Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 9 votes

Pat Fry Candid Interview


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#1 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,590 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 January 2013 - 01:57

Probably one of the best interviews I've ever read on technical stuff in F1. I posted this originally in the F2012 thread, but it touches on things beyond their 2012 car, and beyond Ferrari. Therefore, and because it's a great read IMHO, I thought it might warrant its own thread.

Original by AMuS in German, my translation: Pat Fry: "The car was not fantastic, but ok".

The F2012 started the winter tests with problems. How big were they really?

Fry: Some things didn't work as planned. We also made a number of fundamental errors. Initially the task was to localize and fix those. The first test gave us a bad awakening, the second answered our questions, but we didn't have the time until Melbourne to react. That happened with the Barcelona update

What was it that was so wrong?

Fry: I don't want to talk about details. Most errors were in the aero. First we had to understand them. Our first exhaust version heated the rear tyres too much. For the season start we had to fix that with a different exhaust version. In Canada we returned to the original exhaust concept, but in a different form. This worked surprisingly quickly, looking at the problems other teams had with it.

Did you fix your wind tunnel problems?

Fry: Has anyone ever really solved their wind tunnel problems? Correlation between tunnel and track is always tricky, as long as you cannot put your race car into the tunnel. We have understood the deficits of the Maranello tunnel and are working on fixing them. In the mean time, we are using Toyota's tunnel. But Toyota's tunnel is not perfect, either. It's a tool, and you need to know how to use it and to interpret it. Everybody has correlation problems, but ours were greater in recent times.

How big is the danger to get bogged down by using two tunnels?

Fry: The more variables you are dealing with, the greater the chance to get lost. Your tunnel time is limited due to resource restriction. If you need to correlate results from two tunnels and the track, it naturally becomes more complicated. Ideally you would like to have one tunnel that you understand completely. I hope that we will get there at one point.

Why was the F2012's race pace so much better than the quali pace?

Fry: That's a puzzle for us as well. Only in the middle of the season we were as good in quali as in the race. I don't know, either, what we would lose in the race by making our car quicker in quali. Many things have an influence. Just one example: you can have a DRS with a big top speed gain, but you might pay with a car that is unstable when switching the DRS. In the race this is not so important, because you rarely use DRS. Which means that with such a system you will be stronger in the race compared to quali. In the end everything comes down to one task: finding more downforce.

Was it because the Ferrari was kinder to the tyres, which was a handicap in quali because the tyres took longer to reach their working window?

Fry: That depends on the type of track. When the rear tyres were critical, our car was strong in the race. But that didn't have anything to do with quali. In quali, the important thing is to get the front tyres up to temperature quickly. Conversely, we had more problems in race trim on tracks where the front tyres were worked a lot. In short: our quali pace was always the same. In the race it depended on whether the rear or front tyres were the deciding factor.

Why was your car so good in the rain?

Fry: I don't think that the cause was our car. Rather, it was Alonso. Especially in Malaysia, when our car still was difficult to drive. He did an unbelievable job there. And when he was half a second faster than the rest in Hockenheim, that was the driver and not the car.

Why did the F2012 work better on high-speed tracks?

Fry: Did it? Okay, in Monza we could easily have been on pole without the problems at the rear suspension. I'm not so sure we were especially strong in Spa. But one could see our problems become bigger the more downforce the track required.

Your main opponent had to track back from three or four development steps during the season, because the FIA outlawed them. Is Ferrari too well-behaved? Do you not exploit the gray areas of the rules enough?

Fry: There were things on other cars that were at the limit of the regulations. Illegal would be too hard a word. But if you angle a pull rod (? original: "Zugstrebe") at 27 degrees instead of the allowed 5 degrees, you are provoking your luck. How far do you want to go? I don't know.

Would you have liked to change something fundamental on the car during the season, but couldn't due to time constraints?

Fry: Not really. The things we wanted to change, we changed. The fundamentals of the car were ok. After we had fixed the aero problems, the car behaved the way we expected. Not fantastic, but ok. There was nothing that stood in our way. Ok, we had problems on some tracks to get the weight distribution the way we wanted it, but everyone had that particular problem. But that was only a small compromise.

