You think Merc are sandbagging and hiding pace?
You think Merc are sandbagging and hiding pace?
It's the third fastest carEmag wrote: ↑15 Mar 2026, 19:31Dimond wrote: ↑15 Mar 2026, 18:51An unpaywalled version (might ask you to select fire hydrants before reading)CjC wrote: ↑15 Mar 2026, 17:09Sorry guys, I know this is paywalled but there are plenty of encouraging quotes to be pulled from this article as well.
This one in particular:
"There's good stuff happening in development, so I would expect that the car will be significantly improved in the coming races, especially starting from Miami, but obviously we will have to see what the rate of development is of the other teams, because all cars will be improved."
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/how- ... /10805608/
https://archive.is/XUjpZAh but when I called this car a little basic compared to its rivals I was flogged for my opinion"This car that we have at the moment is a solid platform. If anything, it's slightly underdeveloped, let me say. There's nothing in the car that is not sound conceptually, it just needs to be developed further."![]()
On the other hand, McLaren completed 100% laps of races that they startedSilviuAgo wrote: ↑16 Mar 2026, 13:27Almost half than Aston. Shocking
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HDhUv4QXUAA ... name=large
this was a very good read. I'm very excited for Miami and the double race cancellation prevents us from falling further behind before thenCjC wrote: ↑15 Mar 2026, 17:09Sorry guys, I know this is paywalled but there are plenty of encouraging quotes to be pulled from this article as well.
This one in particular:
"There's good stuff happening in development, so I would expect that the car will be significantly improved in the coming races, especially starting from Miami, but obviously we will have to see what the rate of development is of the other teams, because all cars will be improved."
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/how- ... /10805608/
So they may be accused of incompetence, not of some big conspiracy against all the others, which is where the discussion started from.venkyhere wrote: ↑15 Mar 2026, 20:16"Define a 'geometric compression ratio test' by themselves, using a fluid/gas as the displacement object, instead of asking teams how they want the CR to be measured"emp wrote: ↑15 Mar 2026, 19:06As I said, if the rules are flawed and someone gets an advantage it will be exactly what happened in every regulatory cycle. They will issue a technical directive or something and the loophole will be closed, but not without evidence and certainly not because someone on the internet is thinking that.
As I've said, the FIA is not there to do things without reasonable evidence and certainly and they have without doubt a lot of flaws.
I don't know what they could do here or what they could've done better considering that they have no evidence at the moment.
- for starters.
an actual test defined by the governing body, instead of gymnastics with words about re-definition, temperature etc. Every PU manufacturer has to submit their engines and FIA will decide whether it passes the test or not. It's only geometric CR, all they need is an engine on a bench (no sensor info, no dyno, no temperature checking, nothing) and a fluid/gas pumping mechanism of their own. The engine need not run at all. How hard can it be ?