Lewis Hamilton

[HighwayStar]

jsf said:

sparta6 said:

You jest - but you are actually correct !

5 years into Schumacher's dominance (quite well deserved after 5 years of dogged development) the FIA intervened by changing tyre regs to suit Michelin

7 years into Mercedes dominance and the FIA are still relaxing on their German beach towel

They did the oposite, changing the rules to ban the current Michelin tyre profile and favouring the Bridgestone used by Ferrari.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/michelin-reacts...

Yep, Bridgestone were Ferrari’s factory supplier providing them with bespoke tyres. The customer teams got tyres developed for Ferrari.
There have been rule. Changes during Mercs reign and yes they still came out on top. It’s not their fault, Mclaren had waned, RedBull didn’t have a decent engine or Ferrari dropped the ball. Ferrari and RedBull are certainly not short of budget... as we know Ferrari get a head start in the money stakes, have a veto, wield a lot of power and still can’t get the job done.

[TheDeuce]

HighwayStar said:

Yep, Bridgestone were Ferrari’s factory supplier providing them with bespoke tyres. The customer teams got tyres developed for Ferrari.
There have been rule. Changes during Mercs reign and yes they still came out on top. It’s not their fault, Mclaren had waned, RedBull didn’t have a decent engine or Ferrari dropped the ball. Ferrari and RedBull are certainly not short of budget... as we know Ferrari get a head start in the money stakes, have a veto, wield a lot of power and still can’t get the job done.

Don't forget that also Ferrari cheat - and still can't get the job done.

With so much in their favour it makes me wonder what it is that they manage to get so wrong..? Suspect it has something to do with a slightly outdated culture of blame and leadership style. Their strategists throwing away entire races with decisions that would make the average 9 year old frown also hasn't helped.

[vdn]

TheDeuce said:

HighwayStar said:

Yep, Bridgestone were Ferrari’s factory supplier providing them with bespoke tyres. The customer teams got tyres developed for Ferrari.
There have been rule. Changes during Mercs reign and yes they still came out on top. It’s not their fault, Mclaren had waned, RedBull didn’t have a decent engine or Ferrari dropped the ball. Ferrari and RedBull are certainly not short of budget... as we know Ferrari get a head start in the money stakes, have a veto, wield a lot of power and still can’t get the job done.

Don't forget that also Ferrari cheat - and still can't get the job done.

With so much in their favour it makes me wonder what it is that they manage to get so wrong..? Suspect it has something to do with a slightly outdated culture of blame and leadership style. Their strategists throwing away entire races with decisions that would make the average 9 year old frown also hasn't helped.

Mercedes have been winning on merit. Ferrari needed everything in their favour...

Ferrari still enjoy perks and can’t win. I sometimes think Sparta has been in some alternate universe when it comes to F1.

[kiseca]

vdn said:

TheDeuce said:

HighwayStar said:

Yep, Bridgestone were Ferrari’s factory supplier providing them with bespoke tyres. The customer teams got tyres developed for Ferrari.
There have been rule. Changes during Mercs reign and yes they still came out on top. It’s not their fault, Mclaren had waned, RedBull didn’t have a decent engine or Ferrari dropped the ball. Ferrari and RedBull are certainly not short of budget... as we know Ferrari get a head start in the money stakes, have a veto, wield a lot of power and still can’t get the job done.

Don't forget that also Ferrari cheat - and still can't get the job done.

With so much in their favour it makes me wonder what it is that they manage to get so wrong..? Suspect it has something to do with a slightly outdated culture of blame and leadership style. Their strategists throwing away entire races with decisions that would make the average 9 year old frown also hasn't helped.

Mercedes have been winning on merit. Ferrari needed everything in their favour...

Ferrari still enjoy perks and can’t win. I sometimes think Sparta has been in some alternate universe when it comes to F1.

I think also Merc benefitted from the engine freeze when the hybrids came in, because they started with a big advantage (to their merit) but their competitors hands were tied for what, two years? By then, with three titles under their belt Merc had used their success to cement their position financially - because winning pays well - as well as culturally and getting the right people. To topple them will take a rule change that they are not the best prepared for, or another team to come up with the next evolution in how to win GPs. To my eyes, Merc are still winning on the Total Competition model perfected by Ross Brawn in his time at Ferrari. So now we wait for the next game changer.

The rule change is less likely to topple them because they are the team best built to cope... It could happen, but stability is a better tool as the law of diminishing returns hits the fastest developing teams first, and the slower developing ones then start to catch up.

[TheDeuce]

kiseca said:

I think also Merc benefitted from the engine freeze when the hybrids came in, because they started with a big advantage (to their merit) but their competitors hands were tied for what, two years? By then, with three titles under their belt Merc had used their success to cement their position financially - because winning pays well - as well as culturally and getting the right people. To topple them will take a rule change that they are not the best prepared for, or another team to come up with the next evolution in how to win GPs. To my eyes, Merc are still winning on the Total Competition model perfected by Ross Brawn in his time at Ferrari. So now we wait for the next game changer.

The rule change is less likely to topple them because they are the team best built to cope... It could happen, but stability is a better tool as the law of diminishing returns hits the fastest developing teams first, and the slower developing ones then start to catch up.

I think you're right so far as Merc Vs most teams is concerned - they started ahead and had the resources to stay ahead.

But Ferrari... They have the same resources that Mercedes do, give or take. PU advantages were levelled off at latest by 2018 too. Ferrari also have all the aforementioned extra perks as well. I can't help but feel there is something endemic within Ferrari that holds back their potential. The culture between the two teams is very different, and I believe Mercedes culture and management style is far more effective in the modern world of F1 than Ferrari's.

[kiseca]

TheDeuce said:

I think you're right so far as Merc Vs most teams is concerned - they started ahead and had the resources to stay ahead.

But Ferrari... They have the same resources that Mercedes do, give or take. PU advantages were levelled off at latest by 2018 too. Ferrari also have all the aforementioned extra perks as well. I can't help but feel there is something endemic within Ferrari that holds back their potential. The culture between the two teams is very different, and I believe Mercedes culture and management style is far more effective in the modern world of F1 than Ferrari's.

Yes, it's not just money, but apart from the Brawn / Todt / De Montezemolo era Ferrari seem to have always been a team that have underperformed compared to their budget / facilities way back to the dawn of Formula 1. They had pockets of success until their dominance in the 2000s.

To me, there are two interesting, contrasting stories from different eras. When Niki Lauda first went to Ferrari and saw their facilities, he apparently said that given their resources he doesn't understand why they don't win every race. By contrast, John Barnard, after building McLaren into their impression of an English Ferrari with Ron Dennis, moved to Ferrari and was shocked at how far behind McLaren their facilities, tech and processes were. He reckons in his time there was a lot of interference from the Piero Ferrari in particular and the whole thing read like there was a big political power struggle going on particularly in the wake of Enzo's death.

I think stability in leadership is their problem. The Ferrari chief exec position is like being a king. When you eventually get that position, you spend more time fighting those trying to take your crown from you than you do actually running the company. When they had that stability in the early 2000s, with undisputed leadership, they were almost unbeatable, but they had no direct competition back then, no team who could build both the car and the engine and had the history, experience, budget and leadership to make that advantage pay off. Now, Mercedes have that total package and Ferrari need stability at the top just to allow them to get on equal ground. And those two are quite unique there. The Japanese companies just don't seem to hang around long enough to make it a successful business in its own right, building the legacy and experience needed for long term success. And then there's Renault who dip in and out and apart from the two championships with Alonso, never seem to get it quite right.

Edited by kiseca on Friday 12th June 12:02

Edited by kiseca on Friday 12th June 12:03

[sparta6]

kiseca said:

I think also Merc benefitted from the engine freeze when the hybrids came in, because they started with a big advantage (to their merit) but their competitors hands were tied for what, two years? By then, with three titles under their belt Merc had used their success to cement their position financially - because winning pays well - as well as culturally and getting the right people. To topple them will take a rule change that they are not the best prepared for, or another team to come up with the next evolution in how to win GPs. To my eyes, Merc are still winning on the Total Competition model perfected by Ross Brawn in his time at Ferrari. So now we wait for the next game changer.

The rule change is less likely to topple them because they are the team best built to cope... It could happen, but stability is a better tool as the law of diminishing returns hits the fastest developing teams first, and the slower developing ones then start to catch up.

FIA seems more focused on stability than on mixing things up.

Ross Brawn spoke about the FIA's 2005 tyre intervention to kneecap Ferrari's dominance on one of his Podcasts.

I don't think Todt has the balls to halt Mercedes dominance.

[HighwayStar]

sparta6 said:

kiseca said:

I think also Merc benefitted from the engine freeze when the hybrids came in, because they started with a big advantage (to their merit) but their competitors hands were tied for what, two years? By then, with three titles under their belt Merc had used their success to cement their position financially - because winning pays well - as well as culturally and getting the right people. To topple them will take a rule change that they are not the best prepared for, or another team to come up with the next evolution in how to win GPs. To my eyes, Merc are still winning on the Total Competition model perfected by Ross Brawn in his time at Ferrari. So now we wait for the next game changer.

The rule change is less likely to topple them because they are the team best built to cope... It could happen, but stability is a better tool as the law of diminishing returns hits the fastest developing teams first, and the slower developing ones then start to catch up.

FIA seems more focused on stability than on mixing things up.

Ross Brawn spoke about the FIA's 2005 tyre intervention to kneecap Ferrari's dominance on one of his Podcasts.

I don't think Todt has the balls to halt Mercedes dominance.

I’ll entertain you on this.... Ferrari’s dominance was very specific-Tyres. RedBull’s was the double diffuser.
It’s widely believed last year’s Ferrari PU bested Mercs or was at least on par. Honda more or less their.
There were some changes to the rules last season and other teams still didn’t halt Mercedes.
So Sparta. What clear advantage does Mercedes now have that the other teams don’t have that you would take from Mercedes that would level the field? Remember new rules also apply to all teams so they still have to turn up and beat Merc, there’s no guarantees.

[TheDeuce]

HighwayStar said:

I’ll entertain you on this.... Ferrari’s dominance was very specific-Tyres. RedBull’s was the double diffuser.
It’s widely believed last year’s Ferrari PU bested Mercs or was at least on par. Honda more or less their.
There were some changes to the rules last season and other teams still didn’t halt Mercedes.
So Sparta. What clear advantage does Mercedes now have that the other teams don’t have that you would take from Mercedes that would level the field? Remember new rules also apply to all teams so they still have to turn up and beat Merc, there’s no guarantees.

Exactly. Other than money, which Ferrari also have, Mercedes no longer have any specific advantage that secures their continued dominance. They're just an incredibly effective and tight team that expertly and consistently get the job done about as perfectly as any team can.

They don't need their wings clipping, they're winning because they're performing better than their rivals, even those with the same resources - that is correct and is the entire point of have such a competition in the first place.

I don't want to see any team artificially hobbled simply so another can 'have their turn'. I want to see the best team prevail, regardless of how many times that is the same team.

[kiseca]

HighwayStar said:

sparta6 said:

kiseca said:

I think also Merc benefitted from the engine freeze when the hybrids came in, because they started with a big advantage (to their merit) but their competitors hands were tied for what, two years? By then, with three titles under their belt Merc had used their success to cement their position financially - because winning pays well - as well as culturally and getting the right people. To topple them will take a rule change that they are not the best prepared for, or another team to come up with the next evolution in how to win GPs. To my eyes, Merc are still winning on the Total Competition model perfected by Ross Brawn in his time at Ferrari. So now we wait for the next game changer.

The rule change is less likely to topple them because they are the team best built to cope... It could happen, but stability is a better tool as the law of diminishing returns hits the fastest developing teams first, and the slower developing ones then start to catch up.

FIA seems more focused on stability than on mixing things up.

Ross Brawn spoke about the FIA's 2005 tyre intervention to kneecap Ferrari's dominance on one of his Podcasts.

I don't think Todt has the balls to halt Mercedes dominance.

I’ll entertain you on this.... Ferrari’s dominance was very specific-Tyres. RedBull’s was the double diffuser.

Sliding steadily off topic... I do disagree with both those particular points. The tyre advantage that Ferrari had was just a part of the philosophy Ferrari had at that time of looking at every aspect that impacted a car's performance. That included even the team's political performance in discussions and negotiations with other teams and the FIA... something Ross Brawn used again at Honda when introducing the double diffuser. They had already seen the loophole the previous year and he spent some of that year alluding to the topic at various meetings with team leaders, getting them to agree with the principle without actually knowing what it was nor seeing the advantage for themselves. Thus, when it turned out to be a game changer, he had some defence, and agreement with teams, that would have made it harder for them to ban it.

