Tires Aside, Is The Ferrari Good Enough?

[GTV27]

Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
Being lighter has nothing to do with it as cars have to be a minimum weight in any case.

Actually tyre weight is quite important as it is unsprung and car designers go to extreme lengths to reduce unsprung weigth so I'd imagine that it would also be in the brief to the tyre supplier.

In regard to the main question, I don't think the Ferrari is significantly better or worse sans tyres - but it is a very artificial comparison - like who has the best aero, who chassis and who engine. Its how all the elements inter-relate that matter

A case in point would be to throw some michys at the Ferarri - it might love 'em and go fast, or it might become a dog.

[Glen]

Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
Being lighter has nothing to do with it as cars have to be a minimum weight in any case.

It can have a very big effect - they have designed the car and its weight distribution with certain weight assumptions in mind; if the engine (for example) is much lighter, then you can move more ballast around (usually forward) which in turn has implications for tyre specification and aerodynamic design. If this is true, and they have missed out on some significant weight-saving areas, it is likely to be much harder to set the car up, because the options for achieving a balance aremore limited. This fits well with the story that the car has a narrow set-up window and is therefore difficult to work with, it also would explain why the two drivers perform a fair way apart on occassion, becausse perhaps one is able to find a set-up whilst the other cannot make the car work to his liking.

[GTRMagic]

For the same reason that Mr Webber has shyte race pace, that the Cossie drinks too much of the good stuff, that issue has never really been explored in the scenario of the multiple pitstops and the like.

In the good old days, the Italian engines, being Motori Moderni, Alfa Romeo, Ferrari or Lamborghini, used to slurp the fuel like it was free, meaning that the cars using these motors were often heavier than their compatriots most of the time.

Could it be happening again?

[paulzinho]

Fangios 57 Nurburgring drive owed alot to the fact that for the second half of therace he was playing catch up because his car drank petrol like crazy and enforced a fuel stop.

But that was a looooooong time ago now!

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
Being lighter has nothing to do with it as cars have to be a minimum weight in any case.

Originally posted by GTV27
Actually tyre weight is quite important as it is unsprung and car designers go to extreme lengths to reduce unsprung weigth so I'd imagine that it would also be in the brief to the tyre supplier.

Originally posted by Glen
It can have a very big effect - they have designed the car and its weight distribution with certain weight assumptions in mind;

Told ya so, IM old pal!

[Inigo Montoya]

Well, V-man, I guess all those years of university were wasted

Thanks for the explanations... glen and gtv

[avsfan733]

actually, The roational weight is probably much more of a problem then the sprung/unsprung debate

a pound of extra tread could have as much as 200 pounds effective weight on the acceleration of the car dpeneding on the diameter of the spinning and the weights and sizes of some other parts

[Glen]

Bridgestone are reputed to be way ahead as far as tyre weight is concerned - I've even read figures as high as two kilos per wheel lighter than the Michelins. But. The Michelin construction is unique and highly secret - it clearly does the trick, whatever it is.

[climb]

In the fiorst races 2003-GA showed immediately very fast and reliable, no doubt; nevertheless competitiveness is a relative concept, and Williams scored an impressive improvement (beyond tyres, they also catched up the Macs, who are michelin shod as well).
Thus it's real hard to judge, but it's very good, cos it increases suspence for the remaining GPs.

[Glen]

The more I think about this the more sure I am that the only problem with the F2003-GA (apart from the relatively laclustre performance of their tyre partner) is to do with the difficulty in working with the car. The design has become so pure and focussed that they somehow have lost sight of the need to make a car easy to set-up and adapt to driving style and conditions. The very fact that they have languished on the fringe of the points for a few races in a row indicates, for me anyway, a fundamental snag in the car's design - something like an engine or transmission that is heavier than first anticipated (although the suggested 37kg sonds like a hell of a lot, since the engines only weigh about 100kgs in the first place) sounds like a perfectly feasible reason to me.

Total speculation and Friday afternoon whimsy on my part of course!

One thing is for certain though - they will fix it and they will get back on top... they are running out of time though.

Incidentally, the good things that you often hear about the FW25 now are usually to do with how accomodating it is and how easy and quick it is to find a nice set-up. I sincerely hope that the narrower front tyres don't cause this characteristic to disappear - looking back at last season, McLaren struggled not only for bhp but also with a car that mystified the team with a very elusive sweet-spot that they couldn't reliably find all season.

[neilap]

But...

What about the other BS runners? They have fallen off drastically too. We know that the tires are the most important part of any race car. It does not matter how much hp or how good the aero package is, if they power cant be put to the ground its all for nothing. As for the Williams passing the Mac, that car is two years old. It is lucky to be where it is now. Williams should not have ever been behind them. Williams quickly found the problem with the car and since Monaco have had an upgraded rear suspension making the car more stable.

A good car is one that is adaptable too. Ferrari would have to be absolutely stupid to build a car that is difficult to set up. As a matter of fact that is what makes the car good or bad. For example the BAR004 could not be adapted to the tracks they visited. JV would complain that the car would never react in a predictable manner. Ferrari have had a predictable car for years now, I dont see that just falling off in one year. How does one set up a car with inferrior grip? That the issue not the chassis.

There I go speaking like I was on the design team...

[Glen]

Other Bridgestone teams - Sauber have had a terrible year, can't really go by them, ditto Jordan... BAR have got a decent car for once; it seems to me that they have closed the gap to Ferrari slightly.

My guessings and specualtions are prompted mostly by the inconsistent results of late - I find it highly weird that Rubens has had some races where he has been well clear of Michael because when they were well on top of their game with the F2002 they were pretty evenly and consistently matched.

[Knowlesy]

It has always been my opinion that the F2003GA has dissapointed as much as its tyres have. The claims made by Ferrari pre-season seem rather over-confident. I don't think they mentioned that the gap between the new car and 2002's car was partly down to Fioranos newly resurfaced track..........

It is less stable in slow corners but an absolute blinder on the fast corners, hence Silverstones performance for example. I was reading something yesterday, actually, that they have moved the weight too far back in the car and can't shift the ballast as effectively as they hoped. The cockpit was moved back quite significantly for example. It is a problem that can't be rectified, only learned from to benefit F2004.

If anything, the proof that F2003GA is/was difficult was before Silverstone when Rubens was miles off Mickey Schus pace. When they improved the car, Rubens has got the better of Michael, so it is improving at least!

The thing I can't understand is why they altered the design concept so drastically, ie lengthening the wheelbase and moving things around. Judging by F2002 fairly good pace earlier this year, surely an evolutionary car would have been better than a revolutionary one. Unless F2002 had no more development life of course.

[Stephenw]

Either all the Michelin runners have made huge simultaneous progress in a few short months;

or;

the front tire is deforming into a slick with a wider then legal contact patch...

hmmm...

how many times have we seen footage of a pit stop with badly worn tires on the fronts **not** being changed?

I mean...c'mon, get real. Enough already. He11 yeah the Ferrari is good enough, if the competition was running a tire with grooves that needed to be swapped out each stint...for the love of God it's so obvious what is happening here...

[Snrub]

Sauber has been way off the pace and BAR has been fluky. It's pretty hard to jugde the "field" based on their performance.

[Knowlesy]

F2003GA is a carthorse.

[paulzinho]

BAR looked very promising at the start of the year, especially in Oz but it all seems to have gone terribly wrong somewhere.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by knowlesy
F2003GA is a carthorse.

I wouldn't go that far, but what the F2003 GA isn't is the F2002, proberbly the best car ever seen in F1 history, and i can't see how they were ever gonna top that!

[GP Racer]

Originally posted by Mr V
I wouldn't go that far, but what the F2003 GA isn't is the F2002, proberbly the best car ever seen in F1 history, and i can't see how they were ever gonna top that!

Absolutely correct MrV! It makes you wonder if they retired the F2002 alittle to early, doesn't it?

[Andrew2001]

FIA = Ferrari International Autosport council.

Oh and by the way, Ferrari are the biggest (and only) losers ever to win a World championship.
they make up new rules, the FIA announces, which suddenly makes their competition "cheaters".

Anyone recall Brazil 1998? McLaren had a 3rd brake pedal, the FIA gave it the ok before the season started, McLaren lapped the field at Aussie, then Ferrari *****ed about it, had the device made illegal.
**** Ferrari. Always have disliked them, and guess what, I always will. I seem to recall Bruce McLaren and Jack Brabham having troubles with Ferrari allegations back in the 50s and 60s, times don't change, Ferrari never changed, losers losers losers. when the going gets tough, make the other teams gear illegal.
****ING LOSERS

[Andrew2001]

GO KIMI AND JUAN PABLO! (But more so Kimi )

[GP Racer]

Uhhh, I take it your not a Tifosi Andrew?

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally posted by Andrew2001
FIA = Ferrari International Autosport council.

Oh and by the way, Ferrari are the biggest (and only) losers ever to win a World championship.
they make up new rules, the FIA announces, which suddenly makes their competition "cheaters".

Anyone recall Brazil 1998? McLaren had a 3rd brake pedal, the FIA gave it the ok before the season started, McLaren lapped the field at Aussie, then Ferrari *****ed about it, had the device made illegal.
**** Ferrari. Always have disliked them, and guess what, I always will. I seem to recall Bruce McLaren and Jack Brabham having troubles with Ferrari allegations back in the 50s and 60s, times don't change, Ferrari never changed, losers losers losers. when the going gets tough, make the other teams gear illegal.
****ING LOSERS

Congratulations Andrew. I think this might possibly be the most silly post I've seen on ten-tenths. Have another beer buddy

[ASCII Man]

I thought i was the silly one around here...

[Knowlesy]

*puts arm round ASCII man*

It's OK. Everything will turn out rosy in the end.

*hands ASCII man tissue*