2009 Spanish Grand Prix

[Ardius]

Wow, I just took a trip around the web and I'm amazed at the massive reaction to Rubens finish!

It seems people are assuming Rubens is being treated as a number 2 driver now and people are outraged thinking Jenson/Ross/whoever planned to give Rubens a bad strategy.

This is, quite frankly, rediculous. For a number of reasons.
First of all, Ross and Rubens both said there is driver equality. If Rubens felt he wasn't being treated fairly he would be the first driver in the paddock to leave.
Secondly, both cars started on the same strategy, Brawn felt the 3-stopper was faster. Later on, Jenson's engineer decided to change Jenson to a 2-stopper in order to make sure they kept Massa and Vettel behind. Ruben's engineer did not feel the need.
Thirdly, the reason why Rubens strategy failed was because his stint on hard tyres went badly for him and he didn't put in the laps. Jenson did, therefore, Jenson beat Rubens fair and square.

I'm kind of annoyed people are so quickly jumping to the assumption that Rubens is being mistreated already in only the 5th race. In my opinion Rubens was unlucky with his strategy and it was down to his engineer to decide whether to change strategy, not some ploy to boost Jenson.
I kind of get the feeling that if this was Kimi and Felipe we were talking about that the reaction wouldn't be so huge, but just because its Rubens and he suffered with Schumacher, its suddenly so easy to assume he can do no wrong and the team is against him.

 

[Peter]

Barrichello is re-living the slave days. When Ferrari forced him to make his team mate win, is exactly what's happening now.

 

[SaberFire]

Barrichello is re-living the slave days. When Ferrari forced him to make his team mate win, is exactly what's happening now.

...did you actually read anything of the last post?

 

[Ardius]

Barrichello is re-living the slave days. When Ferrari forced him to make his team mate win, is exactly what's happening now.

No he isn't. I watched his laptimes, he didn't deliver. He was asked if he was ok with staying on a 3-stopper after being told Jenson had switched, he decided to stay on a 3 stopper.
Rubens did his best, but it wasn't enough.

 

[Stevisiov]

Barrichello is re-living the slave days. When Ferrari forced him to make his team mate win, is exactly what's happening now.

Oh come on.

I am in full agreement with Ardius.

 

[Peter]

A really dumb decision. 3 stopper is about the worst way to play. 1 stopper is why Massa had 4th and stayed there, but bcause they didn't put enough fuel in, i think to try get out before Vettel, he got 6th.

EDIT: I smell some disagreement coming up

 

[Ardius]

A really dumb decision. 3 stopper is about the worst way to play. 1 stopper is why Massa had 4th and stayed there, but bcause they didn't put enough fuel in, i think to try get out before Vettel, he got 6th.

EDIT: I smell some disagreement coming up

Brawn said in their opinion 3-stops was the fastest strategy, both cars started on a 3 stop strategy.
For all we know, it could have worked but Rubens screwed up his stint on hard tyres either because the car started acting differently or because he lost it, whatever. Point is, the strategy wasn't a bad one and even if it was, both cars started on it and Rubens was told about Jenson switching and offered the choice.

And Felipe was on a 2-stopper And there was a malfunction with the fuel-rig, it wasn't some tactical decision in the pitlane.

 

[Peter]

Every pit stop ,if everything goes ok, relatively takes the same amount of time. There's the extra 4 seconds the most after tire change to add on fuel, so for a 3 stop,that would give you a disadvantage to someone on a 1 stop. So a 1 stop should be the fastest method if anything at all I said above is correct.

 

[Ardius]

Every pit stop ,if everything goes ok, relatively takes the same amount of time. There's the extra 4 seconds the most after tire change to add on fuel, so for a 3 stop,that would give you a disadvantage to someone on a 1 stop. So a 1 stop should be the fastest method if anything at all I said above is correct.

But if you make up the time in your stints with less fuel, you can overcome the disadvantage of the pit stops, especially because with 3 stops you can use the better tyres (in this case the softs) 3 times rather than just once or twice.
If you do a 1-stopper, you have to use the bad tyres for longer and with larger amounts of fuel.

And this is my point - for one of Rubens stints, the most crucial one, the one on hard tyres when Jenson was catching - Rubens didn't deliver for whatever reason and this ruined his strategy and it was his choice more importantly.

You barely ever see races won on a 1-stop strategy though, and everyone ahead of Rosberg in that race was on 2-stoppers.

 

[daan]

Every pit stop ,if everything goes ok, relatively takes the same amount of time. There's the extra 4 seconds the most after tire change to add on fuel, so for a 3 stop,that would give you a disadvantage to someone on a 1 stop. So a 1 stop should be the fastest method if anything at all I said above is correct.

