Jump to content


Photo

Rosberg "F1 is a complete different sport this days"


  • Please log in to reply
1346 replies to this topic

#801 fieraku

fieraku
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 29 April 2012 - 01:18

a) No, it really isn't. That is just a case of you choosing to interpret a message in a way that fits your view. Looking at it dispassionately the message is just two sentences each of which contains a statement of fact. Lewis received several messages telling how fast/slow he was compared to cars around him during the course of the race.

b) So now we have radio messages with target times which FOM are not broadcasting? Really?

c) Isn't that a contradiction? We are to believe that the teams need to keep things quiet but we have two drivers from one team (which has had consistent problems in terms of tyre management since the start of 2011) who have chosen to break the silence. Isn't Mercedes don't like these tyres a far more rational explanation?

To each his own, as you say but you are still left with the problem of explaining

a) How a field which is separated by less than 1.5 seconds per lap in terms of qualifying pace (if we exclude the 3 'new' teams) does not run nose to tail for the full race distance if the fastest cars are running to a target/delta which is multiple seconds slower than the cars' capability. There are rational explanations as to why there is a difference between the fastest/slowest cars' respective qualifying and race pace (which we also saw in 2010) which relate to the lack refuelling


b) How some drivers consistently outpace and beat their team mates.


You are forgetting something...that the tires hit the cliff/degrade about the same for McLaren as they do for HRT so each car's speed is irrelevant to the life and the performance of the tire,the only difference is that..

Mac's delta is: Four stints:1:41.917,1:42.632,1:42.215,1:39.385 Average lap:1:41.228

And HRT's is: Four stints: 1:46.189,1:45.898,1:45.913,1:43.7171: Average lap:1:45.276


Both PDR and LH pitted 3times and around the same laps,so there's no question that the tires pretty much perform the same way for both HRT and Mac regardless of how better the Mac is,how much faster or that it has more DF,grip and world class drivers.
So going by those times you can easily conclude PDR is as good as LH since there's no relative difference given the cars they drive ;)

As you can clearly see the consistency in times difference is almost identical,
So the only logical conclusion is they're all driving within a delta which is not the same for every team speed/time wise but it's equal on all else.Tires behaving equally for almost every team and whether the driver is LH or PDR no difference can be made.

The Bridgestones had no such characteristics,they could be pushed different ways and car&driver made the difference on how they performed.
Now neither the car nor the driver makes a difference, the new tires last the same for all 12 teams and 24 drivers,it is only by sheer luck of either setup,temperature/track changes that we're seeing every week a new winner,a new team get to the top.
Tires behaving equally for almost every team and whether the driver is LH or PDR no difference can be made.

Just say the tire dictates the race the car and the driver and that's what Schu means by not being able to push outside the Delta that the Pirellis allow.



Advertisement

#802 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 29 April 2012 - 01:29

Umm, makes sense in this universe too. This quote below here is not direct evidence, but it fits pretty well:



However for the counter argument going like this...

one must look at the data set and only then to try to put things in context:
...there's the observation that Hamilton's last stint started with his FL of the race - 1.37.7, half a second faster than Alonso's FL; but Alonso got his FL on lap 44 instead of lap 38 of Hamilton. Alonso lapped all of his stint constantly at about 1.38.5, while Hamilton stint opening lap succession was fastestlap-fast-SLOW [tyre cooldown?]-fast-fast-PITCALL "you must go 15 more laps on these tyres" - and then stabilized his laptimes [engine tune-down?] until the end of the race.

http://en.mclarenf-1.....ewis Hamilton

Under these circumstances I don't think it can be denied that the pitcall was determinant and that Hamilton [most likely] tuned down his engine and went in conservation mode. Otherwise is there a sugestion that Lewis, if always going at the limit of his abilities, somehow forgot how to extract a full second out of his car in the space of 15 minutes?


So in other words this is a guy, driving to a delta, saving tires, not getting anywhere near the car ahead cause his tires would go poof.OK, if that's what you think ... I will keep mumbling, why on earth wasn't he driving to his delta away from Alonso's wake (which we know wrecks tires) but I am sure the church of the holy delta will explain that away .. maybe Alonso doesn't generate a wake. The rather more obvious explanation, he tried but ultimately didn't have the pace is too simple to even figure.

Posted Image

Posted Image


PS the SLOW in your lap sequence is Hamilton getting stuck behind Kobayashi for half a lap, nothing to do with cooling tires





#803 fieraku

fieraku
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 29 April 2012 - 01:41

Here is undeniable proof of the 'Delta' and that drivers are all equal and tire limited.Study it carefully and you'll conclude that on average LH is 4 seconds faster than DeLaRosa throughout the race.
Ham as good as Pedro? :eek:

Or we can say that the 27 is 4 seconds a lap faster and both drivers are performing relatively equal.Freaky how consistent the lap times are,and how the driver makes no difference in performance,it's the same 4second gap from lap 1 to lap 53.

It'd be interesting to analyze other drivers relative to e/o on diff cars and see if the pattern stays the same.Hmmm

Schumi was absolutely right There's no way these lap time differences can be this identical throughout the race if there wasn't a delta.

Edited by fieraku, 29 April 2012 - 01:53.


#804 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 29 April 2012 - 01:52

You are forgetting something...that the tires hit the cliff/degrade about the same for McLaren as they do for HRT so each car's speed is irrelevant to the life and the performance of the tire,the only difference is that..

Mac's delta is: Four stints:1:41.917,1:42.632,1:42.215,1:39.385 Average lap:1:41.228

And HRT's is: Four stints: 1:46.189,1:45.898,1:45.913,1:43.7171: Average lap:1:45.276


That is exactly the opposite of what you have been arguing all this time.

