Scuderia Ferrari 2014

[bhall]

I agree with you. I'M not sure I like the blaming of Alonso. I think that 2012 car would have been nowhere without him.

[...]

Call me crazy, but I'm of the mind that if a driver wins a race, it's because his car is capable of winning a race. Weird, right?

People have a tendency to mythologize drivers, and in doing so, they perhaps give drivers a bit more credit than they deserve.

Without exception, it's always the car. The best a driver can do is to get the most out of it. If he does that in a car capable of winning races, it will win races. If he does that in a car incapable of winning races, it will not win races. It's very simple.

Otherwise, a driver can never exceed the capabilities of his machinery without crashing. It's impossible.

In any case, I wasn't trying to blame Alonso for anything. I mentioned Abu Dhabi and Suzuka merely to demonstrate just how close Ferrari was to netting entirely different outcomes in those years.

[Manoah2u]

I agree with you. I'M not sure I like the blaming of Alonso. I think that 2012 car would have been nowhere without him.

[...]

Call me crazy, but I'm of the mind that if a driver wins a race, it's because his car is capable of winning a race. Weird, right?

People have a tendency to mythologize drivers, and in doing so, they perhaps give drivers a bit more credit than they deserve.

Without exception, it's always the car. The best a driver can do is to get the most out of it. If he does that in a car capable of winning races, it will win races. If he does that in a car incapable of winning races, it will not win races. It's very simple.

Otherwise, a driver can never exceed the capabilities of his machinery without crashing. It's impossible.

In any case, I wasn't trying to blame Alonso for anything. I mentioned Abu Dhabi and Suzuka merely to demonstrate just how close Ferrari was to netting entirely different outcomes in those years.

yet, it's not about whether the car is able to win races or not, it's about the fact that a driver actually is capable of getting this car actually where it needs to be. And that's where the respect for a man like Alonso jumps in.

You might have 2 cars (2 teams) to your disposal: one car is so genuinly good developed that you could almost say it's 'a walk in the park' to win a race with this car. One with for example loads of benefits; flexi wings, dd diffuser, active suspension, ground effects, f-duct, DRS, etc etc etc.
then the other car has not a single of these 'attributes', drives like a truck, and build quality generally is worse then a mentally handicapped urangutan that tries to build a doghouse - yet, still capable of winning races (despite all that, it's faster then the other teams).

The driver of the 2nd car needs to use ALL his skills to be able to BEAT the other guy in the 'walk in the park car'.
Despite the 2nd car able to win races - in the right hands -, is driven by the 2nd driver but can't win. why ? because the skillset of the 2nd driver simply isn't enough to win a race. Is it then a race winning car? perhaps it still is, but it's not a combination able to win.

to summarise, this means the combination alonso + car had the ferrari in the wCC championship to the very last moment.

si imho, user 'diffuser' is completely right when he states that in 2012, ferrari would have been nowhere without alonso.

another example; RedBull in the past years provided a car that is able to win championships 'like taking candy from a baby'.
yet, the only one whom managed to get these titles was Vettel, his teammate however, was not capable of the same.
No, im no vettel fanboy (quite the contrary), but it still shows that you may have a car that can get to the 1st row, it still needs a capable driver to do so.

And last but not least: Ayrton managed to pull more then one second over his teammate in winning material. He nearly friggin won in a Toleman. Would you call a Toleman back then a car capable of winning? In general, obviously not. Yet Ayrton was certainly capable of getting it there. So you could almost say, that, any car on the grid is able to win, but that it needs the appropriate driver to get there.
Ayrton definately was.

Alonso? i'll never compare him to the great Ayrton - but without doubt Alonso is a masterfully skilled racer.
So yes, i'd say the 2012 succes was ALL ALONSO.

[bhall]

Ask any driver to choose between a car that's easy to drive and one that's difficult to drive, but faster, and if he's worth his salt, he'll take the faster car every time.

At the end of the day, all a driver can ask is that he be given a car that's capable of winning. Anything less is futile, and anything more is a luxury.

[Forza Ferrari]

so, Monte hired MM because he is no "mercenary"???? WTF ?? what a joke !! =D>

How could he be a mercenary as he will be Monte's yes man ?? LOL

and by "mercenary", he means brawn, briatore, bell etc... so winners are mercenaries and loosers are yes men.. what a sad vision of F1 he displays ! embarassing for the tifosi who don't think at all like him...
does he really expect this "good guy yes man" to turn the car into a winner with a magic wand ?

