SpainFAN wrote:ball, I agree with the first part of your post, not calling you out as many keep saying that the PUs have not been run to their fullest, I tend to ponder disbelief when I read such comments, as if the teams themselves have thrown in the towel on the first couple of races... I really hope that this is not the case, unless someone has clear proof to the contrary, I think we are seen outcomes that present themselves as honest excellence/limitations of their own packages.
I still feel that the Ferrari has a serios drag penalty that they are trying to correct. I think they are getting good DF with tier body work, but the drag on the sidepod is keeping them from getting higher top speeds and/or could bee their PU and gearing also but seen the direction they are going in modifying the "coke bottle" neck, leads me to believe that they are still struggling with drag in the straights.
I saw both Kimmy and Alonso put in got 1st and 2nd sector times, also on the las lap for Kimmy he came in very fast in the chicane and you could see lateral drift do to centrifugal force much more in control than the previous races. They also seem to slip a little less on the faster corners but they are lower in power (IMO) and it could be hurting their lap times. So the new package is fixing some of the issues with lateral drift or lack of DF and sidepod "lift" =D> but they still need to work on the top speed.
[-o<
F1.com wrote:Technical director James Allison said that while major changes are not permitted owing to the development freeze on the new engines which came into effect before the racing began, it is possible to be more aggressive with settings arrived at during dynamometer testing, and Montreal marks the first time that Fernando Alonso and Kimi Raikkonen will be able to exploit these.
"There is a lot of opportunity to get more horsepower out of the same hardware as you increase your confidence in how hard you can push it,” Allison said.
And think about it: How many times have we heard a radio transmission in which an engineer instructs his driver to "save the engine" at some point during a race? While the scale of the matter is obviously quite different here, the change is fundamentally the same. It's "just" an engine map, albeit one made all the more complicated by everything associated with ERS integration.
Personally, I think Renault and Ferrari's PU woes are the ironic consequence of having to introduce extremely expensive new hardware within a sporting environment that severely restricts testing in order to save money. Doesn't make a whole lotta sense, yanno?
As far as the chassis goes, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with it. Rather, I don't think we can faithfully conclude the existence of a fault based upon trials we see/perceive as steps taken to correct a fault, if that makes any sense.
Take this rear wing, for instance...
How can we be certain about what it aims to address? It's obviously intended to reduce drag. But, is that because the chassis is draggy, or because poor low-speed traction limits acceleration, and thus, top speed, or maybe it's just the continued evaluation of
a solution tested prior to the season? All are valid possibilities in spite of their disparate nature.
That's my take on the matter, anyway. I've been wrong before...