 | |
Team strategy
Formula 1 Formula 1 motor racing discusions (rec.autos.sport.f1)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#31
 
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
Re: Team strategy -
04-12-2007
, 06:57 PM
|
CatharticF1 wrote: 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. The quality of the raw data is unquestionable unless the FIA are lying 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. |
and only data you'll get.
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. The clear reasons were that Kimi was stuck for a few laps behind a much 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? |
fastest laps times at the end of the stint, not the beginning. I didn't
see any evidence that Fisi was much reducing Kimi's laptimes, I don't
think he got much within a second if at all, but I do agree it had an
effect.
Quote:
|
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. |
don't disagree with you analysis though.
Quote:
|
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). FFS. The interval is not legitimate for reasons we've been trying to explain. |
I just don't agree that it does.Quote:
|
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. |
pressure, so your observation is right - he probably didn't need to be so
worried once Massa had made a mistake.
Quote:
|
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. Eddie bottled that entire weekend, as I recall. I remember the 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. |
Irvine finished nearly a lap down I think. What really annoyed me was how
people blamed Schu for not trying when he absolutely distanced his
teammate.
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
#32
| ||||||
| ||||||
|
|
Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in news:586im0F2g52p9U1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: CatharticF1 wrote: Well you can always make that case, but really Phil the quality of the data could hardly be better. The quality of the raw data is unquestionable unless the FIA are lying 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. Well again I'd say you're being dismissive for a reason. This is the best and only data you'll get. |
flawed. The best data available is the lap-by-lap individual times.
Quote:
|
Oh don't pick on Kimi now! Though Hamilton's pace was good at the beginning of that stint and certainly whatever the reason it gave him a lead he could later take advantage of. The clear reasons were that Kimi was stuck for a few laps behind a much 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? Well istr that the Ferraris this season in testing and races get their fastest laps times at the end of the stint, not the beginning. I didn't see any evidence that Fisi was much reducing Kimi's laptimes, I don't think he got much within a second if at all, but I do agree it had an effect. |
any quicker (well he did, but only by about 0.1s) when he was in free
air than when Kimi was 0.5s behind him, but came out of the pits 6s up
the road from Kimi and by the time Fisi pitted, he had gained another 3s
on Kimi who was still stuck.
Quote:
|
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. Well as I posted elsewhere Kimi did pretty well given the engine.. I don't disagree with you analysis though. |
Quote:
|
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). FFS. The interval is not legitimate for reasons we've been trying to explain. I know you have I just don't agree that it does. |
Quote:
|
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. Thing is though, that Kimi just didn't have the grunt to put him under pressure, so your observation is right - he probably didn't need to be so worried once Massa had made a mistake. |
in his mirrors, driving defensively into corners, especially T1, and
that prevented him from keeping up with Alonso at that stage, even if he
could've, which again, I doubt. Kimi did keep within half a second of
him, and he wasn't to know for sure that Kimi couldn't press a button
and have some extra revs for just long enough to get a run on him. Also,
having overdriven the car in his attempts to keep Massa behind,
including locking up on several occasions, he was probably suffering
from knackered tyres by that point.
Quote:
|
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. Sadly he just didn't have enough pace. |
modern F1 unless he gives you a good chance to overtake, and Fisi
clearly didn't do that, or Kimi would've overtaken him. IMO, if he
could've stayed out even one more lap then it's Ferrari's fault for
timing the pitstop wrong.
--
Phil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/
#33
| |||
| |||
|
|
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. Well as I posted elsewhere Kimi did pretty well given the engine.. I don't disagree with you analysis though. So do you see now why I won't go anywhere near your average laptimes? |
the cars / drivers were capable of. With the many things that can
compromise a driver's pace, just looking at their N fastest helps
eliminate some static.
Quote:
|
FFS. The interval is not legitimate for reasons we've been trying to explain. I know you have I just don't agree that it does.That it does what? |
<snip>
Quote:
|
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. Sadly he just didn't have enough pace. Well it's impossible to have any more pace than the guy in front in modern F1 unless he gives you a good chance to overtake, and Fisi clearly didn't do that, or Kimi would've overtaken him. IMO, if he could've stayed out even one more lap then it's Ferrari's fault for timing the pitstop wrong. |
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
#34
| |||
| |||
|
|
Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in news:587vl4F2g11crU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: 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. Well as I posted elsewhere Kimi did pretty well given the engine.. I don't disagree with you analysis though. So do you see now why I won't go anywhere near your average laptimes? No - because they are the best (if an imperfect) way of finding the pace the cars / drivers were capable of. With the many things that can compromise a driver's pace, just looking at their N fastest helps eliminate some static. |
Instead, it pulls in all the static and distills it into one number,
which you then propose to compare with another number compiled from
different data from a driver racing under different circumstances on
different laps with a different fuel load. If I did that with my results
I'd get ripped apart.
Quote:
|
FFS. The interval is not legitimate for reasons we've been trying to explain. I know you have I just don't agree that it does.That it does what? Explains the 16 odd second gap. |
as hard as he could, and Hamilton had to make sure he didn't get
overtaken by two cars that should have been faster than he was. In his
second ever race in an F1 car.
Quote:
|
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. Sadly he just didn't have enough pace. Well it's impossible to have any more pace than the guy in front in modern F1 unless he gives you a good chance to overtake, and Fisi clearly didn't do that, or Kimi would've overtaken him. IMO, if he could've stayed out even one more lap then it's Ferrari's fault for timing the pitstop wrong. Well I guess both options were bad - sitting behind Lewis or Giancarlo! |
--
Phil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/
|
« 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.