2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

[GPR-A duplicate2]

Same old conversation with GPR-A, isn't it?

And the same old under performing situation with Ferrari. What to do.

- you can't say it's a "fact" that RB and Mercedes understand the tyres better than Ferrari; they seem to be able to get more out of them, but it's certainly not a fact

That's a denial and an acceptance, both in the same statement.

Still find it curious how much GPR-A hates Ferrari and likes to goad its supporters but fair play - it's a free internet!

There is a reason why an Opposition party exists in a Democratic setup. There is a reason why Stock Holders exists in a corporate setup. To question accountability. Have you ever imagined a Democratic setup without any opposition? A "Discussion Forum" is just that, a discussion forum. If questioning of random claims is blocked, it would then turn out to be "Fan-o-Mania". Is is that difficult to comprehend the fact that, a coin always has two faces. Like in here, support and criticism go hand in hand?

You think this is hate? Watch for my posts in next February.

And I love it, absolutely love it when someone gets so pissed off that, they show it through negative rating. =D> =D> =D>

[f1316]

Well I didn't negative rate, that's for sure.

Don't really understand the denial/acceptance point; I was saying that you I tend to agree but you shouldn't tout the word 'fact' when it isn't one - in fact, you made exactly that point in the Belgian GP thread re people's assertions on SS tyres.

Of course this is discussion, and debate is great. But that only works if there's some possibility of a person's viewpoint changing if confronted with well-reasoned arguments. Hate doesn't usually allow for that.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

Well I didn't negative rate, that's for sure.

If anything, this one thing I am sure that you aren't the one to negatively rate. Being this long here, I understand that, those who engage in discussions with calm and poise, aren't the ones to go around rating posts negatively.

Don't really understand the denial/acceptance point; I was saying that you I tend to agree but you shouldn't tout the word 'fact' when it isn't one - in fact, you made exactly that point in the Belgian GP thread re people's assertions on SS tyres.

In Belgian thread, my argument was on something that didn't happen, where people argued that "the SS rubber would have failed". Anyways.

Of course this is discussion, and debate is great. But that only works if there's some possibility of a person's viewpoint changing if confronted with well-reasoned arguments. Hate doesn't usually allow for that.

Well, the biggest problem that I see with people working for Ferrari, OVER A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME, is that, there are always these supposedly performance enhancing upgrades that haven't translated into being out performing the competition.

I wish I could have summarized it as Gary has done.

Ferrari's nose change is best described as another grande casino, and that tells you about the difference between the teams.

Ferrari seems to treat everything that happens as a new, unexpected event. There's no real forward planning and preparation for the things that could go wrong, and that's what the team is currently paying the price for.

[f1316]

I think Gary Anderson's appraisal is harsh. Even the current Ferrari team has maintained a car that is, at worst, the third best on the grid (often second), pretty much throughout 2010 to present (with perhaps the exception of 2014). A lot of other well-funded teams, such as McLaren, can't say the same, so it's not as if the team is completely inept as this would suggest - you don't make the second/third best car in the world without knowing what you're doing.

And yet I do somewhat agree - at no point in that time have Ferrari had the best car, and that's not acceptable for a team with their history and resources.
Ferrari never seem to be ahead of the game, never the innovators of 'the next big thing'; they always seem to be playing catch up; the breakthrough is always promised for just around the corner.

There was conscious effort by the FIA, when Ferrari were dominant, to remove many of the things that they were able to excel at, we should remember. Testing was a Ferrari advantage, having their own track and therefore far less need to rely on wind tunnel expertise - they could throw everything out on track and see how it faired. Likewise, as a complete manufacturer of an entire car - engine and all - freezing engines prevented any work being done in this, another area where Ferrari traditionally excelled. It became all about aero and, as LdM often said, that didn't have a huge amount of relevance to Ferrari road cars.

They should therefore have been among the first to spot the opportunity that a new era of engine development created - it was their chance to dethrone the aero dominance of Newey. Why on earth they did the exact opposite - sacrificing the PU's potency for supposed aero gain - is one of the great questions/follies, if you ask me. In saying that, a hybrid V6 was certainly not conceived by Ferrari as the type of engine it wanted (albeit switched from 4 cylinders to help appease them).

The point of all of which is that, whilst I also have learned to distrust the team's promises of competitiveness - a fact which is a condemnation of the team - there are mitigating factors to their fall from grace; everyone was adamant that their period of dominance must end and, guess what, that's exactly what happened.

Are we better off for it? I think you could argue that, if one team has to dominate, better it's Ferrari than any other since it would please the biggest portion of the audience - but I'll probably get flack for that. Regardless, we've just swapped dominant team for dominant team; conceiving regulations to help 'even out' the playing field is, and always was, a ridiculous way to go about running a sport which is supposed to be creating the fastest and best cars in the world.

Still, if Ferrari had had a coherent plan to recover to begin with - and had stuck to it - they would likely be winning again by now. Throwing Aldo Costa under the bus in 2011 is a prime example: if you removed the exhaust tech from the 2011 cars, I'm confident the 150th Italia would stand up extremely well, just as it did at the British GP when they did just that. Had this mechanically very strong platform been maintained for 2012 when, at the start at least, exhausts played a much smaller part, I'm certain the Ferrari would have been very successful. As it is they threw the baby out with the bath water - and gave the strongest Italian talent in F1 to Mercedes - and ended up with a mess of a car (challenging for the title only threw luck, fantastic driving and others' problems).

They ultimately don't have excuses therefore - no one to blame but themselves since opportunities to regain competitiveness have presented themselves numerous times in the intervening years - but I do think a large part of the mess F1 finds itself in now (and is scrambling to put right) stems largely from regulation changes primarily driven by Mosley's desire to prevent Ferrari continuing to dominate.

[Schuttelberg]

When I look through the posts of @Schuttleberg and @f1316, I can't seriously understand your optimism here. More so because, it is now a common knowledge that, Ferrari has already thrown the towel, whereas Red Bull is continuing to develop their car.

To me, this year's car is clearly a step backward compared to last year's car and for many reasons. They have been making steady progress on their PU, which is masking the inefficiencies of the chassis. I have not an iota of doubt that, you put that PU in that Red Bull, it will kick the Mercedes a**. How is it that there are so many rumors about performance gains on Ferrari PU that makes round and none about Mercedes? And in the end, Mercedes manages to stay ahead on that front. Empty vessels makes more noise?

One of the many reasons for such a lackluster performance is also the fact that, they have no clue how to handle those extra PSI put in those tires. While Red Bull struggled briefly with tire woes, they have understood it and have come back strong. It is common sense that, on tracks like Barcelona and Hungary, if you can't qualify better, then you are not going to make any major inroads and having a strong chassis has given a lot of teeth to that Red Bull. On both circuits, it appeared that Ferrari was faster, for whatever reasons, but not qualifying better is also a problem of the car as much it is with the driver. So not understanding how to make those tires work in qualifying, is one of the major headaches.

It is also not helping their cause that, their star driver is off the game, both in qualifying and in races. He doesn't seem to be handling the let down in expectations better, that rose after unexpected surge in performance in last year.

"Bad luck/Strategies/Self inflicted mistakes" hampers every team through a season. Mercedes and Red Bull both have had their fair share of them. So, Ferrari isn't any different to those teams when we look at contention for championship. Even if the temperatures make Monza look more like a Sahara desert, I doubt if there is any advantage that Ferrari would have ahead of a Merc or a Red Bull. As far the tires are concerned, it is a fact that both Merc and RB understands them better than Ferrari. If an RB stayed ahead of Ferrari on tracks like Hockenheim and Spa, I wonder how a Ferrari would manage to beat them.

While I generally 'sigh' when I see your posts on this thread, the one you have made above is an excellent one. I think more or less we agree on where Ferrari lacks. Some things that I disagree with you on are as follows :

1) The Mercedes chassis is very underrated. I think Ricciardo very recently stated that they're not far off Ferrari in terms of PU but, like you I also believe that RB would give the Merc a run for it's money with a Ferrari PU. Again, this is an endless debate, with no conclusion. I just think the RB chassis superiority is a little blown out of proportion like the Merc engine.

2) Red Bull are BY FAR the best team when it comes to strategy. I think their cock up at Monaco at the pit stop was one I saw after ages. Barring that, they've been spotless. You cannot compare the reliability of the Red Bull's and Ferrari's this year. It's been chalk and cheese.

Lastly, if Ferrari find warm conditions in Monza and Vettel can find some form, they will leave the Bulls behind with ease.

[Sevach]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferra ... le-811994/

New structure to the aero department...

[GPR-A duplicate2]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferra ... le-811994/

New structure to the aero department...

If someone is wondering who is David Sanchez.... here it is.

[Vasconia]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferra ... le-811994/

New structure to the aero department...

If someone is wondering who is David Sanchez.... here it is.

Good changes IMO, now they need time to work, I guess fully focused on 2017s car.

[f1316]

I'm pleased about this:

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/giovi ... un-816088/

I was recently all set to bemoan how Gasly gets more attention than Giovinazzi and, likewise, Ocon (way) more than Ghioto - even though I really don't see a disparity in talent - and how Italian drivers are really under-served by their flagship team.

Likewise, made no sense to have Marciello and not Giovinazzi.

Anyway, good stuff, hope he gets more chances and - unlike Ghioto who was very unfortunate to lose out to Ocon in GP3 last year and we see how Ocon's career has gone since - can at least get the opportunities his talent deserves.

[F1NAC]

Giovanazzi's driving this year is absolutely phenomenal. Well deserved.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

I'm pleased about this:

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/giovi ... un-816088/

I was recently all set to bemoan how Gasly gets more attention than Giovinazzi and, likewise, Ocon (way) more than Ghioto - even though I really don't see a disparity in talent - and how Italian drivers are really under-served by their flagship team.

Likewise, made no sense to have Marciello and not Giovinazzi.

Anyway, good stuff, hope he gets more chances and - unlike Ghioto who was very unfortunate to lose out to Ocon in GP3 last year and we see how Ocon's career has gone since - can at least get the opportunities his talent deserves.

It's time that Ferrari learns some lessons and start blooding some talented youngster. They have been putting a lot of talented drivers in places like Sauber and Marussia, where there is very little opportunity to prove and then they fade away. On international racing arena, we are now seeing a lot of youngsters coming, being ready to perform and performing. Instead of having a No.2, it is better to have a highly talented rookie. Every major racing team is bringing their own candidates from their own farms and getting them ready to put them in their main team. Whether it is Red Bull, Mercedes or McLaren. When such is the system, where can those poor Italian young drivers go to? Ferrari need a whole new perspective towards their driver academy. As much as they are hell bent on using the local talent within the factory to build cars, why not local drivers to drive those cars?

[bhall II]

As much as they are hell bent on using the local talent within the factory...

At this point, I think that's probably not a choice as much as it's a necessity. I fear Allison's unceremonious departure and Marchionne's importunate megalomaniacal demands will reverberate through the paddock for a long time as a stark warning to anyone who might be tempted to join the team. Only a masochist could find that sort of environment appealing.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

At this point, I think that's probably not a choice as much as it's a necessity.

It's hard to believe they don't have options. It's one thing to be option-less and it's another to be clueless.

[basti313]

At this point, I think that's probably not a choice as much as it's a necessity.

It's hard to believe they don't have options. It's one thing to be option-less and it's another to be clueless.

I do not see "clueless" They had their plans, but never succeeded with hiring the big guys for a long therm (Newey, Alison) due to local reasons.
They also do not have local resources of talents, I have to work with the Italian and UK Universities and the Italiens are down on quality by far. The UK universities are just exploding on manpower and money due to rich students from all over the world. Getting a real talent educated in Italy is difficult, whereas you have all options in the UK. So the UK based teams already hire the talents during their studies and the talents start learning on state-of-the-art hardware (CFD, wind tunnel) already when they start studying at the University. If I would be a well educated British aero specialist, I would not go into the middle of nowhere in Italy if I have more or less the same opportunities round my family.

In my point of view, it is astonishing, how good Ferrari is doing in regard of local resources. They had the second best car for years now, which is an astonishing consistency and not to be ashamed if you think about how long Merc and RedBull prepared the dominance.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

In my point of view, it is astonishing, how good Ferrari is doing in regard of local resources. They had the second best car for years now, which is an astonishing consistency and not to be ashamed if you think about how long Merc and RedBull prepared the dominance.

I am not sure how long people are going to use this stupid reasoning. It's time people stop giving the same old reasoning to get away from Ferrari's falures.

Mercedes made a good qualifying car in 2012, built on it and made the second best car in 2013. Had they conquered their tire woes, they would have been champions in 2013 itself. So, it just wasn't 2014 where they suddenly made progress. All those years, they kept moving forward. Not like, one step forward and two backwards.

Just to remind you, it was not Mercedes who wanted engine rules changes, it was Ferrari who wanted it to stop Red Bull dominance. It was just that Mercedes ended up making the best use of it and succeeded where Ferrari failed.

And regarding "They had the second best car for years now".... here are statistics. Because CAR means the team and not just one driver.
2009 - 4th
2010 - 3rd
2011 - 3rd
2012 - 2nd
2013 - 3rd
2014 - 4th
2015 - 2nd
2016 - 3rd (most likely going to remain so)

So, how are they 2nd best car? Just because Alonso dragged the car to get himself 2nd in drivers' standings, doesn't mean, as a whole, the car was good.

Just look at how Vettel has started to struggle in an average car. This year's car started as a decent package, but couldn't make progress beyond that. So, if you think the situation of Ferrari in last so many years is ASTONISHING, well....