Ferrari manipulation or manipulation for even all manufacturers?

[F40 LeMans]

Concerning the old thread regarding Ferrari manipulation I want to came back to the argument again, because some people here has blamed too much singly at that moment.
Some people here said that Ferrari used laptop computers for setting the car during their tests with a team to support, the possibility to falsify their own results. I think that the story you created was too long and annoying because it was not concretely based. Not because it can not be true, because everyone's doing well.
Here the pics you posted.



Honestly concerning the habits of all the other manufacturers, today, without any justification, what I can see is that all they can use the same mode of testing their cars independently of which of them was. Even with team behind the cars.

What about these pics of the Nissan team during the NRing testing, use and habits? Those who feel so transparent for you all.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SylW9y5F1zc

Honestly, again today, I would like to know which is REALLY the differences between both testing methods for you all. Why was only Ferrari cheating if the 2012 NRing video attempt say that Nissan team had a lot of work to do, get all the data, analyze, tune, calibrate, refine before an other NRing attack.

Of course, Ferrari use that method during magazine tests, Nissan during their NRing tests, but what is the justification of one over the other? You all are thinking they are the only two factories with these kind of traditions? So, why raise a fuss about suspecting just by only one?

Many have skeletons behind their cabinets. Here too.
There is too much obsession with blaming individually, and some members here were well naively affected.

 

[Levi68]

I do not know. I have nothing against it. I just think all manufacturers must get 101% out of their car with a driver than can get most out of the car.

 

[DeDe]

Everyone's doing it, no big deal. Most of these "teams" are only for observing.

Examples from Sport Auto's Supertest:
- Ferrari always sends teams for observing (458 Italia, 599, California Supertest).
- McLaren's team was at the MP4 Supertest as well (they fixed the ABS- and suspension-problems). They also attempted at AMS's 458 vs. MP4 comparison.
- After the SLS AMG with its optional sport-suspension did a moderated 1.11,5 min time at the HHR, the Mercedes-team installed a different ABS-setup, especially for the Hockenheimring. The results was the 1.10,8 min time at the Supertest.

And let's not forget about the differences between the claimed and measured suspension-settings...

 

[F40 LeMans]

I do not know. I have nothing against it. I just think all manufacturers must get 101% out of their car with a driver than can get most out of the car.

Right! me too. But the point was not to blame just for Ferrari making it

When disclosing Ferrari's pics about it, people here raised a fuss about suspecting something........... something that usually done by everyone.
I remember the long Chris Harris on Ferrari's media-manipulation thread....LOL

I reopened the case, to justify with people that sometimes facts need to be clarified before leaving to lose......as if Ferrari had a team of puppets!
Puppets here are those who know they've blamed!

What about acceleration times or lap times repeatability? Looking the pics above repeatability goes to hell in both cases....... so why blame just regarding for Ferrari's acceleration magazine data? Why Nissan attack has always been considered to satisfy the conditions of a production car?
Many people here will have to rinse their mouths with acid.... before open better their eyes! LOL

 

[F40 LeMans]

Everyone's doing it, no big deal. Most of these "teams" are only for observing.

Examples from Sport Auto's Supertest:
- Ferrari always sends teams for observing (458 Italia, 599, California Supertest).
- McLaren's team was at the MP4 Supertest as well (they fixed the ABS- and suspension-problems). They also attempted at AMS's 458 vs. MP4 comparison.
- After the SLS AMG with its optional sport-suspension did a moderated 1.11,5 min time at the HHR, the Mercedes-team installed a different ABS-setup, especially for the Hockenheimring. The results was the 1.10,8 min time at the Supertest.

And let's not forget about the differences between the claimed and measured suspension-settings...

Yeah, and these are just 3 examples of thousand...

In advance, as you can believe a limit factory lap time should be considered good to be repeatable? If just a different ABS-setup on the SLS may give a difference after few laps. How about a global effective setting of the car can, expecially after hundred of attempts?

 

[Centurion]

Guys, you need to wake up to the twisted worl of publishing. Favourable mentions in press sell products and favourable mentions earn magazine advertising deals. That's how the publishing industry works, everything is reciprocal.

And btw. The clothes you see in advertisements or in advertorials, you like them right? Guess what, they are made from different materials than the products seen in the stores. The materials chosen for adverts photograph well as oppossed to the materials used for the clothes available in the stores.

 

[Deleted member 25]

Seriously ? You talk about the pricey clothes or all of them ?

 

[Mafalda]

Concerning the old thread regarding Ferrari manipulation I want to came back to the argument again, because some people here has blamed too much singly at that moment.
Some people here said that Ferrari used laptop computers for setting the car during their tests with a team to support, the possibility to falsify their own results. I think that the story you created was too long and annoying because it was not concretely based. Not because it can not be true, because everyone's doing well.


Honestly concerning the habits of all the other manufacturers, today, without any justification, what I can see is that all they can use the same mode of testing their cars independently of which of them was. Even with team behind the cars.

What about these pics of the Nissan team during the NRing testing, use and habits? Those who feel so transparent for you all.




Honestly, again today, I would like to know which is REALLY the differences between both testing methods for you all. Why was only Ferrari cheating if the 2012 NRing video attempt say that Nissan team had a lot of work to do, get all the data, analyze, tune, calibrate, refine before an other NRing attack.

Of course, Ferrari use that method during magazine tests, Nissan during their NRing tests, but what is the justification of one over the other? You all are thinking they are the only two factories with these kind of traditions? So, why raise a fuss about suspecting just by only one?

Many have skeletons behind their cabinets. Here too.
There is too much obsession with blaming individually, and some members here were well naively affected.

I never saw this video: you do not think is strange, why no one ever has focused it?
however, no surprise, for this"late discovery" (just like the article by Harris, when he said "Mnfs optimed? sometimes, but I understand it!" ), and about its content too.
Starting the Far 2008, I have always said that the GT-R is an exceptional car, but at the same time, the time declared the 'Ring are not repeatable.
at the same way, as I always said if Ferrari can certainly sometimes be too manic, and sometimes they sent cars with some extra hp but, equally, other Mnfrs are not certain saints, and there are a ton of "strange tets" indeed.
Result was:
- "fanboy"
- "use the brain"
- "only ferrari manipulates"
- "only ferrari send a support team"
- " ferrari cuts 0.5s? it prove the media manipulation"
- "Ferrari Vs EVO? it proves the media manipulation!"
- "Ferrai changes 0.1 bar tyre-pressure? media manipulation!"
- "customer-Ferrari tested by the magazine have the same performance of the press-car? it don't prove anything, This does not excuse the Ferrari!"
- youtube-video were Yugo beats ferrari? Youtub is the Bible, it proves the media manipulation!
- "Other mnfs don't send support team"
- "Other mnfs don't add extra HP"
- " Other mnfs don't manpulate the setup"
- " Other Mnfrs cut 1s? It don't prove the manipulation!"
- "other mnfrs chage 4 tyres during the full review? no media manipulation!"
[ NEW ENTRY] - " McLaren Vs CAR? ....McLaren MICROMANAGE" (Micromanage =/= media manipulations..."
- " Other Mnfrs cut 1s? good form and weather!"
- "other mnfrs: claimed incredibly-hotlap @ 'Ring? totally standard car, taken @ random from the assembling line, and closed in a "glass reliquary from factory to the 'Ring..."

What can I say after 13 months? exactly what I wrote 13 months ago: EVO believes he has been wronged by ferrari? It has the perfect right to complain about it, and if it believes Ferrari mistakes, has the right / duty to write it.
but then again the concept how it was a fake-scoop, because it implied other mnfrs were blameless (admission made ​​many weeks after, ​​using different terms (...optimized...), and that obviously did not have the same resonance).
Unfortunately, some detractors were avid for Ferrari, denying the evidence.

May I say, "I was right"?

 

[Mafalda]

how ferrai add extra power

how ferrari manipulates

how Nissan works for safety and fuel economy...

how nissan adds "PacMan" and "PuzzleBubble" on your Nissan GT-R

 

[Centurion]

Seriously ? You talk about the pricey clothes or all of them ?

Not only the expensive ones but also cheap ones. This is why clothes from chains like H&M and Zara tend to look medicore when you try, compared with how they look in the billboards. It's concept versus production.



Food isn't any different. Food photographers use deodorant spary on grapes to make them frosty and Big Mac's in commercials are not edible at all, some of the ingredients are made from synthetic materials that looks good on camera.

 

[Guibo]

The difference you guys fail to understand is that in the Nissan test, that is a private 'Ring session testing to finalize all the various subsystems of the car (brakes, alignment, dampers, tires, etc.). This would be like Ferrari's testing at Fiorano. The big difference, of course, is that Ferrari rarely (if ever) allow pictures of those finalized production-spec test cars being tested at Fiorano. Nissan has sometimes let journalist groups come and watch their testing at the 'Ring, with access granted to the pit garages and even photos taken of tires being used.

The debate, as it relates to Harris's story and how it was presented earlier, is what Ferrari does during (or in many cases, before*) independent journalist testing or group comparos. What you don't see in such tests:

• Nissan threatening action against owners/mags if a private car is used; indeed, the early UK tests were done with customer cars fresh off the boat that were fast enough to beat GT3's and 997.1 Turbos, which had previously been extensively tested by press
• A GT-R running so fast it gets bumped into the next class above (like 360M running faster than 996 GT2 and fast like a Murcielago)
• Nissan's crews changing out entire wheel sizes on one axle to cure an understeering situation
• Nissan's crews changing tires for the wet portion of a group test, while all the other cars are on the same dry-weather tires originally fitted from the beginning of the test
• Nissan's crews saying to journalists: "Your lap times are too slow. Let us swap some wheels/tires/pressures until you achieve the desired result."
• Nissan sending 2 cars: one legal in Japan but perhaps not legal in the US where the test took place, and the other for photo purposes which must not under any circumstance be tested for numbers
• Nissan supplying their own fuel, even though every other car in test seems content with drinking the recommended stock fuel available at most any public or trackside pump.
• Nissan's crews arriving a week ahead of a group test to set the car up for that particular track or surface; they don't spend a huge amount of time allowing the car's electronic systems to learn the surface. In the Scuderia test picture you see above, that technician is using a device that can load aggressive shift maps that would not be available on a stock customer car. See also this thread: another controversed test (458 inside) - McLaren Forum at McLaren Life (For French-speaking members, the source: Ferrari 458 Italia - Page 27 Auto titre.com)

In the Motor Trend handling test, all manufacturers (Nissan included) were allowed to send a crew or representative. Only one sent someone with ideal settings for their car: Ferrari. This is not cheating, as the opportunity was made available to all. Nor does it mean that Ferrari does it all the time. But it does show how, in the larger picture, Ferrari will tilt the playing field in their favor where other manufacturers are generally much more hands-off.

The result here:
-"If you can spot how Ferrari are different from other manufacturers, you must be a Ferrari hater."
-"You only attack Ferrari. Never McLaren, Mercedes, or TVR." (Lies.)

 

[F40 LeMans]

But it does show how, in the larger picture, Ferrari will tilt the playing field in their favor where other manufacturers are generally much more hands-off.

You could limit yourself to only these words which I share, but this does not means that Ferrari is the only one manufacturer that use methods like setting to finalize all the various subsystems of the car to get the best results in their interest. Do you really think that Nissan use the private NRing test result as the same resonance into people that Ferrari use at Fiorano during their private tests? What I saw into the pics is that Nissan has the same interest to NRing lap time challenge as Ferrari has to press results, using the same methods finalizing all the various subsystems of the car, becoming, deliberately, into the lap time list an important figure than the competition. Initially we talked it should be exempted by finalizing own parametres...
The prior simple point was the repeatability: is hard to believe that customers cars are able to repeat their results in both cases. If the conclusion is this, no matter the differences; results are overrated in both cases.

To me the result here is:
-"is thief who steals 1000 dollars more than a thief of 50 bucks"
-"to me are both thiefs"

 

[Guibo]

You could limit yourself to only these words which I share, but this does not means that Ferrari is the only one manufacturer that use methods like setting to finalize all the various subsystems of the car to get the best results in their interest. Do you really think that Nissan use the private NRing test result as the same resonance into people that Ferrari use at Fiorano during their private tests? What I saw into the pics is that Nissan has the same interest to NRing lap time challenge as Ferrari has to press results, using the same methods finalizing all the various subsystems of the car, becoming, deliberately, into the lap time list an important figure than the competition. Initially we talked it should be exempted by finalizing own parametres...

The resonance cannot be the same for 'Ring vs Fiorano: 'Ring is much longer, much more demanding, is nestled within mountains that create their very own microclimates from lap to lap, and (importantly for purposes of comparison) open to all manufacturers willing to pay for testing there. For Fiorano, Ferrari allows no external company tests since it is their track. Furthering the case of Nissan's transparency, Nissan have even released telemetry data for all the world to analyze, with peak lateral g figures matched by Sport Auto.

You still do not understand my point: Nissan sets the car up at the 'Ring for final calibrations BEFORE production. Those are the settings and hardware (as in the case of the S1-S2 "hybrid" 7:29 car) that will end up on the production models. When magazine tests come, they are basically hands off. And they have even delivered a car that was slower in a straight line than some cars from a class below (slower than M3s in C&D tests).
Now, here's the distinction between Nissan and Ferrar: What Ferrari have done is taken that pre-production test methodology and applied it to car tests AFTER production and with settings that would likely not be covered under terms of the standard warranty. Ie, very hands on.
And another major difference is that it is not limited to one track (as in Nissan's case with the Nurburgring), but has carried on over to many tracks: Spa, Bedford Autodrome, Rockingham, Magny-Cours, Donnington Park, etc. And Laguna Seca where they had the audacity to hint that Nissan were cheating:
"[Ferrari's chassis engineer] Lucca Torre tells great stories. Like the one about Ferrari's zillion-dollar supercomputer simulator. Essentially, you dump a given car's vital stats into the system, and the simulator tells you how fast that car can go around a given track. 'Knowing what we know, we can't figure out how the GT-R goes around the Nurburgring so fast.'"
Considering the source, that accusation is very ironic. What Ferrari have done is turn what should be (theoretically) tests between evenly match production-spec cars and applied F1 qualifying practices to their favored horse to tilt the field in their favor. They've even used full on F1 transporters with spares and even F1 test drivers to tell the mag journos how to get the best from their car. Do you see Nissan sending Toshio Suzuki out to press tests to educate the mag editors? In one sense, this is even worse than an F1 qualifying session. How many F1 teams are allowed to bring their own formulated fuel with absolutely no scrutineering by the technical stewards?

If you read Harris's piece, you'd see it goes far beyond the mere settings of the car but encompasses a wide-ranging strategy by Ferrari to control the outcomes of car tests. The "manipulation" is not limited to merely on-track behavior. Now, if you have similar evidence of Nissan pressuring press/owners about the use of private cars in tests, or banning editors after an unfavorable review, then please post it up for us to see whether there is no difference in the magnitude of the manipulation. It would be convenient for you to focus only on the settings issue (now debunked as they are not both the same at all), but Harris's piece goes beyond that.

Let me know if you still cannot understand this distinction. I'm not sure if I can make it any clearer. I think most reasonable people would agree that while some companies have done some of the things for which Ferrari are accused, no other company is guilty of all of the things that Ferrari have done nor as often.

With regard to repeatability of tests, that is largely a moot point for this discussion. I can't think of a single customer who has ever closed down the entire Nurburgring to try to duplicate Nissan's efforts. Nor can I think of too many Ferrari owners with their own F1 trailers, supply of spares, support crew, and whatever fuel that Ferrari brings. Which begs the question: If it's good and fast enough to run "as stock" straight from careful attention by none other than the factory, why isn't it still good and fast enough when it comes to the track?

To me the result here is:
-"is thief who steals 1000 dollars more than a thief of 50 bucks"
-"to me are both thiefs"

But under the eyes of the law, both can be treated differently. In some states, stealing 1000 dollars is a felony ("grand theft") punishable by imprisonment whereas even $399 might only be a misdemeanor. The magnitude matters as does the context. A child takes a $10 toy from his brother's room and keeps it as his own. A gunman holds up a bank and takes $10000. Both are thiefs. But clearly there is a distinction between the two. To say that Nissan or some other manufacturer are "just like Ferrari" because they have done some things that Ferrari have done (but not nearly all) is to entirely misunderstand Harris's article.

 

[Zonda]

Food isn't any different. Food photographers use deodorant spary on grapes to make them frosty and Big Mac's in commercials are not edible at all, some of the ingredients are made from synthetic materials that looks good on camera.

I did a bit of food photography a few years ago, just pour some salt in your beer before you take a photo
And yeah, you're right about all you said.

 

[F40 LeMans]

Not only the expensive ones but also cheap ones. This is why clothes from chains like H&M and Zara tend to look medicore when you try, compared with how they look in the billboards. It's concept versus production.

Food isn't any different. Food photographers use deodorant spary on grapes to make them frosty and Big Mac's in commercials are not edible at all, some of the ingredients are made from synthetic materials that looks good on camera.

Very interesting, this behind marketing strategies, it sound incredible. LOL

 

[Mafalda]

The difference you guys fail to understand is that in the Nissan test, that is a private 'Ring session testing to finalize all the various subsystems of the car (brakes, alignment, dampers, tires, etc.). This would be like Ferrari's testing at Fiorano.

your theory (rather, your insadacabile truth!), has always been. "Nissan've been used a standard GT-R, absolutely no modified!"
Now, coincidentally, the GT-R was modified, but intent was different ...
why Nissan, after many years and many miles, still has worked on THAT GT-R? simply, to get the best performance, as in Formula 1! and this confirms what I've always said, since 2008: they used tuned GT-R, it means hotlaps are not repeatble. end of the story

The debate, as it relates to Harris's story and how it was presented earlier, is what Ferrari does during (or in many cases, before*) independent journalist testing or group comparos. What you don't see in such tests:

• Nissan threatening action against owners/mags if a private car is used; indeed, the early UK tests were done with customer cars fresh off the boat that were fast enough to beat GT3's and 997.1 Turbos, which had previously been extensively tested by press
• A GT-R running so fast it gets bumped into the next class above (like 360M running faster than 996 GT2 and fast like a Murcielago)
• Nissan's crews changing out entire wheel sizes on one axle to cure an understeering situation
• Nissan's crews changing tires for the wet portion of a group test, while all the other cars are on the same dry-weather tires originally fitted from the beginning of the test
• Nissan's crews saying to journalists: "Your lap times are too slow. Let us swap some wheels/tires/pressures until you achieve the desired result."
• Nissan sending 2 cars: one legal in Japan but perhaps not legal in the US where the test took place, and the other for photo purposes which must not under any circumstance be tested for numbers
• Nissan supplying their own fuel, even though every other car in test seems content with drinking the recommended stock fuel available at most any public or trackside pump.
• Nissan's crews arriving a week ahead of a group test to set the car up for that particular track or surface; they don't spend a huge amount of time allowing the car's electronic systems to learn the surface. In the Scuderia test picture you see above, that technician is using a device that can load aggressive shift maps that would not be available on a stock customer car. See also this thread: another controversed test (458 inside) - McLaren Forum at McLaren Life (For French-speaking members, the source: Ferrari 458 Italia - Page 27 Auto titre.com)

someone plugs the laptop and change fuel in front of everyone, somebodydo it into the box (or simply, their photos are not published .... ) , but what 's reall matter is the final result ...
example (one of many ...): how many seconds the 599GTB has improved, about 0-300, with team support and super-fuel? answer: 5.5s... as like as the SLS AMG (but it was ok, of course...)
as like as about the AMG-team support , which has (improved? optimized? micromanaged?) the SLS @ HHR...

