Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Thanks for clarifying that Harry, the report I read made no mention that Webber's lap times had increased before the last tyre change was made.

They didn't because they didn't. Harry is wrong! :)

Sorry to ruin yet another RBR Webber conspiracy theory with facts, but Webber's last 3 laps before that pit stop were getting consistently slower and the last was 2.2 slower than 3 laps earlier. I don't think they had any choice. They also 3 stopped Vettel 3 laps later and his lap times hadn't even started declining.

That's not right Harry. It was stupidity more then conspiracy to stop Webber.

I have live timing and the race saved on my computer and just went back and checked your numbers. These laps include lap traffic....I dont see a tyre problem emerging and certainly no 2.2 seconds off lap 52 (He pitted on lap 55)

Lap_______________Webber_________________Alonso_____GAP

45________________1.27.321________________1.26.963____7.1sec

46________________1.26.772________________1.26.999

47________________1.26.674________________1.27.026

48________________1.26.447________________1.26.977

49________________1.26.263________________1.27.288

50________________1.26.009________________1.27.087

51________________1.26.477________________1.26.923

52________________1.26.262________________1.26.768

53________________1.26.786________________1.26.437

54________________1.26.890________________1.26.439____12.0sec

55________________Pit_____________________1.26.600

So look at the actual times respective drivers were posting 10 laps before Webber's stop and, sure he had a diff problem but there was nothing in his lap times to suggest he was in trouble

Even if he was 2 sec a lap quicker, for the final 12 laps, and pit stops takes 17seconds...that is only a net gain of 7 seconds assumiong he doesnt lose time overtaking the 3 cars he lost position to....STUPID MOVE BY RBR!

They took a gamble, with both of their drivers. Neither of them are whinging about it.

Mark Webber (8th)

“We were hoping people would be in a bit more trouble with their tyres at the end. We were in fifth place and had a nice cushion, but we’ve had plenty of times this year where the tyres had stopped working towards the end of the race. Today it didn’t really work out that way and we lost places through trying something different. I was quicker in the closing stages, but it’s hard to overtake here and I couldn’t get the job done. Still, we moved up three places from the start, we have good points and it’s very open for the rest of the year.”

http://www.f1fanatic...x-fastest-laps/

post-15659-0-22454300-1343782321_thumb.jpg

yes, he was catching Alonso in that stint, but had a few laps of degraded performance before he pitted indicating he 'd burnt up that set of softs. Its been a pattern over this season that the Pirellis warning sign that they are about to drop off the cliff is 2 or 3 laps slightly slower than your current trend. RBR would have had more data like tyre temps and pressures as well to base their decision on. His last 2 laps of that stint were slower than Alonso, who seems to have just been managing the gap and his rubber to get to the end because he was faster than Mark even after Mark stopped for new tyres.

RBR did the same strategy for Seb 3 laps later, and his times hadn't tapered off. So its obviously not a conspiracy against Mark.

Edited by hrd-hr30

If you go back and look at the race footage those two laps had traffic. Look what happened to Alonso's pace when he hit the traffic that had held up Webber those fractions you are referring to.

Anyway, its not the point. The tyres were fine and they admitted as much post race. It was a mistake of RBR to pit, they thought the tyres were going to go off like in the past and they got it wrong.

That was my opinion. Even if his tires were going to go - he had a good cushion, and could have gone defensive.

Look how long it took everyone else (eg Button) once stuck behind traffic to get past. Couldn't believe my eyes. Silliest move I've seen in a long time

Maybe it was a mistake for RBR to 3 stop their drivers. That's a very different argument to "RBR sabotaged Webber again".

But RBR's analysts and strategists had access to far more information on the state of their tyres than armchair experts watching it on the tube. They came out and said after the race they expected other teams to be in tyre trouble at the end.

I still reckon Pirelli quietly reverted to last years compounds a few races ago. We haven't seen any unexplainable randomness or falling off the cliff for a few races now.

Maybe it was a mistake for RBR to 3 stop their drivers. That's a very different argument to "RBR sabotaged Webber again".

But RBR's analysts and strategists had access to far more information on the state of their tyres than armchair experts watching it on the tube. They came out and said after the race they expected other teams to be in tyre trouble at the end.

I still reckon Pirelli quietly reverted to last years compounds a few races ago. We haven't seen any unexplainable randomness or falling off the cliff for a few races now.

It seems like you are trying to have it both ways. Either RBR had the data and the tyres were going to fall off a cliff or Pirelli reverted the compounds and RBR made a boneheaded mistake....or.....

....SV had nothing to lose by pitting after Webber. Webber lost track position to a number of cars. This hardly proves a conspiracy but it cost SV nothing and bought him a call option on the front running car's tyres falling off the cliff.

Maybe it was a mistake for RBR to 3 stop their drivers. That's a very different argument to "RBR sabotaged Webber again". But RBR's analysts and strategists had access to far more information on the state of their tyres than armchair experts watching it on the tube. They came out and said after the race they expected other teams to be in tyre trouble at the end. I still reckon Pirelli quietly reverted to last years compounds a few races ago. We haven't seen any unexplainable randomness or falling off the cliff for a few races now.

The compounds are fixed for a season and you would have heard something from the teams if the compounds had changed. More likely everyone is driving around way off the pace conserving them and they are simply starting to understand how to set up the cars and get life out of the tyres. A few races ago RBR came out with a new rear end with different upper arm geometry to help tyre life. Others are no doubt doing something similar

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Input shaft bearing. They all do it. There is always rollover noise in Nissan boxes - particularly the big box. Don't worry about it unless it gets really growly.
    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
×
×
  • Create New...