You obviously know more about strategy than Ross Brawn.

You've just worked that out on the amount of time a pit stop takes, didn't you? What about the time lost running heavy? What about the time lost by having to run the softer tyres longer?

A 3 stopper enables the driver to sprint, flat out, to each stop. Each stop is shorter, and you have a nice, light, racy car all race. A 3 stopper was the faster strategy here, according to Brawn.

You clearly don't understand what's involved in working out F1 pit stop strategy.

 

[Smallhorses]

Every pit stop ,if everything goes ok, relatively takes the same amount of time. There's the extra 4 seconds the most after tire change to add on fuel, so for a 3 stop,that would give you a disadvantage to someone on a 1 stop. So a 1 stop should be the fastest method if anything at all I said above is correct.

Theoretically, because you spend less time pitted, yes.
However, the fact that you'd lose sooooo much time on track due to having to do a massive stint on a very, very heavy fuel load and hard tyres would negate this time gain.
If you were able to split the race exactly in half on the same tyres, that'd be the ideal strategy, but the requirement to 2 different types of tyres means that it's not possible. It's pointless to run a heavy fuel load for half-race distance on the soft tyres 'cos they simply won't last that long and you lose the advantage of their extra grip.

*Edit: Tree'd. Twice. *

 

[Sureboss]

...did you actually read anything of the last post?

I doubt he read anything of his own post, SF.

The fact they kept telling him to push says it all. Button was on fire today.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Its frustrating for me as a Red Bull fan, for two races Seb was the quickest out there but has been held up by a KERS car.

I'm gonna go ahead and say that Vettel definitly wasn't held up by Massa. Maybe during the first few laps after the SC, and perhaps towards the end. But for the biggest part of the race Vettel never threatened Massa, he just sat there dead on a second from Massa. Massa was just very fast today, at times he was able to hold on to the Brawns. On that, I'm completely in awe when I see an on-board video of the RBR, and then right afterwards the Brawn car. This car is ever so stable and balanced, this car is such a masterpiece.

Oh, and, did the BMW get even uglier this weekend? Seeing the BMW on-board felt like 1995 all over again.

A really dumb decision. 3 stopper is about the worst way to play. 1 stopper is why Massa had 4th and stayed there, but bcause they didn't put enough fuel in, i think to try get out before Vettel, he got 6th.

A 3 stopper is about the best you can do when out in the front. Rubens was really realy fast today, but after his first pitstop, he seemed to have lost the pace all of a sudden. His pitstops were very short and fast, and if he did not loose that pace all of a sudden, he surely would've been in for a win. Massa was on a 2-stop. I think the Ferrari bashers should squeel a little quieter now. Massa was just on a topteam pace today.

 

[Famine]

Pretty run-of-the-mill race - as everyone should have expected really.

PJ-FFL - If Rubens is the second string driver and was on a stupid strategy (which, you know, would have been okayed by all-time top F1 strategist Ross Brawn) why was he, in the now-infamous pre-presentation relaxation room, absolutely amazed that he lost the race?

Rubens: "I don't know how the hell I lost the race, man!"
Jenson: "I didn't think the strategy was going to work, so they put me on a 2-stopper."
Rubens: "Huh. Yeah. Psss, from the third set on the car was just *imitates crossing his hands on the wheel*"
Jenson: "It's difficult, mate. Obviously I'm excited that I won, but I feel for you man."
Rubens: "Heh, it's alright!"
*Webber wanders in*
Jenson: "How did HE get there?!"
Webber: "Ugh, Felipe 🤬 up..." *to camera* "Ooooh! Sorry!"
Rubens: "That's Australia!"

 

[DaddyVDUB]

Yeap 👍

 

[fasj6418]

Thirdly, the reason why Rubens strategy failed was because his stint on hard tyres went badly for him and he didn't put in the laps. Jenson did, therefore, Jenson beat Rubens fair and square.

I'm kind of annoyed people are so quickly jumping to the assumption that Rubens is being mistreated already in only the 5th race. In my opinion Rubens was unlucky with his strategy and it was down to his engineer to decide whether to change strategy, not some ploy to boost Jenson.
I kind of get the feeling that if this was Kimi and Felipe we were talking about that the reaction wouldn't be so huge, but just because its Rubens and he suffered with Schumacher, its suddenly so easy to assume he can do no wrong and the team is against him.

Rubens stint with hard tires was the last part of the race, when he was already in second. So even if he was fast, he wouldn't re-overtake Button. Problem was, he had a very bad (and short) middle stint, in which he was on high 23's.

I really don't know what to make of this, but i'm pretty much running out of things to say to defend Rubens. Dude was consistantly faster then Button all of last year, then was unemployed for months.

Gets a second chance at the bottom of the 9th inning, and then proceds to his normal "second driver's mentality" once he has a good car to work with. This is his best chance even to win a title and he is screwing up big time. All he has to do is be faster than the guy he normally was faster.

He might have had a bad strategy or drive this race, but it's the fifth time in this season now, and if he doesn't react immediately, Brawn will start working to ensure Button champioship. If that happens, Rubens can't say anything, because he did had a chance.

I'm happy that Massa raced well, but sad that he's definately out of the chamoioship race, as much as i try to overlook that until now.

 

[Ardius]

Rubens stint with hard tires was the last part of the race, when he was already in second. So even if he was fast, he wouldn't re-overtake Button. Problem was, he had a very bad (and short) middle stint, in which he was on high 23's.

I really don't know what to make of this, but i'm pretty much running out of things to say to defend Rubens. Dude was consistantly faster then Button all of last year, then was unemployed for months.

Gets a second chance at the bottom of the 9th inning, and then proceds to his normal "second driver's mentality" once he has a good car to work with. This is his best chance even to win a title and he is screwing up big time. All he has to do is be faster than the guy he normally was faster.

He might have had a bad strategy or drive this race, but it's the fifth time in this season now, and if he doesn't react immediately, Brawn will start working to ensure Button champioship. If that happens, Rubens can't say anything, because he did had a chance.

I'm happy that Massa raced well, but sad that he's definately out of the chamoioship race, as much as i try to overlook that until now.

I agree, I wasn't entirely sure which stint was the hard tyres stint but I know he wasn't putting in the laps in the latter half of the race as I watched live timing.

Anyway, Rubens still did a good job, he would have won if Jenson hadn't been so hot on it today, I think overall Jenson is a better driver when the car is working for him, but Rubens is better when the car isn't perfect. Jenson seems to be able to take advantage better but Rubens seems to make up for any problems better, mostly because Jenson prefers a smooth car and Rubens prefers a ragged car.
So I don't think Rubens did anything particularly wrong today, he just wasn't good enough all race long.

I still expect Rubens to win some races this year and he's still in the title hunt, but he most certainly is at a disadvantage now when it comes to telling himself he can win. I expect Rubens to beat Jenson at Monaco actually.

And to hopefully lay this issue to rest, some words from the men themselves:
Q: (Paulo Ianieri – La Gazzetta dello Sport) Rubens, I remember the Austrian race a few years with Michael (Schumacher), early in the season, and you were stopped to allow him to win. Are you afraid that this could happen again, seeing that Jenson is winning so much and you are trying to score points and probably looking for a championship, that this might happen again with the team pushing more for Jenson and you covering his shoulders?
RB: Well, I’m very experienced with that, and if that happens, I won’t follow any team orders any more. I’m making it clear now, so everybody knows.
JB: I’m going to answer this a bit as well because this affects me. Our strategy said that a three stop was quicker, full stop.
RB: It’s true, it’s much more different than it used to be at Ferrari. We have a much more friendly situation, so I’m not sitting down on the side blaming this or that. The race was finished half an hour ago and that’s the way it went. There’s no way I’m going to be crying here and saying I should have done this or that. It’s in the best interests of myself to learn what went wrong today because I had the ability to win the race but I didn’t and this is a full stop. Jenson is on a flyer and he’s doing very well. I think this weekend was really good for me because I worked quite hard on all the set-up and everything. We both learned to get better, we’re pushing each other very well. There’s a bit more pressure on my side, obviously, because he’s won four races and I’ve won nothing but I’m there, I’m working and I won’t stop working. I’m definitely raising my hands to the sky to give thanks because this is a great car. It was not long ago that people were putting flowers on my grave and saying ‘thank you very much for your job’ and so on. So I’m here, very much alive and happy and I’m going to make it work. It’s as it was some years ago but with a much more friendly atmosphere.

Source: After-Race press conference
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/5/9343.html

 

[Stevisiov]

I'm gonna go ahead and say that Vettel definitly wasn't held up by Massa. Maybe during the first few laps after the SC, and perhaps towards the end. But for the biggest part of the race Vettel never threatened Massa, he just sat there dead on a second from Massa. Massa was just very fast today, at times he was able to hold on to the Brawns. On that, I'm completely in awe when I see an on-board video of the RBR, and then right afterwards the Brawn car. This car is ever so stable and balanced, this car is such a masterpiece.

what seriously?

