What some are so better than others

[KC]

Since watching the Aussie GP I have been pondering how every team could have spent the better part of half a year making their cars and engines better only to have Ferrari come out and destroy them on the track. A few things I have come up with...

1. Obviously the smaller teams like Jordan, Sauber, and Minardi have a viable excuse in their budgetary constraints. They simply do not have the resources to level the playing field.
2. Teams like McLaren-Mercedes, Williams-BMW, Jaguar, British American Racing, Toyota F1 and Renaultsport do not have the luxury of the excuse of budgetary constraints. While some do not spend as much as others, they all have the wherewithal to level the playing field.
3. I think that McLaren and Williams have literally tricked themselves out. Instead of producing a car with good balance and good grip, they opt for the newest most technologically advanced geegaws and take themselves out of the hunt. They focus on being the most technologically advanced team while Ferrari concentrates on building the best balanced, most reliable car.
4. Jaguar, Toyota, British American/Honda and Renaultsport are all suffering from inexperience, to some degree or other, and what seems like a lack of focus. They all get close, have a few good results but cannot be counted on to produce a reliable and fast car.

Agree? Disagree?

[Dani Filth]

agree ..

[pirenzo]

agree with most of that, and you're absolutely right that Ferrari isn't too quick, the others are too slow. And they know that. Strangely, i heard that Toyota's budget was being reduced?
It seems that in todays world, manufacture commitment is decided by race results, yet without their input, nobody can beat the combined forces of Ferrari and Fiat who are just getting on with the job regardless of performance, and finding that nobody else is willing to up the stakes enough to beat them. I am sure that Williams can build a car to beat the Ferrari, but i'm equally sure that they can't find anyone to invest in the project long enough to see the end result. They want these "5 year plans" and "we aim to be winning next year". Those are the terms under which they seem to be operating, and they're clearly unrealistic.

[RWC]

actually it has allmost everything to do with tyres

[climb]

Pirenzo,
from what I know FW signed a long temrm agreement with BMW (up to 2009, if memory doesn't deceive me); this could/should let them make plans for the future, particularly considering that the two partners have been working together for some years, already.

[Mattracer]

If Ferrari are taking a more conservative route to victory and domination, then this wouldn't be all that out of character.

They have in the past erred on the side of engineering caution and conservatism, and in the earlier years favoured specific areas like engine development at the expense of chassis development. While this is not true today, there are fewer design revolutions on the '04 Ferrari than on the '04 Williams, and that's just the immediately visible, but then we've only had one GP so far.

[Glen]

How silly will these kinds of questions look when the playing field is levelled in Malaysia? All the teams were much quicker than 2003, so they have all done a great job. Ferrari had a storming weekend and got everything (critically, tyres) right. As for the technological race - make no mistake that Ferrari are very much at the forefront of that particular battle - they might not go in for twin keel or walrus tusks, but in every detail their cars are cutting edge.

[golem]

Disagree. Jaguar is on budgetary restraint. I'd guess next highest after Sauber.
Renault, while spending big, is actually agreeing heavily to cut costs. They don't WANT to spend big so I imagine they only spend where they figure it's necessary. (Which I believe has HELPED them focus on what's necessary, but because when they identify something justifieable, they DO have a decent amount of cash)
Honda also won't spend quite so hugely, but will utilise their incredible industry wide talent pool so in effect has a substitute for $, and Prodrive will only spend what they can get from BAT. DR seems like a wise cookie to me.

[Glen]

The Jaguar and Tyota examples are valid ones for seeing what a conservative approach does for you in modern F1 - neither are nearly fast enough and both will eventually be forced to taken a more courageous approach to design.

[KC]

While Jaguar may be on budgetary restraint, they are financed by Ford and their buget capability will easily match Ferrari, BMW and rival Daimler-Chrysler (nee Mercedes).

I do not think a courageous approach to design is what is needed. A common sense and proven design is what Ferrari are currently using to win championships. They are not goofing around with wavy front wings, complex curved side pods, and bizaare mounting methods for the front wing. The Ferrari looks very similar to the last three Ferraris. While some hidden design may be changed, the car is more evolutionary than revolutionary and it shows on the track. Instead od reinventing the wheel every 6 months, they keep on winning titles every year.

[DriverT]

Yes, but they can do that as they are way ahead already.

[Mattracer]

Originally posted by KC
While Jaguar may be on budgetary restraint, they are financed by Ford and their buget capability will easily match Ferrari, BMW and rival Daimler-Chrysler (nee Mercedes).

I do not think a courageous approach to design is what is needed. A common sense and proven design is what Ferrari are currently using to win championships. They are not goofing around with wavy front wings, complex curved side pods, and bizaare mounting methods for the front wing. The Ferrari looks very similar to the last three Ferraris. While some hidden design may be changed, the car is more evolutionary than revolutionary and it shows on the track. Instead od reinventing the wheel every 6 months, they keep on winning titles every year.

Absolutely.

[Glen]

I don't agree with your analsis, kc - Ferrari re-set the parameters with the F2002 - it was far smaller and far more radical aerodynamically than any other car, and now the other teams are playing catch-up. Wavy front wings? The Ferrari front wing is just as sophisticated as any other... triple elements curving in three planes, very complex trailing edge shapes, masses of detail design in the endplates... you get what I mean. Also to be checked-out are easily the most complex barge-boards, with multiple elements, serrated edges and fins a-plenty... and the teeny tiny rear end with ultra-compact transmission... and so many other trend-setting features. It is true that there is an obvious link to the last two cars, but those tow cars in themselves were the upper point in the F1 scale of sophistication.

[Smokey 6 litre]

i agree about the other teams perhaps going too revolutionary but if no one tried anything new we'd end up with all the cats looking the same (like last year)

[golem]

Actually, no. Ford has resources, true. But Jaguar has been cut back. They have good basics, like access to cosworth and Ford computing power. But Jaguar has to run to constraints, which are tight as Ford internationally is in a bit of a slump. They're putting more money into the road programs of the Ford brand and good thing too.

[Gt_R]

It's strange that people in pre-season express disappointment of Ferrari not doing the radical like Mclaren and Williams, because Ferrari is the one that introduced that VERY VERY compact coke bottle rear end and the team that made top exhaust work wonders.

But just because of one season where they decide they have a great base to start with while other teams made a desperate attempt to design radical stuffs, Ferrari is suddenly known as "conservative"

For teams like Jaguar and Jordan, they have tight constrains, hence there's really little point in them building full new cars every year, spend half a season working out how to set it up, spend millions of dollars ironing out problems..then go back to scratch with a new design and start all over again.

In fact, to stick to a car until they fully understand the way their car works, then introducing complementry new parts/sections, would better maximise their spendings.. They should only attempt brand new designs when they really understand how cars react to their design/input.

[golem]

Good point. But I think what Ferrari achieves is very good refinement. Even that cokebottle rear is a simple refinement of the existing driveline, which made that rear possible. They simply pushed harder in that area so I still see no real revolution, unless they changed the way the gears work, rather than their location and dimensions.
Even williams new nose is a simple tweak, not something fundamentally differant.

It's not a ground effects curtain, it's not a wing bolted to the suspension pickup points, it's not VVT or active suspension, Byrillium (or however it's spelt) metal used in the engine, it's not 6 wheels or a double clutch gearbox or even going from nose down philosophy of aero, to nose up.

I dunno, I see alot of evolution but very little true revolutions or radical ideas, though the outwards curving nature of the side of the sidepods on the cars now is something that breaks heavily from tradition.

[KC]

In no way was I implying that Ferrari had not put in the work and time to make their aero package among the best of the field. However, instead of worrying about wavy front wings as have McLaren, instead of coming up with bizaare front wing mounting solutions as have Williams, Ferrari have continued to develop their machine until it's the best balanced machine out there. When you see the incar video feed its easy to see. The Ferrari drivers just brake and turn in, no fuss, no constant left-right corrections to keep the back of the car under control. Schumacher looks like he's driving 8/10s all the while he is better than a second a lap clear of the field. Both Williams drivers look like they are merely trying to stay on the track under braking, constantly playing catch up with the car. The poor McLaren drivers are fighting a huge understeer on their machine, as witnessed when DC just about flew off in qualifying while pushing.

In my opinion, there is no excuse for flaws this obvious in the car. After a year of arse-busting work, this is all you have?

Some have said its all about the tires. To me that is merely a convenient excuse. All the cars have tires. They all have the chance to run Bridgestones or Michelins. I seriously doubt that either tire maker just shows up with some new or drastically different tire the day before the race that screws up their setup. They have all been practicing with their tires for a long time. I am sure that one make of tire is better than the other, but that just means the engineers have to do a better job of maximizing the tires they are using. If they have reached the performance limit of the tire and it still is not enough, then a change in makes may be necessary. Just blaming the tires is like just blaming the track.