well duh its a assumption.
well duh its a assumption.
The question is why change Jenson to a two stopper?
You can ask the driver what they would prefer, But the technical director is in a better position as they know what is going on, the gaps and what is too lose or gain.
You can ask the driver what they would prefer, But the technical director is in a better position as they know what is going on, the gaps and what is too lose or gain.
It said so in the article I posted, Barrichello only just got out before a Williams and they felt Button would get stuck behind traffic if he did a three stopper, so by changed him to two stops, although expected to be slower, would keep is position. Unfortunately Barrichello couldn't keep the pace required to stay in front of Button and it cost him the race.
Traffic
Damn, beaten (like Rubens) fair and square.
I don't think Fuel corrected times count for anything to be honest.
According to it, Brawn were terrible in Bahrian and Massa was faster then the Red Bulls.
In the race Massa was Much slower then the Redbulls and even Brawns.
and in Bahrain the Brawn had some serious pace after the start.
I've noticed one thing that Brawns have a good Advanatge over the Red Bulls though and that is takes offs, The Mercedes engine has got alot more power off the line then the Renault engines by a fair bit, its basically parallel situation the only time this doesn't count would be maybe Australia were Vettel spilt them but that happened on the corner rather then the straight.
KERS will soon be an issue for these teams though as you can clearly see in Massas situation it can get you somewhere much higher then your actual pace suggests, but i don't think they will have it on till atleast the last 5-6 races.
I think the mistake was that Rubens pitted to early in his last stop. He pitted in lap 41 right? He should've pitted in lap 45/46 as de la Rosa said.
According to fuel corrected time, Red Bull were quickest in Bahrain, with Toyota and Brawn pretty damn close behind (iirc). At Spain it was Red Bull from Brawn, with a very small gap). The Ferrari's corrected times were a bit slower than either of those teams I think.
The Brawn's have had problems at the starts - certainly not the best off the line, as they have a clutch calibration issue of some sort that I don't believe they've entirely solved yet.
KERS is a joke. At the moment it's hiding how crap some cars are, but we don't know if it'll help or hinder a decent car.
The Brawn's have had problems at the starts - certainly not the best off the line, as they have a clutch calibration issue of some sort that I don't believe they've entirely solved yet.
KERS is a joke. At the moment it's hiding how crap some cars are, but we don't know if it'll help or hinder a decent car.
But then the BBC commentators (I think it was during qualifying) said fuel corrected times are pointless as they don't take into account how well the lap was driven and have no relevance to race day pace.
By comparing the fuel corrected times of team mates it's possible to draw conclusions on how good / bad the laps were, and some sort of ranking vs other teams could be drawn up from it. Imo.
I liked the way that all the commentators and Jarno Trulli forgot to mention that Trulli had to dart across the track to avoid Rosberg because Rosberg was hit by Alonso.
And it took half the race before they realised that Sutil was minding his own business cutting the corner, and was as innocent as they come! If he'd slowed to make the corner (i.e. if there had been a gravel trap, and hence some incentive) he'd have not had an accident.
Therefore, I deduce that gravel traps are better than tarmac for safety!
thats what i dont get with F1, they make most of their tracks tarmac over the gravel traps but say a car came steaming down the hangar straight at Silverstone and its brakes failed, what would you rather have, a gravel trap to take away some of that speed and then hit the tyres or no gravel trap and just tarmac so theres no chance of slowing the car down and hitting the tyres at full whack.
Actually, if you do have brake failure the best way to slow the car would be to induce a spin and let the tarmac slow you down, rather than a) fly over the gravel in a straight line, like Schumi in 99 (iirc) or b) go sideways at very high speed into the gravel and roll lots of times, a bit like Greg Moore. Gravel is also a bit rubbish in the wet.
The downside is that the tarmac also acts like a get out of jail free card, and so the drivers can make mistakes and get away with them. Having said that, the sheer quality of the driving at the moment means that mistakes are pretty few and far between anyway, so it isn't a big issue really.
The downside is that the tarmac also acts like a get out of jail free card, and so the drivers can make mistakes and get away with them. Having said that, the sheer quality of the driving at the moment means that mistakes are pretty few and far between anyway, so it isn't a big issue really.
On this fuel corrected nonsense. It means very little indeed as we also have to take into account the cars have to be set up for the race before qualifying. So out right lap time in Q3 isn't a wholly accurate way to measure a cars race speed.
Over long runs the BrawnGP car is head and shoulders above the rest. OK the RedBull is quick but it isn't in the same league.
Over long runs the BrawnGP car is head and shoulders above the rest. OK the RedBull is quick but it isn't in the same league.
The problem with 'fuel corrected' is that it assumes all the cars weigh the same without fuel.
We haven't seen the race pace of a Redbull for the last two races really, since they've been heavily compromised by Ferrari and McLaren. To suggest that Brawn have loads in hand is to make stuff up.
I believe all the teams are at the weight limit, although some have less ballast to play with (hence the minimum weight increases next year, so the drivers don't try to lose weight so they can add forward ballast).
I believe all the teams are at the weight limit, although some have less ballast to play with (hence the minimum weight increases next year, so the drivers don't try to lose weight so they can add forward ballast).
ah of course "blacks always shift into neutral" has a long standing tradition since the 1920 as a racial stereotype
But each race its getting closer to the front so be it if the teams are different each time.
It will be a matter of time till its faster as the teams will now how to use it properly, ferrari can barely get theres working right now.
According to fuel corrected time, Trulli contridicts it every time.
Check bahrain, he had shit loads more fuel the Glock and beat him to pole by over half a second.
Fuel corrected time as someone else said, doesn't add the skill of the driver, a thing that could in some cases mean half a second or more.
As for the whole deal on racism and whatnot, I can only hope that one day we stop regarding ourselves as 'black' or 'asian' or 'white' and start regarding ourselves as homo sapien.
Will never happen, peoples cultures are too tied in to the race they are.
which they do, they all weigh the minimum they possibly can, 620kg's. Some cars are heavier and lighter, but it just means they have more or less ballast to move about.
I was just looking on the BrawnGP webby, Barrichello's face in the "celebrations" looks like it could sink ships. He looks really pissed off at coming second.
Linky1
Linky2
Not just race, look at north south divide, country divide, hell in the case of London, post code. People will find any excuse to not like someone else and the colour of their skin is an easy target.
Linky1
Linky2
Not just race, look at north south divide, country divide, hell in the case of London, post code. People will find any excuse to not like someone else and the colour of their skin is an easy target.
FIA will investigate this. They think its...racism.
Formula 1 Gran Premio de España Telefonica 2009
(326 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG