|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
2 Dec 2010, 17:08 (Ref:2798697) | #1 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 59
|
McLaren: “We had second-fastest car”
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/12/0...d-fastest-car/
Original blog from inside Mclaren http://mclaren.com/article/2010/blog...om-the-factory I agree.. Alonso was superfast this season and made the difference.. Discuss.. |
||
|
2 Dec 2010, 18:25 (Ref:2798728) | #2 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,809
|
Well, if it's true, it shows that qualifying - which should be a sinecure just to get the cars lined up, as they can't start everyone line abreast - is now more important than the race. Which is the strongest argument for reverse grids. Imagine how long it would take before the Prancing McBulls would get the rules changed to allow passing then.
|
||
__________________
Birmingham City FC. Founded 1875. League Cup Winners 2011. |
2 Dec 2010, 21:16 (Ref:2798815) | #3 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Hate the idea of reverse grids, but if that is what it takes to bring back racing, I am all for it. I think your idea might just work! |
||
|
2 Dec 2010, 21:39 (Ref:2798825) | #4 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,809
|
Yes, reverse championship order. I've long advocated that. Qualifying is philosophically daft. People want to see racing, so everyone lines up in speed order?
|
||
__________________
Birmingham City FC. Founded 1875. League Cup Winners 2011. |
2 Dec 2010, 21:55 (Ref:2798835) | #5 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,742
|
Problem with lining up in reverse championship order is that you probably still wouldn't get that much overtaking, so at some point the fast cars will end up back at the front...
The problem is parc ferme - it's not necessarily that they're in speed order but they have to keep the same setups, so those cars that are fast in quali will inevitably be fast in the race too. It's not like back when everyone would go for a full quali setup and you'd see cars faster in quali trim than race trim or vice versa |
||
__________________
F1 fans - over-reacting about everything since forever |
3 Dec 2010, 05:05 (Ref:2798937) | #6 | |||
Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 59
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
3 Dec 2010, 05:54 (Ref:2798949) | #7 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,354
|
If McLaren really was faster (significantly) across the year than it says little for Hamilton and Button that they finhed behind Alonso...
Hoever I think that overall, the ferrari was faster from Germany on, until Abu Dhabi where McLaren did make some changes that lifted the car to a better than Ferrari level. arguing over who had the better car overall is pointless given variations in tracks, strengths and weaknesses, development, etc. especially when there is so little between them. Mclaren was not the faster car when Alonso had his run of firsts. He qualified well and raced well. There is no question the Ferrari was the better car on those days. And no, I don't think Alonso was the most significant factor in those victories. Ferrari found something that lifted the car. |
|
|
3 Dec 2010, 08:44 (Ref:2798970) | #8 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,214
|
I dont buy into this reverse qualifying thing. I have liked the mix over recent years of one lap shootouts, now the 10min dashes. I maybe woudl prefer to see a return to the 1 lap shootout with whatever fuel load you want for the race. Its a variable, but not a lottery dip like reverse order racing would be.
My 2c it woudl be dangerous putting the fast cars behind the slow cars in a race. Slow cars would make the leaders fight waaaay too hard for their supper and their would be accidents....derby racing is not F1 racing IMO. But perhaps a few more strategy variables can be re-introduced into the mix...but whatever the format. Button knows it, is mor efamiliar with the team and car and has to improve his 1 lap performance, something that hasnt been there the past two years and who knows what the average Honda was masking for years before it. |
|
__________________
We may not always get what we want...as long as we dont get what we deserve. |
3 Dec 2010, 12:58 (Ref:2799061) | #9 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,606
|
|||
__________________
Show me a man who won't give it to his woman An' I'll show you somebody who will |
3 Dec 2010, 13:13 (Ref:2799071) | #10 | ||
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,408
|
All this shows is that McLaren are obsessed with minutiae to an obsessive and unhealthy degree.
The latest news emanating from McLaren HQ via the amended FIA entry list is that Hamilton will now be #3 next year and Button #4. I suppose I can see the logic, but why not get it right first time? |
||
|
3 Dec 2010, 14:52 (Ref:2799127) | #11 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 59
|
I guess it is pointless for some to argue about who had the better car when all the data points to a realization that contradicts a presumption.
These comments from Mclaren are very similar to when Ferrari in 07 or 08 (can't remember exactly ) admitted that they had the fastest car but that their drivers were not getting the maximum results compared to Lewis at Mclaren. Last edited by BMW_F1; 3 Dec 2010 at 15:14. |
||
|
3 Dec 2010, 18:48 (Ref:2799217) | #12 | ||||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,593
|
Quote:
|
||||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
3 Dec 2010, 21:10 (Ref:2799268) | #13 | |||
Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 59
|
Quote:
incomplete ideas cannot really backup an argument.. What I understand from his post is this.. qualifying is more important than race because it shows that two cars that are equal in qualifying (yes, .001s is equal) pace cannot overcome that equality even when they have a car with better race pace which is an idea that makes no sense at all.. and other factors must be considered.. perhaps looking at the obvious is the simplest answer - Occam's razor. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88556 And by the way, I just checked and both Lewis and Alonso started 9 times in front of each other from the starting grid, excluding the race where both had to start in the back row. Last edited by BMW_F1; 3 Dec 2010 at 21:29. |
|||
|
3 Dec 2010, 21:31 (Ref:2799281) | #14 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,593
|
I love the quotation of Occam's razor. Although I wish it was relevant. You will find I am prone to referencing Occam's razor too.
