"When you have these back-to-back races, I feel like sometimes there is not enough time to really go through it all. So, I felt like we really had to take a bit of time to make sure that we understood which way we were going.
"Obviously, we had a deficit within the car setup that we were playing around [with] weekend by weekend and we were just not able to progress through it.
"But once we managed to get on top of that, we understood a lot of things that we were trying to compensate for. And that just basically meant that we were not just not doing things right.
I doubt they would make the car intentionally worse. But I could see them intentionally making a car not better. Basically I could see them saying well this is how the car is fastest look at how fast Max is in this setup. It’s not the car that’s the problem it’s you that’s the problem. Instead of being willing to set up the cars differently so that both drivers could perform at their maximum potential.
Not being willing or allowing them to try different setups sorta would’ve been a form of sabotage. Each side of the garage is pretty free in experimenting with different setups. At least I would be very surprised if they’re not. They won’t go e.g. “this is the setup Max likes, deal with”. When it comes to hardware, i.e. car, development it is probably a different story, as I suspect they would be more cautious in developing the car away from Max than Checo.
If you have a finite amount of budget, you don’t split them half for each driver. Max car gets more budget. Also, you give Checo drive a car similar to Max’s and share information for enhancements.
how? they are the same car.
In the sense that it’s tuned better for Max if there’s a conflict between Max and Checo on the car.
that’s a lot different than “Max car gets more budget”.
Whatever. Either it’s you lacking reading skill or it’s me lacking expression skill. What do you want now? Clarify which of us is correct or wrong?