2013 Australian GP - Albert Park

[iamthewalrus]

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

Well by your definition the fastest man on sunday in melbourne was Jean eric Vergne....

As he reached 310.7km/h
Raikonen only reached 306.9km/h

And the winner was??

[Ral]

Actually, I think that's the problem. I can't figure out how he defines "fastest", or more specifically, what someone would need to do to be "the fastest".

And I don't think I'm the only one. In fact, he seems unable to define it himself.

[rejeesh]

Kimi won bcoz of the way race panned out. Had one of the Ferrari could overtake vettel in first stint, they could have won the race. For a 3 stop strategy to work, they have to put faster laps in every stint and use tyres to absolute maximum. here due to the circumstances, Alonso has to dispose his first medium tire even when there was more life in it.

at a moment in the race Alonso was just 4 sec behind raikkonen. Had he been able to overtake vettel in first stint, he could have closed this 4 sec. However he still have to overtake raikkonen in last stint which is a big unknown.

I feel another race at Albert park in same conditions, a 3 stopper may win. The result is how the race panned out due positions and all. We do not know whether the result shows absolute race pace.

[raymondu999]

The win was oddly reminiscent of the 2012 Chinese Grand Prix. Very cold, and the only car to competitively make a 2-stop work, while the others did a 3-stop. The 3-stoppers got stuck in traffic at different stages of the race as the lone 2-stopper was able to go unchallenged, with the 2nd-best 2-stopper falling through the field in the final stint as his tyres were shot (Vettel in China, Sutil here)

Let's hope that that's not an omen for Kimi

[strad]

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.

He is differentiating between Fastest vs Quickest...I think

[rkn]

The win was oddly reminiscent of the 2012 Chinese Grand Prix. Very cold, and the only car to competitively make a 2-stop work, while the others did a 3-stop. The 3-stoppers got stuck in traffic at different stages of the race as the lone 2-stopper was able to go unchallenged, with the 2nd-best 2-stopper falling through the field in the final stint as his tyres were shot (Vettel in China, Sutil here)

Let's hope that that's not an omen for Kimi

Sour grapes from a ferrari fan, expect better from you Raymond. Lotus' been quick and consistent throughout winter testing, and still everybody downplays them because they''re a "small" team. Lotus and RAI have won 2 out of last four races #fact

[raymondu999]

Sour grapes from a ferrari fan

Whut? They're probably the team I hate the most, to be frank.

I was only stating an observation of certain striking similarities. What exactly was in my post, that made you think I said, or even implied, Lotus didn't deserve the win/wouldn't win the title? Or did you find anything in my post that was something other than reality?

[korzeniow]

The win was oddly reminiscent of the 2012 Chinese Grand Prix. Very cold, and the only car to competitively make a 2-stop work, while the others did a 3-stop. The 3-stoppers got stuck in traffic at different stages of the race as the lone 2-stopper was able to go unchallenged, with the 2nd-best 2-stopper falling through the field in the final stint as his tyres were shot (Vettel in China, Sutil here)

Let's hope that that's not an omen for Kimi

What traffic? Sutil? Vettel having 5 laps old tyres couldn't pass Sutil who was on 14 laps old tyres at that time? He simply didn't have the pace.

Face it, Kimi was the quickest!

[raymondu999]

People need to stop and think about what is being written sometimes - because my post was meant to be taken at face value. The circumstances of the win reminded me of Rosberg in China, that's all. I'm not saying Kimi will fall back in the championship, I'm not saying Kimi wasn't quickest, I'm not saying that it was a fluke.

Someone wrote something to be taken at face value. Get over it, people.

[kilcoo316]

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?

... and that is the bottom line.

If anyone thinks KR didn't have pace in hand, consider that.

2 tenths of a second quicker than anyone, 3 tenths quicker than Alonso who maxed out on lap 53 (3 laps before Kimi who was on tyres 4-5 laps older).

[rkn]

Sour grapes from a ferrari fan

Whut? They're probably the team I hate the most, to be frank.

I was only stating an observation of certain striking similarities. What exactly was in my post, that made you think I said, or even implied, Lotus didn't deserve the win/wouldn't win the title? Or did you find anything in my post that was something other than reality?

<--And I hate Mclaren more than anything

Thats fine if you were merely observing similarities, but you are implying this is a one-off like merc in chnia last year. A lot of people are not giving credit to Lotus where credit is absolutely due. They drove a great race, and I ain't surprised since they've been probably the best on race pace in testing, they finished last year strong and then they turn up in AUS and shattered the competition. But still people predict lotus to come in 6th and 7th in MAL, which is totally unfair considering what they have achieved over the winter. They had the fastest lap (at the end of a 24 lap stint )and still managed to be best on tyre conservation. Show some respect.

[beelsebob]

He is differentiating between Fastest vs Quickest...I think

And again, quickest doesn't work out to be the Ferrari or the RedBull either – it works out to be the Toro Rosso (highest instantaneous speed).

Until someone can give me a definition for what they mean by "fastest" or "quickest" that
a) actually makes sense, and is well defined
b) isn't just making some bullshit wishy washy stuff up to allow them to say 'well the ferrari was fastest even if lotus won'
I call bullshit on the whole "but lotus wasn't the fastest"... Yes they were, they finished first, that means they were fastest, if someone else could go faster than them, they would have, and would have won.

[Nando]

Red Bull had the quickest car, Lotus had the best car. Simple.

[beelsebob]

Red Bull had the quickest car, Lotus had the best car. Simple.

By what definition of Quickest? As I said above – I call bullshit, until you can give me a definition of quickest that actually makes this true, and is not just bullshit.

For reference – quickest if you ignore pitstops is bullshit too...
1) The ferrari was quicker by that metric
2) That equates to "the team with the car that's vaguely close to the front, and made the most pit stops is quickest", simply because that team would run the fastest on the tyres they had because they could extract life from them as fast as possible. This is a bullshit definition for obvious reasons.

[Dragonfly]

Reading the last pages I can't but wonder why nobody splits the "faster" aspect into its two logical parts - faster on a single lap and faster on full race distance. Definitely Kimi was the fastest on race distance. And fast enough on a single lap to overtake when necessary compared to Red Bull cars which are fast where others are not - corner entry and exit - to have the best lap time but were not able to overtake and gain positions once the car is not leading. It's a matter of setup balance and compromises and Lotus have hit the spot for the conditions in Australia. That's why I wrote in the RB9 thread that RBR need to increase a bit their top speed. For the next races things may vary significantly. All teams will be adjusting to the current Pirelli tyres specifics as testing, apart from being limited, does not compare to real race conditions.