Ferrari dominance... but is it really that they have the best car??

[Tristan]

Well, today's GP was pretty dull. Ferrari made everyone look silly, particularly with TGF's fastest lap towards the end.

I cannot be denied that today the car was the class of the field.

But if we look throughout the course of the season, there have been plenty of opportunities for them to be beaten. The number of poles to wins is actually fairly low. Monty's run proved that the Williams was potentially the faster car, his races being let down by poor reliability, tyres and, dare I say, driving.

After today and Germany it's been all about resigned defeat and how "ferrari just have the better car. Simple". It probably is. But is the 2002 (beaten only once EVER) REALLY so dominant?? Or is it other variables that are making Ferrari so dominant??

If the latter is the case, then what's wrong with the competition?? And perhaps that makes Ferrari not QUITE as "evil" as people suggest. I'm a fan, so of course I'm biased, but perhaps it's not "all about money" after all....

[Gt_R]

Its a combination of the best cars designed by the best designers supported by the best team crew and driven by the best drivers. Yes, i mean it...i consider Rubens to be right up there with the top guys.

Look at 98. They had a car 1.5s behind Mclaren
99. They had a car 0.5s behind Mclaren
00. They had a car as fast as Mclaren
01. They had a car 0.5s faster than Mclaren
02. They had a car 1.5s faster than Mclaren

Put simply, Ferrari deserved what they achieved through sheer hard and good work. As a team, they won.

[Legend]

Nice point there mate

[Mania]

Everyone else just has to catch up - Williams probably have the best chance...but Id be surprised of it happens next season - Ferrari are way ahead .

[freud]

Originally posted by Gt_R

Look at 98. They had a car 1.5s behind Mclaren
99. They had a car 0.5s behind Mclaren
00. They had a car as fast as Mclaren
01. They had a car 0.5s faster than Mclaren
02. They had a car 1.5s faster than Mclaren

Rubbish. F1 doesnt work this way & you cannot just say that 99 they had a car 0.5 s behind Mclaren. Performance of a car changes depending on conditions, tyres, aerodynamics, chassis, weather, etc etc. I am sure that during 1998 and 1999, at some circuits, Ferrari were better than Mclaren.

[Inigo Montoya]

Actually, freud, I have those numbers in front of me. Average time between Ferrari and pole winner:

1998 0.7 sec behind
1999 0.5 sec behind
2000 0.1 sec behind
2001 0.2 sec faster
2002 about even (all those Montoya poles)

[Ej10]

if you think about it realistically minardi have a better car than ferrari. they have a budget in about 50 million. Ferarris budget is in and around 300m. 5 or six times bigger the budget. its quite funny really.i mean the team always had the biggest budget in f1 and have been in f1 since the start yet mclaren and williams on average of the amount of time exsisting in f1 have a better record.

[Legend]

Yes Freud you are right there in 1998 Ferrai was in some few tracks better than Mac, and in 1999 a few tracks more than 1998, and in 2000 a few tracks more than 1999 and in 2001 a few tracks better than .................................

[freud]

Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
Actually, freud, I have those numbers in front of me. Average time between Ferrari and pole winner:

1998 0.7 sec behind
1999 0.5 sec behind
2000 0.1 sec behind
2001 0.2 sec faster
2002 about even (all those Montoya poles)

This proves nothing. Considering the fact that Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne set-up the car for the 'race' mode. Ferrari concentrates on race during the weekend and hence their qualification timings dont matter as much. Ferrari dominated many races during 1998 and 1999 as they were the best on the circuit.

[Inigo Montoya]

Welcome Ej10. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the disparity in numbers is not that big:

1. Ferrari 302 millions
2. McLaren 287 millions
3. Renault 255 millions
4. Toyota 238 millions
5. BAR 235 millions
6. Williams 230 millions
7. Jaguar 211 millions
8. Jordan 190 millions
9. Sauber 104 millions
10. Minardi 83 millions
11. Arrows 49 millions

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally posted by freud


This proves nothing. Considering the fact that Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne set-up the car for the 'race' mode. Ferrari concentrates on race during the weekend and hence their qualification timings dont matter as much. Ferrari dominated many races during 1998 and 1999 as they were the best on the circuit.

It proves plenty. 0.7 sec ON AVERAGE slower in qualifying. That is a big gap. But anyways, lets compare race fastest laps:

1998 - Ferrari 6, McLaren 9
1999- Ferrari 6, McLaren 9
2000- Ferrari 5, McLaren 12

So, the McLaren was faster in qualifying AND in race trim.

[freud]

I am sure that during 1998 and 1999, at some circuits, Ferrari were better than Mclaren, hence the wins. Compare that situation to 2002 when Ferrari has a package miles ahead of the field plus the inadequacy of the Michelin tyres make Ferrari so dominant.

[Gt_R]

freud, com'on man...of course the numbers i state are not absolute true realistic values that happen on every race in that season. It's just like you always hear commentators saying "Ferrari is a second ahead of the field..", its just a rough value of where Ferrari stands that year approximately relative to their rivals... which if you take it correctly, it actually holds true...

Of course, there are tracks where Ferrari is more competitive...Arrows had even gone as fast in the straights as some of the top teams in Hockenheim...but that doesn't make Arrows as good as Ferrari does it?

Take it in a lighter note...

[SilentVoice81]

First post, hi all!

With GT_R about Ferrari... and that`s why Williams and McLaren can`t beat them, they don`t have the complete package of team management, drivers, tyres, engine, chassis etc.

Michelin obviously must do a whole lot better next year if Ferrari is going to be even challenged for the WCC... this year although it`s true that Ferrari is less competitive on some circuits in comparison to their average, the red cars were contenders for race wins in every circuit this year thus far.

I`d like to be more optimistic as a F1 fan but it does look like another Ferrari romp in 2003 as well...

[Jordi]

Tyres play a huge factor here. The two years where the competition was closest were 1999 and 2000, with the same manufacturer (Bridgestone).
Bridgestone-shod McLarens had a big advantage over Goodyear-shod Ferraris in early 1998, just as Bridgestone-shod Ferraris have had an advanage over the rest this year.

[Lee Janotta]

Screw the numbers, my eyes tell me that in race trim, Montoya couldn't catch those Ferraris if he had a rocket up his arse. Ditto for the McLarens on most of the tracks.

That car's a class killer, same as the '92 Williams. It happens. Things will evolve, the other teams will start to catch up. And if they don't, F1'll lose viewers and the FIA'll be forced to bring in a radical reworking of the chassis and aero rules. Preferably towards a wider, more stable car that relys less on downforce and more on mechanical grip. And hopefully without so much electronic voodoo.

Jordi's got a very good point, you absolutely can't overlook the importance of the Ferrari-Bridgestone partnership, and the fact that the Michelins are, well, absolute ****.

[Tristan]

So is it that the CAR'S amazing, or is it OTHER FACTORS?? And if these OTHER FACTORS exist, where's the response from the other teams?? I'm sure if they knew they'd be doing it....

[Inigo Montoya]

This year, the car is miles and miles and miles and miles ahead in race trim. Christ, even Barelyfellow can win races in it!

But I still disagree with freud about the car they had back in 98, 99 (and even for part of 2000). The Mac was king back then.

[Tristan]

I'd even say MOST of 2000....

[Jordi]

For part, I'd say...

I think the actual Ferrari domination is a huge combination of factors.
-Reliability (last MS failure, Hockenheim 2001!!)
-M. Schumacher, Brawn, Todt, Byrne and Martinelli, these 5 guys together and for a long time now
-Best interpretation of the last aerodynamic rule change (just as McLaren in 1998)
-Bridgestone only having to focus on Ferrari and therefore making the most suitable tyre for the car (and viceversa)

[Jukebox]

I really do hope it's true about the rumours saying that Williams had already built an engine for the 2003 season that can revs up to 20,000rpm.

We need a team that can challenge Ferrari and make the championship more exciting. Not that i'm not happy that Ferrari are dominating and Michael winning the WDC at an early stage

[freud]

Originally posted by Tristan
I'd even say MOST of 2000....

BS.. what planet were you on back then?? F2000 was the class act of the field. Mclaren didnt have the reliability nor the overall package that Ferrari had.

Inigo, Mclaren was King in 1998 & 1999 only in the power circuits(because of Mercedes engine). Ferrari dominated the GPs in the Mickey mouse tracks as Ferrari had better aerodynamics, chassis & offcourse.. TC..

[f1manoz]

Ferrari's dominance is coming from the following factors, in no particular order:

Best chassis
Best engine
Best 'driver' in TGF, best 'no.2' in Rubens
Best team personnel
Best factory
Most money

There are several other factors, but to me the ones mentioned above are the reasons why Ferrari are completely dominating.

[steve_r]

I think Ferraris dominance is due to all the Pasta that they eat.
Mclaren & Williams are weighed down by their Bacon & Fried eggs, and BMW & Mercedes have too many sausages.
Once Minardi switch from Pizza to Pasta they will become a top team

[Legend]