2024 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[Chuckjr]

I'd take Newey for 30m over HAM for even 50m in a heartbeat, that is, if I was actually trying to build a championship winning team, but its obvious where their values lie.

Imagine spending 100 M for Hamilton and not 30 M for Newey

It makes no sense from my perspective.

It’s mind boggling inept.

[Emag]

You can’t fault any team for going after the most successful driver the sport has ever seen, but to be honest I am not sure at this point if it will turn out great for Ferrari or not. They had a pretty balanced driver pairing and I don’t think they would even need to enforce team orders if a title fight emerged because (in my opinion) Charles is a step above Carlos and would be the one to be in front more often.

Whereas with two really competitive drivers, you run the risk of them taking points out of each-other and give up the wdc to some other consistent opponent.

The last time a team won both world championships with 2 number 1 drivers (as far as I can remember) is McLaren with Ayrton Senna and Alain prost. But that was during one of the most dominant periods of the team and they had no real threat from others.

McLaren also are the most recent to fail running the same scheme with Alonso and Hamilton back in 2007.

Assuming Ferrari completely nails the car next year and they are comfortably winning races, then I suppose there is nothing to worry with total domination.

But if next season is anything like this one, then it might turn out to be a little stressful.

[Vanja #66]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferr ... /10651825/


the fight continues Vanja...

That article is mostly about bouncing, as the title says. Still, I don't see how this is contradictory to my assesment. If they fight with McLaren for wins in next two tracks, meaning they made up the downforce deficit, they should be able to fight for podiums in final six races as well, bouncing or not. But I don't expect it will be an issue, all the most sensitive geometry features (boat tail vertical kicks) are out

[F1NAC]

Let's drop it. This is not productive

yea Charles vs carols is really tiring, team comes first. Also Aston are paying 30 million for adrian

well i am glad Ferrari drop talk with Adrian, imagine spending 30m for adrian + 30 to 50m for charles + 100 m for lewis Too expensive and if ferrari fails to bring both titles back to Maranello it would be huge failure

I'd take Newey for 30m over HAM for even 50m in a heartbeat, that is, if I was actually trying to build a championship winning team, but its obvious where their values lie.

Imagine spending 100 M for Hamilton and not 30 M for Newey

It makes no sense from my perspective.

I doubt that the move was declined because of money. Probably it was due Newey perhaps wanting much power than needed in team.

[bananapeel23]

I'd take Newey for 30m over HAM for even 50m in a heartbeat, that is, if I was actually trying to build a championship winning team, but its obvious where their values lie.

Imagine spending 100 M for Hamilton and not 30 M for Newey

It makes no sense from my perspective.

It’s mind boggling inept.

The reported reason that Ferrari didn't want to sign Newey is that he wanted too much control. It isn't a money issue, Ferrari has practically infinite money for people that aren't included in the budget cap.

[catent]

Yeah, I’d be utterly shocked if the Newey decision had anything to do with the money offered.

It almost certainly came down to Newey’s demanded scope of control being at-odds with what the team was seeking and felt was reasonable to accommodate.

[aMessageToCharlie]

You can’t fault any team for going after the most successful driver the sport has ever seen, but to be honest I am not sure at this point if it will turn out great for Ferrari or not. They had a pretty balanced driver pairing and I don’t think they would even need to enforce team orders if a title fight emerged because (in my opinion) Charles is a step above Carlos and would be the one to be in front more often.

Whereas with two really competitive drivers, you run the risk of them taking points out of each-other and give up the wdc to some other consistent opponent.

The last time a team won both world championships with 2 number 1 drivers (as far as I can remember) is McLaren with Ayrton Senna and Alain prost. But that was during one of the most dominant periods of the team and they had no real threat from others.

McLaren also are the most recent to fail running the same scheme with Alonso and Hamilton back in 2007.

Assuming Ferrari completely nails the car next year and they are comfortably winning races, then I suppose there is nothing to worry with total domination.

But if next season is anything like this one, then it might turn out to be a little stressful.

Mercedes 2016
RBR 2010

[Emag]

You can’t fault any team for going after the most successful driver the sport has ever seen, but to be honest I am not sure at this point if it will turn out great for Ferrari or not. They had a pretty balanced driver pairing and I don’t think they would even need to enforce team orders if a title fight emerged because (in my opinion) Charles is a step above Carlos and would be the one to be in front more often.

Whereas with two really competitive drivers, you run the risk of them taking points out of each-other and give up the wdc to some other consistent opponent.

The last time a team won both world championships with 2 number 1 drivers (as far as I can remember) is McLaren with Ayrton Senna and Alain prost. But that was during one of the most dominant periods of the team and they had no real threat from others.

McLaren also are the most recent to fail running the same scheme with Alonso and Hamilton back in 2007.

Assuming Ferrari completely nails the car next year and they are comfortably winning races, then I suppose there is nothing to worry with total domination.

But if next season is anything like this one, then it might turn out to be a little stressful.

Mercedes 2016
RBR 2010

I forgot about Mercedes, true, but they didn’t really have any other rivals did they.

And 2010 was such a weird and chaotic year, I don’t think Vettel was even the favorite to win it going into Abu Dhabi.

None of these really contradict my point. I did say that if Ferrari builds a monster of a car, total domination is not a problem.

And I also said that if you have a competitive season, it might be stressful. And it certainly was a little more stressful for RedBull than they would have wanted considering that in hindsight the RB6 was a beast of a car.

[AR3-GP]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferr ... /10651825/


the fight continues Vanja...

That article is mostly about bouncing, as the title says. Still, I don't see how this is contradictory to my assesment. If they fight with McLaren for wins in next two tracks, meaning they made up the downforce deficit, they should be able to fight for podiums in final six races as well, bouncing or not. But I don't expect it will be an issue, all the most sensitive geometry features (boat tail vertical kicks) are out

No plan to concede?

Baku and Singapore don't have anything to do with anything. Ferrari said as much. They could be competitive in Baku and Singapore, and not fight for podiums after. Austin is the test.

[aMessageToCharlie]

You can’t fault any team for going after the most successful driver the sport has ever seen, but to be honest I am not sure at this point if it will turn out great for Ferrari or not. They had a pretty balanced driver pairing and I don’t think they would even need to enforce team orders if a title fight emerged because (in my opinion) Charles is a step above Carlos and would be the one to be in front more often.

Whereas with two really competitive drivers, you run the risk of them taking points out of each-other and give up the wdc to some other consistent opponent.

The last time a team won both world championships with 2 number 1 drivers (as far as I can remember) is McLaren with Ayrton Senna and Alain prost. But that was during one of the most dominant periods of the team and they had no real threat from others.

McLaren also are the most recent to fail running the same scheme with Alonso and Hamilton back in 2007.

Assuming Ferrari completely nails the car next year and they are comfortably winning races, then I suppose there is nothing to worry with total domination.

But if next season is anything like this one, then it might turn out to be a little stressful.

Mercedes 2016
RBR 2010

I forgot about Mercedes, true, but they didn’t really have any other rivals did they.

And 2010 was such a weird and chaotic year, I don’t think Vettel was even the favorite to win it going into Abu Dhabi.

None of these really contradict my point. I did say that if Ferrari builds a monster of a car, total domination is not a problem.

And I also said that if you have a competitive season, it might be stressful. And it certainly was a little more stressful for RedBull than they would have wanted considering that in hindsight the RB6 was a beast of a car.

I didn't disagree with the premise, just pointing out the most recent 2 number 1 drivers, 2 championships examples.

[Vanja #66]

No plan to concede?

Baku and Singapore don't have anything to do with anything. Ferrari said as much. They could be competitive in Baku and Singapore, and not fight for podiums after. Austin is the test.

Not sure what's there for me to concede, I'm comparing fight for the top on those two tracks with fight for podium on the rest of them. The difference P1-P3 is usually 15-20s every race, sometimes even more. That means being around 3 tenths a lap slower. We all know that those two tracks require different strenghts from a car than most other tracks, no one's disputing that. What I'm pointing out is that those two tracks will still require adequate downforce from Ferrari if they want to fight McLaren there and this will be telling of their progress.

Spanish package had to be run higher to mitigate bouncing and they estimated it was losing them 2-3 tenths. Hungary hybrid floor had lower downforce, but still was a tiny bit better compromise and more stable overall. Monza floor is undoubtedly a step up from Hungary floor and I'm looking forward to Baku to see Ferrari and McLaren on equal downforce levels to compare exactly how big of a step.

Whether they made a big step with long-radius corners is something maybe even Texas won't show for sure, I think only Brazil and Qatar will show that. Texas can give answers only on bouncing and this is what they say in Ferrari and we all agree on that.

[Fer.Fan]

Ferrari gathered a lot of data of latest updates on Fiorano tyre test this week, Pirelli tyre test. The hole new package was in use, very usefult for Ferrari. I belive team have much more data to work on in coming race.

[AR3-GP]

No plan to concede?

Baku and Singapore don't have anything to do with anything. Ferrari said as much. They could be competitive in Baku and Singapore, and not fight for podiums after. Austin is the test.

Not sure what's there for me to concede, I'm comparing fight for the top on those two tracks with fight for podium on the rest of them. The difference P1-P3 is usually 15-20s every race, sometimes even more. That means being around 3 tenths a lap slower. We all know that those two tracks require different strenghts from a car than most other tracks, no one's disputing that. What I'm pointing out is that those two tracks will still require adequate downforce from Ferrari if they want to fight McLaren there and this will be telling of their progress.

Spanish package had to be run higher to mitigate bouncing and they estimated it was losing them 2-3 tenths. Hungary hybrid floor had lower downforce, but still was a tiny bit better compromise and more stable overall. Monza floor is undoubtedly a step up from Hungary floor and I'm looking forward to Baku to see Ferrari and McLaren on equal downforce levels to compare exactly how big of a step.

Whether they made a big step with long-radius corners is something maybe even Texas won't show for sure, I think only Brazil and Qatar will show that. Texas can give answers only on bouncing and this is what they say in Ferrari and we all agree on that.

Thats is my point. Only in Austin will we know if bouncing is fixed, so saying they will fight for podiums after Baku and Singapore just because they were competitive in Baku and Singapore isn't true. If they bounce in Austin, they will not fight for podiums after Singapore.

[bananapeel23]

I forgot about Mercedes, true, but they didn’t really have any other rivals did they.

And 2010 was such a weird and chaotic year, I don’t think Vettel was even the favorite to win it going into Abu Dhabi.

Vettel was absolutely not the favourite. He was in 3rd in the WDC and something like 15 points behind Alonso. Webber and Alonso looked far more likely to win the WDC than Vettel did going into Abu Dhabi. The fact that Vettel managed to win is frankly a miracle and required one of the most bone-headed strategy calls of all time from Ferrari.

[Vanja #66]

Thats is my point. Only in Austin will we know if bouncing is fixed, so saying they will fight for podiums after Baku and Singapore just because they were competitive in Baku and Singapore isn't true. If they bounce in Austin, they will not fight for podiums after Singapore.

Why not? They got three podiums with problematic floor and had better pace than the Merc on podium in Spain and Hungary, but you can't overtake on those tracks. This covers 5 of 6 races with problematic floor, where Silverstone had to be run with slower Imola spec and they were clearly slower there