The teams that have collected the most accurate and reliable data might have some reasonable advantage in this kind of situation.
Mclaren seemed to have a nice advantage with those contraptions and reasonable running and Ferrari ain't looking too bad either with those massive runs but RB might wish they had finished the development of their car earlier...

Vettel's not a bad little peddler, especially leading from the front. But Webber's..well at least he's good at talking. His straight forward personality mitigates his poor racecraft. Meanwhile poor Heidfeld who is a far superior driver is out of a race seat.

A litte unfair on mark - but another discussion for another time.

Our driver lineup is fine, and at least the par of any other team.

Is this stat up to date?

n'ermind. it must be. why can't i believe kimi only scored 233pts in his entire F1 career?

no, wait. what the hell is that stat???

is it the past 3 seasons? it has to be.

Id say its over the last 3 years when they were all on track at the same time

Career Points: 531 for Kimi

yeah, sorry. didn't see your post. thanks

Using that method you'd have to assume Massa had 2 laps more fuel which would be about 0.17s making Massa nearly 3 tenths quicker

Since Hamilton's stint was interupted, I was wondering how that would effect the life of the tyre and its heat cycle. Maybe it would be better to compare the amount of laps Hamilton did before the reg flag with Massa's? Or has that already been done

but you can't assume how much fuel a car had in it just because of how many laps were done in the stint

We don't really know how much fuel each had on board, so we can't reliably compare them. Hamilton may well have had more fuel on board.

Don't know if this has been posted yet, but according to uber-aerodynamicist Geoff Willis, McLaren has the car to beat.



http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/02/jere...et-up-to-speed/

Presumably, Mr. Willis knows what to look for in a car to tell if it's going to be good.

Get real

You should take into account Massa had scored more points than Kimi before his accident

Yes of course, thats why i said using that method

oh sorry - thought this was the mClAren 25 thread.

oh okay sorry. Misunderstood you there

What is really impresive is the end of the stint from Massa. After 50 laps being able to go from 23.86 to 22.64 in the last ten laps is nothing short of amazing.

anyone?

one needs to have deep knowledge of gum chemistry to be able to say anything about that. I am not positive you'll find that kind of skill on this forum

good read that..

check the winter testing thread... I think someone already did an analysis on the day of testing...and it was dead equal btw the two stints

I meant comparing the first 26 laps of Ham's stint (before the red flag) with the first 26 of Massa's stint

and of course being a Ferrari fanboy means you see nothing wrong with one side having thousandths added and the other missing all those dont you

you can't compare them..

massa's was on a drying track

i enjoy the gated-community that this thread represents as much as the next person, it's good not to have to sit beside the riff-raff in the normal 2010 Winter testing thread

... but like everything else there is a limit, surely. and you'd have to imagine that limit has to be in the vicinity of two pages of squabbling over a tenth of a second either way in 50laps ... 50 testing laps ... laps that don't count, times that don't matter, cos y'know, it being testing and all that ... anyone without access to the engineering program and the data-logged measurements trying to draw any sort of robust conclusion is just making us all look kinda, well, y'know, silly.
i don't think there is anything wrong in admitting the truth of the situation, no-one here is in any position to make any sort of robust argument of any kind, just based on some lap-times, as far as we are concerned they are just patterns of pretty numbers

all forum admins have itchy trigger fingers as threads begin to relentlessly approach 200 pages; could we maybe consider keeping the tenths of a second stuff over in the Winter Testing thread with all the other laptime-based wasted-energy, and maybe try to keep the broad weight of the MP4-25 thread as being the MP4-25. just a suggestion, or am i totally wrong?

Unfortunately he is kind of right. And that does bring some similarity to 2009.

Enough of this, in the space of 9 hours (me sleeping) 2 pages of crap have been posted. Get it back on topic or our thread will be closed.

Well said. I noticed this as well.

unfortunatly your kind of wrong,

1)Hamiltons/massas stint times have been ocmpared to a ridiculous degree in the testing thread, had you bothered to read it, you'd know they were pretty much dead equal maytbe 100th either way.

2)the mclaren was impressive over long stints in valencia.

3)you have no idea the fuel loads on board, he could have a hefty bit left in.

4)you dont know whether due to mclarens scrupulous data checking that he was told to lap within a certain time to compare data.

5)your not taking into account sand bagging i.e red bull 2009, bmw 2008.

6)ferrari looked good in testing 2009

7)you opposing professional insight from the paddock to your own biast opinion, i personally trust what people in the know say, its generally close to right.

thats all

I might add that Force India might be a handy car, too - front row pace at Spa and Monza last year. My dark horse for a podium or three.

At last I can read something reasonable. I get tired of continuos drooling.

