2012 Canadian GP - Gilles Villeneuve

[myurr]

The graph depicts relative performance, and I know for a fact you're misreading it. From lap 51 until the end, Alonso's pace relative to Hamilton took a dramatic and lengthy nosedive. It's as plain as day, and, of course, it's because Hamilton had fresh tires while Alonso did not. But, relative performance is all that really matters, because one doesn't race against the circuit; one races against other drivers.

I know it's relative. But from lap 51 onwards the reason is nothing to do with a cliff or performance issue with Alonso's tyres, and everything to do with the fact that Hamilton pits for new tyres.

One driver pitting for new tyres does not mean that the other driver's performance suddenly falls off a cliff!! That is not the cliff that everyone is trying to debate! So you've definitely got this arse backwards.

[myurr]

Further to my previous post, just to really rub your face in how wrong you are , if Alonso's pace had remained constant the graph would still have shown Hamilton catching at a steady pace. This is not due to Alonso's tyres falling off a cliff, as his pace would have been constant.

The cliff refers to a fall in pace relative to a driver's own pace - not relative to anyone else. This is depicted in your chart (from f1fanatic if anyone is interested) as the relative height difference between each data point. In Hamilton's trace from lap 51 onwards you can see the steady gain in relative pace as Alonso's tyres go off as a steadily increasing vertical gap between each point. After he overtakes Alonso this switches to being visible on Alonso's trace.

For there to be a cliff then there needs to be a sudden and non-progressive change in this vertical spacing. That cannot be seen in this trace, instead we see a steady and predicable degradation of Alonso's pace as his tyres slowly go off. It added up to a dramatic difference in pace from those around him but was a fairly linear progression.

[raymondu999]

Bhallg2k, your graph shows the growing gap. The final few laps, the gradient of the Alonso line stays just about constant, which indicates him losing the same amount of laptime eachnlap.

If you want to graph the cliff, you plot all of Alonso's 70 laptimes on a chart, then flip the y axis top to bottom. If there is a sudden drop there, THAT's the cliff?

The cliff is not about pace relative to others, it's pace relative to when your tyres were fresher. Ie precliff tyres. Try plotting an HRT or Marussia's laptime chart against Hamilton's. You'll see the same effect as with Alonso's final few laps.

[Raptor22]

Indeed, Alonso's tyres had not yet hit the cliff. They were on the slippery slope though.
If they had hit the cliff you'd see his laps time change by a 1sec to 2 sec per lap. Thats not evident. Ferrari simply underestimated Hamilton's improved pace on the new tyres and over estimated Alonso's ability to make his tyres last a few laps more.

[bhall]

The graph depicts relative performance, and I know for a fact you're misreading it. From lap 51 until the end, Alonso's pace relative to Hamilton took a dramatic and lengthy nosedive. It's as plain as day, and, of course, it's because Hamilton had fresh tires while Alonso did not. But, relative performance is all that really matters, because one doesn't race against the circuit; one races against other drivers.

I know it's relative. But from lap 51 onwards the reason is nothing to do with a cliff or performance issue with Alonso's tyres, and everything to do with the fact that Hamilton pits for new tyres.

One driver pitting for new tyres does not mean that the other driver's performance suddenly falls off a cliff!! That is not the cliff that everyone is trying to debate! So you've definitely got this arse backwards.

Maybe one of these days your cloth eyes and ears will relay something other than your own subconscious suggestions - "This setup is wicked."

I know that the cliff I've described isn't the cliff that's being debated. I never claimed otherwise. I mentioned something else because, like putting light dressing on a bacon salad or putting on a condom after sex, that particular cliff couldn't possibly be more meaningless; it's 150% pointless. I have no idea why it was even being addressed.

It would not matter if Alonso's tires had literally fallen off his car and then rolled into a ravine or he suddenly started losing one year per lap against his own previous lap times. If Hamilton and others were not catching him at the same time, if his relative performance was the same, what difference does it make?

The simple fact of the matter is, as shown by the graph, that Alonso's relative performance against Hamilton, the only metric that matters in terms of a race, fell off a cliff as carelessly as if it had jumped. This information was available to everyone watching and participating in the race and is precisely why Alonso had absolutely no chance of winning. The Ferrari brain trust should have seen it, too.

Instead, it appears they paid attention to the same clueless, dumbass logic that's permeated this discussion and traded a surefire podium for a 5th-place finish.

[Richard]

I think people are getting caught on semantics as to what constitutes a "cliff" or a slope or a plateau.

Looking at the timing graph, Alonso and Vergne are the only drivers with a downward trajectory in the second half of the race. Alonso's slope is over ore laps and steeper. So it wasn't just underestimating Hamilton extra pace, he was loosing ground to the entire field.

The slope on those last 8-ish laps is very marked, unmissable. He'd been trundling around lap after lap getting quicker as the car got lighter. Then in the space of lap he's getting slower and slower and slower. A glance down the timing sheet shows that all the other cars on the same age tyres are still speeding up while the Alsonso is slowing down.

[myurr]

The simple fact is that Alonso was trundling around steadily losing pace, but it was a gradual decline rather than falling off a cliff.

Bhallg2k seems to want to redefine everything just to not be wrong. Again simple fact is, clumsy insults aside, by general definition that everyone else means by "cliff", Bhallg2k is wrong in his analysis. Definition or semantics allowing, wrong is still wrong.

