2013 Australian GP - Albert Park

[garygph]

Räikkönen's Lotus was the fastest car in the race. By far.

it was the fastest car
but not by far

It was - Raikkonen pretty much stated he was just taking it easy half the time.

+1
It should not be a suprise when looking at the testing results as Lotus showed excellent long stint pace. People got too excited about one lap lap-times which dont win races with these tyres. I felt the suprises of how far off the pace Williams and McLaren were more interesting. I knew they were both not at the top but did not think they were that far off. I think we could see some changes when we get to tracks with a higher temps. My thoughts anyhow

[stucliff]

Lotus Wasn't the fastest car on track. It was the car that took the less time to cover the race, but not the fastest.

Let me explain the point:

1.- Raikkonen finished the race 8 seconds ahead of Alonso but with 1 less stop. The average time lost in 1 stop in Australia was 21 seconds. So Alonso's Ferrari was 13 seconds faster.

2.- Kimi was "taking it easy" in tire degradation's sake. It was pure strategy, not superiority what led Raikkonen to do so.

Taking stops in count, the winning car is the one that takes less time to run a grand prix, but not exactly the fastest one. Perez took advantage of that in 2012, but this doesn't make him or Sauber strictly fastest that the rival cars...

[Neno]

This must be very hard news to hear to.

why?

because 99% who dont accept Kimi-Lotus pace are fans of rival teams, so when you started to saying lotus one was not fastest (but he was) and you couldnt accept it i knowed you are rival fan and started debate even when you know you're wrong.

[Neno]

Lotus Wasn't the fastest car on track. It was the car that took the less time to cover the race, but not the fastest.

i just love this comment.
if i am doing something better and in less time then others, this means I am faster then them.
bolt is not fastest guy in this planet, he just took less time to finish race then others Lol
very interesting comment, very interesting

[stefan_]

1.- Raikkonen finished the race 8 seconds ahead of Alonso but with 1 less stop. The average time lost in 1 stop in Australia was 21 seconds. So Alonso's Ferrari was 13 seconds faster.

Lotus Wasn't the fastest car on track. It was the car that took the less time to cover the race, but not the fastest.

My head has given me a blue screen and blew up after I read this two things.

[Richard]

Lotus Wasn't the fastest car on track. It was the car that took the less time to cover the race, but not the fastest.

Interesting point but hard to prove because race winners often slow down and focus on maintain the gap rather than outright pace. Then the person who is second is also thinking about banking the points so might not be racing at full pace either.

*shock horror* F1 drivers don't always race at full pace

We do have a thing called fastest lap which is quite useful for seeing who had the fastest car as opposed to the fastest race. Raikkonen won that too, on older tyres than his rivals. However fastest lap also says Jean-Eric Vergne was faster than Alonso and Vettel, but I'm not sure they would prefer to be in a Torr Rosso.

We can only conclude that statistics are meaningless without context.

[Ral]

Lotus Wasn't the fastest car on track. It was the car that took the less time to cover the race, but not the fastest.

Ohkay...

I kinda get what you're trying to say, but opening with that statement isn't going to give your point any credibility.

I think what you meant to say is simply that if you add a pit-stop to Räikkönen's race time, he'd end up behind Alonso.

But that completely ignores the fact that if he had stopped a 3d time, he wouldn't have had to conserve his tyres and should have been able to go faster than he did on 2 stops only. And the fact that, crucially, without a 3d pit stop, he was still able to maintain higher average performance levels from his tyres than the others were getting with the 3d stop.

So yes, he was the fastest in the race. As evidenced by the fact that he got to the finish fastest of anyone.

[garygph]

[quote2.-]2. Kimi was "taking it easy" in tire degradation's sake. It was pure strategy, not superiority what led Raikkonen to do so.
[/quote]
So the fact that the car/driver combination was able to make a quick strategy work does not make them the fastest? funny how their competitors on the day acknowledge that they ( Lotus/Raikkonen) were the fastest on the day but you do not see it?

