Especially when they have double the money and double the people.Hoffman900 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:21 pmExactly. The CFD limits make sense (to shrink the gap) if all the teams could use same the % of their time constructively. It doesn't fix it if teams with the most CFD time are chasing correlation issues which causes them to miss the mark from the get-go. Then what, just hang out and wait for the rules to change again before trying, again?RedNEO wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:15 pmYeah I’m worried about the field spread next year. How many times have we seen Mercedes or Red Bull bring upgrades that they need to test extensively and then take them off because they don’t work yet? It’s rare isn’t it!Hoffman900 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:01 pm
Exactly. The teams that will have more CFD time will spend more of that time on correlation issues and not having the talent to fix it.
Teams like Redbull and Mercedes have been fixing these issues so they’ll be able to utilize more of their CFD time constructively, not fixing issues.
I’d argue the field will be more spread out next year than the last two. Stable rules tend to bunch the field up, and change is where teams with top talent can make the biggest gains over mid / back marker teams.
Alpine had to basically throw away testing and pretty much all the practice sessions of the last two races trying to figure out there correlation on some floor parts. They have no choice now because it’s all work that should’ve been happening 2019/20.. and they have some serious catching up to do.
My experience in racing is the same people who win, win regardless of rule changes. They just know how to do it (as long as they keep the talent on board). We could go from racing F1 cars to lawnmowers, and the same people would still be winning.
Think you're experience doesn't lend itself well to what's happening next year. We have rule changes and the top 3 will have half the budget. They will lose a good part of the talent.
I don't think the computer CDF is limited. Just wind tunnel.