Well, here's something:
http://www.formula1.com/race/technical_ ... 1/403.html
Not worth a whole second as such, I'm sure, but a novel development still. Perhaps we can attribute Whitmarsh's two tenths, rather optimistically, to it. The construction would seem to be on the "easy side" (out of things that are more or less hard to do) to copy to any car, the main aspect of consideration being the advantageous point of boundary layer detachment, not the dynamics of achieving the separation as such once you have a template how to do so.
The past ten years, at least, have indeed shown the advantages of running unimpeded. The official F1 website summed up how this effect worked in the latest race in one of it's headlines:
"Hamilton provides champion protection
GP2 champ continues dream start to Formula One career
World champion Fernando Alonso may have won the Malaysian Grand Prix for McLaren, but it was arguably team mate Lewis Hamilton who provided the key to his victory as the young star spent his afternoon keeping Ferrari’s challenge at bay." etc.
It would be easier to make comparisons had Massa not had his minor moments, because minor they were ... but because they weren't catastrophic in themselves, I'm still left wondering whether that margin truly was enough to explain what ensued in the race after those first laps. At times, he had a clear enough track to drive on to show actual speed. Still, he doesn't feature prominently on the time sheets. (3rd, 4th, 3rd fastest on sector times, 3rd fastest lap of the race but only fractionally above Kimi and, significantly, well below the Maccas) But people are not robots; perhaps he indeed experienced some endurance related limitations.
Well, Raikkonen did gain on Hamilton in the closing stages of the race and matched Alonso, but ostensibly (if Lewis's explanation is to be taken at face value) it was partly because at some point he had misinterpreted gap information in the pit board. And Fernando could lift a bit after the last pit stops. But still, this was done with a car which by Todt's (surprising) admission was compromised to the tune of a tenth per lap.
Kimi fully expected to end up third, but he also expected that in that case his team mate would precede him in the standings. In the first laps there were at least a half a dozen times when Felipe was battling Lewis that instead of temporarily taking his team mate, only to let him past again at the end of a couple of straights down the race, Raikkonen lifted, knowing the entirety of the team's strategic position and his car's relative potential. Massa also knew that challenging for 1st or 2nd was his responsibility alone and thus felt pressured to go for it. Maybe the seconds that counted were lost there, maybe it was a done deal anyway.
I'm still far from sure whether all this can account for what we've seen. Perhaps the teams and the strategists can learn something about dealing with compromises in tactics, the magnification of events and chaos theory in race planning. But I'm thinking, beyond all mentioned above, there could still be something more to McLaren's speed than a butterfly fluttering it's wings two months ago in Kansas. I'm intersted to see whether there's a perceptible trend in overall competitiviness in the coming races.
)
It was definitely one of the least credible calls by the FIA in all the years I've watched F1 - and reaked of mid-season desperation/sour-grapes by Ferrari since their own efforts at producing a similar device failed.