Granted, reflection offers an accuracy not possible by any forecast, I think it's probably safe to say at this point the F2012's initial problems were 95% tire-related, if not more so. The tires have been such an apparent wild card this year that it seems there was no way during the pre-season tests to know what would work and what wouldn't work, because there was no way to know what those terms even meant. Solid knowledge of the tires demanded the context provided by all teams operating with the same goal under race conditions. It was a crap shoot until then, and the early results clearly bear that out.superdread wrote:[...]
PS To be fair, their first exhaust (the one that melted the tires) was good in principle, but hat said drawback.
Well, they reverted to a 'save'-solution by pointing the exhaust more inward. That, as I remember, resolved these issues, but it also could have changed the downforce under engine load enough to affect the tire degredation.bhallg2k wrote: Did the first exhaust solution "melt" the tires, or was the car just set up in such a way as to cause massive degradation? Who knows? It wouldn't surprise me if even the team doesn't know for sure, because I wouldn't be surprised if the team's "correlation problems" never existed, that it was all just a long series of question marks written in Pirelli ink.
Hmmm, this certainly protruded into this season. They had aerodynamic problems (as well as tires) and bringing part after part does hint that they can't predict how exactly a part will work.Rockatansky wrote:Well yeah, but the wind tunnel issues were more prevalent in 2011, the Spa downgrade package for example.
And I thought that the Ferrari had been one of the best teams to adapt to the tyres!bhallg2k wrote:Granted, reflection offers an accuracy not possible by any forecast, I think it's probably safe to say at this point the F2012's initial problems were 95% tire-related, if not more so. The tires have been such an apparent wild card this year that it seems there was no way during the pre-season tests to know what would work and what wouldn't work, because there was no way to know what those terms even meant. Solid knowledge of the tires demanded the context provided by all teams operating with the same goal under race conditions. It was a crap shoot until then, and the early results clearly bear that out.superdread wrote:[...]
PS To be fair, their first exhaust (the one that melted the tires) was good in principle, but hat said drawback.
Did the first exhaust solution "melt" the tires, or was the car just set up in such a way as to cause massive degradation? Who knows? It wouldn't surprise me if even the team doesn't know for sure, because I wouldn't be surprised if the team's "correlation problems" never existed, that it was all just a long series of question marks written in Pirelli ink.
If you recall, the "breakthrough" moment happened in Monaco when Massa/Smedley discovered that the car reacted well to increased rake and softer settings - a solution, incidentally, suggest by some in this thread since Jerez. The F2012's exhaust solution for that event was, by all accounts, aero-neutral.superdread wrote:Well, they reverted to a 'save'-solution by pointing the exhaust more inward. That, as I remember, resolved these issues, but it also could have changed the downforce under engine load enough to affect the tire degredation.
Monaco was Massa specific, surely Alonso on pole at Barcelona of all places was the breakthrough moment?bhallg2k wrote:I don't think you read that correctly. In the context of the discussion, I'm saying that the vast majority of Ferrari's improvement is because of the way in which they've adapted to the tires.
EDIT:If you recall, the "breakthrough" moment happened in Monaco when Massa/Smedley discovered that the car reacted well to increased rake and softer settings - a solution, incidentally, suggest by some in this thread since Jerez. The F2012's exhaust solution for that event was, by all accounts, aero-neutral.superdread wrote:Well, they reverted to a 'save'-solution by pointing the exhaust more inward. That, as I remember, resolved these issues, but it also could have changed the downforce under engine load enough to affect the tire degredation.
Ups, confused the quotes.Rockatansky wrote:Perhaps you've misunderstood me, I'm saying that the tyres were never a problem. By solving the car's downforce and traction issues they took care of the tyres at the same time.
The suspension was good all along, and on aero terms Monaco just needs massive downforce.bhallg2k wrote: If you recall, the "breakthrough" moment happened in Monaco when Massa/Smedley discovered that the car reacted well to increased rake and softer settings - a solution, incidentally, suggest by some in this thread since Jerez. The F2012's exhaust solution for that event was, by all accounts, aero-neutral.
at Barcelona? when did that happen?? u meant silverstone?Rockatansky wrote:Monaco was Massa specific, surely Alonso on pole at Barcelona of all places was the breakthrough moment?bhallg2k wrote:I don't think you read that correctly. In the context of the discussion, I'm saying that the vast majority of Ferrari's improvement is because of the way in which they've adapted to the tires.
EDIT:If you recall, the "breakthrough" moment happened in Monaco when Massa/Smedley discovered that the car reacted well to increased rake and softer settings - a solution, incidentally, suggest by some in this thread since Jerez. The F2012's exhaust solution for that event was, by all accounts, aero-neutral.superdread wrote:Well, they reverted to a 'save'-solution by pointing the exhaust more inward. That, as I remember, resolved these issues, but it also could have changed the downforce under engine load enough to affect the tire degredation.
In season testing at Mugello was Ferraris ace and they played it well.Rockatansky wrote:Monaco was Massa specific, surely Alonso on pole at Barcelona of all places was the breakthrough moment?
Of course, it is a chicken/egg scenario. I'm just more inclined to believe the car never really lacked downforce, and that traction was only an issue in slow-speed corners. It won in Malaysia in wet conditions, an outcome that would not have been possible with such deficiencies.Rockatansky wrote:Perhaps you've misunderstood me, I'm saying that the tyres were never a problem. By solving the car's downforce and traction issues they took care of the tyres at the same time.
One theory on that is that Ferrari used a lot of downforce to aid their tire and aero issues, so as the race went into the sea they had a definitive advantage.bhallg2k wrote:Of course, it is a chicken/egg scenario. I'm just more inclined to believe the car never really lacked downforce, and that traction was only an issue in slow-speed corners. It won in Malaysia in wet conditions, an outcome that would not have been possible with such deficiencies.Rockatansky wrote:Perhaps you've misunderstood me, I'm saying that the tyres were never a problem. By solving the car's downforce and traction issues they took care of the tyres at the same time.