Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam43
That last bit makes no difference to the public’s perception. I’m up for it, but it’s more trouble than it’s worth. You just provide more numbers for someone to find something to moan about. They can pick on a small thing, but not consider the whole. Or have any grasp that uncertainty will always remain. Overall, it doesn’t have to be perfect either, just pretty good. Which it seems like it is, but even with perfection it won’t make any difference.
Further, it is best it remains a secret sauce with the teams. They can know it’s tomato based, but they know any more they might be able to work round it.
|
It's a good point that you have made. If the teams know how it works, then they would be able to work around it.
However, a lack of transparency allows the ACO to work without accountability. I doubt there was any objective performance based justification for the boost handed to the Ferrari for the Imola round. The proof is the immediate reversal of 90% of the change for Spa...
With shameless machinations like this, it is exactly why we need transparency.
The best process, I maintain, is one that simply takes the homologation parameters (lift and drag), feeds them into a simulation model, and determines the BOP. From there it is up to the teams to extract all of the performance that the BOP table grants them. This system cannot be gamed or abused by both the ACO and the teams.