How Could Ferrari be Anyone's Favorite Team?

[Redneck]

On the argument regarding dangerous car design. I had always thought that award went to Colin Chapman and Lotus. That is not a slam on Colin, I think he was one of the most brilliant engineers in F1. But, he did have a reputation for building cars that were meant to last just long enough to cross the finish line. It did not always work that way, and suspension failures were not uncommon, which I believe resulted in several serious crashes. I do not know the specific incidents like some of you that are so brilliant at being able to retrieve. My mind doesn't function quite as well as it used to (too old or to much 'shine).

[Bononi]

I would like to see old teams like Lotus, Brabham and Shadow on the field again... but that's just dreaming. With all the big companies coming in, Ferrari seems to remain the only team with that old appeal.

[Roy2]

My posting has, as I expected, pushed some peoples' buttons. It started with a question, "How could Ferrari be anyones favorite team?". I stated that it was my least favorite team and then gave a few reasons why so. Now, I know perfectly well that there are a lot of tifosi out there, who are not Italian, and knew that they would fire back with lots of reasons why they love Ferrari, and would attempt to rebutt the negative points I listed. Well, I got back a little more than I expected but that's okay. It's mostly flailing and easy enough to deal with.

I've got a least favorie team, but I've never had a favorite team. I've always had favorite drivers, starting with Stirling Moss. I tend to look at a team according to the way it treats its drivers. Now Montezemolo is not treating Barichello very well, and while Schumacher is not Ferrari, Montezemolo is.

So Murph thinks in (1), mis-quoting while he's at it, that it's pathetic to state that "it's beyond me how anyone could support them". It's ridiculous to question why anyone (other than Italians) would be a fan of the Scuderia. Why? I told you why I dislike Ferrari. Do you think I didn't expect that you and other Ferrari fans would fire back with rebuttals and reasons why you like Ferrari? It's called discussion, teacher. And what's this in (2) about cheering wildly over crashes where drivers were hurt or could have been hurt? I said that after my favorite driver had been fired, I liked to see the Ferraris go up in smoke, I didn't say I liked to see the car and the driver go up in smoke. Did you really think that that was what I meant? If I meant it then your "just pathetic, ... simply beyond my comprehension Thank God I was raised differently" would make sense. I didn't, so it doesn't.
The statement I "issued" about the contracts was that they were designed to produce a certain result, to help advance Schumacher to the title at the expense of his team mate. I made no comment on how successful they proved to be. So your 3 instances in (3) are beside the point, if not entirely inclusive. What you didn't include are the times the team mate was require to block for Schu, sacrificing his own chances thereby. If you have the number of instances at you fingertips, they are equally beside the point, for the same reason.
Mario denies that Ronnie let him win. At least this is what he says in the extensive interview with him in "Champions". Gerard is right, we don't know what was in the Lotus contracts. Team orders are one thing, contracts reducing a driver to slave status all season, every season, are something else. Patrese in '92, after Mansell had established a big points lead, was expected to drive as #2 from that point of the season on. Big difference.

Okay, you've told me why you like Ferrari. Now I know and it sounds great to me. You'll be at the USGP cheering for Ferrari, and good on you for it. I'll be in front of the TV pulling for JV and Rubens Barichello (I'll make an exception in his case).
You've called me a fool and left me with a thought, I'll leave you with a question. A great thinker once asked, "who will teach the teacher?".

[Liz]

The important thing about a discussion is that it lead somewhere. I think this one did. In fact it led everywhere, because of the neglect of another important thing: when a discussion starts, someone should define the important terms. The one term that was not defined was "Ferrari." For us "old geezers", Ferrari is the cars, pure and simple. For others, Ferrari is the whole Scuderia. And for those born after 1982, apparently Ferrari is Michael Schumacher and his entourage.

It is very hard to have an argument that leads to a conclusion if everyone is talking from a different direction.

Finally, I think we could dispense with inflammatory personal words like "pathetic" - they very quickly turn a good argument into a free fight and they never lead anywhere.

[Roy2]

Gerard,
Okay, lets look at them one by one.

The Stirling Moss story comes from my memory. I became a Stirling Moss fan when I was 14 or 15, and read everything about him that I could find. If you look at http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/moss_bio.htm you will see a version of this. I said it was in the '50's (it was in 1951), that it was somewhere in Italy, I think (it was in Bari), that his car was given to another driver (to Taruffi), that Moss swore never to drive for Ferrari (this version says that "deeply embarrassed, he vowed to exact his revenge against the red cars"). When I was reading this stuff back in 1955/56 he was saying (or they were writing) that he swore that he would never drive for Ferrari, and this was widely published at the time. When did Moss know that Enzo Ferrari snubbed him unwittingly? If he knew it at the time it didn't seem to mitigate his indignation and resentment.

I see that you haven't commented on the Fangio warning to John Surtees, or on the Brian Redman story. Why would Fangio say this to Surtees? If you can, check out the John Surtees episode of the TV series "Champions", then you will hear what I heard. There was no explanation given here as to why, in Fangio's opinion, it could be dangerous at Ferrari. But there is plenty of explanation in Brian Redman's story in the Speedvision feature "Italian Racing Red". He tells of an F2 practice or qualifying session in which the team manager lied to him about his lap times, understating them so that he would try harder. It was on the old NŸrbergring, a dangerous place, and Redmond thought that he had been put in danger. Redmond said that he felt if he accepted an F1 ride with Ferrari he might not survive it.

"Well for your information motor racing is a dangerous sport". Yes, and perhaps it was a little more dangerous at Ferrari. I see you've left Ascari off the list, I guess because he was lapping Monza in a Ferrari sports car at the time? Counting Ascari, two died for unknown reasons, five by driver error. Had Brian Redman been killed trying to work his way up to a time he had already achieved, that might have been called driver error also, making six deaths put down to driver error that Ferrari had nothing to do with, for all anyone knows.

Prost said, after Japan '91 that the car handled like a truck, and was fired for it by a management triumverate that further complicated an already complicated chain of command. I imagine Prost had talked to them, until he was blue in the face, probably. What Ferrari did in '96 they could have done in '90 if they had had the wit. Unify the management and build the team around Prost. Anyway, that's how it looked to this Prost fan.

I read Murph's post and I'm not impressed by his personal tone or by his arguments. Yes, we do know what's not in the contracts of other teams. We know, for example, that Coulthard is not contractually subordinated to Hakkinen the way Irvine was to Schumacher. How do we know this? Because of the way Coulthard has taken points from Hakkinen. Team orders are one thing, and McLaren from time to time has team orders, but those machiavellian contracts of Ferrari are of a completely different order, at least in their application.

Schumacher is not Ferrari, Ferrari is not Schumacher, granted. But this is not true for Montezemolo. If tifosi means adoring the car despite everything, then it's no wonder that I don't understand the phenomenon. No Gerard, I haven't heard of those rows and affairs. So to me the villain is still Ferrari. But how important is it? It's only emotionally based opinion. Love 'em or hate 'em, I've given my opinion, you've given yours. Where's the harm, or do we all have to be tifosi?

[TimD]

Originally posted by Roy2
So to me the villain is still Ferrari. But how important is it? It's only emotionally based opinion. Love 'em or hate 'em, I've given my opinion, you've given yours. Where's the harm, or do we all have to be tifosi?

Can I suggest, Roy, that the bristling defences put up to respond to you have something to do with your original question? I agree with your last statement - "I've given my opinion, you've given yours. Where's the harm...?" Quite right, and I gave my opinion too, for what it was worth.

But you originally asked "How could Ferrari be anyone's favourite team?" Not making a statement, such as "Ferrari is F1's villain, and here's why I think so...!" But no, the very tenor of your question demands a defence, and you would, I am sure, be the first to admit that Ferrari fosters the most loyal fans in the world. If I had made the original statement, I would have invested in a tin helmet first.

