Ferrari behind, and now want parity and spec parts?

[timbo]

Still arguing that the diffusor's are not legal? Can you get over it? The talent deficiency that I speak of is the 7 teams NOT exploiting the rules to the fullest extent. Any team that said to themselves "Well, there is alot to be gained there, but we aren't going to explore the limits." deserve to be behind. F1 is all about pushing the limits. Your team missed out, and if it was by choice, that makes it even WORSE!

By your logic Ferrari's elastic floor (banned after Australia 2007) was also legal.
It is funny that when it is red car that is on the edge of legality everyone screams bloody murder, but when others implement something that is clearly against ideas of OWG it is great!

[Conceptual]

Still arguing that the diffusor's are not legal? Can you get over it? The talent deficiency that I speak of is the 7 teams NOT exploiting the rules to the fullest extent. Any team that said to themselves "Well, there is alot to be gained there, but we aren't going to explore the limits." deserve to be behind. F1 is all about pushing the limits. Your team missed out, and if it was by choice, that makes it even WORSE!

By your logic Ferrari's elastic floor (banned after Australia 2007) was also legal.
It is funny that when it is red car that is on the edge of legality everyone screams bloody murder, but when others implement something that is clearly against ideas of OWG it is great!

I didn't scream about the flexi-floor. I didn't really have an opinion on it to be honest. The regs are pretty square about flexible bodywork, so a design that was made to purposely circumvent the test, and then flex during the race was done with the intent of breaking the black-and-white regs.

The DDD is an interpertation that is visible to the scrutineers and does not change during the race. I don't see how this is a very good comparison, as one was a legal interpretation, while the other was a lie (circumvented test).

Timbo, if you were the one designing the car for a team, would you NOT go outside the box wherever possible to find a competitive advantage, or would you restrict your own innovative ability to adhere to the "spirit" of the rules, knowing that others that you will be competing against will not?

I would like your personal opinion on how you would approach that, and if you are comfortable being at the back of the field, but feel good that your car has zero exploits?

[timbo]

I didn't scream about the flexi-floor. I didn't really have an opinion on it to be honest. The regs are pretty square about flexible bodywork, so a design that was made to purposely circumvent the test, and then flex during the race was done with the intent of breaking the black-and-white regs.

Well, you stated your opinion=)

Timbo, if you were the one designing the car for a team, would you NOT go outside the box wherever possible to find a competitive advantage, or would you restrict your own innovative ability to adhere to the "spirit" of the rules, knowing that others that you will be competing against will not?

I would like your personal opinion on how you would approach that, and if you are comfortable being at the back of the field, but feel good that your car has zero exploits?

Let's start that there is RB5 which is fast and doesn't have DDD. So you don't have to be at the back of the grid if you design a car in agreement with the spirit of the rules. I hope I could manage that as well as Newey did Now sadly Newey has to jump the bandwagon.

Now, if you think for a minute, you'd see that it is Toyota, Honda and Williams who used that "exploit". Both three didn't have a particularly good last few years. Maybe they were just desperate in attempt to reshuffle the pecking order?

[alexbarwell]

Am I right in recalling that the teams at one point had a gentlemans agreement to restrict excessive testing and that ferrari actually doubled their efforts - very honourable. To now say teams ought to cut back on excessive efforts and costs is just a bit hypocritical. The efforts to develop the floor and DDD (or lack of) stand to be similar for either team, but if one has missed a trick (DDD in this case) then they only have the extra cost of going back and starting again/re-developing. Guess this is all part of the reason that ferrari and renault were bitching about it so much, other teams kept an open mind and the instant DDD was ruled legal they were very near to adding it onto their car. When the rules don't go ferrari's way they drop to the back - remember pre-schumacher era when they were big red buses getting in the way when being lapped? If FIA opened one avenue and closed another each season then we could maintain this season's state of jokers in the pack, but lets not waste so much effort on legality and politics.
Also, not all mods work for each setup, so potentially some cars might not get much out of it.

[Conceptual]

Let's start that there is RB5 which is fast and doesn't have DDD. So you don't have to be at the back of the grid if you design a car in agreement with the spirit of the rules. I hope I could manage that as well as Newey did Now sadly Newey has to jump the bandwagon.

Now, if you think for a minute, you'd see that it is Toyota, Honda and Williams who used that "exploit". Both three didn't have a particularly good last few years. Maybe they were just desperate in attempt to reshuffle the pecking order?

The RB5 is fast because it has grip from downforce. Some teams found the downforce from the DDD design, and apparently RBR found it elsewhere.

