Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

What was Ferrari's advantage in 2002 and 2004?


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#1 dierome1987

dierome1987
  • Member

  • 92 posts
  • Joined: June 15

Posted 28 July 2015 - 14:16

Reading the "F1 Greatest Myths" thread, a question came up.

 

Mercedes have been so dominant for the past two years largely because their ability to integrate their powerful PU with the chassis like no other team. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the rules do not allow much opportunity for other teams to catch up.

 

What was Ferrari's advantage in the 2002 and 2004 seasons that made them so dominant? The rules were far more open back then, and there was also unlimited testing.

 

Although it is admirable what Mercedes are doing now, I think those two seasons are still the most incredible display of dominance in F1.


Edited by dierome1987, 28 July 2015 - 14:58.


Advertisement

#2 JeePee

JeePee
  • Member

  • 5,907 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 28 July 2015 - 14:19

Tyres.



#3 DutchQuicksilver

DutchQuicksilver
  • Member

  • 6,304 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 28 July 2015 - 14:20

It was the complete package, and indeed tyres. Bridgestone had an exclusive deal with Ferrari, whilst Michelin had deals with multiple top teams. Further to that, the Bridgestone tyre was superior to the Michelin up until the end of 2004.

 

The tyre war back then had a great influence on which car was fast and which wasn't.



#4 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 4,954 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 28 July 2015 - 14:21

Barely legal tyres and the catastrophic collapse of the opposition in 2004. BAR was the 2nd best car ffs.



#5 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 28 July 2015 - 14:21

Bridgestone

#6 FullThrottleF1

FullThrottleF1
  • Member

  • 3,449 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 28 July 2015 - 14:21

Ferrari International Assistance now known as the 'Flipping Idiotic Association'



#7 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 24,873 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 28 July 2015 - 14:23

How many laps of Fiorano did they do in 2002 and 2004?



#8 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 28 July 2015 - 14:28

There will no doubt be books that describe it perfectly.

 

I remember the Autocourse team review chapters in those books being rather detailed about what had happened but I don't have these books at hand by now.

 

But what I recall form 2002 is that Ferrari took the job to tighten the package and optimize instead of compromize to a new level. They introduced a number of new details in packaging hardware within the car. That yielded gains in weight distribution and aerodynamics rarely seen  within F1 at that time.

Even the fact that the BMW engine supposedly had more raw power, that deficit was more than made up by the excellent heandling of the car in particularly race trim.

Have the car then suit the nominated #1 driver within the team, a reliability rate that was fantastic et voila...

Lots of work, remember that the car wasn't even deemed ready for the start of the 2002 season but man, once it was...

 

Can't tell what was the reason for 2004.

 

 

Edit:  tires were in both year part of the deal too

 

Henri


Edited by Henri Greuter, 28 July 2015 - 14:29.


#9 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 28 July 2015 - 14:34

A lot of it was tires, but it was a combination of everything.

 

Also consider the opposition.

 

For all its potential, BMW Williams was Ralf Schumacher and Juan Montoya. McLaren was Kimi and David Coulthard.

 

Those combos could take Barrichello, but Schumacher in his prime in a fast, well balanced, reliable car, with good strategy, and different tires to the rest?

 

If youre on Tire A and most of your challengers are on Tire B, and Tire A is a little better or at least more suited to you; you have ALL the advantage.



#10 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 8,479 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 28 July 2015 - 14:39

Ferrari cars of those years were always many many steps ahead of the rest. They simply looked stunning, it's like other cars of the same year were Formula 1.5 or Formula 2 cars.

It's car/package, and yeah it's "resources" that made it happen.



#11 Abranet

Abranet
  • Member

  • 287 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 28 July 2015 - 14:53



Barely legal tyres and the catastrophic collapse of the opposition in 2004. BAR was the 2nd best car ffs.

 

Isn't that the same as legal? :) 

 

Can't remember any Bridgestone legality issues only recall the Michelin issues. 



#12 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 4,954 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 28 July 2015 - 14:59

Isn't that the same as legal? :)

 

Can't remember any Bridgestone legality issues only recall the Michelin issues. 

