Spa-Francorchamps - BELGIUM Grand Prix 2009 - Race 12/17

[Dorje]

When you're in a good position and your car is working well in the conditions any F1 driver can be a wet specialist.

Explain Massa and Raikonnen in wet races in the last 2 years. Vettel always outperfomed his team mate in wet races, you might argue he did that in the dry, but he won Monza with a Torro Rosso, plus did very well at Fuji. MS always beat his team mates in the rain, and sometimes other teams with an inferior car. Sutil has done well in wet races and consistently beaten his team mate. Not forgetting LH has always done well in the wet and again beaten his team mate numerous times.

All these examples are of drivers with the same cars and opportunites, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Yes the car with all races plays a big part, but they don't drive themselves you know. Hello Look-How Bad-Oeeeeeer.

 

[dannyjo22]

you lot are incredible - after one bad race and one bad quali you completely right Jenson off

He hasnt done brilliantly by any means but with so many races to go its not a right off by any means. After all he probably only needs to win one more race and collect a few points in each of the rest to win the Championship anyway

Why does Barrichello deserve the WDC any more than JB after he was so ***** at the beginning of the season??

The trouble is now the pressure is really on he isn't getting the job done anymore. Rubens is getting more out of the car when it's bad, hence his win last week when jenson struggled.

Before he had the pace to leap Rubens and murder him on race pace. That isn't happening anymore. He's not looked like matching rubens for quite a while now. Its a worrying trend.

 

[Duke]

Hah, didn't even know about these - thanks man

No probs, they are great to watch I watched them all this season a couple of weeks ago - you soon forget the domination Brawn had at the beginning.

 

[this_is_gav]

Explain Massa and Raikonnen in wet races in the last 2 years.

That's quite simple. The long wheelbase car. It makes it gives no confidence in tricky conditions, whereas cars with a more normal, shorter wheelbase are far more pointy, so while potentially a little less optimal, they give the driver far more confidence as they can feel it under them more.

Non-technical, exaggerated example, but it's like driving a bus - in theory it gives good stability, but when it does let go, you're going to lose it.

 

[Dorje]

That's quite simple. The long wheelbase car. It makes it gives no confidence in tricky conditions, whereas cars with a more normal, shorter wheelbase are far more pointy, so while potentially a little less optimal, they give the driver far more confidence as they can feel it under them more.

Non-technical, exaggerated example, but it's like driving a bus - in theory it gives good stability, but when it does let go, you're going to lose it.

You've miss understood what I was saying. Raikonnen and Massa have had the same car over the last couple of years, but Raikonnen has coped better than Massa in rain affected races.


In response to what you've said. I'm no expert, but from my understanding; long wheelbase cars are actually easier to control. Short wheelbase cars are typically harder to catch when they snap.

 

[Lumeycom]

i know this should be in the 2010 thread but its relevant here - 2010 is gonna be a lil more boring in the wet due to all the cars growing a few inches in length to accomodate the extra fuel between the engine and driver

 

[NathanE]

Explain Massa and Raikonnen in wet races in the last 2 years.

The F2007 and F2008 were similar in design to this years Brawn... they couldn't get tyre temp in the wet.

 

[mctiny]

i know this should be in the 2010 thread but its relevant here - 2010 is gonna be a lil more boring in the wet due to all the cars growing a few inches in length to accomodate the extra fuel between the engine and driver

How is this relevant here ?

 

[Dorje]

The F2007 and F2008 were similar in design to this years Brawn... they couldn't get tyre temp in the wet.

I've already replied to this above. Basically, Raikonnen managed just fine. Massa didn't.

Or have you ignored that reply, as well as the rest of the post which you have deleted from my quote?

 

[Fr0dders]

anybody play Fantasy F1

i'll be @!&%'d if i know what to predict as 1st/2nd/3rd for this race !

 

[NathanE]

I've already replied to this above. Basically, Raikonnen managed just fine. Massa didn't.

Or have you ignored that reply, as well as the rest of the post which you have deleted from my quote?

Raikonnen didn't manage fine at all. Half of his tyre 2008 campaign was blighted by tyre temp. He lost a win at Spa due to the F2008 tyre temp issues.

 

[this_is_gav]

In response to what you've said. I'm no expert, but from my understanding; long wheelbase cars are actually easier to control. Short wheelbase cars are typically harder to catch when they snap.

Short wheelbase cars will snap more often, but they're easier to hold when they do snap - not necessary drift, but at least keep pointing in the same direction.

A long wheelbase car trying to come around is like a pendulum... only it's not going to stop and come back around.

Of course, many other factors affect that, but assuming all other areas were equal, that's the way it works in single-seaters.

 

[Dorje]

Raikonnen didn't manage fine at all. Half of his tyre 2008 campaign was blighted by tyre temp. He lost a win at Spa due to the F2008 tyre temp issues.

Not seen the video earlier in this thread to remind you? He was on slicks, and everyone around him was falling off the track when it started to rain. He caught numerous tail out moments, managed to pass Hamilton before the infamous retake. Then finally Raikonnen had one rear end step out too many as he hit the wall.

Admittedly Raikonnen didn't do great in 2008, but many think that's because of his recent 'cba' attitude.

Besides, you've successfully managed to derail the original point which was that there are drivers who are considered to be 'wet weather specialists'. And some, just aren't.

 

[this_is_gav]

You could argue the other way though. Hamilton is perceived to be a wet-weather specialist, but he's only gone and won the 2 wet-weather races - Fuji 2007, and both of those were races where his rivals destroyed themselves.

- Monaco 2008 he completely fluked through changing tyres at the perfect time due to hitting the wall.
- Silverstone 2008 all his rivals (other than Heikki, who was just poor) were all over the place
- Fuji 2007 itself was the same
- Monza 2008 he was nowhere at all
- China 2009 he was beaten by his inferior teammate

It's easy to argue one way or the other.

A wet-weather specialist is someone who's done it time and time again, consistantly. In recent times, that's only Senna and Schumacher.

 

[Christo]

From recent memory:

China this year, Vettel 1st and Webber 2nd. Very wet race.

Fuji last year, Webber and Vettel were in podium positions before Vettel rear ended Webber in the final laps behind the safety car. Very wet race.

Monza last year, Vettel won his first race with Torro Rosso. Again, rain affected.

Why have you ignored Malaysia where Brawn/Button won this year? So 2 wet races, RBR won one and Brawn the other. Its simply not possible to draw a logical conclusion from this. Also when a track is wet it tends to completely mix up the pack, hence backmarkers doing relatively well.

 

[this_is_gav]

Why have you ignored Malaysia where Brawn/Button won this year? So 2 wet races, RBR won one and Brawn the other.

Even though only part of the race was in the wet, and the majority of the wet was only really damp, Red Bull were the fastest cars there too - Button had a huge lead over them from earlier in the race though

 

[Dorje]

Why have you ignored Malaysia where Brawn/Button won this year? So 2 wet races, RBR won one and Brawn the other. Its simply not possible to draw a logical conclusion from this. Also when a track is wet it tends to completely mix up the pack, hence backmarkers doing relatively well.

Because you asked why Vettel and Webber were considered wet weather specialists, not the Brawn drivers.

Also Malaysia was only a half race, due to rivers forming on corners and was declared unsafe. Then when the restart was starting to become considered, the lack of light became a problem too.

If you want examples of the Brawn drivers doing well. Button won his maiden victory in Hungary with a sub standard car whilst others fell off the road. And Barrichello's podium in Silverstone when he timed his tyre change perfectly and took a 30 second advantage in one lap.

 

[NathanE]

Not seen the video earlier in this thread to remind you? He was on slicks, and everyone around him was falling off the track when it started to rain. He caught numerous tail out moments, managed to pass Hamilton before the infamous retake. Then finally Raikonnen had one rear end step out too many as he hit the wall.

Admittedly Raikonnen didn't do great in 2008, but many think that's because of his recent 'cba' attitude.

Besides, you've successfully managed to derail the original point which was that there are drivers who are considered to be 'wet weather specialists'. And some, just aren't.

Have seen the video. You missed out the part where Hamilton was catching Raikonnen corner by corner as the rain started dampen parts of the track. Obviously before long everyone was affected but the Raikonnen's car was noticably worse in those conditions than Hamilton's. Probably because the McLaren in 2008 was well known for "working its tyres". A bit like the RBR is this year. The F2008 was actually "so bad" in the rain that Ferrari did a test on their track with the sprinklers running to try and find a better setup for it. They did this after the disaster that was Silverstone for them.

I've not derailed anything BTW. It's a discussion forum. Like it or lump it. At least I don't have a snotty attitude.

 

[Christo]

Even though only part of the race was in the wet, and the majority of the wet was only really damp, Red Bull were the fastest cars there too - Button had a huge lead over them from earlier in the race though

How were the Red Bull cars the fastest? What evidence is there?

Because you asked why Vettel and Webber were considered wet weather specialists, not the Brawn drivers.

Also Malaysia was only a half race, due to rivers forming on corners and was declared unsafe. Then when the restart was starting to become considered, the lack of light became a problem too.

If you want examples of the Brawn drivers doing well. Button won his maiden victory in Hungary with a sub standard car whilst others fell off the road. And Barrichello's podium in Silverstone when he timed his tyre change perfectly and took a 30 second advantage in one lap.

My original point was the general myth of RBR being good in the wet, its just not logical. I can extend that to Webber and Vettel if you like too. Yes both good drivers (Vettel an excellent driver). I already mentioned Button doing well in the wet in the past and him being dubbed a rain master himself - its all a load of rubbish/statistically irrelevant.

 

[Dorje]

Have seen the video. You missed out the part where Hamilton was catching Raikonnen corner by corner as the rain started dampen parts of the track. Obviously before long everyone was affected but the Raikonnen's car was noticably worse in those conditions than Hamilton's. Probably because the McLaren in 2008 was well known for "working its tyres". A bit like the RBR is this year. The F2008 was actually "so bad" in the rain that Ferrari did a test on their track with the sprinklers running to try and find a better setup for it. They did this after the disaster that was Silverstone for them.

I've not derailed anything BTW. It's a discussion forum. Like it or lump it. At least I don't have a snotty attitude.

Cool, fine by me. As you were.