I agree, plus Newey has a LOT of experience and he has already done this kind of mistakes in the past (he literally said it in that interview), and not being anymore responsible for the car design he was in the perfect position to say "trust me bro, the tools are wrong", Waché not so much; but I'm sure this year will be a great lesson for him and his teamPaa wrote: ↑11 Sep 2024, 01:17Yes, the situation is indeed very similar to the Merc fiasco. It must be difficult to abandon a concept, while you see the big gains and sexy numbers in the tools. Possibly you even need to be a Newey caliber to be able to afford to do that.AR3-GP wrote: ↑11 Sep 2024, 00:34It's how Mercedes failed with the W13.
In my opinion, this was the difference between Newey and Wache leadership. Wache must have thought everything is so simple and that he could replace Newey with a systematic simulation led approach. Put all the ideas into the blender and let the simulations and tools decide for you...The tools and simulations told them to do shark mouths and concepts inspired by other cars (W13), but these concepts already failed on other cars (stiff suspension, low ground clearance, shrunken side pods, canon rear engine cover, were all failures of the W13). They must have thought their simulations and tools would lead them away from the mistakes that Mercedes made with these concepts, but it turns out to not be too different to how the W13 turned out. Peaky car with tiny operating window that was struck once in a blue moon.
You need more than tools and simulations. Simulations can make you think something is a good idea, but intuition can make you think twice. Newey had intuition which they lack now. Mclaren shows that it is possible to work without Newey, so Red Bull will have to find their own way.
I mean, if a not so well-established TD abandons a concept with very nice numbers based on a "hunch" and his alternative is not a big success, then it is carrier suicide for him. Even if the simulated concept would have been a bigger failure in reality. In situations like this, it is much safer to just go with the simulations and if it doesn't deliver on track, they can always blame the tools and correlation. It is safe.
One has to be absolutely sure in himself to abandon a concept like that for an intuition, because from that point, the designer bears all responsibility.
Considering all this, I think it is actually nice from Red Bull that they reacted so quickly. And also makes Merc's years long struggle somehow more understandable.
that's why I'm not angry at the technical team for having screwed the RB20 development, somehow this happened to all teams with these rules which are extremely difficult to understand
I am much more angry for the presumption errors the trackside team made, thinking that you can overtake easily in Budapest, that you can afford an engine penalty in the possibly only track left where win is achievable, not to mention the clown shows with the brakes in Melbourne and the engine in Montreal, which costed a ton of points.