 

http://www.slideshar...ip-presentation

 

FIA was clearly on the Bridgestone/Ferrari side during those years.

 

http://forums.autosp...for-schumacher/'

 

And Schumacher's special blend is discussed in the above.


Edited by Jimisgod, 28 July 2015 - 15:00.


#13 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,232 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 28 July 2015 - 15:02

Everything plus perfect use of the tyres.



#14 63Corvette

63Corvette
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 28 July 2015 - 15:06

Schumacher was able to use his position, and skills to build a winning "team" around himself, which, as a 'team" was able to overcome the other F1 teams. JMHO



#15 Otaku

Otaku
  • Member

  • 1,715 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 28 July 2015 - 15:18

It was the whole package, but mostly 2 things:

 

a) tyres made just for them

b) destruction of the Mercedes engine in the McLarens (which was the only real contender) via the whole berillium crap (they were back to about ~98/~99 levels of HP)

 

 

In 2004 the Michelin front tyres width fiasco happened?


Edited by Otaku, 28 July 2015 - 15:19.


#16 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,465 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 28 July 2015 - 15:47

It was the whole package, but mostly 2 things:

 

a) tyres made just for them

b) destruction of the Mercedes engine in the McLarens (which was the only real contender) via the whole berillium crap (they were back to about ~98/~99 levels of HP)

 

 

In 2004 the Michelin front tyres width fiasco happened?

That was after the 2003 Hungarian GP.

 

Storm in a teacup though, just search for Bira's interview with Pierre Dupasquier here. MIchelin users still used the same tyres later on. 



#17 Balnazzard

Balnazzard
  • Member

  • 2,038 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 28 July 2015 - 16:10

Also for between 2003-2004 winter Mclaren completely failed with their new car, for them things didnt start to improve until Silverstone where Kimi took the pole and later won in Spa (the race where Schumi secured his 7th and last championship). Williams-BMW also failed with their "walrus" design. So it wasnt all about Ferrari getting everything perfectly in place, the opposition from Mclaren and Williams during those years just wasnt nearly strong enough...and I dont think I need to even remind how unreliable Mclaren was during those seasons.



#18 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 28 July 2015 - 16:19

That was after the 2003 Hungarian GP.

 

Storm in a teacup though, just search for Bira's interview with Pierre Dupasquier here. MIchelin users still used the same tyres later on. 

 

Not only does this need to go in the F1 Myths thread but it needs to be stamped at the top of the forum. Michelin never modified their tires. For all that noise post-Hungary, nothing actually changed on the cars.



#19 FerrariV12

FerrariV12
  • Member

  • 934 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 28 July 2015 - 16:53

I'm inclined to believe that Ferrari were just that good 2002-2004. Michelin had an advantage for (a lot of) 2003 which made things appear closer, plus the new rules introduced that year mixed things up a bit, at least until teams figured out the optimum qualifying/fuel strategy. I still reckon Schumacher would have won '05 with a spec tyre too, maybe '06 would have been less clear cut though, with Schumacher probably getting past his (very high) peak and Alonso on the up, I'd have still put money on Schumacher for '06 on spec rubber if you twisted my arm though.

 

The difference between them and previous dominators such as Williams just under a decade before them, was that reliability was starting to increase at this point - maybe not 2002 as much but definitely 2004 was seeing a big upswing, so you could rely less on the leader's engine blowing up when half a minute up the road to get a different result.

 

Plus - and I say this as a childhood Mansell and Hill fan - but when you have the best car AND the best driver, it's going to be even more emphatic. See 1988.

 

(Yes without Schumacher then Barrichello would have been champion both in '02 and '04, but not in such crushing unprecedented fashion)



Advertisement

#20 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 28 July 2015 - 17:15

How many laps of Fiorano did they do in 2002 and 2004?

In 2004 they did 2570 laps in Fiorano ;)

#21 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 4,954 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 28 July 2015 - 17:31

In 2004 they did 2570 laps in Fiorano ;)

 

Was that more than the number of race laps that year? :eek:



#22 Frankbullitt

Frankbullitt
  • Member

  • 3,080 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 28 July 2015 - 17:32

Michael Schumacher.



