2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

[f1316]

"The engineers have figured out what went wrong," he explained. "They will make the necessary checks in Tuesday's test, and I hope that a quick solution is found."

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferra ... st-737313/

Sounds like it was a tyre issue, much like Mercedes at Singapore last year. A normal progression from FP3 to Q3 - with the tyres in the right window- and Ferrari would have been within 2-5 tenths .

I think ultra softs will suit them and the engine clipping won't be an issue in Monaco, so wouldn't be surprised if Monaco is actually very close with top three teams. Hopefully will be fun

[Vasconia]

"The engineers have figured out what went wrong," he explained. "They will make the necessary checks in Tuesday's test, and I hope that a quick solution is found."

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferra ... st-737313/

Sounds like it was a tyre issue, much like Mercedes at Singapore last year. A normal progression from FP3 to Q3 - with the tyres in the right window- and Ferrari would have been within 2-5 tenths .

I think ultra softs will suit them and the engine clipping won't be an issue in Monaco, so wouldn't be surprised if Monaco is actually very close with top three teams. Hopefully will be fun

Lets see if its true because I have seen this sort of comments several times and then the reality differs a lot.

[evered7]

Not sure if its a good thing that they are testing in the same track where the problem had arisen. But they did well in the race for a team having problem although the two Mercs being out of the race really didn't help the pace comparison.

I think the tire life advantage that Ferrari have over stint lengths is very small and doesn't really make a difference. Wonder if they can go a bit more hard on the tires as the savings aren't giving much help.

The next race is going to be interesting. Hope Vettel/Kimi doesn't sleep around again. Very poor launch for Kimi and he won't have the space to reclaim it in Monaco like he did in Spain. Vettel left Sainz ahead as well and lost crucial seconds to the lead RB pair.

The lightning starts are long gone.

[Cold Fussion]

The more worrying thing for Ferrari is how they managed to engineer such an appalling race strategy for Vettel. If you recall after the first stint Vettel was in the best position of any Ferrari or Red Bull to run a 2 stop strategy yet Ferrari instead put him on a completely sub-optimal 3 stop strategy. Even with Ricciardo's really slow second stint on the soft tyres Vettel's strategy was so poor there was a more than real chance he could have ended up 4th had Ricciardo's tyre not exploded.

[f1316]

This really encapsulates what I've been saying about Ferrari's race team this year:

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/05/s ... r-ferrari/

Their strategies last year were by and large good and certainly aggressive whereas this year, as the article says, they seem to be lacking confidence. Perhaps it's something about the pressure of having a car relatively close to the pace - it's not a shot to nothing like it was last year.

I'm sure some will argue that Australia was an aggressive strategy but that was true pre safety car, not after. Giving up track position like that isn't aggressive it's foolhardy and actually was borne out of a lack of confidence (again!) in the medium tyre.

I still think an element of this may be in the move to have Allison focus on technical aspects, bringing in Clear to run the race team. As experienced as he may be, he's never had a role with as much responsibility as this - and certainly not in an environment as pressured as Ferrari. Allison seemed like the new Brawn and can you imagine impact moving him away from the race team would have had?

(Nb: I know circumstances have necessitated Allison's need to spend more time away from the track; I'm just saying I think it's had an impact).

[basti313]

This really encapsulates what I've been saying about Ferrari's race team this year:

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/05/s ... r-ferrari/

I think this is nonsense. Firstly I do not comply with "they could tell Ves to keep a 3sec gap". This is exactly what was forbidden with the radio ban. RedBull moved the slower car out of the way. And with that and the pace of Ves there was no way to overtake Ves on track. So they had nothing more than the hope to catch him with an undercut with one car.

[Vasconia]

This really encapsulates what I've been saying about Ferrari's race team this year:

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/05/s ... r-ferrari/

I think this is nonsense. Firstly I do not comply with "they could tell Ves to keep a 3sec gap". This is exactly what was forbidden with the radio ban. RedBull moved the slower car out of the way. And with that and the pace of Ves there was no way to overtake Ves on track. So they had nothing more than the hope to catch him with an undercut with one car.

I can see your point but its true that the strategy destroyed the chances of Daniel and Sebastian to win the race. Big mistake for Ricciardo but even bigger to Sebastian who was clearly doing a 2 stop strategy.

[f1316]

When you go back and look at these first five races, it's really not pace that's stopped Ferrari getting good results.


Australia: no safety car and/or a better strategy afterwards and there was a very good chance of victory

Bahrain: race pace was strong, probably still 3 & 4 if everyone had a smooth race

China: front row was a given and pole within reach without errors; Nico seemed stronger in clear air in the race but with that quali pace surely there was a chance of victory
(Edit: someone will probably say "what quali pace? They were half a second down"; look at Kimi's sector times and you'll see he was very close to Nico before final corner mistake).

Russia: not strong enough for anything better than 3 & 4 but comfortably best of the rest

Spain: without the setup debacle in quali they would have capitalised on Mercedes issues and comfortable 1 & 2; much better race pace than the bulls - best part of a second quicker on softs


Lots of ifs buts and maybes but the point is that pace is not really the primary issue this year - they could quite easily have been well in this championship without reliability issues and strategy issue (the latter of which caused accidents by putting them out of position).

[bhall II]

(Transitioned from the car thread)

...with the recent speculation that Ferrari is due to test a hybrid car of sorts for Pirelli in July, I'm hoping it means the team has, or is about to, turn its attention to next year. SF16-H isn't a bad car, but I don't think it can win the Championship, because the chassis isn't quite there.

I keep going back to the team's inability to pass the crash test with the intended nose and wonder how much of the rest of the car is similarly compromised.

[ferkan]

If they are unable to pass crash test with this years car, after so much time in wind tunnel, why would they optimistically turn their attention to next years one as if it is going to bring different results? Unfortunatelly, it seems to me its more about a team talent then anything else.

[dr.chaos]

Did you inadvertently post this in last year's RedBull thread?

[bhall II]

I'm pretty sure they just abandoned the intended nose after so many attempts to pass the test, which maybe says more about time constraints than anything else.

Maybe. I dunno.
https://twitter.com/Gianludale27/status ... 8279000064 What makes it sensible is that all aero is designed around the nose, and it's not especially prudent to delay such development while waiting for a single component to become available (unless you're Red Bull).

On the other hand, unless Ferrari inexplicably designed SF16-H around a sub-optimal nose from the very beginning, it also means the car is inherently compromised to some degree.

That raises legitimate questions: if the team was unable to quickly produce carbon fiber layups for the nose that strike the desired balance between weight and necessary strength, where else on the car is this true? Can the team design veritable works of art as below?

[ferkan]

I remember Leo Turrini saying they wanted more aggressive nose, but it couldn't pass crash test (F1AT reported the same).

But wouldn't they be able to just put less aggressive nose like current one, and then work on another until it passes the crash test? It shouldn't require change in aero concept or bodywork, right? I mean, Williams introduced new on in Bahrain and RB has done so last year, so Ferrari should be able to as well. If they have problem with it, then they simply can't hope for championship when few other teams simply do better job. Also, RBs nose pylons are extremely thin as well, it simply looks staggering good tbh.

BTW difference between RBs and Ferrari wishbones are at least double in size (vertical), do they need to reinforce them with more material since its not strong or stiff enough, and RB has a know how with lighter and thinner material that is sufficiently stiff? It just looks like massive difference, unless it accounts to very little.

EDIT

I saw you posted Ferrari testing Pirellis for 2017 car next month. Maybe they started with next years car early...Maybe that wind tunnel loophole was used mostly for 2017 car models and philosophies? Who knows, would be interesting for Ferrari to bluff Merc with this years car, and actually using that wt time for 2017 car.

[bhall II]

It's not quite that simple.

Given the long lead time required, RB11's Barcelona nose upgrade was undoubtedly started before the season began, and Williams is apparently lost...

Buxton’s theory which has reportedly been confirmed by sources within the team is that Williams has lost its way somewhat with the balance and setup of the FW38.

There's no telling what's really going on in Maranello. If this year's car is actually a MP4-30-esque learning exercise, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

[ferkan]

Oh ok, wasn't aware of that. Truth be told Williams does look messy after that upgrade.

There's no telling what's really going on in Maranello. If this year's car is actually a MP4-30-esque learning exercise, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

I personally wouldn't mind. Although, MP4-31 might be a good car but seems like they didn't learn enough since it really doesn't like a pole sitter