You're viewing a single thread.
In all seriousness, I think the people under Jost Capito thought to better make something simple that works and evolve from there than to get lost in details. I think getting lost in too many details is where Mercedes's comments came from that they sometimes don't understand why the car behaves the way it does.
It's actually a pretty smart approach for a team with limited resources. Building efficient downforce is very hard. Building efficient low-drag is much easier. You will suck even harder at most tracks than if you'd tried making an all-rounder car, but so what? Finishing 14/15 is worth the same points as 19/20. Doing the the extreme low drag approach at least puts you in contention for points at tracks like Monza and those handfuls of points can be huge for a team at the bottom of the standings.
On the other hand you'll never get the experience building cars with decent downforce and everything that comes with it. If next regulations place even more importance on downforce, they'll be even more screwed.
Agreed. Also, in the end it doesn't matter what kind of approach you take, as long as it delivers good performance/results. If someone made a GP-winning car with bodywork made of cardboard, it would still be a fast car.