Joined
·
11,182 Posts
That was quite eloquent as well 6e,i would think most Ferrari owners would find it hard to argue with your pointsrepie, thanks for your post and also for doing so in an eloquent fashion. You have some fair points, I think, but we still disconnect on a basic premise: I cannot "just read the articles", as you say, because the very person who is writing them is warning us not to believe them. That is the whole point of his article and, indeed, why he felt the need to use a back-channel (jalopnik) to express it.
See, in fact, his final sentence: "Just remember all this stuff then next time you read a magazine group test with a prancing stallion in it."
If the conduit for receiving the information is contaminated, then how can any of the data be trusted?
The discussion of all the minutiae misses this premise. However, for the record, here are some examples of what I deem acceptable for comparison testing.
Allowed:
- Bringing a team. Sure, bring some engineers to take car of the car. It doesn't bother me that they are there. It is what they are doing that is important. If they are keeping the cars running, that is a good thing. Track work is hard on cars - stuff breaks.
- Plugging in a laptop. Again, no problem depending on what they are doing. If they are collecting data, that is fine. If they are making any changes that an owner could do, but more efficiently through the wire than using the onboard computer, then also fine. However, if they are changing an engine/fuel map or adjusting gearbox parameters beyond what an owner could do from inside the car, for example, then that is foul play.
- Switching out a car that is broken or not functioning in accordance with customer specifications. Sure, go ahead.
- Switching OEM wheels and tires. Again, go ahead, as long as they are truly options on the customer option list and the exact same weight & compounds, etc.
Not allowed:
- Don't bring your own fuel. There is no reason not to let the testers put the same local fuel supply in each cars. Bringing your own fuel is a dead giveaway that other engine parameters are being manipulated on the fly during the test.
- Don't put on parts that a customer can't order. Self-explanatary.
- Don't adjust ride height, alignment, etc., beyond what a customer could easily do himself in a garage before a track day, for example. I am okay with camber and toe settings, but don't drop the whole car so that it sits half an inch off the ground for the track test, for example.
Those are just some examples. However, the biggest one is: Don't hold the media hostage for what they can, or can't, print by denying them access to the press fleet. Simply put, in such an environment, all of the above is moot because important details will be omitted for fear of damaging the coveted relationship with the manufacturer.
What would make me believe that Ferrari is not cheating? I'd like to see several journalists go out of their way to explicitly say, in print, that they have stopped meddling. I'd like these journalists to verify that okay, now Ferrari is acting just like the other manufacturers - Lambo, Porsche, etc. as Chilton says. Similarly, if some journalists were to write damning words about McLaren, as Harris did, then I would not be pleased with McLaren and would demand some answers from them. I'd like to see Ferrari allow journalists to drive whatever car they want and write about it. Then, I would change my tune and start to evaluate Ferrari as an ethical company and believe any of the words written about their cars.
Lastly, while I agree that McLaren is in an advantaged position, customer service-wise, your statement regarding luxury brands is far too defeatist, in my opinion. It is never in a company's best interest to treat their customers with arrogance and contempt, no matter how in-demand their products. This is a recipe for losing market share when somebody enters the market with a truly competitive product, as McLaren has now done.