Jump to content


Photo

Levels Enzo never dreamed of???


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,461 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 28 February 2003 - 14:55

The Atlas home page introduction to the concluding part of the current Enzo Ferrari story includes the line "...and how a group of men have taken the Ferrari name to levels of success that not even Enzo himself had dreamt of..."

I have to say this is complete barking nonsense.

The Old Man would certainly have been very happy with what has been achieved in his name in recent times, but would - I am confident - have had consecutive Formula 1 World titles absolutely within the scope not only of his dreams, but of his experience. Since he also loved to hear the cash register bell ringing ceaselessly on the production car front he also dreamed of adding simultaneous World sports and GT championship victories each year. Just winning one title a year -with his No 1 driver winning his personal competition along the way - would have been pretty small beer by his longtime standards. And in any case, it wasn't winning titles which floated his particular boat - it was regularly winning races, at any level, and enjoying the financial return of same. Never sell The Old Man short - nor doubt the levl of his ambitions - he was Racer through and through...

DCN

Advertisement

#2 Formula1_Fan

Formula1_Fan
  • Member

  • 136 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 28 February 2003 - 15:00

I agree, absolutely nonsense! But let's have the explain of the editor of this...I think that AtlasF1 is the best... and says things as they realy are...Let's see...

#3 BuonoBruttoCattivo

BuonoBruttoCattivo
  • Member

  • 4,430 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 28 February 2003 - 15:03

Originally posted by Doug Nye
And in any case, it wasn't winning titles which floated his particular boat - it was regularly winning races


If I recall correctly there were 15 of those just last year. :D

Also, Ferrari 550GTs and Modena GTs are getting more and more involved in GT and GTS competitions worldwide.
Last year we saw Ferraris entered w/ success in ALMS, FIA-GT, Grand-Am and Le Mans will feature the Italian cars again, hopefully winning the GTS category.
Next up is the Maranello 575GT and the Reparto Corse Clienti is helping involved more and more in preparation and competitions (e.g. Ferrari of Washington).

BTW, where is Porsche? (other than the usual GT3Rs)

#4 FordFan

FordFan
  • Member

  • 3,456 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 28 February 2003 - 15:21

I admit the 550s looked good at Le Mans last year, but the Corvettes will still give them something to worry about. And, IIRC, didn't the Listers and Vipers have the measure of the Ferraris in FIA-GT?

#5 dretceterini

dretceterini
  • Member

  • 2,991 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 28 February 2003 - 17:18

As much as a racer as Ferrari was, I think he was even more concerned with making money. His machine tools business was jsut as, if not more important than the cars in the early days.

#6 David T.

David T.
  • Member

  • 133 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 28 February 2003 - 17:40

Even if I'm not a Ferrari freak I have to admit that the words in the movie sentence do make sense. The "level" we are speaking about are not necessarily linked with F1 achievements. A recent visit to Ferrari last week made me understand why they are so famous in the world. They now have some of the best available (if not the best ones) machinery for road car production. They are about to organize the new Maserati series, and it's very likely that in the very next years they will double it with an USA championship; they are earning lots of money with dozens of 360 Modenas racing in the Ferrari Challenges; they are also earning lots of money mantaning and following Shell Historic Challenge cars and very soon every historic Ferrari and Maserati will pass through their hands: I'm not meaning this is right or not, what I really mean is that as Ferrari are concerned, they are now a succesful structure and the F1 activity is only one of the manifold links of Ferrari name. Don't simplify things too much. :wave:

#7 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,461 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 28 February 2003 - 18:18

Originally posted by David T.
Don't simplify things too much. :wave:


...boot on other foot in my view.... :yawn:

DCN

#8 masterhit

masterhit
  • Member

  • 1,837 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 01 March 2003 - 01:53

One thing I can say is that I don't doubt for a second that Ferrari dreamed of success like this, and secondly Ferrari have had periods of great success over many years in many different disciplines. Indeed historically Ferrari tend to regard third place in the constructors championship as a disaster. Not may teams can claim that level of success.

Equally I appreciate that McLaren and Williams have a greater ratio of wins per number of starts etc, I'm just trying to be as balanced as possible. Ferrari fans will point out, you know, quite reasonably, how do you measure success - are we talking race wins, constructor's titles, driver's championships, etc etc

Ferrari and teams in the past used to regularly finish with their first four cars occupying the first four finish positions, is that enough? Four cars are more dominant - should you average the results of all the cars in your team etc?

You know, does just F1 count? How about other formulae?

Should you relate these figures to the number of employees and financial status of the team? Because money equals success too.

If a team gets within 106% of a Ferrari with 300% less employees and 1000% less budget, surely that makes them the greatest team ever?

One has to say that there's countless ways to define success. This is why ultimately statistics are still both subject to and a reflection of opinion.

#9 Anorak Man

Anorak Man
  • Member

  • 312 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 01 March 2003 - 03:14

And how long is it since a Ferrari won at Le Mans?

Our Joe has the answer :)

Nzo would be appalled.

AM

#10 Vincenzo Lancia

Vincenzo Lancia
  • Member

  • 131 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 02 March 2003 - 03:38

Don't quite know if any one were meant to answer....but it is 37½ years ago is'nt it?

#11 RTH

RTH
  • Member

  • 5,742 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 02 March 2003 - 09:50

One suspects Mr Ferrari would not have been so happy about the financial prospects going forward from here.

As I understand it Fiat is running annual losses in the 10's of billions of Euros, the main loss generator is Fiat auto -- Fiat/lancia/Alfa Romeo/Maserati/Ferrari and the main loser is the Fiat marque, predicted losses for the first quarter 03 are reduced on same period 02 but still serious,and its reported urgent action is needed.

GM owns 25% of Fiat auto and it seems undecided as to whether to buy the rest or sell the present stake, the whole situation is in the melting pot right now and any one of a wide range of senarios are possible including break up . So future parental funding to competition arms must a least be in doubt in present circumtances.

Anyone got some up to the moment information or care to speculate ?

#12 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,291 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 02 March 2003 - 09:56

While it's possible that the Enzo Ferrari who put two Fiat 1100 engines together (I know, that's an oversimplification) might not have had such a clear idea of where he was headed, I have no doubt that earlier (in the twenties) and later (say, after his first Le Mans win) he would have had the grandest possible dreams.

Yeah, he dreamed of these levels, for sure.

#13 Jackman

Jackman
  • Member

  • 12,832 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 05 March 2003 - 14:17

Originally posted by dretceterini
As much as a racer as Ferrari was, I think he was even more concerned with making money. His machine tools business was jsut as, if not more important than the cars in the early days.

Ferrari gave up his machine tool business after the war to resume racing, so I suspect that's not entirely correct.

To the original point: I think that Doug is taking a reasonably common phrase and twisting it. None of us know what Ferrari actually dreamed about, but it is a simple fact that the current level of domination enjoyed by the scuderia is beyond anything they have ever had previously - three consecutive driver's championships and four consecutive constructor's championships beats the Lauda period at Ferrari, the previous high water mark in Ferrari's F1 history.

Enzo had a lot of success in other categories of motorsport, and the first three articles covered this in depth, but the old man himself chose later to focus solely on Formula One. Comparing apples to apples means stacking the F1 results then and now against each other, and there is no question that the scuderia is much more successful now then at any time in their illustrious history.

#14 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,291 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 05 March 2003 - 19:52

To be sure, they're beating a whole lot more competitive field of opponents...

And the Ascari reign was over after just two years...

But like Peter Hopwood once pointed out, they don't run four minute miles any more either.

#15 petefenelon

petefenelon
  • Member

  • 4,815 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 06 March 2003 - 11:21

Originally posted by Doug Nye
The Atlas home page introduction to the concluding part of the current Enzo Ferrari story includes the line "...and how a group of men have taken the Ferrari name to levels of success that not even Enzo himself had dreamt of..."

DCN


It's b*ll*cks anyway- the Old Man had been around through periods of success that made 2002 look like an "interim rebuilding season" - what about 52-3? :)

pete

#16 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,291 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 06 March 2003 - 11:26

Honestly, do you think 1952/3 was all that great?

Very little opposition, Fangio out of action for much of the time, and he wasn't dominant at Le Mans either... that was a very important race to him those days.

No, 2002 was a highly successful season.

#17 Garagiste

Garagiste
  • Member

  • 3,796 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 06 March 2003 - 12:41

I think we can safely say that driver salaries are running at a level he never dreamt of.
Nightmares, possibly... :)

#18 petefenelon

petefenelon
  • Member

  • 4,815 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 06 March 2003 - 12:48

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Honestly, do you think 1952/3 was all that great?

Very little opposition, Fangio out of action for much of the time, and he wasn't dominant at Le Mans either... that was a very important race to him those days.

No, 2002 was a highly successful season.

#

Well, there wasn't much opposition in 2002, Fangio was out of action, and Ferrari wasn't dominant at Le Mans (although that 550 was gorgeous....);)

Look at what Ferrari were achieving in non-championship races back then, too.

pete

#19 Eric McLoughlin

Eric McLoughlin
  • Member

  • 1,622 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 06 March 2003 - 13:16

The day I see a full works supported team running at Le Mans again, that's the day I'll beleive that Ferrari really is back "motor racing" (as opposed to Formula 1 which in it's current guise can hardly be called racing).

I actually do not think that Enzo would have enjoyed 2002 all that much. Where was the passion, the drama and the conflict? They were the things that really got him going. Running a super efficient, metronome-like operation was not his style (What were his opinions of Mercedes in 1954-55 I wonder?). From what I've read, if things were getting a little "settled" or "quiet" in the team, he'd deliberately cause an upset just to destabilise things - not a sure fire recipe for success, but far more fun, in his eyes.

Advertisement

#20 petefenelon

petefenelon
  • Member

  • 4,815 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 06 March 2003 - 15:55

Originally posted by Eric McLoughlin
I actually do not think that Enzo would have enjoyed 2002 all that much. Where was the passion, the drama and the conflict? They were the things that really got him going. Running a super efficient, metronome-like operation was not his style (What were his opinions of Mercedes in 1954-55 I wonder?). From what I've read, if things were getting a little "settled" or "quiet" in the team, he'd deliberately cause an upset just to destabilise things - not a sure fire recipe for success, but far more fun, in his eyes.


Oh I can imagine it now- sending Rubens out in an F3000 car so he'd be no threat to Michael. Running all his test drivers in a five-car entry at Monza. Pulling out in feigned disgust once the championship was either conclusively won or lost.... mind you, running the 2002 car in NART livery at Indy would look pretty damn good ;)

Trouble is, Todt seems to be a pretty straightforward sort of bloke - not Machiavellian like Dragoni.

pete

#21 dmj

dmj
  • Member

  • 1,957 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 06 March 2003 - 18:19

That would be an interesting analysis about relations between Ferrari team and position of Formula 1 in motorsport scheme of things. Would F1 become what it is today if Ferrari pulled out somewhere along the way? Would Le Mans/prototypes be as big if Ferrari remained active there?
Who knows...

But certainly Enzo would enjoy today's position of Ferrari both in motorsport and market (RTH, it isn't part of Fiat Auto but separate division, and GM has no shares of Ferrari/Maserati). I'd say he didn't enjoy racing so much - he enjoyed WINNING the races. And that's just what his cars and one of his drivers are doing lately...

#22 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,291 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 06 March 2003 - 21:00

To say there is no opposition today, petefenelon, is to completely ignore many facts...

Among them, other teams were also under 2001 lap times, other teams and drivers took pole positions and fastest laps, other engines had more power, other teams spent lots of time and energy seeking goals like Ferrari did.

Again, Peter Hopwood's words ring true... "they don't run four minute miles any more!"

#23 holiday

holiday
  • Member

  • 3,473 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 06 March 2003 - 21:09

The 80s were a lost decade for the Scuderia and Ferrari by then was part of the problem, not the solution.

#24 Jackman

Jackman
  • Member

  • 12,832 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 06 March 2003 - 22:10

Originally posted by Eric McLoughlin
I actually do not think that Enzo would have enjoyed 2002 all that much. Where was the passion, the drama and the conflict? They were the things that really got him going. Running a super efficient, metronome-like operation was not his style (What were his opinions of Mercedes in 1954-55 I wonder?). From what I've read, if things were getting a little "settled" or "quiet" in the team, he'd deliberately cause an upset just to destabilise things - not a sure fire recipe for success, but far more fun, in his eyes.

I entirely disagree. I believe that Enzo enjoyed winning above all else - he would bring the best drivers onboard whenever he could so that success came to the team (see Nuvolari, Varzi, Fangio, the attempt to bring Moss in, Lauda, etc).

Enzo valued sucess - the fact that his team became unsettled at times is a product of the times, and being based in Italy.

#25 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,291 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 06 March 2003 - 22:14

When a team has a good year, a really good year, you would think it would have them all hyped up to go on winning, right? That it would help them work together, to stay in one piece as a team?

But Ferrari, at the end of 1961, had a huge walkout of key staff... does that sound normal? Is it just 'being in Italy'?

I think there has to be an element of truth in what Eric has said...

#26 Jackman

Jackman
  • Member

  • 12,832 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 06 March 2003 - 22:27

I think it was actually 1962, it was only 8 staff, and it was a combination of the old man not giving them a payrise, the personnel involved thinking they were more important then they were, and a insult (and slap in the face) from Laura Ferrari to the accountant. In the grand scheme of things it was little more than a speed bump during the Mille Miglia.

Oh, and I can tell you from personal experience that it is very much 'just being in Italy' - these things happen daily in Italy.

#27 Eric McLoughlin

Eric McLoughlin
  • Member

  • 1,622 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 07 March 2003 - 00:02

If the the walk out in 1962 WAS over money - how do you think Enzo would feel over the salaries being thrown around in F1 at the moment, particularly in the direction of M Schumacher?

I think success was not everything to Mr Ferrari. Manipulation and psychological games were just as important (more important at times). To Ferrari NOTHING was more important than the name FERRARI. Anything that dimiinished or took glory away from the family name would not be tolerated - even if it meant the liklehood of less success. After 1988. of course, all this disappeared as the name Ferrari just became a corporate brand with family interests being of no real significance.

#28 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 24,455 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 07 March 2003 - 01:09

Ii he was twenty years younger I think Enzo would still have enjoyed the rivalry with the other "Commendatores".... Signor Dennis, Il Cavaliere Williams ....

Look at the relationship between EF and GAV in the 50s. Have you seen "Grumpy Old Men"? :)

#29 Jackman

Jackman
  • Member

  • 12,832 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 07 March 2003 - 05:43

Originally posted by Eric McLoughlin
If the the walk out in 1962 WAS over money - how do you think Enzo would feel over the salaries being thrown around in F1 at the moment, particularly in the direction of M Schumacher?

He would have paid up and waited for the results to come in. He paid for Fangio to come to the team. He was prepared to pay Moss, as well as provide the car to be run, exclusively by Rob Walker and in his deep blue colours, without any further input from the scuderia. He agreed the ebreo contract with Lauda.

He didn't see the need to pay the backroom staff, as he felt they had a job for life and owed him loyalty - he was the padrone, and provided them with a living. He didn't see the need to pay young, unproven drivers much of a salary (ask Richie Ginther or Chris Amon what they thought of the payscale at Ferrari, for example). But he very much would have agreed to bring Schumacher onboard for the salary demanded, particularly as the overwhelming majority of the money comes from Marlboro and Fiat, rather than his own pocket.

I think success was not everything to Mr Ferrari. Manipulation and psychological games were just as important (more important at times). To Ferrari NOTHING was more important than the name FERRARI. Anything that dimiinished or took glory away from the family name would not be tolerated - even if it meant the liklehood of less success. After 1988. of course, all this disappeared as the name Ferrari just became a corporate brand with family interests being of no real significance.

I really don't understand why you think that mind games were more interesting to Enzo then success - there's just nothing to suggest this is the case in anything that I've read about him (and I've read a lot of late). The name was important, but even when he was running the Alfa Romeo team the only thing that motivated him was success - it's the one constant in his long, long life.

#30 Eric McLoughlin

Eric McLoughlin
  • Member

  • 1,622 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 07 March 2003 - 12:37

Maybe I have more reading to do but that is MY interpretation of his personality based on what I've read to date.