Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2011 Formula 1 Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
As soon as I read that article it became clear that the damage was worse than first reported - certainly season-ending if not career-ending. :(

It does make you wonder if teams will clamp down more on drivers participating in other racing series while under contract for an F1 team.
 
iJohnHenry said:
I am wondering quietly look the other way, as it keeps their drivers' skills at a very high level?
Click to expand...
I've often thought the same thing. After all it's a risky business anyway.

After 13 years, I cheer the return of Pirelli as the sport’s sole tyre supplier from 2011. Having a three year contract, along with the regulation of weight distribution to 46.5% front, 53.5% rear, should be interesting.

While I'm not fond of regulations beyond the typical (if there is such thing anymore) I do believe new tires along with this rule will prove advantageous.
 
zenio said:
I've often thought the same thing. After all it's a risky business anyway.

After 13 years, I cheer the return of Pirelli as the sport’s sole tyre supplier from 2011. Having a three year contract, along with the regulation of weight distribution to 46.5% front, 53.5% rear, should be interesting.

While I'm not fond of regulations beyond the typical (if there is such thing anymore) I do believe new tires along with this rule will prove advantageous.
Click to expand...
I'll celebrate tire manufacturers in F1 when there are more than one. I liked it better when Bridgestone and Michelin were both in it (despite the '05 USGP debacle).
 
MOFS said:
The amount these guys get paid, the teams have a right to limit their activities - especially if it interferes with their day to day job.
Click to expand...
The teams only have a right to limit driver activities if their contracts say so. I imagine some or all have language to that affect of varying degrees.
 
RaceTripper said:
I'll celebrate tire manufacturers in F1 when there are more than one. I liked it better when Bridgestone and Michelin were both in it (despite the '05 USGP debacle).
Click to expand...

the problem with tyre competition is that it affects performance so much that it would easily determine which teams get a chance at winning and which don't. given how strict the rules are at making lots of factors basically equal (e.g. engines), it seems counterproductive to have the likely determinant variable to be one the teams have no ability to control once the contract is signed.
Now, if the rules impose that the contracts be non-exclusive (so teams can switch to the better tyres on the fly, even during a same GP), now that would be really exciting.

what i really strongly dislike is the artificiality of having to use different tyres during the race, and in particular tyres that are basically designed to underperform
 
Don't panic said:
what i really strongly dislike is the artificiality of having to use different tyres during the race, and in particular tyres that are basically designed to underperform
Click to expand...

Then you aren't going to like this season. Pirelli are deliberately reducing the durability of the tyres in a bid to make each race a two-stopper.
 
Don't panic said:
the problem with tyre competition is that it affects performance so much that it would easily determine which teams get a chance at winning and which don't. given how strict the rules are at making lots of factors basically equal (e.g. engines), it seems counterproductive to have the likely determinant variable to be one the teams have no ability to control once the contract is signed.
Now, if the rules impose that the contracts be non-exclusive (so teams can switch to the better tyres on the fly, even during a same GP), now that would be really exciting.

what i really strongly dislike is the artificiality of having to use different tyres during the race, and in particular tyres that are basically designed to underperform
Click to expand...
That's problem with the rules, not having multiple tire manufacturers. The Gt2 class has 4 tire suppliers and the competition is 1st class. And the 2010 team and manufacturer champions (Rahal-Letterman BMW M3) were not running with the biggest tire supplier (Michelin).
 
Oh believe me I'd also like to see more than one tyre manufacturer supplying the teams. However those days have passed long ago. It could also be argued that many other great aspects of the sport have passed. Yet such are the times, politics, and financial dynamics of the present.
 
OllyW said:
Then you aren't going to like this season. Pirelli are deliberately reducing the durability of the tyres in a bid to make each race a two-stopper.
Click to expand...

i know, that my point: it's completely ridiculous that they design them to work poorly.

rather, that should have two manufacturers to give tyres to all teams and impose that the teams use both manufacturers during each race (instead of two different specs).
that way you have true competition, optimal performance, and all team are on the same level.
 
Apparently Ford is taking Ferrari to court over the nomenclature of their current F1 racer, claming Ferrari is ripping off the name of the F-150 pickup.

