F1 Canadian GP *Spoilers*
Discussion
Munter said:
It didn't look easy. It looked like hard work working out when to save and when to use the tyres, and managing to do either looked like a lot of hard work to me. Far from easy as Alonso and Vettel found out in this race, and others have found in other races.
on that basis, you would say that Grosjean is a better driver than Alonso then?your kind of missing the point, yes, how the cars are driven affects the performance of the tyre, (that's nothing new), but that's not what is going on here, from testing on Friday, Red-bull and Ferrari worked out what they had to do to make a 1 stop work, by the time they got to the race, that was invalid as the goal-posts have moved.
as a driver in the race, you have NO WAY of telling if the plan you are driving to is going to work or not, that's why you go testing, the problem here is that the test data does not correlate to the race.
rdjohn said:
Eric Mc said:
I bet you would have hated the change from 2.5 litres to 1.5 lites in 1961. Lap times went up dramatically - at first.
Is it really relevant to compare varying eras of motorsport, particularly from when it was largely the preserve of gentleman drivers and a few engineers building fabulous, but simple cars from gut-feelings?The simple comparison should be pre-2009, when cars had to refuel and so ran pretty optimally throughout the race and with drivers taking risks to now, where drivers are not driving to their, or their car’s, potential as they have rubbish tyres. Scuffers is right to say that to drive a car, even 2 seconds off-the-pace, is so easy to the current generation of professional drivers that it does not constitute racing and so it is fair to describe the results to date as a lottery.
All that is needed to reintroduce the race element and keep “the show” is a simple rule change on a minimum two-stop strategy with decent tyres that Pirelli can be proud to put their name on.
I think it's been mentioned on here but the teams currently know too much, and are in constant contact with the drivers so there is little left to decision making of the driver.
Another reason why they run off the pace is teams need to make equipment last. With the cost cutting engines and gearboxes have to last or you get penalised, no real incentive to be flat out all the time.
It's a new world for the sport, but I'm pretty sure that as the season goes the teams will get a better understanding of the tyres.
London424 said:
rdjohn said:
Eric Mc said:
I bet you would have hated the change from 2.5 litres to 1.5 lites in 1961. Lap times went up dramatically - at first.
Is it really relevant to compare varying eras of motorsport, particularly from when it was largely the preserve of gentleman drivers and a few engineers building fabulous, but simple cars from gut-feelings?The simple comparison should be pre-2009, when cars had to refuel and so ran pretty optimally throughout the race and with drivers taking risks to now, where drivers are not driving to their, or their car’s, potential as they have rubbish tyres. Scuffers is right to say that to drive a car, even 2 seconds off-the-pace, is so easy to the current generation of professional drivers that it does not constitute racing and so it is fair to describe the results to date as a lottery.
All that is needed to reintroduce the race element and keep “the show” is a simple rule change on a minimum two-stop strategy with decent tyres that Pirelli can be proud to put their name on.
I think it's been mentioned on here but the teams currently know too much, and are in constant contact with the drivers so there is little left to decision making of the driver.
Another reason why they run off the pace is teams need to make equipment last. With the cost cutting engines and gearboxes have to last or you get penalised, no real incentive to be flat out all the time.
It's a new world for the sport, but I'm pretty sure that as the season goes the teams will get a better understanding of the tyres.
It is a common point I make that we live in an era of "knowns" whereas in days gone by there were massive "unknowns". What Pirelli are doing is reintroducing an element of (warning - made up word approaching) "unknowness" back into the mix. I'm sure it bugs the hell out of the tecchies in the teams - for which I am extremely grateful.
Running without enough fuel to get to the end doesn't help as well as it enforces them running slow when they might more naturally run faster.
The idea that tyre preservation is the sole reason for them running 4 seconds off the qualy pace is daft - if you're losing that much potential time then you make a stop up every 5/6 laps. It's just not the case.
I'm not a big fan of the cost saving measures that preclude harder racing - the tyre allocation limit being the primary one. Teams that actually try in Q3 should have an extra set of tyres given to them ore we're going to actively see all teams trying to finish 11th one of these days.
The idea that tyre preservation is the sole reason for them running 4 seconds off the qualy pace is daft - if you're losing that much potential time then you make a stop up every 5/6 laps. It's just not the case.
I'm not a big fan of the cost saving measures that preclude harder racing - the tyre allocation limit being the primary one. Teams that actually try in Q3 should have an extra set of tyres given to them ore we're going to actively see all teams trying to finish 11th one of these days.
IainT said:
Running without enough fuel to get to the end doesn't help as well as it enforces them running slow when they might more naturally run faster.
The idea that tyre preservation is the sole reason for them running 4 seconds off the qualy pace is daft - if you're losing that much potential time then you make a stop up every 5/6 laps. It's just not the case.
I'm not a big fan of the cost saving measures that preclude harder racing - the tyre allocation limit being the primary one. Teams that actually try in Q3 should have an extra set of tyres given to them ore we're going to actively see all teams trying to finish 11th one of these days.
not sure I understand what your getting at?The idea that tyre preservation is the sole reason for them running 4 seconds off the qualy pace is daft - if you're losing that much potential time then you make a stop up every 5/6 laps. It's just not the case.
I'm not a big fan of the cost saving measures that preclude harder racing - the tyre allocation limit being the primary one. Teams that actually try in Q3 should have an extra set of tyres given to them ore we're going to actively see all teams trying to finish 11th one of these days.
the 4 sec's is the difference between the ultimate pace of the cars (in Q3) vs. the fastest race lap.
in the race they are carrying fuel, and also only have so many sets of tyres - most of which will have already been used in Q1/2/3.
Now, the question is, if (as they are) they are running at best in the race, 4 sec's off the ultimate pace, you have to try and understand why, saving fuel is not relevant here as they are only limited in fuel by what they can carry.
Scuffers said:
<snip>your kind of missing the point, yes, how the cars are driven affects the performance of the tyre, (that's nothing new), but that's not what is going on here, from testing on Friday, Red-bull and Ferrari worked out what they had to do to make a 1 stop work, by the time they got to the race, that was invalid as the goal-posts have moved.<snip>
I'm sorry but I don't buy that. Are you suggesting that the teams are being given a tyre with a completely different compound in a race compared to what they got in FP sessions? If so, that is ludicrous! Are you sure that the track and the conditions themselves evolving over the weekend, doesn't explain the inability of the teams to extrapolate data from the FP sessions to the race reliably?Scuffers said:
Munter said:
It didn't look easy. It looked like hard work working out when to save and when to use the tyres, and managing to do either looked like a lot of hard work to me. Far from easy as Alonso and Vettel found out in this race, and others have found in other races.
on that basis, you would say that Grosjean is a better driver than Alonso then?your kind of missing the point, yes, how the cars are driven affects the performance of the tyre, (that's nothing new), but that's not what is going on here, from testing on Friday, Red-bull and Ferrari worked out what they had to do to make a 1 stop work, by the time they got to the race, that was invalid as the goal-posts have moved.
as a driver in the race, you have NO WAY of telling if the plan you are driving to is going to work or not, that's why you go testing, the problem here is that the test data does not correlate to the race.
I would suggest their data capture is flawed. That doesn't mean the tyres are of varying performance (although they could be but nobody apart from you is saying so). It just means the teams don't know how to model the performance of these tyres, given the usual inputs to their models. It's as likely that they are missing something, as it is that Pirelli are.
On the day was the Grosjean Lotus 1 pit stop scenario better than Alonso Ferrari 2, no 1, no should have been 2 but screw it keep going, pit stop strategy? I think the results tell us don't you.
Dr Z said:
I'm sorry but I don't buy that. Are you suggesting that the teams are being given a tyre with a completely different compound in a race compared to what they got in FP sessions? If so, that is ludicrous! Are you sure that the track and the conditions themselves evolving over the weekend, doesn't explain the inability of the teams to extrapolate data from the FP sessions to the race reliably?
tyres are a lot more complex than just changing compounds.the issue (as I am lead to believe) is that the tyres differ in the level of 'working' they take to reach a set temp, and once they are at that temp, how long they can stay there for with a given load.
you have to remember that these are not mass-produced tyres, they are hand made, and historically, Pirelli (and others) have struggled to make consistent tyres (it's a well known in the industry, they have the rep for this).
Let's not forget we have already had the situation this year where the softer tyre actually out-lasts the harder one, how does that happen?
Scuffers said:
saving fuel is not relevant here as they are only limited in fuel by what they can carry.
Of course it is relevant - they start the race without enough fuel to get to the end at full attack. They all go through a period of fuel saving at some point in each and every race to enable them to make it to the end.IainT said:
Scuffers said:
saving fuel is not relevant here as they are only limited in fuel by what they can carry.
Of course it is relevant - they start the race without enough fuel to get to the end at full attack. They all go through a period of fuel saving at some point in each and every race to enable them to make it to the end.the reason they don't is they do the calculations for what pace they expect to be able to run and factor in likelihood of SC's etc.
at the moment, if they gave them more fuel, they would not be able to go any faster as the tyres won't let them.
Scuffers said:
no it's not, there's nothing stopping them starting with more.
Ah, ok...Scuffers said:
the reason they don't is they do the calculations for what pace they expect to be able to run and factor in likelihood of SC's etc.
Oh, so there is something stopping them running more fuel..!Scuffers said:
at the moment, if they gave them more fuel, they would not be able to go any faster as the tyres won't let them.
Run harder, tyres wear out, that is simple enough but it's also plain to see that, using Canada for example, LH could have run harder in the middle of the race and pitted a little earlier for the final tyres had he the fuel to do so.Even if the tyres lasted longer they wouldn't run enough fuel as the extra weight at the start of the race would cost them too much track position and early wear on the tyres.
As I said in my original post: it's a lot more complicated than just being about the tyres. I didn't say the tyres had nothing to do with it.
Scuffers said:
Dr Z said:
I'm sorry but I don't buy that. Are you suggesting that the teams are being given a tyre with a completely different compound in a race compared to what they got in FP sessions? If so, that is ludicrous! Are you sure that the track and the conditions themselves evolving over the weekend, doesn't explain the inability of the teams to extrapolate data from the FP sessions to the race reliably?
tyres are a lot more complex than just changing compounds.the issue (as I am lead to believe) is that the tyres differ in the level of 'working' they take to reach a set temp, and once they are at that temp, how long they can stay there for with a given load.
you have to remember that these are not mass-produced tyres, they are hand made, and historically, Pirelli (and others) have struggled to make consistent tyres (it's a well known in the industry, they have the rep for this).
Let's not forget we have already had the situation this year where the softer tyre actually out-lasts the harder one, how does that happen?
As for the 'harder' tyre out-lasting the softer one, I don't think there is any hard and fast rule about each tyre behaving a certain way. I thought this is Formula 1, where not everything is handed on a plate to the teams. That the teams (including the drivers) will actually have to work to understand and get on top of variables like that. If everything in reality worked out exactly like how your super-high-tech-computer model told you, where is the fun in that?
Scuffers said:
.
on that basis, you would say that Grosjean is a better driver than Alonso then?
.
On ANY basis that could be a real and distinct possibility.on that basis, you would say that Grosjean is a better driver than Alonso then?
.
No matter how good ... someone else coming along could be better all things considered.
Better than a twice WDC MGJohn? ....Unthinkable.... some may say but, not me.
.
Gaz. said:
Scuffers said:
I never said it was a quote, like I said, there is a lot of info on this that's NOT public domian.
That old chesnut eh.Scuffers said:
not really, tell you what, you phone them up and ask them for the info so that you can post it up, then come back and say what they told you to do....
They told me the tyres are consistent.No I can't tell you who. Or when I asked. Or where. I'm not going to back it up with any evidence other than to say that I trust the person I got the information from.
I trust that you will therefore be satisfied with this.
No?
Hahahahahaha… so this thread's still leaving marks on one's screen eh?
It seems to me that when one is convinced of one's logic, it is possible that any number of logical counter-arguments will make not a jot of difference. Actually, it seems to me not unlike a religious belief to others! (read that either way: it is equally applicable).
I'm not going to bother repeating what I said earlier; but there may be a case of "5+5=11 because I use base 9, and I don't care that you arrive at a different figure because you use a more (or less) common system!
Scuffers: you yourself have alluded to the fact that opinions are based on belief (yes, including your own – which you have admitted has been formed upon hearsay, or worse still: what has not been said!). You have attempted to make your point. Others have made theirs. You're right about everything. All the counter-arguments so far presented are wrong and have no basis.
Congratulations.
It seems to me that when one is convinced of one's logic, it is possible that any number of logical counter-arguments will make not a jot of difference. Actually, it seems to me not unlike a religious belief to others! (read that either way: it is equally applicable).
I'm not going to bother repeating what I said earlier; but there may be a case of "5+5=11 because I use base 9, and I don't care that you arrive at a different figure because you use a more (or less) common system!
Scuffers: you yourself have alluded to the fact that opinions are based on belief (yes, including your own – which you have admitted has been formed upon hearsay, or worse still: what has not been said!). You have attempted to make your point. Others have made theirs. You're right about everything. All the counter-arguments so far presented are wrong and have no basis.
Congratulations.
if the tyres were inconsistent then we might expect the fastest cars to be different from session to session and stop to stop.
so with this in mind it's kind of strange that button was consistently slow, and hamilton, vettel, and alonso were consistently fast. and that perez is consistently good at doing a 1 stop strategy. and that the lotus has also shown consistently that it can make the tyres last, in both Raikkonen's and Grosjean's hands.
so...
so with this in mind it's kind of strange that button was consistently slow, and hamilton, vettel, and alonso were consistently fast. and that perez is consistently good at doing a 1 stop strategy. and that the lotus has also shown consistently that it can make the tyres last, in both Raikkonen's and Grosjean's hands.
so...
Use Psychology said:
if the tyres were inconsistent then we might expect the fastest cars to be different from session to session and stop to stop.
so with this in mind it's kind of strange that button was consistently slow, and hamilton, vettel, and alonso were consistently fast. and that perez is consistently good at doing a 1 stop strategy. and that the lotus has also shown consistently that it can make the tyres last, in both Raikkonen's and Grosjean's hands.
so...
Don't you go using bloody logic young man!so with this in mind it's kind of strange that button was consistently slow, and hamilton, vettel, and alonso were consistently fast. and that perez is consistently good at doing a 1 stop strategy. and that the lotus has also shown consistently that it can make the tyres last, in both Raikkonen's and Grosjean's hands.
so...
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff