- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
As far as I know, no change in rules to bringing additional components, so yeah, additional ones over the allocation would incur grid penalties.codetower wrote: ↑10 Jun 2021, 20:47I think the reason they are doing this is because they want to test certain "theories" for next years PU. If they wait too late in the season, they may not be able to adjust if they need to.
It may stretch past the 5 races for PU2 though. But lets say they stick to 5-5-5... that would give 3 slightly used PU's to use for the final 7-8 races. It's not like they'll be competing for the constructors championship.
Lets say they go this route, and they want to ad a 4th PU. is that possible with a grid penalty for one race?
People keep saying this and it's very unsubstantiated. Ferrari care about 3rd in the constructors more than they do taking a win, Binotto made this clear when the gearbox dilemma came up in Monaco. He also said the wind tunnel time gain from finishing lower is negligible and will barely make any differencef1316 wrote: ↑13 Jun 2021, 23:40As far as I know, no change in rules to bringing additional components, so yeah, additional ones over the allocation would incur grid penalties.
IMHO I don’t see any real reason not to treat introducing PUs as a kind of a test. They’ll ultimately get more wind tunnel and CFD time for next year if they finish behind mclaren and they’d likely both a) learn more b) have more possibility of potentially winning the race, which I think means more on its own than finishing 3rd in the constructors.
I didn’t say they value a win more than 3rd in the WCC - or that they don’t care about 3rd (as you say, they’ve stated many times that 3rd is their target) - I’m saying that *I* think it’s unnecessary to worry about 3rd and would prefer to optimise for next year (both by introducing new PUs at the expense of grid positions - if indeed that does provide any learnings - or by finishing lower, eg 4th, in the WCC in order to gain mote development time). Especially if doing those things also gives us a win - I personally would happily trade, say, 1x win and 2x non-points finishes for 3x 4th places, even though you would score fewer points.wowgr8 wrote: ↑15 Jun 2021, 04:12People keep saying this and it's very unsubstantiated. Ferrari care about 3rd in the constructors more than they do taking a win, Binotto made this clear when the gearbox dilemma came up in Monaco. He also said the wind tunnel time gain from finishing lower is negligible and will barely make any differencef1316 wrote: ↑13 Jun 2021, 23:40As far as I know, no change in rules to bringing additional components, so yeah, additional ones over the allocation would incur grid penalties.
IMHO I don’t see any real reason not to treat introducing PUs as a kind of a test. They’ll ultimately get more wind tunnel and CFD time for next year if they finish behind mclaren and they’d likely both a) learn more b) have more possibility of potentially winning the race, which I think means more on its own than finishing 3rd in the constructors.
f1316 wrote: ↑15 Jun 2021, 09:57I didn’t say they value a win more than 3rd in the WCC - or that they don’t care about 3rd (as you say, they’ve stated many times that 3rd is their target) - I’m saying that *I* think it’s unnecessary to worry about 3rd and would prefer to optimise for next year (both by introducing new PUs at the expense of grid positions - if indeed that does provide any learnings - or by finishing lower, eg 4th, in the WCC in order to gain mote development time). Especially if doing those things also gives us a win - I personally would happily trade, say, 1x win and 2x non-points finishes for 3x 4th places, even though you would score fewer points.
Ultimately it may even be that people in the team - including possibly Binotto - have performance related targets to finish 3rd, so they’re probably incentivised to hit those targets. I’m just saying that I don’t think that doing so is necessarily the right thing in the medium term.
I think they NEED to take this risk. They need to try a different approach... What do they have to lose? I think an unwise risk would be for Mercedes or Red Bull to go a different direction. Right now Ferrari are at BEST a 3rd or 4th constructor. The only risk would be to stay in the middle of the pack. If they don't try this new approach, I think they risk falling further behind. The upside is they can then compete with the top 2.Andres125sx wrote: ↑15 Jun 2021, 17:43Hopefully I´m wrong, but introducing an experimental PU the season when the cost cap will be applied for first time in F1 history, wich adds to the whole new car with the new aero rules, looks extremelly risky in my eyes.
Even if they´ve been working on it for years, with the lack of real world testing I´m afraid both new chasis and new PU in a season with limited money might be a complete disaster. But as I said, hopefully I´m wrong, they did surprise me this season after all
I would not call it experimental at all when they run it 24/7 on the dyno. Of course real life is different, but that’s why you have simulations. Some have more efficient simulations, others less. Ferrari at least for now seems to be on the right path with their tools and operations.Andres125sx wrote: ↑15 Jun 2021, 17:43Hopefully I´m wrong, but introducing an experimental PU the season when the cost cap will be applied for first time in F1 history, wich adds to the whole new car with the new aero rules, looks extremelly risky in my eyes.
Even if they´ve been working on it for years, with the lack of real world testing I´m afraid both new chasis and new PU in a season with limited money might be a complete disaster. But as I said, hopefully I´m wrong, they did surprise me this season after all
That last paragraph is a literal pile of bullshit. It's incredible.
