News On F1 Forums - Talk Formula 1

Well, Ed, what do you think?

Is the Flav the first team manager to bend the rules to get a win? And what is the real difference between bending the rules by cheating with your machine and bending the rules by cheating with your driver? Did Michael, that is, decide strictly on his own to park at Rascasse? And if it was an idea of someone at Ferrari, can you see (a) that person ever being caught as red-handed as the Flav was? Oh no. We are much more corporate at Fiat/Ferrari than THAT and that goes without saying. Maybe you think Mr. Ron D. was completely out of the loop on the Ferrari spy-gate? And can you really say that THAT move was less 'dangerous' to competitors and spectators than the ridiculous spin that young N.P. managed?

I'm just saying that anyone as 'colorful' as Flav is bound to (a) be more careless than his equally cut throat competitors and (b) therefore more likely to be used as a scapegoat.

I'd personally rather have a handful of Flavs on the grid than a bunch of Ron Dennis's!

cheers,

Jim Watt

Ron lacks the charisma of Flavio and was as corporate as they come but he was genuinely in love with motor racing. Whereas Flavio is in love with the glamour and power associated with F1... oh... and himself.

I miss Ron sobbing like a baby when ever his cars won and when ever they lost!

I don't miss Flavio at all! He isn't any particularly great loss to F1, is he?

Hi Snowy:

I'm sorry my posting was so disorganized. Of course you are correct that Flav is not --and never pretended to be-- a modest fellow. this is not new; it goes back to the fundamental difference between the mediterranean character and that of Northern Europe. Whereas they are hyperbolic and radically self-centered, those of us shaped by Northern values tend to be laconic, understated, ironic and generally team players. Neither 'side' understands or values the other which appears to react in all the wrong ways to life situations.

so the presence on the grid of flashy, self-involved and over-the-top types like Flav (with his millions of Euros and trophy wife bimbo) grates on the nerves of chaps like you and me who find such behavior unacceptable and unmanly.

but i don't think it is fair to deduce from this that Ron D. 'loves' motorsport any more than Flav. it certainly isn't logical. or at least no more logical than Flav's incredible Chutzpah in suing the FIA and Max for defamation!

my point, though, in my original posting was that you can break all the rules you like in F1 so long as you break them in the cold-blooded and laconic manner of the great team of Michael Schumacher, Jean Todt and Ross Braun. The 'Rascasse incident' was, I would argue, just as premeditated and dangerous as silly little Piquet JUNIOR's fabricated wreck. But given the corporate state mentality of the team there was no sniveling fink to 'rat out' the scheme. Only the smiling Schumacher's repeated assertion that the World Champion driver suddenly 'lost control' of his machine on the slowdown lap and helplessly blocked the circuit at just the right place and just the right time.

in other words, they play 'by the rules' and don't BLATANTLY defy them.

but the Flav can't help flouting the rules and everything he does is BLATANT.

so he pays and the others, including Mr. D., are great sportsmen and lovers of racing.

hooey, I say, hooey. And I would say more, but I respect you and the readers of NewsonF1 too much to descend to the level of name calling and grandstanding like some of our mediterranean friends.

cheers and nuff said, jim watt

I my own view I think Briatore took the brunt of the penalty and he shouldn't have but if the FIA penalised Renault as hard as they did McLaren following 'Spy Gate', Renault would have pulled out. That is the reality sadly! Now they may pull out anyway!

With McLaren, the team was adamant that only 3 people (or so) knew but the FIA kept digging until they uncovered more. With Renault the FIA were the ones who were saying for certain that only 3 knew and that is why only those 3 should be penalised (and let Piquet off the hook because he has immunity!) then there was witness X, so they were 4 but still no real penalty for the team.
The FIA also ignored the contradiction between Piquet's statement and Symonds who despite apologising unreservedly insisted that the whole idea was Piquet's yet Piquet insists that it was Symond's and the FIA chose not to investigate it further and gave Piquet the benefit of the doubt and didn't see it as a potential breach of his agreement with the FIA for his immunity!

So from Flavio's point, he was unfairly punished and he has the right to defend himself. What I cannot get to terms still though is why let it blow like this and look so stupid! Did Flavio have so much pressure on him to fire Piquet ? Was Piquet blackmailing him ?
Of course I cannot understand what made them do it in the first place!