Massa was well off the pace and Vettel still couldn't get past him, even when he was saving fuel. It didn't really matter how much faster Vettel was, there is no in race passing at Catalunya, particularly on a KERS car. Vettel was sat on Massa's diffuser all race. Webber in a damaged reduced downforce car pulled a huge gap on Massa, it would be fair to say that Vettel probably woulld have been even quicker than Mark in clean air. Massa getting ahead of Vettel pretty much ruined his race, I can't see how you can say Massa didn't slow Vettel down.

 

[lukeB]

I don't know why Red Bull didn't just fuel Vettel a few laps longer at the second stop, Horner said they tried to fuel him shorter to get him out in front of Massa, but that would've meant he'd have been on the harder tyre longer at the end anyway.

Well done to Button. great race...again. And lol at Ferrari...again, they really are making idiots of themselves this season.

Loved that conversation at the end of the race as well.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Oh come on.

I am in full agreement with Ardius.

Seconded. If Brawn were holding Barrichello back, why did Jock Clear keep telling the Brazilian to put the hammer down when he was running second on the road behind Button? Just about every time the BBC picked up Barrichello's radio transmissions, they were giving him the hurry-up, not teling him to play defensive.

Every pit stop ,if everything goes ok, relatively takes the same amount of time. There's the extra 4 seconds the most after tire change to add on fuel, so for a 3 stop,that would give you a disadvantage to someone on a 1 stop. So a 1 stop should be the fastest method if anything at all I said above is correct.

Actually, both of Button's pit stops took around eight or nine seconds. All of Barrichello's were under seven. Less fuel going into the car means less tme in pit bay, and that's where you make up the numbers. If someone were on a one-stop strategy, they'd either have started very light because they were up-front, and thus would need a very long stop to refuel them to the end, or they had started low in the order - like Hamilton - but would stil need to stop longer than a driver on a two-stop strategy simply because they'd need more fuel pumped into the car.

I don't know why Red Bull didn't just fuel Vettel a few laps longer at the second stop, Horner said they tried to fuel him shorter to get him out in front of Massa, but that would've meant he'd have been on the harder tyre longer at the end anyway.

Because, as Brundle said, once you set the fuel up to be pumped into the car, you're committed. You can stop short, but it's looked down upon, and so you probably can't alter it to add more.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

It's quickly becoming a case of any brawn 1-2 is a bad race for me, apart from my fantasy f1 team.

Pretty much, except when Rubens comes in behind Button I'm doubly disappointed.


I think that Brawn's strategy lost the race for Rubens. I was pretty certain it wasn't going to work out from the beginning. After his second stop he pretty much had no chance but to get stuck behind traffic.

 

[Alltidxx]

Massa was well off the pace and Vettel still couldn't get past him, even when he was saving fuel. It didn't really matter how much faster Vettel was, there is no in race passing at Catalunya, particularly on a KERS car.

A car that is well off pace is overtaken on any circuit. And what's with the "just because of KERS" sorta arguments going (not just you Stevisiov)? KERS is now part of F1. Choose to use it or abstain. If it's so good, go ahead and use it. It's like saying "well if that and that driver didn't have a rear wing for downforce, he wouldn't be so tough".

 

[Stevisiov]

A car that is well off pace is overtaken on any circuit. And what's with the "just because of KERS" sorta arguments going (not just you Stevisiov)? KERS is now part of F1. Choose to use it or abstain. If it's so good, go ahead and use it. It's like saying "well if that and that driver didn't have a rear wing for downforce, he wouldn't be so tough".

You obviously haven't been watching F1 at spain for long enough. This isn't touring cars, even with the new regs overtaking is difficult on the best of tracks, this track is not an overtaking track.

I agree that KERS is part of F1 now, but KERS as far as we have seen so far doesn't help in terms of lap pace but is very useful for overtaking, defending and gaining positions off the line.

So Massa may have been much slower than Vettel but overtaking a KERS car is a bridge too far, you can't try for a good exit and slipstream past your opponent like you normally would, because they just hit the KERS and keep you behind.

Its not like having a bit more downforce really. A bit more downforce is there with you the whole lap making you quicker round all* the corners. KERS basically allows much slower cars to keep much quicker cars behind them (in this case over a second per lap going by Webbers benchmark). We saw the same in Australia with Alonso.

I think you missed what I was saying, I am not moaning about KERS, infact as things are at the moment where some teams use it and some teams don't, its great. The point I was making was that Vettel was faster than Massa but was held up all race, the reason he didn't overtake was simply because overtaking a KERS car at that track is extremely difficult.

 

[daan]

They gave out the statistics on BBC over the weekend. It was something like out of the 18 races, 15 of them have been won from pole, and only Michael Schumacher has won the race from off the first row (he started 3rd).

This track is clearly not an overtaking track, no matter the regulations.

Red Bull should have done with Vettel what they did with Webber. Not to fuel him shorter at his first stop, but to fuel him longer. He would have leap frogged Massa in the same way Webber did, while still having track position on Webber (may even have leap-frogged Barrichello too), still able to do a short stint on the harder tyres.

 

[zed300]

Clearly the statergist lost race positions for a number of drivers.

Firstly, who says Rubens was going to win on the same 2 stopper.

Secondly, Red Bull, knowing this track is difficult to pass on, not once, but twice pitted with Massa.........WHY?

Thirdly, finally realizing not enough fuel was in your car wouldn't it be better/smarter to only lose 1 place not 2!!!! EEEDYOOOTSS!!!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Thirdly, finally realizing not enough fuel was in your car wouldn't it be better/smarter to only lose 1 place not 2!!!! EEEDYOOOTSS!!!

Acutally, it wasn't a strategic error that caused that. Apparently Ferrari though they had put the full load into Massa's car, but when they weighed the rig after the race, they found that not all of it had gone in for some reason that eluded them.

 

[Stevisiov]

Acutally, it wasn't a strategic error that caused that. Apparently Ferrari though they had put the full load into Massa's car, but when they weighed the rig after the race, they found that not all of it had gone in for some reason that eluded them.

No but it Zed's strategy assessment still stands. There was a fault with the rig, however Ferrari knew about this fairly early on. Had they told Massa to let Vettel go he could have saved fuel earlier rather than resorting to drastic measures to get him across the line 4 laps from the end. It took Ferrari for too long to make Massa give up his position. Had they told him to let Vettel through right away, they could have prevented loosing the place to Alonso.

So while the re-fuelling error loosing Ferrari a position was inevitable, loosing two places was both Massa's or rather his engineers fault.

 

[Famine]

The BBC feed I was watching clearly had Rob Smedley on the radio to Massa 10 laps from the end telling him to save fuel. To be met with:

"Well what can I do? I need to defend the place!"

Just before Massa finally let Vettel through 4 laps from the end, Smedley told Massa he had 18 seconds to Alonso and to save fuel because "we're a lap short".

In the end he was lucky to even drag the car across the line. Had he done what he was told with 10 laps to go he'd have finished 5th. Expensive lesson.

 

[Ardius]

I think that Brawn's strategy lost the race for Rubens. I was pretty certain it wasn't going to work out from the beginning. After his second stop he pretty much had no chance but to get stuck behind traffic.

His strategy would have worked if he had put the fast laps in on his third and fourth stints (particularly the third stint), but he didn't, according to him, he had trouble with the car on those tyres for unknown reasons.
I think had he kept his pace from the 1st and 2nd stints, he would have beaten Jenson. Actually, he probably would have beaten Jenson on that strategy anyway had it not been for Jenson putting in blazing laps again.

But anyway, I do agree that I'd like to see Rubens start winning now, I don't want to see him forced into the tailgunner role by end of the season either, I would rather see Jenson and Rubens fight for the title.

 

[Alltidxx]

I think you missed what I was saying, I am not moaning about KERS, infact as things are at the moment where some teams use it and some teams don't, its great. The point I was making was that Vettel was faster than Massa but was held up all race, the reason he didn't overtake was simply because overtaking a KERS car at that track is extremely difficult.

Oh I agree with you (although I think it should be noted that Massa put in the 3rd fastest race lap) but I don't see the problem. The annoying thing is that people are moaning about KERS all the time. Here is another example:

"Team Principal Christian Horner admitted to some frustration that Vettel’s race was essentially compromised by the fast starting Massa.

"It was frustrating for Sebastian as unfortunately it was the second race in a row where a KERS car has cost him dearly," said Horner....As soon as he was released from him, his pace was obvious."
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/090510180946.shtml

Let me translate that:
"We didn't manage to overtake the car ahead of us because that car was too fast". If one does not agree with that translation, the corrected statement seems to be "slow cars are difficult to overtake".

Oh bohoo mr Christian Horner, are the competitors to difficult to overtake? If KERS is such an ufair advantage, go get it yourself. Oh, but they don't think it's all THAT good. But it makes good pretence to whine about since there seems to be a(n unfair) difference between the cars. If it is not unfair, why bring it up?

Mr Horner, the regulation is the same for all cars in case you didn't notice.

So far the KERS using teams have not complained about the handicap of having KERS when things go bad. But maybe that is something coming up.