They did that with Bridgestone. They formed a relationship with Bridgestone and worked hard with them for tyres that were well suited to the car, much like chassis makers would work with their engine supplier. Tyres, of course, are a very important part of the car's performance potential and to me the only surprise was that noone had made that kind of partnership work so well before. But, it wasn't the only advantage Ferrari had, at least at first. The same attention was given to integrating the engine, the aerodynamics, the chassis, the tyres, the drivers (well, one of them), the strategy and race planning, and the politics all into one race winning package with no weak spots for the opposition to exploit.

Red Bull IMO did well because of Adrian Newey in general. He has a habit of designing championship winning cars. Yes he may have perfected the diffuser but it was the whole aero package that won for them, and the cars are still widely seen now as the best chassis / aero package in F1.

[Dermot O'Logical]

HighwayStar said:

sparta6 said:

kiseca said:

I think also Merc benefitted from the engine freeze when the hybrids came in, because they started with a big advantage (to their merit) but their competitors hands were tied for what, two years? By then, with three titles under their belt Merc had used their success to cement their position financially - because winning pays well - as well as culturally and getting the right people. To topple them will take a rule change that they are not the best prepared for, or another team to come up with the next evolution in how to win GPs. To my eyes, Merc are still winning on the Total Competition model perfected by Ross Brawn in his time at Ferrari. So now we wait for the next game changer.

The rule change is less likely to topple them because they are the team best built to cope... It could happen, but stability is a better tool as the law of diminishing returns hits the fastest developing teams first, and the slower developing ones then start to catch up.

FIA seems more focused on stability than on mixing things up.

Ross Brawn spoke about the FIA's 2005 tyre intervention to kneecap Ferrari's dominance on one of his Podcasts.

I don't think Todt has the balls to halt Mercedes dominance.

I’ll entertain you on this.... Ferrari’s dominance was very specific-Tyres. RedBull’s was the double diffuser.
It’s widely believed last year’s Ferrari PU bested Mercs or was at least on par. Honda more or less their.
There were some changes to the rules last season and other teams still didn’t halt Mercedes.
So Sparta. What clear advantage does Mercedes now have that the other teams don’t have that you would take from Mercedes that would level the field? Remember new rules also apply to all teams so they still have to turn up and beat Merc, there’s no guarantees.

Red Bull's diffuser-related advantage was the blown diffuser. They were just about the last team to develop a double diffuser in 2009, as their rear suspension was either push-rod when everybody else that mattered had pull-rod, or vice-versa, and whichever version they had would interfere with the diffuser. Vettel managed to optimise the blown diffuser by developing a counter-intuitive driving style which required him to accelerate when the car was losing grip, to energise the diffuser and increase downforce.

Mercedes started the hybrid era with their packaging of the turbo and intercoolers optimised, because they solved the the conundrum of managing to split the turbo, putting the exhaust-driven "hot" side at the rear of the engine, and the "cold" intake side at the front, so the pipe runs to the intercoolers in the sidepods were shorter, keeping the intake air cooler. It took a couple of seasons for Ferrari and Renault to perfect the layout, and when Honda joined the party in 2015, despite having access to the Mercedes layout in the McLaren, they kept their MGU-H attached to the hot side of the turbo, which is why they kept frying the MGU-H, and damaging the turbo.

Now, with all of the PU manufacturers using similar layouts, improvements are incremental, and at least for Mercedes and Ferrari, power outputs very similar. But by starting off with an optimised layout, Mercedes have been able to use their resources to improve their car, rather than having to play catch-up.

[anonymous-user]

Tyre deals with the F1 teams goes back to the invention of the formula, it was always part of the equation until the tyre war was ended by a single supplier contract.

Ferrari's problems are simply down to the fact they are Italian. They only dominate when a non Italian is in charge or is a major force in the team. The Italian press doesn't help, you think UK tabloids are bad, they are amateurs compared to the press Ferrari has to deal with.

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

Tyre deals with the F1 teams goes back to the invention of the formula, it was always part of the equation until the tyre war was ended by a single supplier contract.

