Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Did the Schumacher years break Ferrari?


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 Nustang70

Nustang70
  • Member

  • 2,411 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 24 July 2014 - 10:06

Lately it has rankled me that Ferrari (especially LDM) refuse to accept anything short of challenging for the Drivers' Title.  Even last year's pair of wins and runner up in the championship wasn't good enough.  Now I know that every top team ought to aspire to the championship, but with Ferrari it seems to be more than that.  If they aren't fighting for the championship every year, they give the impression that something must be terribly wrong with Ferrari (and, perhaps, Formula One).  To me, I guess, there's a difference between someone like Button this year saying "we aren't where we want, but we're fighting to get back," and LDM saying "this is unacceptable."  Incidentally, I think the same argument could be made for Red Bull this year after 4 straight title challenges.

 

So I wonder whether the unprecedented success during the Schumacher years over-inflated Ferrari's expectations.  The following graph shows the years that Ferrari mounted a Drivers' Title challenge (in this case, a championship where a Ferrari driver finished the season within 2 wins or so of the title winner). 

 

https://www.flickr.c...in/photostream/

 

 

 If you cut out the Schumacher years, their record since doesn't look that out of sorts. However, I only started following F1 in 1999, so perhaps this attitude precedes the Schumacher years.  Or perhaps I'm singling out Ferrari unfairly, and this is more common that I think.    


Edited by Nustang70, 24 July 2014 - 10:08.


Advertisement

#2 Kristian

Kristian
  • Member

  • 825 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 24 July 2014 - 10:10

Its always been like that though - before he won the title in 2000 the pressure on the team was huge. This period is nothing compared to the 20 year drought experienced before then. 

 

Ferrari is unique in that its basically a national team, and that national is very fiery and passionate in their support of it - so there's always pressure and expectation on the team. Add in that they are the richest and most sucessful, its no wonder wins are expected. 

 

Its just in the Schumacher years they got it right, not broke it. 



#3 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,623 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 24 July 2014 - 10:17

No, with their budget and framework they SHOULD be competitive most years.. they just simply don't have a car designer good enough. They have a great engine team, good track team, great drivers but the fundamentals of the chassis they keep producing are not competitive with redbull, the better mclarens and now merc. They keep starting each year on the back foot because of it and it is not actually good enough.



#4 GoGro

GoGro
  • Member

  • 47 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 24 July 2014 - 10:24

Given they take a huge share of the prize money each year (see Joe Savard article), they should be competiting for the driver championship each year. Given their budget, what they are doing is a shame.



#5 Anja

Anja
  • Member

  • 556 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 24 July 2014 - 10:24

Or maybe it's down to the thing that Ferrari seem to think that their car should be fast just because of their tradition and other Ferrari=F1 thinking. Look at how they dismissed Red Bull's success. Paraphrasing, "they are not a racing brand and don't have any tradition so they have no right to be better than us" etc.


Edited by Anja, 24 July 2014 - 10:26.


#6 Sash1

Sash1
  • Member

  • 206 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 24 July 2014 - 10:30

Ferrari is led by salesmen. And they do not understand that kicking and screaming and throwing more money at something that is shit to begin with doesn't lead to better results than a team given in the hands people who are dedicated to racing alone. They have to get back to their roots and restructure the whole team management. It went bad as soon as too many Italian friends replaced foreign pro's.



#7 Hans V

Hans V
  • Member

  • 372 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 24 July 2014 - 10:31

The irony of the Schumacher-era was that the huge success of the Italian national F1-team was largely due to foreigners; a Frenchman (Todt), some Englishmen (Brawn, Stepney et. al.), a South-African (Byrne), a German (Schumacher) and a few others I cannot remember. Edit: And Japanese. Bespoke Bridgestone-tyres were also a very important part of the equation.

Then di Montezemolos ego came in the way. He didn't like being overshadowed, forced Schumi into retirement, the others left for various reasons and it's not been much success since. At least not considering their advantages and resources. Without knowing the inner workings of Ferrari F1 I suspect di Montezemolos presence and way of interferring with a lot of things contribute a great deal to an ineffectiv organization.

Edited by Hans V, 24 July 2014 - 16:05.


#8 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 24 July 2014 - 11:57

So I wonder whether the unprecedented success during the Schumacher years over-inflated Ferrari's expectations. 

 

I'd say no because Ferrari's expectation are always that high, dare I say always overinflated.

 

It's Ferrari's "thing" to be winning in F1, and if they aren't, chaos reigns internally. You can't just erase a half-century of corporate culture.



#9 kosmos

kosmos
  • Member

  • 7,408 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 24 July 2014 - 12:02

No, the change in regulations broke Ferrari, they were never prepared for a Formula 1 based in aero, computer simulations and everything related to it.



#10 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 9,529 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 24 July 2014 - 12:08

I think for Ferrari to have won 6 drivers titles in 18 years since MS joined in 96 is a strike rate of 1 every 3 years and better than anyone else over the same period of time. Because 5 of those titles were grouped in a 5 year period and 6 within 7 years, it makes the resulting timeframe seem more barren in terms of success. People have short memories! But any team wishing for anything better than that over the next 18 years is setting seriously high standards for itself. I've got a theory that the mechanisms of cost, rules and technology mean that we will see more cyclical sustained phases of domination in the future, the Williams years, the Ferrari years, the Red Bull years and now the Mercedes years may well be followed by the Mc-Honda years. Won't be at all surprised so see the "bunching" of success continue. Ferrari could be in for a long wait.


Edited by Rinehart, 24 July 2014 - 12:09.


#11 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 1,705 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 24 July 2014 - 12:13

No, the change in regulations broke Ferrari, they were never prepared for a Formula 1 based in aero, computer simulations and everything related to it.

There was no change in regulations that mandated aero and computer simulations. Ferrari's strength was based on spending the most money rather than investing for the future. They spent millions on testing 100 different solutions to find what worked rather than getting it right the first time. Other teams never had that luxury. Ferrari was simply outsmarted. 



#12 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,851 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 24 July 2014 - 12:46

Yes and no. Yes because the Schumacher years gave them a sense of entitlement that they're bigger than F1, and that F1 is broken whenever they're not winning, when no team, regardless of how big and historic it is, can ever expect to win every single year (and that would ruin the sport diminishing their acheivements, incidentally). No because this year in particular they actually should be doing immensely better. New regs with new engines should favour hugely the teams with large budgets who build their own engines - and there's only 2 of them: Mercedes and Ferrari. They're vastly underacheiving by having what seems only the 4th best car (and that's being nice to them) and being miles off Mercedes.



#13 kosmos

kosmos
  • Member

  • 7,408 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 24 July 2014 - 12:51

There was no change in regulations that mandated aero and computer simulations. Ferrari's strength was based on spending the most money rather than investing for the future. They spent millions on testing 100 different solutions to find what worked rather than getting it right the first time. Other teams never had that luxury. Ferrari was simply outsmarted. 

 

The change in regulations was the ban of testing, as I already said, they were not prepared for it.



#14 ali.unal

ali.unal
  • Member

  • 3,328 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 July 2014 - 12:59

No, with their budget and framework they SHOULD be competitive most years.. they just simply don't have a car designer good enough. They have a great engine team, good track team, great drivers but the fundamentals of the chassis they keep producing are not competitive with redbull, the better mclarens and now merc. They keep starting each year on the back foot because of it and it is not actually good enough.

I beg to disagree on these points. They had been lobbying over the years for Formula 1 to give importance back to the engines. When they achieved that end, however, they failed to deliver. This year could have been their redemption, but they proved inefficient on that front as well. At least, for now. I hope engine freeze won't be as decisive as in V8 years, otherwise they will always play catch-up.

 

As for the track team, I remember Ferrari's strategic team making very crucial mistakes over the years. Their pit-stops are amazing, no doubt about that, but overall track performance, especially strategy, are lacklustre compared to other top teams.

 

We have had two big rule changes in Formula 1 now in 5 years, and Ferrari failed to get the job done in as many occasion. There has been an overall inefficiency within the team following the departure of Schumacher and the dream team.



#15 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 3,003 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 24 July 2014 - 13:37

I get the impression there's a school of thought amongst some Italians that if Ferrari doesn't win, there's a problem with F1. Much as I prefer it when Ferrari is winning, I don't hold with that myself. I think in general, if Ferrari doesn't win, to the extent that there's a problem, it lies with Ferrari.

 

I think 2012 was the last time Ferrari performed well enough. Being runner up last year was a hollow achievement because of the crushing margin of Red Bull's victory, and the virtual self-destruction of Mclaren. I don't think any team can expect to win all the time, but I think Ferrari ought to expect to fight for the title nearly every year. Not winning the WDC for seven years in a row is not what we're aiming for.



#16 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 1,053 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 24 July 2014 - 13:56

I think I made this point in a different thread recently that their success 1999-2005 + 2007 is a blip overall rather than a trend - this has given a false image overall of what Ferrari is and should be doing. What was achieved in those years is very impressive, but was done under very special circumstances which don't exist anymore. Ferrari and a small hard-core element of their fans do seem to be having a very hard time accepting this.



#17 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 24 July 2014 - 14:16

Ferrari's success was largely due to Michael.

 

1999-2004 was a blip in a rather average Ferrari team since 1981.



#18 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,955 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 24 July 2014 - 14:26

No, they were brilliant times and as an F1 / MSC / Ferrari fan, the best memories I have of the sport.

 

From 2009 onwards, the team just hasn't quite gotten to grips with the various rule changes and the brilliance of others (Brawn, Red Bull, Mercedes)

 

MirNyet above makes a very valid point. Sustained success for the team has seldom been the norm when you look back over the years.



#19 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 24 July 2014 - 14:35

I get the impression there's a school of thought amongst some Italians that if Ferrari doesn't win, there's a problem with F1. Much as I prefer it when Ferrari is winning, I don't hold with that myself. I think in general, if Ferrari doesn't win, to the extent that there's a problem, it lies with Ferrari.

 

I think 2012 was the last time Ferrari performed well enough. Being runner up last year was a hollow achievement because of the crushing margin of Red Bull's victory, and the virtual self-destruction of Mclaren. I don't think any team can expect to win all the time, but I think Ferrari ought to expect to fight for the title nearly every year. Not winning the WDC for seven years in a row is not what we're aiming for.

 

2012 was horrible for Ferrari. It was just down to Fred. Much like Schu in 1997 and 1998.

 

Take away Fred, Ferrari is scary slow.



Advertisement

#20 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,133 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 24 July 2014 - 14:38

To an extent yes. Schumacher/Brawn/Byrne inflated Ferrari's ego and expectations. 

 

But lets take this year's Red Bull, if not for the crappy engine, Red Bull would have been places. 



#21 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,381 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 24 July 2014 - 14:41

There was no change in regulations that mandated aero and computer simulations. Ferrari's strength was based on spending the most money rather than investing for the future. They spent millions on testing 100 different solutions to find what worked rather than getting it right the first time. Other teams never had that luxury. Ferrari was simply outsmarted. 

Oh dear..

 

Ferrari had their test track at their front door. Once they put everything they had at their disposal to proper use, they won everything. This drive was led by LdM. Interestingly enough before the lean 20 years, it was also LdM that drove the team to success. Then he left. When he was called back, he prepared the road for the Todt/Byrne/Brawn/Schumacher period. After the continued success, the FIA started to change the rules that were beneficiary to Ferrari, reduced testing, single tire supplier, Parc ferme rules, spare car. Also the dream team dispersed.

 

Another important thing was reliability. Schumacher, irritated by the rather bizarre failures in his first season with Ferrari demanded reliability, at the expense of outright performance., otherwise he'd left before he won the first title. Since Rubens later claimed that he needs to be more demanding of the team, and that Schumacher has greater demands,, the claim that Schumacher demanded has a lot of credibility.

 

And the first WCC and WDC with Schumacher have won was because of better reliability than other teams, especially against McLaren.

 

The main weakness with Ferrari has always been that they are a bit less innovative and conservative.However they were lacking quality control. Once quality control took hold, and they threw their weight behind a proven WDC things took off.

 

These days it's difficult to say for me what brings them ahead again. But IMO they need a new culture, they need a young and hungry person in the same mould of LdM.

 

Money wasn't the issue, as other teams (Toyota) have demonstrated that you can throw even more money at the operation and not getting anywhere. In Toyota's case every decision had to go through the main management back in Japan, which was too slow. But in Ferrari's case the main issue seems to me that they need someone who can give the team clear direction, and not be afraid to shake up the F1 team.

 

For operating a successful F1 team, I'm always reminded of the following commercial: It features a plane, but the same could be done with an F1 team.

 



#22 August

August
  • Member

  • 2,244 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 24 July 2014 - 14:41

One can only ask where Ferrari would be now without Schumacher, Brawn, Byrne & Co?

 

They could ride with that legacy for few years and obviously those years helped them to make their brand even stronger and more attractive to sponsors even today. Had Schumacher not gone to Ferrari with tech staff, it's hard to say if nobody else could've taken Ferrari to the top.



#23 Burai

Burai
  • Member

  • 1,022 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 24 July 2014 - 14:51

The Schumacher years fixed Ferrari. The problem was not replacing the people who left at the end of that era with people of equal talent. Raikkonen was no Schumacher, Domenicali no Todt, Costa no Byrne.

 

Regardless of how badly the team has slumped since those glory days, they can take comfort that they aren't as embarrassing as they were through the 80s. :lol:



#24 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 9,529 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 24 July 2014 - 15:03

The thing is its not rocket science. What did Ferrari do to achieve that patch of success? - They went and got the best leaders, engineers and drivers. What did RBR do? What did Mercedes do. What are McLaren starting to do now...

 

F1 has not shown that throwing money at the situation is a recipe for guaranteed success... but throwing money smartly at the situation is a pretty good way to go.



#25 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,381 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 24 July 2014 - 15:11

One can only ask where Ferrari would be now without Schumacher, Brawn, Byrne & Co?

 

They could ride with that legacy for few years and obviously those years helped them to make their brand even stronger and more attractive to sponsors even today. Had Schumacher not gone to Ferrari with tech staff, it's hard to say if nobody else could've taken Ferrari to the top.

Well there were other drivers capable, but not Barrichello. Barrichello was better than anyone else on too few occasions. For Ferrari Schumacher was the perfect person, because he was the first German to win a WDC, which had a number of benefits.

 

However the U.S.A is still the place were most Ferrari's sell. Since F1 isn't that big in the States, I do wonder about the marketing effect. Maybe the future strong sale point is in China, but that ain't a F1 crazy nation either.

 

Years ago I was somewhere in India in the countryside. No car brands we'd recognize from current F1, except for FIAT's from the fifities used as Taxi, and interestingly calendars with Ferrari cars in repair shops (courtesy of FIAT of course). So I let  anyone do their own conclusions why Ferrari was the only well known brand there at that time (FIAT was known, but who gets excited about a taxi maker?).

 

There are issues as well. For example in my home country, if you start using the word Williams, most folks would not think of Williams F1 team, but of a liquor of the same name made out of pears. If you mention McLaren, people not interest in motorsports usually won't know what I am talking about  But wherever I went and mention Ferrari, people would know. Even Mercedes isn't as well known in countries like India, even though Mercedes has the longest history in car building,

 

I seriously doubt that Ferrari and it's expectations have a lot to do with the ToByBraSchu era of Ferrari. If anything, Mr. Ferrari himself has started building the myth that is surrounding Ferrari. In any case he was a demanding man with a lot of expectations too.



#26 wrcva

wrcva
  • Member

  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 24 July 2014 - 15:24

Why bring Shumi into this?   

 

It is LdM and his decisions broke Ferrari.  When you sail away from your core business (building racing machines) and pretend to be a Global Marketing and Branding company flirting with a mega sponsor this is what happens.   You cannot make racing decisions under the influence of commercial considerations.   When you do that, and add a dose of CYA corporate culture... bingo.  



#27 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,381 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 24 July 2014 - 15:25

The thing is its not rocket science. What did Ferrari do to achieve that patch of success? - They went and got the best leaders, engineers and drivers. What did RBR do? What did Mercedes do. What are McLaren starting to do now...

 

F1 has not shown that throwing money at the situation is a recipe for guaranteed success... but throwing money smartly at the situation is a pretty good way to go.

Well Ferrari took in people that won championships with Benetton. But since Benetton was looked down upon, as much as RBR is considered these days just as as a drinks company. And Ron Dennis didn't pick up Todt/Byrne/Brawn should tell you that they were not universally considered the best.  Besides I doubt that under Ron Dennis hand for example they would have worked so well together as they did with Todt at Ferrari. Nor that Ron Dennis would give in to Schumachers demand that they hire his trusted people with him. Nor was it needed back then, as Mclaren was the top team at that time.



#28 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,381 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 24 July 2014 - 15:32

Why bring Shumi into this?   

 

It is LdM and his decisions broke Ferrari.  When you sail away from your core business (building racing machines) and pretend to be a Global Marketing and Branding company flirting with a mega sponsor this is what happens.   You cannot make racing decisions under the influence of commercial considerations.   When you do that, and add a dose of CYA corporate culture... bingo.  

At the same time, LdM is responsible for the last championship won before the 20 years lean time, and once he was called back, he made the decisions that ultimately led to the dream team. Is he past his selling date? Maybe, but he wouldn't be the first leader of a company to see the value to return to it's core business and act upon. He hass done it before, and I'd think he'd do it again.



#29 garagetinkerer

garagetinkerer
  • Member

  • 2,731 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 24 July 2014 - 15:38

No, with their budget and framework they SHOULD be competitive most years.. they just simply don't have a car designer good enough. They have a great engine team, good track team, great drivers but the fundamentals of the chassis they keep producing are not competitive with redbull, the better mclarens and now merc. They keep starting each year on the back foot because of it and it is not actually good enough.

Well, for this year no one was anywhere near the budget available to Mercedes... Not RBR, nor Ferrari.

 

However, as a tifoso, it was sad to see the dream team come apart as it did, and if you believe how things came apart, it boiled down to Monty wanting more influence at Ferrari. The team was and is always bigger than one man, and perhaps Monty will do well to remember it himself. I like Monty for not only got Ferrari all respectable in road car business, he also got them to be the most successful team through right hiring and so on.

 

The answer is a "No!" Schumacher/ Todt/ Brawn et. all got Ferrari into focus once again on track and glory and records.



#30 wrcva

wrcva
  • Member

  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 24 July 2014 - 15:43

At the same time, LdM is responsible for the last championship won before the 20 years lean time, and once he was called back, he made the decisions that ultimately led to the dream team. Is he past his selling date? Maybe, but he wouldn't be the first leader of a company to see the value to return to it's core business and act upon. He hass done it before, and I'd think he'd do it again.

 

You might be right.  My impression is that he had a pretty good leadership team in place for the racing units while he was more focused on expanding the road car business.   Dom was very light weight and inexperienced puppy (compared to Todd/Brawn), and that may have pulled him in further to micro-manage the racing side as well... regardless, I'll put everything on him in the post Todd/Brawn/Shumi era



#31 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,137 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 24 July 2014 - 20:13

Why bring Shumi into this?   

 

It is LdM and his decisions broke Ferrari.  When you sail away from your core business (building racing machines) and pretend to be a Global Marketing and Branding company flirting with a mega sponsor this is what happens.   You cannot make racing decisions under the influence of commercial considerations.   When you do that, and add a dose of CYA corporate culture... bingo.  

 

Dude, LdM was at the helm and instrumental in BOTH successful periods of (edit: the Scuderia) Ferrari in the past 40 years AND has made Ferrari road cars what it is today.


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 24 July 2014 - 20:14.


#32 Ricardo F1

Ricardo F1
  • Member

  • 38,850 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 24 July 2014 - 20:19

More accurately should be stated the Byrne/Brawn/Schumacher years.  They brought together a fantastic team that created a great car around a great driver.  Right now it seems Ferrari only have the latter.



#33 Nustang70

Nustang70
  • Member

  • 2,411 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 24 July 2014 - 21:11

More accurately should be stated the Byrne/Brawn/Schumacher years.  They brought together a fantastic team that created a great car around a great driver.  Right now it seems Ferrari only have the latter.

 

Yes, I just used "Schumacher years" as shorthand for this.  

 

I think some folks have misunderstood me.  Certainly that period restored Ferrari to greatness, but it was more than that.  Before the Schumi years, Ferrari had never strung together drivers' title challenges for more than three years straight, and typically far less often.  Starting with the Schumi years, Ferrari mounted 8 consecutive title challenges, which I think created unrealistic expectations for Ferrari.   



#34 Spillage

Spillage
  • Member

  • 1,053 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 24 July 2014 - 21:15

The irony of the Schumacher-era was that the huge success of the Italian national F1-team was largely due to foreigners; a Frenchman (Todt), some Englishmen (Brawn, Stepney et. al.), a South-African (Byrne), a German (Schumacher) and a few others I cannot remember. Edit: And Japanese. Bespoke Bridgestone-tyres were also a very important part of the equation.

Then di Montezemolos ego came in the way. He didn't like being overshadowed, forced Schumi into retirement, the others left for various reasons and it's not been much success since. At least not considering their advantages and resources. Without knowing the inner workings of Ferrari F1 I suspect di Montezemolos presence and way of interferring with a lot of things contribute a great deal to an ineffectiv organization.

There's definitely something in this. During Irvine's F1 Legends episode he kind of casually said that some of Todt's most important achievements were keeping LdM away from the team and manufacturing a bubble in which Brawn, Byrne & co. could work. He said it so casually that Steve Ryder didn't really pick up on it, which was a shame. Sounded for all the world like Irvine was suggesting that Todt and the other key team members during the glory years considered LdM as a potentially destabilising hindrance. Certainly he seems to have more say now than he did when Todt was running the race team.



#35 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,210 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 24 July 2014 - 21:17

Not at all

All that money won from WCC prize money from the Concorde Agreement would have been in the hundreds of millions and would have helped them build the best infastructure there is. As well as hiring the best there is.

The problem may be the 'hire Italian only' policy of late. Their best days were a United Nations coterie of the best there was; British, French, German, South African etc etc. Now they have the best driver, mega millions but something keeps them back consistently.

just my 2 cents.

#36 TheDoctor

TheDoctor
  • Member

  • 161 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 24 July 2014 - 21:25

Ferrari fell into this false sense of security during the Schumacher years.

They didn't realise that other teams were raising the game as Merc and RB did.

 

But the problem was more Fernando as his great performances actually covered up a mediocre car and teams once the old guard moved on. 

Had Alonso not been there the wake up call would have happened in 2011/2012 and not this year that they had to re-build the team.

 

Merc invested many more millions in their team to get to a position of dominance as did RB when compared to Ferrari. They also brought in talent from everywhere else to ensure they would end up at the top of the heap. 

 

This is what Ferrari started in 1995/96 after terrible seasons the years before. They needed an oh sh*t moment to get into action; 2014 is that moment. 

 

We will win races in 2015, but the title i think will be too far beyond us until 2016/17 while we are going through our rebuilding process.



#37 TheDoctor

TheDoctor
  • Member

  • 161 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 24 July 2014 - 21:28

 

There's definitely something in this. During Irvine's F1 Legends episode he kind of casually said that some of Todt's most important achievements were keeping LdM away from the team and manufacturing a bubble in which Brawn, Byrne & co. could work. He said it so casually that Steve Ryder didn't really pick up on it, which was a shame. Sounded for all the world like Irvine was suggesting that Todt and the other key team members during the glory years considered LdM as a potentially destabilising hindrance. Certainly he seems to have more say now than he did when Todt was running the race team.

 

 

LDM creates an air of fear in the team. This is not useful. Fear does not create an environment to innovate but rather to be bland in your approach and simply toe the line. RB have done a Ferrari; they pushed the limits as they were not afraid to do so.

 

We need another Todt in the team to lead us. Marco could be this person but i think his close ties to LDM may be an issue. LDM has to let him manage the team in his way as his approach is starting to remind me of Todt. He has a no nonsense approach; i like it.



#38 f1RacingForever

f1RacingForever
  • Member

  • 975 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 24 July 2014 - 22:07

Every team goes through cycles of success. Mclaren are in the same boat that Ferrari are in right now. Redbull have one foot in already. Now is Mercedes time. I do agree with the theory that they were simply unprepared for the testing ban and that affected them the most. They've been outsmarted by more prepared teams but with their resources it's hard to invision them staying down for long. It's only a matter of time before everything clicks again.



#39 TheDoctor

TheDoctor
  • Member

  • 161 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 24 July 2014 - 22:41

Every team goes through cycles of success. Mclaren are in the same boat that Ferrari are in right now. Redbull have one foot in already. Now is Mercedes time. I do agree with the theory that they were simply unprepared for the testing ban and that affected them the most. They've been outsmarted by more prepared teams but with their resources it's hard to invision them staying down for long. It's only a matter of time before everything clicks again.

Yes this is true. However their biggest resource was their test track. 

However one thing they are doing now is using Marussia as their guinea pig for the season with respect to the PU as they don't want to risk their own reliability.

 

Merc can't really do this with their customer teams.

 

As for their resources, Merc has more money and RB has out spent them for the last 6 years also. We no longer have a resource or technical edge in f1. That i think is clear and is the big challenge for us.

 

Our simulator and wind tunnel were not developed at the same rate as others simply because we had something better... the test track.

 

We are getting there but it is a long road to the top... again.



Advertisement

#40 f1RacingForever

f1RacingForever
  • Member

  • 975 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 25 July 2014 - 01:28

Yes this is true. However their biggest resource was their test track. 

However one thing they are doing now is using Marussia as their guinea pig for the season with respect to the PU as they don't want to risk their own reliability.

 

Merc can't really do this with their customer teams.

 

As for their resources, Merc has more money and RB has out spent them for the last 6 years also. We no longer have a resource or technical edge in f1. That i think is clear and is the big challenge for us.

 

Our simulator and wind tunnel were not developed at the same rate as others simply because we had something better... the test track.

 

We are getting there but it is a long road to the top... again.

agreed



#41 pizzalover

pizzalover
  • Member

  • 304 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 25 July 2014 - 09:49

Bernie and Max fixed F1 so Ferrari would  get back to the top.

 

Max gone. Bernie's lost grip. Not so easy.



#42 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,210 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 25 July 2014 - 11:44

Bernie and Max fixed F1 so Ferrari would  get back to the top.

 

Max gone. Bernie's lost grip. Not so easy.

 

Sure(!)



#43 hittheapex

hittheapex
  • Member

  • 444 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 25 July 2014 - 11:55

 

There's definitely something in this. During Irvine's F1 Legends episode he kind of casually said that some of Todt's most important achievements were keeping LdM away from the team and manufacturing a bubble in which Brawn, Byrne & co. could work. He said it so casually that Steve Ryder didn't really pick up on it, which was a shame. Sounded for all the world like Irvine was suggesting that Todt and the other key team members during the glory years considered LdM as a potentially destabilising hindrance. Certainly he seems to have more say now than he did when Todt was running the race team.

 

There was a Mark Hughes article in Motorsport Magazine a couple of months back and he also picked up on the way Todt, Brawn and Schumacher worked together to protect each other and do their best to keep LDM from preventing them going about the job of winning in the best way possible.



#44 HaydenFan

HaydenFan
  • Member

  • 2,107 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 25 July 2014 - 12:42

 

There's definitely something in this. During Irvine's F1 Legends episode he kind of casually said that some of Todt's most important achievements were keeping LdM away from the team and manufacturing a bubble in which Brawn, Byrne & co. could work. He said it so casually that Steve Ryder didn't really pick up on it, which was a shame. Sounded for all the world like Irvine was suggesting that Todt and the other key team members during the glory years considered LdM as a potentially destabilising hindrance. Certainly he seems to have more say now than he did when Todt was running the race team.

 

 

You allow businessmen to run a sport team or league, it will make money, but it will not mean it will be successful. I think that is how Ferrari operated. Not like a business.