Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I hope Ricciardo isn't as innocent and oblivious to what's going to happen as I think he is...

you'd have to assume he knows the score exactly when his team 'mate' next year will be a 4-time world champ; but I doubt any of that will at all diminish the awesomeness of piloting a car at the very pointy end of competitiveness versus a perenial mid-field jalopy

It wont matter for squat If Disco Dan cant put the thing on the same row or same row +1 as Vettel then it wont matter about his approach to the racing. He has looked very good since Silverstone and RBR state that his test was smack on Vettels pace fuel corrected at Silverstone. So will be interesting to see a guy with a tank full of energy renew the challenge on Vettel

Meanshile...watching the post race Sky footage....I think I love Susie Wolff.

article-2281580-1808C6CC000005DC-739_634

I guess i dont know if 3 stops was the best call for mark or not, Neither do you as we dont have anything besides basic timing data and just what we saw and read during the race, I dont see how he lost 2.1 sec to gro before the second stop? the lap chart shows he was catching him then they called him in which is why he questioned the stop. In the 3 laps prior to marks stop MW did a 97.75 / 97.43 / 97.8 RG all low 98's so hardly lost 2.1 secs

the lap times between mark and seb were pretty comparable before they pitted mark for his 1st stop no evidence of his tyres going off nor did mark jump on the radio complaining about them, His race was undermined there and then. They commited to 3 stops for mark giving the better stratagy to vet.

Ah, good old RBR conspiracy theories... It's never Mark's fault he loses, just ask him! In his usual undermining, politicing way, Mark played this angle up in his interviews to fuel the fire and keep the controversy going. That's been his way for the past 3 or 4 years since Vettel got the better of him...

Every analysis of the race shows the criticism of the strategy has no merit, and disagrees with your assessment of his tyres and relative pace:

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/10/analysis-did-red-bull-favour-vettel-over-webber-in-japanese-gp-strategy-calls/

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/10/13/2013-japanese-grand-prix-tyre-strategies-and-pit-stops-2/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24511974

The Race Chart also shows Webber losing time to both Grosjean and Vettel towards the end of his first stint.

post-15659-0-00802900-1381878575_thumb.jpg

The 2.1sec I got from some article must have been cumulative - my mistake. This chart shows Webber consistently loosing 0.4 or 0.5s a lap for 3 laps and as JA said in his article, he lost 0.6 in the first two sectors of his in-lap. But it certainly shows he had fallen off the pace of Grosjean, and look at how Vettel closed the gap to Grosjean as soon as Webber got out of his way. Simple fact is Vettel was just hanging back managing his tyres, while Mark burnt his up early in the first stint. Can't blame the team - they told him to hang back 2sec to save his tyres, just like they did to Vettel. Difference is what the drivers did in the car.

Edited by hrd-hr30

Read those articles and you will see that the talk is around the second stop at 25 laps and RBRs desire (sensible thing to do) to cover the Lotus of Romain by splitting the two cars. Webebr himself said that he couldnt cover both of them. If he tried he could have lost out to both

Makes complete sense. They split strategy to ensure that an RBR car beat Lotus to the win. The way the cookie crumbled it was Vettel that won...and he is the guy needing points to wrap up the WDC. So thinking big picture RBR got the strategy perfect.

That is a given....the discussion is whether the strategy hurt Webbers chances of a victory and I think it did hurt his chances of a victory....the challenge was could be beat Romain on teh same strategy? Based on the lack of pace from Lotus on teh hard tyres he was in for a good shot...

James Allen said himself that mark wad brought in when he wad to get vettel into clear air and mark may come into play at the end of the race, doesnt sound like thats in mw best interests. The problem with the race charts in the Pirelli era is it shows lap times as tyres are being nursed not possible lap times. Given marks second stint times;

Lap 13: 1:37.913s

Lap 14: 1:37.978s

Lap 15: 1:37.766s

Lap 16: 1:38.156s

Lap 17: 1:37.754s

Lap 18: 1:37.919s

Lap 19: 1:37.983s

Lap 20: 1:37.907s

Lap 21: 1:37.878s

Lap 22: 1:37.747s

Lap 23: 1:37.430s

Lap 24: 1:37.797s

it looks like he either had more laps in them or he could have leaned on them a bit more knowing he would be in on lap 25

but this is a circular argument about a race now gone and a season that's pretty much over.

rbr had to do what they did though it couldn't have gone better, can you imagine if mark and seb were fighting for the lead for 5 / 10 laps, massive chance of it coming to tears

It's not a circular argument. Last post you were complaining about his early first stop, now you're complaining it was an early second stop...

Mark and Seb would have been fighting for the lead IF Mark was able to pass Romain as quickly and efficiently as Seb did. Which, again, is not the team's fault.

The only other option for Mark after the neccessary first stop was to try and run the same two-stop strategy as Romain. The undercut wasn't effective in the first stop, so can't see why it would have been the second time. And Mark is not as gentle on his tyres as the Lotus is, so he probably would have started to drop away from the Lotus like he did in the first stint. Even if he could keep up, with the undercut not working at Suzuka, Mark would have had to pass him on the track without a fresher tyre advantage, which would have been no chance!

And that's ignoring the time (and tyre performance) both Red Bulls would have lost as Vettel challenged Webber at some point.

Red Bull did not screw him over. They increased his chances of passing the Lotus, and did the best thing for both their drivers.

Edited by hrd-hr30

Jesus... Complaining, when..??

Circular as in we're going to go on and on with no consensus.

With the first stop and reading up a bit more I concede he MAY have taken to much out of his tyres sitting on RG gearbox and the low drag setup wasn't helping either in the early part of the race.

No mw and sv could have been fighting for the lead if they were on the same 2 stop strat. Even with marks inferior pace I think they had lotus covered. After the 1st stop he needed to do two 21 lap stints which was possible according to JA whether fast enough overall well never know really. But his low drag setup in the lotus wake meant he had trouble trying to pass RG before the first stop so to change him over to a three stop based on two bad sectors puts a lot of faith in the newer tyres getting the job done with not much to gain by risking the two stop.

Anyway this is all because I was on the sauce and thought a message from seb asking his team to get another teams driver to move outta the way was to move his team mate outta the way.

Btw you keep mentioning conspiracy theories not once have I said that, its just business..

No mw and sv could have been fighting for the lead if they were on the same 2 stop strat. Even with marks inferior pace I think they had lotus covered.

what??? The undercut wasn't working at Suzuka, so on a 2 stop strategy Mark would have had to pass Romain on the track on tyres of the same age. You saw how much he struggled to do that with both big tyre age and compound advantages. So how did Mark have the Lotus covered?

After the 1st stop he needed to do two 21 lap stints which was possible according to JA whether fast enough overall well never know really.

Well we do know his tyres didn't last as well in the first stint. And we know he hasn't been as good as making his tyres last for the past two seasons as the Lotus is. But that's a moot point. Let's forget all that and assume he could keep up - the problem is he'd have to pass Romain on the track without a tyre advantage to get ahead of him. As you said yourself ...

But his low drag setup in the lotus wake meant he had trouble trying to pass RG before the first stop...

Yes, lots of trouble passing Romain in the first stint. No indication at all that he was capable of passing the Lotus on tyres of the same age before the first stop. So the call is perfectly reasonable to try an alternate strategy to get him past the Lotus. And with hindsight that's totally vindicated - his struggle to pass Romain in the last stint with the massive tyre advantage he had, makes it fairly obvious he wouldn't have been able to pass the Lotus on track running the same strategy with the same age/compound tyres.

Btw you keep mentioning conspiracy theories not once have I said that, its just business..

You do think Red Bull favoured Seb over Mark with the pit strategies, and that the messages about who he's racing made it clear that Red Bull planned Seb to beat Mark though. You just don't want to call it a Red Bull conspiracy, even though it's exactly what you're saying.

Edited by hrd-hr30

Wow that's what you got out of all that? Why does it have to be a conspiracy it's a business decision based on the best outcome for the team I've said that all along.

Anyway I might d/l the race and watch it again sober cause my lap charts show that mark could have done it.

Prace

regardless of whether Mark could have run a 2 stop race, he would have to pass Grojean on the track with tyres the same age (actually, at least a lap older) to get in front of the Lotus on the same 2 stop strategy Lotus ran. Not a realistic expectation given what happened last weekend.

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

    • Who did you have do the installation? I actually know someone who is VERY familiar with the AVS gear. The main point of contact though would be your installer.   Where are you based in NZ?
    • Look, realistically, those are some fairly chunky connectors and wires so it is a reasonably fair bet that that loom was involved in the redirection of the fuel pump and/or ECU/ignition power for the immobiliser. It's also fair to be that the new immobiliser is essentially the same thing as the old one, and so it probably needs the same stuff done to make it do what it has to do. Given that you are talking about a car that no-one else here is familiar with (I mean your exact car) and an alarm that I've never heard of before and so probably not many others are familiar with, and that some wire monkey has been messing with it out of our sight, it seems reasonable that the wire monkey should be fixing this.
    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
    • Then, shorten them by 1cm, drop the car back down and have a visual look (or even better, use a spirit level across the wheel to see if you have less camber than before. You still want something like 1.5 for road use. Alternatively, if you have adjustable rear ride height (I assume you do if you have extreme camber wear), raise the suspension back to standard height until you can get it all aligned properly. Finally, keep in mind that wear on the inside of the tyre can be for incorrect toe, not just camber
×
×
  • Create New...