53 replies to this topic

[HRC]

Considering MS's paycheck and marketing value, would it be an economical disaster for both MS and Ferrari to hire a team mate who would/could beat him fare and square? I'm not asking who it would be. I'm just saying, that from economical point of view team orders and not a top driver as a team mate sounds understandable. What do you think?

Other question relating to the subject is that MS is most likely going to beat Prost's record of 51 GP wins during his career. MS's controversiality as a driver has always made me wonder, why he doesn't want the best possible team mate. If he's so good, why doesn't he feel the need to prove it with equalish team orders and hardest opponents? You can't blame Prost for that:

"(...) My biggest problem was that I really loved McLaren, and wanted to do everything I could for the team. For my team-mate in '88, it was a choice between Senna and Nelson Piquet. When I went with Ron (Dennis) to Japan, to meet the Honda people, I said that Ron should take Ayrton, because he was the more talented driver, and for me the team came first. If I was going back to the start of my racing career now, I would do it rather differently - I would concentrate on me and my job..."(Ayrton Senna by Alain Prost, Motorsport 10/1998)

And Senna was pretty good, wasn't he? So my question is why Schumacher doesn't want drivers like, say Häkkinen as a team mate? Is it true that MS had a list of drivers which he, for a reason or another doesn't want as a team mate? So when he's going to break Prost's record it doesn't impress people as much as it could. And his controversiality in larger scale applies to his other merits. Which always strikes make, because as a driver he definately is one of the best his time. In a way it's sad that no "image campain" will ever clear his controversality.

P.S. I'm new here and this is my first New Topic and I can only imagine how much you must have talked about these questions. So I must apologize if you have had enough of these questions, but if you haven't - feel free to comment.

[schumigal]

Considering MS's paycheck and marketing value, would it be an economical disaster for both MS and Ferrari to hire a team mate who would/could beat him fare and square? I'm not asking who it would be. I'm just saying, that from economical point of view team orders and not a top driver as a team mate sounds understandable. What do you think?

Yes it will be an economical disaster but i think the team won't be that stupid to spend that much money on him if he's not worth that value. When MS joins Ferrari, Ferrari wasn't at its best and they needed a guy that can be a leader, motivate the team and drives the way he does. If the Ferrari has always been like 2000-2001, then perhaps like Ron Dennis, they will opt let both drivers fight it out themselves.

Other question relating to the subject is that MS is most likely going to beat Prost's record of 51 GP wins during his career. MS's controversiality as a driver has always made me wonder, why he doesn't want the best possible team mate. If he's so good, why doesn't he feel the need to prove it with equalish team orders and hardest opponents?

I always wonder did MS ever state he doesn't want the best possible team mate? From what i know, he demands the team full support for him to win the championship, but never asked for a lesser team mate. Plus Ferrari not only wants to win the WDC, they also want to do well in the WCC. And considering the choices they had in 99, RB was the best choice. He had a sensational season that year and deserved the seat in Ferrari 2000.

And Senna was pretty good, wasn't he? So my question is why Schumacher doesn't want drivers like, say Häkkinen as a team mate? Is it true that MS had a list of drivers which he, for a reason or another doesn't want as a team mate? So when he's going to break Prost's record it doesn't impress people as much as it could. And his controversiality in larger scale applies to his other merits. Which always strikes make, because as a driver he definately is one of the best his time. In a way it's sad that no "image campain" will ever clear his controversality.

I am not sure whether he has that list or not, in fact i am sure nobody knows for certain except himself of cos . Why Hakkinen is not his team mate? Ferrari didn't offer a seat to Hakkinen! And plus, MS stayed on with Ferrari. So how do u forsee them being team mates?? Should MS join Mclaren and become MH's team mate? Well, why should he? Likewise, why should Hakkinen join Ferrari just to become MS's team mate? Those drivers are looking after their best interests and if they think the team they are driving for can look after their interest, they won't change team unless they are kicked out.

[5319]

HRC,did you ever ask yourself a question whether Mika Hakkinen want Schumacher to be his team-mate???

[Pink Panther]

good point. I doubt Mika or Jaxs want Schumi as teammate any more than he wants one of them.

[HSJ]

Schumigal,

Yes it will be an economical disaster but i think the team won't be that stupid to spend that much money on him if he's not worth that value.

It is not a question of a driver's value per se, i.e. the value of his skill and input, but a question of marketing value. MS is German and thus very good for sponsors. German-speakers are a huge market in Europe. But maybe that is what you meant; you did not state explicitly what you meant.

[HSJ]

I don't think JV or MH don't want MS as their teammate. Rather, they might not want to go to Ferrari while it is rigged for MS. If they got truly equal treatment, I don't think either of them would refuse. MH might still refuse, he might be to loyal to McL.

[Todd]

It wouldn't matter who Ferrari hired as MS teammate in 1996. They would now be held in the same regard as Eddie and Rubens. JV and Mika would not be champions or have won many races with the same equipment.

I was just looking at CAR magazine's 2000 season preview. For Ferrari, they said the most likely headline was "Redhot Rubens gives Schuy the bums rush." Wishfull thinking, and completely absurd. Just like the notion that MS wouldn't make any other teammate look ordinary.

[5319]

HSJ,I think I didn't express my thoughts correctly.I meant that Mika Hakkinen wasn't that eager to be Michael's team-mate.Why should he???Why should Michael???They have competitive cars,good teams behind them.They both have friends in their team,whom,I am sure,they don't want to leave.Why should either of them want to change the team???

[HSJ]

I didn't expect RB to give MS a run for his money. I did think it was going to be interesting if RB got anything out of his car. He didn't really. MH and JV, with the outside probability of JT and HHF, are the only ones I think would have a real possibility of matching MS. On equal grounds of course, not while Ferrari is rigged for MS. The ideal to settle this question would be for MS and MH to go to Williams. Williams I think would be ideal because they don't give preferential treatment to anybody, and because neither driver has a history with them.

[HSJ]

5319, OK.

[The RedBaron]

When will it ever end???

Last week we had Ferrari's TC, that tripe was effectively squashed
when HHF did a u-turn and Ron Dennis + DC stating that Ferrari are not cheating.

This week, the antis have changed tactics yet again and rallied behind the banner "Why doesn't Schuey have a decent teammate, he must be a coward" argument.

Well, please tell me which current driver would regularly beat MS
this year and on what basis?

Mika spent a long time with Mclaren, he was there when it wasn't a front runner....his hard toil & sweat has helped Mclaren become a world beater during 1998 & 1999. Why should he leave a team that has been loyal to him and provided him good cars over the last 4 years.? Mika is first and foremost a very loyal person. If Ferrari made a bid for him next year, I'd put money that he wouldn't accept it.

JV came into a top flight team, a change of regulations and engine supply meant Williams overnight became a midfield runner. He took up a new challenge in BAR, the first couple of years were painful, but now with Honda backing....there's a chance of it being a serious challenger (2002 maybe), why should he leave with his work 1/2 done? It doesn't make sense, it would mean the last 3 years were a pure waste of time

So who else is out there?
DC,? Well why settle for him when Mika is clearly the dominant driver at Mclaren
HHF had his chance in 1997, he bombed out and couldn't take the heat.
Trulli.....extremely fast, but then what? Is he fast and competitive for an entire race, I don't think so. I haven't seen anything to justify him as a serious contender
Ralf- a non starter, they have both agreed to never drive in the same team.
Button, Rakkinon & Heidfeld would be good, but all are still on a learning curve, they would end up effectively being the no.2 until MS retires. So that argument defeats the object.
Fisichella IMO is just another Rubens, fast but mentally weak, he would buckle the same way Rubens has.
Jos is fast under certain conditions but no way consistent enough. I don't see the difference being any closer then it was in 1994.

That only leaves Montoya in my opinion (If he really is the real deal!) as the only possible candidate, somehow I don't see Frank parting with him.

MS wanted Alesi in 2000, Ferrari chose Rubens instead. So much for MS being the decision maker. I think you'll find that the real boss at Ferrari isn't really MS & Co........but Luca di Montezemolo.

[molive]

Doesn´t really matter who gets to ride along MS. Neither JV nor Mika, let alone HHF and RS, NO ONE can beat michael as long as he has firm grip on Todt & Co.

[HRC]

Redbaron, firstly my purpose wasn't to be anti-MS or start another MS vs. the rest discussion. Maybe my articulation wasn't that precise. I didn't want to know who could that MS beater be. I just tried to be hypothetical. I know that it woudn't make any sense for Ferrari to spend that kind of money on team builded around MS and then hire someone, who would have to be sandbagging all the time and let MS be faster. And if you start wondering again who would it be - all I know he would have to be faster than MS.

Secondly it's extremely difficult to talk about these issues, because there're million rumours in the press about what MS has said etc.. So, how can we know for sure, that MS has the list of drivers he doesn't want as team mates? Maybe we should ask Oliver Stone? And it's not MS's fault, that his team mates haven't been able to beat him. And why should he be saying that I want better team mates than I've had? I want them to be faster than me? All thought publicly underestimating other drivers hasn't been MS's habit, has it? If MS ever said, that he's going to retire when someone is faster than he is - it just shows that he must be open for competition in his team.

Am I somehow arguing against myself? I hope I don't upset myself. Maybe my point was, that it's hard to imagine MS saying the same as Prost did about Senna/Piquet matter.

One thing about team orders: Yes, it would be an act of extreme stupidity for Ferrari to not have team orders with MS's marketing value. One funny example of team orders in other motorsport i.e. WRC was in probably some last years race, when Ford's Carlos Sainz was leading the race ahead of Colin McRae. Ford said, that Mcrae wins, so Sainz had to let him pass. Sainz said something like:"I understand team orders perfectly well, but not when I'm leading in championship points." Sainz made a great number of letting McRae pass him. Sainz stopped a few hundred meters before the finish line and got out of his car and opened the hood as looking for some problems - doing everything totally cool. Must have been dissapointing. That's marketing values in motorsport.

[Raelene]

what does Michael have to prove... he has beaten drivers in better cars hasn't he - ie Mika in the McLaren - Jacques in teh Williams... what makes you think he couldn't beat them in the same car

[Dimo]

I think it's in the teams best interest to have a clear number one and number two. At least for a top team in a two-horse race.

It's all well and good for the middle of the pack teams to try and maximize their results with the two best drivers they can afford, but I'm not sure that it makes as much sense for a top team to do it, financially or tactically. While getting the two best drivers available would improve your chances at a WCC, it reduces your chances at the WDC.

Think about it. If DC were less of a driver (man, I can hear alarm bells going off everywhere on that statement), Mika would probably have had more points last year. When the two top drivers are too closely matched they take points away from each other.

In my opinion, Ferrari's got just the right mix, especially in 2000. RB was good enough to take some points away from the competition, but almost never took points away from MS. Spain was the only race I could think of where he finished ahead of him where they were both on the track at the end.

Ideally you want someone to clean up as much as possible if your #1 guy is out, but who will finish as closely as possible to him, but not pass him, in all other cases.

[HartleyHare]

RedB, that was a bit poor. The argument is as valid as it has always been. Raelene, MS took flippin' ages with the biggest budget, hand-picked team and lackey team mates to deliver the goods. If Ferrari had gone for Hill in '97 they'd would have won the WDC title an extra 2 or 3 times. At least.

There you go, you have your conjecture about who has had the best car and I'll have my conjecure about what might have happened if fish eat cheese.;)

[Smooth]

Originally posted by HartleyHare
If Ferrari had gone for Hill in '97 they'd would have won the WDC title an extra 2 or 3 times. At least.

Oh feck, I just wet myself!!!

thanks, HH! I am just about to climb on the bike for the commute home... that will give me something to laugh about under the helmet all the way home!!

[gray_cat]

Originally posted by HartleyHare
If Ferrari had gone for Hill in '97 they'd would have won the WDC title an extra 2 or 3 times. At least.

And what makes you so sure, Hartley ?

[HartleyHare]

I read it in my tea leaves. Didn't you?

Or perhaps the references to conjecture suggest otherwise?

[gray_cat]

Poor Jean and Luca ! The should change their tea shop, otherwise they in trouble ;)

[black magic]

forgive me but with the exception of the example of alain prost can anyone remember any other driver wanting a potentially faster teammate in their team.
any reason that mika is so happy with dc - or maybe because he knows like everyone else that he's quicker than david. who's the most important person to beat for any driver - your teamate

look at ms warning to jenson. being beaten by your teammate ends all speculation and instantly gives you a ranking in the pecking order.

look at the doom sayers regarding ralf's career if montoya proves faster. to go from being highly regarded by all to suddenly career over by being outclassed over a season shows just how vital it is to be paired with a driver you can dominate.

[The RedBaron]

Originally posted by HRC
Redbaron, firstly my purpose wasn't to be anti-MS or start another MS vs. the rest discussion. Maybe my articulation wasn't that precise. I didn't want to know who could that MS beater be. I just tried to be hypothetical. I know that it woudn't make any sense for Ferrari to spend that kind of money on team builded around MS and then hire someone, who would have to be sandbagging all the time and let MS be faster. And if you start wondering again who would it be - all I know he would have to be faster than MS.

You kill me you really do, I don't think you know too much about F1 driving. F1 racing is the pinnacle of any driver's career...that's what they strive for.....that's what they dream about. Are you telling me that any racer out there would deliberately sandbag....what planet are you on? The fact of the matter is that in 90-95% or races, MS teammates are behind on the grid anyway....they are never in a position to challenge him. I can remember of maybe only 4 instances at Ferrari where a teammate could have got the better then him but gave him position on track. 3 by Eddie and 1 by Rubens (Canada 2000)...that's the long and short of it.

Secondly it's extremely difficult to talk about these issues, because there're million rumours in the press about what MS has said etc.. So, how can we know for sure, that MS has the list of drivers he doesn't want as team mates? Maybe we should ask Oliver Stone? And it's not MS's fault, that his team mates haven't been able to beat him. And why should he be saying that I want better team mates than I've had? I want them to be faster than me? All thought publicly underestimating other drivers hasn't been MS's habit, has it? If MS ever said, that he's going to retire when someone is faster than he is - it just shows that he must be open for competition in his team.

Do yourself a favour, why not e-mail Ferrari.com or write a personal
letter to Luca di Montezemolo and ask him whose the boss and decision maker at Ferrari and see what type of response you'd get!

One thing about team orders: Yes, it would be an act of extreme stupidity for Ferrari to not have team orders with MS's marketing value. One funny example of team orders in other motorsport i.e. WRC was in probably some last years race, when Ford's Carlos Sainz was leading the race ahead of Colin McRae. Ford said, that Mcrae wins, so Sainz had to let him pass. Sainz said something like:"I understand team orders perfectly well, but not when I'm leading in championship points." Sainz made a great number of letting McRae pass him. Sainz stopped a few hundred meters before the finish line and got out of his car and opened the hood as looking for some problems - doing everything totally cool. Must have been dissapointing. That's marketing values in motorsport.

Why do you think Rubens is so optimistic and keen to beat MS.?
He knows this is probably the only period ( beginning of a new season) that he has a fair & equal opportunity of trying to beat his teammate. If he gets too far behind in the points, Ferrari will probably impose team orders by mid-season. At the moment your whole argument is hypothetical because it's much too early for that.

[The RedBaron]

Originally posted by molive
Doesn´t really matter who gets to ride along MS. Neither JV nor Mika, let alone HHF and RS, NO ONE can beat michael as long as he has firm grip on Todt & Co.

You have no valid case except for spouting off the same usual nonsense.

[canadaf1]

What does Shummy have to prove? He has help build a team that had some problems. He is the only driver in the last few years that has taken the WDC to the final race and remember the Ferrari was not always up to spec. If you think about it Hill won the WDC Shummy was there JV won the WDC and Shummy was around. MH won the WDC and guess who was around Shummy. So I think its not luck but skills. He has a natural talent and he has proved it over and over.

I maybe wrong but I think the team is not as interested to have a challenge in between them selves but to challenge the opposition. When a team makes a choice I'm sure they are trying to make the best choice for the whole team. Do you think that they will sit down and say "lets see now who can we get out there to beat MS."

Think about this what if Shummy was not around I'm sure that the WDC would not go to the end wouldn't it be boring?

[Raelene]

HH

In 1996, the Williams was easily the best car - MS won races - lol
In 1997 the Williams was easily the best car - MS won races - lol
In 1998 the McLaren was easily the best car - MS won races - lol
1999 the McLaren was the best car (not by the same margin as 1998) - MS won races
in 2000 the cars (MAC AND fERRARI) were as EVEN as two different cars can be - MS demolished MH 9 wins to 4

next...

[Todd]

Originally posted by HartleyHare
hand-picked team and lackey team mates to deliver the goods. If Ferrari had gone for Hill in '97 they'd would have won the WDC title an extra 2 or 3 times. At least.

That puts it all in perspective. You'd rather be obnoxious than respected. On the positive side, you make HSJ look sentient.

[canadaf1]

Now this is what I was looking for!!!! What else does he need to prove!!!!

Originally posted by Raelene
HH

In 1996, the Williams was easily the best car - MS won races - lol
In 1997 the Williams was easily the best car - MS won races - lol
In 1998 the McLaren was easily the best car - MS won races - lol
1999 the McLaren was the best car (not by the same margin as 1998) - MS won races
in 2000 the cars (MAC AND fERRARI) were as EVEN as two different cars can be - MS demolished MH 9 wins to 4

next...

[kouks]

Man some of you guys need to get over the Jerez 97 thing, the rest of the world has. I thought Senna was a great driver and what happened in Japan in 88 or 89 isn't going to alter my thoughts on Ayton.

[schumigal]

Originally posted by kouks

Man some of you guys need to get over the Jerez 97 thing, the rest of the world has. I thought Senna was a great driver and what happened in Japan in 88 or 89 isn't going to alter my thoughts on Ayton.

I so agree with ya pal!

[ebe]

What would be the use for Ferrari to hire a driver who would be a close match for MS ?
Only one of them can be WDC. The second driver has to help achieving the WCC, that's all. They have done pretty well with
this MS + EI or RB system.
The Mansell / Piquet combination did make it in 1986, there was AP taking the title.

[sensible]

and while we're on the subject, what season have you been watching hrc? Where was the ferrari preference for MS at malaysia? I seem to remember it was MS not RB who had to wait his turn in the pit stop. where were the team orders when MS was behind RB on the track? Nowhere to be seen, MS fought his way past. And (according to martiun brundle) the t-car was set up for RB before the race, not MS? If I had preferential treatment like that, I'd be reaching for my dictionary.

This conspiracy stuff really p*sses me off. For crying out loud, he's only a racing driver. If you listen to some people here you'd think that ferrari, benetton, the fia and probably God too were all in some conspiracy to take this "useless cheating" german driver out of obscurity and make hime WDC just to annoy everyone. Wake up and check reality. He's got 3 WDC, 2 seconds. Hes got 2nd most wins (soon probably to be most), he's got more championships than any other driver bar 2. His average of points per GP is miles better than anyone else. He's won the last six GPOs from pole. He's not God and he's not perfect, but he's a bloody good racer, and by any kind of measurable standard, he's the best currently out there. deal with it.

[The_Z_Man]

Originally posted by Raelene
HH

In 1996, the Williams was easily the best car - MS won races - lol
In 1997 the Williams was easily the best car - MS won races - lol
In 1998 the McLaren was easily the best car - MS won races - lol
1999 the McLaren was the best car (not by the same margin as 1998) - MS won races
in 2000 the cars (MAC AND fERRARI) were as EVEN as two different cars can be - MS demolished MH 9 wins to 4

next...

The 1999 Ferrari nevertheless won the WCC and Irvine (and Salo could have had he not given the lead to Irvine) managed to win races. And Schumacher wasn't there for 6 six races to lend a hand.

In 2000, how do you know that the car were as even as they could be, if you take the axiom that Schumacher is head and shoulders above the competition out of the equation ?

This car won more GP, grabbed more poles, won the WCC, the WDC, Schumacher himself said that it was the best car.

I'm still wondering why some of his fans look less level headed than the guy. He is the one achieving tremendous things on the track and is far less loud than some of his fans which seem vicariously arrogant.

The_Z_Man

[HartleyHare]

Originally posted by Todd


That puts it all in perspective. You'd rather be obnoxious than respected. On the positive side, you make HSJ look sentient.

Er, Raelene was saying that MS kept winning despite crap cars. Is that not a bit dubious when the car won the WCC for the last two years, and in 1999 without MS for a fair period? Not really a fair comment. But no objection from yourself. But I say MS took too long to deliver and I am being obnoxious?

I would refer you to your own post. I offer an opinion on MS and his performance at Ferrari, plus a bit of conjecture. You return with an insult. So who is being obnoxious? Think long and hard, now...

[baddog]

Hartley.. the hill thing was a joke right?

Shaun

[Zoe]

Hey baddog,

if I understood Hartley (in the thread about you being appointed judge) correctly, you're supposed to take all those comments seriously ;)

Zoe

[130R]

It is not an astonishing feat to win some races in the second best car. Especially in this formula. You continue to overrate the lucky and underate the unfortunate.

[Todd]

Originally posted by 130R
It is not an astonishing feat to win some races in the second best car. Especially in this formula. You continue to overrate the lucky and underate the unfortunate.

Forget the years he won "some" races in the second best car. Look at '92, '93, '96 and '97. Those years, he won a total of 10 races in the 3rd or 4th best car. That isn't luck. Luck was Alesi's one win or Herbert's 3. Luck was Damon Hill's championship where he only had to face a rookie that would go on to define narrow ability. Luck was JV coming into the best ride of the sport, and never having to prove that he belonged there in a 2nd, 3rd or 4th best car. The past 3 years have shown that he never would have landed that ride on merit. Jacques being unable to drive in the rain and set up a car isn't luck.

[Brackets]

Originally posted by The RedBaron
Last week we had Ferrari's TC, that tripe was effectively squashed when HHF did a u-turn and Ron Dennis + DC stating that Ferrari are not cheating.

Maybe you like to believe it was squashed, but that doesn't change the fact that Ferrari has legal TC. And the list of people in the know who claim it is the best in the business is growing rapidly. Good on Ferrari I say, but the driver-who-only-needs-to-floor-it glorification is getting a bit tiresome.

[Todd]

Originally posted by Jimbo
Maybe you like to believe it was squashed, but that doesn't change the fact that Ferrari has legal TC. And the list of people in the know who claim it is the best in the business is growing rapidly. Good on Ferrari I say, but the driver-who-only-needs-to-floor-it glorification is getting a bit tiresome.

They bought the guy that programs the system from McLaren at the end of 2000. Does it bother you that Ferrari is only doing what McLaren has been doing since late 1997? Were the diagonal zebra stiped streaks laid down by Mika Hakkinen's tires at slow corner exits in 1999 too subtle for you?

[HartleyHare]

I never laid into Baddog about the judge thing - just one little ribbing in good humour over an actual post.

As to Hill, well, maybe the 'at least' bit was overstating it.... but then again...

130R, very nicely put. You hit the nail on the head.

[HartleyHare]

Diagonal zebra stripes? Were they using rear wheel steering too?

[Brackets]

Originally posted by Todd
They bought the guy that programs the system from McLaren at the end of 2000. Does it bother you that Ferrari is only doing what McLaren has been doing since late 1997? Were the diagonal zebra stiped streaks laid down by Mika Hakkinen's tires at slow corner exits in 1999 too subtle for you?

From AtlasF1:

Ferrari Unable to Lure McLaren's 'Guru'

Friday January 12th, 2001

British engineer Chris Dyer will replace software 'guru' Tad Czapski at the Ferrari team, after the Italian outfit was unable to lure South African Anton Sitpinovic from rivals McLaren.

Czapski had worked alongside World Champion Michael Schumacher since 1992, but the Briton left Ferrari at the end of last year to join the Benetton team next season.

Czapski, hired by current Arrows's boss Tom Walkinshaw back in 1992 to work on Benetton's advanced electronics systems, was responsible for control systems in the Benetton-Ford B193 transmission as well as the "launch control" featured in the Benetton 194 which could be activated with a laptop computer using a mysterious "option 13" on a list of 10 options.

Ferrari was thought to be in talks with Sitpinovic back in November, trying to lure him from McLaren by more than doubling his salary, but the negotiations were not successful.

Sitpinovic, the man behind McLaren's software - largely credited for Mika Hakkinen's blistering race-starts last season - was due to replace Czapski, but the post will now be occupied by Dyer, who had worked previously as race engineer at the Arrows team.

Thanks for playing Todd. But you loose. There is nothing too subtle about a press statement for me.

Anyway, I am going to ask a serious question, and I expect a serious answer without my intelligence being questioned as usual: what is your gripe with the revelation that Ferrari in fact has been using legal TC to the point that you start insulting people who dare mention this FACT?

[Todd]

Originally posted by Jimbo
I am going to ask a serious question, and I expect a serious answer without my intelligence being questioned as usual: what is your gripe with the revelation that Ferrari in fact has been using legal TC to the point that you start insulting people who dare mention this FACT?

My gripe is that they are only accused of doing what McLaren have been doing for years. Now, the UK press is in an uproar that there isn't a cable going from the Ferrari gas pedals to the throttle plate on an old Weber carb. Where was all this protest when slow motion replays displayed that Mika Hakkinen wasn't the one controlling wheelspin on the #1 McLaren?

As to Dyer replacing Ted, I'm not sure that is the last news item on the topic. I'll research it when I have time.

[schumigal]

Anton Stipinich (can't spell that guy's name) did move to Ferrari! I saw a report on him settling down in Ferrari in some websites. He was saying he's enjoys working with Ferrari and how the atmosphere is nicer there but at the same time quick to point out, it was a pleasure working with Mclaren too.

[schumigal]

FRom tifosi-club.com:

Sitpinovic's Touch Brings The Magic
Tested mechanical, aerodynamic, engine developments from the 652
You see it and you can't believe it. It's smooth and it's fast: Luca Badoer tries the starts from the grid and speeds away like we never seen before. The hard work of Anton Sitpinovic is evident: the new electronic features implemented in the F1-2000/2001 hybrid are working at 100%, giving the old Ferrari an incredible sprint. The traction control, the automatic and "intelligent" gearbox and the semiautomatic starting device are already excellent and the first work produced by the software guru from South Africa is the first good news for Ferrari.

Anton has already a very good feeling with the team, just like Chris Dyers, the other electronics-man of Ferrari, who arrived from Arrows and a luxury replacement of the famous Ted Czapski, boyfriend of Sonia Irvine who departed to Benetton. Sitpinovic is working in the micro-team composed of himself and Paolo Mazzetti, Alex Zanardi's uncle.

[HSJ]

Yes! I got "sentient" classification from Todd! I'm a sentient! Eat your hearts out, other Mac fans! Todd, have you ever given such a high rating for a non-MS fan?

Raelene, there is a slight problem with your "MS demolishing MH in 2000" analysis. First, Ferrari was more reliable than Mac 98-00. In 98 Mika won 8, MS won 5 races. It should have been 9-4 then also, but for the infamous Silverstone incident. And I again emphasize your lack of factoring in reliability, teamwork, and strategy in which Ferrari has been better than Mac for years now. Finally, Mika's DNF's in 2000 all happened at the worst possible time, but MS's DNF's happened only when they could do least damage. (Mika had a slump when Mac was good, Mac didn't finish races when Mika was good.)

[Todd]

Thanks, schumigal.

Jimbo,

What was that label you were sticking on me a minute ago? Loser?

[Brackets]

Originally posted by Todd
As to Dyer replacing Ted, I'm not sure that is the last news item on the topic. I'll research it when I have time.

You wish to imply that in between Jan 12 and the first race of the season *one* guy could design and perfect - I dont see any Ferrari's blowing up, after all - a TC system that would fall within current regs, something that must be very hard to do judging by McLarens current pace and grip, yet all of the Ferrari engineering staff needs a delay for the re-introduction of full blown TC, a system they even have as standard on their 360 (OK, lame comparison)? Sorry, it just doesn't add up.

And even if Siptonivic finally did join Ferrari, surely it does not mean his work at McLaren vanished into thin air? Yet Mika's and David's starts have left something to be desired this season.

My gripe is that they are only accused of doing what McLaren have been doing for years.

Fair enough answer. Of course, that doesn't mean I agree .

Schumigal,

tifosi-club.com is the site that revealed MS suffered a tire puncture in Silverstone '99 . This would of course lay blame on Bridgestone, rather than on their beloved Ferrari, for Michael's broken leg. So excuse me while I wait for a more reputable source. Mind you, I'm not having a go at you, just the source.

[Todd]

Originally posted by Jimbo
You wish to imply that in between Jan 12 and the first race of the season *one* guy could design and perfect - I dont see any Ferrari's blowing up, after all - a TC system that would fall within current regs, something that must be very hard to do judging by McLarens current pace and grip, yet all of the Ferrari engineering staff needs a delay for the re-introduction of full blown TC, a system they even have as standard on their 360 (OK, lame comparison)? Sorry, it just doesn't add up.

It is almost as if he already had the program completed before he left McLaren... Could he have walked out with a disk? Emailed the program to his personal account? Stealing software is SO difficult.

Originally posted by Jimbo
And even if Siptonivic finally did join Ferrari, surely it does not mean his work at McLaren vanished into thin air? Yet Mika's and David's starts have left something to be desired this season.

That depends on just how devious the guy was. He could have pulled this off quite easily.

Originally posted by Jimbo
Schumigal,

tifosi-club.com is the site that revealed MS suffered a tire puncture in Silverstone '99 . This would of course lay blame on Bridgestone, rather than on their beloved Ferrari, for Michael's broken leg. So excuse me while I wait for a more reputable source. Mind you, I'm not having a go at you, just the source.

While anything that is trying to pass itself off as investigative journalism is suspect, don't you think the fact checking for a fluff personality piece is done at the level where they know whether they talked to a Siptonivic or a Dyer?

[George Bailey]

Originally posted by HSJ
Raelene, there is a slight problem with your "MS demolishing MH in 2000" analysis. First, Ferrari was more reliable than Mac 98-00. In 98 Mika won 8, MS won 5 races. It should have been 9-4 then also, but for the infamous Silverstone incident. And I again emphasize your lack of factoring in reliability, teamwork, and strategy in which Ferrari has been better than Mac for years now. Finally, Mika's DNF's in 2000 all happened at the worst possible time, but MS's DNF's happened only when they could do least damage. (Mika had a slump when Mac was good, Mac didn't finish races when Mika was good.)

Silverstone 98 is infamous only to sore losers. Mika goes flying off the track on full wets, saftey car comes out - as if they needed to slow down to stay on the track or something!

MS DNF in Monaco happened when it could do the least damage? 10 points becomes 0 points - that's maximum damage to me. Mika being bad for part of the year is his fault. It stands to reason if you don't drive well for 4 or 5 races it may impact your title hopes. You are arguing that MS didn't demolish Mika in 2000, and part of your defense of Mika is that he had the bad luck of driving badly for part of the season that he had a reliable car!

Finally, when will you Mac apologists finally realize the 2000 Mac had one fewer breakdown than the 2000 Ferrari. Breaking one time less than your opponents does not make you less reliable.