9 replies to this topic

[sopa]

In the final part of the season we were discussing a lot about car performance. And the main claim was that Ferrari was horrible to drive, because they were much slower than Red Bull and McLaren. But how much does brilliant team-work and reliability outweigh it?

Imagine the 2012 season was in reverse and we got past the Italian Grand Prix mark (8th race of the season). Constructors championship standings:

1. Ferrari - 201
2. RBR - 188
3. McLaren - 160

Ferrari leads with 0 race wins! While RBR has four and McLaren three wins.
So the team with arguably an uncompetitive car is leading the WCC. Usually McLarens and Red Bulls qualify above. But when I am looking at the results of those races, then Ferrari almost always gets good points with both cars, while usually only one RBR/McLaren does well... or they have some issues in the race, so that they score 4th-5th-6th places.

Is the factor of brilliant team-work underrated? Because without this Alonso would not challenge for WDC in a slower car. Nor would Ferrari be so competitive in WCC. Had Massa been fast all season, it is possible Ferrari would have also clinched WCC or at least come extremely close.

Another one is Renault from 2005. McLaren was faster that year, but in other aspects Renault was performing brilliantly and delivered.
McLaren from 2003. Only two wins with slight lack of outright speed, but bar one engine blow-up for Raikkonen McLaren as a team was performing very well and consistently. They came within 16 (?) points of Constructors title that year.
BMW Sauber in 2008. Again slight lack in pace, but good consistency and team-work saw them with a shot at a WCC for a long time.
Brawn in the second half of 2009. After Hungarian GP Red Bull was trailing Brawn only by how many points? Less than 20 for sure. And Brawn was struggling for some outright speed. But team-work was brilliant and they held on onto the lead till the end, if not even increased it.

We have to give some credit to Ferrari. People like to bash them for some speed deficiency, but other aspects are overlooked. Like the teams above, Ferrari made the best of the situation and were competitive in WCC on the whole.

Edited by sopa, 13 December 2012 - 10:31.

[LiJu914]

Good car vs good reliability/team work

Reliability contributes to the car´s quality.

Edited by LiJu914, 13 December 2012 - 10:44.

[sopa]

Reliability contributes to the car´s quality.

That's right. In retrospect I realized I wanted to write Fast car.

[ali_M]

Fernando/Ferrari demonstrated this year that reliability and great team work can make up for significant deficits in raw car performance when compared to other teams. So many of Fernando's race finishes were enhanced by the faster teams messing up with regards to team work or mechanical gremlins. While they DNF'd or lost out in other ways, he'd end up that much further at the front at the finish.

Fernando said that the way things went for Ferrari in terms of reliability and teamwork, it will be very hard to repeat it over an entire season again.

[showtime]

I always said that Ferrari has been the best team but for the design/engineering area for the last two years. But this black point is a huge point. Truth is fighting for titles without a fast car is almost impossible, depending on others failures is not enough. Ferrari 2012 and Renault 2005 are not comparable at all, the McLaren was the fastest that season but the Renault was second fastest overall and in several tracks was the car to be in. The F2012 only looked dominant in dry conditions in Monza but oh the irony! that Saturday Alonso had his only reliability problem of the season. Having a slightly slower car but with better reliability is ok, having the fourth faster car is not ok even if it's bulletproof.

[sopa]

I also have to add that team work efficiency is what brought Ferrari the Constructors Title in 1999 and kept Irvine in the title fight for so long as well. Speed-wise they were really struggling, when Schumacher was injured. McLaren was threatening to take 1-2's in any race they didn't cock up.

[Clatter]

I also have to add that team work efficiency is what brought Ferrari the Constructors Title in 1999 and kept Irvine in the title fight for so long as well. Speed-wise they were really struggling, when Schumacher was injured. McLaren was threatening to take 1-2's in any race they didn't cock up.

Try telling that to Irvine when he was sitting in the pits with just 3 wheels on his wagon while they played silly buggers looking for the 4th.

[sopa]

Try telling that to Irvine when he was sitting in the pits with just 3 wheels on his wagon while they played silly buggers looking for the 4th.

That was the only exception. Other than that an excellent strategy played two race wins beautifully into his hands - Austria and Malaysia.

[V8 Fireworks]

Surely we must question why McLaren reliability and teamwork was so poor, rather than why Ferrari was so good?

Ferrari set a good standard on that matter for a long time. Schumi was the first with modern style "super reliability" (reasonably we assume the parts that did better at quality control when to Schumi's car, and the other's to Barrichello, even if nominally the same spec ? )

[Rinehart]

Look at my signature!

A fast car is nothing without strong reliability and strategy. Look at McLaren in 2005 and 2012 for details or the RBR in 2009.

People always talk about the perceived fastest car being the best. Nonsense! F1 is a points collecting exercise and the best car/team/driver combination is the one that is the best at maximising that.