F1 - Now the WWF of racing

4. I am spaeking that the "best car/driver" wins the season anyway... and I am also convinced that much of the results of RB in general are because of the huge work done by Schumi and the technicians on the cars. The same cars that RB drove... and again: Schumi may have put much risiko in trying some dangerous move to pass RB in a "clean" way (and we will never know the outcome of such a try) but since they are from the same team why risk both the first and the second position by doing this? We are not sure that RB was driving better than Schumi... at least in my opinion since there has been no challenge between the two.[/B]
Click to expand...

Come on, are we being an apologist for Schumi and rationalizing Ferrari's faux pas !! How about giving credit to all the test drivers that helped Schumi win races, should we then qualify all of his wins such comments ......... !!

Oh please enough of this ...... no one is arguing that Michael is not one of the best talented driver with the backing of Ferrari resources ....... he even was quite disturbed with the ending of the race and refused to get on the podium as the first place wiiner (yes he had class and foresight of the PR), but let's also give credit for Reuben for the effort he, he drove a perfect race ......
 
Originally posted by Sig:
Scroll to the very bottom of the page, They have F1 as the lowest "weakling" in their ratings. Another reference to WWF in the blurb.
Click to expand...
At least in NASCRAP, when they do a kamikaze suicide block to help a team-mate, they do it voluntarily... I can respect this style of "taking one for the team". Classy move IMO -- regardless of ones neck color
biggrin.gif


Team orders makes this victory a sham... a DNF might have been more honorable.
 
$.02

Team orders at A-1 ring were great for the team, but bad for the sport and the fans who ultimately buy the products that that pay for the teams. In the end nobody
really wins. Ferrari took the "race" out of racing and the "champion" out of championship. A battle is not worth winning if there is no fight.
 
Lud posted:
>>You say this is the way it has always been, but the amount of uproar generated would indicate people do not feel this is generally acceptable.<<

I think Lud makes the right point for the wrong reason. The reason this was not generally accepted is CONTEXT. Look at the context of the world today compared to 50 years ago. Back then, when a driver moved over for another, or even gave up his car to a team mate (this was suprisingly common) he was seen as a gentleman and a sportsman. Nowadays, in the me me me version of society, people are outraged when a driver is asked to move over for the team. How dare they interfere is the generally accepted idiom (and what we hear on this forum). Another part of context is how we learn about these events - years ago we REFLECTED over the incident as we read about it a month or more after the fact. These days we see everything live and we REACT to the images without much thought. The networks take advantage of this with endless replays about controversial instances.

The truth about F1 is that it has not changed, the people and the world it races in has changed. Whether that's a good thing or not is another question ....
 
If RB decided on his own to pull aside and let MS take the win, I wouldn't mind. When he is told to do so, it takes the competitiveness out of of the sport (and in a sport some would argue has already lost much of it's competitiveness).

Regarding our instant-information society - I have now had two months to "REFLECT" on this and I still feel exactly the same way: It stinks, and it largely reduces what should be a sport to a rolling business transaction.

It would seem that perhaps I am not the only one who believes the current system is out of whack. See http://www.fia.com/homepage/teamorders/teamordersFIA.html
 
of course, with Schumi clinching his 5th Drivers Championship with 6 races to go, I guess the focus shifts to the run for silver.

I hope Juan Pablo can pull it off... if not him, then McLaren's Coulthard. I'd rather one of them get it than Rubens or Ralf.

##############

On another note, Jenson Button is reportedly close to signing with BAR (minor details to be worked out, like JV taking a BIG pay cut). This is good news for HONDA.
 
Originally posted by ilya:

So the questions is: Is F1 a Motorsport or an Industry? Both? Which takes precedence?
Click to expand...

Look at the olympics. The greatest sporting event in the world. They don't do any fixing or political influencing. Even when a pair of judges tried to last winter, they couldn't get away with it. There's no denying that every athlete in the olympics is great, which is what makes it so ENTERTAINING. Remember Carrie Strug? That was one of the most intense moments in my life that I can remember. Whether or not US won gold was all up to her, and on her first vault, she landed poorly and bustet up her ankle. So she had to do a second one with a bad ankle, but SHE DID IT! And everyone was roaring with satisfaction. It was great...and she wasn't the "number 1" gymnast on her team, either. The *team* did benefeit from her victory, so did the US, as would have Ferrari from Reubeno's victory. The underdog stories are always the best ones.

As for the WWF--excuse me, the WWE--it is fixed, yes. But if it weren't, the potential for fatalities and permanent injuries would be vastly increased, and the better part of American moms would not tolerate their 13-year old sons watching such barbarism

I don't follow F1, but I would imagine that it has a more sophisticated audience than wrestling has, who would not be entertained, or not as entertained, by fixed races.

I mean, c'mon: if the outcome is predetermined, then its a play, not a race.
 
Originally posted by naaman:
...I mean, c'mon: if the outcome is predetermined, then its a play, not a race.
Click to expand...

The outcome was not predetermined - it was race strategy that was done "on the fly". The Ferrari only had that luxury after defeating (handily) the other 20 cars. Reubens would not have pulled over if Ralf, or Juan Pablo, or David was right behind Michael. Ferrari had to outperform 10 other teams in order to be in the position to maximize their points (and Championship strategy). Also, many teams don't look at each event as a "race" but as "one step" in the Championship. Many times I can remember F1 drivers who only needed a 5th or 6th to clinch the championships got exactly that. They didn't break their equipment (or their necks) trying to win a race they didn't need to. Is this "fixing" the race? I think not. The answer to an above question "Why bother to race - if not to win?" is "To advance in the championship"

------------------
'91 Black/Black
 
That just makes the whole thing even more pathetic. Here is the Reuters news clip:

Ferrari actions anger many

INDIANAPOLIS -- Formula One and Ferrari must offer real racing or risk losing fans to other sports offering more drama and excitement, says team chief Eddie Jordan.

The Irish entrepreneur was scathing of Ferrari and world champion Michael Schumacher's behavior in a U.S. Grand Prix dominated by the Italian team with another one-two finish on Sunday.

"After Austria, this isn't very clever is it?," said Jordan of Schumacher's slowing down at the line to allow Brazilian teammate Rubens Barrichello to catch and beat him in front of a crowd expecting the winner to come hurtling across the finish.

"It is a very, very financially hostile market at the moment and there were other sports on TV today, one where golf made a huge impact on everyone throughout the globe by hard fighting," said the Irish entrepreneur.

"People want to see real competition fought to the last ounce.

"That is what happened in golf, I understand it happened in the superbike race, and people are not going to turn on a Formula One race when they know the end is going to be decided other than by true racing.

"If Ferrari have that advantage like they had, people at least deserve to see a race."

Formula One, warned by the sport's chief Bernie Ecclestone that it was not putting on a good show, was up against golf's Ryder Cup tournament and the world superbike showdown at the weekend.

The result may have been unintentional, with confusion rather than conspiracy the order of the day, and Schumacher said that he had wanted the two Ferraris to cross the line side by side.

But the finish echoed May's contrived Austrian Grand Prix, a race that sparked uproar around the world before Schumacher's fifth title led to a steady falling off in the television ratings.

Jordan wondered how Schumacher could have imagined that two drivers might share a win in the modern era.

"How can you have a dead heat? In modern technology when one thousandth of a second is possible, dead heats are gone out with Roy Rogers, The Lone Ranger, the War of the Roses and all that stuff.

"There is no such thing as dead heats in anything any more, timing is too accurate with beams and lasers and stuff. Michael isn't that good yet," he said.

Williams technical director Patrick Head suggested that Fiat-owned Ferrari had got their priorities wrong.

"I think it reflects the fact that the senior people at Ferrari think that Ferrari is more important than motor racing and they think that finishing races that way reflects better on Ferrari," he said.

"But they don't seem to have an opinion of what it does for motor racing."

Minardi boss Paul Stoddart believed Schumacher had made a mistake but said Ferrari had still done the sport no favors at a time when America was being eagerly courted.

"It's not good for the sport, I'll agree with that.

"You'd have to ask Ferrari what the reasons are but I think most people will probably say they wish it hadn't happened."

