F1 Pre-Season Test Week 4: Barcelona 8th - 11th March

Well, tbh last year Lewis could had won easy but, the only thing they lacked in wasn't speed, but consistansy. hence they lost. :)

I think its about time to add lasers to the wings. That way race control can monitor every car to see if this device is flexing or not.
 
Last edited:
Kerming said:
Well, tbh last year Lewis could had won easy but, the only thing they lacked in wasn't speed, but consistansy. hence they lost. :)
Click to expand...

There was quite a bit of misfortune and errors from the top 3 last season, probably a fairly even distribution if you analysed it.

I'm not surprised McLaren are considering revising the rear of the car though. One thing I always look out for in testing is similarities between the top cars (I mean if the smarty pants are all designing the same thing then they probably aren't wrong) and McLaren have built a tank, while RB and Ferrari have extremely clean and tight rear ends. I'm still excited to see it race in it's current form though.
 
Kerming said:
Well, tbh last year Lewis could had won easy but, the only thing they lacked in wasn't speed, but consistansy. hence they lost. :)
Click to expand...

Lewis didn't lose because of lack of consistency; he lost because he twice tried overly risky passing moves and impacted with another driver. Had he been less impetuous at those two races he would have carried enough points away to win the championship.
 
Mr Jack said:
Lewis didn't lose because of lack of consistency; he lost because he twice tried overly risky passing moves and impacted with another driver. Had he been less impetuous at those two races he would have carried enough points away to win the championship.
Click to expand...

You can't blame him for being hit by Webber. In anyone's book that would have broken the right front suspension of Webber and put himself out of the race as Hamilton did to Massa. Webber used a life's worth of luck in that moment to not only survive the impact but also knock Lewis out.

And there's not much point recounting the incidents anyway. As I said the misfortune was quite evenly distributed. RB would have been a lot more comfortable if they hadn't collided, which stressed the entire team.
 
Mr Jack said:
Lewis didn't lose because of lack of consistency; he lost because he twice tried overly risky passing moves and impacted with another driver. Had he been less impetuous at those two races he would have carried enough points away to win the championship.
Click to expand...

Yes, F1 definitely needs EVEN LESS OVERTAKING....

:rolleyes:
 
gord said:
You can't blame him for being hit by Webber. In anyone's book that would have broken the right front suspension of Webber and put himself out of the race as Hamilton did to Massa. Webber used a life's worth of luck in that moment to not only survive the impact but also knock Lewis out.
Click to expand...

I still think Webber should have been penalised for that incident. None-the-less it was a risky move; and a more sensible driver would have held for the points. Hamilton had already put himself on the back foot with the incident with Massa in the race before and badly needed to carry points from the race.
 
SKILL said:
See, I still don't think this was, at least in theory, a bad plan. Getting a tests worth of data from the Pirelli tyres on a known stable platform is a good plan.
Click to expand...

I read the interview with Whitmarsh and what you have written above, is what he stated. BUT, you have to ask yourself this question - If testing the tyres in this fashion (ie. using the 2010 car), was the best way forward, why did the other leading teams not follow this route? And, why is it that of the leading teams, McLaren (who used this unique plan of testing) seem to be the ones who have come out the worst?

As far as I'm concerned, McLaren, wanted to make the first test (what team wouldn't) with their new car, but they fell behind. Rather than miss the test altogether, they then decided to take their old car to the test and test the new tyres. IMO missing the first test (with the new car), was not a premeditated arrangement, but was a case of making the best of a bad situation (once the design team hit delays).
 
gord said:
You can't blame him for being hit by Webber. In anyone's book that would have broken the right front suspension of Webber and put himself out of the race as Hamilton did to Massa. Webber used a life's worth of luck in that moment to not only survive the impact but also knock Lewis out.

And there's not much point recounting the incidents anyway. As I said the misfortune was quite evenly distributed. RB would have been a lot more comfortable if they hadn't collided, which stressed the entire team.
Click to expand...

100% agreed.

And besides, if you ask Hamilton to not drive so aggressively, he would lose points as many overtaking moves that he successfully pulled off, would not have occurred.

Hamilton's aggression and speed come as a package. He will have more crashes, but he will score more points and overtake more people than most drivers in F1.
 
sunama said:
As far as I'm concerned, McLaren, wanted to make the first test (what team wouldn't) with their new car, but they fell behind. Rather than miss the test altogether, they then decided to take their old car to the test and test the new tyres. IMO missing the first test (with the new car), was not a premeditated arrangement, but was a case of making the best of a bad situation (once the design team hit delays).
Click to expand...

Same old Sunama, always substituting hunch and conspiracy for what anyone has actually said...

Do you really think they'd have been announcing it a month before the first test if it was down to delays? Especially given that everything come out of McLaren before that time was positive? And they chose to have their main drivers sit out the November test that all teams ran with the old car?

No, this was planned.
 
In other news Ron Dennis has run a red light and accumulated 12 points, 6 month ban!

No driving around in his new MP4-12C for the time being. :p
 
Mr Jack said:
Lewis didn't lose because of lack of consistency; he lost because he twice tried overly risky passing moves and impacted with another driver. Had he been less impetuous at those two races he would have carried enough points away to win the championship.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that this is the way that everyone seems to see it. His move on Massa was stupid and was only going to go one way tbh. But his move on Webber I thought was the right move at the right time, and just went the wrong way for him at the end of the day. Hamilton was in a position where Webber had more points and a very significant advantage in car performance so when the opportunity to make a risky overtake comes, he really had to take it. And I don't even think it was that risky. When a driver puts his nose inside a car that is turning into a corner, usually it's that driver that comes away looking like the fool. On this occassion, it was the driver in front that looked the fool.
 
Mr Jack said:
Same old Sunama, always substituting hunch and conspiracy for what anyone has actually said...

Do you really think they'd have been announcing it a month before the first test if it was down to delays? Especially given that everything come out of McLaren before that time was positive? And they chose to have their main drivers sit out the November test that all teams ran with the old car?

No, this was planned.
Click to expand...

Yours is as much a hunch as Sunama's to be honest

Personally after last year, I dont think McLaren would have missed the 1st test with the new car on purpose , but it could have been planned (and severely backfired)

We will never know for sure.....

I love that McLaren tried something radical, a great pity it isnt even close to working currently - which probably means the first 3 races are pretty much written off already (given their flyaway nature, and quite tightly scheduled, any massive upgrade really cant appear much before Turkey in May surely?)

Admittedly there are always likely to be a few dnf's in the first few races due to componant failure of some kind - but even McLaren dont look safe from that concern lol
 
Mr Jack said:
Do you really think they'd have been announcing it a month before the first test if it was down to delays?
Click to expand...

Yes. They would.

If their design team had informed Whitmarsh that sending out a half built car to the first test would be pointless, then a decision would be taken to either use the old car for the first test and use that test only to evaluate the tyres. OR to take the half built car and to start testing with it immediately.

McLaren obviously chose the former.

Understand this. No team would ever take an old car to a test, while their new car is available and ready for testing. If they did something as crazy as this, the people who came up with this bizarre decision deserve to be fired.

Testing (track time), especially in 2011, is scarce and to pass up the opportunity to test your new car (when it is available and ready), would be unthinkable. To allow your competitors to effectively have a week's worth of test data on their new car, is something that no team would like.

Logic would dictate that McLaren couldn't run their new car, so took their old car instead and decided to do the best job they could (without their new car) and make use of the track time available to them.
 
ferrari tested old cars when the new ones were ready during the late 90s.....

for someone who claims to be an ayrton /hamilton fan boy you dont seem to know much about f1
 
arknor said:
ferrari tested old cars when the new ones were ready during the late 90s.....
Click to expand...

...when testing and track time was not so limited.

The scenario in 2011 is completely different to that of late 90s or before test track time was so limited.

PS. You won't win a debate by coming out with bitchy comments/remarks.
 
Never%20Argue.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom