Ferrari finds its’ 2016 campaign at a crossroads, having failed to register a victory in the opening quarter of the season, in spite of considerable expectations following winter testing.
Sebastian Vettel lies 52 points adrift of Nico Rosberg, while teammate Kimi Raikkonen enjoys an unanticipated 13-point advantage over the German to sit second in the standings.
The 28-year old’s frustrations have manifested at recent events, vociferous on the communication front at the Chinese, Russian and Spanish Grands Prix, the four-time champion didn’t envisage fighting for podiums in place of victories as the course.
In tandem with circumstances out of his control, the red flag while leading at Australia, a blown engine on the formation lap at Bahrain, friendly fire with the Finn on the opening lap at China, the now folklore double collision induced retirement with Daniil Kvyat at Russia, and a strategy which consigned him to third at Spain, viewers have been privy to a Vettel given to impetuousness not witnessed since his formative days on the grid.
Vettel’s previous team, Red Bull – with whom he ruled the grid so mercilessly – appears on the verge of returning to a semblance of its’ former glory. Max Verstappen’s victory at Spain, coupled with the promise of the vaunted Renault power unit upgrade from next month’s Canadian Grand Prix, has restored the latent swagger so eminent during the energy drinks earlier reign, thus it isn’t inconceivable that abolition of such ‘unique’ outcomes will ensure his return to the top step of the podium.
Under no illusions as to the magnitude of the task when he departed the sanctuary of the Milton Keynes stable to join the famous Italian marque at the conclusion of 2014, three victories in his first campaign piqued sentiment that a resurgence was imminent, that another successful German-Italian collaboration beckoned.
This trajectory hasn’t quite been consigned to ashes, though pressure from Ferrari chairman and newly installed chief executive officer, Sergio Marchionne, an individual adamantine of his pursuits and inherently restless by reputation, means that Vettel isn’t afforded the luxury of an undefined window to deliver, in contrast to his compatriot almost two decades earlier.
It isn’t inconceivable that Raikkonen will find himself thrust into the lead role for the balance of the season, should he continue his habit of picking up solid podiums while Vettel meets all shades of misfortune.
That Verstappen was tethered to Red Bull on a long-term deal upon his promotion to the senior outfit has potentially altered Ferrari’s teammate dynamic, there’s now a distinct prospect that the Finn will be retained for 2017. Should this come to pass, the team may be inclined to throw its’ weight behind the 2007 World Champion, and lest we recall, the most recent Ferrari champion.
Just as another multiple champion endures an indifferent campaign, with Lewis Hamilton assuming a sizeable portion of bad luck, coupled with a blend of frustration and desperation – Sebastian Vettel must manufacture a victory. If this necessitates exerting some of the moves he’s criticised at recent events, if executed, the potential remains to revitalise a season which is rapidly slipping away. That’s a sensation that previous saviour Fernando Alonso is most familiar with, but time is running short.
Bayden Westerweller
Roar Guru
He certainly was, though he still had to pull off some rare performances to claim those titles.
Bayden Westerweller
Roar Guru
Certainly Alonso's practice error at Monaco and crash at Belgium in 2010 were pivotal moments, though for the majority of his tenure at Ferrari, he maximised opportunities.
anon
Guest
I'm saying Schumacher was clearly the stand out driver of 2000 and 2003.
anon
Guest
"Each to their own, I’m not going to forensically dissect every variable of seasons past to justify a particular view, you have your opinion which I respect, I have mine…" I have done it for you. Alonso had his chances, didn't take them.
Bayden Westerweller
Roar Guru
I think there's some interpretations being lost in translation here. When I state that the pieces 'had to fall into place', fell into place, call it what you wish... in reference to 2000, the legwork had been completed over the previous four seasons, with Schumacher rejuvenated by his enforced convalescence from his broken leg. That he endured a trough mid-2000 due to being eliminated several times in succession nearly undid the hard work from early season, so his comeback in the final races needed to go exactly to script, which they did. Schumacher (and Ferrari) were caught on the hop in 2003 on account of the wholesale regulation changes, they had to grind out ugly results which proved invaluable to his ultimate two-point triumph, and he similarly had to fight for consecutive victories at the tail end of the season to secure the title. It's not as simple as saying the outcomes were never in doubt since he won nine races to Hakkinen's four in 2000 or his six to Raikkonen's solitary victory in 2003...
Bayden Westerweller
Roar Guru
Each to their own, I'm not going to forensically dissect every variable of seasons past to justify a particular view, you have your opinion which I respect, I have mine...
anon
Guest
"Not necessarily. The nucleus was Schumacher himself, though there were times such as late 2000 and the majority of 2003 where everything had to fall into place, and it’s highly likely that it wouldn’t have at Williams or the unreliability plagued McLaren." Please enlighten me as to how everything fell into place for Schumacher in late 2000 and majority of 2003. All of Schumacher's wins in late 2000 were on merit. 2003 Schumacher won 7 races to Raikkonen's one.
anon
Guest
"I never explicitly stated that Ferrari was in as bad shape when Vettel joined as Schumacher." You did by saying the following: "From this perspective, if Vettel can break through, it’ll rank an extremely close second to his countryman’s achievement." If that's not implying Ferrari is in terrible shape I don't know what it is. "To say Alonso wasn’t good enough is unqualified. Certainly in 2012, but for extremely poor luck in the back half, he would have claimed one of the greatest titles in the history of F1." I just went through great detail to show why Alonso wasn't good enough in 2013, 2012 and 2010. 2013 his mistakes in the first half of the season put him 1.5 races behind Vettel going into the mid-season break. 2012 you look at the last three races and he failed to extract the maximum from his car, especially at Abu Dhabi. Vettel was the stand out driver. He had no business finishing 3rd and 6th and Abu Dhabi and Brazil respectively. Vettel was more deserving than Alonso in 2012. 2010, Alonso got stuck behind Petrov. A driver as experienced as Alonso should never have been upstaged by a guy in his third full season of racing in Abu Dhabi 2010. Vettel took his chances in 2010, 2012 and first half of 2013 before teams diverted resources to 2014 after the mid-season break. Vettel was more deserving than Alonso of the title in 2010, 2012 and 2013. If anything, Hamilton was more deserving of the title in 2012 than Alonso. Alonso is a great driver, but his lack of championships has been self inflicted. Had the best card on the grid in 2007 and couldn't beat his rookie teammate. If he merely could beat his rookie teammate in 2007 he would have won the 2008 championship at McLaren too. Alonso didn't have bad luck in the back half of 2012. In Japan, Alonso stupidly moved across Raikkonen and clipped him. That was on Alonso and a lack of awareness. Alonso got taken out on the first lap of Spa, but Vettel had a mechanical failure at Monza and was robbed of victory by a mechanical failure in Valencia. Alonso was lucky to have bulletproof reliability in 2012. "Vettel’s ultimate triumph in 2010 was error laden, though you could argue that his victory margin would have been greater if not for Turkey and Belgium among other setbacks, he wasn’t the only man worthy that season. On the final day, he got lucky that others made a poor call." Error laden? Vettel, in his third full season of F1 crashed in Turkey (famously with Webber) and at Spa. Guess what? Alonso made a mistake in Spa and crashed of the same race. This is Alonso despite all his experience. Or how about Webber? Crashes out from self-inflicted mistakes in Valencia and in Korea. Vettel didn't get lucky in Abu Dhabi. He stuck it on pole and won the race. Webber in the same machinery could do no better than 8th. Alonso could do no better than 7th despite in previous races going 1, 2, Ret (his own mistake at Spa), 1, 1, 3, 1, 3. Alonso and Webber simply weren't good enough and choked when the pressure was the highest.
Bayden Westerweller
Roar Guru
I never explicitly stated that Ferrari was in as bad shape when Vettel joined as Schumacher. To say Alonso wasn't good enough is unqualified. Certainly in 2012, but for extremely poor luck in the back half, he would have claimed one of the greatest titles in the history of F1. Vettel's ultimate triumph in 2010 was error laden, though you could argue that his victory margin would have been greater if not for Turkey and Belgium among other setbacks, he wasn't the only man worthy that season. On the final day, he got lucky that others made a poor call.
Bayden Westerweller
Roar Guru
Not necessarily. The nucleus was Schumacher himself, though there were times such as late 2000 and the majority of 2003 where everything had to fall into place, and it's highly likely that it wouldn't have at Williams or the unreliability plagued McLaren.
anon
Guest
I don't understand your point. You put Schumacher in the 2000 McLaren and he cruises to a championship, you put him in the 2003 Williams or McLaren and he wins the championship. As for 1996-99. the Ferrari was always completely out-matched by the Newey-designed Williams and then McLarens. He easily wins 1999 if he doesn't break his leg. The Schumacher-era was all Schumacher. The Hamilton-era has been all about Paddy Lowe and Toto Wolff not Hamilton who has merely had to beat his teammate.
Bayden Westerweller
Roar Guru
Yet Schumacher weathered the considerable storms in 2000 and 2003 to emerge victorious, and it takes a special collaboration to do that. Inertia contributes a lot even if the best chassis on the grid was not always at his disposal, any lesser combination would not have been able to get everything together when it counted.
Bayden Westerweller
Roar Guru
'It breaks' Marchionne's heart to see Ferrari suffering as they are, once he's seen enough, his inner Don Corleone will manifest. Nigel Mansell & Alain Prost departed acrimoniously following two seasons at Maranello despite promising initial campaigns, if Sergio sees reason to shake things up to facilitate a breakthrough, we shouldn't be surprised, he's in the empire business...
anon
Guest
"Another consideration is that the perfect storm of the Schumacher-Brawn-Todt triumvirate (lest we discount Rory Byrne) is only solidified with each subsequent season of missed opportunities, as a representation of an immovable force meeting an unstoppable object on a once in a lifetime scale." Schumacher never got the best car on the grid until 2001. 2003 McLaren and Williams were equal to Ferrari, 2005 they weren't in contention. So 2001, 2002, 2004 got the best car on the grid (only truly dominant in 02 and 04). 2006 his car was as good as the Renault. 2000 the McLaren was better than the Ferrari. 3 years out of 11 did Schumacher get the best car on the grid at Ferrari. 2 years equal best. Wouldn't call it a super team with all those resources. Not like Paddy Lowe and Toto Wolff 3 out of 4 years (really 3 out of 3).
anon
Guest
"Though the timespan was undoubtedly greater when Schumacher ultimately prevailed, we have been dealing with a listless Ferrari since 2008." There's simply no comparison between the Ferrari Schumacher went to and what Vettel went to. Up until the mid-season break in 2013 the Ferrari was on balance the best car but Alonso failed to convert that into a championship lead because of his own mistakes. Up until Spain the Ferrari was the outright fastest car. I'm happy to break it down if you want to argue that this is wrong. Alonso should have led the championship going into the mid-season break in 2013, instead it was Vettel with a race and a half lead. Because of the revolutionary regulation changes in 2014 with the hybrid engines being the biggest change of all, the teams made the calculated decision to divert resources to 2014 and write off 2013 since it was so important to hit the ground running with hybrids before the token system kicked in. That's what lead to Vettel winning all races after the mid-season break. Had Alonso converted when he should have in the first half of 2013 and went into the mid-season break with a lead or even with Vettel, we would have seen Ferrari fight for the remainder of the championship. So 2013 Alonso had a car good enough to win a championship with in the first half of the year. 2014 was a write off for everyone but Mercedes so that's moot. 2012, we had 7 different winners in the first 7 races. It was a very even championship. The Ferrari was good enough to win a championship with, but Alonso wasn't good enough. Let's break it down. Going into Abu Dhabi 2012 Vettel has a 13 point lead over Alonso. Alonso is out-qualified by Raikkonen in the slower Lotus. Vettel is forced to start from the back of the grid and finishes 3rd. Alonso not only gets out-qualified by the slower Lotus, the slower Lotus beats him in the race. Instead of collecting the 25 points he should have won he collects 18, a 14 point turnaround. Do you deserve a championship on that effort? Austin 2012, Alonso is out-qualifed by nearly four-tenths of a second by his discouraged teammate Massa. Massa is neither an elite nor top tier F1 driver. I'm not even sure he's mid-tier. Ferrari rather