"I Don't Believe It!"

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
I’m sure I heard Jenson say he would not have inherited Lewis' problems, because they were caused by him being faster than the team expected in the first stint.

They all have to fuel save at some point, but Massa had been pretty slow at points of the race, so he probably had full power available from Ferrari to allow him to challenge Lewis in the closing laps, so you get a big differentiation in times.

Also should be noted that Silverstone is one of the heaviest, if not the heaviest on the engine for fuel because of the amount of time spent at full throttle, so the fuel saving has an even bigger effect on lap time when compared to a twisty circuit.

Webber ran out of fuel on the parade lap last year, I think I remember Alonso running pretty dry too??

Anyhow, lets bash McLaren, because all of us single handedly could have done a better job. :no:
 

Jen

Here be dragons.
Contributor
I'm probably being extremely naive here, but if weight is equalised by ballast, why not just put in more fuel and less ballast? The added bonus being that the weight goes down even more as the race progresses - or would that bugger the end weight of the car?
 

ExtremeNinja

Karting amateur
Contributor
I'm probably being extremely naive here, but if weight is equalised by ballast, why not just put in more fuel and less ballast? The added bonus being that the weight goes down even more as the race progresses - or would that bugger the end weight of the car?
You can move ballast around, but you can't move fuel around. Ballast is necessary for setup and balancing the car.
 

Jen

Here be dragons.
Contributor
Just a thought - I'm sure a clever team of engineers could master the theory though :)
 

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
Grizzly - so why don't ALL the teams put more fuel in so the guys can actually RACE flat out for the duration???:givemestrength:
Sadly for us spectators, they calculate the fastest route to the finish and, adding enough fuel to complete the race flat out doesn’t lead to the shortest race time... bit similar to not doing 5-6 pit stops so they can take everything out of the tyres, lap after lap... I agree it is a bit of a shame Axle
 

Incubus

Champion Elect
I think people are understimating the difficulty for any team there would have beeen to get the fuel levels correct at this race.
It has to be remembered that this was a new track layout, that the weather conditions were constantly changing throughout the week-end, and that there are several factors to take into account before determining how much fuel a car should start a race with.
Ideally any cart should rejoin the pits at the end of a race with an empty tank. Fuel left in the car means the driver could have gone faster during the race, a car that is underfilled would have to go into-fuel-saving mode later in the race, but would give you a lap-time advange in the early stages.
Fuel consumption depends on a driver's style, downforce settings, gear ratios, how the race develops and how much a driver is forced to push, track conditions... and these all depend on each other....

The only known quantity the teams have before the race is the actual engine's normal fuel consumption. Everything else can only be computer-simulated beforehand.

So at Silverstone this week-end, with the constantly-changeable weather and a race that took place under conditions that didn't quite tally-up with the day's previous forecasts, no amount of simulation could have allowed any team to be sure they get it absolutely right.

If the McLaren, for example, had been run with a slightly higher downforce setting than its rivals perhaps in the expectation of a wetter race, that could well have given them better grip when the track was wet... but also too much wing when the track dried-up, and more wing on a car also increases fuel consumption.

It's a very difficult thing to get right, and it's happened to other teams this season, it's happened a few times to Red Bull this season. Although in their cases, it hasn't stoopped them from winning.
 

The Pits

Harumph. Again.
Valued Member
Ninja, the cars minimum weight, and the weight distribution has been fixed this season, so there are seriously limited benefits in moving any ballast.

Also, to be fair, my previous comment was about the fuel strategy, not the fuel numbers. I would have thought that the drivers would absolutely wanted to be involved in the discussions, as it dictates how they approach the race.

As has been stated numbers can be wrong, and simply saying that the cars should be filled up and allowed to go flat out I think is a little naive.

There could be any number of reasons for what we witnessed at the weekend, however, as I have already said, would Tue result have been better or worse with more fuel from the start? I am no engineer, but it strikes me that fourth was the best result possible, and the car proved slower relatively when the track dried (although not sure when the save fuel order came through) and with a slower car at the start, maybe he would not even have made fourth.
 

riskitall

Points Scorer
Surely 0.3 seconds, 0.6 seconds or even 0.9 seconds per lap would be relatively easy to make up for the likes of Mr Hamilton, going by his performance yesterday. His strategist obviously has little faith...
what about when his team thought he was only racing alonso.they do seem to be underestimating him.
also they should know by now that lewis always pushes hard regardless.
in the last race he was told to slow down too.and again massa was catching him in that race.
 

riskitall

Points Scorer
i think his team should of looked at how quick lewis was in canada before his dnf.the boy was so quick,just a little too eager to overtake which cost him in the end.
but never the less he was super quick in the same conditions we had in silverstone.
 

ExtremeNinja

Karting amateur
Contributor
what about when his team thought he was only racing alonso.they do seem to be underestimating him.
also they should know by now that lewis always pushes hard regardless.
in the last race he was told to slow down too.and again massa was catching him in that race.
If they had fueled him up higher, would he have been able to race as effectively as he did at the start? It's ifs buts and maybes but setting up an F1 car for the best possible race outcome is generally about getting the right compromises.

ie. Too much downforce kills your tyres, not enough downforce kills your tyres, too much downforce equals too much drag but more traction, not enough equals less grip and so on and so on.
 

Chad Stewarthill

Champion Elect
Contributor
I still don't see why Hamilton had such a poor qualifying time. His tyres were used but had not exactly been stressed, they couldn't have made that him much slower.
I'm guessing to an extent, as being at the circuit it was surprisingly not easy to work out just what was going on (especially as the Silverstone TV commentators barely mentioned Hamilton in Q3). But it appeared to me from the timing screens that neither Lewis nor Sebastien Vettel set a competitive time with their first runs. Then it seemed to me that Lewis sat in the garage too long and left the pits on his final run (having not posted a decent 'banker' time on his first run) with only just enough time to complete one flying lap, suggesting that he and/or the team had learnt nothing from Monaco. His tightlipped comments after Q3 suggested that he was not entirely happy with the team's strategy.

And hey presto, just as he was starting his one and only hot lap of Q3, what happened? It started spitting with rain again, so he ended up aborting the lap and starting 10th. I remember looking at the session clock with a couple of minutes left and thinking, 'Come on Lewis, get out on track!' but in the end it was too late. Vettel got caught by the rain shower too, preventing him from challenging for pole, but he at least got two laps in on his second run, putting him in 2nd place on the grid.
 

siffert_fan

Too old to watch the Asian races live.
Contributor
Actually, my original question has more to do with whether or not the drivers have input into qualifying and race strategy. Since qualifying results influence the decision on the amount of fuel to be carried in the race, I would think that driver input would be a normal occurrence, although many of the postings following disappointing qualifying results seem to indicate otherwise.
 

Chad Stewarthill

Champion Elect
Contributor
Actually, my original question has more to do with whether or not the drivers have input into qualifying and race strategy.
On the question of fuel loads I would tend to agree with those who say that it is so technical that it would be hard for a driver, or even a team principal for that matter, to gainsay the 'experts' on the computers on precisely how many kilos of fuel to start the race with. But on the wider issue of strategy I'm sure that there is, or should be, more driver input. Regarding Hamilton's failure in Q3 I believe that was more to do with simple tactical errors of timing and weather interpretation etc. These mistakes seem all the more inexplicable given a very similar turn of events at Monaco, just a few weeks ago.
 
Top Bottom