Ferrari pile on the miles as McLaren focus on simulation

2011 F1 testing

Jenson Button, McLaren, Barcelona, 2011

Jenson Button, McLaren, Barcelona, 2011

Ferrari have done twice as much testing with their new car as McLaren have.

McLaren launched their MP4-26 after three of the 15 days of testing had already been completed.

Ferrari have completed more laps with their F150th Italia than McLaren have with their MP4-26 on every day of testing so far, indicating a difference in philosophy between the two teams.

Speaking to journalists on Friday McLaren managing director Jonathan Neale said they had a “disciplined” approach to winter testing.

He said “a huge amount” of their testing was focussed on building accurate models for simulation and development throughout the season, when testing is banned:

“This is the one opportunity we have got to do the correlation between how good were our models and what assumptions did we make over the winter and what?s actually on the track.

“How are the cars performing, what are the aerodynamics doing, what is the map between the rig work and the track work? We can then go back and build that model and run with those. It makes us much more disciplined in how we use the winter tests.”

He added this is especially important as more car development is done in virtual environments. The Resource Restriction Agreement limits how much wind tunnel and Computational Fluid Dynamics testing the teams can do.

Neale said: “CFD is important to us but we?re wind-tunnel junkies, we are not at the stage to give that up.”

He described the balance between the two McLaren uses: “We believe we have the right model mix of wind-tunnel hours and CFD time. We are trying to optimise so for every hour of wind-tunnel time we gather as much accurate data as we can.

“I want to say 50:50 [wind tunnel to CFD testing] and it?s not 80:20. It?s nearer 50:50. We are serious about CFD but we?re not ready to give up the tunnel yet.”

Neale pointed out that the increasing number of airflow measuring sensors on the car at tests last year led some to conclude the team were in trouble:

“I think last year a number of less reputable journalists thought we were in trouble with our car because of the number of rakes.

“We were sending the car out on the circuit looking like an agricultural vehicle. They had paraphernalia all over them.”

McLaren have also been evaluating different exhaust systems on their car and it takes a long time to switch between them. That added to a shortage of parts for the new car in Jerez cost them further testing time.

At this stage in last year’s testing McLaren had covered 4,072km of testing. They have done 3,710km in the MP4-25 and MP4-26 since the start of February.

Daily testing mileages

Distance covered by each car (in km) on each day of testing so far.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/charts/2011carcolours.csv

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
F150th Italia 392.49 432.54 420.525 447.228 513.648 580.068 509.22 470.155 418.95 572.565 544.635
RB7 372.465 240.3 420.525 416.232 495.936 433.944 398.52 172.235 484.12 647.045 297.92
W02 100.125 276.345 440.55 296.676 495.936 504.792 199.26 418.95 609.805 428.26 512.05
C30 272.34 168.21 416.52 416.232 247.968 371.952 380.808 363.09 581.875 535.325 325.85
FW33 312.39 316.395 404.505 61.992 163.836 438.372 456.084 242.06 549.29 279.3 563.255
R31 112.14 416.52 456.57 252.396 283.392 380.808 301.104 218.785 474.81 432.915 442.225
STR6 80.1 440.55 292.365 323.244 318.816 407.376 398.52 265.335 451.535 339.815 414.295
VJM04 0 0 380.475 123.984 323.244 283.392 438.372 121.03 372.4 474.81 283.955
MP4-26 0 0 0 256.824 305.532 159.408 309.96 358.435 251.37 432.915 470.155
MVR-02 0 0 0 185.976 252.396 318.816 199.26 539.98 307.23 451.535 214.13
T128 0 64.08 152.19 239.112 177.12 270.108 190.404 251.37 391.02 223.44 65.17
F110 180.225 320.4 252.315 0 0 0 0 539.98 325.85 330.505 0
MP4-25 364.455 332.415 468.585 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VJM03 396.495 444.555 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VR-01 284.355 136.17 320.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Testing mileages

Model Total laps Total distance (km)
Ferrari F150th Italia 1,205 5,302.02
Red Bull RB7 996 4,379.24
Mercedes W02 965 4,282.75
Sauber C30 922 4,080.17
Williams FW33 862 3,787.48
Renault R31 858 3,771.67
Toro Rosso STR6 846 3,731.95
Force India VJM04 628 2,801.66
McLaren MP4-26 558 2,544.60
Virgin MVR-02 541 2,469.32
Lotus T128 452 2,024.01
HRT F110 445 1,949.28
McLaren MP4-25 291 1,165.46
Force India VJM03 210 841.05
Virgin VR-01 185 740.93
HRT F111 0 0

2011 F1 testing

Browse all 2011 F1 testing articles

Image ?? Pirelli

Advert | Go Ad-free

108 comments on Ferrari pile on the miles as McLaren focus on simulation

  1. Jarred Walmsley (@jarred-walmsley) said on 22nd February 2011, 9:27

    Good to see the RB7 running so many laps, hopefully the reliability demons have been banished

  2. Jack_Burton said on 22nd February 2011, 9:29

    What they say would make perfect sense, except for the fact that every interview, whether it be with driver or director, has made a pointed comment to the worrisome lack of real on-track testing. They should have made this statement when they premiered the car, and told their soldiers to get in line. But, I guess, the general public will not notice such discrepancies.

    • apeman (@apeman) said on 22nd February 2011, 9:52

      The two points aren’t mutually exclusive. Neale’s comments make a lot of sense from an engineering perspective, but they were clearly also hoping to get more time on track then they were able to. All of the teams want to get the maximum number of miles out of a day, but have to work with regard to their development strategy which will vary dramatically from team to team.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 22nd February 2011, 10:01

        I guess you are right. When you look at the amount of running done with their new car, it does go up at every test once they get the biggest testing and measuring done after the first 1-2 days

      • JamesR said on 23rd February 2011, 12:22

        Inferring what, that RB, Ferrari and the rest were driving around like headless chickens? Perhaps they were compiling twice the data enabling more accurate comparisons between actual and CFD data?

        More disciplined maybe, or just not well enough prepared…

  3. I love that McLaren work this way. They may have some dog years in them to come, but when they master this tech, the championships will be within their grasp.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 22nd February 2011, 10:04

      Best quote in testing

      “We were sending the car out on the circuit looking like an agricultural vehicle. They had paraphernalia all over them.”

      When McLaren brought out the flow vis in 2009 is was a real sign of trouble, but it seems they have now made this stanard procedure, carefully comparing model with reality. Last year they were not in real trouble and this year they might be OK as well.
      But they were experiencing trouble getting the complicated car to work at its best all year. They might well encounter the same problems this time round.

      • Quite a few of the teams use flow-vis on their cars, both last year and this…I think it is easy to look back at 2009 and McLaren in testing and think that everything they did was because they had such a dog of a car, but hindsight is a wonderful thing…

      • When McLaren brought out the flow vis in 2009 is was a real sign of trouble

        I don’t understand, I mean, Ferrari has used flow vis this year, are they in trouble?

    • I always remember in an old Autosport mag it talked about Mclaren’s Good year – bad year pattern throughout the 2000s.

      It’s so true when you look at the cars tey produced – title winning potential one year, hopeless the next.

      This mag was for the launch of the MP4-24, right after Hamilton won in 2008, needless to say the 2009 car was hopeless for half a year.

      Good year – Bad year? What hope do Mclaren fans (myself included) have for 2011! :P

    • MondoL said on 22nd February 2011, 10:13

      Yes, they can simulate the behaviour of new tyres easyly. Also they have first hand info on how the aerodynamics of other cars afect them.
      I’m sorry, simulating without deep knowledge of what you are modelling, turns out to unrealiable data.
      Simulation can’t subtitute reality.

      I remember running statistics at the uni finding out that we could build perfect models on gathered data… because the original figures were made by a model!

    • They may have some dog years in them to come, but when they master this tech

      I think they’ve had enough dog years TBH. So many dogs since Dennis took over in 1980.

      1980-1981-1992-1994-1995-1996-2002-2004-2006-2009-2011?

      1987,1993,2003 were below average cars too if it weren’t for Prost,Senna & Raikkonen respectively.

      You speak about mastering this technique of simulation. But what if FIA revert back to the good old method of on track testing just like a few years back? Wouldn’t all this simulation thing go waste?

      Anything in excess is bad & mclaren are obsessed with simulation.

      • Andy C said on 22nd February 2011, 11:42

        what if FIA revert back to the good old method of on track testing just like a few years back? Wouldn’t all this simulation thing go waste?

        Presumably not because then they have the sim and the testing.

        • apeman (@apeman) said on 22nd February 2011, 13:10

          Exactly; CFD and FEA allow you to test new ideas quickly and without taking up resources in comparison to physical testing. It means you can be more flexible in your design process as you can evaluate a greater number of features/configurations. Wind tunnel and track testing can then be used further down the line using elements found to have the most potential. In summary, having both methods available greatly enhances the efficiency of R&D.

          As a side note, I don’t think that it’s at all likely that more track testing will be allowed in the future.

          • Andy C said on 22nd February 2011, 13:52

            I personally think it is ridiculous that they do not allow at least another one day test 5 times per year (i.e after a GP weekend).

            So the teams could elect where they wish to use each of their extra days, everyone gets the same allocation.

          • CFD and FEA are both tools but are fundamentally flawed as they can not compute every element of the real world, so they make some assumptions.

            A lot of those assumptions themselves were derrived from models made by computer to simplify the original calculations.

            Whilst these tools can reduce lead times to investigate an idea, thoroguh testing can not be replciated in a CPU.

            Also it takes an engineer to have the idea in the first place – over reliance on technology leads to a generic design bases on probablities, rather than a ‘Newy-eque’ feel for something good.

            Sorry to blather on about it – but I use these tools extensively and they are a little bit over-sold on their abilities.

            I’d rather see cars whizzing around test tracks and Engineers who have a real feel for the subject, rather than a bunch of tech-heads sat in an airconditioned building making virtual race cars.

          • apeman (@apeman) said on 22nd February 2011, 18:16

            I agree with your assessment of simulation Simon (being and engineer myself), however I was not suggesting at all that these tools can replace engineering skill. They are, well, tools, as are wind tunnels any any other form of testing. Used correctly, they can stimulate innovation by providing a fast method of analysing ideas that have originated from good old-fasioned brain storming.
            Modern R&D in all fields of science and engineering relies on the complementary use of experimentation and simulation. F1 is no exception.

          • So CFD is basically like a really shiny calculator…. I can go with that.

          • I’m a MScEE also, and I have been using simulations a lot and compared them with a lot of field measurements (at sea with ships and systems – some tests even more expensive than F1 testing;-)). The simulations – when the conditions and computations are aligned with field test results – is a very fast way of increasing the development teams experience on various subjects. If your models are correct You can evaluate a lot of different solutions to a specific problem before lunch. After lunch You can change some other condition and then recalculate all the variations. In this way You get a lot of experience to apply to field testing, prototypes and development.
            When McLaren starts the season with a bad car, they seem to be able to develop it faster than everyone else, whereas some teams start out in rather good shape and then looses momentum over the year. So I think McLarens CFD approach is worth while and an example to consider. But I agree that You need to do a lot of field testing specifically to tune the model, or it can send You of track. And their lack of test km’s is a problem, as a model has to have a lot of verification data from the real world to be reliable.

  4. sick graph

  5. Eggry (@eggry) said on 22nd February 2011, 9:37

    I think Ferrari and Redbull also collected huge amount of data for simulation…more mileage is always better.

    • Todfod (@todfod) said on 22nd February 2011, 9:45

      Definitely. The more mileage they rack up, the more information they have on finding more accurate corelations with the CFD and virtual environment. I’m all for using CFD and reducing wind tunnel dependency, but either ways, racking miles while testing always helps.

    • Eggry (@eggry) said on 22nd February 2011, 9:47

      Keith, I think it would be much better if you make mileages per team and driver.

    • Not necessarily. To get useful data you need the cars to do certain things on track. One important aspect is to get consistent lap times as this enables more accurate data to be gathered and fed into models. Also as they have been changing exhaust systems etc they will need to do those same consistent laps all over again with each change. This is the big problem with trying to assess performance of teams during testing. Williams are looking quite fast again this year but then they need to look good to sponsors. Each team will be using Testing in a different way, some going for all out pace, others testing durability of parts and others gathering data. Only the teams themselves know what their pace is likely to be like and even then they will have little knowledge of how fast the others will be on race day.

      • Eggry (@eggry) said on 22nd February 2011, 10:17

        Yeah. but at least Ferrari and Redbul…it’s too many laps to waste it. They could do almost everything others did.

        • Dobin1000 (@dobin1000) said on 22nd February 2011, 15:19

          Unless you can show what evidence you base that assertion on, I’m more inclined to believe McLaren’s reasoning behind why they think it is better to do it their way.

          Every team does it differently – last year Red Bull ran fewer laps but had the fastest car, how does that stack up with more laps is always better? Who is to say that the reliability issues they had would have been resolved with more testing?

      • Alex Bkk said on 22nd February 2011, 12:56

        They aren’t going to get a lot of info on tire degradation running a sim, are they?

  6. TheGreatCornholio said on 22nd February 2011, 9:41

    As a McLaren fan i’m relieved that they’ve got some extra time to work out the bugs as it appears they’ve missed having that extra test time. They RB7 seems to be able to throw in fast laps at will with much improved reliablity and the Ferrari looks to be starting from a solid base that they can really build on. Its gonna be an extremely interesting start to the season as yet again the teams aren’t showing their true pace!

    • McLarenFanJamm said on 22nd February 2011, 10:37

      Reliability in testing means squat, it’s once the season starts that it really matters.

      • Reliability in testing means squat, it’s once the season starts that it really matters.

        After the debacle of 2004, Norbert Haug promised everyone for a better reliability. The fat man is famous for quoting statistics all the time about how “West” Mclaren Mercedes didn’t blow up a single engine during the 2005 pre-season testing & how that it didn’t even suffer a single hydraulic,gearbox,suspension,tyre failure.

        And we know what happened that season. Mclaren don’t always back up words with action. Its always been that way for this team.

        Their recent ploy is to hype up everything, where people start talking about how the new mp4-xx is going to be the next mp4/4, 2sec faster than everyone. Then confuse everyone during testing & use complicated “RonSpeak” to convince/confuse everyone that what they are doing is correct,scientific,perfection etc. Come the first race end up second best, or in this case third best.

        So reliability in testing is not squat.

        • McLarenFanJamm said on 22nd February 2011, 11:48

          Actually your point backs up what I was saying:

          After the debacle of 2004, Norbert Haug promised everyone for a better reliability. The fat man is famous for quoting statistics all the time about how “West” Mclaren Mercedes didn’t blow up a single engine during the 2005 pre-season testing & how that it didn’t even suffer a single hydraulic,gearbox,suspension,tyre failure.

          And we know what happened that season.

          So, yes, reliability in testing does mean squat (i.e. Nothing)

          For futher proof, see Sauber last season.

  7. GeeMac (@geemac) said on 22nd February 2011, 9:45

    I think that the 1,165.46kms that McLaren racked up in the MP4-25 are invaluable. Having reliable, usable and comparable information on what is no doubt the biggest unknown so far this season (the performance of the Pirelli tyres) will be crucial.

    Sure McLaren had a few teething problems with the MP4-26 (who hasn’t had issues yet) but that graph is going nowhere but up, and Hamilton managed over a 100 laps yesterday. So I’m pretty sure the car is moving in the right direction.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 22nd February 2011, 10:06

      McLaren did relatively little work on their KERS unit, as it was working fine. Just running it to check everything, but having it on the car.

      Mercedes, Renault, Red Bull and probably Ferrari have all done part of the running without KERS to get laps in. The smaller teams seem to have issues with it as well.

    • Cacarella said on 22nd February 2011, 13:58

      I’m not convinced that using the MP4-25 to gather data on the tires was a smart idea, I think it was forced because the 26 wasn’t ready yet. What does it matter if you find out how the new tires work by using the old car, only to find out that the new car you have created chews up tires at a quicker rate?
      The new car was presumably already built by the first test so wouldn’t you want to see how the tires work with the actual car you’ll be running for the entire year?
      Especially one that is so radically different from the previous version?

      • How do you know the new car chews the tyres up more/less than the old car unless you have run them on the old car too?

        • Cacarella said on 22nd February 2011, 14:59

          I guess you wouldn’t know, but why would you care if it chews them relative to the old car. They’re only going to run the new tires on the new car.

          • Dobin1000 (@dobin1000) said on 22nd February 2011, 15:23

            By that reasoning it was pointless Pirelli testing their tyres on the Toyota cars over the winter, because nobody is using it to race.

            Just because they aren’t being used on the specific car for 2011 it doesn’t mean they can’t find any udeful information. I would guess that McLaren do have some clue what they are doing.

          • Cacarella said on 22nd February 2011, 15:47

            Pirelli only had to test the tires. I would have thought that Mclaren would want to test the tires WITH the actual car that would be using them. I don’t think comparing Mclaren’s testing strategy to Pirelli’s is reasonable. One manufactures race cars, the other tires.

