Canadian Grand Prix 2010, Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal - Race 8/19
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
Soldato
Do they have the best car?
It's not reliable. That much we know - gearbox change for Webber and clutch change for Vettel before the race this time out, and Vettel was either managing a reliability problem or running out of gas by the end of proceedings yesterday. Add that to what we've seen in previous rounds - snapped anti-roll bars, brake failures, hub failures....
It's not hugely good in a straight-line. The McLaren is far, far quicker. So is the Force India. This hurts them at tracks like Canada - long straights linked by slow turns that don't see the trick rear aero pieces come to the rescue.
It's fast, no doubt about that. But best is a different thing entirely. The best car would have (collision in Turkey aside) won every single race so far. And it seems as if they can't even rely on that speed any more, since the McLarens are catching right up.
People were talking earlier in the year as if the RBR was the Williams FW14B reincarnated. I think McLaren have pretty much shown that to not be the case.
Mclaren are deffinatly sitting pretty at the moment, 2 wins in a row, next track favours their car again and a huge upgrade coming at silverstone. Mclaren are usually very good at upgrading so they might become the dominant car in silverstone and with 2 Brits behind the wheel.
Red bull have had the fastest car all season and have not made use if it like brawn did, they should have a good lead in both championships, I think they have lost it now.
WDC will be Hamilton or alonsos
WCC is mclarens
Red bull have had the fastest car all season and have not made use if it like brawn did, they should have a good lead in both championships, I think they have lost it now.
WDC will be Hamilton or alonsos
WCC is mclarens
I was surprised how early the hard tyre runners came in, was expecting it to be lap 20-25 ish. Guess the track must have been really green?
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk
shame that graphs doesnt tell you what type of tire everyone was on, who got the most out of the softs/hards from the start?
looks like liuzzi made his tires last the longest then hamilton 45 and 44 laps, and hamilton still had the speed at the end. the top 4 all did 40+ laps on hards.
looks like liuzzi made his tires last the longest then hamilton 45 and 44 laps, and hamilton still had the speed at the end. the top 4 all did 40+ laps on hards.
Caporegime
Those are weirdly unbalanced strategies from most of the top runners except Webber. I missed most of the race, why did they do that?
because tire wear was worse then they expected, hards only lasting a couple of laps longer than softs.
plus some did quali on softs some on hards.
Last edited:
The track was extremely green at the start of the race and basically ate tyres, hard or soft. It took a long time for it to rubber in to a reasonable level.
Deleted member 651465
D
Deleted member 651465
Reinforces the argument for tyres that fall apart quicker than the current run-forever hard.
Caporegime
Ah, so the first short run on hards had basically chewed up the tyres, but on lower fuel and a more rubbered in track they were able to run longer? Makes sense.
Soldato
That's prolly right, I think fuel makes up 25% of the weight so in the beginning the tyres wear out much faster.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,201
I was surprised how early the hard tyre runners came in, was expecting it to be lap 20-25 ish. Guess the track must have been really green?
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk
So much for Hamilton not being able to look after his tires
Good find.
Soldato
Hamilton built his destroyer-of-tyres-and-aggressive rep back in 2007. It was perhaps warranted back then as he was still racing in GP2 sprint mode all the time. But his racing style has changed a lot since then. He is one of the most successfully adaptive drivers on the grid. He has several different modes, ranging from ultra-aggressive to persistently-fast-but-conservative to tyre-presevation-specialist.
You can fairly accurately judge somebody's F1 knowledge level based upon their opinion of LH's driving style.
You can fairly accurately judge somebody's F1 knowledge level based upon their opinion of LH's driving style.
Reliability is definitely important. However, when the car itself is considerably faster than the opposition, such that without "incidents", rain or poor strategies, they are almost guaranteed a 1-2, every race...for me, this is dominance.
Had every race taken place in the dry and all cars used the same strategies with identical strategies, RBR would've won every race AND pole.
The only reason why they failed to get pole in Canada is because they chose to qualify on hard tyres.
Their race losses have happened because rival teams either used different strategies, it rained or there was an "incident".
McLaren are showing that driver skill is VERY important and that even if you don't have the best car, you can still make up the difference by having higher quality drivers.
RBR, can still complete a single lap, in a faster time.
Indeed, the McLarens are catching up, by RBR are still holding an advantage. Had RBR not crashed into eachother in Turkey and used the identical strategy used by McLaren in Canada, my belief is that RBR wouldve scored 1-2s in both those races.
Don't forget that RBR had the best/fastest car in Turkey. They only failed to get the 1-2 due to colliding with eachother.
With regards to McLaren bringing a new upgrade: all the leading teams bring new upgrades to EVERY SINGLE RACE. All this talk of "bringing a new upgrade package" IMO is gamesmanship and nothing else.
Weren't RedBull supposed to have had a HUGE upgrade package 2 races in Turkey (I think it was), yet it was McLaren who didnt bring a big upgrade, who had actually closed down the gap.
McLaren (and the other leading teams), bring new parts to every single race. The same will apply to Silverstone, but I do not believe that the upgrades in Silverstone will be any more significant than the upgrades we have seen in each of the previous races this year.
RedBull shall also bring new parts to Silverstone and I believe will maintain their car advantage.
Deleted member 651465
D
Deleted member 651465
Can someone answer me this..
I hear a lot of talk about "race trim" etc, but I was of the belief that the car could not change after qualifying due to parc ferme conditions. So why do people say the McLaren has the better race speeds when the Red Bulls are clearly much quicker in qually?
I think Red Bull have blown their chance to capitalise on the other teams, and will end up dragging this championship all the way to Abu Dabi, instead of effectively winning it with 5 races to go.
I hear a lot of talk about "race trim" etc, but I was of the belief that the car could not change after qualifying due to parc ferme conditions. So why do people say the McLaren has the better race speeds when the Red Bulls are clearly much quicker in qually?
I think Red Bull have blown their chance to capitalise on the other teams, and will end up dragging this championship all the way to Abu Dabi, instead of effectively winning it with 5 races to go.
I think it depends on a few things, but sometimes a car just can't be 100% on a single lap but is very good on a long run. Also they could put a set up on design for better longer run pace rather than one lap, which as you say, due to the rules means they can't change it for just qually.
Soldato
Well we all know the McLaren has fancy gizmos to alter its weight distribution during a race. We learnt this during pre season testing. They have systems that pump oil to different locations during the race and possibly also similar stuff for the fuel tank(s).
But it also comes down to the wheel base and general suspension geometries.
All these things combined can affect race pace versus qually pace.
But it also comes down to the wheel base and general suspension geometries.
All these things combined can affect race pace versus qually pace.