Fred on the FIA & the starts: “What happened was unfair to Ferrari; the other teams weren’t fair. The compromise was as follows: gain 1 tenth per lap or lose 5 places at the start? My engineers’ response was clear from the start: better a good start. I had raised this point with the FIA and in meetings with the engine manufacturers months ago. The response was always the same: you have to design the car according to the regulations, not the other way around. But half the teams complained, arguing that the starts were dangerous, etc.” “It was certainly the least favorable decision for us, but I didn’t have much room to maneuver. If it’s a safety issue, it’s up to the FIA to decide. Of course, they could have asked the other teams to start from the pits if the situation was as dangerous as they claim…” “I think that without the new rules, some cars would still be on the starting grid in China. The truth is, for us, it was an important decision. We developed the engine in a certain way, and then the rules were changed at the last minute. It’s unfair.”
You know this one gave me a good chuckle: baldy is in charge of them, he talked with the engineers and basically chances were 50/50.
Either you favoured having good starts with a successive disadvantage in race pace or you picked race pace over good starts.
Guess which one took ferrari and which one picked the other teams.
Now, this is pretty telling by itself, though ferrari of course couldn’t know FIA would eventually reduce their race start advantage.
The question is what were they thinking when the favoured a gaining 5 positions at race starts over race pace?
And why is baldy acting as if HE didn’t make the final decision in the end… isn’t he the boss after all?
