2017 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

[ME4ME]

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.

When did anyone say that ever? Not that you're wrong though.

[Facts Only]

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.

When did anyone say that ever? Not that you're wrong though.

Last time I saw it was over on the Merc team thread just a couple of days ago.

It was a more prevailent accusation back in 2010-2013 when they were seen as a big money works team that were stuck in the midfield. Truth was upper midfield was pretty good for a team that was restructuring, a car that was being used as a testbed and an engine that was just running out its lifespan.

[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?

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.

What like 1980 - 1995 when they were one of the top teams?

But yes I do agree that the in season testing has hampered Ferrari... mainly because they had the advantage of having there own test track removed. When the playing field got levelled they fell back.

In the last 35 years their only really successful period has been the Schumacher/Brawn era and its hangover to 2008 where they had taken time to build a proper team. Either side of that has been a standard yo-yo'ing between best of the rest and the midfield.

[ME4ME]

Last time I saw it was over on the Merc team thread just a couple of days ago.

It was a more prevailent accusation back in 2010-2013 when they were seen as a big money works team that were stuck in the midfield. Truth was upper midfield was pretty good for a team that was restructuring, a car that was being used as a testbed and an engine that was just running out its lifespan.

I'm not aware of such accusations being made. However if they were, you're absolutly right. There is no foundation to any such statement. The Brackley team was underfunded in 2009, which affected them in 2010 and 11. They did do their share of innovation with the Double DRS. Then in 2013 before the summer break it looked like they might challenge for the title before eventually getting crushed. But by that time there were already rumours of how mightly they would become. Never did they stagnate or deteriorate to the extent Ferrari has sometimes done.

[bhall II]

Very much a common refrain. Well, it is for me, anyway.

Mercedes owes a great deal for its current place to the three years it spent doing stuff like this

It's also very much the reason for Allison's departure. Marchionne simply doesn't understand that reliability issues can be every bit as helpful as they are hurtful, especially for a team with legitimate Championship aspirations.

[TAG]

Very much a common refrain. Well, it is for me, anyway.

Seems to be common for anyone not wearing a red uniform.

[ME4ME]

Ferrari wrong to let Allison go

"I believe so. I do not know the internal issues, but I worked many years with James and I have enormous respect for him," Symonds added.

"He is an intellectual, a superb engineer and a team leader who brings people along. I think Ferrari today would be better if there he was still with them."

The Briton reckons Ferrari's new horizontal structure, introduced after Allison left, will not work out.

"This idea does not work, trust me," he added. "McLaren has recently introduced a non-pyramid structure, but in F1 there are engines and technicians who have strong opinions.

"There are people who know how to work in teams, but they also need to then take individual decisions to indicate the direction to follow. Ross Brawn was terrific at that, at the time of Ferrari – as was Rory Byrne, who is still in Maranello. Ferrari can make it, but it must have a strong leader."

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/symon ... es-859260/

[Phil]

I wonder how much Ferraris lack of success has to do with the sport moving away from where they might have excelled in the early-mid 2000 seasons. Back then, I understand that Ferrari invested more into the success than nearly any other team. They had the right team in place, the right people, right down to the right driver and of course also testing helped to perfect the winning formula and harmony of both. To some degree, there was a bruteforce method being applied to succeed in multiple areas.

Does this still work in todays climate and market when the sport has become more competitive and arguably, the cars better and closer to what is possible? As an example of that - back when the cars were more difficult and dangerous to drive, a driver could take a car places where others might not. Is this still possible now days? It might be - under very specific circumstances - like wet track conditions where some drivers excel at pushing the limit where others might not in fear of crashing or losing control. Back then when cars used to be less on rails (= less aero), the drivers resulted in a lot more variation. Then you also had the element of the car. Reliability was an area of importance, but also the way the car was driveable was a perhaps a significant factor in how a driver could extract more or less from the car he was given. Fast forward to today and with more aero and downforce, the sport safer, the cars have arguably become easier to extract performance from. In todays F1, the best drivers in the same car are probably separated by tenths, if not hundreths of a second, whereas if you'd force them to drive an F1 car from the 90ties, those very same drivers would probably be separated by a larger margin, just as they are today when you introduce the element of rain or unpredictable circumstances.

Then there is also the point that Ferrari is quite far away. There is obviously a pool of talent moving around F1, but how many are willing to pursue a career in Italy when all the other teams (bar one or two) are in the UK. I think I remember reading that one of the reasons why Newey could never be persuaded to go to Ferrari was due to location.

