Clip The Xmas 
RickD
Pole Sitter
Didn't Schumacher have a second DRS failure as well at some point? I seem to remember it happening somewhere other than Canada.
Technical What effect will the DRS rule changes have on qualifying in 2013?
- Thread starter tranquility2k9
- Start date
Mansell4Ever
Test Driver
Extreme Ninja: The reason I did not explain why it benefits Ferrari was because it is explained in the original post in this entry. But here it goes. Ferrari has a wonderful DRS system in a straight line, one of the, if not, the best. But there is a split second from when it shuts and the grip arrives to the car so drivers have to be cautious at turn entry, this was reported by Gary Anderson at BBC. Apparently they also suffer if they open the DRS while stil turning so the problem is compunded at turn exit. This, in theory, explains why they have a race pace equal, if not superior, to their competitors while they trail a few hundreths of a second in qualyfing pace (that Alonso and his goons usualy place at one second, one-and-a-half seconds so he may look good). So this late-in-the-season change in regulations plays directly into their hands. And there is no justification for it. Everysingle one I saw hear or elsewhere does not sustain the test of logic. Please be aware I'm not talking about the double DRS. That was banned earlier in the season, for the benefit of Ferrari sure, but in a less blatant way. When Red Bull developed their version of the double DRS they knew it would be useless in 2013.
The Pits: I'm not saying other teams do not benefit from these mid to late season bans, only that Ferrari always does. The ban of the Mass Dumper did not prevent Alonso from winning either. About the Flexi Floor, I am thinking about early 2011 when Ferrari acused Red Bull of using a flexi floor but maybe you are talking about something else. If it was to curb Ferrari please share it with us as it is a clear counter-example of what I'm saying. But was this a mid-to-end-season in a hurry kind of decision? Or something known in advance early previous season or even better the season before that?
The Pits: I'm not saying other teams do not benefit from these mid to late season bans, only that Ferrari always does. The ban of the Mass Dumper did not prevent Alonso from winning either. About the Flexi Floor, I am thinking about early 2011 when Ferrari acused Red Bull of using a flexi floor but maybe you are talking about something else. If it was to curb Ferrari please share it with us as it is a clear counter-example of what I'm saying. But was this a mid-to-end-season in a hurry kind of decision? Or something known in advance early previous season or even better the season before that?
Mansell4Ever
Test Driver
The Pits: You are right on the flexi wings. That one was even worse because they were changing rules as they went along. But Ferrari did complain at first, a lot. Then they decided to pursue it and seemed to have found a very neat wing. But McLaren kept on pushing it and was finaly granted. Ferrari could not go back in their word.
Quite ironically I believe that placed Ferrari back within the range of McLaren ultimatelly giving Red Bull a theoretical cushion at Abu Dhabi, the pecking order being RB, then McLaren, then Ferrari. Mark Webber did not make the best of it and Alonso's poor judgement to follow him into pits and the team's overoptimistic belief that Alonso could overtake Petrov did the rest. I still don't understand how the guy that always puts the third, forth or sometimes fith car on the grid up there in the podium with is 120% to 150% driving skills could not overtake the paying driver holding the second seat of the fifth faster car of the season in the one race where it really mattered. Howls of derisive laughter.
Quite ironically I believe that placed Ferrari back within the range of McLaren ultimatelly giving Red Bull a theoretical cushion at Abu Dhabi, the pecking order being RB, then McLaren, then Ferrari. Mark Webber did not make the best of it and Alonso's poor judgement to follow him into pits and the team's overoptimistic belief that Alonso could overtake Petrov did the rest. I still don't understand how the guy that always puts the third, forth or sometimes fith car on the grid up there in the podium with is 120% to 150% driving skills could not overtake the paying driver holding the second seat of the fifth faster car of the season in the one race where it really mattered. Howls of derisive laughter.
An explanation, if you will. These are the sum total of the overtakes recorded by Galahad and KekeTheKing at the 2010 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix:
That is a total of 13 overtakes. Of those, 8 were drivers passing Caterhams and one was passing Timo Glock's Marussia. That leaves us with 4. I'm not having Kobayashi on 24 lap old tyres being passed by Hamilton, which leaves us 3, and I suspect Kobayashi was on different tyres to Kubica but I do invite anyone with eagle eyes to spot them on Keke's video.
But, either way, there is not a single instance of a RBR/McLaren/Ferrari/Mercedes/Renault passing another car from those 5 teams, and the other Ferrari was stuck behind Jaime Alguersuari for the same length of time, and Hamilton was stuck behind Kubica on tyres 22 laps older until Kubica was forced to pit.
So, in conclusion, it was pretty darn difficult to overtake that day, and that's why Alonso couldn't get past Petrov.
Mansell4Ever
Test Driver
I didn't say it was easy teabagyokel, but isn't he suposed to be the best? I'm pretty sure the team thought he could do it. The TV commentators surely did...Statistics do not tell the whole story. Massa had little incentive and Kubica was a much better driver than Petrov. Only one driver was stuck behind Petrov.
Mansell4Ever
Test Driver
And off course Vettel had no need to overtake any Renaults.
Mansell4Ever
You appear to have answered the wrong question. My question was (I'll reword it again): On what evidence or information do you base your conclusion that the rules have been changed in order to help Ferrari? You have just explained that the rules might help Ferrari, which could be entirely incidental.
For example: If South Eastern rail change the timetable for my morning commute train this might benefit me but the next guy might lose out. If he were to accuse South Eastern of doing this to benefit me and hinder him then surely he would have to provide a reason other than the unfortunate or fortunate outcome.
I am still no closer to understanding your reasons for subscribing to the rule changes as a conspiracy.
You appear to have answered the wrong question. My question was (I'll reword it again): On what evidence or information do you base your conclusion that the rules have been changed in order to help Ferrari? You have just explained that the rules might help Ferrari, which could be entirely incidental.
For example: If South Eastern rail change the timetable for my morning commute train this might benefit me but the next guy might lose out. If he were to accuse South Eastern of doing this to benefit me and hinder him then surely he would have to provide a reason other than the unfortunate or fortunate outcome.
I am still no closer to understanding your reasons for subscribing to the rule changes as a conspiracy.
Mansell4Ever
Test Driver
ExtremeNinja: I hope this awnsers your question.
A very briliant and inteligent guy was asked, if I have a fair coin and toss it 20 times and 20 out of 20 tails come up what are the odds of that happening? He awnsered 1 in 1,048576, that is one in over a million. Another guy was asked the same question and his anwser was: are you telling me you throw a coin 20 times in the air and tails come out 20 times and the coin is not fixed?
A court of law has certain rules to get to a result it can call just. One of those rules is that it would rather let a guilty man go than hang an innocent one. The world outside the courthouse does not work under those rules, it would be counter-productive to do so, you are only able to gather limited information because of time and cost restrictions and have to act on that limited knowledge or not act at all.
If want to believe it is entirely incidental. Be my guest. But If I were the regulating body and had to make a decision that would give advantage to one team, I would probably refrain to do so because of that thing that happened to Caeser's wife. But if I really, really had to go on with it, I would make sure I had a very good justification. They don't. As I've argued it is not safer, nor closer to race conditions.
You can still say it is incidental, but you are trying to make me believe the coin isn't fixed because the definition of problem said it wasn't.
A very briliant and inteligent guy was asked, if I have a fair coin and toss it 20 times and 20 out of 20 tails come up what are the odds of that happening? He awnsered 1 in 1,048576, that is one in over a million. Another guy was asked the same question and his anwser was: are you telling me you throw a coin 20 times in the air and tails come out 20 times and the coin is not fixed?
A court of law has certain rules to get to a result it can call just. One of those rules is that it would rather let a guilty man go than hang an innocent one. The world outside the courthouse does not work under those rules, it would be counter-productive to do so, you are only able to gather limited information because of time and cost restrictions and have to act on that limited knowledge or not act at all.
If want to believe it is entirely incidental. Be my guest. But If I were the regulating body and had to make a decision that would give advantage to one team, I would probably refrain to do so because of that thing that happened to Caeser's wife. But if I really, really had to go on with it, I would make sure I had a very good justification. They don't. As I've argued it is not safer, nor closer to race conditions.
You can still say it is incidental, but you are trying to make me believe the coin isn't fixed because the definition of problem said it wasn't.
I am not saying it is incidental. You are saying it is not. But you still give no reason other than some obscure and abstract references which cryptically try and explain something to do with the law of averages.
Given that you are unable to give any real reason for your suspicions, I can only conclude that you are, in fact, just suspicious. An unfounded hunch, if you like?
Whatever it is, it doesn't add up to an argument. Without any reasoning it is just a statement based on your feelings.
I have tried to get on board with you, but I need more substance than that, I'm afraid.
I will have to continue in my belief that there is nothing untoward with the change in the regulations as there is nothing to suggest otherwise.
I should add that your focus towards one team in particular and disregard for all others leads me to believe that your "feelings" are motivated by a bias and preconception. I would like to say otherwise but you have given me no reason to do so.
Given that you are unable to give any real reason for your suspicions, I can only conclude that you are, in fact, just suspicious. An unfounded hunch, if you like?
Whatever it is, it doesn't add up to an argument. Without any reasoning it is just a statement based on your feelings.
I have tried to get on board with you, but I need more substance than that, I'm afraid.
I will have to continue in my belief that there is nothing untoward with the change in the regulations as there is nothing to suggest otherwise.
I should add that your focus towards one team in particular and disregard for all others leads me to believe that your "feelings" are motivated by a bias and preconception. I would like to say otherwise but you have given me no reason to do so.
Mansell4Ever - I asked you earlier on:
Ferrari. I think that is, in your analogy, tails.
I don't doubt Ferrari have had more than their fair share of influence over the last number of years; I find it difficult to suggest that this change was designed to advantage Ferrari when it hasn't even been proved that it advantages Ferrari.
And I think you'll find that Red Bull haven't been shy of favourable decisions from officialdom - see their non-disqualification from the German Grand Prix when the FIA technical delegate claimed the car was illegal as an example.
Ferrari. I think that is, in your analogy, tails.
I don't doubt Ferrari have had more than their fair share of influence over the last number of years; I find it difficult to suggest that this change was designed to advantage Ferrari when it hasn't even been proved that it advantages Ferrari.
And I think you'll find that Red Bull haven't been shy of favourable decisions from officialdom - see their non-disqualification from the German Grand Prix when the FIA technical delegate claimed the car was illegal as an example.
It may just be a coincidence Mansell4Ever that at Abu Dhabi Alonso's top speed recorded was something like 7 kph lower than that by Petrov. In contrast Hamilton's top speed was slightly (1 or 2 kph) higher than that of Kubica, yet Hamilton could not overtake him.
Maybe that will help you to see the reason why Alonso didn't do an overtake.
Maybe that will help you to see the reason why Alonso didn't do an overtake.
Mansell4Ever
Test Driver
Good morning all. Lets start bottom to top:
Bill Boddy: The reason Alonso did't overtake was because he couldn't, I agree. Its not like he didn't wanted to. But this is a case phenomena, it will never repeat, statistics are made for class phenomena such as games of chances, so they can help your judgement but cannot replace it. The 7Kph less of top speed were one of the reasons why he didn't overtake, not the reason.
Teabagyl: I'm sorry, I didn't see that question. 2003 According to wikipedia thes were the changes:
Bi directional telemetry banned[55] HANS (head and neck safety) system mandatory, change to point scoring system, points now being awarded down to 8th place, actual points scored now to run 10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1 from 1st to 8th place, testing allowed on a Friday of a race meeting in exchange for a reduction of testing mileage allowed outside of the Grand Prix calendar to make it more affordable for smaller teams, changes to qualifying session with only one flying lap now allowed for grid position with the 107% rule no longer applied, cars may not be refueled between final qualifying and the race start.[47]
In your opinion which of these hurt Ferrari and when were they decided?
Bear in mind that Ferrari was not always in the receiving end of regulations. When I was a kid back in the early eighties I think it was pretty much the other way around. But now they have successfully placed a lobby at FIA and are using it to, at least, not be harmed, but you agree with me on that.
This particular rule is taylor made for Ferrari, it was imposed by FIA and came in the second half of the season.
As for the disqualification of Red Bull, I don't see why it should have happened. They were not in breach of any rule (just the spirit according to some) and what they did was explicitly forbiden in the following race (another of those ad hoc decisions) that is now used to justify they should have been disqualified. Because, in some sort of twisted logic, if it was forbidden, then it should have been applied before.
Extreme Ninja: The problem with you, I'm sad to say, is that you can do little more than play rethorical tricks. You imply things and then say you were not stating. Yes my arguments are based on feelings but I have news for you, so are yours. Everyday, all the time, that is why we are subjects not objects. So to act like we are moved by objectivity is hypocritical, no offense meant, because it might be the case you are doing this unawarely.
I say that a rule that was taken with short notice by a body of government that is heavily influenced by a certain team, that plays into the strenghts of that team and does not promote what is said by that regulator, is a case of twisting the rules. I see a case, and if you look back, you see my arguments. You just say I have not proven it enough. I say it was done beyond a reasonable doubt. Let the juri decide, I'm affraid you are not the judge.
I give it to you you seem to know something about bias and preconception. Unlike you I've never hidden my motivation. I'm fed up of hearing about a certain myth that has failed to become what he promissed to be, while other, better drivers (and people I might add), are continously downplayed by so called experts. I've said it before and I'll say it again if people ask me, straight to my face I mean.
