motor

SFDMALEX · 07-13-2005, 04:06 PM

Reading Nunos post I came to a conclusion that it is the tires.

I say that because there pace varies too much, if it was their car alone, they would be slow the entire race, the entire weekend...etc

They are all over the map, pointing straight to the tires.

ae86_16v · 07-16-2005, 03:58 PM

Nice analysis Nuno. . . yeah let's hope Bridgestone could make one last effort into getting this car in Racing form.

ae86_16v · 08-04-2005, 01:34 AM

A quote from John Watson. . .

"What has become abundantly clear is people are always underestimating how good Michael is.

Probably a fairer judgement of where Ferrari are is where Rubens is - Michael is lifting the car and delivering performances above and beyond where the car is."

jenkF1 · 08-04-2005, 02:18 PM

Watson is spot on

ae86_16v · 08-23-2005, 11:40 PM

So I guess after last weekend. . . all hope is finally gone.

ZfrkS62 · 08-23-2005, 11:52 PM

Well, Kimi could always blow another couple of gear boxes and Alonso can still fuck up. I'm holding on to a little sliver light that is still at the end of the tunnel...i think

Max Power · 08-24-2005, 07:27 PM

^^^
when pigs fly

zondaland · 09-03-2005, 09:12 AM

The question mark that I would raise over the aero is as follows. Before the end of 2004 Ferrari had started testing their weird chin style front spoiler. When all of the other teams cars came out they had (to varying degrees) dips in the centre of the wings. All the teams were exploiting the same hole in the regulations. However only Ferrari chose to do so with the chin style front wing. Surely the other teams would have tried the Ferrari style of chins. So we can only assume that their data showed that they could get better results from a dip in the main profile of the wing. Over the last few years Ferrari have totally brained the opposition in the application of transient aerodynamics, perhaps on this occasion they stuffed up?

I just find it strange that they are the only team using that style of front wing.

mindgam3 · 09-07-2005, 06:07 PM

I think tyres are a problem, but they're being blamed way too much for Ferrari's poor performance.

You have to bare in mind that there are new parts and tyres deisgned specifically for each race meeting and Bridgestone and Ferrari are developing constantly.

My view is there is just a fundamental problem with the balance of the car, just like williams who should also be battling at the front

ZfrkS62 · 09-07-2005, 09:26 PM

at this point, i don't think BS or Michelin will be in favorable eyes when it comes time to decide wether to go to a single tire supplier for next year, or whenever they are talking about switching.

On Speed they were talking about how it now seems Toyota is at fault for causing the tire panic at the USGP for running too low pressures to gain grip. This came to light after William's problem in Turkey.

Bridgestone has let their runners down plain and simple. I think most of you have seen the F430 test on TG where it was about .5s slower than the 360CS simply because of the Bridgestones on the F430 compared to the Pirellis on the CS.

ae86_16v · 09-09-2005, 02:41 AM

Originally Posted by Ronin005

after this last race Bridgestone has actually come out and said that its not really thier problem since the 2005 car was given to them 2 months late and that it didnt allow them enough time to test with the car, which can play a big role in things.

heck i think it was in the latest F1 mag, amongst all the articles they have little bit of info and there was one interesting bit of info. in about 9 months time michelin has run up some 350k miles in all testing and racing combined, while Bridgestone has only done 97Kmiles, (it might have beem km, none the less its all the same), now this is mainly Ferrari's fault as they have wanted a more exclusive partnership with thier tire manufacture and it finally has caught up with them.

hopefully, things will change in the future and it wont make a difference.

350k - for 9 teams

97k - for 1 team

I don't think it is mainly the testing. It could be that Bridgestone just did not have enough time, especially since the car was received late.

Bottomline, Michelin adapted better in the one lap qualifying plus one set tire rule than Bridgestone.

360modenalover · 09-09-2005, 03:14 AM

Didnt Ferrari also have a dramatic decrease in there operating budget for the 2005 Season?

ae86_16v · 09-09-2005, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by Ronin005

Originally Posted by ae86_16v

Originally Posted by Ronin005

after this last race Bridgestone has actually come out and said that its not really thier problem since the 2005 car was given to them 2 months late and that it didnt allow them enough time to test with the car, which can play a big role in things.

heck i think it was in the latest F1 mag, amongst all the articles they have little bit of info and there was one interesting bit of info. in about 9 months time michelin has run up some 350k miles in all testing and racing combined, while Bridgestone has only done 97Kmiles, (it might have beem km, none the less its all the same), now this is mainly Ferrari's fault as they have wanted a more exclusive partnership with thier tire manufacture and it finally has caught up with them.

hopefully, things will change in the future and it wont make a difference.

350k - for 9 teams

97k - for 1 team

I don't think it is mainly the testing. It could be that Bridgestone just did not have enough time, especially since the car was received late.

Bottomline, Michelin adapted better in the one lap qualifying plus one set tire rule than Bridgestone.

its bridgestone 3 teams, and michelin 7 teams and i mentioned how bridgestone got the car late.

and the 350k and 97k, includes testing and races all in one.

That's right, I forgot about the 2 other teams. No, that's what I was pointing out, that you said they had the car 2 months late. I think that is probably a bigger deficit than anything else.

RAMMIUS · 09-09-2005, 08:27 AM

EVERYBODY KNOWS THE REASON :

http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=97508