|
2003 Teams Review
An in-depth look at the past season, team by team and driver by driver |
||||
| Back to 2003 Season Review | Back to Reject CENTRALE | Go to Text-Only Version | ||
|
||||
| 1. Ferrari | ||||||
|
To state the obvious, the 15 wins out of 17 races in 2002, and the sheer dominance of the near-perfect F2002 was always going to be a hard act to follow. Only one podium in the first three races, no one-two finishes all year, and only 8 victories out of 16 may have seemed like a step backwards. But clearly Williams, McLaren and Renault had much more room for improvement after 2002, and for all their protestations that the F2003-GA was their best car ever, it could hardly have been that much better than the F2002. And still Ferrari won twice as many races as Williams and quadruple McLaren's tally.
Ferrari were also the only team to win three races in a row during the season - and they did it twice. But this teams' review is about all aspects of the team, not just chassis, engine, strategy or electronics, but also tyres. And this was Ferrari's big problem in 2003. After obliterating Michelin last season, Bridgestone fell off their game. Their dry tyres ran hotter than the French rubber, causing a higher wear rate, which combined with the rearward weight distribution of the F2003 also resulted in understeer, although their inters and wets were still far and away superior, as shown at Interlagos and Indy. Maranello contributed to the situation by being the only top team using the Bridgestones, and their protest to the FIA against the Michelins after Hungary reeked of sour grapes. Having said that, it was a year in which Ferrari's sportsmanship was less in question, since team orders were never employed. The F2003-GA's aero package was still amongst the best, the engine virtually on par with the BMW, and reliability as good as ever. However Ross Brawn seemed to dropped the ball a little in the tactical department - in 2003 Ferrari lost out as much as they gained in pit stop strategy. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 2. Renault | ||||||
|
This may come as a surprise, but under last year's point system Renault would have been further away from the top three this year than in 2002. For no one would question that in 2003 Renault were part of a 'top 4', on the basis of how at each race the blue and yellow machines constantly threatened the podium and even challenged for victory, even if in the end they were 54 points adrift of McLaren. They went from only scoring minor points in 2002 to recording two poles, one win, one 2nd place and three 3rds, although with on several occasions they were on the verge of more.
The R23's Achilles heel was still undoubtedly their relatively gutless wide-angle engine which they were due to dump for 2004 anyway, but the car's superb aerodynamics, suspension geometry, handling and launch and traction control systems were second to none, under the excellent guidance of Mike Gascoyne. And, going by their Suzuka performance when Jarno Trulli took provisional pole and Fernando Alonso could have won, the engine couldn't have been that bad. However, engine reliability was an issue, failures causing four out of Alonso's five retirements, with a further race failure for Trulli. Renault also proved tactically and politically astute, and credit had to go to Flavio Briatore for managing his drivers well, something for which he is not renowned. Alonso and Trulli clearly got on well, and even though the Spaniard was easily gaining the upper hand, reducing Trulli almost to journeyman status, Flav's loyalty to Trulli did not wane, and Jarno responded with several sterling drives in the second half of the year. All in all, this was a very good year for the Regie, in which they took big steps forward in their quest to take care of their unfinished business from the early 1980s. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 3. Williams-BMW | ||||||
|
In 2003, no team underwent a turnaround in form quite like Williams. After a troubled pre-season, the doomsday predictions came true when, after round 6 Williams only had one podium and 35 points compared to McLaren's 63 and Ferrari's 64. But from Monaco onwards, Sir Frank's men scored 11 podiums from 18 starts, and by midsummer their combination was the one to beat, seemingly with irresistible momentum that would sweep both titles. In the end, only a confluence of tyre, mechanical and driver errors in the last two races saw Williams snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The story of Williams' year was a matter of aerodynamics. With Geoff Willis off to BAR, Antonia Terzi (formerly of Ferrari) was brought in to head the aero department, but at first the FW25 lacked downforce, and there was no denying that fundamental mistakes had been made. Gradually, also now with the help of Frank Dernie, changes were made to the wings, the diffuser, the bargeboards, the floor, everything in sight for that matter, and Williams were then the first to use the engine cover fin. It turned what had been a nervous car into a neutral-handling one, in a triumph of season-long development. Of course the car had the advantage of the BMW P83 engine, still the class of the field and already testing before the end of 2002. Reliability was also the best in F1, and the run of results after Austria put to rest - for the moment at least - the testy relationship between team and engine partner as BMW sought greater involvement in the outfit as a whole. However, the ongoing saga of Juan-Pablo Montoya's defection to McLaren continued to raise question marks over Williams' man-management techniques, whilst their attitude towards Ralf Schumacher also remained somewhat ambivalent. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 4. McLaren-Mercedes | ||||||
|
McLaren finished the year a close 2nd in the drivers' championship with Kimi Raikkonen, and a close 3rd in the constructors' behind Williams, so why only rank them fourth? Quite simply, because all season McLaren were there amongst the frontrunners, keeping up constant points-scoring momentum, but hardly at any stage were they clearly THE team to beat. That was no way to win a World Championship. To prove a point, McLaren's only two wins came in the first two races of the season, at a time when the Williams was underdeveloped and Ferrari had made uncharacteristic errors.
Needless to say, the problem McLaren faced all season was the fact that they were saddled with a car which, by the time Suzuka came around, was essentially two years old. Although the MP4/17D resembled the MP4/17 in outward appearance only, since the gearbox, suspension and aerodynamics had been substantially revised, there was only so much development that could be squeezed from the basic philosophy of the car. That the maximum was extracted in order to keep McLaren and Raikkonen in particular at the pointy end was undoubtedly to the team's credit. However, the failure to get the MP4/18 prepared was an untypical humiliation to this most clockwork-like of teams. It may well have cost them dearly because the 17D was just not fast enough to seize the title by the throat, and the only time Raikkonen looked like dominating, at the Nurburgring, the Mercedes engine blew up in Kimi's only mechanical retirement all year. The German motors were much improved, but still down a little on power, while the team may also be criticised for not bringing the best out of David Coulthard and relegating him to number two in their affections, if nothing else. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 5. BAR-Honda | ||||||
|
What a difference a designer makes. After years struggling with cumbersome Malcolm Oastler-penned chassis, the BAR 05 was the first machine totally worked by ex-Williams man Geoff Willis. The result was a leaner, meaner car that proved to have effective aerodynamics - on par with the top squads, according to team insiders - but reliability was a serious bugbear. Three gearbox seizures, two hydraulic-related retirements and three more Honda blow-ups in races meant a few too many failures of major componentry in a period in F1 where there are only a handful of DNFs each event.
It was well documented that most of those retirements, by chance or otherwise, befell Jacques Villeneuve. More than any other team BAR was beset by internal squabbling, first between Villeneuve and Jenson Button, then between the Canadian and David Richards as Honda seemed to exert pressure in favour of Takuma Sato on one hand, whilst Jacques had disgruntled former BAR boss Craig Pollock in his corner. These were the final pangs of the process by which Richards sought to get rid of the old 'names' in the team in favour of people with a more team-oriented outlook. Although Honda did make some gains in terms of engine power and reliability, Richards was still yet to fully get the whip out as he probably needed to, for his engine suppliers to start innovating as they used to do and give BAR an advantage. Still, when the two cars came 3rd and 6th in Friday qualifying in Melbourne, we all wondered if this was the year when BAR would finally step up to challenge the main contenders. But as it turned out, points in 9 of 16 races including two 4ths, almost a podium at Indy, and clear 'best of the rest' status at most Grands Prix meant that that year will have to wait until 2004. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 6. Toyota | ||||||
|
At the start of the season, when Williams were worried about the competitiveness of their new car, they feared that they would be only the fourth or fifth best team behind even the Toyotas in Melbourne. But, as it turned out, the Japanese giant's second season was roughly a tale of two halves. Up to and including Monaco, the Gustav Brunner-designed TF103s seemed to be continuing the average form of its predecessor, the TF102, but after a humiliating race on the streets of the principality, their level of competitiveness increased dramatically, qualifying in the top ten 14 times out of 18.
Nevertheless, apart from a seven-point double-score at Hockenheim, the team only grossed another seven points from the rest of the season, and even with the result in Germany they were still four behind Jaguar, five behind Sauber and twelve behind BAR. More than anything else that was down to an embarrassing lack of acumen in the tactical department. Too often the Toyotas would qualify on low fuel and start races in a blaze of glory, only to pit earlier than everyone else and watch in vain as their competitors kept leapfrogging them during the stops. Aerodynamic efficiency was still as lacking on the TF103 as it was on the TF102, plus a lack of grip remained a problem, as did a propensity for the occasional brake failure. Despite one of the best engines on the grid, without getting the chassis right that was going to be of little benefit. Still, going by their general competitiveness in the second half of the year, Toyota positioned themselves as not only a team that survived their second year, usually the toughest for any new team, but also as a team ready to take large steps forward in 2004, and that was undoubtedly to their credit. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 7. Jaguar-Cosworth | ||||||
|
A strange year, this, for the Leaping Cat. Most would count it as one of their more impressive so far, but under the old points system 2003 would have been their lowest-scoring season yet with only a meagre 3 points. The thing is that it's all relative to expectations. Following on from a horrible 2002 with an unreliable R3 that was uncompetitive in all but one outing, and a pre-season in which there was a wholesale clean-out of management and technical staff, for the R4 to be as competitive as it was, as often as it was, made it a positive year for the outfit.
Most importantly, under the no-nonsense guidance of David Pitchforth, Tony Purcell and Mark Gillan, with one of the revelations of the year in Mark Webber behind the wheel, Jaguar finally seemed to be heading in the right direction. They achieved what they set out to do by designing an uncomplicated R4, which proved as a bonus to be speedy, especially in Friday qualifying when on low fuel it managed to generate heat into the tyres better than any other car, but reliability throughout the year was not as good as hoped. Still, five points finishes in six races in mid-season was a very solid effort. On the down side, on full tanks the R4 used its rubber too fast, often undoing Webber's Friday work. Straight-line speed was also lacking at times despite the latest engine from Cosworth, and tactically they were at times either too radical or too conservative. With attention and money focussed on the R5, development was almost non-existent, and the lacklustre showings of the second car raised accusations, unproven but also unrefuted, that Jaguar was just a one-car outfit. The fact was that Jaguar was the only midfield team not to record a big double-points finish, and that cost them dearly in the end. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 8. Sauber-Petronas | ||||||
|
Sauber were one of the major disappointments of 2003. They had last year's Ferrari engine in an F2002-lookalike C22 chassis, coupled to their own electronics, exhausts and gearbox, but if many thought they might have been capable of emulating to some degree the F2002's feats, then results fell well short of expectations. With attention focussed on their new windtunnel due to begin service in 2004, the C22's aerodynamics under Willi Rampf and Seamus Mullarkey were merely an inadequate progression from the C21 and in turn the original C20 designed by Sergio Rinland for the 2001 season.
In terms of reliability the team also had a sub-standard year, especially in mid-season when engine problems that had never been seen in the Ferrari afflicted Nick Heidfeld in particular. Tactically, along with Toyota the Swiss team was one of those which took the low-fuel gamble in qualifying more often than others, but that rarely translated into race results, possibly with the exception of Heinz-Harald Frentzen's 6th in Australia. Peter Sauber's team was lucky not to finish 9th in the constructors' table, rising to 6th only on the back of their fluke double points finish in Indianapolis. However, there were positive signs to emerge. For a team known for little development throughout the year, they did chip away at the aerodynamic and reliability issues with noticeable improvement. For example, they copied the Williams engine cover fin and introduced radical, complex barge board designs, and Heidfeld had a perfect finishing record in the second half of the year including three 9ths and a 5th. Sauber also drew closer to Ferrari in terms of politics and technical partnership, making them the least private of the three 'privateer' teams, and giving them hope for the future. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 9. Jordan-Ford | ||||||
|
At the end of 2003, Eddie Jordan was an unhappy man. Under last year's points system, they would have been 5th in the constructors' championship, yet instead they ended up 9th. But in all honesty, Jordan did not deserve to be any higher than where they were eventually placed. From the giddy title-challenging heights of 1999, by the start of this season their former sponsors had withdrawn en masse leaving only Benson & Hedges, whilst the engine deal with Ford Europe created less hype than expected and had even less substantial impact on the track.
The EJ13 was not a bad chassis. Henri Durand had done his best to produce a simple and nimble machine, although reliability proved an issue with the yellow cars only finishing about half the time. But, like at Minardi, the problem was that there was no budget to undergo a proper development program, and in this regard Gary Anderson's decision to go into semi-retirement did the team no favours at all. In view of all this, one also wonders why Jordan pursued the apparently hopeless litigation against Vodafone so vigorously, wasting time, money and resources along the way. Apart from the fluke win in Brazil, Jordan only recorded two other minor points finishes, and 14 times out of 34 qualified in the bottom four. Again, as with Minardi their poor results were not for a want of trying, but EJ was now paying the price for his managerial mistakes of the past. However, by doing a deal with Chinese national TV, taking one of his cars to Macau and sounding out potential investors in the region, whilst the team might be on the verge of losing its Irish larrikin flavour, Eddie might have been the first off the mark in tapping into this potential goldmine. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 10. Minardi-Cosworth | ||||||
|
Paul Stoddart's grand plan for 2003 was for the team to gain a midfield foothold and score regular points. Thus it was depressing to see Minardi sinking even further from the pace than they were in 2002. Although reliability was generally respectable, the PS03 by Loic Bigois had minimum time in the windtunnel, appeared to handle skittishly, and underwent virtually no development as the season progressed. The inadequacy of the chassis, plus the tortuous switch to Bridgestones in the pre-season - which surely they regretted by year's end - meant they took no advantage of their Cosworth engines.
Needless to say, money was the perennial problem. The irony was that last year when they had heavy Malaysian backing, their Asiatech engines were free. But this year, when they had to pay for their Cosworths, the Asian support evaporated, the Russian deal with Gazprom fell through before the season began, other sponsors defaulted, and the team had to rely heavily on the Dutch money brought by Jos Verstappen. Losing Justin Wilson to Jaguar was a blow, and bringing in Nicolas Kiesa as racer and Gianmaria Bruni as tester instead of vice versa was a mistake, but one driven by monetary considerations. The only highlights were a possible podium in the Brazil mayhem, a solid weekend in Canada, and a meaningless provisional pole in rain-affected Friday qualifying in France. Though their lack of results was not for a want of effort, like it or not F1 isn't the sport it used to be, and if Minardi couldn't cope in this manufacturer-dominated age, sympathy was going to be in short supply. At the same time as Stoddart was all-too-publically moaning about his team's lack of money, he was confessing his willingness to sell out whilst looking at other airline investments, which raised questions about his commitment to his dream. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Some images used here are Copyright © Formula1.com and © F1Racing.net. For enlarged versions, please visit their sites! |
||||||
| |||
| Back to 2003 Season Review | |||
| Main Page | Drivers Index | Reject Teams | Hall of Shame | |||
|
Featured Rejects Reject Statistics Submit-a-Reject FAQ / Copyright |
Reject CENTRALE • Latest GP Review • Other Articles • Links / Banner |
Sign Guestbook Read Guestbook Current Poll Previous Polls |
|
|
|
|||
| All original content Copyright © 1999-2003 Formula One Rejects. | |||