No 0.2s isn't asking too much. Lotus for instance is expecting 0.2s with their China updates. Ferrari isn't some back-marker team that doesn't know what they're doing. Yes they got it wrong from the start, but it's a stretch to say they can't improve the car.Ferraripilot wrote:Crucial_Xtreme wrote:I expect maybe 0.2s possibly 0.3s from the updates maybe? I don't think 0.2s is too much to expect, but with other teams bringing updates they expect to give them 0.2s, we need ours to be 3 tenths or more.
Asking for .200 from updates is really asking a lot. I suspect Ferrari still haven't got a firm grasp on what their car is doing and what affects it thus making any updates a shot in the dark. They need a few more dry races to understand their car better, and then they can impliment updates which might bear fruit.
Updates are introduced to improve the car. To improve some aspect of the car. The aim is to increase the performance of the entire package. How much the updates are worth in lap time is anyones guess, including the team, but the aim is to gain performance. This is black and white with no gray area.marcush. wrote:the story about upgrades worth so and so much time is grey theory .Who said those updates really cancel shortcomings of the current car?
You may well be limited in performance by something completely different and your upgrade adresses an area you are quite close to the optimum. or even an area that is not performance sensitive-example-blade roll hoop -
So an update is only as good as the analysis of your situation an allocating development time and recources in the correct area.
How much an update will yield is anyone's guess, but simple logic and some practical observation tells that updates on a suboptimal design can give more than on a good car from the get go.Crucial_Xtreme wrote:I expect maybe 0.2s possibly 0.3s from the updates maybe? I don't think 0.2s is too much to expect, but with other teams bringing updates they expect to give them 0.2s, we need ours to be 3 tenths or more. Not likely though.
+1!!!timbo wrote:How much an update will yield is anyone's guess, but simple logic and some practical observation tells that updates on a suboptimal design can give more than on a good car from the get go.Crucial_Xtreme wrote:I expect maybe 0.2s possibly 0.3s from the updates maybe? I don't think 0.2s is too much to expect, but with other teams bringing updates they expect to give them 0.2s, we need ours to be 3 tenths or more. Not likely though.
Ferrari are just late to the party in getting away from purely empirical development. The RRA is forcing teams away from this more time,money,labor intensive practice into having to be more intuitive and get things right the first time.Ferrari will recover. Maybe not in 2012,but Ferarri F1 success is too important to to the well being of Fiat as a whole for them to let it continue to slide into 2013.marcush. wrote:Ferrari has a proven record of being able to turn the corner in season development ,that´s true .But still it is rather telling when Fry says they are back around one second on a timed lap.
Of course an upgrade would try to adress a detected shortcomingg of the car but this really is a two edged sword in development usually.Very rarely you get winwin situations in deveelopment ,it´s more like giving up a bit on one thing to gain in another area.If you happen to give up something in an area not relevant to lap time -cool,but cars with flaws rarely find out of the woods completelyall of a sudden.
This is one way of looking at it. However, you should give some more thought to the knock on effects of having a car that doesn't do what it should do unlike 'well born cars'. Ferrari will have had several months of planned upgrades that they would've been preparing for the F2012 long before the first test in Jerez. The problem they have is it's possible that a lot of these plans may've had to be been scrapped as the car's behaviour was quite different to what they thought. They're having to develop from a platform that they struggled to understand. Cars that have done as expected will be able to refine/bring forwards developments that have been in the pipeline for months and so have more potential to deliver results. The China package for Mclaren would've been well developed since before the race in Melbourne but I'm not sure the same could be said of Ferrari who were still fire fighting back then.Abarth wrote:Of course you can measure upgrades in laptime, and you have to, even if it is just simulated or via wind tunnel data.
It's just that a specific upgrade (package) will bring as much on this circuit and on another it will bring more or less. Same applies for other variables. And no one has the time to measure on track in absolute values what it brings, except some easy to change upgrade parts as a front wing.
The important thing is the relative measurement, compared to the others. This is the only thing which counts in reality, as you have to be better than the others.
As for upgrading a dog, well, if there is a specific problem area, if you now how to change and can change it without building a new car, you can quickly gain a lot of lap time.
Others with already "well born cars" will only be able to go for very small steps.
Alonso "I’m not expecting any surprises in this race, compared to what we saw in Australia and Malaysia. It’s true almost three weeks have gone by, but that does not mean there was enough time to completely turn the car around in such a short time: we will have a few small updates, but nothing particularly significant and on top of that, we can expect that the other teams will also bring some new parts."
Link