            I’m not suggesting they don’t know what they’re doing, rather they may not be 100% truthful about their testing strategies.
            As I said above, I think the new car wasn’t ready yet and that’s why they tested with the 25.

  8. GeeMac (@geemac) said on 22nd February 2011, 9:50

    The more worrying stat is the big fat 0 next to HRT’s F111. One driver, one sponsor, 0 2011 spec cars!

  9. Ru_BD said on 22nd February 2011, 9:54

    Great work Keith. It looks like Ferrari is most reliable in the moment and also quick. Last year they are also reliable and quick in the testing but failed to make any impression in the race in the first part of racing (Except 1st race). So now i wish they don’t repeat that mistake again and remain competitive throughout the season. Go Ferrari Go Ferrari Go Ferrari ……..>>>>>>

    • Icthyes said on 22nd February 2011, 10:20

      Ferrari actually had very decent pace for all of the fly-aways. Australia was a mad race, Malaysian qualifying caught them out, China was mad too, but in all of them Ferrari showed good dry-weather pace. It was only at the advent of the European season that they begun to slip back and even then were decent in Monaco but for Alonso’s practice crash. They were awful in Turkey but once Canada came along they were front-runners again.

      I remember Schumacher saying they lost the 1998 championship in the first five races, a similar thing happened last year.

  10. I think lot of people over here are going soft on Mclaren’s inability to produce championship winning machine.

    You know the kind of stick Ferrari got over there at Italy after 05 & 09?

    Mclaren have lost their killer instinct & are always happy to finish second. Mclaren can never be a Ferrari until they start taking their supporters opinions, like ferrari.

    But I don’t care for them anyways.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 22nd February 2011, 10:49

      I don’t think the criticism Ferrari got from some people in those years was necessarily justified.

      In 2005 Bridgestone didn’t give them good enough tyres.

      In 2009 they didn’t nail the double-diffuser (nor did a lot of teams) and their best-performing driver was injured halfway through the season.

      I don’t think there’s cause for alarm there.

      • Yes I agree Keith. Those criticisms that Ferrari got from people in those years were too harsh. Particularly considering the fact that they’d just won 6 consecutive WCC.

        But those criticisms were actually good for them to keep their feet on the ground especially after MS left. They did win 2 more WCC after he left.

        But I remember watching a documentary after the end of 1991 season where Ron Dennis says McLaren had nothing more to prove in F1??!!

        How could he say that? When at the time McLaren hadn’t perfected the semi-auto gearbox, active suspension and a host of other things.

        Italians will always be hard on Ferrari, because of the fear of slipping back to the dark era of 1979-2000.

        I think its up to the fans of mclaren to engage & up the pressure on them to perform upto expectations.

        After all the fans want to see them win.

        • Bernard said on 22nd February 2011, 12:13

          For someone who ‘doesn’t care’ you sure have read, watched and shared many opinion about them… ;)

        • Anti Marranello said on 22nd February 2011, 12:17

          at least in 2009 and 2010 WCC mclaren finished above ferrari, so mclaren has done a better job than ferrari. we’ll see @melbourne

          • Well, yeah, certainly. Mclaren had two drivers, Ferrari only had one – Alonso. For a different reasons, Massa wasn’t competitive. The criticism from above tries to say something about determination – Ferrari are always there to win, and they fear the taste of losing, whereas Mclaren say : well, that’s the best we can do, there’s a difference. But nevertheless, let’s watch @Melbourne, as you said. I don’t support any particular team, just enjoying the races, so I hope I will see some.

          • 2009 Mclaren had 1 driver though – to be fair.

  11. matt88 said on 22nd February 2011, 11:12

    as an engineer, i always thought that more data you have, more accurate will be your model.
    i believe that the Neale’s tale is, at most, a half truth to cover the problems Hamilton and Button complained about in the previous days…

    • Are you an engineer who has had to work with a lot of data though?

      If you had, you’d probably find it’s best to collect the maximum data possible, but you often end up working with a small subset of it, using the rest for anova comparisons.

      An approach that gets more high quality data (but perhaps takes longer and more setup) will always be more useful.

  12. Guess Keith has street cred now as this is linked from the BBC F1 Site in their Tuesday gossip column.

  13. Andy C said on 22nd February 2011, 11:48

    I hope the approach works, as last year, it has to be said, they did lots of development that they didnt get working until too late.

    Thinking of the EBD as an example. Put it on the car, made the car worse, worked in a couple of races time (too late).

    I really hope the pace is there by the time they get to Oz.

    I’d love to see the McLaren boys with a car that is right up there. Too many times in recent history its struck me that the car hasnt quite been on song.

    Both drivers are more than capable of challenging for the WDC given a car on par with Ferrari and Redbull (or even close).

    • Andy C said on 22nd February 2011, 11:51

      By the way Jonathan. We McLaren fans dont want to hear about how fast the car could be.

      Just give us a reason to believe it might be good. Fast lap times, good race distance pace. Thats what is needed.

  14. Coefficient said on 22nd February 2011, 12:07

    Let’s be sensible hey? Many of these comments are very emotional sounding, heavily biased either directly for or against Mclaren.

    In reality, Mclaren are a week behind everyone else in testing and are clearly running a different program to the others anyway so the sensible thing would be to wait and see for now.

    We’ve seen brief flashes of speed from the mp4 26 such as low 1.23 without kers or trick rear wing so to say they are nowhere is pessimism from their fans and optimism from their detractors. Nothing more.

    As usual, when Mclaren finally start to turn the wick up in the final test they will be right there on the pace or just 3 or 4 10ths off and no more. This can be made up at the factory before Melbourne, provided you’ve got a good sim model to go off.

    Presumably they are comfortable enough with their modelling data to risk some track time to ratify some big componenets. Lets face it, choosing the right exhaust system could be key this year and Mclaren have obviously designed an interim car that will accept a variety of solutions well enough to give them some good information to allow them to choose one to stick to.

    I suspect come the next test there will be no exhaust swapping as they will have chosen the one they want and the car in general will have less evo stick patches and rough edges. Then comes the mileage and the set up work which will then start to reveal the cars pace.

    In short they probably have a few floor designs optimised around the different exhaust solutions and by now the factory will have been told which one they need to prepare for the final test.

    Does anyone want to bet where their exausts will exit at the final test?

    • Bernard said on 22nd February 2011, 12:16

      Does anyone want to bet where their exausts will exit at the final test?

      Out of the engine? :p

    • I believe they stuck with the conventional exit for the final day, no changes…

      No idea where it will finally emerge.

    • Dave Blanc said on 22nd February 2011, 12:33

      totally agree. Testing is just that – testing. I do think that the extra time before the 1st GP will give McLaren a much needed chance to fine tune their set up though as they are still a test behind their competitors. The next test will be very interesting to see what exhaust config they run and i think we’ll start to see some quick times from them. Probably not top of the time sheets but don’t write them off just yet.

    • Alex Bkk said on 22nd February 2011, 13:00

      Into the atmosphere?

    • The most sensible, well thought, and most probably correct comment I’ve seen on this site for days. As for where the exhausts will be…does anyone actually know where they were for the second set-up?

  15. troutcor said on 22nd February 2011, 12:42

    Last year “less reputable” journalists “thought Mc were in trouble” because of the number of rakes? And what, they weren’t in trouble? I wouldn’t say turning out what proved to be the third-place car exactly disproved the assessment of those “less reputable journalists.”
    If not for McLaren’s inclusion of the 2010 Gimmick Of The Year (the hood scoop), that car would have been a total dog. Button would have been fighting with Senna for positions.
    Maybe it’ll work out better in 2011 if the speculation about McLaren joining Renault with this season’s Gimmick of the Year (hair-drier exhaust) is correct.

    • Andy C said on 22nd February 2011, 14:03

      Button would have been fighting with Senna for positions.

      As opposed to 26 points away from one of the guys who is heralded as one of the very quickest out there?

      The point is, the gimic of the year as you put it was copied by pretty much every team that had enough resources to put it on, as was the EBD.

      The EBD for me was the real key piece of kit to get working.

    • Dobin1000 (@dobin1000) said on 22nd February 2011, 15:32

      Of course, the ‘hood scoop’ was about 20 places difference, because once everyone else had one the McLaren dropped to the back of the grid?

      I think you’ll find it was the second-placed car. At least according to the championship table.

      Except of course “Ferrari only had one driver” as someone said earlier. Maybe if Ferrari had made a better car Massa would have been able to get better results?

    • Not true, they were topping the timesheets this time last year and had the best race pace

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.