9 replies to this topic

[wagner]

I read in teletext Brawn's comment that F2003-GA had cooling issues and in some races they had to sacrifice aerodynamic performance becuase of that.

Opinions? In Hungaroring 2003 Sauber was quite fast despite Ferrari struggled compared to their usual levels. I never really bought this crap Bridgestone theory and now there's a logical explanation for that

[Racer Joe]

He also said they picked the wrong tyres at Hungary 2003 in the same interview, answering the same question as the cooling weakness comment in fact when talking about the problems Ferrari encountered in 2003.

[RichyH]

My understanding is that the 2003-GA's wheelbase was far too long and that, coupled with the characterstics of the 2003 Bridgestone meant that the car was understeering too much and destroying the tyres.

This year's F2004 has a much shorter wheelbase and thus more weight over the front. Better grip, less understeer, less graining etc.

But that's my understanding....

RichyH

[wagner]

Originally posted by RichyH
My understanding is that the 2003-GA's wheelbase was far too long and that, coupled with the characterstics of the 2003 Bridgestone meant that the car was understeering too much and destroying the tyres.

I'm not sure ... F2003 was superb in tracks like Silverstone and Suzuka hardly a sign of fundamental understeer to excel in these tracks. But these were cool races, maybe Ferrari had to give away front downforce for cooling in the hot ones?

[kenjafield]

The long wheelbase made the Ferrari amazing on fast tracks (Canada, Suzuka, Monza) and slow on the twisty tracks (Monaco, Hungary). What this has to do with tyres, I dunno

[BMW4life]

IIRC, the difference in wheelbase is 50mm?? I know these things are intricate, but just how much difference does 5cm make? Methinks there's a bit more to it than just the wheelbase.

[Torx]

Originally posted by kenjafield
The long wheelbase made the Ferrari amazing on fast tracks (Canada, Suzuka, Monza) and slow on the twisty tracks (Monaco, Hungary). What this has to do with tyres, I dunno

Ferrari was not slow at Monaco.

[wagner]

And Nürburgring isn't so twisty.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by Torx


Ferrari was not slow at Monaco.

It wasn't slow, neither was it super fast, it's problem was qualifying, and Monaco is alot about quali and one lap speed, something the Bridgestones haven't gotten right there like michelin, MS is good around Monaco, notice Rubens being more off pace that Monaco.

Originally posted by wagner

I'm not sure ... F2003 was superb in tracks like Silverstone and Suzuka hardly a sign of fundamental understeer to excel in these tracks. But these were cool races, maybe Ferrari had to give away front downforce for cooling in the hot ones?

The 2003 GA was good in aero, more aero then mechancial grip, this made it ideal for Silverstone, more fast corners, same as Suzuka. I remember Spain 2003, everyone was hyping the GA to be really be awesome, but when I saw Alonso's renault competing with Michael, I thougth the other teams have caught up, or ferrari have started off with detuned engines and stuff, but the problem it had was being not as great in slower corners, and exiting corners, overheating problems, likely made it very problematic to set up, if you look at Rubens before Silverstone, he was really nowhere compared to MS, I mean really nowhere, when he's that far behind, and MS is further then him, the car had issues, but overall it was good enough on a number of tracks to go for the win, at Canada and Monza though, MS was exceptional, Williams could of won those races, a quali mistake by Juan at Monza, and him spinning off at Canada, and Ralf not winning Canada, and MS flanking him in pitstops and controling the race up front, really had to fight for it, Williams should of come away with more wins, Juan spun in Australia towards the end, he should of been really been fighting Michael for the championship at the end, his Indy 2003 move on Rubens was reckless.

I'm surprised with all the seasons so far since 2000, 2003 was the season Ferrari had a wake up call, it was Williams, Mclarens best chance of beating them, even when they had problems, and MS didn't get things always right, they still worked hard to overcome them, it's something williams and mclaren and their drivers gotta do to beat them.

[gshevlin]

Originally posted by BMW4life
IIRC, the difference in wheelbase is 50mm?? I know these things are intricate, but just how much difference does 5cm make? Methinks there's a bit more to it than just the wheelbase.

A wheelbase change of 50mm can make a huge difference....Gordon Murray, the Chief Designer at Brabham for most of the 1980's, reported that when they added a 50mm spacer between the engine and gearbox of the Brabham BT49, the car was 1.5 seconds quicker on most tracks and the balance was greatly improved.