Ferrari, the constructors' world champions for four years in a row now, also stood accused of trivializing the sport by playing games at the end.

But sporting director Jean Todt rejected the criticism and delighted in his team's achievements.

"There were no team orders. The only thing that was said was that after the second pit stop there would be no more fight.

"It would be very presumptuous and not humble at all to say that we are controlling everything. We are not controlling everything. We try to, we do our best but we don't want to fight against each other if its not in the interests of the company.

"We are in a sport where we have commercial interests ... Rubens is happy, Michael is happy, we are happy."
Click to expand...

Of course nowhere is there a mention of whether or not the FANS are happy. But who cares about them anyway?

[This message has been edited by Lud (edited 01 October 2002).]
 
I do not find the final so horrid. Ferrari DOMINATED the race (and the season), Schumacher could have won but let Barrichello take the victory. By mistake? Who cares... would the people have enjoyed the whole race more if Schumacher won? I strongly doubt this. 99.99% of the race was done. The show cannot be better when one team is so much better than the other, we have to wait until the other teams get better and in the meantime give Ferarri the honour they deserve. Because they do, and the car market reflects this (see the NSX sales).
 
Kind of like dancing in the end zone. Some fans like it, some call it taunting.

Doesn't bother me. F-1 is tough business. When one team is that dominant they should be able to rub it in a little. It's not like they loosened their belts on the last lap and climbed 1/2 out of the cockpit to pump their fist in the air.
 
I am not talking about the arrogance aspect (i.e. "dancing in the endzone"). I would rather have seen Schumacher take the win and, as you say, jump out of the cockpit and pump his fist in the air. It would have been ridiculous since that is usually the action of someone who really had to fight to get some meaningful victory, and not the person who is completely dominating the sport, but at least it wouldn't have upset the results of the race.

If RB, on the other hand, had jumped out of the car and run around cheering after taking the win he deserved in Austria, I would have preferred that a thousand fold over watching him hand the win over to MS.

I'm talking about changing the natural outcome of the race - i.e. the driver who "won" the race hands the win to someone else. I don't care why or when else it has happened or who did what, I think it is a bunch of crap whenever it happens and I think it lessens the sport.

The comparable situation in sports would be when teams "help" a player break a sports record, which I feel the same way about.

[This message has been edited by Lud (edited 04 October 2002).]
 
To me, that will be the death of whatever is left of the sport.

They blame Ferrari's dominance for the declining viewship, sponsorsip, etc. I can't help but point out that I know more than one person who feels as I do and would love the sport regardless of who dominated it if it was an all out race, but lose interest quickly when people pull over at the end to let someone else win. And I and many others will probably never attend or watch again if they start penalizing people for winning in the name of increasing competition. That is fine for some other race series, but that strikes at the hear of what F1 is all about.
 
Lud, but is the problem for you really who/who do not pass the final line first? From your very rational post (that I really enjoy) it seems to me that you could live with the fact that Ferarri is a TEAM and first they NEEDED to win the 1st place overall. Now they also NEED to win the 2nd place overall (since they really desrve it). It is so simple. It is Ferarri winning the race. It is one pilot or the other scoring the win for the team.
 
I understand why they are trading wins back and forth, I just do not like it.

I want to see whoever can get to the finish line first in a given race take the win, period. To me, anything else is dimishing the SPORT in the name of $$$.

And, in my opinion again, that greed actually turns around to bite them because when they change the natural outcome of the race, I believe it actually diminishes their $$$ through less fan interest, less sponsorships, less TV interest/advertising, etc.

The whole thing will be 1000x worse if they start handicapping the winners.
 
That would be a total disaster!
We already have NASCAR and IRL.

I've enjoyed following this thread though.
My perspective is very different.
I enjoy F1 because it is the only place where each team has to contruct their car from scratch and in turn you have engineers competing against engineers. I can care less who pilots the car. I wouldn't even care if they were radio controlled or programed.
I want Honda to win. Button, Panis, Truilli, Fisi or whoever pilots the car is not important. I am a fan of technology and the ingenuity of man.

Having been a guest of BAR-Honda at a Grand Prix and standing in their garage watching the whole team, including Honda, come together is awesome.
 
Sorry for the rant, but...

Long gone are the good old days of F1, when a driver like James Hunt could stand up on the podium with his girlfriend, a cigarette in one hand, beer in the other, with a joint in his pocket, while telling the television cameras exactly what is on his mind. F1 has become a joke, similar to the Rolling Stones, who only surface to promote a tour or a soft drink sponsor. Heck, if Bernie's F1 drivers and Mick Jagger had their ways, they would stick a million people in a field, and charge them $150 a head to watch them wave on a jumbo-tron monitor. Sure, we all want their job, money, and lifestyle, but nobody wants to be a no-personality/wet piece of cardboard like Michael Schumacher. The 'human' equation has been factored out completely at this point.

When car racing became boring in the nineties, I took a renewed interest in motorcycle racing. I had lost interest as a child when "King Kenny" dominated over the sport. I hated the guy, and still do. But motorbikes still offered a more human plot, until the big money screwed that up as well. It was bad enough when different teams with Marlboro sponsorship were trying to outbid each other for the services of certain riders, causing Marlboro to rethink it's investment. The final straw came with the selling of the television rights.

If you study Motorcycle GP, or World Superbike, you will see that once the Italians controlled the TV rights, the Italian manufacturers began to dominate the sport. Same in F1. Why? Well, Italy has a bigger interest in seeing that the Italians dominate motorsport because it gives the perception of Italian products as being of superior quality, and racy-sexy. Ferrari is owned by Fiat, Fiat is subsidized by the Italian government. When a Ferrari wins a race, it is good for the countries exports as a whole, be they shoes, wines, clothes, scooters, or cheese. And so the Ferrari team has the deepest pockets, and these days, the one with the biggest bankroll usually wins. Not to take anything way from Italian products, they are great in their own right, but racing is good Italian public relations. Not unlike what a pre and post war Germany did with Mercedes. Imagine what Ford could do with Jaguar if the government had a bigger interest in seeing it win, instead of Jag being so far in the red ink right now that it may fold.

I don't think that the current practice of teams and sponsors pouring tens of millions into F1, while Bernie pockets hundreds of millions in television royalties each year will continue for much longer. Several teams have signed some sort of secret agreement to look into setting up a new race series in the last couple of years, but the details will never be disclosed to the public. F1 is now controlled by some sort of secret "Concorde Agreement". Nobody knows who signed it, or what it says, and you know how much I like a conspiracy theory.

The technology exists to eliminate the driver completely, and just have robotic cars circulate the track. Even that sounds better than the direction they want to go. Here are the lastest rule changes that are flying around, what a pathetic joke:


http://www.dailyf1.de/en/news/news.php?id=2477
 
"McLaren won 15 races out of 16 a few years ago. The difference was that they had two drivers who wanted to kick the living whatsername out of each other."
"Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna just went at it hammer and tongs throughout the season and it was a real battle. So there was racing, even if it was only between two cars."
-DAMON HILL

"...figures for the TV coverage from the European Grand Prix two weeks ago obtained by BBC Sport Online from another team.
They show that Ferrari got 40% of the TV exposure for that race, with Williams on 19% and McLaren on 14%. The other eight teams had the remaining 27% split between them."

More at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/default.stm
 
Anyway Ferrari announced yesterday that those kind of measures (weight, pilots, ...) would lead the team to leave F1 since it would be outside the "race concept" they pursued for more than 50 years.
 

Similar threads

Blackhorse06
Senna and Mclaren 26 years ago today
Replies
4
Views
994
NSXonwheels
N
Hard Five
MMA - Chris Weidman vs. Anderson Silva - How Weidman Killed the 'King' at UFC 162
Replies
7
Views
1K
Vega$ NSX
Vega$ NSX
Ponyboy
The Official 2010 F1 Megathread
25 26 27
Replies
665
Views
64K
NSXrebel
NSXrebel
BD
Maybe there is hope for Honda F1 next season
Replies
17
Views
2K
Juice
Juice
Jimbo
  • Locked
Obama Says He Will Change The World and Shouts I'm King of the World
Replies
2
Views
2K
sahtt
sahtt
Back
Top