Australian Grand Prix 2013, Melbourne - Race 1/19
- Thread starter Duke
- Start date
merc were about as fast at the start of last year as well it will be interesting to see if they get out developed massively by everyone again or wether they can keep up
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Are they, the highest finish was Rosberg in 12th a minute down on the leaders last year. They had some qualy pace but their race pace was abysmal, their fastest lap was 2 seconds off the best leaders fastest lap last year, this year, it was half a second.
LIkewise they made a mistake with passive drs and abandoned development on the car in favour of this years car, they weren't outpaced on development last year, they simply made a smart decision that due to where they'd focused their attention, developing last years car was going to yield very little, cost a lot and gain them nothing.
AS for Anderson, he's still a deluded moron, he's using fastest lap over a weekend, a single lap to determine if a car has gone forwards or not. He's calling the Red Bull clearly the fastest car, even though to use that pace they'd have to pit every 10 laps, half a second faster a lap + a pitstop costing 20seconds+ every 10 laps isn't faster, its slower. It also failed repeatedly to overtake a "clearly slower" car.
This as well as his proclaimation of their pace from Barca testing off non existant time differences from the previous year.
Something I dislike about Ted, and Anderson in that piece is, Ted does his little pieces that are basically a game of spot the difference. He's never like "this car has added a winglet, car X last year said they worked great and improved their performance, or car Y did them last year, they made it worse and removed them", he really does just do spot the difference.
Likewise Anderson there says he likes the changes Mclaren made, thinking they are good, but with no reason, why is a higher chassis better, and if it is, why are they SO slow, etc, etc. So many of these guys just go change = good, woo hoo, its so shallow and pointless. However, the mirroring of Button's problems this year and last year "we don't know what the problem is, we can't set it up right", while other teams make changes and find it. Some problems really can't be fixed, and you can't find a setup to work. Lotus couldn't get passive drs working last year, Merc double drs wouldn't work.
But last year Mclaren had a great car, Hamilton found the setup quickly in each race, Button struggled for half a year before being forced to use Hamilton's setup, because he couldn't set up a car. Having a driver who isn't very good at finding the best way to use new parts, hurts development because how can they tell if a new part helps, or not, or just the driver can't set the car up to use it? I think Mclaren are set for problems year long. I can't see how Button will get that car working well with a difficult new car, when he couldn't do it last year without help.
Suspension systems need to be entirely passive and isolated, i.e a closed circuit. Linking it to something like the fuel tank would mean it is no longer self contained and therefore illegal. Any information that is used to adjust the suspension needs to come from within the suspension 'system's itself, it cannot be influenced by another system, such as the fuel system.
When he got his Super Licence he didn't have enough test miles to qualify either, I'm not sure he has enough even now. I don't know if he still has one actually, as you don't need one to drive in practice sessions. But regardless, he got a Super License through dubious means. It was openly questioned by many teams and drivers, which is no surprise given the enormous fees they have to pay while Ma Quack just got some Chinese businessman to sign a cheque.
I could be wrong, and he could do great in GP2. But in reality I'm expecting him to be a moving chicane and show his true lack of pace and skill.
Last edited:
Minardi had a third driver called Chanoch Nissany in 2005, who completed one timed lap in Hungary GP practice 18 seconds off the pace before flying off the road. Yuji Ide and Sakon Yamamoto were pretty much mobile chicanes. F1 has seen numerous drivers of that ilk over the years, it'll be a good laugh if Ma actually does try to qualify for a race.
Nissany wouldn't have had Super License, and it's the license thing that bugs me. I've no issue with any old Joe having a bosh in testing or practice.
But your right, Ma Quango isn't the first joke driver, and won't be the last, but it doesn't stop the whole thing being a complete farse.
But your right, Ma Quango isn't the first joke driver, and won't be the last, but it doesn't stop the whole thing being a complete farse.
Last edited:
Considering that teams need to use practice to both set up their cars and properly test new parts (given the in-season test ban) I'm not sure I agree.
I've already said it was a desperate move by Caterham to take his sponsorship money. To be honest, I would care more if I thought F1 was worth following more than semi-casually. Enjoy the next race, I'll catch you in the Nascar\Indycar threads
With the limits on testing, practice sessions need to be used to try out drivers. We need to let anyone have a go as its the only way the few promising young stars get in the cars. I know the teams like to moan about the loss of testing, but I think the people who have suffered the most are the young aspiring drivers. Gone are the days of getting into F1 by being a teams test driver and getting thousands of miles under your belt.
But giving someone a race license and seat when they don't fill any of the criteria goes to far, in my opinion.
And that reminds me, I need to set the Bristol NNS highlights to record.
But giving someone a race license and seat when they don't fill any of the criteria goes to far, in my opinion.
And that reminds me, I need to set the Bristol NNS highlights to record.
Now that you mention it, I will add one more comment: this is one reason I like Indycar better. Talented young drivers like Tristan Vautier receive scholarships for winning the official ladder series championships to help them progress. Not to mention ample test sessions for car development and seat time for these drivers. I'll be looking forward to seeing Matthew Brabham (yes, he is related to the F1 legend) and Jack Hawksworth reach Indycar in the future. It's a shame they lacked the funding to stay racing in Europe, but F1's loss is Indycar's gain.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 1,641
- Location
- Oxford, UK
Yes it's always the car from at least a year or two before on non current tyres.
