2845 replies to this topic

[mardmarium]

But according to yours views the driver is completely useless. Just get a good box engeneer tam and you will build WDC.

 

 

Since when one of the variables is useless (one of the main variables I would say). The driver is variable in study when he wins, when he is third, when he is fifth...we are talking about the same variable that must always be included in the analysis. 

[GVera]

 

It doesn´t matter if the driver thinks some new part doesn´t work, he isn´t the engineer. He is not the one who must say, "we use this or that", that´s engineers job and engineers know what is their job. Drivers aren´t engineers, as far as I know, Alonso is not engineer (surely Anderson knows this).

 

 

But things don't always work like that. Look at Williams, the car with the coanda escapes was theoretically quicker, but the drivers found the slightly slower  non-coanda setup more predictable and the confidence it gave allowed them to drive it closer to the theoretical limit and thus.be quicker.

[Ferrari2183]

Tifosi...

It's up to debate who started "it", first because it could be argued that Ferrari failing once again to sufficently develop the car was the starting point, and 2nd neither me nor you know what did go on behind the scenes preceding Alonsos remarks about wanting a Red Bull in Hungary.

Besides, on closer look many drivers did critizise their cars in a similar way or even worse, but only at Ferrari there is made such a big fuss over it every time. Maybe instead of firing Massa they should really hire two drivers of that kind, mediocre but easy to control?

I really don't care what happens at other teams.

Again I state, that I have no issue with drivers complaining as long as it is done behind closed doors. You don't see Ferrari publicly berating their drivers for poor performances and that curtesy should extend to drivers as well. Airing your dirty laundry is NEVER a good thing and that is why I took issue with LdM's response as well.

Anyway, all will be forgotten if Ferrari/Alonso turn out to be a winning combo next season. That's a given.

Also, I liked what Alonso did at the awards gala when seeking applause for Webber and Kubica. The guy is not all bad and is an extraordinary racer.

Edited by Ferrari2183, 09 December 2013 - 16:02.

[mardmarium]

But things don't always work like that. Look at Williams, the car with the coanda escapes was theoretically quicker, but the drivers found the slightly slower  non-coanda setup more predictable and the confidence it gave allowed them to drive it closer to the theoretical limit and thus.be quicker.

 

Engineers can be lost, they can have doubts, they need the drivers because as I said, the driver is basically the reference

point they have (one of the main variables), but not when there are problems, the driver is the referent point when they win as well.

 

In another post I wrote that, in my opinion, Ferrari engineers are not sure if some new part works, so they don´t take decisions. Why are they not sure? because the driver misguides them? if they control all variables and the driver (one of the variables) enters in the analysis and misguides  them, the analysis is mistaken, but if there are several variables they don´t control (and this can happen), they can get confused and the driver can be right. 

[e34]

Alonso fans...

Nobody is delusional enough to think that Ferrari had a better car than RBR. What LdM (as well as I) took issue with was the public criticism leveled by Alonso. Not that LdM's equally public retort was any better.

But if you fans want to get all twisted in knot about LdM's "ear tweaking" you will do well to remember that it was Alonso who started the to and fro.

I have always maintained that if Alonso wants special treatment in this regard then it is better he leaves because if there is one person in the paddock who has a bigger ego than him then it is LdM.

 

I am not defending Alonso here.

 

I have said in previous and in these posts that if he and the team cannot find a common ground, it would be better that they parted ways. I don't like Alonso constantly saying that he had not a car to be first, because everybody knows it. But LdM retorts are even more insidious than Alonso's. First of all, because a lot of Alonso's remarks are given in the heat of the moment, as opposed to LdM's ones; then, LdM forgets to give the marks he think the team deserves for the car (and had he given a fair mark to the design of the car, maybe a lot of people would not have been incensed by the 8 out of 10 he gave Alonso). And then, LdM highlights Massa as a problem, when Massa was in the team because somebody from the team decided to renew his contract, and Massa has performed this year exactly as he had performed during the last three ones. Problems arising from Massa's lack of performance in 2011 and 2012 could be blamed on Massa. Those arising in 2013 are to be blamed on the team, squarely.  

 

You're looking at it the wrong way simply because you want to take up for the driver/s. First off, it is awfully hard for a driver to tell that the car is 0.1s or 0.2s faster which is a typical improvement teams look for in updates, a tenth or two here or there. Only the stopwatch is going to let him know he's a tenth quicker, it's not as though he can "feel" the car is quicker by a tenth. Therefore Anderson is absolutely correct in his assertion and there's no fault attributed to the driver. He's speaking of a car with a particular imbalance/particular problems. The team add new parts that add a tenth or two, but still don't fix the underlying problem. The new parts are to make the car quicker and aren't necessarily intended to fix the problem, so the driver still feels the same problems as before. It's not uncommon.

 

Ferrari never do enough running on Fridays, they always sit in the paddock too much. Like Anderson said when you back to back all weekend you can't get the most out of the old or new spec because of all the time in the pits changing back and forth and not enough time is spent finding the setup with the newer parts fitted. The team stated they were only bringing in parts that showed promise in the tunnel. So trust what the tunnel says and put them on. It's a complicated situation but Anderson has a very valid point and it's one that isn't blaming the drivers, it's blaming the team and their approach and methods both at the factory & at the track.

 

I don't thihk so, but anyway, in that post I was answering to one of yours, where you asked  where did Anderson said that the drivers misguided the team. I just showed where and how he did. 

 

And, again, the fact that the car is faster with the development pieces is something that Anderson says out of the blue. He has no data to support that hypothesis, and nobody has said that it was so. Of course, if the car is indeed faster, then Ferrari technicians are just idiots not to use them. But I refuse to believe that they have telemetry data showing that the car is faster and they, nevertheless, don't use the faster pieces. IMO, that's an unbelivable hypothesis. I think it is more reasonable to believe that the team does not have data showing that the car is faster with the new pieces, and in that case, I would tend to think that the new pieces do not make the car faster. 

 

But as Anderson (and apparently you) believe that the new pieces indeed made the car faster, then it has to be the drivers the ones who refuse to use those faster pieces, and thus it is them the ones to blame for not accepting the faster car. 

 

Alternatively, please explain me how, or why, the pieces that are proved to be faster, are not raced. 

 

This points directly to the drivers. Isn´t supposed that they test the parts on the simulator? Why they approve in the simulator and do not on the car when the parts ae supposedly working?

At least with the change of Massa for Kimi we are improving in this area.

 

Kimi gets sick on the simulator, so he will not help in this area. 

 

I don't agree that it points to the drivers. I do not think a driver can tell a difference in the car if it is 0.1s or 0.2s quicker unless he looks at the stopwatch. Also we can't be sure that all updates are introduced to fix one particular problem, so updates introduced may or may not address a particular problem but still make the car quicker overall.

 

When the team says it will only bring parts that work in the tunnel & CFD and they're tried on track and not used for Saturday or Sunday, there is a problem. Until Brazil one could reasonably think that the problem lies with the simulation at the factory, but Brazil has shown us that the team is getting confused somehow at the track. Beyond the drivers feedback the team have raw data to look at and analyze, so one can't put this off on the drivers. It seems the team is having issues analyzing this data at the track because I find it hard to believe that these new parts that were tried in Austin free practice but not used for Quali and the race suddenly started working in Brazil. The only difference is that in Brazil the team didn't have the opportunity to properly test the aerodynamic parts and get data on them like they did at Austin, instead they trusted the simulation data and just used the new parts, and they worked. All of this points to problems with accurately analyzing the new parts and assessing their merit in improving performance.

 

I believe that Brazil was just a better track for Ferrari, although it may be true that the new pieces improved the car. But then, we do not know what a side-by-side comparison would have shown. Hopefully, if the parts improved pace, it would have shown in the test.

 

Ironically, now I seem to have a little bit more faith in Fry and his track methods than you. 

[Ferrari2183]

@e34, I agree that LdM's retort was even more ludicrous than Alonso's outburst but it has to end somewhere and I'm glad it did.

Regarding the scoring of driver and team, that is not something I want to partake in but I think it is pretty clear for everybody, team management included, that the failure to win championships is not the fault of Alonso.

Anyway, we're flogging a dead horse here. Let's see what next year brings... Hopefully a beast so that the title is decided in-house.

[mardmarium]

 

But as Anderson (and apparently you) believe that the new pieces indeed made the car faster, then it has to be the drivers the ones who refuse to use those faster pieces, and thus it is them the ones to blame for not accepting the faster car. 

 

 

Why? Drivers are doing what they have to do, I insist, they are not engineers. The driver is not the one who must say, "we don´t use this new part", the driver shouldnt make this kind of decisions. If the team is sure something works, the team must tell the driver "it doesn´t matter if you cannot see any difference, you must trust us because..."

 

I don´t know if new parts make the car faster, there is no evidence in order to know, but in case this is true, If the team doesn´t do anything that´s because the team is not sure, so the team is the one to blame, not the drivers.

 

I haven´t heard anyone from Ferrari blaming Alonso. What LdM has done...well, he is a business man, I don´t know exactly how define what he has done but come on, he is not blaming Alonso. And sorry, I don´t think a lot of Alonso remarks are given in the heat of the moment, I think he knows perfectly what he says and why he says it. 

[JSDSKI]

....

 

....  So what Brazil 2013 has shown us is that Ferrari simulation of new parts indeed works. It's hard to believe the same simulation didn't work 7 days before and only started in Brazil. I think this shows there's an issue of evaluation at the track and a bit of being too overly cautious.

 

There's another possiblity isn't there?  That Ferrari just got the update correct, it matched the current development of the car, and in sum - it was an update that worked.  Ultimately, it's a question of how a team evaluates and processes its work and work flow.  Ferrari seems to be coming out of a time of uncertainty with their evaluation processes.  They're getting a better handle on their tunnel data and getting better and better at CFD as they gain experience and staff that are more familiar with those systems.  Ferrari, for too long, relied upon brute force work ethic on the test track.

 

Those days are gone in F1.  The change to the new methods has been a struggle.  They are probably near the end of that tunnel...

[JSDSKI]

 

Why? Drivers are doing what they have to do, I insist, they are not engineers. The driver is not the one who must say, "we don´t use this new part", the driver shouldnt make this kind of decisions. If the team is sure something works, the team must tell the driver "it doesn´t matter if you cannot see any difference, you must trust us because..."

 

I don´t know if new parts make the car faster, there is no evidence in order to know, but in case this is true, If the team doesn´t do anything that´s because the team is not sure, so the team is the one to blame, not the drivers.

 

I haven´t heard anyone from Ferrari blaming Alonso. What LdM has done...well, he is a business man, I don´t know exactly how define what he has done but come on, he is not blaming Alonso. And sorry, I don´t think a lot of Alonso remarks are given in the heat of the moment, I think he knows perfectly what he says and why he says it. 

 

 

 

I don't think it's quite this black and white.  When a driver is saying the car is unbalanced or unpredicitable, or does different things at different points in a turn or on track - that is quite likely to overrule an engineers determination to put a part on a car.  Not saying it doesn't happen, but it is not always so simple.  Engineers and designers rely upon experienced drivers "over time" as they gain experience with them.  In other words, the last two times the driver told an engineer "this part may be quicker over a lap or two but it is much harder to be consistent at the limit over an entire stint", and that drivers opinion has proven to be reliable over a season; then teams will listen, indeed, they even seek out those drivers.  Because those drivers provide a constant reference for everything - including "perfect" or better numbers in the data.

 

Considering the consistantly high ratings Alonso gets from the pit lane every year - I suspect that he is that kind of reference and therefore especially valuable.  Kind of like what Newey was saying about Webber last week. 

Edited by JSDSKI, 09 December 2013 - 18:45.

[e34]

 

Why? Drivers are doing what they have to do, I insist, they are not engineers. The driver is not the one who must say, "we don´t use this new part", the driver shouldnt make this kind of decisions. If the team is sure something works, the team must tell the driver "it doesn´t matter if you cannot see any difference, you must trust us because..."

 

I don´t know if new parts make the car faster, there is no evidence in order to know, but in case this is true, If the team doesn´t do anything that´s because the team is not sure, so the team is the one to blame, not the drivers.

 

I haven´t heard anyone from Ferrari blaming Alonso. What LdM has done...well, he is a business man, I don´t know exactly how define what he has done but come on, he is not blaming Alonso. And sorry, I don´t think a lot of Alonso remarks are given in the heat of the moment, I think he knows perfectly what he says and why he says it. 

 

 

 

That is precisely the point I wanted to make in the whole post. 

 

To be honest, I believe that Anderson just made an hypothetical theory and did not actually intend to say that the car was indeed faster. He suposed that it was, and went on to create a theory that the team lost time making comparisons instead of getting the right set-up for the car.

 

I believe that that theory does not make sense. In my opinion, if a car is indeed faster, the team should know it because telemetry should tell them. If two top F1 drivers and a top F1 team cannot see whether a car is faster than another, then the situation is really dire. With all that technical wizardry and the time they spend testing developments, the only reasonable conclusion I can get is that, if they don't use the developments is because they don't work. 

 

So, to say it in a different way, I believe that there is no way of escaping from real track telemetry. If they don't use the developments, is because they are convinced that they don't work (because they see it in telemetry data), not because drivers say that the car remains unbalanced. And I don't believe drivers would oppose hard telemetry data. At least, I don't believe it until somebody from the team says so. 

 

Therefore, I don't believe Anderson theories are true in practice, or that they are based in things that have really happened in real life. 

[as65p]

 

Why? Drivers are doing what they have to do, I insist, they are not engineers. The driver is not the one who must say, "we don´t use this new part", the driver shouldnt make this kind of decisions. If the team is sure something works, the team must tell the driver "it doesn´t matter if you cannot see any difference, you must trust us because..."

 

This kind of thinking is exactly what I talked about earlier. "they are just drivers", "we are the engineers, so we decide", and indeed "it doesn´t matter if you cannot see any difference, you must trust us because...".

 

This only works if the engineers would know everything and never make any mistakes, which I trust you don't believe, or do you?

Edited by as65p, 09 December 2013 - 19:05.

[mardmarium]

I don't think it's quite this black and white.  When a driver is saying the car is unbalanced or unpredicitable, or does different things at different points in a turn or on track - that is quite likely to overrule an engineers determination to put a part on a car.  Not saying it doesn't happen, but it is not always so simple.  Engineers and designers rely upon experienced drivers "over time" as they gain experience with them.  In other words, the last two times the driver told an engineer "this part may be quicker over a lap or two but it is much harder to be consistent at the limit over an entire stint", and that drivers opinion has proven to be reliable over a season; then teams will listen, indeed, they even seek out those drivers.  Because those drivers provide a constant reference for everything - including "perfect" or better numbers in the data.

 

Considering the consistantly high ratings Alonso gets from the pit lane every year - I suspect that he is that kind of reference and therefore especially valuable.  Kind of like what Newey was saying about Webber last week. 

 

I´ve talked about this in another post. 

 

The main point here is: are they sure? many times it´s hard to be sure and part of the analysis is based on "try and see what happens", in those cases they don´t know if something works and have to make deductions from the results they get (I am extrapolating because I don´t know how they work in F1, but I guess the analysis process is not different in that aspect), and drivers opinions are taken into account, they must be.

 

If they are sure, in no way drivers should misguide them, if they are not sure, in no way it can be drivers fault (especially if they think the driver is fast, consistent and reliable)

[mardmarium]

 

This kind of thinking is exactly what I talked about earlier. "they are just drivers", "we are the engineers, so we decide", and indeed "it doesn´t matter if you cannot see any difference, you must trust us because...".

 

This only works if the engineers would know everything and never make any mistakes, which I trust you don't believe, or do you?

 

 

I think I've answered you in my previous comment. 

[JSDSKI]

Depends on the driver, right?  If we know this guy can produce solid consistant laps and continually reduce his time based upon the change in fuel load and tires then that driver is not really a variable.  He is the constant, right?  Nowadays you can look at the times at multiple points on the track and see the drivers trace (inputs on the car at those points) to develop a solid constant.  You add a part and you get a result.  The quality of that result depends upon the interaction between the new part(s) and the car as it was. 

 

The engineers rely upon the drivers input, absolutely.

Edited by JSDSKI, 09 December 2013 - 20:09.

[as65p]

I think I've answered you in my previous comment. 

 

I don't quite see how. You started your first reply with:
 

 

Hard to believe in this “engineer vs driver fight".

 

 

but in your last post you ended up describing precisely the kind of engineers thinking which may lead to, well it doesn't has to be a fight, but at least to severe issues between engineer(s) and driver(s). Your, under a certain POV, reasonable sounding idea of treating drivers like other variables is another case in point.

 

Of course the driver also has a specific view on things and at this level the guys a probably pretty fickle more often than not. Overall some kind of mediation is needed, and may that's another not-so-strong point of the current team.

[mardmarium]

I don't quite see how. You started your first reply with:
 

 

but in your last post you ended up describing precisely the kind of engineers thinking which may lead to, well it doesn't has to be a fight, but at least to severe issues between engineer(s) and driver(s). Your, under a certain POV, reasonable sounding idea of treating drivers like other variables is another case in point.

 

Of course the driver also has a specific view on things and at this level the guys a probably pretty fickle more often than not. Overall some kind of mediation is needed, and may that's another not-so-strong point of the current team.

