Pierce89 wrote:FoxHound wrote:@pierce
Fair enough, why?
I just think more ACCURATE data always gives a more complete picture. Maybe it helps the new guy with a fresh perspective to find a solution quicker than if he only has data on a baseline configuration
Well they even have doule reference data -as Mr.Rosberg and Mr.Schumacher usually are on similar strategies which does of course remove the other alternative from making it into reality ,so nobody can say for sure if there even was another possible way to succed...
In fact thesed ays Formula 1 has manoevred itself into a situation where backtoback or referencve testing has to be ommitted simply as you have no time -laps ,tyres to spare.
So changing one thing at a time is a thing of the past and you have to be in a position to DoE and be able to decifer and quntify the several effects when running multiple changes at once.This is not clubmans level motorsports it´s formula 1 .
You cannot afford to struggle to realise you made a very basic mistake in thinking you could afford NOT developing the car
and at the same time watching all your opponents growing new parts at a rate unseen ever before .
Lotus had a big stagnation and falling back just last year when stoipping development for similar reasons -change to 60% modelsize and look how they bounced back -this year. The big mistake was commited last year after the clamp down on ebd
methinks -Mr.Brawn was sure there was nothing to be found with exhausts anymore so there was not much value increasing modelsize -he was wrong ( I was sure he was right last winter) and Ferrari as well as Sauber and RedBull are the perfect examples to prove that point....It took a lot of iterations to get it right -no team is running with their original layout still...
