2023 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[Marble]

Full report on Vasseur's interview yesterday, as well as telemetries, data and radio communication to explain the misunderstanding between Sainz and Leclerc in Melbourne :

Original :
https://blog.autoplus.fr/moncet/2023/04 ... difficile/

Translated :
https://blog-autoplus-fr.translate.goog ... x_tr_hl=en


Subjects :
1/ The SF23 is "peaky" and this is the reason why it's easier for the drivers to extract its performance in qualifying conditions than in race conditions. The modifications made in Australia seemed to work, the car was more consistent, but confirmation is needed on another track
2/ The prep lap / non prep lap misunderstanding between Sainz and Leclerc explained. Sainz had no tyre temp for turn 1, lost 2 tenths in turn 1. Otherwise he would have been on 1st row and the analysis of the weekend would have been different according to Vasseur
3/ Updates for Miami, Imola and Barcelona. The strategy is to speed up the process. But no B-spec : first it's really difficult with the restrictions (Fred mentions the budget cap, bur for him the main restriction is the wind-tunnel time) and he feels they still have "tons" of opportunities to improve the SF23 and unlock aero points. They will see later in the season if they change direction for 2024. Once again, budget cap has to be taken into account when considering changes to gearbox or chassis.
4/ He talks about the "mega" RedBull DRS but feels they closed the gap. But they expected to close it more and need to understand why RedBull has something "different and better".
5/ He feels RB's penalty is marginal : less than on tenth, and the money they don't use can be spent somewhere else
6/ Vasseur says the mood is "incredibly good considering the results we have" including the mood between him and Elkann & Benedetto
7/ Explains some of the reasons for the review of Sainz's penalty

[catent]

None said he should not receive any penalty. But from not receiving any penalty, and receiving a penalty wich equals disqualifying, there are several steps in between wich are not as hard nor lenient

And no, 5s is not the minimum punishment, there are grid penalties, they can drop him one position, there are several options to not punish that hard a driver who only went a bit long on first lap, wich is usually considered a racing incident.

No there aren't. Grid penalties apply only if the decision is made after the race. There was no reason to delay, since the race was stopped. There's no such penalty as "drop one position", that's in MotoGP I think.
And again, it does not equal disqualifying.

What if...

Reality is no driver suffered any harm or disadvantage or dropped a single position, but Sainz was, in practice, disqualified after a tough and praiseworthy recover from p12 to p4 after some tough luck with the pitstop and SC

But some Ferrari fans say it doesn´t matter if a Ferrari driver is deprived from scoring 12 points

You can stop reiterating the same nonsense.
And in anyway. Should a driver be allowed to do illegal/dangerous moves as long as the victim escapes loss of position by luck or skill? I should hope not.

What Ferrari fans say is irrelevant to an argument. But in any case it's starting to get proved true, as far as the championship goes. Unless there's some miraculous revolution for Ferrari by Baku they're not likely to get a driver finish within the top four.

If a mistake is not punished, penalty is useless. If it´s punished harder than necessary, it´s not fair, as it´s applying different standards to different drivers. If any driver who rotates an opponent is DSQ ok, but DSQ some drivers, while others don´t receive any penalty, lenient or hard, is against the spirit of sports and competition

It´s surprising reading proportionality doesn´t matter on penalties

Again with this nonsense. He literally got the smallest available punishment! (Twenty years ago it would have been a 10s stop&go penalty.)
What's very wrong is that Gasly and Sargeant didn't get a grid penalty...

What is confusing me is the claim that a Ferrari fan’s opinion on this matter is irrelevant. Why should someone have their opinion fundamentally discounted and discarded based on their rooting interest(s)?

I assume anyone else with a potential conflict of interest would also have their opinion tossed to the curb?

Evaluate one’s position based on the claims they make and the merit behind said claims. Labeling someone and discarding their opinion based on that label (instead of the substance of their opinion) is pretty tough stuff.

In my opinion, Sainz’ penalty was entirely beyond the spirit of an on-track time penalty given the circumstances of the race at that stage. A retroactive grid penalty or license points penalty would seem a lot more reasonable in context.

[Juzh]

2/ The prep lap / non prep lap misunderstanding between Sainz and Leclerc explained. Sainz had no tyre temp for turn 1, lost 2 tenths in turn 1. Otherwise he would have been on 1st row and the analysis of the weekend would have been different according to Vasseur

Second row was guaranteed but front row is questionable even without mistake.

[LM10]

Red Bull budget cap penalty 'very light', says Ferrari's Frederic Vasseur

The crime was also "very light", or actually "minor" by the financial regulations own definition. Vasseur should get over it, and start to get his house in order.

It’s ridiculous to name a breach of several millions “minor” in the first place.

[ringo]

Looking at the lap charts. I realize the sf23 seemed to be second quickest car on the last stint. It was not night and day and I know the drs would play a role but the car was virtually level with aston and mercedes but a smidge quicker. In the hands of Charles it may be clearly second. However this is no consolation for any of the 2nd place teams as Redbull is still in another league.

[Wouter]

Red Bull budget cap penalty 'very light', says Ferrari's Frederic Vasseur

The crime was also "very light", or actually "minor" by the financial regulations own definition. Vasseur should get over it, and start to get his house in order.

.
It’s ridiculous to name a breach of several millions “minor” in the first place.

.
This doesn't belong in this topic, but as it was Vasseur who brought it up....

"Several millions" and "not a minor breach"?
.

The FIA said Red Bull was deemed to have exceeded the $145 million cost cap, committing a minor breach
that was less than 5% over the limit.

RBR exceeded the budget cap by £1,864,000 - or 1.6%.
The FIA also stated that had Red Bull applied the correct treatment of its Notional Tax Credit worth £1.4m
as part of the submission, then it would only have been in breach by £432,652, or 0.37%.

[Farnborough]

The crime was also "very light", or actually "minor" by the financial regulations own definition. Vasseur should get over it, and start to get his house in order.

.
It’s ridiculous to name a breach of several millions “minor” in the first place.

.
This doesn't belong in this topic, but as it was Vasseur who brought it up....

"Several millions" and "not a minor breach"?
.

The FIA said Red Bull was deemed to have exceeded the $145 million cost cap, committing a minor breach
that was less than 5% over the limit.

RBR exceeded the budget cap by £1,864,000 - or 1.6%.
The FIA also stated that had Red Bull applied the correct treatment of its Notional Tax Credit worth £1.4m
as part of the submission, then it would only have been in breach by £432,652, or 0.37%.

They all agreed to the rules prior to implementation too. That can't be changed because someone doesn't subsequently like the outcome.

Everyone needs to get into concentrating on their own performance now if they are to make any substantial difference.

[LM10]

The crime was also "very light", or actually "minor" by the financial regulations own definition. Vasseur should get over it, and start to get his house in order.

.
It’s ridiculous to name a breach of several millions “minor” in the first place.

.
This doesn't belong in this topic, but as it was Vasseur who brought it up....

"Several millions" and "not a minor breach"?
.

The FIA said Red Bull was deemed to have exceeded the $145 million cost cap, committing a minor breach
that was less than 5% over the limit.

RBR exceeded the budget cap by £1,864,000 - or 1.6%.
The FIA also stated that had Red Bull applied the correct treatment of its Notional Tax Credit worth £1.4m
as part of the submission, then it would only have been in breach by £432,652, or 0.37%.

I don’t know what you’re trying to tell me, but what I meant was that in my opinion it’s ridiculous that the rules state that you’re able to exceed the budget cap by many millions (was it up to 7?) and still be in the category of a minor breach. With such money a huge performance difference can be achieved.

[dialtone]

.
It’s ridiculous to name a breach of several millions “minor” in the first place.

.
This doesn't belong in this topic, but as it was Vasseur who brought it up....

"Several millions" and "not a minor breach"?
.

The FIA said Red Bull was deemed to have exceeded the $145 million cost cap, committing a minor breach
that was less than 5% over the limit.

RBR exceeded the budget cap by £1,864,000 - or 1.6%.
The FIA also stated that had Red Bull applied the correct treatment of its Notional Tax Credit worth £1.4m
as part of the submission, then it would only have been in breach by £432,652, or 0.37%.

They all agreed to the rules prior to implementation too. That can't be changed because someone doesn't subsequently like the outcome.

Everyone needs to get into concentrating on their own performance now if they are to make any substantial difference.

While I agree, it's not a great argument. There's so many examples of bad contracts that it's one of 3 big recognized market failures and sparked the theory of incomplete contracts.

What surprises me is that tax credits and tax treatment is included in the cap. If the italian government made a law that freed Ferrari of any taxes related to GeS their cap would double. Seems so stupid and not just in retrospect, would love to know why that's in the cap, countries with higher taxes and fewer deductions/credit start disadvantaged.

[Wouter]

.
It’s ridiculous to name a breach of several millions “minor” in the first place.

.
This doesn't belong in this topic, but as it was Vasseur who brought it up....

"Several millions" and "not a minor breach"?
.

The FIA said Red Bull was deemed to have exceeded the $145 million cost cap, committing a minor breach
that was less than 5% over the limit.

RBR exceeded the budget cap by £1,864,000 - or 1.6%.
The FIA also stated that had Red Bull applied the correct treatment of its Notional Tax Credit worth £1.4m
as part of the submission, then it would only have been in breach by £432,652, or 0.37%.

l.
I don’t know what you’re trying to tell me, but what I meant was that in my opinion it’s ridiculous that the rules state that you’re able to exceed the budget cap by many millions (was it up to 7?) and still be in the category of a minor breach. With such money a huge performance difference can be achieved.

.
Okay, I hadn't understood it that way, you talked about the rules, I thought you talked about RBR. My bad, sorry.

[Wouter]

What is wrong with people?

.

[Marble]

2/ The prep lap / non prep lap misunderstanding between Sainz and Leclerc explained. Sainz had no tyre temp for turn 1, lost 2 tenths in turn 1. Otherwise he would have been on 1st row and the analysis of the weekend would have been different according to Vasseur

Second row was guaranteed but front row is questionable even without mistake.

Agreed looking at the data.
Just reporting what Vasseur said

[Wouter]

[Farnborough]

Does seem like a rash of "friendly fire" currently in this team.

Car appears quite competitive, but hard to see that with the placing results they've achieved so far.

If they can keep it calm, iron out the dropouts, it looks to be latently the second fastest chassis this year.

Maybe outperformed by AM for pure tyre usage over distance though.

It'll be a lot more interesting with them nearer the front certainly.

[Wouter]