GPR-A wrote:They never really had good...
Damn, where did you pick up such a pathological disdain for Ferrari?
Settle in; this might take a while. (As if anything else I post doesn't.)
In no particular order...
Below is race chart of Williams and Ferrari from the British Grand Prix that depicts the relative gap between cars:
In the rain, which has a tendency to equalize power, Williams' advantage disappeared. Even Raikkonen, who was off in his own world by that stage, had better pace. That's indicative of a chassis disparity. (Downforce doesn't know when it's raining; a throttle does.)
And don't forget the importance of track position...
Even though it was demonstrably quicker (green), the almighty W06 was held up by the inferior FW37 throughout the fist third of the race (red).
Moving on, are you sure you want to disparage the team's aerodynamic CV, given its position as innovators of two of the most ubiquitous aerodynamic features of current cars?
"Coke-bottle" contours and undercut sidepods: born in Maranello
You like bendy wings? I like bendy wings.
The first modern bendy wing
Everyone loves to lavish praise upon Adrian Newey for his "innovative" interpretations of the rules...
Evidence of a bendy t-tray and the impetus for the move to titanium skids
Guess where he got a lot of his ideas?
Racecar Engineering, Ferrari F2007 Secrets wrote:"The front floor is attached to the chassis via a mechanical hinge system at its most rearward point. The most forward support is a body with one compression spring and one tension spring inside which can be adjusted according to the amount of mass that is fitted to the front floor. There is also a skirt that seals the floor to the chassis, which is made out of rubber and Kevlar to help flexibility and reduce friction in the system."
"If the system had been allowed it could have meant a huge cost of development for other teams in such areas as chassis and under trays etc to make way for the provision for storing the system and the variable quantity of mass. The possible long-term consequences of such a system would be quite substantial because the system is in a crude state of development."
The system detailed by Stepney allowed the F2007 to ride kerbs harder due to the 14-15mm deflection at the leading edge of the floor, which means the Ferraris could straight line chicanes more than other chassis. Front plank wear would also be reduced, allowing the car to run lower at the front, giving an aerodynamic gain.
Stepney also explains the dynamic behaviour of the car, and the advantages the flexing floor gives: "From around 160-180km/h (100-112mph) the car is about 7-8mm lower at the leading edge of the floor, which multiplies up to nearly 19-20mm lower front wing height. The benefits in terms of ground effects and efficiency would be gained all around, with components like turning vanes and front wings at a reduced height relative to the ground."
The F2007 pissed all over "the spirit of the rules," but it passed all the tests, and it was in-line to potentially surpass the F2004 as Ferrari's greatest achievement in the sport. At a time when the entire grid was routinely separated by less than two seconds, the F2007 was a full second ahead of everyone else. (To put that in context, the W06 would need to be three to four seconds quicker than the field to match such dominance.)
Instead, Ferrari's advantage was thwarted after Nigel Stepney and Mike Coughlin (and Fernando Alonso) triggered "Spygate." To add insult to injury, the public disclosure of the car's strengths provided every team with the blueprint for what a modern F1 racer should be, e.g. the importance of rake and variable downforce.
Get to the point, asshole!
OK, OK, OK.
Success in F1 is cyclical, because it's impossible to be the best at everything all the time. There will always be at least one team that does something better than the rest, and that will usually translate to wins at some point.
For instance, when Ferrari was dominant in the early aughts, the team did very little to enhance its simulation capabilities. So, when real-world testing was severely curtailed, they fell behind teams with better simulation tools. Along those same lines, Red Bull's dominance required few concessions for power plant integration, because engines were frozen and the Renault V8 was the easiest to accommodate (best fuel efficiency, least need for cooling). Now that integration is everything, both Red Bull and Renault are completely lost.
That's just how it goes, and it will eventually happen with Mercedes. You can bank on it (but probably not in Greece).
No point in supporting lazy losers.
