2009 Spanish Grand Prix

[Ardius]

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.

He's not exactly whining, just giving a reason why they ended up 4th.

I see nothing in what he said as complaining about the regulations.

 

[Alltidxx]

He's not exactly whining, just giving a reason why they ended up 4th.

I see nothing in what he said as complaining about the regulations.

It's as if they think they would've passed if only KERS went away without any other regards to how the whole situation would have been different in such case. The general reasoning goes along "well we were clearly faster but because of KERS...". I say they were not clearly faster. Either one admits to having an exceptionally bad driver that cannot overtake a car that is much slower, or the other car was in fact not that much slower. KERS is part of the package. Yes, it means burstier speeds compared to non-KERS cars. So what? Does the conclusion come with extended analysis on how things would've gone if the car in front did not have KERS with all the changed situational factors that incurs? No. Just blame KERS, much simpler that way.

In general, there seems to be this weird notion that if one deducts KERS from the formula, the speed that is left is how fast the car is running when not pressing the button.

See what I mean?

 

[Blake]

He’s just saying KERS cars have a straight line advantage over his cars, but in terms of overall lap time the Red Bull is quicker. You can’t overtake around a corner though, so Vettel’s race was compromised.

And neither car is exceptionally faster than another, we’re talking a few tenths of a second per lap here.

 

[Ardius]

It's as if they think they would've passed if only KERS went away without any other regards to how the whole situation would have been different in such case. The general reasoning goes along "well we were clearly faster but because of KERS...". I say they were not clearly faster. Either one admits to having an exceptionally bad driver that cannot overtake a car that is much slower, or the other car was in fact not that much slower. KERS is part of the package. Yes, it means burstier speeds compared to non-KERS cars. So what? Does the conclusion come with extended analysis on how things would've gone if the car in front did not have KERS with all the changed situational factors that incurs? No. Just blame KERS, much simpler that way.

In general, there seems to be this weird notion that if one deducts KERS from the formula, the speed that is left is how fast the car is running when not pressing the button.

See what I mean?

If Massa hadn't used KERS at the start he wouldn't have jumped Vettel so easily - fact.
If Catalunya offered good overtaking oppurtunities, Vettel would have got past? - probably.

I don't understand where your sudden dislike for Christian Horner and/or RBR comes from. Its not like they've spent all season lamenting KERS and blaming everything on it. And Horner doesn't come across to me as the "make up rubbish excuses for the press" kind of guy.

One only needs to look at the other cars with KERS at the start and compare the starts with the non-KERS cars......Alonso in Malaysia? Are you going to argue that it was everyone else having bad starts?

 

[Blake]

If Massa hadn't used KERS at the start he wouldn't have jumped Vettel so easily - fact.

Onboard replays show Massa was already past Vettel before he used KERS. He just got a mega launch.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Red Bull made a mistake. That's the problem. They should have either short fueled Vettel to get him out ahead of Massa in the first pitstop or they should have long fueled him so he could have put in the fast laps after Massa pits for the second time.

I can't see Ferrari, McLaren or Renault making the same mistake. They would have instantly reacted to how the situation developed. Red Bull didn't. It's called lack of experience.

 

[[FPV]Rusty]

Red Bull made a mistake. That's the problem. They should have either short fueled Vettel to get him out ahead of Massa in the first pitstop or they should have long fueled him so he could have put in the fast laps after Massa pits for the second time.

I can't see Ferrari, McLaren or Renault making the same mistake. They would have instantly reacted to how the situation developed. Red Bull didn't. It's called lack of experience.

Ferrari have made countless tactical errors this season.

And it doens't take years of experience to know they had to try a longer or shorter stop. And they did try and run a shorter stop, they mentioned that. Massa had refueling problems not just on his second stop but on his first stop. And as it so happens, he ended up pitting at the same time as Vettel again.

 

[Famine]

If Massa hadn't used KERS at the start he wouldn't have jumped Vettel so easily - fact.

One only needs to look at the other cars with KERS at the start and compare the starts with the non-KERS cars......Alonso in Malaysia? Are you going to argue that it was everyone else having bad starts?

