142 replies to this topic

[Chris Glass]

Quote

Originally posted by bankoq


Piquet is the worst driver on the grid at the moment.

He was a star in Gp2, apparently a qualifying specialist. Are you suggesting he suddenly lost his talent when he became Alonso's team mate? Like Fisichella did I guess?

[Maximus]

Quote

Originally posted by Spunout
I love the transparency of BMW_F1´s posts; anything to make KR look bad

Yes what's that about did Kimi do something to upset BMW_F1?

[Spunout]

Quote

Originally posted by Chris Glass


He was a star in Gp2, apparently a qualifying specialist. Are you suggesting he suddenly lost his talent when he became Alonso's team mate? Like Fisichella did I guess?

We have already determined on wet it´s 100% driver. So yes, Piquet must have lost his talent. In the same way Alonso lost his talent (no Hungary 2006-like performances this year).

[Spunout]

Quote

Originally posted by Maximus

Yes what's that about did Kimi do something to upset BMW_F1?

BMW_F1 is huuuge Montoya fan...I suppose this answers your question ;)

[BMW_F1]

Quote

Originally posted by Spunout
I love the transparency of BMW_F1´s posts; anything to make KR look bad

but you've said that the optimal performance of the car is measured by the driver who did better on that particular race ... didn't you .. ?

F1champion post was jurdging the performance of the Ferrari based on Kimi's results but the fact is that in the rain Massa was the better driver and actually the fastest driver when it was pouring and everyone was on extreme wets.. Check the lap times

[craftverk]

Quote

Originally posted by mariuszek

Yeah, and the fact that Alonso was challenging for poles and wins last year in the wet, while now he's fighting just to be in Q3 and score any points when it rains, it really shows it's the driver that matters when it rains, not the car

Incorrect. The car is essential to wet weather driving, how can you drive in the wet without a car?

That aside, it's mostly down to the driver to find where the grip is, how to get the tires to the optimum temp, confidence under braking etc.

[BMW_F1]

Quote

Originally posted by Maximus

Yes what's that about did Kimi do something to upset BMW_F1?

how about you post something which actually pertains to the argument I just presented.

[bankoq]

I think Mario Theissen quoted above indicates how important factor car is in wet conditions. So far I stay with my numbers 65/35 or 60/40.

If anyone has some links to drivers' opinions about driving in the wet and how important car is in wet conditions feel free to post them here.

And please don't turn this thread to another bashing war.

[Spunout]

Quote

Originally posted by BMW_F1


but you've said that the optimal performance of the car is measured by the driver who did better on that particular race ... didn't you .. ?

Sure. At Monza, Massa/Kovalainen.

Quote

F1champion post was jurdging the performance of the Ferrari based on Kimi's results but the fact is that in the rain Massa was the better driver and actually the fastest driver when it was pouring and everyone was on extreme wets.. Check the lap times

Ah, good ol´ Selected Laps ™ argument.

So familiar from Kimi vs JPM days

It is difficult to compare Massa/Räikkönen/Hamilton, because of traffic.

[mariuszek]

Quote

Originally posted by craftverk

That aside, it's mostly down to the driver to find where the grip is, how to get the tires to the optimum temp, confidence under braking etc.

So why last year Alonso was able to find the grip and get the tyres to work and fight for wins in the wet, and this year he's not? Maybe it's something to do with different cars which he drove now and then?

[Maximus]

Quote

Originally posted by Spunout

BMW_F1 is huuuge Montoya fan...I suppose this answers your question ;)

So Kimi making Monty look like a burger munching mototennis playing amateur is enough to hate the iceman forever

I read an interview with jpm this weekend he seems very happy in Nascar, the best thing that happened to him in F1 was him leaving.

anyway to accommodate BMW-boy, best car in the rain the McLaren but it's not the easiest to drive as Kova shows.

[BMW_F1]

Quote

Originally posted by Spunout


Sure. At Monza, Massa/Kovalainen.

Although Kova finished higher then Lewis his pace in the wet was nowhere compared to Lewis.

The same cannot be said about Massa and Kimi.

You are talking about selective laps but isn't this what some Kimi fans are doing to justify Kimi's pace when the race was drying towards the end..

I was also talking about wet track with puddles and rain, and not when it has stopped raining and the track is drying; this is why I said that under these changing conditions Mclaren is the best car but in the rain I am not so sure if one looks at Massa's pace during those treacherous conditions.

[Spunout]

Maximus,

If you look at Kimi vs Massa thread, you´ll find out there are few posters who spend 90% of their time here putting KR and his performance down. I am sorry to say, most of them are JPM fans.

IMO all fanboys are equally bad; I am certain if Massa beats Kimi in 2009-10, we´ll have group of Kimi fanboys without hero to root for, mocking Felipe in "Massa vs whoever his teammate is" thread.

That´s the way it goes...

[BMW_F1]

how about sticking to the topic.. ? I guess you have nothing against what I've just presented therefore you take this personal.. what a looser..

[bankoq]

Men, please stick to the topic!

[BMW_F1]

that's what I am saying..

[Spunout]

Quote

Originally posted by BMW_F1


Although Kova finished higher then Lewis his pace in the wet was nowhere compared to Lewis.

The same cannot be said about Massa and Kimi.

What counts is overall pace. Not Selected Laps ™

Kimi finished approx 11 secs behind his teammate.

Lewis finished approx 17 secs behind his teammate.

Quote

I was also talking about wet track with puddles and rain, and not when it has stopped raining and the track is drying; this is why I said that under these changing conditions Mclaren is the best car but in the rain I am not so sure if one looks at Massa's pace during those treacherous conditions.

Different setup/strategy/etc.

You cannot put FM´s & KR´s laps "together". Pick up the better performer -> analyze his pace, compared to faster McLaren - excluding laps ruined by traffic.

Ok?

[Spunout]

Quote

Originally posted by bankoq
Men, please stick to the topic!

Change the topic to "can BMW_F1 prove Kimi sucked?"

[molive]

A = Not Ferrari, by a long margin.

Probably, Ferrari is the 4th best car in the wet, that is, when they actually get the setup right.

Which makes one expect stuff like Kimi's mistake at Spa and Massa's antics at Silverstone, to name a few.

Ferrari must pray that the rest of the season is dry, otherwise they will have a tough time stopping Hammy.

[Ricardo F1]

What was wrong with it at Monaco?

[Spunout]

Quote

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
What was wrong with it at Monaco?

What was wrong with BMW at Montreal?

I can only guess Monaco is different from other tracks. We know the F2008 has extremely narrow operating window; it might be fast on certain track, certain conditions...even on wet. But I think we are looking for car that is consistently quick on wet. Even at Monaco McLaren sure wasn´t slow, and it has never looked really bad.

PS. the performance of given car isn´t written in stone; it varies based on track/conditions/etc. If Car A was fast on track B, on conditions C...that doesn´t mean it had the same potential on track D, on conditions E.

Let´s put it this way: the best of Ferrari (Monaco?) was nowhere as good as the best of McLaren (Silverstone). Then again, the worst of McLaren wasn´t as bad as the worst of Ferrari. Measured by faster driver, of course...

[BMW_F1]

Quote

Originally posted by Spunout


What counts is overall pace. Not Selected Laps ™

what counts for what exactly?

Quote

Originally posted by Spunout



Different setup/strategy/etc.

You cannot put FM´s & KR´s laps "together". Pick up the better performer -> analyze his pace, compared to faster McLaren - excluding laps ruined by traffic.

Ok?

This is ridiculous the only way to somewhat measure a driver's performance is to compare him against his teammate. Kimi was not the only driver who was faced with traffic in this race, Massa started the race 6th and had to pass Rosberg who at the time was actually slightly faster then Heidfeld.

But actually this isn't about that.. Massa's pace in the rain after he dispatched Rosberg was really good, better then Lewis actually.. . This is why by reflecting Massa's time during this short stint without traffic we can deduce that Ferrari is no slouch in the rain..
In Monaco for example Massa's early pace was unmatched and he would have won that race easily without the safety car..

[Spunout]

Quote

Originally posted by BMW_F1

This is ridiculous the only way to somewhat measure a driver's performance is to compare him against his teammate. Kimi was not the only driver who was faced with traffic in this race, Massa started the race 6th and had to pass Rosberg who at the time was actually slightly faster then Heidfeld.

Your obsession with Kimi is clouding your reasoning (again)

You picked up FM as the better performer. Ok, fair enough.

Now compare the laps FM and LH completed in clean air.

After you have done that, we´ll discuss.

PS. Monza was wet from start to finish. I am wondering how come LH managed to catch FM - despite of FM´s "unmatched laptimes" and heavy traffic - in the end?

[BMW_F1]

Quote

Originally posted by Spunout


Your obsession with Kimi is clouding your reasoning (again)

You picked up FM as the better performer. Ok, fair enough.

Now compare the laps FM and LH completed in clean air.

After you have done that, we´ll discuss.

I did already and that is why I am posting this

[giacomo]

Quote

Originally posted by Maximus

I read an interview with jpm this weekend he seems very happy in Nascar, the best thing that happened to him in F1 was him leaving.

I wonder why he stayed there for almost 6 years if it was that awful for him... Or might he be talking sour grapes?

[Spunout]

Quote

Originally posted by BMW_F1


I did already and that is why I am posting this

Perhaps you would be kind enough to share your laptime analysis with us?

[Rob76]

I think there are many factors that affect how good a car is in the wet, so what looked like a rocket ship in one wet race maybe a handful in another wet race. The biggest factor that can change race to race is setup and whether it's setup for a full wet race or a compromise, in the expectation of it drying out.

The common belief that rain is the great equalizer is to a large extent true, as outright engine power, mechanical grip, etc. are used less to the limit. The cars are operating in a much wider window of driver variability and the drivers bravery and judgment to operate close to the limit can overcome a cars shortcomings. Also, going over the limit probably has a larger window of recovery due to the lower speeds and grip levels, unless you have true monsoon conditions where aquaplaning can leave a driver with little chance of recovery.

Having said that, if we take drivers out of the equation overall, if a car is good in the dry it probably has a good chance of being up there in the wet. We've seen various wet races this year where both the McLaren and Ferrari have excelled, and they are obviously the class of the field in the dry. The STR performed very well in Monza, and we've seen improvements from STR in the dry also, but I think I'd wait for more evidence before I'd declare it as the best car in the wet.

My gut feeling is that in general the McLaren is the best car in the wet (when used properly), and it's use of tires can just give it an important edge over the Ferrari in full wet conditions. Where the Ferrari has the advantage is when a dry or drying line emerges. The Mclaren being harder on it's tires works against it running the wet (intermediates) tires on a dry track where it is likely to overheat the tires compared to the Ferrari. We saw this both in Silverstone (end of 1st stint) and Monza (last stint). But it also works in McLaren's favor if running dry tires in damp conditions (end of Spa). As wet races will often throw up all types of conditions throughout the entire race, the advantage can swing from one car to another, from one tire to another, and it's one of the main reasons that the wet racing is exciting. If, to satisfy the original post, I have to pick one outright car to be the best in full wet conditions, with a full wet setup, I'd pick the McLaren. I wouldn't say the advantage is so great as to take anything away from Hamilton's performance in the wet, as I also think his driving has sometimes made the car advantage look greater.

[Slowinfastout]

Hamilton was stupid fast again in Monza until he caught Massa, when the conditions started to make the race more what is usual Monza-ish stuff...

Their race was so different its a funny comparison to make, and start name-calling about..

[giacomo]

I'm quite sure that the McLaren is the best car in the wet.

Hadn't Big Balls Hamilton wanked around on inters in Q2 he would have won Monza by a seamile.

[Slowinfastout]

Quote

Originally posted by giacomo
I'm quite sure that the McLaren is the best car in the wet.

Hadn't Big Balls Hamilton wanked around on inters in Q2 he would have won Monza by a seamile.

I would tend to agree that the McLaren is the better car in the wet, you could see that on Heikki's face on the podium and press conference

[giacomo]

Quote

Originally posted by Slowinfastout


I would tend to agree that the McLaren is the better car in the wet, you could see that on Heikki's face on the podium and press conference

I'm no expert in reading faces. So his face really displayed details about his cars quality?

Fantastic.

[Pep]

Quote

Originally posted by yr


Renault seems very quick in wet? When was that? Apart from one lap where Alonso raced with wet tyres against drivers with dry tyres in Spa, I don´t recall thinking during wet races "Wow, that Renault is really fast in the hands of Alonso". Care to give examples what you were on about?

Well, Alonso was pretty fast at Silverstone, a circuit which suited the Renault more than Monza, he set some fastest laps in the rain at the beginning and overtook Heidfeld, but like Kimi he had bad luck when his team decided not to change his tyres and started raining again, losing tons of time.

Alonso was also being pretty fast at Monaco when it was raining, but he made a mistake trying to pass Heidfeld and ruined his race.

That said, I also agree that the car, its ability to heat the tyres, etc still count pretty much, not only the driver's hands.

[BMW_F1]

Quote

Originally posted by giacomo
I wonder why he stayed there for almost 6 years if it was that awful for him... Or might he be talking sour grapes?

Mclaren was awful and the lack of racing became boring for him..
shoot the guy for wanting to race wheel-to-wheel more than once or twice during an entire GP..

[Maximus]

Quote

Originally posted by giacomo
I wonder why he stayed there for almost 6 years if it was that awful for him... Or might he be talking sour grapes?

I thought so too in the beginning when he was fulminating against F1, but nowadays he seems genuinely happy to be out of F1 and in Nascar.
I guess he finally accepted that he lacked skills/talent to make it big in F1, no shame in that.

As to your analysis on Big Balls, yes it's scary when you think how easy he would have won this one when he and his engineers wouldn't have fumbled.

[Spunout]

Rob76,

Some good points there

It is true the conditions never remain exactly the same. Eg Monza...had the rain stopped 10 laps earlier, Kimi´s Ferrari would have been the best car. It was rather average on wet, but stellar on drying track. In the end, with inters melting away, his advantage was growing. Then again, had it rained till the end...you´d have Lewis competing for the win. Felipe was somewhere in between. If this was all strategy / setup, all three made reasonable choice, taking into account their starting position.

[Slowinfastout]

Quote

Originally posted by giacomo
I'm no expert in reading faces. So his face really displayed details about his cars quality?

Fantastic.

To be honest I think we have no way to know, maybe it has more to do with predicting/gambling on the race conditions on saturday?

The cars in Monza configurations are quite different too, I believe we get a clue when we compare Massa's performance in Monaco-package vs Monza low downforce configuration..

I cant vote in this poll because I naively still want to believe the drivers still have quite a say in the wet... but yeah.. McLaren would be my choice I guess..

Would be nice to have a wet-vs-dry elaborate analysis to see who gains or loses comparatively speaking..

[Chris Glass]

If the Ferrari has so much trouble heating tyres why was Massa the fastest car in the wettest stint of the race?

[lukywill]

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/70689

seems wet can do some believes.

so far it was for sure extremely wet. (and hamilton lost 5 points to massa only in last 2 races

a lottery for the rest of the championship?

don´t think so. it's 4 races and possibly 2 wet races. the mclaren is a suitable car to this conditions but also unpredictable is the norm. (see monaco this year).

for sure massa have a chance. a big chance if justice is to be served.

[TT6]

Some say you can't separate the car and the driver... I'd add you can't separate it from the set up either.

However, both Vettel and Bourdais were astonishingly quick in Monza. There must be something very special in Toro Rosso car.

[karlth]

Quote

Originally posted by TT6
Some say you can't separate the car and the driver... I'd add you can't separate it from the set up either.

However, both Vettel and Bourdais were astonishingly quick in Monza. There must be something very special in Toro Rosso car.

It is fairly common that wet conditions mask weaknesses in slower cars. It is just that I have never heard of the opposite.

[Peter Perfect]

Quote

Originally posted by Pep

Well, Alonso was pretty fast at Silverstone, a circuit which suited the Renault more than Monza, he set some fastest laps in the rain at the beginning and overtook Heidfeld, but like Kimi he had bad luck when his team decided not to change his tyres and started raining again, losing tons of time.

Alonso was also being pretty fast at Monaco when it was raining, but he made a mistake trying to pass Heidfeld and ruined his race.

That said, I also agree that the car, its ability to heat the tyres, etc still count pretty much, not only the driver's hands.

I could be wrong, but I thought those kind of decisions were made by the driver+race engineer together?

As for bad cars going well in the wet I seem to remember an article saying that chassis stiffness tended to play a part. In the dry a car with a 'bendy' chassis would have unpredictable behavior, whereas in the wet the smaller forces that the chassis was subjected to made it less of an issue.

[bankoq]

BMW-Sauber is the only team which didn't get any vote so far.

[craftverk]

Really, this thread is quite laughable.

You'll find that driving styles and set-ups are more of an influence in the wet than anything else.

[Hippo]

What makes a car good in the wet actually?

Tires must work really well. Meaning they need to be easy to get temperature up and they may not wear too fast.

Suspension must provide good mechanical grip.

Engine has to be be very smooth on acceleration as there are no electronic aids anymore.

Which car does best? Well, as we cannot see them with robots steering them in an identical fashion we'll never know. But it looks like McLaren and the Red Bull cars seem to work especially well in wet conditions. They do not face problems with tires and they are consistently showing to put in good lap times whenever it's wet.

But as wet is actually meaning changing conditions it's really hard to compare. Sometimes it's starting with pouring rain and drying up. Then again it could be the other way around. Whatever. In the end it's more than just the car being good as to win a race. It's also the driver, the strategy and the pit crew's work.

[TT6]

Quote

Originally posted by karlth
It is fairly common that wet conditions mask weaknesses in slower cars. It is just that I have never heard of the opposite.

Maybe. But aren't we talking about wet conditions and which car suits best these conditions? What if indeed rain masks the strenghts of faster cars in a way these strengths in dry get useless? Fast in racing terms is always fast in relation to others.

[krapmeister]

Quote

There must be something very special in Toro Rosso car

I believe that it is called - apart from Sebastian - a Ferrari...

[karlth]

Quote

Originally posted by TT6


Maybe. But aren't we talking about wet conditions and which car suits best these conditions? What if indeed rain masks the strenghts of faster cars in a way these strengths in dry get useless? Fast in racing terms is always fast in relation to others.

Yes. Rain has always made the gap between the fastest and slowest cars smaller.

[BMW_F1]

Quote

Originally posted by TT6


Maybe. But aren't we talking about wet conditions and which car suits best these conditions? What if indeed rain masks the strenghts of faster cars in a way these strengths in dry get useless? Fast in racing terms is always fast in relation to others.

what are some example of this ?

[bankoq]

Quote

Originally posted by craftverk
Really, this thread is quite laughable.

You'll find that driving styles and set-ups are more of an influence in the wet than anything else.

It's not laughable as we can clearly see that some cars are better in wet conditions than the others.

[jk]

The car means everything in racing. The cars are build to be fast on a dry track, so it is a bit of a lottery which car turns into the best when the track gets wet. However the gap between the cars may be larger than in the dry.

And example is Alonso. At Hungary 06 he made the entire field look redicoulus, so well did his car turn out to be balanced. Fernando is a good wet driver, but he has never ever come close to repeat that performance. If your car works well, it is just so much easier.