pathetically break the seal on Massa's gearbox so that he receives a 5-place grid penalty, moving Alonso up one place on the grid. Do you deserve a championship if you're getting out-qualified by your slow coach teammate and sabotaging his race for one measly spot on the grid? Which brings us to Brazil 2012, Massa out-qualifies Alonso again this time a quarter of a second. Ferrari's finish 2 and 3. Vettel goes to the back of the field and storms home to 6th with a damaged car. Alonso underperfomed when the pressure was at its highest and the championship was within his grasp. He failed to maximise his opportunites. Vettel when pressure was highest put in some incredible performances and maximised his opportunities. 2012 like 2013 is on Alonso. 2011 was a write off like 2014 but this time Red Bull was dominant (nothing like the dominance Mercedes has had 2014-16). As for 2010, this is getting too long. Alonso has long been a relatively bad qualifier, yet got two back-to-back poles in 2010 on two completely different tracks. Both Ferraris were on the podium at Monza. It was a good car going into the final races. With a few races remaining 5 drivers were in contention for the championship. But it was Vettel who shone. A guy in his third full season of F1 out-drove much more experienced guys like Alonso, Webber, Button and world champion Hamilton. He was the stand out driver when pressure was highest. Alonso and Webber were in the box seats to win in the title decider in Abu Dhabi, but let a young driver get the better of them. Webber just drove horribly and Alonso managed to get stuck behind Petrov. Alonso had a car good enough to win a championship with, he had a 15 point lead going into that final race, but he blew it. Vettel drove the wheels off his car and stole it from under them. So there you go. Nothing like the Ferrari Schumacher went to in 1996. Ferrari have been good enough to get 1-2 championships in that period, but it was Alonso who wasn't good enough. "Alonso’s herculean feats masked the extent of its’ demise, and as it was realised, proved too much for him to handle any longer. Six victories in four seasons from 2011-2014 wasn’t good enough from Ferrari, even if the Spaniard earned every one of those triumphs." See above.
Jawad Yaqub
Roar Guru
'Godfather-like' as you've eluded too in the past re Marchionne.
Bayden Westerweller
Roar Guru
If they're being outpaced by Red Bull on Saturdays and outgunned on the strategy department on Sundays now, imagine the potential deficit once the Renault upgrades are live should its' own updates fail to fire. As I allude to, Vettel must utilise tactics displayed by Kvyat at China and Ricciardo at Spain if that's the difference between victory or a standard podium. He no longer enjoys the luxury of banking solid points with such a gap to Rosberg, and he isn't winning fans with his outbursts at recent events. Sergio's patience is finite.
Jawad Yaqub
Roar Guru
Fate and circumstance may be what's left for them. It ought to be embarrassing how they were out-qualified and out-raced by Red Bull, despite being theoretically the quicker car. It is at the point where they need to deliver now, rather than wait till the next year.
Bayden Westerweller
Roar Guru
By no means should Kimi be afforded a defined number one status, not at this stage at least. Though fate and circumstance may dictate that he represents Ferrari's best shot in 2016, and the outfit must be prepared for this should Vettel continue to endure setbacks. Mr. Marchionne is certainly a mercurial man, and we should be under no illusions that he will take decisive action if necessitated. Another consideration is that the perfect storm of the Schumacher-Brawn-Todt triumvirate (lest we discount Rory Byrne) is only solidified with each subsequent season of missed opportunities, as a representation of an immovable force meeting an unstoppable object on a once in a lifetime scale.
Jawad Yaqub
Roar Guru
Maurizio Arrivabene did state that despite the points advantage that Kimi has, he is not going to get preferential treatment - as we had seen in the past with Ferrari drivers battling in the championship. It's a tough one this. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Coming out of the Alonso era we had genuinely believed this new era would be one of more harmony, yet it appears though the pressure cooker is back on in Maranello at the moment. And with that $70 million bonus they recieve every year, why shouldn't they perform? As a fiery individual told us a while back, 'Ferrari should produce blockbuster films for blockbuster money, not B-grade films.'