I think Pedro will beat him this year, but Kamui needs race experience which de la Rosa already has. I expect a couple of podiums from the Japanese driver this year though based on the car's current performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic
Printable View
I think Pedro will beat him this year, but Kamui needs race experience which de la Rosa already has. I expect a couple of podiums from the Japanese driver this year though based on the car's current performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic
Talk about "over the top" - Kobayashi fighting AMassa - never mind Alonso - for the lead! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
I don't think so auld sport! Lets not go all nuts over this Nipponese racer - a modicum of reality is always good.
You are placing a lot on the results of the first two tests when nobody was running a race setup, none of the top or mid-field drivers were in race mode and that the Sauber team is at a significant disadvantage without sponsorship - as the season progresses the Sauber is therefore going to regress.Quote:
Originally Posted by woody2goody
Of course if Sauber beats Ferrari, Maranello will be on suicide watch!
After watching Force India last year, anything is possible. Remember Fisi shadowing Kimi at Spa and being absolutely nowhere a coupe of races before? It's possible if not very likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
That was a problematic Ferrari versus the Force India with the field diminished by the accident on the opening lap.Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
I doubt any of the top teams have gotten ther sums wrong this year.
Err, a problematic Ferrari that shot up the grid at the start and still had genuine pace over the other cars in the hand of a quality driver?Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
btw I don't recall a diminished field in qualy where Fisi took the pole.
Let's not rewrite history please! The cars involved in the accident where down in p12-p17 not the top runners.
Do not try and "diminish" the accomplishments of genuine pace by Force India in Spa and Monza. In those two races they were the real deal.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
I too was miffed when I saw that the God awful Fauzy had been given the first major test for Lotus at Jerez but the more I thought about it the smarter it seemed. The team is chasing sponsors so having a home grown driver behind the wheel could generate some positive headlines, but more to the point let Fauzy find out that the front wing falls off (or whatever) and then give the T127 to a proper driver on Thursday for some serious running.
I only hope they keep one eye on the weather and avoid giving Lousy Fauzy the only dry running.
possibly the best analysis i've read yet of the testing situations so far
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/0...plan-might-be/
The Ferrari F60 was a problematic car in 2009 - other than in the hands of Kimi at Spa and the advantage of KERS, it could not have been anywhere near the front. The Force India was at its best.Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
The dimnished field was after people such as Hamilton - also not in the best of Mclaren's - and Button were out of the race on the first laps.
And just general underperformance by the top drivers for the race. This is a coincidence of circumstances that also saw Heidfeld on the podium.
So unless you expect this sort of thing to occur in 2010 the probability of a Sauber podium is extremely low. Possible yes, but it is probabilities that rule.
FI did not win a podium at Monza.
No offence but if you expect anything less from a motor race you are a fool. No motor race is ever black & white & if you have been watching F1 for as long as you say you have you would know that. Winning or even getting a decent result in a motor race is all about having a good package to start with, making the right moves at the right time and the one thing nobody has any control over... LUCK!Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
Having said all of this Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes & Red Bull gives themselves the best chances because they have the best people. This does not mean nobody else has the potential to get a good result.
No chance or luck is involved because these are very personal terms and must be considered quantitatively undefinable - you and I have different approaches.Quote:
Originally Posted by macksrallye
Deviation from expected return - aka risk - for Sauber is a minimum deviation. You view it from the opposite side, a maximum deviation. Numerically 1 [33% at most] versus 3 [99%]. I am saying that at the most based on what we know they have at most a 33% probability. You are saying that basedon what we have to guess they have a 99% probability.
I would not decide to bet on a podium for Sauber in 2010, but you should, you could do well.
That is why Spa 2009 was such an anomally - the unusual coincidence of factors laid the groundwork. If the top teams were all functioning properly - as I expect in 2010 and you do not - a podium in Belguin would not have occurred for FI or even for Sauber even though they were backed by one of the world's best and biggest auto manufacturers.
I wouldn't bet on them getting a podium either, but they will be nibbling on the heals of those top guys should something happen, which I am sure will at some stage during 2010. Where... I do not know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
Chance, Luck, Deviation, whatever you want to call it is there in motorsports. For instance, a car goes off & spreads gravel/kitty litter over the track which Button (first to come across said gravel & leading at the time) hits fully committed, he in turn goes off falling back a couple of places & damaging underside of the car at the same time. With the damage the car is not performing the same & no matter how hard he tries he cannot get the time or positions back. What do you call that out of interest?
There was an interview with the three primary engineers at Mclaren and they spoke about discovering other ways not involved in testing a car to accomplish tasks.Quote:
Originally Posted by winer
The Mclaren experience of 2009 it appears had a gigantic impact on the team. The lack of testing, the forced rush to get things done resulted in changed methods and greater efficiency.
The result was they could make better use of the testing time available than ever before and this they explained as needing less testing and making it less important in accomplishing the end result.
However I am sure that all teams would make full use of increased testing time.
One of my favorite parts was how the Mclaren guys explained that they had people normally never at the track literally finishing aero parts over night in the garage - and how people from the factory, the testing team and the race team all functioned in the small garage space to primarily get the Mclaren competitive.
One of the great stories of 2009 was how Mclaren did NOT give up, like Ferrari did and worked 24/7 - a great team the Woking crowd.
And of course Lewis drove his heart out - I think they all pushed each other to greater heights and this was not lost on Jenson when he received the opportunity to join Mclaren.
Chance or luck versus risk is not at all the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by macksrallye
It would be a racing incident. But one cannot depend on the unexpected - because that is what you are doing. You are raising possibility above probability.
St.D... when did I put an amount/percentage to the luck involved... never. My understanding of what you are saying is that you should expect a standard race & therefore the top teams should win (very basic I know). However it is because the top teams are so adaptable & prepared for the the unexpected (racing incidents as you call them) that they are at the top.
Chance/Luck always have a part to play but don't count on it helping you, you must be as prepared as possible from every angle to be successful. I know this as I am a competitor in Aus.
I like it!
Lotus isnīt so far off.
6.7 seconds off the pace (in the wet, with a novice driver) with 20-odd laps under their belt. A very respectable start. Especially since they've had the least amount of time to get ready. Much more impressive than certain other teams who announced they were entering F1 a year ago and still haven't even shown a picture of a completed car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mia 01
Solid base but they need to get closer. That said it does look nice in those colours with the yellow wheels!
indeed, much stronger start then Virgin who I thought where far from disgracing themselfs either.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyL
So far, the two new teams are doing alright.
Now, the sooner USF1 does the right thing and announce that they are done the sooner we can see what Steffan GP is capable of.
Also, Campos also need to get their act together, at least they have a car thanks to Dallara and I hope that if Campos folds the FIA allow Dallara to take their place and at least have the opportunity to put together a budget to run their car themselfs, would be such a waste to develop a car and actually finnish it but it never see a race track..
Something that needs to be seriously brought into question though is why the hell where USF1 and Campos awarded a birth in F1 over clearly far more serious bids from the likes of Steffan and Prodrive? The FIA, once again, proven to be complete idiots
Its because the top teams ARE the top teams, based on their performance that a high expectation is valid. These are concrete factors not assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by macksrallye
It is this same reason that they are the most adaptable to all situations.
My argument is valid and we stand at opposite ends - its like reason versus faith, philosophically they oppose each other.
Got to love those yellow wheels!Quote:
Originally Posted by I am evil Homer
imagine fauzy has a super license and participates in testing, while USF1 have not signed a second pay driver yet and windsor said it was difficult to find US drivers capable of a super license.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic
btw Lotus is showing Virgin how its done. Get out there and do some laps.
Still don't understand their hesitance to actually run more than a few laps on the track.
I repeat my disappointment at Virgin's testing program to date. Not hating on them but just pointing out their lack of opportunity to take advantage of much needed on track testing. By their admission they were being very cautious. Not wanting to do laps in the rain, etc etc etc, Which i don;t understand since these cars and drivers will have to run in the rain and in Glock's case has driven in the rain. So he should be well acclimated to these conditions and surely would take care of the car. oh well.
Kimi's best results in 2009Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
3rd - Monaco - qualified 2nd
2nd in Hungary - qualified 7th
3rd in Europe - qualified 6th
1st in belgium - qualified 6th
3rd in italy - qualified 3rd
4th in Japan -qualified 5th
massa best performances in 2009
4th in Monaco - qualified 5
3rd in Europe - qualified 6th
6st in turkey - qualified 7th
11rd in Britain - qualified 4rd
8th in Germany -qualified 3th
seems to me kimi got a good grip of the car eventualy. with some storng performances. Rhe Ferrari seems to have come to its own right around Monaco and if Massa had stayed healthy might have gotten more than 1 victory in 2009. so they were not just good in Spa or because of Kers ( which did not work in a few races for them)
I'll bet you that Sauber gets at least 2 podiums in 2010. The car is much better than you think it is. It is not a new novice car. It is the evolution from last year's BMW and pretty much has had about 10 months of development work behind it. Slight modifications were made to fit the Ferrari engine, but overall, this is pretty much a BMW chasis and design.
If BMW were still on the grid, would you say that you think their chances of a podium would be low? Because this is essentially the BMW.
Anyway. lets watch the races rather than writing off teams before the start of the season. ;)
I still fail to see where Spa was an anomaly. Force India were quick ALL weekend, They took pole. The car was better dialed in than the macs and Brawns that weekend. A bang up job by the team. And no excuses can be made for Brawn or Macs. Force India came into that weekend well prepared and did do those efforts justice. If you consider drivers being human and not performing at their peak on a given weekend while conversely labeling those that did drive well and performed admirably an anomaly then, I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have watched many F1 races with a keen eye. For that is the norm in F1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
here here!Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyL
:up:
so massa goes out on a late morning glory run of 5 laps with fumes in his tank and promptly stops on track. What was the point in that?
I'm starting to worry about the Merc. So many testing days and they never impressed. Hopefully they are just being "serious" and not going for "glory runs" and not just slow.
And what about Monza? FI were on the money with their low DF package.Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
You learn nothing useful about the car in the wet apart from tyres or pracitice/improving technique. Testing is about driving consistantly. You don't do that in the wet because you're constantly adapting to the conditions, altering your driving lines, braking, turn in, etc etcQuote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
Interesting analysis from James Allen:
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/0...plan-might-be/
yes, well pointed out.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
I think if all other 10 teams see some value in running in the wets, then surely they all don't think it is useless. or a waste of time. If that were the case then we would have seen no cars on track for hours on end. Besides I think there are other things to test on the car besides its grip levels in wet conditions. If anything it might help the drivers and team get more in-tuned with operating the car whilst in some sort of racing situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
All sI'm saying is that 10 teams can't be wrong in their testing procedures.
Even Lotus got out on the track and did some good laps. I think Fauzy just got done a 17 lap stint, and with no power steering too. Still the team felt it useful to hit the tracks. i hope there is not something fundamentally wrong with the car, but I have a sneaky suspicion that not all is right with Virgin.
I think the fact that both teams have had issues (front wing, power steering) shows they have a lot to do, especially as they're both starting from scratch. Getting a car to the test is one thing, but getting everything to work is another, and getting it to work competitively is the next.Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
It'll be interesting to follow their progress over the next few days :s mokin:
I think it's nonsense that the session has to stop at a particular time. The track was drying up, and finally a bunch of cars came out and were improving on their times... and then BOOM... checkered flag. Wtf? Let them run until it's dark! Completely unnecessary to close the track.
Rant over.
No offence mate, but at this early stage, I feel that its wrong to suggest that especially with an entire test session to go at Barcelona after this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
Dont forget though about Virgin in the first test at Jerez, di Grassi managed to get within 3.3 seconds of the fastest time on the first proper run with the car. And also remember, weeding out the early faults with the car is what pre-season testing is about isnt it?
I was just thinking the same thing!Quote:
Originally Posted by maximilian
:up:
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by DazzlaF1
Looking at the times/laps it might be argued that it took Fauzy 76 laps to do a time just 0.6s quicker than Glock managed in just 10 laps. Then again we'd probably expect Glock to be the quicker driver. But even then we have no idea of fuel loads etc etc etc.
There are just too many variables to draw any conclusions yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DazzlaF1
non taken.
but there is something obviously wrong if you can only do 10 laps in 6 hours.
What exactly are they doing in the garage?
Obviously something is not right. Because Lotus came in and hit the tracks problems et all.
I'm not hitting the panic button just yet, but getting a stronger and stronger suspicion that all might not be right with that car. Lotus probably did more laps today than Virgin in 5 test days. It is not about writing them off or sounding alarmist, but sincerely pointing out the oddity of such few laps ion track. It is obvious to me that something ain't right with the car, because if it was even 75% alright, it would be out there turning laps and posting some benchmark times.
well it is only considered pre-season testing if you actually do some testing. As of right now, they spend most of theirtime in the garage rather than on the track. If the car can only do 8-10 laps before being hauled back into the garage for repairs, analysis, tuning, correction or whatever, then there is something fundamentally wrong with it right?Quote:
Originally Posted by DazzlaF1
Yeah, but Lotus were on the track and had no power steering, But they were turning laps, getting valuable data, and generally getting used to "actual" wind, turbulence, cornering, aero efficiency, and undulation variables, with a 76 laps worth of telemetry to analyze.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
I would love to know what exactly Virgin does in the garage for hours on end.
Well yes we are speculating. But do not read me wrong - I will be pleased for Peter Sauber if they do well. As a fan the Sauber name goes back decades for me [BASF Saubers]. So I would love to see Sauber do well.Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
I just think it will be one of the toughest assignments for the drivers - even though I do like de la Rosa while Kobayashi is still an unknown entity - which Kamui will show up under the pressure? Interlagos Kamui or Yas Marina Kamui!!
So this is a bet I will happily LOSE :-]