2013 Australian GP - Albert Park

[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.

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.

This is a sport in wich the one who makes it first, wins. Being first doesn't always has to be with being fastest in terms of velocity. I don't get why people can not accept a simple statement as this without trying to twist things just for the sake of wining an argument.

And i'm the one who simplify things... Come on!

[korzeniow]

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.

Then how come Kimi had better last stint from Alonso despite having older tyres?

[Tamburello]

This is a sport in wich the one who makes it first, wins. Being first doesn't always has to be with being fastest in terms of velocity. I don't get why people can not accept a simple statement as this without trying to twist things just for the sake of wining an argument.

And i'm the one who simplify things... Come on!

You simply don't know if Kimi would have been able to go as slow (as fast?) as Alonso if he had done a 3 stop strategy as well. Maybe he could match Alonso's slowness (speed?)?

[beelsebob]

This is a sport in wich the one who makes it first, wins. Being first doesn't always has to be with being fastest in terms of velocity.

Yes, yes it does.

Velocity is the differential in time of distance. Distance is constant, therefore velocity is higher if time is lower. Simple as that. There's no two ways about it. velocity is higher if you finish first.

[stefan_]

Raikkonen did 2 pitstops, made the fastest lap of the race with 23 laps old mediums and won the race. What more should he have done to be the fastest, travel in time and wave the checkered flag to himself?

[stucliff]

This is a sport in wich the one who makes it first, wins. Being first doesn't always has to be with being fastest in terms of velocity.

Yes, yes it does.

Velocity is the differential in time of distance. Distance is constant, therefore velocity is higher if time is lower. Simple as that. There's no two ways about it. velocity is higher if you finish first.

I think that putting STOPS into equation doesn't match the definition of speed. In that case you have to say that the first car on this example

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.

is faster than the second one

Are you saying that?

I don't really realize why is so hard to admit that, the strategy that Raikonnen and Lotus developed in this race implied having a slower pace than Alonso. Who arrived at second place...

[Nando]

Odd strategy from Mercedes.. (i know i know already been covered but still nice to see on a chart)

[motobaleno]

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.

Please go back and read what I actually wrote.
I did wrote that lotus was the fastest car. but not BY FAR the fastest
An objective analysis of the lap times imho reveals that the overall differences were really slight.
In particular, a good part of the gp has been decided in 3 laps (45-46-47). The rest of the gp has been really equilibrated

[beelsebob]

I think that putting STOPS into equation doesn't match the definition of speed. In that case you have to say that the first car on this example

No, stops absolutely are part of the equation. Being able to do a two stopper absolutely makes your car faster than not being able to do a two stopper. Again, this really is very simple – velocity is the differential in time of distance, and distance is constant. The bottom line is, the Lotus finished first, and therefore had the highest velocity.

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.

is faster than the second one

Are you saying that?

Yes, the first one is faster than the second one, it took 60 minutes to travel the same distance as the other took 65 minutes. Therefore it is faster.

[korzeniow]

Odd strategy from Mercedes.. (i know i know already been covered but still nice to see on a chart)

http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a ... 3495_n.png
http://i1358.photobucket.com/albums/q76 ... 946cea.png
http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a ... 3654_n.png

Where did you find this? Could you provide a link? Because I searched Pirelli's website but to no success :/

[Richard]

There are several uses of "fastest" so let's have some definitions:

- Race - least time from a to b - Raikonnen
- Lap time - shortest time to do one lap - Raikonnen
- Speed trap - fastest on the straight bits (aka not fastest on the squiggly bits) - Vergne
- Finisher with least time on track (aka more time in the pits) - Alsonso

The first two are reliable indicators of pace. The person who got the first two really can't be bothered about the second two, in many cases it would mean losing the race.

[beelsebob]

There are several uses of "fastest" so let's have some definitions:

- Race - least time from a to b - Raikonnen
- Lap time - shortest time to do one lap - Raikonnen
- Speed trap - fastest on the straight bits (aka not fastest on the squiggly bits) - Vergne
- Finisher with least time on track (aka more time in the pits) - Alsonso

The first two are reliable indicators of pace. The person who got the first two really can't be bothered about the second two, in many cases it would mean losing the race.

Right, my assertion is that only one of these definitions matters – the first. Because Formula 1 is defined as being the one who manages to achieve that stat most often (roughly).

[stucliff]

I think that putting STOPS into equation doesn't match the definition of speed. In that case you have to say that the first car on this example

No, stops absolutely are part of the equation. Being able to do a two stopper absolutely makes your car faster than not being able to do a two stopper. Again, this really is very simple – velocity is the differential in time of distance, and distance is constant. The bottom line is, the Lotus finished first, and therefore had the highest velocity.

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.

is faster than the second one

Are you saying that?

Yes, the first one is faster than the second one, it took 60 minutes to travel the same distance as the other took 65 minutes. Therefore it is faster.

Ok, I think I souldn't keep wasting my time arguing with you.

Keep an eye on your speedometer and be the velocity be with you...

but i will remeber your statements if somehow i get a speeding ticket

[beelsebob]

I think that putting STOPS into equation doesn't match the definition of speed. In that case you have to say that the first car on this example

No, stops absolutely are part of the equation. Being able to do a two stopper absolutely makes your car faster than not being able to do a two stopper. Again, this really is very simple – velocity is the differential in time of distance, and distance is constant. The bottom line is, the Lotus finished first, and therefore had the highest velocity.

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.

is faster than the second one

Are you saying that?

Yes, the first one is faster than the second one, it took 60 minutes to travel the same distance as the other took 65 minutes. Therefore it is faster.

Ok, I think I souldn't keep wasting my time arguing with you.

Keep an eye on your speedometer and be the velocity be with you...

but i will remeber your statements if somehow i get a speeding ticket

Take a look at your speedometer while you're sat in the petrol station next time you fill up

Note also that many speeding tickets these days are issued not by instantaneous speed cameras (because they do a --- job), but by average speed cameras

Note ALSO that the law is defined in terms of never exceeding a particular instantaneous speed, not in terms of maintaining a certain speed, as F1 is defined in terms of.

[Nando]

Where did you find this? Could you provide a link? Because I searched Pirelli's website but to no success :/

Got them from a guy from another forum but they are up on Pirelli´s facebook page.