Turkish GP 2011 - Istanbul

[Pedro]

where the "star = unused, fresh set" information comes from? Somebody claimed Fred overtook Webber because at the time Webber was on used hard and Fred on new, and later the situation was reversed and Webber overtook Fred. According to your statistics, only the second is correct.

It seems Fred overtook Webber on equal tires.

It comes from Pirelli, here is their original race report with pit stop summary:
http://www.pirelli.com/tyre/ww/en/news/ ... in-turkey/

[beelsebob]

where the "star = unused, fresh set" information comes from? Somebody claimed Fred overtook Webber because at the time Webber was on used hard and Fred on new, and later the situation was reversed and Webber overtook Fred. According to your statistics, only the second is correct.

It seems Fred overtook Webber on equal tires.

I think what they were meaning was that Webber's tyres were pretty old at the time – not (necessarily) that they had been used in qualifying. And that fred's tyres were pretty new at the time - not (necessarily) that they hadn't been used in qualifying.

[Mr Alcatraz]

It's a lame argument. Webber overworked his tyres when fighting with Rosberg and Hamilton overcooked his tyres when he was fighting Button and co. So yes, Hamilton could have been "faster" but by the same reasoning, so could have Webber, thus maintaining the gap between them.

+1 to that, mclaren were messy in turkey and so were their drivers no doubt on that

Plus another one.
I'm not trying to put you on "Front Street" dj’, but for crying out loud in a system that has so many miss-matches in terms of comparative tyre condition I think FA, and MW were reasonably close in this arena throughout the race for position. It proved out in the end that Mark had a little more pace than Fred.
In the closing 10 laps or so Chopper and Teflonso were close enough to steal a win or gain/lose a position with a minor mistake. That is good racing Hoss. It kind of makes me nostalgic for the days when engine reliability was more of a concern, and you had the extra element of a possible detonation in the equation.
That aspect of the races in the days of yore kept things interesting. As for a dose of reality, Kettle controlled the race at the front, Webber to a lesser degree, and Fred was staying "cool baby" and took what was a well earned third. That is something that Fred was always good at going back to his days when he was winning championships for Renault. I also think he lost the plot just the least little bit since he has been at Ferrari, and I find it encouraging that he is starting to show some of his unique skill again. It must be very frustrating to a guy that employed the same starting tactics that served him so well at Renault and McLaren to a slightly lesser degree. He used to live around the outside of turn one at the start of races, and it has really not worked for him at all in the early part of this season, which happens to be his own fault!

[donskar]

How could such an exciting race generate such a load of drivel posts?

Endless posts by revisionist historians trying to show how their favorite man-love driver woulda coulda shoulda won under a different points scoring system. Why don't one of you spreadsheet freaks figure out how Virgin would do if they only had just 100CC more displacement? It makes as much sense and has as much value as who would have won under a scoring system NOT in effect.

Then we had page after page of posts by lovers of "The Loss." No, he is not "The Boss." Not this year. This year Seb is making him "The Loss."

Thank G** casual fans of F1 do not read these pages. They'd think F1 is nothing but bloodless spreadsheets, charts and graphs argued over by obsessive hero-worshippers.

There was a RACE yesterday -- and a d### good one!

[Dragonfly]

Virgin wouldn't do significantly better with 100cc more. Simply because they have to have the rest of the package able to utilize the added power. And this is mostly aerodynamics, suspension, brakes etc.

[ESPImperium]

Intresting fact, the 2011 cars are about 50% more relyable than the 2010 cars. Retirements to the end of Round 4 (China) last year to end of Round 4 this year are staggering. 2010 saw 33 retirements to the same period as this, whitch has seen 16 retirements.

The reson i put this down to is belive it or not Pirelli, as the cars are about 4 to 6 seconds slower than last year in the race, and this means the cars have a lower failure rate.

[HampusA]

Hamilton would not be able to hang with the trio according to the graph.

He wouldnt be far off. Remember he was in far worse traffic, battles with Button etc holding him up and taking more out of his tyres.

That is true, Hamilton killed his tires the first stint which ment he had to pit earlier then the rest in the following pit stops.

I´m pretty impressed by the fact that he did good at the end of some stints, actually going quicker.

[HampusA]

who said that SV and MW were going on the limit for the whole race? lol they were controling the gap for whole race with Vettel and showed that there is still a bit more when needed with Webber.

This is BS. Might be true for Vettel because he´s the leader, everything get´s much easier then.

But Webber, no. They told him to increase the gap to Alonso which he failed to do since Alonso was the quicker of the two.

[Mr Alcatraz]

Intresting fact, the 2011 cars are about 50% more relyable than the 2010 cars. Retirements to the end of Round 4 (China) last year to end of Round 4 this year are staggering. 2010 saw 33 retirements to the same period as this, whitch has seen 16 retirements.

The reson i put this down to is belive it or not Pirelli, as the cars are about 4 to 6 seconds slower than last year in the race, and this means the cars have a lower failure rate.

Would you go as far as to say that due to the properties of the Pirellis setup-wise the teams have more of a tendency to use softer torque differential settings?
Also I think perhaps the valve problem with Ferrari’s 2010 lumps may have your data skewed a little, or should I say is a factor unrelated to Pirelli.

[Richard]

Gosh, still no calls for punishing wheel to wheel down the pit lane!

I thought a warning had been given in Australia, so it is surprising the stewards didn't investigate it this time.

[HampusA]

You mean Massa and (who was it now? Hamilton? or Button?)

To me i think it´s ok, the person who is behind the other will eventually drop back behind like Massa did. They did however make the right call for Hamilton in the pits waiting for Massa to pass, otherwise it would been a nice crash there. But going side by side down the pitlane i can´t see any problems with, the "slower" driver will eventually tuck in behind the "faster" driver anyways.

[Mandrake]

The reson i put this down to is belive it or not Pirelli, as the cars are about 4 to 6 seconds slower than last year in the race, and this means the cars have a lower failure rate.

I wonder if that is actually true....the stress on the car can be less (G-Forces) but then again the drivers push about as much as they did last year. I believe 2011 cars are just more refined than 2009 and 2010 machinery, thus the lower failrate. I remember a lot of "stupid" DNFs last season, brake failures, spark plugs, Ferrari valve issue etc.

I believe the tires only contribute 20% to all this

[ESPImperium]

Intresting fact, the 2011 cars are about 50% more relyable than the 2010 cars. Retirements to the end of Round 4 (China) last year to end of Round 4 this year are staggering. 2010 saw 33 retirements to the same period as this, whitch has seen 16 retirements.

The reson i put this down to is belive it or not Pirelli, as the cars are about 4 to 6 seconds slower than last year in the race, and this means the cars have a lower failure rate.

Would you go as far as to say that due to the properties of the Pirellis setup-wise the teams have more of a tendency to use softer torque differential settings?
Also I think perhaps the valve problem with Ferrari’s 2010 lumps may have your data skewed a little, or should I say is a factor unrelated to Pirelli.

Ferarri engine problems are excluded, however there was 6 cars with X Trac gearboxes this time last, and there are only 2 now as Lotus has gone to Renault and Red Bull and Hispania is using the 2010 Williams transmission. So you could exclude 9 retirements for this reason. But that excluded, the cars are still about 25% more relyable. And i think its down to set up and understanding over everything else.

Or is it that the 3 new teams have had a season and dont have things to worry about, as well as drivers knowing that the latter part of the race is where there is places to be made when they are on fresher rubber.

[Hangaku]

Thank G** casual fans of F1 do not read these pages. They'd think F1 is nothing but bloodless spreadsheets, charts and graphs argued over by obsessive hero-worshippers.

And yet here you are, banging on about how god-like Vettel was. Everyone is fond of a bit of fanboyism every now and then, so calm yourself down

You mean Massa and (who was it now? Hamilton? or Button?)

To me i think it´s ok, the person who is behind the other will eventually drop back behind like Massa did. They did however make the right call for Hamilton in the pits waiting for Massa to pass, otherwise it would been a nice crash there. But going side by side down the pitlane i can´t see any problems with, the "slower" driver will eventually tuck in behind the "faster" driver anyways.

Last year, a select few were going on (for a long time) about how dangerous it was for the pit crews, and that X or Y should be given grid penalties, etc. and yet when Lewis Hamilton is on the receiving end, nobody sniffs about it. Surprise surprise.

[raymondu999]

Actually; while I agree that Vettel vs Hamilton in the pitlane in Shanghai 2010 was *potentially* dangerous; there weren't really any mechanics out; iirc. But if you watched Turkey again; there were mechanics - I think from Williams; and two of them had to scamper off to avoid being run over by an Italian racing car.