What do Ferrari have that McLaren don't?

What do Ferrari have that McLaren don't?

Author
Discussion

LaurasOtherHalf

Original Poster:

21,429 posts

195 months

Saturday 22nd October 2016
quotequote all
Long story short, I was wondering just why McLaren F1 are in the doldrums and whoring themselves to Honda to try and gain Manufacturer status to try and win. When it sort of occurred to myself, hang on, Ferrari have done the whole F1 thing AND supplied and designed their own power train (you know, the really expensive hybrid ones that are simply beyond everyone else).

Yes I know;
1 Ferrari have Fiat money behind them but let's be honest, their best seller (500) hasn't been redesigned in 9 years so I'm assuming they're skint.
2 Fiat have Chrysler/GM?Whoever it is money behind them but some Daewoo dressed up as a Lancia suggests they're brassic as well.
3 History. Well it isn't as if McLaren just started 10 years ago.

So what is it? Are Ferrari really that big?

Truckosaurus

11,183 posts

283 months

Saturday 22nd October 2016
quotequote all
I'm sure Ferrari make more from selling tat and merchandise than from motorcars.

Do they still get money from Marlboro?

Ferrari have been off the pace at several times in the past so they've no magic wand to keep them at the front (other than getting favourable decisions from the FIA/FOM).

DanielSan

18,745 posts

166 months

Saturday 22nd October 2016
quotequote all
The way things are going with Ferrari even Mclaren may well be ahead of them next year. They're throwing money and people at the problem and getting nowhere year on year now.

Cold

15,207 posts

89 months

Saturday 22nd October 2016
quotequote all
Ferrari is a money generating brand. Every now and again one of their smaller subsidiaries manufactures a car too.

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 22nd October 2016
quotequote all
Fairly negative opening statement there. McLaren F1 are "whoring themselves" to Honda because Mercedes will never give a customer team engine parity with the works team, so McLaren decided that they needed to be a works team themselves.

They're in the doldrums largely because the Honda engine was woefully off the pace, and without a good engine you can't develop the rest of the car to it's full potential. There are other issues too, their philosophy used to be based around continual in-season development but with the regulations as they are now that's not possible and gossip is that their structures are still not quite sorted in terms of reacting to that.

The bigger question is probably why Ferrari have fumbled the season so spectacularly given the budget and drivers they have. Heads are going to roll there soon, which probably won't help either.

CaptainCosworth

5,832 posts

92 months

Saturday 22nd October 2016
quotequote all
A quick internet search suggests Ferrari generate annual revenues of nearly €3bn vs around €0.5bn by McLaren...

LaurasOtherHalf

Original Poster:

21,429 posts

195 months

Saturday 22nd October 2016
quotequote all
charltjr said:
Fairly negative opening statement there. McLaren F1 are "whoring themselves" to Honda because Mercedes will never give a customer team engine parity with the works team, so McLaren decided that they needed to be a works team themselves.
How many Mercedes customer teams have they beaten so far?

BoRED S2upid

19,641 posts

239 months

Saturday 22nd October 2016
quotequote all
CaptainCosworth said:
A quick internet search suggests Ferrari generate annual revenues of nearly €3bn vs around €0.5bn by McLaren...
A very good point. Plus Honda are throwing a LOT of money and resource at their F1 engine it's certainly not a case of we make good engines for the road we can make avwinning F1 engine overnight! It could well have crippled McLaren if they had gone it alone. Your talking minute margins in F1 to make 10th or 3rd! Mercedes found an engine layout that worked well and its taken the rest of them years to catch up.

FN2TypeR

7,091 posts

92 months

Saturday 22nd October 2016
quotequote all
CaptainCosworth said:
A quick internet search suggests Ferrari generate annual revenues of nearly €3bn vs around €0.5bn by McLaren...
Whilst I'm sure Ferrari are hardly hurting in the profit states turn over isn't always a good indicator, surely it would be better to turn over €0.5bn and break even than turn over €3bn and lose one hundred million Euros for example?

ecsrobin

17,016 posts

164 months

Saturday 22nd October 2016
quotequote all
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Long story short, I was wondering just why McLaren F1 are in the doldrums and whoring themselves to Honda to try and gain Manufacturer status to try and win. When it sort of occurred to myself, hang on, Ferrari have done the whole F1 thing AND supplied and designed their own power train (you know, the really expensive hybrid ones that are simply beyond everyone else).

Yes I know;
1 Ferrari have Fiat money behind them but let's be honest, their best seller (500) hasn't been redesigned in 9 years so I'm assuming they're skint.
2 Fiat have Chrysler/GM?Whoever it is money behind them but some Daewoo dressed up as a Lancia suggests they're brassic as well.
3 History. Well it isn't as if McLaren just started 10 years ago.

So what is it? Are Ferrari really that big?
1, if it's not broke, don't fix it is probably the correct saying, seeing how many are on the road would suggest they are clearly doing something right.

2, most companies share models look at VAG, it doesn't mean they have money issues.

3, Ferrari have been going a quarter of a century longer than McLaren.

Ozzie Osmond

21,189 posts

245 months

Saturday 22nd October 2016
quotequote all
Fernando Alonso summarised it very well, "This is embarrassing".

Never forget that Lotus used to be pretty much on a par with Ferrari in both racing and road cars. McLaren have taken over from Lotus.

If Honda get their act together McLaren could grow to challenge Ferrari. F1 success would undoubtedly boost interest in their road cars.

Honda must be wondering how they won the 2016 motorcycle championship when they're heading for a wooden spoon in F1.

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 23rd October 2016
quotequote all
The race cars possibly, the road cars, no. The Lotus road cars really are basic compared to the same period Ferrari.

Having had the pleasure of working on Ferrari and Lotus late 70's - early 80's F1 cars, the Ferrari is a work of art compared to the Lotus, even down to the way they make their own rod end joints that have twice as fine a thread on the adjustment so you can set them up more accurately.

Lotus are very clever and tend to be far more on the edge in terms of strength, the equivalent Ferrari is built like a tank, but a beautiful tank.

Personally, I like the Tyrrell's of the period most, for the lack of funds they had, they build some really smart engineering into the cars.

HustleRussell

24,602 posts

159 months

Sunday 23rd October 2016
quotequote all
What do Ferrari have that McLaren don't?

A circa two year head start IIRC.

RYH64E

7,960 posts

243 months

Sunday 23rd October 2016
quotequote all
LaurasOtherHalf said:
charltjr said:
Fairly negative opening statement there. McLaren F1 are "whoring themselves" to Honda because Mercedes will never give a customer team engine parity with the works team, so McLaren decided that they needed to be a works team themselves.
How many Mercedes customer teams have they beaten so far?
I keep hearing this, but Red Bull seem to be competitive with a customer version of the pretty poor Renault unit. I'd put money on Red Bull winning a championsip with a customer engine before McLaren win with a works Honda engine.

rubystone

11,252 posts

258 months

Sunday 23rd October 2016
quotequote all
RYH64E said:
I keep hearing this, but Red Bull seem to be competitive with a customer version of the pretty poor Renault unit. I'd put money on Red Bull winning a championsip with a customer engine before McLaren win with a works Honda engine.
A little unfair perhaps, but is the Renault team a little more of a benchmark on what the Renault engine is like in a 'normal' customer car. In other words, the Red Bull chassis and two very good drivers is what makes that car run where it does?

So if we accept that the McLaren chassis is close to Red Bull's, then an improvement in the Honda power unit might bring them a lot closer to Red Bull?

HustleRussell

24,602 posts

159 months

Sunday 23rd October 2016
quotequote all
RYH64E said:
I keep hearing this, but Red Bull seem to be competitive with a customer version of the pretty poor Renault unit. I'd put money on Red Bull winning a championsip with a customer engine before McLaren win with a works Honda engine.
Were RB not effectively the Renault works team until winter 15/16? It may take some time but I would expect Renault to equal and maybe even better RB as their works team advantage is realised.

RYH64E

7,960 posts

243 months

Sunday 23rd October 2016
quotequote all
rubystone said:
A little unfair perhaps, but is the Renault team a little more of a benchmark on what the Renault engine is like in a 'normal' customer car. In other words, the Red Bull chassis and two very good drivers is what makes that car run where it does?

So if we accept that the McLaren chassis is close to Red Bull's, then an improvement in the Honda power unit might bring them a lot closer to Red Bull?
Wouldn't Renault be the works team with the works engine and Red Bull the customer team?

Other than pronouncements from McLaren, is there anything to suggest that the McLaren chassis is close to Red Bull's? McLaren haven't impressed on fast circuits, slow circuits, street circuits...


rubystone

11,252 posts

258 months

Sunday 23rd October 2016
quotequote all
RYH64E said:
Wouldn't Renault be the works team with the works engine and Red Bull the customer team?

Other than pronouncements from McLaren, is there anything to suggest that the McLaren chassis is close to Red Bull's? McLaren haven't impressed on fast circuits, slow circuits, street circuits...
Interesting article in F1 Racing on this topic.

Trabi601

4,865 posts

94 months

Sunday 23rd October 2016
quotequote all
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Long story short, I was wondering just why McLaren F1 are in the doldrums and whoring themselves to Honda to try and gain Manufacturer status to try and win. When it sort of occurred to myself, hang on, Ferrari have done the whole F1 thing AND supplied and designed their own power train (you know, the really expensive hybrid ones that are simply beyond everyone else).

Yes I know;
1 Ferrari have Fiat money behind them but let's be honest, their best seller (500) hasn't been redesigned in 9 years so I'm assuming they're skint.
2 Fiat have Chrysler/GM?Whoever it is money behind them but some Daewoo dressed up as a Lancia suggests they're brassic as well.
3 History. Well it isn't as if McLaren just started 10 years ago.

So what is it? Are Ferrari really that big?
1. Why would you have a major redesign of a car that continues to sell in huge numbers? It would make no sense at all, even if you do have money. Which Fiat do.

2. Fiat own Chrysler. They don't sell any dressed up Daewoos. Lancia has been a dying brand for decades now - seems they've just launched a new version of the Ypsilon, though. Fiat Group have recently launched a new Tipo and a bespoke RWD platform in the new Alfa Giulia. So they're hardly 'skint'.

3. McLaren are essentially a 'privateer' team against Ferrari and Mercedes who have full 'works' teams (and Renault, but they are a long way behind due to the late deal they did). The Honda deal was the only way McLaren could hope to match Mercedes or even Ferrari - but Honda have failed to deliver on their engine promises. I suppose you could say McLaren should have taken the Mercedes option and bought an established F1 engine constructor - but there's nobody out there who would be available with the expertise to build a hybrid powerplant.

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 23rd October 2016
quotequote all
Red cars, red cars are faster.