2017 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

[Santozini]

Get Alonso in there and have a serious go at the WCC

But so could Hamilton and i think Hamilton would me more motivated to do so at Ferrari than Alonso returning there.

Also, wasn't there some speculation or news that Marchionne was going to be replaced? Would that influence the F1 team somehow?

Sergio Marchionne said he will be leaving at the end of his contract in 2019. Fiat is currently looking for his replacement even though its two years away.

http://www.ansa.it/english/news/busines ... b3add.html

http://fcauthority.com/2017/06/fca-ceo- ... interview/

That's too long! As much as I like Kimi, he needs to make space to someone more competitive. Ferrari needs 2 top drivers and I'm afraid Kimi has lost some speed

[Phil]

For yesterday's race I cannot imagine any situation in which Kimi would have come 3rd, the position he HAS TO REACH IN THAT FERRARI! Even while trying to undercut Hamilton I'm sure he would have been passed by Hamilton. So it's Kimi massively underperforming vs. the car's speed that is costing Ferrari the WCC (if it does in the end).

I beg to differ. Hamilton's car was set-up for SS, that much was evident. He closed the gap to Kimi on the first stint but was unable to pass him or even get close to one. So Mercedes decided to abandon that strategy (long SS and then short US) for the reverse (shorter SS, longer US stint). This was a compromise.

Once Hamilton pitted, a very good in-lap and out-lap meant that Hamilton was virtually ahead of Kimi, so Ferrari decided to not pit immediately. With every lap that they left Kimi out, they were increasing the virtual gap between Hamilton and Kimi. After a few laps, it was evident that Hamilton wasn't happy complaining about too much oversteer. If Ferrari had opted to pit Kimi (instead of keeping him out to later hold up Bottas), he would have come out behind Hamilton anywhere between 2 and 8 seconds. The closer that gap would have been, the more pressure Kimi would have put on Hamilton with the more stable tire (SS) vs Hamilton on the US that needed to last until the end of the race. Would it have been enough to regain that position? Who knows. Probably not, but I'll tell you he'd be a lot closer to doing exactly that, then holding up Bottas on extremely old tires for something that only benefited his team-mate. I'd imagine Kimi would have also been happier and more motivated to be chasing after Hamilton, rather than being left out to dry for a battle that wouldn't benefit his own race in the slightest.

As I said in the other topic, I don't blame Ferrari at all. They (probably) did the smart thing. I also think the fact that Mercedes seems to be getting stronger (Canada, Baku and now Austria are all races that Mercedes seemed to have comfortably under control) is reason enough to believe that Ferrari may be getting a little nervous and they know Vettel is the more consistent of the two. I just dislike it a bit how they are treating Kimi. When they were talking to him over the radio ("Hamilton is not happy with the car blablaba), they were making him believe he was still battling with Hamilton for position when in fact, that was long gone and dusted and his sole purpose had become to hold up Bottas.

To get one thing clear though: If Kimi's performance would be closer to Vettel in these races, Ferrari and Kimi wouldn't find themselves in this position in the first place. If Kimi no longer wants to play the pawn, he needs to start beating Vettel on pace.

In regards to driver market for 2018 - Ferrari should think carefully about what they want to achieve. If they decide to not renew Kimi's contract and go with a younger and/or more ambitious driver, doing these kind of things will not be as easy anymore. Alonso (if he is being considered in some form) will have none of it, a potential Sainz or someone of similar caliber will not be happy about it either. A more consistent/quicker driver might yield certain benefits, but may also yield disadvantages.

I think James Allen recently said about Ferrari that they are a team that historically put more weight and importance behind winning the WDC than the WCC. Everything that I have seen so far of Ferrari seems to confirm that IMO.

[Mandrake]

I beg to differ. Hamilton's car was set-up for SS, that much was evident. He closed the gap to Kimi on the first stint but was unable to pass him or even get close to one. So Mercedes decided to abandon that strategy (long SS and then short US) for the reverse (shorter SS, longer US stint). This was a compromise.

Once Hamilton pitted, a very good in-lap and out-lap meant that Hamilton was virtually ahead of Kimi, so Ferrari decided to not pit immediately. With every lap that they left Kimi out, they were increasing the virtual gap between Hamilton and Kimi. After a few laps, it was evident that Hamilton wasn't happy complaining about too much oversteer. If Ferrari had opted to pit Kimi (instead of keeping him out to later hold up Bottas), he would have come out behind Hamilton anywhere between 2 and 8 seconds. The closer that gap would have been, the more pressure Kimi would have put on Hamilton with the more stable tire (SS) vs Hamilton on the US that needed to last until the end of the race. Would it have been enough to regain that position? Who knows. Probably not, but I'll tell you he'd be a lot closer to doing exactly that, then holding up Bottas on extremely old tires for something that only benefited his team-mate. I'd imagine Kimi would have also been happier and more motivated to be chasing after Hamilton, rather than being left out to dry for a battle that wouldn't benefit his own race in the slightest.

On the first paragraph, Setup: I highly doubt that anyone would setup a car for one specific tire. Cars are set up to be fastest around a lap, maybe in case of Hamilton with a slight focus on more top speed and less cornering. But sacrificing 1/3 of the race with the other tire and suboptimal handling does not make any sense to me. In general: the temps were so much higher than in the practise sessions, everyone had blisters and issues with the tires. So I strongly believe all the "bad handling" came from tires not feeling good on the hot tarmac.

Paragraph 2: In the race it quickly became obvious that the US and SS tires lasted a lot longer than anticipated, even in the hot temperatures. Hamilton on the softer (read faster) tire vs. Kimi on the slower tire would always have lead to Hamilton staying in front. Despite being unhappy with his tires, Hamilton reduced the gap to the leaders. I doubt Kimi could have followed. The worst about all of this is that Kimi, in that very moment where it counted for the strategy to block Bottas, made a crucial error by outbraking himself into turn 3 and making passing easy. Even this is something that Bottas did way better back in Spain where he cost Vettel multiple seconds. Bottas lost next to nothing.

[evered7]

For yesterday's race I cannot imagine any situation in which Kimi would have come 3rd, the position he HAS TO REACH IN THAT FERRARI! Even while trying to undercut Hamilton I'm sure he would have been passed by Hamilton. So it's Kimi massively underperforming vs. the car's speed that is costing Ferrari the WCC (if it does in the end).

I beg to differ. Hamilton's car was set-up for SS, that much was evident. He closed the gap to Kimi on the first stint but was unable to pass him or even get close to one. So Mercedes decided to abandon that strategy (long SS and then short US) for the reverse (shorter SS, longer US stint). This was a compromise.

Bottas pulled a big enough gap to Vettel on US tires that the performance advantage or whatever Vettel had on SS didn't count for much in the end including a slow pitstop for Bottas. Hamilton closed a 4.6 sec gap to Kimi even while on slower tires. And on a decreasing fuel load, would have been on the faster of the two tires.

Can we agree that Mercs' best tire was US and Ferrari's was SS? If so, then there wasn't much Kimi could do even if he was just a couple of seconds behind Hamilton after the pitstop.

In the initial laps after the pitstop, Hamilton complained. But later, his performance was better than Kimi and for most parts Ricciardo as well which is why he closed a 4.5 sec gap to try & take the 3rd spot off RB.

Finally, Hamilton had new US available and the Ferraris had new SS available. Considering that the one that did Q2 gave them over 30 laps of pace (41 in case of Bottas), I fail to see why Hamilton would have had issues getting them to the end. He had to do 40 laps.

[Phil]

On the first paragraph, Setup: I highly doubt that anyone would setup a car for one specific tire. Cars are set up to be fastest around a lap, maybe in case of Hamilton with a slight focus on more top speed and less cornering. But sacrificing 1/3 of the race with the other tire and suboptimal handling does not make any sense to me. In general: the temps were so much higher than in the practise sessions, everyone had blisters and issues with the tires. So I strongly believe all the "bad handling" came from tires not feeling good on the hot tarmac.

It has been noted this is what Mercedes concentrated on Friday when it was clear to them that Hamilton would incur a grid penalty while their main competitors did not. They concealed it throughout Friday to not allow Ferrari/RedBull to know that Hamilton/Mercedes would be driving the race on a different strategy (reverse) and counter-act that. This much has been reported in the analysis by AMuS (I posted the link in the Austrian GP topic).

Tire performance is everything.

This much is clear when you analyze the performance of particularly Mercedes in Singapore '14, Monaco '15 and more recent in especially the earlier part of this season.

Put yourself in Mercedes position. You know you will not be starting on the front row. Under the assumption you will be starting at best 6th, you can no longer run the optimum strategy but have to perhaps set up your car to the new requirements you'd be facing. Passing cars is one of them. So it makes sense to optimize for a slightly higher top speed (less drag) vs outright cornering performance. If however you know there is a large chance of being on pole, you might just concentrate on getting the best 1-lap performance. You might recall that RedBull used to do this quite well from especially 2011 till 2013 when they arguably lacked top-end, but had very good 1 lap pace. We could see this in races where Vettel (and Webber) disappeared into the distance from the front, but when in traffic, they had a bigger challenge to get past traffic. One of the other better examples though I forgot which particular race it was, was when Vettel was disqualified in QF and RedBull opted to have him start from the pit-lane and changed pretty much everything on his car to make passing as easy as possible.

Teams rarely set up their car for the one perfect set-up because it doesn't exist. It's always a trade-off between compromises. More topspeed at the cost of cornering speed or vice-versa. A team starting in traffic will choose differently than a team with a chance at pole depending on the track. At Monaco where passing is next to impossible, track position is everything, so you gamble on best 1-lap pace. If you know you can pass easily, you may not and top-end might be more crucial in either gaining positions or defending them. Then there's also the point that you qualify on a light car, but on Sunday, most of the race you are driving with heavy fuel loads. No point in completely focusing on a light car for that reason.

So yes, I am fairly certain and confident that Hamiltons car was not ideally set-up for a pole position or for a race from the front row. To have done so would have been idiotic. They knew the race they were going to have and they knew the car would have to be optimized around the compromise of starting on the SS (doing the race in reverse) and perhaps focusing on a bit of top-end speed at the expense of out right downforce in the corners.

So "sacrificing a 1/3 of the race" makes perfect sense to me, under the assumption that it nearly netted them 3rd position, with 4th being the most likely goal. And it's not as if the 1/3 was completely sacrificed - assuming a rather short(er) stint on US at the end, you'd make up some of that set-up deficit by having the softer compound while your direct competitors are on, at that point, worn SS.

So again, Hamilton was going extremely well on his first stint on the SS tire. That much was evident by the pace he had relative to everyone else on the US. His strategy relied on a long SS stint. Kimi successfully was blocking Hamilton so they forced him on a sub par and ambitious strategy by pitting early. That should have opened the door for Kimi to be a bigger challenger than he was. I am by no means saying that Kimi could have taken back that position - that is up for the stars, but it would have been quite interesting to see at the very least. And this to where I point to Kimis pace when they did finally pit him vs. Hamilton at that stage of the race.

It's all good, I have no beef with Ferrari either way. I'm just calling it as it is, that's all.

[iotar__]

I beg to differ. Hamilton's car was set-up for SS, that much was evident. He closed the gap to Kimi on the first stint but was unable to pass him or even get close to one. So Mercedes decided to abandon that strategy (long SS and then short US) for the reverse (shorter SS, longer US stint). This was a compromise.

On the first paragraph, Setup: I highly doubt that anyone would setup a car for one specific tire.
(large chunks deleted)

- Don't worry, no one (in general) did apart from some obvious changes. It's the same baloney as wet set up that costs 0,17 s and deserves the same place - excuses for Q. The fact that you qualify (everyone in Q3) on US and will use it anyway although on a lighter car (the obvious changes part). Track position - still the most important especially with a penalty - overrides any focus on SS.

- I'm not the one to brag but impact of starting on SS was exactly as predicted , not a problem against slower cars in front and some advantage during pitstops time. Although in this case (Raikkonen) secondary to pace.

- About Ferrari - Merc stint dynamic, it was still a bit like Russia but not that big of a difference. For example not much of a drop off on US (fairly strong in Sochi). Speculation: perhaps Bottas was pushing more in case of a penalty?

[NathanOlder]

For yesterday's race I cannot imagine any situation in which Kimi would have come 3rd, the position he HAS TO REACH IN THAT FERRARI! Even while trying to undercut Hamilton I'm sure he would have been passed by Hamilton. So it's Kimi massively underperforming vs. the car's speed that is costing Ferrari the WCC (if it does in the end). For front positions they can only rely on Vettel. It was the same in Monaco. Kimi could not have won on pace, just by Pit Strategy to his favour.

Bottas on the other hand is showing serious pace, confidence and does not fail under pressure. He's gonna create more than a couple of headaches at Mercedes. Maybe this is going to be a repeat of 2007. Ferrari with the slower car in qualifying not able to win the races even if the race pace is on par / slightly better but being helped by the Mercedes drivers taking points off each other.

Kimi could have had 4th for sure if Ferrari boxed Kimi the lap Lewis pitted. Lewis couldnt pass Kimi when he was on SS (Lewis pace was stronger on SS than US) so he prob wouldn't have passed Kimi when on the US. 4th was very realistic until Ferrari played their game.

[CBeck113]

For yesterday's race I cannot imagine any situation in which Kimi would have come 3rd, the position he HAS TO REACH IN THAT FERRARI! Even while trying to undercut Hamilton I'm sure he would have been passed by Hamilton. So it's Kimi massively underperforming vs. the car's speed that is costing Ferrari the WCC (if it does in the end). For front positions they can only rely on Vettel. It was the same in Monaco. Kimi could not have won on pace, just by Pit Strategy to his favour.

Bottas on the other hand is showing serious pace, confidence and does not fail under pressure. He's gonna create more than a couple of headaches at Mercedes. Maybe this is going to be a repeat of 2007. Ferrari with the slower car in qualifying not able to win the races even if the race pace is on par / slightly better but being helped by the Mercedes drivers taking points off each other.

Kimi could have had 4th for sure if Ferrari boxed Kimi the lap Lewis pitted. Lewis couldnt pass Kimi when he was on SS (Lewis pace was stronger on SS than US) so he prob wouldn't have passed Kimi when on the US. 4th was very realistic until Ferrari played their game.

Hindsight is 20/20, but when looking at Bottas' speed on the US, I would not have risked trying to put Kimi in fourth when they knew Ham, who is usually quicker than Valerii, was getting the US and could possibly attack Seb, especially if a safety car came out. And, like Phil wrote, Ferrari wants the WDC more than the WCC (it's the title everyone talks about, the WCC can be used by a normal manufacturer for a couple of commercials).

[motobaleno]

Get Alonso in there and have a serious go at the WCC

But so could Hamilton and i think Hamilton would me more motivated to do so at Ferrari than Alonso returning there.

Also, wasn't there some speculation or news that Marchionne was going to be replaced? Would that influence the F1 team somehow?

Sergio Marchionne said he will be leaving at the end of his contract in 2019. Fiat is currently looking for his replacement even though its two years away.

http://www.ansa.it/english/news/busines ... b3add.html

http://fcauthority.com/2017/06/fca-ceo- ... interview/

that refers to the CEO position in FCA.
CEO and chairman position in Ferrari is a different question

FCA and FERRARI splitted recently and now they are separated companies.

[Mandrake]

On the first paragraph, Setup: I highly doubt that anyone would setup a car for one specific tire. Cars are set up to be fastest around a lap, maybe in case of Hamilton with a slight focus on more top speed and less cornering. But sacrificing 1/3 of the race with the other tire and suboptimal handling does not make any sense to me. In general: the temps were so much higher than in the practise sessions, everyone had blisters and issues with the tires. So I strongly believe all the "bad handling" came from tires not feeling good on the hot tarmac.

It has been noted this is what Mercedes concentrated on Friday when it was clear to them that Hamilton would incur a grid penalty while their main competitors did not. They concealed it throughout Friday to not allow Ferrari/RedBull to know that Hamilton/Mercedes would be driving the race on a different strategy (reverse) and counter-act that. This much has been reported in the analysis by AMuS (I posted the link in the Austrian GP topic).

So yes, I am fairly certain and confident that Hamiltons car was not ideally set-up for a pole position or for a race from the front row. To have done so would have been idiotic. They knew the race they were going to have and they knew the car would have to be optimized around the compromise of starting on the SS (doing the race in reverse) and perhaps focusing on a bit of top-end speed at the expense of out right downforce in the corners.

So "sacrificing a 1/3 of the race" makes perfect sense to me, under the assumption that it nearly netted them 3rd position, with 4th being the most likely goal. And it's not as if the 1/3 was completely sacrificed - assuming a rather short(er) stint on US at the end, you'd make up some of that set-up deficit by having the softer compound while your direct competitors are on, at that point, worn SS.

Large parts deleted.

I appreciate your lengthy answers Phil though with regards to setting up a car I believe we need someone with good knowledge to jump in to help answering the questions (and we are steering more towards off topic here).

First up, would Ferrari have done anything differently had they known about the Hamilton Penalty before? Every team tries to be as fast as possible and there is usually only one way / strategy to achieve that. So I don't buy that argument....even AMuS does not give any details about a possible benefit other than stating Toto's claim.

Let's gather some facts: Pirelli sets minimum pressures and camber - the teams will max this out to gain max performance. I doubt someone goes with higher pressure or less camber

The tires differ by the amount of grip they offer, the durability and their sensitivity to track temperatures.

The wing angles (and specs) are usually set to the best compromise between top speed and cornering, depending on the mechanical grip available, to reach the optimum laptime.

Given my broad but limited to SimRacing knowledge about how to setup a car, single seater or GT car, there is not too much you can adjust given parc fermé rules. Easiest thing is to go for less wing with minor changes to the mechanical setup to shift advantage to the straights rather than the corners. Bear in mind though that you need to stay close during the corners to be able to make the pass on the straight. Therefore again, changes are small. Then usually the race is going to be easier on the more grippy tire because it compensates quite a lot of the aerodynamic downsides. In the case of Hamilton you could see that after initial issues with the US, we went on to be quickest with the US and catching the leaders, not indicating that his setup was overall compromised to work with the US as well. I believe that if you account for the time lost at the start and behind other cars, Hamilton had the fastest overall race time. This would not be possible if he was set up solely for the SS tire.

The thing that threw off all teams and drivers was the "exceptionally high" track temperature which was not experienced in the FP sessions.

Now if someone with real life experience could chime in and tell me where my setup understanding is flawed I would be very grateful. As long as no one does I do not believe in statements such as "car was set up for Quali / Race / SuperSoft Tire" as explanation for performance differences.

[Fifty]

Just a side note, on every discussion in the world about RB, they talk about the mechanical errors effecting MV.

Has anyone listed or itemized the mechanical issues effecting KR in comparison to SV?

I mean, he was having some sort of an issue in Austria, and it seems the last few races as well. I have not put the effort into seeing what those were....

But shouldn't that be taken into account for his "laggardly" results, not counting qualifying...

[ClarkBT11]

10 minutes of deleting (major off topic):mrgreen:

When Hamilton changed from SS to US the mechanics didn't take any wing out on the front, that's why he was struggling with the rear. When the front tyres gave up some grip, the balance came back and started matching or slightly quicker in s2 were he was loosing out previously in he middle of the US stint.

Hamilton Q2 lap on SS to Q3 lap lost Hamilton the feel in the car. If he went from US to US he would of had more information for Q3. Mercedes aren't going to concentrate setup on one tyre over the other that wouldn't be the fastest race strategy.

[munudeges]

Get Alonso in there and have a serious go at the WCC

That would not be a good idea. The team would implode instantly. Raikkonen keeps his own council. Alonso, most decidedly, does not.

[munudeges]

Bottas on the other hand is showing serious pace, confidence and does not fail under pressure.

Bottas clearly has a well prepared car, in every way the equal of Hamilton's, and a team that is backing and allowing him to win. I'm afraid winning in Formula 1 is a team game. Monaco was a very, very clear picture of how Ferrari views Raikkonen's position and Vettel's face after qualifying told you he hadn't expected that to happen.

[Sonador]

You cant blame Ferrari for the extra support towards Vettel.
Ferrari have always suported one driver over the other, it has worked for hem in the past!
And Vettel deserves that after winning 4 titles, even though he can be a a bit of an ......
Kimi is quick, but ever since he won the title he seems a bit lacklustre, it is a shame because the speed is there.

I like him al lot, i stil have fond memories of him fighting Ferrari's Schumacher in his Mclaren.