Kimi Raikkonen Confirmed as Ferrari Driver

[Markus Neumann]

I think you are wrong. Ask Rubens Barrichello or Eddie Irvine.

Neither of them were half as good as Schumacher and he alone left them no chance of winning the WDC. It's a completely different situation with Alonso and Raikkonen.

You did not create better car by magic. They just did better job (also comparing their resources) and thats it.

It's easier to create/develop a car for a team with a lower budget earlier in the season because the FOM prize money rolls in in December. As the year goes on, the money runs out (for Lotus, that apparently happens in August, at which point Genii has to start financing them) and development slows down. For the bigger teams that doesn't happen.

Also, we all know why McLaren started out with a bad car this season. They took a risk and fell on their noses. It's an exception and hardly serves as a good example.

For further info on Lotus' finances: Auto Motor und Sport (German magazine) released an article about it. Unfortunately, the Google translate version of it is kinda horrible :-/

 

[Dmitry Zaharov]

Neither of them were half as good as Schumacher and he alone left them no chance of winning the WDC.

If he was that good Austria'02 should had never happened at all.

It's a completely different situation with Alonso and Raikkonen.

There is no situation with Alonso and Raikkonen since they were never in the same team, so that comparison is totally irrelevant. To be honest, I think Alonso is better, but this is only my humble opinion.

It's easier to create/develop a car for a team with a lower budget earlier in the season because the FOM prize money rolls in in December.
As the year goes on, the money runs out (for Lotus, that apparently happens in August, at which point Genii has to start financing them) and development slows down. For the bigger teams that doesn't happen.

Also, we all know why McLaren started out with a bad car this season. They took a risk and fell on their noses. It's an exception and hardly serves as a good example.

They started with bad car because they made a bad car. Whatever they took risk or not, it was their decision, so no exceptions. They had a lot more money to play with to eliminate any risk and they screwed up. Creating a good car is not a dice roll, you can simulate everything these days, it is just a matter of resources. Yet again, this only proves that Lotus had better heads at their development department.

 

[Markus Neumann]

If he was that good Austria'02 should had never happened at all.

Yeah, that was a truly momentous event without which Barichello would have managed the incredible feat of scoring more than 50% of Schumacher's points

There is no situation with Alonso and Raikkonen since they were never in the same team, so that comparison is totally irrelevant. To be honest, I think Alonso is better, but this is only my humble opinion.

Umm, who brought up this comparison? (Hint: You will find the answer at the bottom of page 2 of this thread)

They started with bad car because they made a bad car. Whatever they took risk or not, it was their decision, so no exceptions. They had a lot more money to play with to eliminate any risk and they screwed up. Creating a good car is not a dice roll, you can simulate everything these days, it is just a matter of resources. Yet again, this only proves that Lotus had better heads at their development department.

Actually, McLaren doesn't have that much more money than Lotus. Also, money or not, you can't eliminate all risk. They built a new kind of car hoping that they would be able to make further strides than their competitors and it backfired. And yes, to some degree, building a car IS a dice roll. You can't completely eliminate randomness because simulations never correlate perfectly with reality. CFD and wind tunnel are incredible tools, but you never know how good your car really is until you try it out in Jerez.