Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Latest Qualifying & Race Pace Pecking Order


  • Please log in to reply
330 replies to this topic

#301 Kingshark

Kingshark
  • Member

  • 2,944 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 04 February 2013 - 00:04

As you might or might not know, a year ago or so, I actually made a short analysis on the pecking order of the 2011 F1 season. Yes, at one point I was actually protecting Vettel from his anti-fans, arguing that the difference between the MP4-27 and the RB7 wasn't that large.

Believe it or not, I don't actually hate him. I've just been in a really bad mood lately. It's been tough being a Ferrari fan.

Advertisement

#302 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 853 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 February 2013 - 01:54

Last year the difference in speed was very small, so it is just impossible to say if the difference were because car A is faster than B or because driver A is faster than B.

If you consider RBR, McLaren, Ferrari and Lotus drivers were just as good you basically have RBR and McLaren as equally the fastest in quali while Ferrari would come 3rd some 0.4s slower on avg and Lotus some 0.2s slower than Ferrari. The difference in races were even smaller since Ferrari and Lotus were known for having a good race pace. and if you go for the best car including reliability which Ferrari and Lotus were better it is just too close to call car A or B as the best unless you can say driver A or B is faster which we can't right now.

#303 IMO

IMO
  • Member

  • 45 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 February 2013 - 02:50

Mclaren struggle a little bit from Suzuka to India gp period. Ferrari undoubtly had better pace than them. It was quite equal overall on 2nd half of the season.

I understand their qualifying form wasnt as good,esp on 2nd half of the season.

However, they had the best launch configuration, best straightline pace enough to compensate the loss. Though it would be hard to win races, podiums were not out of reach.

Throw red bull behind the pack, they will struggle more as they often configure their car for pole rather than racebility setup.

Ferrari overall has the most consistent strong race pace throughout the season, and the car was the car to beat under wet condition. In 2013, where DRS usage is limited in qualifying, it will reduce the woes greatly.

it wasn't a bad car that some would like to paint it out to be. There are many philosophy in races, being fastest in qualifying is just one of them, having a race car that are competitive in gaining position is another, being kind to tyre is another philosophy opted by sauber and lotus (though it was useless in 2nd half of the season when everyone grasp the tyre, it would be useful in 2013 for the fast degrading tyre).

Edited by IMO, 04 February 2013 - 03:07.


#304 elemist

elemist
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:59

Last year the difference in speed was very small, so it is just impossible to say if the difference were because car A is faster than B or because driver A is faster than B.

If you consider RBR, McLaren, Ferrari and Lotus drivers were just as good you basically have RBR and McLaren as equally the fastest in quali while Ferrari would come 3rd some 0.4s slower on avg and Lotus some 0.2s slower than Ferrari. The difference in races were even smaller since Ferrari and Lotus were known for having a good race pace. and if you go for the best car including reliability which Ferrari and Lotus were better it is just too close to call car A or B as the best unless you can say driver A or B is faster which we can't right now.


Where did you get the data that Lotus were slower than Ferrari? They were quicker in races and qualifying over all. The difference in speed between the Ferrari and the Mclaren and Redbull was probably 0.5 on average at best, that's not close its an eternity in F1. Having a good launch control or whatever does not make for that as races are a lot longer than the first corner.


Mclaren V Ferrari

Mclaren clearly faster in race and Qualifying.

Australia.
China.
Bahrain
Spain
Germany
Hungary
Spa
Singapore
Dhabi
USA
Brazil

11 races out of 20.

Evenly Matched

Monaco
Canada
Europe
Italy
Japan
Korea
India

Ferrari faster

Malaysia
Silverstone

That is not close its a landside to Mclaren in pace.

Ferrari vs Redbull

Redbull clearly quicker.

Australia
China
Bahrain
Monaco (pole by 6 tenths, the race was a tyre management cruise.
Europe.
Singapore
Japan
Korea
India
Dhabi
USA
Brazil

12 out of 20 races.

Evenly matched

Canada
Silverstone
Germany
Spa


Ferrari Faster

Malaysia
Spain
Italy

Again another landslide, which proves the Ferrari was not even in the same class as the Mclaren and Redbull. Also important to note that when those cars were faster, there were usually multiple teams inbetween them at Ferrari which increased the advantage. How anyone can say it was close or even debate the issue is beyond me. These conclusions are based on race pace and qualifying when race is not available because of incidents. The Ferrari race pace is vastly overrated simply because it was respectable and usually stronger than qualifying which does not mean it was competitive with the quickest cars.

Edited by elemist, 04 February 2013 - 06:24.


#305 matthewf1

matthewf1
  • Member

  • 76 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 04 February 2013 - 09:52

The way I see it, there are four key points in a season when a strong car is particularly essential, and if you have a strong car at these points, you should be favourite for the championships.

These points are;

the first race
the last race before the summer break
the first race after the summer break
the last race

Now, McLaren had a very strong car at these points, and duly won all these races. It is amazing that they didn't win anything, and that their drivers were not even in the top three of the championship and the team was only third in the constructors.

The more I look back on 2012, the more I think about how that could well be the best chance McLaren have had, and possibly will have for some time, to win something.

#306 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 February 2013 - 10:00

Again another landslide, which proves the Ferrari was not even in the same class as the Mclaren and Redbull. Also important to note that when those cars were faster, there were usually multiple teams inbetween them at Ferrari which increased the advantage. How anyone can say it was close or even debate the issue is beyond me. These conclusions are based on race pace and qualifying when race is not available because of incidents. The Ferrari race pace is vastly overrated simply because it was respectable and usually stronger than qualifying which does not mean it was competitive with the quickest cars.

Unsurprisingly you disregard the races where there were also other teams faster than McLaren and/or Red Bull.
Is it really so hard to make any point without a double standard?

#307 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 04 February 2013 - 10:03

Then I applaud you for that.
In the case of Australia though, it was clear that Button was just protecting his lead, certainly considering the McLaren's tires dropped off relatively badly towards the end of a stint.


Mnmracer, don't even bother arguing with them, Seanspeed and Kingshark are huge Alonso fanboys, and if you look across the forum you find them everywhere sprouting misconceptions and lies to prove the Ferrari was terrible and Alonso is amazing for even getting into Q3.

It's sad really.

#308 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,281 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 04 February 2013 - 10:27

Where did you get the data that Lotus were slower than Ferrari? They were quicker in races and qualifying over all.


That would depend on the driver you are looking at. Typically the two teams qualified very close to each other and had similar average qualifying performance over the whole season, with Alonso qualifying the best on average out of the 4 drivers and Massa the worst.
Average qualifying positions over the season:

Ferrari: 8.0
Alonso: 6.1
Massa 9.9

Lotus: 7.8
Räikkönen: 7.5
Grosjean: 7.7
(D'ambrosio: 16)

And I certainly don't see how you can say that Lotus were quicker in races overall compared to Ferrari when Kimi finished ahead of Alonso a total of 4 times out of 18 when both of them finished.

Grosjean and Massa are harder to compare, because Grosjean retired so much, but out of the races they both finished, Grosjean beat Massa 6-4. However, Massa still scored 26 more points.


My assessment is that Ferrari and Lotus were about equal and Alonso was just on great form whereas Massa was particularly bad for the first half of the season and Grosjean obviously just crashed shitloads. This is obviously just speculation, but I feel like Alonso and Kimi would have performed similarly even if they drove each others' cars.

Edited by Wander, 04 February 2013 - 10:32.


#309 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 February 2013 - 12:40

As the discussion was, 'how much more speed beats reliability', I did some calculations.

So taking the 'x best car' for each race, calculating the season 'best car results' for Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren, but including other teams for the races they were faster then the 3 teams mentioned. For instance, in China, Mercedes, Lotus and Williams set Ferrari back, but M/L/W are not calculated over the season.

If you are in the fastest car, you have the 'car potential' to score 25 points.
If you are in the 2nd fastest car, you have two faster cars ahead of you, so you have the 'car potential' to score 15 points.
Count down 10 points for 3rd fastest, 6 points for 4th fastest and 2 points for 5th fastest.

Taking into consideration each race of 2012, and taking into consideration when other teams than those 3 were faster...
McLaren was the fastest, on average being the 1.95th fastest car over the season.
Red Bull was 2nd fastest, on average being the 2.15th fastest car over the season.
Ferrari was 3rd fastest, on average being the 2.55th fastest car over the season.

Counting that to the car's potential points...
A McLaren driver had the speed potential to score 363 points over the season.
A Red Bull driver had the speed potential to score 330 points over the season.
A Ferrari driver had the speed potential to score 273 points over the season.

As this discussion centered on Red Bull and Ferrari, that means that over the season, the Ferrari on speed was 57 points behind in potential points.
Ferrari's reliability in Valencia over Vettel gained Alonso 32 points (-25 for Vettel, +7 extra for Alonso).
In Monza, reliability cost Vettel another 8 points (Alonso was ahead); 40 points.

So that's your answer: Ferrari's reliability over speed cost them 17 points over 20 races.

#310 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 853 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 February 2013 - 18:05

Where did you get the data that Lotus were slower than Ferrari? They were quicker in races and qualifying over all. The difference in speed between the Ferrari and the Mclaren and Redbull was probably 0.5 on average at best, that's not close its an eternity in F1. Having a good launch control or whatever does not make for that as races are a lot longer than the first corner.



Again another landslide, which proves the Ferrari was not even in the same class as the Mclaren and Redbull. Also important to note that when those cars were faster, there were usually multiple teams inbetween them at Ferrari which increased the advantage. How anyone can say it was close or even debate the issue is beyond me. These conclusions are based on race pace and qualifying when race is not available because of incidents. The Ferrari race pace is vastly overrated simply because it was respectable and usually stronger than qualifying which does not mean it was competitive with the quickest cars.


Just did the maths.

If we take only the best Q3 times for each team (if they didn't do Q3 I got the best Q2 times) we have on avg

Red Bull as the fastest, McLaren 0.046s slower than RBR, Ferrari 0.366s slower than McLaren and Lotus 0.200s slower than Ferrari.


If we take only the best lap times in quali (it may be Q1, Q2 or Q3) for each team we have on avg

McLaren as the fastest, RBR 0.106s slower than McLaren, Lotus 0.311s slower than RBR and Ferrari 0.063s slower than Lotus.

We know that the difference in races were even less, and that Ferrari and Lotus had better reliability, so yes, IMO this is a really close call.

#311 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 04 February 2013 - 20:03

The Ferrari race pace is vastly overrated simply because it was respectable and usually stronger than qualifying which does not mean it was competitive with the quickest cars.


R-U-B-B-I-S-H. It was top notch on Sunday. Don´t believe it? Let´s make some memory and compare directly head to head with McLaren, fastest car of the season, race by race:

Australia: McLaren
Malaysia: Ferrari
Bahrain: Equal
China: McLaren
Spain: Ferrari
Monaco: Ferrari
Canada: Equal
Europe: Ferrari
UK: Ferrari
Germany: Equal
Hungary: McLaren
Belgium: ?? Unknown, but let´s give it to McLaren, unlikely someone would smell Jenson
Italy: McLaren
Singapore: McLaren
Japan: Ferrari
Korea: Ferrari
India: Ferrari
Abu Dhabi: McLaren
USA: McLaren
Brazil:McLaren

That´s 9 races where McLaren was faster on Sunday, 8 for Ferrari, and 3 when it´s too close to call. Not competitive on Sunday relative to top teams my ass.
Or how on Earth you think Ferrari got second on WCC even with just one driver on form for 2/3 of the season??

#312 Kingshark

Kingshark
  • Member

  • 2,944 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 12 February 2013 - 02:50

Mnmracer, don't even bother arguing with them, Seanspeed and Kingshark are huge Alonso Ferrari fanboys, and if you look across the forum you find them everywhere sprouting misconceptions and lies to prove the Ferrari was terrible and Alonso is amazing for even getting into Q3.

It's sad really.

Fixed.

I can't believe the arrogance from this old post which I didn't even notice.

For starters, you completely missed on who I truly am a fanboy of, despite the fact my avatar clearly gives it away. Fail much? You can't even tell the difference between that, and a driver who I support because he drives for the greatest team in F1 history.

Secondly, I am more than capable of giving the Ferrari car credit where it deserves. IMO the Tifosi had the best car in 2006, 2007 and 2008; likewise having the 2nd best car in 2010 (contradictory to popular beliefs). Alonso threw that championship away by making too many mistakes early on the season.

However, that doesn't change the fact that in 2012, Alonso drove the fourth best car, no matter how you wish to diminish this.

I see that you've quoted me in your signature too. Sad attempt, and talk about being insecure. It's a tragedy that I am one of the few people on here who doesn't kiss the ground where Raikkonen walks on.

Edited by Kingshark, 12 February 2013 - 03:00.


#313 Kingshark

Kingshark
  • Member

  • 2,944 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 12 February 2013 - 02:59

R-U-B-B-I-S-H. It was top notch on Sunday. Don´t believe it? Let´s make some memory and compare directly head to head with McLaren, fastest car of the season, race by race:

Australia: McLaren
Malaysia: Ferrari
Bahrain: Equal
China: McLaren
Spain: Ferrari Mclaren - Hamilton taking pole by 6 tenths, then driving from 24th to 8th on the only 2-stop strategy doesn't ring a bell?
Monaco: Ferrari
Canada: Equal
Europe: Ferrari
UK: Ferrari
Germany: Equal Mclaren - DId you not see how easily Button was able to close up to Alonso, and then stay there until his tyres died at the end?
Hungary: McLaren
Belgium: ?? Unknown, but let´s give it to McLaren, unlikely someone would smell Jenson
Italy: McLaren Equal - Ferrari were as quick as Mclaren that day. I'm not as fanboyish as matt may wish.
Singapore: McLaren
Japan: Ferrari
Korea: Ferrari Equal - Hamilton was right behind Alonso until his anti-roll bar failed.
India: Ferrari
Abu Dhabi: McLaren
USA: McLaren
Brazil:McLaren

That´s 11 races where McLaren was faster on Sunday, 5 for Ferrari, and 4 when it´s too close to call. Not competitive on Sunday relative to top teams my ass.

I have that fixed for you.

Or how on Earth you think Ferrari got second on WCC even with just one driver on form for 2/3 of the season??

Due Mclaren's horrendous reliability?

How about this?

Pole Positions:
Red Bull had 8 - and 3 front row lockouts.
Mclaren had 8 - and 4 front row lockouts.
Ferrari had 2 - both in the wet.

Wins:
Red Bull had 7
Mclaren had 7
Ferrari had 3 - of which Malaysia and Europe were a complete fluke.

You wonder to why it is constantly repeated that Ferrari haven't been in the same league as RBR or Macca this season?

#314 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 12 February 2013 - 15:57

I have that fixed for you.


No, no, you didn´t fix it for me, my target is to make an accurate analysis. You fixed it for you, so you could feel better. :lol:

First of all, let´s go to the basics: the topic. We were arguing about RACE PACE. And my statement is that in that department, Ferrari was a match for anyone. That post was not about "fastest car" (Ferrari lack of Saturday pace means they´re a step behind here) or "best car" (Ferrai is second in this). You should have read what was the topic being discussed in my post first, your qualifying references are irrelevant, that´s not even being discussed, anyone knows Ferrari was well behind McLaren and RB there. Now we have clear what the topic was, let´s get down to your corrections:

Spain: Yes, McLaren qualified in front of Ferrari in Spain, but this is irrelevant to the topic discussed. Its tyre wear wouldn´t have allowed them to fight with Alonso, Maldonado, and Räikkönen. If McLaren was quickest car that day, Hamilton would have made something similar to Vettel around Abu Dhabi, instead of tip toeing to manage a conservative strategy and struggling to score some minor points. Button was not driving bad back then, he could have had a go for victory if they had the fastest car too surely.

Germany: Aha, so as Button pushed early on the stints, and Alonso late, it means McLaren was faster :drunk: In Germany there´s no difference. Alonso was faster later on the stints, Button was faster early on. Button would push to close the gap, and as soon as Alonso felt under any kind of pressure, he would push leaving Button without an answer. At no stage was a big difference in pace, they just used their tyres at different moments. Whoever started in front, in a mistake free race, would have won.

Italy: In Italy McLaren had just more pace, I just don´t understand from where you come up with this. I guess you needed to look objective somehow, but you overcooked it, mate.

Korea: Around Korea the fastest Ferrari driver couldn´t use his speed, and still, as you say, Alonso WAS still in front of Lewis and looking to have a better long run pace before the failure. Either way, it´s irrelevant, Massa could have beaten both with and without failures.

PS: check your maths, boy. You´ll have a hard time getting into university if you can´t count up to 20 :lol: If your "corrections" made any sense, it would be 10/6 for McLaren with 4 equal races. Nice try to skew the comparison even more ;) I guess malicious analysis alone wasn´t enough to satisfy your agenda needs.

I´ll add that, even if McLaren reliability WAS piss poor, having only one driver for 2/3 of a season is a way more severe handicapfor WCC purposes. It´s not as if McLaren would lose one of their cars 66% of the races ;) . You don´t beat a faster team with reliability problems with just one driver for most of the season if you don´t match them speed-wise on race day.

Edited by Skinnyguy, 12 February 2013 - 16:47.


#315 Kingshark

Kingshark
  • Member

  • 2,944 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 12 February 2013 - 18:16

No, no, you didn´t fix it for me, my target is to make an accurate analysis. You fixed it for you, so you could feel better. :lol:

Wow, talk about having your head stuck up too deep in your own rear. Your ego is more of a comedic element to your post more than anything else.

First of all, let´s go to the basics: the topic. We were arguing about RACE PACE. And my statement is that in that department, Ferrari was a match for anyone. That post was not about "fastest car" (Ferrari lack of Saturday pace means they´re a step behind here) or "best car" (Ferrai is second in this). You should have read what was the topic being discussed in my post first, your qualifying references are irrelevant, that´s not even being discussed, anyone knows Ferrari was well behind McLaren and RB there. Now we have clear what the topic was, let´s get down to your corrections:

I was talking about RACE PACE, just in case you didn't know.

Spain: Yes, McLaren qualified in front of Ferrari in Spain, but this is irrelevant to the topic discussed. Its tyre wear wouldn´t have allowed them to fight with Alonso, Maldonado, and Räikkönen. If McLaren was quickest car that day, Hamilton would have made something similar to Vettel around Abu Dhabi, instead of tip toeing to manage a conservative strategy and struggling to score some minor points. Button was not driving bad back then, he could have had a go for victory if they had the fastest car too surely.

Talk about being clueless. :lol:

It the tyre wear was that bad, how come Hamilton was the only one on a two-stopper where everyone else was on a three-stopper?

Maybe the reason Hamilton couldn't do a Vettel was because there were, at no point, any fortunate Safety Cars?

Did you even take into consideration the fact that Abu Dhabi had a double-DRS zone and a lot more overtaking than Spain?

Get your facts straight.

Germany: Aha, so as Button pushed early on the stints, and Alonso late, it means McLaren was faster :drunk: In Germany there´s no difference. Alonso was faster later on the stints, Button was faster early on. Button would push to close the gap, and as soon as Alonso felt under any kind of pressure, he would push leaving Button without an answer. At no stage was a big difference in pace, they just used their tyres at different moments. Whoever started in front, in a mistake free race, would have won.

How did Alonso push late? He never made a gap until the very end of the race. Button closed from an 8 second deficiency right down to the lead.

"The chart really shows how much pressure Alonso had to withstand throughout the whole race. There were only 5 laps where his gap to second place was over 2.5 seconds, two when Vettel had just come out of the pits and had to get his tyres up to temp and the last 3 laps where Vettel and Button were slowing each other up."


FACT: In F1, when a car is constantly less than 1 second behind you for 62 laps straight, despite the loss of front grip in turbulent air, then you know that he IS quicker.

Italy: In Italy McLaren had just more pace, I just don´t understand from where you come up with this. I guess you needed to look objective somehow, but you overcooked it, mate.

So now I'm suddenly biased and make the Ferrari quicker than it was instead? Why are you contradicting yourself so much? :lol:

How was Mclaren better in Monza, when Alonso could have been on pole without his anti-roll bar failure? Likewise, it's commonly accepted that Ferrari's race pace is better than qualifying pace.

Alonso starting from 10th prevented us from finding a true perceptive on how the two teams compared in pace.

Korea: Around Korea the fastest Ferrari driver couldn´t use his speed, and still, as you say, Alonso WAS still in front of Lewis and looking to have a better long run pace before the failure. Either way, it´s irrelevant, Massa could have beaten both with and without failures.

Massa was quicker than Alonso at one point of the race, but still finished 7 seconds behind.
Hamilton was only about 1 second behind Alonso before his anti-roll bar failure. Likewise, if Alonso was looking for better long run pace, then how come he was so slow at the end of that stint with his tyres gone?

PS: check your maths, boy. You´ll have a hard time getting into university if you can´t count up to 20 :lol: If your "corrections" made any sense, it would be 10/6 for McLaren with 4 equal races. Nice try to skew the comparison even more ;) I guess malicious analysis alone wasn´t enough to satisfy your agenda needs.

I never claimed that I was perfect. However, it seems that you are doing everything to try and take shots at me rather than actually debating itself.

#316 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 5,495 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 13 February 2013 - 16:15

F1 is like a spec series these days. The parts and designs are different but the closeness between teams.. especially the top 4 or 5 teams is like a spec series.

Too often the difference between the top cars.. is the same difference between two drivers in the same team.. when one driver has a good day and another driver has a bad day. Thus.. it makes any comparisons of cars.. and what other drivers could do in those same cars very difficult.

Qualifying is hard enough.. because so much of it seems to be the conditions and getting the tyre in the right temperature window. If a car is fastest.. and then in Q3 temperature drops by 5 deg C.. and then get's 3rd on the grid.. is it still fastest car?

The race is even worse. Ever since the ban of refuelling.. and then especially in the last few seasons.. the rules are such that all teams have very similar pace. Even midfield teams can run front running pace. Because they are conserving the tyre.. or managing the pace.. or saving fuel.. or whatever else. It naturally brings the race pace between all cars closer together.. and that's not to mention that the cars are close enough in qualifying pace as it is.

You have races where the Ferrari might get 5th or 6th on the grid but then have front running race pace. The races aren't about raw pace.. they are more about conservation.. the right strategy.. and "guessing" how much you should take out of the tyre now.. or wait until later in the stint. Calculated gambles.

Gone are the days of 2006.. where the cars always ran at optimum speed.. with fresh tyres and 1/3 tank of fuel. By the end of the stint, they were near on empty fuel with only 20 lap old tyres. The cars were always going very fast and the track was getting more and more rubbered in.

Now.. the cars manage their speed, knowing that if they drive too fast, it can destroy their whole strategy and race.

You can still see who has a fast car over the course of a season.. but a lot more is in the drivers hands (consistancy, luck etc) and it's rarely clear that someone has a dominant fast car. And even if they do, they'll win by 5 or 10 seconds.. instead of 40 seconds. 5-10 seconds is the same gap between drivers.. in the SAME car.. when one has a good day and one has a bad day. Somtimes the gap is 30 seconds.. but yeah.

It makes comparisons of the car.. very very very hard. Every race is a complicated set of circumstances.. and just because a driver "reels in another" at a second a lap doens't mean he has a faster car. For 20 laps.. earlier in the race.. he might have lost the same amount of time, when the other car had the better tyre or was better suited. Clear conclusions are hard.

Edited by HoldenRT, 13 February 2013 - 16:16.


#317 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 5,495 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 13 February 2013 - 16:26

One other thing.. it's a common thing that one car is suited better to one tyre or the other.. but these days, they have to run both.

In the good old days, when it was easy to compare.. they only had to run one tyre.. and it was a tyre THEY chose best for their car. A tyre that would suit their strategy and their whole setup was geared towards that. Every car was setup and geared towards a two stopper with 1/2 to a 1/4 tank of fuel.

Now you have two tyres.. and different cars are faster than others in different 'phases' of the race. Some cars are relatively better on higher fuel.. some cars are better in the second half of the race when fuel is lower. And it changes race to race too. So hard to compare.

#318 gillesthegenius

gillesthegenius
  • Member

  • 2,534 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 13 February 2013 - 17:31

^^^

HoldenRT, you hit the nail on the head with those two brilliant posts. :up:

#319 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 13 February 2013 - 18:48

I never claimed that I was perfect. However, it seems that you are doing everything to try and take shots at me rather than actually debating itself.


Yes, it´s true, and I apologize. But that´s what happens when you add manipulation of meassurable data (counts up to 20, gaps like in the Germany bit, numbers, relative tyre wear between teams at a certain stage) to ridiculously missinformed and biased analysis (Korea bit): it gets highly irritating.

Anyway, it´s my fault, I engaged in a long discussion about a complex topic with someone I knew had no interest in any sort of fair analysis, or the knowledge to pull it out. Should have done what I did after your "brilliant" post about defensive driving in the 80´s and on current F1.



Advertisement

#320 BernieEc

BernieEc
  • Member

  • 2,131 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 15 February 2013 - 20:02

A little article on how different teams are applying innovative solutions to try and get and edge in 2013.

http://www.gptoday.c...ut_for_in_2013/

#321 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 15 February 2013 - 20:53

Some good posts, I liked the ones by HoldenRT, maybe because I often raised similar points.

It is also no surprise that the teams have invested a great deal of effort and technical ressources into the pitwall and pitwork. A lot of smart guys try to allocate those limited ressources in the most sensible manner and especially for the big teams it's marginal product isn't high when it comes to pure car performance. The big 2014 rulechanges will change that but the pit crew will not unlearn what has been possible in terms of performance in 2012.

Twenty years ago a 8-9 sec stop for a tyre change was considered good work, now it is rightly deemed just short of a disaster.

Edited by H2H, 15 February 2013 - 20:53.


#322 TheSpecialOne

TheSpecialOne
  • Member

  • 99 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 29 June 2013 - 17:51

Feeling like we need to get this one rolling again. What's the current pecking order in f1 after silverstone qualfying?

#323 Shiroo

Shiroo
  • Member

  • 4,012 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 29 June 2013 - 18:08

Mercedes
RBR
FI/TR/Ferrari/Lotus

no idea race pace yet though

#324 PurpleHam

PurpleHam
  • Member

  • 562 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 29 June 2013 - 18:13

Something tells me Merc will have a good race tomorrow, I think they will be closer to the bulls on race pace the best they have been this season.

#325 Fangiola

Fangiola
  • Member

  • 316 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 29 June 2013 - 19:46

Mercedes
RBR
FI/TR/Ferrari/Lotus

no idea race pace yet though


Where's McLaren?

#326 Seano

Seano
  • Member

  • 286 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 29 June 2013 - 19:51

Sliding down nicely to Williams/Sauber territory.

Seano

#327 Torsion

Torsion
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 03 July 2013 - 12:33

With new rules coming in about tyre usage for the next GP I wonder whether we are about to see a reshuffle of the pecking order. From the past we sort of know that RBR run quite aggressive camber, and possibly some other teams too. With these additional limitations it would be interesting to see whether the field is bunched up a bit more in terms of pace, or whether there are significant changes in the pecking order.

Teams will be banned from swapping the left and right tyres around, and strict limits will be imposed on camber and tyre pressures.
http://www.autosport...t.php/id/108507




#328 Shiroo

Shiroo
  • Member

  • 4,012 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 03 July 2013 - 13:11

Doesn't Mercedes swap tyres?

#329 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 3,564 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 03 July 2013 - 13:19

Doesn't Mercedes swap tyres?


most teams have been. Apparently Red Bull are the only team to be swapping the front tyres as well.

#330 alframsey

alframsey
  • Member

  • 1,417 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 03 July 2013 - 13:20

Doesn't Mercedes swap tyres?

Could someone explain to me what advantage this may give please, I really don't understand.

#331 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 5,040 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 03 July 2013 - 13:28

most teams have been. Apparently Red Bull are the only team to be swapping the front tyres as well.

I've never seen a pic showing a red bull with swapped tyres (let alone fronts), but I'm pretty sure this barcode says "L" (picture is from the Massa monaco race crash)

edit: just to make sure, I'm not saying you're lying or something, only that I've never seen one. could you show me a pic of it? or at least a site where I can find close up pics, because I was having trouble finding one when this story became public :blush:

Edited by Zava, 03 July 2013 - 13:31.