Printable View
Alonso will certainly be fired up for Spain. As you say, it's his home race. And also he'll be determined to re-establish his #1 position within the team following Bahrain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bezza
However the race after that is Monaco... Can you imagine the reaction should that happen to be his first F1 win? "Rookie sensation takes F1's Jewel in the Crown" anyone?
actually there has been only 2 GP2 champs, Rosberg and Hamilton, and I think it's too early to know if a driver who has driven there is going to win a race, let's take count only Rosberg, Speed, Kovalainen and Hamilton(correct me if I'm missing one) have graduated to F1Quote:
Originally Posted by F1woman
That all depends on your definition of "graduated". Nelson Jr. is also a graduate of GP2 now in F1, although in a testing role.Quote:
Originally Posted by jso1985
It isnt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valve Bounce
What do you base this opinion on? To me, on the evidence of the three races so far, Ferrari seem quicker, but it would be interesting to know how you can state so categorically that the Ferrari isn't faster than the McLaren.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
At Australia Ferrari was faster by a little bit (around 3 tenths in racepace), I have explained in other threads already how going by fastest laps only is actually retarded and exposes ones lack of understanding of F1.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
At Malaysia it was clear that McLaren was actually the quicker car there.
So far 1:1
Then came Bahrain. In my view, McLaren and Ferrari were around equal. What do I base that on? Well, The Race. Hamilton in the first stint was quicker than Massa (who had some oversteering issues), but couldnt get pass. In the 2nd stint, it was Hamilton who struggled due to wrong tyre pressures that McLaren gave him and probably too much fuel, whereas Massa had a car working superbly. But what worked for Massas advantage now was that whereas in the first stint he could slow down Hamilton when LH was quicker, now Hamilton couldnt do anything against Massa who could run at his own pace. So they are pretty much equal. People got such distorted views after Melbourne that in the eyes of some, Ferrari became the best car for the whole season and they will stick to saying that even if it painfully obvious that isnt really the case. So speedwise, they are equal. Reliablity wise, McLaren has so far been better.
Thanks Garry, that's a better explaination of your "It isn't" opinion but it could have done without the "retarded" comment, because that kind of discussion helps no-one, least of all you.
I don't think many people would agree with you Garry in that McLaren have the faster car. I'd say the large majority of fans would agree with Arrows and 90% of this forum that Ferrari is the quicker car, as does 99% of the paddock. Malaysia Ferrari messed up in the race. Massa was in traffic all race, and the only time Kimi wasn't in traffic was during the 2nd stint, but Lewis fuelled short, and Kimi fuelled long, so couldn't make use of a quicker car. Australia, as you say, Ferrari were in a different league. In bahrain though things were much closer, but as you can see, Ferrari finished 1 & 3, McLaren 2 & 5. Qualifying was 1 & 3 for Ferrari, McLaren had 2 & 4 - I don't think it's hard to work out which team were quicker that weekend. If you want to look at the practice times as well, Ferrari were quicker in every practice, and all the Qualifiying sessions, bar one practice session on Sat morning, where Hamilton beat Kimi by 0.007!
As I say, it's quite clear to most Ferrari are the quicker team, but they've committed more mistakes, and haven't maxamised their resources like McLaren have so far.
About speed and reliability, I’d rather to put aside Sepang case, If only Massa can maintain his pole, didn’t make bad start that let two McLarens leading, and made mistake when trying to make overtaking Hamilton, we might have seen different result.
McLaren applied smart strategy at Sepang, there was no room for Kimi overtaking Hamilton, while Massa was unluckily locked behind Heidfeld. BMW isn’t as good as Ferrari but they aren’t also marked difference worse than Ferrari, which has made difficult overtaking of Massa on Heidfeld. Sepang was fully under control of McLaren.
As of this stage, Ferrari still better in term of speed and reliability although someday in this season to see the other way around isn’t something impossible. McLaren is only has shade difference right behind Ferrari which once they apply the right strategy and the race condition support their character, they will again win over the Ferrari. McLaren has solid drivers that has favored McLaren to be looked as a reliable car, Bahrain was evidence that Hamilton drove that strong, Alonso with a not too perfect car was able to reach finish lane safely.
How do you know that 99% of the paddock thinks Ferrari is the quickest car?Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
Considering Kimi fuelled long and LH short, thats exactly what should have helped KR show his quickness over the McLarens then. By keeping pace with LH, despite more fuel. But he couldnt at all. McLarens were in a different class that day. When Massa had clear air, and he did for a little while, then he wasnt able to go any quicker than FA or LH either or even nearly as quick. Also, sector times show that Ferraris were nowhere as good as the Maccas.Quote:
Malaysia Ferrari messed up in the race. Massa was in traffic all race, and the only time Kimi wasn't in traffic was during the 2nd stint, but Lewis fuelled short, and Kimi fuelled long, so couldn't make use of a quicker car.
just like McLarens were in a different league at Malaysia.Quote:
Australia, as you say, Ferrari were in a different league.
Practise times are irrelevant, especially FP1 and FP2. In qualifying, if im not mistaken then LH didnt improve on his 2nd try in the final qualy. But what counts is the race. I brought up some points from the race in my previous post in this thread and you havent countered them.Quote:
In bahrain though things were much closer, but as you can see, Ferrari finished 1 & 3, McLaren 2 & 5. Qualifying was 1 & 3 for Ferrari, McLaren had 2 & 4 - I don't think it's hard to work out which team were quicker that weekend. If you want to look at the practice times as well, Ferrari were quicker in every practice, and all the Qualifiying sessions, bar one practice session on Sat morning, where Hamilton beat Kimi by 0.007!
No, its not clear at all that Ferrari is the quicker car. They might be the quickest car at Spain, or they might not. Please dont let that distort your views on the previous races. I find that most people, when doing their analysis on the Malaysian race, were still mentally stuck in Australia and with blinders on kept going on about Ferrari being 1 second per lap quicker. There never was such thing this year, nor will there be such a thing this year.Quote:
As I say, it's quite clear to most Ferrari are the quicker team, but they've committed more mistakes, and haven't maxamised their resources like McLaren have so far.
So fastest laps are irrelevant and now practice times are irrelevant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Which is when a driver sets his fastest lap. Which is as close to an indication of true pace we get now that qualifying is a strategic game, not a contest to see who is fastest on the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
So Kimi being 1.079s quicker in comparison with Alonso's fastest lap in Melbourne is fiction?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Can you not see where some of us are having a little difficulty squaring your claim that Ferrari have not been quicker than McLaren, with what is there for everyone to see? Eliminating the times that Ferrari were clearly quicker because it doesn't fit with your view does rather weaken your argument, unless I haven't understood what you're saying, and if that's the case then I apologise.
Obviously that is not a survey I have personally carried out. But you'll be hard pushed to find someone who will state that McLaren have so far had the fastest car this year. Most will say McLaren have made a better start, but I don't think you could find many, if any who would agree with you that McLaren are actually quicker than Ferrari.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
In fairness, the stint in which Lewis managed to open a slight gap, the majority of that was made during the pitstops, as he stayed out 2-3 laps longer than Kimi, and on top of that, due to pitting in later, and putting 5-6 laps less fuel on board (than Kimi did), had a much shorter pitstop, compared to Kimi who had to put in 5-6 laps more fuel, and was out there on a full fuel load while Lewis was running on fumes - allowed him to open up quite a gap. Then also during the 2nd stint after the pitstops, Lewis was on less fuel and newer tyres, which made sense that Lewis was slightly quicker. In the end, the McLaren start and their strategy after that stopped Ferrari from showing their true pace, but it was clear all weekend beforehand that Ferrari had the quicker car.Quote:
Considering Kimi fuelled long and LH short, thats exactly what should have helped KR show his quickness over the McLarens then. By keeping pace with LH, despite more fuel. But he couldnt at all. McLarens were in a different class that day. When Massa had clear air, and he did for a little while, then he wasnt able to go any quicker than FA or LH either or even nearly as quick. Also, sector times show that Ferraris were nowhere as good as the Maccas.
They are irrelevant to the race result, however they are a good indication when analysing who is quickest. A car isn't top of the time sheets in 90% of the practice times for no reason! Obviously qualifying in particular, and the race results give us a better indication (in the race though there are so many variables they don't always tell you who was quickest - e.g. the McLaren's were clearly the quickest car in 05!).Quote:
Practise times are irrelevant, especially FP1 and FP2. In qualifying, if im not mistaken then LH didnt improve on his 2nd try in the final qualy. But what counts is the race. I brought up some points from the race in my previous post in this thread and you havent countered them.
So ok, ignore the practice times for the time being, let's compare the qualifying, Ferrari have got 3 poles, McLaren 0.
Now the races, Ferrari have got 2 wins, McLaren have got 1. Let's look at it into more detail - McLaren haven't really made any mistakes, while Ferrari had problems for Massa in Oz, and then Massa made a rookie error in Malaysia, Kimi had a weak engine in Malaysia. Bahrain was the first trouble free race for Ferrari. If Ferrari had made the most of their car and drivers, in the same way McLaren, it's quite clear to see Ferrari would be leading the championship, and the drivers title.
I'm not sure which points I missed your referring to sorry.
Don't worry, I'm not :)Quote:
No, its not clear at all that Ferrari is the quicker car. They might be the quickest car at Spain, or they might not. Please dont let that distort your views on the previous races. I find that most people, when doing their analysis on the Malaysian race, were still mentally stuck in Australia and with blinders on kept going on about Ferrari being 1 second per lap quicker. There never was such thing this year, nor will there be such a thing this year.
To base your argument on 1 lap time out of 60 or 70 isn't at all realistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
At least it shows the ultimate pace that driver can achieve in his car when it really matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
But ioan, the fastest lap is exactly that. It shows the pace of the car at its fastest in a race, and in Australia the fastest McLaren was 1.079s slower than the fastest Ferrari.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Isn't that a relevant fact when the discussion has turned to whether the Ferrari is a quicker car than the McLaren?
I agree with Arrows, though I would say that qualifying is an even better indication - just because in races, when you have perfect tyres and balance, and a good fuel load to lap quick, you may be stuck in traffic or what not.
Saying that, both Kimi and Alonso had large amount of times with no traffic in Oz, so that was representative. In Malaysia, Massa chances were messed up (by himself!) when he was stuck behind Lewis and Heidfeld for the large majority of the race.
Don't know how relevant that is, but than is also as relevant to take into account what happened in Malaysia in terms of fastest laps.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
I would say that Ferrari might have a small advantage over McLaren, but I believe that the drivers are also making a difference there.
Of course :up: :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Hamilton winning Monaco would be SWEET!Quote:
Originally Posted by baker
Quote:
Originally Posted by weeflyonthewall
Agreed! :up:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
:D
Even in defeat (although this wasn't an argument about/with Ioan) you dig your heals in.
Well at least if we ever agree on something, and are arguing with others, I'll know I can count on you. ;)
Practise times indeed, are absolutely and totally irrelevant. Unless you put every driver on the same program.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
No, but I have explained it 1000 times already. Alonso didnt put a fast lap together, he did his fastest sector times on 2 consequtive laps and he had TRAFFIC problems when doing those laps.Quote:
So Kimi being 1.079s quicker in comparison with Alonso's fastest lap in Melbourne is fiction?
Everyone could see McLarens were faster at Malaysia, just as everyone could see Ferraris were faster at Australia. :)Quote:
Can you not see where some of us are having a little difficulty squaring your claim that Ferrari have not been quicker than McLaren, with what is there for everyone to see? Eliminating the times that Ferrari were clearly quicker because it doesn't fit with your view does rather weaken your argument, unless I haven't understood what you're saying, and if that's the case then I apologise.
