It's the eternal question, is it better to have a fast but fragile car which wins you more races than you would have done otherwise or is it better to have the car slightly slower but winning the races that the faster car drops out of and finishes second in all the other races.
Ask The Apex
- Thread starter Galahad
- Start date
It is better yet to have both speed and reliability.
In most years in F1 being on the podium in every race would win a driver the championship, of course there are those few years in F1 (such as 2011) in which sitting back and collecting points slowly on the podium isn't enough when one driver is dominating and winning all the races.
In most years in F1 being on the podium in every race would win a driver the championship, of course there are those few years in F1 (such as 2011) in which sitting back and collecting points slowly on the podium isn't enough when one driver is dominating and winning all the races.
It wasn't just Kimi's Mclaren being fragile that cost him but Montoya's too. On a couple of occasions Montoya should have finished in front of Alonso meaning Kimi would have had a bigger gain but somehow he managed to finish behind him.
These days, cars are generally speaking much more reliable than they ever used to be, so it is no longer good enough to be reasonably quick. you need outright speed and reliablity.
In the times when a few of your results were dropped, it was speed, as you could see in the 1988 season.
Should I post FB's Sherlock reply here?
Hmm I deserve that.
He had his tyre blow at the Nurburgring which was a classified finish. He stalled on the grid in Melbourne. Montoya's engine failure at Hock cost JPM the win, and thus 2 more points for Kimi. Slightly irrelevantly, since he won the race and it was after the Championship was won, he had a 10 place drop at Suzuka too.
Plus he had unreliable team-mate syndrome!
downforce
Race Winner
Me again
I think it would be interesting to see.
How much absolute pace range do you think there is in F1? By which I mean the fastest drivers best 1 lap pace Vs the slowest drivers best 1 lap pace.
Say If you put the fastest qualy driver which I guess you'd have to say is either Hamilton or Vettel against Pic. In the same car and just assume that the car suits both drivers styles equally. They have identical conditions to do a qually lap etc.
How many tenths do you think would seperate them?
I think it would be interesting to see.
How much absolute pace range do you think there is in F1? By which I mean the fastest drivers best 1 lap pace Vs the slowest drivers best 1 lap pace.
Say If you put the fastest qualy driver which I guess you'd have to say is either Hamilton or Vettel against Pic. In the same car and just assume that the car suits both drivers styles equally. They have identical conditions to do a qually lap etc.
How many tenths do you think would seperate them?
Raikkonen also qualified 2nd in the American GP compared to Alonso who started 6th so there could of been a chance of him taking a few more points off Alonso in that race but after what happened with the Michelin tyres that day we will of course never know what could have happened.
If there isn't AT LEAST a seconds difference between the best and the worst drivers in identical cars, then we're watching more of a mechanical exercise than I ever realized.
I believe they pay the big boys for a reason.
Has anyone every finished on the podium after starting the race from the pitlane?
Trulli - Australia 2009 and Kimi Raikkonen at the same venue 6 years earlier spring to mind.
Prost finished P2 after starting the 1984 South African GP from the pitlane. He was the only one that finished on the same lap as Lauda.
Kamui-FastestChefInTheWorld
Points Scorer
Is the 'f-duct' banned by the FIA or banned by FOTA?
By that I mean the 2010-spec rear wing one
By that I mean the 2010-spec rear wing one
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
