Ferrari F2007 Superiority

[DimitraF1]

Whats your opinion about ferrari's car? speed comes from tyres?
i think that Michael's ferrari 248 in the last 3 races have an extreme aero package and this years evolution make an extreme fast car! my opinion is that the advantage of tyres for ferrari is 3 of a second and from aero advantage 3-4 of a sec

[tinchote]

Ferrari is probably the fastest these days, but not by as much as we've seen in other seasons (and by other teams, á la McLaren 98).

[Tazio]

I think that Ferrari has an advantage with Bridgestone over the field. The engine is fast, and reliable. The aero package is a little ahead of McLaren, Renault, and BMW. I think their development will keep them ahead of the field with the next largest improvement comming from BMW!

[jjanicke]

Well after P3 in Malaysia it looks like Mclaren have found a way to match the Ferrari's pace. Ferrari are perhaps no longer a step ahead of the Mclaren and the rest.

[F1boat]

Don't forget that it is presumed that Ferrari are superior in race pace, not qualifying. McLaren are very close to them in qualy runs and in P3 teams usually prepare for qualy.

[Tazio]

Don't forget that it is presumed that Ferrari are superior in race pace, not qualifying. McLaren are very close to them in qualy runs and in P3 teams usually prepare for qualy.
Totally agree!

[Garry Walker]

Ferrari is barley any faster than McLaren, it was the same case in Oz. Massa will need to drive a superb race tomorrow to beat alonso, i dont think Kimi seems capable of doing that tomorrow.

[jso1985]

The car seems as superior as last years Renault at the start of the season, with that I mean that I don't think they will dominate a la 2002 or 2004, they have a huge chance of winning both championships but they could be "catched" by McLaren or another team soon

[Sleeper]

Ferrari is barley any faster than McLaren, it was the same case in Oz. Massa will need to drive a superb race tomorrow to beat alonso, i dont think Kimi seems capable of doing that tomorrow.
The Ferraris were potentially 1 second+ faster over a lap in race trim in Australia, its not really posible to tell exactly but they certainly had a large advantage. Having said that, I dont think they have quite a large advantage this time out in Sepang.

[Tazio]

Ferrari is barley any faster than McLaren, it was the same case in Oz. Massa will need to drive a superb race tomorrow to beat alonso, i dont think Kimi seems capable of doing that tomorrow If Kimi's engine holds up I think he has a good chance to beat Fred!
I think Kimis Ferrari was the most fuel-laden of the top four.
Dude! You dig Ferrari! Why are you having such a hard time admitting that they have a superior race package!

[ArrowsFA1]

Ferrari is barley any faster than McLaren.
A view not supported on the evidence of the season so far, but a view that "bigs up" Massa if he manages to win tomorrow.

[andreag]

I think Kimis Ferrari was the most fuel-laden of the top four.
My bet for first stop is:

Massa: Lap 17th.
Kimi: Lap 18th.
Alonso: Lap 20th.
Hamilton: Lap 21st.

[Ian McC]

If Kimi's engine holds up I think he has a good chance to beat Fred!
I think Kimis Ferrari was the most fuel-laden of the top four.
Dude! You dig Ferrari! Why are you having such a hard time admitting that they have a superior race package!

He just doesn't like Kimi :rolleyes:

[Hawkmoon]

My bet for first stop is:

Massa: Lap 17th.
Kimi: Lap 18th.
Alonso: Lap 20th.
Hamilton: Lap 21st.

I think you have Massa right but there is no way Kimi is slower than Alonso with 2 laps less fuel. I also don't think Hamilton is that much heavier. He admitted to making mistakes in Q3 so I think that probably accounted for much of the deficit.

[Tazio]

My bet for first stop is:

Massa: Lap 17th.
Kimi: Lap 18th.
Alonso: Lap 20th.
Hamilton: Lap 21st.
Duly noted!
I guess we will just have to wait and see!
That is if their engine, I mean cars all make it to the first pit stop!

[F1boat]

I think you have Massa right but there is no way Kimi is slower than Alonso with 2 laps less fuel. I also don't think Hamilton is that much heavier. He admitted to making mistakes in Q3 so I think that probably accounted for much of the deficit.

Rain affected Lewis lap.

[andreag]

Rain affected Lewis lap.
:eek: How?

The first four cars were separated by less than 30 seconds (from 1st to 4th) on their last lap. How can rain can affect just one of them?

[herra47]

We should talk about Fernando Alonso superiority!

He's 1 second faster than anyone..

[F1boat]

:eek: How?

The first four cars were separated by less than 30 seconds (from 1st to 4th) on their last lap. How can rain can affect just one of them?

Don't know, Lewis said so.
Ferrari has no superiority at all. At least not at Sepang.

[jens]

Ferrari hasn't been quick at Sepang for many years. In previous years it could be explained with tyres (as before the tyre war - in 1999-2000 - Ferrari was superior at Sepang).

Sakhir must give an answer whether Sepang has been an unsuitable circuit for Ferrari once again. Sakhir on the contrary has been very suitable circuit for Ferrari in previous years.

[andreag]

Ferrari hasn't been quick at Sepang for many years.
On the first 8 years of Sepang (all except this year), the points achived by the teams were:

Ferrari: 85.
Renault: 53.
Others: 44.
McLaren 41.
Williams: 37.

Ferrari was indeed quicker than any other team.


Sakhir on the contrary has been very suitable circuit for Ferrari in previous years.
On the past three years racing in Bahrain, the points were:

Others: 33.
Renault: 28.
McLaren: 27.
Ferrari: 26.
Williams: 10.

Bahrain doesn't seem to be as good for Ferrari as Sepang has been watching at the statistics (the real statistics, I mean).

BTW, Alonso has won 2 of the 3 Bahrain races, scoring 23 points; more than any other driver; Schumi is second with 18, Trulli third with 13, Kini fourth with 12, and Button fifth with 11 points.

Post edited. Thanks F1boat for remember me 1999, that improved Ferrari's advantage over the rest on Sepang.

[F1boat]

You are wrong. Sepang first race was 1999 and Irvine won!

[jens]

Statistics? Instead of that let's compare race pace. :)

In 2004:
MAL - M. Schumacher managed to beat Montoya by a small margin.
BAH - Ferrari clearly dominant, scoring 1-2.

In 2005:
MAL - M. Schumacher scoring lucky 7th place.
BAH - Yeah, no points, but Michael was running at the tail of Alonso before retiring!

In 2006:
BAH - Michael fought for race win.
MAL - Ferraris finished 5th and 6th.

[F1boat]

Statistics? Instead of that let's compare race pace. :)

In 2004:
MAL - M. Schumacher managed to beat Montoya by a small margin.
BAH - Ferrari clearly dominant, scoring 1-2.

In 2005:
MAL - M. Schumacher scoring lucky 7th place.
BAH - Yeah, no points, but Michael was running at the tail of Alonso before retiring!

In 2006:
BAH - Michael fought for race win.
MAL - Ferraris finished 5th and 6th.

That was because of Michelin.

[Ian McC]

Do we know for certain that Kimi was running on reduced revs?

[Shalafi]

Do we know for certain that Kimi was running on reduced revs?

Well, Kimi said after the race: "With Massas car it was possible to try to overtake, but with my car no chance at all", I think it is pretty obvious he was running on reduced revs.

And he also said that he will much more competitive in Bahrain, which confirms that too.

[Ian McC]

Well, Kimi said after the race: "With Massas car it was possible to try to overtake, but with my car no chance at all", I think it is pretty obvious he was running on reduced revs.

And he also said that he will much more competitive in Bahrain, which confirms that too.

Thanks for that

Really does but the result into perspective a little, will have to see what happens next weekend.

[Big Ben]

Well, Kimi said after the race: "With Massas car it was possible to try to overtake, but with my car no chance at all", I think it is pretty obvious he was running on reduced revs.

And he also said that he will much more competitive in Bahrain, which confirms that too.

he was the one that had said the engine was fine before the race, wasn´t he? how about massa? what is his excuse? I'd say... poor strategy.

[F1boat]

Massa probably ruined his setup when he tried rallying.

[Garry Walker]

The Ferraris were potentially 1 second+ faster over a lap in race trim in Australia, its not really posible to tell exactly but they certainly had a large advantage. Having said that, I dont think they have quite a large advantage this time out in Sepang.

Ferraris had 3 tenths over McLaren maximum at Melbourne, not more. Not nearly 1 second.


Why are you having such a hard time admitting that they have a superior race package!
Because they DONT. I would love if Ferraris were 1,5 seconds per lap faster than any other car, but they simply dont have that now.


A view not supported on the evidence of the season so far, but a view that "bigs up" Massa if he manages to win tomorrow.

Did I get my view supported by todays race? I think so. My intelligence shown again.

[Ian McC]

My intelligence shown again.

:rotflmao:

[Tazio]

Ferraris had 3 tenths over McLaren maximum at Melbourne, not more. Not nearly 1 second.


Because they DONT. I would love if Ferraris were 1,5 seconds per lap faster than any other car, but they simply dont have that now.



Did I get my view supported by todays race? I think so. My intelligence shown again.

I admit here and on another thread earlier that I was not only over-optimistic about Ferrari, I was just plain wrong, at this course at least, that they have a superior race package!

You make so many claims, that being right on this one proves something I've known for a long time, which has nothing to do with your intelligence!
That is:
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while!

[ArrowsFA1]

Ferraris had 3 tenths over McLaren maximum at Melbourne, not more. Not nearly 1 second.
Where do you get 0.3s from :confused:

In qualifying Kimi was 0.4s quicker than a McLaren (the kind of gap you describe as being "decimated" elsewhere), and in the race he was 1.0s faster without ever being under pressure.

Perhaps you're basing your figure on Massa's pace in comparison with the McLaren rather than Kimi's ;)

[Juppe]

he was the one that had said the engine was fine before the race, wasn´t he? how about massa? what is his excuse? I'd say... poor strategy.

Well, obviously he wasn't going to say to the competitors before the race that: "Come and collect, I'll be easily passable on straights, cause my rev limiter will be set to 18000."?

http://forums.motorsport.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=240500

Both Baldisseri and Todt confirm that Kimis engine was compromised for the race even though Todt claims tht it caused only a one tenth of second loss per lap, which sounds very little. But it is not in the interest of Todt to give away everything, so its hard to say what the real difference was.

[Garry Walker]

Where do you get 0.3s from :confused:

In qualifying Kimi was 0.4s quicker than a McLaren (the kind of gap you describe as being "decimated" elsewhere), and in the race he was 1.0s faster without ever being under pressure.

Perhaps you're basing your figure on Massa's pace in comparison with the McLaren rather than Kimi's ;)

But you need to look further than the fastest lap - I at first thought F2007 had 1 second over others aswell, but when you look at sector times, the true picture comes to light. Alonso had sector times very little off of Kimis pace, he just didnt put them together for one fast lap due to backmarkers (based on sector times his fastest lap would have been less than 3 tenths off of Kimis fastest). There was no 1 second gap between Ferrari and McLaren at Australia.

[ArrowsFA1]

There was no 1 second gap between Ferrari and McLaren at Australia.
Sorry Garry, but there was. The fastest lap a Ferrari could produce in Australia was 1s faster than a McLaren. Fact.

[jjanicke]

It seems like the Ferrari's superiority in Australia was severely helped with the flexing floor, and the subsequent lower ride height advantage.

Let's see what happens next, although I don't expect much to change for next weekend.

[ioan]

It seems like the Ferrari's superiority in Australia was severely helped with the flexing floor, and the subsequent lower ride height advantage.

There is a minimum ride height to be respected in the rules and they all use it. How would the flexing floor give a lower ride height?

[janneppi]

In which direction did the floor move, up or down? If it moves downward, you get reduced ride height, minimum ride height has nothing to do with it. :)

[F1boat]

Where do you get 0.3s from :confused:

In qualifying Kimi was 0.4s quicker than a McLaren (the kind of gap you describe as being "decimated" elsewhere), and in the race he was 1.0s faster without ever being under pressure.

Perhaps you're basing your figure on Massa's pace in comparison with the McLaren rather than Kimi's ;)

Yeas, because Kimi adds a few tenths to the pace of the car

[ioan]

In which direction did the floor move, up or down? If it moves downward, you get reduced ride height, minimum ride height has nothing to do with it. :)

Given that first they used those devices to protect the floor from the curbs I would say that the floor moves upwards, so I see no way to reduce the ride hight of the car that way.

[janneppi]

So the reason Fefe used the spring action floor was protection, not controlling how it bends in airflow? Where did you read that? BTW, a spring can move in either directions, so it could very easily handle movements in both directions, so having the floor too low and the cushioning impacts from a curbs is completely feasible.

[Ranger]

I am skeptical as to how this device has cost them their superiority. The removal of the mass-dampers on the Renault last year was blamed for a poor performance in Hockenheim, whilst Alonso later said it didn't affect driving and performance of the car - it was just a bad day at the office.

Same goes here for Ferrari.

There was a lot of things Ferrari did wrong on race day. Their strategy was poor, one of the drivers was on limited revs and the other driver just drove dumb.
McLaren just did a better job of conducting themselves as a team over the past week and in the race, hence why they won.

I still think Ferrari will be superior next weekend - although by a lesser margin than in Melbourne. Both drivers will have new engines and hopefully Massa will have been slapped back together.

[ioan]

So the reason Fefe used the spring action floor was protection, not controlling how it bends in airflow? Where did you read that? BTW, a spring can move in either directions, so it could very easily handle movements in both directions, so having the floor too low and the cushioning impacts from a curbs is completely feasible.

The floor moving downwards would give more downforce on a straight, and they were going for more speed not downforce.
Also the floor is not only attached to a spring but they use pivots too.
Plus the whole floor was not moving, just bending and only at the front end, so I fail to see how you get a lower ride height out of this.

[janneppi]

The floor moving downwards would give more downforce on a straight, and they were going for more speed not downforce.
Also the floor is not only attached to a spring but they use pivots too.
Plus the whole floor was not moving, just bending and only at the front end, so I fail to see how you get a lower ride height out of this.

Isn't minimum ride height measured at the lowest point of the car?

[ioan]

Isn't minimum ride height measured at the lowest point of the car?

Than it would be 0! :p :

Jokes aside I didn't understood the point of your question.

[janneppi]

What is the lowest point of the chassis and is the minimum ride height measured from that point? If the lowest point is the tip of the floor that is able bend downwards, you may end up having a a ride height under the minimum allowed. :)

[ioan]

What is the lowest point of the chassis and is the minimum ride height measured from that point? If the lowest point is the tip of the floor that is able bend downwards, you may end up having a a ride height under the minimum allowed. :)

The floor is built to be able to bend a little bit upwards to avoid being broken when going over the curbs. It can't bend downwards because of the spring and pivot device.

And don't worry, the moment it will bend downwards Ron will contest it. :D

[janneppi]

The floor is built to be able to bend a little bit upwards to avoid being broken when going over the curbs. It can't bend downwards because of the spring and pivot device.

And don't worry, the moment it will bend downwards Ron will contest it. :D

Are you abslutely sure about the direction? http://www.formula1latest.com/2007/03/20/technical-rumblings-from-melbourne/
The point is that, if the floor moves downwards at speed, it can alter the under-car aerodynamics and lessen drag, thereby allowing more speed on the straights.

[ioan]

It seems a bit weird that it lessens drag if it bends downward.

But it might be given that it interferes with the air flux going towards the diffuser.

I still doubt that they get to the point of illegal ride height.

[Robinho]

:eek: How?

The first four cars were separated by less than 30 seconds (from 1st to 4th) on their last lap. How can rain can affect just one of them?
i know the discussion has moved on from this but,

Lewis gave the explaination after the last qualy that he saw a few drops of rain on his visor in his last lap, and due to his inexperience (his words) he backed off a little as the only time previously that had happened the track was slippery, however this time he could have driven through it as it did not affect the track conditions, and he said it was something he would have to learn from.

[jjanicke]

There is a minimum ride height to be respected in the rules and they all use it. How would the flexing floor give a lower ride height?

The minimum ride height is dictated by the legality plank. As the car gains speed the aero down force pushes the car lower to the ground, to the point that at the end of long straights the car is at it's lowest ride height.

Now if you can stop the legality plank from dragging by flexing up a few millimeters you can run the car lower a few millimeters.


In which direction did the floor move, up or down? If it moves downward, you get reduced ride height, minimum ride height has nothing to do with it. :)

The device allows the floor to move up, which enables a lower ride height. A lower center of gravity help in the twisties, and the upward flexing floor kills the downforce of the diffusor thus reducing drag. Because of the reduced drag the car can go faster down the straights. Now if you keep the top speed the same as before you can run more wing, which again will help in the twisties.


What is the lowest point of the chassis and is the minimum ride height measured from that point? If the lowest point is the tip of the floor that is able bend downwards, you may end up having a a ride height under the minimum allowed. :)

There is no "minimum ride height rule". There is however a rule that prevents running the cars too low. It's the legality plank. If the plank shows wear of over 1mm the car is deemed illegal.


Are you abslutely sure about the direction? http://www.formula1latest.com/2007/03/20/technical-rumblings-from-melbourne/

I think the media tried to come up with their own explanation before one was handed to them. For sure the plank flexes up and not down. They want to eliminate the board dragging at speed. The FIA testing rule is that the floor must resist a 500N upward force on the floor.

[jjanicke]

http://www.speedtv.com/f1/video.php

Watch the "RPM: Floor Lowering" video

[DimitraF1]

lol get a life walker

[Valve Bounce]

Whats your opinion about ferrari's car? speed comes from tyres?
i think that Michael's ferrari 248 in the last 3 races have an extreme aero package and this years evolution make an extreme fast car! my opinion is that the advantage of tyres for ferrari is 3 of a second and from aero advantage 3-4 of a sec

Or maybe Ron Denis has been sandbagging again.