If you havent done such a survey, then why claim something you cant in any way prove? Better not do something like that in court or the judge will laugh at you.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
And where exactly have I claimed that McLaren have overall been faster this year? I said speedwise they have been equal, with both teams having one race where they were clearly quicker and one race where they were equal.
lets put things in orderQuote:
In fairness, the stint in which Lewis managed to open a slight gap, the majority of that was made during the pitstops, as he stayed out 2-3 laps longer than Kimi, and on top of that, due to pitting in later, and putting 5-6 laps less fuel on board (than Kimi did), had a much shorter pitstop, compared to Kimi who had to put in 5-6 laps more fuel, and was out there on a full fuel load while Lewis was running on fumes - allowed him to open up quite a gap. Then also during the 2nd stint after the pitstops, Lewis was on less fuel and newer tyres, which made sense that Lewis was slightly quicker. In the end, the McLaren start and their strategy after that stopped Ferrari from showing their true pace, but it was clear all weekend beforehand that Ferrari had the quicker car.
Kimi 1st pitstop at Malaysia was 2 laps earlier than Hamiltons. His pitstop lasted 2,5 seconds more (they had a slight problem which cost around 1 second).
Kimis second pitstop was 3 laps later than Hamiltons, so there was no 5-6 laps later as you claim.
In the 2nd stint, when Kimi had 3 laps more fuel, which probably costs around 0,25 second per lap the gap between him and Hamilton increased from 6 seconds on lap 21 to 12,9 seconds on lap 37. Thats 6,9 seconds within 16 laps. Thats over 0,43 seconds on average per lap. So clearly Kimi wasnt able to close in on LH, which he should have been able to do had he had the quicker car, despite the 3 laps of extra fuel. But he wasnt able to do that.
Now If KR couldnt match the pace of rookie LH, what chance did he have against Alonso in the other McLaren? None whatsoever. Time to admit McLaren on the raceday had an advantage at Malaysia, and a clear one at that too. Both Ferraris had empty track for quite long periods of the race and the only thing they had to do was push hard and close down on the McLarens. They werent able to do it, ergo, they had a slower car. Sector times put McLarens dominance into a clear show aswell.
If you want to talk about the weekend beforehand (do you mean qualifying at Malaysia or australia? I will assume qualy at Malaysia), then FA and LH beat both ferraris in qual 1 and in Qual 2 Alonso was clearly the fastest too. But those laps in qualy would have meant nothing had they not been able to show great pace again in the race, but they were able to show it and show how competetive their package was there.
In the final qualifying, Ferrari drivers performed better at Malaysia and Bahrain. Both times Massa put in a very impressive laptime, whereas his rivals werent able to reproduce their form.Quote:
So ok, ignore the practice times for the time being, let's compare the qualifying, Ferrari have got 3 poles, McLaren 0.
I explained quite clearly about the Bahrain race and the problems Massa and Hamilton encountered at various stages and how Massa wasnt as much hurt by his as Hamilton was hurt by his, and that your bringing up of practise times was dumb.Quote:
I'm not sure which points I missed your referring to sorry.
And in the case of Mclaren, that laptime very clearly wasnt the ultimate laptime they were able to achieve. On its own fastest lap is irrelevant, you have to understand the context.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Actually, no. FA was stuck behind Hamilton for 2/3 of the race and only in the final stint he was able to be free. By then it was a processionQuote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
Kimi was driving compromised and Masa just plainly fncked up! How does that illustrate the Mclarens were the faster of the two?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Only thing it shows to me is that Mclaren had a very good trouble free weekend. Ferrari couldn't keep from tripping themselves up. Nothing more, nothing less.
Interesting how you make your argument. Unfortunately pace simply wasn't a factor of weight in for Kimi. Although that is one contributing factor it would also help to have a full power engine (see above).Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
How does that factor into your theory?
It does definately give you an indication of which car is the quickest. If your car is top of the practice sheets 9/10 - that tends to suggest you have the quickest car. It's quite rare for a team to top all the time sheets, only to be beaten by a team which was nowhere near the top of the timesheets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
You always have an excuse. However when it's pointed out to you that Massa f*cked up in Malaysia, and Kimi had a low revved engine, plus a sh!t strategy, that does not seem to be reason enough to show the Ferrari had a slight edge in terms of pace.Quote:
No, but I have explained it 1000 times already. Alonso didnt put a fast lap together, he did his fastest sector times on 2 consequtive laps and he had TRAFFIC problems when doing those laps.
Well, not everyone. Have you carried out a survey? :) If you havent done such a survey, then why claim something you cant in any way prove? Better not do something like that in court or the judge will laugh at you.Quote:
Everyone could see McLarens were faster at Malaysia, just as everyone could see Ferraris were faster at Australia. :)
It was more of a figure of speech, I didn't think I'd have to explain that to you :dozey: But my point still stands. I haven't seen anyone on the paddock come out and say that McLaren are as quick as Ferrari. Everyone has so far said Ferrari have a slight edge.Quote:
If you havent done such a survey, then why claim something you cant in any way prove? Better not do something like that in court or the judge will laugh at you.
I find your thinking that McLaren were equal to Ferrari in Bahrain quite amusing. They were very close, but Ferrari clearly had an advantage, as the results show us.Quote:
And where exactly have I claimed that McLaren have overall been faster this year? I said speedwise they have been equal, with both teams having one race where they were clearly quicker and one race where they were equal.
They finished 1st and 3rd compared to McLarens 2nd and 5th. Neither teams had any major problems. The fastest lap was 1st and 3rd for Ferrari, McLaren 2nd and 4th. The same also applies to qualifying 3. Ferrari were also quicker in the other Qualifying sessions, and in Friday's practice times. So even if you exclude the practice sessions, and just look at qualifying 2 & 3, Race results, and fastest lap, Ferrari quite clearly beat McLAren. Yet you still claim they were equal, based on the fact Hamilton managed to hold onto Massa in the opening stint, and close in on Massa when Massa cruised to the end.
I was referring to the fuel loads. As you say, Kimi pitted in 2 laps earlier, and pitted in 3 laps later - therefore he had to put in at least 5 laps more fuel than Lewi in the first stop.Quote:
lets put things in order
Kimi 1st pitstop at Malaysia was 2 laps earlier than Hamiltons. His pitstop lasted 2,5 seconds more (they had a slight problem which cost around 1 second).
Kimis second pitstop was 3 laps later than Hamiltons, so there was no 5-6 laps later as you claim.
Your quite happy to use stat's when it suits you, but when turned the other way round, you refuse to accept them as valid. Is there any point in a discussion with you? As has been explained, Ferrari stuffed up their weekend, and simply failed to get the best out of the car, while McLaren completely optimised the car they had. Massa messed up the start, and compromised Kimi's start too, and then spun. After that the best he could have hoped for was 4th, and without wanting to risk another error, failed to capitalise on his bigger speed than Heidfeld. Kimi was very conservative, and as has been pointing out, was carrying a weak engine all race. I think that goes some way to explaining why he wasn't as quick as some might have expected.Quote:
In the 2nd stint, when Kimi had 3 laps more fuel, which probably costs around 0,25 second per lap the gap between him and Hamilton increased from 6 seconds on lap 21 to 12,9 seconds on lap 37. Thats 6,9 seconds within 16 laps. Thats over 0,43 seconds on average per lap. So clearly Kimi wasnt able to close in on LH, which he should have been able to do had he had the quicker car, despite the 3 laps of extra fuel. But he wasnt able to do that.
Now If KR couldnt match the pace of rookie LH, what chance did he have against Alonso in the other McLaren? None whatsoever. Time to admit McLaren on the raceday had an advantage at Malaysia, and a clear one at that too. Both Ferraris had empty track for quite long periods of the race and the only thing they had to do was push hard and close down on the McLarens. They werent able to do it, ergo, they had a slower car. Sector times put McLarens dominance into a clear show aswell.
PS: Where do you get the figures 0.25s per lap for 3 laps on board etc? :)
So why is this not a valid arguement for Ferrari in Bahrain? They dominated practice, and Q1 & 2, and then controlled the race from start to finish. Surely if you can use that as an arguement to show McLaren had the pace over Ferrari that weekend, then it can be used to show Ferrari had the pace over McLaren in Bahrain. What's the difference?Quote:
If you want to talk about the weekend beforehand (do you mean qualifying at Malaysia or australia? I will assume qualy at Malaysia), then FA and LH beat both ferraris in qual 1 and in Qual 2 Alonso was clearly the fastest too. But those laps in qualy would have meant nothing had they not been able to show great pace again in the race, but they were able to show it and show how competetive their package was there.
Another excuse! So when McLaren beat Ferrari, it's because McLaren had a quicker car. When Ferrari beat the McLarens, it's because the drivers did a better job than the McLaren drivers, and nothing to do with a car advantage. It's becoming increasingly hard to take your arguement seriously now Garry.Quote:
In the final qualifying, Ferrari drivers performed better at Malaysia and Bahrain. Both times Massa put in a very impressive laptime, whereas his rivals werent able to reproduce their form.
If you want to bring drivers performance into it, I think we can safely say that Ferrari had a big off day in Malaysia, which allowed McLaren to win, even if they didn't have a car as quick as Ferrari, or at least they didnt have a quicker car! Massa spun off and looked dejected, and Kimi was pretty conservative, as he has been all season. So can we not say it's Ferrari's drivers, rather than their lack of pace in the car that resulted in McLaren's 1-2 in Malayisa? Or can that excuse only be used for Ferrari? I don't think many people would say Massa and Kimi have performced better than Alonso and Lewis! Alonso and Lewis have been all but perfect so far, apart from Alonso who maybe lost a couple of points in Bahrain.
But you bringing practice times in Malaysia isn't dumb?Quote:
I explained quite clearly about the Bahrain race and the problems Massa and Hamilton encountered at various stages and how Massa wasnt as much hurt by his as Hamilton was hurt by his, and that your bringing up of practise times was dumb.
And I didn't see you clearly explain the problems they both suffered :dozey:
I agree with that.Quote:
And in the case of Mclaren, that laptime very clearly wasnt the ultimate laptime they were able to achieve. On its own fastest lap is irrelevant, you have to understand the context.
What race are you talking about?Quote:
Actually, no. FA was stuck behind Hamilton for 2/3 of the race and only in the final stint he was able to be free. By then it was a procession
Monaco just two weeks away. Even better, he's on top of the championship points going in.Quote:
Originally Posted by baker
Does it in Montreal! Some of the previous posts make for an interesting read now he's done it and actually leading in the points.
is it good?
How sweet it is :up:
same here mate.. or he can win both those races :D .. great drive by the stunning young Brit.. He's gotten a lot of attention on Canada's local news.. which you never hear of F1! I hope Lewis can bring more attention to F1 in Canada and in the ''non traditional'' F1 countries like Jamaica, South Africa,Scotland,Ireland ect ect. well doneQuote:
Originally Posted by astraracer20
Scotland? IMO Scotland is as tuned to the F1 as the rest of Britain. Specially considering a certain driver who has been depicting Scotland's flag on his helmet for more than decade now!Quote:
Originally Posted by raikk
OK, Back to hamilton. Great win. He had the measure of everyone. What compusure! What maturity! To hold his nerve during 4 SCs. Great win for the rookie. He is a future WDC. Mark my words ;)
Congrats to Lewis, great win for him.
Cheers
David
Not to mention the likes of Jackie Stewart and Jim Clark. As a proportion of population Scotland is probably one of, if not the, most sucessful nation in motorsport.Quote:
Originally Posted by aryan
Isn't it Great Britain, DC is far more talanted then JB I believe DC can still win a WDC. Can Lewis Hamilton, win YES :D :D :D :s mokin:
SIX podiums in SIX races. No worse than the postion he started. With fellow Brit Button not even turning a lap this Hamilton win was very special.