What should Ferrari's penalty be?

+1

'That's racist!'

One has the freedom to say what one wants and others have the freedom to dis/agree,
group dynamics notwithstanding.

 

There is a big difference between having an intellectual discussions about what happens in the sport and people coming here with the sole intent to bash Ferrari and its drivers. I have no way knowing for sure, but I hope that F-chat was created for people to come and share their passion about the marque, not being called names and being sucked into arguments based on obvious anti-ferrari statements. I believe that this is what ARTVONNE had in mind.

It is an entertaining idea that I never thought about, but it would be cool if Ferrari pulls out of F1 for few years and put all their efforts in LM and other racing series. I am pretty sure that if they don't have F1 to worry about the scuderia can dominate endurance racing again. I know Enzo didn't care about much else than F1, but he was a man of principle and LeMans probably would have kept him content for few years.

 

Oh, and you were so close! (No, not really, just trying to make you feel better.)

Back to the point:

http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html

That's the official FIA list of all the rules: the sporting regs, the technical regs, and all the "related regulations," specifically, the International Sporting Code, Appendices H, L, O and the General Prescriptions. That's not my list, it's the FIA's. Those are the rules. All of them.

The reason there is no mention of the "wet race rule" is because there is no such thing: it was abolished years ago. Just as the "one tyre rule" you dredged up from 2003 has been.

As I originally said, you have been misled by Mr Benoit, who is a sloppy journalist. He clearly does not take the time to familiarise himself with the rules of the sport he purports to be an authority on. It's not that hard: even I do it, and I am not writing for publication.

 

+10000

Well said Although it would be a miserable place without these ridiculous statements..

 

You lost me at sloppy.

Do you know whom you are talking about? This guy has been with F1 for over 40 years. He attends all the races and is a personal friend of Bernie and many team managers. He hangs out with these guys, he runs a F1 betting pool for the drivers and team owners at every race. He is also in the top 100 most influential people in F1, a list that includes all drivers, managers etc. When he makes a comment like this, you can take it to the bank. That's not to say he can't make a mistake and quite possibly he made on here. But show some respect please.

There are more rules about wet races apart from the one we're debating. The term "WR" is for real otherwise why even bother declaring a wet race.

 

Show me the rule. Anywhere you like.

 

I got a better idea. I'll ask somebody who knows. Somebody from a team. Let's see what they come back with.

I'm not insisting you're wrong, but I still have a hard time believing 80 pages cover it all. If that is the case, F1 must have undergone a massive paper reduction act in recent years.

 

That will do just fine.

 

That's difficult to understand on the basis of what happened last weekend. If there is no 'wet race' rule why were Ferrari not allowed to start on intermediates as they wanted to do? At the very least there must be a rule that states the stewards can order the teams to start on full wets if they consider the conditions warrant it and presumably that is written somewhere.

I've also heard commentators refer to 'a wet race' and I understood that to be some sort of official definition, with the implication that there were some specific rules or requirements, which were different from a 'normal' race, that needed to be met or observed.

 

+1

Which is why a big white sign with the letters WR is presented on the grid. You don't need that if there are no special rules coming into play.

 

Just as there is a big difference between expressing an opinion and being labelled a McLaren Apologist. Who made you the arbiter of others' intents or the gatekeeper for all things Ferrari Sacrosant?

 

And the picture of that sign is where?

You all keep saying "there must be some rule" but you can't find it for some reason. I am telling you: there is no longer any such rule.

 

You're hitting a nerve: I saw it just this week somewhere online, but for the life of me can't find it anymore. Blick reorganized their website just this week and it might have become a casualty. I'm pretty sure it was from the Fuji race.

 

Apologies for the nerve hitting. Seriously. But just as seriously: this is a case of ghost memory. Once upon a time there was a rule about wet races. It was abolished years ago. And with all due respect to Mr Benoit, he was sloppy with that particular article, regardless of his connections and history.

 

It is not YOU who is getting on my nerves. It is my frustration that I can't find any of the stuff I'm searching for. Maybe I am on a ghost recogn...

I do know for a fact that I saw the picture of the WR sign this week. But I cannot say with 100% certainty, that it was from the Fuji race.

Maybe we get lucky with the weather for the Chinese GP. Let's keep an eye out for that sign and those wet race comments from the TV guys.

 

I am NOT against intellectual debate. What I am against are people who obviously have some axe to grind against Ferrari, where there is a seemingly endless stream of attacks. When we first heard of Stepney, The three musketteers came to attack Ferrari and hold McLaren blameless. When it was printed Stepney may have actually recieved monies in excess of a million GBP, that was pushed aside and soon forgotten. When these same individuals found no other recourse, they went so far as to blame Ferrari for somehow allowing Stepney to take the material. When this wouldnt work, well, the cry went up that everyone is cheating so who cares. No matter which way the evidence lies, they spin the ball their way and praise McLaren in hopes of an obviously questionable victory. Thats not intellectual, thats blind devotion to a thieving cheating lying team. Open your eyes people.

Read my posts, I wasnt real enamored with MS either. But that was yesterday, and this is today. If you can read, you will see I felt MS disqualification for using traction control was fair. I didnt like seeing him go to Ferrari. I hated seeing team orders played out, seeing teamates swap places on the last lap when the first was undoubtedly the winner. But I have NEVER in my lifetime, or anywhere in the past history of motor racing read, of anyone inside an organization outright stealing material of this magnitude and handing it over to a competitor. Never. And anyone who could stand today and support such a thing and pat their favorite guy on the back and call him a champion is just about as devious and deceitful in my book. To hear of these scum drivers walking around discussing the material and how to use it with such flippant attitudes is disgusting. If thats what some of you call racing, count me out, I wont watch it or have anything to do with it. Thankfully the FIA pulled their head out of their butt a little ways and showed the world they kind of mean buisness. I think some of you should take that as a sign that your beloved McLaren are about as tainted as a $2 whore.

Not that I want to rub shoulders to much with anyone who still supports McLaren, but I wonder how far anyone would get sticking up for Ferrari over there. My guess is wouldnt be anywhere near as far as some get to go on this forum.

 

You still haven't come up with a link to that. Meanwhile I have come up with a link to the opposite.

 

Sometimes a good fight results in a good friend. I see on your profile you have, or had, a GTI. Here's mine:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Kewl.

I don't have a pic of mine anymore, but it was a really cool car: Had racing suspension and all, it handled like a go kart. It was the model before yours.

 

Well actually this handles like a kart:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

So does this.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The article at that link states there's no evidence whilst offering no evidence.
Conclusion - just another opinion.

 

I posted a quote from Jean Todt from only a week ago saying there SHOULD be a rule because there is none. Isn't that good enough proof for you?

 

It is not proof, true, but it is more than an opinion: It states it as fact, so the writer of that article could be held responsible for it. That is a higher standard than when a writer speculates that there is a one million bribe. Anybody can speculate, but if you state something as fact, you better be able to back it up.