Talk:Scuderia Ferrari
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Ferrari IndyCar Project
I unfortunately don't have the full details, such as exact year, but in the mid-late 80s Ferrari had started an IndyCar project in order to force the FIA to implement a rule change they wanted. I know a Ferrari IndyCar, complete with engine, was designed, built AND tested(by Bobby Rahal, no less), but the FIA gave in to Ferrari's demands so it was enver raced. I think if anyone has more information on this, it should be added to the atricle. Either in the 1980s section, or in its own small section of this page. Since the project was ultimately only started to effect a change in F1, I definitely feel in belongs in this article. But again, I don't have enough information to add it myself.
- It already has a Wiki entry. It was the Ferrari 637 - you may find images of it readily enough if you Google it. --Amedeo Felix 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The record for longest gap between wins
The page says that Ferrari hold this record at 53 years, what is meant by this statistic, because it is on a Formula One related page, and their longest gap between wins is certainly nowhere near that figure.
I cited in a forum the records given in this article before being corrected with the same objection given above. If you read the story on wins there is no way this is true. I posted something on BillCook page, the person that included that record and I am deleting it right now. Can someone come with an explanation? I find credible that Ferrari holds the record for longest gap between wins, but being founded in 1929, this means that they did not win a GP until 1982, wich is untrue. Taking in account they won a GP in the 50's according to the article, there is no way this is accurate, no matter how you interpret it. Funny. Maybe it is a typo? --Ciroa 03:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think what's meant is the longest time period between first and last/most recent win.--Don Speekingleesh 10:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Default for Scuderia
I don't believe Scuderia should default to here. It means "racing team" and is now as applicable to Scuderia Torro Rosso as Scuderia Ferrari.
- Scuderia has now been changed to a disambiguation page. DH85868993 13:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scuderia Ferrari in sportscar racing
Why there is not article in their involvement in sportscar racing, in which they were involved until 1973, don't also forget, they were instrumental in the infamous Cobra Ferrari Wars during the 60's WilliRennen 18:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gilles Villeneuve
We're having a push to get the Villeneuve article up to GA standard. Any Villeneuve fans want to come over to Gilles Villeneuve and help out? References and pictures would be most welcome, for example. Cheers 4u1e 7 July 2006
[edit] This page needs to be policed for POV/tone
Here are some of the worst examples of POV and inappropriate tone in the article that I've removed:
- "They managed to fight back to take some points home with them. "
- "the car working perfectly for the German. "
- "Monaco proved to be another strong point of the 248 F1"
- "Was this to be a one off, or the beginning of a Ferrari comeback? Ferrari answered this question at the French Grand Prix with a second consecutive one-two in qualifying"
- "From France the Formula One circus moved onto Germany"
- "However in the race, it was another Ferrari benefit"
Please to those committed to NPOV, please keep an eye out. And to those who think there's nothing wrong with the above statements please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Mark83 22:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Beginning
My understanding of it was that Ferrari started as a driver for Alfa Romeo, but proved a better race team manager. When they dropped their racing department, they outsourced it to the newly formed Scuderia Ferrari. Later, when they bought him out, the agreement was he could not manufacture cars under his own name for four years, after which Scuderia Ferrari was revived. This is heavily documented in Alfa Romeo history. That is from memory, but one could look up the details with Google. Seasalt 14:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] B-Class
Lots and lots of content (good). No references (bad), and writing could use polishing in places. General structure is OK (perhaps a bit repetitive?), but isn't balanced evenly across the whole of the history of the team, or across the F1 and Sportscar actitivies. 4u1e 15:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Drivers' list
I have added some bits to it, but there is one thing missing or it seems to be heavily ignored, that is sportscar racing, so on this list why isn't Brian Redman, Sandro Munari, Willy Mairesse, Olivier Gendebien and Nino Vaccarella mentioned as they have been involved in factory drives, non-F1 of course. Willirennen 23:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also, people keep adding Raikkonen and Massa. Perhaps it just needs to be changed to a list of drivers, rather than a list of former drivers? DH85868993
- Or just deleted altogether? (can you guess it just happened again) -- DH85868993 05:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Marlboro Removed From Team Name
Technically now the team is only called Scuderia Ferrari and it should be stated as such in the article.
- Source? They clearly said Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro on the press conference yesterday. / F1 fan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.105.81.22 (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Meaning of the Name
Scuderia is Italian for "Stable", and Ferrari is Italian prancing horse, thus the prancing horse being the logo of Ferrari, so the name is liberraly translated as "Stable of the Prancing Horse".
Ferrari is not the italian for "prancing horse", it is the family name of the founder. The prancing horse was Francesco Baracca (World War I Italian flying ace) logo, and his mother donated it to Enzo Ferrari, at the beginning of his racing activity. Enzo Ferrari put the prancing horse on the yellow background, as yellow is the color of his town, Modena.
--Vinci71 10:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
According to http://www.f1technical.net/glossary/s and Google's translator (http://www.google.com/translate), Scuderia means "Team".
125.5.144.90 (talk) 17:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Don't confuse the translation with transliteration. Scuderia literally means "stable", but in common English usage the term that most closely approximates the commonly used meaning is "team". Pyrope 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Types
The current type entry 412T is incorrect as it was the 412 T1 in 1994 and the 412 T2 in 1995. Two separate cars... --Amedeo Felix 17:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I note that this is so for too many of the types. The 312 T, 312 T2, 312 T3, 312 T4 and 312 T5 were all separate chassis designs. I'm not old enough to know if that is also so of the B3's, but Ferrari list them as separate entities and so I think they all should be here too - I think Ferrari knows best what their own cars are. I suggest someone have a good hard look on the Ferrari website (see above) and revamp this type list and the associated pages. --Amedeo Felix 17:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I forgot you know to use the obvious example of why varuious years cars should be listed each on its own - take McLaren as example. One could do the silly thing of listing all post 1981 McLarens as one car called the MP4... --Amedeo Felix 12:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Car number
This hasnt got anything to do with this article but. I checked the 1993 F1 season, Ferrari had car number 27 and 28. So if they finshes 4th in the constructors which next year (1994) they would get car number 7 & 8. How come in 1994 they got 27 & 28? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.29.63 (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- The current scheme where car numbers are assigned based on the results of the previous year's Constructors' Championship didn't start until 1996. From 1975-1995, teams retained the same numbers from one season to the next, except that the World Champion carried number 1 and his team-mate number 2. So, for 1994, Ferrari just retained the numbers they had carried in 1993, which were 27 and 28. DH85868993 08:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Mmmm. It was actually more complicated than that. Now in 1974 as reigning Constructors Champions Lotus were give 1 & 2, and at a guess the rest were doles out according to place as well. Anyhow, from the following year, until this system ended as stated above, the team with the World Drivers Champion got to use 1 & 2 and whichever team had previously held those numbers now took the numbers previously held by the hom of the new Drivers Champion - e.g. 1974 Lotus 1 & 2, McLaren 5 & 6; 1975 McLaren 1 & 2, Lotus 5 & 6 and on and on. Ferrari got 27 & 28 in 1987 because Williams had had those numbers previously and so the teams exchanged when Alan Jones took No 1 to Williams in 1981.--Amedeo Felix 18:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Melbourne Grand Prix
I couldn't find it on a summery of the 2007 season, shouldn't something mentiuon the illeagal car run in the Melbourne grand prix, as it is one of the big complaints the critics bring up in the media (At least on ITV) Narson 13:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Especially as McLaren were excluded from the WCC and fined $100m for breaching Article 151(c) of the ISC, while Ferrari's actions in Australia breached Article 151(b) and nothing was done. Odd disparity that. Pyrope 14:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Only FIA can declare a car illeagal at check after the race, not ITV. And Ferrari F2007 passed the test after the Australian GP. --Sporti 14:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- No I don't think Whiting is the one checking if cars are legal after the races, he has a much nicer job. --Sporti 14:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- He is the technical delegate,and so is the best man to judge what is and is not within the rules. My copy of Motor Sport reads along the lines of "Charlie Whiting confirmed that the Ferrari's movable floor was not in accordance with regulations. However, Kimi was allowed to retain both his victory and points from Melbourne." I'll get the precise ref as soon as I dig out the full copy. Pyrope 14:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ferraries type of movable floor became illegal only after the first race, when FIA changed the bodywork tests, on basis of drawing sent to them by McLaren (which McLaren found out about by espionage).--Sporti 15:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's simply untrue. The floor was a movable aerodynamic component and as such has been illegal for years. Yes McLaren were alerted to its presence by a Ferrari employee (as said employee was not comfortable running such an obviously illegal component), but that was entirely separate from the recent espionage issues. Pyrope 15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I seem to recall it went something along the lines of Ferrari ran it, McLaren requested a rules clarification from the FIA on it, FIA made it clear it was illeagal, Ferrari removed it with no sanction. Similar to the Renault mass damper incident, the clarification of which made it clear moveable parts that affected areodynamic properties while being outside of the normal air flow are still illeagal. If you have a source there, thats great Pyrope. If not I'll star digging through the ITV F1 and BBC archives. Narson 15:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. Motor Sport's current issue contains a very detailed article (written by Nigel Roebuck, so probably absolutely accurate), which includes a complete reprint of the ruling against McLaren, and discussed all of the issues surround the season's goings on. I'm afraid that I'm not at home for the next few days, but when I do I'll dig it out and get the precise wording. Pyrope 15:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I seem to recall it went something along the lines of Ferrari ran it, McLaren requested a rules clarification from the FIA on it, FIA made it clear it was illeagal, Ferrari removed it with no sanction. Similar to the Renault mass damper incident, the clarification of which made it clear moveable parts that affected areodynamic properties while being outside of the normal air flow are still illeagal. If you have a source there, thats great Pyrope. If not I'll star digging through the ITV F1 and BBC archives. Narson 15:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- In F1 something is allowed if it isn't forbiden, and team get advantage by searching for holes in the rules. Same way Michelin used wider tyres as allowed in first half of 2003 (as the tyres untill then weren't beeing measured after the races, only before) and didn't loose point for previous races, or Renault for using mass damper last year. There was no such devise as mass damper or spring with moovable floor before, so only after FIA declares its illegal, it's illegal (it was in the rules - yes - but rules can bu interpretated in more then one way, only when FIA declared what interpretation is on order here, it was illegal and Ferrari was forced to changed it) (1). --Sporti 15:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ferrari hid the fact that the floor moved by chosing spring rates that wouldn't show up in the test. The movable floor was a moving aerodynamic component, that was actually affecting the path of the airflow by over the permitted 5mm range. Just because it passes a garage test does not mean that it was legal beforehand. Tyrrell "unusual" coolant passed most tests in 1984, but when the FIA disciovered that it was loaded with lead shot they banned them from the entire season. The method was illegal at all time, but was only discovered to be so late in the season. Equating a movable floor with the mass damper is disengenous at the very least, as one component was a passive system that only indirectly affected the wing position and tyre contact patch relative to the road, and was developed on the understanding that it did not contravene the rules (the FIA later "clarified" that it did); the other was a cynical attempt to hoodwink the scrutineering committee, as evidenced by the fact that a Ferrari engineer shopped them in the full knowlege that the team understood the system to be illegal from the outset. Pyrope 15:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- The autosport article reports the FIA person as saying any such device was prohibited and they were altering the tests to stop circumvention. It doesn't say they were banning the device, merely altering the tests to detect an already illeagal device....I defer to Pyrope's superior knowledge of such matters as I didn't pay much attention to the hub bub at the first couple of Grand Prixs due to RL reasons. Narson 15:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again you say in two words what it takes me fifty! Pyrope 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well what we are talking about are actually McLaren's drawings, which is hardly any proove of illegal car of Ferrari, which passed the tests, was declared legal and that is what it counts as a fact. But I understand you Brits must be still in shock after an icy finish of the season and will try to find illegal stuff where there isn't one to find some conford... --Sporti 15:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know where you are getting your information from Sporti, but whoever it is is completely wrong. The movable floor was nothing to do with drawings; the tip-off came in a direct, face-to-face conversation, well before any dossier arrived in Mike Coughlan's posession. And as I said above, just because a component passed an inadequate test does not mean that it was legal! Think of Marion Jones. She passed hundreds of tests, yet she was using illegal drugs the whole time. Both the Motor Sport and Autosport articles - written by experienced, knowlegable and trustworthy journalists - make it plain that the floor was illegal from the moment it was designed, it was just that the FIA were using test methods which did not detect it. This is nothing to do with being a Brit (I've always quite liked Ferrari actually, ever since Mansell drove for them). Pyrope 15:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- The drawings I was talking about are those sent to FIA by McLaren with a question if such a concept would be legal to use (1), but we can only speculate if Ferrari used the same concept in the Australian GP. Just because a component passed an inadequate test does not mean that it was legal, no it doesn't nececerly, but until FIA rules a car illegal, it is legal. --Sporti 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- But you see, the problem is that Charlie Whiting (the head of the FIA's technical department) said that it wasn't. Now if he doesn't speak for the FIA on technical issues then nobody does. Pyrope 09:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- But he was refering to the device that was in the McLaren's drawing sent to FIA, not actually to Ferrari F2007 which was used at Australian GP (of course not, he couldn't know if it is the same as FIA cleared the car on first race with out paying any attention to it and Ferrari may or may not changed it before next race).--Sporti 10:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- But you see, the problem is that Charlie Whiting (the head of the FIA's technical department) said that it wasn't. Now if he doesn't speak for the FIA on technical issues then nobody does. Pyrope 09:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- The drawings I was talking about are those sent to FIA by McLaren with a question if such a concept would be legal to use (1), but we can only speculate if Ferrari used the same concept in the Australian GP. Just because a component passed an inadequate test does not mean that it was legal, no it doesn't nececerly, but until FIA rules a car illegal, it is legal. --Sporti 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Really? Then we should start altering the Honda article. That passed basic tests for several grand prixs before anyone declared its fuel system illeagal. Also please remember to AGF (And for the record, I'm a Honda fan, not McLaren. Not a huge fan of Hamilton either, not that it wouldn't have been nice to have him win, mind). Please remember to AGF, ignoring people's views based on their nationality could be seen as a tad rude. (Damn you Pyrope, you beat me too it ) Narson 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- [1] [2] [3] are some good ones. Narson 16:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know where you are getting your information from Sporti, but whoever it is is completely wrong. The movable floor was nothing to do with drawings; the tip-off came in a direct, face-to-face conversation, well before any dossier arrived in Mike Coughlan's posession. And as I said above, just because a component passed an inadequate test does not mean that it was legal! Think of Marion Jones. She passed hundreds of tests, yet she was using illegal drugs the whole time. Both the Motor Sport and Autosport articles - written by experienced, knowlegable and trustworthy journalists - make it plain that the floor was illegal from the moment it was designed, it was just that the FIA were using test methods which did not detect it. This is nothing to do with being a Brit (I've always quite liked Ferrari actually, ever since Mansell drove for them). Pyrope 15:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well what we are talking about are actually McLaren's drawings, which is hardly any proove of illegal car of Ferrari, which passed the tests, was declared legal and that is what it counts as a fact. But I understand you Brits must be still in shock after an icy finish of the season and will try to find illegal stuff where there isn't one to find some conford... --Sporti 15:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again you say in two words what it takes me fifty! Pyrope 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- The autosport article reports the FIA person as saying any such device was prohibited and they were altering the tests to stop circumvention. It doesn't say they were banning the device, merely altering the tests to detect an already illeagal device....I defer to Pyrope's superior knowledge of such matters as I didn't pay much attention to the hub bub at the first couple of Grand Prixs due to RL reasons. Narson 15:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ferrari hid the fact that the floor moved by chosing spring rates that wouldn't show up in the test. The movable floor was a moving aerodynamic component, that was actually affecting the path of the airflow by over the permitted 5mm range. Just because it passes a garage test does not mean that it was legal beforehand. Tyrrell "unusual" coolant passed most tests in 1984, but when the FIA disciovered that it was loaded with lead shot they banned them from the entire season. The method was illegal at all time, but was only discovered to be so late in the season. Equating a movable floor with the mass damper is disengenous at the very least, as one component was a passive system that only indirectly affected the wing position and tyre contact patch relative to the road, and was developed on the understanding that it did not contravene the rules (the FIA later "clarified" that it did); the other was a cynical attempt to hoodwink the scrutineering committee, as evidenced by the fact that a Ferrari engineer shopped them in the full knowlege that the team understood the system to be illegal from the outset. Pyrope 15:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's simply untrue. The floor was a movable aerodynamic component and as such has been illegal for years. Yes McLaren were alerted to its presence by a Ferrari employee (as said employee was not comfortable running such an obviously illegal component), but that was entirely separate from the recent espionage issues. Pyrope 15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sports Car Racing
Cross-posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Car Racing.
This article is in dire need of more sports car history. Scuderia Ferrari were officially involved in the World Sportscar Championship from its inception in 1953 to Ferrari leaving sports cars in 1973, and were involved in other sports car racing events and series prior and during this time. Yet this article seems to make only a few casual mentions of Ferrari's successful sports car campaign, and instead concentrate solely on their Formula One involvement.
I think this article is in desperate need of expansion of the full history of Scuderia Ferrari, in all forms of motorsport. The359 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more The359, until '73 sports car racing was a major part of Ferrari's identity. Indeed, the first Ferrari to bear the name and the first Ferrari car to win a race was the 125S sportscar. One thing that I think needs serious consideration is page length, however. This page is already >90MB in size, and is arguably too big already. I think that what we really need to think about is a rejig of the page structure. How about a general Scuderia Ferrari page, which would give an overview of the competition history of Ferrari, and then two sub-pages, Ferrari in Grand Prix racing and Ferrari in sportscar racing (just suggestions, feel free to suggest better names), to handle the single-seater (not forgetting their F2 cars, of course) and sportscar histories. Thoughts? Pyrope 14:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I too thought about the page length, and my thought initially was to simply trim down the Formula One history. But your suggestion of splitting the page in two does create some more possibilities: For one, the ability to have a more thorough history, while two, the ability to cover not just Scuderia Ferrari's efforts, but also Ferrari's customer car programs, especially in the period after 1973. The use of just Ferrari in X racing instead of Scuderia Ferrari works with this as well, since we can cover the marque history and not just the official team history. The359 16:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Scuderia Ferrari Logo 2007.jpg
Image:Scuderia Ferrari Logo 2007.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gilles Simon is not Italian
Near his name inside the box "Scuderia Ferrari Personnel" there is the Italian Flag,but he is obviously French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.85.105 (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)