Bridgestone on McLaren v Ferrari & Kimi v Felipe

[ArrowsFA1]

Basically the Ferrari has more of a tendency to understeer than the McLaren. The McLaren is a little bit oversteery. When the tyre has good grip, the car with the oversteer tendency will be quicker over a single lap than a neutral or understeering car."

"But when you think about racing conditions - especially with the temperatures we had at the Hungaroring – then an oversteering car will have heat generating at the rear much higher than the understeering car."

"Looking at Hungary and (Lewis) Hamilton's car behaviour, after a few laps he struggled with oversteer - so he was making lots of counter-steering movements. On the other hand the Ferrari had a good balance after a few laps.

"That's why the temperature is making a difference."

"When the car conditions are very suitable for Felipe his abilities are 110%, but once the car is not so good his abilities are 90%. But Kimi could get the package performance at 100% even if the car condition is not so good."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69715

Interesting stuff :cool:

[ioan]

Then Kimi's car must be at 50% of it's potential given his latest results, cause he is nowhere near his 100%, not even when Felipe is giving his 110%.

[wedge]

Nothing really new there that most people know already, apart from claiming Kimi is the better driver.

Hamashima could go into a bit more detail in that one, something to do with tyre management presumably during race condtions.

[ten-tenths]

kimi should have paid more attention and spent more time on developing the current ferrari. michael's style of driving suits massa more than kimi.

[speeddurango]

I'm a little of topic here but that #3 post sort of reminds me of the theory of risk aversion in financial market, that people would rather invest in a market where you constantly get 100%, than a market where the profit you get is inconsistent, sometimes more and sometimes less although overally what you get is still 100%. And this article has nothing to do finance but again it just shows you despite the average of 110 and 90 is 100, people still prefer a constant 100 percent performance delivery and think that the article is implying it is better than otherwise.

[ioan]

kimi should have paid more attention and spent more time on developing the current ferrari. michael's style of driving suits massa more than kimi.

That's totally unfounded and false.

[Knock-on]

That's totally unfounded and false.


I think it's an opinion unless he 10/10ths provides any data to back up his statement.

However, I have to agree that my opinion is that Massa's driving is more similar to MS's than Kimi's.

As for testing. I don't know who's done what. Can you provide some data please to back up your opinion ioan? It would be interesting to know who puts more into car development.

[ArrowsFA1]

It would be interesting to know who puts more into car development.
The impression I have is that Kimi will get in anything and drive it quickly. He's not to keen on the repetative task of testing and is more likely to drive around problems than fix them. A bit like Ronnie Peterson perhaps.

Massa strikes me as someone who needs the car to be as close to perfect as possible. He'll work away at getting that set-up, but he needs guidance, which is where MS's input is important to him.

[Knock-on]

The impression I have is that Kimi will get in anything and drive it quickly. He's not to keen on the repetative task of testing and is more likely to drive around problems than fix them. A bit like Ronnie Peterson perhaps.

Massa strikes me as someone who needs the car to be as close to perfect as possible. He'll work away at getting that set-up, but he needs guidance, which is where MS's input is important to him.

I must admit, that was my impression as well.

10/10ths opinion is similar to mine. Perhaps Kimi should spend a bit more time in development and testing and possibly, his results will improve.

[Garry Walker]

I must admit, that was my impression as well.

10/10ths opinion is similar to mine. Perhaps Kimi should spend a bit more time in development and testing and possibly, his results will improve.

Kimi has tested plenty this year.

[Knock-on]

Kimi has tested plenty this year.

I'm not denying he has.

All I'm asking for is some reference as to how much testing Kimi and Massa have done before we start claiming opinion as fact ;)

[Garry Walker]

I'm not denying he has.

All I'm asking for is some reference as to how much testing Kimi and Massa have done before we start claiming opinion as fact ;)

In this calendar year,

Kimi has tested 24 days, Massa 22 days.
Kimi 8481 KM, Massa 8040 KM

http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/tests/

[ArrowsFA1]

In this calendar year,

Kimi has tested 24 days, Massa 22 days.
Kimi 8481 KM, Massa 8040 KM

http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/tests/
Which begs the question are Ferrari not getting the best out of their testing? Kimi's comparatively poor quali and race performances suggests that it is not producing effective results. Which brings us back to the comments that have questioned the Ferrari drivers technical abilities, and whether they are making the most of the best Ferrari produced in the last 5 years.

[Knock-on]

In this calendar year,

Kimi has tested 24 days, Massa 22 days.
Kimi 8481 KM, Massa 8040 KM

http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/tests/

Thanks Garry but I don't speak German.

Can you just go back until Kimi joined Ferrari for an accurate comparison including Winter testing please.

Thanks

[Garry Walker]

Which begs the question are Ferrari not getting the best out of their testing? Kimi's comparatively poor quali and race performances suggests that it is not producing effective results. Which brings us back to the comments that have questioned the Ferrari drivers technical abilities, and whether they are making the most of the best Ferrari produced in the last 5 years.

How did you determine Ferrari is not getting the best out of testing?

It is idiotic to blame the drivers for being incompetent at testing, when the true problem lies in other areas. This is obviously Ferraris design philosophy, to concentrate on race performance, but it has come with a cost in qualifying and obviously the designers have not come up with a solution to cure it without hurting race pace.

Is it the fault of button, Barrichello and Wurz (best test driver in F1 by a long margin) that the honda is a complete failure of a car?
Is it Hamiltons and Kovalainens fault that the McLaren eats its tyres so much more than the Ferrari? Or is that so just because that is how the car was designed and it is incredibly hard to improve?

If Massa and Kimi were such failures in testing, Ferrari would use Badoer much more, so I wouldn`t take seriously the idiotic things Nigel Roebuck comes up with. I am surprised he even has time to write anything besides his usual "gilles villeneuve, 11 seconds faster, in wet"

[ArrowsFA1]

How did you determine Ferrari is not getting the best out of testing?
I don't. Just merely asking the question. As always in F1 the answer is normally found in a combination of factors.

I wouldn`t take seriously the idiotic things Nigel Roebuck comes up with.
Obviously :dozey:

This is obviously Ferraris design philosophy, to concentrate on race performance, but it has come with a cost in qualifying and obviously the designers have not come up with a solution to cure it without hurting race pace.
Obviously? Why so?

[PolePosition_1]

I personally think the Ferrari is softer on its tyres. Meaning over a single lap it just isn't as fast as a McLaren.

Should be noted, Massa has outqualified Kimi 7-4.

Interestingly enough though, they've both averaged out on qualifying 4th - maybe highlighting general performance advantage Ferrari have had over McLaren for majority of season.

But I think Massa has a more 'all over the place' driving style, especially when he is pushing hard, which maybe enables him to get more out of the tyres over a single lap compared to Kimi.

But that would explain why Kimi has struggled in last couple of races in qualifying. Albeit majority of this in Hungary can be explained by his very heavy first stint.

[ShiftingGears]

Obviously? Why so?

Because they've designed a car thats lighter on its tyres than the McLaren, which is a compromise they decided was necessary.

[ArrowsFA1]

Because they've designed a car thats lighter on its tyres than the McLaren, which is a compromise they decided was necessary.
That makes sense, although I have seen it said that the McLaren drivers, particularly Hamilton, are hard on their tyres so could it be that both the Ferrari and McLaren cars work equally well with the tyres, but the drivers work them in very different ways.

In other words the difference is more with the drivers than the cars.

Just asking the question!! :s mokin:

[Garry Walker]

Thanks Garry but I don't speak German.

Can you just go back until Kimi joined Ferrari for an accurate comparison including Winter testing please.

Thanks

Gladly.

From 1.1.2007 to current date, these 5 drivers have tested the most testdays.

1.Mark Webber 59
2.Robert Kubica 58
3.Felipe Massa 57
4.Kimi Räikkönen 56
5.David Coulthard 56

12. Lewis Hamilton 43


By test KM in the same period,
1. Robert Kubica 22.119
2. Nick Heidfeld 20.069
3. Felipe Massa 19.561
4. Kimi Räikkönen 19.210
5. Heikki Kovalainen 19.118

11. Hamilton 16.748


I personally think the Ferrari is softer on its tyres. Meaning over a single lap it just isn't as fast as a McLaren.

Should be noted, Massa has outqualified Kimi 7-4.

Interestingly enough though, they've both averaged out on qualifying 4th - maybe highlighting general performance advantage Ferrari have had over McLaren for majority of season.

But I think Massa has a more 'all over the place' driving style, especially when he is pushing hard, which maybe enables him to get more out of the tyres over a single lap compared to Kimi.

But that would explain why Kimi has struggled in last couple of races in qualifying. Albeit majority of this in Hungary can be explained by his very heavy first stint.

Massa indeed pushes his tyres more, and due to that gets more out of them over a qualyfying lap.


That makes sense, although I have seen it said that the McLaren drivers, particularly Hamilton, are hard on their tyres so could it be that both the Ferrari and McLaren cars work equally well with the tyres, but the drivers work them in very different ways.

In other words the difference is more with the drivers than the cars.

Just asking the question!! :s mokin:

Something the BS guy in the original post of this topic didn`t quite agree with.

[Knock-on]

Gladly.

From 1.1.2007 to current date, these 5 drivers have tested the most testdays.

1.Mark Webber 59
2.Robert Kubica 58
3.Felipe Massa 57
4.Kimi Räikkönen 56
5.David Coulthard 56

12. Lewis Hamilton 43


By test KM in the same period,
1. Robert Kubica 22.119
2. Nick Heidfeld 20.069
3. Felipe Massa 19.561
4. Kimi Räikkönen 19.210
5. Heikki Kovalainen 19.118

11. Hamilton 16.748




Well, it cannot be said that Kimi is not testing.

[ShiftingGears]

That makes sense, although I have seen it said that the McLaren drivers, particularly Hamilton, are hard on their tyres so could it be that both the Ferrari and McLaren cars work equally well with the tyres, but the drivers work them in very different ways.

In other words the difference is more with the drivers than the cars.

Just asking the question!! :s mokin:

The Bridgestone guy said the McLaren is harder on tyres. So it would seem that Raikkonen is suffering a problem similar to Heidfelds, to a lesser extent.

Well, it cannot be said that Kimi is not testing.

No, but the question shouldn't be "Does Kimi test?" but "What is the point of Kimi testing?"

If his feedback and technical input is crap, then he can go round and round and round and round all year but Ferrari won't learn half as much as they could from somebody with good technical feedback spending half an hour in the thing.

Eg - Lauda's first test for Ferrari. It took him three laps to tell the engineers what they had been waiting fruitlessly for two years for Merzario to give them a clue about.

[ArrowsFA1]

No, but the question shouldn't be "Does Kimi test?" but "What is the point of Kimi testing?"

If his feedback and technical input is crap, then he can go round and round and round and round all year but Ferrari won't learn half as much as they could from somebody with good technical feedback spending half an hour in the thing.

Eg - Lauda's first test for Ferrari. It took him three laps to tell the engineers what they had been waiting fruitlessly for two years for Merzario to give them a clue about.
Exactly, and I think that's what Ferrari has lost with MS's retirement (although he has tested for them since). His consistent feedback and technical input was second to none, and there is an argument that says Ferrari have lost their way somewhat since his departure. Of course they won both titles in 2007, but there were other circumstances at play then which may have disguised weaknesses in their current driver pairing. Those weaknesses are maybe being exposed all the more as time goes on.

[Knock-on]

No, but the question shouldn't be "Does Kimi test?" but "What is the point of Kimi testing?"

If his feedback and technical input is crap, then he can go round and round and round and round all year but Ferrari won't learn half as much as they could from somebody with good technical feedback spending half an hour in the thing.

Eg - Lauda's first test for Ferrari. It took him three laps to tell the engineers what they had been waiting fruitlessly for two years for Merzario to give them a clue about.

Nail. Hit. Head.

I've said it many times, he does not have the technical depth of others with his experience.

He really does need a structure like McLaren where he can have minimal input into development.

[SGWilko]

Nail. Hit. Head.