Anyway, what does Ferrari need to do to succeed? FactsOnly pointed it out - they need to be ahead of the curve. They seem to much to be in a reactive state - always a step behind. And I wonder how much has to do with the mentality. The pressure is immense to succeed on some level and maybe, just maybe, that is also hampering them in performing at their best? Fear of failure?

[bhall II]

Ferrari wrong to let Allison go

Yuge loss! Tremendous mistake! So wrong!



"Make Ferrari great again!"

[TAG]

Jesus man, have you no shame? It burns!!!

[bhall II]

"When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck." —James Whitcomb Riley

EDIT: I moved the rest to the speculation thread, which seems more appropriate.

[Vasconia]

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.

When did anyone say that ever? Not that you're wrong though.

There was some pressure over the team to get instant results(like it happens with Ferrari) but its clear they they used their founds to build a team and car for 2014. What I have asked myself always if why Michael decided to take part on this. There was no real chance fo them to fight for the championship in at least 3 years.

[bhall II]

It's not like Mercedes deliberately tanked three or four seasons; Brawn & Co. just had enough discipline to pull the plug when necessary in order to shift the team's focus to long-term goals. That's a strategy Ferrari's schizophrenic brain trust clearly doesn't understand.

"We started late with the 2015 car, certain choices and strategies that were made by others and that, in retrospect, I don't necessarily share," [Marchionne] said.

Ferrari has revealed that it started work on its 2016 Formula 1 car later than it planned to continue working on the SF15-T that won three races last year. But what consequences will this have on their title challenge?

The Italian company’s chairman, Sergio Marchionne, explained that while the team had started work its 2016 chassis late, he was confident the squad would not be hindered by the delayed start.

“Maurizio [Arrivabene] will tell you we delayed some things to allow for the 2015 car to be finished.

“Hopefully he will not bitch about this. We pushed the start of some of the work on the 2016 cars on the chassis, delayed it a bit.

Rather than sitting back and simply hoping for answers, Marchionne has taken it upon himself to push things forward.

Motorsport.com has learned that he has held a series of key meetings at Maranello with the chassis and aerodynamic departments – with a particular focus on speaking to those who report to department heads as well as their juniors.

Marchionne is determined to find out whether or not there is a belief from the shop floor that more potential can be extracted from the SF16-H, and if the true state of progress of the car is as he has been led to believe by senior management.

(Dude has the consistency of diarrhea.)

[Vasconia]

It's not like Mercedes deliberately tanked three or four seasons; Brawn & Co. just had enough discipline to pull the plug when necessary in order to shift the team's focus to long-term goals. That's a strategy Ferrari's schizophrenic brain trust clearly doesn't understand.

"We started late with the 2015 car, certain choices and strategies that were made by others and that, in retrospect, I don't necessarily share," [Marchionne] said.

Ferrari has revealed that it started work on its 2016 Formula 1 car later than it planned to continue working on the SF15-T that won three races last year. But what consequences will this have on their title challenge?

The Italian company’s chairman, Sergio Marchionne, explained that while the team had started work its 2016 chassis late, he was confident the squad would not be hindered by the delayed start.

“Maurizio [Arrivabene] will tell you we delayed some things to allow for the 2015 car to be finished.

“Hopefully he will not bitch about this. We pushed the start of some of the work on the 2016 cars on the chassis, delayed it a bit.

Rather than sitting back and simply hoping for answers, Marchionne has taken it upon himself to push things forward.

Motorsport.com has learned that he has held a series of key meetings at Maranello with the chassis and aerodynamic departments – with a particular focus on speaking to those who report to department heads as well as their juniors.

Marchionne is determined to find out whether or not there is a belief from the shop floor that more potential can be extracted from the SF16-H, and if the true state of progress of the car is as he has been led to believe by senior management.

(Dude has the consistency of diarrhea.)

Yes, the idea was "we are going to suffer 2-3 season but this will pay off" as it has clearly done.

I can´t expect Ferrari reaching to this conclusion, sadly.

[Facts Only]

It's not like Mercedes deliberately tanked three or four seasons; Brawn & Co. just had enough discipline to pull the plug when necessary in order to shift the team's focus to long-term goals.

I'll have to correct you there. They didn't deliberatly 'tank' seasons but there was no aim to win either so plugs didnt need to be pulled. They were follwing a very deliberate curve laid out in 2010 that ended in 2014 with WDC and WCC.

I expect Renault to do something similar, I dont expect Ferrari to learn anything from it.