Turkish GP 2010 - Istanbul Park

[ISLAMATRON]

You size your tank for the highest fuel consumption race of the season(which may very well be Turkey) minus a little bit. Wirth's mistake was a whole different situation that he explained in an interview, cut the new team some slack.

It may have been that McL & RBR started the race with the tanks full to the brim and still had to conserve fuel to make the end... and we could see this again at Silverstone, Spa & Monza. Also depends on SC... none at Turkey put them really on the limit.

Why comprimise yourself at 18 races with too large a fuel tank when you comprimise yourself with 2-3 races with too small a fuel tank.

[andrew]

Does anyone have the lap times for after the McLarens were told to save fuel? They seemed to maintain their gap to third and didn't seem to slow at all.

Was the save fuel code for hold positions? There was a message sent into the BBC Radio 5 commentary and I have seen a few postings on other sites stating that it asking if it was code but have not yet seen anything to back this up.

Any thoughts?

[donskar]

Oh wow. I can see both sides of this story, but either way, they --- each other.

Webber could have given Vettel more room.
Vettel could have been a little more cautious with such a pass.

If it wasnt teammates, it would be a racing incident. Plain and simple. Vettel was clearly faster and i have seen Webber make some shitty moves to keep people behind him. That's why he is known as "the hardest person to pass"....

Cue Vettel to Ferrari replacing Massa.....

+1
You saved me a lot of typing. I'll add one thing: RedBull, the team, screwed up. They could have (virtually) ensured a 1-2 by simply radioing Webber (OR Vettel): "You are critically low on fuel. Back off." In other words, issue "team orders" without breaking the rules.

[Paul Oz]

Does anyone have the lap times for after the McLarens were told to save fuel? They seemed to maintain their gap to third and didn't seem to slow at all.

Was the save fuel code for hold positions? There was a message sent into the BBC Radio 5 commentary and I have seen a few postings on other sites stating that it asking if it was code but have not yet seen anything to back this up.

Any thoughts?

Jenson got asked exactly that in one post race interview - and his response was a genuine sounding 'Not unless someone forgot to tell me!' He went on to say that he'd been told to save fuel from fairly early on, was aware that Lewis had only just been told to do so as we all heard - so surmised that Lewis was just finding his feet with it....

[thestig84]

They dont brim the tank. As has been said they under fuel to run fast to gain track position in the first stint before saving fuel after track position is secure. Martin Brundle says it all here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsp ... 714410.stm

So for those saying why didnt they brim it...he says why, they would have been nearly 6 seconds slower over a race distance.

[ISLAMATRON]

They dont brim the tank. As has been said they under fuel to run fast to gain track position in the first stint before saving fuel after track position is secure. Martin Brundle says it all here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsp ... 714410.stm

So for those saying why didnt they brim it...he says why, they would have been nearly 6 seconds slower over a race distance.

So what you and Brundle are saying is that there are no races where they run with the tanks full? That is absurd... why would they design a car with a fuel tank that is bigger than what they need for every single race? That is totally contrary to what everything F1 or racing in general is about. There are a couple races a year where yes they have to fill the tanks to the brim... these are the races which the tank capacity was chosen for, the rest of the races are stared with a short fill.

Yes the teams underfill for every race, but fro a couple races this year a full tank will still be an underfill not capable of making the full race distance without fuel saving. Turkey seems to be one of them.

[Lurk]

So what you and Brundle are saying is that there are no races where they run with the tanks full? That is absurd... why would they design a car with a fuel tank that is bigger than what they need for every single race? That is totally contrary to what everything F1 or racing in general is about.

They can design tank just they think they need taken in account they will save fuel. So tank is brim but cannot finish the race without saving.

They can also design tank with a little margin which corresponds to the error margin of fuel consumption calculation, and the fact that maybe they wouldn't be able to save fuel in some cases, i.e. start from the back.

Nothing stupid whatever the design choosed.

[thestig84]

They dont brim the tank. As has been said they under fuel to run fast to gain track position in the first stint before saving fuel after track position is secure. Martin Brundle says it all here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsp ... 714410.stm

So for those saying why didnt they brim it...he says why, they would have been nearly 6 seconds slower over a race distance.

So what you and Brundle are saying is that there are no races where they run with the tanks full? That is absurd... why would they design a car with a fuel tank that is bigger than what they need for every single race? That is totally contrary to what everything F1 or racing in general is about. There are a couple races a year where yes they have to fill the tanks to the brim... these are the races which the tank capacity was chosen for, the rest of the races are stared with a short fill.

Yes the teams underfill for every race, but fro a couple races this year a full tank will still be an underfill not capable of making the full race distance without fuel saving. Turkey seems to be one of them.

Fair enough. I was talking more of Turkey rather than the season as a whole, maybe I wasnt clear enough.

[marcush.]

you have to allow for circumstances....

It cost you 6 seconds if you fill her up ...but how much does it cost you to turn down the engine map for two thhirds of the race?
surely more than a tenth per lap ,otherwise the renault is the engine to have and --- on the extra horses a merc may have.
the real issue is the additional weight you have to carry .More brake wwaer/temps in need of even more nursing at the start,more strain to all component s ,above all tyres ,options as it is now common..
What i don´t get is ,why teams like FI ,Renault and possibly Merc are not adopting a different strategy for their Qualifying .
I would fire on all accounts with soft tyres to get safely in Q3 and make a all out Qualy run on primes in Q3 .then stick on the softs and look how good you´d be with those if you are not within a grasp of getting a top 4 result abandon the run and start on primes.For the first 4 or 5 laps almost nobody can exploit or will abuse the soft tyres anyways because of traffic ,and the softs being throwaway in lap 19 or 20 so not many laps you could make much use of their potential.Going on primes you would be able to run much longer and move to the front when those option tyre useres have to pit you will be in the position to be relatively free in strategy when you will make your stop.The softs will of course perform like stink in the dying laps as you will have qualifying speed in your car.

[donskar]

Worth repeating (AGAIN):

CHRISTIAN HORNER, Team Principal: “It’s disappointing for the team to have got into that position today. The one thing I always ask the drivers is that, yes, they can race each other, but give each other room, and that’s exactly what didn’t happen. They were too far over on the left, Sebastian got a run on the inside of Mark, but then came across too early."

He's only the boss . . Just sayin'

[ISLAMATRON]

you have to allow for circumstances....

It cost you 6 seconds if you fill her up ...but how much does it cost you to turn down the engine map for two thhirds of the race?
surely more than a tenth per lap ,otherwise the renault is the engine to have and --- on the extra horses a merc may have.
the real issue is the additional weight you have to carry .More brake wwaer/temps in need of even more nursing at the start,more strain to all component s ,above all tyres ,options as it is now common..
What i don´t get is ,why teams like FI ,Renault and possibly Merc are not adopting a different strategy for their Qualifying .
I would fire on all accounts with soft tyres to get safely in Q3 and make a all out Qualy run on primes in Q3 .then stick on the softs and look how good you´d be with those if you are not within a grasp of getting a top 4 result abandon the run and start on primes.For the first 4 or 5 laps almost nobody can exploit or will abuse the soft tyres anyways because of traffic ,and the softs being tthrowaway in lap 19 or 20 so not many laps you could make much use of their potential.Going on primes you would be able to run much longer and move to the front when those option tyre useres have to pit you will be in the position to be relatively free in straregy when you will make your stop.The softs will of course perform like stink in the dying laps as you will have qualifying speed in your car

That seems like it would be an excellent strategy for teams in Merc or Ferrari or Renault's position in Turkey. If, as a team manager, you know you cant match the speed of the RB's or the McL's why would you be trying to race the same strategy as them... it gives you no chance for the win.

[dannyteasdale]

Its come out that Webber had to conserve fuel, not Vettel turning his engine up.

That's incorrect. Vettel suddenly became much faster than both Webber and Hamilton. It wasn't a case of Webber slowing down.

I dont want to sound abrupt but Its not incorrect.
The opinion is based on what was actually said by the teams, drivers etc.
If you have stats then I will do no other than agree - Although I doubt you do have.

(BTW If Webber and Hamilton were in fuel conserve mode - and Vettel wasnt - That would obviously make him faster - So yes some of the above statement is correct - But not in the way I think you mean.)

Lets not take this away from the forum topic. The car is developing - likewise are the rest. One thing I did find rather amazing was some quotes from Alonso which I think Martin Brundle was commenting on which were how frustrated Alonso is with the slower rate of development of the Ferrari compared to the more furious rate of development of the Mclaren. A Tribute to the design team for sure, but also Thanks to RedBull for being better! That with no doubt in my mind, would spur the team on to development faster. Its shaping up to be an amazing fight between the RB's and the Maccas.

[marcush.]

I feel a lot of teams adopt "safe" read mainstream strategies but ignore the fact they are not matching the speed of the front runners anyways.So why should you compromise your elapsed time for your own race?
Or is there anybody out claiming starting on softs on a heavy car would be a quicker option ?I can´t see this.the softs will work best on low fuel and rubbered in track
and open up a much bigger window of usage not just the handful of nursing laps we see .
Of course you could gain even more with a driver who is good at defending track position as you can hold up guys with potentially quicker tyres for a while....but I don´t even think this is a big issue.
but then teams are not filling up their cars as it saves them potentially 5,8 seconds over race distance....discounting they have to run slow to make it to the end...

[Pandamasque]

It's now official
...red-bull-admit-driver-favouritism/

[ecapox]

It's now official
...red-bull-admit-driver-favouritism/

garbage site.