Kalsi wrote:iotar__ wrote:- Mercedes' domination is bad but Ferrari's or Red Bull's was OK? The fact that no Merc/Ferrari/RB-R customer engine team can compete is a problem, yet any talk about cost control is dismissed? It's a fixable design not accident.
- Three years of whining about Pirellis here, Red Bull's propaganda, media's drama, now you have your perfect tyres that last forever like Bridgestones and yet you complain, what did you expect from one-stoppers? Williams gifted one place to Ferrari so something did happen. Choice of compounds mentioned earlier is secondary, choices are limited, they will not touch big difference combination or anything risky, tyres like that were ordered. Ask those who ordered.
- there are two positives: Ferrari/Williams fight and Red Bull. Funny how no amount of test reality could counter brand impact on expectations, slow over one lap, no race sims to speak of, it didn't matter. They were actively advocating destroying other teams through third grade engine support and demands of sole focus and now they dare to complain about the engine? Toro Rosso is fine.
Ferrari and RBR dominant years were due to superior design compared to competitors.... Mercedes domination also is due to that fact for sure, but it's ridicolously defended by the regulations, keeping the others from catching up... that's the problem
Well, in Renault their case also by simply screwing up the limited possibilities they have. Ferrari is rumored to have decreased the engine advantage at least. Renault actually managed to make their engine less reliable, less powerful and less driveable. That's by no means the fault of the regulations.
Also, the regulations allow room for engine development. During the V8 period that scope wasn't there. You are looking at it in the wrong perspective: the rules don't limit the scope of catching up, they actually increase the scope of extending the advantage.
Not that I'm complaining about this. Imagine the current situation in the V8 era; we would all be raging due Renault not being able at all to close the gap.
The current rules advocate efficiency. Not only efficiency of fuel usage, but also efficiency from extracting as much as performance out of limited development scope that is offered. Again, Ferrari did a very good job on this, Renault managed to screw it up.
Also, some comments from Horner that made frown was that he demands the FIA needs to act, claiming that when RBR dominated the FIA abolished certain concepts that made rbr dominate. But what was banned actually?
-Double diffusers: not a thing that RBR pioneered in. They did not start the 2009 season with it, and in 2010 they compromised on the concept by having pull rod instead of push rod.
-F-duct: a mclaren invention. RBR never got to fully integrate it into their chassis, which was homologated in 2010.
-Double DRS: A mercedes invention, which RBR only took over late in the 2012 season.
-Exhaust Blown Diffusers: RBR, Mclaren and Ferrari all developed this on their own. Granted that RBR was the better one with this.
-Engine mapping to support the former point: Admittingly, a thing RBR had the most progress in. However, in Silverstone 2011 they were partially and temporarily banned. Mclaren was the team actually that was the most disadvantaged by it.
-Wing Flexing: banned since an eternity and tried to work around for the same period. I remember mclaren rear wings falling off due too much flexing in the 2000's.
Looking at that list, FIA never specifically targetted RBR in order to diminish their advantage. So why should they do that now with Mercedes? Loose from the fact the FIA does not decide on it own anymore on such things.
