Re: Thanks for the explanation, but does that mean the
well, remember that F1 specifies a minimum weight, so in that sense all the teams, top or not, have the same weight. The trick is WHERE the weight goes. The basic approach is to design as light as possible. This will put you under the weight limit. However, you now have freedom to add ballast, and to put it wherever it is most advantagous for the particular track/driver.
Regardless of whether the chassis is twin or single keel, one always runs the risk of being too eager to minimize weight (and maximize ballast) and thereby compromising the chassis structurally. Jag did that big time with the R3 in 2002, and that was a single-keel design.
The twin keel posses an extra dilemna because it tends to be heavier in the first place, PLUS extra material is required to offset the structural deficiencies inherent in the design. This creates a huge incentive for the designer to compromise in an effort to regain all that ballast he's loosing versus a single keel.
My thought with the McLaren is that Newey cars always have been very well balanced, and they were worried about being able to obtain that balance after losing ballast due to the twin keel. The result is that they pushed the numbers just a little too far and ended up with too much flex.
speculation on my part, but in line with what Machett is talking about.