In the Motor Trend handling test, all manufacturers (Nissan included) were allowed to send a crew or representative. Only one sent someone with ideal settings for their car: Ferrari. This is not cheating, as the opportunity was made available to all. Nor does it mean that Ferrari does it all the time. But it does show how, in the larger picture, Ferrari will tilt the playing field in their favor where other manufacturers are generally much more hands-off.

The result here:
-"If you can spot how Ferrari are different from other manufacturers, you must be a Ferrari hater."
-"You only attack Ferrari. Never McLaren, Mercedes, or TVR." (Lies.)

about MY supercomparo
- Mnfrs were FREE to send a crew or representative
- as usual, if Ferrari do it, prove the manipulations, if a challenger do it, it's ok
- if ferrari change 0.1 bar tyres pressure = media manipulations
- if a challager change 4 tyres, it's all ok

like 360M running faster than 996 GT2 and fast like a Murcielago)

I've alredy posted a long list about "strange" acceleration weres "X was faster than Y": do you need the update list?
But I need the by GermaCarForumi's Admin:it's so long, and it'd crash the server

 

[DeDe]

how many seconds the 599GTB has improved, about 0-300, with team support and super-fuel? answer: 5.5s

I guess you are talking about the AMS and AutoBild Sportscars/MotorTrend results... the big difference is caused by the strong wind which apparently effected the MotorTrend 0-300 kph results badly.

SLS has recently improved 12 seconds, but I cannot remember any controversy....
as like as about the AMG-team support , which has (improved? optimized? micromanaged?) the SLS @ HHR...

As far as I know AMS did about 36 s at Nardo, while Sport Auto managed a 41-42 s time at Papenburg, which is only a 5-6-second-difference. The first is too optimistic, maybe because of the curvature of the Nardo oval-track (wind-direction is always changing), while the Sport Auto time clearly lines up with other times (0-300 time by French Sport Auto or 0-300 time by AutoBild Sportscars with the Vaeth SLS AMG).


Weather, testing methodes and track conditions are the main factor.

For example the 991 Carrera S PDK posted fantastic times on the racetracks, but only managed a relatively moderated 14,1 s 0-200 kph time in Sport Auto's Supertest. The very same testcar did 13,2 s in both AutoBild SC and AutoZeitung-tests. Believe me, if they (Porsche) wanted to "tune" the car for the best performance, they would do it before the Sport Auto Supertest (which is a much more prestigious test than the other two, TBH).

Connecting a laptop to check some data is no cheating. Lower tyre pressure is no cheating as well, since even an owner can change it, anytime...

If a 458 Italia does 0-200 kph in 9,2 s in a French magazine and 10,6 s in a German one, my first question is "how they did it, how they measured the acceleration?". The "was is a factory-tuned testcar?" is my last thought.

There are a lot of factors we have to keep in mind before we start to talk about these "manipulation/cheating" stuff:
- Maybe they were testing with only driver and minimal fuel instead of two persons onboard and full tank of fuel.
- Maybe their acceleration times are best-run-times instead of the much more realistic two-way-averages.
- Maybe it was a cold day.
- Maybe it was a high mileage testcar.
- Maybe their testtrack has a much more grippy surface (like AutoZeitung's airfield in Mendig, Germany).

If we know the circumstances, we don't have to shout "cheating". If we know AMG reprogrammed the SLS AMG's ABS for the Supertest, it's no longer a mystery or cheating, or call it, a manipulation. It's a fact, that even Mercedes itself admits.

If we don't know the circumstances, we have to consider the other possibilities (like the ones I mentioned above).
At least this is how I rate results for myself.

 

[Mafalda]

I guess you are talking about the AMS and AutoBild Sportscars/MotorTrend results... the big difference is caused by the strong wind which apparently effected the MotorTrend 0-300 kph results badly.



As far as I know AMS did about 36 s at Nardo, while Sport Auto managed a 41-42 s time at Papenburg, which is only a 5-6-second-difference. The first is too optimistic, maybe because of the curvature of the Nardo oval-track (wind-direction is always changing), while the Sport Auto time clearly lines up with other times (0-300 time by French Sport Auto or 0-300 time by AutoBild Sportscars with the Vaeth SLS AMG).


