Grand Prix 2014 Malaysian Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion

So, after the thrills and (mainly) spills that was Australia, we move onto the greenhouse that is Malaysia for the second round of the championship. Situated just outside of the capital Kuala Lumpur, the Sepang International Circuit is fast, flowing, has numerous overtaking opportunities and is a real test for the driver, partly down to the inevitable and often oppressive heat and humidity. With the new regulations for this year, expect numerous driver errors and for the cars to be placed under immense mechanical pressure.

The Sepang circuit is the first of the Tilke circuits and the GP's inaugural year in 1999 paved the way for the Asian expansion of Formula 1, with races in China, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Singapore, Korea and India added to the calendar in recent years - although the last two have since departed from the travelling circus that is F1.

When one thinks of Malaysia, rain is one of the fist thoughts that occur. The race has been affected numerous times, most notably in 2001, 2009 (the race was unable to be finished, so half-points were awarded), qualifying in 2010 (two Ferraris and two McLarens at the back of the grid) and in 2012. With the high heat & humidity threatening to spark off rain showers any time, expect rain to play a big part in the weekend.

As for the pecking order, it is mainly unclear apart from the fact that Mercedes are miles in front of anyone else, and those with a Mercedes engine are all doing reasonably well. However, it is McLaren leading the constructors championship after a 3rd and 4th in Melbourne. Whilst it may not seem significant now, the points accrued in the early races may be pivotal in the championship as after all, every race is worth the same (oh wait, that's not right).

For some stupid reason, we now have to wait for two weeks before the race weekend, so there's plenty of time for discussion, dissection and disagreement.

So..... Ready, Steady, Discuss!!!
 
gethinceri I take it back if I'm being unfairly critical of Kamui at Oz. I had thought it was a technical failure within his brain, i.e. forgetting to press the left pedal soon enough (then going on to blame the design of this year's noses as a diversionary tactic).
 
I am really hopeful that either a Marussia or a Caterham will be in the points at a race this year.
They're close enough now that get a bad rain day or end of season when engines go or high attrition race & they may just sneak a position. They need to keep their 'racing' skills in...just in case..besides which didn't Kimi waltz past someone this weekend because they didn't realise it was for position?
I'd much rather have a bit of resistance to get past.
 
I'm not hopeful of it happening Dizzi , they don't seem much closer to me. They need 9 retirements from the "established" other teams in one race to do it basically. Both the first two races have seen 6 retirements for non-Marussia/Caterham cars, and this should decrease rather than increase as the season goes on.

Unless it happens in the next three or four races I doubt it will, and if it doesn't happen this season I'm not sure it ever will. Either way they are waiting for a crazy race, and now we have safety cars rather than letting the drivers race on full wets so crazy results in wet races have become less common recently.
 
What to make of this?

2eartzq.jpg

((sourced from f1analisitecnica.com)

Mercedes obviously have speed and bhp in hand. Two races in, one team is racing and the others still are in beta-testing (or alpha-testing, in one or two cases).

Based on tyre wear, lap times and fuel unused, Williams would seem to have bhp they can't yet utilise. Massa got top speed of the day through the traps (probably the only Mercedes-powered car to use DRS on the closing laps), and his sector maximum speeds were no worse than 4°. Yet he finished 1:25 off the winning pace. With plenty of fuel remaining.

By those same tokens, Ferrari appear to be suffering from too much weight, and power delivery problems, either in sheer bhp or tractability or both.

Red Bull and Ferrari seem rather on par, bhp-wise. Alonso and Vettel flip-flop which was faster in the sector and top speeds at Malaysia. But the RB-10 does not suffer the F-14's weight disadvantage, and seems a little kinder to its tyres.

Both Red Bull and Ferrari could do with an improvement in fuel economy. Some of that excess consumption could be attributable to wheelspin, but their tyre wear doesn't appear to have been catastrophically bad. And by the time either of them have managed to close the gap to Mercedes' BSFC, Mercedes already will have moved further down that road.
 
One suggestion I've read somewhere, can't remember if it was here or not, is that Williams (and possibly others) are not starting the race with 100kg of fuel but rather, say, 95kg. The FIA graphics presumably calculate the percentage of fuel used out of 100kg, so someone starting with 95kg fuel would end up at 95% usage even if they used every drop of fuel in the tank.

I'm not sure how likely that is, but it's the only explanation I can think of for Massa using so little whilst stuck behind another car. If he really had more fuel to use in the tank surely Williams could have turned his engine up to 11 to get him past Button?
 
I haven't heard that before but that could be another explanation Slyboogy . However, looking at the graph there were times earlier in the race (when it was hotter I think) when Massa was using fuel at a faster rate than for the last 10 laps or so (when it was colder). I at least didn't hear/remember any team radio, from any team, that specifically mentioned power unit temperatures as an issue either.

It could also be that we're simply seeing the differences between each of the infamous fuel sensors...
 
Just a quick ask, but can someone tell me if time runs at a different speed in Malaysia because it seemed to me that a one minute silence only lasted around 20 seconds in my time reference, and so I'm wondering how old I am at the moment because by the Malaysian timescale I am at least 150 years older than I think I am....
 
One suggestion I've read somewhere, can't remember if it was here or not, is that Williams (and possibly others) are not starting the race with 100kg of fuel but rather, say, 95kg....
Omnicorse confirms your theory. They say both the Williams cars started with just 90kg of petrol. But they say Bottas burned 89.23, which would seem to indicate he lacked the scrutineer's litre at race end.

Well spotted.
 
I think its much more likely that Williams only allocated 90k for the race but probably carried 100 in total allowing them the neccisary for the lap to the grid, the parade lap, the warm down lap and the sample which, as we've discussed before, do not count in the 100k.
 
If it is said that a car started with 90kg of fuel I can only assume that there was 90kg of fuel in the tank otherwise it wouldn't be like speaking English or summut....
 
Yes. Very true. I'm suggesting that when they say 90k they are not correct.

After that I decided to give an explanation as to where they might have got muddled.
 
It is all very confusing isn't it RasputinLives ? Maybe the word allocated should be used such as.

William allocated 90kg of fuel for the race..

I believe this would save on the confusion I am suffering right now...:(
 
Last edited:
Considering this has been translated from an article in Italian, possibly to another language and then finally to English I think you should be able to forgive a subtle difference in meaning. Bottas clearly would have been penalised if the FIA couldn't get a fuel sample from his car so it's clearly a non-issue.
 
Only two cars had fuel samples taken post race at Malaysia, and Bottas' was neither of them.

So are you accusing Williams of cheating?

Its strange that if the stats are so readily avalible no one else in the F1 world has noticed or mentioned that Bottas did not meet a requirement of the FIA. Come to think of it the FIA have access to the stats themselves so why haven't they done anything? It possibly suggest to me your article may be incorrect.
 
I feel it is entirely possible they started with 90.23kg of fuel, which was rounded for the news.

I mean, have you ever tried stopping at exactly £30 at the petrol station?
 
Back
Top Bottom