FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

Majority should rule, except when they rule to give the 90 million Ferrari get just for being the red car, spread out to the bottom teams so they can better compete.

[LRW]

Burnie. Can you stop kicking a team when its doing real real sh*t. Sorry. Down. I mean down.

[sagi58]

Majority should rule, except when they rule to give the 90 million Ferrari get just for being the red car, spread out to the bottom teams so they can better compete.

No argument from me when it comes to spreading the wealth.
But, remember, that's not the only reason bottom teams are
finding it difficult to compete.

There is the "little" fact that they were "forced" into using the
more costly hybrid engines, by manufacturers who just wanted
to showcase their technology.

[sagi58]

Burnie. Can you stop kicking a team when its doing real real sh*t. Sorry. Down. I mean down.

Either description works, so don't worry about sugar-coating it!!

[What's Burning?]

Majority should rule, except when they rule to give the 90 million Ferrari get just for being the red car, spread out to the bottom teams so they can better compete.

No argument from me when it comes to spreading the wealth.
But, remember, that's not the only reason bottom teams are
finding it difficult to compete.

There is the "little" fact that they were "forced" into using the
more costly hybrid engines, by manufacturers who just wanted
to showcase their technology.

Really? You mean to tell me that Renault wanted a change and got a change and now is not happy with the change and wants to change the change? And they cost the most. If a team can't make a decent engine I say they shouldn't be in the sport.

[overboost]

Majority should rule, except when they rule to give the 90 million Ferrari get just for being the red car, spread out to the bottom teams so they can better compete.

The bottom teams were doing fine until they were hit with $15M+ in 2014 for additional costs for the new engines. Why should Ferrari on their own have to pay to clean up that mess? That's an FIA/CVC/Ecclestone problem. CVC has made $8.2 Billion on F1 since 2006!

[racechick]

Because they get 90 mil over and above anyone else just for being Ferrari?

[LRW]

Anyway. Radio Comms, eh? Dear oh dear.

[racechick]

Mercedes don't have an exclusive veto. They're just excercising their right to keep things as were agreed. Now if you want to talk veto, ferrari do have one. I believe you've said that's ok though, because Ferrari are 'special' .
Ferrari are special needs alright! And are about to appoint a TP to make damn sure those special needs are met.

I did not say that it's OK, that Ferrari have a veto,
What I have said is that it's very limited. However,
I now can add that the veto doesn't include stopping
teams from developing their cars in-season in order
to keep the status quo.

That last statement is pure speculation and as such
doesn't merit a response. Oh, wait, I did respond!

So it wasn't you that voted for option four in this poll then? I'd assumed it was. But you know what they say about assumptions don't you

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=13368

[CookinFlat6]

Majority should rule, except when they rule to give the 90 million Ferrari get just for being the red car, spread out to the bottom teams so they can better compete.

No argument from me when it comes to spreading the wealth.
But, remember, that's not the only reason bottom teams are
finding it difficult to compete.

There is the "little" fact that they were "forced" into using the
more costly hybrid engines, by manufacturers who just wanted
to showcase their technology.

Someone previously posted a quote from the Ferrari management saying they were happy with the idea iof the Hybrid and could see big advantages especially when combined with a direct fuel injection method - which they focused on, however GDI turned out to be fairly insignificant for performance. So how can you say they were 'forced' into it?
Did you not read the quote, or did you not understand it? or have you forgotten it or is it another example of this; http://www.forumula1.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=12514&start=2479#p428110

[LRW]

Mercedes don't have an exclusive veto. They're just excercising their right to keep things as were agreed. Now if you want to talk veto, ferrari do have one. I believe you've said that's ok though, because Ferrari are 'special' .
Ferrari are special needs alright! And are about to appoint a TP to make damn sure those special needs are met.

I did not say that it's OK, that Ferrari have a veto,
What I have said is that it's very limited. However,
I now can add that the veto doesn't include stopping
teams from developing their cars in-season in order
to keep the status quo.

That last statement is pure speculation and as such
doesn't merit a response. Oh, wait, I did respond!

So it wasn't you that voted for option four in this poll then? I'd assumed it was. But you know what they say about assumptions don't you

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=13368

Ha ha. No. That was actually me

[racechick]

Ooooooo. LRW! They're all coming out the woodwork now!

[LRW]

Secret Tifosi innit.

[racechick]

Godabe! What a dark horse you are!!

[What's Burning?]

Majority should rule, except when they rule to give the 90 million Ferrari get just for being the red car, spread out to the bottom teams so they can better compete.

The bottom teams were doing fine until they were hit with $15M+ in 2014 for additional costs for the new engines. Why should Ferrari on their own have to pay to clean up that mess? That's an FIA/CVC/Ecclestone problem. CVC has made $8.2 Billion on F1 since 2006!

The bottom teams were doing fine? You poor Tifoso. It's been so rough.