#23 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,465 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 28 July 2015 - 17:49

Was that more than the number of race laps that year? :eek:

More than 2x that number. I think the number of race laps was something like 1121.



#24 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 28 July 2015 - 18:06

It was the brute force approach to car/tyre development. **** loads of money and thousands of laps trying new parts and compounds. They had test teams in as many three circuits at the same time. In the past Ferrari would even ship the cars from Monaco on Thursday so they could practice starts, test new parts and setups in Fiorano on Friday. 



#25 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 28 July 2015 - 18:09

Number of race laps in 2004 were 1122 (5472.71 km).

 

We can also have a look on how much test laps every team made in that year overall.

 

Toyota          11883 laps (55142 km)

Ferrari          12535 laps (53820 km)

Williams        11555 laps (53036 km)

McLaren       11219 laps (51428 km)

BAR              10595 laps (48661 km)

Renault         10040 laps (46213 km)

Jaguar/RB       5423 laps (24849 km)

Sauber            3940 laps (17922 km)

Jordan             3139 laps (15022 km)

Minardi            1118 laps (4717 km)

 

Of course it is an advantage if you have your own test circuit next to the factory, it makes life easier of course. But the pure test mileague was not the reason for the Ferrari advantage.



#26 surbjits

surbjits
  • Member

  • 943 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 28 July 2015 - 18:13

Barely legal tyres and the catastrophic collapse of the opposition in 2004. BAR was the 2nd best car ffs.

 

And BAR which are now Merc are dominating :smoking:



#27 Borko

Borko
  • Member

  • 2,226 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 28 July 2015 - 18:17

Money, unlimited testing, fantastic technical crew, tyres. Also Schumacher was by far the best driver during the 2000-2004 period.



#28 RainyAfterlifeDaylight

RainyAfterlifeDaylight
  • Member

  • 4,684 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 28 July 2015 - 18:19

Ferrari's advantage was:

 

Bridgestone

Unreliable McLaren

Consistent driver

Number 1 and Number 2 driver

Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne

FILA :p  amore Ferrari


Edited by RYARLE, 28 July 2015 - 18:24.


#29 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 28 July 2015 - 18:22

Number of race laps in 2004 were 1122 (5472.71 km).

 

We can also have a look on how much test laps every team made in that year overall.

 

Toyota          11883 laps (55142 km)

Ferrari          12535 laps (53820 km)

Williams        11555 laps (53036 km)

McLaren       11219 laps (51428 km)

BAR              10595 laps (48661 km)

Renault         10040 laps (46213 km)

Jaguar/RB       5423 laps (24849 km)

Sauber            3940 laps (17922 km)

Jordan             3139 laps (15022 km)

Minardi            1118 laps (4717 km)

 

Of course it is an advantage if you have your own test circuit next to the factory, it makes life easier of course. But the pure test mileague was not the reason for the Ferrari advantage.

 

Minardi's 1118 laps would probably put you towards the top of the list in 2014 :lol:



#30 ninetyzero

ninetyzero
  • Member

  • 706 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 28 July 2015 - 18:32

Bespoke tyres, Ferrari International Assistance and the opposition dropping the ball spectacularly. Nothing more than that. I look forward to similar threads about Mercedes in 10 years time...



#31 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,814 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 28 July 2015 - 18:33

Having the best team on the grid and the best driver on the grid by far.

#32 Silverstone96

Silverstone96
  • Member

  • 1,109 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 28 July 2015 - 18:53

Ferrari managed to literally mould Bridgestone tyres around their car, hence why the other teams went to Michelin - they had no choice. The michelins were great in qualifying in 2002 but were a particularly poor race tyre that year.

Ferrari also made the most of having their own track and tested pretty much non stop. They covered the most miles and were able to out develop other teams and ensure they had a car which was bullet proof, for Schumacher anyway.

The strength in depth of the team showed aswell, Todt, brawn, Byrne, Stepney and it's easily forgotten how good a test driver Rubéns was too. The team was able to really flex its weight politically when it had to hence the Ferrari International Assistance accusations which had some foundation. McLaren found some of their innovations were banned usually at the request of Ferrari. McLaren also suffered from losing Hakkinen after 2001 more than they realised at the time.

And finally not to forget Michael Schumacher. The man was at the peak of his powers and all the foundations he and the team laid in the early 90's were reaped from 2000. Michael drove pretty much a perfect season in 2002 finishing every race on the podium. He could flap under pressure like in 2003 but when you put all the above together with the best driver on the grid, the rest simply didn't stand a chance.

I resented their success at the time especially their number one number two driver model but it can't be denied this was the strongest period of domination in the sports history, i respect that now.

Stronger than McLaren Honda, Williams Renault, Red Bull and Mercedes. Some of those had bigger speed advantages especially Mercedes this past year but none were operationally as strong in every department as that Ferrari team were.

#33 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 28 July 2015 - 19:14

Minardi's 1118 laps would probably put you towards the top of the list in 2014 :lol:

The sad thing is that this is actually almost the case....



#34 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,465 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 28 July 2015 - 19:22

http://www.slideshar...ip-presentation

 

FIA was clearly on the Bridgestone/Ferrari side during those years.

 

http://forums.autosp...for-schumacher/'

 

And Schumacher's special blend is discussed in the above.

That slideshare story is simply outdated and I can't see much proof there that suggests that Bridgestone tyres were illegal.



#35 David Lightman

David Lightman
  • Member

  • 1,427 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 28 July 2015 - 19:24

Isn't that the same as legal? :)

 

Can't remember any Bridgestone legality issues only recall the Michelin issues. 

Maybe try googling 'barely legal' for research purposes?

 

Ahem.



#36 TIPO61

TIPO61
  • Member

  • 598 posts
  • Joined: August 04

Posted 28 July 2015 - 19:48

First and foremost...Michael Schumacher.

Without a doubt.

FORZA Michael!



#37 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 6,966 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 28 July 2015 - 19:53

..A very tight ship that was totally focused on one driver....Overt team orders were banned why?

#38 Silverstone96

Silverstone96
  • Member

  • 1,109 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 28 July 2015 - 19:59

But there is one point here that everyone is forgetting, in 2005 and more so 2006 Ferrari were finally beaten....and so will come the day that Mercedes will also be defeated one day too

#39 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 3,111 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 28 July 2015 - 20:19

That was after the 2003 Hungarian GP.

 

Storm in a teacup though, just search for Bira's interview with Pierre Dupasquier here. MIchelin users still used the same tyres later on. 

 


 

Not only does this need to go in the F1 Myths thread but it needs to be stamped at the top of the forum. Michelin never modified their tires. For all that noise post-Hungary, nothing actually changed on the cars.

 

If it didn't, why did it pop up so badly on the official DVD? In other words: can you give me a source of that nothing changed for the time to come? Ferraris pace compared to the opposition grew pretty strong after the Hungaroring debacle. Never heard of this story, but i would like to have it debunked.



Advertisement

#40 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,465 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 28 July 2015 - 20:36

 

 

If it didn't, why did it pop up so badly on the official DVD? In other words: can you give me a source of that nothing changed for the time to come? Ferraris pace compared to the opposition grew pretty strong after the Hungaroring debacle. Never heard of this story, but i would like to have it debunked.

 

Pierre Dupasquier gave a lengthy and fascinating interview with AtlasF1's Bira (how I miss her!) late in 2004 where he explained the whole story. 

 

I posted the relevant part earlier today in the "greatest myths" thread - post #874.

 

About Ferrari's pace late in 2003: yes, they were very competitve again at Monza but that's a track that favours a narrower tread. Michelin more than held its own at Indy - until the rain started to fall heavier! And at Suzuka, Bridgestone's favourite track, Barricello won - after Montoya and Alonso retired.



#41 shonguiz

shonguiz
  • Member

  • 3,714 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 28 July 2015 - 20:57

Michael Schumacher son Michael Schumacher.

#42 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 12,109 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 28 July 2015 - 21:10

But there is one point here that everyone is forgetting, in 2005 and more so 2006 Ferrari were finally beaten....and so will come the day that Mercedes will also be defeated one day too

 

Yes, everybody absolutely forgot about it.



#43 OvDrone

OvDrone
  • Member

  • 16,115 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 28 July 2015 - 21:11

The things I loved from that period was how unearthly fast the cars were, the tyre war and the coming of age of Alonso,Raikkonen, Button, Webber and Montoya.

 

Also laughing at Rubens and McLaren's (and goddamn Mercedes) reliability.


Edited by OvDrone, 28 July 2015 - 21:12.


#44 ninetyzero

ninetyzero
  • Member

  • 706 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 28 July 2015 - 21:17

Michael Schumacher son Michael Schumacher.

 

Yeah you're right, those Ferrari's were clearly junk...



#45 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 5,341 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 28 July 2015 - 21:46

Michael Schumacher :up:



#46 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 29,055 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 28 July 2015 - 21:50

Michael Schumacher son Michael Schumacher.

Steve Matchett, is that you?



#47 warp

warp
  • Member

  • 1,437 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 28 July 2015 - 22:35

All of the above.

 

It was a fantastic combination.

Almost perfect car, the best driver, a clever TD, tyres made to suit, the FIA on their side, team orders, unlimited testing.

 

Hats off to Ferrari for putting some unforgettable times. You may hate it or love it, depending on what driver/team you root for, but what Ferrari pulled out from 2000 to 2004 was pure brilliance. Same as Williams dominance in the early 90's, same for Macca's dominance late 80's, same for Red Bull dominance or Mercedes.

 

And at the heart of all that, Michael. Of all the laps done in testing during those years, it was known that Michael drove a shitload of them. Him spending time with engineers and mechanics, etc. It was him driving the car and yeah, Barrichello would probably have a couple championships if he was no.1, but it was Michael who dominated in such fashion. 5 Championships in a row.

 

Don't hate the winner because they are winning. All teams on the grid, ALL of them would cheat if they could. Every time a team is dominating, it's because they did something better than the rest, whether we like it or not.



#48 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 29 July 2015 - 00:59

What was Ferrari's advantage in the 2002 and 2004 seasons that made them so dominant? The rules were far more open back then, and there was also unlimited testing.

 

262242.jpg

 

 ;)

 

Custom tailored Bridgestone tyres were their number one advantage.  The other elements were good too -- driving, reliability, engine, aerodynamics etc.  But definitely Bridgestone was the NUMBER ONE factor.  In 2003 and 2005, bridgestone were weak and therefore Ferrari was weak(er) also!

 

Of course Ferrari still won 2003, just, but Michelin were far more competitive that year.  Also Bridgestone were awful in 2005, and Ferrari were therefore out of contention altogether.


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 29 July 2015 - 01:02.


#49 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 4,529 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 29 July 2015 - 01:12

Its rather simple....  When McLaren switched to Michelin in 2002, (along with Williams in 2001) that allowed Ferrari to focus on Bridgestone much more than the others, Would the margin be so big in 2002 if Williams and McLaren had Bridgestone? Probably not. 

 

And I will add that they caught Schumacher at his zenith in 2002, IMO. The following seasons, 2003 much more so, he shown signs of wear and tear, then 2004, well, we know what happened, but 2002 was a better season stats and driving wise. Starting from 1995-2002, the climax in 2002, showed that skills all coming together, of course having such a car helped. But I think 1998 season driving wise, (not with the car) was among the best.

 

Now, I think Fred's 2012-2013 seasons were absolutely on that standard. His 2012 season would certainly rival or even surpass Schumacher's seasons in "slower" cars.



#50 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 6,513 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 29 July 2015 - 01:54

Can't blame Ferrari for BS advantage. But superior design is the answer, much better aero packaging, great downforce, very good engine. Wasnt it during this time Ferrari brought in rotary dampers?  http://forums.autosp...tionary-damper/

 

Williams BMW could have done a much  better job from 2002 but they did not.  Walrus nose was such a big failure. Their loss was Ferrari's gain. Mclaren were in a bit of churn with the Mp4-18 (If only they had started earlier). Renault had unfortunately gone for the 111 deg engine and couldn't develop it to make sufficient power. BAR couldn't keep up with Ferrari. 


Edited by ViMaMo, 29 July 2015 - 02:03.