Ferrari set launch date for F2005

iGav

macrumors G3
Original poster
Mar 9, 2002
9,025
1
Come on Maranello!!! :D

25th February

Have to admit though... I'm a little worried about the Scuderia's chances this season, whilst I'm sure that the F2005 will be the class of the field (atleast until McLaren reveal the MP4-20B mid season) the disadvantages of running the F2004M for the first 4 races means that should one driver do a 'Schu' and win those 4 races, I'm not convinced that even Schumacher could pull back such a deficit with the current ill-conceived points system.

Both McLaren and Renault look to have serious speed in pre-season testing, and as great a car as the F2004/M was/is, the main development on that car was frozen mid-way through last season, normally using the previous seasons car hasn't been such a disadvantage but since the rules changes have been quite dramatic I just can't see how they're going to be fully competitive for those first 4 races, I honestly believe it's going to be more a case of damage limitation for those 4 races and hope that the reliability problems hit the other teams.

What's even more worrying is the lack of mileage that Bridgestone have racked up against Michelin during the off season. :eek:

And to top it all off, in my dream last night, Montoya wins the first race whilst Schu crashes out! :eek: :(
 

MOFS

macrumors 65816
Feb 27, 2003
1,204
144
Durham, UK
iGAV said:
Come on Maranello!!! :D

25th February

Have to admit though... I'm a little worried about the Scuderia's chances this season, whilst I'm sure that the F2005 will be the class of the field (atleast until McLaren reveal the MP4-20B mid season) the disadvantages of running the F2004M for the first 4 races means that should one driver do a 'Schu' and win those 4 races, I'm not convinced that even Schumacher could pull back such a deficit with the current ill-conceived points system.

Both McLaren and Renault look to have serious speed in pre-season testing, and as great a car as the F2004/M was/is, the main development on that car was frozen mid-way through last season, normally using the previous seasons car hasn't been such a disadvantage but since the rules changes have been quite dramatic I just can't see how they're going to be fully competitive for those first 4 races, I honestly believe it's going to be more a case of damage limitation for those 4 races and hope that the reliability problems hit the other teams.

What's even more worrying is the lack of mileage that Bridgestone have racked up against Michelin during the off season. :eek:

And to top it all off, in my dream last night, Montoya wins the first race whilst Schu crashes out! :eek: :(
Yeah - whilst the car will undoubtedly be reliable, the "horns" of Mclaren and the undoubted speed of the Renault means that that may not be enough.

Unless Montoya goes on a rampage... :p
 

Jon'sLightBulbs

macrumors 6502a
Jan 31, 2005
524
0
Chicago
"Ferarri launch F2005"

A grammar question that really bugs me: what's the reasoning behind the verb there corresponding to a plural noun? Doesn't "Ferarri" refer to a team, or the auto maker? Therefore, isn't it a singular noun, and shouldn't "launch" instead be "launches?" All the journalists across the pond do this. Journalists in the U.S. are less prone. Reasoning?
 

BakedBeans

macrumors 68040
May 6, 2004
3,054
0
What's Your Favorite Posish
Jon'sLightBulbs said:
"Ferarri launch F2005"

A grammar question that really bugs me: what's the reasoning behind the verb there corresponding to a plural noun? Doesn't "Ferarri" refer to a team, or the auto maker? Therefore, isn't it a singular noun, and shouldn't "launch" instead be "launches?" All the journalists across the pond do this. Journalists in the U.S. are less prone. Reasoning?
:D
 

edesignuk

Moderator emeritus
Mar 25, 2002
19,077
1
London, England
Jon'sLightBulbs said:
"Ferarri launch F2005"

A grammar question that really bugs me: what's the reasoning behind the verb there corresponding to a plural noun? Doesn't "Ferarri" refer to a team, or the auto maker? Therefore, isn't it a singular noun, and shouldn't "launch" instead be "launches?" All the journalists across the pond do this. Journalists in the U.S. are less prone. Reasoning?
Are you s***ting me??
 

edesignuk

Moderator emeritus
Mar 25, 2002
19,077
1
London, England
Jon'sLightBulbs said:
Do I sense the lack of a knowledgable answer behind a thin facade of snideness?

Anyone else?
Yes, I'm a dumb f***, and your putting me down as left me deeply embarrassed. How will I ever go on.
 

WinterMute

Moderator emeritus
Jan 19, 2003
4,715
4
London, England
Jon'sLightBulbs said:
Do I sense the lack of a knowledgable answer behind a thin facade of snideness?

