2023 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[ValeVida46]

I'd like to remember that Ferrari is still without an official Technical Director.

Enrico Cardile was appointed as the teams Technical director a couple of months ago.

[mzso]

What if...

Reality is no driver suffered any harm or disadvantage or dropped a single position, but Sainz was, in practice, disqualified after a tough and praiseworthy recover from p12 to p4 after some tough luck with the pitstop and SC

But some Ferrari fans say it doesn´t matter if a Ferrari driver is deprived from scoring 12 points

You can stop reiterating the same nonsense.
And in anyway. Should a driver be allowed to do illegal/dangerous moves as long as the victim escapes loss of position by luck or skill? I should hope not.

What Ferrari fans say is irrelevant to an argument. But in any case it's starting to get proved true, as far as the championship goes. Unless there's some miraculous revolution for Ferrari by Baku they're not likely to get a driver finish within the top four.

Stop the nosense yourself first please

Who said a driver should be allowed to do illegal or dangerous moves as long as the victim escapes? None, I´m arguing about the penalty impossed, none said he should have received no penalty, so please, do not use a strawman argument while you ask to stop the nosense

So if Ferrari don´t finish within the top four they should stop defending their rights, and renounce to competition? And you ask to stop the nosense on the very same post?

You know WCC position provides money and 12 points less might mean Ferrari collects less money for next season? If Ferrari can´t defend their own points, no surprise they´re second class team for more than a decade...

You argued for it, constantly. You were throwing the strawmans of it being unfair, when everyone gets a 5s when they spin an opponent out of the circuit.
Dropping back several positions is tough luck, just like when an SC is called after you're the only one who changed tires.

They have no rights to break rules and go without penalty. Which for once was assigned correctly.
They had nothing to defend so their case was thrown out.

[sucof]

Regarding the main problem: A few years ago, Ferrari rose from the ashes, just to be struck down because of engine trickery. Few years passed and they rose again, they are again struck down of using trickery floor.
Now they are "slow" again.
See the pattern? I do not like it.

Either:
- others pick or find "tricks" that are never found
- others can protect their "tricks" being not ruled against with new regulations
- Ferrari has people who leak such details more than the other teams
- others simply build better cars overall without using such gray areas...

[Xyz22]

I'd like to remember that Ferrari is still without an official Technical Director.

Enrico Cardile was appointed as the teams Technical director a couple of months ago.

Officially Enrico Cardile has still the same role as he had when Binotto was both Team Principal and Technical Director, which is "Head of Chassis Area".

[Vanja #66]

Enrico Cardile was appointed as the teams Technical director a couple of months ago.

Official website still lists him as Head of Chassis, so that was just speculation (by Nugnes I think).

Few years passed and they rose again, they are again struck down of using trickery floor.

Ferrari was hurt by TD39 due to imposed bouncing frequencies and acceleration amplitude limits, the plank wear was less of an issue. The TD39 is not applied anymore since all the cars solved the big bouncing issues with floor rule changes basically.

I think it should be pointed out that the biggest reason for losing out on the early Championship lead was very poor strategy decision making, as well as PU reliability when redesigned PU was introduced in Barcelona. Those PUs had to be turned down bellow the performance of initial PUs in testing and first 5 races. If there was no TD39 since Spa, they still wouldn't have caught RB back by the end of the season.

[ValeVida46]

I'd like to remember that Ferrari is still without an official Technical Director.

Enrico Cardile was appointed as the teams Technical director a couple of months ago.

Officially Enrico Cardile has still the same role as he had when Binotto was both Team Principal and Technical Director, which is "Head of Chassis Area".

Ah right ok, was running off memory from a story I read that he'd been promoted to TD.

I do wonder why this position has been left vacant, unless they already have a name in mind , with Cardile perhaps doing some of the TD duties until such time as an official announcement is made.

[mzso]

Does it look like it just to me or did Ferrari not improve at all with these new upgrades? Mercedes certainly jumped them. Leclerc couldn't even reach points, and he only needed to overtake backfielders and the latter half of the midfield.

[Vanja #66]

Does it look like it just to me or did Ferrari not improve at all with these new upgrades? Mercedes certainly jumped them. Leclerc couldn't even reach points, and he only needed to overtake backfielders and the latter half of the midfield.

Their post-race reactions point to them being trully shocked the updates didn't solve the problems they expected at all. Updates were never made to make the car faster, but provide more consistency in the race regarding tyre behaviour. Aero updates don't directly influence tyres of course, so my guess is they wanted to try different suspension settings and updated parts allowed them to explore this area without hurting aerodynamic performance. Seeing what updates were aimed at, they expected better consistency of floor performance in the rear corner area.

They didn't say updates made things worse of course, but they underestimated the in-race tyre management issue they have (or believed some changes in suspension setup could make up for that). Overall, as I repeatedly pointed out since the Bahrain Q - downforce and aerodynamics is not the core problem of the 2023 car, the suspension is. The only aero problem they have is insufficient front wing downforce. Since their front wing has the smallest planform area of any car (and a lot, lot smaller area than 2022 car) it's not like it's an impossible problem to solve. Them not prioritising it means it's not the biggest problem of the car and it clearly isn't.

[bluechris]

Does it look like it just to me or did Ferrari not improve at all with these new upgrades? Mercedes certainly jumped them. Leclerc couldn't even reach points, and he only needed to overtake backfielders and the latter half of the midfield.

In my mind, the whole wet saturday with the new parts made them totally lost in the setup of the car. Also i think they went to race with cooler temperatures in their minds or the opposite. Either way it wasn't a clean weekend that we all hoped for to fully understand the car.
Some will say that i try to find excuses for their performance but we all saw what happened and in the life of me i cannot believe that a company like Ferrari cannot put right an update after all this work that they did the previous months.
Imola cancelation also i believe was a huge hit in their planning... then we had Monaco which is useless and after Spain with this kind of weather.
Ferrari needs 2-3 races at least to evaluate everything and find the optimal setup with the new components and i mean clean races with normal temperatures for the specific tracks where their previous data will be good.

We will see .. but i still have hope

[aleks_ader]

Tbf Merc was same last year when they needed couple of races to figure out setup after updates. Same as Alpine and others.

[FDD]

Does it look like it just to me or did Ferrari not improve at all with these new upgrades? Mercedes certainly jumped them. Leclerc couldn't even reach points, and he only needed to overtake backfielders and the latter half of the midfield.

Their post-race reactions point to them being trully shocked the updates didn't solve the problems they expected at all. Updates were never made to make the car faster, but provide more consistency in the race regarding tyre behaviour. Aero updates don't directly influence tyres of course, so my guess is they wanted to try different suspension settings and updated parts allowed them to explore this area without hurting aerodynamic performance. Seeing what updates were aimed at, they expected better consistency of floor performance in the rear corner area.

They didn't say updates made things worse of course, but they underestimated the in-race tyre management issue they have (or believed some changes in suspension setup could make up for that). Overall, as I repeatedly pointed out since the Bahrain Q - downforce and aerodynamics is not the core problem of the 2023 car, the suspension is. The only aero problem they have is insufficient front wing downforce. Since their front wing has the smallest planform area of any car (and a lot, lot smaller area than 2022 car) it's not like it's an impossible problem to solve. Them not prioritising it means it's not the biggest problem of the car and it clearly isn't.

It is strange that they did not find problems on the simulator with the suspension, at least looks like that from that they said.
That probably means that their correlation is poor.

[Xyz22]

As for Ferrari, the comparison is between Leclerc's pole lap in 2022 and Sainz's second time in 2023. The large gain in top speed for the red car on the main straight of 11 km/h is immediately evident. The car seems to benefit from the stiffer set-up put on the track in 2023, which allows for greater cornering speed combined always with a noticeable increase in stretching speeds. However, a really substantial leap forward is missing, with the difference in performance not as radical as one would expect from a single-seater downstream from a full year of evolution. In the first two sectors Sainz has less than half a second of lap time advantage over Leclerc the year before (compared to about 7 tenths for Mercedes and over 1 second for Red Bull), moreover almost all of it built in the stretches (3 tenths in the main straight).

For Mercedes the situation is practically the opposite: the speed in the stretches remains similar or decreases, but the W14 in the "B" version is then significantly faster in the mid-speed corners, such as 4 and 8, and very effective in braking, already hinting at a growth in downforce and a much improved suspension package on longitudinal load transfers.

Red Bull, finally, breaks the mold somewhat, managing to develop great elongated speeds combined with a very clear improvement in every corner of the track. Even, in the very fast Turn 9, Verstappen last season was forced to conspicuously lift his foot off the throttle, while this year he was able to take it full throttle.
The indicators speak even more clearly

Let us now focus, however, on a few key indicators that we have gleaned from this data. One is the so-called "load index" and the other is what we have called the "deviation index." The load index is calculated by dividing the average speed at which a section of track is traveled by the maximum speed attained. The greater the result, the greater (indicatively) will be the car's vertical load.

