Yes it can.
#ArgumentClinic.
Kudos if you get that without Google.
The starting day for 3 weeks of debating over whom is binding the most pace
It's always pretty obvious during testing which teams are happy/disappointed though. In 22 everyone knew Ferrari were very happy, red bull too. In 23 everyone knew AMR had made a huge leap but that RB was the benchmark and Ferrari/Merc had messed up. And in 24 it was clear red bull were thrilled and Ferrari quietly happy, Merc not so happy. And these trends were reflected in the early season results
The guy wasn't denying that, though. Only arguing about the degree to which it was actually true. Because this is all about nuance and degrees of truth, if you yourself even agree that they aren't on equal footing. You simply side on the collaboration being much stronger, while the other person believing the collaboration being less strong. You're not fundamentally disagreeing on the core argument here, which you've been trying to portray them as doing, and the only reason I felt like speaking up.Emag wrote: ↑24 Feb 2025, 12:28No they don’t have equal footing, but they wouldn’t say McLaren has some input on the design phase if that wasn’t true to some degree, which what the guy was denying.
In any case, this was McLaren’s best choice. They get one of the power units which will likely be close to the best, if not the best, while also having more input than a normal customer.
They considered RBPT for a short while, but RBPT is way too inexperienced and I doubt they will be competitive in 2026, whereas a Ferrari-powered McLaren will never happen.
The only other option was to develop it themselves like RedBull, but it’s too late for that. It could be a consideration for the next reg cycle, assuming McLaren keeps an upward trend.
Seanspeed wrote: ↑24 Feb 2025, 23:42The guy wasn't denying that, though. Only arguing about the degree to which it was actually true. Because this is all about nuance and degrees of truth, if you yourself even agree that they aren't on equal footing. You simply side on the collaboration being much stronger, while the other person believing the collaboration being less strong. You're not fundamentally disagreeing on the core argument here, which you've been trying to portray them as doing, and the only reason I felt like speaking up.Emag wrote: ↑24 Feb 2025, 12:28No they don’t have equal footing, but they wouldn’t say McLaren has some input on the design phase if that wasn’t true to some degree, which what the guy was denying.
In any case, this was McLaren’s best choice. They get one of the power units which will likely be close to the best, if not the best, while also having more input than a normal customer.
They considered RBPT for a short while, but RBPT is way too inexperienced and I doubt they will be competitive in 2026, whereas a Ferrari-powered McLaren will never happen.
The only other option was to develop it themselves like RedBull, but it’s too late for that. It could be a consideration for the next reg cycle, assuming McLaren keeps an upward trend.
First sentence of the original comment.They are a customer team whatever their PR department tells you.