Anyone else?
No you don't, please:

a) keep it on topic

and

b) Keep it civil (everyone)

Had iGav used the bad grammar you note, I wouldn't mind, but his grammar is fine.
 

iGav

macrumors G3
Original poster
Mar 9, 2002
9,025
1
Jon'sLightBulbs said:
Therefore, isn't it a singular noun, and shouldn't "launch" instead be "launches?"Reasoning?
No, because they haven't launched it yet have they. ;) As for reasoning... well it would help if you read the actual thread title correctly would it not?

I could have said 'Ferrari announce the launch date for the F2005', instead I do what I always do I take the the title of the article I am linking to. However in this case I felt that the information supplied by the article title "Ferrari set launch date" was insufficient, and added "for F2005" so that it would be clear that it related to the F1 car as opposed to a new road car for example.


MOFS said:
Yeah - whilst the car will undoubtedly be reliable, the "horns" of Mclaren and the undoubted speed of the Renault means that that may not be enough.
I'm thinking that they're going to be relying on their reliability and other teams possible unreliabilities to remain competitive for the first races.

From what I've read so far Ferrari are playing down their testing performances, which I can understand.... they have a considerable amount of data on the F2004 and are fully aware of it's raw speed, but it is worrying all the same.

I still can't believe the difference in miles between the 2 tyres companies :eek: I'm guessing that goes someway to explaining the tyre performance problems Rubens was speaking of the other day. A good reason why a single tyre company would be a good thing as well.


WinterMute said:
Had iGav used the bad grammar you note, I wouldn't mind, but his grammar is fine.
Oh my god... when did you become a mod? :eek:

Who do I have to sleep with to attain such status? :eek: :p :p


So any more thoughts on the F2005? will it be radical? evolutionary? the only tantalising piece of information I've heard so far, is that Ross Brawn has confirmed that the main cause of the delay is a new ultra quick shifting, carbon fibre gearbox (similar to BAR's I would guess) although the delay is allowing for more air tunnel time, something which has been noted by McLaren's Adrian Newey as a significant advantage.
 

WinterMute

Moderator emeritus
Jan 19, 2003
4,715
4
London, England
iGAV said:
Oh my god... when did you become a mod? :eek:

Who do I have to sleep with to attain such status? :eek: :p :p
Since yesterday mate, got a surprise birthday present... :D

They obviously recognise class when they see it. :rolleyes:

I think being a demi is a pre-req, PM Mudbug if your interested, he's a new God! :eek:
 

iGav

macrumors G3
Original poster
Mar 9, 2002
9,025
1
WinterMute said:
PM Mudbug if your interested, he's a new God! :eek:
I don't think I could handle that sort of power... :eek: :p

So Mr Mudbug is a God now?? hmmmmmm... I wonder if he has the power to change me from 'iGAV' to 'iGav'?

Anyway... congratulations on being made a Mod fella ;) however censor me and I'll put vaseline on your car brakes!! :eek: :p :p
 

WinterMute

Moderator emeritus
Jan 19, 2003
4,715
4
London, England
iGAV said:
Anyway... congratulations on being made a Mod fella ;) however censor me and I'll put vaseline on your car brakes!! :eek: :p :p
Bring it on baldy, I don't use brakes anyhow.... :D ;)

Incidentaly, Mudbug is coming to the UK on holiday in the summer, he'll be in London for 4 days, says he fancies a bit of a geekfest... You game?
 

fhqwhgads

macrumors member
Jun 13, 2003
45
0
See, this is why I generally just read macrumors, and avoid posting. To recap:

--American guy asks innocent question about a curious difference between American and UK grammar

--UK guy responds, apparently without understanding the question, by asking if he is defecating him.

--American guy, sensing that an answer will not be forthcoming from this UK guy, asks for help from someone else.

--UK guy again misunderstands American guy, and responds by making fun of him, just in case his online persona has been damaged in some way.

--UK mod guy jumps in, and in a blinding display of self-contradiction, advises American guy to "keep it on topic" while simultaneously apparently losing the ability to PM, and carries on a light-hearted conversation with a third UK guy about becoming a mod, when someone's coming to the UK, etc etc.

Am I missing something here? Is there someone from the England area who would like to explain any known reasoning behind the difference between the verb usage? I find it a bit curious, too. Or does this belong in a different thread? This one should probably stay on the topic of becoming a mod, I mean Ferrari's new car.
 

iGav

macrumors G3
Original poster
Mar 9, 2002
9,025
1
fhqwhgads said:
American guy asks innocent question about a curious difference between American and UK grammar
But the innocent question (which set the precedent of taking this thread off topic) had nothing to do with the title of this thread. The title of this thread is "Ferrari set launch date for F2005" and not "Ferarri launch F2005".

Had Ferrari already announced and released their new F1 car, the title could have been "Ferrari launches F2005", but it's not... Ferrari have only just announced a date for the unveiling of their next F1 car. In which case, there is nothing wrong with "Ferrari set launch date for F2005" as a thread title.

Anyway to drag this thread kicking and screaming so it would seem back on topic, does anyone have any thoughts on the F2005? :rolleyes:

Is the extra wind tunnel time likely to result in a significantly different shape? Are Frank Williams concerns about Ferrari launching late being the result of them scraping previous work in the effort of coming up with something "clever" true?

I also find it interesting that some of the other teams are still holding out in the hope that Ferrari will sign up to this 'Testing Agreement', personally I think this is highly unlikely because it'll cripple development of the new car... 30 days development??? yeah right! :eek: :rolleyes:
 

fhqwhgads

macrumors member
Jun 13, 2003
45
0
Sorry to drag this on, but just for the sake of understanding and hopefully for a little cultural/linguistic exchange, let me clarify for you the original question. Jon'sLightBulbs' question doesn't actually have anything to do with whether the verb is present or past tense. Let me illustrate with an example the difference between verb usage in your country and ours, using UK terms. You would say, "Chelsea anxiously await upcoming Champions League match with Barcelona," but those in the US would say, "Chelsea anxiously awaits upcoming match with Barcelona" (or, more likely, "Who's Chelsea?"). As Jon mentioned, in the US we typically treat a team as a unit (unless the team name itself is plural, like the Patriots or Eagles) and therefore use the singular verb form, whereas in the UK a team is treated as plural in number as far as verb usage goes. In the case of this thread, the American way to say the headline would be "Ferrari sets..." and not "set".

Does that make sense? And does anyone have any linguistic reason for this split?

Again, sorry for the off-topic posting, but this seems both harmless and simple enough--I only mentioned anyone else's off-topic posting to point out the injustice in Jon's receiving a wrist-slap for it.
 

Don't panic

macrumors 603
Jan 30, 2004
5,551
695
having a drink at Milliways
iGAV said:
Had Ferrari already announced and released their new F1 car, the title could have been "Ferrari launches F2005", but it's not... Ferrari have only just announced a date for the unveiling of their next F1 car. In which case, there is nothing wrong with "Ferrari set launch date for F2005" as a thread title.
... but is it purposedly referring to the paste or is a journalistic present tense?
and in this case, shouldn't it be "Ferrari sets launch date for F2005"? Or Ferarrrri as some would call it/them, probably distracted by the roaring engine(s).

edit: fhgdhdgsshgshgaffsfrdssfd (???) beat me to it, but I still got the on-topic F2005 scoop

Anyway, barring tire issues, I think the F2004M will be VERY competitive (remember last year? Ferarrri(sss) seemed bust before Melbourne.

As far as the 2005, it will be a conservative development, at least based on this shot stolen in Maranello last week (notice Barri in the back)
 

Attachments

WinterMute

Moderator emeritus
Jan 19, 2003
4,715
4
London, England
fhqwhgads said:
Sorry to drag this on, but just for the sake of understanding and hopefully for a little cultural/linguistic exchange, let me clarify for you the original question. Jon'sLightBulbs' question doesn't actually have anything to do with whether the verb is present or past tense. Let me illustrate with an example the difference between verb usage in your country and ours, using UK terms. You would say, "Chelsea anxiously await upcoming Champions League match with Barcelona," but those in the US would say, "Chelsea anxiously awaits upcoming match with Barcelona" (or, more likely, "Who's Chelsea?"). As Jon mentioned, in the US we typically treat a team as a unit (unless the team name itself is plural, like the Patriots or Eagles) and therefore use the singular verb form, whereas in the UK a team is treated as plural in number as far as verb usage goes. In the case of this thread, the American way to say the headline would be "Ferrari sets..." and not "set".

Does that make sense? And does anyone have any linguistic reason for this split?

Again, sorry for the off-topic posting, but this seems both harmless and simple enough--I only mentioned anyone else's off-topic posting to point out the injustice in Jon's receiving a wrist-slap for it.
Nothing wrong with your linguistic reasoning there.

Jon didn't get his wrists slapped for the grammar remark, anymore than anyone else in the thread, his comment on the usage of grammar was, in the light of the thread's title and my (admittedly English) understanding of grammer, erroneous. There is nothing wrong with that. My comments were aimed at the exchange afterwards, and both he and edesignuk were a bit previous to say the least.

Yes I posted off-topic, sorry, I'm new to the modding buisness...

So, to recap:

Play nice.

Try not to post consisitently off topic.

We are (still) two nations divided by a single language.

now....

What about Ferrari's new car then....

Personally I think the Schumy factor will obviate any flaws in the car for a few races, any more than that and it's Montoya's championship.

:)
 

iGav

macrumors G3
Original poster
Mar 9, 2002
9,025
1
fhqwhgads said:
Sorry to drag this on, but just for the sake of understanding and hopefully for a little cultural/linguistic exchange, let me clarify for you the original question. Jon'sLightBulbs' question doesn't actually have anything to do with whether the verb is present or past tense. Let me illustrate with an example the difference between verb usage in your country and ours, using UK terms. You would say, "Chelsea anxiously await upcoming Champions League match with Barcelona," but those in the US would say, "Chelsea anxiously awaits upcoming match with Barcelona" (or, more likely, "Who's Chelsea?"). As Jon mentioned, in the US we typically treat a team as a unit (unless the team name itself is plural, like the Patriots or Eagles) and therefore use the singular verb form, whereas in the UK a team is treated as plural in number as far as verb usage goes. In the case of this thread, the American way to say the headline would be "Ferrari sets..." and not "set".

Does that make sense? And does anyone have any linguistic reason for this split?

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate on that. Makes perfect sense ;) :)

I understand the context that Jon'sLightBulbs original reply was in now, I think the way it was worded and its context within the thread just threw me.

So I owe an apology to Jon'sLightBulbs for misunderstanding his original post and question. ;)

Personally I have no idea why their are differences, in all honesty I can't say I've ever really noticed or paid much attention to the differences. Now you've got me thinking how I'd actually word it.

I think I'd probably use "Ferrari launches F2005" as opposed to "Ferrari launch F2005" and I also think I'd use "Ferrari sets launch date for F2005", as I said above, I generally just copy and paste article titles for thread titles so I don't pay much attention to the grammar, unless it's really odd of course.


WinterMute said:
Incidentaly, Mudbug is coming to the UK on holiday in the summer, he'll be in London for 4 days, says he fancies a bit of a geekfest... You game?
Yeah I know, he PM'd me about it!

Deffo up for it... had it not been for the fact that at weekends I'm rarely in London I would've suggested meeting up sometime last year, but all I seem to do at weekends is either work or spend my time travelling to ms iGav's place.

But yeah, once Mr Mudbug has concrete plans and dates we'll have to sort something out. Bagsy we go to 'The Bar With No Name' though :D


Anyway back to the task at hand... :)


Don't panic said:
Anyway, barring tire issues, I think the F2004M will be VERY competitive (remember last year? Ferarrri(sss) seemed bust before Melbourne.
I know they'll be competitive... I just don't think they'll be competitive enough (wins) for the first 4 races, as the likes of McLaren and Renault are both putting in some incredible lap times.

Last year was different though, the F2004 did some scorching times at Imola the week (or so) before Australia, so it wasn't such a surprise when Ferrari were atleast competitive, although I know Schumachers first installation lap for first practice at last years Aussie GP was something special :D

The rule changes have been so dramatic this season, that once where an old car could be carried over successfully for the first few fly-away races because of consistant rules, isn't going to apply to a car which was designed and optimised to a different set of rules I just don't think that they'll be in the hunt for the wins until the F2005 debuts.


Don't panic said:
As far as the 2005, it will be a conservative development, at least based on this shot stolen in Maranello last week (notice Barri in the back)
heheheheh.

I don't know what to expect. Every car since the F2001 has been an evolution, and thus had a good foundation for development work, but the revised rules surely mean that the F2005 really needs to be a ground up redesign to make the best of the new rules... Ferrari used to do radical, so it'd be cool to seem them maybe take a bit of a risk with the new car.


WinterMute said:
Personally I think the Schumy factor will obviate any flaws in the car for a few races, any more than that and it's Montoya's championship.
Monty's championship my arse is it. He'll have his hands full with Kimi. :D
 

russed

macrumors 68000
Jan 16, 2004
1,613
0
personally i think this launching a car 4 or 5 races into a season so they can have more testing is unfair. to create a level playing field (well a more level one!) eveone should start the season with their new car (or the one they want to use for the rest of the season) and then they should only be alowed minor revisions to aero dynamics etc as the season goes on, but nothing major like chassis changes or things like that!
 

jeffy.dee-lux

macrumors 6502a
Nov 19, 2003
721
0
montreal
Thanks to all for allowing this thread to veer off topic to address an issue that's been on my mind for a while. I've noticed this a lot, especially on Top Gear... "Ford say the GT will get 12 mpg..." We don't know why this is apparently, but at least i know i'm not crazy.
 

Counterfit

macrumors G3
Aug 20, 2003
8,202
0
sitting on your shoulder
russed said:
personally i think this launching a car 4 or 5 races into a season so they can have more testing is unfair.
Even though it means using an older car for the first few races, usually putting them at a disadvantage? Or how about McLaren's race introduction of the MP-4/18? It never even happened!
 

russed

macrumors 68000
Jan 16, 2004
1,613
0
Counterfit said:
Even though it means using an older car for the first few races, usually putting them at a disadvantage? Or how about McLaren's race introduction of the MP-4/18? It never even happened!
why would it put them at a disadvantage? they have a car that the entire team knows well. it will be reliable most importantly though, as they will have had an entire season to iron out the problems. whereas the other teams in their new cars are having to do the ironing out during the races - usually at the expence of a finish due to the engine/gearbox/brakes/bodywork/(insert any part of the car here) failing.

whilst they are using their old car, they can then get a few extra months of testing their new car and sorting out problems in testing, not during the races.

ferarri have done this for the past few years and they have usually gone on to win the first few races of the season, so any correlation here? i fail to see how introducing their car later can not give them an advantage
 

Don't panic

macrumors 603
Jan 30, 2004
5,551
695
having a drink at Milliways
russed said:
personally i think this launching a car 4 or 5 races into a season so they can have more testing is unfair. to create a level playing field (well a more level one!) eveone should start the season with their new car (or the one they want to use for the rest of the season) and then they should only be alowed minor revisions to aero dynamics etc as the season goes on, but nothing major like chassis changes or things like that!
I find your comment confusing. how's using an old car an advantage? If using the new car after a few races was indeed better, everyone would do it. But they don't. Besides, what are "minor" revisions? when does a car stop being an evolution and becomes a new car? It would be an endless source of litigation.

I also disagree that it would "level the field". on the contrary, if someone has a dog at the beginning of the season, they are done. Not very investment friendly. Or think if someone has a really good idea that gives a very significant advantage, but nobody else can follow suit. Season over at race one.

No thanks, working on the car and introducing new solutions is essential to the nature of F1.
 

russed

macrumors 68000
Jan 16, 2004
1,613
0
Don't panic said:
I find your comment confusing. how's using an old car an advantage? If using the new car after a few races was indeed better, everyone would do it. But they don't. Besides, what are "minor" revisions? when does a car stop being an evolution and becomes a new car? It would be an endless source of litigation.

I also disagree that it would "level the field". on the contrary, if someone has a dog at the beginning of the season, they are done. Not very investment friendly. Or think if someone has a really good idea that gives a very significant advantage, but nobody else can follow suit. Season over at race one.

No thanks, working on the car and introducing new solutions is essential to the nature of F1.
well if you see my post above (22) i have answered some of your points about how having an old car can be an advantage.

with regards to the minor/major revision, i'm no expert here and surely there would have to be rules involved but what im essentially meaning is that you could say alter the design of your aerodynamic package (as happens very frequently) along with things like brakes etc but nothing on a par with the annual revision that is seen from one years car to the next where often the chassis etc are compleatly re done. so with this you could kind of evolve your car over the year (as is often done) but nothing major like bringing in a new car.

in all fairness, GP needs livening up and any rule change that could mix things up a bit and make things more equal should be taken up otherwise we only end up with what we have seen in the past few years - a procession from start to finish with the only major overtaking happening with pitstops and this can not be denied.
 

Counterfit

macrumors G3
Aug 20, 2003
8,202
0
sitting on your shoulder
russed said:
why would it put them at a disadvantage? they have a car that the entire team knows well. it will be reliable most importantly though, as they will have had an entire season to iron out the problems. whereas the other teams in their new cars are having to do the ironing out during the races - usually at the expence of a finish due to the engine/gearbox/brakes/bodywork/(insert any part of the car here) failing.

whilst they are using their old car, they can then get a few extra months of testing their new car and sorting out problems in testing, not during the races.

ferarri have done this for the past few years and they have usually gone on to win the first few races of the season, so any correlation here? i fail to see how introducing their car later can not give them an advantage
And yet, by using an old car, they're stuck with any major design problems that they haven't been able to quite fix. It also wouldn't have been designed with whatever new rules are in place, which will be a major disadvantage this year. And when was the last time a new Ferrari, first raced at Melbourne, failed anyway?