[Forza Ferrari]

The following could probably be said about McLaren, too.

I don't think Ferrari has necessarily done anything wrong over the last few years. ........

Very nice post. =D>

Now the only thing to do is to learn how to sell dropping the development of the car early to concentrate on the next season.

How on earth will he manage o sell this to tifosi and italian journalists ??? and to Ferrari owners and buyers, too....
NOTHING will ever replace the tast of champagne on the podium...

[Chuckjr]

Unfortunately, Bob has refused to offer his opinion despite being asked. Therefore, I'll continue with my thoughts.

The appointment Monty made is out of nowhere and seriously makes no sense as far as leadership of an F1 team is concerned. Not one person here, I'd surmise, would have chosen Marco Mattiacci as the very best replacement for SD. Yes that's speculation but welcome to F1technical.

Since this seems so strange (to me at least) to pick a guy that has Z E R O experience on the front lines of an F1 racing team, one must ask why on earth was he picked? Can anyone see Ron Dennis selecting such a candidate? I certainly can't.

Why pick a guy with ZERO F1 experience in the midst of a serious crisis, and at risk of losing arguably the best driver on the grid? What is the motivation for that resolution? Would you elect to run your hundred+ million dollar business an individual which has ZERO experience in the trenches of the very effort being engaged? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely asking.

My current conclusion is that MM is an easy person to control in the paddock since he's not been there and has nothing to draw from to discern the subtleties of the events of a race weekend and decipher the best course of action based on that experience. You can't train this, it only happens over years and years of being there in the center of action. Nobody wants a rookie soldier alongside them in the field of battle -- especially when you are losing. You want the guy that's been there done that, and is unintimidated by the whole scene and can clearly see the details others can't due to that experience. How can MM offer that? He can't. Yeah, he may be great at hiring/firing and managing a big budget but can he do that properly with no experience in a fight he has never engaged first hand?

This to me looks CLEARLY like a scapegoat plan should the appointment be unsuccessful. This looks like a perfect solution for Monty. Just fire and blame the guy if he fails, or look like a genius for appointing him if he wins.

I'd like to understand how this is not a power play to ensure he (Monty) gets the glory if it becomes available, and escapes the fall if it's a failure. Seriously. Help me understand how this makes logical sense to turn this team around.

Any good manager can be cutthroat and hire/fire, but it takes hands on experience in the actual field of play to truly know the best course of action to take, IMO.

[kaido]

Finally some good news i think
Luca di Montezemolo will be more involved with Ferrari in Formula 1
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113479


I think that this shows that the appointment of Monty is very much a management move. If the two can work together finally we might see some change at the prancing horse for the good!

[basti313]

You might have 2 cars (2 teams) to your disposal: one car is so genuinly good developed ....

You are making the classical, wrong fanboy assumptions. If you look at the laptimes in the races you will see, that even Massa could drive this car fast in the race. Often even faster than RB or McL. The Ferrari was bad in Q, but already very tire preserving like 2013 and, thus, very fast in the race.
It was the combination of this race pace, the easy aero with incredible overtaking performance and the good starts that provided the capability of winning. And you should not miss races like Germany in which the Ferrari was the best car for the whole weekend.
I just do not like considering the 2012 Ferrari to be crap. For me it was a very impressive RACE car. I very liked it for its overtaking capability.

si imho, user 'diffuser' is completely right when he states that in 2012, ferrari would have been nowhere without alonso.

With only Massa...yes. But without Alonso there would have been another Nr. 1 driver in the Ferrari like Rai, Vet, Ham, But...who would have been somewhere where Alo was.

And last but not least: Ayrton managed to pull more then one second over his teammate in winning material.

Only in Q you can really find time when you are good. Like Vet does when it is raining, like Ham did on But, like Alo did on Mas...
In a race you can not overdrive the car. Tires limit you, opponents limit you...

Alonso? i'll never compare him to the great Ayrton - but without doubt Alonso is a masterfully skilled racer.
So yes, i'd say the 2012 succes was ALL ALONSO.

You also miss, that in the last quarter of the season mighty Massa was on the same level as Alonso.

