Spanish GP 2011 - Barcelona

[kalinka]

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.

I agree it's a guess , but most of the evidence pointing toward that, so I wouldn't call it a silly guess. It's been discussed on this forum, and there are photos too that shows how RBR has a completely different design of KERS, placing batteries between engine and the gearbox + quite close to exhaust. It's a design route that they choose. So far I didn't see any evidence that they are about to re-package the thing in other way,and it would be very hard as you know. Maybe they're somehow getting more cool air in that area and that improves it somewhat. I don't know what's your problem is looking it that way. Other ways to look :
1. Newey had nothing to do with the faults, so it's an independent problem from the car design.
2. They could solve the KERS problem without any repackaging, or without any disadvantage for the car (larger sidepod, larger cooler openings, larger KERS radiator....etc )
3. They're happy with current situation, and from now on, they continue to use the KERS as is.

I can't see why those points are more probably than my SWAG. I didn't see your view of the Eiffel Tower yet I would be happy to discuss it.

[feynman]

OK. I think I get it now: 80 HP is of "no consequence." Got it.

80 Hp, for a few seconds in non-traction limited zones of track, but before you reach high aero-drag zones of track. Yes, compared to aero-efficiency, high speed cornering downforce, and low to mid speed corner exit traction ... of no consequence, of no significance.

On hards, Hamilton was catching Vettel, doing faster laps, lap after lap, till he arrived behind Vettel, when he would do the same laptimes ... did you spot that on your 'pretty good HDTV' ... what does that say about relative pace. Go on, we all know the answer, you can say it. It means that if Vettel was a speculative coupla tenths KERS faster, Hamilton who was consistently a good half a second faster in the numerous chasedowns, would have matched any fantasy Vettel KERS time and still had extra time left unusable. Are you sure you really do get it?

Do NOT presume to speak for me;

You said it was unprecedented, was that you presuming to speak for me?
And no-one does cares about precedent, not in F1, they only (or should only) care if DRS works or not.
We are not going to keep broken, not fit for purpose, dirty air, aero regs for old times sake, and we are not going to reject new aero fixes, solely because they are new. Essentially, what I am saying, is that 'precedent' can lick my sweaty yam-bag.
I like the bold, was that you shouting and stomping your little feet when you typed it.

Decades? "Never has been?" Well, if you go back only a couple decades you can at least ...

Yes exactly, decades, plural, couple, a few, lots ... that is what I said. Wings sprouted in the very late 60s, got fat in the 70s. The Mid 80s is almost thirty years ago, that's decades, lots of em. There was only a thin slice of proto-quasi-F1 where they were not actively thinking about aero ... and even then cars were overpowered and understicky, emphasising again the ultimately secondary nature of power.
Aero is 80 to 90% of laptime, and has been that way for lots of decades. Power became secondary or probably tertiary a long, long, long time ago. That's why I said decades, that's why I said never has been.


Look we get it ... It was OK for you to post your manifesto, in pedestrian bullet point detail, but when someone reasonably offers-up a counter view, they are subjected to this sort of condescending nonsense. (Douche chills galore when you later re-read your post, and the butt-hurt tone employed, I guarantee it).

You said something, I disagreed, get over it. You then got a bit ill-mannered, and I just right-now had to put you straight. Why not leave it at that, you've had two says, I've had two says, go on prove to all the boys and girls watching, the audience that in your mind you think you are now playing to, that you're not just yet another last word freak, and that you are psychologically self-actualised enough just to let it go. It's what the grown-ups do.

[vall]

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?

You say Vettel was lucky because of the high-speed last turn and a couple of others? Hmmm, the same way you could say LH was lucky to have all the other part of the track where Macca was faster on the hard tire so he could catch Vettel If the track was only high-speed turns (or Fred did not hold Vettel for so long), then Vettel could have disappeared after a couple of laps! C'mon people, make some sense.

[Richard]

I've uploaded the FIA race data to the race data thread

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=9815&p=253116#p253116

[andrew]

BTW why did Massa park on the grass?

Gearbox kaput.

[kalinka]

@Vall

The last turn is crucial if you want to overtake, it's worth nothing that the McL was faster during the whole lap esentially. It could be just 0.1-0.2 sec faster or 1.5 sec faster, it doesnt matter, and the result would be the same, just because of that last turn. On the other parts of the track it's worth nothing if you're 1sec faster, it's not a luck but a frustrating bad luck, because there you can't really overtake. You can catch up, yes but not overtake. I think it would be the same even if let's say Webber was ahead and Vettel trying to overtake him. We saw how Webber was much faster than Alonso, and even he couldn't overtake. The speed differentioal was even bigger there during the lap, and again Webber couldn't get close enough even so the Ferrari had much less DF than McL. So in my view that last turn was the key point for the car in front. Weather you can call it luck or not...it's not worth to fight on that. For me it's just a common sense logic...if I were in a situation where a 1sec faster car catching up on me, and couldn't overtake me I would call it luck regardless of who drives that car. It wasn't some bad driver skill or something else...it was a car/track property that prevented the overtake, and no I don't think Vettel is a crap of a driver or something. Same would apply in an opposite situation too. I already said everything that I could and would not reply further on this. I respect other's opinions too.

