 | |
Team strategy
Formula 1 Formula 1 motor racing discusions (rec.autos.sport.f1)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Team strategy -
04-09-2007
, 07:48 AM
|
Richard Miller wrote in news:iuoHrR6XkeGGFw1a (AT) seasalter0 (DOT) demon.co.uk: Oooh, longer fuelled, defensive driving, in only his second race as against a double world champion, how many more reasons for the difference in time in those earlier laps do you need? If he were truly a second a lap off Alonso's pace under those conditions he wouldn't have the seat. |
conditions is not nearly the gap it is under qualifying conditions. They
can lose more than that passing one backmarker - Kimi lost much more
than that after his first pitstop stuck in traffic. Alonso pitted on lap
18, 2 laps before Hamilton, so even in clean air he'd have been quicker
by a couple of tenths. On a low fuel load in Q2, Alonso was 6 tenths
faster than Hamilton, and with fuel, nearly 8 tenths faster. So a second
a lap seems entirely reasonable with Massa trying to climb into his gearbox.
--
Phil
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
Dipshit. There's a difference between strategy and tactics. Is it possible that, after finding their 2nd car in 2nd place after the first two corners, the McLaren team (that includes Hamilton), grabbed the tactical advantage offered them, and: 1) Hamilton was instructed to give Alonso breathing room, or 2) Hamilton, of his own accord, gave Alonso breathing room. Nah! Can't happen! sheesh. |
order to keep from losing P2 to Massa and Fred took advantage of the battle
behind him and stretched his lead, all the while http://tinyurl.com/2cbt2s
You guys need to stop thinking so much, it'll make your head hurt.
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
CatharticF1 wrote: Richard Miller wrote in news:iuoHrR6XkeGGFw1a (AT) seasalter0 (DOT) demon.co.uk: Oooh, longer fuelled, defensive driving, in only his second race as against a double world champion, how many more reasons for the difference in time in those earlier laps do you need? If he were truly a second a lap off Alonso's pace under those conditions he wouldn't have the seat. You're making it up as you go along here. A second a lap under race conditions is not nearly the gap it is under qualifying conditions. They can lose more than that passing one backmarker - Kimi lost much more than that after his first pitstop stuck in traffic. Alonso pitted on lap 18, 2 laps before Hamilton, so even in clean air he'd have been quicker by a couple of tenths. On a low fuel load in Q2, Alonso was 6 tenths faster than Hamilton, and with fuel, nearly 8 tenths faster. So a second a lap seems entirely reasonable with Massa trying to climb into his gearbox. |
Give me a figure then Phil - tell me how much consistently slower per
stint in clear air Driver A should be than Driver B before you get
suspicious? This is a sport based on one or 2 tenths, not a second. 2
laps of fuel? Significant only if the interval had been a tenth or two,
but not at ten times that.
How can the same newsgroup that pasted Rubens and Irvine for far smaller
deficits suddenly be so blind?
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Phil Newnham" <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message news:57unfnF2erp84U1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net... CatharticF1 wrote: Richard Miller wrote in news:iuoHrR6XkeGGFw1a (AT) seasalter0 (DOT) demon.co.uk: Oooh, longer fuelled, defensive driving, in only his second race as against a double world champion, how many more reasons for the difference in time in those earlier laps do you need? If he were truly a second a lap off Alonso's pace under those conditions he wouldn't have the seat. You're making it up as you go along here. A second a lap under race conditions is not nearly the gap it is under qualifying conditions. They can lose more than that passing one backmarker - Kimi lost much more than that after his first pitstop stuck in traffic. Alonso pitted on lap 18, 2 laps before Hamilton, so even in clean air he'd have been quicker by a couple of tenths. On a low fuel load in Q2, Alonso was 6 tenths faster than Hamilton, and with fuel, nearly 8 tenths faster. So a second a lap seems entirely reasonable with Massa trying to climb into his gearbox. Here's how some of the numbers read. Excluding his top lap or two Hamiltons fastest laps were 0.5s slower than Alonsos. Hamilton averaged over a second a lap slower over just the first six laps. This includes nearly 3 seconds lost on the two laps where Felipe was playing silly buggers. After lap 6 Kimi was behind Lewis. Defending against Kimi cost significantly less time. The lie to Brendans theory is given by their respective inlaps. Hamiltons a full 0.5 seconds slower than Alonsos on the same fuel load. How does that fit? |
Quote:
|
So a couple of simple questions is: 1. Is it reasonable to be a couple of tenths slower when carrying two extra laps of fuel and defending. 2. Is it plausible to lose an addtional 3/10ths when the car behind throws itself up the inside necessitating a switch back. 3. How much time is lost when your wetting your pants laughing that the fastest car on the circuit has just gone cross country. |
over a race is perfectly explicable.