Lest it be forgotten, my favourite team ran in blue, and carried elf sponsorship and a driver with a tartan crash-hat, so I am not arguing from blind tifosi loyalty. I will say this though, in the year 2000, I prefer it when a red car crosses the line in front of a silver grey one....

Just my humble opinion.

[TimD]

Oh, and on the subject of Stirling Moss, wasn't he racing a Ferrari 250 SWB in the early sixties in the Goodwood TT races for Rob Walker? And if I remember rightly, at the time of his career-ending accident, he and Rob Walker were seriously weighing up the possibilities of entering a works-supplied F1 Ferrari in the royal blue and white stripe of the Walker Racing Team. And Ferrari was reportedly amenable to the idea of the fastest driver in the world running a Ferrari which WASN'T RED!

I think by 1962, the hatchet had been very much buried.

Hmm, just a thought, Stirling's big crash at Goodwood was in a Lotus 18/21, wasn't it? And to this day, no one has any idea precisely what went wrong....

[Roy2]

TimD,
I'm aware of that. I designed the question to stir the hornet's nest. Then I gave the reasons why, over the years, I have disliked Ferrari. It's a debatable question as long as the two sides are willing to confine themselves to debate. The bristling defence you mention descended to a personal level in the case of one poster, and to heavy condescension on the part of another, so without conceding anything to them, I asked how important is it, where's the harm?
But if the Ferrari lovers insist on getting bristly, and shirty about it, so be it. This Ferrari hater, for one, doesn't find their bluster very convincing.

I must confess, I did confess, that I enjoyed watching Ferrari DNF, as long as my driver wasn't behind the wheel, as long as no one got injured. If you never have, you're a better man than I am Gunga Din.

Moss drove the Ferrari GT (was it?) for Rob Walker's team. I
remember reading something about the possibility of his driving a works F1 Ferrari for Walker, but there was no talk of his driving it for the Ferrari team. Both sides seemed to be putting out feelers for some kind of a reconciliation, and had it happened this might have made a difference to the way I regarded Ferrari, but it didn't happen.

[Neil C]

Fair enough Roy, but baiting someone just to "stir a hornets nest" is a cheap shot. You use the word "hate" for a competitor in a sporting event? What then do you use to describe something really loathsome?

I think Ferrari's defenders in this forum have been rather restrained, in spite of your intentional provocation.

[Roy2]

Neil C
I don't know what to make of your "cheap shot" comment. It looks like a cheap shot itself. Sort of feels like it.

The hate thing has to be seen in the context of "you either love 'em or hate 'em", as said by Gerryl near the beginning of this thread. I don't care enough about Ferrari to hate it, I don't care enough about any favorite driver to love him. It's just a sport, and this discussion board is just a pastime, for heavens' sake.

Yes, they have been models of restraint, if I was talking about their mothers. If you want to debate the topic, fire away. If you want only to make ad hominem comments, then ...who cares?

[Murph]

Liz: You are right about the use of inflammatory personal words and how they do no good for anyone
in these forums. I should know better….and I apologize to all I have offended…especially Roy2 & Minardi Fan.

Roy2: My post was not meant to be a personal attack on you. I am one who does not post very often… and most of my posts deal with either the history of f1 (primarily the ‘70’s & 80’s) or the new type of F1 fan that has arrived on the scene in the decade of the ‘90’s. I will attempt to explain my “points” again and identify just whose thread I was responding to.

Point One: This is in response to your initial statement and your response to Redneck’s reply.
“And they can have their tifosi too.”

“There is nothing “strange” that Ferrari has more supporters than any other current team…. It is a national team… it has a much longer history than any of the “garagistas”, it is a team that evokes passion, it is the link between motor racing’s past to the present. “

a. This is in response to Jay’s statement.
“Strangely, Redneck is right in that they are by far the most popular team.”

“to state that " it's beyond me how anyone can support them".. ….is to be a fool. “

b. This is in response to Minardi Fans statement.
“I agree too - it's beyond me how anyone can support them.”


Point Two: This is my “ I can’t understand why f1 fans don’t appreciate all teams/drivers”

“2) The fact that someone would take pleasure at someone else’s (team or individual) misfortune… whether it is over a period of “years”, or cheering wildly at Michael’s injury at Silverstone, Mika’s crash at Imola, or at the events at the first corner at Austria this year …is just pathetic…..and simply beyond my comprehension. I guess I was raised differently….. thank god. “

Obviously I am in a real minority in my feelings here even among the “old timers” in 10-10th’s. I can understand why Liz, Jarma, and many others dislike Schumacher (and in some cases other drivers as well)…. He has disgraced himself with his actions at Adelaide and Jerez. I respect those feelings….. but I find celebrating someone’s misfortune through a DNF or an accident disconcerting. The pictures from Silverstone of some of the crowd still cheering even after
they were apprised of Schumacher’s injury disgusted me…. That is what I was referring to. I was not inferring that you were hoping for driver injuries. Celebrating that other drivers have out performed a driver that one isn’t fond of…. That I like.


Point Three: This was in response to Ralf’s Girl’s statement that drivers have been “cheated” (my emphasis) of victories that they deserved to appease Schumacher.

“Still, you've got to admit that Ferrari have cheated their drivers out of wins in order to continually secure the services of one Mr M. Schumacher. “

(3)” When one issues a statement…. It helps if one corroborates that statement with facts…. I can think of 3 instances in the past 5 years when a Ferrari was leading late in a race… and the team made “the call” for the leading Ferrari to give way to his teammate giving the teammate the win.... A) Suzuka in ’97 Irvine to Schumacher B) Hockenheim ’99 Salo to Irvine C) Malaysia in ’99 Schumacher to Irvine. Have no idea where you got this.... “

My definition of “cheating” is that the driver who is leading in the latter stages of a race is given
“the call” to give the lead/victory to his teammate who was lying in 2nd place. I could only think
of those three instances at Ferrari since the 1996 season. My examples had no impact on Ralf’s
Girl…. She repeated her statement in her next post.

Point Four: Here I attempted to remind all that though most fans do not like the idea of a team designating
a #1 driver and a #2….( And implementing team orders) it’s been around since f1 began. My
primary example was Team Lotus in 1978. When Gerard asked you to read my post…. He was talking about Team Lotus in ’78. Us “old timers” know of Chapman’s penchant for team orders and that in some cases those orders found themselves in the driver’s contracts. As I mentioned in my post… I am not overly found of #1’s and #2’s….though I understand the thought process behind it. ”I’d like to take this time to quote from “Jenks A Passion For Motor Sport”. The author is the late Dennis Jenkinson who is acknowledged by most as one of
(if not THE) finest motor racing correspondents who made MOTOR SPORT magazine a “must”
for f1 enthusiasts. (Jenks is also noted as Stirling’s navigator in the ’55 Mille Miiglia (and wrote the foreword to this book( Jenks wrote an article on “team spirit” which he defined as team discipline. The title of his piece was
TEAM SPIRIT Team Lotus 1978… the article is 3 pages long … but I offer you these quotes

“In 1978, Team Lotus had a model set-up which to this day reflects well on the drivers concerned and the strength of Colin Chapman as the leader of the team. The Lotus Formula One car was as good as they come, and Chapman had signed Mario Andretti as his number-one driver. The number-two driver was Ronnie Peterson who was as fast as anybody. Right from the start Colin made it clear that Mario was No.1 and Ronnie was No. 2, and you didn’t argue with Colin Chapman.” The article then goes on to describe the whole driving strategy which Jenks points out was based on the fact that the team was capable of dominating races. I quote from the article..
“Mario asked Ronnie to agree to staying comfortably behind in second place. Not too close, but equally not too far back to allow anyone to entertain thoughts of getting between them. If anything intruded on Mario’s race strategy and he knew he could do nothing about it, but equally knew that Ronnie could, then he would flick on his red rear foglight as the signal for the young Swede to go by and “get stuck into it”.
"Such a situation could have arisen if someone in third place began to challenge seriously, and Mario couldn’t go faster for some reason or another. It was a very simple bit of team discipline, which you knew Mario would observe scrupulously and he hoped Ronnie would. “No red light, stay behind”, or alternatively, “Red for go”"
Jenks then illustrated how this worked to perfection at the South African Grand Prix at Kyalami in 1978…. With Ronnie squeaking past Depailler 3 corners from the finish line. Jenks ended the article with…”That season ended with Lotus winning the Manufacturer’s Championship, Mario Andretti winning six races and Ronnie Peterson winning two races, with Mario claiming, justifiably, the crown of World Champion. Team spirit at its best: and to me it still seems like it was only yesterday…”

I then ended my post with one of the 3 ideas I attempted to instill in all my students.
“Knowledge without thought is a trap, as thought without knowledge is a snare” That quote was aimed at everybody who posts at 10-10ths …including Me.(the “you” is intended to be the “universal you”…. Not just you Roy2)… that one should not simply regurgitate what someone (“who teaches the teacher”) tells them… a student should test for themselves the accuracy of what passes as knowledge…. but also one should avoid stating something without checking its validity.

My second lesson was to “understand the difference between being ignorant.. and being stupid.” Ignorance is when you don’t know any better ( hopefully you learn from your mistakes…and move on)..stupid is when you do know better and yet ya…….

The last thing I taught my students is…. “One must take responsibility for one’s actions and inaction’s”. I take full responsibility for my inflammatory remarks and apologize for them. But understand that I would not be true to myself if I did not respond to some of the statements given in this thread….. my problem is that I crossed the line and I am sorry. I also learned a valuable lesson from you Roy2….I never realized that someone would post a new thread for the purpose of “pushing somebody’s buttons”….I guess I am pretty naïve for a 53 year old man….. my big mistake was in thinking that most everybody at 10-10th’s were like me and so... I saw others as I see myself.

Since I have gone on and on and on…. I will not respond to Angst statement that Enzo would not stand for how the “Benetton South” group are running the Scuderia now… (I agree with him) but I will leave that for another time.

Take care all

Murph

[Peter Mallett]

I don't think you can get away from the cars themselves. The Turbo charges 126 series were possibly the most spectactular F1 cars ever to grace the championship. drivers like Lauda, Reuteman, Villeneauve and Mansell and before them Hill, Fangio, Ascari et al. All promolgated the legend. Its still the team to which all drivers aspire.

Trouble is, we tend to personalise things these days (I tried to make this point elsewhere) so when those "bad guys" win or use tactics, which IMO they have used for many years, we get bent out of shape.

To me its the cars and drivers, not necessarily the team per se, so when they win I celebrate that as much as if it were a Macaroon, Williams, Minardi or any other team.

I do see how people can get passionate about this and thats what this sport is about (even if the drivers burst into tears occaisionaly).

[angst]

You said it Mr Mallett. Villeneuve, Ascari, scarlet (nearly) cars, the prancing horse, the whole history of the thing. Of course they inspire passion in fans. That's what Ferrari fans support. It's a pity we can't have regs that allow a more individual response to design, because at the moment the cars are ugly and homogenous (I loved the difference Ferrari had to other cars on the grid - 312T series, 126CK - absolutely awe-inspiring in the hands of Villeneuve).

[Marshal]

An interesting topic. I used to be one of the many worldwide for whom Ferrari was my favourite. There is definitely something intangibly exciting about the history and the legend that has grown up around the red cars. A lot of it was IMO to do with Mr. Ferrari's own passion for the race.

Sad to say that the current Ferrari team has manage to completely dissolution me. I don't have a favourite team any more. Is this just me or are then any other erstwhile tifosi who feel the magic is now gone?

[Minardi fan]

The magic (something I have never experienced as I'm a bit young) has probably been lost in the deluge of commercial rubbish Ferrari pour out. Why do we see so many Tifosi at GP's? Because every F1 catalogue you buy is full of Ferrari clobber. Believe me, it's a struggle finding Minardi gear.

And it has to be said, I don't hate Ferrari, I just hate one of their drivers - for the simple fact he is an egotistical cheat.

[Peter Mallett]

There's a Ferrari merchandise shop in Schipol Airport.

[Run Free]

This topic is an interesting one.....
I'm italian. I was born in the early sixties. I was a F1 follower since my childhood, and I was obviously a tifosA ('coz I'm a woman). I WAS a tifosa, but I'm not any more. F1 has changed a lot since the seventies: it's now a sort of car manufacturers' advertising. FIAT-Ferrari is NOT the old Ferrari as much as MERCEDES-McLaren is not the old McLaren. I bet that Enzo Ferrari shouldn't agree with the way the team is build now. And, most of all, I hate TGF ("deeply dislike" is too soft to express my feeling in English; I love sport, not only F1, and he's the only one sportman I ever hated - oh, sorry, TGF is NOT a sportman of course).
Fiat-Ferrari is built around TGF, and yes, they're the most unsportsmanlike team on the grid, as much as their leading driver is. Why the hell should I cheer for them? NO MORE FROM 1996!
And I'm very, very happy when TGF gets some trouble, ah ah! Even if I don't like Mercedes.

NOTE FOR MURPH: "basta...basta" means "stop it...stop it", so if you want to cheer for ferrari I suggest you to scream something like "forza, forza". (smile - how do you all put the icons where you want ????? Help!!!!!)

[fatbloke]

Guess which one is Jean Todt:

:chainsaw:

[Roy2]

Murph,
I read your post as if all the statements it referenced were mine. My IMac screen displays your text in a strange way, converting commas to zeros with little dots over them, and other weird character translations, making it hard to read. I thought you were mis-quoting me when you weren't referring to my post at all.

Some posters seem to feel that it was reprehensible of me start a topic designed to elicit response, to "push some people's buttons", to "stir the hornets' nest". It doesn't seem to me to be that sinister. I read the statement made by Montezemolo after Barichello's win. It, justifiably or not, seemed to be such ungrateful, cynical piece of realpolitik, that it disgusted me. I don't like Ferrari for this, and for some other things, but I know that Ferrari has its fans and lots of them. I asked the topic question and typed it up to express my view of the moment, but hesitated over actually posting it. The legions of Ferrari fans on this board would swarm to the defence of Ferrari and make things very hot for one Roy2.

I decided to send because even if I took a beating in the process, it might elict some good discussion. I never expected to convince Ferrari fans that there was anything wrong with their team, and I expected that they'd have a lot of fun knocking the props out of my arguments.

That's why I launched the topic: to vent my feelings of the moment and to finally contribute a topic to the board, one that might result in a lot of response. Murph, I'm older than you, but I must be a little naive also. When the heavy condescension and the ad hominem comments started coming I was quite surprised, and then the old self-defense mechanisms kicked in and colored my responses.

However, you've made a large-minded reply above and if I hurt you or anyone else through my one-sided comments against your favorite, your beloved Ferrari, then I'm sorry.
Roy

[Minardi fan]

Fatbloke that is excellent. I'm personally pretending the grinning one is Flav...

[Liz]

Roy2, starting a thread just to make people jump up and down is a bit troubling, if you don't believe what you are saying but are just making wild statements for the purpose of causing trouble. I don't think you are doing that, although your language is a bit extreme.

As I recall, my first post (about a million years ago) was inquiring if the forum at large believed that Senna was crazy. (I think he was.) That started quite a discussion, you can imagine!

Anyway as the French say, "tout casse, tout lasse, tout passe" that is everything breaks, everything becomes boring and everything eventually goes away. When I look at TGF on the grid, i try to remember this.

Some day Bernie will die (of natural causes) and TGF will retire, and Ferrari will go on under new management.