38 replies to this topic

[DEVO]

www.f1i.com

Montezemolo Confirms Gearbox Change February 4 06:48
Luca has finally admitted that the team is running a revolutionary gearbox this year, although the details have been public knowledge for some time


Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo has said that the biggest step forward this season will come from the team's radical new gearbox. He also opined that it was hard for Ferrari to develop what he believed was a near perfect 2001 car.

Some time ago, Italian daily newspaper Gazetta della Sport reported that the team would run a revolutionary gearbox that would eliminate the need for a conventional flywheel. Also, the engine and gearbox would be combined into one lightweight unit.

"The biggest change is in the gearbox," Montezemolo has now told Italian daily Corriere della Sera. "We have always tried to innovate, but it was not easy to improve a car that was already perfect."

[CONOSUR]

Yep. Mrv

[Garagiste]

Um, I'm not saying mrv wasn't right, but you can't claim the above as proof. all di M says is that they have made a big change in the gearbox - the rest refers to what the newspaper reported.
He sure as hell doesn't say "we have an integrated engine / gearbox" - actually the fact that he says "gearbox" might lead me to suspect the reverse is true.
Until I see any proof, I'm keeping an open mind.

[karlth]

If someone is right then it is Garagiste.

[P1 Senna]

Wonder if Ferrari will display their new engine/gearbox at the launch on Wednesday? They've traditionally proudly displayed their engines at launchtime. But I'm not sure we'll see it for this launch.

[SeanValen]

I don't know Mrv well, but I trusted his reputation as being right from everyone, and I was right , excellent

P1SennaWonder if Ferrari will display their new engine/gearbox at the launch on Wednesday? They've traditionally proudly displayed their engines at launchtime. But I'm not sure we'll see it for this launch.


I doubt it, like Renault keeping alot of their stuff secret, I pretty much think Ferrari won't show their hand on their new stuff, f1 very competitive, excellent

[karlth]

Originally posted by SeanValen
I don't know Mrv well, but I trusted his reputation as being right from everyone, and I was

Deja Vu.

How do you know he was right? Luca didn't say anything about the monoblock. The only official comment from Ferrari has been that it doesn't exist.

[tim]

Perhaps the radical change is that the gearbox, like Minardi's was last year and like Williams and McLaren are rumoured to be, is actually made out of titanium.

The only proof we've got of the so-called monoblock are a load of rumours in a few F1 rags and newspapers and the insider information that mrv kindly provides for us to argue over... I mean read.

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Garagiste
Um, I'm not saying mrv wasn't right, but you can't claim the above as proof. all di M says is that they have made a big change in the gearbox - the rest refers to what the newspaper reported.
He sure as hell doesn't say "we have an integrated engine / gearbox" - actually the fact that he says "gearbox" might lead me to suspect the reverse is true.
Until I see any proof, I'm keeping an open mind.

Exactly. But what I wonder is how can we ever know for sure whether they have an integrated unit? I mean, are they just going to shout it to the world?

[miniman]

The new gearbox was not fully developed in-house, Sachs of Germany are co-partners in its development

[HSJ]

Originally posted by miniman
The new gearbox was not fully developed in-house, Sachs of Germany are co-partners in its development

Oh no no no no no! Don't you know that Ferrari is just Ferrari? To suggest that "Ferrari" is just a name tag for the work done by hired people, just like every other team and company on this earth, is just plain wrong?

[DEVO]

True... we don't know what gearbox but what else would he be talking about?

[Mrv]

Originally posted by DEVO
True... we don't know what gearbox but what else would he be talking about?

Thanks Devo. Montezemelo ain't talking about a simple Titanium Gearbox. What's so radical about that? Minardi had it last year.

[Scudetto]

Originally posted by HSJ
Oh no no no no no! Don't you know that Ferrari is just Ferrari? To suggest that "Ferrari" is just a name tag for the work done by hired people, just like every other team and company on this earth, is just plain wrong?

So then I suppose that

Brembo
Shell Oil
Momo
BBS
Magneti Marelli
Bridgestone

are all psudonyms for "Ferrari"?

[MinardiRules]

Originally posted by HSJ


Oh no no no no no! Don't you know that Ferrari is just Ferrari? To suggest that "Ferrari" is just a name tag for the work done by hired people, just like every other team and company on this earth, is just plain wrong?

Ferrari always have a habit of thanking their partners - but when was the last time McLaren or DamilerChrysler mentioned Ilmor??

[DEVO]

Mrv is someone who doesn't get a lot of credit when it's deserved. Hence the post.

[Scudetto]

Originally posted by MinardiRules


Ferrari always have a habit of thanking their partners - but when was the last time McLaren or DamilerChrysler mentioned Ilmor??

A fine point. In fact, the way things at Ilmor are going these days, DamilerChrysler might be well advised to mention their name more than Mercedes-Benz.

[Darren]

Originally posted by HSJ


Oh no no no no no! Don't you know that Ferrari is just Ferrari? To suggest that "Ferrari" is just a name tag for the work done by hired people, just like every other team and company on this earth, is just plain wrong?

Fair point, as I've maintained previously, but to play the game properly you have to have a lot more knowledge than you actually do. For example, I might be a bigger fan of AP six-pots than Brembos, but so what? Unless you have clue one about brakes it makes no sense. Likewise, my opinion about the relative merits of TAG v. Pi electronics (Pi are actually pretty good, in my view) means nothing outside of a certain small circle.

You're treating the idea that Ferrari hires from outside, uses external partners and draws on out-sourced R&D like it's news, yet you can't even point to bits on the car and tell me what they do and who made them. You've got a tenuous grasp on the realities of industrial organisation and a blindspot with regard to partisanship the size of David Coulthard's head. And you keep avoiding the central question raised by your own argument: if all industrial organisations are alike, why do some keep going and others collapse? And if some keep going as contiguous organisations with unbroken successions of management, why does that not confer a different status upon them?

So instead of being gleefully excited by the most banal of things (i.e., a major power transmission firm designed a power transmission system for use in a Ferrari), get clued up. Start with the following for an easy run-up: ZF, Delco, Getrag, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s.

[The RedBaron]

Originally posted by Darren


Fair point, as I've maintained previously, but to play the game properly you have to have a lot more knowledge than you actually do. For example, I might be a bigger fan of AP six-pots than Brembos, but so what? Unless you have clue one about brakes it makes no sense. Likewise, my opinion about the relative merits of TAG v. Pi electronics (Pi are actually pretty good, in my view) means nothing outside of a certain small circle.

You're treating the idea that Ferrari hires from outside, uses external partners and draws on out-sourced R&D like it's news, yet you can't even point to bits on the car and tell me what they do and who made them. You've got a tenuous grasp on the realities of industrial organisation and a blindspot with regard to partisanship the size of David Coulthard's head. And you keep avoiding the central question raised by your own argument: if all industrial organisations are alike, why do some keep going and others collapse? And if some keep going as contiguous organisations with unbroken successions of management, why does that not confer a different status upon them?

So instead of being gleefully excited by the most banal of things (i.e., a major power transmission firm designed a power transmission system for use in a Ferrari), get clued up. Start with the following for an easy run-up: ZF, Delco, Getrag, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s.

Good Post Darren

It gets tedious when he shoots off about something he has very little knowledge about!
Newbies eh?

[Garagiste]

what else would he be talking about?

Well that's the point - and the reason this is maintaining my interest - we haven't got a Scooby!

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Scudetto


So then I suppose that

Brembo
Shell Oil
Momo
BBS
Magneti Marelli
Bridgestone

are all psudonyms for "Ferrari"?

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Darren


You're treating the idea that Ferrari hires from outside, uses external partners and draws on out-sourced R&D like it's news, yet you can't even point to bits on the car and tell me what they do and who made them. You've got a tenuous grasp on the realities of industrial organisation and a blindspot with regard to partisanship the size of David Coulthard's head. And you keep avoiding the central question raised by your own argument: if all industrial organisations are alike, why do some keep going and others collapse?

I'm no industrialist, but I would imagine some keep going because of better management.

About the rest: the point is, each company hires people. Each company has a name. But that's all there is to it. The same guys that work for "Ferrari" could be working for "Williams." This is VERY simple. If you can't understand it, too bad. Certainly I understand that many Ferrari fans, and fans of a lot of things, prefer not to "understand" this because it makes their life more rosy, or whatever, but it is still quite sad. :

BTW, it is always a good sign (for me, not for you in this case) when you have to go to personal things in your "argumentation."

[Wolbo]

Originally posted by DEVO
Mrv is someone who doesn't get a lot of credit when it's deserved. Hence the post.

Well, after reading the following Byrne interview today it seems somebody is wrong.

From F1Total.com:

Eine Motor-Getriebe-Einheit ist nicht geplant. "Ich weiß nicht, woher die Geschichte stammt", sagt Ferrari-Chefdesigner Rory Byrne in einem Interview mit der 'Motorsport aktuell'. "Ich bin nicht mal sicher, ob es jemand schaffen würde, eine solche Einheit zu bauen. Wir tun es jedenfalls nicht", weist der Südafrikaner derartige Berichte entschieden zurück.

Translates roughly to

An engine-gearbox-unit is not planned. "I do not know where these rumours come from", says the Ferrari chief designer Rory Byrne in an interview with 'Motorsport aktuell'. "I am not even sure if somebody would be able to build such a unit. In any case we will not do it." the South African denounces any such reports.

So who do we believe ? Mrv or Byrne ?

[DEVO]

If I were Byrne I would play up the confusion bit. Why give away any information to your competitors if you don't have to? Maybe we don't see the gearbox in the beginning of the year (working out some bugs) but eventually we should see it. I mean Ferrari won the title last year with ease, so they have had quite a bit of time on their hands to come up with something revolutionary. They know to stay on top they need something big or the other teams will catch up, especially since the rules haven't changed much.

[Mrv]

Originally posted by Wolbo
Well, after reading the following Byrne interview today it seems somebody is wrong.

From F1Total.com:

Translates roughly to


So who do we believe ? Mrv or Byrne ?

MRV

[Wolbo]

Originally posted by Mrv


MRV

Are you calling Byrne a liar ?

[karlth]

Originally posted by Wolbo
Are you calling Byrne a liar ?

Don't go there Wolbo! Get out while you can!

[Darren]

Originally posted by HSJ


I'm no industrialist, but I would imagine some keep going because of better management.

About the rest: the point is, each company hires people. Each company has a name. But that's all there is to it. The same guys that work for "Ferrari" could be working for "Williams." This is VERY simple. If you can't understand it, too bad. Certainly I understand that many Ferrari fans, and fans of a lot of things, prefer not to "understand" this because it makes their life more rosy, or whatever, but it is still quite sad. :

BTW, it is always a good sign (for me, not for you in this case) when you have to go to personal things in your "argumentation."

Ah, but the ellipsis tells the story, n'est-ce pas? The second question, which is the crucial one for this argument, asks you to make an argument as to why long-standing better management does *not* confer a different status on any organisation, that in fact all organisations are alike, from the month-old to the century-old. You've not yet addressed it. Instead, you are insisting on some absurdly over-extended notion of the organisation as labour-hire and talent-concentration device. The guys who work at Ferrari could, did and probably will in the future work at Williams. Yet there will still be a Ferrari and it will not be Williams and it won't be like Williams in crucial regards.
P != !P.

You are concerned that the myth of Ferrari obscures the truth of modern technical sports: that an internationalised group of people move from team to team supplying knowledge and labour, and that this is more important than a vague, romanticised notion of a company's history. Which is true. Yet your approach to this is an adolescent hyper-reductionism which claims that a team is a name and some people, and the people are free agents who have no a priori ties to anything and the name is a meaningless fiction used to blind consumers. Thus, a "team" is nothing more than a functional grouping of no fixity and no real meaning. This is rubbish, and it's given the lie by your own silly jibes about Silver Knights and Team Evil. Success is not a given; capital is not a magic item appearing from nowhere; ability to hire is not equal; ability to endure with distinction is not a meaningless achievement.

My goat has been got because you've launched half an argument and left the critical part in the slip dock. What you have to show to make your argument work is a set of complex interdepencies: all the small components of car and organisation that go into making up an F1 team. You have to show that "Ferrari" and "Williams" don't matter, but that this year's combination of a Martinelli engine with Brembos and Bridgestones is great. But you don't and you can't. Instead, we get delivered "Go McLaren and go Kimi", which is amongst the worst fan-boy cheerleading for a *team* going on this board.

You object (covertly, snidely) to the "personal" tone of my posts. True, I argue personally, because you are a person. You are making personal arguments. Worse, you are a hypocrite of the sly variety.

This is VERY simple. If you can't understand it, too bad.

Now, were I you, I'd be saying that your combination of question-avoidance and passive-aggressive personal commentary bodes well for my point. But that's a cheap and fairly empty strategy, in my view. So I'll settle for this.
1. Answer my question.
2. Either drop this argument or stop being a McLaren fanboy.

[Mrv]

Originally posted by Wolbo
Are you calling Byrne a liar ?

Yup. Do you understand the game of F1. People Lie all the time. Why would Ferrari tell the world what the hell they are doing. I have pictures of the Monoblock since December. No I will definately not post them. Now call me a liar because I won't show them.

[Mrv]

Originally posted by karlth


Don't go there Wolbo! Get out while you can!

Your so gullable Karlth. I have some nice swampland in Florida if your interested.

[Williams]

Originally posted by Wolbo
Well, after reading the following Byrne interview today it seems somebody is wrong.

From F1Total.com:

Translates roughly to


So who do we believe ? Mrv or Byrne ?

So who do we believe ? Mrv or Byrne or Byrne ?

From Atlas F1 News:

New Ferrari Will be 'Pretty Special', Says Byrne

Thursday November 15th, 2001

Ferrari's 2002 challenger will be a "pretty special" car, according to the Italian team's chief designer Rory Byrne.

"The 2002 car will be very different from this year's," Byrne said. "When you see it you'll understand why. It is pretty special. It will run a unitary engine/gearbox, and will have been developed in our revised wind tunnel."

Ferrari, who clinched their third consecutive Constructors' Championship in 2001 with nine race wins, have yet to announce when they will unveil their new car.

Byrne, confirming what technical director Ross Brawn suggested earlier this month, said the Maranello-based outfit could begin the new season with the old F2001 if the new machine is not ready in time.

However, the 57-year old South African believes Ferrari would be on the pace even with the 2001 car.

"Rather than develop a car at races, we may just run the old car until the new one is ready," Byrne added. "It should still be on the pace. The regulations have changed so little design-wise and aerodynamically that a car can be carried over for the first time in many a year."

Who starts these darn rumours anyway ?

[Nikolas Garth]

Originally posted by Darren


Ah, but the ellipsis tells the story, n'est-ce pas? The second question, which is the crucial one for this argument, asks you to make an argument as to why long-standing better management does *not* confer a different status on any organisation, that in fact all organisations are alike, from the month-old to the century-old. You've not yet addressed it. Instead, you are insisting on some absurdly over-extended notion of the organisation as labour-hire and talent-concentration device. The guys who work at Ferrari could, did and probably will in the future work at Williams. Yet there will still be a Ferrari and it will not be Williams and it won't be like Williams in crucial regards.
P != !P.

You are concerned that the myth of Ferrari obscures the truth of modern technical sports: that an internationalised group of people move from team to team supplying knowledge and labour, and that this is more important than a vague, romanticised notion of a company's history. Which is true. Yet your approach to this is an adolescent hyper-reductionism which claims that a team is a name and some people, and the people are free agents who have no a priori ties to anything and the name is a meaningless fiction used to blind consumers. Thus, a "team" is nothing more than a functional grouping of no fixity and no real meaning. This is rubbish, and it's given the lie by your own silly jibes about Silver Knights and Team Evil. Success is not a given; capital is not a magic item appearing from nowhere; ability to hire is not equal; ability to endure with distinction is not a meaningless achievement.

My goat has been got because you've launched half an argument and left the critical part in the slip dock. What you have to show to make your argument work is a set of complex interdepencies: all the small components of car and organisation that go into making up an F1 team. You have to show that "Ferrari" and "Williams" don't matter, but that this year's combination of a Martinelli engine with Brembos and Bridgestones is great. But you don't and you can't. Instead, we get delivered "Go McLaren and go Kimi", which is amongst the worst fan-boy cheerleading for a *team* going on this board.

You object (covertly, snidely) to the "personal" tone of my posts. True, I argue personally, because you are a person. You are making personal arguments. Worse, you are a hypocrite of the sly variety.

Now, were I you, I'd be saying that your combination of question-avoidance and passive-aggressive personal commentary bodes well for my point. But that's a cheap and fairly empty strategy, in my view. So I'll settle for this.
1. Answer my question.
2. Either drop this argument or stop being a McLaren fanboy.

Awesome post.

[Mrv]

Originally posted by Williams


So who do we believe ? Mrv or Byrne or Byrne ?

From Atlas F1 News:



Who starts these darn rumours anyway ?

This ain't a rumor it is reality. Ferrari love playing games, expecially with Ron. We have it. No wait we don't have it... Blab....Blab.... Blab.....

Once again driver error was the cause of Barcelona failure.

[Wouter]

But people who dared posting that MS and Barrichello were perhaps not telling the truth about the recent "crashtests" got quite a bit of flak over here...

[Mr. Bean]

Originally posted by Mrv


This ain't a rumor it is reality. Ferrari love playing games, expecially with Ron. We have it. No wait we don't have it... Blab....Blab.... Blab.....

Confuses the hell out of Ron's little altar boys on this bb as well - can you talk to your friends at Ferrari and see if they can be a little more sympathetic to our little bright-eyed and bushy-tailed bunch (please daddy, why do people lie ?).

Bean

[The RedBaron]

Originally posted by Mrv


This ain't a rumor it is reality. Ferrari love playing games, expecially with Ron. We have it. No wait we don't have it... Blab....Blab.... Blab.....

Once again driver error was the cause of Barcelona failure.

Yep, i didn't initially think it was driver error, too coincidental for my liking. I thought they were covering up for a failed part on the car itself. All will be revealed shortly i guess.

Once again good post Darren
Don't expect to get an intelligble reply though....and "Mclaren fanboy" is spot on IMO

[karlth]

Scarbs (Technical forum) :

"The new car is out, there's no combined engine transmission"

That is good enough for me.

[tifosi]

from mrv

. I have pictures of the Monoblock since December. No I will definately not post them.

Posers like you are such a pathetic friggin joke. Quit hiding behind your James Bond fantasy world u live in and either post some real facts or shut the hell up.

Yes of course Ferrari lied about it being driver error in the recent crashes. Of course when it suited the bashers sick perversion fantasies at Silverstone that brake error caused MS's crash then, it was a lie also. Let's face it, every single statement that comes from Maranello is nothing but a big fat lie, including the November 15th statement talking about the gearbox. From the recent statements from Byrne regarding the Ferrari transmission the only logical conclusion is that the Ferri F2002 simply doesnt have one.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by miniman
The new gearbox was not fully developed in-house, Sachs of Germany are co-partners in its development

Without Magnetti Marelli they would have to push start the cars (which obviously doesn't work as McLaren proved last year ;)). But just because they had partners (co-partners) on the transmission doesn't mean it wasn't developed in-house....


....and it certainly doesn't mean that Ferrari is not a team and does not have a history or tradition