We can play this game all day..
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
#15
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
CatharticF1 wrote: Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in news:57unfnF2erp84U1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: CatharticF1 wrote: Richard Miller wrote in news:iuoHrR6XkeGGFw1a (AT) seasalter0 (DOT) demon.co.uk: Oooh, longer fuelled, defensive driving, in only his second race as against a double world champion, how many more reasons for the difference in time in those earlier laps do you need? If he were truly a second a lap off Alonso's pace under those conditions he wouldn't have the seat. You're making it up as you go along here. A second a lap under race conditions is not nearly the gap it is under qualifying conditions. They can lose more than that passing one backmarker - Kimi lost much more than that after his first pitstop stuck in traffic. Alonso pitted on lap 18, 2 laps before Hamilton, so even in clean air he'd have been quicker by a couple of tenths. On a low fuel load in Q2, Alonso was 6 tenths faster than Hamilton, and with fuel, nearly 8 tenths faster. So a second a lap seems entirely reasonable with Massa trying to climb into his gearbox. I'm making it up? You're talking about traffic at the start of a GP. Eh? The only traffic I mentioned was the traffic after the first pitstop where Kimi pitted relatively early and came out in behind several cars. |
little odd when we're discussing an uninterrupted first stint
Quote:
|
Give me a figure then Phil - tell me how much consistently slower per stint in clear air Driver A should be than Driver B before you get suspicious? This is a sport based on one or 2 tenths, not a second. 2 laps of fuel? Significant only if the interval had been a tenth or two, but not at ten times that. I'll restate it, because you appear to have missed it completely. In Q2 with almost no fuel, Alonso beat Hamilton by 0.6s. In Q3 with 2 laps less fuel, Alonso beat Hamilton by about 0.8s (nearest tenth), justifying the claim made by the commentators (Allen, I think, who knows more about fuel loads than anything else) that 1 lap of fuel is worth 0.1s. |
qualifying lap doesn't necessarily relate to race pace. You only need look
at Kimi and Felipe to see that. So I'm accepting only 0.2 of a second.
(Massa outqualified Kimi by 4 tenths, with only one lap less fuel yet Kimi
had a solid pace advantage over Massa during the race.)
Quote:
|
In the beginning of the race, he was between 1 and 1.4s a lap slower than Alonso, including the two laps where Massa went barrelling up the inside into T4. So he lost between 0.2 and 0.6s a lap more to Alonso than you might reasonably expect due to the pre-existing deficit. Laps 7 - 11 he managed, despite the close proximity of Kimi, to bring the deficit down to 0.6 to 0.7s a lap, now effectively performing better vs. Alonso than he did in Q3. During this time and before, Kimi and Hamilton were both consistently faster than quick Nick in 4th place, btw, so it's not like he was holding the whole field up. Even in laps 18 and 19, when Kimi had pitted, Hamilton only managed to better his own personal best lap by 0.1s, when really he needed to push as hard as he could. Raikonnen meanwhile was stuck behind Fisi, who was lapping between 0.7 and 1.6s a lap slower than the 1.37.6s that Hamilton had been previously doing. I'm not sure I see any strong evidence that Hamilton was going deliberately slower than he was capable of in that stint. |
can't believe the double standard here. Do you really believe that or is it
just a pleasant explanation that suits your preference?
Quote:
|
How can the same newsgroup that pasted Rubens and Irvine for far smaller deficits suddenly be so blind? You'll have to back that claim up with some posts and some numbers so we can see what you're getting upset about. If we discover that, for example, Irvine qualified ahead of Schumacher and then spent the race in dutiful second place loosing a good 1s+ per lap, you might find out the hard way  |
explanations the tifosi never offered!
So I take it you accept thatanything up to a second was easily explained, not team tactics, simply fuel
loads, wing adjustments and fighting off the drivers behind you.
Somehow I don't imagine Kimi and Massa doing similarly would seem so easily
explained. But I'll now have a good source of references
--
CatharticF1
'What you thought was freedom is just greed'
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in news:57unfnF2erp84U1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: CatharticF1 wrote: Richard Miller wrote in news:iuoHrR6XkeGGFw1a (AT) seasalter0 (DOT) demon.co.uk: Oooh, longer fuelled, defensive driving, in only his second race as against a double world champion, how many more reasons for the difference in time in those earlier laps do you need? If he were truly a second a lap off Alonso's pace under those conditions he wouldn't have the seat. You're making it up as you go along here. A second a lap under race conditions is not nearly the gap it is under qualifying conditions. They can lose more than that passing one backmarker - Kimi lost much more than that after his first pitstop stuck in traffic. Alonso pitted on lap 18, 2 laps before Hamilton, so even in clean air he'd have been quicker by a couple of tenths. On a low fuel load in Q2, Alonso was 6 tenths faster than Hamilton, and with fuel, nearly 8 tenths faster. So a second a lap seems entirely reasonable with Massa trying to climb into his gearbox. I'm making it up? You're talking about traffic at the start of a GP. |
where Kimi pitted relatively early and came out in behind several cars.
Quote:
|
Give me a figure then Phil - tell me how much consistently slower per stint in clear air Driver A should be than Driver B before you get suspicious? This is a sport based on one or 2 tenths, not a second. 2 laps of fuel? Significant only if the interval had been a tenth or two, but not at ten times that. |
with almost no fuel, Alonso beat Hamilton by 0.6s. In Q3 with 2 laps
less fuel, Alonso beat Hamilton by about 0.8s (nearest tenth),
justifying the claim made by the commentators (Allen, I think, who knows
more about fuel loads than anything else) that 1 lap of fuel is worth 0.1s.
In the beginning of the race, he was between 1 and 1.4s a lap slower
than Alonso, including the two laps where Massa went barrelling up the
inside into T4. So he lost between 0.2 and 0.6s a lap more to Alonso
than you might reasonably expect due to the pre-existing deficit. Laps 7
- 11 he managed, despite the close proximity of Kimi, to bring the
deficit down to 0.6 to 0.7s a lap, now effectively performing better vs.
Alonso than he did in Q3. During this time and before, Kimi and Hamilton
were both consistently faster than quick Nick in 4th place, btw, so it's
not like he was holding the whole field up. Even in laps 18 and 19, when
Kimi had pitted, Hamilton only managed to better his own personal best
lap by 0.1s, when really he needed to push as hard as he could.
Raikonnen meanwhile was stuck behind Fisi, who was lapping between 0.7
and 1.6s a lap slower than the 1.37.6s that Hamilton had been previously
doing. I'm not sure I see any strong evidence that Hamilton was going
deliberately slower than he was capable of in that stint.
Quote:
|
How can the same newsgroup that pasted Rubens and Irvine for far smaller deficits suddenly be so blind? |
can see what you're getting upset about. If we discover that, for
example, Irvine qualified ahead of Schumacher and then spent the race in
dutiful second place loosing a good 1s+ per lap, you might find out the
hard way
--
Phil
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
#17
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
Phil Newnham wrote in news:5816dcF2ev0s9U1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: CatharticF1 wrote: Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in news:57unfnF2erp84U1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: CatharticF1 wrote: Richard Miller wrote in news:iuoHrR6XkeGGFw1a (AT) seasalter0 (DOT) demon.co.uk: Oooh, longer fuelled, defensive driving, in only his second race as against a double world champion, how many more reasons for the difference in time in those earlier laps do you need? If he were truly a second a lap off Alonso's pace under those conditions he wouldn't have the seat. You're making it up as you go along here. A second a lap under race conditions is not nearly the gap it is under qualifying conditions. They can lose more than that passing one backmarker - Kimi lost much more than that after his first pitstop stuck in traffic. Alonso pitted on lap 18, 2 laps before Hamilton, so even in clean air he'd have been quicker by a couple of tenths. On a low fuel load in Q2, Alonso was 6 tenths faster than Hamilton, and with fuel, nearly 8 tenths faster. So a second a lap seems entirely reasonable with Massa trying to climb into his gearbox. I'm making it up? You're talking about traffic at the start of a GP. Eh? The only traffic I mentioned was the traffic after the first pitstop where Kimi pitted relatively early and came out in behind several cars. Oh - you mentioned traffic around pitstops and passing backmarkers, a little odd when we're discussing an uninterrupted first stint |
eyes on the mirrors and driving whilst stuck behind traffic in order to
cast your "OMG 1s per LAP!" outrage into some kind of context.
Quote:
|
Give me a figure then Phil - tell me how much consistently slower per stint in clear air Driver A should be than Driver B before you get suspicious? This is a sport based on one or 2 tenths, not a second. 2 laps of fuel? Significant only if the interval had been a tenth or two, but not at ten times that. I'll restate it, because you appear to have missed it completely. In Q2 with almost no fuel, Alonso beat Hamilton by 0.6s. In Q3 with 2 laps less fuel, Alonso beat Hamilton by about 0.8s (nearest tenth), justifying the claim made by the commentators (Allen, I think, who knows more about fuel loads than anything else) that 1 lap of fuel is worth 0.1s. The fuel difference makes 0.2 of a second then. That Alonso had a better qualifying lap doesn't necessarily relate to race pace. You only need look at Kimi and Felipe to see that. So I'm accepting only 0.2 of a second. (Massa outqualified Kimi by 4 tenths, with only one lap less fuel yet Kimi had a solid pace advantage over Massa during the race.) |
not allowed to simply adjust the facts to make your case, you know.
Quote:
|
In the beginning of the race, he was between 1 and 1.4s a lap slower than Alonso, including the two laps where Massa went barrelling up the inside into T4. So he lost between 0.2 and 0.6s a lap more to Alonso than you might reasonably expect due to the pre-existing deficit. Laps 7 - 11 he managed, despite the close proximity of Kimi, to bring the deficit down to 0.6 to 0.7s a lap, now effectively performing better vs. Alonso than he did in Q3. During this time and before, Kimi and Hamilton were both consistently faster than quick Nick in 4th place, btw, so it's not like he was holding the whole field up. Even in laps 18 and 19, when Kimi had pitted, Hamilton only managed to better his own personal best lap by 0.1s, when really he needed to push as hard as he could. Raikonnen meanwhile was stuck behind Fisi, who was lapping between 0.7 and 1.6s a lap slower than the 1.37.6s that Hamilton had been previously doing. I'm not sure I see any strong evidence that Hamilton was going deliberately slower than he was capable of in that stint. So there remains imo 8 tenths a lap to be explained. And really I just can't believe the double standard here. Do you really believe that or is it just a pleasant explanation that suits your preference? |
accept 2 tenths from qualifying? Stop clutching at straws
Quote:
|
How can the same newsgroup that pasted Rubens and Irvine for far smaller deficits suddenly be so blind? You'll have to back that claim up with some posts and some numbers so we can see what you're getting upset about. If we discover that, for example, Irvine qualified ahead of Schumacher and then spent the race in dutiful second place loosing a good 1s+ per lap, you might find out the hard way It was a long running opinion (as you well know). But now I find explanations the tifosi never offered! So I take it you accept thatanything up to a second was easily explained, not team tactics, simply fuel loads, wing adjustments and fighting off the drivers behind you. |
simply accepting the one second a lap, I'm looking for reasons, and
there are plenty, not least that Hamilton never had the measure of
Alonso at any time during qually or the race. If he'd outqualified
Alonso and then was suddenly and inexplicably slow in the race you'd
have a point, but he wasn't, and you don't, and I'm certain that you
know it
Quote:
|
Somehow I don't imagine Kimi and Massa doing similarly would seem so easily explained. But I'll now have a good source of references |
the facts and ignore the evidence to suit your argument. When Massa
holds up the field for Kimi, if he does, it will be analysed from the
point of view of potential pace as I have done above. There is
absolutely no evidence that Hamilton was able to run at Alonso's pace
with the same fuel load at any time during the grand prix - he was only
quicker when he had 4 laps less fuel - worth 4 tenths on its own - and
fresh soft rubber which is said to be beyond its best after only a few laps.
--
Phil
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
not least that Hamilton never had the measure of Alonso at any time during qually or the race. If he'd outqualified Alonso and then was suddenly and inexplicably slow in the race you'd have a point, but he wasn't, and you don't, and I'm certain that you know it On a tangent, and not to muddy the waters as I know Brendan is struggling to keep up but I think he could have been much closer in qualifying than the final times suggest. I believed him when he said the spots of rain caused him to ease off. My guess as to the main reason he was so far off the pace throughout the race is simply his relative lack of experience in adjusting to very changeable conditions. It had rained overnight and the track was green at the start of the race. This would have thrown out the setup on most of the cars to varying degrees. I think Alonsos experience allowed him to adjust better to the varying conditions as the track rubbered in again, probably costing Lewis a couple of tenths by comparison. |
GP2 didn't have it, actually a lot more that just TC alone.. AFAIK.
--
Whats the scary thing about Michael Schumacher is hes missed two or
three other championships by the skin of his teeth. With a little twist
of fate we could soeasily be looking at seven times World Champion here.
Thats the worrying thing about it all.
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
"CatharticF1" <eferrari (AT) heaven (DOT) net> wrote in message news:Xns990E6B1051C03eferrariheavennet (AT) 202 (DOT) 83.64.15... "BigBird" <bigbird.usenet (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in news:57uudqF2elakdU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: "Phil Newnham" <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message news:57unfnF2erp84U1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net... CatharticF1 wrote: Richard Miller wrote in news:iuoHrR6XkeGGFw1a (AT) seasalter0 (DOT) demon.co.uk: Oooh, longer fuelled, defensive driving, in only his second race as against a double world champion, how many more reasons for the difference in time in those earlier laps do you need? If he were truly a second a lap off Alonso's pace under those conditions he wouldn't have the seat. You're making it up as you go along here. A second a lap under race conditions is not nearly the gap it is under qualifying conditions. They can lose more than that passing one backmarker - Kimi lost much more than that after his first pitstop stuck in traffic. Alonso pitted on lap 18, 2 laps before Hamilton, so even in clean air he'd have been quicker by a couple of tenths. On a low fuel load in Q2, Alonso was 6 tenths faster than Hamilton, and with fuel, nearly 8 tenths faster. So a second a lap seems entirely reasonable with Massa trying to climb into his gearbox. Here's how some of the numbers read. Excluding his top lap or two Hamiltons fastest laps were 0.5s slower than Alonsos. Hamilton averaged over a second a lap slower over just the first six laps. This includes nearly 3 seconds lost on the two laps where Felipe was playing silly buggers. After lap 6 Kimi was behind Lewis. Defending against Kimi cost significantly less time. The lie to Brendans theory is given by their respective inlaps. Hamiltons a full 0.5 seconds slower than Alonsos on the same fuel load. How does that fit? That's a lie.. it was less than one tenth slower. Imagine that! My apologies, I was of course referring to the last full lap before the inlap. I'm pretty sure you knew what I intended. LH 1:37,720 FA 137,081 This being the one lap where Lewis didn't have a Ferrari behind him and would be going all out to keep position. Is this lap not truly representative of Hamiltons pace? So a couple of simple questions is: 1. Is it reasonable to be a couple of tenths slower when carrying two extra laps of fuel and defending. 2. Is it plausible to lose an addtional 3/10ths when the car behind throws itself up the inside necessitating a switch back. 3. How much time is lost when your wetting your pants laughing that the fastest car on the circuit has just gone cross country. No answers Brendan? |
Quote:
|
So according to your theory then, finishing a minute behind your teammate over a race is perfectly explicable. Is that a question? I don't have a theory Brendan, I'm not playing your silly partisan game. I am introducing pertinent facts to the discussion that help put your accusations in perspective. You have been unable to give any response to the simple questions above because they make your accusation look rather feeble. If you explanations of teammates finishing a minute adrift you'll have to ask Rofl or Massa. We can play this game all day.. That's just it Brendan you are just playing games. You need to dismiss the facts to make any sense. |
legitimate gap and then findgin whatever reasons you come up with
automatically satisfactory.
Yet ignoring the simple fact that a second a lap is I would suggest in
the range of < 1% of what you would typically see.
Quote:
|
As I said before it's possible there were team orders but in the light of any factual evidence their effect would have been minimal and hence the probability was fairly minimal too. So there we have it. On one side of the argument 1. A higher fuel load 2. A car that was both oversteering and understeering. 3. A rookies pace versus a 2xWDC 4. Defensive driving against a kamikaze Brasilian in a significantly lighter faster car. |
for MS and Rubens/Eddie. 'setup problems', MS was a 7xWDC, Eddie had a
few cars behind him and stopped later etc..
The fuel load is 0.2 and is the ONLY absolute. You ignore the fact that
the only reason Lewis had pressure from the Ferraris may have been that
he was not pushing as hard as he could.
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
#20
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
CatharticF1 wrote: Phil Newnham wrote in news:5816dcF2ev0s9U1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: CatharticF1 wrote: Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in news:57unfnF2erp84U1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: CatharticF1 wrote: Richard Miller wrote in news:iuoHrR6XkeGGFw1a (AT) seasalter0 (DOT) demon.co.uk: Oooh, longer fuelled, defensive driving, in only his second race as against a double world champion, how many more reasons for the difference in time in those earlier laps do you need? If he were truly a second a lap off Alonso's pace under those conditions he wouldn't have the seat. You're making it up as you go along here. A second a lap under race conditions is not nearly the gap it is under qualifying conditions. They can lose more than that passing one backmarker - Kimi lost much more than that after his first pitstop stuck in traffic. Alonso pitted on lap 18, 2 laps before Hamilton, so even in clean air he'd have been quicker by a couple of tenths. On a low fuel load in Q2, Alonso was 6 tenths faster than Hamilton, and with fuel, nearly 8 tenths faster. So a second a lap seems entirely reasonable with Massa trying to climb into his gearbox. I'm making it up? You're talking about traffic at the start of a GP. Eh? The only traffic I mentioned was the traffic after the first pitstop where Kimi pitted relatively early and came out in behind several cars. Oh - you mentioned traffic around pitstops and passing backmarkers, a little odd when we're discussing an uninterrupted first stint I was making a comparison between time lost due to driving with both eyes on the mirrors and driving whilst stuck behind traffic in order to cast your "OMG 1s per LAP!" outrage into some kind of context. |
laughable and were you told that without knowing the drivers involved
you'd not think otherwise. That it would take traffic to make it LOOK
reasonable says a lot.
Quote:
|
Give me a figure then Phil - tell me how much consistently slower per stint in clear air Driver A should be than Driver B before you get suspicious? This is a sport based on one or 2 tenths, not a second. 2 laps of fuel? Significant only if the interval had been a tenth or two, but not at ten times that. I'll restate it, because you appear to have missed it completely. In Q2 with almost no fuel, Alonso beat Hamilton by 0.6s. In Q3 with 2 laps less fuel, Alonso beat Hamilton by about 0.8s (nearest tenth), justifying the claim made by the commentators (Allen, I think, who knows more about fuel loads than anything else) that 1 lap of fuel is worth 0.1s. The fuel difference makes 0.2 of a second then. That Alonso had a better qualifying lap doesn't necessarily relate to race pace. You only need look at Kimi and Felipe to see that. So I'm accepting only 0.2 of a second. (Massa outqualified Kimi by 4 tenths, with only one lap less fuel yet Kimi had a solid pace advantage over Massa during the race.) Massa was stuck behind a BMW for the vast majority of the race. You're not allowed to simply adjust the facts to make your case, you know. In the beginning of the race, he was between 1 and 1.4s a lap slower than Alonso, including the two laps where Massa went barrelling up the inside into T4. So he lost between 0.2 and 0.6s a lap more to Alonso than you might reasonably expect due to the pre-existing deficit. Laps 7 - 11 he managed, despite the close proximity of Kimi, to bring the deficit down to 0.6 to 0.7s a lap, now effectively performing better vs. Alonso than he did in Q3. During this time and before, Kimi and Hamilton were both consistently faster than quick Nick in 4th place, btw, so it's not like he was holding the whole field up. Even in laps 18 and 19, when Kimi had pitted, Hamilton only managed to better his own personal best lap by 0.1s, when really he needed to push as hard as he could. Raikonnen meanwhile was stuck behind Fisi, who was lapping between 0.7 and 1.6s a lap slower than the 1.37.6s that Hamilton had been previously doing. I'm not sure I see any strong evidence that Hamilton was going deliberately slower than he was capable of in that stint. So there remains imo 8 tenths a lap to be explained. And really I just can't believe the double standard here. Do you really believe that or is it just a pleasant explanation that suits your preference? Where is this 8 tenths? From your statement above that you'll only accept 2 tenths from qualifying? Stop clutching at straws |
absolutely.
Quote:
|
How can the same newsgroup that pasted Rubens and Irvine for far smaller deficits suddenly be so blind? You'll have to back that claim up with some posts and some numbers so we can see what you're getting upset about. If we discover that, for example, Irvine qualified ahead of Schumacher and then spent the race in dutiful second place loosing a good 1s+ per lap, you might find out the hard way It was a long running opinion (as you well know). But now I find explanations the tifosi never offered! So I take it you acceptthat anything up to a second was easily explained, not team tactics, simply fuel loads, wing adjustments and fighting off the drivers behind you. No, not at all. You're not reading what I'm writing, are you? I'm not simply accepting the one second a lap, I'm looking for reasons, and there are plenty, not least that Hamilton never had the measure of Alonso at any time during qually or the race. If he'd outqualified Alonso and then was suddenly and inexplicably slow in the race you'd have a point, but he wasn't, and you don't, and I'm certain that you know it |
prima facie facts point to the bleeding obvious that you're side
stepping.
Hamilton was in freefall away from Alonso and what was clear subsequently
is that he didn't need to be. From my post of averaged laptimes you can
see he had better pace than the Ferraris. And it was pointless him
pushing after the first stint because Alonso had already won.
Quote:
|
Somehow I don't imagine Kimi and Massa doing similarly would seem so easily explained. But I'll now have a good source of references No doubt when the situation is reversed you'll still be trying to warp the facts and ignore the evidence to suit your argument. |
I can just as easily say his tyres were a bad set, the car was nervous,
they made an adjustment at the stops, he had a lap more fuel, he was held
up fighting off the cars behind, he's not as quick as Kimi.
I'm not saying that it is impossible but it is extremely unlikely. But
come on Phil - if you think you've made your case on this one don't
bother questioning my 'evidence' subsequently or for any example with
Eddie and Rubens historically.
Quote:
|
When Massa holds up the field for Kimi, if he does, it will be analysed from the point of view of potential pace as I have done above. There is absolutely no evidence that Hamilton was able to run at Alonso's pace with the same fuel load at any time during the grand prix - he was only quicker when he had 4 laps less fuel - worth 4 tenths on its own - and fresh soft rubber which is said to be beyond its best after only a few laps. |
behind him, and if they had cars behind them in the race as well and were
losing time ... why did _anyone_ ever bother to question that do you
think?
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.