The cost of arrogance

Luca Badoer is making very favourable noises about the Ferrari F2005. He has been extensively testing the new car, and reckons it to be considerably superior to the hybrid car Michael Schumacher and Rubens Barrichello have been racing. Between half a second and a second a lap, according to one quote from Italy. On the strength of what we saw in Malaysia, it will need to be that - and more - if Michael and Rubens are to challenge seriously for this year's world championship.

Before we get too carried away, however, let's remember the early part of the 2003 season, when Ferrari again chose to begin the year with 'old' cars. Three races in, Schumacher had only eight points, but he then won the European opener, at Imola, and dominated at Barcelona, where the new car made its debut.

That said, Ferrari does appear to be in more fundamental trouble this time around, and it's perhaps no surprise that few in the paddock are shedding tears. For one thing, prior to the start of this season, the team had won 58 of the 86 grands prix run in the 21st century, and folk were getting a touch bored. For another, Ferrari's 'I'm all right, Jack' attitude to the sport has recently been arrogant beyond belief, and the fact that in Malaysia they were not all right, Jack, prompted little in the way of grief from their rivals.

In Sepang eight teams issued a statement concerning Ferrari's refusal to go along with an agreement (aimed at cutting costs) on the reduction of testing, and the team's high-handed response was that it wouldn't accept the agreement because it was unfair to Ferrari.

Unfair? Why? Well, because Ferrari is the only team developing Bridgestone tyres, whereas Williams, McLaren, Renault, BAR et al are available to Michelin, enabling much greater testing mileage to be carried out. Unspoken, but inferred, was that Jordan and Minardi (Bridgestone's only other teams) were about as much use as John Prescott's Guide to Grammar, and it was jolly unfair - sob! - that poor little Ferrari had to do all this work alone, let alone in an environment of restricted testing.

In Malaysia a Ferrari spokesman said that changes in the way the team went testing had been highly effective, in terms of cutting costs. The projection was that the testing bill in 2005 would be $2m less than last year.

Zowie. They could have achieved the same by shaving off a twentieth of Schumacher's retainer.

What is so astonishing about Ferrari's attitude - that they feel free to exempt themselves from agreements because they alone are responsible for Bridgestone testing - is that it implies that this is a situation forced upon them.

I somewhat doubt that, should they have wished to do a deal with Michelin, Pierre Dupasquier would have refused the request. No, Ferrari have stuck with Bridgestone because the arrangement has suited them extremely well down the years. Over time other teams jumped ship to Michelin, because they felt Bridgestone's main focus was on Ferrari, that they were obliged to run tyres designed first and foremost to suit whatever Schumacher was driving. For a very long time, in other words, Ferrari have been supplied with 'bespoke' tyres. Once in a while Bridgestone have been left gasping by Michelin, notably in the summer of 2003, but generally Schumacher and Barrichello have been very well served.

After finishing a distant seventh in Malaysia, Michael, to his credit, declined to blame Bridgestone. "It would be wrong to concentrate on just one factor," he said. "We have won together, and we lose together."

All very admirable, but if indeed much of Ferrari's current lack of pace stems from the shortcomings of their tyres, it is difficult to feel any sympathy for them. Having bespoke tyres has worked very much to the team's advantage down the years, but sticking with one company, when all your main rivals are with another, is obviously something of a high-risk strategy - great when you alone have a tyre advantage, somewhat less than that when you alone have not.

At the Hungarian Grand Prix of 2003, Schumacher finished eighth, lapped by the victorious Fernando Alonso. On that occasion, too, he publicly refused to criticise Bridgestone, but privately he was fit to be tied, for the world championship was slipping away. Ferrari at once began muttering darkly that Michelin's tyres, in post-race 'used' state, were wider than the rules permitted.

Given that tyres of similar design had been in use since the 2001 San Marino Grand Prix, why had they only now begun to give offence? Answer: because Ferrari were on the ropes.

Prior to that point, dimensions had been checked by the FIA only when tyres were new. Now, the governing body announced, they would also be checked after the race, as well. In absolute terms this made no difference to Michelin's competitiveness, but the whole rumpus did serve to destablilise the company, and the teams it supplied, at a crucial point in the world championship. Ferrari didn't lose another race that year.

If at the moment the team is hampered by uncompetitive tyres, well, so be it, that's life. In 2002, while Ferrari cruised to the championships on their Bridgestones, McLaren and Williams suffered mightily with Michelins. That's the way it is in motor racing: if A and B are in competition, chances are that, at any given moment, one will have an advantage over the other, so live with it.

To stick with one tyre company, while all your rivals are with the other, is a high-risk policy, as I said, and to this point has worked out very well for Ferrari. They knew very well they would be out on a limb this year, with only the two backmarker teams on the same tyres as themselves, but still they figured it would be to their advantage to stay put. Last October, after all, they had the opportunity to agree to the 'control tyre' rule proposed by the other teams, but they declined to do so.

Word goes that, in their agreement with Bernie Ecclestone to sign a new Concorde Agreement, Ferrari negotiated not only financial benefits beyond other teams' dreams, but also what amounts to an absolute veto of any rule change not to their taste. Their behaviour at present suggests that that frame of mind is already in place.

We want to hear from you!

Let us know what you would like to see from us in the future.

Take our survey

- The Autosport.com Team

Read and post comments