 

Please, read the comment again

 

 

I´ve talked about this in another post. 

 

The main point here is: are they sure? many times it´s hard to be sure and part of the analysis is based on "try and see what happens", in those cases they don´t know if something works and have to make deductions from the results they get (I am extrapolating because I don´t know how they work in F1, but I guess the analysis process is not different in that aspect), and drivers opinions are taken into account, they must be.

 

If they are sure, in no way drivers should misguide them, if they are not sure, in no way it can be drivers fault (especially if they think the driver is fast, consistent and reliable)

 

I think I´ve been saying the same thing in several posts.

 

Talking about the engineers, Newey seems to have less doubts than others, these things can happen. If they are sure (sometimes they can be sure, I am not talking about F1, I am talking in general, I am extrapolating), one of the variables shouldn´t dictate the final result because they know what the final result must be, in fact, that variable has been used in order to get the final result they are expecting (I am not attacking the drivers by calling them variables in study, this is just a way of talking). You cannot fight with the variable you have been studying, because if you are sure, you control the analysis and the variables behaviour. Even so, they need the driver, they need that variable (just a way of talking), drivers seem to be the reference point. 

 

Many times they are not sure, they don´t know if the final result will be what they want it to be, they must deduce what has happened from the result itself, in those cases they shouldnt fight with the drivers either, they should listen to the drivers, try to understand what has happened. Can the driver be a constant as another forumer has said? of course he can be a constant in the analysis, if they need to study other variables they may use the "constant driver". Summarizing, they need the driver.

 

I know I am not talking from the driver point of view but in no way I am attacking the drivers. 

[as65p]

I know I am not talking from the driver point of view but in no way I am attacking the drivers. 

 

Neither did I accuse you of that. What I somewhat take offense with is your stance that they should have a method to reliably factor the drivers in their calculations, so that should not be the problem, so you believe that is not the problem. Or simplified, they should know how to do it right so you don't believe they are doing it wrong.

 

To which I would say they are evidently doing something wrong so why could not be one of the reasons suboptimal trust and understanding between driver(s) and engineer(s)? Especially as somewhere in all this team politics and egos of the key players come in.

[JSDSKI]

So, can you place more drivers or engineers on the head of a pin?  Drivers, probably since they tend to be smaller....

 

We are now interpreting (with our opinions) the interpreters (journalists and bloggers) for evidence of "the suboptimal trust and understanding" between Ferrari drivers and engineers?  Based upon marketing tweets and PR stunts?  And we say the Scuderia lost in data correlation?   Maybe we are the lost ones....

 

The reality is that Ferrari (and its engineers) know very well what FA brings to the team.  That's why they went out and grabbed him.  Alonso is not the problem at Ferrari.  All the teams have sysmatic methods programmed to track a drivers data points all the time at every track, every test, and every simultator run.  They can overlap one drivers' traces with another with the push of a button.  They can tell when, where, and how much each driver is braking for each corner.  They use these systems to improve each drivers performance.  They use it to evaluate drivers and check out young drivers.  Teams have been doing that for years.  The driver's actual datapoints are the least of Ferrari's problems.

 

Rebuilding a team's systems, methods, and processes and changing it's fundamental culture from one of practical engineering (on the track) to one that relys upon CFD is a very time consuming and frustrating ordeal.   And that frustration is showing.

 

What Anderson seems to be talking about is determination.  Having the will and determination to make a design choice work.  To work through all the problems until they get what they expect out of the updates.  Rather than putting something on - not seeing the car get a tenth quicker - and then pulling the update to go back to a known configuration in the name of "competing today".

 

Red Bull did that in the early part of the season (when Ferrari's car was more competitive) and then got a boost when the tires were changed.   Ferrari tried to do that but ran off the rails at Canada - at least according to SD.  Personally, I think the tire change was more important than we really know.

Edited by JSDSKI, 10 December 2013 - 00:19.

[BJHF1]

Depends on the driver, right?  If we know this guy can produce solid consistant laps and continually reduce his time based upon the change in fuel load and tires then that driver is not really a variable.  He is the constant, right?  Nowadays you can look at the times at multiple points on the track and see the drivers trace (inputs on the car at those points) to develop a solid constant.  You add a part and you get a result.  The quality of that result depends upon the interaction between the new part(s) and the car as it was. 

 

The engineers rely upon the drivers input, absolutely.

 

Unfortunately, when we are talking about minascule amounts (tenths or hundreths of a second) that some aero upgrades provide, there are too many variables which can affect the end result, which are either not accounted for or nearly impossible to accurately measure (which will also ultimately affect the telemetry), especially with such limited testing time. With that said, at times the engineers must access such variables and use their knowledge, experience and intuition (something where I feel Newey excels) to come to the best possible conclusion...particularly when dealing with small upgrades, where their worth/benefits might not be so clear cut.

 

Track conditions (rubber put down, air/track surface temp, wind changes) will always be a moving target, very hard, if not impossible to fully access with 100% accuracy. And other finite details such as minute inconsistancies in tire compound/construction could very well account for slight difference in a cars end performance. 

 

Also, with limited time to do comparative testing....finding the optimal set-up for a particular upgrade won't always be so easy.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Veering off a bit, it might also be worth mentioning that maybe the worth of some of the upgrades the team brought to the track were maybe over estimated from the get go (particularly with the longer sidepods, which I feel were poorly sculpted to maximize the coanda affect), and by not seeing a obvious/clear benefit right away, they ended up reverting to the previous (known) spec to be safe...although as I mentioned a while back, being timid and playing it safe at the halfway point of the season was almost guarantee'ing them to end up empty handed (in terms of any Championships) by the end of the season....while not really pushing to the edge with any design philosphies, and what can be learned from such.

 

Also, I think Gary Anderson was a maybe a bit short sighted when he took the 3rd place (of Alonso) at Brazil as some sign that the upgrades provided obvious benefit all along. Reason being - First and most obvious of all, Lotus had a car (Grosjean) that dropped out in the race, while Kimi was nowhere to be found of course...both of which could have very well been a threat to that 3rd place by possibly stopping one less time for tires.

 

Brazil also tends to be a bit of an anomoly because of the unpredictable weather and how the teams set-up their cars (especially Mercedes), so the end result doesn't hold a ton of meaning. It's also worth mentiong that Brazil is a bit of unique circuit compared to a few races/tracks prior on the calendar, so trying to predict results from previous race trends can be a rather vague indicator. Lastly, maybe it just happened that these updates actually did provide obvious benefit to the car in testing, while others throughout the season did not.

Edited by BJHF1, 10 December 2013 - 00:42.

[BJHF1]

What Anderson seems to be talking about is determination.  Having the will and determination to make a design choice work.  To work through all the problems until they get what they expect out of the updates.  Rather than putting something on - not seeing the car get a tenth quicker - and then pulling the update to go back to a known configuration in the name of "competing today".

 

Red Bull did that in the early part of the season (when Ferrari's car was more competitive) and then got a boost when the tires were changed.   Ferrari tried to do that but ran off the rails at Canada - at least according to SD.  Personally, I think the tire change was more important than we really know.

 

+1

[caccamolle]

So, can you place more drivers or engineers on the head of a pin?  Drivers, probably since they tend to be smaller....

 

We are now interpreting (with our opinions) the interpreters (journalists and bloggers) for evidence of "the suboptimal trust and understanding" between Ferrari drivers and engineers?  Based upon marketing tweets and PR stunts?  And we say the Scuderia lost in data correlation?   Maybe we are the lost ones....

 

The reality is that Ferrari (and its engineers) know very well what FA brings to the team.  That's why they went out and grabbed him.  Alonso is not the problem at Ferrari.  All the teams have sysmatic methods programmed to track a drivers data points all the time at every track, every test, and every simultator run.  They can overlap one drivers' traces with another with the push of a button.  They can tell when, where, and how much each driver is braking for each corner.  They use these systems to improve each drivers performance.  They use it to evaluate drivers and check out young drivers.  Teams have been doing that for years.  The driver's actual datapoints are the least of Ferrari's problems.

 

Rebuilding a team's systems, methods, and processes and changing it's fundamental culture from one of practical engineering (on the track) to one that relys upon CFD is a very time consuming and frustrating ordeal.   And that frustration is showing.

 

What Anderson seems to be talking about is determination.  Having the will and determination to make a design choice work.  To work through all the problems until they get what they expect out of the updates.  Rather than putting something on - not seeing the car get a tenth quicker - and then pulling the update to go back to a known configuration in the name of "competing today".

 

Red Bull did that in the early part of the season (when Ferrari's car was more competitive) and then got a boost when the tires were changed.   Ferrari tried to do that but ran off the rails at Canada - at least according to SD.  Personally, I think the tire change was more important than we really know.

Anderson does not have a  bloody darned clue.  That is the thing that he expresses more clearly than anything else.

 

Ferrari does not have a clue.

 

They are just praying that next season things will fall into place.  Magically.  At times, that is what it takes.

[caccamolle]

Unfortunately, when we are talking about minascule amounts (tenths or hundreths of a second) that some aero upgrades provide, there are too many variables which can affect the end result, which are either not accounted for or nearly impossible to accurately measure (which will also ultimately affect the telemetry), especially with such limited testing time. With that said, at times the engineers must access such variables and use their knowledge, experience and intuition (something where I feel Newey excels) to come to the best possible conclusion...particularly when dealing with small upgrades, where their worth/benefits might not be so clear cut.

 

Track conditions (rubber put down, air/track surface temp, wind changes) will always be a moving target, very hard, if not impossible to fully access with 100% accuracy. And other finite details such as minute inconsistancies in tire compound/construction could very well account for slight difference in a cars end performance. 

 

Also, with limited time to do comparative testing....finding the optimal set-up for a particular upgrade won't always be so easy.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Veering off a bit, it might also be worth mentioning that maybe the worth of some of the upgrades the team brought to the track were maybe over estimated from the get go (particularly with the longer sidepods, which I feel were poorly sculpted to maximize the coanda affect), and by not seeing a obvious/clear benefit right away, they ended up reverting to the previous (known) spec to be safe...although as I mentioned a while back, being timid and playing it safe at the halfway point of the season was almost guarantee'ing them to end up empty handed (in terms of any Championships) by the end of the season....while not really pushing to the edge with any design philosphies, and what can be learned from such.

 

Also, I think Gary Anderson was a maybe a bit short sighted when he took the 3rd place (of Alonso) at Brazil as some sign that the upgrades provided obvious benefit all along. Reason being - First and most obvious of all, Lotus had a car (Grosjean) that dropped out in the race, while Kimi was nowhere to be found of course...both of which could have very well been a threat to that 3rd place by possibly stopping one less time for tires.

 

Brazil also tends to be a bit of an anomoly because of the unpredictable weather and how the teams set-up their cars (especially Mercedes), so the end result doesn't hold a ton of meaning. It's also worth mentiong that Brazil is a bit of unique circuit compared to a few races/tracks prior on the calendar, so trying to predict results from previous race trends can be a rather vague indicator. Lastly, maybe it just happened that these updates actually did provide obvious benefit to the car in testing, while others throughout the season did not.

sadly it is not tenths or hundreths of a second that we are concerned with rather it is a question of SECONDS, wrt RB at least.  So.

[kosmos]

 

This kind of thinking is exactly what I talked about earlier. "they are just drivers", "we are the engineers, so we decide", and indeed "it doesn´t matter if you cannot see any difference, you must trust us because...".

 

This only works if the engineers would know everything and never make any mistakes, which I trust you don't believe, or do you?

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that I read Alonso saying in previous years that they kept new parts on the car because the numbers said that they were better, not because they felt better when driving.

[Enzoluis]

Please, read the comment again

 

 

 

I think I´ve been saying the same thing in several posts.

 

Talking about the engineers, Newey seems to have less doubts than others, these things can happen. If they are sure (sometimes they can be sure, I am not talking about F1, I am talking in general, I am extrapolating), one of the variables shouldn´t dictate the final result because they know what the final result must be, in fact, that variable has been used in order to get the final result they are expecting (I am not attacking the drivers by calling them variables in study, this is just a way of talking). You cannot fight with the variable you have been studying, because if you are sure, you control the analysis and the variables behaviour. Even so, they need the driver, they need that variable (just a way of talking), drivers seem to be the reference point. 

 

Many times they are not sure, they don´t know if the final result will be what they want it to be, they must deduce what has happened from the result itself, in those cases they shouldnt fight with the drivers either, they should listen to the drivers, try to understand what has happened. Can the driver be a constant as another forumer has said? of course he can be a constant in the analysis, if they need to study other variables they may use the "constant driver". Summarizing, they need the driver.

 

I know I am not talking from the driver point of view but in no way I am attacking the drivers. 

 

Maybe Vettel is who trust more in Newey. As Vettel went to RB without titles his voices was weaker than Newey voice, and probably after the results Vettel gained full confidence in the team. On the other hand Alonso came to Ferrari as the two WDC that was bring to build the team around him. The savior, so his voice was louder than the voice of Costa. And given the results he never gained confidence in the team. An evidence of this was the Qualy of Monza this year when he call his team idiots. It is difficult to win in F1 without a full and confident understanding between driver and engeneers. Schumacher-Brown, Alonso-Briatore, Newey-Vettel are examples of that. Probably is our big issue for the future as seems to be related with the development of the car. I do not found illogical now change SD for Briatore. 

[fabr68]

I hate it when someone says we got "lucky" with the tires. If you use scientific methods and design something to fit an specification. When the design fits the specification better than others is not luck, it is better engineering.

Luck would be if someone who knows nothing about building cars, scrambles to put things together and somehow a combination of them work.

Talking about luck tells me there is a serious lack of self confidence. This is physics, not black magic.

[caccamolle]

Bravo.

[caccamolle]

Maybe Vettel is who trust more in Newey. As Vettel went to RB without titles his voices was weaker than Newey voice, and probably after the results Vettel gained full confidence in the team. On the other hand Alonso came to Ferrari as the two WDC that was bring to build the team around him. The savior, so his voice was louder than the voice of Costa. And given the results he never gained confidence in the team. An evidence of this was the Qualy of Monza this year when he call his team idiots. It is difficult to win in F1 without a full and confident understanding between driver and engeneers. Schumacher-Brown, Alonso-Briatore, Newey-Vettel are examples of that. Probably is our big issue for the future as seems to be related with the development of the car. I do not found illogical now change SD for Briatore.
[/quot[quote name="Enzoluis" post="6528875" timestamp="1386675686"]Maybe Vettel is who trust more in Newey. As Vettel went to RB without titles his voices was weaker than Newey voice, and probably after the results Vettel gained full confidence in the team. On the other hand Alonso came to Ferrari as the two WDC that was bring to build the team around him. The savior, so his voice was louder than the voice of Costa. And given the results he never gained confidence in the team. An evidence of this was the Qualy of Monza this year when he call his team idiots. It is difficult to win in F1 without a full and confident understanding between driver and engeneers. Schumacher-Brown, Alonso-Briatore, Newey-Vettel are examples of that. Probably is our big issue for the future as seems to be related with the development of the car. I do not found illogical now change SD for Briatore.

Agreed that great harmony between drivers and the rest of the team/management is essential for succeding. And with the. FA / LdM saga we know we do not have that at Ferrari right now.

On the other hand while I am convinced anybody pretty much would better be than SD, Briatore is sort of pushing it!!

;)

Edited by caccamolle, 10 December 2013 - 18:41.

[mardmarium]

Maybe Vettel is who trust more in Newey. As Vettel went to RB without titles his voices was weaker than Newey voice, and probably after the results Vettel gained full confidence in the team. On the other hand Alonso came to Ferrari as the two WDC that was bring to build the team around him. The savior, so his voice was louder than the voice of Costa. And given the results he never gained confidence in the team. An evidence of this was the Qualy of Monza this year when he call his team idiots. It is difficult to win in F1 without a full and confident understanding between driver and engeneers. Schumacher-Brown, Alonso-Briatore, Newey-Vettel are examples of that. Probably is our big issue for the future as seems to be related with the development of the car. I do not found illogical now change SD for Briatore. 

 

I have to ask some questions

 

 How do you think this kind of analysis works? 

 

What do you think “they are sure” means in this context?

 

What do you think “they are not sure” means in this context?

 

The analysis must be made and the driver is another variable in study, regardless of his name. It doesn´t matter if he is 2 WDC, he doesn´t make the analysis and he shouldn´t decide this kind of things (surely the driver knows this).

 

We are talking about analysis, variables, data…we are not talking about my opinion, your opinion (internal war of opinions), this is not about “I get the feeling so I don´t care about the analysis”. They must interact, engineers must do their job and drivers must do their job. Do you think drivers cannot understand (Alonso seems to be especially intelligent)? Do you think Alonso cannot understand if someone explains to him?

 

Engineers can be lost, yes they can. They can have doubts, they can suffer from lack of determination as JSDSKI said in another post or they simply aren´t Newey, there are several possibilities, probably all of them together in this case. The driver can be frustrated if he doesn´t see any progress. Can he lose confidence? Yes he can, but not because he is better (or he thinks he is better) engineer than they are, simply because the progress isn't with them, or because he hasn't won the WDC in several years and he is running out of patience (obviously it doesn't help)

 

If they are sure, they are sure, period (this is analysis, not feelings, personal opinions or speculations). They explain to the driver, the driver understands and they use the updates (it´s not easy to be sure). If they are not sure they must analyze the results, make deductions, take decisions, have determination if necessary, change something in the process, use other/more variables, other data…it´s much more complicated than “driver says it doesn´t work ” because he get the feeling or because there is an internal war of egos. All of them want to win, we should start from that premise. 

[Enzoluis]

I have to ask some questions

 

 How do you think this kind of analysis works? 

 

What do you think “they are sure” means in this context?

 

What do you think “they are not sure” means in this context?

 

The analysis must be made and the driver is another variable in study, regardless of his name. It doesn´t matter if he is 2 WDC, he doesn´t make the analysis and he shouldn´t decide this kind of things (surely the driver knows this).

 

We are talking about analysis, variables, data…we are not talking about my opinion, your opinion (internal war of opinions), this is not about “I get the feeling so I don´t care about the analysis”. They must interact, engineers must do their job and drivers must do their job. Do you think drivers cannot understand (Alonso seems to be especially intelligent)? Do you think Alonso cannot understand if someone explains to him?

 

Engineers can be lost, yes they can. They can have doubts, they can suffer from lack of determination as JSDSKI said in another post or they simply aren´t Newey, there are several possibilities, probably all of them together in this case. The driver can be frustrated if he doesn´t see any progress. Can he lose confidence? Yes he can, but not because he is better (or he thinks he is better) engineer than they are, simply because the progress isn't with them, or because he hasn't won the WDC in several years and he is running out of patience (obviously it doesn't help)

 

If they are sure, they are sure, period (this is analysis, not feelings, personal opinions or speculations). They explain to the driver, the driver understands and they use the updates (it´s not easy to be sure). If they are not sure they must analyze the results, make deductions, take decisions, have determination if necessary, change something in the process, use other/more variables, other data…it´s much more complicated than “driver says it doesn´t work ” because he get the feeling or because there is an internal war of egos. All of them want to win, we should start from that premise. 

 

Life is more complex that what we can write in a comment. Engineers may be sure about what they do but the true in this is the lap time and what the driver can or cannot do with the material made. We are talking about if the action of a driver take place miliseconds before or after what expected. There is room for speculation about facts there.

[mardmarium]

Life is more complex that what we can write in a comment. Engineers may be sure about what they do but the true in this is the lap time and what the driver can or cannot do with the material made. We are talking about if the action of a driver take place miliseconds before or after what expected. There is room for speculation about facts there.

 

Do you think they are sure? I really would like to think so.

 

The true in this is that Alonso won in Spain (I can remember the way he won) and Massa was third. The true in this is that Alonso was fourth or fifth in other races and Massa…he was fourth in India. Massa was second and Alonso third in quali in Malaysia but they were 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th… in many other GPs. The true in this is that the driver is probably one of the most controlled variables they have. 

[JSDSKI]

For me, this sort of discussion and observation usually comes down to practical race winning experience... that's where trust is built within a team.  And like other sporting variables, trust can be won and lost over a season or a race or even in a single event - if it is a big enough calamity.  Teams, even teams of engineers, can never remove the power of emotion in competition. 

 

Again, a team of engineers or designers can come up with great numbers that point to a gain in performance.  It is up to the drivers, their race engineers and crew, to make use of that gain and measure it over a lap, a stint, or a race.  That's where a driver's input (and lap traces) will come in.  The advantage a truly talented driver can provide is the ability to keep the car on limit even when it becomes more difficult to drive.  This is much different than "driving around the problem" as many drivers are able to do. The first leads to progress and the latter to none.  Ferrari's advantage is that FA can do both - as some have noted over his career.

 

It's the engineering side of the equation that must provide the baseline and steady hand.  For me, that's where Ferrari have been lacking since the Todt / Brawn group left.

 

Whereas, the engineering side has been Red Bull's advantage.  No less a racing legend than Mario Andretti (who worked with Newey during his time with Indy cars) has stated bluntly that Newey was and is the best setup engineer he ever worked with and that no other engineer or designer was as good as Newey at translating "driver speak" into setup and engineering changes that lead to results on track. Pretty powerful from a guy who worked with the best in F1 and multiple other series with the likes of Chapman (and others I can't remember off the top of my head) That's the advantage Red Bull give Vettel.  And he has the talent to make use of it.

Edited by JSDSKI, 10 December 2013 - 17:52.

[Enzoluis]

Do you think they are sure? I really would like to think so.

 

The true in this is that Alonso won in Spain (I can remember the way he won) and Massa was third. The true in this is that Alonso was fourth or fifth in other races and Massa…he was fourth in India. Massa was second and Alonso third in quali in Malaysia but they were 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th… in many other GPs. The true in this is that the driver is probably one of the most controlled variables they have. 

 

Sory mardmarium, I do not understnd your point. You think that the engeneers failed to give the car that Massa needs to be faster? Because if Massa is a controlled variable they should be able to make the car that fits that variable.

Here the problem seems to be that good modifications made by the factory are judged as bad on track. Who is in charge to the final evaluation? Engeneers can explain the driver how to use it but who has to get the time is the driver. 

[e34]

Sory mardmarium, I do not understnd your point. You think that the engeneers failed to give the car that Massa needs to be faster? Because if Massa is a controlled variable they should be able to make the car that fits that variable.

Here the problem seems to be that good modifications made by the factory are judged as bad on track. Who is in charge to the final evaluation? Engeneers can explain the driver how to use it but who has to get the time is the driver. 

 

That is just an hypothesis Anderson made in an article.

 

Why he says that, instead of saying that modifications that seemed good on paper, were bad on track, is something he only knows. Besides, it was not a scoop; that idea (that was first mentioned in July) was not repeated until the end of the season, and then, only by Anderson again. He may be right, but there is an enormous probability that he is wrong. 

 

I would not really read a lot into it, but not because I am a hardcore Alonso fan and think that he cannot do wrong, but because if Anderson is right, then Alonso, Massa, their engineers, telemetry engineering and design people back at Maranello would be wrong. Or stupid, deaf and mute, unable to communicate among themselves. And then, only Anderson, with his eagle-like vision, would have detected where the problem is. And the problem would be as easy to solve as sticking with your improvements.  

 

If I were to create a (wild) theory (without having to demonstrate that it is right) about why Red Bull has trumped the competition these years, and why Ferrari has been unable to develop further the car, I would say that Red Bull has always been a step ahead; they mastered whatever they were doing in 2010 with the height of the car, while the rest wondered what were they doing. Then, they mastered the diffuser sealing, that other teams never really mastered. Then they mastered the coanda technique to retain a good portion of that diffuser sealing (that was discarded by other teams, e.g. Ferrari), and then this year they have mastered the tea tray as a mass damper thingy that was mentioned in the last race (remember I don't have to demonstrate anything). All those developments were found and refined while enjoying the advantage given by the previous one. Imagine what Renault could have done if they had been allowed to retain mass damper in 2006. 

 

On the other hand, Ferrari has been playing catch up, with different levels of success. They never really mastered the diffuser sealing, because they did not understand it, they did not think it was so important or their engine did not allowed them to use it so advantageously. And they were always so busy trying to reduce their disadvantage that they did not have the time to think two steps ahead. In the end, Ferrari has been racing regular cars that were not so bad, and trying to get the maximum out of them, until they reached a development plateau, while Red Bull were on a string of new developments, because on race days they had advantages other teams were still pursuing.

 

As a theory that I have got out of nowhere (as I suspect Anderson made with his), I like more mine than his. 

[Enzoluis]

Good theory e34, but yours theory do not invalidate Anderson theory. Maybe both are part of the failure and to me this

 

If I were to create a (wild) theory (without having to demonstrate that it is right) about why Red Bull has trumped the competition these years, and why Ferrari has been unable to develop further the car, I would say that Red Bull has always been a step ahead; they mastered whatever they were doing in 2010 with the height of the car, while the rest wondered what were they doing. Then, they mastered the diffuser sealing, that other teams never really mastered. Then they mastered the coanda technique to retain a good portion of that diffuser sealing (that was discarded by other teams, e.g. Ferrari), and then this year they have mastered the tea tray as a mass damper thingy that was mentioned in the last race (remember I don't have to demonstrate anything). All those developments were found and refined while enjoying the advantage given by the previous one. Imagine what Renault could have done if they had been allowed to retain mass damper in 2006. 

 

 

Make this

 

 

I would not really read a lot into it, but not because I am a hardcore Alonso fan and think that he cannot do wrong, but because if Anderson is right, then Alonso, Massa, their engineers, telemetry engineering and design people back at Maranello would be wrong. Or stupid, deaf and mute, unable to communicate among themselves.

 

Very possible.

[KnucklesAgain]

Good to see that Fry seems to be happy to have Allison: http://www.autosport...t.php/id/111858

[kosmos]

There is no topic for the 2014 car so I guess this goes here.

 

Fernando already tried the 2014 car in the simulator.

 

http://formula1.ferr...onso-taste-2014

[ASFA2011]

He didn't test the 2014 car per se , he only tested the new procedures involved with the new car

[Timothy]

Good to see that Fry seems to be happy to have Allison: http://www.autosport...t.php/id/111858

 

So is it Fry-suspension, Allison-chassis and Tombias-aero?

[ConsiderAndGo]

So is it Fry-suspension, Allison-chassis and Tombias-aero?

I don't think the 2014 car will have had THAT much influence from Allison, considering the time he was hired. He will be focal in the updates through the year though. 2015 will be his baby.

Edited by ConsiderAndGo, 14 December 2013 - 15:23.

[Timothy]

The question was directed to inquire their respective areas of expertise, not influence on a particular car. Thanks nonetheless.

Edited by Timothy, 14 December 2013 - 15:47.

[KnucklesAgain]

The question was directed to inquire their respective areas of expertise, not influence on a particular car. Thanks nonetheless.

 

Historically Fry is a suspension guy, but that was not his role at Ferrari, and in the future,

Maranello, 29 July – Ferrari announces that, as from this coming 1st September, James Allison will join the Scuderia in the role of Chassis Technical Director. At the same time, Pat Fry will take on the new position of Director of Engineering. Both men will report directly to the Team Principal of the Gestione Sportiva, Stefano Domenicali.

 

http://formula1.ferr...nical-structure

[CrucialXtreme]

So is it Fry-suspension, Allison-chassis and Tombias-aero?

James Allison is the Technical Director. Fry is the Director of Engineering. Loic Bigois is Head of Aerodynamics. He came from Brawn/Mercedes as Head of Aero. Lotus Head of Aero, Dirk de Beer was hired by Ferrari earlier this year and I'm sure he'll be on equal footing with Bigois. Tombazis is Chief Designer.

Edited by CrucialXtreme, 14 December 2013 - 21:54.

[shonguiz]

In short the tech boss of future cars is Allison, fry will be the boss of process and tools.

[P0inters]

This is all getting a bit messy. I think we should open a new thread. Ferrari F2014 ?

[f1RacingForever]

I have to be honest with myself. As much as i am hopefull we will be the team to beat next year, i fear we won't be. I don't think the team has gotten hold and solved all it's issues. I don't think you hire two guys and everything is solved. It's alot more complex and it will take time  but they are on the right track. As much as i appreciate Fry's work to change ferrari's inner workings i still see the guy that was responsible for the mp4-24 when i look at him. It doesn't inspire confidence knowing F2014 is his work. Maybe im being too pessimistic but his lack of success worries me.

[ArkZ]

The F138 was a (santa) rocketship   

http://formula1.ferr...-adventure-f138