd won 7 Constructors' Championships and 9 Drivers' Championships before winning Le Mans.

 

[sportsman]

Or, is it to do with the fact we like to support drivers, where 'the rest of the world' likes to support a team?

I do think that's part of it, because when you look at the number of great teams that have left the sport over the last 20 or so years then it's far easier to be a fan of a driver if you are from the UK than a fan of a team. It's only really Mclaren and Williams (from the current grid) that have the same sort of history as Ferrari and Williams haven't really been a force in F1 for a good number of years now.

I think that both of these factors have an effect.Ferrari with the tifosi fanbase who are fanatical and their support never waned during the 20 odd years that Ferrari were a mediocre team.Unti Schumacher came along and ended their drought of success and won the WDC for them after a twenty year gap.
Italy has always had an association with F1 not to mention the Mille Miglia.World wide everyone knows Ferrari and recognise their road cars.
Germany has always had a strong interest even before Schumacher became the first German ever to win the WDC.
Interest in the UK and Spain increased dramatically when Alonso,Hamilton, and Button won the WDC.

 

[Grizzly]

Sir Stirling Moss said that for him Lotus meant the wheels falling off, and that the (true) teams he would have preferred to drive for were Alfa, Ferrari, Mercedes and such.

Sir Stirling Moss retired in 1961, which was at the start of Lotus Golden Age, so I find it difficult to extrapolate these comments over the 36 years Lotus were in Formula One. The Lotus 79 is probably the most evocative car in Formula One history.

I presume this was a very old opinion/quote, Moss' opinions were built on what he knew in his era, he retired when some of theses British teams (as opposed to manufacturers with teams) were starting out. Its entirely possible that some of those appeared in a similar light to 1M-Lotus, Virgin and HRT last year. I don't know, i wasn't there! but i can believe how opinions and perceptions will change over time.

McLaren only appeared on the radar once it build the F1 supercar witch won Le Mans.

They'd won 7 Constructors' Championships and 9 Drivers' Championships before winning Le Mans.

I think he means with reference to how well known to the public they were... everyone knows Ferrari, but unless you were already an F1 fan, or Senna fan/Hunt/Prost fan etc, everyone did not know who McLaren were, till they burst onto the scene with the greatest road car ever...

Interest in the UK and Spain increased dramatically when Alonso,Hamilton, and Button won the WDC.

I remember someone on here posting viewing figures, but about the UK, between Hill and Hamilton was a huge German black hole where i think pretty much every British fan got bored and turned off. British viewing figures will be up and down like that. I should think they are similar now to when Hunt, Mansell and Hill were winning races.



All interesting viewpoints in this thread...

 

[FB]

On TV numbers, F1 viewing figures (courtesy of FOM) for Abu Dhabi:

Spain 9 million
Germany Average 10.3 peak 12.1 million
Italy 10.6 million (double the figure for Brazil 2009)
UK 5.3 million (down from 6.6 million for Brazil 2009) but 40% of the viewing audience.
France 4.4 million (peak of 5.6 million)

So, if you take these at face value, if there is some national interest more peolpe watch. Well DUH!

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/ ... 11548.html

 

[DOF_power]

Sir Stirling Moss said that for him Lotus meant the wheels falling off, and that the (true) teams he would have preferred to drive for were Alfa, Ferrari, Mercedes and such.

Sir Stirling Moss retired in 1961, which was at the start of Lotus Golden Age, so I find it difficult to extrapolate these comments over the 36 years Lotus were in Formula One. The Lotus 79 is probably the most evocative car in Formula One history.

[quote="DOF_power":1nt31l1w]McLaren only appeared on the radar once it build the F1 supercar witch won Le Mans.

They'd won 7 Constructors' Championships and 9 Drivers' Championships before winning Le Mans.[/quote:1nt31l1w]



Moss was part of the old world of GP racing, and that's what it, Lotus, meant for the old world.

None of those titles mattered, it was either the personalities of the driver and/ or the engine constructor (Honda in Japan) that were of interest.
The McLaren F1 put the McLaren in McLaren, witch previously was team Marlboro.

Outside of Britain the garagiste teams barely, if at all on the radar.
Ferrari will always be Ferrari, they will always be special.