Fun fact: Prost wasn't sacked from Ferrari for calling his car a truck. That was a comment referring to his shock absorbers that failed during the 1991 Japanese Grand Prix that made his 643 difficult to drive. The race did two episodes on their Bring Back V10s podcast on what led to Ferrari firing Prost
Man, those early 90s F1 cars looked so good, especially the 1991 season cars. And the sounds of those naturally aspirated V8s, V10s and V12s were just heavenly. Also, I find it kinda sad how Ferrari, despite being famous for putting V12s in their road cars, never won an F1 championship with a V12 powered car. They came so close in 1990 with Prost behind the wheel of the 641 until someone decided to go for a gap...
@@parrotantics2046 Flat-12, V12 close enough! The 1989 regulations would probably have had to been at least 4.0L, for V12 to be optimal. I guess 3.0L in 1995 was the nail in the coffin for the V12. Though Toyota were planning a V12 for 2000 which was banned, but since V8s were mandated (sadly, though at the time the original 20,000rpm V8s still sounded pretty great) for 2006 it would have been a moot point anyway.
There’s a brilliant hour-long interview with Capelli for Motorport Magazine (available on RUclips) where he gives his view on his 1992 season and how his car was fundamentally different from Alesi’s. Worth a watch if you’ve not already seen it.
SOMETIMES I WAKE UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT SCREAMING BECAUSE I'VE BEEN DREAMING IT'S THE EARLY 90s. Then I calm myself by gazing at the enormous portrait of Saint Todt above my bed, and drift off back to sleep muttering "this year......this year....."
If 1992 was scored woth the post 2010 top ten f1 points , Michele Alboreto's Footwork finished seventh so many times that it would have put them ABOVE Ferrari in the constructors championship.
Capelli's stock fell even further after being dumped by Ferrari - he did two races for Jordan in 1993, but after failing to qualify for the Brazilian Grand Prix (the odd rule to have only 25 cars on the starting grid) he called it quits and never raced in Formula One again. His seat was then taken by Thierry Boutsen until the Belgian GP, Marco Apicella had the 'shortest GP ever' (Josh Revell has a video disputing this claim) at Monza, Emanuelle Naspetti was in Estoril and an unknown man from Northern Ireland by the name of Eddie Irvine took the seat for the final 2 races of the season and infamously got a black eye from Ayrton Senna for daring to unlap himself at Suzuka. I've heard in another video (can't remember if it was from Autosport or The Race) that Capelli was originally slated to compete for the Scuderia Italia Dallara team in 1992 (with possible move to Maranello in 1993), but after Prost was fired for doing the ultimate sacrelige (e.g. talking smack about the Ferrari car) he was fasttracked into the Scuderia for 1992. And I don't think it did him any favours, but then again - can't say NO to Ferrari. If you have the opportunity - take it, because there might not be another one.
I don't see going there to be the great thing it's set out to be. It's wrecked more careers than it's made, and even drivers who've succeeded there have usually been glad to leave. Just because it's "historical" doesn't mean it's the best. Would you go on a Hindenburg replica just because Zeppelin made it to the same specs? It had numerous successful trips after all... (I was going to admit that's a tad extreme, but I'm old enough to remember the '70s.)
13:23 Blow-by is where combustion pressure leaks to the crankcase past the piston rings, which will also cause oil to get into the combustion chambers too past those same rings. Will cause excessive oil consumption and contaminate the oil quicker. Lower power and reliability is expected. You can find videos where removing the oil cap and dipstick will result in smoke billowing out of the engine.
I built the 1/20 scale Fujimi model of the F92A a couple years ago. It was interesting to see how it was designed, especially with the twin floor and radiator openings.
@@alexpeak16 Thankfully we never had this days rules in the 90s. That’s why we remember the 90s Formula One as the best ever golden age, and todays cars and boy racers will never be remembered
Given how poor the car was overall- that Alesi dragged any results from it was a miracle in itself! It looked brilliant but the engine was obviously a boat anchor. They ended up running reduced rpm to try & stop them grenading themselves. The rot really started in 91 however- almost like the championship challenge of 1990 was at the expense of development for 91. The 91 engine was already quickly outclassed by the new Honda V12 & Renault V10- so the fact the 91 engine put in the F92 was an immediate improvement told it’s own story👀 The gaffer was Cesare Fiorio btw not Florio!
I'm surprised you thought the F92A was worse than the 312T5. Sure, the F92A was crap, but at least it managed to score a couple of podium finishes. The T5 was hopeless despite Villeneuve's talent.
In his extended interview, Steve Nichols gave a rather unique look at how Ferrari operated back then. From his accounts, there were no communications between departments. Engine do what engine do, aerodynamics do aerodynamics and all that. Also, they did not seem to listen to what designers and engineers suggested because 'We've been doing it our way for years and nothing's gone wrong'. For example, when testing dampers and spring stiffness they do it with a rather wide increments of stiffness between testing (100N/m increments rather than, say 10 or 20N/m), which according to Steve meant that the suspension design team might have missed the sweet spot for the suspension stiffness. It was such a mess, when Ayrton asked Steve if there's any seat available in Ferrari after Alain went away, he told Ayrton not to go to Ferrari and stay in McLaren for a while.
@@TheducksavilerowshowI think we can all agree that a lot of historic F1 individuals are/were? Very quick to attach themselves to successful ideas/ periods but not so much if things went wrong.
@@alexjenner1108 Is it because Ferrari lost technical direction with John Barnard -- the designer of the 639 & 640 -- having gone to Benetton, or would Ferrari have gone astray anyway? Obviously Barnard returned to "fix" the car for '95 and designed the '96 car with the V10 (for which Barnard takes credit for laying foundations for the success up to 2005, which may or may not be accurate!).
It took them bringing in former Honda engineers in late 1993 to get a decent V12, the 75 degree Tipo 043 into the 412T1 for mid-1994. It was also MUCH more powerful than the engine Ferrari started the 1994 season with, which was itself a development of the 65 degree V12 engine used in 1993, which was a development of the engine used in the F92A - the power difference was around 100 horsepower!
@@PG-20 they weren’t. They were banned a bit later when Toyota was about to enter, it’s that Ferrari finally got with the programme that they were shit. 🤣
@@PG-20 it's funny you say that since a number of teams in 1994 through to 1997 were not running V10s. Most teams were still running V8s - teams in 1994 were Benetton, Footwork, Larrouse, Minardi and Simtek all running Ford V8s and in 1995 were Pacific, Larrouse, Forti, Minardi and Sauber using various Ford V8s and Footwork using a Hart V8. Footwork stuck with their Hart V8 in 1996, and Forti and Minardi continued with Ford V8s. In 1997, Minardi switched to Hart V8s and Tyrrell took the Ford V8. By 1998 only, the whole grid were using V10s.
Thanks, great video. "I was there man... it was a terrible time" - I was a huge Ferrari fan in that era & it was brutal. I read all the media in Autosport Magazine, everything I could get my hands on in Canada. I believed all the floor talk at the time, "too radical, bad design, quirky to set-up", bit of vindication for Capelli, who was pretty under-rated & deserved more respect.
The other key change to return Ferrari to winning ways in 1994 was bringing back John Barnard as technical director. Enzo had recruited him before his death, allowing him to set his own terms, finally recognising that by the mid-'80s Ferrari were far behind the garagistas with their chassis technology. Barnard's '89 & '90 cars made Ferrari competitive again. But he was forced to leave after discovering a secret unofficial car development programme being run in parallel at Maranello behind his back. Without him first 1991 happened, then 1992. In 1993 Di Montezemolo brought Barnard back to Ferrari, once again having to allow him to set his own terms. But for a second time it paid off and they became successful again.
That's an exaggeration if I have ever read one. John Barnard's claim to fame were the MP4/1 and MP4/2. After the latter car, which won 2 constructor and 3 driver championships (!!), he never designed another championship winning car. He lead the design effort on the iconic Ferrari 640 and the Benetton B191. And while both won races, neither one really was seriously in the running for the championship. None of his Ferrari designs - the F93, the very sexy 412T/412T2 or his last Ferrari the quirky-looking F310, which actually brought back the proud-sitting sidepods of the F92A - were all that competitive in retrospect. In short, by the early 90's, Barnard was a legend in name only while the likes of Ross Brawn and Adrian Newey were leading the design teams that were ruling F1.
Don't quote me on this but I think Prost said the car handled like a truck because something had broken on the car causing it to drive worse than it already did, and some.journalist took it out of context and it got back to Ferrari
That would be an interesting video. Another one would be how Carlos Reutemann came close to winning the Driver's Championship in 1981 being beaten by Nelson Piquet by just 1 point, almost becoming the 2nd Argentine F1 champion after Fangio.
You are right about the engine not being allowed to be an issue (not just Ferrari), I remember a story of an F1 engine threw a rod and cut through the block and spark plug leads, it was described as an electrical problem.
90's Mclaren-Honda used to experience a lot of gearbox failures. Lack of input shaft torque quite often... Coincidentally commonly also occuring at the same time as oil leaks.
Yeah, even Niki Lauda, who was an excellent mechanic and driver wasn't allow to complain about the giant boat anchor of an engine Enzo required all Ferraris to run... LOL. Enzo was and his wife were so stubborn, like Henry Ford, they almost bankrupted the company. He hated any innovation he didn't come up with himself.
1980s Alfa Romeo had the same propaganda that you can't mention the engine. It was always an electrical problem. The con rod went through the engine block and knocked off the alternator causing an electrical problem
That took me back. Despite never being a Ferrari fan (Enzo's fault, his attitude to the drivers, except for his blue-eyed boys), I did like Alesi and Berger. Still do. Even though I was a Damon fangirl through and through, I would always feel for those two. Every time things looked like they were going well, apart from on a very few occasions, the bloody cars would break. I remember crying when Alesi got his win on his birthday! 😅 The "it's never the engine" attitude has cost Ferrari any number of wins, including championships, I'm sure of it. Ah well, stupid is as stupid does. 🤷🏻♀️
What was needed during those times was someone with the balls and no fucks given attitude to tell Enzo to his face that his engines were crap and to wake up and smell the petrol so he would realise that outright speed no longer wins races unless you're on a oval.
How does Ferrari of all teams screw up something as simple as piston ring sealing?! I would think they would have caught this in development, especially on the dyno!
Ferrari may have a phobia about seals in the engine. Example: In Mark Donohue's Book: "The Unfair Advantage," he wrote about the trials and tribulations with the Ferrari 512M that was in FIA endurance racing. With the 5 liter V12 on the dyno, it was noted the exhaust gas spitting out from an engine head. The reason why? That Ferrari engine didn't have a head gasket. According to the Ferrari reps, the engine was engineered and machined to tolerances where a head gasket was not needed; just torque the head to the specs and everything would be fine. Donohue and Roger Penske thought such an approach to engine building was peculiar. That V12 engine was down on power due to the exhaust gas leak that could not be resolved.
6:16 Kyalami mention 🇿🇦 Really hope this sport can find it's way back here. It'd be a dream come true to watch a Grand Prix at home! That being said, Ferrari refusing to state the engine was the problem just reminds me of how dramatic this team can be...
When they got rid of the 60 valves, Ferrari engines got much better. When Schumacher tested the 412T2 at the end of 1995 season, he said "how could you not win the championship with this engine?"
Oh, nice work giving a passing mention to the '96 car! 🧐👍. Eddie Irvine called it a "disaster" and "undriveable" 😖. Michael Schumacher called it a "sharp" car. Schumacher always felt like a threat with it though. It was too pitch sensitive, according to Irvine. *[ EDIT ]* I should clarify that those comments were made in interviews post retirement, and not in 1996. *[ /EDIT ]*
I think it’s quite humorous that the period when Ferrari enjoyed its most success, there was nary an Italian in sight at any of the “skill” positions within the team (Todt/Brawn/Schumacher). Honestly SF has been hampered by Italian-grade politics for nearly its entire existence in motorsport. Something the team will never be able to escape, I’m afraid.
I was never a Schumacher fan but one thing I have to give him credit for is he sought out and sweet talked the most *dedicated* people at their job to work with him moving to Ferrari without a flying fuck where they're from which was novel at the time (up to that point, British teams just had British staff, Italian teams just had Italian staff, French teams just had French staff etc). Japanese engine designer, French team principle, Indian physio, British race strategist, a lot more I can't remember from the top of my head but it was a Noah's Ark of nationalities, and you see almost entirely the same faces at the Ferrari garage between 96-06. He unintentionally symbolises a lot of positive things when you consider he first started making impressions right as the oppressive past of the Berlin wall was torn down as a German, built a team around him without prejudice, and never once slagged off his team to the press if the car was slow or broke down, and simply would say the car needs some work and he's confident his team would get it done; he never separated himself from the team at all. His machiavellian traits aside, there's a lot we can learn from the Michael, the way he worked with people and the results it brought. He didn't simply just have the best car sorted for him, he could've easily sat at Benetton with Tom Walkinshaw and Briatore for years and won 10 titles, as he could've also easily jumped ship to Williams, McLaren, and Renault whenever they had the best car like a certain Brazilian would've done, but he was truly one with the Ferrari team, dirty tactics or not.
The Ferrari pit crew in the 90s gave the Keystone Kops a run for their money. Sending out cars with 3 wheels, 5 wheels, a passenger, or an umbilical cord.
OK, so this was a great vid, but the vet impersonation was the icing on the cake! LOL! I feel so bad for Ivan. I think he could have delivered with a team that worked with him with less drama. Good guy, busted his ass, and was genuinely quick!
I said in a comment above: Italian-grade politics has always prevented this team from being the truly dominant force in F1 that they should be, and I’m afraid that will never change.
It's not like the French national Renault/Alpine (or the other French national teams in the past like Matra and Ligier/Prost) have been significantly more competitive. Operating with board politics and cycles of firing and hiring against garagistes who only care about winning at any cost and building the fastest car while (mostly) providing stable employment is difficult. 🙂
I always felt Capelli was so much better than that season could show. It was doomed from the start. I remember owning a fly on the wall style book following Jordan through 1993, and as Ivan did the first 2 grand prix he came up briefly. He really lost his fighting spirit and walked away from Jordan after 2 races.
I remember quite well that year and this car. The drivers complained about their ride mentioning that it seemed more like driving an air mattress. It shouldn't have been much different from the 79 lotus 80, but this one with ground effects.
I was a kid watching the 92 and 93 season. Nothing compares to those years. My knuckles would ache from being so tense crossing my fingers that they would actually finish a race.
Is that a JCM 800 behind you? Looks kind of newer, but still I'm asking this question after many times :) Used to own one of those beauties years ago. Don't do gigs anymore so I use my lead 12 stack from early 80's. My first amp that I got as a xmas present from my dad along with a 72 Strat.
@3:13 I'm wondering how in the flying hell did Piccanini last for _ten years_ , nearly all of which was relatively dry spell after the '79 season, when the half decade before and few years after were an Abramovich-esque revolving door?
Interesting video on a fascinating car and an even more fascinating team. Needless to say, Ferrari has a history of letting politics waste its resources. In retrospect, you can't give enough credit to Jean Todt, Ross Brawn, Luca di Montezemolo and ultimately also Michael Schumacher for overhauling Ferrari and forming a bona fide modern F1 team. They basically gutted the team of all it's bad habits and created that juggernaut that dominated from 2000-2004. Too bad, in the wake of all of their departures, Ferrari reverted to its old self. But maybe Vasseur can repature some of that French magic that Todt took to Ferrari after the desaster that was 1992.
As always, thank you kindly. Please continue without repeating "eyeing up the lads". Alesi and Berger with the Benetton boys at Ferrari was a worthy period of exploration, no.
I keep saying to newer Ferrari fans that how things are now is wonderful compared to those years in the early to late 90's. Don't get me wrong, things are absolute shite now but back then things were as you said, SO MUCH WORSE!! At least they won a race last year and had poles and podiums!!
14:21 That is one of the most cursed images I have ever seen. Ferrari helmet in a Honda powered McLaren. I mean, this is basically just Alonso's worst nightmare.
1991 was dismal. They had so many engine blow ups, gearbox failures and many goof ups. The 642 was just a glorified 641, and the 643 was an improvement, but their biggest issue was it's engine. It was a nice sounding V12, but was as reliable as a chocolate teapot.
When launched the press gave it the moniker of 'jet-fighter' due to the appearance of the side pods - well it sure crashed and burned! Not literally obvs...
It is kind of a miracle that Schumi managed to get all those politics out of Ferrari for a couple of years. Otherwise he would have NEVER had his winning streak...
I feel the 1980 ferrari 312T5 takes the cake for the worst Ferrari f1 car of all time. It failed to qualify at several races that year. To top it off, that was a world champion who couldnt get it on the grid!
A small correction - the name of Ferrari's team manager of 1977 was Roberto Nosetto. Of whome Niki Lauda was, lets say, "slightly" critical. In fact he called Nosetto a laughing stock who was superstitious beyond belief.
@@dominicbarden4436 Sure, but that's a stat - not reflective of the disarray and performances of the cars in-season (remember that in '73 Ferrari didn't even do the full season owing to how bad the cars were...!) We can't judge how bad the cars were solely on the points positions, given the different numbers of races, entries and so on, but Ferrari were designing cars so bad they didn't even go to races - that's bad!
Ah yes. 1992. The year when Scudrari drop the ball and Stallion brownies hit the fans. The F92A, also known as the Ferrari F92A, was a Formula One car. What was meant to be a promising and competitive car turned out to be one of the worst in the team's history. The F92A was plagued with a plethora of issues, both on and off the track, making it a complete disaster for Ferrari. It was a lack of aerodynamic efficiency. car's design was heavily influenced by the previous year's car, the F91, which had performed well during testing. However, the team failed to take into account the changes in the regulations, resulting in a car that was not suitable for the new rules. This led to poor performance on the track, with the car struggling to generate downforce and grip, resulting in slow lap times. Additionally, the F92A suffered from mechanical failures and unreliability. This was mainly due to the car's new V12 engine, which was known for its poor durability. The team also had issues with the car's gearbox, which was constantly breaking down during races, leading to a string of retirements. The F92A's unreliability not only affected its performance but also caused major frustration for the drivers and the team. 2016 VOLVO XC90 levels of unreliability.
Stopped throught the video. What was the reason Ferrari did start multiple times through their F1 history the new season with the last season car? Mostly interduced the new car at the 3rd GP? Keeping in mind that Testing wasn´t limited and having race tracks next to them?
It wasn't just Ferrari - many teams did that when rules were stable; because the season used to start with 'flyaways' to South Africa and Argentina or Brazil (and later Australia) the cars had to be freighted out; which limits your testing mileage (even though theoretically unlimited). Nowadays becuse of the restrictions, there's no disadvantage - tests are fixed, freight follows the end of testing; but you would lose not just the freight out time, but those early races (often with limited spares - which we've seen also be a problem in recent years) and the return freight time. Now, each team paid for their own or joint freight, so timing was just however much you wanted to pay Pan-Am to get your cars out & back (no FOM, no FOM freighting before the 90's) but it's still a loss. Many teams would therefore start with a known quantity; a car they know (which helps setup on a circuit it often hadn't raced on before!) with parts, spares, known repair/service for mechanics PLUS the new car can be running around testing while the 'old' car is out getting some points at the start of the year. If you look at McLaren, Honda used the V10 while testing the V12, Ferrari traditionally also, Williams too (and considered using the FW15D test-bed for 1994 as the FW16 was unstable); along with Tyrrell, Footwork, Lotus, Leyton House, it wasn't uncommon at all. Benetton deliberately changed their strategy and used the B194 from the start, where traditionally they always took the previous car to start the year, even with rule changes. 1994 they cut design time short and started testing in early March to be ahead of the game under the new rules. Major rule changes like 1989, 1994, 1998 and so on tended to cause a need to have new cars ready on day 1; but for minor changes like 1993, 1995, 2001, upgraded cars were common (not to mention teams which just couldn't afford to build new cars over winter with no money coming in - and had to wait for sponsor money to even build the new cars!). Ferrari in the 2000's took their older cars because they were so good, they could almost guarantee podium finishes with them - versus for example 1996 where in Schumacher's case, the brand new engine in the brand new car blew up on the formation lap in Melbourne...
I actually think nothing can beat the 1980 312T5 (8 total points, 11.th place in the Constructors' Championship, never finished higher than 5.th...). The F92A and 2020 SF1000 might join it on the podium, but the T5 still is by a large margin the very worst ever Ferrari Formula 1 car.
In 1980 they were racing the last of the 312T series and were struggling in the ground effects era with a flat-12 engine. Bad results, but quite a different scenario to the F92A which was meant to be a new car replacing the 640-643.
@@OsellaSquadraCorse At least once heavily revised for '74, the B3 actually proved much better than the original project. The T5 was a dead-end and nothing more.
That car destroyed Ivan Capelli's confidence and career, Alesi worked a few small miracles with it.
Fun fact: Prost wasn't sacked from Ferrari for calling his car a truck. That was a comment referring to his shock absorbers that failed during the 1991 Japanese Grand Prix that made his 643 difficult to drive. The race did two episodes on their Bring Back V10s podcast on what led to Ferrari firing Prost
Never listened to that. Probably to avoid copying what they’ve said. 🤣
Wasn't the power steering that failed?
Yeah. Prost was sacked cause he directly told the management "I told you guys all year how to fix the car but you idiots wouldn't listen to me"
@@stinkyroadhog1347 either way he was sacked for badmouthing the team.
@@stinkyroadhog1347 Yes Alain, see rule one.
Man, those early 90s F1 cars looked so good, especially the 1991 season cars. And the sounds of those naturally aspirated V8s, V10s and V12s were just heavenly.
Also, I find it kinda sad how Ferrari, despite being famous for putting V12s in their road cars, never won an F1 championship with a V12 powered car. They came so close in 1990 with Prost behind the wheel of the 641 until someone decided to go for a gap...
In 70s they won the championships with V12, although it had 180 deg. span.
@@parrotantics2046That would be a Flat 12, not a V12.
"a "gap""
@@Dat-Mudkip that 180° v12 did find it's way under the hood of the testarossa though
@@parrotantics2046 Flat-12, V12 close enough! The 1989 regulations would probably have had to been at least 4.0L, for V12 to be optimal. I guess 3.0L in 1995 was the nail in the coffin for the V12. Though Toyota were planning a V12 for 2000 which was banned, but since V8s were mandated (sadly, though at the time the original 20,000rpm V8s still sounded pretty great) for 2006 it would have been a moot point anyway.
There’s a brilliant hour-long interview with Capelli for Motorport Magazine (available on RUclips) where he gives his view on his 1992 season and how his car was fundamentally different from Alesi’s. Worth a watch if you’ve not already seen it.
Thanks
SOMETIMES I WAKE UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT SCREAMING BECAUSE I'VE BEEN DREAMING IT'S THE EARLY 90s. Then I calm myself by gazing at the enormous portrait of Saint Todt above my bed, and drift off back to sleep muttering "this year......this year....."
most sane ferrari fan:
If 1992 was scored woth the post 2010 top ten f1 points , Michele Alboreto's Footwork finished seventh so many times that it would have put them ABOVE Ferrari in the constructors championship.
Wow spicy!!! Imagine the scenes at Marenello if that happened!
the F14T is secretly laughing in the background
I think you mean understeering then suddenly snap oversteering in laughter lol
@@RANDOMZBOSSMAN1 i genuinely believed that a rodeo is more stable and predictable than that car lol
Still way better than the 2020 Ferrari
Yeah
2014 was worse @@sanfordcurtis8242
Capelli's stock fell even further after being dumped by Ferrari - he did two races for Jordan in 1993, but after failing to qualify for the Brazilian Grand Prix (the odd rule to have only 25 cars on the starting grid) he called it quits and never raced in Formula One again. His seat was then taken by Thierry Boutsen until the Belgian GP, Marco Apicella had the 'shortest GP ever' (Josh Revell has a video disputing this claim) at Monza, Emanuelle Naspetti was in Estoril and an unknown man from Northern Ireland by the name of Eddie Irvine took the seat for the final 2 races of the season and infamously got a black eye from Ayrton Senna for daring to unlap himself at Suzuka. I've heard in another video (can't remember if it was from Autosport or The Race) that Capelli was originally slated to compete for the Scuderia Italia Dallara team in 1992 (with possible move to Maranello in 1993), but after Prost was fired for doing the ultimate sacrelige (e.g. talking smack about the Ferrari car) he was fasttracked into the Scuderia for 1992. And I don't think it did him any favours, but then again - can't say NO to Ferrari. If you have the opportunity - take it, because there might not be another one.
I don't see going there to be the great thing it's set out to be. It's wrecked more careers than it's made, and even drivers who've succeeded there have usually been glad to leave. Just because it's "historical" doesn't mean it's the best.
Would you go on a Hindenburg replica just because Zeppelin made it to the same specs? It had numerous successful trips after all... (I was going to admit that's a tad extreme, but I'm old enough to remember the '70s.)
13:23 Blow-by is where combustion pressure leaks to the crankcase past the piston rings, which will also cause oil to get into the combustion chambers too past those same rings. Will cause excessive oil consumption and contaminate the oil quicker. Lower power and reliability is expected. You can find videos where removing the oil cap and dipstick will result in smoke billowing out of the engine.
I built the 1/20 scale Fujimi model of the F92A a couple years ago. It was interesting to see how it was designed, especially with the twin floor and radiator openings.
I was so happy the rFactor model had it. Usually these things skip some of those bits.
The craziest stat about the 1992 Ferrari was that the team used over 200 of those 1992 V12s throughout the season.
220 was the figure I heard. Imagine the engine penalties the F92A would have under today's rules.
Nice! Too many rules now?
@@alexpeak16 Thankfully we never had this days rules in the 90s. That’s why we remember the 90s Formula One as the best ever golden age, and todays cars and boy racers will never be remembered
Given how poor the car was overall- that Alesi dragged any results from it was a miracle in itself! It looked brilliant but the engine was obviously a boat anchor. They ended up running reduced rpm to try & stop them grenading themselves. The rot really started in 91 however- almost like the championship challenge of 1990 was at the expense of development for 91. The 91 engine was already quickly outclassed by the new Honda V12 & Renault V10- so the fact the 91 engine put in the F92 was an immediate improvement told it’s own story👀
The gaffer was Cesare Fiorio btw not Florio!
I'm surprised you thought the F92A was worse than the 312T5. Sure, the F92A was crap, but at least it managed to score a couple of podium finishes. The T5 was hopeless despite Villeneuve's talent.
In his extended interview, Steve Nichols gave a rather unique look at how Ferrari operated back then. From his accounts, there were no communications between departments. Engine do what engine do, aerodynamics do aerodynamics and all that. Also, they did not seem to listen to what designers and engineers suggested because 'We've been doing it our way for years and nothing's gone wrong'. For example, when testing dampers and spring stiffness they do it with a rather wide increments of stiffness between testing (100N/m increments rather than, say 10 or 20N/m), which according to Steve meant that the suspension design team might have missed the sweet spot for the suspension stiffness.
It was such a mess, when Ayrton asked Steve if there's any seat available in Ferrari after Alain went away, he told Ayrton not to go to Ferrari and stay in McLaren for a while.
Steve Nichols is THE master of taking credit for other’s success while blaming others for his own incompetence.
Sadly, the lack of communication between departments portion sounds way too much Like Williams.
@@TheducksavilerowshowI think we can all agree that a lot of historic F1 individuals are/were? Very quick to attach themselves to successful ideas/ periods but not so much if things went wrong.
More so now with podcasts. Everyone is scrabbling round trying to cement their legacy. They can’t all take success for everything
You can call it the worst F1 Ferrari ever, but at the same time it was one of the best looking F1 Ferrari's ever.
To me it was the previous generation of cars beginning with the Ferrari 639/640, that were the best looking Ferrari F1 cars.
That car introduced the aerodynamic concepts that are still used today.
@@alexjenner1108 Is it because Ferrari lost technical direction with John Barnard -- the designer of the 639 & 640 -- having gone to Benetton, or would Ferrari have gone astray anyway? Obviously Barnard returned to "fix" the car for '95 and designed the '96 car with the V10 (for which Barnard takes credit for laying foundations for the success up to 2005, which may or may not be accurate!).
It took them bringing in former Honda engineers in late 1993 to get a decent V12, the 75 degree Tipo 043 into the 412T1 for mid-1994. It was also MUCH more powerful than the engine Ferrari started the 1994 season with, which was itself a development of the 65 degree V12 engine used in 1993, which was a development of the engine used in the F92A - the power difference was around 100 horsepower!
Only a car with a quarter of the cylinders to win the championship in 1994 🤣
And then V12s were banned in 1996 lmao
@@PG-20 they weren’t. They were banned a bit later when Toyota was about to enter, it’s that Ferrari finally got with the programme that they were shit. 🤣
@@AidanMillward Lmfao, took them a while to get the hint
@@PG-20 it's funny you say that since a number of teams in 1994 through to 1997 were not running V10s. Most teams were still running V8s - teams in 1994 were Benetton, Footwork, Larrouse, Minardi and Simtek all running Ford V8s and in 1995 were Pacific, Larrouse, Forti, Minardi and Sauber using various Ford V8s and Footwork using a Hart V8. Footwork stuck with their Hart V8 in 1996, and Forti and Minardi continued with Ford V8s. In 1997, Minardi switched to Hart V8s and Tyrrell took the Ford V8. By 1998 only, the whole grid were using V10s.
Thanks, great video. "I was there man... it was a terrible time" - I was a huge Ferrari fan in that era & it was brutal. I read all the media in Autosport Magazine, everything I could get my hands on in Canada. I believed all the floor talk at the time, "too radical, bad design, quirky to set-up", bit of vindication for Capelli, who was pretty under-rated & deserved more respect.
The other key change to return Ferrari to winning ways in 1994 was bringing back John Barnard as technical director. Enzo had recruited him before his death, allowing him to set his own terms, finally recognising that by the mid-'80s Ferrari were far behind the garagistas with their chassis technology. Barnard's '89 & '90 cars made Ferrari competitive again. But he was forced to leave after discovering a secret unofficial car development programme being run in parallel at Maranello behind his back. Without him first 1991 happened, then 1992.
In 1993 Di Montezemolo brought Barnard back to Ferrari, once again having to allow him to set his own terms. But for a second time it paid off and they became successful again.
Nah man it was all Schumacher wasn’t it ?
xD
That's an exaggeration if I have ever read one. John Barnard's claim to fame were the MP4/1 and MP4/2. After the latter car, which won 2 constructor and 3 driver championships (!!), he never designed another championship winning car. He lead the design effort on the iconic Ferrari 640 and the Benetton B191. And while both won races, neither one really was seriously in the running for the championship. None of his Ferrari designs - the F93, the very sexy 412T/412T2 or his last Ferrari the quirky-looking F310, which actually brought back the proud-sitting sidepods of the F92A - were all that competitive in retrospect.
In short, by the early 90's, Barnard was a legend in name only while the likes of Ross Brawn and Adrian Newey were leading the design teams that were ruling F1.
Don't quote me on this but I think Prost said the car handled like a truck because something had broken on the car causing it to drive worse than it already did, and some.journalist took it out of context and it got back to Ferrari
It’s one of those things where it has about 997 different variations.
Could you make a video about Alboreto in 1985 nearly winning a championship
That would be an interesting video. Another one would be how Carlos Reutemann came close to winning the Driver's Championship in 1981 being beaten by Nelson Piquet by just 1 point, almost becoming the 2nd Argentine F1 champion after Fangio.
This. It was a bizarre year!
You are right about the engine not being allowed to be an issue (not just Ferrari), I remember a story of an F1 engine threw a rod and cut through the block and spark plug leads, it was described as an electrical problem.
90's Mclaren-Honda used to experience a lot of gearbox failures. Lack of input shaft torque quite often...
Coincidentally commonly also occuring at the same time as oil leaks.
Yeah, even Niki Lauda, who was an excellent mechanic and driver wasn't allow to complain about the giant boat anchor of an engine Enzo required all Ferraris to run... LOL. Enzo was and his wife were so stubborn, like Henry Ford, they almost bankrupted the company. He hated any innovation he didn't come up with himself.
Makes you wonder what would have happened if the great walkout had gone the other way.
1980s Alfa Romeo had the same propaganda that you can't mention the engine. It was always an electrical problem. The con rod went through the engine block and knocked off the alternator causing an electrical problem
The Adventures of Ivan Capelli sounds like something I'd watch on CITV
That took me back. Despite never being a Ferrari fan (Enzo's fault, his attitude to the drivers, except for his blue-eyed boys), I did like Alesi and Berger. Still do. Even though I was a Damon fangirl through and through, I would always feel for those two. Every time things looked like they were going well, apart from on a very few occasions, the bloody cars would break. I remember crying when Alesi got his win on his birthday! 😅
The "it's never the engine" attitude has cost Ferrari any number of wins, including championships, I'm sure of it. Ah well, stupid is as stupid does. 🤷🏻♀️
What was needed during those times was someone with the balls and no fucks given attitude to tell Enzo to his face that his engines were crap and to wake up and smell the petrol so he would realise that outright speed no longer wins races unless you're on a oval.
How does Ferrari of all teams screw up something as simple as piston ring sealing?! I would think they would have caught this in development, especially on the dyno!
That’s good ol’ Italian attention to detail for you 😂
Ferrari may have a phobia about seals in the engine.
Example: In Mark Donohue's Book: "The Unfair Advantage," he wrote about the trials and tribulations with the Ferrari 512M that was in FIA endurance racing. With the 5 liter V12 on the dyno, it was noted the exhaust gas spitting out from an engine head. The reason why? That Ferrari engine didn't have a head gasket. According to the Ferrari reps, the engine was engineered and machined to tolerances where a head gasket was not needed; just torque the head to the specs and everything would be fine.
Donohue and Roger Penske thought such an approach to engine building was peculiar.
That V12 engine was down on power due to the exhaust gas leak that could not be resolved.
6:16 Kyalami mention 🇿🇦
Really hope this sport can find it's way back here. It'd be a dream come true to watch a Grand Prix at home!
That being said, Ferrari refusing to state the engine was the problem just reminds me of how dramatic this team can be...
Capella not only shunted, he managed to park his car at 45° on top of the the armco backwards. Should have got extra points for that.
Brilliant video as always... The 1992 Ferrari season with Ivan has always been fascinating
When they got rid of the 60 valves, Ferrari engines got much better. When Schumacher tested the 412T2 at the end of 1995 season, he said "how could you not win the championship with this engine?"
Oh, nice work giving a passing mention to the '96 car! 🧐👍. Eddie Irvine called it a "disaster" and "undriveable" 😖. Michael Schumacher called it a "sharp" car. Schumacher always felt like a threat with it though. It was too pitch sensitive, according to Irvine.
*[ EDIT ]* I should clarify that those comments were made in interviews post retirement, and not in 1996. *[ /EDIT ]*
As someone who doesn't watch motorsports, I love the engineering oriented videos as opposed to the driver focused ones.
Happy New Year Aidan!
Ivan Capelli got royally, and unfairly, screwed over by the Scuderia.
Capellis crash at Monaco always has me crying and laughing
Went for a proper Tony Hawk style rail grind with that
I think it’s quite humorous that the period when Ferrari enjoyed its most success, there was nary an Italian in sight at any of the “skill” positions within the team (Todt/Brawn/Schumacher). Honestly SF has been hampered by Italian-grade politics for nearly its entire existence in motorsport. Something the team will never be able to escape, I’m afraid.
There’s been some jokes about the only way for SF to win is to not have Italians on the team.
I was never a Schumacher fan but one thing I have to give him credit for is he sought out and sweet talked the most *dedicated* people at their job to work with him moving to Ferrari without a flying fuck where they're from which was novel at the time (up to that point, British teams just had British staff, Italian teams just had Italian staff, French teams just had French staff etc). Japanese engine designer, French team principle, Indian physio, British race strategist, a lot more I can't remember from the top of my head but it was a Noah's Ark of nationalities, and you see almost entirely the same faces at the Ferrari garage between 96-06.
He unintentionally symbolises a lot of positive things when you consider he first started making impressions right as the oppressive past of the Berlin wall was torn down as a German, built a team around him without prejudice, and never once slagged off his team to the press if the car was slow or broke down, and simply would say the car needs some work and he's confident his team would get it done; he never separated himself from the team at all.
His machiavellian traits aside, there's a lot we can learn from the Michael, the way he worked with people and the results it brought. He didn't simply just have the best car sorted for him, he could've easily sat at Benetton with Tom Walkinshaw and Briatore for years and won 10 titles, as he could've also easily jumped ship to Williams, McLaren, and Renault whenever they had the best car like a certain Brazilian would've done, but he was truly one with the Ferrari team, dirty tactics or not.
Todt, Brawn and Schumacher were gaining too much influence so the Ferrari board (rightly?) got rid of them! That'll show them. 🙂
The Ferrari pit crew in the 90s gave the Keystone Kops a run for their money. Sending out cars with 3 wheels, 5 wheels, a passenger, or an umbilical cord.
I mean, at least they didn’t do a massive pit fire like Benetton and Jordan in 94 and 95 💁🏼♂️
That accent at the end threw me for a loop
Now I know how my coworkers felt when I was silent for half an hour and responded in a British accent.
OK, so this was a great vid, but the vet impersonation was the icing on the cake! LOL!
I feel so bad for Ivan. I think he could have delivered with a team that worked with him with less drama. Good guy, busted his ass, and was genuinely quick!
Really after the all the years in the sport, Ferrari have really underachieved.
I said in a comment above: Italian-grade politics has always prevented this team from being the truly dominant force in F1 that they should be, and I’m afraid that will never change.
It's not like the French national Renault/Alpine (or the other French national teams in the past like Matra and Ligier/Prost) have been significantly more competitive. Operating with board politics and cycles of firing and hiring against garagistes who only care about winning at any cost and building the fastest car while (mostly) providing stable employment is difficult. 🙂
On track the car was too pitch-sensitive according to late Harvey Postlethwaite, eventhough in their windtunnel it looked great.
I always felt Capelli was so much better than that season could show. It was doomed from the start. I remember owning a fly on the wall style book following Jordan through 1993, and as Ivan did the first 2 grand prix he came up briefly. He really lost his fighting spirit and walked away from Jordan after 2 races.
I remember quite well that year and this car. The drivers complained about their ride mentioning that it seemed more like driving an air mattress. It shouldn't have been much different from the 79 lotus 80, but this one with ground effects.
You're purposely forgetting the utmost greatness of the F14T
*looks at the 312T5*
No I’m not. Because that car finished all but three races.
V10 - the Goldilocks of engines? Just right! 😀
I was a kid watching the 92 and 93 season. Nothing compares to those years. My knuckles would ache from being so tense crossing my fingers that they would actually finish a race.
To be fair to Ferrari - and yourself - that was the case for every single car at that time!
Great GI Joe, man.
This just one of the prettiest race cars ever. Not just those outboard oval inlets, the shape and proportions of the tub/nose that blend with it.
Is that a JCM 800 behind you? Looks kind of newer, but still I'm asking this question after many times :)
Used to own one of those beauties years ago. Don't do gigs anymore so I use my lead 12 stack from early 80's. My first amp that I got as a xmas present from my dad along with a 72 Strat.
awesome video, definately gives some perspective
Wait a minute. Did you just do a The Zombies quote? "This Will Be Our Year"? Cool, Aidan, seriously cool!
I have no idea what that is.
thanks for sharing
@3:13 I'm wondering how in the flying hell did Piccanini last for _ten years_ , nearly all of which was relatively dry spell after the '79 season, when the half decade before and few years after were an Abramovich-esque revolving door?
Interesting video on a fascinating car and an even more fascinating team. Needless to say, Ferrari has a history of letting politics waste its resources. In retrospect, you can't give enough credit to Jean Todt, Ross Brawn, Luca di Montezemolo and ultimately also Michael Schumacher for overhauling Ferrari and forming a bona fide modern F1 team. They basically gutted the team of all it's bad habits and created that juggernaut that dominated from 2000-2004. Too bad, in the wake of all of their departures, Ferrari reverted to its old self. But maybe Vasseur can repature some of that French magic that Todt took to Ferrari after the desaster that was 1992.
Excellent aidan ✌️👍🇬🇧
As always, thank you kindly. Please continue without repeating "eyeing up the lads". Alesi and Berger with the Benetton boys at Ferrari was a worthy period of exploration, no.
I keep saying to newer Ferrari fans that how things are now is wonderful compared to those years in the early to late 90's. Don't get me wrong, things are absolute shite now but back then things were as you said, SO MUCH WORSE!! At least they won a race last year and had poles and podiums!!
Think the newer fans are used to the Schumacher years.
14:21
That is one of the most cursed images I have ever seen. Ferrari helmet in a Honda powered McLaren. I mean, this is basically just Alonso's worst nightmare.
The interview with Steve Nichols on the youtube channel called JayEm on Cars was an eye opener.
6:13 what happened to the drivers hands? 😂
RFactor moment
1991 was dismal. They had so many engine blow ups, gearbox failures and many goof ups. The 642 was just a glorified 641, and the 643 was an improvement, but their biggest issue was it's engine. It was a nice sounding V12, but was as reliable as a chocolate teapot.
12:31 that Dallara is actually a red painted Fondmetal. why?
It’s the 92 Dallara livery on the Fondmetal because… dunno, it’s something to ask the museum.
That car (or engine) literally killed Ivan Capelli's F1 career
Liking for the Mars fact alone.
I be laughing so hard when you be doing those American accent 😂🇺🇸
So the double floor thing in 1992 made the Ferrari look like a Scalextric car?
5:56 Anyone slightly unsettled by the arms of the driver?
At 3:17 Cesare Fiorio run Ferrari in 1989. Not FLorio.
Did the 92 car have a raised nose some of the pics looks like it did, did they then lower the nose for later cars?
Slightly. In 93 it went back down, 94 back up and then 95 and part of 96 back down. After the 96 Canadian GP they got with the times.
@@AidanMillward lmfao that all most deserves a video it's self 😂 🤣
Ah Dominos' double decadence...why did they ever get rid of that crust option?? 😢😢
Can confirm, Space is cool.
Woah. Do that American accent more, that was pretty good
When launched the press gave it the moniker of 'jet-fighter' due to the appearance of the side pods - well it sure crashed and burned! Not literally obvs...
It is kind of a miracle that Schumi managed to get all those politics out of Ferrari for a couple of years. Otherwise he would have NEVER had his winning streak...
Todt was the brainchild.
At that point, 13 years since their last drivers title, right now, 17 years since their last drivers title
I feel the 1980 ferrari 312T5 takes the cake for the worst Ferrari f1 car of all time. It failed to qualify at several races that year. To top it off, that was a world champion who couldnt get it on the grid!
Didn't know that Nichols was also involed in that. I remembered it was Barnards creation.
Still a fun car to drive in Codemasters F1 2013
Hell yeah, space IS cool
Ferrari: "Aero is for people who can't build engines."
Ferrari after building a crap engine: "Our car isn't winning.....it must be the aero."
Ferrari is the linux of the F1 world.
It’ll be the year of the linux desktop n+1 years where N is this year.
that american accent at the end caught me off guard lmao it was really good
Actually, his name was Cesare Fiorio, not Florio
A small correction - the name of Ferrari's team manager of 1977 was Roberto Nosetto. Of whome Niki Lauda was, lets say, "slightly" critical. In fact he called Nosetto a laughing stock who was superstitious beyond belief.
I use this car in F1-2013; sounds great…..
And don’t forget about there “PIT-STOP’S”!!!!
Ferrari's worst car was in 1980. They went from P1 in 1979 to P6!
It was actually worse: in 1980 they were P10!
*1973 has entered the chat*
@@OsellaSquadraCorse That was a bad season for sure, but they did finish 6th. I'm pretty sure their 10th in 1980 is their worst WCC finish.
@@dominicbarden4436 Sure, but that's a stat - not reflective of the disarray and performances of the cars in-season (remember that in '73 Ferrari didn't even do the full season owing to how bad the cars were...!)
We can't judge how bad the cars were solely on the points positions, given the different numbers of races, entries and so on, but Ferrari were designing cars so bad they didn't even go to races - that's bad!
Cesere Fiorio not Florio 😊 also I'm sure Piero Ferrari was in there somewhere after Fiorio but before Lombardi
He was one of the three TPs in 1991 but couldn’t find much more on tbat.
@@AidanMillward great series tho :-) not far from Moreno lol!
@@philllawrence1580 the video about the Spanish football ref isn’t too far away!
@@AidanMillward ha ha can't wait 😆
The Ferraris of the early 90s were glamorous, iconic and very fast
And then they blew up.
"next year will be our year". The war cry of Cleveland sports fan.
And now Manchester United, after mocking Liverpool for so long
The 312T5 of 1980 surely? Champions in 79, 10th in 80.
@6:06 ...we see Capelli steering with...what appears to be a...massive gloved...dong? 🤣
You don’t have one? Mine gets in the way constantly
Lambo v16?? Heh. Cesare ‘Fiorio’. -U10
Yes, space IS cooool.
Ah yes. 1992. The year when Scudrari drop the ball and Stallion brownies hit the fans. The F92A, also known as the Ferrari F92A, was a Formula One car. What was meant to be a promising and competitive car turned out to be one of the worst in the team's history. The F92A was plagued with a plethora of issues, both on and off the track, making it a complete disaster for Ferrari.
It was a lack of aerodynamic efficiency. car's design was heavily influenced by the previous year's car, the F91, which had performed well during testing. However, the team failed to take into account the changes in the regulations, resulting in a car that was not suitable for the new rules. This led to poor performance on the track, with the car struggling to generate downforce and grip, resulting in slow lap times.
Additionally, the F92A suffered from mechanical failures and unreliability. This was mainly due to the car's new V12 engine, which was known for its poor durability. The team also had issues with the car's gearbox, which was constantly breaking down during races, leading to a string of retirements. The F92A's unreliability not only affected its performance but also caused major frustration for the drivers and the team. 2016 VOLVO XC90 levels of unreliability.
Stopped throught the video. What was the reason Ferrari did start multiple times through their F1 history the new season with the last season car? Mostly interduced the new car at the 3rd GP? Keeping in mind that Testing wasn´t limited and having race tracks next to them?
Not sure. I guess in the early 2000s they could get away with it given they were already so good.
It wasn't just Ferrari - many teams did that when rules were stable; because the season used to start with 'flyaways' to South Africa and Argentina or Brazil (and later Australia) the cars had to be freighted out; which limits your testing mileage (even though theoretically unlimited).
Nowadays becuse of the restrictions, there's no disadvantage - tests are fixed, freight follows the end of testing; but you would lose not just the freight out time, but those early races (often with limited spares - which we've seen also be a problem in recent years) and the return freight time.
Now, each team paid for their own or joint freight, so timing was just however much you wanted to pay Pan-Am to get your cars out & back (no FOM, no FOM freighting before the 90's) but it's still a loss.
Many teams would therefore start with a known quantity; a car they know (which helps setup on a circuit it often hadn't raced on before!) with parts, spares, known repair/service for mechanics PLUS the new car can be running around testing while the 'old' car is out getting some points at the start of the year.
If you look at McLaren, Honda used the V10 while testing the V12, Ferrari traditionally also, Williams too (and considered using the FW15D test-bed for 1994 as the FW16 was unstable); along with Tyrrell, Footwork, Lotus, Leyton House, it wasn't uncommon at all.
Benetton deliberately changed their strategy and used the B194 from the start, where traditionally they always took the previous car to start the year, even with rule changes. 1994 they cut design time short and started testing in early March to be ahead of the game under the new rules.
Major rule changes like 1989, 1994, 1998 and so on tended to cause a need to have new cars ready on day 1; but for minor changes like 1993, 1995, 2001, upgraded cars were common (not to mention teams which just couldn't afford to build new cars over winter with no money coming in - and had to wait for sponsor money to even build the new cars!).
Ferrari in the 2000's took their older cars because they were so good, they could almost guarantee podium finishes with them - versus for example 1996 where in Schumacher's case, the brand new engine in the brand new car blew up on the formation lap in Melbourne...
@@OsellaSquadraCorse Thx man
Off topic but dude, you can do a fantastic American accent
I actually think nothing can beat the 1980 312T5 (8 total points, 11.th place in the Constructors' Championship, never finished higher than 5.th...). The F92A and 2020 SF1000 might join it on the podium, but the T5 still is by a large margin the very worst ever Ferrari Formula 1 car.
In 1980 they were racing the last of the 312T series and were struggling in the ground effects era with a flat-12 engine. Bad results, but quite a different scenario to the F92A which was meant to be a new car replacing the 640-643.
I see your T5 and raise you the B3....
@@OsellaSquadraCorse At least once heavily revised for '74, the B3 actually proved much better than the original project.
The T5 was a dead-end and nothing more.
I don't back a team fully per say but as someone who's been somewhat of a McLaren fan since Lewis days I feel Ferrari's fans pain.
Combine this design philosophy with the first iteration of Ferrari’s dished out sidepod and Ferrari might have a competitive car this year
lol got a Stake F1 Team commercial on this video…
Happy new year everyone. 🎉🥳🥂
Hahahaha, you werent there maaaan