Its a bit over judgemental to claim that Mclaren's reliability has come straight from Ferrari and the information that they SUPOSEDLY had or used. Lets not forget there has been no official ruling yet. I personally believe that Coughlan DID have access to the data, whether or not Mclaren used this data in the designs of its cars is not know and is unlikely. An F1 car is a complete package, just copying somebody elses designs wont work.
mep wrote:
It seems that they don't take care when they build the car togeter.
They falled out because of hydraulic leagages many times and knowing that from the start on. So why do they start? Cant they test the car
before they start?.
And what about Monaco last year they started the race with a cooling
system that starts burning, and they know that from Friday on.
But why do they start so?
How would you call this?
Claiming that Mclaren don't put a car together properly is a bit rich, they are one of the most sucessful teams in history. I'd like to point out here something that I think mep has spotted, and I totally agree with him, and it might even be a bit of F1 blasphamy:
"Adrian Newey has lost his touch a bit."
![Surprised :o](./images/smilies/icon_e_surprised.gif)
Shocking statement to make I know, and I mean no disrespect by it at all. I think that he has achieved so much that he's now looking for more, and he's pushing the envelope between aerodynamic performance & reliability a little too far insearch of aerodynamic perfection...after all he is an Aerodynamicist first and foremost.
This years Mclaren has had no input from Newey and suddenly reliability goes up thru the roof. Last years Mclaren was Newey's last car for them and reliability wise...not great. This years RB3 is a Newey car...and Red Bull are statistically the least reliable team on the grid this year. That, to me, is much more indicative of what's goin on that "Mclaren's reliability is up after they allegedly came into possesion of some Ferrari documents" How do we even know that these documents contained any information relating to reliability at all. How do we even know that these documents were even used for anything at all? We don't, and we'll have to wait for the court decision to find out.
Torso wrote:Michael lost the drivers title in 2006 due to a sudden high average of technical problems in the latter part of the season.
AFTER NS learned he wasn`t getting his promotion the car suddenly started to break down...
I think it`s VERY VERY logic to ask how Ferrari`s reliability could suddenly get so poor..
Also the idea that it is supsioious that Ferrari's reliabilty was brilliant, and then suddenly comes Schumi's engine faliure at Suzuka last year is rediculous. They are racing car's; reliability will never, ever be 100%. After such a great run of reliability surely - statistically - they were overdue a faliure of some sort? Ferrari are not, nor will they ever be infalliable - that goes for any team in F1 aswell.
Nobody ever claimed any wrong doing after Suzuka 2006, but know some documents have come into the hands of Coughlan, and Stepney has been fired people are runing back as far as possible claiming "this is all down to the Stepney - Coughlan thing" putting 2 and 2 together and getting 6. Lets not get ahead of ourselves here.
Besides lest we forget the Suzuka engine faliure did, nor would it ever, benifit Mclaren...they weren't the ones fighting for the championship.
furnik wrote:ron prob said to ferrari we will give you kimi and you help us win race's. Thats sounds like a fair bet.
I seriously doubt it, how does that actually benifit anybody. If you were working with Ferrari and a Mclaren representative was naive enough to offer you "Our fastest driver [the fastest in F1?] for a little help" and you said yes, and ACTUALLY stuck to your word and GAVE MCLAREN HELP....you'd be fired lol. Mclaren are not naive enough to ask for that and actually except help in return, and Ferrari aren't stupid enough to offer a team their help. They'd take the driver and make a runner if they'd been given that option.
Silence is golden when you don't know a good answer.