Weather, testing methodes and track conditions are the main factor.

For example the 991 Carrera S PDK posted fantastic times on the racetracks, but only managed a relatively moderated 14,1 s 0-200 kph time in Sport Auto's Supertest. The very same testcar did 13,2 s in both AutoBild SC and AutoZeitung-tests. Believe me, if they (Porsche) wanted to "tune" the car for the best performance, they would do it before the Sport Auto Supertest (which is a much more prestigious test then the other two, TBH).

Connecting a laptop to check some data is no cheating. Lower tyre pressure is no cheating as well, since even an owner can change it, anytime...

If a 458 Italia does 0-200 kph in 9,2 s in a French magazine and 10,6 s in a German one, my first question is "how they did it, how they measured the acceleration?". The "was is a factory-tuned testcar?" is my last thought.

There are a lot of factors we have to keep in mind before we start to talk about these "manipulation/cheating" stuff:
- Maybe they were testing with only driver and minimal fuel instead of two persons onboard and full tank of fuel.
- Maybe their acceleration times are best-run-times instead of the much more realistic two-way-averages.
- Maybe it was a cold day.
- Maybe it was a high mileage testcar.
- Maybe their testtrack has a much more grippy surface (like AutoZeitung's airfield in Mendig, Germany).

If we know the circumstances, we don't have to shout "cheating". If we know AMG reprogrammed the SLS AMG's ABS for the Supertest, it's no longer a mystery or cheating, or call it, a manipulation. It's a fact, that even Mercedes itself admits.

If we don't know the circumstances, we have to consider the other possibilities (like the ones I mentioned above).
At least this is how I rate results for myself.

about SLS 0-300, sorry my mistake (I remeber 47.1, maybe was 41.7 )
even so, the final result is: when ferrari cuts 5s is a manipulation, AMG is ok.

about French SA, very strange results... 100-200 it destroies previous best ever (0.5s faster!), 200-270 was as fast as QR and auto, or a bit slower!! seems a typo...

About AMG @ HHR: if they reprogram an ABS is ok, if ferrari changes 0.1s tyre pressure is a manipulation...

the rest part of your post: I agree..

 

[DeDe]

if ferrari changes 0.1s tyre pressure is a manipulation...

For who? Chris Harris? He's a fantastic journalist and a real petrolhead, but he's still one of the hundreds.

 

[Human]

Just for interest sake and learning from what the F1 engineers have to cope with, gives a broader perspective and insight into results. Also investigating in greater depth all the technical areas involved in design, development and construction of a Formula One car.

The designers' aim is to make the car the fastest through every corner, and along every straight of every lap, then strategy, reliability, driver ability and luck all play a part in securing that win. There are many factors which must be considered in designing one of these highly complex machines.

The basics of the car are a monocoque chassis, bodywork, suspension, engine and wheels. The car must cope with the intense loadings created at Formula One speeds - in taking each corner on the race circuit, the car will experience positive and negative g-forces in all directions, and the more loading the car can cope with, the faster it can go around the track. The car has a limit, and this is its design limit.

The most critical area, and one race engineers always look at, is the tyre loadings. As the wheels are the only point of contact between race-car and circuit, these are incredibly important. It is here that the power is laid down (rear wheels), and the steering direction is input (front wheels). The designer requires the tyre to be in contact with the road at all times, and this is achieved through two means - Aerodynamic, and Mechanical grip. The suspension provides the mechanical grip, through spring and damper settings, and the aero grip comes from directing the airflow to create a downward force.

Above all else, however, power is everything in modern Formula One - without raw grunt, you don't get anywhere! The influx of interest from major car manufacturers can only serve to make the area of engine design more competitive. The engine is one of the most important parts of the package, and its design in recent years has concentrated on weight and size reduction as well as increasing power.

This brings us to another important area - weight and weight distribution. A car will handle best with a low centre of gravity. Cars are all designed with weights below the minimum weight required. This then allows the teams to put ballast where they want it, to achieve the best weight distribution and the best position for the centre of gravity.