The deviation index, on the other hand, is the standard deviation of the speed data for a certain section divided by the average speed in that section. The standard deviation is in itself an indication of the aerodynamic load of the car, but in an inverse manner, i.e., the higher the standard deviation, the lower the load, with the values tending to be somewhat "spread out" and far from the average. We then divide it by the same average speed in order to make a more "independent" comparison across cars and seasons. Going now to compare values and indices we find unequivocal answers as to what we are seeing on the track.

As for Ferrari, the load index drops by a huge number, even over 2%. Also the deflection index rises by almost 1% unequivocally indicating a loss of aerodynamic load of the car, in antithesis with what happens for the redhead's opponents.
In fact, for Red Bull we note a slight loss on the load index, motivated, however, by the great straight-line efficiency, which allowed the RB19 to touch 330 km/h despite the fact that the wing specifications were those used in Monaco. The deflection index drops by almost 3 percent, showing the significant increase in vertical load on Newey's car. These indices show how in practice the RB19 is an evolved RB18 in both vertical load and efficiency, an all-around step up from the already excellent car of last season.
Finally, for Mercedes we note the most significant jump as was moreover to be expected. The W13 was a car that suffered precisely from a lack of vertical load, and the two drivers confirmed that this W14B made a major leap precisely from the downforce point of view. Top speed was given up at Brackley, with the W13's 324 km/h being the fastest in 2022 of the three cars considered (318 Ferrari, 321 Red Bull) while, again with 324 km/h, it was the slowest in 2023 (329 Ferrari, 330 Red Bull). It has, however, increased the load index by almost 2 percent with a corresponding drop in the deflection index by almost 5 percent, a huge number that shows, however, that the decision has been made to move away from the path of drag minimization and back to the path of load maximization.

https://www.formulapassion.it/opinioni/ ... ferrari-f1

[Andres125sx]

You can stop reiterating the same nonsense.
And in anyway. Should a driver be allowed to do illegal/dangerous moves as long as the victim escapes loss of position by luck or skill? I should hope not.

What Ferrari fans say is irrelevant to an argument. But in any case it's starting to get proved true, as far as the championship goes. Unless there's some miraculous revolution for Ferrari by Baku they're not likely to get a driver finish within the top four.

Stop the nosense yourself first please

Who said a driver should be allowed to do illegal or dangerous moves as long as the victim escapes? None, I´m arguing about the penalty impossed, none said he should have received no penalty, so please, do not use a strawman argument while you ask to stop the nosense

So if Ferrari don´t finish within the top four they should stop defending their rights, and renounce to competition? And you ask to stop the nosense on the very same post?

You know WCC position provides money and 12 points less might mean Ferrari collects less money for next season? If Ferrari can´t defend their own points, no surprise they´re second class team for more than a decade...

You argued for it, constantly. You were throwing the strawmans of it being unfair, when everyone gets a 5s when they spin an opponent out of the circuit.
Dropping back several positions is tough luck, just like when an SC is called after you're the only one who changed tires.

They have no rights to break rules and go without penalty. Which for once was assigned correctly.
They had nothing to defend so their case was thrown out.

Any reason to raise this old discussion again?

Maybe that is the reason you can´t remind in that race there was 2 more drivers who collided exactly the same (one was Albon I think), harming 2 more drivers, and they got no penalty at all. Sainz collided with Alonso on a part of the race wich was not considered race (didn´t count in final result), so none got any harm, and he received a 5 second penalty under SC wich is like a DSQ

No, not everyone receive a 5 second penalty for this, actually 2 drivers didn´t receive it, in the very same race!, and despite causing a harm to other drivers and teams, contrary to Sainz who did harm none, but was the only one to receive a penalti

[Vanja #66]

It is strange that they did not find problems on the simulator with the suspension, at least looks like that from that they said.
That probably means that their correlation is poor.

If it's really the case what Andi said, that they didn't have a tyre department for a while, it's not as surprising. Modelling tyres for any simulation is very, very hard work and requires a lot of attention, time and correlation data.

I get why they compared best laps from two seasons, but we can't look over the fact Leclerc was 3.5 tenths faster than Sainz last year in first two sectors, skewing all the findings highly in favour of Mercedes and Red Bull.

[Henri]

It is strange that they did not find problems on the simulator with the suspension, at least looks like that from that they said.
That probably means that their correlation is poor.

If it's really the case what Andi said, that they didn't have a tyre department for a while, it's not as surprising. Modelling tyres for any simulation is very, very hard work and requires a lot of attention, time and correlation data.

https://storage.googleapis.com/fp-media ... 62x662.jpg

I get why they compared best laps from two seasons, but we can't look over the fact Leclerc was 3.5 tenths faster than Sainz last year in first two sectors, skewing all the findings highly in favour of Mercedes and Red Bull.

Sainz is performing better than leclerc this season