 | |
Team strategy
Formula 1 Formula 1 motor racing discusions (rec.autos.sport.f1)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#21
 
| ||||||
| ||||||
|
Re: Team strategy -
04-10-2007
, 10:51 PM
|
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. No - both you and Phil are starting from the pretext that it is a legitimate gap and then findgin whatever reasons you come up with automatically satisfactory. You know you are wrong Brendan. I have explained my reasoning. If you are simply going to continue to ignore it in all your replies then I must conclude it is because you have no answer. |
interpret them in a way to justify a second. I do not.
And were they Ferraris - you would not.
Quote:
|
Your accusation is not only wrong, on my count at least, but also highly hypocritical. |
Ferrari haven't done it.
Quote:
|
You clearly decided that the Ferraris were being backed up by a second a lap and have stubbornly refused any evidence to the contrary. |
turned.
Quote:
|
When it comes to discussing Ferraris performance you lack any objectivity whatsoever. |
Quote:
|
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. 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. [snip irrelevent] 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. No I don't Brendan. If you really believe that then you haven't read my posts to which you have supposedly replied. |
Quote:
|
You on the other hand choose not to consider ANY other possibilty other than both McLarens were capable of identical pace and any other difference was intentional. A remarkable about turn for someone who was arguing that Alonso was capable of running at a significantly quicker pace than Hamilton at the last race. |
But not a second a lap for 16 laps.
I'm sure you're not naive - what did the Easter Bunny bring you btw?
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
#22
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
|
|
Your whole argument is based around an assertion that Hamilton was capable of Alonsos pace throughout stint one of the race while there is no evidence of this and it is inconsistent with the data. |
Alonso's pace. I'm saying he was capable of doing better than a second a
lap slower.
Quote:
|
You have offered nothing to explain the pace from lap seven and nothing to explain why, if the pace was there it was never used even when Lewis was in clear air with no-one behind him. In effect a case has been made that could explain the pace we saw and you have offered nothing to support your own. |
suspicious when this happens.
Quote:
|
Don't be an arse. I have consistently tried to make the discussion objective while you meander down the line of accusation, what Ferrari have done in the past, and what I might say in some other circumstances. |
Quote:
|
No - I do accept Alonso was likely quicker. FINALLY. |
something you liked to play up to make my argument weaker.
Quote:
|
But not a second a lap for 16 laps. AND there you go straying from any facts again...as you always have to in order to maintain such an intractible position. Mislead, misdirect, exagerate. |
*I* mislead..
On lap 16 the interval was over 15 seconds. Look it up and stop lying.
Quote:
|
No-one has suggested Alonso was a second quicker than Lewis. Two final simple questions for you Brendan. What chance a straight and honest answer. On how many laps was Lewis close to a full second off Alonsos pace during that first stint (you imply 16 above). |
a second a lap over the first stint.
Quote:
|
On how many laps during his first stint was he able to run within half a second of Alonsos first stint pace. |
nowhere! If I say lots, you say "A ha! - he *was* going quickly", and if
I say hardly any you say "See - he couldn't go faster". Waste someone
else's time.
Quote:
|
Oh and a parting thought for you. Why did Lewis find it neccesary to lock up his brakes so frequently in the opening laps if he was driving the car so far within the limits. |
you opportunites present that wouldn't otherwise. And you wonder why I
question your logic..!
--
CatharticF1
'What you thought was freedom is just greed'
#23
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
|
Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in news:581clhF2fa39iU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: CatharticF1 wrote: Phil Newnham wrote in news:5816dcF2ev0s9U1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: CatharticF1 wrote: 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. Oh Phil - the point remains, you should realise that 1 sec a lap is 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. |
has to be well within - because you'd presumably call 0.9s laughable too
- half a second of his double world champion team mate to be considered
to be making a proper effort? You really want me to go back through the
archives of F1 and prove that not to be the case? 1s a lap under race
conditions is not a big disadvantage to have, especially considering the
experience gap.
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? Where is this 8 tenths? From your statement above that you'll only accept 2 tenths from qualifying? Stop clutching at straws  This is my point! I think there's an 8 tenths gap you can't explain absolutely. |
every single time two teammates are not recording exactly the same
laptimes. Perhaps, just perhaps, that 8 tenths is due partly to setup,
partly to driver experience, and partly due to having two Ferraris
climbing into Hamilton's gearbox? No?
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 Well as I said to the Bird, you're all starting from the wrong end. The 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. |
statistics can be contrived to prove anything. His fastest laps were
recorded under entirely different conditions - different tyres,
different fuel load, different front wing setting and different position
relative to other cars. You can't simply average the times throughout
the race. If you really believe that an F1 car does not change the way
it handles and its performance as the track rubbers in (lets not forget
that they had several hours rain and the track was very green at the
start - clearly the grip levels 22 laps in will be completely different)
then you've been not concentrating every single time you've been
watching an F1 race.
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. What are these facts! |
shows how well they understood the circuit, and their relative pace lap
by lap. Averages and fastest laps only show the performance over a
narrow set of circumstances - even your own averages show that the more
laps you include, the worse Hamilton's performance becomes, relative to
Alonso. If the Ferraris had crashed into each other in the first turn,
we would be talking about a completely different story, one where Alonso
showed Hamilton who's boss after the first race where it looked like
Hamilton might have had the upper hand. But in all the excitement,
Hamilton probably never stopped to think that he'd been completely
outraced by his team-mate - and in only his second race in F1 he
probably wouldn't be that bothered.
Quote:
|
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. |
he also probably isn't as quick as Kimi - I wouldn't be surprised if
there are races where he's slower, but Massa's been claiming all winter
that he's going to be better, so if he doesn't show it, that will be
embarrassing for him. Hamilton on the other hand just has to get vaguely
close to Alonso and everyone's worshipping at his feet because he's new
- no one really expects him to be able to match Alonso's race pace and
I'm surprised that you do.
Quote:
|
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. |
claimed that Eddie or Rubens were deliberately holding people up, and
I'm struggling to think of many occasions where they did or could.
There's also a marked difference between driving a bit slower than your
teammate in order to create a gap when you have something in your
pocket, and clearly driving as fast as you can with the back of the car
wandering about and making mistakes and nearly letting Massa through -
in fact Massa should've been through but for his own carelessness. If
Hamilton was trying to hold Massa up, he was doing a very bad job of it.
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. And Eddie and Rubens were almost never as quick as Michael, qualified 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? |
Schumacher, and then backed Hakkinen up so that Schumacher could get
past, and then proceeded to lap very slowly at his favourite track where
historically he had always been really excellent and in fact had
previously won. That's the kind of backup evidence you would need to
convince me that Hamilton was deliberately backing up the Ferraris, and
there is none, only your contrived notion that 1s per lap is a lot.
--
Phil
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
#24
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
|
Oh Phil - the point remains, you should realise that 1 sec a lap is 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. Rubbish. You're seriously telling me that a rookie in his second race has to be well within - because you'd presumably call 0.9s laughable too - half a second of his double world champion team mate to be considered to be making a proper effort? You really want me to go back through the archives of F1 and prove that not to be the case? 1s a lap under race conditions is not a big disadvantage to have, especially considering the experience gap. |
unlikely to be entirely a case of him being incapable imo.
<snip>
Quote:
|
Where is this 8 tenths? From your statement above that you'll only accept 2 tenths from qualifying? Stop clutching at straws This is my point! I think there's an 8 tenths gap you can't explain absolutely. Well then there is always going to be a gap you can't explain absolutely every single time two teammates are not recording exactly the same laptimes. Perhaps, just perhaps, that 8 tenths is due partly to setup, partly to driver experience, and partly due to having two Ferraris climbing into Hamilton's gearbox? No? |
asked of the driver. It is extremely unlikely that it is explained by
anything aside from tyre distress or some mechanical problem. It is not
impossible, I agree but again I believe the size of the gap - not the gap
itself is most decisive.
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 Well as I said to the Bird, you're all starting from the wrong end. The 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. Rubbish. From your post of average laptimes all you can see is that statistics can be contrived to prove anything. |
Quote:
|
His fastest laps were recorded under entirely different conditions - different tyres, |
better if you pick 8 or 10.
Quote:
|
different fuel load, different front wing setting and different position relative to other cars. You can't simply average the times throughout the race. |
representative idea of pace. You know that - so why try this angle?
Quote:
|
If you really believe that an F1 car does not change the way it handles and its performance as the track rubbers in (lets not forget that they had several hours rain and the track was very green at the start - clearly the grip levels 22 laps in will be completely different) then you've been not concentrating every single time you've been watching an F1 race. |
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. What are these facts! The only relevant facts are their relative pace in qualifying, which shows how well they understood the circuit, and their relative pace lap by lap. Averages and fastest laps only show the performance over a narrow set of circumstances - even your own averages show that the more laps you include, the worse Hamilton's performance becomes, relative to Alonso. |
he had to Kimi. What else would you expect?
Quote:
|
If the Ferraris had crashed into each other in the first turn, we would be talking about a completely different story, one where Alonso showed Hamilton who's boss after the first race where it looked like Hamilton might have had the upper hand. But in all the excitement, Hamilton probably never stopped to think that he'd been completely outraced by his team-mate - and in only his second race in F1 he probably wouldn't be that bothered. |
his helmet.
Quote:
|
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. About who? Massa? Only if we see it on screen. Massa isn't a rookie and he also probably isn't as quick as Kimi - I wouldn't be surprised if there are races where he's slower, but Massa's been claiming all winter that he's going to be better, so if he doesn't show it, that will be embarrassing for him. Hamilton on the other hand just has to get vaguely close to Alonso and everyone's worshipping at his feet because he's new - no one really expects him to be able to match Alonso's race pace and I'm surprised that you do. 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. You've not brought up any specific races or posts where people have claimed that Eddie or Rubens were deliberately holding people up, and I'm struggling to think of many occasions where they did or could. |
in the right direction. Feeling lucky?
Quote:
|
I'm thinking of a specific race at Suzuka, where Irvine outqualified Schumacher, and then backed Hakkinen up so that Schumacher could get past, and then proceeded to lap very slowly at his favourite track where historically he had always been really excellent and in fact had previously won. That's the kind of backup evidence you would need to convince me that Hamilton was deliberately backing up the Ferraris, and there is none, only your contrived notion that 1s per lap is a lot. |
couldn't keep up with Schu. So that proves he wasn't deliberately going
slower the other time - doesn't it. Aren't facts grand..
Wanna argue that one, hmm?
--
CatharticF1
'What you thought was freedom is just greed'
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
BigBird wrote in news:583q8iF2fk3onU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: snip Two final simple questions for you Brendan. What chance a straight and honest answer. On how many laps was Lewis close to a full second off Alonsos pace during that first stint (you imply 16 above). I'm implying nothing, merely pointing out that on average it was roughly a second a lap over the first stint. On how many laps during his first stint was he able to run within half a second of Alonsos first stint pace. What size shoe does a crash test dummy take? It's irrelevant. That leads nowhere! If I say lots, you say "A ha! - he was going quickly", and if I say hardly any you say "See - he couldn't go faster". Waste someone else's time. |
--
Paul-B Formula 1 - cheat-free version here now.
#26
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Phil Newnham wrote in news:583qicF2fig48U1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: Well then there is always going to be a gap you can't explain absolutely every single time two teammates are not recording exactly the same laptimes. Perhaps, just perhaps, that 8 tenths is due partly to setup, partly to driver experience, and partly due to having two Ferraris climbing into Hamilton's gearbox? No? I think that any time this happens there would be very serious questions asked of the driver. It is extremely unlikely that it is explained by anything aside from tyre distress or some mechanical problem. It is not impossible, I agree but again I believe the size of the gap - not the gap itself is most decisive. |
know why he was slow in that stage of the race, that's entirely normal.
But it's his 2nd Grand Prix - he's still learning. You seem to be
expecting a vast amount from a rookie, just because he got in the way of
a Ferrari.
Quote:
|
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. Rubbish. From your post of average laptimes all you can see is that statistics can be contrived to prove anything. Even 'facts'... |
track condition, the fuel load, the tyres, anything. Useless, pretty much.
Quote:
|
His fastest laps were recorded under entirely different conditions - different tyres, Best 16 laps same as Kimi and *better* than Massa, and it doesn't get better if you pick 8 or 10. |
Hamilton, then bottled it and spent the entire rest of the race behind a
BMW. Do you really expect him to be able to go quicker than Heidfeld
whilst still being behind him? As for Kimi, he spent his first stint
stuck behind Hamilton, then long fueled for his second stint due to
stopping relatively early the first time, then in the final stint found
some pace out of nowhere and dragged Hamilton back in. His best times
were set at a completely different stage of the race!
Quote:
|
different fuel load, different front wing setting and different position relative to other cars. You can't simply average the times throughout the race. No - the idea behind the average of the N best laps is to get a more representative idea of pace. You know that - so why try this angle? |
that the more laps you include, the worse the deficit. So he was only
able to go as quick as Alonso at one stage during the whole race - when
he was short fueled for the second stint and running on fresh soft
rubber on a rubbered in track. That he was quickest under those
conditions really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Quote:
|
If you really believe that an F1 car does not change the way it handles and its performance as the track rubbers in (lets not forget that they had several hours rain and the track was very green at the start - clearly the grip levels 22 laps in will be completely different) then you've been not concentrating every single time you've been watching an F1 race. Irrelevant - they were all on the same track. |
far as possible with the same fuel load, and don't try to claim that
averaging over the length of the race is somehow representative of
relative pace when the track conditions were changing all the time.
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. What are these facts! The only relevant facts are their relative pace in qualifying, which shows how well they understood the circuit, and their relative pace lap by lap. Averages and fastest laps only show the performance over a narrow set of circumstances - even your own averages show that the more laps you include, the worse Hamilton's performance becomes, relative to Alonso. Of course! He spent 16 laps going slowly and the last stint using the gap he had to Kimi. What else would you expect? |
he was slower, wasn't he? When he was clear of the Ferraris, during the
stages of the race where he needed to push hard to stay ahead, he was
unable to until he had taken his first pitstop and put on new tyres, and
even with the new tyres he was only able to hold a good pace for a few
laps. In the period following Kimi's first stop he was stuck behind
Fisi, and that was lucky for Hamilton because it meant he managed to
extend his advantage because Kimi was delayed - at the end of Hamilton's
first lap after the pitstop there was something like 6 seconds between
him and Kimi, up from 0.5s before the stop, and all gained in just 3 or
4 laps. That's almost 1.5s a lap! Kimi should just give up now, he's
clearly useless if he's that much slower than Lewis! Or could it be that
circumstances intervened?
Quote:
|
If the Ferraris had crashed into each other in the first turn, we would be talking about a completely different story, one where Alonso showed Hamilton who's boss after the first race where it looked like Hamilton might have had the upper hand. But in all the excitement, Hamilton probably never stopped to think that he'd been completely outraced by his team-mate - and in only his second race in F1 he probably wouldn't be that bothered. I agree Fred is boss - just not by quite that much. Or Lewis can hang up his helmet. |
Quote:
|
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. You've not brought up any specific races or posts where people have claimed that Eddie or Rubens were deliberately holding people up, and I'm struggling to think of many occasions where they did or could. If you really believe this I will bet you ONE MILLION DOLLARS and point you in the right direction. Feeling lucky? |
immediately recall any. If you're prepared to point some out then maybe
I can illustrate what differences exist between that example and this.
Otherwise you're just bringing it up as a distraction from the point.
Quote:
|
I'm thinking of a specific race at Suzuka, where Irvine outqualified Schumacher, and then backed Hakkinen up so that Schumacher could get past, and then proceeded to lap very slowly at his favourite track where historically he had always been really excellent and in fact had previously won. That's the kind of backup evidence you would need to convince me that Hamilton was deliberately backing up the Ferraris, and there is none, only your contrived notion that 1s per lap is a lot. And yet in 1999 Irvine who could have won the WDC if he'd managed better couldn't keep up with Schu. So that proves he wasn't deliberately going slower the other time - doesn't it. Aren't facts grand.. |
weekend relative to Schumacher at any point? And how much support he
got? I'd even be suspicious of Schumacher attempting to sabotage
Irvine's race by making sure he was put in the most psychologically
difficult situation possible, to make sure that Schumacher would retain
his chance of being the hero who broke Ferrari's duck, who brought WDC
victory to a team he considered to be his, and not Irvine's. That race
was a one off in any way you consider it.
--
Phil
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
#27
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
|
matched Alonso's pace. I'm saying he was capable of doing better than a second a lap slower. How disingenuous. You have consistently rubbished anything other than 0.2s due to fuel load. 0.5s was suggested based on the lap data and you simply rubbished it without offering any support or compromise. |
so much time in the first stint.
Quote:
|
No no - I'm sure you're right. It is from now on not unexpected nor suspicious when this happens. |
his inlap was almost identical to Alonso's - despite you're lying about
it. Explain that?
Quote:
|
Don't be a plonker. How can you discuss the gap without discussing their relative pace. If Lewis had picked up his pace after Kimi pitted your case would have been made. The FACT is he didn't. On a lap where drivers often do pick up their pace (just before a pit stop) he didn't. Kimi pitted from just 0.5s behind him. Kimi who was clearly capable of going faster was going to emerge of fresh rubber, the same fresh rubber on which Lewis would later set the fastest lap of the day. Everything suggests Lewis with very low fuel is going to pin the next lap, and what do we get? an extra tenth? 0.5s slower than Alonsos respective lap. |
Quote:
|
But not a second a lap for 16 laps. AND there you go straying from any facts again...as you always have to in order to maintain such an intractible position. Mislead, misdirect, exagerate. Sure Mr "in-lap 8 tenths faster" (I think you wrongly stated) .. No I never said anything about a lap being "8 tenths faster". Referring to one lap earlier I said Hamilton was 0.5s slower than Alonso in clear air with no-one close behind him. It is a FACT it is true. |
Hamiltons a full 0.5 seconds slower than Alonsos on the same fuel load.
How does that fit?"
You lied. I didn't.
Quote:
|
*I* mislead.. Could you be any cheaper. My facts were essentially correct, |
Quote:
|
On lap 16 the interval was over 15 seconds. On dear, Brendan. It wasn't "a second a lap for 16 laps" though was it. That would be a VERY VERY different. That would suggest Hamilton did not manage to pick up the pace once Massa had stopped harassing him from behind, whereas in FACT the gap/lap came down significantly after Massas excursion. Look it up and stop lying. But I'm not the one lying am I Brendan. |
the effect of a variable pace with an outcome of roughly a second a lap
is somehow indicative of something very different to a uniform deficit.
Don't waste my time.
Quote:
|
No-one has suggested Alonso was a second quicker than Lewis. Two final simple questions for you Brendan. What chance a straight and honest answer. On how many laps was Lewis close to a full second off Alonsos pace during that first stint (you imply 16 above). I'm implying nothing, merely pointing out that on average it was roughly a second a lap over the first stint. No straight answer. What a surprise. On how many laps during his first stint was he able to run within half a second of Alonsos first stint pace. What size shoe does a crash test dummy take? It's irrelevant. That leads nowhere! If I say lots, you say "A ha! - he *was* going quickly", and if I say hardly any you say "See - he couldn't go faster". Waste someone else's time. Again no straight answer. What a surprise. The truth is you have NO answer for Hamiltons lack of pace in clear air. It wholly undermines you argument. |
doesn't hurt *my* argument.
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
#28
| |||
| |||
|
|
CatharticF1 wrote: BigBird wrote in news:583q8iF2fk3onU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: snip Two final simple questions for you Brendan. What chance a straight and honest answer. On how many laps was Lewis close to a full second off Alonsos pace during that first stint (you imply 16 above). I'm implying nothing, merely pointing out that on average it was roughly a second a lap over the first stint. On how many laps during his first stint was he able to run within half a second of Alonsos first stint pace. What size shoe does a crash test dummy take? It's irrelevant. That leads nowhere! If I say lots, you say "A ha! - he was going quickly", and if I say hardly any you say "See - he couldn't go faster". Waste someone else's time. How about straight answers, Brendan? |
arguments use to handle discussions is to pursue a point that is
(perhaps) tangentially relevant but not core to the main argument. And
then they can claim this victory in some way makes their case.
The '0.5 second' interval is arbitrary and not significant. If he'd only
dropped half a second on average I don't think we'd be having this
discussion.
Hamilton's in-lap was almost identical to Alonso. Bird lied about that,
and for the laps Kimi wasn't behind Hamilton his pace deficit to Alonso
was significantly less than the average for the first stint.
None of that will sway him though, as if the raw figure wasn't enough.
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
#29
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
Irrelevant - they were all on the same track. So compare the laptimes taken at the same time on the same track and as far as possible with the same fuel load, and don't try to claim that averaging over the length of the race is somehow representative of relative pace when the track conditions were changing all the time. |
data could hardly be better.
Quote:
|
Of course! He spent 16 laps going slowly and the last stint using the gap he had to Kimi. What else would you expect? He spent hardly any laps at all being as fast as Alonso - even on best 8 he was slower, wasn't he? When he was clear of the Ferraris, during the stages of the race where he needed to push hard to stay ahead, he was unable to until he had taken his first pitstop and put on new tyres, and even with the new tyres he was only able to hold a good pace for a few laps. In the period following Kimi's first stop he was stuck behind Fisi, and that was lucky for Hamilton because it meant he managed to extend his advantage because Kimi was delayed - at the end of Hamilton's first lap after the pitstop there was something like 6 seconds between him and Kimi, up from 0.5s before the stop, and all gained in just 3 or 4 laps. That's almost 1.5s a lap! Kimi should just give up now, he's clearly useless if he's that much slower than Lewis! Or could it be that circumstances intervened? |
Though Hamilton's pace was good at thebeginning of that stint and certainly whatever the reason it gave him a
lead he could later take advantage of.
Quote:
|
If the Ferraris had crashed into each other in the first turn, we would be talking about a completely different story, one where Alonso showed Hamilton who's boss after the first race where it looked like Hamilton might have had the upper hand. But in all the excitement, Hamilton probably never stopped to think that he'd been completely outraced by his team-mate - and in only his second race in F1 he probably wouldn't be that bothered. I agree Fred is boss - just not by quite that much. Or Lewis can hang up his helmet. Based on just one race weekend? Now who's extrapolating like mad? |
legitimate would be worrying. (one of the reasons I am sceptical).
Quote:
|
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. You've not brought up any specific races or posts where people have claimed that Eddie or Rubens were deliberately holding people up, and I'm struggling to think of many occasions where they did or could. If you really believe this I will bet you ONE MILLION DOLLARS and point you in the right direction. Feeling lucky? I didn't say there weren't many occasions, I just said I can't immediately recall any. If you're prepared to point some out then maybe I can illustrate what differences exist between that example and this. Otherwise you're just bringing it up as a distraction from the point. I'm thinking of a specific race at Suzuka, where Irvine outqualified Schumacher, and then backed Hakkinen up so that Schumacher could get past, and then proceeded to lap very slowly at his favourite track where historically he had always been really excellent and in fact had previously won. That's the kind of backup evidence you would need to convince me that Hamilton was deliberately backing up the Ferraris, and there is none, only your contrived notion that 1s per lap is a lot. And yet in 1999 Irvine who could have won the WDC if he'd managed better couldn't keep up with Schu. So that proves he wasn't deliberately going slower the other time - doesn't it. Aren't facts grand.. Remind me where he qualified in 1999? And how fast he was during that weekend relative to Schumacher at any point? And how much support he got? I'd even be suspicious of Schumacher attempting to sabotage Irvine's race by making sure he was put in the most psychologically difficult situation possible, to make sure that Schumacher would retain his chance of being the hero who broke Ferrari's duck, who brought WDC victory to a team he considered to be his, and not Irvine's. That race was a one off in any way you consider it. |
didn't have the pace and it was up to Schumacher to beat Mika to give
Eddie the title. Many people actually suggested that Schu wasn't trying -
and yet he was a good way up the track from Eddie on (as you said) a
track where Eddie was something of a special.
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
#30
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in news:5841luF2fbbknU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: Irrelevant - they were all on the same track. So compare the laptimes taken at the same time on the same track and as far as possible with the same fuel load, and don't try to claim that averaging over the length of the race is somehow representative of relative pace when the track conditions were changing all the time. Well you can always make that case, but really Phil the quality of the data could hardly be better. |
with their timing. The quality of your average data is absolutely
questionable because averaging the fastest laps per driver necessarily
means that each average is based on different race laps under different
track conditions and fuel loads and traffic etc etc etc for each man.
It's disingenuous and you're only interested in it because it vaguely
supports your point. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Quote:
|
Of course! He spent 16 laps going slowly and the last stint using the gap he had to Kimi. What else would you expect? He spent hardly any laps at all being as fast as Alonso - even on best 8 he was slower, wasn't he? When he was clear of the Ferraris, during the stages of the race where he needed to push hard to stay ahead, he was unable to until he had taken his first pitstop and put on new tyres, and even with the new tyres he was only able to hold a good pace for a few laps. In the period following Kimi's first stop he was stuck behind Fisi, and that was lucky for Hamilton because it meant he managed to extend his advantage because Kimi was delayed - at the end of Hamilton's first lap after the pitstop there was something like 6 seconds between him and Kimi, up from 0.5s before the stop, and all gained in just 3 or 4 laps. That's almost 1.5s a lap! Kimi should just give up now, he's clearly useless if he's that much slower than Lewis! Or could it be that circumstances intervened? Oh don't pick on Kimi now! Though Hamilton's pace was good at thebeginning of that stint and certainly whatever the reason it gave him a lead he could later take advantage of. |
slower car - which created most of the gap - and Hamilton was able to
get some pace out of his fresh tyres on a short stint fuel load. Do you
disagree?
When Fisi pitted, Kimi was 9.6s behind Hamilton, who on that lap was
still going fast, 1.37.25. The next lap, Hamilton dropped back to
1.37.9, but Kimi was still back in the 1.38s and not gaining. The lap
after that Hamilton was in the 1.38s but Kimi was still slower. I
suspect that Kimi's tyres were already past their best by that point,
having been stuck behind Fisi during the period when they're at their
most useful. For the next 5 or 6 laps Hamilton returned to his first
stint pace of 1.37.8 ish, only catching Alonso because Fred was cruising
by this point. Kimi meanwhile continued to drop back - now, do you
suppose that he was unable to go faster at this stage in the race or
unwilling? Was he deliberately driving slower than Hamilton because he'd
been told to? If you should be worrying about anyone's pace, Kimi's
second stint pace is where you should look, instead of picking on the
new guy.
Lap 34, Kimi finally picks the pace up, and Hamilton responds. Up to
Hamilton's pitstop they're both running faster than Alonso and clearly
trying to make a race of it. As far as I can tell, this is where Kimi
puts in his best laps of the race - certainly so far. On lap 40 he's
capable of a 1.37.2, and the end of the next lap, he pits. And then in
the run to the line I think we already know what happens - Hamilton
still runs about 1.38s though, just either side, and it's Kimi who has
the pace, about 0.5s quicker.
Quote:
|
If the Ferraris had crashed into each other in the first turn, we would be talking about a completely different story, one where Alonso showed Hamilton who's boss after the first race where it looked like Hamilton might have had the upper hand. But in all the excitement, Hamilton probably never stopped to think that he'd been completely outraced by his team-mate - and in only his second race in F1 he probably wouldn't be that bothered. I agree Fred is boss - just not by quite that much. Or Lewis can hang up his helmet. Based on just one race weekend? Now who's extrapolating like mad? No - I'm not saying based on one weekend, just that the interval if legitimate would be worrying. (one of the reasons I am sceptical). |
explain. In 2 of the laps you're counting, Massa overtook Hamilton, who
had to take avoiding action and then pass him again. You might expect
that to slow him down a bit, and it clearly did. On the previous 2 laps,
Massa was 0.056s behind and 0.250s behind as they crossed the line. You
might expect, under those circumstances, that Hamilton would have to
take a very defensive line into the first corner, which would cost him
time, and it did. Lap 7, he didn't have Massa breathing down his neck,
and he was suddenly 0.6s quicker than his previous lap. After that he
got a bit quicker slowly as the pressure from behind reduced - Kimi
didn't really try anything although from the way Hamilton was looking in
his mirrors all the time you'd think he was worried about it. After all,
he was being followed by the guy most people expect to win the WDC this
year. But then Hamilton's free air pace, when he was the race leader,
was 1.37.720 - against Alonso who was dipping into the 1.36.9 mark. If
Kimi had not been held by Fisi at this point in the race, he would've
beaten Hamilton with a few quick laps, easily.
Quote:
|
I'm thinking of a specific race at Suzuka, where Irvine outqualified Schumacher, and then backed Hakkinen up so that Schumacher could get past, and then proceeded to lap very slowly at his favourite track where historically he had always been really excellent and in fact had previously won. That's the kind of backup evidence you would need to convince me that Hamilton was deliberately backing up the Ferraris, and there is none, only your contrived notion that 1s per lap is a lot. And yet in 1999 Irvine who could have won the WDC if he'd managed better couldn't keep up with Schu. So that proves he wasn't deliberately going slower the other time - doesn't it. Aren't facts grand.. Remind me where he qualified in 1999? And how fast he was during that weekend relative to Schumacher at any point? And how much support he got? I'd even be suspicious of Schumacher attempting to sabotage Irvine's race by making sure he was put in the most psychologically difficult situation possible, to make sure that Schumacher would retain his chance of being the hero who broke Ferrari's duck, who brought WDC victory to a team he considered to be his, and not Irvine's. That race was a one off in any way you consider it. Schu on pole (Mika next to him) and Eddie in fifth. In simple terms Eddie didn't have the pace and it was up to Schumacher to beat Mika to give Eddie the title. Many people actually suggested that Schu wasn't trying - and yet he was a good way up the track from Eddie on (as you said) a track where Eddie was something of a special. |
commentators making the point that normally he was quicker than anyone
around Suzuka. There are 2 possible reasons - he bottled it, or Ferrari
bottled it for him for political reasons. Either way I don't think it's
relevant to the Malaysian GP.
--
Phil
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
|
« 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.