2016 Sauber F1 Team - Ferrari

[Paul]

It isn't a fact 2017 Ferrari PU will be much better than the current one. It will likely be an evolution, with insignificant improvements, or a revolution, with accompanying problems. Skipping a generation and focusing on other things might be a reasonable choice.

[Sniffit]

I think most of us are in agreement.. I understand that they have limited resources, not only monetary but also economically..
Thing is that Sauber have had a donkey of a car for years, this due to limited resources to develop decent areo, they have been forced to rely on their PU to save the day.
I can see the merit of going with a known entity [2016 PU] and focus resources on getting to grips with your weakness [areo], this comes with a huge how-ever though; can their knew owners afford a year or two of staying at the bottom while still keeping the development pace?
I am the first to admit that I am not an expert in how to run or build a team, however, from my armchair team boss pov using the 2016 PU as a benchmark to design a 2017 car is wise from a Sauber POV; as long as they are ready to adapt their design to a B spec as soon as Ferrari has nailed down the 2017 PU design and the cooling package has been figured out.

Even though they focus on aero for 2017 they wil have problems. TR has a very good chasis this season but their performance has suffered a lot as the season has advanced. And I dont expect Sauber to build such a good chasis. .

Money is the only reason I can see, or perhaps they willl switch to another provider in 2018 and Ferrari doesnt want to give them an updated PU.

My point might not have made it across, English isn't my native language.
I completely agree with you that Sauber will be at a disadvantage if they keep a legacy (2016) engine, just as you said, even worse then TR was this year. 4However, the issue for Sauber in the past years have been the Areo, not Engine, so I understand if they decided to use the 2016 Ferrari as a base and build a 2017 car from that with the intention to get a framework for optimal packaging of a 2017 evolution of said Ferrari PU rather then wait for the final Ferrari 2017 PU specc.

Caveat: I am not entirely sober, so if my post seem contradictory or just off.. I blame it on that

[Cold Fussion]

It isn't a fact 2017 Ferrari PU will be much better than the current one. It will likely be an evolution, with insignificant improvements, or a revolution, with accompanying problems. Skipping a generation and focusing on other things might be a reasonable choice.

With a competitive engine Sauber have been no where, there's little reason to think with a far less competitive engine they will be more competitive.

[skoop]

Hopefully Manor will be able to beat them this season as well as next season. If they manage to score a few lucky points, they should be safe.

[Vasconia]

I think most of us are in agreement.. I understand that they have limited resources, not only monetary but also economically..
Thing is that Sauber have had a donkey of a car for years, this due to limited resources to develop decent areo, they have been forced to rely on their PU to save the day.
I can see the merit of going with a known entity [2016 PU] and focus resources on getting to grips with your weakness [areo], this comes with a huge how-ever though; can their knew owners afford a year or two of staying at the bottom while still keeping the development pace?
I am the first to admit that I am not an expert in how to run or build a team, however, from my armchair team boss pov using the 2016 PU as a benchmark to design a 2017 car is wise from a Sauber POV; as long as they are ready to adapt their design to a B spec as soon as Ferrari has nailed down the 2017 PU design and the cooling package has been figured out.

Even though they focus on aero for 2017 they wil have problems. TR has a very good chasis this season but their performance has suffered a lot as the season has advanced. And I dont expect Sauber to build such a good chasis. .

Money is the only reason I can see, or perhaps they willl switch to another provider in 2018 and Ferrari doesnt want to give them an updated PU.

My point might not have made it across, English isn't my native language.
I completely agree with you that Sauber will be at a disadvantage if they keep a legacy (2016) engine, just as you said, even worse then TR was this year. 4However, the issue for Sauber in the past years have been the Areo, not Engine, so I understand if they decided to use the 2016 Ferrari as a base and build a 2017 car from that with the intention to get a framework for optimal packaging of a 2017 evolution of said Ferrari PU rather then wait for the final Ferrari 2017 PU specc.

Caveat: I am not entirely sober, so if my post seem contradictory or just off.. I blame it on that

Hahaha, I think we are just saying the same but with different words. Not my native language either.

Anyway, even with 3-4 extra months to work with the chasis, I doubt this will help to recover the disadvantage of having a 2016 PU. But I hope they can make a great work. At least they seem to be sure about it and they have convinced Ericson, as far as I saw in his latest interview.

[cramr]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... -from-audi

[dobbster71]

As we know, from 2017 there are no restrictions on engine (PU) development. Is there anything in the rules that prohibits the unrestricted development of a 2016 PU during 2017?
If not, then maybe the 2016 Ferrari PU could be developed in 2017 either by Ferrari themselves (they could test new innovations on this proven PU before implementing them on the 2017 unit), be re-named & developed (using Ferrari engineers, of course) as an Alfa Romeo or Maserati , or another permutation that I haven't thought of!!!

If any of the above is possible then it makes complete sense for Sauber to go down this route.

[Cold Fussion]

You do realise that using the 2016 PU is a cost saving exercise right?

[Sniffit]

You do realise that using the 2016 PU is a cost saving exercise right?

I am not so sure about that anymore. It might actually be a packaging/areo issue.
Saubers economy seems to be greatly improved with Longbow, I mean they haven't even asked for an advance of the price money over the winter like FI and Manor has.

[dobbster71]

You do realise that using the 2016 PU is a cost saving exercise right?

Maybe it is for Sauber, but not for Ferrari.
Who knows, maybe Sauber get the 2016 unit for free, or very cheap, with the proviso that their PU's are used as a racing test bed for future PU developments? I can't imagine that engine internals differ too much between the yearly generations. What works on a 2016 PU should work on a 2017 PU.

Just my thoughts anyway. Must find something more important to occupy my mind....................

[efuloni]

Ericsson said he is happy for the team but it was 'painful' that he was not the one to score the first points.
Am I the only one who thinks this is not polite? I mean, it was the best thing for the team in the entire year. Leave your interests behind and just say you're happy, come on...

[adrianjordan]

I haven't seen the quote in context, but he might have been asked a direct, leading, question that got the quote.

[Cold Fussion]

You do realise that using the 2016 PU is a cost saving exercise right?

Maybe it is for Sauber, but not for Ferrari.
Who knows, maybe Sauber get the 2016 unit for free, or very cheap, with the proviso that their PU's are used as a racing test bed for future PU developments? I can't imagine that engine internals differ too much between the yearly generations. What works on a 2016 PU should work on a 2017 PU.

Just my thoughts anyway. Must find something more important to occupy my mind....................

So you are suggesting Ferrari are going to run parallel engine development programs. This is a completely crazy suggestion.

[zac510]

Surely modern in-chassis dynamometers and other factory jigs are just as valuable and cheaper than track time these days when you consider they're unrestricted by mileage, technical regulations and homologation paperwork. I agree it doesn't make sense for Ferrari to do that.

[dobbster71]

You do realise that using the 2016 PU is a cost saving exercise right?

Maybe it is for Sauber, but not for Ferrari.
Who knows, maybe Sauber get the 2016 unit for free, or very cheap, with the proviso that their PU's are used as a racing test bed for future PU developments? I can't imagine that engine internals differ too much between the yearly generations. What works on a 2016 PU should work on a 2017 PU.

Just my thoughts anyway. Must find something more important to occupy my mind....................

So you are suggesting Ferrari are going to run parallel engine development programs. This is a completely crazy suggestion.

Yes, why not? Would make sense if paid for by another part of the FCA empire (Alfa, Maserati).
May even make sense from a taxation point of view (although I'm no expert on matters such as this).