Why didn't you try to control tyre temps by using adjustable break cooling inlets, like McLaren?

Fry: I had started to develop that concept when I was still at McLaren. It can be an advantage if you use brake disks by Carbon Industries. We had less problems with tyre overheating than McLaren. Therefore we passed on this development. We rather use KERS to influence the front and back brake temps.

How many different front and rear wings did you use during 2012?

Fry: Three families of front wings, with fifteen subtypes. We had six rear wing families, but used only three of those. We had 18 different floor versions. For the exhaust, we changed lots of things prior to the first race, because we had to solve the rear tyre heating. Then there was a big modification for Montreal, and that was it. We later tried to vary that position, but the Montreal version was the best solution.

Why did the car not react well to most of the modifications during the second part of the season?

Fry: We were a long way back at the start of the season. That always makes it simple to make big steps. For us, those came in Barcelona and Montreal. Usually, you can improve half a tenth or a tenth between two races, but the observer does not notice this, also because the effects of the improvements can vary from track type to track type. We also improved during the second part of the season, but not as much as the others did. There are two philosophies about how to develop your car. There's the Mercedes or Honda philosophy of waiting three or four races and then bringing a big step. And there's the way that is used by RBR, McLaren, and also Ferrari. To bring a little bit to every race. Every team has phases during which its improvements are bigger or smaller. McLaren had the best car at the start, then stagnated, and was strong at the end again.

Why did you not develop a double DRS like RBR or Merc?

Fry: We looked at the Merc system in detail. It gives you an advantage in quali, because you can run less ride height at the front. But honestly we had more important problems to solve at the start of the season than working on a double DRS. I had to answer the question, do you want to gain 25 milliseconds by running the front of your car lower, or half a second by conventional development work and fixing errors? I believe that the double DRS has not only given Merc an advantage. The requirement of running channels inside the rear wing end plates causes limitations for the end plate shape. The channels through the car cause limitations for the whole rear. Had our car been quick from the first race, we might have developed in that direction. At the end, nobody went down the Merc route. All other variants of double DRS only tried to stall the flow at the upper and lower rear wing element at the same time.

The Ferrari was the only car with a pull-rod front suspension. Was it worth it?

Fry: In any case this was not our problem. You can lower the CoG und gain little aero advantages. We solved the structural problems well.

But it was difficult for the mechanics to adjust the front suspension?

Fry: It had already been difficult before. We had improved the service friendliness [of the pull-rod], but the introduction of the two vanes under the nose made it worse again. We have an approach to solve the problem for 2013. Rather an evolution than a revolution.

Will you keep the pull-rod front suspension on the 2013 car?

Fry: We will build on it, but it will look a bit different. I would not be surprised if some teams followed our example. When we talked about it for the first time, the reaction was: that's crazy. But when you weigh all advantages and disadvantages, it's not so stupid.

On average, Ferrari had the best pit stops. How did you achieve that?

Fry: We still can improve the speed of our stops. There is still a lot of development work in that direction happening on the car, such as the design of the wheel nuts, wheel hubs, brake drums, and the tools like jacks and guns. At the factory we already have an old car fitted with the 2013 suspension design, and the guys are busy practicing with that. Our pit stop average time is good. I know that Sam Michael at McLaren is proud of their pit stop record of 2.3 secs at Hockenheim. But he forgot to mention that their next stop took 11 seconds. And we won the race because we had the better stops on average. If you analyze the stops in detail, you can see we are the quickest from the car coming to a stop until the traffic light switches to green. We sometimes lose compared to McLaren during the subsequent acceleration from the pits. At McLaren, they let the car fall from the jacks without any kind of security margin. Sometimes, their front wing pushes the front jack out of the way when the car launches. That way, you can do 2.3 second stops.


Edit: typo

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 19 January 2013 - 13:15.


Advertisement

#2 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,105 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 19 January 2013 - 02:36

Great questions, great answers.

So much to talk about, really. The pitstop stuff at the end was interesting, for example. I was extremely impressed by Mclaren's pitstop times, but there's no doubting it didn't come consistently.

#3 RockyRaccoon68

RockyRaccoon68
  • Member

  • 1,410 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 19 January 2013 - 02:44

It's always fascinating to hear what Fry has to see. He reminds me of Symonds in the way he always appears to think out his answers before saying anything.

Was it because the Ferrari was kinder to the tyres, which was a handicap in quali because the tyres took longer to reach their working window?

Fry: That depends on the type of track. When the rear tyres were critical, our car was strong in the race. But that didn't have anything to do with quali. In quali, the important thing is to get the front tyres up to temperature quickly. Conversely, we had more problems in race trim on tracks where the front tyres were worked a lot. In short: our quali pace was always the same. In the race it depended on whether the rear or front tyres were the deciding factor.


I found this interesting, essentially he's saying the notion that they were better in the race because of better tyre management is false. The issue in qualifying is getting the front tyres up to temperature yet on tracks where tyres were front limited they struggled to make them last. Things are far less simple in F1 than we often make out on here!

Edited by RockyRaccoon68, 19 January 2013 - 02:46.


#4 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,590 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 January 2013 - 02:52

Like Seanspeed said, so many things to talk about. I find it interesting to compare his answers to the guesses that were made in the F2012 thread during the season. It's so rare that we actually get an answer to these questions. For example, I am impressed by the 18 floor versions and six rear wing families - much more than I thought. Or the exhaust changes post-Montreal.

Very interesting also his opinion on the supposed good wet weather performance of the car, and Alonso. EDIT: Especially in the light of the perceived row between Fry and Alo (which I don't think really happened). He contradicts Alonso in so far as he does not agree that the car was all that bad after Barcelona, and with regard to the number of updates, but at the same time credits Alonso with the wet weather performance.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 19 January 2013 - 02:57.


#5 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,105 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 19 January 2013 - 02:57

Or the exhaust changes post-Montreal.

I remember quite a bit of arguing about that! :lol:

"It looks like the exhaust is slightly farther back than before."

"NO, thats just the angle, its the same as before."



#6 PoleMan

PoleMan
  • Member

  • 1,515 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 19 January 2013 - 03:17

Knuckles,

Thank you SO MUCH for patiently doing the translation! :kiss:

That was really interesting stuff! I really appreciate Fry's frankness when answering questions.

Only thing I wish they'd asked him was about Massa's resurgence near the end. Were his and Alonso's cars the same spec or did Massa pull out a bit more? Regardless, an excellent interview. :up: :up: :up:

#7 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,590 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 January 2013 - 03:23

Also the steps of enlightenment during the winter test were interesting. We argued so much about what they were doing in the second test when they made all these short runs with ever-changing config - were they lost, or were they systematically testing things in order to find the root causes (and possibly were running parts that were not even intended as improvements, but designed strictly to test for certain issues, which was what I thought). It seems it was more the latter.

Edit: I like that he's frank enough to say that he doesn't know some things.
And interesting: "We rather use KERS to influence the front and back brake temps."

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 19 January 2013 - 03:38.


#8 HPT

HPT
  • Member

  • 1,150 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 19 January 2013 - 03:48

He also said they haven't gotten on top of the wind tunnel correlation problems and hope that they will. I know most teams experience this as well but it seems Ferrari is especially affected by this. I really hope they won't have this problem for this year's car.

#9 kosmos

kosmos
  • Member

  • 6,356 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 19 January 2013 - 03:59

So at the end it was the driver and not the car (in rain), enjoy your crow (some of you). Great interview and thanks for the translation, much appreciated.

#10 leomax

leomax
  • Member

  • 146 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 19 January 2013 - 04:28

Lots of interesting info there,Thanks you.

#11 HPT

HPT
  • Member

  • 1,150 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 19 January 2013 - 04:58

So at the end it was the driver and not the car (in rain), enjoy your crow (some of you). Great interview and thanks for the translation, much appreciated.


I'd say the combination of driver and car. It was wet in Brazil and Massa seems quicker...

#12 Ghostrider

Ghostrider
  • Member

  • 15,786 posts
  • Joined: July 99

Posted 19 January 2013 - 05:55

Great read, thanks a lot for posting it. :up:

#13 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,448 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 19 January 2013 - 09:19

@KnucklesAgain
Thanks for the translation.

I think ''Zugstrebe'' is the ''drive shaft'', not the ''pull rod''.

#14 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,805 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 19 January 2013 - 09:35

Drive shaft is Antriebswelle.
The translation is OK.

#15 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,448 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 19 January 2013 - 09:38

Drive shaft is Antriebswelle.
The translation is OK.

Ok.Thanks. The maximum 5 degree angle for a pull rod seems very small though. Surely many teams ran a greater angle.

#16 TheSpecialOne

TheSpecialOne
  • Member

  • 84 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 19 January 2013 - 10:46

Really interesting about the brake adjusters working particularly well with carbon industry brake discs. Could explain why Lewis qualified on the whole so much better than Jenson, as he's able to get the tyres up to temperature much more easily!

Edit: Lewis used carbon industries at mclaren, JB another manufacturer.

Edited by TheSpecialOne, 19 January 2013 - 10:47.


#17 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,590 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 January 2013 - 11:20

Ok.Thanks. The maximum 5 degree angle for a pull rod seems very small though. Surely many teams ran a greater angle.


I'm not sure he talked about a real case here, maybe it was just an example?

#18 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,511 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 19 January 2013 - 11:22

Ok.Thanks. The maximum 5 degree angle for a pull rod seems very small though. Surely many teams ran a greater angle.


IIRC doesn't that rule relate not to the angle of the pull rod itself, but to the 'angle of inclination' of the pull rod shroud? ie. the pull rod is shrouded/shaped in an aerodynamic profile and this profile cannot be angled at more than 5 degrees so as to limit it's downforce or airflow capabilities...

#19 Jovanotti

Jovanotti
  • Member

  • 2,757 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 19 January 2013 - 11:33

The return of Alonso's 5 tenths :p

Jokes aside, interesting read and thanks for sharing! Found the part about the pit stops and the effort that is put in this area particularly interesting. FIA should deliver standardised equipment to the teams if you ask me, isn't it a bit grotesque to have some of the biggest tech innovations of the series in such a marginal area while the cars steadily move towards a spec formula?

Edited by Jovanotti, 19 January 2013 - 11:34.


Advertisement

#20 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 9,466 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 January 2013 - 11:36

Great interview. I wonder how much this quote has to do with the relative success of these teams under this set of regulations.

There are two philosophies about how to develop your car. There's the Mercedes or Honda philosophy of waiting three or four races and then bringing a big step. And there's the way that is used by RBR, McLaren, and also Ferrari. To bring a little bit to every race.



#21 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,156 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 19 January 2013 - 11:53

I don't know, Mclaren lost the championship more on reliability than rate-of-development grounds.

Nice interview though, thanks for the translation Knuckes :up:

#22 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,590 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 January 2013 - 12:35

He also said they haven't gotten on top of the wind tunnel correlation problems and hope that they will. I know most teams experience this as well but it seems Ferrari is especially affected by this. I really hope they won't have this problem for this year's car.


I don't think he said they haven't. IMO he said that they understood the Maranello problems as far as anyone understands their tunnels ("We have understood the deficits of the Maranello tunnel and are working on fixing them"). Whether that's true will have to be seen, it's not the first time we heard this. I think when he mentioned hoping to some day achieve "complete" understanding, he referred to that elusive ideal state of insight he knows nobody can fully reach ("Has anyone ever really solved their wind tunnel problems?").

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 19 January 2013 - 12:39.


#23 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,156 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 19 January 2013 - 12:50

I think when he mentioned hoping to some day achieve "complete" understanding, he referred to that elusive ideal state of insight he knows nobody can fully reach ("Has anyone ever really solved their wind tunnel problems?").


:up:

(Anyhow, I assume a wind tunnel is useless for modelling the aerodynamic effects of channelling exhaust gases.)

Edited by Risil, 19 January 2013 - 12:50.


#24 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 298 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 19 January 2013 - 13:29

:up:

(Anyhow, I assume a wind tunnel is useless for modelling the aerodynamic effects of channelling exhaust gases.)


I would think that you would need to simulate the flows, temperatures and density of actual exhaust to make it work out right.

#25 SCUDmissile

SCUDmissile
  • Member

  • 3,899 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 19 January 2013 - 13:51

I don't think he said they haven't. IMO he said that they understood the Maranello problems as far as anyone understands their tunnels ("We have understood the deficits of the Maranello tunnel and are working on fixing them"). Whether that's true will have to be seen, it's not the first time we heard this. I think when he mentioned hoping to some day achieve "complete" understanding, he referred to that elusive ideal state of insight he knows nobody can fully reach ("Has anyone ever really solved their wind tunnel problems?").

I read that as nobody can ever get perfect correlation and 'fully' get over those problems. You just have to roll with them and understand what the data is saying, right?
I understand it like uncertainties in science experiments, there could always be issues with measuring equipment, but you have just got to compensate for that. Maybe the Maranello tunnel, being a little out of date, couldn't do that as well as the RedBull tunnel which went through a big update in recent years, or the Toyota one which McLaren use.

#26 Massa

Massa
  • Member

  • 4,166 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 January 2013 - 14:06

Fantastic interview. And thanks for the translation.

#27 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,590 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 January 2013 - 15:44

I read that as nobody can ever get perfect correlation and 'fully' get over those problems. You just have to roll with them and understand what the data is saying, right?
I understand it like uncertainties in science experiments, there could always be issues with measuring equipment, but you have just got to compensate for that. Maybe the Maranello tunnel, being a little out of date, couldn't do that as well as the RedBull tunnel which went through a big update in recent years, or the Toyota one which McLaren use.


Yeah, that's how I read it as well. Edit: "Ideally you would like to have one tunnel that you understand completely" - it appears to me he's using "ideally" in the platonic meaning of the term.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 19 January 2013 - 15:49.


#28 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 298 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 19 January 2013 - 15:52

I read that as nobody can ever get perfect correlation and 'fully' get over those problems. You just have to roll with them and understand what the data is saying, right?
I understand it like uncertainties in science experiments, there could always be issues with measuring equipment, but you have just got to compensate for that. Maybe the Maranello tunnel, being a little out of date, couldn't do that as well as the RedBull tunnel which went through a big update in recent years, or the Toyota one which McLaren use.


I would think that it would also mean that you need to be very vigilant about coroborating your wind tunnel results with physical testing, CFD and smaller scale models. In other words, doing anything that you can do to validate the wind tunnel results.

#29 steferrari

steferrari
  • Member

  • 270 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 19 January 2013 - 16:46

Very nice, thanks for translation ! ;)

#30 SCUDmissile

SCUDmissile
  • Member

  • 3,899 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 19 January 2013 - 16:49

I would think that it would also mean that you need to be very vigilant about coroborating your wind tunnel results with physical testing, CFD and smaller scale models. In other words, doing anything that you can do to validate the wind tunnel results.

Yep. It must have been very tough from the Maranello tunnel, so the uncertainties could have been larger. Especially if they were using 2 tunnels like at the end of the year.

#31 Arry2k

Arry2k
  • Member

  • 355 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 19 January 2013 - 17:58

Thanks for the translation Knuckles. Enjoyed reading that interview.

Does anyone know what Fry means when he says they managed brake temps through KERS usage?

#32 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,401 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 19 January 2013 - 19:37

Thanks for the translation, good stuff. :up:

#33 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,740 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 19 January 2013 - 20:07

Does anyone know what Fry means when he says they managed brake temps through KERS usage?


KERS harvesting aids braking, a large amount of harvesting induces more drag on the wheels and offers more braking force for the same amount of pressure on the brake pedal. By trading off between KERS harvesting and brake pedal pressures, you can get the same amount of braking force for significantly less brake temperature.

#34 Juan Kerr

Juan Kerr
  • Member

  • 2,538 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 19 January 2013 - 20:19

Probably one of the best interviews I've ever read on technical stuff in F1. I posted this originally in the F2012 thread, but it touches on things beyond their 2012 car, and beyond Ferrari. Therefore, and because it's a great read IMHO, I thought it might warrant its own thread.

Original by AMuS in German, my translation: Pat Fry: "The car was not fantastic, but ok".



Edit: typo


Alonso is such a genius at bringing the car to the front if its not working right, obviously when the car is working really well his teammate can often match him but if there's an issue with the handling him and Hamilton are simply in a different league. those are the Senna elements not necessarily the ultimate speed in a fast car (like Schumacher)

#35 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,300 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 19 January 2013 - 21:14

Great interview. Thanks for translation KnucklesAgain.

I read that as nobody can ever get perfect correlation and 'fully' get over those problems.



Besides the scale issue due to the rules there are many variables that are unsimulatable . Pardon the invented word.

#36 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,591 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 19 January 2013 - 21:30

the toyota lmp car they used less kers harvesting (and more rear brake) on first few laps to heat the rear tyres up.

its thought that lewis was doing that at usa gp, as he didnt have full kers.... thats the downside, if theres not alot of heavy braking, you will have to reduce your kers power, if theres loads of heavy braking its not much of a issue as ok you harvest less, but theres lots of potential..

#37 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,591 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 19 January 2013 - 21:39

the ferrari's handling was pretty awful to start with, they fixed that quicker than the pace

#38 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,590 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 January 2013 - 21:41

Besides the scale issue due to the rules there are many variables that are unsimulatable . Pardon the invented word.


There are also all kinds of fundamental differences from tunnel to track, e.g., the tunnel's walls interfere with the air you blow at the car.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 19 January 2013 - 21:42.


#39 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,591 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 19 January 2013 - 21:53

i think the main ones are scale, and yaw/turning, and rolling/turning the wheels
with the newer side of f1 you got exhaust stuff, and maybe f duct

Advertisement

#40 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,590 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 January 2013 - 22:07

Those all are important (even though all (most?) tunnels by now have a rolling road setup, it's still not the same), but I don't think one should underestimate the number of problems. Dynamic tyre deformation under load is another one that comes to mind.

#41 jondon

jondon
  • Member

  • 501 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 19 January 2013 - 22:11

Very interesting interview. Big thanks for the time and effort you spent on the translation KnucklesAgain :up:

#42 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 19 January 2013 - 22:33

Knuckles,

Thank you SO MUCH for patiently doing the translation! :kiss:

That was really interesting stuff! I really appreciate Fry's frankness when answering questions.

Only thing I wish they'd asked him was about Massa's resurgence near the end. Were his and Alonso's cars the same spec or did Massa pull out a bit more? Regardless, an excellent interview. :up: :up: :up:


Massa came out in the news yesterday saying he started seeing a Psychologist and this was what caused his resurgence. The car didn't improve dramatically. This is what over-emphasized Alonso's 'skills' to improve a supposedly bad car in the first 4 races.

Edited by mattferg, 19 January 2013 - 22:37.


#43 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,590 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 January 2013 - 22:40

Massa came out in the news yesterday saying he started seeing a Psychologist and this was what caused his resurgence. The car didn't improve dramatically. This is what over-emphasized Alonso's 'skills' to improve a supposedly bad car in the first 4 races.


The psychologist thing was known for a while, but you are right (edit: somewhat right - you had to distort the quote to cover the whole year in order to be able to squeeze in a dig at Alonso) about the recent statement made at Wrooom,

Massa said his mid-season turnaround last year was almost entirely due to psychological progress rather than car changes.

"It is not that the car changed that much from August in reality," he admitted. "There was also a change from my side."

The Brazilian explained that shutting out criticisms and remembering what he had achieved in his best days proved key.

"Even if 90 per cent of people do not want to believe in me any more, it is important that you believe so you are not good one day and bad the day after," Massa said.

"You need to believe in what you can do. I believe in myself, I know I can be a champion, I know I can win, I know I can be what I was all my career.

"I think after you understand yourself it makes you stronger and stronger all the time."

Massa feels he has recaptured the happiness he felt when fighting for the championship in 2008.

"Maybe I was not enjoying my job so much, maybe I was not happy," he mused. "I am happy now. When you get into the car and want to have fun and enjoy it, that is when you can do your job in the best way possible.

"By doing that you can have a year like 2008."


-- http://www.autosport...t.php/id/105154

Edit: I'm not sure why you feel the need to add a dig at Alonso even here, but I guess it's no surprise after the shock of reading "it was the driver not the car" from the car's designer.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 20 January 2013 - 02:01.


#44 PoleMan

PoleMan
  • Member

  • 1,515 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 20 January 2013 - 00:51

The psychologist thing was known for a while, but you are right (edit: somewhat right - you had to distort the quote to cover the whole year in order to be able to squeeze in a dig on Alonso) about the recent statement made at Wrooom,


-- http://www.autosport...t.php/id/105154

Edit: I'm not sure why you feel the need to add a dig on Alonso even here, but I guess it's no surprise after the shock of reading "it was the driver not the car" from the car's designer.

Thanks for the more fullsome context, Knuckles! In his exclusive interview with the Beeb, Massa suggests that racing against and trying to keep up with a driver of Alonso's caliber was a source of his problems. He also added THIS: :D "Massa said that Alonso was the best driver he had ever raced against - including Michael Schumacher, who was his team-mate at Ferrari in 2006.
"I think I had more difficult times with Fernando, so I would say Fernando was the strongest team-mate for me," Massa said. "You can even see in the numbers [statistics]."

Sorry for the OT. That was my little dig at mattferg.  ;)

Edited by PoleMan, 20 January 2013 - 00:52.


#45 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,269 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 20 January 2013 - 00:55

KERS harvesting aids braking, a large amount of harvesting induces more drag on the wheels and offers more braking force for the same amount of pressure on the brake pedal. By trading off between KERS harvesting and brake pedal pressures, you can get the same amount of braking force for significantly less brake temperature.


So by reducing or increasing KERS harvesting, you can adjust temperature of the rear brakes. But not of the front brakes.

I can't see how this would help if you can't get heat into your front tyres. But I suppose you could get a better balance by cooling the rear tyres.




#46 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,591 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:32

you would run more forward brake bias when running more harvesting, perhaps you could run full harvesting when you didnt really need too, so the rears run cooler, and the fronts get heated abit more perhaps, or you get better balance and just drive harder, or not run the normal % split, but comprimise braking performance by whacking it to 70/30 %, so the extra front braking heats up the tyre

#47 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 20 January 2013 - 12:50

Massa came out in the news yesterday saying he started seeing a Psychologist and this was what caused his resurgence. The car didn't improve dramatically. This is what over-emphasized Alonso's 'skills' to improve a supposedly bad car in the first 4 races.


Is Fry going to the psychologist too?

#48 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,630 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 20 January 2013 - 12:59

Is Fry going to the psychologist too?


No, but unless Fry is himself a psychologist he would not have known how much of Filipe's performance was being impacted by his psychological problems.

For the record, I agree with you here (and with Fry) that it was all Alonso in Malaysia, but your line of argument is poor.

#49 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 20 January 2013 - 16:54

Great interview, thanks for the translation!


I think what is most interesting in it is this quote: "do you want to gain 25 milliseconds by running the front of your car lower, or half a second by conventional development work and fixing errors? "

Some designers/engineers seem to be of that "try to get a big difference" - like apparently Fry, Gasgoyne - but appreciation for the accumulation of solid milliseconds, ala Newey, perhaps, maybe the more successful approach in F1?




#50 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 9,466 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 20 January 2013 - 17:05

Well quite, but you've not added the context to that quote which was that they were in aero trouble. However, it's the same lesson that was learnt by BMW/Ferrari/McLaren in '09 when KERS was prioritised over aero.