Circuits, Conditions, and Complications

It just gets worse for the F1 engineer! The most obvious weather factor is rain. The car has a completely different set-up in the wet to that in the dry, and in some races, it has been those who spot it coming that take the advantage of using a different set-up and go on to win. This is why all the top teams now have their own weather stations - and some even post team members at different parts of the circuit, or in a circling helicopter if the weather looks threatening.

But it is not only the rain which affects the race car. Track temperatures can play havoc with the tyres, as they have very specific operating temperatures and give different levels of grip in different conditions. Wind can be a problem too.

Different circuits and different conditions present challenges for all connected with the engineering side of Formula One, and it is those who predict and cope best with these complications who eventually triumph.

Performance Requirements

Speed depends on the dynamics of the car - or how smoothly and efficiently it can weave its way around the set of corners we call the race-track.
One can immediately single out one criterion: acceleration and deceleration. It is the first thing that strikes you when you step into one of these machines.

But there are many of factors which determine that all important '0-100' time. The weight is a major factor - a light car has less weight to move, so will accelerate faster. With F1 rules, the weight limit is such that most teams need to use ballast to meet the minimum weight. That makes fuel strategy even more important - an empty tank makes a car much lighter than one on full fuel, so making two or three stops affects the weight of the car, thus the acceleration, and therefore the eventual lap time achieved. A car at any weight, however, will need an engine with good low-end power to accelerate quickly and some good rubber to get the power down fast. Braking is a method of taking off speed by converting the kinetic, or movement, energy into heat in the brakes and tyres. It is acceleration in reverse, and so retardation speed has the same requirements as acceleration. By optimising all these factors, an F1 car will go from 0-100-0 in about six, yes, six seconds!

Cornering is critical. A car will have to decrease its speed to go from a straight, around a corner, and onto another straight. The ability to go around this quickest is paramount in a successful car. A decrease in speed must be re-claimed once back on the straight, so the car which loses the least speed will have to accelerate the least when back on the straight - and accelerating takes time.

The design of this corner will, to a point, limit the car's speed around it. The other factor is the cornering ability of the car. To take a corner like Copse at Silverstone in a Formula Ford car would be very different to doing it in an F1 machine due to the difference in design between the two vehicles. Even taking it in two different Formula One cars would have different effects. The competence of a car in cornering comes in part from the height of the centre of gravity.

This is the point through which the weight of the car is seen to act, or the point where the car would balance on a pivot - you can find the centre of gravity of, say, a fork, by where your finger is when the fork balances level. Designers want the centre of gravity in a race car low to the floor. Other major criterion in cornering are the design of the suspension and tyres, the load transfer characteristics, and the downforce on the car.

All the above discussions are coupled together, and fit under the banner of 'Driveability'. The designer strives for this, and it must be the biggest dagger a driver places in the designer's heart when he claims the car is 'undriveable'! Along with all those factors described previously, the relationship between the centre of gravity and the aerodynamic centre is crucial for a driver's confidence.

The aerodynamic centre is similar to the centre of gravity in definition. It is the point through which the force created by the aerodynamics is seen to act. The fuel, which is the only part of the car to change weight significantly during the race, is positioned in such that the centre of gravity doesn't move significantly. However, the aerodynamic force is constantly changing, so keeping the aerodynamic centre in the same place throughout a lap is a near impossible task.

As the car is so close to the ground, millimetres of ride height (distance between the car and the ground) change downforce levels significantly. If the front is closer to the ground than the rear (as in braking), there will be more downforce on the front than normal, and the aerodynamic centre will move forward. In contrast, accelerating lifts up the front, and the aero centre moves back. To the driver, this movement feels unsettling, so the more level the car can be through accelerating, braking, cornering, and over the bumps, the more controllable it will be. For that reason, suspension stiffness is also important, as are load transfer characteristics.

The complexities of compromises between all of these factors make the difference between the car being fast, and the team being furious!

Source: Taking the Lid Off F1
autosport.com