[vall]

@Vall

The last turn is crucial if you want to overtake, it's worth nothing that the McL was faster during the whole lap esentially. It could be just 0.1-0.2 sec faster or 1.5 sec faster, it doesnt matter, and the result would be the same, just because of that last turn. On the other parts of the track it's worth nothing if you're 1sec faster, it's not a luck but a frustrating bad luck, because there you can't really overtake. You can catch up, yes but not overtake. I think it would be the same even if let's say Webber was ahead and Vettel trying to overtake him. We saw how Webber was much faster than Alonso, and even he couldn't overtake. The speed differentioal was even bigger there during the lap, and again Webber couldn't get close enough even so the Ferrari had much less DF than McL. So in my view that last turn was the key point for the car in front. Weather you can call it luck or not...it's not worth to fight on that. For me it's just a common sense logic...if I were in a situation where a 1sec faster car catching up on me, and couldn't overtake me I would call it luck regardless of who drives that car. It wasn't some bad driver skill or something else...it was a car/track property that prevented the overtake, and no I don't think Vettel is a crap of a driver or something. Same would apply in an opposite situation too. I already said everything that I could and would not reply further on this. I respect other's opinions too.

Well, if Macca was not faster on the slow part of the track then LH would not be anywhere near Vettel by the last turn to even think of overtaking. So, yes, you could say LH was lucky that there was this slow part to be able to keep up with Vettel, but there is no point to discuss it any further. F1 is complex equation and last weekend the pieces fell in such a way that LH was able to keep with Vettel, but not overtake. Let see what will happen in Monoca. Whatever the track, it always gives is good races, even though not much overtaking. If am not wrong, this year we still have not had Safety Car?

[DaveKillens]

I went to Wiki and this is how they describe "luck".

Luck or fortuity is good or bad fortune in life caused by accident or chance.

I don't see this as "luck". The McLaren, which was optimized for certain characteristics, ran up against a car that had characteristics that managed to negate any advantage the McLaren appeared to have.

It wasn't luck that drove Newey to build a car with such fantastic downforce. And in the end, it was this ability to drive out of the corner better than the McLaren that was an effective counter for Lewis and his McLaren.

Holy cow, this is like watching some kid practice windmill kicks until sundown, day after day, month after month. Then one day that same kid is in an important match, scores the winning goal with a windmill kick, and you say .... "he was lucky".

No, it isn't luck, Newey designed his car to have massive amounts of downforce, and just for this very kind of reason.

[beelsebob]

I went to Wiki and this is how they describe "luck".

Luck or fortuity is good or bad fortune in life caused by accident or chance.

I don't see this as "luck". The McLaren, which was optimized for certain characteristics, ran up against a car that had characteristics that managed to negate any advantage the McLaren appeared to have.

It wasn't luck that drove Newey to build a car with such fantastic downforce. And in the end, it was this ability to drive out of the corner better than the McLaren that was an effective counter for Lewis and his McLaren.

Holy cow, this is like watching some kid practice windmill kicks until sundown, day after day, month after month. Then one day that same kid is in an important match, scores the winning goal with a windmill kick, and you say .... "he was lucky".

No, it isn't luck, Newey designed his car to have massive amounts of downforce, and just for this very kind of reason.

No, it's more like turning up to the match and being told "today you will be facing a team with an extra player, but the only way to score will be by performing windmill kicks".

The fact that the place where way were strongest was the place which would happen to allow the RBR's advantages to negate the McLaren's advantages was what was lucky – not the fact that the RBR has advantages.

[Hangaku]

Or perhaps they used all their gathered data and set the car up knowing where it was weak and strong.

Luck is when a a rabbit gets inhaled into your competitors radiator on the last lap when they are in the lead.

[raymondu999]

That could be a disgruntled fan though Didn't Senna once hit a rabbit in GP2 practice and go on for pole and a dominant win once? It's lucky to hit a rabbit's foot.

[marcush.]

"1. Newey had nothing to do with the faults, so it's an independent problem from the car design.
2. They could solve the KERS problem without any repackaging, or without any disadvantage for the car (larger sidepod, larger cooler openings, larger KERS radiator....etc )
3. They're happy with current situation, and from now on, they continue to use the KERS as is."

Yo put your batteries and electronics in an area of extreme heat ignoring advice and best engineering practise along the way and it´s not your responsibility? I have to admit I have no upto date data of radiator downstrem temperature but i know that currently all OEMs look at 120°C under bonnet temperature maximums and every degree above is severely compromising electronics reliability so we got at least some idea what to avoid.For Batteries it should be obvious that low and high temps is to be avoided especially when charging and dumping load at severe rates.So now we got the hot air coming from the rads + waste heat from the engine and exhaust pipes + excess heat from "HOT Blowing"(thanks charlie)in that area and it takes not too much imagination that we will see temps considerably above 120°C in the chosen area...One may think a bit of isolation could do the trick but all it will perform is to damp the rise and fall but not the mean value....A dog of an idea to put your delicate equipment in that area.

[kalinka]

Those were my points that you quote Marcush, but if you read my entire post,those points were ironic ones, to point out exactly what you say ( and opposite of that points ) >
That Newey and RBR are indeed responsible for their KERS situation, and that they choose last year that unique design, and they're suffering because of that, and there's no easy solution. Pretty much like McL with stiff suspension last year...So it could be now considered as a constant behaviour of RBR when you compare it to other cars, and not some random error. If they try to solve it, it would impose other penalties I believe, like packaging, radiator size, CoG....So if they make it work, they probably loose somewhere else.
You just misunderstood me, but it's not your fault, it was a long discussion with donskar, it was just my ironic answer to him, and it could be misunderstood if you read it without previous posts of me and donskar.

+1 for your description of the problem.

Better place for this posts would be in RB7 thread IMO.

[marcush.]

sorry for that mess up didn´t catch your irony ...apologies.You are right it would be a better fit in the Car thread.

[kalinka]

No problem