64 replies to this topic

[Jordi #99]

Having read the "Villeneuve to enter the big three" case in the Court, it spurted my interest... Is there any Ferrari in history to have been worse than 1980's 312T5? (and uglier, too)

Looking at stats, it might seem so, but as I was born in 1985 and therefore did not see the car in action, I want to hear the experts...

[cheesy poofs]

The car was an evolution of Ferrari's 1979 T4. I personally think that the car was just completely outdated against the true ground-effect cars like the Williams, Brabham and other V-8 powered machinery. Having a flat 12 cylinder engine might have gained Ferrari some extra horsepower against the less-powered Cosworth cars but the car lacked downforce and could do nothing against its opposition. The car's best finish were a pair of 5th positions by Gilles Villeneuve.

Which reminds me... Jody Scheckter ended his career at the USGP at Watkins Glen in god knows what position. Somehow, I will always remember how he exited the sport... that is, by stepping out of his cockpit and leaping over the front of his car with his mechanics spraying him with champagne.

[Ray Bell]

Actually, I liked the look of the Ferraris of that period...

And the cars of 1962/early 63 were probably less competitive, also the dinosaurs they ran in 1960 were just as out of date against the Coopers, Lotuses and BRMs.

[LittleChris]

The 312B3 of early 73 was both ugly and a dog !!

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Actually, I liked the look of the Ferraris of that period...

And the cars of 1962/early 63 were probably less competitive, also the dinosaurs they ran in 1960 were just as out of date against the Coopers, Lotuses and BRMs.

Still, the 1962 sharknose got 4 podium places in the first 3 GPs of that season - before all hell broke loose. And the 1963 car was reasonably competitive early on: Surtees was 3rd at the Monaco grid.
Clearly outdated, the 1960 still made some podiums.

The worst F1 Ferrari has to be the car that was the ugliest as well - the 1973 B3.

[Jordi #99]

But Ferrari won races in 1960, 1963...

Ferrari hasn't won races in a lot of years(1962, 65, the early nineties...) but a car that only got a 5th place as a best result and even had a DNQ by the reigning World Champion.. are there worse ones?

[curtegerer]

The T5 was essentially the same car as the T4 that won the World Championship the year prior!!! Hardly the worst ever, technology just passed it by in the few months before the 1980 season. -- Curt

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by Jordi #99
But Ferrari won races in 1960, 1963...

Ferrari hasn't won races in a lot of years(1962, 65, the early nineties...) but a car that only got a 5th place as a best result and even had a DNQ by the reigning World Champion.. are there worse ones?

Indeed, the 1963 car wasn't bad at all.
That win in 1960 was by default - all competitive British teams boycotted the Italian GP so even a Formula 2 car could finish in the points.
The 1973 B3 got just one 5th and one 6th place - those 4th places at the start of the season were won by the 2-year old B2 chassis which looked better than the "new" B3.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Jordi #99
But Ferrari won races in 1960, 1963...

Ferrari hasn't won races in a lot of years(1962, 65, the early nineties...) but a car that only got a 5th place as a best result and even had a DNQ by the reigning World Champion.. are there worse ones?

Sure, Ferrari won the 1960 Italian GP when it was boycotted by the Brits...

And those days it was more likely to pick up lesser placings as cars dropped out. I admit I didn't check anything before I posted earlier, so maybe I should have said only 1960 and 1962?

[Rainer Nyberg]

As already mentioned the early 90s Ferrari's were very uncompetitive.
The F92A collected a meagre 21 constructors points in 1992. (Williams had 164)
The F93 collected a slightly better 28 in 1993. (Williams again on top with 168)

The 1986 Ferrari was also quite a dog.

But I have to agree that going from both a Drivers Championship and a Constructors Championship in '79, to just 8 constructors points in '80, with essentially the same car, is some kind of record.

As already stated, Ferrari did react too slowly on the benefits of ground effects. And their flat-12 was too wide and obstructed the underbody airflow.

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by scheivlak


Still, the 1962 sharknose got 4 podium places in the first 3 GPs of that season - before all hell broke loose.

One wonders how much of Ferrari's spectacular decline in 1962 was down to the car and how much to politics.

[WGD706]

The Ferrari 312B3 that Arturo Merzario and Jacky Ickx suffered with during 1973 wasn't much to write home about. It did get a few points paying positions (5th and 6th) but Ferrari did not appear at all for the Dutch or the German GP because of the poor performance with their car.
They finally came back in Austria but without a disillusioned Jacky Ickx. Ferrari had convinced Ickx to rejoin the team (on a temporary contract) for the Italian race where he finished 8th. They were back to one car again for the last 2 races as Ickx left...again and ran an ISO-Marlboro for the USGP.

[MaTT2799]

Thanks for directing me to the 'Gilles to join the Top 3' topic in the Atlas F1 Court Jordi #99, I must say I am delighted with the courts judgement

The T5 was a horribly, horribly outdated car. It showed how slow Ferrari were to take up new ideas, just when everyone like Lotus, Williams and Ligier were getting ground effects licked, Ferrari were still scratching their heads.

The following years 126C was another awful car however, and the fact that Gilles won twice in it is an indication of his ability rather than the quality of the car. One observer claimed that, upon seeing Gilles rounding Loews at Monaco, the chassis seemed to 'bend like a wet noodle.'

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Vitesse2
One wonders how much of Ferrari's spectacular decline in 1962 was down to the car and how much to politics.

They still had wire wheels, mate!

Whether it was politics hampering the car's performance, I don't know, I guess they had to be... but the cars were once again left in the lurch as pommie advances came on strong.

Remember, their apparent brilliance in 1961 would probably not have happened at all had the poms accepted the new formula at the end of 1958 and started building engines for it.

Mike Argetsinger drove this home yesterday when he mentioned Jack doing a bolt at the US GP with the one race old Climax V8... sure there were no Ferraris there, but it shows that the little V8s were quickly on the pace, and by the beginning of the next season they were ready to stamp their authority all over Enzo's camp followers.

The beginning of 1962 was notable for the introduction of the Lotus 25 too... and the BRM was to prove a good tool for Hill and Ginther. Immediately these cars put Ferrari on the back foot...

What might have happened, then, had they had a two year start on that development?

[Vitesse2]

As I'm sure I've pointed out before, Ray, after three races in 1962 Phil Hill was second in the WDC with 14 points, a total only exceeded by Graham Hill. After Belgium, Phil never scored again! Baghetti had scored 3 points in Holland - he would get just two more, in Italy. "Wild Willy" picked up three in Italy too. Ricardo Rodriguez scored three in Belgium and one in Germany in the rain. Bandini got four in Monaco and that was it.

So, post-Belgium, Ricardo was the only Ferrari driver to score away from Monza, where Ferrari really lucked in when the Lotuses, Lolas and Porsches failed to finish in the points (except Bonnier in 6th).

The question is - which caused which? Was the decline caused by politics or vice versa?

[WGD706]

In '62, Ferrari was running 3 and 4 cars per race; was this spreading themselves too thin?

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by scheivlak
Still, the 1962 sharknose got 4 podium places in the first 3 GPs of that season - before all hell broke loose.

The term "podium finish" referring to the first three finishers in a GP/F1 event is an anachronism when applied to 1962.

The '312B3' and the 625-series should join the T5 as less than stellar efforts, BUT the T5 certainly did do one very important thing -- perhaps it showed just how good Gilles Villeneuve really was and that a driver could still make a difference....

[Slyder]

Originally posted by WGD706
The Ferrari 312B3 that Arturo Merzario and Jacky Ickx suffered with during 1973 wasn't much to write home about. It did get a few points paying positions (5th and 6th) but Ferrari did not appear at all for the Dutch or the German GP because of the poor performance with their car.
They finally came back in Austria but without a disillusioned Jacky Ickx. Ferrari had convinced Ickx to rejoin the team (on a temporary contract) for the Italian race where he finished 8th. They were back to one car again for the last 2 races as Ickx left...again and ran an ISO-Marlboro for the USGP.

Didn't Jacky Ickx managed a podium finish in 1973? I believe in Germany, can't remember.

The 1992 Ferrari was the worst car IMO that Ferrari had, apart from the 1980 car, and it was somewhat of a miracle that Jean Alesi despite the shittyness of the car, managed some really spectacular runs.

