Vanja #66 wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 20:18
ing. wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 18:03
Are you referring to the concept that worked so well that they almost got beat by Merc after they had to fix the floor, post TD? The concept that, after 3 days testing and 3 practice sessions they were still trying to find the proper set-up? The same concept used by Haas to have a stinker of a race? Early days yet—and hope to see an improvement—but doesn’t sound good to me.
Ok, debunking time, buckle up. The concept was clearly the best of the field right up to the political TD that was aimed at RB. The car was more than decent on tyres, was able to run very low whenever the track allowed for it and the only downside was slightly too much drag that allowed Max to win in Jeddah and Miami (along with Ferrari taking conservative setups for the race). Ferrari lost Barcelona, Monaco, Baku, Canada (because Leclerc's penalty prevented him from fighting for the win), France and Hungary due to engine trouble, strategy errors and driver error. That's 6 wins, which could have been at least 4 without technical DNFs. Engine performance and/or reliability were not related to the car concept.
The fact a rule change exposed their exploitation of the rules shows innovation. No car that won a WDC/WCC in the last 30-40 years wasn't at least somewhat in a gray area, while some were actually illegal. And why are you even taking Haas' race with a bad luck start for Hulk and bad qualy for Magnussen? Do you really find it representative? You know what, better take this as a rhetorical question...
ing. wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 18:03
Also, I’m not alone in saying it. Here’s Autosport’s take:
“While others have ploughed their own furrow – like Ferrari with its in-wash solution and Mercedes with its zero-pod idea –
the evidence appears to be mounting that the best design for the 2022 rules era cars is what Red Bull has done.”
I'm not sure it's worth replying to you after this part, but what the heck, maybe this time you'll take a chance to learn something new.
Autosport is a magazine for laymen, not even technical, let alone technical magazine with utmost integrity. They published jewels such as this
https://cdn-3.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... ODSARR.jpg
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferr ... 9/1399503/
I still remember how hard we were laughing here about this
ing. wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 18:03
Now, if they decided—like Aston Martin did last year—to go in a new development direction in-season (like Merc are doing) so as not to waste another year and the wind tunnel tells them a deeper undercut (like they did last year) is a big improvement, they won’t even be able to implement it because of the lower SIS location.
AM never went a new way mid-season mate, it's an evolution, pure and simple. Fallows is great at what he does and was able to guide the team in the right way. All the teams with tubs and waterslides copied from Ferrari. I feel you are leaving this out on purpose...
Lower SIS position is giving them an option to do whatever they want with the floor. Or do you think sidepod undercut is more important? Don't answer, another rhetorical...
Here's one more free lesson to wrap this up, Ferrari are using sidepods for big outwash, that's why their car was so predictable last year - no turbulence was entering the diffuser and messing up the floor performance. It still isn't, because of their innovative concept that no other team implemented in such a way on their launch car last year. AM did and it works brilliantly, doesn't it? It has as much to do with outwash undercut as it does with wide sides all the way to the rear, you can't just force the turbulence out, you need to keep it out with a literal wall. That's one of the reasons Williams and Mercedes didn't work so good last year.
AR3-GP wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 19:15
Clear is trying to say that Ferrari don't have a degradation problem when they run at the car's actual level (slower than RB). It's when the drivers overdrive to keep up with a faster car, that the tires degrade.
I somewhat disagree with Clear because the Ferrari is very quick on Saturday. F = ma, and you don't carry high minimum speeds in the high speed corners without having the downforce to sustain it. It just suggest the downforce is in the wrong place, so while you can compensate over 1 lap, you'll destroy the tire in a race.
That's pretty much what everyone can see from the lap charts, the car wasn't fast enough for the race.
viewtopic.php?p=1122041#p1122041
It's a problem of many factors, lack of downforce (wing setup compromise), lack of suspension setup time, lack of sufficient understanding of the car... As you said, Australia 2022 for RB was the same thing. There's also a thing that brought Ferrari 12 poles last year, the car is generating heat in the tyres quite quickly. They need to understand how to contain it during the race, it's not an unsolvable problem. Well, for Leclerc at least, not sure about Sainz...
