Yes it is an oversimplification. I think my tone was a bit misconstrued; I don't realistically think Haas will ever be on par with Ferrari. The "theoretically" should have included a few more sets of quotation marks.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑03 Mar 2024, 01:41That's a massive, massive, massive oversimplification of everything related to performance and aero engineeringcontinuum16 wrote: ↑02 Mar 2024, 00:29
The car is mechanically identical to the SF-24 and as the regs age and there is aero convergence; so there is no reason for Haas to be more than 0.5s/lap off of Ferrari. Theoretically there should be little to choose between them if Haas were run properly.
Haas won't make a break until they have their entire operation under one roof, make their own chasis and assemble the car in there as well. What started as a good business model is not enough now that survivng is not an issue and teams are cutting all unnecessary costs left and right. And already this year it will be clear Steiner was right to insist on that very same issue. Gene Haas wanted a scapegoat, it's as simple as that.
If you want to win you probably do need to do more or less everything yourself. I use "probably" because I don't think that it is an absolute must. There are plenty of examples across motorsport where a secondary/satellite team can compete with and beat the supplier. I guess whether or not you consider F1 as its own animal and therefore immune to comparison with other series (I don't, but others definitely do) will impact whether you believe building everything in-house is an absolute must.
I don't work at Haas or indeed any F1 team. But externally I don't see what Steiner brought to the table beyond charisma. Maybe he was much more focused behind the scenes, I have no reason to doubt that nor evidence to support that idea.
The bottom line is, it has been one race, that just so happened to go better than the last 20. The next 23 will clearly show whether or not the issue lies with the tools or the man in charge of them.