Onboard replays show Massa was already past Vettel before he used KERS. He just got a mega launch.

Indeed - KERS won't come in until the car is over 100km/h (62mph). Admittedly that's a little over a second after the car starts moving, but the point stands - Massa was at least alongside Vettel before his KERS could help him.

 

[Ardius]

It still aided him in taking Vettel way before turn 1, its not like its an unreasonable excuse though, but yes, RBR should have changed strategy when it became clear Massa was on the same one.

I wouldn't put it down to inexperience though....RBR/Jaguar/Stewart are not a new team... and they have experienced front-running before even if it wasn't this good.

 

[Hun200kmh]

The fact is, with or without KERS, the 2nd row guys had a better start than the first row ones. Considering Rubens didn't have KERS, his start was probably the best of them all.

 

[Alltidxx]

*sigh*

I just seem to get misunderstood even though I tried to be clear. So I'll generalise my point and shorten it down:

I think there is too much whining about KERS.

 

[Ardius]

But Horner wasn't whining.....

The people that are whining are people like BMW and Ferrari as they complain that it costs so much to develop and is seemingly giving them very little advantage. Its quickly becoming a general agreement across the teams it seems that KERS might not be worth it at all next year, just because trying to cut costs yet forcing the teams to develop KERS is a little ironic.

I don't see many of the non-KERS teams complaining because they fully expect the system to have advantages.

 

[Alltidxx]

I don't understand where your sudden dislike for Christian Horner and/or RBR comes from.

I just used his comment as an example to portray a general discussion out there.

But Horner wasn't whining....

No, he just implied that if it wasn't for specific technical detail that their cars don't have (KERS), his driver would've made it past.

So let's not use the word whining. Maybe it's a hangup thing then. The frequent mentioning of KERS (let it be a few times by many different people) seems to indicate that people percieve of it as something that should not automatically be factored into the equation and must therefore forever and ever be mentioned on the side of things.

So, in my world: here's the total equation, now, let's try to drive past the others and be the fastest. If we cannot do this then we are not faster. Simple.

 

[Ardius]

That would be the case, if there wasn't a difference in spec for the cars..however there is, so all they can do is plan for the best, and that was assuming a KERS car was not in front. Their failing wasn't in getting past but in strategy to avoid it. A non-KERS car wouldn't have ruined their race so much, as Vettel would have been able to slipstream on the straight and overtake. As it was though, they couldn't do anything on track to get around it. Therefore Horner is perfectly within his rights to say that they were held back because of KERS but I agree they could have done something with strategy to avoid it.
When you look at laptimes, Massa was far far slower, so he was holding Vettel up and using his KERS down the straight to make sure Vettel had no chance to slipstream-overtake.

When Horner starts saying KERS ruined their race when the car in front jumped them on strategy, perhaps you will have a point, but in this case he really can throw half the blame on it.

 

[Famine]

I just used his comment as an example to portray a general discussion out there.

No, he just implied that if it wasn't for specific technical detail that their cars don't have (KERS), his driver would've made it past.

So let's not use the word whining. Maybe it's a hangup thing then. The frequent mentioning of KERS (let it be a few times by many different people) seems to indicate that people percieve of it as something that should not automatically be factored into the equation and must therefore forever and ever be mentioned on the side of things.

So, in my world: here's the total equation, now, let's try to drive past the others and be the fastest. If we cannot do this then we are not faster. Simple.

There's three places one can begin an overtake.

1. Braking into a corner. This requires you to be close enough to the car down the straight - which is not possible when the car ahead has 80hp more.
2. Accelerating out of a corner. This requires you to get more power down sooner - which is not possible when the car ahead has 80hp more.
3. Slipstreaming down the straight. As with #1

A car can be much faster around the circuit than the car in front of it but still be unable to get past because it does not have a system which gives it 10% more power than the following car.

Lap 60
F. Massa - 1'24.798
S. Vettel - 1'24.489

Lap 61
F. Massa - 1'24.558
S. Vettel - 1'24.666

Lap 62
F. Massa - 1'25.261
S. Vettel - 1'24.798

At which point Massa let Vettel past...

S. Vettel
Lap 63 - 1'24.086
Lap 64 - 1'23.553
Lap 65 - 1'23.638
Lap 66 - 1'23.344

(Massa laptimes at this point aren't relevant - he coasted the next 4 laps just so he could finish).

Massa's fastest lap at any point while wearing hard tyres was the 1'24.558 while Vettel was pushing him. Vettel beat that in each of the 4 laps he was no longer behind Massa.


So, while Vettel couldn't overtake Massa - due to, as Horner says, the KERS system on Massa's car preventing Vettel from overtaking as I outlined above - Vettel's was clearly the faster car, contrary to:

So, in my world: here's the total equation, now, let's try to drive past the others and be the fastest. If we cannot do this then we are not faster. Simple.

 

[Alltidxx]

Lap 60
F. Massa - 1'24.798
S. Vettel - 1'24.489

Lap 61
F. Massa - 1'24.558
S. Vettel - 1'24.666

Lap 62
F. Massa - 1'25.261
S. Vettel - 1'24.798

I see you are listing laptimes.

It's as if they think they would've passed if only KERS went away without any other regards to how the whole situation would have been different in such case.

In general, there seems to be this weird notion that if one deducts KERS from the formula, the speed that is left is how fast the car is running when not pressing the button.

 

[Famine]

I see you are listing laptimes.

I see you are missing the significance of them and how they dismantle your argument that, KERS or not, slower cars are always behind faster ones.

 

[SagarisGTB]

Two things to note, Massa was trying to save fuel during most of the final stint after being told he hadnt had enough fuel. Keeping Vettel behind him while trying to drive more slowly/economically is no easy feat, and it is quite possible he could have had better pace had he been able to drive to the full limit. It is obvious that Vettel was clearly held up by a fuel-saving Massa.

Second, the ferrari just didnt look good on the hard tires. On the softs, Massa was within 4 seconds of eventual winner Button after 2/3 distance had been completed (with Button pitting only a few laps later). Massa's pace on the softs was very close to the Brawn's, though still a little off. Mark Webber didnt show better pace than Massa on the softs and really only got ahead at the second pit stops because of a great call on strategy.

 

[Famine]

Two things to note, Massa was trying to save fuel during most of the final stint after being told he hadnt had enough fuel. Keeping Vettel behind him while trying to drive more slowly/economically is no easy feat, and it is quite possible he could have had better pace had he been able to drive to the full limit. It is obvious that Vettel was clearly held up by a fuel-saving Massa.

Massa's fastest lap at any point while wearing hard tyres was the 1'24.558 while Vettel was pushing him.

Second, the ferrari just didnt look good on the hard tires. On the softs, Massa was within 4 seconds of eventual winner Button after 2/3 distance had been completed (with Button pitting only a few laps later). Massa's pace on the softs was very close to the Brawn's, though still a little off. Mark Webber didnt show better pace than Massa on the softs and really only got ahead at the second pit stops because of a great call on strategy.

Everyone was massively slower on the hard tyres. But, for fun...

Fastest Laps on Hard Tyres
Vettel - 1'23.344
Button - 1'23.992
Alonso - 1'24.452
Barrichello - 1'24.461
Webber - 1'24.537
Massa - 1'24.558
Heidfeld - 1'24.851

No-one else managed to break 1'25 laps on Hard tyres - so the Ferrari was the 4th fastest chassis on Hard.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Barrichello to quit Brawn if he suspects the team favours Button.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8043243.stm

I think he should be thinking more about his laptimes in the second stint.

 

[ASH32]

Also the FIA are to investigate the racist incident at the Spanish grand prix.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8042572.stm

They say they are aware of the incident and are looking into it.

 

[[FPV]Rusty]

Barrichello to quit Brawn if he suspects the team favours Button.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8043243.stm

I think he should be thinking more about his laptimes in the second stint.

That's BBC blowing a by the by comment out of proportion. Rubens simply said that if that had been the case, he would/would have quit, and that he is completely sure that there is no favoritism. He's simply backing Brawn and making the point he is happy with the situation, and BBC try and make it seem like the opposite.

 

[Vaxen]

What surprised me most is that Vettel did not adjust his pit strategy to get out of sync with Massa. The second pit stop for both seemed to be early, especially for Massa given his fuel load. It would seem like a golden opportunity for Vettel to push for a lap or two in clean air, though I guess it's possible that either the tires were giving out, or Vettel was running on fumes.

 

[Ardius]

Barrichello to quit Brawn if he suspects the team favours Button.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8043243.stm

I think he should be thinking more about his laptimes in the second stint.

Rubens being Rubens, he says before he thinks lol. No doubt he will get a telling off for sparking a controversey with those comments but then again...more coverage for the sponsors

Rubens means what he says there but he is not suggesting he will quit Brawn, unfortunately he worded it badly and makes it seem like he suspects something. His comments in the press conference and Jenson's, Ross and Nick Fry's say there is nothing there and he just didn't do enough.

 

[GTP_rpm]

Did anyone else attempt a 3-stop strategy? I very much doubt it.

The dissapointment on Rubens' face after the race was clear for everyone to see. He really expected to win that race and I am curious as to why only Button was switched to a 2-stop strategy. I don't believe this is something that Brawn himself would make an error on, as for Rubens to beat Jenson that race he would have had to have overtaken him (twice).

I personally think KERS is a waste of time. Though the teams running it this season, may well have a handy advantage in the system over the teams not running it, in 2010. I think 3rd drivers should be allowed to run on Fridays personally. But that's a different topic entirely.

 

[Ardius]

Did anyone else attempt a 3-stop strategy? I very much doubt it.

The dissapointment on Rubens' face after the race was clear for everyone to see. He really expected to win that race and I am curious as to why only Button was switched to a 2-stop strategy. I don't believe this is something that Brawn himself would make an error on, as for Rubens to beat Jenson that race he would have had to have overtaken him (twice).

Not necessarily, if his third stint had been as good as his previous two, yes it would have been close but Rubens would have probably come out ahead, in the end we can't really know but there is little evidence to suggest there was any favouritism at all seeing as Rubens was offered to change strategy when told about Jenson. He was told to push harder and couldn't/didn't.

I imagine if the team had told Rubens to switch to a 2-stop and he still didn't win, we would be having the same discussion. I really think this just Rubens saying the wrong things afterwards and people jumping to conclusions a little quickly.

 

[Famine]

Did anyone else attempt a 3-stop strategy? I very much doubt it.

The dissapointment on Rubens' face after the race was clear for everyone to see. He really expected to win that race and I am curious as to why only Button was switched to a 2-stop strategy. I don't believe this is something that Brawn himself would make an error on, as for Rubens to beat Jenson that race he would have had to have overtaken him (twice).

Both drivers were on a 3-stopper. Both drivers have said subsequently that a 3-stopper was the optimum strategy - Rubens was amazed that he didn't win on the three stop strategy. Jenson switched after the safety car to a 2-stop because he didn't think the 3 stop would work any more:

Jenson: "I didn't think the strategy was going to work, so they put me on a 2-stopper."

Rubens was told as much over the radio:

"Rubens? Jenson has switched to Plan B from Plan A. We need to push if we're going to beat him."


As an additional, the fact Rubens and his engineer knew what Jenson's strategy was both before and during the race was is testament to the fact there's no favouritism at Brawn, despite the story the BBC are trying to push.

 

[livemusic]

Yeah, Button's been great this season, which I find surprising because last year with the horrible Honda car Rubens usually finished in front of him. It seems like this car was a good motivation for him to start showing what he's capable of.

 

[Only_in_f1]

Did Webber use a 3 stop to jump Vettel and Massa or did he do 2?

 

[GTP_rpm]

I am not suggesting that there is favouritism (however I would not rule it out).

I am pointing out that no one else 3-stopped. I find that surprising, that Rubens, his engineer and all the strategists including Brawn himself, could not see this as a necessary to enforce the 2-stop strategy onto Rubens.

If Vettel had changed his strategy (God knows why he didn't even pit a lap earlier!) and passed Massa well before, I feel he would have pipped Rubens.

I appreciate that Rubens didn't perform as was expected, but I can't help but feel if he was put onto a 2-stop then he would have won.