|
2004 Teams Review
An in-depth look at the past season, team by team and driver by driver |
||||
| Back to 2004 Season Review | Back to Reject CENTRALE | Go to Text-Only Version | ||
|
||||
| 1. Ferrari | ||||||
|
What can you say? Just when everyone was predicting that the time had come for Ferrari to be beaten, the Maranello machine put its head down in the off-season. Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne returned to a 2002-style wheelbase for the F2004. Paolo Martinelli and Gilles Simon kept eking out ever more power from the engine. Bridgestone licked its wounds and developed a tyre perfectly suited to the characteristics of both driver and car. Add to that a Michael Schumacher in relentless, merciless form as long as the championship remained alive, and the final scoresheets speak for themselves.
There was hardly a chink in the armour. The car handled near-perfectly, and the engine was at the forefront in the power and reliability stakes. There was hardly a mechanical problem to speak of during races, let alone a single mechanical retirement. The tyres worked in both cool and warm conditions, although mother nature was kind, in that there was hardly a Michelin-suiting, blisteringly hot race day all season. It gave the team the confidence to experiment tactically, as they did in France and Britain, while the burn from the stern at Monza showed their superiority to jaw-dropping effect. But there were still lingering errors. Strategically they were slow to respond at Monaco and Brazil and lost both those races. On opening laps they remained vulnerable, not being able to generate heat into the tyres quite quick enough. And, after both titles were sewn up, the intensity level unusually dropped, especially on Schumacher's part. But in the end, there was no arguing against 15 wins out of 18, 12 poles, 14 fastest laps, and 262 points. Their superiority was up there at 2002 levels, perhaps even better. There was simply no more dominant force in sport anywhere in the world this year. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 2. BAR-Honda | ||||||
|
Like them or loathe them, it was a joy to see BAR making the genuine step up to top team status in 2004, and an awesome vindication of David Richards' management methods. In terms of a synergy amongst all the elements of the team, only Ferrari did it better. Unlike Renault, McLaren and Williams, which all went for radical chassis that failed to varying degrees, Geoff Willis' 005 was conservative, but good-looking, effective and easy to handle. Instead of fixing problems, the team could spend time working on other innovations, like their fantastic all carbon-fibre gearbox.
Honda finally awoke from their slumber to recapture their successful philosophies of old, producing perhaps the engine of the year, pumping out over 19,000 rpm and possibly over 950 horsepower. Despite early setbacks, the engine proved reliable as well. On the driving front, the team steadily refined Takuma Sato, but more importantly, they got the best out of Jenson Button, resulting in 85 points, ten podiums and one pole from him alone. That they continued to co-operate harmoniously during the Williams contract saga spoke volumes to their professionalism, putting Renault to shame for their tiff with Trulli. But for all their wonderful achievements, question marks hung over the team, and not without reason. How much of their 'best of the rest' status was down to others stumbling? For whilst Renault, McLaren and Williams all walked away from 2004 with a victory, BAR had the chances to do so, but not once could convert those podiums into a win. Their pit work was not as efficient as their rivals', and at crucial moments like when they needed to make up time or protect track position during pit stop sequences, they seemed to lack that killer instinct. But 2nd in the constructors' title was well-deserved. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 3. Renault | ||||||
|
2004 was both an impressive and frustrating season for Renault in equal measures. Last season their weakness was a lack of power from their 110-degree engine. Reverting to a more traditional layout resolved that to a degree, even if the motor was based on an old design. Their start systems were easily the best, Fernando Alonso gaining six positions in one hit at Indy. However, the better straight-line speed was achieved at the expense of aerodynamic and chassis balance, the hallmark of last year's R23. The understeer on Bob Bell's bulbous R24 reached dramatic proportions, most memorably in Spain.
