FragNasty wrote:Domenicali's problem is likely that he values reliability more than speed, from what I've seen of the conservative view he took with the car. His strategy is probably more suited for Lemans than F1.
Wasn't that the big word with the new cars though, reliability?
A Power Unit issue, the rest of the car pretty much only needs to be able to cross the finish line.
examples of what I mean:
A ferrari engineer made two videos contemplating the issue of push vs pull front suspension setups with Peter Windsor. The conclusion being that the pull rod setup would require a heavier, stronger chassis design because of the greater forces the suspension geometry puts on the parts. The pull rod setup was put into play at Ferrari last year as part of a strategy to position the suspension arms arm as high as possible for added aero.
This year, even though new rules regarding the nose area really neutralize any aero benefit from the pull rod setup, Ferrari decided they where still going to use the heavier pull rod design. Why? I contend because it was a carry over from last year as an attempt to reduce risk by introducing fewer modifications in the chassis and suspension? It's this conservative view and value of reliability I am referring to, by using existing designs and parts that is a stable known quantity, Ferrari (perhaps Domenicali) hinders innovation and ultimately performance by making such decision.
Low engine power is debatable, we may be seeing sensor variation issues. But I found the water intercooler decision to also be dubious. A air to air heat exchange only as one area of heat exchange where a difference in temperature effects performance. The air to water to air exchange has two. As a result, the water intercooler can never reach the same cold point as the air intercooler. Perhaps when those decisions where being made it was believed that the additional heat could be acceptable as part of the whole engine-fuel formula. But once again, a decision was made to accept a heavier, less efficient technology. Why, maybe because it would keep the packaging of the side-pods more similar in size to last years car so they could try and work off of preexisting aero models they already had.
Now, I might agree with all of that if last year's car was the winner. But it wasn't and we all agreed that the changes this year constitute more a revolution of design rather than evolution, so why go to all the trouble and take performance hits from inefficient designs just to try and engineer aero from an unsuccessful and obsolete model?