What the hell is wrong with Ferrari's F1 team

Flip side if everyone agrees it's got to be wrong..

 

Technically he is, but this is one of the worst Ferraris ever put on the track. Top 5 for sure.

 

Alright, obviously didn't word myself very eloquently.

There are not 11 engine manufacturers in F1, you know better than that.

Yes, they are running with different power ranges but that has to do with the solution to the regulations that they've chosen. If they were all running the same type of drivetrains there wouldn't be any negating.

Yes, DRS is better than not having DRS with the design of the current cars and circuits. But that doesn't mean I have to be a fan of the idea. Well, at least it's much better than the Tweet-boost Formula E is getting (as a pundit said: it's like giving the fans at a football match the opportunity to hand out a random penalty in the middle of the game).

With regards to 'following' all cars. What I meant is that during an F1 race most of us don't keep track of all 22 cars at all times from start to finish. You select a few and you follow different battles and situations as they occur.

By similar to F1, I mean races that are relatively short in length, and races where there is a certain expectation by some fans that there is action 100% of the time. Endurance racing is in my opinion much more phased-based. (Of course F1 is too with regards to fuel load, fuel saving, tire strategy etc. but I hope you get my point.) Endurance racing is a bit more about the bigger picture, and it certainly is exciting how wonderfully close some cars can be after many many hours of racing. I've loved endurance racing ever since I saw Le Mans as a kid. There's a special aura to it that I think F1 has to some degree lost.

 

I thought that we already had left behind this cliché of "endurance racing is for real men and F1 is for uneducated rednecks"

You know that the BOP between LMP cars is altered regularly to keep the show entertaining. In GT cars BOP gives a even bigger margin to alter the outcome depending on if it´s the 100th anniversary of "certain" manufacturer, and even then there are arbitrary dispensations, like the BMWs that had the gearbox moved to the rear.

I enjoy Le Resistance, but it´s as WWFish as F1 is.

 

I'm not supporting or pursuing the cliche, I'm simply trying to portray two different forms of racing with different appeals.

 

I actually think that there is not big difference between the two in the way they try to desperately improve the show and attract more manufacturers with increasingly complex regulations to level the field.

 

Mercedes success has something to do with Ferrari's lackluster performance.

Perhaps Mercedes is better with turbo technology since they have a lot more experience using them in street cars for many years.

Of course chassis and aero are also important. Not sure if the Ferrari is up to the Mercedes in these areas.

In the area of driver talent, I think Ferrari and Mercedes are about equal.

And in the area of pit stops and race strategy again Ferrari and Mercedes are probably equal.

IMO, one wouldn't expect to see the Mercedes dominate in such a one-sided way, at every race and with such a wide margin of victory, if the cars were more equally matched in terms of turbo/engine, aero and chassis.

 

Definitely something to consider.

 

it's not so much Ferrari's fault - to me - it's the system. Follow my logic; the previous 4 years; Red Bull hit a perfect design/driver combo. With the first 3 races being flyaway, there are no developments; by then the stone is cast. There is a dominant team and everyone plays catch up; this year, no exception. It takes all year to make incremental improvements to gain on the leader. Because of that; some improvements, some steps backwards, you get turmoil...people getting fired, new design ideas; wait until next year etc.
It's almost impossible to overtake the top team once the season starts. (I haven't even mentioned all these crazy tire variations that teams need to try and figure out)
These cars are on such a razor edge, if it's not perfect over the winter; they're toast..........

 

Yep. Testing ban completely sucks. Only caveat is - How did Ferrari ever let that get passed?

 

What's wrong with Ferrari's F1 Team, answer is they SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!

 

They were overruled; it's a hot topic. When I went to Maranello on the track tour they specifically mentioned how they can't use their own test track, and what a hindrance that was....

Also - dont forget for two years they didn't have a working wind tunnel in Maranello.....

 

What are the chances of the restrictions on testing being loosened up?

 

I think the chances are getting better and better with each passing season yet this could be just wishful thinking on my part. If I am not mistaken I did read something here about this actually having a chance. I say drop all the ERS non-sense and let the teams put that development money into actual testing.

 

As a racing team Ferrari has the greatest resources to be a success. Money, experience, private tracks, wind tunnels. Testing was made illegal. There you go.

 

There is no limit - either ways - in the numbers of manufacturers in LMP1, LMP2 or GTE.
You can enter or leave the championship as you want.



F1 doesn't allow engine suppliers to make their own choice; it imposes capacity, fuel, configuration, bore, etc...

In endurance, Audi runs a Diesel turbo V6, Porsche a Petrol turbo V4 and Toyota an atmo petrol V8.

Technically, endurance is more interesting to follow.

Apart from Le Mans, there is a World Championship for LMP1, LMP2 and GTE.

LMP2 and GTE also have regional championship in North America, Asia and Europe.

I would say endurance races are far more entertaining than F1, and also less predictable
What about that for choice?

 

+1

 

Great choices! I'm watching more and more of those.

 

The wind tunnel situation hurt but they could have vetoed the testing ban. They chose not to for political reasons and have rued it since.

 

Continuing:

1965 to 1975 - 10 years of not so good cars. Took Lauda to get the ship in order
1976 to 1982 - Ferrari produced good or okay cars but were slow on the ground affects but won the 1982 consolation prize
1983 to 1996 - Ferrari returned to producing rubbish cars, except for Barnards early 90's cars were quick with a 2nd in 1990 thanks to Prost
1996 - Ferrari effectively bought the brains behind the Benetton team
1997 to 2002 - Ferrari (er, Benetton) produced very good cars
2003 was a massive dud
2004 again was a beauty
2005 to now were not so good, although we managed to fluke 2007's WDC with clever politics sidelining McLaren

So since 1950 there have been maybe 11 years out of 55 years where they produced good cars if I exclude the years where there was no opposition. If I add the years where Benettons were repainted red then we produced 17 good cars.

Considering the resources they have it is not great, but to be fair until FIAT took over they had tight budgets AND the difference between a dominating car and a rubbish car can be only half a second a lap, so it is NOT easy.
Pete

 

What surprises me is Williams is 2nd with WCC and McLaren is 3rd.

Ferrari-16
Williams-9
McLaren-8

 

"Tempers reach boiling point"?

F1: Tempers reach boiling point as Ferrari?s struggles continue | SPEED | The Motors On FOX Blog

 

As bad as this year might seem, Ferrari has had far worse, years where even podiums didn't happen (though in at least one race, one car was on its way to victory when it broke): 1969, 1973, 1980.

 

Yes you would expect McLaren to be second.

In conclusion Ferrari have done pretty well and motorsport at this level is simply not easy and it is probably getting harder, although RedBull came from nowhere and nailed it ... ???

But we cannot expect Ferrari to dominate every year.
Pete

 

Now we see if Mattiacchi can run a team.