Renault had more weekends when they looked like toppling Ferrari than any other team, notably in Monaco, France and to a lesser extent Belgium, but conversely when they weren't on race-winning pace they were likely to be off the podium as well, scoring only six rostrum finishes to BAR's eleven. In other words, it seemed a true reflection that eventually they were decisively beaten by BAR. With the smallest budget amongst the top teams, development seemed to tail off, and in the last few races they were struggling to match the speed of BAR and McLaren, let alone Ferrari. A further downer was Flavio Briatore's sense of man-management, or lack thereof. Not only did the drain of engineering staff to other teams continue, seemingly without concern on Briatore's part, but the fall-out with Jarno Trulli was just plain ugly. Even if Jarno went off the boil after that, it seemed likely that he was getting inferior equipment, and for a leading team that is simply immature behaviour. The gamble on Jacques Villeneuve didn't work, but they weren't to know that at the time. In the end, the second car scored no points after France, and 2nd in the constructors' title was lost. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 4. Sauber-Petronas | ||||||
|
True, Sauber were once again running Ferrari hand-me-downs in terms of the C23's engines and gearboxes, but let's end the myth that that alone brought about their very creditable showing in 2004. An unchallenged 6th in the constructors' title, they could well have come 5th had McLaren persisted with their MP4/19 all season. With the car's reliability not in issue, all season it was no surprise to see a Sauber picking up what minor points crumbs the top teams had left. And occasionally, like Giancarlo Fisichella's great drive at Spa, the C23 was well capable of mixing it with the major guns.
Strategy was one of Sauber's main weapons throughout the season. On numerous occasions, certainly more often than any other team, the Swiss outfit was prepared to sacrifice grid position for heavy fuel loads and long stints that invariably moved them up the order substantially. In the latter stages of the year, Felipe Massa especially went for some low-fuel qualifying glory runs, but this was more an exception than the norm. Excellent pit work was integral to their tactics, as was a commendable collaboration with Bridgestone, despite their plans to switch to Michelin in 2005. More impressive still was the way that Sauber maintained development as the year progressed, unlike in previous seasons, thanks no doubt to their wind tunnel at Hinwil. Despite McLaren and Williams getting much stronger and more reliable in the second half of the year, Sauber actually scored more points in the last nine races than they did in the first nine. Peter Sauber also raised his reputation and did more for privateer teams than Eddie Jordan and Paul Stoddart's blustering by scoring the coup of signing Jacques Villeneuve, and siding against Ferrari in the nine teams' pact in Brazil. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 5. McLaren-Mercedes | ||||||
|
What happens when you have a car which is down on power, can't brake steadily for corners, and can't handle through turns properly? You get the McLaren MP4/19, which, frankly, was an embarrassment. If the unraced MP4/18A had been problematic, one would have expected all its failings to have been rectified by the time MP4/19 was born. Incredibly, they weren't; the chassis remained too radical, too extreme, and therefore too flimsy. Even more amazingly, the MP4/19 had started testing in November last year, but the issues were barely identified, let alone fixed, through the off-season.
And that's before we get to the topic of reliability. In the quest to make up the power deficit, the new Mercedes engine was a pyrotechnics display waiting to happen, with five detonations in races, four for Kimi Raikkonen, and numerous more in practice and test sessions. But while the litany of engine failures caught most of the attention, in the races alone there was a broken gearbox in Malaysia, a pneumatics failure in Bahrain, an electrical problem in Hungary, a water leak in Italy, and most notably Raikkonen's rear wing failure in Germany. Reliability was an issue all around, not just at Ilmor. But, whereas the starting base line was substantially worse than, say, Williams, McLaren and Mercedes admirably bit the bullet and got their act together. The MP4/19B was developed in double-quick time, and immediately was a competitive proposition that could take wins and podiums. The engines stopped blowing so regularly, and the triumph at Spa was well-deserved. With luck, it may not have been the 19B's only victory either. While there was no excusing the mistakes that allowed the execrable MP4/19 onto the track, their improvement in the second half of the year redeemed them somewhat. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 6. Williams-BMW | ||||||
|
Everywhere you look, 2004 was a disappointment for Williams. Like last year, the chassis missed the mark from the outset; unlike last year, it took a lot longer to diagnose and fix the FW26's deficiencies. Too long, in fact. The twin-keel design and the walrus nose, whilst plausible in theory, proved to be a dismal failure, and the return to a more traditional nosecone marked a distinct upturn in fortunes. By year's end, it was no surprise that aerodynamicist Antonia Terzi had been dumped. Reliability was generally good, with the exception of an occasionally troublesome gearbox.
