2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

[ME4ME]

"It's certainly a very bold car. But then it needs to be."

It was clear from the beginning that Ferrari were pushing development to the extent that reliability and security were sacrificed for performance. They only way for Ferrari to out-develop Mercedes over the winter was to take calculated risks.

[mika vs michael]

My opinion is that Ferrari in Australia either chose to lose the race in strategy rather on track and that's why they opted for a used supersoft after the red flag, either they want to behave like they have a car equal to Mercedes so they opt to follow their own strategy without necessary mirroring what Mercedes do having faith in their machinery. The thing is that Ferrari needed to push the boundaries and of course some early reliabilities issues would be expected but the bottom line is that their bold concept has brought them a couple tenths closer to Mercedes...so for the time being the trade off is negative...

[superdowg316]

I think after the first two races I can say that Ferrari have a car similar to the MP4/20. It's fast and can win the championship, but reliability will hold it back. You can't have one car finish a race and still be called title challengers, but I respect that they were willing to go to some extremes to catch up to Mercedes. Hopefully they can get some double points over China and Russia before the Spanish Grand Prix updates and fight Nico and Lewis more.

I feel Kimi might actually be a dark horse if the car can finish races while being fast. He needs a level of responsibility on him for him to perform, because sometimes I feel he becomes content with just finishing wherever the car takes him and lets Seb do all the hard work. This could be because his form slipped a bit with that back injury, the car wasn't to his liking or because, let's be real, Seb is Ferrari's No.1. If Ferrari push Kimi more to do well, he can win some races, and that help when fighting Mercedes for the title. I feel this will be his last year, so trying to get as much, well, Kimi out of Kimi would be beneficial.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

The question really is, how much time they can afford to spend on the current car? Mercedes designers (as usual, Geoff Willis) have moved on to 2017 and Newey for Red Bull is already working on 2017. Although there was a piece of news somewhere that Ferrari is also working on 2017, but who the hell is leading that design project?
It is certain that they don't have a car that can win them titles this year. By July/August, they have to move resources to 2017 Car and development freezes and it is general process for everyone as they would need to give away the wind tunnel for new requirements. If they delay or compromise 2017 car's development, they would again be in the eternal chase. They got caught off guard in 2009, they again got caught off guard in 2014 and will they do the same for 2017? So to me, they only have time until July or August to decide what to do. Continue spending resources to resolve the problems OR move on.
The challenge though, if Renault delivers the kind of enhancement they are expecting, Ferrari have the danger of slipping behind Red Bull this year. Two races gone and the difference is just 3 points and it is another 3 races before Renault brings an upgrade to Montreal and they are expecting around 40 BHP increase.
This is really a catch 22 situation for Ferrari, move on early to 2017 development by leaving a chance to Red Bull to beat them OR continue to work on this year's car and compromise for 2017. From the winter testing to where they are, the way I see it, the targets have changed.

[bhall II]

It is certain that they don't have a car that can win them titles this year.

I'd say it's far from certain. SF16-H matches or betters W07 in race trim, and that's with a power unit that's not yet singing at full song.

To be equally fair, though, it's also not certain Ferrari can fix it quickly enough. This is the first time since I've been following Formula 1 that the team has introduced a design that favors outright performance over bulletproof reliability, which means they're in somewhat foreign territory. (It's a paradigm shift so significant that it's thrown a wrench into my ability to prognosticate - not that I'm an especially talented soothsayer or that it really matters one way or the other.)

It'll be interesting to see how things play out.

The 2017 rules - if they're even implemented - aren't the sea change some have portrayed them to be. They effectively just upscale concepts that are already firmly established. Sure, it always helps to have a leg up on the competition. But, the scope of the change is nowhere near what occurred in 2009 or 2014.

[f1316]

Also should be noted that PU development - the biggest performance differentiator - is linear; they don't need to abandon PU updates for 2016 in order to focus on 2017. Anything they bring on that front during this season is directly transferable to 2017.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

First off, people, just because someone comes in defense of Ferrari, becomes an automatic choice for up voting? Get real guys. Voting isn't about being emotionally backing someone who talks what you like.
The other places when Ben posts a lot of valuable arguments, that obviously has information to learn something and that is understandable to get up voted.

I'd say it's far from certain. SF16-H matches or betters W07 in race trim, and that's with a power unit that's not currently running at full song.

But then the question is, what then is the ideal situation to measure the performances? It is hardly ever going to happen that all four cars run on the most ideal situations, ideal tracks and ideal conditions. Based on what is on display and be to playing around a bit with extrapolation is all we can do. There will always be statements like, "Oh, that track suits so and so.....". And with the variety of tyres on display, it becomes even harder. Are there some official sources that said Ferrari is running under power? Even if it is, who is to say that Mercedes isn't? So, until then, results are going to be the barometer of performances. Still, in Bahrain, how on earth was a damaged Mercedes car running on mediums was doing similar times to a Ferrari on Softs? As it is difficult to compare the times to a race leader, who generally runs a controlled race, it is hard to then compare it the race leader. It is always going to be a headache to see what is the real pace of either cars.
In qualifying, every time Ferrari comes near, half a second is unlocked from Mercedes. Look at Vettel's expression here...

The 2017 rules - if they're even implemented - aren't the sea change some have portrayed them to be. They effectively just upscale concepts that are already firmly established. Sure, it always helps to have a leg up on the competition. But, the scope of the change is nowhere near what occurred in 2009 or 2014.

May be the magnitude of changes might not be as big as 2014, but certainly close to what they were in 2009. The concerning part for Ferrari is, they have got it wrong twice in the last decade, so can they get it right third time?

[Vasconia]

Also should be noted that PU development - the biggest performance differentiator - is linear; they don't need to abandon PU updates for 2016 in order to focus on 2017. Anything they bring on that front during this season is directly transferable to 2017.

We even dont know how these rules will be at 100%. But yes, PU will be more or less a normal evolution. I would like to know how much will the aerodinamics change.

I think that these concepts which are being developed by Ferrari have been focused to make a WC winning car in 2017. Perhaps they can win races this year but this bad realibility will make things easier for Mercedes. Anyway I hope that there is not a profund problem related to the packaging. and they will solve these problems soon.

[giantfan10]

Also should be noted that PU development - the biggest performance differentiator - is linear; they don't need to abandon PU updates for 2016 in order to focus on 2017. Anything they bring on that front during this season is directly transferable to 2017.

We even dont know how these rules will be at 100%. But yes, PU will be more or less a normal evolution. I would like to know how much will the aerodinamics change.

I think that these concepts which are being developed by Ferrari have been focused to make a WC winning car in 2017. Perhaps they can win races this year but this bad realibility will make things easier for Mercedes. Anyway I hope that there is not a profund problem related to the packaging. and they will solve these problems soon.

The Pu will probably not be a normal evolution..remember there are no more token restrictions for 2017 so a manufacturer can build a completely new engine or change whatever built in design flaw they were stuck with since 2014.
for example i read somewhere recently that the reason that teams cant match the Mercedes qualifying mode is not because they dont know how but because the Mercedes was designed from inception to utilise this mode which puts tremendous stresses on certain parts of the engine. Im willing to bet engineers for Honda renault and Ferrari already have a long list of unrestricted changes to be made to their PUs

[CBeck113]

SF doesn't need to concentrate on one or the other - their team is large enough to handle both designs, especially since the 2016 work is pretty much finished, unless a major safety flaw is found on the car. The chassis and suspension are done and will most likely not be touches, so those teams can work on the 2017 rules and base car design. The aero team will be split, and since the aero design has been evolutionary, I don't expect any major changes here either (look at last year - one major aero update, otherwise small changes to the wings, floor etc.), so they can also spend most of their time on the 2017 contender. Engine, as already mentioned, is a continuous development [and in order to get the engine they wanted for this year they had to sacrifice reliability, since those changes need on tokens, they just didn't quite finish the design / testing]. Not too many needed for the SF16-H, which is normal in any development program. The only "issue" is simulation & wind tunnel time, but I think they've solved this issue as well... cough-Haas-cough....

[f1316]

Well Haas' wind-tunnel time is now the same as everyone else's so, if they did exploit this before, this was only for a finite period (which has now ended).

I'd suggest that going forward they'll be more focused on purchasing Sauber and making it Alfa Romeo; whilst I'm sure they will be separate development, as per the rules - even down to a different Alfa PU, potentially - they're bound to try and exploit the link somehow.

[bhall II]

But then the question is, what then is the ideal situation to measure the performances?

Personally, I don't need an ideal situation; it seems rather clear to me right now...


via F1Fanatic

Since ~66% percent of the lap is spent at full-throttle, Bahrain is considered to be a power track, which ought to tell you something about the strength of the PU. (For context, ~70% of a lap around Spa is spent at full throttle.)

With regard to the 2017 rules: if they go into effect, I think it'll take roughly four nanoseconds after the first car is launched to understand why I've downplayed the change.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

SF doesn't need to concentrate on one or the other - their team is large enough to handle both designs, especially since the 2016 work is pretty much finished, unless a major safety flaw is found on the car. The chassis and suspension are done and will most likely not be touches, so those teams can work on the 2017 rules and base car design. The aero team will be split, and since the aero design has been evolutionary, I don't expect any major changes here either (look at last year - one major aero update, otherwise small changes to the wings, floor etc.), so they can also spend most of their time on the 2017 contender. Engine, as already mentioned, is a continuous development [and in order to get the engine they wanted for this year they had to sacrifice reliability, since those changes need on tokens, they just didn't quite finish the design / testing]. Not too many needed for the SF16-H, which is normal in any development program. The only "issue" is simulation & wind tunnel time, but I think they've solved this issue as well... cough-Haas-cough....

Really? The changes are just evolutionary? FIA - 2017 Body work changes


No matter how you look at it, the changes are estimated to add a 3 second speed to the current specifications. There is a great opportunity that, while everyone makes up 3 seconds, some team can make it 4 seconds. If that happens, rest everyone would be scratching their heads to find another second and..... THE CHASE BEGINS.....

Now the reality could be something like this. The current cars evolve through this season and add somewhere around 1.5 - 2 seconds (Chassis + PU). When the 2017 regulations were finalized on 24th February, the 3 second talk was based on last year's cars. Suddenly, we have 2016 cars that are around 2 seconds faster than last year. So, theoritically, using last year's words, the cars for 2017 then should be 5 seconds faster (compared to 2015). The potential to get it right or wrong becomes quite big now.

Because the 2017 cars are going to be 25 Kg more, naturally there is lot of head scratching to understand the CoG. The effect that starts with the front wing having a different angle and being wider, will impact the whole flow downstream causing headaches to change the airflow philosophy. With sidepod intakes having an angle swept backwards, the airflow may not going to be reaching as effectively as it is today (might help on aerodynamics), making it a challenge to get the amount of airflow required for the PU. That might just make the current Mercedes style of big roll hoop becoming a more common visual across the teams. With new specification of diffuser playing a major role along with the newer rear wing, will have a total impact.

I don't see how the 2017 car can be just an evolution. The change the in weight, length and breadth, will definitely bring some headache to suspension layout and effect of suspension on UNKNOWN tyres. To me, the whole car is going to go through massive change. No team can afford to have part here, part there structure if they are serious about succeeding in 2017.

[Big Mangalhit]

The changes were planned to enlarge the tyres, and then to enlarge everything in the same proportion exactly to prevent the need to completely redesign everything. It is mostly just a scale up since the relative sizes from floor, wings and tyres are constant. Of course even the small changes will have a big scope in performance I think it will be more comparable to the 2014-2015 new nose rules than a massive change like the two ones you pointed.

Also I really can see the 2017 change to be cancelled or minimised as you said the cars are 2s faster (actually even more in quali times (2,5-3s)) and if the year will have a good throughout fight between the teams, chances are things will stay the same or close to it in 2017.

[CBeck113]

SF doesn't need to concentrate on one or the other - their team is large enough to handle both designs, especially since the 2016 work is pretty much finished, unless a major safety flaw is found on the car. The chassis and suspension are done and will most likely not be touches, so those teams can work on the 2017 rules and base car design. The aero team will be split, and since the aero design has been evolutionary, I don't expect any major changes here either (look at last year - one major aero update, otherwise small changes to the wings, floor etc.), so they can also spend most of their time on the 2017 contender. Engine, as already mentioned, is a continuous development [and in order to get the engine they wanted for this year they had to sacrifice reliability, since those changes need on tokens, they just didn't quite finish the design / testing]. Not too many needed for the SF16-H, which is normal in any development program. The only "issue" is simulation & wind tunnel time, but I think they've solved this issue as well... cough-Haas-cough....

Really? The changes are just evolutionary? FIA - 2017 Body work changes
http://s26.postimg.org/de1isg57d/BODY_WORK_2017.png

No matter how you look at it, the changes are estimated to add a 3 second speed to the current specifications. There is a great opportunity that, while everyone makes up 3 seconds, some team can make it 4 seconds. If that happens, rest everyone would be scratching their heads to find another second and..... THE CHASE BEGINS.....

Now the reality could be something like this. The current cars evolve through this season and add somewhere around 1.5 - 2 seconds (Chassis + PU). When the 2017 regulations were finalized on 24th February, the 3 second talk was based on last year's cars. Suddenly, we have 2016 cars that are around 2 seconds faster than last year. So, theoritically, using last year's words, the cars for 2017 then should be 5 seconds faster (compared to 2015). The potential to get it right or wrong becomes quite big now.

Because the 2017 cars are going to be 25 Kg more, naturally there is lot of head scratching to understand the CoG. The effect that starts with the front wing having a different angle and being wider, will impact the whole flow downstream causing headaches to change the airflow philosophy. With sidepod intakes having an angle swept backwards, the airflow may not going to be reaching as effectively as it is today (might help on aerodynamics), making it a challenge to get the amount of airflow required for the PU. That might just make the current Mercedes style of big roll hoop becoming a more common visual across the teams. With new specification of diffuser playing a major role along with the newer rear wing, will have a total impact.

I don't see how the 2017 car can be just an evolution. The change the in weight, length and breadth, will definitely bring some headache to suspension layout and effect of suspension on UNKNOWN tyres. To me, the whole car is going to go through massive change. No team can afford to have part here, part there structure if they are serious about succeeding in 2017.

There are larger parts on the cars, especially larger tires, but that is no revolution - the teams can easily simulate all the changes ont he models they have now, only the tires may disturb the results, but only because their final form and deformation is not yet known. They've added more wing surface, a wider floor, and a larger diffusor - but have not introduce a single change which will make a concept change necessary, or, in my opinion, valuable to gaining an advantage. The change to the end plates? Not relevant enough to mix up the field. The wider tires will increase mechanical grip...for everyone. They will also screw up the aero (good thing!), which was resolved with the wider wings and larger diffusor. The only change I could see which may hold a silver bullet is the shortening of the reference plane, but we're talking 10cm / 4in, so it could only work though interaction with the barge boards...but I truely don't see it. COG is the same, safety devices are the same, motors the same (albeit without tokens).
And remember - these engineers aren't stupid, and they use similar simulation programs & test methods, so the concepts will quickly point to the same optimum solution. I predict that the delta on lap time improvements will be within 0.5 seconds for all teams, not counting engine emprovements. And, if the tires are not improved, we'll still have cars driving 10 seconds per lap slower than their qualifying times.