The appointment Monty made is out of nowhere and seriously makes no sense as far as leadership of an F1 team is concerned. Not one person here, I'd surmise, would have chosen Marco Mattiacci as the very best replacement for SD. Yes that's speculation but welcome to F1technical.

Well, I do not know the "Ferrari family" very well, so I would not have had any guess. But when it comes to marketing guys...
-Merc has Toto, who does nothing but very good marketing. And Lauda who is also just there for the press.
-Redbull has Horner who is great in marketing.
-FI has Mallya, who is just a manager.
-McL has Boullier and I do not really know what he is...but I would also say he is a good marketing guy.
-Former McL manager messed up the marketing completely.
-Claire?

Do you see any "F1 specialist"? Any technician? The only guy who really came from racing and had experience in managing a racing team is Horner.

Now the only thing to do is to learn how to sell dropping the development of the car early to concentrate on the next season.

How on earth will he manage o sell this to tifosi and italian journalists ??? and to Ferrari owners and buyers, too....
NOTHING will ever replace the tast of champagne on the podium...

There is no champagne with the actual car. Without other cars crashing or breaking they have to fight for P8...
And for selling this --- you need who? A MARKETING GUY!

[max_speed]

This year is Over for ferrari. Stefano's exit marks end to all hopes of seeing a revival of challenge. they have so many things to handle. i personally think Luca is more to blame than Stefano and Pat fry must have been fired in place of Stefano.
i am hardcore ferrari fan and this season is done fr me. i will expect Fiat to swing into action and kick tht stupid Luca out. he just sucks , he has the knack of laying off right people for example Costa.

[alexx_88]

You might have 2 cars (2 teams) to your disposal: one car is so genuinly good developed ....

You are making the classical, wrong fanboy assumptions. If you look at the laptimes in the races you will see, that even Massa could drive this car fast in the race. Often even faster than RB or McL. The Ferrari was bad in Q, but already very tire preserving like 2013 and, thus, very fast in the race.
It was the combination of this race pace, the easy aero with incredible overtaking performance and the good starts that provided the capability of winning. And you should not miss races like Germany in which the Ferrari was the best car for the whole weekend.
I just do not like considering the 2012 Ferrari to be crap. For me it was a very impressive RACE car. I very liked it for its overtaking capability.

Look up the report from that weekend please. Alonso got the pole in the rain and it wasn't the fastest in the race. He and Button (I think) said that only because of the good speed and traction on the straight before the hairpin, Alonso managed to stay in front. That's consistency. Miss the exit of the previous turn once in 60 laps or so and you lose the victory. That consistency to push the car lap after lap is what puts Alonso among the greats of his generation.

Also, Ferrari was never the fastest car of a weekend, more likely 2nd or 3rd fastest after Mclaren and RB.

And last but not least: Ayrton managed to pull more then one second over his teammate in winning material.

Only in Q you can really find time when you are good. Like Vet does when it is raining, like Ham did on But, like Alo did on Mas...
In a race you can not overdrive the car. Tires limit you, opponents limit you...

That's not true, or at least not completely. Tires and opponents limit the "speed racers" and that's where a good racing driver will come into play. Knows when to push, when to overtake, can drive fast without taking too much out of the car. That's where Alonso, Raikonnen, Vettel excel. Just remember Spannish GP in 2013 when Massa, even though driving fast, was told by Rob Smedley that he's taking too much out of the tires, just by matching the pace of Alonso.

Alonso? i'll never compare him to the great Ayrton - but without doubt Alonso is a masterfully skilled racer.
So yes, i'd say the 2012 succes was ALL ALONSO.

You also miss, that in the last quarter of the season mighty Massa was on the same level as Alonso.

The reports I've read afterwards say that Massa, although very fast when everything is right, has a lot of problems adapting to a bad car. It seems that this is due to his driving style and can explain why he was able to beat Alonso in the last part of the season. But then again, that also puts into perspective what dog of a car the F2012 was in the first part of the year. And by dog I mean a car that's very hard to tame.

The appointment Monty made is out of nowhere and seriously makes no sense as far as leadership of an F1 team is concerned. Not one person here, I'd surmise, would have chosen Marco Mattiacci as the very best replacement for SD. Yes that's speculation but welcome to F1technical.

Well, I do not know the "Ferrari family" very well, so I would not have had any guess. But when it comes to marketing guys...
-Merc has Toto, who does nothing but very good marketing. And Lauda who is also just there for the press.
-Redbull has Horner who is great in marketing.
-FI has Mallya, who is just a manager.
-McL has Boullier and I do not really know what he is...but I would also say he is a good marketing guy.
-Former McL manager messed up the marketing completely.
-Claire?

Do you see any "F1 specialist"? Any technician? The only guy who really came from racing and had experience in managing a racing team is Horner.

Let's not kid ourselves. The Mercedes this year is 100% Ross Brawn and the amount of money they smartly put in 2014, instead of trying to catch RB. Even so, Merc has Paddy Lowe and at Red Bull, Newey is the boss in regards to everything technical. I'd even go as far as saying that he has a TP role when it comes to the technical side of things. Basically all the successful teams have a strong technical leader, no matter his title.

[Rikhart]

The best team on the grid by far has a new nose, ferrari brings nothing again. Have they already given up on this year? Might be a wise move.

[ecapox]

4 races out of 19 and you are already telling them th throw in the towel?

[basti313]

You might have 2 cars (2 teams) to your disposal: one car is so genuinly good developed ....

You are making the classical, wrong fanboy assumptions. If you look at the laptimes in the races you will see, that even Massa could drive this car fast in the race. Often even faster than RB or McL. The Ferrari was bad in Q, but already very tire preserving like 2013 and, thus, very fast in the race.
It was the combination of this race pace, the easy aero with incredible overtaking performance and the good starts that provided the capability of winning. And you should not miss races like Germany in which the Ferrari was the best car for the whole weekend.
I just do not like considering the 2012 Ferrari to be crap. For me it was a very impressive RACE car. I very liked it for its overtaking capability.

Look up the report from that weekend please. Alonso got the pole in the rain and it wasn't the fastest in the race. He and Button (I think) said that only because of the good speed and traction on the straight before the hairpin, Alonso managed to stay in front.

So it was the best RACE car, wasn't it?
Not possible to overtake it due to its straight line speed and fastest in Q when there is not the tire warming problem. And there was no miracle with the Q: Alonso put half a second on rain-spin-expert Massa, that is a normal Nr1-Nr2 distance.

That's consistency. Miss the exit of the previous turn once in 60 laps or so and you lose the victory. That consistency to push the car lap after lap is what puts Alonso among the greats of his generation.

I totally agree. But always, one of "the greats of his generation" will sit in a Ferrari if he does not and will be able to put half a second on Massa in Q and will be able to drive it home without errors.

Also, Ferrari was never the fastest car of a weekend, more likely 2nd or 3rd fastest after Mclaren and RB.

"Fastest" car is difficult, because we have so much to take into account. But you can easily talk about 2nd best car as either the better RB or McL broke down. Or the 2nd contender for the win...whatever you want.
I would even say, that in Canada the Ferrari was the best car. Alonso had a bad Q run for P3 and only the strategy error put him back at the end of the race. With a pitstop one or two laps after Ham he would have jumped him.

And last but not least: Ayrton managed to pull more then one second over his teammate in winning material.

Only in Q you can really find time when you are good. Like Vet does when it is raining, like Ham did on But, like Alo did on Mas...
In a race you can not overdrive the car. Tires limit you, opponents limit you...

That's not true, or at least not completely.[/quote]
You are right. It started from the weak point, that Ayrton pulled a second...and coming from a weak point doesn't make a good discussion.
Comparing Mas and Alo there are races with Massa being better and races with Alonso being better. Especially the last two races 2012 were not good from Alo and the WC was lost in Japan...Japan is hard to judge as we saw an incredible pace by Massa, but do not know how much Vettel was releasing.

Alonso? i'll never compare him to the great Ayrton - but without doubt Alonso is a masterfully skilled racer.
So yes, i'd say the 2012 succes was ALL ALONSO.

You also miss, that in the last quarter of the season mighty Massa was on the same level as Alonso.

The reports I've read afterwards say that Massa, although very fast when everything is right, has a lot of problems adapting to a bad car. It seems that this is due to his driving style and can explain why he was able to beat Alonso in the last part of the season. But then again, that also puts into perspective what dog of a car the F2012 was in the first part of the year. And by dog I mean a car that's very hard to tame.[/quote]
You are mixing "bad car" and "hard to drive". But this is wrong. Normally a car which is hard to drive is a good car, because it is fast.

The appointment Monty made is out of nowhere and seriously makes no sense as far as leadership of an F1 team is concerned. Not one person here, I'd surmise, would have chosen Marco Mattiacci as the very best replacement for SD. Yes that's speculation but welcome to F1technical.

Well, I do not know the "Ferrari family" very well, so I would not have had any guess. But when it comes to marketing guys...
-Merc has Toto, who does nothing but very good marketing. And Lauda who is also just there for the press.
-Redbull has Horner who is great in marketing.
-FI has Mallya, who is just a manager.
-McL has Boullier and I do not really know what he is...but I would also say he is a good marketing guy.
-Former McL manager messed up the marketing completely.
-Claire?

Do you see any "F1 specialist"? Any technician? The only guy who really came from racing and had experience in managing a racing team is Horner.

Let's not kid ourselves. The Mercedes this year is 100% Ross Brawn and the amount of money they smartly put in 2014, instead of trying to catch RB. Even so, Merc has Paddy Lowe and at Red Bull, Newey is the boss in regards to everything technical. I'd even go as far as saying that he has a TP role when it comes to the technical side of things. Basically all the successful teams have a strong technical leader, no matter his title.[/quote]
So, where is your point? As you say, every big team has one guy for the technical part and one guy for the marketing. Now Ferrari dropped Dom, who is neither technical nor marketing, and got a guy from for marketing. On the technical side they have James Allison, a good choice I think.
Everything done right so far.

[alexx_88]

basti313, the truth is that we don't know what Kimi, Vet or Hamilton would've done in Alonso's place. My point was that it was a good racecar after Barcelona, but nowhere to be found before that. And winning the title with a car that was consistently the 2nd or 3rd fastest over a weekend is an impressive achievement, I'd say. Anyway, water under the bridge and very subjective stuff, so let's agree to disagree, will you?

Regarding the management structure, their website says that James Allison is technical director and Pat Fry is engineering director. It was never made public that someone other than the team principal has autonomy over technical decisions regarding development and allocation of resources and, given the fact that SD was sacked for what was in fact lack of technical innovation, it seems to me that they don't know either. Realistically speaking, if they really had an independent technical department (as RB and Mercedes have) they should have fired whoever was running that department, not the person responsible for team organization and PR.

[basti313]

basti313, the truth is that we don't know what Kimi, Vet or Hamilton would've done in Alonso's place. My point was that it was a good racecar after Barcelona, but nowhere to be found before that. And winning the title with a car that was consistently the 2nd or 3rd fastest over a weekend is an impressive achievement, I'd say. Anyway, water under the bridge and very subjective stuff, so let's agree to disagree, will you?

If you say the car was good and I say the car was good there is not much to disagree
Ok...the win of Malaysia did not come from nowhere and everyone struggled at the beginning of 2012, so my impression from the start of the season is different, but as you say it is hard to argue about that.

Regarding the management structure, their website says that James Allison is technical director and Pat Fry is engineering director.

I would say this is rather similar to Lowe/Bell at Merc. Does not look bad at all.

It was never made public that someone other than the team principal has autonomy over technical decisions regarding development and allocation of resources and, given the fact that SD was sacked for what was in fact lack of technical innovation, it seems to me that they don't know either.

Was he sacked for that? For me it looked like they sacked him for his looser attitude...he just had absolutely no standing anymore.
I do not see the technical relevance in 2014 for sacking him. The problem is the engine department which is far behind Merc and only matching the small-budget Renault department.

Realistically speaking, if they really had an independent technical department (as RB and Mercedes have) they should have fired whoever was running that department, not the person responsible for team organization and PR.

Why? As stated before, the car was not bad at all. But they had a incredible bad public image on the car. Even the crappy Merc or the Williams had a better reputation than the very good 2012 Ferrari. It is like people think of the 2012 Ferrari as the worst car on the grid...
In my point of view it is the first thing to sack the guy who is responsible for the bad reputation. This costs motivation and hinders the development.
When it comes to the technical director it is more about the 400 people behind him than about the guy himself. And that needs time. James Allison now is only one year at Ferrari, so this is still developing.