Tombazidis lost his mind. Just --- discard the absolutely useless wet tyre which is way too hard to be useful. There is no way they will make these wheel covers work.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
I can not remember where I read it (FormulaUno maybe), but the summary was that the diffuser spray is the problem.Xyz22 wrote: ↑09 May 2024, 10:18https://formu1a.uno/it/ferrari-in-pista ... ferrari-5/
Tombazidis lost his mind. Just --- discard the absolutely useless wet tyre which is way too hard to be useful. There is no way they will make these wheel covers work.
Sainz was faster than Piastri in the half upgraded McLaren, enough to pass, yet the fully upgraded McL in the hands of Norris was faster than Sainz. Only a big upgrade would explain such a performance difference.Sphere3758 wrote: ↑09 May 2024, 08:34I am yet to be convinced by the McLaren upgrade. I don’t think they were much faster than the Ferrari with 0 upgrades. It was a race where track position was key and having free air had a big advantage.
The well timed safety car left Lando with the best tyres at the end, while both Max and especially Charles were on old tyres which they had to restart.
Carlos was relatively close in lap times to Lando at the end and I don’t even consider him the reference driver for Ferrari to judge performance .
So, the 4 tenths number sounds audacious. They were not 4 tenths slower than Ferrari before, the gap was around a tenth/ 1.5 tenths.
Even with low deg having 8 laps fresher tyres is a significant advantage.Cs98 wrote: ↑09 May 2024, 10:32Sainz was faster than Piastri in the half upgraded McLaren, enough to pass, yet the fully upgraded McL in the hands of Norris was faster than Sainz. Only a big upgrade would explain such a performance difference.Sphere3758 wrote: ↑09 May 2024, 08:34I am yet to be convinced by the McLaren upgrade. I don’t think they were much faster than the Ferrari with 0 upgrades. It was a race where track position was key and having free air had a big advantage.
The well timed safety car left Lando with the best tyres at the end, while both Max and especially Charles were on old tyres which they had to restart.
Carlos was relatively close in lap times to Lando at the end and I don’t even consider him the reference driver for Ferrari to judge performance .
So, the 4 tenths number sounds audacious. They were not 4 tenths slower than Ferrari before, the gap was around a tenth/ 1.5 tenths.
As for Sainz not being the "reference driver", might need to re-evaluate that considering he was catching Leclerc at the end. Leclerc was on slightly older tyres, but deg was almost zero.
It isn't when the degradation is so low that the fuel burn yields more time gain. The Ferraris were getting progressively faster on both their stints. In any case, we give Leclerc a tenth or two from deg, that's basically what Sainz was gaining on him per lap. So Sainz was an excellent reference here.Xyz22 wrote: ↑09 May 2024, 10:34Even with low deg having 8 laps fresher tyres is a significant advantage.Cs98 wrote: ↑09 May 2024, 10:32Sainz was faster than Piastri in the half upgraded McLaren, enough to pass, yet the fully upgraded McL in the hands of Norris was faster than Sainz. Only a big upgrade would explain such a performance difference.Sphere3758 wrote: ↑09 May 2024, 08:34
I am yet to be convinced by the McLaren upgrade. I don’t think they were much faster than the Ferrari with 0 upgrades. It was a race where track position was key and having free air had a big advantage.
The well timed safety car left Lando with the best tyres at the end, while both Max and especially Charles were on old tyres which they had to restart.
Carlos was relatively close in lap times to Lando at the end and I don’t even consider him the reference driver for Ferrari to judge performance .
So, the 4 tenths number sounds audacious. They were not 4 tenths slower than Ferrari before, the gap was around a tenth/ 1.5 tenths.
As for Sainz not being the "reference driver", might need to re-evaluate that considering he was catching Leclerc at the end. Leclerc was on slightly older tyres, but deg was almost zero.
Any device, ugly or not, that alleviates some of the spray is a good thing in my book. Racing in the wet is never going to be problem free, but if you can get 30-40% of the spray away, that's going to help keep the cars out on track instead of red flagging.Space-heat wrote: ↑09 May 2024, 10:24I can not remember where I read it (FormulaUno maybe), but the summary was that the diffuser spray is the problem.Xyz22 wrote: ↑09 May 2024, 10:18https://formu1a.uno/it/ferrari-in-pista ... ferrari-5/
Tombazidis lost his mind. Just --- discard the absolutely useless wet tyre which is way too hard to be useful. There is no way they will make these wheel covers work.
If that is the case, does it not mean wet racing won't happen while the car wake is ejected upward, which is done to improve following...
My first impression of the covers was, they hardly 3D printed those, did they?
I concur, I have a feeling the McLaren situation is exaggerated.Sphere3758 wrote: ↑09 May 2024, 08:34I am yet to be convinced by the McLaren upgrade. I don’t think they were much faster than the Ferrari with 0 upgrades. It was a race where track position was key and having free air had a big advantage.
The well timed safety car left Lando with the best tyres at the end, while both Max and especially Charles were on old tyres which they had to restart.
Carlos was relatively close in lap times to Lando at the end and I don’t even consider him the reference driver for Ferrari to judge performance .
So, the 4 tenths number sounds audacious. They were not 4 tenths slower than Ferrari before, the gap was around a tenth/ 1.5 tenths.
I dont remember a recent occurance where Piastri matched Lando's race pace, so quantifying the upgrade using their pace differential is not a sound argument imo.Cs98 wrote: ↑09 May 2024, 10:32Sainz was faster than Piastri in the half upgraded McLaren, enough to pass, yet the fully upgraded McL in the hands of Norris was faster than Sainz. Only a big upgrade would explain such a performance difference.Sphere3758 wrote: ↑09 May 2024, 08:34I am yet to be convinced by the McLaren upgrade. I don’t think they were much faster than the Ferrari with 0 upgrades. It was a race where track position was key and having free air had a big advantage.
The well timed safety car left Lando with the best tyres at the end, while both Max and especially Charles were on old tyres which they had to restart.
Carlos was relatively close in lap times to Lando at the end and I don’t even consider him the reference driver for Ferrari to judge performance .
So, the 4 tenths number sounds audacious. They were not 4 tenths slower than Ferrari before, the gap was around a tenth/ 1.5 tenths.
As for Sainz not being the "reference driver", might need to re-evaluate that considering he was catching Leclerc at the end. Leclerc was on slightly older tyres, but deg was almost zero.
FIA Wheel Arches are tested with 2022 car and Bearman is testing unchanged 2024 car as a reserve driver within this test for FIA. Tomorrow Leclerc and Sainz test Imola updates during 200km Filming day.
My point does not rely on Norris and Piastri being equally fast. Norris was a solid second faster than Piastri on the restart. Some of that is driver, a small bit of it was tyres, and a decent chunk of it would no doubt be the upgrade. 0,4s is not unreasonable at all IMO, given Piastri also had a few bits on his car.Sphere3758 wrote: ↑09 May 2024, 11:41I dont remember a recent occurance where Piastri matched Lando's race pace, so quantifying the upgrade using their pace differential is not a sound argument imo.Cs98 wrote: ↑09 May 2024, 10:32Sainz was faster than Piastri in the half upgraded McLaren, enough to pass, yet the fully upgraded McL in the hands of Norris was faster than Sainz. Only a big upgrade would explain such a performance difference.Sphere3758 wrote: ↑09 May 2024, 08:34
I am yet to be convinced by the McLaren upgrade. I don’t think they were much faster than the Ferrari with 0 upgrades. It was a race where track position was key and having free air had a big advantage.
The well timed safety car left Lando with the best tyres at the end, while both Max and especially Charles were on old tyres which they had to restart.
Carlos was relatively close in lap times to Lando at the end and I don’t even consider him the reference driver for Ferrari to judge performance .
So, the 4 tenths number sounds audacious. They were not 4 tenths slower than Ferrari before, the gap was around a tenth/ 1.5 tenths.
As for Sainz not being the "reference driver", might need to re-evaluate that considering he was catching Leclerc at the end. Leclerc was on slightly older tyres, but deg was almost zero.
Charles spent a big portion of the last stint around 2s behind Max, trying to protect his tyres by not getting too close. His pace in relatively free air, that Carlos had after he passed Piastri, might have been better. Lets also not forget that he had to "restart" his hard tyres twice : behind the VSC and the SC.
Anyway, historical data makes Leclerc the reference driver for Ferrari. The same way that Lando is the reference driver for McLaren.