Attractive to who? A single person living closer to one company,speaks the main language used and might get a share in the company.mika vs michael wrote:IF at the moment a team like Williams looks more attractive than Ferrari then Ferrari is indeed in big trouble...
First, SF16-H was most definitely an aggressive car. Even if James Allison hadn't announced it to the world...Motorsport.com, Dec 11, 2016 wrote:It is an aggressive approach that Ferrari has not been so keen to pursue in recent years, whereas rivals like Red Bull and Mercedes have always been keen to push things to the limit of the rules in their quest for success.
But with new regulations coming next year – which are expected to deliver a laptime improvement of five seconds – there is talk that technical director Mattia Binotto’s efforts are paying off.
At the Ferrari Mondiali in Daytona last weekend, team principal Maurizio Arrivabene said: “Our 2017 began last August with a major change on the technical front.
"People expect a lot from Ferrari, wins and success, therefore we will do our utmost to achieve that. But ever since the new structure was put in place, with a great engineer like Mattia Binotto in charge, we have seen positive signs, as in Japan and Abu Dhabi.”
...it was plain as day all season long, given continual reliability issues that are the chief tell-tale signs of an aggressive strategy.The Guardian, March 16, 2016 wrote:"It’s certainly a very bold car – but it needs to be. If we look at last year’s model we were working to improve a baseline that was really quite poor."
“So we were able to make big steps last year. But to improve on last year’s car, which was quite reasonable, and make something which is another step forward, we needed to take bolder steps.
“We needed to be braver and work across the entire car in an aggressive way. And that’s something we have done, on the chassis side and also on the power unit. Horsepower, downforce, handling, everywhere – we’re very proud of what we’ve done everywhere. And we can’t wait to see it run.”
...it's been clearly demonstrated by the team's largely fruitless in-season development over the last few years.The Guardian, July 30, 2016 wrote:"If I had to be immodest, the main contribution I’ve made has been to break out of the vicious circus Ferrari were in, which was to start the year with not the best car and then throw all efforts behind that car, having a quixotic assault on a championship that was already lost. We were robbing the future Peter to pay the present Paul. You pay enormously if you ignore the future.”
Does the fact that we're both still Ferrari fans mean that we're loyal or we're flat out idiotic gluttons for punishment addicted the "romance" and "history" that the current management continuously tries its best to sh!t all over?bhall II wrote:Monumental wall of text
Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools.
Re new structure not having time enough to make a difference:Pierce89 wrote:Does the fact that we're both still Ferrari fans mean that we're loyal or we're flat out idiotic gluttons for punishment addicted the "romance" and "history" that the current management continuously tries its best to sh!t all over?bhall II wrote:Monumental wall of text
Now that is the pertinent queztionne.
Probably a bit of both. There's also the smug satisfaction of knowing I could do a better job, even if that clearly says more about the team than it does about me.Pierce89 wrote:Does the fact that we're both still Ferrari fans mean that we're loyal or we're flat out idiotic gluttons for punishment addicted the "romance" and "history" that the current management continuously tries its best to sh!t all over?bhall II wrote:Monumental wall of text
Now that is the pertinent queztionne.
Fair enough, Serge. Your solution?Motorsport.com, Dec 7, 2016 wrote:"I think we have seen a Red Bull at the start of the 2016 season that did not have, at least on paper, the attributes to try to take on Ferrari. And by the end of the season, Red Bull did effectively become a viable competitor.
"And it was not due to the power unit side, it was down to the work that was done on both aero and chassis.
"And it's pointed out probably one of the most significant holes in the strategic development of Ferrari in the last few years.
It takes guts to address a problem, be it real or imagined, by elevating someone who's unqualified to fix it. I guess the toxic environment was just an appetizer.ESPN, Oct 12, 2016 wrote:"Unfortunately neither [president Sergio] Marchionne nor [team boss Maurizio] Arrivabene have experience in racing, a culture that the Scuderia of today has lost," [Luca] Baldisserri told Corriere dello Sport in an interview. "They are no longer a team, but a group of scared people. There is a climate of fear. The boys don't take risks for fear of being fired in disgrace."
"Mattia [Binotto] knows how to motivate people, he has great experience but he is not a technical director. He knows he cannot design a car and does not have deep knowledge of the chassis, aerodynamics or mechanical side. He would be a good team principal instead."
And the team's aerodynamic strategy is inadequate. Red Bull only borrows from it for aesthetic reasons.Frafer wrote:
revs dropping at 300 meters sign, before turn 14
sorry to disagree there.
Ferrari was in magnificient shape at the start of the season, really. Not as good as 2015, but still respectable.
The speed was there, and both Vettel and Raikkonen were 'in form'. The only thing that was NOT in form, and has NOT
been in form ALL YEAR, is Ferrari's pit wall decisions and pit crew. They managed to scr*w the great performance the car and drivers put in into worthless results due to pure and undeniable and painfully visible incompetence. And it lasted, boy did it last throughout the year, bar some occasoinal 'less mismanagement' in some races.
It took it's toll on Seb, clearly, who got frustrated and vocal about it all.
The only reason Ferrari seemed 'better' in the 'end' was not because the car worked better - it was because they scr*wed their races less into mud and dirt.
Also, if THEORETICALLY it was true that 'improvements' occured in the end of 2016 performance wise, then that's actually bad news - it means that in stead of focusing fully on 2017, they kept hammering in on this year - probably because they 'demanded' good results no matter what....typical italian. and yes, i have worked 10 years in an intalian company, and had to deal with dozens of italian businesses, which all are exactly the same. emotional.
it ALSO means, that they were so stubborn on keeping on that path and 'making it work' that they did everything for squad zero because next year the cars are completely different. So way to go, you've managed to make the 'package' work after 20 races. back to square one.
that is the problem of Ferrari.
And people tend to forget; it was NOT Schumacher that fixed ferrari. it was the combination of the right people, and one can't deny that the Schumacher - Brawn formula worked like a charm. Vettel isn't Schumacher, and there is no other Brawn.
they're trying to repeat history without even knowing what made it work, because they aren't open to anything but their own 'heritage' and 'national heroism'. 'We're Ferrari......." and that's the issue.
Don't get me wrong, I love Ferrari but i hate to see what's happening right now, including the brand itself. I also think Marchionne is not the core problem, but he's been 'assigned' to be the solution, and quite frankly, he's definately not 'the solution'. Luca di Montezemolo did much better. Marchionne does not share the same passion, drive, focus or 'fire'. He is more like a former pizzeria-owner-turned-banker type of guy. well, that's how i feel about it.
I personally dont have the solution, or i would be there and getting rich and in automotive paradise as we speak. I do see however that they let emotion run control. and stupidity.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/56 ... 6055df.jpg
had to leave this here.
Ferrari's problem is lack of in season testing. When it was allowed Ferrari was among top teams. Ferrari simply needs more on track testing to verify all aspects of the new car. Red Bull for example are much better on software and aero development.Facts Only wrote:I always thought that their aim to win "every season" hampered their ability to win in any season. When the '14 car turned out ot be a dog they should have taken a step back and put a long term recovery plan in place ready for the next rule change ('17).
It always make me chuckle when people say how Mercedes 'underachieved' in 2010-2013, they didnt underachieve, they achieved exactly what they aimed for, which was preparation to dominate in 2014.
Would Ferrari culture ever allow them to essentially write-off 4 seasons? It was easier in the Brawn/Schumacher days because they had been on the back foot for nearly 20 seasons already. Its been nearly 10 seasons now since Ferrari won a drivers title, will it be another 10 before they realise that something is wrong and needs to be changed?