Alonso did not get quicker as the car got lighter - he just about held pace for a while and then steadily declined. There was no vertical cliff when it came to his lap times. Relatively to the cars he was racing he was losing some time each lap and that loss got a little greater each lap after a while. There was no massive drop off and it was not unpredictable. People may try and dress it up otherwise, but the truth will eventually come through.

Edit: bhallg2k - for clarity let em state it again. Your graph, no matter what you say or what you claim, simply does not depict Alonso's tyres falling off a cliff. You can claim I'm ignorant or wrong, you may try and frame the debate by other terms all you like, but the evidence you presented as depicting a cliff is really not a cliff at all by any definition of those debating F1 over the last 16 months or so since the beginning of last season.

[bhall]

...

Please show me one instance where I referred to Alonso's tires falling off a cliff. Just one will do.

[SeijaKessen]

...

Please show me one instance where I referred to Alonso's tires falling off a cliff. Just one will do.

My condolences...I've seen a lot of supposed quotes attributed to you over time by other posters, that don't actually exist.

It makes me feel as if we've gone back to the 19th century where it was acceptable to make up things people have supposedly said or done.

[fritticaldi]

The biggest disaster Ferrari pit wall made was Massa. The Brazilian who's race as ruined following a spin in the early stages of the race pitted on the 58th lap. Massa had fallen back 42 seconds behind Alonso. In the remaining 12 laps, Massa gained 28 seconds on Alonso. A staggering average of 2,5 seconds per lap. This is concrete evidence of what might have been for Alonso.

[myurr]

Unbef'inglievable. It's like talking to a jellyfish.

Please show me one instance where I referred to Alonso's tires falling off a cliff. Just one will do.

Okay how about this from just one page ago:

This graph depicts the gap between Hamilton and Alonso throughout the race. In terms of performance relative to Hamilton (blue), Alonso (red) definitely fell off a cliff that was both steep and steady.

....

[bhall]

.....

This graph depicts the gap between Hamilton and Alonso throughout the race. In terms of performance relative to Hamilton (blue), Alonso (red) definitely fell off a cliff that was both steep and steady.

Note: The word tire, or tyre for those who drive on the wrong side of the road, is not mentioned one time. Otherwise, my point was very clear and has been throughout this discussion.

....

[myurr]

And you are an illiterate fool.

This graph depicts the gap between Hamilton and Alonso throughout the race. In terms of performance relative to Hamilton (blue), Alonso (red) definitely fell off a cliff that was both steep and steady.

Note: The word tire, or tyre for those who drive on the wrong side of the road, is not mentioned one time. Otherwise, my point was very clear and has been throughout this discussion.

...

This is where we're going to fall down then, you redefining the terms everyone else is using in the entire thread. In a thread that has been debating, for the last few pages, Alonso and whether or not Ferrari could have predicted the amount of performance he lost, you come in and use the same words and phrases as everyone else but try and caveat them to mean something else.

When people talk about the tyres falling off a cliff they mean that there is a sudden and dramatic loss of performance relative to a drivers own lap time. You want to redefine that to mean relative performance between two drivers, which is utterly irrelevant to understanding whether Ferrari could have predicted his fall in pace relative to his own times that everyone else is debating.

Yes Alonso was having to lap slower than Hamilton, and yes Hamilton was going to catch him. That hasn't been debated or questioned and also isn't exactly surprising with Hamilton having pitted for fresh tyres. Don't forget that he wasn't just racing Hamilton, he was also racing Vettel for second place. With Vettel staying out as well, had Alonso been able to maintain that initial pace (that you describe as falling off a cliff) then he would have stayed second. It was also probably known by Ferrari from Hamilton's initial pace that he would catch and pass Alonso, so isn't very interesting in and of itself.

What is interesting, and what everyone else was trying to talk about, is how Alonso's own pace started to degrade as his tyres went off as this is ultimately what cost him at least a podium finish if not second place. Some claim that this was sudden, the reference to falling off a cliff that was popularised last year. Others are trying to show that not only was his fall in pace relatively slow and steady but that it was predictable within a time frame that would have allowed Ferrari to react.

So basically you're having a conversation with yourself about something no one else is debating where you've borrowed words and phrases used by others and reframed them to mean something else. Good job.

Edit: You are also incorrect in your own assertion that relative to Hamilton Alonso's pace fell off a cliff that was both steep and steady. It was steep and accelerating. Well done.

[bhall]

I can accept that last bit. It's all the more reason that Ferrari should have called Alonso in for new tires.

(Even you know you're grasping at straws at this point.)

And, you're absolutely right, I redefined the terms of the debate. I did so clearly and without reservation, because the debate as previously defined was immaterial to the big picture. Relative performance is paramount to racing. Actually, it is racing.

In isolation, it never mattered if Alonso's tires fell of a cliff, reached a plateau, dug a ditch, or ascended to the highest mountain top. What did matter, however, is that his performance relative to Hamilton deteriorated quickly. That was obvious to everyone who saw the race, well, save for the guys in red on the pit wall.

I guess they were just waiting for Alonso's tires to fall off a cliff.

[myurr]

In isolation, it never mattered if Alonso's tires fell of a cliff, reached a plateau, dug a ditch, or ascended to the highest mountain top. What did matter, however, is that his performance relative to Hamilton deteriorated quickly.

Again not strictly true. Had his relative pace not deteriorated merely remained the same as when Hamilton first came out the pits (allowing for tyre warmup) then Hamilton still would have beaten him. The deterioration in pace is what then cost him 2nd place and dropped him to 5th. That is why it is more interesting than the initial pace differential between them immediately after the pit stops.