Pat Fry said Ferrari ran with used tyres, what misinformation have I posted then? maybe read more than Autosport.....
So really don't be saying stuff about me without yourself checking the facts please....
Last edited:
F1 Testing 2012 - Week 3, Barcelona
- Thread starter Duke
- Start date
Pat Fry said Ferrari ran with used tyres, what misinformation have I posted then? maybe read more than Autosport.....
So really don't be saying stuff about me without yourself checking the facts please....
Posting that teams are running used tyres when comparing race simulations without linking to any source.
Which coincidently you've just done. Again.
Pat Fry said as much, I quoted him, as for source it's on the Ferrari media centre and I assume the Ferrari website and countless others, so really maybe get your facts right before accusing others of misinformation.
edit here you go - http://www.ferrari.com/English/Form.../120302-f1-fry-a-lot-of-work-ahead-of-us.aspx
I was directing the misinformation to arknor regards to his claim of the top teams posting their fastest times on hards. But also because you keep posting claims without using sources.
I'm not questioning whether teams have run used tyres, but when you're comparing specific runs and saying one team has used new tyres whilst another hasn't it's only common sense to link to your source.
Edit: Thank you, finally posted a source to substantiate what you have said. Not hard is it?
Soldato
I was not making claims, I had read what Fry said. I never said who was using new or used tyres other than Ferrari were on used.
In that case I apologise, I had just remembered you before hand stating something and then saying you had no link to back it up with which is why I mentioned you alongside arknor.
Sorry.
i know mercs fastest time was on hard tyres but i cant proove it as i said and autosport were nearly always wrong with what tyres people were one.
they became a running joke for it on some of the f1 forums,
ill bookmark this page for when lotus are nowhere near the first 3 rows on the grid at melbourne
Even if you are right about Mercedes which you can't prove, all the other top teams still posted their best times on softs or super softs.
The timing doesn't lie and it contradicts the rest of your post.
Soldato
WRONG
Button done his fastest lap on hards 1m23.510s
Oh you want a link..your not getting one
"10:18 Button's flying lap is very quick - he shoots back to the top with a 1m23.510s. That was on hard tyres too."
WRONG
Button done his fastest lap on hards 1m23.510s
Oh you want a link..your not getting one
"10:18 Button's flying lap is very quick - he shoots back to the top with a 1m23.510s. That was on hard tyres too."
Aye, but that's 1.5 seconds off Raikkonen's time, a far cry from the 0.5 seconds arknor said.
Still, I know you're at least posting tongue in cheek.
WRONG
Button done his fastest lap on hards 1m23.510s
Oh you want a link..your not getting one
"10:18 Button's flying lap is very quick - he shoots back to the top with a 1m23.510s. That was on hard tyres too."
mclaren and rbr should easily be able to do
1:21.5 on softs with a 1 lap run.
take the difference between soft and hard tyres off the merc time and take out 6 laps of fuel and its pretty much there.
Soldato
Aye, but that's 1.5 seconds off Raikkonen's time, a far cry from the 0.5 seconds arknor said.
Still, I know you're at least posting tongue in cheek.
BUT what fuel was kimi running? most likely low. So take the fuel level in account and 1.5 is about right
Anyway we will know in may where the teams are.
BUT what fuel was kimi running? most likely low. So take the fuel level in account and 1.5 is about right
Anyway we will know in may where the teams are.
Doesn't make what he said any more correct.
we will see at aus when lotus are atleast a full second of the pole time
This thread has become so tedious, I was highlighting the inaccuracies in what you had posted. It's unequivocal.
Whether Lotus are within a second of the leading team is besides the point.
Photographic proof that the wing was barely off the track (which is of course repeatable) , while also considering that the rules dont stipulate (in sections discussed) that mm's above track surface at all times BUT tested stationary (which is complete fubar to say the least in the first place).
(and because its repeatable, it would be easy to prove with a camera at a fixed height, with all angles measured/ focal length of lens etc etc - it wasnt a marginal difference remember)
IE rules were always meant to be considered while racing, not stationary with x load placed on it.
Always appeared "ass about face"
It always appeared that the FIA didnt want to prove that rules (as written in particular sections) were being broken.
The rules are written around testing a stationary car, and the Red Bull passes those tests. The FIA know the Red Bull wing still flexed but hey have done all they can to try to prevent it using the controlled testing techniques they have. You cannot start using on track footage to implement rules. You can use it as evidence for further testing though, which they have done, but you simply have to be able to test in a controlled manner. There are far to many variables going on to be able to use video footage, especially when in this case the rules go down to fractions of mm's. Yes we all know the weight tests don't represent the real world conditions, but short of taking a full scale wind tunnel to each track, what can the FIA do?
But the presidence is set, other teams should (and are) be looking at making their own rather than continually complaining about it. Actually, I think they have, its just the fans who continually bring the flexi wing issue up.
But the presidence is set, other teams should (and are) be looking at making their own rather than continually complaining about it. Actually, I think they have, its just the fans who continually bring the flexi wing issue up.
Last edited: