The mileage helps u improve deficiences. Mclaren on the other hand had much less luxury to do that, since the car couldnt even run at full speed. The lackin mileage affected both the engine and the chasis. Result of that is a slow car. But the car is atleast stable, so the chasis is not a toilet. And it doesnt eatup the yres.etusch wrote: ↑26 Mar 2017, 12:00Do you think that ferrari and merc cars also worse than their current condition and they developed their cars by long long runs at test.proteus wrote: ↑26 Mar 2017, 11:44Alonso did what car allowed him to do. Without performance of the car and the engine Alonso would not be able to do anything.
I hope youre an aerodynamicist by youre profession since u know the answer of the chasis. U say Vandoorne is a benchmark for proof the car is bad - Vandoorne had less running than Alonso, he has less experiences than Alonso and he had less developed car as Alonso...
The fact of the matter is that engine is fragile and unreliable with fundamental faults still occuring. The chasis is atleast stable, but undeveloped since it has 2-3 times less mileage as other cars have and that is not due to the chasis itself, it is due to the ENGINE.
I think if you didnt bring a good chasis to the test you cant do with test a winning race car
I've stepped on the door ... obviously it's Honda's fault..etusch wrote: ↑26 Mar 2017, 12:00Do you think that ferrari and merc cars also worse than their current condition and they developed their cars by long long runs at test.proteus wrote: ↑26 Mar 2017, 11:44Alonso did what car allowed him to do. Without performance of the car and the engine Alonso would not be able to do anything.
I hope youre an aerodynamicist by youre profession since u know the answer of the chasis. U say Vandoorne is a benchmark for proof the car is bad - Vandoorne had less running than Alonso, he has less experiences than Alonso and he had less developed car as Alonso...
The fact of the matter is that engine is fragile and unreliable with fundamental faults still occuring. The chasis is atleast stable, but undeveloped since it has 2-3 times less mileage as other cars have and that is not due to the chasis itself, it is due to the ENGINE.
I think if you didnt bring a good chasis to the test you cant do with test a winning race car
Well someone is wrong - u or youre idol.JuanjoTS wrote: ↑26 Mar 2017, 12:53I've stepped on the door ... obviously it's Honda's fault..etusch wrote: ↑26 Mar 2017, 12:00Do you think that ferrari and merc cars also worse than their current condition and they developed their cars by long long runs at test.proteus wrote: ↑26 Mar 2017, 11:44
Alonso did what car allowed him to do. Without performance of the car and the engine Alonso would not be able to do anything.
I hope youre an aerodynamicist by youre profession since u know the answer of the chasis. U say Vandoorne is a benchmark for proof the car is bad - Vandoorne had less running than Alonso, he has less experiences than Alonso and he had less developed car as Alonso...
The fact of the matter is that engine is fragile and unreliable with fundamental faults still occuring. The chasis is atleast stable, but undeveloped since it has 2-3 times less mileage as other cars have and that is not due to the chasis itself, it is due to the ENGINE.
I think if you didnt bring a good chasis to the test you cant do with test a winning race car
Remember, Vandoorne had the Barcelona spec.
This year they will finish on the podium, the base is good, they just have to be honest and work as a single team.
How long do you follow F1?
Mark Webber said today Alonso is leaving Mclaren very soon.