F2003-GA is not such a good car 

Main Page Formula 1 News 2016 F1 Schedule 2016 F1 Line-up 2015 F1 Results F1 Teams F1 Drivers NewsOnF1 Mobile 10 'n' Pole Register - Submit F1 Regulations The Forums Live F1 Coverage Motorsport Shop UK - USA Motorsport Calendar F1 Merchandise UK F1 Merchandise USA F1 Tours F1 Tickets F1 Diecast F1 Videos F1 Games F1 Trivia NewsOnF1 on Twitter MotoGP Tickets Past Formula 1 Seasons 2015 F1 Results 2014 F1 Results 2013 F1 Results 2012 F1 Results 2011 F1 Results 2010 F1 Results 2009 F1 Results 2008 F1 Results 2007 F1 Results 2006 F1 Results 2005 F1 Results 2004 F1 Results 2003 F1 Results 2002 F1 Results 2001 F1 Results 2000 F1 Results 1999 F1 Results 1998 F1 Results 1997 F1 Results Links 2010 World Cup Translate Search Contact Us About Archives Your Say Diagnosis & Prognosis By the Heretic Controversy Corner The Real Race By the Quali-flyer F1 Testing F1 Team Reports 8 'n' Pole 2006 World Cup

Download the NewsOnF1.com
toolbar powered by Alexa

Other responses

This comment is made AFTER the European Grand Prix. I just wish to set the record straight: A while back I argued in this column that the F2003-GA was being nursed and short revved for sake of reliability etc etc. 
I now wish to retract that statement and say that it is my (current) opinion that F2003-GA is not such a good car as Ferrari would want us to believe. I think it has quite a few problem areas that can be associated with it. I think the whole package is suspect - the car itself and the tyres are underperforming as well. I think Ferrari and Bridgestone have got their work cut out for them to improve on it if it is not too late already. 
The package is fair - on par with the others but nowhere near as dominant as last year. Williams and McLaren have certainly wiped out their deficit and is just as good if not better - Johan M - South Africa (Reference Heretic 5-10 - What is there to say?)

The Heretic replies:

Johan,

I think that you were right on both counts.

I felt that at the time of your initial comment they were short shifting because the gap between the tyre manufacturers were not as pronounced as they are now.

I still believe that Ferrari have the best car at the moment but they could have done much better if they used their design to compensate for the obvious deficiencies of the Bridgestone tyres. Instead I suspect that they assumed that Bridgestone would get it right. Well, they did not.

Those Bridgestones are so bad that Schumacher seems to be less able to put in those blistering last laps that gives him the edge to win in the pit stops. Now he has to rely on his out lap being the fastest because the tyres will not facilitate a good in lap. Push too hard and he has no tyres to race on for the rest of the stint.

I also think that Ferrari have a problem similar to that McLaren had some two/three seasons ago – they are just eating those tyres. Compared to BAR they seem to get very few good laps out of a new set before it all goes pear shaped.

On the other hand I also agree with you. Even if they get the rubber right they do not appear to be that much faster than Williams at the moment and if the new McLaren is an improvement (which is after all why they would have designed it) and they do not go through their normal reliability problems (which on past performance could be brutal for at least 6 months) they may be the dominant team. They have been there before.

We should also remember that during last season not only Ferrari but also Bridgestone were better on many of the circuits. It is only this season that Michelin managed to get their act together. For example last year Bridgestones were much better on the slower circuits. After Monaco we must conclude that this is no longer true.

The season is still wide open. Pity the only place overtaking is possible is in the pits

The Heretic

Back to Top
Other responses
Back to the Diagnosis & Prognosis Main Page