The point ensign was making was that Q is now more important than the race, implying that there has been a change recently. I was merely making an observation that there has been no change. I wasn't disputing that the importance of Q, rather that there has been no significant change in this over the last few years. I find that the original article cited does not give any evidence to a change in the important of Q. I wanted to make the point that I see no significant difference in the ability to overtake since about 1992. So I didn't really see it as a pertinent observation. I find that it can be difficult to get across the idea of things being relative when people mostly deal in absolutes. My first sentence was pants though. Whatever, its not that important. Your link to Alonso being good is interesting. Thanks, I don't disagree, I'd have voted for him. Really? Wow. Last edited by Adam43; 3 Dec 2010 at 21:41. |
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
3 Dec 2010, 22:19 (Ref:2799297) | #15 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 59
|
I think we are taking the point slightly off-topic..my take on qualifying has always been that the higher you qualify the best chance you have for a better result in the race, (its been the same for the past few years) provided that the driver maximizes the car's potential during the race - since overtaking a car that is in the range of +-.500 seconds is extremely difficult.
As my original post implies that both Mclaren and Ferrari were equal in qualifying, I do not not see how ensign's post has any relevance to what I am trying to say. - If two cars are = in q, other factors must come into play in determining who will score more points at the end of the season - yes? - Like Fernando and Massa who share the same car, Alonso simply did a better job with it. I am not sure from which part of my post he concluded that qualifying is more important unless he is just saying that simply because that is what he thinks even before knowing what I posted, which is ok. |
||
|
4 Dec 2010, 00:00 (Ref:2799319) | #16 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,606
|
Well, Teflonso is the best !
Happy now ? |
||
__________________
Show me a man who won't give it to his woman An' I'll show you somebody who will |
4 Dec 2010, 00:50 (Ref:2799332) | #17 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,767
|
I dunno, this all sound like a load of ******** to me. I mean, you'd think if that was the case, they'd have a guy with Button's skillset to pound around for 50 odd laps and then come in, and he'd be on the softs with a rubbered in racetrack, and could set some quick times. I mean, Kobayashi did that numerous times and got some results out of it, so if McLaren had the second best chassis with the best engine in it, surely they could have done the same from higher up the grid?
|
|
|
4 Dec 2010, 02:03 (Ref:2799349) | #18 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,223
|
Well Is suppose for the over all season Mclaren had the second fastest car, with Ferrari taking the second fastest car spot from Germany onwards and Mclaren only getting it back at Abu Dhabi.
Perhaps more serious question Mclaren should ask is about the dubious pitcalls they had. Like Lewis in Australia(what was the point of that?) and also in Singapore. Maybe as well Button's engine cover at Monaco. Perhaps you could also add why they didn't make up more points as Red Bull had several failures this year. |
|
|
4 Dec 2010, 02:21 (Ref:2799355) | #19 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,085
|
Lets not forget Jenson Button at Monza if you want to talk about dud calls. Mind you, Ferrari still wear the dunce cap when it comes to strategies. I cant recall an inspired pitcall from Ferrari since Brawn and Todt left.
Asfor McLaren boasting about being second best, is that really something to brag about to the public? 2010 is now history and they should be looking at their failures and lack of speed over the RB6 to ensure they are not second best next year. Second place is after all 1st loser, and for a team of their status I would think boasting about being second best, and trying to quantify their lack of pace v the other team(s) to anyone outside McLaren is a waste of time. By all means do the research as to where they let themselves down, but use the findings internally to come up with a car that is better than the RB or Ferrari etc. THen, having used the info to highlight their weak areas and come up with the best car and systems, then they have something to brag about. Or even worth bragging about. |
||
|
4 Dec 2010, 09:06 (Ref:2799426) | #20 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,593
|
Hopefully we shall see an end to F1 teams giving us their thoughts.
|
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
4 Dec 2010, 09:24 (Ref:2799429) | #21 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,175
|
I thought the McLaren was just too damn long. Did it have the longest wheelbase out of the whole field?
A shorter wheelbase would have made it more nimble. Renault, Williams and Mercedes had a much shorter car in 2010. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fastest Road Car | Osella | Road Car Forum | 1 | 10 Nov 2006 18:56 |
The fastest Rallycross car ever? | Thundersports | Rallying & Rallycross | 30 | 24 Jul 2006 21:24 |
fastest car you've driven (merged) | woodyracing | Road Car Forum | 72 | 24 Jul 2003 19:05 |
Fastest speed in a BTCC car | Radisichrox | Touring Car Racing | 15 | 17 Nov 2001 00:29 |
Ferrari:The fastest car on the grid | laxman | Formula One | 2 | 30 Apr 2001 20:36 |