2017 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

[mika vs michael]

Ferrari need a man that can build a team...Arrivabene is not that man. They need someone to put the pieces of the puzzle together. Arrivabene can be the PR man but they need a technical leader. Paddy Lowe or any other proven figure could do the job, of course only if they give him the power to make changes.

[mika vs michael]

IF at the moment a team like Williams looks more attractive than Ferrari then Ferrari is indeed in big trouble...

[ME4ME]

IF at the moment a team like Williams looks more attractive than Ferrari then Ferrari is indeed in big trouble...

Attractive to who? A single person living closer to one company,speaks the main language used and might get a share in the company.

If you'd ask someone else, like a driver, the majority would pick Ferrari over Williams.

[Fer.Fan]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/tech- ... 17-855744/

[bhall II]

I think this is why Ferrari is ultimately destined for mediocrity...

It is an aggressive approach that Ferrari has not been so keen to pursue in recent years, whereas rivals like Red Bull and Mercedes have always been keen to push things to the limit of the rules in their quest for success.

[...]

But with new regulations coming next year – which are expected to deliver a laptime improvement of five seconds – there is talk that technical director Mattia Binotto’s efforts are paying off.

At the Ferrari Mondiali in Daytona last weekend, team principal Maurizio Arrivabene said: “Our 2017 began last August with a major change on the technical front.

"People expect a lot from Ferrari, wins and success, therefore we will do our utmost to achieve that. But ever since the new structure was put in place, with a great engineer like Mattia Binotto in charge, we have seen positive signs, as in Japan and Abu Dhabi.”

First, SF16-H was most definitely an aggressive car. Even if James Allison hadn't announced it to the world...

"It’s certainly a very bold car – but it needs to be. If we look at last year’s model we were working to improve a baseline that was really quite poor."

“So we were able to make big steps last year. But to improve on last year’s car, which was quite reasonable, and make something which is another step forward, we needed to take bolder steps.

“We needed to be braver and work across the entire car in an aggressive way. And that’s something we have done, on the chassis side and also on the power unit. Horsepower, downforce, handling, everywhere – we’re very proud of what we’ve done everywhere. And we can’t wait to see it run.”

...it was plain as day all season long, given continual reliability issues that are the chief tell-tale signs of an aggressive strategy.

Second, innovation is about as important as a warm bucket of hamster vomit if the foundation upon which it's applied isn't bulletproof, a goal that can take years to achieve, especially if it's not a focus of a team's efforts. Again, even it hadn't been explicitly stated...

"If I had to be immodest, the main contribution I’ve made has been to break out of the vicious circus Ferrari were in, which was to start the year with not the best car and then throw all efforts behind that car, having a quixotic assault on a championship that was already lost. We were robbing the future Peter to pay the present Paul. You pay enormously if you ignore the future.”

...it's been clearly demonstrated by the team's largely fruitless in-season development over the last few years.

Lastly, anyone who thinks Ferrari's new management structure had enough time to impact anything beyond the team's travel arrangements during the period between Allison's departure in late July, and the "positive signs" Arrivabene hallucinated at Suzuka in early October, probably doesn't know a whole lot about Formula One. For example, here are the lead times for various aerodynamic upgrades according to McLaren's Matt Morris...

• Front wing: 6-8 weeks
• Rear wing: 6-8 weeks
• Front brake ducts: 4-6 weeks
• Floor: 6-8 weeks
• Nose: “Once you’ve made the decision on the nose, you design the rest of the car around it. After that, it’s not really worth changing, and the rules have matured enough for there to be little incremental benefit in making a change.”

This is what you call "lost," ladies and gentlemen.

If Ferrari has any measure of success next season, I think it will be because the only rational human being in Maranello was working on next season's car when he was essentially pushed out for working on next season's car. Only at Ferrari does something like that happen. (Or not. The whole world seems to be abdicating reason these days.)

[FW17]

2016 car was bound to have troubles with the major change in the front suspension through the winter. The interaction between the suspension + aero is so critical and something that is not going to be simulated in a scale model of the windtunnel.

While the car may be revolutionary as per JA it was not a clean car, the intercooler was a mess

The gear box? what was revolutionary in that?

[f1316]

The interesting thing about the article is the idea of solutions that push the boundaries of the rules - the bit about the Mexico appeal having anything to do with that seems spurious reasoning and hasn't Byrne been doing this same role since 2013? - but even if the 2016 was aggressive, there don't seem to have been any controversial interpretations of rules (unless the rear wing really was moving on the straight/braking).

Probably all be typical off-season rubbish, with sites having very little to publish, but someone said a few pages back that they hadn't heard any positive rumours coming out of Maranello recently - well, now you have!

[Pierce89]

Monumental wall of text

Does the fact that we're both still Ferrari fans mean that we're loyal or we're flat out idiotic gluttons for punishment addicted the "romance" and "history" that the current management continuously tries its best to sh!t all over?

Now that is the pertinent queztionne.

[Manoah2u]

Lol, i get the feeling the problem with Ferrari is that nobody actually thinks about 'Ferrari'
and everybody's only thinking they're on a cloud being 'part' of Ferrari and then that's it.
thinking like that doesn't get you anywhere, it keeps you motionless, and all i'm seeing happening
is replacing motionless people and aspects in Ferrari with other motionless people and aspects,
and when non-motionless people or aspects are introduced, they are turned 'motionless' because
the 'tifosi' and 'ferrari family' takes offense and accuses one of thinking 'they're better' than 'ferrari',
which then results in them becoming motionless all over.

it's this rediculous aspect that blocks progress. The Schumacher and Brawn era was exactly the elements that
did not stall and hinged on that 'motionless' nonsense and just did things.
The difference is that they did not see things as cutting parts of Ferrari and turning it into something else.
they actually cut out the bad leaves in the ferrari tree so that ferrari could grow into what it is able to grow into.

now, Ferrari is back into that bewildered bush with a ferrari label on it that you can't touch because it's a ferrari
bush.

Ferrari just needs to drop the arrogance and nonsense and do the laundry. Quite frankly, the current Ferrari leaders aren't
fit to do that, and the biggest flaw is Marchionne. He might be the biggest blob blocking the drain.

One one side though, i'd like to see Ferrari prosper. On the ohter hand.....their pure arrogance, i'm not missing one bit.

Anyway, there's nothing in Ferrari at this moment that i like, to be honest. I kindof like Arrivabene, but I'm doubtfull he's
capable of fixing ferrari with his hands behind his back, and i get the feeling he's more present because of Marlboro than
because of actually doing things for Ferrari. And that keeps his hands to his back, so he's not capable of breaking those chains.

I could see Ferrari actually makign worse decisions, like hiring Paddy Lowe and Eric Bouillier and hiring Grosjean and Bottas
in the future.

What i personally would like to see is Hamilton, Newey and Pomodrou at Ferrari, and a passionate capable person at Ferrari's head,
not misfit Marchionne. Hell, i'd probably sign for Briatore as the head of Ferrari.

[f1316]

Monumental wall of text

Does the fact that we're both still Ferrari fans mean that we're loyal or we're flat out idiotic gluttons for punishment addicted the "romance" and "history" that the current management continuously tries its best to sh!t all over?

Now that is the pertinent queztionne.

Re new structure not having time enough to make a difference:

The only thing you could wonder is whether the new structure has allowed people - who have already been working at maranello for years and have been involved in research projects, the results from which probably only rarely make it to the car - to have their voices heard.

Perhaps there is R&D that has previously not been pursued by a more conservative management that now is being looked at since lower level engineering voices can be better heard in a more horizontal structure (there was a rumour last year that something borderline that Mercedes did had been researched and passed on at Ferrari)?

If that were the case , it would not be so much a new 'management' having time to make difference, rather it would be a change in direction to pursue work started months/years prior.

Contrary to the prevailing opinion, I do think the horizontal structure makes a lot of sense - which is, of course, not at all to say it will necessarily yield results.

[bhall II]

Monumental wall of text

Does the fact that we're both still Ferrari fans mean that we're loyal or we're flat out idiotic gluttons for punishment addicted the "romance" and "history" that the current management continuously tries its best to sh!t all over?

Now that is the pertinent queztionne.

Probably a bit of both. There's also the smug satisfaction of knowing I could do a better job, even if that clearly says more about the team than it does about me.

Beyond that, it's a bit like a sociology experiment. A rapid devolution has transformed the Gestione Sportiva into a microcosm of the greater world around it, one that's increasingly dedicated to eliminating any and all distinctions between hubris and reality.

So maybe it's schadenfreude? Anyway...

But, wait! There's more!

"I think we have seen a Red Bull at the start of the 2016 season that did not have, at least on paper, the attributes to try to take on Ferrari. And by the end of the season, Red Bull did effectively become a viable competitor.

"And it was not due to the power unit side, it was down to the work that was done on both aero and chassis.

"And it's pointed out probably one of the most significant holes in the strategic development of Ferrari in the last few years.

Fair enough, Serge. Your solution?

"Unfortunately neither [president Sergio] Marchionne nor [team boss Maurizio] Arrivabene have experience in racing, a culture that the Scuderia of today has lost," [Luca] Baldisserri told Corriere dello Sport in an interview. "They are no longer a team, but a group of scared people. There is a climate of fear. The boys don't take risks for fear of being fired in disgrace."

[...]

"Mattia [Binotto] knows how to motivate people, he has great experience but he is not a technical director. He knows he cannot design a car and does not have deep knowledge of the chassis, aerodynamics or mechanical side. He would be a good team principal instead."

It takes guts to address a problem, be it real or imagined, by elevating someone who's unqualified to fix it. I guess the toxic environment was just an appetizer.

(Let's not forget that Mattia Binotto, an engineer who's held senior positions in Ferrari's engine department since 2007, is just as culpable as anyone else for the absurd decision to handicap the PU in 2014.)

Quick recap: the power unit wasn't an issue in 2016, meaning the car's early-season inability to maintain top speed was a spiritual malady that was wholly resolved through a reaffirmation of faith.

revs dropping at 300 meters sign, before turn 14

And the team's aerodynamic strategy is inadequate. Red Bull only borrows from it for aesthetic reasons.


(I'll leave that for others to point out. No more aero shenanigans for Ben.)

This is what happens when the idiot in charge decides MBA stands for "advanced engineering degree."

[Vasconia]

sorry to disagree there.
Ferrari was in magnificient shape at the start of the season, really. Not as good as 2015, but still respectable.
The speed was there, and both Vettel and Raikkonen were 'in form'. The only thing that was NOT in form, and has NOT
been in form ALL YEAR, is Ferrari's pit wall decisions and pit crew. They managed to scr*w the great performance the car and drivers put in into worthless results due to pure and undeniable and painfully visible incompetence. And it lasted, boy did it last throughout the year, bar some occasoinal 'less mismanagement' in some races.
It took it's toll on Seb, clearly, who got frustrated and vocal about it all.

The only reason Ferrari seemed 'better' in the 'end' was not because the car worked better - it was because they scr*wed their races less into mud and dirt.

Also, if THEORETICALLY it was true that 'improvements' occured in the end of 2016 performance wise, then that's actually bad news - it means that in stead of focusing fully on 2017, they kept hammering in on this year - probably because they 'demanded' good results no matter what....typical italian. and yes, i have worked 10 years in an intalian company, and had to deal with dozens of italian businesses, which all are exactly the same. emotional.
it ALSO means, that they were so stubborn on keeping on that path and 'making it work' that they did everything for squad zero because next year the cars are completely different. So way to go, you've managed to make the 'package' work after 20 races. back to square one.

that is the problem of Ferrari.

And people tend to forget; it was NOT Schumacher that fixed ferrari. it was the combination of the right people, and one can't deny that the Schumacher - Brawn formula worked like a charm. Vettel isn't Schumacher, and there is no other Brawn.
they're trying to repeat history without even knowing what made it work, because they aren't open to anything but their own 'heritage' and 'national heroism'. 'We're Ferrari......." and that's the issue.

Don't get me wrong, I love Ferrari but i hate to see what's happening right now, including the brand itself. I also think Marchionne is not the core problem, but he's been 'assigned' to be the solution, and quite frankly, he's definately not 'the solution'. Luca di Montezemolo did much better. Marchionne does not share the same passion, drive, focus or 'fire'. He is more like a former pizzeria-owner-turned-banker type of guy. well, that's how i feel about it.

I personally dont have the solution, or i would be there and getting rich and in automotive paradise as we speak. I do see however that they let emotion run control. and stupidity.

also;

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/56 ... 6055df.jpg

had to leave this here.

I mostly agree with you. The strategic decisions throughout the season have been terrible. At the beginning of the season were bad but both drivers made some mistakes and Ferrari´s Q3 haven been in general quite disappointing, for some reaseon they used to loose some performance.

Other problem was, as always, the in-season development which was poor in comparison to other top-teams. Anyway I dont think they tried to hard in the last three races, they just fixed a few things with the remaining 2016 team, while the rest was already working on the 2017 car.

About the "Italian charater" which can be applied to other southern European countries, its true that they are always under a great pressure of getting good results "today better than tomorrow". Once again, the main responsability falls into Machione and the others. They need another Todt-Brawn leadership, but sadly I dont see this coming.

[TAG]

In the last decade two teams now have come into the sport essentially with a clean slate after regulation changes and built F1 dynasties. The reason Ferrari have failed to do likewise is that there is an atmosphere of (culture? expectation? arrogance?) that is always looking for success next season. What that creates is an eco system that is unable to set a long term plan of two or three years rebuilding, to have a real opportunity for a *win* in the third or fourth year of that long term plan. Without changing that fundamental ethos, we're going to see the same results over the next decade as well.

[Facts Only]

I always thought that their aim to win "every season" hampered their ability to win in any season. When the '14 car turned out ot be a dog they should have taken a step back and put a long term recovery plan in place ready for the next rule change ('17).

It always make me chuckle when people say how Mercedes 'underachieved' in 2010-2013, they didnt underachieve, they achieved exactly what they aimed for, which was preparation to dominate in 2014.

Would Ferrari culture ever allow them to essentially write-off 4 seasons? It was easier in the Brawn/Schumacher days because they had been on the back foot for nearly 20 seasons already. Its been nearly 10 seasons now since Ferrari won a drivers title, will it be another 10 before they realise that something is wrong and needs to be changed?

[Fer.Fan]

I always thought that their aim to win "every season" hampered their ability to win in any season. When the '14 car turned out ot be a dog they should have taken a step back and put a long term recovery plan in place ready for the next rule change ('17).

It always make me chuckle when people say how Mercedes 'underachieved' in 2010-2013, they didnt underachieve, they achieved exactly what they aimed for, which was preparation to dominate in 2014.

Would Ferrari culture ever allow them to essentially write-off 4 seasons? It was easier in the Brawn/Schumacher days because they had been on the back foot for nearly 20 seasons already. Its been nearly 10 seasons now since Ferrari won a drivers title, will it be another 10 before they realise that something is wrong and needs to be changed?

Ferrari's problem is lack of in season testing. When it was allowed Ferrari was among top teams. Ferrari simply needs more on track testing to verify all aspects of the new car. Red Bull for example are much better on software and aero development.