Why Does Ferrari not have a good car in years

Why is it that that Ferrari does not seem to have a good car for the past 5 years, is it because of thee testing ban? In previous years 97, 98, and 2006 when Ferrari fell behind they always manage to catchup towards the end of the season, why is it that they have not done so these years, is it because the lack of testing limits a team's ability to improve its cars?

 

Domenicalli. Same goes for Whitmarsh.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

 

A: Adrian Newey

Ferrari has had the second-best car in three of the last five years (arguably), but the problem is that Red Bull has been THE best car on the grid for four of them (with one brief re-appearance by McLaren in there). Just like the Schumacher era, sometimes you just get the right mix of drivers-designer-engine in a team and you have sustained magic. Take out RBR and FA is the guy we're talking about with 4 WDC's.

Unfortunately, they won't be the second-best car this year with a shot at winning it all. The car seemed to have very little upside at the start of the season (by all reports) and now we're seeing that play out.

 

McLaren had Newey many years. Ferrari managed against him fine with Brawn and Byrne. Ross Brawn is assembling the kind of team Ferrari had back in the day. I hope he's around when it pays off.

Ferrari is also still having windtunnel problems.

It is a management problem. Really it's Luca D's fault for still keeping him around.

 

True, but he's A LOT more experienced now .

 

I think Newey is simply at the top of his game right now. He is just a step ahead of every other team in terms of finding advantages within the rules.

 

Ferrari had many good cars including this year. It just isn't the best car. But they are regularly 2nd or 3rd in the championship.

Newey simply is better than their designer.

Also lets not forget that 2000-2004 they had a huge tire plus testing advantage.

 

The longer an organization under performs the higher up the org chart you look for remedy.

 

And driver advantage.

 

Not really as evidenced once they lost their tire advantage.

 

2000: Everyone on Bridgestones - Schumi WDC
2001: Main Rivals still on Bridgestones - Domination
2003: Michelins were better - Schumi WDC

You're acting like the Michelin was even with Bridgestone in 2005. In fact Michelin was much, much better.

But hey, if you don't want to call the "most successful" F1 driver of all time an advantage, go right ahead

 

And Bell's mass damper. Sizeable advantage.



Ferrari have reinvented themselves starting with the F2012, they are going their own direction and they are building staff as they should. Give them time. Next year we won't be speaking like this as Ferrari's engine and Benz's engine will own the field, and that's what next year will be more about than anything else, engines and clever engine/ERS maps.

 

I don't share the same confidence. Engiine development in F1 no longer exists. If one engine is better than the other, changes will be made to level the playing field. We've seen it already with Renault's V8 and it sucks.

Supposedly Byrne is the one working on next year's car. I guess we'll see if he has anything left to beat Newey. I'm hoping the Allison acquisition can help.

 

2014 will introduce a breakthrough in ERS and harvesting technology and application of such can work as a sort of traction control as well as bridge any sort of turbo lag gap. There is a 240+ page thread on F1technical with some clever engineers posting quite a bit, really fascinating discussion. I feel like I need to take a few classes to fully understand the extent of the discussion, but what I am picking up certainly makes sense.

 

My point remains, however, that it's not a guarantee that Ferrari's engine will be competitive and even if it is the best, that doesn't mean much anymore.

 

o k ;D

the only finite point I'm making is that these new engines/powertrains present far more options than just a vanilla naturally aspirated engine could ever provide, thus more variables for tuning/mapping/harvesting options. We're talking about 4 and 5 dimensional powertrain maps is all, in a few years time I'm sure everyone will well be equal in their understanding or thereabouts with what their powertrains are doing, but for at least the first couple of years it's going to be interesting to see who choses what and where. many many more options on the table with these things, and the rules as they are set at the moment offer zero clarity with regards to what ERS units can and cannot do when it comes to mapping and partial throttle/harvesting application.

 

I believe the opposite was true: The Bridgestone was custom made for the Ferrari. The ultimate advantage.

MS drove fantastically and helped greatly in the car development. But he wasn't an "advantage" because Alonso did the same for Renault.

Just like today: Seb doesn't drive any better or worse than Alonso. They're equal. RB's advantage lies in the designer.

 

Michelin's were clearly the faster tire. Bridgestone played it conservative, and didn't have the performance. It payed off at Indy though...

 

That was in 2005.

I was referring to 2000-2004.

 

I think that this only was important in 2002 and 2004. In 2003 the Michelins were better most of the time, and as said above, in 2000 and 2001 the main competitor was on Bridgestones too, and I don´t think that at that moment were custom made for the Ferrari.

The tyres helped, of course, but it was Ferrari´s reign of terror, not Bridgestone´s.

Yet, we shouldn´t forget that prior to the 5 years of red terror, the dream team suffered 4 years of pain. It´s not easy to win in F1. Just look at the other big one, McLaren: 1 drivers championship (and in the last corner) in 15 years. And let´s not talk about Williams, please.

 

They also had Schumacher and Brawn

 

Andreas is right on the mark here. Nothing to add.

 

Even when you put it like that MS was an advantage. Best driver on the grid and the hardest worker. You bring up Alonso but he could only match MS once he got old and bored. 1997-1998 was Michael putting Ferrari into contention. No one else could have done that and his skill and work paid off in the early-mid 2000s.

Similarly, Alonso is an advantage right now, IMO.

 

Because the aerodynamics are not working well with the rest of the car. They haven't been for years.

Time to get a new engineering team or chassis/aero engineer or at least a new head of engineering.

-F

 

I wouldn't have called MS old and bored in 2005 and 2006 yet Alonso beat him. The old MS sat in the MB.