42 replies to this topic

[RedFever]

Only the season will tell us whether the F1-2002 is a great development over last year's model or if Ferrari went too far.

However, I read a great interview in Italy to some team members. The bottomline, this new car was designed to MAXIMIZE Schumacher's potential. Byrne/Brawn's basic idea was that nobody in F1 today is as capable as Michael of doing repeated "stints" of fast laps (a series of 10-15 laps at full speed, with new tires and low fuel levels). We have seen Michael win many races in 1998, 99 and 2000 this way.

Mid-season in 2001, some critics suggested Ferrari was doomed because its fuel tanks were too small, or at least smaller than Williams/McLaren. It turned out they did just fine, but one would expect no further changes.

Instead, Byrne utilized for the F1-2002 an even smaller tank. It apparently can hold only 113 liters of fuel (I think a gallon is 3.5 liters, so that would be only 32 gallons). That is about 13 liters less than the old car, some three gallons smaller.

This will force the drivers to more frequent stops than the competition. The idea behind is that Ferrari drivers will have to race several "race sectors", all at full speed. After all, not only the will have less fuel on board, but also fresh tires. In addition, they will be able to utilize softer compouns, as the tires don't have to last too long. The technical team believed this will maximize results because of Michael's ability to push full trottle for the entire race.

WHether this will be a winning strategy, we will have to wait and see. I can see it work well in Monza, etc., but unsure about places like Monaco, where a Bernoldi can keep DC behind for 30 laps. Also, while it might work wonderfully for Michael, I am not sure it will work well for Rubens. In any case, a pretty interesting development, it should make for more interesting races, as the top three teams will employ very different strategies.

[Arrow]

Sounds like a pile of garbaage to me.

There is no way they would design a car that isnt able to run a 1 stopper on any circuit on the calender.They wouldnt sacrafice a choice of pitstop strategy for the benefit(whatever it is)of having a slightly smaller tank.

It just doesnt make sense.

[Scudetto]

I think Arrows aptly demonstrated the potential of building that strategy into an F1 car. I find it hard to believe that Ferrari would build a car that doesn't allow Brawn to work his typical strategy-shifting magic during a race and so severely limit race strategies.

[Ali_G]

This again is utter rubbish. The way to go is to have a bigger tank.

its quite obvious that some circuits, which have low wearing qualities will always require you to have a one stop race.

A place like malaysia or Barcelona will rquire a one stopper for the ultimate race pace.

Again, this sounds ridiculous.

Niall

[Foxbat]

Why would they need to make the tank smaller to run less fuel? If the F2002 has a smaller tank it is probably because they expect to run ~the same distance with that much less fuel*.


* that would mean half a liter less consumption per lap

[klipywitz]

I agree with teh car being designed for Schumacker stuff, but the rest I am not so sure. I echo the people here at the thread about the pit stop advantage stuff...

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Sorry but RedFever is right.
It is not garbage!
Ferrari F2002 fuel tank capacity was decreased by 10 Kgs (from 95-85kg) from F2001
Better distribution of weights, better tyre usage, quicker car.
I read articles in Italian press and can confirm this
However, whether this will be a winning strategy is to be seen
Thanks Red

[Arrow]

Originally posted by BuonoBruttoCattivo
Sorry but RedFever is right.
It is not garbage!
Ferrari F2002 fuel tank capacity was decreased by 10 Kgs (from 95-85kg) from F2001
Better distribution of weights, better tyre usage, quicker car.
I read articles in Italian press and can confirm this
However, whether this will be a winning strategy is to be seen
Thanks Red

They may make the tank smaller but no way will they make too small to run any desired strategy on any track.
And how is this designing a car to suit michael?
More propaganda

[RedFever]

Guys, you could be right, but it is a fact that the tank is smaller, at least according to Ferrari. 13 liters might sound little decrease, but on a 30 laps stint, it's awefully close to half a liter per lap. Now I am sure the new engine uses less fuel, progress never stops. But that much progress seems unreal to me in one season. Buono is right, Ferrari also stressed that the smaller tank allowed them to work on the redesign of the rear and allowed them to distribute weights more efficiently. The car is believed to already 1 second faster than the previous model, so it might work all right.

Also, comparing Arrows to Ferrari is ludicrous. Verstappen had to start 18th, pass 6-7 cars at the start and then race against cars with 70-100HPs more than him, who would hold him up. That pretty much lost any advantage in having less fuel. Ferrari's strategy is to start in the front two rows, if not in pole, and utilize the 2nd most powerful engine in F1 (which might be closer to BMW with the new model). Instead of being hold up, Michael would be creating a nice gap in front many times, before pitting for more fuel. As I said, it is a speculation, at this point, but the smaller tank is a fact. I leave it to you to determine whether they will pit more often or whether electronics allowed them to dramatically reduce fuel consumption

[RedFever]

"And how is this designing a car to suit michael?"

If this is indeed the strategy and this indeed is a potentially profitable solution (e.i reducing the total time to finish a GP), Michael is the driver the more than anyone else can take advantage of this situation, as he is capable, just as Senna and G. Villeneuve were before him, to push at 100% for the entire race. If you remember the 2000 season, it was said over and over that Michael often passed the Macs with pit strategy because of his ability to deliver almost qualifying laps in a series of 8-10 during the race. This new strategy, if true, will reuqire Michael to do 3 stints of extremely fast laps with low fuel and new and softer tires, to make up the time lost for one extra stop.

Now, low fuel might not be a great advantage, maybea couple of tenths a lap when the race starts. But which is the uncontested #1 component on a modern F1 car??? tires. If Ferrari can use softer compounds, the gain could be much more relevant. Obviously, if that strategy works, others can imitate Ferrari and simply put less fuel in their cars. But at least, even then, Ferrari will benefit from a lighter tank, better aero package for the rear (tank is smaller and lower), better balance (new tank allowed for better distribution of weight, it has lower the center) and better distribution of balast.

[Williams]

If this is true it's big mistake on Ferrari's part. A big part of the Schumacher/Brawn startegic arsenal is to outlast a leading car by a couple of laps then bang in a quick set of laps before also pitting, making up enough time to come out of the pits in front. It's hard to believe they would throw that away.

[RedFever]

"If this is true it's big mistake on Ferrari's part. A big part of the Schumacher/Brawn startegic arsenal is to outlast a leading car by a couple of laps then bang in a quick set of laps before also pitting, making up enough time to come out of the pits in front. It's hard to believe they would throw that away"

How about if you bang quick sets of laps for the entire race?

[Williams]

How about if you bang quick sets of laps for the entire race?

In many cases that will be quick sets of laps interrupted by more pitstops than the opposition. At least the other way you can stay on the same strategy then kill them with your marginal superiority.

[Ursus]

The article Changing Tactics by Richard Barnes predicts a dark future for the flat out with more stops kind of strategy. The gist being that tires don't deteriorate nearly as much as they did only a few years ago, thus it's not possible to make up the time for an extra stop through higher pace.

[Williams]

One other worry I have with this strategy: in spite of his prime physical condition, Schumacher is going to burn out quicker over the long term.

[bleakuzs]

Ferrai could be in big trouble, doing three stops vs. two is a 40 sec deficit at minimum. Ferrari would be at a disadvantage in the fact they would have to put more fuel in the car at every pitstop too. Who knows, I guess we'll see this weekend how it all shskes out.

[dai_ferrari]

Personally, I think it'll work out just fine. There can be no doubt as to whether or not MS is the true master of doing consecutive fast laps and/or consistent laps. Much has been made about Brawns great strategies, but none of them would've worked had not MS done what he needed to do, and and about 95% of the time, he's bang on. I think in equal cars MS is still at least worth a half sec on everyone in F1 right now. Soon JPM will be equal and then most likely will surpass MS, as soon as he gets wiser on setups, strategies, and car handling. But right now the master is MS, give him a car with less fuel, soft tires, and he can make great time with it. I don't think with the smaller tank you'll be seeing all that much of 3 stoppers. It'll be an option for sure, just means they may, at certain circuits, not be able to do 1 stoppers. Course Ferrari could've bettered their fuel consumption. Ferrari are not going to give up one of their aces in the hole, the race strategy, as long as Brawn and MS are still there.

An example? If the F2002 is a half sec or more quicker than the competition, and they run at low fuel, softer tires, theoritically they might be able to put a sec and a 1/4 or 1/2 a lap on the competition. Now let's say a race distance is 56-66 laps average. That would make a 3 stopper every 20-22 laps or so. In 20-22 laps MS could conceivably gain 30 secs or so, about what it takes to come in and fuel up, but since he's putting in less fuel each stop, maybe he gains an extra sec or two. I don't know, just theorizing, but it could work. One thing's for sure, never doubt the combo of Brawn and Schumacher!

[Ricardo F1]

If you ask me this Ferrari will be two stopping, not three stopping, while most Michelin runners one stop. Certain races they might three to two but you can guarantee there is nothing daft in whatever this is about - this is Ferrari we're talking about here. Bridgestone tyres developed to meet their needs exactly . . . they're gonna be real quick.

Schumacher having 0.5 on the rest of the field in equal cars??? Pur-lease . . . he doesn't even have that on Rubens half the time . . .

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1

Schumacher having 0.5 on the rest of the field in equal cars??? Pur-lease . . . he doesn't even have that on Rubens half the time . . .

He has at least that over rubens in races.usually its more.Lucky for rubens michael is rarely "on it" for a full race distance otherwise it would be like irvine all over again.

[tania_walesuk]

We're soon gonna find out aint we !.....if its better then last years car then so be it if not they will keep developing until they do !

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by Arrow


He has at least that over rubens in races.usually its more.Lucky for rubens michael is rarely "on it" for a full race distance otherwise it would be like irvine all over again.

Well that's a Rubens weakness as well - he gets stuck behind people and just falls back, and back, and back, and back . . .

[312 PB]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Schumacher having 0.5 on the rest of the field in equal cars??? Pur-lease . . . he doesn't even have that on Rubens half the time . . .

do you never stop the bias ?

[Ricardo F1]

Eh? What's biased about that . . .??? You honestly believe that Schumacher has 0.5 over every driver on the grid???

[Ghostrider]

If this is true, I am a bit worried how it will affect the development of the Bridgestone tyres. They will maybe go to the softer side, and may not as beneficial to the rest of the Bridgestone teams who can't utilise them to the same degree.

Interesting story nevertheless.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by Arrow


He has at least that over rubens in races.usually its more.Lucky for rubens michael is rarely "on it" for a full race distance otherwise it would be like irvine all over again.

Michael has improved, in that he goes fast when he needs to go fast, not worrying about making it look even better, ensuring he''s not pushing the car for no real reason to risk reliability.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Eh? What's biased about that . . .??? You honestly believe that Schumacher has 0.5 over every driver on the grid???

Whats beleiving got to do with it.We have been seeing it for the last 8 or so seasons.

[Mrv]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Eh? What's biased about that . . .??? You honestly believe that Schumacher has 0.5 over every driver on the grid???

Well the stats got kind of out of wack at Suzuka 2001, since Shumi was doing 2 seconds a lap better than everyone else.

[Hooster]

I am please to hear about this develpement since it will probably make the races even more interesting than they are at the moment.

It sounds like Ferrari is making a compromise, sacrificing flexible strategy and the posibility of a one stop race for a more aerodynamicly efficient car, a lower centre of gravity, on average lighter throughout the race and on softer tyres. If the car gains 0,5 seconds per lap on average because of this, then that should be enough to make up for one extra pit stop. Of course they should use the F2001 in Monaco but otherwise Ferrari seems to be doing the right thing. I hope the F2002 is reliable in Brazil so we can find out.

[Mrv]

Actually this thread is very interesting. Some good points and arguments on both sides. I am going to sit back and just soak it up. The answer to the question will become clear in the next several races.

[JForce]

Originally posted by Mrv
Actually this thread is very interesting. Some good points and arguments on both sides. I am going to sit back and just soak it up. The answer to the question will become clear in the next several races.

You got anything else you want to add?;) Some little piece of info that might make this a little clearer? If not, thats fine. Lets assume that this is true Mrv, regardless of what you may or may not know. Do you think it's a good idea? I agree with Williams....seems ludicrous to me...

[The First MH]

I am a little weary of this, although certainly interested. I mean, why make a car with a smaller gas tanks so that you can run shorter stints? Surely if you want to run shorter stints you just fuel the car with less gas. Why limit yourself the option of also being able to run a long(er) stint where applicable? Just doesn't make sense, at least to me. Sure I can buy the argument that the car is developed for Shuey (he is faster) to make more frequent stops, and because of the tires, or that it is re-designed to be a lower centre of gravity, but this still does not explain why you make a small gas tank? If you want less gas in the tank then you just put less in. Sound simple to me (but then I guess what do I know?!). I just fail to see how Ferrari would gain the time difference to justify two, three or even four stops - they would have to be a second or two a lap faster (depending on the track), all the while being held up by traffic etc. Malaysia (2002) was a great example, Montoya was some 30 sec behind RS (after his penalty i think) but finished 45 odd seconds back at the end of the race. He was on a two stopper while RS was one stopping. And even with less fuel he still lost time...
The only time it would help, that I can see, is on full course yellow... Maybe someone else can explain it better, but I still don't see it...

[baddog]

you design a car with smaller fuel tanks because that allows you to have smaller bodywork in some critical aerodynamic areas, and MAY allow you to design the car to go significantly faster

Shaun

[ace]

I thought Ferrari's achilles heel last year was their smaller tanks...why continue to suffer the same with the new car and take away any flexibility in your race strategy....therefore I doubt the new ferrari has smaller tanks...unless they have better fuel consumption...that's the only reason I can give.

[312 PB]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Eh? What's biased about that . . .??? You honestly believe that Schumacher has 0.5 over every driver on the grid???

on rubens, mate
his teammate
the only mate
that matters

[farQ]

This may seem silly but why don't they keep their same size fuel tank and run less fuel, why limit their options so much by reducing fuel capacity?

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by 312 PB


on rubens, mate
his teammate
the only mate
that matters

Aha! Gotcha, sorry. But he didn't have that ALL the time . . . Oz for example - depends on the circuit. Problem is it's never easy to tell how much slower Rubens is than MS because he's normally qualified in such a pants position he's held up by others . .

[AMD]

Originally posted by RedFever
Guys, you could be right, but it is a fact that the tank is smaller, at least according to Ferrari

does anyone have some articles or interviews with Ferrari designers talking about the new fuel tank?

[Melbourne Park]

I am also concerned about fuel consumption. There should be a ratio, fuel consumption v power.

An area where I see fuel consumption as very important is when one is stuck behind; then changing to a low fuel consumption mode, the engine needs to be designed for fuel consumption at that time, as less fuel consumption providing a longer range is a significant tactical advantage. But when there is space in front. fuel consumption is secondary to power. I do not understand that fuel consumption would be a goal when operating at flank speed, unless there are some engine bottlenecks such as valve restrictions that are restricting performance to the extent of a ceiling on achievable power. OK if that's the case then good consumption while at fland speed may be a goal but its a strange one when BMW engines seemed to have a higher flank power rating ...

[312 PB]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


Problem is it's never easy to tell how much slower Rubens is than MS because he's normally qualified in such a pants position he's held up by others . .

no offense
but it's no wonder
your a dc fan
you're automatic
with the excuses

[Ricardo F1]

Uh, DUH! It's not an excuse, I'm not in the least a Rubens fan but his crappy qualifying position usually stops him from being in a position to race quickly which he's probably better at than qualifying. **** he has to be better at SOMETHING, the man is pants.

[Ricardo F1]

But post that rampaging post - Rubens has to find it hard to set decent lap times when he's qualified behind slower times. (he says calmingly)

[AMD]

in reality, was the fuel tank in the F2002 small? Michael Schumacher did a one-stop strategy.

[AMD]

Originally posted by RedFever
Also, while it might work wonderfully for Michael, I am not sure it will work well for Rubens.

Rubinho on two stops in the older car looked OK to me in Brasil.