2019 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[roon]

Wouldn't need a computer to suggest "saw edges." Segmented edges had previously existed on rear wing endplates and inboard front wing edges. Stepped edges were present on bargeboards in the late 00s.

[GoranF1]

It will take some time for heads at Maranello to cool down, after they do questions will start to rise not about the ruling of the incident, but rather why o why did that German amateur did the same mistake he did in 2011 Canada.
Also they will talk about ways to end his contract before the start of 2020.
Next races in the calendar have corners Ferrari stands no chance.

[subcritical71]

Ferrari intend to protest, good move getting Vettel to calm down and attend the required ceremonies. As I mentioned before, it’s a time penalty, don’t get additional penalties in the heat of the moment and then protest in the required times. This way you stand a much better chance of things going your way.

[Unc1eM0nty]

So apparently Ferrari "forgot" to tell Leclerk that Vellet had a 5 sec penalty, but they remebered to tell Vettel to push!

[loner]

So apparently Ferrari "forgot" to tell Leclerk that Vellet had a 5 sec penalty

[TAG]

A team can outspend and outdevelop another team only if they have a more "efficient" way of working (if they are able to extract more data from a given wind tunnel time or a given number of CFD megaflops) and in that case having more people seems useful.

It would be hilarious if we find out 20 years form now that the reason Mercedes has been so good, is because they had the best developers. They wrote more computationally efficient code and thus spent less processing time to run a given simulation. That would allow them to run more simulations than other teams and gain an advantage.

Funny you mention that, Scarbs recently talked about the CAD system used in F1 and how Ferrari was still using version 5 of Catia Solutions CAD while Mercedes has been using version 6 which is supposed to be far deeper in capability.

[iotar__]

I've been saying it for a long time, Mercedes simply outspent and outdeveloped the likes of Red Bull. Their aero department is twice (or something like that) as big as RB's (Newey) and can focus on current car and future rule changes simoultanesly. That's why they were whinging about FW changes or 2021. Perhaps Ferrari are still catching up and IMO are close enough considering 2014 starting point.

Sorry, but since there is a limit on how much aero tunnel and CFD a team can use, it seems to me that having more people and spending more shouldn't permit a team to have a better aero (if every teams uses the maximum allowable amount of wind tunnel and CFD specified by rules). Is it correct?
A team can outspend and outdevelop another team only if they have a more "efficient" way of working (if they are able to extract more data from a given wind tunnel time or a given number of CFD megaflops) and in that case having more people seems useful.
If otherwise the "efficiency" of aero research is preatty the same for each team and every team uses all allowable by rules wind tunnel/CFD, doubling aero staff seems a way to have half of their time turning thumbs waiting for the availability of wind tunner/CFD. Do you agree?

- Almost no contradiciton. Efficiency matters but is no subsititute for size (people, budget). Every team has the same amount of CFD/tunnel and yet there's 3 seconds between Williams and Mercedes with (almost ) the same engine. There's no 3 s in any efficiency. Costs of production (versions) and people that working on said versions/options matter. No inside knowledge but logic, Mercedes don't hire all those people to waste their talents on limited tools (wind tunnels CFD).

When I said outspent and outdeveloped I meant :
A. Engine project, length and amount of money spent. It's no secret that Ferrari's approach was nowhere near big enough compared to Mercedes (Domenicali).

B. Size of an organization or aero department. That was not an opinion but a quote albeit not a direct one from F1's one and only Adrian Newey when he discussed 2021 changes. My connection was: RB's labelling 2019 FW modification as pointless and waste of money in a context of the above info, changes = disadvantage for RB.

C. Competition. Mercedes matched all the toys/tools RB had and added size. The results are there even if you exclude engines and include tyre modifications. Getting off topic so let's leave it. 3 biggest = 3 top teams.

[MtthsMlw]

Let me quickly summarise what Binotto (text in red) told AMuS in an interview:
- Our car concept does not fit the 2019 tires.

- When I look at the performance of all the teams in the first races of the season, we're standing against everyone else as we expected after the tests. The only exception is Mercedes. So it's not just us who don't deliver compared to Mercedes.

- Car is efficient but not producing enough DF to get the tyres working.

- At the winter tests in Barcelona we may have been misled by our good performance.

- In the direct comparison in Barcelona between test and race we did worse for a simple reason. We
developed the car in the wrong direction. Because we had misjudged the weaknesses and limitations of our package.

- Ferrari has already completed the error analysis since the end of May.

- No B Spec version planned only 2-3 upgrades over the next few weeks.

- What we can do is change the concept of our car. That means more downforce, but also more drag.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... ades-2019/

[bosyber]

Thanks for the summation, useful (still to find time to read the article itself).

A few points there: the mercedes - yes, they were/seemed weak until the last hours of the test (according to Mercedes, even they were worried, until a somewhat serendipitous setup change that showed them the way, if I recall correctly), but, not everyone (even w. Merc. excepted) is having the same amount of problems with the tyres, so I'm not quite sure that change is due to the black bits only.

Also, on the concept of the car: Red Bull's issue isn't that they went too efficient, they seemed to just have gotten the chassis a bit suboptimal again (so not quite as big a mistake as with the last two rule changes then), and Mercedes seemed quite convinced from the start that more downforce would be the best compromise for the new rules, including the extra fuel allowance, and given what they learned about the 2019 tyres from last years Abu Dhabi tyre test. Haven't heard any other team were trying for more efficient, even if it costs ultimate DF.

Since Ferrari should have similar data from the end of last year, what led them to this completely opposite, and now obviously wrong, path? Weren't they already last years if anything a bit too easy on the tyres, which on its own should have led to going for 'more if we can', as much as most other long running trends in F1 should have pushed them in that direction too? Overtaking is one thing, but with the extra DRS allowed, that doesn't seem to need less DF automatically, right?

edit: I do guess there is something to the persistent idea that the Mercedes PU is ultimately more fuel-efficient, so maybe that's one thing that led Ferrari to try and tweak that with more efficient aero, but, again 'more fuel allowed' this year makes that quite a bit less obvious of a choice.

[IvailoStefanovBG]

Thanks for the summation, useful (still to find time to read the article itself).

A few points there: the mercedes - yes, they were/seemed weak until the last hours of the test (according to Mercedes, even they were worried, until a somewhat serendipitous setup change that showed them the way, if I recall correctly), but, not everyone (even w. Merc. excepted) is having the same amount of problems with the tyres, so I'm not quite sure that change is due to the black bits only.

Also, on the concept of the car: Red Bull's issue isn't that they went too efficient, they seemed to just have gotten the chassis a bit suboptimal again (so not quite as big a mistake as with the last two rule changes then), and Mercedes seemed quite convinced from the start that more downforce would be the best compromise for the new rules, including the extra fuel allowance, and given what they learned about the 2019 tyres from last years Abu Dhabi tyre test. Haven't heard any other team were trying for more efficient, even if it costs ultimate DF.

Since Ferrari should have similar data from the end of last year, what led them to this completely opposite, and now obviously wrong, path? Weren't they already last years if anything a bit too easy on the tyres, which on its own should have led to going for 'more if we can', as much as most other long running trends in F1 should have pushed them in that direction too? Overtaking is one thing, but with the extra DRS allowed, that doesn't seem to need less DF automatically, right?

edit: I do guess there is something to the persistent idea that the Mercedes PU is ultimately more fuel-efficient, so maybe that's one thing that led Ferrari to try and tweak that with more efficient aero, but, again 'more fuel allowed' this year makes that quite a bit less obvious of a choice.

I think that putting tyres in operating window is THE most important thing. And cant imagine why every other team except Mercedes underestimated this. All teams have same data after tyre testing...

[dans79]

I think that putting tyres in operating window is THE most important thing. And cant imagine why every other team except Mercedes underestimated this. All teams have same data after tyre testing...

Managing the tires, has been the most important thing since the beginning of the Pirelli era!

[Espresso]

Missing the news here. So posting it for those who missed it:

Ferrari lodges official FIA request for review of Vettel's penalty

The Ferrari Formula 1 team has lodged a request for the FIA to review the decision to punish Sebastian Vettel at the Canadian Grand Prix, as predicted by Autosport.

Amid ongoing unhappiness over the five-second penalty that cost Vettel victory in Montreal, Ferrari wants the FIA stewards to look again at the verdict that Vettel rejoined the track in an unsafe manner and forced Lewis Hamilton off the circuit during their lead battle.

Although the sanction could not be appealed under the FIA's rules, the governing body's International Sporting Code does give competitors the option of a post-event review of decisions, providing that new evidence that was not available at the time has come to light.

Article 14.1.1 of the code states that if "a significant and relevant new element is discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the competition concerned," then the FIA can reconvene stewards or replacements to look again at the case.

Ferrari had until this Sunday to lodge its review request and the team confirmed on Monday that it had written to the FIA to request the review.

No further details of what new evidence it has lodged were immediately available.

The FIA will most likely convene stewards over the French GP weekend to look at the case, with their first decision likely to be whether or not the new evidence is admissible.

If they are satisfied that the new information is significant, then the FIA will hear Ferrari's argument for why the decision to punish Vettel was wrong.

In my opinion Vettel is a smart (alpha male) driver and he nudged Hamilton to pull out.

It's interesting if they hold the word 'review' to it's merits as a review could turn out both ways. If they hold on to this, there is a reasonable chance this could backfire to Ferrari.

As it could either maintain the penalty, lift the penalty or even increase the penalty.

Source:
Autosport -Ferrari lodges official FIA request for review of Vettel's penalty
Autosport -The evidence, arguments behind Ferrari’s Vettel review request

Edit:
Also depending on view points....based on the Verstappen/Raikkonen incident in USA 2017 Hamilton should also be served a time penalty for leaving the track.



P.S....Hamilton was smart....Verstappen had to learn...

[Sevach]

https://www.racefans.net/2019/06/28/lat ... ul-vettel/

Light at the end of the tunnel(hopefully not a train).

[seventhsin]

New rumours linking Ricciardo to Ferrari. Please Lord

https://wwos.nine.com.au/motorsport/f1- ... 04c9a90045

https://autoaction.com.au/2019/07/03/ri ... -wish-list

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[LM10]

New rumours linking Ricciardo to Ferrari. Please Lord

https://wwos.nine.com.au/motorsport/f1- ... 04c9a90045

https://autoaction.com.au/2019/07/03/ri ... -wish-list

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Ricciardo went to Renault for a long term journey. He will surely not go to Ferrari after 1 or 2 seasons.
Also, what do you expect would happen? Ferrari’s problems are not driver related.