Either way, by your logic, they are both against the spirit of the rules simply because they found ways to claw back downforce after the OWG worked to cut it in half of the 2006 levels.

The DDD teams were found to be just as far outside the regs as the RB5, so what is your point?

[The FOZ]

I'd like to say a few things to the "spirit of the rules" crowd:

There isn't a World Spirit of the Rules Championship.

No additional points are awarded for how much a team may be sticking to "the spirit of the rules"

In fact, if a team goes ahead and eliminates ALL of their downforce, will they get extra special treatment for being extra specially in the spirit of the rules? I think not.

I have yet to see any teams sponsored by "Spirit of the Rules"

This isn't little league Karting, this is the pinnacle of motorsport.

Nobody's making the teams run DDD's, and if anyone with an opinion that matters in this issue (read: team decision makers) wishes to run with the spirit of the rules, nothing's stopping them. Except, of course, the team owners, sponsors, and the rest of the competitive world.

Did I mention "The spirit of the rules" is largely subjective, whereas a rulebook, if written correctly, is far more objective?

[timbo]

The DDD teams were found to be just as far outside the regs as the RB5, so what is your point?

The idea of the OWG was not only to reduce downforce, but to shift wings/underbody downforce ratio so they would extract more from wings. And RB5 is just more efficient car by how it's producing downforce - wing dimensions are the same for all. You can't just slap additional wing in a way how DDD teams added channels to main diffuser.

[u401768]

Hi All - long time reader, but first time of posting. Here is the quote from the BBC web site:-

Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo has blamed "badly written rules" and his team's "presumptuous approach" for their continued struggles this season.

The Italian listed those among four reasons for Ferrari's lack of pace.

The others were that the Kers power-boost systems were not mandatory and that Ferrari started designing its 2009 car late due to its 2008 title battle.

I can see the DDD was a miss by ferrari, but do agree with the Kers - it should have been a set rule, or atleast left with the situation where the boost time could have been incresed. It was know a long time ago that the option of not going down the kers route at all and going for Areo could be a better mover, so should have had the equalisation option open. The only down side as ferrari etc get DDD, plus extended rear wing endplates....but then no rule is perfect.

[DaveKillens]

At the end of last season, McLaren and Ferrari were almost on par with each other. One team had won the WDC, while the other had captured the WCC. Both are winning, large, and well-budgeted teams. Both of these teams set about designing their '09 cars with similar components. Both designed in KERS and the single diffuser. And even in pre-season testing Ferrari appeared to posess an advantage over the Mclaren. So after four races where are the teams? Ferrari has 3 points against McLaren's 13. But Brawn is at 50 points, and that clearly displays both teams are behind in their expectations.
One path to success in racing is to have little rules changes so that all the cars eventually follow the same design philosophy and posess similar characteristics. Then spend more than the rest, hire the BEST driver and team managers, and success is guaranteed. Because all things being relativley equal on the technical front, having the best people gives you a marked advantage. That is part of why Michael Schumacher and Ferrari enjoyed their string of incredible record-breaking success. But allow the people with talent to leave, and then to find yourself involved in a season with lots of rules changes and possible multiple design philosophies, and then the road to success has to follow another path. And they are stumbling and staggering down that path. Personally I do not like seeing them fail. But I also have zero sympaty for Ferrari because everyone is operating under the same rules, and the truth is, other teams did a much better job at interpretating the rules. Not only did Brawn, Williams and Toyota discover the DDD, but others built better cars, witness the Red Bull.
Here's a quote from the latter part of Monty's comments.
And the third reason is that I think that inside the team there has been a little bit too much of a presumptuous approach.
http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/04/ ... rformance/
Personally, I believe that is one big reason. If not for the human errors comitted during the race weekend, and also considering the technical failures that should not have happened, Ferrari would be in much better shape. But they are not, because they are screwing up.

Agreed, KERS and the DDD controversy will bring about increased spending for the teams needing to close the gap. But I never heard Ferrari come to the defence of some smaller team that had to spend money to make changes because Ferrari discovered a grey area of the rules. Heck, just witness the brake "cooling" ducts introduced of the last couple of years. It is definitely a grey area of the rules (how come Ferrari has never gone public asking for this area of regulations to be changed for greater clarity?) and it obviously must posess some kind of performance advantage. But for another team to adopt this system means spending more money and resources.

Ferrari are master of the media and public perception. Truth is, they are as ruthless and competitive as anyone. To quote a child psychologist friend of mine "They don't play well with others". Historically, Ferrari have been masters of exploiting the grey areas of the rules book. And the rule book has always been full of vague regulations. Many people have complained about this for years and years. It's just that this time, someone else got the advantage, and Ferrari missed out. Now they are moaning and complaining. Gotta blame somebody when you screw up, why not blame the rules? Bottom line is, Ferrari are the ones at fault for their problems, and to pass the blame is just sour grapes.

[Conceptual]

At the end of last season, McLaren and Ferrari were almost on par with each other. One team had won the WDC, while the other had captured the WCC. Both are winning, large, and well-budgeted teams. Both of these teams set about designing their '09 cars with similar components. Both designed in KERS and the single diffuser. And even in pre-season testing Ferrari appeared to posess an advantage over the Mclaren. So after four races where are the teams? Ferrari has 3 points against McLaren's 13. But Brawn is at 50 points, and that clearly displays both teams are behind in their expectations.
One path to success in racing is to have little rules changes so that all the cars eventually follow the same design philosophy and posess similar characteristics. Then spend more than the rest, hire the BEST driver and team managers, and success is guaranteed. Because all things being relativley equal on the technical front, having the best people gives you a marked advantage. That is part of why Michael Schumacher and Ferrari enjoyed their string of incredible record-breaking success. But allow the people with talent to leave, and then to find yourself involved in a season with lots of rules changes and possible multiple design philosophies, and then the road to success has to follow another path. And they are stumbling and staggering down that path. Personally I do not like seeing them fail. But I also have zero sympaty for Ferrari because everyone is operating under the same rules, and the truth is, other teams did a much better job at interpretating the rules. Not only did Brawn, Williams and Toyota discover the DDD, but others built better cars, witness the Red Bull.
Here's a quote from the latter part of Monty's comments.
And the third reason is that I think that inside the team there has been a little bit too much of a presumptuous approach.
http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/04/ ... rformance/
Personally, I believe that is one big reason. If not for the human errors comitted during the race weekend, and also considering the technical failures that should not have happened, Ferrari would be in much better shape. But they are not, because they are screwing up.

Agreed, KERS and the DDD controversy will bring about increased spending for the teams needing to close the gap. But I never heard Ferrari come to the defence of some smaller team that had to spend money to make changes because Ferrari discovered a grey area of the rules. Heck, just witness the brake "cooling" ducts introduced of the last couple of years. It is definitely a grey area of the rules (how come Ferrari has never gone public asking for this area of regulations to be changed for greater clarity?) and it obviously must posess some kind of performance advantage. But for another team to adopt this system means spending more money and resources.

Ferrari are master of the media and public perception. Truth is, they are as ruthless and competitive as anyone. To quote a child psychologist friend of mine "They don't play well with others". Historically, Ferrari have been masters of exploiting the grey areas of the rules book. And the rule book has always been full of vague regulations. Many people have complained about this for years and years. It's just that this time, someone else got the advantage, and Ferrari missed out. Now they are moaning and complaining. Gotta blame somebody when you screw up, why not blame the rules? Bottom line is, Ferrari are the ones at fault for their problems, and to pass the blame is just sour grapes.

SEE! Even Monty says that there is a talent deficiency in the design department at Ferrari!

Hypocrisy is the defense of bigots and losers.

[Fil]

he has claimed factory complacency, not talent deficiency.

[DaveKillens]

And the third reason is that I think that inside the team there has been a little bit too much of a presumptuous approach.

Naw, he's talking about such things as the screw up in Massa'a qualifying in Malaysia where they didn't have him out at the end of the first session. Their arrogance cost them.

[Conceptual]

And the third reason is that I think that inside the team there has been a little bit too much of a presumptuous approach.

Naw, he's talking about such things as the screw up in Massa'a qualifying in Malaysia where they didn't have him out at the end of the first session. Their arrogance cost them.

I guess that I took the "presumptuous approach" as a lack of investigating the diffusor design because the rules mandate a maximum height. Like they "presumed" that there was no way to increase effectiveness, so they just made a simple one...

My bad if he was talking about Massa's Q1 letdown.

[DaveKillens]

Actually Conceptual, that makes sense too. But I substitute the word "presumptuous" with "arrogance". Sometimes it helps to be hungry, to search every avenue for any kind of gain. Ferrari, comfortable in the knowledge they had a well-sponsored car with an ample budget, coupled with the fact they have recently enjoyed a lot of success, took the diffuser rule and did not apply enough effort in seeking out any grey areas. Others did, the hungry and desperate teams.