Ferrari's problems are simply down to the fact they are Italian. They only dominate when a non Italian is in charge or is a major force in the team. The Italian press doesn't help, you think UK tabloids are bad, they are amateurs compared to the press Ferrari has to deal with.

Not sure you can seriously believe Ferrari is incapable of breeding homegrown people to run a successful F1 team, because simply being Italian makes it impossible.

I think the history of Ferrari and it's parents has bred and maintained a particular culture that has little appetite for failure or insubordination, a bit like a football team that changes manager every 5 minutes. Not a nationality thing, but a culture one. There are plenty of Italian individuals who've been there and proven they are world class.

[anonymous-user]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

jsf said:

Tyre deals with the F1 teams goes back to the invention of the formula, it was always part of the equation until the tyre war was ended by a single supplier contract.

Ferrari's problems are simply down to the fact they are Italian. They only dominate when a non Italian is in charge or is a major force in the team. The Italian press doesn't help, you think UK tabloids are bad, they are amateurs compared to the press Ferrari has to deal with.

Not sure you can seriously believe Ferrari is incapable of breeding homegrown people to run a successful F1 team, because simply being Italian makes it impossible.

I think the history of Ferrari and it's parents has bred and maintained a particular culture that has little appetite for failure or insubordination, a bit like a football team that changes manager every 5 minutes. Not a nationality thing, but a culture one. There are plenty of Italian individuals who've been there and proven they are world class.

History tells a different story. There is a reason why UK is the centre of motorsport in the world. Italy is a great country, i love the place, the reason i love the place is why they are crap at managing an F1 team.

[Exige77]

jsf said:

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

jsf said:

Tyre deals with the F1 teams goes back to the invention of the formula, it was always part of the equation until the tyre war was ended by a single supplier contract.

Ferrari's problems are simply down to the fact they are Italian. They only dominate when a non Italian is in charge or is a major force in the team. The Italian press doesn't help, you think UK tabloids are bad, they are amateurs compared to the press Ferrari has to deal with.

Not sure you can seriously believe Ferrari is incapable of breeding homegrown people to run a successful F1 team, because simply being Italian makes it impossible.

I think the history of Ferrari and it's parents has bred and maintained a particular culture that has little appetite for failure or insubordination, a bit like a football team that changes manager every 5 minutes. Not a nationality thing, but a culture one. There are plenty of Italian individuals who've been there and proven they are world class.

History tells a different story. There is a reason why UK is the centre of motorsport in the world. Italy is a great country, i love the place, the reason i love the place is why they are crap at managing an F1 team.

I know Italy, Italian companies and Italian people very well.

JSF makes a very valid point.

Same reasons that Toyota failed. As great as they are at making road cars, they have completely the wrong culture to succeed in F1.

[coetzeeh]

Is this the Lewis Hamilton thread?

[Exige77]

coetzeeh said:

Is this the Lewis Hamilton thread?

It has taken lots of twists and turns

[HighwayStar]

coetzeeh said:

Is this the Lewis Hamilton thread?

Blame Sparta

[anonymous-user]

Exige77 said:

I know Italy, Italian companies and Italian people very well.

JSF makes a very valid point.

Same reasons that Toyota failed. As great as they are at making road cars, they have completely the wrong culture to succeed in F1.

Totally agree that Ferrari has a culture that makes it difficult to succeed (the original point, I believe). Totally disagree that 'being italian' makes that kind of success impossible, any more than it would be because they're Muslim or black or any other arbitrary, broad brush nonsense.

It's just lazy stereotyping.

[anonymous-user]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

otally agree that Ferrari has a culture that makes it difficult to succeed (the original point, I believe). Totally disagree that 'being italian' makes that kind of success impossible, any more than it would be because they're Muslim or black or any other arbitrary, broad brush nonsense.

It's just lazy stereotyping.

It's not, it's a reflection of their culture, they do things differently. Whenever i go to Monza it always frustrates and amuses in equal measure. At most circuits they give you a slot for the truck and let the driver get on with it. At Monza you have to queue at the gate, wait for a bloke on a scooter to turn up, follow him to the slot you know in advance is allocated to you anyway, then put up with their arm waving whilst the truckie does what he does for a living anyway. Then he potters off on his scooter for the next truck. It's barking mad.