And one of those better drivers came out ahead in two direct confrontations with the myth, and another also very talented driver beat him fair and square in his rookie year with the same car. He then procedeed to bad name his team, did the same at Renault and is doing the same at Ferrari (old Enzo must be turning around in is grave) This year they are trying to move the rules closer to him. But he will loose again, so I can't wait to see it.
Bill Boddy: The reason Alonso did't overtake was because he couldn't, I agree. Its not like he didn't wanted to. But this is a case phenomena, it will never repeat, statistics are made for class phenomena such as games of chances, so they can help your judgement but cannot replace it. The 7Kph less of top speed were one of the reasons why he didn't overtake, not the reason.
Teabagyl: I'm sorry, I didn't see that question. 2003 According to wikipedia thes were the changes:
Bi directional telemetry banned[55] HANS (head and neck safety) system mandatory, change to point scoring system, points now being awarded down to 8th place, actual points scored now to run 10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1 from 1st to 8th place, testing allowed on a Friday of a race meeting in exchange for a reduction of testing mileage allowed outside of the Grand Prix calendar to make it more affordable for smaller teams, changes to qualifying session with only one flying lap now allowed for grid position with the 107% rule no longer applied, cars may not be refueled between final qualifying and the race start.[47]
In your opinion which of these hurt Ferrari and when were they decided?
Bear in mind that Ferrari was not always in the receiving end of regulations. When I was a kid back in the early eighties I think it was pretty much the other way around. But now they have successfully placed a lobby at FIA and are using it to, at least, not be harmed, but you agree with me on that.
This particular rule is taylor made for Ferrari, it was imposed by FIA and came in the second half of the season.
As for the disqualification of Red Bull, I don't see why it should have happened. They were not in breach of any rule (just the spirit according to some) and what they did was explicitly forbiden in the following race (another of those ad hoc decisions) that is now used to justify they should have been disqualified. Because, in some sort of twisted logic, if it was forbidden, then it should have been applied before.
Extreme Ninja: The problem with you, I'm sad to say, is that you can do little more than play rethorical tricks. You imply things and then say you were not stating. Yes my arguments are based on feelings but I have news for you, so are yours. Everyday, all the time, that is why we are subjects not objects. So to act like we are moved by objectivity is hypocritical, no offense meant, because it might be the case you are doing this unawarely.
I say that a rule that was taken with short notice by a body of government that is heavily influenced by a certain team, that plays into the strenghts of that team and does not promote what is said by that regulator, is a case of twisting the rules. I see a case, and if you look back, you see my arguments. You just say I have not proven it enough. I say it was done beyond a reasonable doubt. Let the juri decide, I'm affraid you are not the judge.
I give it to you you seem to know something about bias and preconception. Unlike you I've never hidden my motivation. I'm fed up of hearing about a certain myth that has failed to become what he promissed to be, while other, better drivers (and people I might add), are continously downplayed by so called experts. I've said it before and I'll say it again if people ask me, straight to my face I mean.
And one of those better drivers came out ahead in two direct confrontations with the myth, and another also very talented driver beat him fair and square in his rookie year with the same car. He then procedeed to bad name his team, did the same at Renault and is doing the same at Ferrari (old Enzo must be turning around in is grave) This year they are trying to move the rules closer to him. But he will loose again, so I can't wait to see it.
I'm no fan of Fernando Alonso but all the criticism I have heard him make of Ferrari has been constructive and objective and I don't recall any complaints about Renault other than their car wasn't good enough, which it patently wasn't.
Back on topic - same rules for everyone, the best engineers will get the results in combination with the best drivers. Personally, I've never seen why DRS could be used freely in practice but not in the race so don't see the problem. I also don't see that it's another "Ferrari driven conspiracy" but, let's be honest, it doesn't matter what changes are made it be will be to the merit or detriment of one team or another.
Back on topic - same rules for everyone, the best engineers will get the results in combination with the best drivers. Personally, I've never seen why DRS could be used freely in practice but not in the race so don't see the problem. I also don't see that it's another "Ferrari driven conspiracy" but, let's be honest, it doesn't matter what changes are made it be will be to the merit or detriment of one team or another.
Most of these were decided after Schumacher won the title at bloody Magny-Cours in 2002. The testing reduction was the first step down a road that ended Ferrari's dominance, the one flying lap rule and the 10-8-6 points system were designed to level the playing field. (i.e. allow others to catch Ferrari easier even if they didn't beat them - and it pulled Raikkonen close in 2003!) The bi-directional telemetry ban was to prevent the constructor with the most money (Ferrari) winning the races from the pits.