Sounds like a great format. Formula 1 needs to seriously look at how it feeds itself with talent. If it keeps going this way it will end up being a rich guys playground while all the skilled drivers go elsewhere.
You do realise why he finished 12th right? or are you just looking at stats without finding out the circumstances that lead to them such as his puncture?
schumacher was also 3rd before his gearbox died with vettel quickly closing on him and would likely have finished 5th which is where hamilton did this year.
for the first few races last season they were easily capable of finishing 5th-6th until lotus started to spank them and then sauber an FI started to get the better car
They didn't completely give up on development last year either but kept chasing their own tale like a mad dog and then realising it was a mistake that lead them down the garden path. (to many chefs to many ideas?)
Last edited:
Exactly, whilst there must be some standards to be met in order to obtain a super license you can't help but feel that F1 is largely a pay driver sport now. Drivers with talent such as Kovalainen (sp?) and Hulkenberg when he first lost his drive highlight that.
You can't tell me that the young lads like Chilton and Van der Garde would get picked over the other drivers mention solely based on skill set. Heikki is a race winner, yet he finds himself without a drive. Madness.
It does look a bit silly that F1 drags GP2 and GP3 around the world with it, labelling it as the feeder series, and then the winner of the GP2 series doesn't get an F1 seat and isn't allowed back into GP2.
I understand that its hard times for the teams, and there isn't an easy solution as for most teams in the midfield and backwards money is more important for survival than a fast driver.
Caterham probably wouldn't be able to afford to compete had they kept Heikki and not signed Ma QuidsIn, but is that not ultimately the FIA's fault at the end of the day?
I understand that its hard times for the teams, and there isn't an easy solution as for most teams in the midfield and backwards money is more important for survival than a fast driver.
Caterham probably wouldn't be able to afford to compete had they kept Heikki and not signed Ma QuidsIn, but is that not ultimately the FIA's fault at the end of the day?
It was a 2011 Red Bull that was used in the speed comparison this weekend.
Deleted member 651465
D
Deleted member 651465
It was obviously timed in such a way to ensure a tight finish, but that video posted didn't do it justice really.
I hope it was better in the flesh?
Does anyone think Hamilton would have been much better just aiming for a 3 stop at the start and could have of came 4th/maybe even ended up on the podium?
I mean he probably lost a lot of time going slow trying to conserve tyres and they lost a lot of time out staying out on those super softs at the start of the race. He was only 12 seconds behind Massa by the end of the race and 23 seconds of Vettel.
If he was going a lot faster all race in the knowledge he was going to be doing a 3 stop the Mercedes could have had a more impressive first race.
i think they just got the strategy wrong.
I mean he probably lost a lot of time going slow trying to conserve tyres and they lost a lot of time out staying out on those super softs at the start of the race. He was only 12 seconds behind Massa by the end of the race and 23 seconds of Vettel.
If he was going a lot faster all race in the knowledge he was going to be doing a 3 stop the Mercedes could have had a more impressive first race.
i think they just got the strategy wrong.
You have to wonder why he was so easily overtaken by the front runners throughout the race.
Was it because he was driving a slow and steady strategy to make a two-stop work or was there something more fundamental.
His middle stint on the prime tyre didn't last long and there was a radio message where he said he was going as fast as he could (after being told to push).
If his tyres really died that quickly when he was pushing then he may not have been able to keep pace with the front runners had he been on an intentional three-stop strategy.
It's hard to say really. Hopefully the next race will shed some more light on the true pace of the Merc but I expect it's going to be a few races in before we can draw any sensible conclusions.
Was it because he was driving a slow and steady strategy to make a two-stop work or was there something more fundamental.
His middle stint on the prime tyre didn't last long and there was a radio message where he said he was going as fast as he could (after being told to push).
If his tyres really died that quickly when he was pushing then he may not have been able to keep pace with the front runners had he been on an intentional three-stop strategy.
It's hard to say really. Hopefully the next race will shed some more light on the true pace of the Merc but I expect it's going to be a few races in before we can draw any sensible conclusions.
It has been explained though I admit it has been spread out over a few articles and places. From what I remember McLaren have changed a high nose and have also coke bottled the rear more than previous years. The high nose allows more air to run under the nose and then be used by the floor and the coke bottle rear allows more air to be used by the diffuser/coanda effect. Now this may be wrong as I can't find the article anymore but the high nose will mean air is use differently and requires slightly different designs and with McLaren using the low nose all this time their sidepod design, barge boards etc obviously aren't optimised for a high nose. The coke bottle rear too is very sensitive to airflow and that the air needs to stay attached to the body however through cornering this can make the air detached which reduces the downforce and because this downforce is lost at the rear then balance will keep changing.
There may be other things however it would appear that McLaren have changed to a design that can be faster but has to be set up right and it would appear McLaren either haven't hit the sweet spot with the aero or Button / Perez haven't worked out a set up which fully takes advantage of the gains in aero.
Edit: Found one of the articles http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21821853 Also mentions about front wing being changed from last year.
Edit 2: Haven't McLaren changed their front suspension too, to the same design as Ferrari had last year? (or was it they had the same design as Ferrari last year and changed this year) but I wonder considering the problem Ferrari had understanding how the change in front suspension set up effected the car whether McLaren are going through the same problems.
Last edited: