113 replies to this topic

[warp]

 

Don't get too hung up about championship standings. Ferrari gets the extra money from Bernie anyhow.

But being just able too win a race at all must be the first priority at this moment.

 

That is only because the general public perception that Ferrari is THE F1 team... which may change if they keep on not winning for a long time.

 

Ferrari needs to be up there to validate that perception. Not that it will change any time soon, mind you.

[hittheapex]

That's silly.  The 1993 Ferrari was a 2?  They bagged 3 podiums, were solid mid-pack qualifiers, and finished 4th in the Constructors Championship.

We are talking about a team that is used to at least winning races almost every season, though. They have had a few seasons through their history without wins, but not many. 2 is perhaps too low, maybe a 4 at best. They didn't even get on the podium in 1980 and finished 10th in the constructors, that must rank as a 1.

 

I would put 2014 at a 2, maybe 3. No podium, but at least they are mid table.

Edited by hittheapex, 20 October 2014 - 00:27.

[hittheapex]

Thank you for your explanation. That makes sense, yes.

To summarize, I would suggest that the handling of the car is definitely an important additional factor to take into consideration, and one I perhaps glossed over too easily before. It is indeed true that the cars of teams like Marussia and Caterham aren't necessarily easier to drive and more predictable, but I think that works both ways. Faster cars are not also by definition easier to drive - and that obviously complicates things somewhat. In any case, I think that over a whole season drivers do tend to reach a point where they're getting near that 100% car performance; whether that's Rosberg and Hamilton coming within hundreds of a second of each other's time in qualifying in 2014, Massa getting very close to matching Alonso in late 2012, or some midfield team regularly lining up side by side on the grid.

When comparing McLaren and Ferrari during the Hamilton/Button and Alonso/Massa years, it is obviously true that a lot of factors played a role in determining the final results, as you rightly mention. Statistics only reveal a part of the story, and the eternal popularity and appeal of the Driver vs. Driver threads proves as much. But while I'm not sure I agree with the idea that Hamilton and Button being closer together suggests that the car was both easier to drive and 'probably faster', I do consider it possible that recent Ferraris were difficult to push to their limit. In that sense we might perhaps never know how fast the Ferraris really were, because who is to say that Alonso was actually making the most of it. All we know for sure is that he did better than Massa. Regardless, making a fast car that is too difficult to consistently drive at the limit would definitely have to be a negative mark against Ferrari, and perhaps in that sense it is true that another car, like the McLaren, would be considered the better overall package.

I suppose my main point would be that while there are many blocks over which a team might stumble in their attempts to make and race the best possible package - reliability, pure speed, driveability, race strategy, set-up predictability, team logistics, etc. - and that it is possible that Ferrari has hit more of those blocks than other teams at various points, I nevertheless consider it to be somewhat annoying to see Ferrari portrayed as a glorified midfield team that has been dragged from obscurity only by the brilliance of Fernando Alonso. In that sense then, I would have to answer the original question of the topic by saying: yes, it is possible, but Ferrari is not the hopeless case some seem keen to suggest it is.

 

1. I agree. The Jordan 191 for example, had a reputation as being a very friendly car to push and drive to the limit but more power and downforce would have been nice for them I'm sure. Watson, who shook the car down for Anderson, and of course Schumacher at Spa, were very complementary about the handling.

 

2. Again, I agree. It's not enough to make a car that is fast over one lap. If the driver is chasing understeer or oversteer the whole race, its going to be harder to be faster over the distance.

 

3. I think Alonso deserves his praise but the idea that he is the only driver who could do that would be an exaggeration in my opinion. Even though I consider Alonso, by a very slim margin, the better driver when Hamilton is on form, the Ferrari was at worst the 4th best car, in 2012 and 2013. I think Hamilton could also have made the difference. Some people do consider 4th the midfield but I think it is a bit harsh. In 2010 and 2011. Massa was top 6 or higher in most of his races, even in 2011 with all the collisions. 2012-3, top 8 for most of them. It depends on individual definitions but if one considers points finishers in almost every race the midfield, then they are at the very top of the midfield. I suppose a definition from me would be that a lot of midfield teams have one car that doesn't score points in a third to half of the races minimum. Backmarker teams struggle to get any cars into the points in most of their races.

Edited by hittheapex, 20 October 2014 - 00:42.

[thiscocks]

I was wondering, since the beginning of the F1 as we know it, Ferrari has won something in every decade, either the driver championship, the constructor championship or both, but in this decade (2010-2019) Ferrari hasn't won anything and we are about to enter the second half of this decade with no significant improvement for the team, could this decade be the first in Ferrari history that they end up empty handed ?

You mean not won anything since 1993?

[as65p]

 I nevertheless consider it to be somewhat annoying to see Ferrari portrayed as a glorified midfield team that has been dragged from obscurity only by the brilliance of Fernando Alonso.

 

It seems quite a few people are annoyed by that idea, tifosi as well as parts of Ferrari's management.

 

But hey, there's a good chance they won't have to endure such embarassment in the near future. Here's to a driver lineup which won't insult the prancing horse by dragging it to places it doesn't belong!

[Jon83]

It could be but it is only 2014. Ask again in 2018 or 2019.

[PlatenGlass]

Obviously it could be, but it's way too early to say. It was only two years ago that Alonso was very nearly champion in the Ferrari. Things change very quickly. Yeah, I know 2012 was all Alonso in the 7th best car (or whatever it is now), but when you consider speed and reliability, if the championship had suddenly ended after Monza, Alonso would have just won the championship in the best car. It was only when Red Bull got their act together and got those four wins in a row with Vettel that the Red Bull convincingly overcame the Ferrari. So it was probably at some point in the middle or end of that four-race run that the Red Bull became the best car for the season overall.

[Afterburner]

Obviously it could be, but it's way too early to say. It was only two years ago that Alonso was very nearly champion in the Ferrari. Things change very quickly. Yeah, I know 2012 was all Alonso in the 7th best car (or whatever it is now), but when you consider speed and reliability, if the championship had suddenly ended after Monza, Alonso would have just won the championship in the best car. It was only when Red Bull got their act together and got those four wins in a row with Vettel that the Red Bull convincingly overcame the Ferrari. So it was probably at some point in the middle or end of that four-race run that the Red Bull became the best car for the season overall.

Don't forget Japan--even Massa made it to a podium that race. Had FA not blown the start he would've likely been on course for second.

Ferrari was not abysmal in 2012. Behind Red Bull and McLaren at most tracks, yes, but worse than 3rd best overall? Not a chance. RBR and Macca's pace was offset by their reliability issues, as clearly shown by FA even having a shot at the title--and don't forget that RBR, like Ferrari didn't even have a claim to the fastest car until halfway through the season (around Valencia-ish, the first race that year where Vettel genuinely ran away with the lead), and even then they had glaring weak points (Monza, Spa) and were consistently challenged by Lotus and McLaren.

If SV's car had blown up on any one of the races which he won instead of at a race like Monza it would've been game over for RBR. Spun another way, had SV's car not failed at Valencia, by memory of my calculations he would've only just lost the lead at Germany before thoroughly establishing it again for the remainder of the season by Belgium or so; people forget SV was at or near the top of the points table for most of the early part of the year when RBR was still struggling to come to grips with the change in aero regs and Macca and occasionally Lotus was clearly superior. The FA 'dragging a car into contention' story from 2012 is mostly a myth as his being in contention was mostly down to the unreliability of his rivals' cars--those being Lotus, McLaren, and RBR.

But this is just if's and but's and hypothetical situation-ing, which can be played opposite this with just as much merit. Truth is you could probably re-run that season with the exact same calendar, exact same tracks, and exact same cars starting next year and get different results. Too many variables in F1 to say 'it was this' or 'it was that'. The goal is to make the most of your opportunities--those who do are more frequently closer to the front, those who don't are less frequently so. Really the only constant you can go on.

So I don't think Ferrari have been consistently 'out of it' this decade. 2011 and 2014 were/have been pretty bad, but in the years they were competitive, they've been victims of a combination of some bad luck and general 'wrong place, wrong time' (except 2013, which was kind of a WTF year in that they squandered the best car but then had to deal with a midseason tyre change as soon as they had a chance to find themselves on the rebound). They'll get there again; they're a works team, they've got no shortage of strong drivers ready to fill any available voids, and they're undergoing a technical reshuffling complete with staff from the team that dominated the first third or so of the decade. A title before 2020 is plausible I think. Not a certainty, but definitely 'more' possible than 'less', in my opinion.

[as65p]

We'll see what Vettel does with those almighty Ferraris himself from next year on. Should be fun.

[Afterburner]

We'll see what Vettel does with those almighty Ferraris himself from next year on. Should be fun.

According to this forum, he's good at lucking into being in the right place in the right time, so I gather he'll be just fine.

If not Vettel, they'll find someone else. This is Ferrari we're talking about, after all.

[turssi]

"The first Ferrari of Michael was much further behind the competition compared to the Ferrari of Alonso today. When I arrived on a scale of 1 to 10 we were at 2. In 2009 they started from a 7."-Jean Todt.

He would know, wouldn't he?

In 2007 they got the WDC so wouldn't that be a 9 at least even without the WCC?

And in 2008 didn't they take the WCC?

But still Fernando come in only in 2010 so isn't that the relevant year?

Edited by turssi, 20 October 2014 - 22:53.

[EthanM]

2009 is the "diffuser era" which Ferrari missed (both double diffusers in 09 and EBDs later) so no you wouldn't call it a 9

1996 we 're talking wrong engine (V12 vs V10 which Ferrari just introduced in 1996), way off on aero cause they had missed the active suspension train (yeah it was banned by then but the aero approach changed significantly with active suspensions and Barnard was still stuck in pre active thinking). And keep in mind back then Ferrari kept 2 technical centers, one in Maranello and Barnard's tech center in England. The logistics of it all were a mess. Which led them to actually run 1995 parts on the car cause the parts from Italy and the parts from the UK didn't really gell (there was talk of major structural problems, rumor is Irvine was the test mule)

[scheivlak]

 rumor is Irvine was the test mule)

I think there's some proof of that http://prudentbaby.c...-mule-cocktail/

[EthanM]

I think there's some proof of that http://prudentbaby.c...-mule-cocktail/

 

that and the fact he retired from like 10 out 16 races, majority of which was actually car failures not crashes