Ferrari problems - it's more than just the tyres

[Kicking-back]

Tony Dodgins has done an interesting technical article on Autosport.com.

This is a very telling part:

If you need convincing, Monza is all about aero efficiency and consider that in Sunday's Grand Prix, Michael Schumacher's best race lap, 1:23.584, was just 1.23 up on Tiago Monteiro's Jordan and 1.38 quicker than Christijan Albers managed in the Minardi. A year ago, Ferrari's respective fastest lap margins to Jordan and Minardi at Monza were 3.0 and 5.3. And they're all still on the same tyres.

Clearly the design problems of this year's car run deeper than many like to think.

I wonder if the fact that this is the first non-Rory Byrne design for years has had more of an effect than has been discussed.

[Knowlesy]

Yes I read that yesterday.

Seems to have taken everyone all year to realise it somehow. It's been pretty obvious.

[Sodemo]

I've thought for some time now in years gone by that Ferrari's tyres flattered their car massively.
Im sure its a fine car, but Bridgestone's tyres in 2004 and 2002 were just superb, far better than Michelin's offerings.
The massive amount of graining the Michelins suffered with in 2002 was the death of their year.

This year I think is the first year in a while that Ferrari have produced a below average car, which is compounded by the terrible tyres.

[Louis B.]

The fact that the gap between the ferraris and Jordans / Minardis is smaller this year is not conclusive of anything. It might simply mean that the Jordans and Minardis are relatively much better than last year (what I think they are). I would think that it is much easier to get 2 seconds faster when you are 5 seconds a lap behind than to get an extra 0.5 second faster when you are at the top of the field.

It is clear though that Bridgestone is now having bad words about the 2005 Ferrari such that the between the two.

[Snrub]

Wild comparison. Pretty respectable lap by Albers.

[429CJ]

Of course it's more than tires, or was Ferrari's domination on few last seasons only because Bridgestone had so good tire? Great engineering, strategic or driving skills had nothing to do with it?

[Inigo Montoya]

It was probably a combination of great engineering, strategy, driving skills, and tyres. But doubts remain, I suppose. I'll stick by my (unpopular) conviction that F1 needs a single tyre manufacturer, so that we really see the difference between cars.

[Hugh Jarce]

As Knowls said, plenty of us have been saying that for some time, except it's seen as so unacceptable by some on here to suggest that Ferrari have just designed a poor car this year, which is not as good as others around - which are obviously on Michelins.

[go-jordan]

the thing is jordans and minardis run with a spec behind with tyres so the car might be worse than we think.

[Logrence]

We're not going to know where the real problems lie with Ferrari unless they tell us. Which I very much doubt they will.

[Dutton]

It is both, as it has been all year.

I would say for sure in the past Ferrari have been more dominant that they otherwise would have been due to the tyre superiority, but i would disagree that in 2002 Bridgestone always had clearly the better tyre. On a few occasions that year I think Ferrari flattered the Bridgestones.

Anyway, this year is what we are talkng about. Ferrari have taken their eye off the ball so to type, with Ross talking of complacency having crept in. That was always the constant danger, and we see the results of it.

I think tyres remain a significant part of the problem but, for sure, Ferrari have done an inadequate job as well.

[Dani Filth]

if it's not the tires mainly .. i find hard to explain certain races .. like Imola, Hungaroring/Monza and a few more ..
remember that at Imola Jordan was 1 second slower than Renault . either than tires .cant explain this either .

[Skam85]

Jordan and especially Minardi have gotten faster, no doubts about it. Ferrari have, but not by as much. Every year the cars get faster, it is just a matter of how much.