Ferrari uses token for MGU-K upgrade

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Ferrari has an upgraded MGU-K for this weekend’s race.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

While some drivers have criticised the radio restrictions, quite a few others have supported them – and @Fer-no65 agrees:

Here you have three different drivers saying the same thing: it’s up to them and up to their teams to sort it out. Tough luck otherwise.

You either do your homework and study all the maps, menues and whatever, or the team works out a system where you don’t have to press a kazillion buttons to make things work the way they should.

F1 is all about engineering anyway, so I don’t see this being any more difficult than trying to design a wing or a diffuser. A good design, by definition, has to fulfil its function efficiently and that also includes being easy to operate and troubleshoot. As always, it’s a compromise. And with every compromise, there’s always the risk that something will fall outside of your sweet spot and you won’t have an easy ride.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Tom Moloney and Pj!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

The French Grand Prix at Reims was won 60 years ago today by Peter Collins. Ferrari team mate Eugenio Castelotti followed him home under team orders with just three-tenths of a second between the two Lancia D50s.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

31 comments on “Ferrari uses token for MGU-K upgrade”

  1. Pffft, who’s Rosberg trying to kid? Mercedes just as legendary as Ferrari? Dropped out of the sport for nearly 50 years, came back and bought an already championship winning team. Their total time as a constructor could just about be counted on fingers and toes.

    As legendary as Ferrari -_-

    1. Actually, they’ve been back the sport as an engine supplier since 1994 where they powered Sauber (although you could say it was ’93, given the Swiss team used Ilmor power for that season), before having a pretty successful works spell with McLaren.

      Yes, it’s not Ferrari’s longetivity, but they’re pretty famous & successful across the entire motorsport spectrum, whereas Ferrari is pretty much ‘F1 and a bit of GT racing’.

      1. Ferrari are synonymous with F1, it’s the first team people think of when you say F1, after than, people may say McLaren or Williams, then probably defunct teams such as Jordan and Minardi.

      2. MG421982 (@)
        1st July 2016, 8:03

        What do you know and I don’t?!? Mercedes present in the entire motorsport spectrum, whereas Ferrari is pretty much ‘F1 and a bit of GT racing?!? Cannot be more wrong! OK, Mercedes is a lot more older than Ferrari, other than that they raced pretty much in the same champs and classes!!! Being just an engine supplier – as Mercedes did in the Group C for example – shouldn’t count too much. Running a full team and building your own car is a different thing. Plus, let’s not forget they didn’t even build the engines: in the McLaren years the engines were built in England by Ilmor. So, their real contribution is a lot smaller than it seems once you shed some light on all these aspects. Back to Ferrari, probably you missed the fact that they raced at Le Mans (which is part of an entire champ actually!!) in multiple classes until late 70s, they raced in Can-Am, the iconic Lancia Stratos had a Ferrari engine etc.

    2. Sure, they bought out Brawn, but it was clear that the Brawn was sort of a one-and-done chassis, having taken advantage of a major loophole in the rules. Once that loophole was closed, they needed a few years to get back on their feet again both as the new Mercedes team, and to get a car in a position to win. I don’t see Mercedes as having bought a champion-caliber team out of the box – they engineered their current dominance legitimately.

      That said, what BrawnGP did was absolutely phenomenal, and I don’t take anything from what they accomplished. They’re my favorite F1 team next to Senna-era McLaren/Honda.

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        1st July 2016, 9:05

        “They engineered their current dominance legitimately” – through beneficial rule changes. Ferrari would be proud!

      2. the Brawn was Honda developed by the way, as the season went along, the others caught up. Ross Brawn bought in at the most luckiest time ever as a team owner, buying a championship winning car.

  2. “Mercedes are just as legendary [as Ferrari]” he says. Funny, you never see anyone who feels it necessary to proclaim that Ferrari are “just as legendary” as Mercedes.

  3. I’ve been told something rather interesting recently regarding the high tyre pressures Pirelli have been mandating this year, That been that Pirelli are not doing it for safety reasons as they claim but that there actually doing it for the show.

    The past year or 2 Pirelli have been more conservative with the construction & compound of its tyres to cope with the increased torque these power units put through the rear tyres & as such since 2014 we have seen a lot less tyre degredation & therefore pit stops compared to what we were seeing in 2011-2013.

    The higher tyre pressures have made the operating windows narrower as well as an overall reduction in grip that gets the cars sliding around a little more both of which have created graining problems and/or increased tyre wear for some cars/drivers & the feeling is that this has mixed things up a bit.
    Mercedes not having the advantage over Ferrari & Red Bull that was expected in a few races do far this year & Red Bull’s struggles at Baku a few weeks ago as well as Force India’s good raceday pace are examples of things towards the front been a bit affected by the tyres but its a bit more prevalent through the mid-field.

    This would explain why Pirelli have been using what many teams/drivers have been calling ‘extreme’ high pressures at circuits where traditionally pressures would be much, much lower without any concern at all.

    I have also been told that while there is a lot of appreciation for Pirelli having a regular dialog with team & drivers that there is also now an increasingly growing frustration that Pirelli have seemingly been completely ignoring a lot of the feedback & concerns which have been raised/discussed in those meetings (Especially relating to the high pressures which everyone outside of Pirelli feel are unreasonable & unnecessary) & thats overall some are starting to feel these meetings are purely for PR purposes (To silence previous criticisms) rather than to actually take note of let alone act on any of the things which come out of the discussions.

    1. Interesting context for Button’s comments, I read everything Button says (or is reported to say ;)) as likley to be a statesmans move. FFS Pirelli, let them race.

    2. Pirelli are in Bernie’s back pocket, explains everything.

    3. very interesting!

    4. @gt-racer, I would be a bit cynical about what the teams are saying, because there is a suggestion that there is a rather different reason for Pirelli specifying higher tyre pressures.

      Basically, the FIA and Pirelli know that several teams (Mercedes, Red Bull, McLaren, Renault and, more recently, Ferrari have all been accused) have been abusing loopholes in the procedures for measuring the tyre pressure to run the tyres below the minimum recommended pressure by Pirelli once the tyres are fitted to the car.

      Pirelli themselves have said as much – the reason why they asked for a new tyre measurement procedure, where the tyres have the pressure measured whilst they are in the blankets at a fixed temperature, is because they “are 100 percent sure that only the blanket is heating the tyre”, showing that they know teams are using other means to effect the measurements on the grid.

      To that end, it seems that Pirelli have counteracted that by pushing the tyre pressures up to compensate for the fact that the teams are overheating the tyres on the grid to falsify the tyre pressure readings. Button’s comments in that article say exactly that – that Pirelli are pushing the pressures up to compensate for the fact that the pressure on track is falling below what Pirelli wanted them to be.

      They’ve said that they are prepared to drop the starting pressures if the new procedure is more reliable – they were prepared to drop them further if the teams were prepared to share the real time telemetry data on the tyre pressures, but the teams have refused to share that data in a way that suggests they have something to hide.

      In those circumstances, it is very much in the interests of the team to try and shift as much of the blame onto Pirelli as possible. At the very least, it hides the fact that they are breaking the regulations – no team is going to want to say anything, either in public or in private, that effectively spells out that they are breaking the rules.

      mog, in the case of Button, as I’ve noted above, he has a vested interest in making those sorts of comments – his team is one of the ones that has been accused of abusing the regulations on the tyre pressures, so his comments could also be seen as him trying to deflect attention away from the team.

      1. “[…] but the teams have refused to share that data in a way that suggests they have something to hide.”

        What’s that way that suggests so much? I know this is Formula 1 and the teams are probably hiding something, but I fail to see how “no, we don’t want to share pour data” suggests anything more than the initial refusal.

        1. @x303, asides from refusing to share their data, the teams also rejected Pirelli’s suggestion to have a third party tyre pressure monitoring system fitted on the car, which would have allowed Pirelli to collect the data without having to go through the team (although I believe that Pirelli has now persuaded the FIA to change the regulations for 2017 to allow them to fit such a system).

          Refusing to share the data could be for a number of reasons, but the fact that they are also refusing to allow any sort of independent monitoring has raised a few questions as to why the teams are so keen to prevent Pirelli from having any live tyre pressure monitoring data.

  4. Ferrari have been pushing hard for the last 10 years, especially in the Alonso years, to no avail.

    They must be pushing in the wrong the direction?

    1. Or pushing too hard putting the team under too much pressure…

  5. More like “Ferrari not keen on Nico Rosberg”

  6. Neil (@neilosjames)
    1st July 2016, 5:48

    “Ferrari has been with us since F1 started, so they should get something for that.”

    They already get something for that. Most fans, most merchandise sales, the weird, intangible ‘pull’ on so many drivers and fans and a constant association with the F1 brand no other team truly gets.

    That’s more than enough to say, ‘Hey guys, thanks for entering the championship 16 years before McLaren’. Saying it’s worth the absurd figure they receive today is insulting to both the sport and the other teams.

    1. I absolutely agree with that @nealosjames; also, changing to a fairer, consistent and clear payment schedule only to then add a special case right away is ridiculously stupid. Only a matter of time for the next one to scheme for special deals.

      1. @nealosjames, seems both ; and full stop mess up f1fanatic referring?

        1. Sorry, I clearly need to wake up first @neilosjames

    2. @neilosjames Good point. I myself am Ferrari fan largely because of their legendary status I guess, or my affinity with Italy, who knows :).
      Anyway, it is not the first time where I have seen systems where the elder get some incentives for the loyalty to that system. But in this case, this is a competition environment where every bit counts, so I agree that Ferrari does take too much out of the cake, it needs to be reduced a lot. I also believe that fair distribution is the key to a lot of problems instead of meaningless restrictive rules year after year.

  7. It is rare for me to agree with something he says, but “Christian Horner told reporters that it should be more a question of increasing payments to all than taking money away from any team.” is very true. Bernie already suggests that isn’t his plan though.

    1. petebaldwin (@)
      1st July 2016, 9:08

      Paying more money? Bernie? Lol

    2. Horner says that because he thinks they should all get more money and doesn’t want his budget reduced. BUT actually giving everyone more money doesn’t solve anything if the current paying system continues.
      Sauber for example has financial difficulties because it spends 150 million a year. It could spend 50 million and be fine with the money it has. So one wonders why then do they spend 150 million?
      The answer is simple. They spend 150 million because Red Bull spends 400 million. And if they ever want to get up on the grid and not be back a few second permanently they have to spend at least an amount that gets closer to the big teams as much as they can.
      So no the answer isn’t simply getting more money because if Sauber spend 300 million and Red Bull 900 million then nothing has been achieved by the teams getting more money. The difference will be the same and the financial difficulties for the smaller teams will be the same.
      What is needed is that the smaller teams get closer to the big teams in terms of what they receive. That way the financial difference between small and big teams will decrease and allow smaller teams to be competitive easier without overspending themselves to keep their cars from being lapped 10 times in a race.
      So Horner is WRONG. Getting more money solves nothing if the difference between the small and big teams in terms of revenue continues.

  8. Nice piece for Eurosport Keith congrats!

  9. Ferrari getting paid a sort of a loyalty incentive is a debatable point and both the arguments would hold some water to be honest however; I just have one question, doesn’t Ferrari need Formula 1 the same way as Formula 1 needs Ferrari?

    1. yes, both need each other @neelv27

    2. Not only that but Ferrari has also received big rewards for their constant presence in F1. A big reason their name has the status it has is the constant connection to F1 and that status helps them sell more cars and products each year.

  10. Ferrari cosa nostra? Corrupt, whinging, never raced on a level playing field yet!

Comments are closed.