Qualy times adjusted for fuel load

Just for fun I've adjusted the qualy times for fuel load based on when the
cars pitted. I've estimated 0.09 seconds per lap's worth of fuel. Times have
been adjusted to a qualy time based on fueling to pit on lap 21 like Kubica
and Lewis. Where Heikki would have pitted if he hadn't crashed is unknown
but I've assumed lap 22 i.e. the lap after Lewis as he clearly couldn't have
pitted at the same time. Piquet can't be ranked having crashed on lap 6.

This gives us the following number of laps adjustment. Kimi +1, Fred +5,
Massa +2, Heikki -1, Webber +1, Trulli +1, Heidfeld -3.

The table then becomes.

1 Kimi .....1.21.893
2 Kubica..1.22.065
3 Lewis....1.22.096
4 Heikki...1.22.141
5 Massa...1.22.238
6 Heidfeld 1.22.272
7 Alonso..1.22.354
8 Webber.1.22.519
9 Trulli......1.22.619

So pretty good for BMW, it looks like Massa just dropped a couple of tenths
somewhere on his best run and Renault was flattered by nearly half a second
compared to their true pace.

I think the actual race results reflect the above fairly well with Alonso
dropping back to 6th before retiring and Massa getting a good start.

On true pace there's probably less than 3 tenths covering Ferrari, McLaren
and BMW now with that being the current real running order. Kubica appears
to be the outstanding driver compared to his team mate but it's a lot closer
than it first appeared with Heidfeld only a couple of tenths off the pace
rather than the half a second deficit he had in qualy due to being fueled
heavy.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines

On Apr 28, 10:45 am, "Dave Baker" <N...@null.com> wrote:
> Just for fun I've adjusted the qualy times for fuel load based on when the
> cars pitted. I've estimated 0.09 seconds per lap's worth of fuel. Times have
> been adjusted to a qualy time based on fueling to pit on lap 21 like Kubica
> and Lewis. Where Heikki would have pitted if he hadn't crashed is unknown
> but I've assumed lap 22 i.e. the lap after Lewis as he clearly couldn't have
> pitted at the same time. Piquet can't be ranked having crashed on lap 6.
>
> This gives us the following number of laps adjustment. Kimi +1, Fred +5,
> Massa +2, Heikki -1, Webber +1, Trulli +1, Heidfeld -3.
>
> The table then becomes.
>
> 1 Kimi .....1.21.893
> 2 Kubica..1.22.065
> 3 Lewis....1.22.096
> 4 Heikki...1.22.141
> 5 Massa...1.22.238
> 6 Heidfeld 1.22.272
> 7 Alonso..1.22.354
> 8 Webber.1.22.519
> 9 Trulli......1.22.619
>
> So pretty good for BMW, it looks like Massa just dropped a couple of tenths
> somewhere on his best run and Renault was flattered by nearly half a second
> compared to their true pace.
>
> I think the actual race results reflect the above fairly well with Alonso
> dropping back to 6th before retiring and Massa getting a good start.
>
> On true pace there's probably less than 3 tenths covering Ferrari, McLaren
> and BMW now with that being the current real running order. Kubica appears
> to be the outstanding driver compared to his team mate but it's a lot closer
> than it first appeared with Heidfeld only a couple of tenths off the pace
> rather than the half a second deficit he had in qualy due to being fueled
> heavy.
> --
> Dave Baker
> Puma Race Engines

I don't see what you are trying to achieve by posting this, other than
elevating Lewis at the expense of Alonso. The qualifying results were
the qualifying results and your little 'analysis' isn't going to
change it or make it go away.

The only useful thing you could do with the qualifying results is try
to estimate fuel loads before the race runs in order to gain some
insight into each strategy. This adds nothing.

"Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c4eb6f3-2e84-444a-a9fd-e5141b0db6cd@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 10:45 am, "Dave Baker" <N...@null.com> wrote:
>> Just for fun I've adjusted the qualy times for fuel load based on when
>> the
>> cars pitted. I've estimated 0.09 seconds per lap's worth of fuel. Times
>> have
>> been adjusted to a qualy time based on fueling to pit on lap 21 like
>> Kubica
>> and Lewis. Where Heikki would have pitted if he hadn't crashed is unknown
>> but I've assumed lap 22 i.e. the lap after Lewis as he clearly couldn't
>> have
>> pitted at the same time. Piquet can't be ranked having crashed on lap 6.
>>
>> This gives us the following number of laps adjustment. Kimi +1, Fred +5,
>> Massa +2, Heikki -1, Webber +1, Trulli +1, Heidfeld -3.
>>
>> The table then becomes.
>>
>> 1 Kimi .....1.21.893
>> 2 Kubica..1.22.065
>> 3 Lewis....1.22.096
>> 4 Heikki...1.22.141
>> 5 Massa...1.22.238
>> 6 Heidfeld 1.22.272
>> 7 Alonso..1.22.354
>> 8 Webber.1.22.519
>> 9 Trulli......1.22.619
>>
>> So pretty good for BMW, it looks like Massa just dropped a couple of
>> tenths
>> somewhere on his best run and Renault was flattered by nearly half a
>> second
>> compared to their true pace.
>>
>> I think the actual race results reflect the above fairly well with Alonso
>> dropping back to 6th before retiring and Massa getting a good start.
>>
>> On true pace there's probably less than 3 tenths covering Ferrari,
>> McLaren
>> and BMW now with that being the current real running order. Kubica
>> appears
>> to be the outstanding driver compared to his team mate but it's a lot
>> closer
>> than it first appeared with Heidfeld only a couple of tenths off the pace
>> rather than the half a second deficit he had in qualy due to being fueled
>> heavy.
>> --
>> Dave Baker
>> Puma Race Engines
>
> I don't see what you are trying to achieve by posting this, other than
> elevating Lewis at the expense of Alonso. The qualifying results were
> the qualifying results and your little 'analysis' isn't going to
> change it or make it go away.
>
> The only useful thing you could do with the qualifying results is try
> to estimate fuel loads before the race runs in order to gain some
> insight into each strategy. This adds nothing.

I dont see what you are trying to achieve by posting this, other than to
whine on about bloody Lewis and Alonso.

The only useful thing you could do is fuck off. You add nothing.

AC

"Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c4eb6f3-2e84-444a-a9fd-e5141b0db6cd@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

> I don't see what you are trying to achieve by posting this

I doubt if that will come as a big surprise to anyone.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines

On Apr 28, 1:33 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null.com> wrote:
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7c4eb6f3-2e84-444a-a9fd-e5141b0db6cd@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I don't see what you are trying to achieve by posting this
>
> I doubt if that will come as a big surprise to anyone.
> --
> Dave Baker
> Puma Race Engines


By employing contextomy you simply weaken your own point of view. That
might be a problem for you if you actually had something interesting
to say. See the problem with so much data being available on the
internet is that idiots like you can come along and try to interpret
it selectively, make a number of bad assumptions, and attempt to state
something as fact.

"Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5dda8e05-1a4a-4226-84e5-7dcccbc74fe4@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 1:33 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null.com> wrote:
>> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7c4eb6f3-2e84-444a-a9fd-e5141b0db6cd@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > I don't see what you are trying to achieve by posting this
>>
>> I doubt if that will come as a big surprise to anyone.
>> --
>> Dave Baker
>> Puma Race Engines
>
>
> By employing contextomy you simply weaken your own point of view. That
> might be a problem for you if you actually had something interesting
> to say. See the problem with so much data being available on the
> internet is that idiots like you can come along and try to interpret
> it selectively, make a number of bad assumptions, and attempt to state
> something as fact.

You mean like you stating that Alonso had a good amount of fuel and that
you'd based that on a comparison of his qualifying times when it glaringly
apparent to everyone else he was running absurdly light and he even admitted
as much himself before the race?

I'm some some people on here will find my numerical analysis both valid and
of interest and what you think about things is of vanishingly little
consequence.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines

On Apr 28, 3:05 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null.com> wrote:
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5dda8e05-1a4a-4226-84e5-7dcccbc74fe4@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 1:33 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null.com> wrote:
> >> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:7c4eb6f3-2e84-444a-a9fd-e5141b0db6cd@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > I don't see what you are trying to achieve by posting this
>
> >> I doubt if that will come as a big surprise to anyone.
> >> --
> >> Dave Baker
> >> Puma Race Engines
>
> > By employing contextomy you simply weaken your own point of view. That
> > might be a problem for you if you actually had something interesting
> > to say. See the problem with so much data being available on the
> > internet is that idiots like you can come along and try to interpret
> > it selectively, make a number of bad assumptions, and attempt to state
> > something as fact.
>
> You mean like you stating that Alonso had a good amount of fuel and that
> you'd based that on a comparison of his qualifying times when it glaringly
> apparent to everyone else he was running absurdly light and he even admitted
> as much himself before the race?
>
> I'm some some people on here will find my numerical analysis both valid and
> of interest and what you think about things is of vanishingly little
> consequence.
> --
> Dave Baker
> Puma Race Engines


In 2006 Fernando Alonso won the spanish GP having pitted on lap 17. In
your selective analysis you must have missed that.

16 laps worth was a good amount of fuel, not an absurdly light amount
as you pretend.

"Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:507bcd42-f901-4905-8911-40ff87aa8395@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> In 2006 Fernando Alonso won the spanish GP having pitted on lap 17. In
> your selective analysis you must have missed that.
>
> 16 laps worth was a good amount of fuel, not an absurdly light amount
> as you pretend.

And again you choose to ignore that if it hadn't been for the safety car
laps he'd have had to have pitted by lap 14.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines

On Apr 28, 3:58 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null.com> wrote:
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:507bcd42-f901-4905-8911-40ff87aa8395@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > In 2006 Fernando Alonso won the spanish GP having pitted on lap 17. In
> > your selective analysis you must have missed that.
>
> > 16 laps worth was a good amount of fuel, not an absurdly light amount
> > as you pretend.
>
> And again you choose to ignore that if it hadn't been for the safety car
> laps he'd have had to have pitted by lap 14.
> --
> Dave Baker
> Puma Race Engines


Sigh, you really are quite stupid.

The safety car was deployed for three laps, but it spent nearly a lap
waiting to pick up the leaders during which time Alonso and most
others were still driving under almost normal conditions (waved
yellows). So there were only two full laps behind the safety car
although it was out for three.

Conveniently, for your calculations you do not factor in how much fuel
the drivers had when they each eventually pitted. He may have had
enough for 16 full laps but ended up with less than a complete lap's
worth of fuel due to the interruption of the safety car. In effect the
safety car made no difference because the fuel saved was not enough
for a full and complete lap in normal racing conditions.

Now you're just being petty groveling over one or two laps. The fact
of the matter is he had a good amount of fuel, much more than you or
the rest of the bufoon Alonso-haters were expecting.

He qualified on 16 laps worth of fuel. Deal with it.

"Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail.com> wrote:

> The safety car was deployed for three laps, but it spent nearly a lap
> waiting to pick up the leaders during which time Alonso and most
> others were still driving under almost normal conditions (waved
> yellows). So there were only two full laps behind the safety car
> although it was out for three.

Alonso's first four laps were:

1 1'42.487
2 2'14.526
3 2'11.966
4 1'24.044

He then lapped in the 1'23s until lap 12 when he was in the 1'22s.

Last year his first lap was 1'30s, while Massa (leading) did 1'27s,
and Hamilton (second) did 1'29s. Therefore the first lap was about
13-15s slower than a 'normal' first lap, ~15% slower. The second
and third laps were about 61%/59% slower than Alonso's later 'normal'
laps. The Safety Car indicators were on screen about 55 seconds after
the race started and within one or two seconds we saw Räikkönen going
very slowly, meaning that they were at 'SC pace' for about 30s of the
first lap. All in all they ran at 'SC pace' for about five minutes.
I don't know how much fuel is consumed at that pace but I'm sure it
must be less than half the 'normal' Catalunya figure of 2.2kg per lap.
So they probably saved about 2 to 2.5 laps worth. They always carry a
little bit more than necessary to avoid the risk of running dry, so
it would be easy enough to stretch 2.5 to 3 laps, meaning Alonso
MIGHT have been scheduled to pit after 13 instead of 16.

Of course, the same fuel saving applies to all of the others as well,
so we can speculate that

Massa 16
Räikkönen 17, Webber 17, Trulli 17
Hamilton 18, Kubica 18


> Conveniently, for your calculations you do not factor in how much fuel
> the drivers had when they each eventually pitted. He may have had
> enough for 16 full laps but ended up with less than a complete lap's
> worth of fuel due to the interruption of the safety car. In effect the
> safety car made no difference because the fuel saved was not enough
> for a full and complete lap in normal racing conditions.

Indeed, people tend to assume that drivers HAD to pit when they actually
did, but sometimes they pit earlier than expected.

> Now you're just being petty groveling over one or two laps. The fact
> of the matter is he had a good amount of fuel, much more than you or
> the rest of the bufoon Alonso-haters were expecting.

How is a 'good amount' less than everyone else?

> He qualified on 16 laps worth of fuel. Deal with it.

Well no he didn't. He stopped after 16 laps, but he did the installation
lap and he did an in lap after his final qualifying run - at least two
laps at reduced pace, possibly equivalent to one racing lap.

--

Brian

"Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn.com> wrote in message
news:67lk0aF2pmaqlU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail.com> wrote:
All in all they ran at 'SC pace' for about five minutes.

> I don't know how much fuel is consumed at that pace but I'm sure it
> must be less than half the 'normal' Catalunya figure of 2.2kg per lap.

It would be massively less than consumption at race pace. Power required to
achieve a given speed is proportional to the cube of that speed so if the
full 750bhp is required to do 200mph then less than 100bhp would suffice for
100mph and about 300bhp for 150 mph. The amount of throttle required to keep
up with the safety car under acceleration would be less than 25%. Overall
I'm sure that they'd do 4 or so laps at SC speed for every one at full race
speed. I took a conservative estimate of 3 laps in my calculations.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines

On Apr 28, 10:18 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null.com> wrote:
> "Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMT...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:67lk0aF2pmaqlU1@mid.individual.net...> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All in all they ran at 'SC pace' for about five minutes.
>
> > I don't know how much fuel is consumed at that pace but I'm sure it
> > must be less than half the 'normal' Catalunya figure of 2.2kg per lap.
>
> It would be massively less than consumption at race pace. Power required to
> achieve a given speed is proportional to the cube of that speed so if the
> full 750bhp is required to do 200mph then less than 100bhp would suffice for
> 100mph and about 300bhp for 150 mph. The amount of throttle required to keep
> up with the safety car under acceleration would be less than 25%. Overall
> I'm sure that they'd do 4 or so laps at SC speed for every one at full race
> speed. I took a conservative estimate of 3 laps in my calculations.
> --
> Dave Baker
> Puma Race Engines


Mate I hope none of your customers ever read any of your comments. You
just look really stupid saying something like that.

"Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail.com> wrote:

>> All in all they ran at 'SC pace' for about five minutes.
>>
>> > I don't know how much fuel is consumed at that pace but I'm sure it
>> > must be less than half the 'normal' Catalunya figure of 2.2kg per lap.
>>
>> It would be massively less than consumption at race pace. Power required to
>> achieve a given speed is proportional to the cube of that speed so if the
>> full 750bhp is required to do 200mph then less than 100bhp would suffice for
>> 100mph and about 300bhp for 150 mph. The amount of throttle required to keep
>> up with the safety car under acceleration would be less than 25%. Overall
>> I'm sure that they'd do 4 or so laps at SC speed for every one at full race
>> speed. I took a conservative estimate of 3 laps in my calculations.
>> --
>> Dave Baker
>> Puma Race Engines
>
>
> Mate I hope none of your customers ever read any of your comments. You
> just look really stupid saying something like that.

Safety Car pace uses ~25% of normal race pace fuel. Seems about right to
me.

"Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn.com> wrote in message
news:67lovqF2pj1tkU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> All in all they ran at 'SC pace' for about five minutes.
>>>
>>> > I don't know how much fuel is consumed at that pace but I'm sure it
>>> > must be less than half the 'normal' Catalunya figure of 2.2kg per lap.
>>>
>>> It would be massively less than consumption at race pace. Power required
>>> to
>>> achieve a given speed is proportional to the cube of that speed so if
>>> the
>>> full 750bhp is required to do 200mph then less than 100bhp would suffice
>>> for
>>> 100mph and about 300bhp for 150 mph. The amount of throttle required to
>>> keep
>>> up with the safety car under acceleration would be less than 25%.
>>> Overall
>>> I'm sure that they'd do 4 or so laps at SC speed for every one at full
>>> race
>>> speed. I took a conservative estimate of 3 laps in my calculations.
>>> --
>>> Dave Baker
>>> Puma Race Engines
>>
>>
>> Mate I hope none of your customers ever read any of your comments. You
>> just look really stupid saying something like that.
>
> Safety Car pace uses ~25% of normal race pace fuel. Seems about right to
> me.

I've sent an email asking for actual data. I'll report back on what I get
told. I doubt if my estimates are far out though. Basic physics suffices for
most of these questions.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines

"Dave Baker" <Null@null.com> wrote in message
news:fv4dea$rf9$1@news.datemas.de...
> I've sent an email asking for actual data. I'll report back on what I get
> told.

A bit of a surprise. Full race speed consumption in Spain was 2.4kg to 2.6kg
per lap. Behind the safety car it was 1.4kg/lap. Just over half. I wonder if
a chunk of that was continual braking and then accelerating to try and keep
tyre temperatures up rather than just plod round behind the SC.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines