1. and again, if this stats are so unreliable why do we use them here!
I am not saying they are unreliable. I am pointing out that even if they are a little unreliable it makes no difference to the conclusion, they would have to be very
unreliable for that to happen.
As examples, on the basis of a 0.180 difference being needed:
1. Assuming the time cost per kilo of 0.023s is spot on - there would have to be 7.826kg of fuel extra in Hamilton's car. Dividing that by the 5 laps we knew he had gives 1.56kg per lap. The Williams figure for 09 is 2.58kg per lap. Do you really think that the 09 Williams took 2.58kg of fuel to lap around Monaco whereas the 07 McLaren only took 1.55kg?
2. Assuming the kg per lap is spot on, we get a 12.9kg difference. With 0.180 needed that would mean a minimum of 0.014s per lap. The ITV estimate was 0.023s. Do you think their estimate (I assume based on discussions with team insiders) was nearly double the reality?
2. are those stats crucial (and if yes, to say what?)
What do you mean by crucial?
I have only presented them because abc was derided for his statement that, on the same strategy, Hamilton could have beaten Alonso. Given the statistics I've presented, I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion to come to.