So why DID Ferrari have such a (relatively) poor weekend then??

[Tristan]

5th and 8th on the grid, 3rd and 8th in the race. TGF showed the pace was there in his final stint, but was nowhere in the second. It appears he wasn't held up by Trulli as he was hardly crawling all over him. As for Barrichello, he was very quiet, never getting on terms with the Alonso/DC scrap.

So, given that the F2003 has been all conquering and before that the F2002 remaining faster than anything else, to what can we attribute Ferrari's poor showing??

Is there a simple answer?? Can it just be the tyres??

[TeddyG]

Tyres Tyres Tyres...the brigdestones sucked this weekend. Ferrari where the only bridgestone runners in the top ten in quals and only non-Michelin team to get points.

[Tristan]

OK then, let's say it was the tyres - why??

[Gt_R]

I believe that the Bridgestone tyres were not good fundamentally. Ferrari lost plenty of time with new tires and seem to take a lot of time before the grip and handling comes good. Before Michael's pitstop, he was flying at a blistering pace. When he came out of the pits, he was just 7s behind the lead pair. However, the gap opened to 15s in the next 10 laps or so.

It's only towards the end of each stint that the grip comes, and that the lighter fuel load manage to offset the disadvantage of the tires. Rubens looked off form throughout the whole race.

Is the tires too hard? Compared to the badly worn Michelins, the Bridgestone could almost pass off as new!

And Michael is definitely held up by Trulli. He could close the gap to the Renault almost at will, as we could see the few laps before Renault came in, Michael suddenly just close an almost 1.5+ gap down to slightly more than half a sec. But there is little point for Michael to stick to the rear of the Renault at Monaco, with no overtaking opportunities. No need to get in all that dirty air and risk colliding into the Renault if Trulli makes a mistake.

[neilap]

One would think that since Bridgestone emphasizes tire performance for Ferrari Bridgestone dropped the ball. If Ferrari was struggling then we know all Bridgestone teams will suffer. That said MS was fast in his first and third stint. I think the tires ruined his pace in the second. This tire war ruins the racing, but that is another topic.

[Dutton]

I think it is pretty much tyres, really. The Ferrari IS a GOOD CAR. Michael IS a GOOD driver. There were the periods in therace that michael could do what he wanted, but overall the package just wasn't good enough (package = chassis-engine-tyres-driver). Rubens was just no good enough. He should've done better than that, he was in a great position to leap frog a couple going into the first stops certainly.

Hrrmm. I'm just greatful JPM and Williams beat Kimi: it meant the day, generally, succeeded in damage limitation.

Canada, going on recent history, could well be a rather different affair.

Onwards bound!

[Inigo Montoya]

yup. the tyres were a factor. Also getting stuck behind Trulli really hurt Michael. And Rubens, well, he just plain sucked today. Bring on Massa!

[MrSal]

Yes. Using the Bridgestones is a disadvantage at present but Schumacher did put in some very fast laps. Are they lacking pace completely or are the just inconsistent? TGF complained that they weren't lasting a full qualifying lap. Does this mean he had to keep slowing down to allow his tyres to recover in the race?
I also think this years car is nowhere near as dominant as the 2002 car(thank God) and nor could you really expect it to be.

[Mr V]

Tyres were a factor of course, but how many times have we seen the Bridgestones better than the Michelins?.........LOTS.

On the day, Michael still put in a good performance, but Kimi and especially JPM put in an even better performance.

[f1manoz]

Why?

Tyres were the biggest factor. Michelin had the better compound.

Just look at the middle section of the race. JPM and Kimi stormed away from the field.

[krt917]

Definitely agree that the Bridgestones are making the F2003GA look worse (less good!) than it is. And not just at Monaco either; I reckon the tyres were pretty poor at Barcelona and only the new Ferrari with Michael at the wheel was able to win with them.

As for MS's second stint, I think that another part of it was that he had a relatively heavy fuel load at that stage in the race. He stopped (and was therefore heaviest) after JPM and Kimi, who were well into their stints (and lighter) by then and were able to go faster. That, and the nature of the Bridgestones meant that Schuey lost too much ground before the tyres and fuel-load allowed him to put in his quick laps.

[Inigo Montoya]

What amazes me is that Michael and Rubens were able to do the times they were in qualifying, considering they had 10 laps of fuel more than the others!

The F2003GA is obviously a fantastic car - I still think that we will see domination set in as soon as Bridgestone gets their act together.

[krt917]

Agree, unless the new McLaren is the business! Oh, and it might be conceivable that Bridgestone won't get their act together.

[R]

Originally posted by Gt_R
And Michael is definitely held up by Trulli. He could close the gap to the Renault almost at will, as we could see the few laps before Renault came in, Michael suddenly just close an almost 1.5+ gap down to slightly more than half a sec. But there is little point for Michael to stick to the rear of the Renault at Monaco, with no overtaking opportunities. No need to get in all that dirty air and risk colliding into the Renault if Trulli makes a mistake.

Then why did he stay right on the tail of Coulthard throughout last year's race? I believe TGF couldn't keep up with Trulli - otherwise he would have been all over him. That's what faster drivers normally do at Monaco - stay right on the tail of the car ahead, filling the mirrors, waiting and trying to pressurize the driver ahead into making a mistake so that the faster driver can overtake.

Closing the gap before Trulli pitted could be down to TGF's tyres improving.

[NiceGuyEddie]

It comes down to qualifying in the end. The Bridgestones faded over the course of one lap. Schumacher was 1/10 of a second quicker in the first sector, but ended up fifth on the grid.

If he had a decent qualy, at least top 3, he wouldn't have been stuck behind Trulli during their -pretty long- first stint. That cost him dearly. Michael definatly could keep up with Trulli. He controlled the gap. Sometimes extending it to 2 secs, other times easily close it to a couple of tenths. But with no overtaking opportunity, there is no point in trying.

In 2002, he was going for the win. I suppose tucking in underneath DC's rearwing is not about attempting an overtakingmanoeuvre, its about pushing the pressure on DC up, hoping it culminates in a mistake from the scotsman.

Anyway, at the end, Schumacher showed he had the speed to follow both the McLaren and the Williams, or even close the gap. So, the speed was ultimatly there, but this is Monaco, and Schumacher should be pleased with landing on the podium. No win, but still an outstanding drive from der Michael.

All in all, it seems as if the Michelin produces the better tyre. The Bridgestone seems senstive for circumstances.

[DNQ]

Tyres, and the element of the F2003-GA not being the total crushing dominator the tifosi expected.

[Hugh Jarce]

If it's tyres (which I don't think ws the only issue - MS had a very ordinary drive and Rubens is going backwards) - what does this say about the special Ferrari-Bridgestone development relationship.

On the evidnce of this race - its clearly second best. Couple that with the fact that they have no wet tyre and Bridgestone appear to be really 'slipping'!

On that note - we don't tend to be so analytical about 'lesser' teams failure, BAR engine etc., we just think they were not good enough on the day.

With Ferrari, its almost like we have to provide an excuse. 'They would have won if the tyres were better.' Plain fact is they weren't good enough to compete.

I don't think we should be surprised as Ferrari will probably lose the Constructors championship in the next three years. F1 is cyclical! That won't be a suddenly 'bang', but a gradual slippage against the others - which it appears may well have started - even though in a minor way.

[NiceGuyEddie]

With Ferrari, its almost like we have to provide an excuse. 'They would have won if the tyres were better.' Plain fact is they weren't good enough to compete.

The laptimes Michael was capable of producing right till the end of the race, proove there isn't that much wrong with the Bridgestones. Not in race-circumstances anyway.

[Hugh Jarce]

So, why was he slow slow in the middle stint - I guess poor driving then, or a lack of motivation based on the limitations of the track.

I think Alonso showed far more 'bite' and desire over the weekend and pushing and moving up two places around that final pit stop was excellent. I would have loved to have heard DC's language on ending up behind both Renaults.

I may be wrong but perhaps Kimi, Alonso and Webber now want it a lot, lot more then MS and Rubens.

[Spudgun]

I will echo many others thoughts on this that the Bridgestones were a big factor.

It maybe that they are still getting used to setting the new car up at the events so far. They tend to do their testing at Mugello and Fiorano unlike the other teams. Or it could just be the other teams have caught them up a bit.

The F2002 was a huge step last year. The F2003-GA is a step up again, but is it by as much? I honestly don't know.

[Damon]

I wonder actually if Bridgestone have gone to far down the pro Ferrari route. Yes they provide the companies best chance of a win but look at races like today, when the Ferrari's are struggling the rest of the Bridgestone runners are nowhere and it makes them look silly. Perhaps building I tyre to suit more of it's customers would be a better way to go as then they could take far more testing data than is possible from just one team.

[J.McClane]

"So why DID Ferrari have such a (relatively) poor weekend "

Maybe they didn't, maybe this new Ferarri really is not all that good.

[Gt_R]

The new Ferrari IS good, no doubt. They won't use it if they din't think it is a better can than last year's would they? But the problem is, the leap forward isn't as great as what is expected/required. Hence, at certain races, one can expect to see very close racing with Williams/Mclaren.

Quote HJ:"I don't think we should be surprised as Ferrari will probably lose the Constructors championship in the next three years."

Duh! Though it is possible, One would be nuts to expect Ferrari dominate the Constructors for 7 years!

Quote HJ:"So, why was he slow slow in the middle stint - I guess poor driving then, or a lack of motivation based on the limitations of the track."

I've said, it could be that the tires weren't operating best, or that towards to end of each stint, the lighter weight offset the Bridgestone's disadvantage. Ordinary race by Michael? Wow..if that's so, i couldn't wait to see him being extraordinary!

I felt that perhaps Ferrari even got their strategy wrong. After Friday quals, perhaps they were confident of the car's speed and bet that they could run a much fuel-heavier car for the race yet achieve a respectable grid position on the first row or maybe third. With more fuel, and a harder compound, they hope to be able to stay in front/keep close to the leader and run a longer stint to pits, making a quicker pit and stay ahead of their rivals. Until they only managed 5th, and trapped behind Trulli did they realise their strategy hits big trouble?

[golem]

Actually, I think it was a combination of:
1. tyres & weather
2. pit strategies
Not Michael or the Car.

Seems the bridgestones had limited lifespans and what schumacher was doing was saving his tyres for the last section of his stints, where he'd get clear air.

The second stint problem? Maybe it was a Schumacher thing. Actually I think TGF still put down fast laps at the end of the second, it's just he was on a later stop than most people so he seemed slow for most of it against lighter opponents.

Then, when the weather went cooler, the others had been out for longer periods on their tyres and the track temp might have dropped to suit his bridgestones, Michael was able to close the gap. I have a funny feeling Bridgsetone may have been gambling on cooler track temperatures today but the clouds and rain didn't come until later.

So you could argue it was bad pit strategy or bad tyre strategy but me, I'd think it is a little of both. Pull 7 laps of fuel out of Schuey and he'd maybe have got third grid slot. From there, who knows how he could have gone. Hindsight is like that.

[garagegirl]

Originally posted by J.McClane
"So why DID Ferrari have such a (relatively) poor weekend "

it's me im a jinx, i was supporting ferrari for a change and they did bad, and cos i wasn't supporting montoya he did good for a change (either that or very big coincidence, lol)