Pingu Pi

Of course he is. He tries to shoehorn something in nearly every post. Search them.

But although it often breaks a thread, it's not breaking the rules so just ignore him. It's probably the only way he can get people to engage him in conversation as is usually the case.

The changes to the formula for this year are more incremental than they were a year ago, and this favours the better-funded teams. The FIA have been working to narrow the engine advantage that Mercedes enjoyed last year. Also, Simon Roberts has left Force India to return to McLaren.
I trust that most all of us would like to see Force India do well, but don't you think that it's less likely this year than it was in '09?

How do FIA narrow the engine advantage? Last I heard FIA told the teams to work it out amongst yourselfs.

same, i dont think engine equalisation has happened due to this. obviously theres little ways to improve it but overall there hasnt been any chancges and engines this year should be pretty much the same as last year

Renault - eco friendly
Mclaren - power
Ferrari - mobile oil rig.

I was under the impression the Merc was being de-tuned?

no it didn't happen.


tangent question:

who is responsible for the exhaust design. you'd think it was fairly critical to the tuning of the engine, but then again, it's a fairly fundamental piece of packaging and aero, especially in tandem with driving the rear wing, so who decides where and how it goes.

(see also: Mercedes and Force India cracking exhausts, McLaren not yet. I guess if they crack one this week, we can say it's part of the engine)

We've seen different things reported. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Regardless of what is officially reported for 2010, in the time since the engines were "frozen" a few years ago, the teams have been allowed to upgrade for durability. The problem (at least most of it) has been when the "durability" upgrades improved performance. Each individual upgrade had to be approved by the FIA. It appears that some, especially Mercedes, were more aggressive in their upgrade requests to the FIA than Renault were.
Within the constraint that there will be less money available for Renault (perhaps not for Ferrari) to spend on engine development this year than there would have been in '08-9, one would expect them to be much more aggressive in seeking out "durability" upgrades this year than they have been in the past. At the same time, one would expect that Mercedes would be allowed few if any such upgrades.
When one factors in that the two latest FIA appointments are:
- Frenchman Bernard Niclot as FIA Technical Advisor, and
- Frenchman Gilles Simon, former Ferrari engine chief, as FIA Director of Powertrain and Electronics,
I don't think it requires too vivid an imagination to foresee Renault and Ferrari as having a sympathetic audience when they, shall we say, enquire as to what engine durability upgrades would be permitted.

I've been waiting to hear any follow-on from James Allen's mention that Ferrari had been submitting large numbers of engine requests, including valves. Anyone heard anything?

the engine chaps give the chassis chaps their requirements, which is usually just an overall length of pipe...and the chassis guys manufacture to the spec length but with twisty bits to suit their requirments. in other words, the teams design and manufacture the exhausts

Why would I be biased? I'm one of the most hardcore McLaren fans on the entire board.

I'm just saying that that if it wasn't for that presumably low fuel 3 lap run Lewis would've finished dead last both days. Exactly like in 2009.

Except for no '08 wing.

because you claimed mclaren had bad long run pace when as i said, read the testing thread and you'll see its pretty much exactly as ferrari. and button and aalonso's similar stints also ran very close. either your so hardcore to mclaren that you've developed psychic link with the mclaren garage and are therefore clued in or you just simply dont bother researching before spamming nonsense.

heres a few facts for you:
(once again in handy numbered layout)

1) lewis/massa same stint, exact same pace, maybe 1tenth either way depending on if you take into account some laps like massa starting wet or hamilton resuming his stint.

2)button and alonso ran the same earlier in the week apparantly

3)JA Ferrari fan, says the mclaren is fast, its with the ferrari up top according to his sources within garages.

4) Former BAR and Red Bull Technical Chief and this is a quote 'Geoff Willis, who delivered a clear verdict on how things stand as he sees them, “Of the new cars the one that has impressed me the most is the McLaren, ” he said. ” It will be the front runner for the title battle along with the Red Bull. Just behind are the Ferrari and the Mercedes.'

so even though apparantly everything including the press, the paddock insiders, and the data we get from testing is all a lie?

every single report coming from teams, engineers, drivers, journalists, is that mclaren are looking quick along with ferrari, red bull is an unknown and merc is having troubles... theres been no talk from anybody that the mclaren generally looks bad at points, its all been postive apart form on the forums where you get the few crazies who see data devices on the car and freak even though as last year showed, they offered a far better development capability throughout the season.

i get maybe the data can be questionable to the point that we dont know exact fuel loads etc etc. but come on, your saying your more clued in than the experts? this might be just me but i wouldn't go telling John Madden hes wrong when he commentates on NFL plays...

i feel like one of the few people who can logically look at the situaton instead of diving right in and freaking out. calm heads people. we wont know till bahrain if were top but theres one thing that im certain, its not a dog.

even if were not front row, last year showed, we have the ability to out develop anybody.

now wheres that obama picture when ya need it...

I haven't claimed that the 25 has bad long run pace... I just said that Lewis has been last for both days until he went out on presumably lower fuel to do a 3 lap qualy run.

I know that nothing about who has the fastest car can be known right now because they don't even have the definitive wing packages on the car but being last for most of both days is not an encouraging sign for Lewis.

And unless Geoff Willis is in one of the teams garages looking at the data(which I'm pretty sure he isn't), then his expertise is not all that more valuable than anyone else. The BMW looked good in testing 2009 and it looked like a car that had a lot of work put into but then it turned out it was complete crap.

you agreed to zuludawn's post which stated that the mclaren was bad over long pace and were in trouble because lewis was at the back of the times for the 2 days...

yet when they do put something resembling an ok time (considering apparantly it could hit 17's) you moan its a low fuel run.

your jumping from different angles...

the bmw didnt show any signs of being a great car, especially because i remember people were saying they were sandbagging like they done in 2008...

Geoff Willis was a technical chief at red bull and knows a lot more inside folk than you, A) id trust his judgement more than yours purely because hes been involved in the design of cars and B) because hes actually at the track.

you simply dont get that testing means very little at this point... Toro Rosso were first in every test in the early part of 2009... where were they? certainly not at the front. red bull werent even up there in the times in test yet they had the 2nd best car at the time...

you agreed to a post where you, even though apparantly a mclaren fan, provoke doommongering when you have no evidence whatsoever to back it up, other than, oh lewis and mclaren didnt go and through the car around like wollys to show the entire paddock just how fast they are, so us fans can gloat about us being number 1 in testing... ridiculous.

Yes, Willis does know more than me but he isn't involved in the design of any of the current cars. So what he thinks could work doesn't necessarily do.


Yes, I know that testing doesn't mean much at the moment but its never a good indicator when you're dead last for both days you drive the car until the very end of the test when you go on a short 3 lap run and set the fastest lap of the week.

Toro Rosso were using the 2008 car with 2009 tires. That is why they were much faster.



What do you mean there is no evidence? Was Lewis not last for most of his time in Jerez?

So you are denying that Hamilton had a low fuel fun right at the end of the test when he suddenly went seconds faster than he managed all test? Hes not jumping from angles hes simply being stating facts, which some people find very upsetting. Mclaren were not the only team testing long runs yet they were second last all day, until the low fuel run. Looks like they lacked pace on long runs, unless you think being second last is not a bad thing.




Does he know inside people than Ross brawn and just about everyone else in the paddock who has said its simply too hard to be sure about any team because of fuel loads? Willis isnt even a member of any team anymore is he?




He does have great evidence to back it up. Hamilton was near last all day until he did a glory lap, and his stint was slower than Massa's especially in the second half when his times did not drop anywhere near the massa's did. I know its hard to hear doommongering when you have high expectations but it does not mean its not justified and should not be said.

being last in a test isnt evidence. thats opinion, nad im saying who do you think is more likely to be right, the paddock or yourself on whether mclaren are fast? thats my point, your opinion is that since they were last that automaticly means they are doing bad. yet the entire paddock says mclaren look fast... so i go with testing means little, opinions of expert personel at the test does... and thats where we should get our thought on cars from, that and the data given, which ive told you 2 times now, go look at the stint comparison in the testing thread, lewis and massa (the 2 long distance races according to the paddock) are pretty much the same...

check the testing thread, they added up to the same 1tenth either way. so it doesnt matter if your fast at the start or the end, the time still equates to the same amount so your not any faster.... so dont claim the ferrari is faster.

and once again, ill tell you, the entire F1 paddock says the mclaren and ferrari are the cars to beat, who do you think knows more, them or you? it makes no sense to make presumptions that the mclaren is slow when everybody thinks these are the 2 front runners yet 1 is slow because he didnt put a fast time in all day till the end even though the stint times add up to the same, jesus... is this not clicking?

and it wasnt a low fuel run. apparantly the toro rosso could have done a 17 according to alguesari, so either the toro rosso is a monster or both mclaren and ferrari are 2s off the pace... i think ill believe the experts once again...

Hey all, way off topic here but I notice this most in the McLaren thread, fans referring to the team as 'we' and 'us'. Is this some kind of delusion or is it a compliment to the team or what exactly?

Please don't take this as trolling, I've always been curious about this and this seems the most common place I see it, I just assumed these posters were actually part of the McLaren group before, but it would seem not.