Sir this forum is full of very clever F1 pundits who know way more than I do (and it would seem you do) so this is not the place to be making those baseless observations. They will absolutely shoot you down in flames. Rather look and learn from them like I have been for some years now. Blind fanboy comments I think belong on other forums.

[stucliff]

Just to be more clear.

Let's say I want to make a 100 km trip. From point A to point B.

If I travel between this two points at an average of 100 km/h it takes me one hour. So I reach point B in 1 hour.

But some other guy take the decision to make it at an average of 120 km/h it should take him 50 minutes to reach point B. But his gas tank only takes gasoline to make an 80 km trip. So he has to stop for 15 minutes to refuel. it takes him one hour and 5 minutes.

We both star at the same time, he is going all the way FASTER than me but I reach destination before him. It takes me less time.

That's the difference between faster and first.

Come on guys,is not that hard...

[Richard]

Yes we understand that, but the race isn't that simple. Your analogy needs to include the person in front deciding to slow don while he eats an ice cream while he drives because he's relaxed and winning so doesn't need to go any faster, or the person behind realising that they can't catch up so they take it easy.

[Neno]

Just to be more clear.

Let's say I want to make a 100 km trip. From point A to point B.

If I travel between this two points at an average of 100 km/h it takes me one hour. So I reach point B in 1 hour.

But some other guy take the decision to make it at an average of 120 km/h it should take him 50 minutes to reach point B. But his gas tank only takes gasoline to make an 80 km trip. So he has to stop for 15 minutes to refuel. it takes him one hour and 5 minutes.

We both star at the same time, he is going all the way FASTER than me but I reach destination before him. It takes me less time.

That's the difference between faster and first.
Come on guys,is not that hard...

for other guy, i must say he buyed wrong car. he should sell it i hope he will not when he sell the car, hide this information from guys like you

[Rikhart]

How can anyone deny that the Kimi/Lotus (the driver and car combined, look at grojeans race) were FAAAR ahead of anyone else, when he does the fastest lap of the race, not even going all out, at lap 24 of the stint, and the competition said they couldnt even LAST to 24 laps, let alone have that pace with tyres that old? It was massive superiority, something I did not expect to see this year, frankly. I cant wait to see what happens in the heat of malaysia, because if Kimi does something similar there, I will start believing in his long overdue second championship!

[stucliff]

I'm not doing a fan comment. And I'm not trying to simplify things. And neither trying to make the Victory of Raikkonen less valuable. That's the beauty of this sport, Is not allways beeing the fastest whats brings the victory. Lotus have understood the tires way better than anyone and made a perfect strategy. And Kimi have understood it perfectly and drove in a perfect way, he mantained a strong pace and took the best out of his car and strategy, he made no mistakes at all and he've mantained quite a relaxed pace with super softs, staying away from useless fughts at the begining knowing that at the end of the race it will pay off.

He have made the best race, but was not the fastest. I don't think this means to take out merits.

[beelsebob]

I'm not doing a fan comment. And I'm not trying to simplify things. And neither trying to make the Victory of Raikkonen less valuable. That's the beauty of this sport, Is not allways beeing the fastest whats brings the victory. Lotus have understood the tires way better than anyone and made a perfect strategy. And Kimi have understood it perfectly and drove in a perfect way, he mantained a strong pace and took the best out of his car and strategy, he made no mistakes at all and he've mantained quite a relaxed pace with super softs, staying away from useless fughts at the begining knowing that at the end of the race it will pay off.

He have made the best race, but was not the fastest. I don't think this means to take out merits.

Sorry, but wut...

fastest: superlative of fast
Adjective
Moving or capable of moving at high speed.

speed:
Rapidity of movement or action: "excessive speed"; "the speed of events".

That is, speed means the differential of distance. Fastest means having the highest differential of distance. That is, over a constant distance, fastest means taking the lowest time. The Lotus took the lowest time to cover the defined distance. Therefore it was the fastest.

This really is simple. I don't get how people seem to be misunderstanding what "fastest" means.

[Tamburello]

Alonso's Ferrari was definitely faster than Kimi's car - in making a bee line for the nearest pit station.