>Ferrari reliability is legendary and non-existent. I can see no reason
>why a new engine is going to be any better. Ok, it'll rev a liilte less
>which might help, but there problems it must be down to engineering standards. They obviously don't build enough headroom into their=
> operating windows to allow for a single imperfection. Look at Monza.
>They had the first Ferrari 1-2 since '89(?) and they blew it. Even when the engines hold out they have problems with other areas. Th=
>ey're trying to compensate by getting Schumacher in which might well end in disaster.
>He's never had to endure an unreliably car. He was starting to crack at
>the begining of this season when the Benetton was clearly bad, but Benetton got it sorted before he really let loose, but you could =
>see it comming. He was at that no comment stage, which tends to precede the kind of outburst Ferrari regularly had to deal with.
>I don't wish Ferrari any luck. They blew their drivers, who had put up with their ***engineering for years and deserved some pay b=
>eck, and spent and obsene amount of money on Schumacher, the kind of money that could have kept Simtek in.
I completely agree with you (not wishing Ferrari any luck) But re: reliability
I would like
to point out the begging of this season. The cars were very good and they
could compete with Williams and Benetton cars. But later in the season where
both W and B got better (especially B) they got worse. This is hardly possible
I think that they figuered that there is no way that either Alesi nor Berger
would win the champ amd therefore decided to concentrate more on the next 96
season (and even if they did have a chance of winning WC I am not sure if
that's exectly what Ferrari would want given that they are giving so much
***ing money to MS). So I think that after all next season wont be that bad
for Ferrari and for Michael.
--> Damjan Majstorovic
University of Waterloo