Grand Prix Rejects

Probably inevitable, after not winning the title for over five years, perhaps?

He's been replaced by the head of Ferrari North America, Marco Mattiacci, for the time being. I've no idea what his pedigree is in motorsport.

Didn't Domenicalli work in HR at Ferrari before somehow becoming team princ???

Could explain a lot...

Nice chap. Shame to see him go.

Mattiacci has no motorsport experience. This might backfire.

I must say that I hadn't been aware that Domenicali had come from such a non-racing background. That explains quite a bit. Mattiacci's background doesn't inspire confidence either:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/04/14/car-sales-chief-mattiacci-takes-domenicalis-place-ferrari/

As this points out, you don't necessarily need to have a racing pedigree, using Flavio Briatore as an example. But Briatore was clever enough to let the real racing brains at Benetton get on with the job - the likes of Ross Brawn, Rory Byrne, Pat Symonds, even Tom Walkinshaw.

I mean, seriously, compare:

* Mercedes: Wolff, Lowe, Lauda, Bell etc.
* Red Bull: Horner (former racer, long-time team boss), Newey, (up till now) Prodromou etc.
* Ferrari: Mattiacci, Fry, Allison

It's a no contest on a technical front.

Briatore did make Benetton successful though; not through experience of Formula 1 by any stretch, but by instinct and shrewd moves. There are definitely parallels with these two moves; Briatore headed up Benetton's operations in the US, and Mattiacci's been in a similar position for Ferrari.

Ferrari have stagnated, and I think Mattiacci could quite possibly be the breath of fresh air the team needs.

However, this could also backfire horrifically. Let's see.

eytl wrote:I must say that I hadn't been aware that Domenicali had come from such a non-racing background. That explains quite a bit. Mattiacci's background doesn't inspire confidence either:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/04/14/car-sales-chief-mattiacci-takes-domenicalis-place-ferrari/

As this points out, you don't necessarily need to have a racing pedigree, using Flavio Briatore as an example. But Briatore was clever enough to let the real racing brains at Benetton get on with the job - the likes of Ross Brawn, Rory Byrne, Pat Symonds, even Tom Walkinshaw.

I mean, seriously, compare:

* Mercedes: Wolff, Lowe, Lauda, Bell etc.
* Red Bull: Horner (former racer, long-time team boss), Newey, (up till now) Prodromou etc.
* Ferrari: Mattiacci, Fry, Allison

It's a no contest on a technical front.

Which is their problem, I think. It doesn't seem unfair to suggest that Raikonnen only won the title in 2007 because Hamilton threw it away - that shouldn't have happened really.

Quite alot like McLaren, I can't think of the last time I saw Ferrari turn up with a really world-beating machine - compared to the Mercedes, Red Bulls and Brawns - and since Schumi left the first time around, they've not really been on top at all, despite the superhuman efforts of one F. Alonso.

Have the Brawn-to-Ferrari rumours started yet...?

Domenicalli's appointment in the first place was a bit of an unusual one. Him and Todt are chalk and cheese. One is amiable, has no motorsport history and apparently indecisive, the other is calculating, experienced and cold. Just when Ferrari needed a strong leader they got a weak one. I appreciate that he made the Ferrari team far more open than before but purely a performance perspective he's taken the team nowhere.

Perhaps if this was on the cards, Ferrari should have gone after Boullier before McLaren got him?

This sounds strange, but I feel that Ferrari is simply a half-decent version of the team that existed 10 years.
Alonso is a half-decent version of Schumacher.
Massa was a half-decent version of Barrichello.
Domenicalli was a half-decent version of Todt.
Smedley and Stella were half-decent versions of Brawn.
Fry is a half-decent version of Byrne.

As a unit, those people in the 2000s were brilliant together as we all know but this current Ferrari team doesn't well enough together and Domenicalli is a weak link.
The new team principal could only mean trouble, but given how he has a similar background to Briatore this could work.

good_Ralf wrote:The new team principal could only mean trouble, but given how he has a similar background to Briatore this could work.

Crashgate encore in 10-15 years' time?

good_Ralf wrote:This sounds strange, but I feel that Ferrari is simply a half-decent version of the team that existed 10 years.
Alonso is a half-decent version of Schumacher.
Massa was a half-decent version of Barrichello.
Domenicalli was a half-decent version of Todt.
Smedley and Stella were half-decent versions of Brawn.
Fry is a half-decent version of Byrne.

I couldn't disagree more. Well, I could, but still...

Firstly, you're a year out of date. Smedley and Massa have gone, as has Domenicali.

Secondly, you've over-simplified the structure of the team to such an extent that you've wrongly defined the team members' responsibilities and capabilities.

Alonso is certainly no watered-down Schumacher. On track, Alonso is far more complete a driver than Schumacher was, but he's less adept at playing the political game there. I don't think Schumacher would ever have won a championship with the cars Alonso has been given by the team, yet if Alonso was given the F2005 he'd have won more than just the one race with six cars.

Secondly, Massa isn't like Barrichello. Massa had championship challenges in his own right, and in 2008 stepped right up to take the fight to Hamilton when Raikkonen's chances fell away. Barrichello was brought into the team to be a #2 driver; Massa was brought in to possibly lead by example. He certainly matched Alonso more times than the media cares to remember.

I don't see much resemblance between Todt and Domenicali either. Todt was far more hard-nosed and he had to be; he was brought in to lead Ferrari's charge to the front since the team had had a lead period. Domenicali was always more of a marketing man, and was promoted to the role in order to maintain Ferrari's presence at the sharp end of the grid (which he did to some degree).

Rob Smedley and Andrea Stella were/are both race engineers at Ferrari, so it really makes little sense to compare them with Ross Brawn who was in a more senior role.

The last one is a little more irksome. Pat Fry is the director of engineering, whereas Byrne was always the chief designer. Nikolas Tombazis currently holds this role.

The problem with Ferrari isn't the personnel; they've fought at the top end for a number of teams, and generally have proven championship credentials. The problem is most likely a lack of focus; the signing of Raikkonen might have been a statement of intent, but in the end it's naturally going to provide Ferrari with a headache if both are in the championship hunt. Ferrari need to stop hiding under mountains of bureaucracy and politics and employ someone who's going to fight to the bitter end to wrestle the team to the top. Boullier would have certainly been the man for that had Montezemolo been quicker on the draw.

EDIT: Bob Bell has left Mercedes. Luca, if you're as smart as I think you are...you know where I'm going with this.

Luca Badoer?
Obvious choice, what were they thinking?

More ruthlessness is required. No-one in F1 got anywhere by being diplomatic. Mattiacci is an unknown for everyone, I think if he has the right management style, the lack of experience won't be a big problem. But if he's as diplomatic and transparent as Domenicali, he has no chance.

Don't get me wrong, Domenicali seems like a nice chap, with the best of intentions. But at the same time, that was the problem all along. He was nowhere near autocratic enough.

Enzo must have been rolling in his grave for the past six years.

Has anyone else noticed how remarkably similar this is to when Ferrari removed Cesare Fiorio in 1991 after three races due to a poor start to the season? The team went into a rapid decline after then and were only saved when Jean Todt came along, and even then it took years to recover.

I suspect Domenicali 'jumped' before he was pushed, or was made to resign publicly to avoid the shame of being sacked. Where does this leave James Allison and Pat Fry as well, men who were lured to Ferrari to work under Domenicali.

It was so refreshing though for Ferrari to have a team principal who seemed to make an effort to steer them away from their image of self importance and arrogance, despite Luca di Montezemolo. With Domenicali gone, will this return?

Paul Hayes wrote:Have the Brawn-to-Ferrari rumours started yet...?

Hey, Ataxia got me thinking; BRIATORE TO FERRARI!!!

Now, that would be epic with a capital Mamma Mia!

Paul Hayes wrote:Have the Brawn-to-Ferrari rumours started yet...?

Oh, people has been putting together "Brawn to Ferrari" rumours ever since he announced that he was leaving Mercedes, even though right now he has indicated he has no desire to return to motorsport in any capacity.

pher38 wrote:Has anyone else noticed how remarkably similar this is to when Ferrari removed Cesare Fiorio in 1991 after three races due to a poor start to the season? The team went into a rapid decline after then and were only saved when Jean Todt came along, and even then it took years to recover.

I suspect Domenicali 'jumped' before he was pushed, or was made to resign publicly to avoid the shame of being sacked. Where does this leave James Allison and Pat Fry as well, men who were lured to Ferrari to work under Domenicali.

It was so refreshing though for Ferrari to have a team principal who seemed to make an effort to steer them away from their image of self importance and arrogance, despite Luca di Montezemolo. With Domenicali gone, will this return?

I'd agree that Domenicali was probably persuaded to step down to allow him to bow out with some dignity - given di Montezemolo's behaviour in Bahrain, I would not be surprised if he was the one who pushed Domenicali to step down from the team. It sates the demands of the Italian media for change and gives the team a scapegoat, though you suspect that the faults the team has run much deeper than just Domenicali.

It does raise questions about who might follow Domenicali though - Mattiacci is possibly just a short term appointment to tide things over for the short term, and the fact that it now transpires that Bob Bell resigned from Mercedes in December makes me wonder if the two announcements are related.

I agree that it's unlikely Brawn would end up back there. They do say "Never go back," after all. He's probably better off as the King Over the Water or the might-have-been, rather than risk sullying the memory of his glory years at Ferrari.

If Brawn did go there, it would be a massive kick in the teeth for Mercedes - but at least he wouldn't be at Red Bull!!

Can't see Brawn back to be honest. He has nothing left to do in F1, and he'll probably feel too old and the next big rule change is too long in the future. It would be much pain, without guarantee of success - and even in success, he could always find himself in a situation on which he ends up displaced, like has happened at Mercedes.

I don't know whether to give kudos to Ferrari for being so patient or criticise them for not having made this move years ago, though. The 2009 car was a disaster by Ferrari's standards, 2010 was better but the WDC was lost in such a stupid way. Still, I think the time for the move would have been at the end of 2011, when it was looking clear that Red Bull were pretty much unassailable under the then current regulations, and with big changes expected for 2014 it gave enough time for someone else to move the team in a different direction. Of course, we all know with hindsight.

BTW, about Domenicali's background: he used to appear in the GPM2 game, circa 1996, as Ferrari's Commercial Manager

Ataxia wrote:

good_Ralf wrote:This sounds strange, but I feel that Ferrari is simply a half-decent version of the team that existed 10 years.
Alonso is a half-decent version of Schumacher.
Massa was a half-decent version of Barrichello.
Domenicalli was a half-decent version of Todt.
Smedley and Stella were half-decent versions of Brawn.
Fry is a half-decent version of Byrne.

Alonso is certainly no watered-down Schumacher. On track, Alonso is far more complete a driver than Schumacher was, but he's less adept at playing the political game there. I don't think Schumacher would ever have won a championship with the cars Alonso has been given by the team, yet if Alonso was given the F2005 he'd have won more than just the one race with six cars.

I agree, but that is probably down to the fact that Schumacher, at 36, was probably getting well past his prime by then, rather than Alonso being better than him. Schumacher's arguably the faster of the pair on overall pace, though Alonso's had to change and mold his driving style over his career a lot more due to frequent rule changes and team changes.

Im not convinced Alonso is as technically good at setting the car up as MSC was. Unless, of course, its the engineers and tech depts that are letting him down.

CoopsII wrote:Im not convinced Alonso is as technically good at setting the car up as MSC was. Unless, of course, its the engineers and tech depts that are letting him down.

For a start, the only reason MSC was so good as setting up the car is because he did hundreds of laps at Fiorano every week. I think part of MSC comeback failure was directly related to the lack of testing.

And for a second....?

wsrgo wrote:

Ataxia wrote:

good_Ralf wrote:This sounds strange, but I feel that Ferrari is simply a half-decent version of the team that existed 10 years.
Alonso is a half-decent version of Schumacher.
Massa was a half-decent version of Barrichello.
Domenicalli was a half-decent version of Todt.
Smedley and Stella were half-decent versions of Brawn.
Fry is a half-decent version of Byrne.

Alonso is certainly no watered-down Schumacher. On track, Alonso is far more complete a driver than Schumacher was, but he's less adept at playing the political game there. I don't think Schumacher would ever have won a championship with the cars Alonso has been given by the team, yet if Alonso was given the F2005 he'd have won more than just the one race with six cars.

I agree, but that is probably down to the fact that Schumacher, at 36, was probably getting well past his prime by then, rather than Alonso being better than him. Schumacher's arguably the faster of the pair on overall pace, though Alonso's had to change and mold his driving style over his career a lot more due to frequent rule changes and team changes.

Schumi was better out of the car too. He managed to build a team, even if half of it was convincing former colleagues to join him at Ferrari. Alonso hasnt really done the backroom stuff as much, or been a team player by the same degree (Malaysia 1999).

Or to put it another way, would Alonso have won 3 races in the F310?

BUT it is a different era as well - Schumacher was in an era where winner would take all and do-or-die, while Alonso has been in one where seeing the flag is more important and consistency is key - Alonso was/is better at weighing up risk and knows when to back down.

Sprints vs Marathons really

GOING BACK ON TOPIC, I think Domenicalli was too soft at Ferrari - They have always came across as a team that needs to be prodded and pushed to get things done, which is why in my view Todt had a better time of it. Maybe Mattiacci will perform better despite his lack of knowledge if his out and out managerial skills are better.

Collieafc wrote:Maybe Mattiacci will perform better despite his lack of knowledge if his out and out managerial skills are better.

Thats a good point. Not for the first time in this thread Im being reminded of Flavio Briatore who's technical knowledge was relatively limited but his ability at selecting the right people for the right jobs paid off in spades more often than not.

I really want to see Briatore wearing Ferrari reds and, hey, he's Italian - what could go wrong?

Aerond wrote:

CoopsII wrote:Im not convinced Alonso is as technically good at setting the car up as MSC was. Unless, of course, its the engineers and tech depts that are letting him down.

For a start, the only reason MSC was so good as setting up the car is because he did hundreds of laps at Fiorano every week. I think part of MSC comeback failure was directly related to the lack of testing.

the biggest reason MSC was so good at setting up the car is because Luca Badoer did thousands of laps at Fiorano every week.