Are you now saying that the tyres will last the same distance no matter what aerodynamic loads are being imparted on them, how much wheelspin is being encountered, what braking forces they have to withstand and how much the sidewall is being required to deform/reform under lateral load? These are the differences between the cars (and for that matter between setup choices and driving styles).

That makes no sense whatsoever. If it did then why would there be a need for a 'delta time? Everyone could set the cars up more aggressively, the drivers could drive more aggressively and they would still get their 12 laps before they hit the cliff, just 2 or so seconds a lap faster. Right?

Edited by Dunder, 29 April 2012 - 02:03.


#805 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 29 April 2012 - 01:52

Here is undeniable proof of the 'Delta' and that drivers are all equal and tire limited.Study it carefully and you'll conclude that on average LH is 4 seconds faster than DeLaRosa throughout the race.
Ham as good as Pedro? :eek:

Or we can say that the 27 is 4 seconds a lap faster and both drivers are performing relatively equal.Freaky how consistent the lap times are,and how the driver makes no difference in performance,it's the same 4second gap from lap 1 to lap 53.

It'd be interesting to analyze other drivers relative to e/o on diff cars and see if the pattern stays the same.Hmmm


I did, average excluding PIT/OUT laps 4.03 seconds. VARIANCE 1.95 standard deviation 1.39

so it's undeniable proof that ... their relative lap times fall within a fat bell curve, like pretty much everything else in the world

#806 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 29 April 2012 - 01:57

I did, average excluding PIT/OUT laps 4.03 seconds. VARIANCE 1.95 standard deviation 1.39

so it's undeniable proof that ... their relative lap times fall within a fat bell curve, like pretty much everything else in the world


Fireaku is probably a Bayesian and will dispute that! On second thoughts....................


#807 fieraku

fieraku
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 29 April 2012 - 02:09

That is exactly the opposite of what you have been arguing all this time.

Are you now saying that the tyres will last the same distance
no matter what aerodynamic loads are being imparted on them, how much wheelspin is being encountered, what braking forces they have to withstand and how much the sidewall is being required to deform/reform under lateral load? These are the differences between the cars (and for that matter between setup choices and driving styles).

That makes no sense whatsoever. If it did then why would there be a need for a 'delta time'. Everyone could set the cars up more aggressively, the drivers could drive more aggressively and they would still get their 12 laps before they hit the cliff, just 2 or so seconds a lap faster. Right?


I'm saying that they have to be pushed equally and identically by everyone.A McLaren will not make them last 6 more laps while still performing ,than an HRT because it has 100 extra points of DF,more traction and two WDC drivers.It doesn't matter,these tires are so bad that it confirms Schu is right,they're all at 70% doing delta times dictated by the tires.

I've just seen LH vs 2 bottom drivers and their relative pace is so identical it's scary.I guess his 70% is equal to theirs,the only thing separating them are the cars.





#808 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 29 April 2012 - 02:14

Here is undeniable proof of the 'Delta' and that drivers are all equal and tire limited.Study it carefully and you'll conclude that on average LH is 4 seconds faster than DeLaRosa throughout the race.
Ham as good as Pedro? :eek:

Or we can say that the 27 is 4 seconds a lap faster and both drivers are performing relatively equal.Freaky how consistent the lap times are,and how the driver makes no difference in performance,it's the same 4second gap from lap 1 to lap 53.

It'd be interesting to analyze other drivers relative to e/o on diff cars and see if the pattern stays the same.Hmmm

Schumi was absolutely right There's no way these lap time differences can be this identical throughout the race if there wasn't a delta.


Even a cursory glance at De La Rosa's lap times during the 3rd and 4th stints make an absolute nonsense of your argument.
During these stints, he was, of course, having to let a lot of cars past as he was being lapped. There is no consistency and as such an average is meaningless.

Stint 3
24 1:43.334
25 1:43.548
26 1:46.104
27 1:46.517
28 1:48.409
29 1:42.622
30 1:44.200
31 1:43.203
32 1:44.084
33 1:44.420
34 1:43.528
35 1:44.843
36 1:45.050
37 1:46.872
38 P 1:46.394

Stint 4
40 1:43.236
41 1:40.237
42 1:43.948
43 1:40.980
44 1:40.700
45 1:41.266
46 1:42.516
47 1:41.422
48 1:41.476
49 1:41.852
50 1:42.022
51 1:46.028
52 1:45.202
53 1:42.314
54 1:44.590
55 1:44.352

#809 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 29 April 2012 - 02:29

I'm saying that they have to be pushed equally and identically by everyone.A McLaren will not make them last 6 more laps while still performing ,than an HRT because it has 100 extra points of DF,more traction and two WDC drivers.It doesn't matter,these tires are so bad that it confirms Schu is right,they're all at 70% doing delta times dictated by the tires.

I've just seen LH vs 2 bottom drivers and their relative pace is so identical it's scary.I guess his 70% is equal to theirs,the only thing separating them are the cars.


So substantially different loads and forces equates to being pushed equally and identically?
Do you honestly not see that this makes no sense?

If we put a car on track that had venturi tunnels capable of producing another 200pts of downforce and that car also had a traction control system and the net result was that it was able to lap 5 seconds faster that the MP4-27. Do you believe that it would lap 4 seconds faster in race conditions than the McLaren with the same expected tyre life?


#810 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,666 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 29 April 2012 - 04:12

if most of the wear/deg is from the tyre physicaly losing rubber, then wheel spin and sliding, plus a natural loss from just driving a distance, then if two pretty different cars ran the same tyres but with roughly the same amount of pushing, i guess you would get a similer life


#811 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,157 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 29 April 2012 - 07:59

Also known as the "S'not fair for Lewy!" thread :rolleyes:

#812 teejay

teejay
  • Member

  • 3,632 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 29 April 2012 - 08:07

Pretty sure the discussion comes from Rosbergs comments?

#813 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,157 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 29 April 2012 - 08:20

Pretty sure the discussion comes from Rosbergs comments?


But most of the posts are from blubbing Lewis fans.

#814 valachus

valachus
  • Member

  • 1,070 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 29 April 2012 - 09:32

So in other words this is a guy, driving to a delta, saving tires, not getting anywhere near the car ahead cause his tires would go poof.OK, if that's what you think ... I will keep mumbling, why on earth wasn't he driving to his delta away from Alonso's wake (which we know wrecks tires) but I am sure the church of the holy delta will explain that away .. maybe Alonso doesn't generate a wake. The rather more obvious explanation, he tried but ultimately didn't have the pace is too simple to even figure.

Yeah, he tried and didn't have the pace.

Because had he "have the pace" then you'd be all over the place explaining how Hamilton had the pace and was a better driver than Alonso who did not have the pace. Hamilton did have a car capable of .5 seconds better laptimes than Alonso AND 20 laps to reduce a 3 second handicap AND DRS AND the same kind of tyres only ONE lap older than Alonso's but then again, he just didn't have the pace.

Perhaps there's something out there like in the X-files happening with all these WDC's like Raikkonnen and Hamilton or Vettel, who from weekend to weekend or even stint to stint or even from one lap to another simply go through Jekyll-to-Hyde transformations, or in F1 terms, change from Senna to Badoer and then to Prost again, and they just can't help it. It's quite an exciting puzzle I must say. Maybe there is a connection to the moon phases, or planetary alignments, or there's a voodoo priest with a F1 betting habit sticking needles in their effigies during the races to make his bets pay :lol:

For the record, I'm not "arguing" with you, I'm just doing some logical exercise with your assertions, hope you don't mind that.

PS the SLOW in your lap sequence is Hamilton getting stuck behind Kobayashi for half a lap, nothing to do with cooling tires

Whatever, if you look more carefully you'll observe a question mark after my assertion - a clue that at the time I made it, perhaps I wasn't sure of its veracity.

But then again, perhaps I didn't have doubts and didn't deploy that question mark in full control of my faculties, because I could have been in a transitory phase where I was only mindlessly pushing keys on the keyboard like some character in the X-files - and of course, I see now that, to my surprise, I can't really provide to you satisfactory evidence to the contrary :lol:

Edited by valachus, 29 April 2012 - 09:41.


#815 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 29 April 2012 - 10:41

Yeah, he tried and didn't have the pace.

Because had he "have the pace" then you'd be all over the place explaining how Hamilton had the pace and was a better driver than Alonso who did not have the pace. Hamilton did have a car capable of .5 seconds better laptimes than Alonso AND 20 laps to reduce a 3 second handicap AND DRS AND the same kind of tyres only ONE lap older than Alonso's but then again, he just didn't have the pace.

Perhaps there's something out there like in the X-files happening with all these WDC's like Raikkonnen and Hamilton or Vettel, who from weekend to weekend or even stint to stint or even from one lap to another simply go through Jekyll-to-Hyde transformations, or in F1 terms, change from Senna to Badoer and then to Prost again, and they just can't help it. It's quite an exciting puzzle I must say. Maybe there is a connection to the moon phases, or planetary alignments, or there's a voodoo priest with a F1 betting habit sticking needles in their effigies during the races to make his bets pay :lol:

For the record, I'm not "arguing" with you, I'm just doing some logical exercise with your assertions, hope you don't mind that.


Whatever, if you look more carefully you'll observe a question mark after my assertion - a clue that at the time I made it, perhaps I wasn't sure of its veracity.

But then again, perhaps I didn't have doubts and didn't deploy that question mark in full control of my faculties, because I could have been in a transitory phase where I was only mindlessly pushing keys on the keyboard like some character in the X-files - and of course, I see now that, to my surprise, I can't really provide to you satisfactory evidence to the contrary :lol:


you are missing the point and issue. I don't care about Hamilton or Alonso. I object to the notion introduced by some, in my opinion misguided Hamilton fans, that somehow the pits gave Hamilton a target laptime and he was a passenger forced to drive a delta to that laptime to the end of the race unable to attack Alonso because of that aforementioned target laptime and delta. And I demonstrated that in my opinion a driver forced to drive a delta to preserve tires would not stick his car in the preceding car's wake. Cause that actually increases degradation. Oh and comparing Hamilton going Banzai out of the pits to undercut Massa (that's why he posted his fastest lap on his outlap by the way, undercutting Massa) to Alonso driving a normal stint, taking their fastest laptimes and decreeing McLaren to have 0.5 second of pace over Alonso is just ... wrong. On so many levels. Nobody is arguing the McLaren was slower than the Ferrari. It wasn't. But in the final stint it also wasn't sufficiently faster than the Ferrari to overtake it. That doesn't strike me as such an unreasonable opinion but then again I am sure I will shortly be told it is ...

The McLaren didn't have pace in Bahrain. Like the McLaren was godawful in Bahrain 2 years ago if you remember their infield performance. It happens, some cars suit some circuits more than others, and because the field is so close the pecking order changes. But suddenly, after 50 years of F1 Grand Prix Racing one driver being unable to overtake another isn't simply he wasn't fast enough, no, there's evil delta and he's driving to 70% of his abilities. If you don't see how ridiculous that sounds we will have to agree to disagree. Were you arguing in 2009 that because the McLaren was godawful in half the tracks and decent/good in other tracks the only logical explanation was that in the tracks they were slow was cause the evil Bridgestone had forced them to drive to a delta?

As to the other thing, you wondered if it was Hamilton cooling down the tires, I said no he was just stuck behind Kobayashi. Sometimes people remember things you don't, there's no need to go so defensive about it.

Edited by engel, 29 April 2012 - 10:45.


#816 Massa_f1

Massa_f1
  • Member

  • 3,307 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 29 April 2012 - 10:47

Pretty sure the discussion comes from Rosbergs comments?



Rosberg is loving these new tyres acording to autosports front page.

Changed his mind fast eh.

#817 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,777 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 29 April 2012 - 11:04

Rosberg is loving these new tyres acording to autosports front page.

Changed his mind fast eh.



Whoever said he's changed his mind? After Bahrain he said that F1 was different these days. Most of the folk here are whinging and complaining, I'd say mainly because Schumacher is whinging and complaining. Once he gets over this run of bad luck and gets some results I'll betcha he changes his tune as I'm sure most of you will, unless you prefer procession like racing. It's a crapshoot this year and I'm enjoying it. The teams will inch closer to finding the sweet spot for the tyres and I think the European season will be very exciting.

#818 valachus

valachus
  • Member

  • 1,070 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 29 April 2012 - 11:10

you are missing the point and issue. I don't care about Hamilton or Alonso. I object to the notion introduced by some, in my opinion misguided Hamilton fans, that somehow the pits gave Hamilton a target laptime and he was a passenger forced to drive a delta to that laptime to the end of the race unable to attack Alonso because of that aforementioned target laptime and delta. And I demonstrated that in my opinion a driver forced to drive a delta to preserve tires would not stick his car in the preceding car's wake. Cause that actually increases degradation. Oh and comparing Hamilton going Banzai out of the pits to undercut Massa (that's why he posted his fastest lap on his outlap by the way, undercutting Massa) to Alonso driving a normal stint, taking their fastest laptimes and decreeing McLaren to have 0.5 second of pace over Alonso is just ... wrong. On so many levels. Nobody is arguing the McLaren was slower than the Ferrari. It wasn't. But in the final stint it also wasn't sufficiently faster than the Ferrari to overtake it. That doesn't strike me as such an unreasonable opinion but then again I am sure I will shortly be told it is ...

Of course I may compare a driver A with another driver B. Driver A goes banzai in lap 38, posts his FL (FL A) and then still goes on the same tyres 20 laps more. Driver B only posts his FL of the race (FL B) in lap 44 and FL B [with a car 6 laps x fuel kg/lap LIGHTER] is .5s SLOWER than FL A. Yet the argument goes that driver A "did not have the pace"?? He obviously did at a point in time, but then misteriously lost it.

I disagree with you on the single point that is, in our discussion, indeed arguable: in my opinion, nobody has to demonstrate what his opinion is. His opinion is. Period ;) It's elementary, my friend. And another thing: as my years-old signature should have given away but didn't, McLaren and its drivers are among the teams which I like and follow the least in this.. umm... competition. So I'm afraid that being a Macca fan is truly the least imaginable thing I should be suspected of.

Edited by valachus, 29 April 2012 - 11:11.


#819 valachus

valachus
  • Member

  • 1,070 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 29 April 2012 - 11:17

Rosberg is loving these new tyres acording to autosports front page.

Changed his mind fast eh.


yeah, he says they're "progressing in the right direction" and I tend to believe that, because progress in the wrong direction is usually quite annoying.

Advertisement

#820 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 29 April 2012 - 11:18

He obviously did at a point in time, but then misteriously lost it.


perhaps that sequence of 5 laps in the 37.7s/38.0s took a little bit too much out of the tires, relative to the guy ahead on the road? Maybe the McLaren stuck in the Ferrari's wake was spinning up its rears a bit more than it had before? Maybe as demonstrated by Hamilton not overtaking Massa on the road either in the penultimate stint for the roughly 13 laps he was in his wake increases the possibility that the McLaren just didn't have enough pace to overtake a Ferrari at that point in the race?

#821 valachus

valachus
  • Member

  • 1,070 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 29 April 2012 - 11:25

perhaps that sequence of 5 laps in the 37.7s/38.0s took a little bit too much out of the tires, relative to the guy ahead on the road? Maybe the McLaren stuck in the Ferrari's wake was spinning up its rears a bit more than it had before? Maybe as demonstrated by Hamilton not overtaking Massa on the road either in the penultimate stint for the roughly 13 laps he was in his wake increases the possibility that the McLaren just didn't have enough pace to overtake a Ferrari at that point in the race?


What can I say? Maybe, yes, we have seen already this year that when you go from one condition to another, one racetrack to another, one temperature to another... different cars are better on the tyres, so there's a very big engineering challenge to understand why, to adapt and to try and understand the tyres best. That can be a very big key for the season, so some teams are pushing hard to try and understand that quicker than others.
Personally, I think it's great for the season. We've had four winners in four races, all mixed up. It couldn't be better for Formula 1. Also within the races, with the tyre degradation and with lots of overtaking, we've had lots of exciting races.
Basically, the challenges being thrown at drivers by the current Formula 1 tyre situation is good news for the sport.

Happy now?


#822 bub

bub
  • Member

  • 2,036 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 29 April 2012 - 11:34

If you can't push the tyres for more than a couple laps then aren't you driving to a delta?

#823 ali.unal

ali.unal
  • Member

  • 3,242 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 29 April 2012 - 11:57

Nico Rosberg:

Nico Rosberg believes that the challenges being thrown at drivers by the current Formula 1 tyre situation is good news for the sport.

The closeness of the field this year has increased the influence of the Pirelli rubber on cars' overall performance. This has resulted in teams' form fluctuating as they work to get the rubber into the right operating window for their cars.

The four grands prix so far in 2012 have provided victories for McLaren, Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull, with no team having looked like repeating its success at any other circuit, such has been the vast difference in track conditions at each race.

When asked by AUTOSPORT whether races were becoming too much of a tyre-based lottery based on what has been seen so far this year, Mercedes driver Rosberg said: "No. It's just a very different game.

"We have seen already this year that when you go from one condition to another, one racetrack to another, one temperature to another... different cars are better on the tyres, so there's a very big engineering challenge to understand why, to adapt and to try and be the one to understand the tyres best. That can be a very big key for the season, so we're pushing hard to try and understand that quicker than others.

"Personally, I think it's great for the season. We've had four winners in four races, [so it is] all mixed up. It couldn't be better for Formula 1. Also within the races, with the tyre degradation and with lots of overtaking, we've had lots of exciting races."

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/99247

#824 ImAnEngineer

ImAnEngineer
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 29 April 2012 - 12:06

Or we can say that the 27 is 4 seconds a lap faster and both drivers are performing relatively equal.Freaky how consistent the lap times are,and how the driver makes no difference in performance,it's the same 4second gap from lap 1 to lap 53.


perhaps if the drivers were in opposite cars the delta would be 3s... nothing to suggest the drivers arent at their limit with your analysis.

#825 eoin

eoin
  • Member

  • 5,010 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 29 April 2012 - 12:12

What can I say? Maybe, yes, we have seen already this year that when you go from one condition to another, one racetrack to another, one temperature to another... different cars are better on the tyres, so there's a very big engineering challenge to understand why, to adapt and to try and understand the tyres best. That can be a very big key for the season, so some teams are pushing hard to try and understand that quicker than others.
Personally, I think it's great for the season. We've had four winners in four races, all mixed up. It couldn't be better for Formula 1. Also within the races, with the tyre degradation and with lots of overtaking, we've had lots of exciting races.
Basically, the challenges being thrown at drivers by the current Formula 1 tyre situation is good news for the sport.

Happy now?


I find it so random that it's hard to enjoy. Track conditions have such a huge influence on the performance of the cars that it hard to know when someone is having a good weekend or whether they just lucked into have a good car on the weekend. People praised Alonso/Perez for their performance in Sepang but looking back now I think it's fairly clear that it was nothing special it's just the they were the only ones to get the tyres close to the optimum window and that was all down to luck. Any one of 6 cars, manufactures, could of won the first 4 races and no driver has really looked liked winning a second. A few weeks ago Perez was the next big thing and now we have to listen to nonsense from Lotus about Grosjean been WDC material based on one tyre based podium.

Maybe it will settle down now as the teams are back in Europe and will be able to analysis what has happened in the first 4 races, as well as the test session but if it doesn't I think we will hear more dissenting voices among the top teams.

#826 skyform

skyform
  • Member

  • 426 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 29 April 2012 - 12:30

Rosberg is loving these new tyres acording to autosports front page.

Changed his mind fast eh.


Rosberg never said that he dislikes the tyres, he only said that F1 is a complete different sport now and that it's fun in it's own way. Schumacher was the one who was complaining.

#827 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 29 April 2012 - 12:53

if most of the wear/deg is from the tyre physicaly losing rubber, then wheel spin and sliding, plus a natural loss from just driving a distance, then if two pretty different cars ran the same tyres but with roughly the same amount of pushing, i guess you would get a similer life


There isn't a natural loss. Heat is the major determinant of a tyre losing 'rubber'. A tyre's compounds are designed to begin break down at a given temperature and will do so at a higher rate as you go beyond that temperature.

This is the crux of this matter.

a) How do teams with very different levels of downforce set up their cars to ensure that they are getting these tyres to run at temperatures which are as close as possible to the level/band where hysteresis produces peak levels of grip?

and more interestingly (worryingly) as relates to 2012

b) What is the effect of that temperature band having been narrowed?

Without having detailed information about these tyres and indeed the cars, we can only speculate but it is not unreasonable to believe that the front running cars are having to run with race setups which are aimed at preserving tyres (stiffer suspensions, higher pressures etc.) than those with slower cars. It is also the case that with a narrower the optimal temperature band the more such compromise is going to be involved.

That, to my mind, is the major difference between Pirelli and Bridgestone control tyres. That the Pirelli have been designed to degrade faster is a given but that is not what brings about the greater need for preservation.

By way of example

Suppose tyre A has an optimal working range of say 90C-110C, which allows slower cars with are able to run with a setup geared towards best pace and produce tyre temps in the region of 95C. It would be reasonable to expect faster cars to run with an equally aggressive set up but still have temperatures well within that optimum band.

If Tyre B however only has an optimal working range of 90C-100C then the same is probably not going to be true.

The above are, of course, overly simplistic - temperatures vary substantially during the course of a single lap, from wheel to wheel and across the surface of a single tyre.


#828 Boxerevo

Boxerevo
  • Member

  • 1,929 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 29 April 2012 - 13:05

I find it so random that it's hard to enjoy. Track conditions have such a huge influence on the performance of the cars that it hard to know when someone is having a good weekend or whether they just lucked into have a good car on the weekend. People praised Alonso/Perez for their performance in Sepang but looking back now I think it's fairly clear that it was nothing special it's just the they were the only ones to get the tyres close to the optimum window and that was all down to luck. Any one of 6 cars, manufactures, could of won the first 4 races and no driver has really looked liked winning a second. A few weeks ago Perez was the next big thing and now we have to listen to nonsense from Lotus about Grosjean been WDC material based on one tyre based podium.

Nice point.


#829 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,666 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 29 April 2012 - 13:17

i think the tyres do wear (as in physicaly losing rubber) just from driving about, but how much that is distance vs being pushed, i dunno :/. the pirelli's have a small tread depth of good rubber, so losing any rubber isnt good :/


#830 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 29 April 2012 - 13:20

i think the tyres do wear (as in physicaly losing rubber) just from driving about, but how much that is distance vs being pushed, i dunno :/. the pirelli's have a small tread depth of good rubber, so losing any rubber isnt good :/


most often than not wear is a non issue, the tires get back to the pits with plenty of tread. Usually the issue is deg, and deg is basically a consequence of a chemical reaction the compound goes through when subjected to heat beyond the optimal window the compound is designed to operate under

#831 fieraku

fieraku
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 29 April 2012 - 13:24

There isn't a natural loss. Heat is the major determinant of a tyre losing 'rubber'. A tyre's compounds are designed to begin break down at a given temperature and will do so at a higher rate as you go beyond that temperature.

This is the crux of this matter.

a) How do teams with very different levels of downforce set up their cars to ensure that they are getting these tyres to run at temperatures which are as close as possible to the level/band where hysteresis produces peak levels of grip?

and more interestingly (worryingly) as relates to 2012

b) What is the effect of that temperature band having been narrowed?

Without having detailed information about these tyres and indeed the cars, we can only speculate but it is not unreasonable to believe that the front running cars are having to run with race setups which are aimed at preserving tyres (stiffer suspensions, higher pressures etc.) than those with slower cars. It is also the case that with a narrower the optimal temperature band the more such compromise is going to be involved.

That, to my mind, is the major difference between Pirelli and Bridgestone control tyres. That the Pirelli have been designed to degrade faster is a given but that is not what brings about the greater need for preservation.

By way of example

Suppose tyre A has an optimal working range of say 90C-110C, which allows slower cars with are able to run with a setup geared towards best pace and produce tyre temps in the region of 95C. It would be reasonable to expect faster cars to run with an equally aggressive set up but still have temperatures well within that optimum band.

If Tyre B however only has an optimal working range of 90C-100C then the same is probably not going to be true.

The above are, of course, overly simplistic - temperatures vary substantially during the course of a single lap, from wheel to wheel and across the surface of a single tyre.

Pirellis will disintegrate regardless of loads,temperatures or setup,they're that bad.When a tire is spitting out marbles the size of oranges it can only mean it's a very bad product.
The tires simply can not handle F1 speeds/loads for more than a lap or two which is by design to make for closer racing.

And so far no one understands how,why or what is making some teams gain or lose seconds from race to race.


#832 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 29 April 2012 - 13:41

i think the tyres do wear (as in physicaly losing rubber) just from driving about, but how much that is distance vs being pushed, i dunno :/. the pirelli's have a small tread depth of good rubber, so losing any rubber isnt good :/


That really depends what you mean by "driving about". If the tyre is well below its optimum temperature and is not being unduly stressed (such as behind the saftey car) then wear would be minimal (a single set of tyres could do multiple race distances even with on 2.5mm of compound rubber). With more heat being generated, even well below the optimal level (say 10 seconds slower than a 'flat out' lap, hysteresis does occur and rubber is lost but it remains true that hysteresis and consequent rubber loss is proportional (not directly proportional) to the heat being absorbed due to friction.


#833 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 29 April 2012 - 13:53

Pirellis will disintegrate regardless of loads,temperatures or setup,they're that bad.When a tire is spitting out marbles the size of oranges it can only mean it's a very bad product.
The tires simply can not handle F1 speeds/loads for more than a lap or two which is by design to make for closer racing.

And so far no one understands how,why or what is making some teams gain or lose seconds from race to race.


Seriously, do some reading on tyre dynamics instead of spouting nonsense.

The Pirelli's actually shed less rubber than the 2010 Bridsgestone's did, they just do so in a different way. The Bridgestone compounds had very different properties which meant higher rates of adhesion with tarmac and a tendency to lay the rubber lost down on the racing line. The Pirellis don't bond with the tarmac in the same way. You get way more marbles off line and much less rubber laid down on the racing line.


#834 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 29 April 2012 - 13:53

People praised Alonso/Perez for their performance in Sepang but looking back now I think it's fairly clear that it was nothing special it's just the they were the only ones to get the tyres close to the optimum window and that was all down to luck.


Ridiculous. :rolleyes:

Edited by TheBunk, 29 April 2012 - 13:54.


#835 apoka

apoka
  • Member

  • 3,487 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 29 April 2012 - 14:00

Rosberg is loving these new tyres acording to autosports front page.

Changed his mind fast eh.

He basically said the same as last week - the tyres have changed F1. He didn't say that this challenge is a bad thing.


#836 PretentiousBread

PretentiousBread
  • Member

  • 2,905 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 April 2012 - 14:07

Seriously, do some reading on tyre dynamics instead of spouting nonsense.

The Pirelli's actually shed less rubber than the 2010 Bridsgestone's did, they just do so in a different way. The Bridgestone compounds had very different properties which meant higher rates of adhesion with tarmac and a tendency to lay the rubber lost down on the racing line. The Pirellis don't bond with the tarmac in the same way. You get way more marbles off line and much less rubber laid down on the racing line.


This is completely true and is not widely enough reported. People still talk about the track rubbering in in 2010 terms but it's nothing like that anymore. As Mark Hughes has made reference to before, the tyre's grip is derived from the rubber simply clawing at the surface (mechanical grip), then it shears off in the form of huge marbles and doesn't bond with the track (chemical grip ), at least no where near as much as the Bridgestones, so in essence the faster you go, the more they degrade. Previously tyres were ramping up the grip levels at the track, so although they were degrading, they were simultaneously bonding with the track giving a payback in grip and life in the tyre. The Pirellis are so one dimensional, drive faster and they basically degrade much faster and that's all she wrote.

#837 PretentiousBread

PretentiousBread
  • Member

  • 2,905 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 April 2012 - 14:10

Ridiculous. :rolleyes:


No, I think he was bang on in that assessment. Good drives by them both, but they had more grip than those behind them due to the peculiarities of the tyres' operating window.

#838 fieraku

fieraku
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 29 April 2012 - 14:18

Seriously, do some reading on tyre dynamics instead of spouting nonsense.

The Pirelli's actually shed less rubber than the 2010 Bridsgestone's did
, they just do so in a different way. The Bridgestone compounds had very different properties which meant higher rates of adhesion with tarmac and a tendency to lay the rubber lost down on the racing line. The Pirellis don't bond with the tarmac in the same way. You get way more marbles off line and much less rubber laid down on the racing line.

Rubbish,the Pirellis are down to the canvas after 10 laps whereas the Bridgestones lasted 50 laps at one time IIRC.And how can a tire with way higher wear rate shed less rubber?

Doesn't faster degradation mean more rubber shed?

#839 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 29 April 2012 - 14:32

Rubbish,the Pirellis are down to the canvas after 10 laps whereas the Bridgestones lasted 50 laps at one time IIRC.And how can a tire with way higher wear rate shed less rubber?

Doesn't faster degradation mean more rubber shed?


Because they have much less compound rubber to begin with. The compund layers with the Pirellis are only 2.5mm.


Advertisement

#840 PretentiousBread

PretentiousBread
  • Member

  • 2,905 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 April 2012 - 14:33

Rubbish,the Pirellis are down to the canvas after 10 laps whereas the Bridgestones lasted 50 laps at one time IIRC.And how can a tire with way higher wear rate shed less rubber?

Doesn't faster degradation mean more rubber shed?


He's right though, the Pirellis have less rubber to shed dont forget. When he says 'shed' he's including rubber thats woven into the racing line - the Pirellis don't lay down anywhere near the amount of rubber he Bridgestones did on the racing line.

Edited by PretentiousBread, 29 April 2012 - 14:34.


#841 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 29 April 2012 - 14:39

No, I think he was bang on in that assessment. Good drives by them both, but they had more grip than those behind them due to the peculiarities of the tyres' operating window.


He says because of luck, and it was nothing special. In reality both were much more than 'just lucky and nothing special' drives.

For instance Perez was P3 at the red flag because he pitted for full wets after 2 laps. Nothing to do with peculiarities of the tyre operating window or luck. Just good thinking.

He also says Grosjean shouldnt be tagged a future champ. I wonder if he is serious? All team bosses say that about their drivers. And purely on pace, that last race wasnt the only good display of Grosjean. Hes been impressive all 4 races, if somewhat ragged on sunday.

#842 fieraku

fieraku
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 29 April 2012 - 14:58

Because they have much less compound rubber to begin with. The compund layers with the Pirellis are only 2.5mm.

Ok? But again if Pirelli is 2.5 mm and is shedding it in 10 laps whereas BS is 4 mm but is shedding it in 30 or 40, how can BS be shedding more?and lets not forget BSs got faster as they went so more loads and stress applied on the tire.

The Pirellis can not even do the times of Bridgestones in the race so how can you properly analyze which sheds more?

#843 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 29 April 2012 - 15:47

Ok? But again if Pirelli is 2.5 mm and is shedding it in 10 laps whereas BS is 4 mm but is shedding it in 30 or 40, how can BS be shedding more?and lets not forget BSs got faster as they went so more loads and stress applied on the tire.

The Pirellis can not even do the times of Bridgestones in the race so how can you properly analyze which sheds more?


Seriously dude, in the absence of actual experience with racing tyres, do some reading on what degradation actually is and what causes it.

It is very rare for these cars/drivers to wear completely through the compound rubber and for the base rubber to be in contact with the road. Degradation (wear as opposed to overheating) is primarily the result of reduced mechanical stability which comes from a) the tyre deforming more as the volume/ratio of the more stable compound rubber reduces; and b) the surface of the tyre being less uniform.

The Pirellis degrade at a much higher rate than the Bridgestones did (by design) but that is not the same as "disintegrating". Whether the total volume/mass of rubber shed by (for example) 4 sets of Pirellis during the course of a race is more or less that 2 sets of Bridgestones during the course of a race would depend a lot on the track condition/surface but when all is said and done it really isn't that important.


#844 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 29 April 2012 - 15:56

Seriously dude, in the absence of actual experience with racing tyres, do some reading on what degradation actually is and what causes it.

It is very rare for these cars/drivers to wear completely through the compound rubber and for the base rubber to be in contact with the road. Degradation (wear as opposed to overheating) is primarily the result of reduced mechanical stability which comes from a) the tyre deforming more as the volume/ratio of the more stable compound rubber reduces; and b) the surface of the tyre being less uniform.

The Pirellis degrade at a much higher rate than the Bridgestones did (by design) but that is not the same as "disintegrating". Whether the total volume/mass of rubber shed by (for example) 4 sets of Pirellis during the course of a race is more or less that 2 sets of Bridgestones during the course of a race would depend a lot on the track condition/surface but when all is said and done it really isn't that important.



Perhaps you should read his signature to properly asses your chances :)

An idée fixe is a preoccupation of mind held so firmly as to resist any attempt to modify it,although the afflicted person can think, reason and act like other people, they are unable to stop a particular train of thought or action.



#845 Siperoth

Siperoth
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 29 April 2012 - 16:28

Umm, Pirelli have been asked to make tyres like this, do't blame them.



I think this a bullshιt argument. They where asked to make tyres that force the drivers to make more pit-stps because they could go for the whole race on only one pit-stop with the Bridgestones. But they didn't ask them to make tyres that degrade in such a way that if you push 100% you only get 2-3 laps and then you go downhill.
The tyres could very well have been built to last about the same laps but handle more pushing, actually they should be build in a way that they don't promote conservatism because the limit between pushing or going smooth will be minimal. This is a racing series after all, drivers are suppose to try their hardest and the winners should be the ones driving faster. The problem isn't that the drivers do 3 pit-stops, the problem is that if they pushed 100% they would need God knows how many and that whenever they arrive behind a car they can't fight with it because the tyres will go off. Tyres shouldn't be like that. They should allow drivers to fight and not wait for the other to lose his tyres or the DRS zone.

#846 fieraku

fieraku
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 29 April 2012 - 16:47

Seriously dude, in the absence of actual experience with racing tyres, do some reading on what degradation actually is and what causes it.

It is very rare for these cars/drivers to wear completely through the compound rubber and for the base rubber to be in contact with the road. Degradation (wear as opposed to overheating) is primarily the result of reduced mechanical stability which comes from a) the tyre deforming more as the volume/ratio of the more stable compound rubber reduces; and b) the surface of the tyre being less uniform.

The Pirellis degrade at a much higher rate than the Bridgestones did (by design) but that is not the same as "disintegrating". Whether the total volume/mass of rubber shed by (for example) 4 sets of Pirellis during the course of a race is more or less that 2 sets of Bridgestones during the course of a race would depend a lot on the track condition/surface but when all is said and done it really isn't that important.


Ahh so now you don't know who sheds more,when first you said the Bridgestones do.


And seriously to you :wave: who cares about the chemical rubber reactions and formulas that cause degradation,all I know is that the Pirellis can not do 3 consecutive fast laps without going to sh**,they leave a ton of marbles creating an one lane track,drivers admittedly have confirmed they aren't pushing at all,and the lap times are almost identical throughout the race regardless of fuel loads which correlates with the delta Schu spoke of.

I don't even know what you're trying to argue by comparing them to Bridgestones who created the perfect racing tire even though it wasn't good for the "SHOW"

One was a Racing tire the other is a SHOW tire,so I don't understand how studying "degradation" will change that fact. The thread derived from Nico's and Schu's comments,not because of the chemical reaction that makes tires degrade.

#847 eoin

eoin
  • Member

  • 5,010 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 29 April 2012 - 17:02

He says because of luck, and it was nothing special. In reality both were much more than 'just lucky and nothing special' drives.

For instance Perez was P3 at the red flag because he pitted for full wets after 2 laps. Nothing to do with peculiarities of the tyre operating window or luck. Just good thinking.

He also says Grosjean shouldnt be tagged a future champ. I wonder if he is serious? All team bosses say that about their drivers. And purely on pace, that last race wasnt the only good display of Grosjean. Hes been impressive all 4 races, if somewhat ragged on sunday.


The luck I am talking about is that cars are have been poorly designed are suddenly turning into dominant cars when the track temperature changes.

#848 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 29 April 2012 - 17:05

The luck I am talking about is that cars are have been poorly designed are suddenly turning into dominant cars when the track temperature changes.


Uhm, the Lotus is a poorly designed car? Okay. :stoned:

I wonder what car Massa and Kobayashi were driving in Malaysia.

#849 MidKnight

MidKnight
  • Member

  • 65 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 29 April 2012 - 18:40

I think this a bullshιt argument. They where asked to make tyres that force the drivers to make more pit-stps because they could go for the whole race on only one pit-stop with the Bridgestones. But they didn't ask them to make tyres that degrade in such a way that if you push 100% you only get 2-3 laps and then you go downhill.
The tyres could very well have been built to last about the same laps but handle more pushing, actually they should be build in a way that they don't promote conservatism because the limit between pushing or going smooth will be minimal. This is a racing series after all, drivers are suppose to try their hardest and the winners should be the ones driving faster. The problem isn't that the drivers do 3 pit-stops, the problem is that if they pushed 100% they would need God knows how many and that whenever they arrive behind a car they can't fight with it because the tyres will go off. Tyres shouldn't be like that. They should allow drivers to fight and not wait for the other to lose his tyres or the DRS zone.


No, the problem is that people here are seemingly oblivious to the fact that this is the first time Pirelli have supplied tires to the teams for a race in Bahrain and therefore got is slightly wrong...thereby sending everyone into a panic assuming that this race represents what the rest of the season is going to be like relative to tires...that's the problem...that and people thinking Schumacher complaining because he is mad about his standing in the WDC actually means anything...ironically Rosberg has now come out and said the tire situation is good for F1... :lol:

#850 Siperoth

Siperoth
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 29 April 2012 - 18:54

No, the problem is that people here are seemingly oblivious to the fact that this is the first time Pirelli have supplied tires to the teams for a race in Bahrain and therefore got is slightly wrong...thereby sending everyone into a panic assuming that this race represents what the rest of the season is going to be like relative to tires...that's the problem...that and people thinking Schumacher complaining because he is mad about his standing in the WDC actually means anything...ironically Rosberg has now come out and said the tire situation is good for F1... :lol:


:rolleyes:
I hope that smiley is about laughing at the naive things you said. Bahrain didn't seem much different that other races to me. If you think we are talking about Bahrain alone then you are in deep sleep. Rosberg himself said after winning in China that he never pushed to the limit even for one lap and that he was nursing his tyres the whole race. And this was a race he won so you can't say he is complaining because of doing bad.
All the teams admit that is all about saving and handling the tyres and that's exactly what we saw in the last races with our own eyes.
They say he have more battles and overtakes now but those are all boring and good only for those knowing nothing about F1. Casual viewers might be happy cause they have no idea the suppose great overtake they just saw was nothing great at all because the other guy had no tyres. I guess FIA are happy since they wanted to make more casual viewers happy instead of real F1 fans.

Edited by Siperoth, 29 April 2012 - 18:56.