Eff off, Ford. :rolleyes:

MOFS said:
BTW, in line with the Football thread, I thought it might be fun to do a "Fantasy Formula 1" league. I found the Metro Newspaper one here, but am open to ideas.
Click to expand...

Good idea. Now I need to go read up on how such a game works...
 
Lord Blackadder said:
Apparently Ford is taking Ferrari to court over the nomenclature of their current F1 racer, claming Ferrari is ripping off the name of the F-150 pickup.

Eff off, Ford. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The first thing that came to mind when Ferrari revealed it was the Ford F150 truck. I even tweeted about it in jest, saying, "The new F150. Built Ferrari Tough!"

I think Ford has a reasonable complaint and a valid case.
 
RaceTripper said:
I think Ford has a reasonable complaint and a valid case.
Click to expand...

Perhaps in the technical sense they do, but I still think it's stupid. The Ferrari F150 is a handbuilt race car, only a few chassis will be made, and it's going to race for just one season - and never in the US. Plus, the Ford F-150 is a US domestic market pickup truck that's been in production for approximately ten thousand years. Nobody is ever going to confuse the two or feel that the brand image has been compromised.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
Perhaps in the technical sense they do, but I still think it's stupid. The Ferrari F150 is a handbuilt race car, only a few chassis will be made, and it's going to race for just one season - and never in the US. Plus, the Ford F-150 is a US domestic market pickup truck that's been in production for approximately ten thousand years. Nobody is ever going to confuse the two or feel that the brand image has been compromised.
Click to expand...

It is Ford's right to complain. I don't see the problem. What if Ford built a SUV and called it Enzo. Would that be OK? No, Ferrari would be on them like stink on s%$t.

Besides, Ford did hate Ferrari in the 60s (it was why they built and raced the Shelby Daytona Coupe and Ford GT40). ;)
 
F = the first letter of both Ford and Ferrari. Has anyone ever successfully held a copyright on a letter?

- = dash. Really???

150 = a number. Has anyone ever successfully held a copyright on a number?

This has no merit.
 
RaceTripper said:
It is Ford's right to complain. I don't see the problem. What if Ford built a SUV and called it Enzo. Would that be OK? No, Ferrari would be on them like stink on s%$t.
Click to expand...

The difference here is that the Ferrari F150 is not a production car, but a race car.

RaceTripper said:
Besides, Ford did hate Ferrari in the 60s (it was why they built and raced the Shelby Daytona Coupe and Ford GT40). ;)
Click to expand...

True, though Ford currently does jack squat in F1.

iJohnHenry said:
150 = a number. Has anyone ever successfully held a copyright on a number?
Click to expand...

BMW, Porshe and Rover are three examples of cars with number-names. I don't know the technicalities behind it but I'm sure they have some legal protection for their naming schemes.

I imagine the whole thing will result in some settlement where Ford get a token chunk of money and Ferrari gets to use the F150 name on the car.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
The difference here is that the Ferrari F150 is not a production car, but a race car.
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant. The Ferrari F150 is a commercial venture in the same industry. F150 is an iconic brand for Ford. They want to protect it. Imagine they decide to market the truck heavily in Europe, and the response there is, "why are they naming it after a Ferrari race car?" That's what Ford is out to prevent.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other. But the two are in the same industry and Ford has the right to contest it, and they are probably smart to do so. I'm not on anybody's side, but I see the reasoning behind it.

I thought calling the race car F150 was a dumb idea to begin with, given how strong an American brand it is.
 
Last edited:
Lord Blackadder said:
BMW, Porshe and Rover are three examples of cars with number-names. I don't know the technicalities behind it but I'm sure they have some legal protection for their naming schemes.
Click to expand...
The Porsche 911 was originally the 901, but Peugeot objected to the use of any 3 digit number with zero as the middle digit, forcing Porsche to use a one instead.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
True, though Ford currently does jack squat in F1.
Click to expand...
But they are both in sports car racing. I'll be in Sebring next month to see Ferrari F430 and 456 Italias racing alongside Ford GTs. And that is where their 60's rivalry played out too, starting with the Daytona Coupes beating the Ferrari's at Sebring in '64.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back