2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

[f1316]

Had they conquered their tire woes, they would have been champions in 2013 itself.

I don't think that's actually true. They would have been close but Red Bull had 11 poles to Mercedes 8 with 8 straight poles as soon as tyres were changed. Mercedes might well have been ahead by mid season but no way they would have been far enough ahead to resist that run of form.

Moreover, "had they conquered their tyres woes" is like saying Ferrari would have won more "had they been able to get heat into their tyres better in quality". Didn't happen which is as much of a car deficiency as anything else.

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.

It's a fair point - 2nd best car ought to mean constructor comes 2nd - but no driver, Alonso included, can make a car do things his car his not capable of. So you can argue it's more a deficiency from Massa's side in not being able to achieve the results of which the car is clearly capable.


In any case, as has been said, I don't believe a tactic of chasing the big name engineers is doing Ferrari any good, so applaud a focus on internal talent with a lean, agile structure.

And actually, a propensity to promote from within is an attractive prospect for a young talent to join *and stick with* a company. Being constantly passed over by talent brought in - who don't understand the company culture etc. - is only going to lead to a lack of retention and not foster talent.

Long term I think this is a good move and agree with GPR-A that it's about time they took the same approach with drivers. The only thing I'd note is that Bianchi did manage to prove himself at Marussia and was due to step up to Ferrari prior to tragedy.

[bhall II]

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 think Ferrari's stubborn determination to win year in and year out is the root of the team's problems, because it inherently prioritizes rate of development over quality of development. As we saw with F10, and especially F2012, that can be a viable short-term strategy. However, the fundamental problems with 150° Italia, F138, and F14 T should make perfectly clear the reality that quick fixes have consequences, and they compound over time.

To chase titles every year to the exclusion of everything else is to live in a house of cards.

The only way to thoroughly address a problem is to prioritize it ahead of all else, and Ferrari has thus far not shown a willingness to do that. It's what Allison was trying to accomplish, but Marchionne had other (ignorant) ideas. (Ferrari's uncharacteristic poor reliability this season is a good thing. It tells us the team is, or was, learning how to expand the performance envelope of various components.)

What do the last two teams to win World Championships have in common? They both ate --- for two or three years while nailing down the fundamentals in order to have sound bases from which they could innovate (and dominate) without fear of heading down blind alleys.

What do Ferrari and McLaren have in common? Blind alleys and the resultant lack of design continuity between 2009 and 2014 as each team tried to catch lightning in a bottle with aggressive new concepts every year.

I think the results speak for themselves.

[Schuttelberg]

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 think Ferrari's stubborn determination to win year in and year out is the root of the team's problems, because it inherently prioritizes rate of development over quality of development. As we saw with F10, and especially F2012, that can be a viable short-term strategy. However, the fundamental problems with 150° Italia, F138, and F14 T should make perfectly clear the reality that quick fixes have consequences, and they compound over time.

To chase titles every year to the exclusion of everything else is to live in a house of cards.

The only way to thoroughly address a problem is to prioritize it ahead of all else, and Ferrari has thus far not shown a willingness to do that. It's what Allison was trying to accomplish, but Marchionne had other (ignorant) ideas. (Ferrari's uncharacteristic poor reliability this season is a good thing. It tells us the team is, or was, learning how to expand the performance envelope of various components.)

What do the last two teams to win World Championships have in common? They both ate --- for two or three years while nailing down the fundamentals in order to have sound bases from which they could innovate (and dominate) without fear of heading down blind alleys.

What do Ferrari and McLaren have in common? Blind alleys and the resultant lack of design continuity between 2009 and 2014 as each team tried to catch lightning in a bottle with aggressive new concepts every year.

I think the results speak for themselves.

Outstanding post! Continuous restructuring doesn't help and Ferrari have been 'restructuring' ever since the departure of the triumvirate of Schumacher/Todt/Brawn.

[iotar__]

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 think Ferrari's stubborn determination to win year in and year out is the root of the team's problems,

No, the 'root' of their problems is that they were significantly behind at the start of 2014 season both in terms of chassis and the engine. I very much doubt you can explain this failure by 'stubborn determination' to win. I'd say something opposite:

- more straightforward in the engine part: Mercedes outspent and out-developed (time) them which makes them more determined to win, doesn't it? Not a problem for them I guess .
- chassis part is harder to explain but I think they were still behind in terms of facilities (transitional stage of wind-tunnel upgrades takes time). Second reason: competition - someone doing a better job. You can suspect political-managerial-technical reasons for building inefficient team that are rather obviously visible in handling current situation with Allison, his replacement, de Beer etc. (no different to Tombazis/Fry earlier) and drivers. Constant changes, running on fiction and cover your bottom attitude. You can't prove it but you know it's there.

Based on nothing but my head: If you're that far behind on both fronts (unlike Red Bull only with the engine) 2 years might not be enough, something Marchionne pretends not to understand. I think they made a great step in '15 and even better in '16 (check Williams as chassis/engine balance benchmark). The smaller the gap, the longer period of steady rules the more difficult it gets. There are cost: reliability (engine), competition is working on details not basics, weaker periods. Specifically '16: approach to development and results, focus on the beginning of the season, missed chances.

Second 'root': drivers, not only in terms of missed chances that are 100% their fault (Spain, China, Spa) but also in terms of: A. development and not knowing where you are with the car, delays detecting and solving problems, Ferrari's margin for errors is smaller than Mercedes' & RB's. B. - morale and blame - marketing running a team on fiction again. Overselling very circumstantial (to avoid saying accidental and lucky) wins in '15 and lamenting '16 when they were at times closer to Mercedes on merit.

[bhall II]

No, the 'root' of their problems is that they were significantly behind at the start of 2014 season both in terms of chassis and the engine. I very much doubt you can explain this failure by 'stubborn determination' to win. I'd say something opposite:

- more straightforward in the engine part: Mercedes outspent and out-developed (time) them which makes them more determined to win, doesn't it? Not a problem for them I guess .

In lieu of sensible development for 2014 and beyond, Ferrari deliberately sacrificed performance in a bid to give the power unit a smaller footprint in order to improve aerodynamic efficiency. Clearly, it was a shortcut that should have never been taken, because it sidestepped some issues and created others. It was also ineffective. As a result, working through problems that should have already been addressed delayed development of SF15-T, which in turn delayed development of SF16-H.

That's three years of problems instead of one, because winning was judged to be more important than getting it right in 2014.

[f1316]

No, the 'root' of their problems is that they were significantly behind at the start of 2014 season both in terms of chassis and the engine. I very much doubt you can explain this failure by 'stubborn determination' to win. I'd say something opposite:

- more straightforward in the engine part: Mercedes outspent and out-developed (time) them which makes them more determined to win, doesn't it? Not a problem for them I guess .

In lieu of sensible development for 2014 and beyond, Ferrari deliberately sacrificed performance in a bid to give the power unit a smaller footprint in order to improve aerodynamic efficiency. Clearly, it was a shortcut that should have never been taken, because it sidestepped some issues and created others. It was also ineffective. As a result, working through problems that should have already been addressed delayed development of SF15-T, which in turn delayed development of SF16-H.

That's three years of problems instead of one, because winning was judged to be more important than getting it right in 2014.

Worryingly, they're now supposedly reimagining the initial concept for 2017 in order to revert to a pull rod front. Speaks of another year of 'delays '.

I do want to pick up on this though:

Ferrari's uncharacteristic poor reliability this season is a good thing. It tells us the team is, or was, learning how to expand the performance envelope of various components.

The unreliability was on the power unit and gearbox sides though, under Mattia Binotto and in collaboration with the designer Simone Resta in terms of packaging. I don't necessarily see why we should therefore attribute the pushing of limits to Allison therefore and assume it won't continue.

[bhall II]

The unreliability was on the power unit and gearbox sides though, under Mattia Binotto and in collaboration with the designer Simone Resta in terms of packaging. I don't necessarily see why we should therefore attribute the pushing of limits to Allison therefore and assume it won't continue.

I wasn't necessarily trying to make a connection there. It just came out that way.

That said, I don't know if any of it really matters. As long as Sergio Marchionne is the team's de facto technical director, nothing will change - at least, not for the better.

[f1316]

The unreliability was on the power unit and gearbox sides though, under Mattia Binotto and in collaboration with the designer Simone Resta in terms of packaging. I don't necessarily see why we should therefore attribute the pushing of limits to Allison therefore and assume it won't continue.

I wasn't necessarily trying to make a connection there. It just came out that way.

That said, I don't know if any of it really matters. As long as Sergio Marchionne is the team's de facto technical director, nothing will change - at least, not for the better.

(Just noticed my wealth of therefores! Therefore!)

Out of interest, why do you characterise Marchionne as the de facto tech director?

From my perspective, what he's done does not seem unusual. I work for a very big company dealing in consumer electronics and software; never for one second would anyone think our CEO knows anything about hardware or code. Nevertheless that doesn't prevent him defining org structures he believes are the most effective, agile, way to develop products.

So for me this seems the same. I know very little of the specifics of the organisational changes (I don't think they've told us, have they?) but the mclaren-like, flatter structure that has been discussed sounds sensible on the face of things. Binotto is the actual tech director and he above all ought to be aware of the importance of the various departments working well together.

So anyway, I'm not necessarily convinced of the folly of Marchionne's actions, but interested to hear your thoughts.

[FW17]

The bad press and skepticism about 2017 is coming from ................................

Alison was not always a genius, remember this "Renault’s radical R31 exhaust system"?

Everybody remembers him for his cars being kind on Pirelli in the races while it sucked in qualifying

2016 Ferrari were the same, they sucked in qualifying

Ferrari needs a car which is fast on Saturday and Sunday, and Alison is not the guy to deliver it

[GPR-A duplicate2]

The bad press and skepticism about 2017 is coming from ................................

Alison was not always a genius, remember this "Renault’s radical R31 exhaust system"?

Everybody remembers him for his cars being kind on Pirelli in the races while it sucked in qualifying

2016 Ferrari were the same, they sucked in qualifying

Ferrari needs a car which is fast on Saturday and Sunday, and Alison is not the guy to deliver it

For years now, Ferrari cars have had problems in generating heat into the tyres and suffered badly in colder temperatures. This, even before Allison arrived on the scene. Plus, this year's problems are more to do with Pirelli's high pressures.

A Technical Director is a figure that provides direction towards "FINALIZING" technical approaches. It is the job of those engineers, architects and designers to bring solution to the table. As Allison had mentioned in some interview, he doesn't fit a single bolt on the car. So, that goes with my first point that, Ferrari's tire situation has more to do with SPECIALISTS not having right solutions, than Technical Director providing solutions to them.

To now blame Allison for the failures, would be just finding a convenient scape goat. JUST LIKE HOW ALONSO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MISGUIDING THE CAR DEVELOPMENT, when he chose to leave.

[bhall II]

Out of interest, why do you characterise Marchionne as the de facto tech director?

Despite a complete lack of motorsport experience, he's pushing his own agenda, and he's doing it against the advice of a highly respected individual he just tried to lure back to the team...

"They need a quiet approach," said Brawn. "It's important that Ferrari still respect what they have to do, but they do it progressively and quietly.

"Because I think that was a great success in our period, that Jean Todt and Luca Montezemelo kept a lid over everything and enabled us to work on the engineering side and the racing side.

"So I think it's a quiet approach with the necessary planning and resource. They've got some very good people there -James Allison is excellent. If they give him the resources and give him the time and put the infrastructure around him, with great drivers, they'll get results."

If you look at the timetable for the team's projects since 2013, you'll see that Allison had no more than 12 months to work with a car that was his and his alone. Everything else was in some way tied to the two-headed nightmare that was The Tombazis and Fry Show, the sorry excuse for a leadership team that played a huge role in creating this whole mess.

Not only has Marchionne been unreasonably impatient, for some --- up reason, he wants to bring that failed system back.

Inevitably the focus fell on James Allison, (above left) the former technical chief, who left his post last month after falling out with Marchionne. Sources close to the matter say that Marchionne wanted a new structure, whereby Allison supervised with a head of chassis and a head of power train responsible for those departments. Allison refused, saying that the structure he had in place was the right one.

A deadline was imposed to assess results improving and when the deadline came without improved results, Allison was out.

It's senseless.

[evered7]

When a car is winning, the credit goes to the TD. Newey's car they say. They don't look at the person who designed that particular component to praise him for that.

Similarly since 2016 was supposed to be a Allison product and has sucked lemon till now, it is fair to attribute the failure at his feet.

If you are responsible for winning, you are for losing as well.

[FW17]

The bad press and skepticism about 2017 is coming from ................................

Alison was not always a genius, remember this "Renault’s radical R31 exhaust system"?

Everybody remembers him for his cars being kind on Pirelli in the races while it sucked in qualifying

2016 Ferrari were the same, they sucked in qualifying

Ferrari needs a car which is fast on Saturday and Sunday, and Alison is not the guy to deliver it

For years now, Ferrari cars have had problems in generating heat into the tyres and suffered badly in colder temperatures. This, even before Allison arrived on the scene. Plus, this year's problems are more to do with Pirelli's high pressures.

A Technical Director is a figure that provides direction towards "FINALIZING" technical approaches. It is the job of those engineers, architects and designers to bring solution to the table. As Allison had mentioned in some interview, he doesn't fit a single bolt on the car. So, that goes with my first point that, Ferrari's tire situation has more to do with SPECIALISTS not having right solutions, than Technical Director providing solutions to them.

To now blame Allison for the failures, would be just finding a convenient scape goat. JUST LIKE HOW ALONSO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MISGUIDING THE CAR DEVELOPMENT, when he chose to leave.

Ferrari had a problem on Saturday

Alisons task was to make a car that s quick on Saturday and Sunday. Given his background and his emphasis on race pace only, he had sent the development down the wrong path. Fundamentally the car only works in a narrow window and everyone was paying the price for this blunder. Allison was convinced that this was the way to win.

He had to go.

[Big Mangalhit]

When a car is winning, the credit goes to the TD. Newey's car they say. They don't look at the person who designed that particular component to praise him for that.

Similarly since 2016 was supposed to be a Allison product and has sucked lemon till now, it is fair to attribute the failure at his feet.

If you are responsible for winning, you are for losing as well.

So every team bar Mercedes should fire their TD, they are all losing. Or maybe you can be doing a great job even if the team is losing or also doing a bad job even if the team is winning.

[FW17]

When a car is winning, the credit goes to the TD. Newey's car they say. They don't look at the person who designed that particular component to praise him for that.

Similarly since 2016 was supposed to be a Allison product and has sucked lemon till now, it is fair to attribute the failure at his feet.

If you are responsible for winning, you are for losing as well.

So every team bar Mercedes should fire their TD, they are all losing. Or maybe you can be doing a great job even if the team is losing or also doing a bad job even if the team is winning.

4 teams have an unlimited budget

2 can blame the engine while the other one is winning.