Both cars followed their respective concepts but more developed for 2018. Ferrari had a beast of an engine back then, but Mercedes was still on average the better car, especially towards the end of the season.LM10 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022, 22:26Ferrari with a Mercedes engine would have walked to the title in that year - on raw pace.Emag wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022, 22:08Yes, the 2017 car was radical and performed very good. But let's not forget Mercedes had a completely different concept that year and they had on average, the faster car.LM10 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022, 22:02
The 2017 Ferrari was the most radical looking car on the grid and performed the best on chassis/aerodynamic side. They interpreted the rule changes like no other team back then and eventually their concept was copied by everyone. It was before ERS and fuel flow were even a thing.
So radical does not automatically mean the best.
I know very well that radical does not automatically mean the best. No one has claimed so. However, mzso claimed that radical looking cars have not performed well in the past, which is simply not true.
Anyway, don't want to drag on too much on this. My point is, there is almost always more than one way to get things right. And sometimes, the more "striking" solutions perform worse in relation to something that looks simple in comparison.