Montezemolo speaks

[Damon]

hello the concorde agreement .

[JohnSSC]

Every time I hear the word "Concorde" I think of Monty Python's "In search of the Holy Grail" where Sir Lancelot's squire (Concorde) gets an arrow in the chest!

That whole agreement is like an arrow in the chest of F1. Does the saying "Don't kill the Golden Goose" mean anything?

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by Damon
Eddie, a more acurate comparison would be with 1989. Mclaren absolutely blew the field away and could quite easily have employed a similar tactic as Ferrari did this year. But instead they chose to let their drivers take their dominent car and race each other and as a result Senna, Prost and Mclaren will have far more lasting respect from the fans than the current Ferrari lot can ever hope for. Of course that doesn't really matter to them, as long as the balance sheet at the end of the year looks good...

I suppose you mean 1988, when McLaren really walked all over the field. But they weren't in the position to take it on as Ferrari have in 1992 for the simple matter they employed two -more or less- equal drivers. Thats ok, but Ferrari was out to get the drivertitle after 1979. It was about time after numerous 'learning' years. At the end of 1995 Ferrari acknowledged the fact that if they wouldn't succeed with Schumacher, they surely wouldn't succeed without him. Schumacher was their only ticket to drivertitles in the next ten seasons. It's what happens when one driver clearly is ahead of everybody else. You have to sacrifice a lot to get him on board, and Ferrari have. It's only natural that they will do everything in their power to make it all happen, which is clinching the desired title as soon as possible. They simply want it bad enough.

I'll say it again. Expecting Ferrari to take two number one's on board simply won't and cannot happen. Perhaps if Ferrari was in it for the constructorstitle and Schumacher had settled for less pay. But since they are in it for the driverstitle and there is only one driver which presents -almost- a certainty of getting that title, Ferrari is betting solely on him. It's the Ferrari with number 1 who is beating Williams and McLaren. And that is enough to take the drivertitle to Maranello. Mission accomplished and in recordtime as well. When the number two Ferrari makes sure that the competition loses out on second place as well and helps taking the constructurstitle, well, thats just the icing on the cake.

It's not Ferrari's fault that they don't have to fight anyone to get what they want.

It also not their obligation to stage their own fights when the rest is unable to attack, just like Mansell didn't need to lift off to pretend that 1992 was a 'close' battle.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by JonesF1
I dont agree that teams arent required to put on a spectacle because technically they have to. People watch racing for the racing and if nothings going on like this year then people turn off their TVs. These big manufacturers arent in F1 for the spirit of racing but for recognition. If no ones watching no one cares and thus the whole project becomes a moot point.

Saying that the teams have an interest in spectacle, does not make them responsible for creating it.

In 2002 Ferrari had their interest in clinching the drivertitle. From Ferrari's point of view, that goal was in contradiction to 'creating' a spectacle. Ferrari choose to hunt their primary goal which they discribed as clinching the drivertitle as soon as possible. Sure, it didn't made for any spectacle, but thats because the competition wasn't up to their standards.

If you are offended by the bluntness in which Ferrari acted out their strategy, than you are just a little naive in believing such strategies don't exist. The funny part is, Ferrari isn't keeping it a secret and is remarkably open about it (hence the bluntness). I'd rather see it out in the open than teams and drivers shouting 'no comment' or rambling on about some pre-race agreement when asked about a rather strange overtaking manoeuvre between teammates.

[Damon]

Yeah, I obviously meant 1988 Eddie, a typo!

With regard 1992 though Eddie do you not think that even then Williams went about the title better than Ferrari did. There were no favours being done that were arranged by the team and both drivers were (more or less) given a totally equal chance at the title. Mansell let Patrese through at Monza and Suzuka by his own choice. Besides 2002 was the 3rd year in a row that Ferrari have won it. Surely they've proved they are now the class of the field so why not just let the drivers get on with it?

[Jukebox]

Originally posted by Russfeld
I doubt he was the on who made the decision at the track.

He's always in the pit in almost every race and from what i saw in Monaco before qualifying, Michael just went pass Luca without stepping aside and they banged eachother's shoulders...clearly i could see a smirk on Luca's face after that.

PS: Red, Rubens just felt that he was not being treated fairly but who can blame Ferrari cause he's not the most consistent driver on the grid. In Austria, I just felt that Ferrari/Luca should have let Rubens win since he dosen't seem to want to slow down and avoid any embarassing moments like what had happened.

It's difficult to be in a different time zone as all the actions in here is when i'm on the bed

[Red]

Originally posted by Damon
You're contradicting yourselves here guys. I agree to some extent with what Red has said. No Ferrari are not there to provide a show but their existance as a Grand Prix team pulling in many millions of $$ each year is down, in no small part, to the people that watch them. There is no way Ferrari (or BWM, Toyota, Ford etc. etc.) would compete if this sport had the same coverage as a local go-kart event.

Previously posted by Damon
[...] isn't the whole point of the endeavour to provide a spectacle for the many millions of people paying huge amounts of money to see some RACING.

We are contradicting ourselves? Damon, (and JonesF1) read my lips: "FORMULA 1 IS NOT A SHOW. IS A SPORT!" A sport mean that you have to be faster than the other guy's cars. Not more entertaining. You all keep saying that Ferrari are killing the 'sport' yet you keep demanding 'spectacle'. Spectacle is not sport. It's show.

[Adam43]

This has become mixed up with definitions.

This is a sport and should remain so. I don't like anything that artificially affects the result. e.g. reversed grids, etc...

It would be nicer if there was more spectacle. But this doesn't mean reducing the sport. Enabling cars to overtake and reducing cars performance differential (maybe by cost cutting?) can be done without the detriment of the sport.

Obviously the team wants to maximise it's chance of winning (like in any sport way). And Ferrari do this for Michael in moments like Austria I suppose. But of course this has artificially affected the result.

There is also business. And in many ways this is similar to sport. the aim is to do as well as possible - to win. However I think there is a difference between Sport and Business. Business is a win at all costs situation. Whereas true sport accepts defeat. You can still achieve at sport and lose (the age old adage of "it's the taking part"). This does not mean you don't try your hardest, but you don't have to win and hence, perhaps, there are things that a business philosophy allows you to do that a sporting philosophy doesn't.

In business you win and you get money.

In sport you win and you don't get anything. The sporting prize for winning isn't anything material. You get the same as the loser. And that is the way it should be. The truest sporting competitor does not try and win for gain, but for the sake of doing it. (Why do you climb mountains? Because they are there).

(Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying drivers should race for the nothing or anything like that.)

Obviously in F1 these boundaries have been blurred. And I have always taken the approach that unless it is cheating then teams are allowed to do what they want. However, my champions are ones that win (or lose) and abide by the sporting side. The ones who compete because they want to.

[JonesF1]

NiceGuy. I said "teams" not "Ferrari", as in the whole league. And honestly I wasnt "offended by their bluntness" but I did think a few of their decisions were downright stupid. And thanks for calling me naive.

[Damon]

Red, by spectacle I don't mean artificially making the sport more exciting, the ideas of reversed grids and weight penalties are farcical. However, what I was trying to say (and what Adam said) is that sport chould come first and foremost, business second. As Adam says, Ferrari's style is very well suited to the business world, but as a team competing in a sport their ideals are not exactly ethically sound.

[Red]

Neither did I mean those kind of a spectacle Damon.

Yes, F1 shall remain a sport first, business second and only in 3rd - a show. Unfortunately the business part, even if it comes in second but is a very close second.

Nevermind. What I wanted to say is that you emphasize the part of business which derives directly from 'show'. 'No show - no fans - bad for business'... you know what I mean.

That is overtakings at all cost is good show, but first 2 cars lapping the entire field at the end of the race is considered boring. Or 1999 season, a season full of incredible gaffes and proofs of amateurism is considered one of the most exciting seasons ever while Schumacher winning by mid-season is considered ruining the sport. I mean ruining the show.