An Italian journalist often talks about Scuderia Ferrari. It’s quite normal. Especially if the scenario does not correspond to the longed-for expectations.
A lot of analyses spent trying to understand what happened. The premise: if they themselves don’t have the ideas, let alone us who don’t have the data. In addition to the technical analyses based on concrete facts, evaluated to try to “explain” the bad moment of the Maranello team, there are other interesting topics on which to focus.
Crucial: an adjective in the English language that perfectly describes the importance of the simulator in current Formula One. The absence of track tests, a measure that can only be implemented in free practice to gather confirmation, means that the virtual model of the car studied down to the smallest detail takes on a decisive role for performance on the track.
Now, having a state-of-the-art simulator available, capable of supporting technicians in their difficult work in the best possible way, proves to be an indispensable need on which the outcome of an entire project is built. Once the obvious aspect has been underlined, the questionable factor remains. Yes, because as much as technology can support man, the incorrect use of the devices in question leads to misleading results and, consequently, not very useful to the cause.
Once upon a time there was the historic Maranello team. Certainly not a perfect team. Was it wrong? Yes. Did it build cars with limits? Yes. However, it had a strong track-related responsiveness. In unsuspecting times, it was Michael Schumacher, the Prancing Horse had 3 tracks available to test the cars. The introduction of an update took place through a very specific process. Updates that were “validated” through real tests carried out on the circuit by several drivers, committed to providing their feedback to verify the quality of the work in the factory.
The next step concerned the study of lap time and telemetry in the slow sections. Once the mission was over, there were no more secrets related to the solidity of the changes. No question mark gripped the minds of the engineers, aware of the actual effectiveness of the possible improvements. That scenario was abolished long ago, effectively destroying a task force that gave rise to Ferrari’s innumerable competitive advantages.
Show your support for Scuderia Ferrari with official merchandise collection! Click here to enter the F1 online Store and shop securely! And also get your F1 tickets for every race with VIP hospitality and unparalleled insider access. Click here for the best offers to support Charles and Carlos from the track!
The workforce in the Ferrari Racing Department knew it was losing a monstrous point of strength but through Luca di Montezemolo, the “clumsy assassin” of the Maranello benefice, lowered its head towards the British teams. It remains to be understood (we will never know) whether it was a matter of pride relating to intrinsic superiority looking in the mirror or, who knows, an act of sportsmanship towards the opponents.
Those English teams who, incredulous, once the Italian side agreed to the cancellation of the tests, had a thousand and one nights party. “But what sport is it if you can’t test?” Luca Cordero said years later. Maybe, thinking about it, it was better to think about it before agreeing to the decision.
Ferrari on the simulator: subjective vs objective
While the past decisions expressed in the previous paragraph somehow explains the future, the text continues by returning to the present. Information technology, a set of methodologies used in various fields for archiving, transmitting and processing data through the use of computers. This, in a nutshell, is the function that is also applied in F1 through the “simulator tools”.
To think that Ferrari, in this area, is steps behind the competition remains a mere opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information, a fact that cannot be verified. In all likelihood, by examining the range of possibilities, it is certainly more realistic to “accept” a scenario that describes a certain difficulty linked to the methodology.
The glorious triumphs of the Ferrari were the result of testing, while the simulation era of the highest category of motorsport has shown a fact that is difficult to deny: Ferrari struggles a lot in this context. A simulator responds to the definition of “calculator” in which data must be entered and, when not correct, creates an improper perspective. Here we get to the point: the information introduced into these computers comes from the track.
Therefore, logic in hand, storing data also means doing it in a qualitative way. An aspect on which, presumably, other teams encounter less difficulty than Ferrari. Validating this operation means judging the results obtained through the virtual model to be correct. From here come to life the famous interpretations of the engineers much talked about and summarized by the now illustrious phrase of Mattia Binotto: “We have to understand”.
The outcome of the reasoning leads directly to a conclusion: relying on very efficient simulators without accuracy relating to the data collected will provide a picture of the deceptive situation. Various and eventual racks, flow viz, constant speed, suspension sensors, tire model schematization and so on.
Tools which, used without the most perfect knowledge of the facts resulting from the slightest lack of practice, transform the data collected ready for storage from objective to subjective, deleting the factuality of the work performed. Will this be the main difficulty of Ferrari in the simulation era?
