QUOTE(young_soul @ Sep 14 2007, 12:11 PM)
of course its common sense. Its common sense that it "helps", but I'm emphasizing on "to what extent" because we're talking about 100% engine reliability here. McLarens have yet to retire due to...anything this season. When was the last time McLaren did not retire in the entire season? Remember Kimi's infamous "engine change before race"? *This still doesn't explain why McLaren took almost 10 years to solve their berrylinlsierlijl problem.
(forgotten what I wanted to type ady....)
It is not evidentially concrete but yes, I am suggesting in this thread that Ferrari data could be used to the advantage of the McLarens to give them the edge on both reliability and performance. McLarens don't have to use exactly same design parts as the Ferrari but they could figure out from the designs on which part of Ferrari's car gives them the edge and how they can overcome the "edge". If I can provide evidence on this, I don't need to be here...I could be working in the FIA itself and making millions like Max or watever.
ok...this is really getting out of topic here. Not to mention I'm having a headache arguing with McLaren fans who have already been fined and stripped out of championship points. I don't care about appeal, but I'm also interested to know on what basis FIA made their decision.
I don't get it...engine lasting longer actually reduces engine reliability doesn't it? How is this related to Mika's time when the engine rule that time wasn't as strict as currently.
Meh...
The data was aero data, it had nothing to do with reliability. Please reread mr Coughlan statements please.
FIA has keep mum on
- The evidence
- Who spoke to whom
- Basis of their decision
Which is why many teams and old school F1 boss (Peter Sauber, Frank Williams, Jacky Stewart, Stirling Moss) felt that it was absurd.
And a famous quote, to finish first, first you have to finish. The REAL reason that they wanted to have longer lasting engine is for teams to have better reliability, which in turn supposed to cut cost as they don't have to use more engine. But it backfired, badly. nuff said.
The best part of this saga is this. BOTH COUGHLAN AND STEPNEY HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED. I mean, both of them were the real reason that this happened in the first place. IIRC, the WMSC adhered that if an employee is at fault, the team can be charged as well, which what happened to McLaren. Thus in turn, Stepney and Ferrari CAN ALSO BE CHARGED as Ferrari failed to reign in their own worker. It's an open secret that both want to work at Honda. And I don't see any real reason Stepney want to help McLaren as he has nothing to gain. The fact that Ron said the FIA can compare the cars means that he was SURE that McLaren HAD NOT copied from Ferrari.
And was McLaren fast this year? barring 3 circuits that they had an advantage (Monaco, shorter wheelbase, Canada and Italy, better stability under braking), they never looked like they can challenge the Ferraris at other circuits. Ferrari self destructed.
Massa
- Gearbox failure at Aussie GP qualy
- Botched pass damages undertray at Malaysia
- Black Flag at Canada
- Fuel at Hungary qualifying
- Suspension failure at Italy
Kimi
- Leaked radiator means less speed in Malaysia
- DNF in Spain
- DNF in Germany
- Botched qualifying at Monaco
- Damaged wing at Canada after hitting Massa
- damage the car in 3rd free practice in Italy
How many races that McLaren had their cars out of the points this season? 1, when Lewis finished 9th at the euro GP. Compare that to Ferrari
QUOTE(evoHahn @ Sep 14 2007, 12:09 PM)
Mclaren ditched the the horns beside the airbox at Monza. Now left only Sauber using it rite?
low aero circuit dude. They don't need the horns
QUOTE(faris21 @ Sep 14 2007, 12:43 PM)
No 23 for Alonso,sound good
if they won the drivers champ, they still retain no 1 and 2 on the car
This post has been edited by linkinstreet: Sep 14 2007, 12:45 PM 
Sep 14 2007, 12:22 PM
Quote
... its still going on.... 
0.0277sec
0.16
6 queries
GZIP Disabled