Spanish GP 2011 - Barcelona

[raymondu999]

EDIT: Wrong thread; sorry

[beelsebob]

There were also non-DRS overtakes, such as Vettel carving through the mid field after his 2nd (?) stop

Right, but on much fresher tyres. The thing I think we're seeing here is that most of the overtaking is due to tyres, not the DRS. As Vettel and Hamilton were on roughly equal tyres for the whole stint, no overtaking happened.

[andartop]

I've read quite a few good jokes in this forum, but calling the track layout "luck" must qualify for the top 3.

The one about the "other" cars trying to stay on the lead lap hurt a bit, but was still a good one, though nowhere near!

[komninosm]

Not so clear cut now; 33.4% for Seb and 35.0% for Ham

Poll
Who is your man of the Spanish GP?
Vettel
21%21%
Hamilton
41%41%
Button
9%9%
Alonso
15%15%
Schumacher
7%7%
Kovalainen
2%2%
Someone else
6%6%

[kalinka]

I've read quite a few good jokes in this forum, but calling the track layout "luck" must qualify for the top 3.

Then how would you call Monaco layout in 1992 when Senna wins ahead of Mansell in Williams which car won 10 out of 16 races, some of them by a margin over 30-40sec. It was no joke it was the layout that allowed Senna to stay ahead after he get ahead of Mansell who lost a wheelnut 7 laps before the end of the race. Mansell set a lap record almost 2sec faster than Senna in those closing laps. You really think that track layout has nothing to do with driver in front being lucky because of that?

[andartop]

Luck is a random happening (fortunate or othwerwise) that has nothing to do with one's actions.
If you lose a wheelnut while leading, 7 laps before the end of the race, it is bad luck indeed (or bad engineering).
The layout of a racetrack is a given, it doesn't change, and therefore has nothing to do with luck.
If you want to argue, you'd be better off trying to argue that Vettel "lucked" himself into leading the race. Which I don't think he did. Saying that he was lucky because the last corner before the start/finish straight was a fast one is simply an invalid statement.
That's what I was trying to point out.

[Richard]

... or to put it another way:

The track is what it is and the teams have to engineer a way to cross the line first. That engineering lies in the design, manufacturer, practice, quali, start, pits stops, understanding 66 laps of telemetry during the race, outwitting your opponents, etc.

Luck can happen for better or worse, but it didn't play a significant role yesterday.

[donskar]

...
1) Over the full length of the race, Ham had KERS; Vettel only intermittently. Anyone hazard a guess (or firm answer baased on facts) as to how much total difference that would have made? I have to believe it would be on the order of more than a second. More than enough for Vettel to be well clear of Ham. Glad to be corrected by someone with facts.
...

The fact is it is impossible for a Red Bull to run a full race with operational KERS, unless they built a track on North Pole. That is their choice and it means they feel it gives them optimal performance. So it is completely fair to compare McLaren speed with fully operational KERS with Red Bull speed without one.

No, Paul, RBR has NOT chosen to allocate human, technical, and monetary resouces to design, build, and develop a KERS that is not operational throughout the entire race. It's been reported, as recently as during the race, that Newey dislikes KERS and would prefer to do without it because of weight and packaging restraints. He certainly would not accept those KERS penalties AND purposely design an inefficient system. "Completely fair"? I think not.

[alelanza]

...And in the beginning, when DRS was about to engage, they showed 5 replays of the start, instead of focusing on the raging battles on the track...

This, i don't recall yelling at the tv screen like i did at this point, it was terrible. THe rest i thought was ok coverage.

[komninosm]

... or to put it another way:

The track is what it is and the teams have to engineer a way to cross the line first. That engineering lies in the design, manufacturer, practice, quali, start, pits stops, understanding 66 laps of telemetry during the race, outwitting your opponents, etc.

Luck can happen for better or worse, but it didn't play a significant role yesterday.

I believe they are using "luck" in a quaint expression way, not literally. No reason to fight over this.

BTW why did Massa park on the grass?

[kalinka]

I agree with you in a logical way Richard and komninosm, but people call it luck anyway. Just think about it, if you were in that situation (you are in front of McL), you would call it "lucky to be here", or "I'm lucky that I'm in front just on this track, an not in another". If I were on Hamilton's place (haha...),I could say Seb is lucky that his car is so good at the last corner and not anywhere else....So yes...logically speaking it's not luck, but you don't know all these things before the race, so you MAY call it luck, and people often call it that way. When the season start, you can't predict all these situations, so naturally you can call it a luck. So I think we're both right Really no reason to fight. I just wanted to explain how I saw it.

As for RBR's KERS issue > Yes, Newey didn't desinged it intentionally to be that crap, but he takes a decision on lot of things that affected KERS. It's probably completely redesigned to meet some packaging issues, and they failed to simulate or predict the system behaviour correctly. Now it's entirely possible, that if they want a fully operational and reliable KERS, they must give up some of the already optimalised thnigs, like tightly packed sidepods, radiator size, or something else. Obviously that would hurt them on other areas, so they didn't want to take that route yet, instead they're experimenting within current limits, and they failed so far. So if you look that way, it's entirely their fault. It's like McLaren's stiff suspension last year. They didn't want to be like that, but the fact was that the car only performed well with that setup, so it was a compromise for the whole year. IMHO it's the same now for RBR's KERS.

[ringo]

That car doesn't need KERS. The fact that newey doesn't like it, shows that the car is designed to be the best car on track without the system.
I wouldn't be surprised if the car is negligably slower without a KERS system.

If you lose KERS , or 80hp and you car is still the fastest on track in the last 4 races then that car doesn't need it. Every race so far had kers problems for them, and the bull is still dominant.
I wont fall for this false sense of Mclaren being faster right now. Mclaren has some of the best tyre data and probably drew better conclusions from the new hard tyres and got a slight edge on the hard tyre stints.

Down force trumps all and Redbull has it in excess.

[donskar]

I don't watch a race with spreadsheet, charts, or graphs

That's compulsory for all F1Technical members. If Tomba finds out you'll be banned!

OK, you caught me. I have a pet monkey who is great wirh PowerPoint and Excel. I call him "Hammie."

[donskar]

I agree with you in a logical way Richard and komninosm, but people call it luck anyway. Just think about it, if you were in that situation (you are in front of McL), you would call it "lucky to be here", or "I'm lucky that I'm in front just on this track, an not in another". If I were on Hamilton's place (haha...),I could say Seb is lucky that his car is so good at the last corner and not anywhere else....So yes...logically speaking it's not luck, but you don't know all these things before the race, so you MAY call it luck, and people often call it that way. When the season start, you can't predict all these situations, so naturally you can call it a luck. So I think we're both right Really no reason to fight. I just wanted to explain how I saw it.

As for RBR's KERS issue > Yes, Newey didn't desinged it intentionally to be that crap, but he takes a decision on lot of things that affected KERS. It's probably completely redesigned to meet some packaging issues, and they failed to simulate or predict the system behaviour correctly. Now it's entirely possible, that if they want a fully operational and reliable KERS, they must give up some of the already optimalised thnigs, like tightly packed sidepods, radiator size, or something else. Obviously that would hurt them on other areas, so they didn't want to take that route yet, instead they're experimenting within current limits, and they failed so far. So if you look that way, it's entirely their fault. It's like McLaren's stiff suspension last year. They didn't want to be like that, but the fact was that the car only performed well with that setup, so it was a compromise for the whole year. IMHO it's the same now for RBR's KERS.

IMHO, the first part of the bolded passage is a SWAG (Silly Wild A**ed Guess). And if you "look at it that way"? I suppose if you look at the Eiffel Tower the right way it will look like a turnip.

[donskar]

feynman wrote:

Doesn't work like that, Hamilton consistently pulled up to the back of Vettel till 0.7 behind and in the dirty air could go no further, so this fantasy KERS-less handicap you are trying to calculate is of no consequence, if Vettel was going faster, Hamilton would have been going faster too, and still 0.7 behind.

OK. I think I get it now: 80 HP is of "no consequence." Got it. And IF Vettel had the inconsequential 80 HP and used it, Hamilton would stay right with him. I have a pretty good HD TV, but somehow I missed the cable connecting the two cars. It's been a long time since my Mech Engin courses, but I'm pretty sure that if you increase one car's power by about 10% compared to a trailing car, the leading car might pull away just a LITTLE teensy weensy bit. But, hey, I could be wrong.

And:

No one is concerned about precedent, and no-one is saying it wasn't the same for all, the point is that DRS is supposed to mitigate the unfair effects of travelling in another cars wake. That's the point. It probably failed to do that in Sunday's configuration, but not by very much. Previously cars required to be 2 seconds per lap faster to attempt an overtake, here a car on occasion half a second per lap faster could not get close to mounting an overtake, maybe a few extra yards would have helped, but if the differentials required have reduced from 2 to just a bit more than 0.5, then DRS is on the correct track..

Do NOT presume to speak for me; I am concerned about precedent and the effect of DRS, others members of this forum are concerned, and some very competent people who make their living in motorsports are concerned. Damien Smith, Editor of Motorports called DRS "as fake as NASCAR." Nigel Roebuck (ever heard of him?) said of DRS, "its adoption means that not all cars are operating to the same rules at the same time, and that surely should be fundamental in 'Grand Prix racing.'" Are they of "no consequence" too? Well, some drivers have also used the term "gimmick."

You're entitled to your opinion. I suggest you not assume 'no one" disagrees with you.

And I love this one:

Nothing to do with power, and never has been. At the end of the straight Hamilton was 20k faster than Vettel, it is aero, traction and turbulent wake, that is all it has been about for decades.

Decades? "Never has been?" Well, if you go back only a couple decades you can at least build a reasonable argument. But you are far too simplistic. How sad that an F1 fan doesn't remember the 60's and 70's when aero was crude at best and HP (and torque) still counted for a lot.