One that stands in mind was his marvelous run in Magny-Cours, where he was as high as 3rd in the rain, unfortunately, he had a spin or something broke on the car that caused him to retire.

[WGD706]

In Germany, there were no Ferrari entries but Ickx finished 3rd in a McLaren one-off drive.

[dretceterini]

If Ferrari hadn't gotten the D-50s from Lancia, how bad would they have been? The Squalos weren't exactly the best Ferraris ever...

[Kaha]

Yes, and their experiment with the 2 cyl engine indicates that they were not on the right track to improve the Squalos.;)

[Gary Davies]

Richard poses the question of whether the fall and fall of SEFAC's efforts in '62 vs. '61 was a function of politics or the car.

Has to be a tough question, although it must be observed that the Chiti-led defection took place before the '62 season commenced - in November 1961 - and one wonders how much productive work took place at Maranello during the winter of '61/'62.

Nonetheless, I looked at the 1962 practice times to see if a pattern revealed itself that would tend to challenge Richard's "race positions" based analysis. Well, the practice times painted the same picture ... some okay times in the first part of the season, gradually degrading to crappy positions as the season wore on. What must have hurt the ingegnere was Monza where the fastest 156 (Willy) was 10th on the grid.

But looking through the practice times the statistic that was saddest emerged at Nurburgring in 1962. The fastest Ferrari lapped in 09-14.2 (Ricardo Rodriguez in #03 which first raced way back in Monaco '61 in von Trips' hands), compared to Phil Hill's wonderful 08-55.2 in 1961.

The 'ring may be 22-odd kilometres around but 19 seconds slower ... that's a nice definition of performance degredation.

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by WGD706
In '62, Ferrari was running 3 and 4 cars per race; was this spreading themselves too thin?

In retrospect, yes, they probably were. But if you look at 1961, when they had regularly run four, finishing 1-2-3-4 in Belgium, 1-2-3 in Britain, 1-2 in Holland and 2-3 in Monaco and Germany, you can see why they probably thought there was safety in numbers.

[Henri Greuter]

312T5 was indeed a morale breaking machine. But I suppose Ferrari knew they were to be into troubles with that. On the bright side, they had the Turbo V6 coming up so at least they had something to look forward to for the future.

And I suppose that I am biased in opinion because of my respect for Gilles but I sincerely believe that with another driver in the cockpit instead of Gilles, Ferrari wouldn't have scored the 8 points they eventually had.

If there is one thing that T5 proved for once and for all: Gilles never, ever gave up before the car did. I regard his point scores of 1980 among the most respectable ones since he did it with a car that had no potential of its own to score points and Gilles still did it.
it went lost in the battles between Jones, Piquet and the Renaults but still...

Henri Greuter

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by Vitesse2

The question is - which caused which? Was the decline caused by politics or vice versa?

I'd say it was caused by the opposition leapfrogging them - the combination of British V8s and monocoque chassis made what was basically a 1960 design look very old almost overnight!

pete

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by petefenelon


I'd say it was caused by the opposition leapfrogging them - the combination of British V8s and monocoque chassis made what was basically a 1960 design look very old almost overnight!

pete

I agree totally. The early season Ferrari successes were mainly due to the unreliability or non-avaiability of te British V8s.

It has always amused me that Ferrari is supposed to have said to Moss "Tell me on Monday what you want from a car, and I'll have it built by Friday" (or words to that effect). Yet it took them two years to copy Lotus.

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by petefenelon
I'd say it was caused by the opposition leapfrogging them - the combination of British V8s and monocoque chassis made what was basically a 1960 design look very old almost overnight!

pete

Yes and no Pete. Certainly the V8s and Lotus 25 were a quantum leap, but as pointed out above, little or no work seems to have been carried out on the 156 apart from some cosmetic redesigning. In view of the disaster that was the ATS I wonder whether Chiti would have stemmed the tide anyway, but the loss of von Trips can't have helped either. And how do you explain this, if not a loss of direction?

Originally posted by Vanwall
But looking through the practice times the statistic that was saddest emerged at Nurburgring in 1962. The fastest Ferrari lapped in 09-14.2 (Ricardo Rodriguez in #03 which first raced way back in Monaco '61 in von Trips' hands), compared to Phil Hill's wonderful 08-55.2 in 1961.

The 'ring may be 22-odd kilometres around but 19 seconds slower ... that's a nice definition of performance degredation.

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by Roger Clark


I agree totally. The early season Ferrari successes were mainly due to the unreliability or non-avaiability of te British V8s.

It has always amused me that Ferrari is supposed to have said to Moss "Tell me on Monday what you want from a car, and I'll have it built by Friday" (or words to that effect). Yet it took them two years to copy Lotus.

Of course, the fact that Chiti and co. had gone off to ATS didn't help them to be responsive -- but what amazes me is that Ferrari doesn't seem to have actually realised that the successful way to go racing was the British way (dedicated F1 team, lots of testing, listen to the drivers and don't bugger about with politics between them) until the Lauda/Forghieri/Montezemolo era.

The 158 was, arguably, by British standards, a good 1962/3 car in 1964 - and the 1512, had it been developed, could've been something special.

(Surtees, thoguh, reckons they shouldn't even have bothered with the 158 - he's on record as having said that they should've gone straight for the 1512 after the 156 "Aero" rather than essentially trying to develop two cars in near-parallel... it's not hard to agree with him on this! - especially as Ferrari were also putting a lot of effort into sports cars!)

pete

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by petefenelon


Of course, the fact that Chiti and co. had gone off to ATS didn't help them to be responsive -- but what amazes me is that Ferrari doesn't seem to have actually realised that the successful way to go racing was the British way (dedicated F1 team, lots of testing, listen to the drivers and don't bugger about with politics between them) until the Lauda/Forghieri/Montezemolo era.

The 158 was, arguably, by British standards, a good 1962/3 car in 1964 - and the 1512, had it been developed, could've been something special.

(Surtees, thoguh, reckons they shouldn't even have bothered with the 158 - he's on record as having said that they should've gone straight for the 1512 after the 156 "Aero" rather than essentially trying to develop two cars in near-parallel... it's not hard to agree with him on this! - especially as Ferrari were also putting a lot of effort into sports cars!)

pete

From about 1954-64 it could be argued that Ferrari were always two years behind, not least thanks to Enzo always clinging to outmoded ideas about not putting the horse behind the cart. The 625 from 1954 was more or less a stretched version of the 1952-3 500 and the aforementioned 555 was junked in late 1955 in favour of the 1954 Lancia D50, which came good in 1956 as the Ferrari 801. 1957 saw another decline, with only a brief revival in 1958. It was 1960 before they bowed to the inevitable and started work on a definitive rear-engined car (allegedly because the Old Man had seen the Alfa 512 in action in the 40s and was unimpressed). 1961 was only a success because the British teams weren't really ready for the new formula and the Ferrari V6 was the only really "sorted" engine thanks to their F2 experience.

[Doug Nye]

Strictly on the subject of the 312T5 cars a lot of the foregoing is reasonable assumption, but nonsense.

Ferrari had taken the strategic decision to minimise expenditure upon this stub end of their 3-litre flat-12 F1 programme to maximise investment in the replacement 1.5-litre turbo V6 project. From the beginning of 1980 they wrote off that season to concentrate upon 1981 and the new turbo era.

This is why three - off the top of my head - of the 'T5's for 1980 were in reality 1979 T4 tubs updated and reclothed. It was also Mauro Forghieri's continued professed belief that all this 'l'effeto suolo' (ground effects aerodynamics) talk was merely the Brits and French blowing smoke up his trouser leg, while the real key to performance was the diff characteristic being used.

Thus there is a true parallel between 1980 and 1962 in that both Formula 1 Ferrari seasons were 'leap years' in their development history.

Basically, you pay peanuts, you get monkeys - and by 1980 the obsolescent naturally-aspirated flat-12 was an outdated, aerodynamically obstructive, overweight, over-thirsty anachronistic monkey of a car...

DCN

[Ruairidh]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
It was also Mauro Forghieri's continued professed belief that all this 'l'effeto suolo' (ground effects aerodynamics) talk was merely the Brits and French blowing smoke up his trouser leg, while the real key to performance was the diff characteristic being used.

Sorry Doug, you've lost me - whats a "diff characteristic"?

[Doug Nye]

Sorry pardon - from 1978 there had been a lot of talk and rumour about Lotus and Ligier etc using trick limited-slip differentials with low-slip or no-slip and this had become almost an obsessive interest of Forghieri's - I vividly remember him expounding upon "...the truth of the current technical situation...they are all lying..." - and Doc Postlethwaite telling me that Mauro believed that all the talk of ground-effects being the key factor was so much moonshine...to put Maranello off the scent...

...which reminds one of the old story about "...my dog's got no nose".

DCN

[Ruairidh]

Thanks Doug, I appreciate the explanation

[fines]

I think what exacerbated the dismal performance of the T5 is that Ferrari was virtually a one-car team in 1980 - when the new car didn't perform, Jody (having won it all before) gave up on it and simply demotivated into retirement. Only Gilles was hungry enough, but the team would've needed two hungry drivers to test the car day and night. Maybe it's true what Doug says, in that it was a "leap" year for Ferrari before the new turbo era, but I don't belive they would have thought like that in January - I seem to remember they were not that far behind in the South American races.

[Ruairidh]

Originally posted by fines
Maybe it's true what Doug says, in that it was a "leap" year for Ferrari before the new turbo era, but I don't belive they would have thought like that in January - I seem to remember they were not that far behind in the South American races.

Surely the "thinking" would have been done in the Fall of 1979 when they decided not to invest time, effort and lire into a new car for 1980 but split their efforts into (1) the 1981 engine and car before putting what was left into (2) the 1980 car.

I've always thought that is what happened to Lotus the year before. Having had the '79 dominate; Chapman wanted to focus on the Type 80. We live in a world of limited time, resource and money. So apart from a new paint job precious little attention was placed in the winter of '78 on updating the Type 79 to either (a) the changing tyre technology and (b) the need to solve its shortcomings (Mario always said it needed stiffening in places) and so when the 80 proved that porpoises could come in Martini livery the 79 was so far behind the curve that Lotus simply lacked the time and resource in the middle of the season to make the necessary changes........

I guess my point is that the die was cast when Ferrari made the turbo decision and Scheckters demotivation was a result (maybe fuelled it) of Ferrari's lack of competitiveness rather than the cause.

[cheesy poofs]

Even in 1979, the flat-12 powered Ferraris were starting to show signs of being caught up by the "garagiste" teams. The 1979 season was a big learning curve for ground-effect cars. By the following season, they had caught and surpassed the might of Maranello's best. As Doug pointed out, Ferrari was getting ready to go the opposite route with a turbo-charged V-6 engine. They were the first to follow Renault's lead...and look what happened.

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Sorry pardon - from 1978 there had been a lot of talk and rumour about Lotus and Ligier etc using trick limited-slip differentials with low-slip or no-slip and this had become almost an obsessive interest of Forghieri's - I vividly remember him expounding upon "...the truth of the current technical situation...they are all lying..." - and Doc Postlethwaite telling me that Mauro believed that all the talk of ground-effects being the key factor was so much moonshine...to put Maranello off the scent...

...which reminds one of the old story about "...my dog's got no nose".

DCN

I have vague memories of Lotus guys trying to psych people into believing that the diffs on the 78 and 79 were something trick - Bob Dance and co always covering transmission parts with cloths to hide prying eyes etc. Was this really the case?

[fines]

I remember that, too. Especially in 1977 the rage was all about the Lotus diff, and not about undercar aerodynamics!

[just me again]

Picture of the Ferrari 312T5 : http://www.barchetta...xxx.F50a.05.htm

75 detail pictures of the Ferrari 312t5 : http://www.interlog....acing/312t5.htm

Bjørn

[Jordi #99]

Now, if the 126C was ready at Imola, and was 0.5 sec faster than the T5, why wasn't it used?
Is there any better testing than at the racetrack?

[byrkus]

Originally posted by Jordi #99
Now, if the 126C was ready at Imola, and was 0.5 sec faster than the T5, why wasn't it used?
Is there any better testing than at the racetrack?

Don't forget that Imola was Ferrari's own track, and Ferrari certainly didn't want to look redicolous. So they tested, IMHO, new 126C on qualifiying, for 312T5 was simply too slow. On the race, however, didn't want to gamble with a complete new car, and opted for older, more reliable 312T5. 126C sure was quicker - but could it get through GP distance?? Ferrari obviously didn't think so.

That's -of course- just my view at this subject. I certainly could be wrong.;)

[Jordi #99]

Well, that GP is not remembered by lack of reliability... but for Gilles' huge shunt "thanks" to a punctured right rear...

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Vitesse2


From about 1954-64 it could be argued that Ferrari were always two years behind, not least thanks to Enzo always clinging to outmoded ideas about not putting the horse behind the cart. The 625 from 1954 was more or less a stretched version of the 1952-3 500 and the aforementioned 555 was junked in late 1955 in favour of the 1954 Lancia D50, which came good in 1956 as the Ferrari 801. 1957 saw another decline, with only a brief revival in 1958. It was 1960 before they bowed to the inevitable and started work on a definitive rear-engined car (allegedly because the Old Man had seen the Alfa 512 in action in the 40s and was unimpressed). 1961 was only a success because the British teams weren't really ready for the new formula and the Ferrari V6 was the only really "sorted" engine thanks to their F2 experience.

i think history is a little unkind to Ferrari over the switch to rear engined cars. At the beginning of 1959, very few could see how quickly the rear engined cars would become dominant. Ferrari was not alone in keeping te horse before the cart. In any case, the 1959 Ferraris were competitive on most circuits and Brooks could have won the championship with a little more luck. By 1960, I believe Ferrari saw that rear engined cars were the way to go, but he concentrated all his efforts on development for the following year, rather as he was to do in 1980. If the 2.5-litre formula had lasted another year or two we might have seen Phil Hill in a 1960 Sharknose 246 and that might have been interesting.

[Mischa Bijenhof]

Was Jody Scheckters DNQ in Canada the first and only non-qualificartion for a Ferrari (in WC Grands Prix, that is...)?
I tried searching at forix but it did't work,

[Marcel Visbeen]

Cliff Allison had an accident in the training for the 1960 Monaco GP and didn't qualify. And then there is one Mario Andretti who failed to qualify for Monaco in 1971.
Those and Scheckter in 1980 I think are the only other DNQs for an official Scuderia Ferrari entry. There were some others in the fifties, but those were privately entered Ferrari's.

[conjohn]

Ricardo Rodriguez missed the cut at Monaco 1962, driving a Ferrari 156/61 entered by the works.

[cheesy poofs]

When Scheckter DNQ'd in the 1980 Canadian GP, Villeneuve could manage no better than 22nd on the grid with the T-5. Somehow, GV managed to bring the car home in 5th place that day !

[Marzal]

Thats quite amazing anyway. Monaco, of all circuits is not the one in which the Ferrari aerodinamics problems should be that important.
I mean that wing car characteristics favoured smoother tracks.

Even today Monaco is regarded as a power circuit.

I'm obviusly wrong, anyway

[Fransz]

I'm tyring to go back through old pictures but somehow I remember thinking that the T5 was much uglier than the T4 (which was my favorite looking car). Maybe it was just my perception of the look based on how much of a dog the car was performance wise. What I have stuck in my mind was that the front wing was out further on the T5 than the T4 and that the aero fins at the back were higher on the T5 than the T4 but I can't really find a picture to confirm this. They both look very much similar when I look at them know compared to what I had pictured in my mind.

[Henri Greuter]

Major difference: The bodywork of the T5 had a (vertical) dorsal fin above the engine, unlike the T4.
I agree, T4 was indeed a beautiful car but somehow, T5 despite the simularities, wasn't.
Just like two sisters resembling another. one you like, the other isn't the one despite....


What? The majority of forum members thinks the shapely T4 being ugly???
Yes that midwing arrangement at Monaco was indeed ugly. But otherwise????? T4 still rated as ugly?

Oh well, I don't like the sight of too curvateous women.
Difference in taste of preference permitted I hope?


To me however, T5 was the car that proved Gilles' greatness as a driver. No-one else could have scored 6 points with that device.

Henri Greuter