Gah, the one that crashed was the other guys but they showed Jensons car on the floor.
Istanbul - TURKEY Grand Prix 2009 - Race 7/17
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
Gah, the one that crashed was the other guys but they showed Jensons car on the floor.
So because it happens once, there is a pattern?
Brawn GP car and more particularly Jenson's car setups are designed to be smooth and this preserves the tyres on a dry race (which is good). But on a wet race this can sometimes be bad because the tyres aren't generating enough scrub and therefore heat in order to keep them inside the best operating window.
Unfortunately, unless the practice sessions as well as the race are wet then it's pretty difficult to "produce" a wet car setup. So this just means that whoever has the car setup that was punishing the tyres the most in the dry would, by default, have one of the best wet weather setups.
Pretty much everything that happens in F1 can be explained away using science and physics.
Jenson has put in some great wet weather drives in his time. Far better than Vettel's entire career in F1 too. Just because Vettel managed to get lucky in qualifying in Monza '08 and then held it together in the race... everyone seems to think he is some wet weather specialist.
Vettel's only other win also came when he qualified in pole (in very wet conditions) and then he won the race. The weather conditions for that race was also damp/soggy/slippery.
The stats are that both of Vettel's race wins have come in wet weather.
The stats also show that Button's only race loss this year was in the wet, where his car (and him) were outclassed by both RedBulls. Mark Webber certainly isnt as fast a driver as Button/BrawnGP, so it is reasonable to assume that the RedBull car is the better car in the wet.
Unfortunately, we only have 7 races so far, so any statistical analysis has to be based on those few races.
Using the statistics gained so far, this year, we can say that Button/BrawnGP dominate in the dry, but in the wet, Button is vulnerable. Also based on statistics, we can say that RedBull's best chance of a win, will come in a wet race.
The stats are that both of Vettel's race wins have come in wet weather.
The stats also show that Button's only race loss this year was in the wet, where his car (and him) were outclassed by both RedBulls. Mark Webber certainly isnt as fast a driver as Button/BrawnGP, so it is reasonable to assume that the RedBull car is the better car in the wet.
Unfortunately, we only have 7 races so far, so any statistical analysis has to be based on those few races.
Using the statistics gained so far, this year, we can say that Button/BrawnGP dominate in the dry, but in the wet, Button is vulnerable. Also based on statistics, we can say that RedBull's best chance of a win, will come in a wet race.
So because it happens once, there is a pattern?
Brawn GP car and more particularly Jenson's car setups are designed to be smooth and this preserves the tyres on a dry race (which is good). But on a wet race this can sometimes be bad because the tyres aren't generating enough scrub and therefore heat in order to keep them inside the best operating window.
Unfortunately, unless the practice sessions as well as the race are wet then it's pretty difficult to "produce" a wet car setup. So this just means that whoever has the car setup that was punishing the tyres the most in the dry would, by default, have one of the best wet weather setups.
Pretty much everything that happens in F1 can be explained away using science and physics.
Jenson has put in some great wet weather drives in his time. Far better than Vettel's entire career in F1 too. Just because Vettel managed to get lucky in qualifying in Monza '08 and then held it together in the race... everyone seems to think he is some wet weather specialist.
This should also suggest that Rubens should be nearer if not better than Jenson in the wet - which wasnt that evident during Shanghai (nearly 20 sencods between them at the line) during that deluge of a race
During Sepang - that didnt even get to 1/2 distance because of the rain there was 45 seconds difference
I think the Red Bull is a lot more dangerous in the wet - and because of the very limited testing of the Brawn , no one knows how its going to perform, but it seems like the car in general has a problem generating heat in cold temps (otherwise Rubens wouldnt have so much of an issue at the two above races)
I dont think you can say that - yes the Brawn was outclassed no question - but Button beat his team mate and everyone else apart from the Red Bull's , the only way you COULD say the above imo is if Button would have performed "badly" in a Red Bull in the same situation , or thoroughly beaten by his team mate - neither of which is true
Last edited:
The reason why I always refer to Button as "BrawnGP/Button", is that it is very difficult to say how much of it is "Button" and how much of it is "BrawnGP".
So, when I said that the RedBulls outclassed Button and BrawnGP, I meant that they outclassed Button/BrawnGP. I'm not saying that Button drove badly or that the BrawnGP was a bad car in that race. But, certainly BrawnGP/Button was a combination that was comprehensively beaten by both RedBull cars.
In either case, my assessment still stands - Button in a BrawnGP car was no match (in the last wet race of 2009), for either of the RedBull cars and that RedBull's best chance of another win is likely to come in the wet.
At this point, I feel that the Button/BrawnGP is ahead of the rest by a very large margin. 6 out of 7 wins matches MS's record and I believe if Button wins the next GP (making it 7 wins out of 8), this will will be unprecedented and will be a new record. The mere fact that Button/BrawnGP are in a position to break this record tells us just how superior that car is.
Some people have said that the BrawnGP/Button car isnt that far ahead of the rest. The statistics say otherwise and show that BrawnGP/Button are about to set a record that may not be broken for a long long time.
Statistics only go so far. You have to analyse reasons in detail, especially when the season is not even finished. Sure it's OK to refer to statistics and miss out detail in the history books. That's pretty much a given when it comes to F1. Everyone loves to have rose tinted spectacles where they only remember a driver's good races but ignore/forget their worst.
Red Bull have made some mistakes this season so far. Both strategy and their drivers (ok just Vettel, Webber hasn't made any notable costly mistakes).
It's not all about the car and driver. The Brawn car is good but as you've pointed out (as if it needed to be) it isn't the fastest in the wet at the moment and Brawn GP have given no indications that their development programme is going to improve this.
Brawn GP have made ALL the right strategy calls when it matters. Both before the start of the races and during the heat of battle. They've not made any mistakes that have cost them position or wins. Red Bull has, so has Toyota. These mistakes have allowed Brawn and Button to create a huge lead.
I would argue that any mistakes made by Vettel or RedBull, will have not changed the results. Perhaps Vettel would've finished ahead of Mark Webber, had he not made an error or been put on a 3-stopper, but apart from that, I dont believe Button would've lost any of his 6 races, had RedBull/Vettel made no mistakes.
Button/BrawnGP has the ability to go fast, when required. I dont believe that the car is on the limit. The only time we see Button/BrawnGP on the limit is before a pit-stop and more often than not, at this point, Button has the ability to lap between 0.5s-1s/lap. Now unless RedBull can go 0.5s-1s/lap faster, I don't see how they could beat Button.
Button/BrawnGP has the ability to go fast, when required. I dont believe that the car is on the limit. The only time we see Button/BrawnGP on the limit is before a pit-stop and more often than not, at this point, Button has the ability to lap between 0.5s-1s/lap. Now unless RedBull can go 0.5s-1s/lap faster, I don't see how they could beat Button.
Like I mentioned before, which you ignored, 1 race does not count for a constant assumption that Vettel/Red Bull are best in the wet. A trained statition certainly would not count 1 race enough to prove such a case, 1 race can very easily be an anomaly.
A wet race tends to shakeup the grid and will be an opportunity for all backmarkers not just Red Bull.
Of course Vettel going in to Kubica in Melbourne didnt effect the result
Last edited:
This is true. However, in the absence of any other data, any predictions can only be based on that 1 wet race. The only other option is to ignore that race and then go with gut instinct, which is what I think you are doing.
True, but based on the 7 races so far, RedBull are the only team who are ready to take advantage of any problems that the BrawnGP team may encounter. The rest of the grid (no offence to them) are not ready to challenge for race wins.
Of course Vettel going in to Kubica in Melbourne didnt effect the result
Button controlling the race and was ahead of Vettel when Vettel had the crash. So no, the crash didnt effect the result in Melbourne.
Of course it affected the bloody result! A) anything that changes the finishing order by definition changes the result, and B) it was what allowed Barrichello to get 2nd place. If Vettel had decided that discretion was the better part of valour and settled for 3rd in Melbourne then he'd have 6 more points and Barrichello 3 less than right now, putting Vettel 2nd in the championship.
Not that this matters of course, season statistics are always utter ******** until the end of the year. Maybe then we can make factual statements about the relative performances of the BGP and RBR cars in wet or dry races. Until then, it's just speculation based on a result that could prove to be an anomaly.
If Vettel/Kubica didn't clash in Melbourne then Vettel would have been at least 6, possibly 8, points closer to where Button is right now.
If Toyota hadn't messed up their race strategy (can't remember which track) they could have won their first race of their existance. But instead, they tried to do a long stint on soft tyres and pretty much handed the win to Button/Brawn.
If Barrichello hadn't messed up his start in Turkey then he probably would have finished 2nd (maybe 1st if he hussled Button enough) and again, Button would not be at such a high altitude.
This example alone undermines the theory that Button is so far ahead solely because of his car. Yes his car is great and it is doing him wonders BUT his huge lead at the moment is probably around 50% due to his direct rivals making mistakes.
It's not that Button/Brawn GP car are good. It's that, this season, everyone else just seems to be ****.
If Toyota hadn't messed up their race strategy (can't remember which track) they could have won their first race of their existance. But instead, they tried to do a long stint on soft tyres and pretty much handed the win to Button/Brawn.
If Barrichello hadn't messed up his start in Turkey then he probably would have finished 2nd (maybe 1st if he hussled Button enough) and again, Button would not be at such a high altitude.
This example alone undermines the theory that Button is so far ahead solely because of his car. Yes his car is great and it is doing him wonders BUT his huge lead at the moment is probably around 50% due to his direct rivals making mistakes.
It's not that Button/Brawn GP car are good. It's that, this season, everyone else just seems to be ****.
Not the first time Button has benefited from rival teams and drivers losing their heads. Williams and McLaren going completely off the boil for much of the 2004 season netted him 'best of the rest' honours behind the Ferraris in the championship.
Apart from Barrichello having a clutch problem twice, they (well ok Ross Brawn) has done well on strategy, planning pit stops, etc which is what a championship winning team needs.
Toyota and Red Bull can be, I suppose, excused from making such amateurish stategy calls this season. They've never been so high up the pecking order before fighting for wins... when you're at this level in F1 it requires a totally different type of strategy compared to when you're mid-field or a "monkey at the back" (Copyright (c) Hamilton Co. Ltd).
Brawn is lucky in that they have a man who made all the strategy calls for Schumacher's 7 titles...
Brawn is lucky in that they have a man who made all the strategy calls for Schumacher's 7 titles...
Something that also lets then be very easy on their tires in the dry though
I dont believe Rubens is that easy on his tyres - but at the end of Turkey Jenson's certainly looked barely used
Did you see that I had put in bold your comment about "(and him)"?
As I said Im more than happy to agrree that in that race the Brawn car was no match for the Red Bull
Toyota dont have the race pace , no matter the strategy, to win a race as yet. They are undoubtedly quick enough to get some more poles etc, but Trulli and Glock cant keep it up over 60 odd laps or whatever to make the strategy matter so much (as to whether they have lost lower positions I couldnt say)
2nd very probably - but Rubens hasnt yet shown any real competition to Jenson no matter what the conditions, there is no reason to suggest he would have managed it in Turkey
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,712
- Location
- Retired Don
Some news:
the teams dont get much of a share from the revenue formula one takes though doesnt bernie keep 50%?
and hes a tight arse with giving prize money to new entrants aswell how many years must they wait again was it 3?