F1NAC wrote: ↑16 Aug 2023, 10:17
Aren't teams already working on next years car after the first race or so? Could it be so because tech. dept was a bit limited knowledge wise and couldn't adapt on time. IE needing more time to understand different concept and more $$ spent budgetcap vise and WT hours?
It's not really that early, but you do have early concept and philosophy checks in that period as far as I know. The deadlines for chassis and aero are around October-November, so in July-August they had plenty of time to take a different direction (teams are always studying different directions). The team managed to make a big change with sidepods between Jeddah or Australia and Spain, so clearly it's not impossible to do it in 1-2 months.
For whatever reason, the early goal for SF-23 was to reduce drag as much as possible (which was successful) and it looks to me like they accepted a peaky downforce design as a compromise. Tyre understanding and usage aside, the key personnel for aero development had to have understood the wrong compromise in doing so (it was reported Binotto was very much opposed to Vigna's order to do everything needed and making compromises just to drop the drag) so I don't think it was an oversight on their end. On the other hand, Binotto was quietly confident about their chances in 2023, so it's very confusing to understand and pin-point how they made such a massive miscalculation on expected performance of SF-23.
In any case, a different path has been set for 2024 and we can expect to see glimpse of it in Monza:
https://scuderiafans.com/f1-ferrari-sf- ... e-on-2024/
And this is another article, Vasseur's complete interview with Gazzetta dello Sport. I like what I read, there is a clear difference in managing style from Binotto and this style is better in general (no bs-excuses, transparency, cutting down on blaming culture, etc)
https://scuderiafans.com/2024-ferrari-f ... hilosophy/
Few interesting quotes:
Are you still focused on 2023, or are you already thinking about next year?
For this season, we stopped wind tunnel developments at the end of July, but we have already decided and are working on parts that we will carry through to Qatar or Austin. As for the car for 2024, we are still at the philosophical concepts stage. The numbers say you need to be aggressive in the design, but with simulations and equations, we’re already at the maximum. We need to think differently, find margins through which drivers can drive without always being on the limit. And the deadline for the new car isn’t the end of the year; we need to be ready for Bahrain in March. We have many months ahead of us.
What’s your relationship with the Ferrari top management like?
Frequent and good. Ferrari is a very famous company but has a reasonable size. I have dinner with Benedetto Vigna at least once a week, and I hear from John Elkann on the phone like an antibiotic, morning, lunch, and dinner. Having such a relationship is a huge advantage: if you need to make a decision, the process is very fast. When I was at Renault, for certain changes, you had to wait for the executive committee to meet; it took days and days. Here, a problem I bring up in the morning can have a response in the afternoon. I can’t speak for the past, but I’ve been impressed by the internal communication with the top management and their responsiveness.
There’s talk of other possible budget cap violations.
I don’t want to comment on something I don’t know. Speaking generally, what I can say is that last year’s punishment wasn’t severe enough, and if it happens again this time, it should be much more drastic. Considering that the technical advantage translates into a sporting advantage, the punishment should be sporting, not a fine. If you commit a handball foul in the penalty area in soccer, it’s a penalty, not a fine. The 10% cut in wind tunnel work is a joke: the major work has already been done, and what you don’t use for aerodynamics, you can spend on weight savings and more. If another irregularity is proven, a drastic punishment is needed for 2024, a one-year disqualification or something similar. We know that managing the budget cap is difficult, but we have perfect systems to control spending, and in the face of doubt, you can ask the FIA. And then another thing needs to be explained: a 5% violation isn’t small, it’s large. You have a budget set at 135 million, 80 just goes to personnel, then about twenty costs for the races (material you buy, brakes, and so on), building 4 cars at the start of the season costs another 20, and there are additional expenses. In the end, you’re between 120 and 125, more or less fixed costs for everyone, and you have less than 10 million left for development. So, you’ve exceeded by 2 million out of 7 or 8; it’s not 5% of the total 135 as they’ve said. Collectively, as F1, this needs to be resolved; we must not sweep it under the rug because in the end, someone could organize it behind closed doors. There’s a big difference between an unintentional mistake and a choice. Just like between someone who makes a mistake filling out their tax return and someone who establishes a company in some tax haven to evade taxes. We need to be tough; the future of the cost cap is at stake. If it ends with another small fine, then everyone will do the same thing; they’ll budget for the allocation to pay, and that’s it. The big manufacturers can afford it…
if there is any relevance to today’s racing, it’s that Mercedes, Aston Martin (and other teams) should think twice about hastening Hamilton and Alonso’s departures from the sport. Even if it’s true (and not sure it is) that they’ve lost a few tenths in ultimate pace, there probably aren’t any young drivers more capable than those two at taking the fight to Max over the course of season if given the right car. 
