Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team 2015

[l4mbch0ps]

The playing field is even. I don't understand how you can argue that specific changes to remove hard earned advantages by Mercedes are "evening the playing field"?

The rules for this season have been available to all the teams for exactly the same amount of time, and they have all had the same opportunity to take advantage of the rules and craft the fastest car they can. The playing field is even.

What you are describing is other teams attempts to tilt the field in their favour, to catch up on Mercedes. That's not evening the field, that's evening the score.

[giantfan10]

The playing field is even. I don't understand how you can argue that specific changes to remove hard earned advantages by Mercedes are "evening the playing field"?

The rules for this season have been available to all the teams for exactly the same amount of time, and they have all had the same opportunity to take advantage of the rules and craft the fastest car they can. The playing field is even.

What you are describing is other teams attempts to tilt the field in their favour, to catch up on Mercedes. That's not evening the field, that's evening the score.

the difference between this era and the ones in the past is that trailing teams could do as they pleased to catch the leading teams. the way the rules are set up right now mercedes is leading the championship and mercedes can veto any changes the other teams come up with to make the championship more competitive.
Any of the other teams with a built in advantage would do the exact same thing.My issue is not really with Mercedes but the way the rules are set up at this point in time.
i suspect that we are probably right back to where we were at the beginning of the season when opposing teams were threatening to blow up the entire rule system with a majority vote instead of a unanimous vote in 2016.

[evered7]

I disagree with everything you say. Even in qualifying teams have been known to manage their performance: just enough to get pole is good enough.
Radio chats are radio chats - there is strategy in there as well as everywhere. Can only draw conclusions so much.

As it has been said before, the true pace is the one shown when challenged by other cars, consistently ......

So they know what is the time needed to qualify 1-2 even before others put their times in? Also you honestly think they could have gone any faster in the race and completed it as well?

Somewhere in the race thread there was a post about the fuel used by the top10 finishers. Had Mercedes gone any faster, they would have rolled to a stop without any fuel to proceed further. This is not based on radio chat but the info given on the screen. If everything was fine and dandy, Mercedes wouldn't coach Hamilton to lift off 50/100m to save fuel.

Ferrari's fastest lap came in lap 42 for Kimi and Lap 59 for Vettel. They wouldn't have finished as well if they stuck to those range of laptimes.

[Phil]

Indeed. Though just bear in mind that technically with fresher tyres, you could probably be quicker at identical fuel usage because you would be carrying more speed in corners (when off throttle) and perhaps (because you are carrying more speed out of corner) need to accelerate less to gain the same top-speed at the end of the straight. In theory, I think this would make for a faster relative race distance time at the same fuel usage. Of course, you are pitting this against the added pit-stop time loss.

So as mentioned in the post where I listed the fuel usage of the top 10, I suspect Vettel was able to run at a slightly stronger pace [per lap] due to his 2-stop strategy and shorter stints which make it seem the Ferrari in his hands were closer to the Merc than he really was. Both Mercedes did a one-stop and probably managed their race in an optimal way relative to the allocated fuel.

[l4mbch0ps]

the difference between this era and the ones in the past is that trailing teams could do as they pleased to catch the leading teams. the way the rules are set up right now mercedes is leading the championship and mercedes can veto any changes the other teams come up with to make the championship more competitive.
Any of the other teams with a built in advantage would do the exact same thing.My issue is not really with Mercedes but the way the rules are set up at this point in time.
i suspect that we are probably right back to where we were at the beginning of the season when opposing teams were threatening to blow up the entire rule system with a majority vote instead of a unanimous vote in 2016.

When you say they could "do as they pleased to catch the leading teams" what do you mean? Technical upgrades? Because the only difference now from any other era is what they are allowed to change, and we all know the development areas have been limited largely for cost cutting and safety purposes (not a small part because of the backmarker teams complaining).

So I guess I'm not sure what you are seeing as specifically wrong with Mercedes... are you saying that in the past the rules were changed by other teams to hamper the top teams, because obviously that has been the case in lots of circumstances, but I don't recall a time when it was because of lower level teams changing the rules, but rather the rules makers. What changes are they vetoing to prevent other teams from catching up?

[bhall II]

Though we're way off the beaten path here as far as staying on-topic is concerned...

As is the case for most people who respect the competitive process, it's easy for me to appreciate Mercedes' success for what it is: a definitive mastery of the rules that has arguably been more thorough than anything witnessed in the sport's history until now. From top to bottom, Mercedes' domination has been complete. The problem is that this outcome was pretty much ordained from the start.

Any rules that halt or stymie competitive progress within a sporting period effectively create a scenario in which the first event slightly resembles a competition and every event thereafter more closely resembles a long coronation, since rivals are barred from taking any measures to stop it. Everyone who pays attention to the rules knew this was going to happen the very moment the PU rules were announced, because this is the inevitable outcome of any contest in which the decisive aspect of performance is "frozen" before it even starts. It's all made worse given the specious rationale for the change.

Basic logic says you can't curb development costs by banning or limiting updates. Development is an ongoing process, even if it's only noticeable behind the scenes. That means development costs are an ongoing concern regardless of how sporadically we see the fruits of such labor. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the "token" system has made things even more expensive, because it wouldn't surprise me to learn that manufacturers now investigate and/or develop every possible combination of available "tokens" to find out which one brings about the biggest improvement. Then again, since the 2014 rules represent only a token effort to address the sport's issues, maybe that's the way it should be.

[/rant]

Back on topic, people! (You know it's pretty bad when I'm the one saying it.)

[FoxHound]

Just once more unto the breach, Ben?

Mercedes are actually listening. Toto Wolff intimates that the perception it's rivals are powerless to stop Mercedes winning is in fact detrimental to the sport. And, by proxy... Mercedes.
I won't get into the minutiae of details regarding what I think is right or wrong, but development is possible with these engines. I would be aghast if Ferrari, Renault, Honda and Mercedes HPP did not have ponies running on a bench 5 days a week at least.

There are a plethora of avenues a manufacturer can explore before the brick wall is well and truly hit. The problem for Wolff and Mercedes is, to what extent do they make concessions? How much of their advantage should be yielded in favour of their rivals.

There is no measurement. Time needs to be taken to find a solution not for Mercedes or it's rivals, but for everyone fairly.
The issue I have with this, is that in the history of F1 there has never been a precedent for it.

Short of Mercedes handing over blueprints to their PU's innards I see no quick fix. Which reminds me, not sure if you've seen this...Helmut Marko knows exactly why Ferrari have improved this year.

Marko accuses Mercedes of helping Ferrari catch up
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns30646.html

[bhall II]

"No comment." -- never Helmut Marko

I think you've mistaken my comments as being critical of Mercedes; they're not. I don't blame Mercedes for the problem, nor do I want Mercedes to fix it.

My biggest gripe stems from the sport's collective inability to recognize the following truth: restrictions = scarcity = heightened importance = reduced margins for error. Failure in such an environment has long-lasting consequences, because updates aren't what they used to be. Even aerodynamic development is on its last legs.

It's almost like someone woke up one morning ten years ago and said, "You know those things we love about F1? Let's ditch all of 'em and see what happens." And much to my dismay, everyone listened.

[FoxHound]

No no, I hear you Ben.

Not that you have a gripe, but that most of all....Mercedes want a platform that is thriving.
It happened before when DTM was on it's last legs. Mercedes conceded large swathes of ground to bring in Audi and BMW on GM's exit.

Mercedes are not overly interested in domination to the point of making the series redundant, it's a false dawn of sorts.
As much as I love it, I have to say it's harder fro me to watch an entire race these days. The outcome is too predictable.
And let's be honest, Do we remember the 4 year stretch of dominance Schumacher had, or his battles with Hakkinen?

Legends are born of sterner stuff than the outright crushing of foes with not so much resistance as futile white flag waving.

But Toto and Mercedes are listening, as I said.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119414?

The massive problem here, is HOW does F1 fix this?

Ferrari have shown good progress, only for Mercedes to apparently pull the carpet from under them at Canada.
Honda appear lost, and Renault are questioning whether they want to be subject to anymore Red Bull quips.

So, how is it Ferrari could make this progress and Renault take a step backwards?
Is this a case of commitment to the sport, a budgetary shortfall in comparison to MB/Ferrari or the rules?
Is it a combination of all 3?

I just cannot guess without knowing what the root cause is.

And knowing the root cause, you can start to address solutions to problems. There's more to this than "engine freeze" rules.

[giantfan10]

No no, I hear you Ben.

Not that you have a gripe, but that most of all....Mercedes want a platform that is thriving.
It happened before when DTM was on it's last legs. Mercedes conceded large swathes of ground to bring in Audi and BMW on GM's exit.

Mercedes are not overly interested in domination to the point of making the series redundant, it's a false dawn of sorts.
As much as I love it, I have to say it's harder fro me to watch an entire race these days. The outcome is too predictable.
And let's be honest, Do we remember the 4 year stretch of dominance Schumacher had, or his battles with Hakkinen?

Legends are born of sterner stuff than the outright crushing of foes with not so much resistance as futile white flag waving.

But Toto and Mercedes are listening, as I said.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119414?

The massive problem here, is HOW does F1 fix this?

Ferrari have shown good progress, only for Mercedes to apparently pull the carpet from under them at Canada.
Honda appear lost, and Renault are questioning whether they want to be subject to anymore Red Bull quips.

So, how is it Ferrari could make this progress and Renault take a step backwards?
Is this a case of commitment to the sport, a budgetary shortfall in comparison to MB/Ferrari or the rules?
Is it a combination of all 3?

I just cannot guess without knowing what the root cause is.

And knowing the root cause, you can start to address solutions to problems. There's more to this than "engine freeze" rules.

Wolf is open minded but cites costs... really? the manufacturer that has blown way any other team in spending on developing this version of engine now cites costs as a possible reason to not allow other teams to develop their engines? interesting

[CBeck113]

You can't "save" F1 and save costs at the same time, plain and simple. The costs need to be distributed somewhat more evenly, without eliminating the will to win, but justifying the business case to even compete when finishing toward the back. The issue: the top teams don't want less, CVC doesn't see the need to invest more (they'd rather sell the whole thing for a few billion and that be it), so where should the money come from? THAT is the root cause of the problems - the big teams have too much influence and are pushing to insre their place in F1, but don't see that they're going to be the king of a pile of --- in the end. [Although that could be their ultimate goal: devalue it until they can afford it, or the FiA takes legal action for the destruction of the sport].

[Juzh]

and Renault are questioning whether they want to be subject to anymore Red Bull quips.

They should question themselves for dropping the ball as massively as they did. As should honda.

[Cold Fussion]

Basic logic says you can't curb development costs by banning or limiting updates. Development is an ongoing process, even if it's only noticeable behind the scenes. That means development costs are an ongoing concern regardless of how sporadically we see the fruits of such labor. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the "token" system has made things even more expensive, because it wouldn't surprise me to learn that manufacturers now investigate and/or develop every possible combination of available "tokens" to find out which one brings about the biggest improvement. Then again, since the 2014 rules represent only a token effort to address the sport's issues, maybe that's the way it should be.

What's even more ridiculous about the token system is that there is already a rule in place which limits the amount of PU's you can use in a season, so they have already solved the problem of manufactures producing hundreds of engines. Now they're stuck with the perplexing problem having to spend all that development time to improve the PU but not able to deploy it. Completely baffling.

[Phil]

What better alternative is there? You don't want teams to produce unlimited number of engines for a season, since that would result in costs going through the roof. You also don't want them to (miss-) use the token system to enhance the life of their allocated engines (by swapping out parts on used engines) for a season, because the goal is not only to limit costs, but also make it a challenge, thus increasing the mileage each of these engines needs to be able to sustain.

[Cold Fussion]

The token system does not prevent development because you need to test a sufficient number of combinations in order to maximise your gain from the system. If you simply allowed any change to the engine after it completed it's allocated races you would better allow for manufactures to catch-up, and I doubt it would increase development spending over the token system. At that point you would disallow the 'free' reliability updates.