I've said it many times, he does not have the technical depth of others with his experience.

He really does need a structure like McLaren where he can have minimal input into development.

In a way, when you talk about the technical ability of drivers, I think this is why it was good for LH that he had a season with FA, there is no doubting in my mind that FA can set a car up and give feedback to the engineers. I reckon LH learned a lot last year.

[Knock-on]

In a way, when you talk about the technical ability of drivers, I think this is why it was good for LH that he had a season with FA, there is no doubting in my mind that FA can set a car up and give feedback to the engineers. I reckon LH learned a lot last year.

I think you're correct to a certain extent.

Lewis has obviously come in, picked up what he can, used what he knew and produced the results. One thing about Lewis is he always seems keen to try things and learn.

Kimi? Well, he's a quick driver but I get the impression that he's not all that on development.

He's done some testing as Garry has pointed out but testing and feedback / development are slightly different.

[ShiftingGears]

I wonder why theres the anomaly of Hamilton not being in the top 10 testers.

[Knock-on]

I wonder why theres the anomaly of Hamilton not being in the top 10 testers.

I agree.

However, McLaren has a couple of good testers as it is and the formula seems to be working.

[wedge]

Kimi? Well, he's a quick driver but I get the impression that he's not all that on development.

He's done some testing as Garry has pointed out but testing and feedback / development are slightly different.

Last year Kimi wanted more front downforce. He got new front wing and got the job done at the second half of the year.

Possibly the sweet spot in the Ferrari seems rather narrow - too narrow for Kimi it seems.

[Knock-on]

Last year Kimi wanted more front downforce. He got new front wing and got the job done at the second half of the year.

Possibly the sweet spot in the Ferrari seems rather narrow - too narrow for Kimi it seems.

That sort of makes sense.

The Ferrari is a bit understeery which is why it's better on faster circuits where you can get a bit more heat in the tyres whereas the McLaren is the opposite so can shimmy it's way round the tighter circuits a bit more nimberly.

Problem with understeer is that it's a bugger to hit those apexes which you need to get a quick time. Someone like Jenson would love the Ferrari because he would be precise enough in it.

With the McLaren, it's easier getting it turned in but to get a quick lap, you need to be on the very edge of tolerance to hurry the thing around. Too little agression and your slow and too much and you overdrive the car, slipping speed away and eating tyres. This is what Lewis has been working on.

Putting a different nose on the Ferrari isn't just about getting more downforce but getting it to turn in with it wanting to follow through and not move out as speed is increased.

This seems to be the tightrope they are walking.

[jens]

That sort of makes sense.

The Ferrari is a bit understeery which is why it's better on faster circuits where you can get a bit more heat in the tyres whereas the McLaren is the opposite so can shimmy it's way round the tighter circuits a bit more nimberly.


Ferrari better on faster circuits? They got a front row at Monaco and also led the race in Hungary. So I don't think it's so clear-cut. By the way, I think at Monza McLaren will be the car to beat like last year. As the original article said, it seems temperature plays an important role too and I think that's partly why Ferrari excelled in Hungary.

But McLaren has done a great job in development during the season and now there are no circuits nor conditions left, where Ferrari is unbeatable like it was the case in the first half of the season at several Grand Prix's. But there may occur conditions, where McLaren might be unbeatable, so they are still pretty much in a decent position of taking the titles, despite Ferrari's very good form in Hungary... IMO.

[Dzeidzei]

That sort of makes sense.

The Ferrari is a bit understeery which is why it's better on faster circuits where you can get a bit more heat in the tyres whereas the McLaren is the opposite so can shimmy it's way round the tighter circuits a bit more nimberly.

Problem with understeer is that it's a bugger to hit those apexes which you need to get a quick time. Someone like Jenson would love the Ferrari because he would be precise enough in it.

With the McLaren, it's easier getting it turned in but to get a quick lap, you need to be on the very edge of tolerance to hurry the thing around. Too little agression and your slow and too much and you overdrive the car, slipping speed away and eating tyres. This is what Lewis has been working on.

Putting a different nose on the Ferrari isn't just about getting more downforce but getting it to turn in with it wanting to follow through and not move out as speed is increased.

This seems to be the tightrope they are walking.

Excellent analysis considered that its based on zero knowledge. This kind of speculation has only value as fun.

But its good fun.

[Garry Walker]

No, but the question shouldn't be "Does Kimi test?" but "What is the point of Kimi testing?"

If his feedback and technical input is crap, then he can go round and round and round and round all year but Ferrari won't learn half as much as they could from somebody with good technical feedback spending half an hour in the thing.

1) If his feedback was so awful, there is no way Ferrari would let him test so much. In fact, Ferrari would not have hired him at all then. After all, they had knowledge of his feedback from Sauber days.
Ferrari also has an excellent test driver in Luca Badoer, but they obviousy see that they rarely need to use him.

2) There is little difference between drivers testing feedback wise. There is no, one driver can give half a second and the other one will cost them 0,5 seconds, especially in these days where there is so much technology. Guys like Ross Brawn agree with me.

3) Chris Dyer, Pierre Dupasquier and McLaren engineers have praised Kimis feedback in testing as very precise.



Eg - Lauda's first test for Ferrari. It took him three laps to tell the engineers what they had been waiting fruitlessly for two years for Merzario to give them a clue about.
Completely different times and you aren`t seriously comparing Kimi and Felipe with someone like Merzario, who never even had a podium.


Exactly, and I think that's what Ferrari has lost with MS's retirement (although he has tested for them since). His consistent feedback and technical input was second to none, and there is an argument that says Ferrari have lost their way somewhat since his departure. Of course they won both titles in 2007, but there were other circumstances at play then which may have disguised weaknesses in their current driver pairing. Those weaknesses are maybe being exposed all the more as time goes on.

Whilst Schumacher was a magnificent driver and best ever at that, there is no need to praise him for something that he doesn`t deserve praise for.
The loss for Ferrari is that they don`t have todt and Brawn anymore, no driver can have a big influence on a cars performance other than actually driving it. His feedback was not the thing that made Ferraris so good. Unless we want to blame him for the times Ferrari was struggling.

The question Ferrari should ask themselves is - why did SD divert too many resources for the 2009 car and now had to rethink his decision and bring about 50 engineers back to the F2008 project, when he saw McLaren is still in the run?
Why have there been so few updates on the Ferrari compared to for example McLaren?
There issues have nothing to do with Massa or Kimi.

[ArrowsFA1]

Whilst Schumacher was a magnificent driver and best ever at that, there is no need to praise him for something that he doesn`t deserve praise for.
The loss for Ferrari is that they don`t have todt and Brawn anymore, no driver can have a big influence on a cars performance other than actually driving it. His feedback was not the thing that made Ferraris so good. Unless we want to blame him for the times Ferrari was struggling.
As always these things are made up of a combination of factors. MS's feedback may not have been the thing that made Ferraris so good, but it was certainly a factor, along with the input of Todt and Brawn.

1) If his feedback was so awful, there is no way Ferrari would let him test so much.

Really?

I see it more that Kimi tests so much in the hope that they, Ferrari, can try all the different set-ups under the sun in the hope that they find one that gets the best out of Kimi.

A truly great test driver would not need to do half the laps.

[wedge]

Really?

I see it more that Kimi tests so much in the hope that they, Ferrari, can try all the different set-ups under the sun in the hope that they find one that gets the best out of Kimi.

A truly great test driver would not need to do half the laps.

Nor is he a consistant in terms of lap times in races, compared to Alonso for example.

Apparantly Schumi was similar. Schumi so quick he can drive anything, and I suspect the same thing with Kimi as well.

Though Schumi could set consistant lap times in races, Ferrari relied more on Badoer and Irvine.

Testing is more about consistancy and requires something different from drivers.

Is it a coincidence that average GP drivers eg. Wurz, PDLR, Klein, Badoer, Ant make good test drivers?

[ShiftingGears]

Is it a coincidence that average GP drivers eg. Wurz, PDLR, Klein, Badoer, Ant make good test drivers?

Well, if they were average grand prix drivers, there'd have to be a good reason for teams to keep them :p :