Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
"Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:738c4e03-0f7e-4b7d-a56d-f1ed7b121e56@l17g2000pri.googlegroups . com ...
> On Apr 28, 12:16 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote:
>> "AC" <x...@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
>>
>> news:3p8Rj.93056$4f4.4128@newsfe6-win.ntli . net ...
>>
>> > How much of the closeness is down to the circuit being no1 testing
>> > circuit?
>>
>> That's probably a big part of it. It would be a sad admission if anyone
>> couldn't get their car setup well on a circuit they spend so much time
>> at.
>>
>> > Will the car spread out at the next GP?
>>
>> > Also, I think this kinda proves my hypothisis that Mclaren are screwed
>> > becasue they will spend all year fighting the BMWs.
>>
>> With the engine freeze and single tyre manufacturer things are bound to
>> gradually get closer together as there is less scope for development work
>> to
>> create differences between the cars. These first few races are going to
>> be
>> crucial because I can't see the top three teams suddenly spreading back
>> out
>> again later in the season. However I don't think McLaren are fighting BMW
>> any more than they're fighting Ferrari. All three teams look capable of
>> taking poles and wins as their various strengths and weaknesses manifest
>> at
>> different circuits. Ferrari just appear to retain a very slight edge at
>> present. I think they'll hang on to that for a while but the season is
>> likely to be close.
>> --
>> Dave Baker
>> Puma Race Engines
>
> Excuse me, but how exactly are Mclaren fighting Ferrari any more so
> than, say, Team Force India?
Thats just silly.
>Mclaren took a win in Australia because
> Ferrari had problems but have hardly featured since. Ferrari is in a
> class of it's own this year whereas there is not much to choose
> between BMW or Mclaren other than a single opportunisitic win. I
> expect BMW will pick up an opportunistic win at some stage this year
> too.
Yes I agree that Ferrari are ahead, but not necessarily in their own class.
If MS was driving, then maybe. I think Mclaren will see more that an
opportunistic win. But I'm not sure about BMW. I think that if they continue
to develop they might get more. Perhaps a win in their own right.
AC
"Dave Baker" <Null@null . com > wrote in message
news:fv351a$ato$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "AC" <xxxx@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:3p8Rj.93056$4f4.4128@newsfe6-win.ntli . net ...
>> How much of the closeness is down to the circuit being no1 testing
>> circuit?
>
> That's probably a big part of it. It would be a sad admission if anyone
> couldn't get their car setup well on a circuit they spend so much time at.
>
>> Will the car spread out at the next GP?
>>
>> Also, I think this kinda proves my hypothisis that Mclaren are screwed
>> becasue they will spend all year fighting the BMWs.
>
> With the engine freeze and single tyre manufacturer things are bound to
> gradually get closer together as there is less scope for development work
> to create differences between the cars. These first few races are going to
> be crucial because I can't see the top three teams suddenly spreading back
> out again later in the season. However I don't think McLaren are fighting
> BMW any more than they're fighting Ferrari. All three teams look capable
> of taking poles and wins as their various strengths and weaknesses
> manifest at different circuits. Ferrari just appear to retain a very
> slight edge at present. I think they'll hang on to that for a while but
> the season is likely to be close.
> --
> Dave Baker
> Puma Race Engines
>
Hmm, not sure I agree. I think the gap between Mclaren and Ferrari is bigger
than the Mclaren BMW gap. But, like you say, different circuits will suit
different teams better. Whatever the case, the season will tell. Obviously I
hope Im wrong......
I do see your point about the engine freeze helping bunch up the field. I'd
forgotten all about that!!!
AC
"Dave Baker" <Null@null . com > wrote in message
news:fv2vls$4uu$1@news.datemas.de...
> 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.
I've just run another little exercise to verify my estimate of 0.09 seconds
per lap's worth of fuel. I've taken the best time for each driver in Q1 or
Q2, deducted that from the Q3 time and divided by the number of laps fuel
they each had in the car during Q3. I've also adjusted that number of laps
for the safety car period of 3 laps in which I estimate they'd have only
used 1 lap's worth of fuel so without the SC period they'd have all had to
pit 2 laps earlier than they actually did.
Calculating that out for all 9 drivers and averaging it came to just under
0.08s per lap not 0.09. However not every driver, especially the fastest
ones, would have needed to have gone as fast in Q1 or Q2 to make the top ten
as they possibly could have so this would lead to a slightly low estimate
for the time per lap of fuel. Kimi for example only gained 0.062s per lap
and Lewis 0.067 whereas Trulli at the bottom of the order gained the full
0.090s. On that basis 0.09s wasn't far out but using 0.08 didn't change the
true pace order I came up with first time. My final best estimate is that
0.085s per lap is about the right figure. That would also equate very
closely with Brundle's estimate of 3 tenths per 10kg of fuel.
I think the biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the fragile
Alonso ego we saw last year at McLaren must be still very much in evidence
if he was prepared to sacrifice so much race potential just to qualify
higher than the car merited at his home GP. I'm also very surprised that the
team was prepared to go along with this.
Finally, after adjusting for the safety car period and excluding Fred, the
average intended first pitstop for the other eight drivers was lap 19, or 3
laps earlier than the theoretical ideal of 1/3 of the way through the race.
I'll see how this compares in future races.
My data if anyone wants to try their own analysis came from this handy site.
* w w w .manipef1 . com /results/2008/spain.php
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
"Dave Baker" <Null@null . com > wrote in news:fv3bra$hfd$1@news.datemas.de:
> I think the biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the
> fragile Alonso ego we saw last year at McLaren must be still very much
> in evidence if he was prepared to sacrifice so much race potential
> just to qualify higher than the car merited at his home GP. I'm also
> very surprised that the team was prepared to go along with this.
And yet it was _such_ a good idea for Lewis to run 4 laps less fuel than
Alonso at Silverstone last season, huh? Was Lewis ego fragile then?
And how'd that work out for him relative to his competition in that race?
To discuss Alonso further - it succeeded in getting him ahead of his real
competition (everyone behind the top 6 cars) and maybe even Heidfeld.
--
CatharticF1
The thinking man:
"They say Kimi's ice-cool, like he's flat-lined, but I think my
subconscious is pretty much like that"
Gracious:
"I was able to trick him into out-braking himself .. I apologise for that
but .. we got the points, so it doesn't really matter."
And from humble beginnings:
"..avoid getting caught up with all the monkeys at the back."
Lewis Hamilton
> I think the biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the
> fragile Alonso ego we saw last year at McLaren must be still very much
> in evidence if he was prepared to sacrifice so much race potential
> just to qualify higher than the car merited at his home GP. I'm also
> very surprised that the team was prepared to go along with this.
And yet it was _such_ a good idea for Lewis to run 4 laps less fuel than
Alonso at Silverstone last season, huh? Was Lewis ego fragile then?
And how'd that work out for him relative to his competition in that race?
To discuss Alonso further - it succeeded in getting him ahead of his real
competition (everyone behind the top 6 cars) and maybe even Heidfeld.
--
CatharticF1
The thinking man:
"They say Kimi's ice-cool, like he's flat-lined, but I think my
subconscious is pretty much like that"
Gracious:
"I was able to trick him into out-braking himself .. I apologise for that
but .. we got the points, so it doesn't really matter."
And from humble beginnings:
"..avoid getting caught up with all the monkeys at the back."
Lewis Hamilton
On 28 Apr, 02:29, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail . com > wrote:
> "Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote innews:fv3bra$hfd$1@news.datemas.de:
>
> > I think the biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the
> > fragile Alonso ego we saw last year at McLaren must be still very much
> > in evidence if he was prepared to sacrifice so much race potential
> > just to qualify higher than the car merited at his home GP. I'm also
> > very surprised that the team was prepared to go along with this.
>
> And yet it was _such_ a good idea for Lewis to run 4 laps less fuel than
> Alonso at Silverstone last season, huh? Was Lewis ego fragile then?
>
> And how'd that work out for him relative to his competition in that race?
>
> To discuss Alonso further - it succeeded in getting him ahead of his real
> competition (everyone behind the top 6 cars) and maybe even Heidfeld.
>
> --
> CatharticF1
>
> The thinking man:
> "They say Kimi's ice-cool, like he's flat-lined, but I think my
> subconscious is pretty much like that"
> Gracious:
> "I was able to trick him into out-braking himself .. I apologise for t=
hat
> but .. we got the points, so it doesn't really matter."
> And from humble beginnings:
> "..avoid getting caught up with all the monkeys at the back."
> Lewis Hamilton
This Baker fella is plainly obsessed with Fred. He is being hysterical
since Fred got a front row possition saturday.
JJBoulas
> "Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote innews:fv3bra$hfd$1@news.datemas.de:
>
> > I think the biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the
> > fragile Alonso ego we saw last year at McLaren must be still very much
> > in evidence if he was prepared to sacrifice so much race potential
> > just to qualify higher than the car merited at his home GP. I'm also
> > very surprised that the team was prepared to go along with this.
>
> And yet it was _such_ a good idea for Lewis to run 4 laps less fuel than
> Alonso at Silverstone last season, huh? Was Lewis ego fragile then?
>
> And how'd that work out for him relative to his competition in that race?
>
> To discuss Alonso further - it succeeded in getting him ahead of his real
> competition (everyone behind the top 6 cars) and maybe even Heidfeld.
>
> --
> CatharticF1
>
> The thinking man:
> "They say Kimi's ice-cool, like he's flat-lined, but I think my
> subconscious is pretty much like that"
> Gracious:
> "I was able to trick him into out-braking himself .. I apologise for t=
hat
> but .. we got the points, so it doesn't really matter."
> And from humble beginnings:
> "..avoid getting caught up with all the monkeys at the back."
> Lewis Hamilton
This Baker fella is plainly obsessed with Fred. He is being hysterical
since Fred got a front row possition saturday.
JJBoulas
"Dave Baker" <Null@null . com > wrote:
> "Dave Baker" <Null@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.
>
> I've just run another little exercise to verify my estimate of 0.09 seconds per
> lap's worth of fuel. I've taken the best time for each driver in Q1 or Q2, deducted
> that from the Q3 time and divided by the number of laps fuel they each had in the
> car during Q3. I've also adjusted that number of laps for the safety car period of
> 3 laps in which I estimate they'd have only used 1 lap's worth of fuel so without
> the SC period they'd have all had to pit 2 laps earlier than they actually did.
>
> Calculating that out for all 9 drivers and averaging it came to just under 0.08s
> per lap not 0.09. However not every driver, especially the fastest ones, would have
> needed to have gone as fast in Q1 or Q2 to make the top ten as they possibly could
> have so this would lead to a slightly low estimate for the time per lap of fuel.
> Kimi for example only gained 0.062s per lap and Lewis 0.067 whereas Trulli at the
> bottom of the order gained the full 0.090s. On that basis 0.09s wasn't far out but
> using 0.08 didn't change the true pace order I came up with first time. My final
> best estimate is that 0.085s per lap is about the right figure. That would also
> equate very closely with Brundle's estimate of 3 tenths per 10kg of fuel.
>
> I think the biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the fragile Alonso ego
> we saw last year at McLaren must be still very much in evidence if he was prepared
> to sacrifice so much race potential just to qualify higher than the car merited at
> his home GP. I'm also very surprised that the team was prepared to go along with
> this.
>
> Finally, after adjusting for the safety car period and excluding Fred, the average
> intended first pitstop for the other eight drivers was lap 19, or 3 laps earlier
> than the theoretical ideal of 1/3 of the way through the race. I'll see how this
> compares in future races.
>
> My data if anyone wants to try their own analysis came from this handy site.
>
> * w w w .manipef1 . com /results/2008/spain.php
Semi 'official' figures for Catalunya, maybe from 2006, were fuel burned per
lap 2.22 kg, lap time reduction for 10 kg of fuel = 0.42s per lap. Those
do equate to 0.09s.
These were the 10 quickest times over the whole weekend:
Hamilton Q2 1'20.285
Massa Q2 1'20.584
Kubica Q2 1'20.597
Räikkönen P1 1'20.649
Alonso Q2 1'20.804
Heidfeld Q2 1'20.815
Kovalainen Q2 1'20.817
Piquet Q2 1'20.894
Trulli Q2 1'20.907
Webber Q2 1'20.984
They might be assumed to be the absolute quickest laps possible with 'zero'
fuel.
--
Brian
> "Dave Baker" <Null@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.
>
> I've just run another little exercise to verify my estimate of 0.09 seconds per
> lap's worth of fuel. I've taken the best time for each driver in Q1 or Q2, deducted
> that from the Q3 time and divided by the number of laps fuel they each had in the
> car during Q3. I've also adjusted that number of laps for the safety car period of
> 3 laps in which I estimate they'd have only used 1 lap's worth of fuel so without
> the SC period they'd have all had to pit 2 laps earlier than they actually did.
>
> Calculating that out for all 9 drivers and averaging it came to just under 0.08s
> per lap not 0.09. However not every driver, especially the fastest ones, would have
> needed to have gone as fast in Q1 or Q2 to make the top ten as they possibly could
> have so this would lead to a slightly low estimate for the time per lap of fuel.
> Kimi for example only gained 0.062s per lap and Lewis 0.067 whereas Trulli at the
> bottom of the order gained the full 0.090s. On that basis 0.09s wasn't far out but
> using 0.08 didn't change the true pace order I came up with first time. My final
> best estimate is that 0.085s per lap is about the right figure. That would also
> equate very closely with Brundle's estimate of 3 tenths per 10kg of fuel.
>
> I think the biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the fragile Alonso ego
> we saw last year at McLaren must be still very much in evidence if he was prepared
> to sacrifice so much race potential just to qualify higher than the car merited at
> his home GP. I'm also very surprised that the team was prepared to go along with
> this.
>
> Finally, after adjusting for the safety car period and excluding Fred, the average
> intended first pitstop for the other eight drivers was lap 19, or 3 laps earlier
> than the theoretical ideal of 1/3 of the way through the race. I'll see how this
> compares in future races.
>
> My data if anyone wants to try their own analysis came from this handy site.
>
> * w w w .manipef1 . com /results/2008/spain.php
Semi 'official' figures for Catalunya, maybe from 2006, were fuel burned per
lap 2.22 kg, lap time reduction for 10 kg of fuel = 0.42s per lap. Those
do equate to 0.09s.
These were the 10 quickest times over the whole weekend:
Hamilton Q2 1'20.285
Massa Q2 1'20.584
Kubica Q2 1'20.597
Räikkönen P1 1'20.649
Alonso Q2 1'20.804
Heidfeld Q2 1'20.815
Kovalainen Q2 1'20.817
Piquet Q2 1'20.894
Trulli Q2 1'20.907
Webber Q2 1'20.984
They might be assumed to be the absolute quickest laps possible with 'zero'
fuel.
--
Brian
"Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn . com > wrote:
> These were the 10 quickest times over the whole weekend:
>
> Hamilton Q2 1'20.285
Sorry that one is a typo :-)
1'20.825
--
Brian
> These were the 10 quickest times over the whole weekend:
>
> Hamilton Q2 1'20.285
Sorry that one is a typo :-)
1'20.825
--
Brian
Dave Baker <Null@null . com > wrote:
> I think the biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the fragile
> Alonso ego we saw last year at McLaren must be still very much in evidence
> if he was prepared to sacrifice so much race potential just to qualify
> higher than the car merited at his home GP. I'm also very surprised that the
> team was prepared to go along with this.
Dave, we all know you detest Alonso - you go to great lengths to find
sticks to beat him with, but now you're just being a blinkered plonker.
There's more to Renault's choices than mere statistics. Note the
emphasis here on the word "Renault". Not Alonso.
Pat Symonds repeatedly went on record this weekend saying how pleased he
was with himself and the team, in that Renault were regaining their
reputation for creative strategic thinking. Once again : Renault. There
was no "the team going along with Fred's ego". It was the *team's* idea,
and they knew that Fred was a good enough driver to be able to make it
work.
Here's a clue for you, copypasted from another post of mine :
On French TV, the commentators were saying that Carlos Ghosn recently
warned Renault F1 in no uncertain terms that Renault must be "part of
the show" i.e. not trundling around unseen in the midfield. Or else.
For me, the strategy employed by the team this weekend was a win-win. As
far as I can see there were no real disadvantages. It boosted team
morale, it put the wind up the opposition to some extent, it boosted
Alonso in Spain, and it got plenty of "Renault are back!" press and TV.
On top of that, he was headed for a very respectable result on the track
till the engine blew.
What's not to like?
--
ric at pixelligence dot com
> I think the biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the fragile
> Alonso ego we saw last year at McLaren must be still very much in evidence
> if he was prepared to sacrifice so much race potential just to qualify
> higher than the car merited at his home GP. I'm also very surprised that the
> team was prepared to go along with this.
Dave, we all know you detest Alonso - you go to great lengths to find
sticks to beat him with, but now you're just being a blinkered plonker.
There's more to Renault's choices than mere statistics. Note the
emphasis here on the word "Renault". Not Alonso.
Pat Symonds repeatedly went on record this weekend saying how pleased he
was with himself and the team, in that Renault were regaining their
reputation for creative strategic thinking. Once again : Renault. There
was no "the team going along with Fred's ego". It was the *team's* idea,
and they knew that Fred was a good enough driver to be able to make it
work.
Here's a clue for you, copypasted from another post of mine :
On French TV, the commentators were saying that Carlos Ghosn recently
warned Renault F1 in no uncertain terms that Renault must be "part of
the show" i.e. not trundling around unseen in the midfield. Or else.
For me, the strategy employed by the team this weekend was a win-win. As
far as I can see there were no real disadvantages. It boosted team
morale, it put the wind up the opposition to some extent, it boosted
Alonso in Spain, and it got plenty of "Renault are back!" press and TV.
On top of that, he was headed for a very respectable result on the track
till the engine blew.
What's not to like?
--
ric at pixelligence dot com
On 28 Apr, 08:43, addr...@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
> Dave Baker <N...@null . com > wrote:
> > I think the biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the fragile
> > Alonso ego we saw last year at McLaren must be still very much in evidence
> > if he was prepared to sacrifice so much race potential just to qualify
> > higher than the car merited at his home GP. I'm also very surprised that the
> > team was prepared to go along with this.
>
> Dave, we all know you detest Alonso - you go to great lengths to find
> sticks to beat him with, but now you're just being a blinkered plonker.
> There's more to Renault's choices than mere statistics. Note the
> emphasis here on the word "Renault". Not Alonso.
>
> Pat Symonds repeatedly went on record this weekend saying how pleased he
> was with himself and the team, in that Renault were regaining their
> reputation for creative strategic thinking. Once again : Renault. There
> was no "the team going along with Fred's ego". It was the *team's* idea,
> and they knew that Fred was a good enough driver to be able to make it
> work.
>
> Here's a clue for you, copypasted from another post of mine :
>
> On French TV, the commentators were saying that Carlos Ghosn recently
> warned Renault F1 in no uncertain terms that Renault must be "part of
> the show" i.e. not trundling around unseen in the midfield. Or else.
>
> For me, the strategy employed by the team this weekend was a win-win. As
> far as I can see there were no real disadvantages. It boosted team
> morale, it put the wind up the opposition to some extent, it boosted
> Alonso in Spain, and it got plenty of "Renault are back!" press and TV.
> On top of that, he was headed for a very respectable result on the track
> till the engine blew.
>
> What's not to like?
> --
> ric at pixelligence dot com
Alonso I guess
JJBoulas
> Dave Baker <N...@null . com > wrote:
> > I think the biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the fragile
> > Alonso ego we saw last year at McLaren must be still very much in evidence
> > if he was prepared to sacrifice so much race potential just to qualify
> > higher than the car merited at his home GP. I'm also very surprised that the
> > team was prepared to go along with this.
>
> Dave, we all know you detest Alonso - you go to great lengths to find
> sticks to beat him with, but now you're just being a blinkered plonker.
> There's more to Renault's choices than mere statistics. Note the
> emphasis here on the word "Renault". Not Alonso.
>
> Pat Symonds repeatedly went on record this weekend saying how pleased he
> was with himself and the team, in that Renault were regaining their
> reputation for creative strategic thinking. Once again : Renault. There
> was no "the team going along with Fred's ego". It was the *team's* idea,
> and they knew that Fred was a good enough driver to be able to make it
> work.
>
> Here's a clue for you, copypasted from another post of mine :
>
> On French TV, the commentators were saying that Carlos Ghosn recently
> warned Renault F1 in no uncertain terms that Renault must be "part of
> the show" i.e. not trundling around unseen in the midfield. Or else.
>
> For me, the strategy employed by the team this weekend was a win-win. As
> far as I can see there were no real disadvantages. It boosted team
> morale, it put the wind up the opposition to some extent, it boosted
> Alonso in Spain, and it got plenty of "Renault are back!" press and TV.
> On top of that, he was headed for a very respectable result on the track
> till the engine blew.
>
> What's not to like?
> --
> ric at pixelligence dot com
Alonso I guess
JJBoulas
Dave Baker wrote:
>
> "Dave Baker" <Null@null . com > wrote in message
> news:fv2vls$4uu$1@news.datemas.de...
> > 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.
>
> I've just run another little exercise to verify my estimate of 0.09
> seconds per lap's worth of fuel. I've taken the best time for each
> driver in Q1 or Q2, deducted that from the Q3 time and divided by the
> number of laps fuel they each had in the car during Q3. I've also
> adjusted that number of laps for the safety car period of 3 laps in
> which I estimate they'd have only used 1 lap's worth of fuel so
> without the SC period they'd have all had to pit 2 laps earlier than
> they actually did.
>
> Calculating that out for all 9 drivers and averaging it came to just
> under 0.08s per lap not 0.09. However not every driver, especially
> the fastest ones, would have needed to have gone as fast in Q1 or Q2
> to make the top ten as they possibly could have so this would lead to
> a slightly low estimate for the time per lap of fuel. Kimi for
> example only gained 0.062s per lap and Lewis 0.067 whereas Trulli at
> the bottom of the order gained the full 0.090s. On that basis 0.09s
> wasn't far out but using 0.08 didn't change the true pace order I
> came up with first time. My final best estimate is that 0.085s per
> lap is about the right figure. That would also equate very closely
> with Brundle's estimate of 3 tenths per 10kg of fuel.
>
> I think the biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the
> fragile Alonso ego we saw last year at McLaren must be still very
> much in evidence if he was prepared to sacrifice so much race
> potential just to qualify higher than the car merited at his home GP.
> I'm also very surprised that the team was prepared to go along with
> this.
>
> Finally, after adjusting for the safety car period and excluding
> Fred, the average intended first pitstop for the other eight drivers
> was lap 19, or 3 laps earlier than the theoretical ideal of 1/3 of
> the way through the race. I'll see how this compares in future races.
>
> My data if anyone wants to try their own analysis came from this
> handy site.
>
> * w w w .manipef1 . com /results/2008/spain.php
While I do find your OP of interest in as much as I find normalised Q3
figures of interest (please do continue to produce them) it is a shame
you undermine them with rather poor and clearly prejudice opinion of
Alonso.
I am not convinced that Alonso strategy was a poor one and Renault
obviously did a damn good job of making the wekend more interesting
whatever the driving motivation.
It is one thing to take the piss out of the Brendas for their devoted
prejudice, another to join them.
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
>
> "Dave Baker" <Null@null . com > wrote in message
> news:fv2vls$4uu$1@news.datemas.de...
> > 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.
>
> I've just run another little exercise to verify my estimate of 0.09
> seconds per lap's worth of fuel. I've taken the best time for each
> driver in Q1 or Q2, deducted that from the Q3 time and divided by the
> number of laps fuel they each had in the car during Q3. I've also
> adjusted that number of laps for the safety car period of 3 laps in
> which I estimate they'd have only used 1 lap's worth of fuel so
> without the SC period they'd have all had to pit 2 laps earlier than
> they actually did.
>
> Calculating that out for all 9 drivers and averaging it came to just
> under 0.08s per lap not 0.09. However not every driver, especially
> the fastest ones, would have needed to have gone as fast in Q1 or Q2
> to make the top ten as they possibly could have so this would lead to
> a slightly low estimate for the time per lap of fuel. Kimi for
> example only gained 0.062s per lap and Lewis 0.067 whereas Trulli at
> the bottom of the order gained the full 0.090s. On that basis 0.09s
> wasn't far out but using 0.08 didn't change the true pace order I
> came up with first time. My final best estimate is that 0.085s per
> lap is about the right figure. That would also equate very closely
> with Brundle's estimate of 3 tenths per 10kg of fuel.
>
> I think the biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the
> fragile Alonso ego we saw last year at McLaren must be still very
> much in evidence if he was prepared to sacrifice so much race
> potential just to qualify higher than the car merited at his home GP.
> I'm also very surprised that the team was prepared to go along with
> this.
>
> Finally, after adjusting for the safety car period and excluding
> Fred, the average intended first pitstop for the other eight drivers
> was lap 19, or 3 laps earlier than the theoretical ideal of 1/3 of
> the way through the race. I'll see how this compares in future races.
>
> My data if anyone wants to try their own analysis came from this
> handy site.
>
> * w w w .manipef1 . com /results/2008/spain.php
While I do find your OP of interest in as much as I find normalised Q3
figures of interest (please do continue to produce them) it is a shame
you undermine them with rather poor and clearly prejudice opinion of
Alonso.
I am not convinced that Alonso strategy was a poor one and Renault
obviously did a damn good job of making the wekend more interesting
whatever the driving motivation.
It is one thing to take the piss out of the Brendas for their devoted
prejudice, another to join them.
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:45:27 +0100, "Dave Baker" <Null@null . com >
wrote:
>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.
Looks like Heikki would have gone a few laps longer than LH:
* en.f1-live . com /f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080428144308.shtml
"He had still to pit for fuel at the time of the accident and wasn't
due to come in for a few more laps yet. That gives you some idea of
the fuel load he was carrying during qualifying, when he did an
absolutely fantastic lap."
Has LH been lighter in every qual session so far than HK?
wrote:
>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.
Looks like Heikki would have gone a few laps longer than LH:
* en.f1-live . com /f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080428144308.shtml
"He had still to pit for fuel at the time of the accident and wasn't
due to come in for a few more laps yet. That gives you some idea of
the fuel load he was carrying during qualifying, when he did an
absolutely fantastic lap."
Has LH been lighter in every qual session so far than HK?
"vigi" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:a4qb141ha7sp5a9md2onsir9k9dqmnqe32@4ax . com ...
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:45:27 +0100, "Dave Baker" <Null@null . com >
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Looks like Heikki would have gone a few laps longer than LH:
>
> * en.f1-live . com /f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080428144308.shtml
>
> "He had still to pit for fuel at the time of the accident and wasn't
> due to come in for a few more laps yet. That gives you some idea of
> the fuel load he was carrying during qualifying, when he did an
> absolutely fantastic lap."
>
> Has LH been lighter in every qual session so far than HK?
He might have, but you can't conclude that from what was said.
AC
AC wrote:
>
> "vigi" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:a4qb141ha7sp5a9md2onsir9k9dqmnqe32@4ax . com ...
> > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:45:27 +0100, "Dave Baker" <Null@null . com >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Looks like Heikki would have gone a few laps longer than LH:
> >
> > * en.f1-live . com /f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080428144308.shtml
> >
> > "He had still to pit for fuel at the time of the accident and wasn't
> > due to come in for a few more laps yet. That gives you some idea of
> > the fuel load he was carrying during qualifying, when he did an
> > absolutely fantastic lap."
> >
> > Has LH been lighter in every qual session so far than HK?
>
>
> He might have, but you can't conclude that from what was said.
>
It looks like a question not a conclusion.
The answer is probably yes.
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
>
> "vigi" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:a4qb141ha7sp5a9md2onsir9k9dqmnqe32@4ax . com ...
> > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:45:27 +0100, "Dave Baker" <Null@null . com >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Looks like Heikki would have gone a few laps longer than LH:
> >
> > * en.f1-live . com /f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080428144308.shtml
> >
> > "He had still to pit for fuel at the time of the accident and wasn't
> > due to come in for a few more laps yet. That gives you some idea of
> > the fuel load he was carrying during qualifying, when he did an
> > absolutely fantastic lap."
> >
> > Has LH been lighter in every qual session so far than HK?
>
>
> He might have, but you can't conclude that from what was said.
>
It looks like a question not a conclusion.
The answer is probably yes.
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
"Dave Baker" <Null@null . com > wrote in message
news:fv2vls$4uu$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> 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.
Massa did his best time on his first run, so he carried something like
three laps more fuel on that lap. If you take that away his time would have
been around 21.970, which seems more in line.
The Renault flatteration factor depends on how you are comparing Alonso
time. But yeah, BMW and McLaren are the most obvious ones and .450 is still
quite a lot. Might be realisticly even more, since that last lap by Alonso
seemed to be rather good, he was half a tenth slower than Hamilton on the
first runs.
--
mikko
mvuori@iki.fi
"Mikko Vuori" <mvuori@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:QsmRj.156$781.86@read4.inet.fi...
> Massa did his best time on his first run, so he carried something like
> three laps more fuel on that lap. If you take that away his time would
> have been around 21.970, which seems more in line.
So you actually had already taken that into account and had that final run
there. Good job ;)
--
mikko
mvuori@iki.fi
