Yet another pointless Ferrari vs McLaren FIA thread to be closed in the near future

Continued from another thread:

Ferrari won in 2000-2004 because they did a bloody good job and had a great team. Pretty much all the races bar a few have been won by Ferrari because they simply had a better team. During this time McLaren didn't win because some of the cars were utter crap.

Sure some races had controversial decisions by the FIA in Ferraris favour. But this doesn't get away from the fact that since 97-98 Ferrari have been a championship winning team. It's not like the FIA gave them a helping hand in the R+D of the car, and a bootload of cash to get good drivers.

And this year, the Massa pit thing was hardly anything to make a fuss of over the penalty. There was bucket loads of room and unless Massa was a complete idiot, there wouldn't have been a collision. If it happened further up the pitlane where its crowded and there's much less room I could understand.

As for Spa, any fool can see that Hamilton didn't back off as much as he should have, and gained an advantage of track position by cutting the chicane. Just like most other sports, the british public will fight and argue over careful decisions made by unbiased stewards and will never admit they did something wrong. I must say however the FIA should say for definate if something is 'OK' or not. It's not fair to tell your driver to battle on under the advice of the governing body, only to find out the governing body was wrong and you incur a bigger penalty because of it.

lol

this is getting out of hands!!

Ferrari always had preferential treatment, we all know that. Yet again Hamilton gained advantage by cutting the chicane, so his speed on the next straight was better than Kimi, therfore an overtaking was more feasible.

In fact, PdlR, Mclaren test driver and a great profesional, said live during the broadcasting just after the incident took place that Hamilton's move was barely legal and that could be investigated.

Furthermore, FA on a similar moneouvre at Monza (last year I think) was told to give back his position again (though he had already given it back) just because of the same reason.

I can't remember were it was, but I have seen michael Schumacher cutting the chicanes to avoid being overtaken by PdlR.

So, let's see the pattern here:
Ferrari will always have preferential treatment? yes
Does the Hamilton incident has anything to do with Ferrari's preferential treatment? no
Was the punishment fair? in my honest opinion yes

just my two cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

...why, if the FIA is so biased towards Ferrari, did it take 21 years for Ferrari to win a WDC?

---

Well they don't want to make it look too obvious now do they :laugh: :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

How can you say this with no evidence?

---

A good portion of that $100 million fine says otherwise. Not questioning the ruling, but as close to a death sentence as one can get without actually hanging them from the rafters. The Renault-Ferrari compromise went away much differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

“Firstly, because it holds a historically important position, as the team has been involved in Formula 1 since 1950. The second point has something to do with existential orientation; imagine there were only one British team and all other teams were Italian, that the commercial rights-holder was Italian, as was the FIA President, the race director and his assistant and the sport's commissioner. Wouldn't it be understandable that this team would be very careful? I use my neutrality with a huge amount of responsibility and stay in close contact with Ferrari to assure them that no British ‘mafia' or cartel tries to take advantage of them, but should we find it necessary to impose our technical or sporting regulations, then Ferrari is treated like any other team. Should we find irregularities on a Ferrari – like the moveable floor after the Australian Grand Prix – it is removed and banned.”

So where did you see bias in that?

If anything, it is Ferrari who should be worried about bias, given that the majority of the other teams are the same nationality as the FIA President, the race director, his assistant and the sports commisioner.

Perhaps, since your'e so keen on there not being any chance of bias, you should be demanding that Charlie Whiting is replaced by somebody from a country without links to an F1 team?

I can recommend a Kenyan.

---

And let's NOT forget that the latest rule changes introduced in F1 were introduced to prevent FERRARI from continuing winning the whole time. Without those changes F1 would the most boring sport (not for me).
So, if anyone got an advantage from those changes it was MCLAREN.
(I seem to recall that before those changes took place McLaren's cars could not finish a GP since due to the fragility of their engines)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Where the feck has Mosley or anybody else at the FIA said that they are biased? Nowhere.

"Bias - a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation"

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...ition&ct=title



They have stated that Ferrari are the most important team in F1. Since the other teams all signed up to the FIA as soon as Ferrari left the GPWC group, that is merely a statement of fact.

So let me get this right, you now don't want the FIA not to admit facts?

Why shouldn't the President of the FIA have a 'personal relationship' with the head of Ferrari? It makes perfect sense to have a good relationship. Just because Ron Dennis is incapable of having a personal relationship doesn't mean that the rest of F1 has to adopt his social faults.

So, please, carry on believing what you want to believe, but at least answer why, if the FIA is so biased towards Ferrari, did it take 21 years for Ferrari to win a WDC?

If the FIA is biased, what took so long?

---

I don't think its Ferrari bias per se.

At its most basic level its like working on a group project and favouring the guys you like.

It's well know Jean Todt and Max get get on.

Some of the drivers weren't particular happy with Schumi cosying up with Max Mosley.

On the other side of the coin in 1994 post Imola, Briatore wrote to the FIA criticising Mosley's plans to quickly implement safety within a short time frame. It's alleged that Mosley got his own back on Briatore by coming down hard on Benetton that year such as Schumacher's race bans after the Silverstone/black flag fiasco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

How can you say this with no evidence?

---

He never brings evidence to the discussions, only his trolling and biased view on things. And he gets mightily offended if you say this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Do you dispute the long running battle between Ron and Max?

Slightly different story isn't it.

Your post confirms that Max's tenure as President of the FIA coincides with a downturn in McLarens fortunes and the most dominant period of Ferrari success in the history of Motorsport.

---

You might be onto something - perhaps it was Max who delivered those 700 pages to Coughlin to get back at Ron...hmm...

The route of this discussion seems to gradually bring us to the ultimate conclusion - all the previous World Titles have been fixed. :p :