Over MS' No.1 position in the team (no such in the contract) [Archive]

ioan

13th March 2007, 09:49

So Ross Brawn contradicted what many here took for a fact and based their views on: MS having the no 1 clause in the contract!

Michael established his superiority through the natural order of things, by being the fastest.
It was never written into his contract that I was aware of. The only thing there was, he had first call on the T-car.

He insisted that "a natural order" will be established this season at Ferrari like always.

Link:
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=30715

EuroTroll

13th March 2007, 10:26

Ahah! The T-car! Just as I suspected! :devil: :p :

Hawkmoon

13th March 2007, 10:35

ioan

13th March 2007, 10:40

God himself could come down and say that Michael was never a contractual No. 1 and it still would change many peoples opinion.

It doesn't matter who says what, these people know Schumi had preferential treatment. You might as well give it up ioan, you're never going to change their opinions. :dozey:

You might be right Hawk but I know this hurts their ego a bit.
Proof is they do not even post here and wait for the thread to be swept and forgot in the nostalgia sub-forum!

555-04Q2

13th March 2007, 11:45

janneppi

13th March 2007, 11:51

It seems the MS status thing is a is sore subject for the MS supporters. :p : Others have moved on, why not do the same. ;) That said, according to the article, Brawn didn't say with 100% certainty MS had no contractual number 1 status, he wasn't the head of Ferrari, nor the team, so he wouldn't necessary know of such a clause, neither would i expect him coming out and "admit" it if there was.

EuroTroll

13th March 2007, 11:59

And there's also the possibility that while Schumacher's contract didn't specify no. 1 status, Barrichello's contract specified no. 2 status. :D

Heidfeldrulez

13th March 2007, 15:20

Viktory

13th March 2007, 16:55

Heidfeldrulez

13th March 2007, 17:17

Link please....

http://www.f1.com

JasonD

13th March 2007, 17:24

Well it may not have said he was #1 in HIS contract but I bet it was in his TEAMATES contract.

ioan

13th March 2007, 17:36

Well it may not have said he was #1 in HIS contract but I bet it was in his TEAMATES contract.

I bet you have no proof that it was in his team mate's contract!

Firstgear

13th March 2007, 17:41

I bet you have no proof that it was in his team mate's contract!
I thought you weren't a betting man.

Big Ben

13th March 2007, 17:42

Funny thread Ioan. Brawn said bla bla bla. Using someone´s words: You wouldn´t see the truth even if God Himself showed it to you.
"Denial is the most predictable of all human responses".... but denying the obvious truth? "we are getting aggravated!"

Wilderness

13th March 2007, 17:44

I bet you have no proof that it was in his team mate's contract!
Ioan, neither does Ross have any prooof given by the qualification of his statement: "It was never written into his contract that I was aware of."

Viktory

13th March 2007, 17:45

http://www.f1.com

Well... that kind of proves the point Hawkmoon talked about...

Heidfeldrulez

13th March 2007, 20:12

Well... that kind of proves the point Hawkmoon talked about...

dunno what you're talk about :D but you go there, count all the DNFs of MS ex ferrari mates and then go figure :P or alternatively browse Ferrari press-releases as its a well-known and admited thing that (not always perfectly tested) updates are goin in to the number2 car first (renault did that to fisi all the time) so please stop being a waste of time

Shalafi

13th March 2007, 20:35

of course MS did have the number1 status and it meant way more than just the T-car. It meant that only the perfectly tested and reliable parts went to his car while all the "experiments" were carried out on him teammates. Thats the reason why MS' car was always noticably more reliable.

There is also a a certain amount of brain power/energy/money/time that a team have to deal with and how they allocate it within the team is completly up to them. While Williams for example always tend to go in the fair 50/50 direction, that obviously wasnt the case at Ferrari.

However, there is never going to be a team that is stupid enough to give all these to the slower guy, so at the end of day, MS' status was indeed due to his speed. (the only worrying thing is that his team-mates never really had a fair chance, and they wasnt even extremely talented guys either. This will always shadow MS' achievements (a slight bit), he never really had the classic "within-the-team" battles most champions had to deal with)

I see it this way also. MS was such a great driver that he would had achieved awfully lot even without nr 1 driver treatment, but that treatment made him even better and made his team-mates look even worse compared to him. He would of beaten them anyway, but now they didnt have any chance.

But hey, its a Ferraris policy, other driver will always be nr 1. And there is nothing wrong with that when the results are what they have been. I believe firmly that as this season progresses Kimi will take that status for years to come.

ioan

13th March 2007, 20:45

I thought you weren't a betting man.

This is a sure bet! :D

ioan

13th March 2007, 20:55

dunno what you're talk about :D but you go there, count all the DNFs of MS ex ferrari mates and then go figure :P or alternatively browse Ferrari press-releases as its a well-known and admited thing that (not always perfectly tested) updates are goin in to the number2 car first (renault did that to fisi all the time) so please stop being a waste of time

If we would have talked about SuperAguriF1 than you would have got a point, but believe it or not, Ferrari do have the resources to manufacture 2 identical parts in the same time!

Actually MS had better equipment only 2 times, he had the F2003 GA and the F 2005, earlier than RB. In the first case they only had one full car ready as they were not sure if it was ready, and the second time because MS took the risk to race a not yet ready F2005 earlier than it was due (and we all know that it ended with a hydraulic DNF!).

There was a quote from Barrichello last season where he was stating that there was no No. 2 status in his contract and that he was not given inferior equipment by Ferrari. I already posted it last year so searching for it on the forum should be enough.

W8&C

13th March 2007, 20:59

Dzeidzei

13th March 2007, 22:32

There was a quote from Barrichello last season where he was stating that there was no No. 2 status in his contract and that he was not given inferior equipment by Ferrari. I already posted it last year so searching for it on the forum should be enough.

Well of course Barrichello would never admit anything like that. That would be like saying he has a small ..nis. No real racer would ever say anything like that.

However, there is one thing I cannot understand. Why is the number 1 status Michael had such a tough thing for his fans? I think its even more proof of his worth. You dont get something that if youre not considered to be something extra. MS certainly was.

And about RBrawn.... during last season all the Ferrari execs were asked numerous times about Kimi´s contract. And they all lied their eyes out. So why would anyone think hes saying the thruth in this one matter?

W8&C

14th March 2007, 03:31

Well of course Barrichello would never admit anything like that. That would be like saying he has a small ..nis.
Seems like you know what you´re talking about?

However, there is one thing I cannot understand. Why is the number 1 status Michael had such a tough thing for his fans? I think its even more proof of his worth.
Could it be that they´re prone to reality?

And about RBrawn.... during last season all the Ferrari execs were asked numerous times about Kimi´s contract. And they all lied their eyes out. So why would anyone think hes saying the thruth in this one matter?
So you put your word against Ross Brawn? And you surely believe that Elvis is still alive and George W. Bush got his inspiration by the aliens of Area 51? "Everyone" knows the latter is true too!

Wilderness

14th March 2007, 04:37

This kind of reminds me of the "tire row" of 2003. Ross Brawn claimed he never complained to the FIA about the contact patch of the Michelins... right. He even provided the photographs.

jjanicke

14th March 2007, 05:28

So Ross Brawn contradicted what many here took for a fact and based their views on: MS having the no 1 clause in the contract!

He insisted that "a natural order" will be established this season at Ferrari like always.

Link:
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=30715

What are you basing this "fact" on? Sure you might say that you're not actually claiming this as fact, but it surely seems to be your entire argument. So is this thread a waste of time?

Brawn himself implies that he didn't know everything about MS's contract!

I bet you have no proof that it was in his team mate's contract!

This is the funniest circle ...

This is a sure bet! :D

... jerk I've ever read.

ioan I didn't know you actually had a copy of the chins contracts with ferrari. Why have you been so quite all this time?

wmcot

14th March 2007, 05:41

Remind me again...WHICH season are we starting NOW?????????

Get over the past...and the notion of any team principle, manager, etc. being 100% truthful all the time.

ioan

14th March 2007, 09:52

What are you basing this "fact" on? Sure you might say that you're not actually claiming this as fact, but it surely seems to be your entire argument. So is this thread a waste of time?

Brawn himself implies that he didn't know everything about MS's contract!

This is the funniest circle ...

... jerk I've ever read.

ioan I didn't know you actually had a copy of the chins contracts with ferrari. Why have you been so quite all this time?

So Ross Brawn's words aren't a proof (in fact some believe that Brawn didn't knew what exactly was in Michaels' contract, no ****), for others Rubens' words aren't a proof either. If it was Todt saying it than it wouldn't still be a proof!
Even if MS turned up with his contract and made it public it wouldn't be a proof and you guys would claim it isn't the right contract and so on.

Let me get it straight for you, it would be very hard to find on this forum people objective enough and straight enough to accept that they were wrong before.

As for you, it would be difficult to find a greater MS hater in this world, even JV is a small kid compared to your previous comments in this forum.

But why the hell do I lose my time trying to convince some people that white isn't black???

janneppi

14th March 2007, 10:00

But why the hell do I lose my time trying to convince some people that white isn't black???
Obviously you have too much free time in your hands ;)

Big Ben

14th March 2007, 10:56

So Ross Brawn's words aren't a proof (in fact some believe that Brawn didn't knew what exactly was in Michaels' contract, no ****), for others Rubens' words aren't a proof either. If it was Todt saying it than it wouldn't still be a proof!
Even if MS turned up with his contract and made it public it wouldn't be a proof and you guys would claim it isn't the right contract and so on.

Let me get it straight for you, it would be very hard to find on this forum people objective enough and straight enough to accept that they were wrong before.

As for you, it would be difficult to find a greater MS hater in this world, even JV is a small kid compared to your previous comments in this forum.

But why the hell do I lose my time trying to convince some people that white isn't black???

Nice... Ioan talking about objectivity... You are not entitled to talk about that, you may claim whatever you want about MS but in this matter you have nothing to do with objectivity.

Even if there is not a single word written down about nº1 status, still it was so obvious he was treated as nº 1. Even the fact that the T car was reserved for him is a proof... and so many others... like that amazing Austrian GP so many years ago... or the US GP this year... more subtle but the same story

Dzeidzei

14th March 2007, 11:18

Could it be that they´re prone to reality?

So you put your word against Ross Brawn? And you surely believe that Elvis is still alive and George W. Bush got his inspiration by the aliens of Area 51? "Everyone" knows the latter is true too!

Nopes, my dear friend. I was only saying 2 things. We know RB lied his eyes out on one thing, but the MS fans chooce to believe his words on this contract issue. Thats bull, and you know it. Unless youve seen the contract yourself, you have to rely on judging what you know. MS´s career at Ferrari clearly states he had that status.

And I still ask: why is it a bad thing that MS had that number 1 clause in his contract? It doesnt make him a worse driver. It only prooves that Ferrari trusted on his ability to deliver, which he certainly did. I just dont get the logic why it is such a taboo for the MS fans.

And about your remarks. The gay stuff is lame, no I dont believe Elvis is dead and the whole existence of Bush is very sad. Its frightening to know that there is one more Bush in the line. He could be even more stupid, altho it seems highly unlikely. And if the Americans can choose a dork to the white house, they will undoubtedly to it again and again.

ioan

14th March 2007, 14:34

Nice... Ioan talking about objectivity... You are not entitled to talk about that, you may claim whatever you want about MS but in this matter you have nothing to do with objectivity.

No ****, you're gone censor me or what?!

Even if there is not a single word written down about nº1 status, still it was so obvious he was treated as nº 1. Even the fact that the T car was reserved for him is a proof... and so many others... like that amazing Austrian GP so many years ago... or the US GP this year... more subtle but the same story

I didn't say he didn't had no. 1 status, that would be stupid, I only posted a link where someone said that he wasn't aware about that being written in his contract, and it is a quote from someone who knows about everything that was happening in Ferrari's F1 team.

Than there was Rubens saying one year ago that there was no No. 2 clause in his contract either and that he always gt equal equipment with MS.

So stay on the point of the first post in this thread and tell me what wasn't objective!

ioan

14th March 2007, 14:36

We know RB lied his eyes out on one thing...

How much easier is to call someone a liar than to accept the truth! :s

Dzeidzei

14th March 2007, 14:52

How much easier is to call someone a liar than to accept the truth! :s

Youre wrong again, buddy. Im not calling RB a liar, its a fact. He stated in many interviews during last season that the Ferrari line up was still to be decided on when he was asked about Raikkonen. And now we know that Kimi had a contract signed long before the season started. It was probably signed in 2005. Its very hard for me to accept that RossB would not have been aware of this.

So Im not calling RB a liar, he did that all by himself. And regarding the thruth... if you havent seen the contract yourself, you can only quote what RB tells in an interview.

But thats not important. 2 more days!

W8&C

14th March 2007, 14:56

How much easier is to call someone a liar than to accept the truth! :s
Hi Ioan,

its all forlorn hope here:

if MS/RB/JT would have said that the earth is a sphere, then all that blind Anti-MS-bashers would stand up chanting „Nonononeverever – thats what they want us to believe, but we all know them are all impertinent liars. So we take that as a proof that earth´s a disc instead. Plain and simple!“

So guys, you better take care not to fall across the edge!

ioan

14th March 2007, 15:26

Youre wrong again, buddy. Im not calling RB a liar, its a fact. He stated in many interviews during last season that the Ferrari line up was still to be decided on when he was asked about Raikkonen.

Ron and Norbert said that they think KR will stay at McLaren for most of last season too, are they also liars?
Did you ever think that they all knew the truth but for commercial reasons couldn't say it?

Last year Rubens declared that he had no No 2 clause and got equal equipment from Ferrari when he was already a Honda man, did he lie too?

Don't measure the truth with 2 different weight sets.

Big Ben

14th March 2007, 17:26

No ****, you're gone censor me or what?!

I didn't say he didn't had no. 1 status, that would be stupid, I only posted a link where someone said that he wasn't aware about that being written in his contract, and it is a quote from someone who knows about everything that was happening in Ferrari's F1 team.

Than there was Rubens saying one year ago that there was no No. 2 clause in his contract either and that he always gt equal equipment with MS.

So stay on the point of the first post in this thread and tell me what wasn't objective!

You're never objective when talking about MS... You seem to deny the most obvious facts. So you like MS... take him as he is and give up demonstrating that the black is white.

He was always no 1 at Ferrari and this is because he was better than his team mates but what does that mean when they were never supposed to be better?
I can't ban you and I wouldn't do it even if I could.... You are harmless.

ioan

14th March 2007, 18:02

He was always no 1 at Ferrari and this is because he was better than his team mates

You're doing good!
But not for long:

but what does that mean when they were never supposed to be better?

Maybe we can get an explanation on how could MS or Ferrari know about how fast Eddie Irvine and Rubens Barrichello would be in a Ferrari?
Even if they would have tested them (and I don't remember this happening before they signed their contracts), who knows how much faster they can get when they feel really comfortable with the car?

So what do you base your affirmation on?

I can't ban you and I wouldn't do it even if I could.... You are harmless.

Who said something about a ban? I said censor!

zoostation

14th March 2007, 18:41

this is fairly pointless now

no ones gonna convince anyone else that they are right or wrong

lets chillllll =]

Big Ben

14th March 2007, 19:43

Maybe we can get an explanation on how could MS or Ferrari know about how fast Eddie Irvine and Rubens Barrichello would be in a Ferrari?
Even if they would have tested them (and I don't remember this happening before they signed their contracts), who knows how much faster they can get when they feel really comfortable with the car?

So what do you base your affirmation on?

Who said something about a ban? I said censor!

So when they signed RB and IE ferrari actually considered them as potentially better drivers than MS? Is that what you are saying?

About the ban thing... I used the wrong word... but the idea stays the same... I wouldn't censor you! I ll just (uselessly) give you an advice.

OTA

14th March 2007, 22:07

I'll go with Ioan in this one. Ferrari knew from day one that they had the best driver available. From the day he arrived to the day he left he was the best driver sitting in a Ferrari, no one got even close. I have not a clue about what's written in the contract, but Michael gave Ferrari something you can not write in a contract, and he did not need any clause saying he was first because he was first indeed.

Michael has been a driver with his bad days and bad choices as it is all the time and some of his bads have been very attractive to th media, but who ever says he was not superior to all drivers in his generation is in my opinion lying. Of course he was number one, but just as RB says, it was the natural order of things.

Cheers
David

Dzeidzei

14th March 2007, 23:06

Ron and Norbert said that they think KR will stay at McLaren for most of last season too, are they also liars?
Did you ever think that they all knew the truth but for commercial reasons couldn't say it?

Last year Rubens declared that he had no No 2 clause and got equal equipment from Ferrari when he was already a Honda man, did he lie too?

Don't measure the truth with 2 different weight sets.

Ron and Norbert liars? Absolutely. They knew it all when they signed Alonso. And youre spot on the reason: if youre looking or negotiating a new sponsor you sure as hell wont say that youre loosing a top driver.

Rubens didnt have to have No2 clause, if Michael had No1 clause :)
And just FYI on F1 driver mentality: they all think they are the fastest out there. They will never admit being 2nd class material. Never. Just remember what Ralf said a few days ago being one of the top 3 drivers. Has he gone mental? No, he really believes that.

And your last comment I dont even begin to analyze. You are talking about thruth, Im talking about facts. Your truth seems to deny and contradict every possible fact. And that should not be called a truth, cause theres a much better word for it. Faith.

And I still cant get it: why is having no1 status such a bad thing? Id love the Finnish guys to be in a position, where they can make such a claim.

ioan

15th March 2007, 09:49

And I still cant get it: why is having no1 status such a bad thing? Id love the Finnish guys to be in a position, where they can make such a claim.

No one said it's a bad thing, just that he earned it with his driving not on the contract.

I've had enough arguing with people who seem to not read and understand (or do not want to) my posts, but only reply because of their opposite beliefs.

VresiBerba

15th March 2007, 09:54

You're farting against thunder ioan. Too many idiots, not enough common sense :down:

And we idiots of course dreamt about Austria 2002 :rolleyes:

VresiBerba

15th March 2007, 09:58

I bet you have no proof that it was in his team mate's contract!

And I bet you have no proof that it wasn't!

VresiBerba

15th March 2007, 10:02

Actually MS had better equipment only 2 times, he had the F2003 GA and the F 2005, earlier than RB.

Only two times :s How many times is the norm, how many times have ANY other team done this in the past ten years?

ArrowsFA1

15th March 2007, 10:04

It twirls around
It spins around
It whirls around
It never stops!

:rotate: :s pin: :s pinhead:

Viv

15th March 2007, 10:12

It twirls around
It spins around
It whirls around
It never stops!

:rotate: :s pin: :s pinhead:

So true :rotflmao:

janneppi

15th March 2007, 10:14

I've had enough arguing with people who seem to not read and understand (or do not want to) my posts, but only reply because of their opposite beliefs.
Would you prefer to argue with people who completely agree with you and post only to strenghten your points? :p :

ioan

15th March 2007, 10:20

Would you prefer to argue with people who completely agree with you and post only to strenghten your points? :p :

No, no, no! :D

But some people should and could read and try to understand a post before replying to it ( and I'm not talking about you! ).

ioan

15th March 2007, 10:22

Only two times :s How many times is the norm, how many times have ANY other team done this in the past ten years?

What if 1 out of those 2 times RB didn't want to get the new equipment? I might be wrong but I recall that in Bahrain 2005 he chose to go with the old car.

As for RB's contract he said it last year that it was no no.2 clause in it, happy now? BTW if you want a link you'll have to google it.

VresiBerba

15th March 2007, 10:27

What if 1 out of those 2 times RB didn't want to get the new equipment?

What! You can't possibly be serious, that's an outrageous statement even comming from you. About what Rubens have said or not, you didn't believe Fontana when he said he was ordered by Todt to hold Villeneuve up, why do you choose to believe Rubens?

555-04Q2

15th March 2007, 10:31

And we idiots of course dreamt about Austria 2002 :rolleyes:

That was to secure a WDC. Not contractual #1 driver status, but attempting to secure the WDC as soon as possible. But I dont expect you to be able to differentiate between the two :(

P.S. Mclaren did it in OZ with far less outcry than the Ferrari incident. Coincidence or a fact that there is an anti-Ferrari sentiment out there :?:

VresiBerba

15th March 2007, 10:40

That was to secure a WDC. Not contractual #1 driver status, but attempting to secure the WDC as soon as possible. But I dont expect you to be able to differentiate between the two :(

You're damn right I'm not. What's #1 status for if not to secure WDC? Are you for real :confused:

Dzeidzei

15th March 2007, 10:48

No one said it's a bad thing, just that he earned it with his driving not on the contract.

I've had enough arguing with people who seem to not read and understand (or do not want to) my posts, but only reply because of their opposite beliefs.

Actually your biggest point is that MS never had such a clause in his contract. And this is something you just cannot know. You know this and I know this.

No one has said that he didnt earn his position with his driving. That doesnt mean he didnt have that on his contract. No one is arguing against MS being the most successful driver in F1 history (probably for all times), hes certainly earned his merits.

But you are again confusing beliefs and facts. You dont know MS did not have that kind of clause in his contract. We know for a fact that for years Ferrari acted like he had that clause. And as long you actually see the contract, you have to judge by what you see. If it looks like an apple and tastes like an apple, it has to be an apple, right? Even if Ross says its really not.

555-04Q2

15th March 2007, 10:52

You're damn right I'm not. What's #1 status for if not to secure WDC? Are you for real :confused:

Like I said, I dont expect you to be able to differentiate between #1 status on contract and a driver trying to securing a WDC when the other is out of the running. Your mind is made up, get on with your life ;)

ioan

15th March 2007, 10:52

What! You can't possibly be serious, that's an outrageous statement even comming from you. About what Rubens have said or not, you didn't believe Fontana when he said he was ordered by Todt to hold Villeneuve up, why do you choose to believe Rubens?

You might want to put things into a context and analyze them before posting.
What had Rubens, a Honda man, to win from stating he had no no.2 clause in his contract? In fact it meant that he acknowledged that he was inferior to MS because he couldn't best him in equal equipment and conditions!

Now think about what Fontana had to gain from contributing to global heating with his comments? Lot's of media coverage and all that comes from that. Plus his claims were rubbished by Peter Sauber (the one who could have ordered him something, unlike Todt).

ioan

15th March 2007, 10:56

Actually your biggest point is that MS never had such a clause in his contract. And this is something you just cannot know. You know this and I know this.

I gave you a quote from one of the highest placed Ferrari team members, the 2nd after Jean Todt, who said he didn't know about that being written in MS's contract, still you say it's only what I believe. Not that you came with any kind of proof, the smallest possible (beside calling them all liars).

So once again, read what I post before answering my posts.

VresiBerba

15th March 2007, 10:59

Like I said, I dont expect you to be able to differentiate between #1 status on contract and a driver trying to securing a WDC when the other is out of the running.

But Rubens wasn't "out of the running" in Austria 2002 (6th race out of 17). And I say it again; no, I most certainly can not differentiate between #1 status and securing WDC for a specific driver, because there simply is none. Fact, end of story.

VresiBerba

15th March 2007, 11:10

I gave you a quote from one of the highest placed Ferrari team members, the 2nd after Jean Todt, who said he didn't know about that being written in MS's contract, still you say it's only what I believe. Not that you came with any kind of proof, the smallest possible (beside calling them all liars).

You didn't provide any "proof" either, because even if Brawn 'was not aware of' doesn't prove it wasn't so. Ioan, why are you so eager to prove that Shumi was not #1, a futile mission I'd say, haven't we all gone through this a dozen times already?

555-04Q2

15th March 2007, 11:10

But Rubens wasn't "out of the running" in Austria 2002 (6th race out of 17).

:laugh: You're right, he was going to destroy Schumi that year with a superb come from behind performance :laugh:

Bye bye Mr VresiBerba :wave:

VresiBerba

15th March 2007, 11:20

:laugh: You're right, he was going to destroy Schumi that year with a superb come from behind performance :laugh:

:rolleyes: 2002 was by far Rubens' best season in Formula 1 to date and beyond, but Ferrari's rotten reliabillity... hmpf, let me rephrase that; Rubens' rotten reliabillity is what put Shumi so far ahead at the 6th race. And really, why are you laughing, Ferrari shot themselves in the foot EXACTLY the same way in 1999, by allowing Shumi to score instead of Irvine, and boy, did they not learn.

ioan

15th March 2007, 11:23

You didn't provide any "proof" either, because even if Brawn 'was not aware of' doesn't prove it wasn't so. Ioan, why are you so eager to prove that Shumi was not #1, a futile mission I'd say, haven't we all gone through this a dozen times already?

As I already said I don't try to prove he wasn't no.1 I just brought up a quote that says he wasn't a contractual no.1. But many people around here seem to be very hurt because of this and chose, like you, not to read what I posted and attack with the suppositions they have in the corner of their minds.

For me this thread proved what I thought about certain people in this forum so I'll stop here.
So as 555 said it, :wave: Vresi!

VresiBerba

15th March 2007, 11:29

For me this thread proved what I thought about certain people in this forum so I'll stop here.

YOU started this thread and you can't even stand up for your own believes, chicken :laugh:

harsha

15th March 2007, 11:38

Do you honestly believe that Ferrari are going to admit to favouring one driver over the other :?:

VresiBerba

15th March 2007, 11:51

Do you honestly believe that Ferrari are going to admit to favouring one driver over the other :?:

That wouldn't be surprising given their stance behind Austria 2002, but all we have here is Brawn, a former technical director saying he doean't know (is/was not aware). Had it been Todt though, he would most certainly know and that he would either tell the truth or a lie.

What we have now is not even worth debating since all Brawn said is he wasn't aware, ie. neither true nor false.

harsha

15th March 2007, 12:01

Ever since Schumacher joined Ferrari,the one driver policy has been followed,whether it is written in contract or was it a "gentleman's" agreement doesn't make the difference....

the fact remains that Schumacher was favoured over Rubens Barrichello in Ferrari,it doesn't matter whether he gained the number 1 status through his performances or through a contract.That could also be a reason why apart from FM to some extent,Schumacher never had decent team mates.

VresiBerba

15th March 2007, 12:03

harsha

15th March 2007, 12:05

i've been anti ferrari ever since the chin joined them :D

555-04Q2

15th March 2007, 14:27

and boy, did they not learn.

They went on to win 5 WDC and 5 CC between 2000 and 2004.

Here's to not learning :beer:

Big Ben

15th March 2007, 14:54

They went on to win 5 WDC and 5 CC between 2000 and 2004.

Here's to not learning :beer:

Big deal! A title in a renault or mclaren means more than these 10. Ferrari is a dirty team and I would never believe what MS, Brawn or JT says. Lying and cheating is what they do best.

555-04Q2

15th March 2007, 15:24

Big deal! A title in a renault or mclaren means more than these 10. Ferrari is a dirty team and I would never believe what MS, Brawn or JT says. Lying and cheating is what they do best.

Reality check for you. FACT: every team in F1 cheats. However, they dont call it cheating, they call it bending the rules. By your sumation then, every team in F1 is a dirty team.

airshifter

15th March 2007, 15:38

He's not even racing any longer and we still have this?

<pit to Rubens> slow down Rubens, MS is going to pass you

<Rubens to pit> why?

<pit to Rubens> he is faster than you Rubens

<Rubens to pit> then why is he behind me?

:laugh:

Contract or not, Ferrari have in recent history favored and done whatever they can to support the driver they feel has a better chance at the season. If in fact they supported the faster driver on any given day then there would have never been team orders when they were allowed, or pit mishaps and sudden lap time changes when they were not.

Most teams did and still do it, but to claim that Ferrari was the only exception is really a stretch.

VresiBerba

15th March 2007, 15:59

Reality check for you. FACT: every team in F1 cheats.

That would by default imply that Ferrari was cheating when they let Shumi by Rubens in Austria 2002. Do you wish to persuit this path?

W8&C

15th March 2007, 18:41

...I would never believe what MS, Brawn or JT says. Lying and cheating is what they do best.Poor little boy... :(

Big Ben

15th March 2007, 20:15

Poor little boy... :(

Hilarious.... trying to be sarcastic WC?

Ranger

16th March 2007, 06:58

Is this a discussion thread or a grudge match?

Besides, should be in the H+N forum.

leopard

16th March 2007, 07:29

The current and past F1 is a transparent partition, it will unavoidably lead to the past when you are talking about present, history goes continuously.

I think you can go on talking as long as it is legal of age ;)

ioan

16th March 2007, 09:33

Is this a discussion thread or a grudge match?

It started as a discussion thread about a fairly old and hot topic, it even managed to stay a discussion thread till a certain moment.

555-04Q2

16th March 2007, 11:23

That would by default imply that Ferrari was cheating when they let Shumi by Rubens in Austria 2002. Do you wish to persuit this path?

Letting your team mate through was not illegal in F1 in 2002. How was it cheating :?: It was within the rules and out in the open.

The question now is, do you want to pursue this path :?: