2022 Hungarian Grand Prix - Hungaroring, July 29 - 31

[dxpetrov]

I'm sorry but this summation is just plain wrong unless you're reading into data what you want to see. And people shouldn't just blindly accept all these data interpretations as facts.

Anyone with the F1 app can simply 'replay live timing' which I've just done. Lewis was the fastest car in the last stint. Right until when he caught Sainz first and then Russell which off course slowed him down. After that, ten seconds behind with about 4 laps left it was surely just bring the car home. Noteworthy that Leclerc had newer soft tyres as well but wasn't faster. Leclerc also had no one to fight until finishing 0.3 behind Perez on the final lap. Being in the position he was fighting for every point he would have had every reason to be pushing to catch Perez.

To use the average speed over all of the last stint to say Leclerc was quickest is, well, assuning there's no wrong intent, plain wrong.

Also an aside, no data showed conclusively that Mercedes ran a low df setup. That is almost ridiculous to say that

You are correct. Smart man.
Dialtone does great work with his charts, but I agree with you that his data analysis of the laps (not the velocity traces - his trace interpretation is OK) are a bit too black and white.

I had a look a the data myself and Charles was a tenth to two tenths slower in comparable parts of their last stints. Dialtone just did a big sweeping average which is so not right. Context is important. When did the pitstop? Were they on similar tyres? where they battling or fighting through traffic? were they told to save fuel? Dirty air etc. Context is so important.

Agree Charles didn't have the pace on the softs for what ever reason was expecting him to gain on Perez and he didn't really.

I think they had the pace on the mediums, Charles in partuclar. Perhaps what we don't really know was was their first pit stop forced because tyre deg or panic was surprised the mediums didn't last much longer than the softs.

I feel like their were a bunch of things at play, Max's pace, The Mercs while I still don't think have the race pace Ferrari or RB, they have closed the gap to now where even a little slip by RB or Ferrari they can be ready to pounce. Red Bull forced the Mercs, the Mercs forced Ferarri knowing they weren't easy to overtake now. Ferrari were caught out again.


Dialtone does a great job often check by the replies post race to see hs breakdown. But as above there is an an element of interpretation - or as I made a point a few weeks ago sometimes data can mislead, I know watching football. You can watch a game see who wins, post match look at all the key stats that would normally point to a win and find it didn't really show in any of the key data watching the match showed (if that makes sense) Stats say team A should have won. But team B won because well

Yeah, he would be good fit for current Ferrari team - reading the stats but not watching the actual race.

[Gillian]

Gotta say that the bickering in these race threads has become much less worse. Maybe as nothing very controversial is going on, but still. Good to see.

There are fewer people here, I think, and so there are fewer people picking up and responding to any posts that are, shall we say, "fan baiting". Having said that, there are fewer of those type of posts in the first place - perhaps some people are having a forum holiday thanks to the mods. Either way, it's less toxic and so good news for the rest.

This is true and makes it more pleasant to read here.

[Gillian]

I'm sorry but this summation is just plain wrong unless you're reading into data what you want to see. And people shouldn't just blindly accept all these data interpretations as facts.

Anyone with the F1 app can simply 'replay live timing' which I've just done. Lewis was the fastest car in the last stint. Right until when he caught Sainz first and then Russell which off course slowed him down. After that, ten seconds behind with about 4 laps left it was surely just bring the car home. Noteworthy that Leclerc had newer soft tyres as well but wasn't faster. Leclerc also had no one to fight until finishing 0.3 behind Perez on the final lap. Being in the position he was fighting for every point he would have had every reason to be pushing to catch Perez.

To use the average speed over all of the last stint to say Leclerc was quickest is, well, assuning there's no wrong intent, plain wrong.

Also an aside, no data showed conclusively that Mercedes ran a low df setup. That is almost ridiculous to say that

You are correct. Smart man.
Dialtone does great work with his charts, but I agree with you that his data analysis of the laps (not the velocity traces - his trace interpretation is OK) are a bit too black and white.

I had a look a the data myself and Charles was a tenth to two tenths slower in comparable parts of their last stints. Dialtone just did a big sweeping average which is so not right. Context is important. When did the pitstop? Were they on similar tyres? where they battling or fighting through traffic? were they told to save fuel? Dirty air etc. Context is so important.

Agree Charles didn't have the pace on the softs for what ever reason was expecting him to gain on Perez and he didn't really.

I think they had the pace on the mediums, Charles in partuclar. Perhaps what we don't really know was was their first pit stop forced because tyre deg or panic was surprised the mediums didn't last much longer than the softs.

I feel like their were a bunch of things at play, Max's pace, The Mercs while I still don't think have the race pace Ferrari or RB, they have closed the gap to now where even a little slip by RB or Ferrari they can be ready to pounce. Red Bull forced the Mercs, the Mercs forced Ferarri knowing they weren't easy to overtake now. Ferrari were caught out again.


Dialtone does a great job often check by the replies post race to see hs breakdown. But as above there is an an element of interpretation - or as I made a point a few weeks ago sometimes data can mislead, I know watching football. You can watch a game see who wins, post match look at all the key stats that would normally point to a win and find it didn't really show in any of the key data watching the match showed (if that makes sense) Stats say team A should have won. But team B won because well

Applying that to this race the shouldn't we also consider the fact Leclerc didn't drive as fast as he maybe could have after the hard tire debacle? And exactly the opposite for Hamilton who at the same point in the race maybe could even smell a win!

It's hard to do a proper analysis while also taking all intangibles into account. You often see disclaimers like "he is cruising at this point", "he could go faster", etc but it hard to determine to what extent.

[Watto]

You are correct. Smart man.
Dialtone does great work with his charts, but I agree with you that his data analysis of the laps (not the velocity traces - his trace interpretation is OK) are a bit too black and white.

I had a look a the data myself and Charles was a tenth to two tenths slower in comparable parts of their last stints. Dialtone just did a big sweeping average which is so not right. Context is important. When did the pitstop? Were they on similar tyres? where they battling or fighting through traffic? were they told to save fuel? Dirty air etc. Context is so important.

Agree Charles didn't have the pace on the softs for what ever reason was expecting him to gain on Perez and he didn't really.

I think they had the pace on the mediums, Charles in partuclar. Perhaps what we don't really know was was their first pit stop forced because tyre deg or panic was surprised the mediums didn't last much longer than the softs.

I feel like their were a bunch of things at play, Max's pace, The Mercs while I still don't think have the race pace Ferrari or RB, they have closed the gap to now where even a little slip by RB or Ferrari they can be ready to pounce. Red Bull forced the Mercs, the Mercs forced Ferarri knowing they weren't easy to overtake now. Ferrari were caught out again.


Dialtone does a great job often check by the replies post race to see hs breakdown. But as above there is an an element of interpretation - or as I made a point a few weeks ago sometimes data can mislead, I know watching football. You can watch a game see who wins, post match look at all the key stats that would normally point to a win and find it didn't really show in any of the key data watching the match showed (if that makes sense) Stats say team A should have won. But team B won because well

Yeah, he would be good fit for current Ferrari team - reading the stats but not watching the actual race.

Most of the time I think he is pretty accurate. I do think I often learn about a cars/teams pace watch reading his breakdown, I don't think its intentional al all, I know all too well I've said something thinking it was a fair statement until someone pointed out something I missed.


Not trying to discourage DT, as I do genuinely look forward to his post race posts. (or post quali/FP)

[Spoutnik]

[PlatinumZealot]

Ok, so tried removing the first 2, LEC warming up his tires + outlap, so starting from 56 and removed 62 and 64 where Ham made his passes:

https://i.imgur.com/5IizZbW.jpeg

Still slower.

LEC: 1.22.375
HAM: 1.22.529
VER: 1.23.422
SAI: 1.23.733

Still convinced LEC wasn't fastest?

You know what?

I looked at the data myself.

The stints of Lewis and Charles are not really comparable, but we can force things a bit.
There were never close at all in tyre type/tyre life/fuel in their last two stints but for lap 57 to lap 60. A minuscule sample of 4 laps.

Lewis lap 57 to 60
81.386
81.942
81.831
81.805
average =81.741


Charles lap 57 to 60
81.622
81.988
81.762
81.890
average =81.8155


Lewis is faster here on older tyres. And even still, I wouldn't read much into this small sample. This is why data interpretation is important, or you will mislead people who are not numerically inclined.

Well said... where are you getting the lap times from ? I need them too

This came from racefans.co.uk lap charts. I plucked them manually from the charts.
I normally get from en.maclaren-f1 race lap data. But they havent put up the hungary data last i checked.

[Just_a_fan]

[101FlyingDutchman]

Gotta say that the bickering in these race threads has become much less worse. Maybe as nothing very controversial is going on, but still. Good to see.

There are fewer people here, I think, and so there are fewer people picking up and responding to any posts that are, shall we say, "fan baiting". Having said that, there are fewer of those type of posts in the first place - perhaps some people are having a forum holiday thanks to the mods. Either way, it's less toxic and so good news for the rest.

This is true and makes it more pleasant to read here.

Couldn’t agree more

[codetower]

Ferrari had the speed, their mistake was responding to the pit stops of soft runners Russell and Verstappen. Doing a short stint on mediums messed up their strategy. Lewis made his first stop on lap 30, the optimal for a medium medium soft strategy.

Their mistake is that they were scared to lose. If they had optimised their stints they could have had the 1-2 they were looking for.

You are right. And the worst part is leclerc's box on lap 20 just to jump sainz

He couldn't jump Russell, his pace was OK, he should have stayed out, use the tires he had, and build tire offset to Russell. That way M M S would be more viable too.
And this is not hindsight, this is pure logic.

But then they would have to tell sainz to move aside, and they don't want to do that. So stupid!
So best chance for ferrari winning (any) race is if sainz's engine explodes on lap 1

It almost seemed like this during the race. Almost like they don't want to be confrontational with him. It's almost like their chief strategist is Spanish himself and he is favoring his countryman.

[Scorpaguy]

I believe we have now evolved this season into one where we go into each race with 3 teams having a legitimate chance of winning. That is a good thing.

It's a bit late for the 2022 season, but if it translates to a full season on three-way fighting in 2023, that should be a vintage year.

...just a bit over halfway. Remember 1999, anything can happen. Personally I have enjoyed Toto's crash course in humility. Now, I reckon that Merc's sidepodless design is about to transition Toto into a lack of need for future humility and a return of that smirk we all hate (sans the Merc fans of course).

[Watto]

You are correct. Smart man.
Dialtone does great work with his charts, but I agree with you that his data analysis of the laps (not the velocity traces - his trace interpretation is OK) are a bit too black and white.

I had a look a the data myself and Charles was a tenth to two tenths slower in comparable parts of their last stints. Dialtone just did a big sweeping average which is so not right. Context is important. When did the pitstop? Were they on similar tyres? where they battling or fighting through traffic? were they told to save fuel? Dirty air etc. Context is so important.

Agree Charles didn't have the pace on the softs for what ever reason was expecting him to gain on Perez and he didn't really.

I think they had the pace on the mediums, Charles in partuclar. Perhaps what we don't really know was was their first pit stop forced because tyre deg or panic was surprised the mediums didn't last much longer than the softs.

I feel like their were a bunch of things at play, Max's pace, The Mercs while I still don't think have the race pace Ferrari or RB, they have closed the gap to now where even a little slip by RB or Ferrari they can be ready to pounce. Red Bull forced the Mercs, the Mercs forced Ferarri knowing they weren't easy to overtake now. Ferrari were caught out again.


Dialtone does a great job often check by the replies post race to see hs breakdown. But as above there is an an element of interpretation - or as I made a point a few weeks ago sometimes data can mislead, I know watching football. You can watch a game see who wins, post match look at all the key stats that would normally point to a win and find it didn't really show in any of the key data watching the match showed (if that makes sense) Stats say team A should have won. But team B won because well

Applying that to this race the shouldn't we also consider the fact Leclerc didn't drive as fast as he maybe could have after the hard tire debacle? And exactly the opposite for Hamilton who at the same point in the race maybe could even smell a win!

It's hard to do a proper analysis while also taking all intangibles into account. You often see disclaimers like "he is cruising at this point", "he could go faster", etc but it hard to determine to what extent.

Which makes things very very hard, there is always an element of opinion. The RB/Ferarri/Merc also have teams of people and no doubt specialized software to analyses everything so, its far from a knock on DT, I don't think I could do what he does.

[Andres125sx]

A car is either fast enough for pole or it isn't. No one can make a car go faster than it is physically capable of. George did a great job getting the car to give him the performance it has.

This is technically true and accurate, but don´t take into account cars are not driven by robots who get 100% out of each car.

Ironically this sort of statement underrate and overrate drivers role at the same time. Underrate because it ignores any driver can be faster or slower than any other driver, achieving results wich are higher or lower than the real position of the car (driver role actually can change car position).

Which is why I said George did a great job getting the car to perform for him.

I disagree that a driver can achieve a higher result than the car is capable of. All the driver can do is get as close to the car's maximum performance as possible. A driver can improve the car's position in a race by clever racing/strategy, yes, but the car has a single inherent best possible lap time no matter who is driving it - it's just that some drivers don't get as close to that time as others do.

The best drivers are the ones that are most consistently able to get close to a car's best possible lap time at any stage and do so lap after lap. That's what sets the Michaels, the Ayrtons, the Fernandos, the Lewises, the Maxes apart from the rest - the ability to get more of a car's performance for more of the time. Think about Lewis chasing down Max in Hungary or Max doing the same to Lewis in France. Both great drives, yes, but it was because they just drove the car as close to its available performance for lap after lap - they weren't driving faster than the car was capable. Michael used to be great at that - Brawn would tell him "you need 5 qualifying-style laps before pitting" and Michael would do 5 qualifying-style laps. No one "out drives" the car (or any other silliness that the media love to say to promote a narrative).

What if Russell gets 98% out of his car, and the rivals get 95%, so despite Mercedes is a slower car Rusell manage to put it on pole?

I´ve never used the term outdrive or whatever, but since drivers are not robots, yes, a really good lap can put X car higher than it should really be, if the driver did it better that the rest of drivers, or if they did some mistake

Media enjoy sensationalistic terms to get some clicks and views, but some others around here also enjoy sensationalism and statements like "none can outdrive his car because physics are physics". Yes, but drivers are drivers, not robots, so results can change drastically depending on drivers perfomance, wich means that cars can also qualify higher or lower than it should really be if the driver got from it more than his rivals, obviously he can´t get more than 100%, but he can certainly get more than his rivals

[Sieper]

George also said post race they might have went a bit too much on qualy set up. But he showed great qualies in F2, in the Williams (sometimes hard to benchmark, sometimes obviously) and now in Mercedes. So no surprises.

[Just_a_fan]

This is technically true and accurate, but don´t take into account cars are not driven by robots who get 100% out of each car.

Ironically this sort of statement underrate and overrate drivers role at the same time. Underrate because it ignores any driver can be faster or slower than any other driver, achieving results wich are higher or lower than the real position of the car (driver role actually can change car position).

Which is why I said George did a great job getting the car to perform for him.

I disagree that a driver can achieve a higher result than the car is capable of. All the driver can do is get as close to the car's maximum performance as possible. A driver can improve the car's position in a race by clever racing/strategy, yes, but the car has a single inherent best possible lap time no matter who is driving it - it's just that some drivers don't get as close to that time as others do.

The best drivers are the ones that are most consistently able to get close to a car's best possible lap time at any stage and do so lap after lap. That's what sets the Michaels, the Ayrtons, the Fernandos, the Lewises, the Maxes apart from the rest - the ability to get more of a car's performance for more of the time. Think about Lewis chasing down Max in Hungary or Max doing the same to Lewis in France. Both great drives, yes, but it was because they just drove the car as close to its available performance for lap after lap - they weren't driving faster than the car was capable. Michael used to be great at that - Brawn would tell him "you need 5 qualifying-style laps before pitting" and Michael would do 5 qualifying-style laps. No one "out drives" the car (or any other silliness that the media love to say to promote a narrative).

What if Russell gets 98% out of his car, and the rivals get 95%, so despite Mercedes is a slower car Rusell manage to put it on pole?

I said that - drivers can get more out of a car than others might.

I´ve never used the term outdrive or whatever, but since drivers are not robots, yes, a really good lap can put X car higher than it should really be, if the driver did it better that the rest of drivers, or if they did some mistake

Again, you're saying a driver can put a car higher than it should be. They can't. The car can either do the lap time or it can't. George did a sensational job, no one is denying it, but the time he did is what the car is capable of, no more.

Media enjoy sensationalistic terms to get some clicks and views, but some others around here also enjoy sensationalism and statements like "none can outdrive his car because physics are physics". Yes, but drivers are drivers, not robots, so results can change drastically depending on drivers perfomance, wich means that cars can also qualify higher or lower than it should really be if the driver got from it more than his rivals, obviously he can´t get more than 100%, but he can certainly get more than his rivals

It's the "higher than it should do" that annoys me. If the driver does a lap time, then it's because the car is capable of that time. All a driver can do is perform better than those in the similar cars (so just his team mate, in F1).

When Senna qualified in Monaco 1.4s faster than Prost in 1988, that was just because Prost wasn't able to get the lap time out of the car. The car was capable of doing it or Senna wouldn't have got the time he got. Likewise Hamilton being 1.5s faster than Bottas in qualifying for the 2020 Styrian Grand Prix. Hamilton just got more out of the car than Bottas did. The car was capable of that time (and perhaps even quicker).

[Sieper]

But imagine this, the car is not able of riding a kerb without unsettling the rear so you can’t go on the gas without being sure how the car will react until it has settled it self. But you turn in late aggressively jump the kerb as straight as possible and go on the gas too early and it works as this time it settled in the hoped way. Have you then been faster then what the car allows for, depending on your skill and the luck of the draw?