A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
So we know that the Ferrari is quite good mechanically, especially in terms of traction and braking stability. We know the bulls have odles of downforce and their mechanical isn't too shabby too (they got a Monaco 1-2, where mechanical is king). We know that McLaren's barn door diffuser forces them to use stiff springs. But how come the McLaren is still so sure footed in the rain?
The fact that they probably have the two best drivers when it comes to wet racing? The Mclarens are very good under braking too, either that or its the drivers again, both of them are very touchy-feely when it comes to the cars movement it seems. Ferrari do have great traction also, but they have a longer wheelbase than the Red Bull (?) so that might be why they couldn't challenge heavily for the win in Monaco?
I think that McLaren is best at overtaking, and seems it's affected least by another car's turbulence in front. + Hamilton's overtaking abilities, and Button's cool head. But RBR is best if they can take the pole, and if they can survive the first lap. Without traffic, they are the kings.
In wet race situation, again it seems to be the McLaren is on top with their massive stabile front end. In wet, I think even Renault (but only with Kubica ) is better than RBR.
The Ferrari currently is unexplained for me. They have the biggest variations as where they are good, and where not. It's unexplained mostly because of lots of DNF and bad luck.
But again, if you consider DNF-s, the McLaren and RBR should be in front, but I didn't do a research to prove this, it's just a feeling.
kalinka wrote:I think that McLaren is best at overtaking, and seems it's affected least by another car's turbulence in front. + Hamilton's overtaking abilities, and Button's cool head. But RBR is best if they can take the pole, and if they can survive the first lap. Without traffic, they are the kings.
In wet race situation, again it seems to be the McLaren is on top with their massive stabile front end. In wet, I think even Renault (but only with Kubica ) is better than RBR.
The Ferrari currently is unexplained for me. They have the biggest variations as where they are good, and where not. It's unexplained mostly because of lots of DNF and bad luck.
But again, if you consider DNF-s, the McLaren and RBR should be in front, but I didn't do a research to prove this, it's just a feeling.
the ferrari's are easy to explain. there pretty good on every track, but espeially strong at circuits which require strong braking and traction.
ell66 wrote:
the ferrari's are easy to explain. there pretty good on every track, but espeially strong at circuits which require strong braking and traction.
Yes, if I think about it, they were pretty good at Canada for example, where the track is always dusty ( low traction ), and it's a brake-killer too. But clearly it's not enough to get ahead of McLaren even on these tracks. Maybe match their pace ( Alonso could win in Canada ).
This is what the betting money thought about the competitiveness of the cars compared to the leading car over the course of the season.
Right now Ferrari have done some catching up which the punters are not yet prepared to rate with the chances of Red Bull or McLaren. The WCC still seems to be out of Ferrari's reach if the smart money is right.
McLaren have steadily closed the gap to Red bull over the last two races. It is unclear whether this is due to the nature of the tracks suiting them or their improving competitiveness by mastering the blown diffusor and fighting the flexible aerodynamics of the bulls. Singapore should be a crucial race in that regard.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