But how much of Williams' drop in performance down to the car, and how much down to their drivers? In Juan-Pablo Montoya and Ralf Schumacher, the Grove team had quite simply the most unmotivated pair in the paddock. Though hardened observers admire their approach of letting drivers fend for themselves and never coaxing them, perhaps they could have pro-actively extracted more out of not only them, but stand-ins Marc Gené and Antonio Pizzonia as well. When JPM felt like he had something to play for in Brazil, he won the race. Oh, and Williams failed to get Jenson Button for 2005 ... The administrative reshuffle which saw Sam Michael replace Patrick Head as technical director was probably necessary, but the fashion in which it was done was rather rushed and sudden. The disqualifications in Canada and the USA, though not the Australian's fault, nonetheless showed that organisationally things had gone out of kilter. In BMW and Mario Thiessen, Williams also had the most outspoken manufacturer partner of any team. Not only did BMW lose the horsepower race to Ferrari and Honda, but their at-times threatening noises about withdrawal brought instability when calm was needed. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 7. Jaguar-Cosworth | ||||||
|
Ford's decision to put Jaguar up for sale may have come as something of a surprise, and certainly as a wake-up call to the rest of the sport. Just as there were suggestions that Ford would up the ante and run the team under its own name, Detroit's withdrawal signalled that, yes, the manufacturers could indeed leave at will. But in truth, by the time 2004 had come around, Ford's investment was limited and half-hearted anyway, to the point where they had to hire Christian Klien for his $10 million of Red Bull money, a decision David Pitchforth came to regret as the season wore on.
The restricted cashflow was such that, even though last year under the likes of Pitchforth and Tony Purnell Jaguar finally seemed to be heading in the right direction, little was heard from them this season. In hindsight it was clear that the team was in no more than a holding pattern, with little development of the R5 as 2004 progressed. Moreover, the R5 had not ironed out some of the R4's inherent defects. Notably, it still heated up its tyres too quickly, which meant great speed over one lap, like Webber's qualifying stunners in Australia and Malaysia, but which also meant debilitating tyre wear in races. There were few repeats of those one-lap specials, although by taking the car to the edge of the top 10 regularly in qualifying and race, Webber extracted as much as there was from the Cat. Jaguar also continued to be shocking off the line, the latest Cosworth lost out in the grunt stakes, and there were too many retirements at inopportune times. Plus the team failed to manage their drivers' instincts; Webber and Klien picked up four 'Reject of the Race' awards between them. Although everyone was dedicated and worked hard to the end, the dream (nightmare?) of Jaguar as the British Ferrari was finally over. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 8. Jordan-Ford | ||||||
|
The fall and fall of Jordan continued in 2004. Before the season started there was confident talk that the EJ 14 had made huge aerodynamic gains over its predecessor, and that they team could compete for 5th in the constructors' title. Both predictions proved well wide of the mark. Fortuitous points at Monaco and Canada could not disguise the fact that the car was cumbersome to handle, slow in a straight line thanks to a down-on-power Cosworth, and one of the most unreliable in the field, with notoriously troublesome hydraulics and 11 mechanical retirements in total.
Tactically they were astute, occasionally moving into competitive midfield positions by using heavier fuel loads, but in other areas they were less so. Their 11th hour choice of Giorgio Pantano not only brought a driver who had difficulty paying, but who was also the worst under-performer in the field. By contrast, testers Timo Glock and even Robert Doornbos proved much more impressive. Eddie Jordan also somehow avoided a PR disaster when he vetoed Nick Heidfeld from deputising for Ralf Schumacher at Williams, whilst the stop-start attempts to sign Jos Verstappen proved a futile waste of time. Where you'd think EJ's charm would prove effective, Jordan was noticeably weak: in obtaining sponsorship. Compared to Minardi, they were unable to attract small backers, and were left with displaying those obscure messages from Bahrain. Rumours abounded that they were going to lose their one remaining commercial asset from their glory days of 1999, their Benson & Hedges support. No wonder EJ spent much of the year looking to potential Middle East investors and new engine suppliers, after tension with Cosworth, in order to start afresh in 2005. But that meant Jordan's eyes were off the ball in 2004. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 9. Minardi-Cosworth | ||||||
|
It would be unfair to be too critical of this gallant Italian team, whose annual budget is probably around what Michael Schumacher himself earns. After all, they occasionally got close enough to the pace, for example where Zsolt Baumgartner's qualifying time in Brazil would have put him on pole the previous year. And of course the Hungarian scored a lucky point at Indianapolis. But that was more an exception than the rule in 2004, as the black and white machines proved around 4-5 seconds adrift of the best, and, in a year when reliability was generally brilliant, Minardi's was noticeably poor.
All can be explained, of course, by their budgetary constraints, which forced them to run a modified version of last year's car, which was prehistoric aerodynamically, and which underwent no development. The PS04B also seemed like a very unstable machine, although perhaps that also had something to do with its drivers' inadequacies. The engine was also outdated and more often than not got changed on Saturday night. One got the impression that parts were used right to the edge of breaking point. The death of sporting director John Walton only added a huge dose of salt to already gaping wounds. None of that necessarily counts against them, but what else made it a poor season? For one, Stoddart's choice of drivers, both race and test, proved decidedly uninspiring, which only exacerbated their lack of results. The ugly split with sponsors Wilux seems to have been caused by a lack of sensitivity on the part of all concerned. Stoddart also continued to appear more worried about railing against the establishment than improving his own team, although doubtless this was not the case. We didn't expect much from Minardi this year, but it was a pity to see them spending the season yet again treading water. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
| 10. Toyota | ||||||
|
That a team with a budget comparable to Williams or McLaren's could finish 8th in the constructors' championship with only 9 points was, in anyone's language, a gross under-achievement that leaves them at the bottom of our rankings. It was also as much proof as BAR's first few years that money is no guarantee of success. Though the TF104 and its 'B' version were reliable, with only a handful of mechanical retirements all season, the car was flawed aerodynamically, as Gustav Brunner continued his succession of disappointingly less-than-brilliant designs for the Cologne-based team.
Also frustrating was the fact that, when Mika Salo and Allan McNish were turfed out at the end of 2002, that was meant to mark the fresh start that earned results. However, that also turned out to be a false start, as this year, possibly at new recruit Mike Gascoyne's doing, the personnel changes came thick and fast. Cristiano da Matta went, as did backroom stalwarts Ange Pasquali and Norbert Kreyer, while Ove Andersson's role was severely cut. By year's end, Olivier Panis had been pensioned off into a test role, and are rumoured to be looking to farm Ryan Briscoe out as well. The positive side was that Toyota was undoubtedly drawing together a team of reputable names that promises progress, but by now they've wasted three years in F1. Gascoyne showed that his developmental nous is still there as the TF104B did indeed mark a significant step forward, whilst the Toyota engine remained one of the best, envied by potential customer teams like Jordan. However, the red and white cars still faltered too many times at starts, and tactically the team was weak, as more often than not they fell down the order as races progressed. Back to the top. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Some images used here are Copyright © Formula1.com and © F1Racing.net. For enlarged versions, please visit their sites! |
||||||
| |||
| Back to 2004 Season Review | |||
| Main Page | Drivers Index | Reject Teams | Hall of Shame | |||
|
Reject Extras Reject Interviews 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 © 1999-2004 Formula One Rejects. | |||