Spanish GP 2014 - Race Thread

[Stormsearcher]

Do Kimi and Alonso use completely different setups ...

rewatching the race I got the impression Alonso had better traction in the corners where he run up to Kimi, while on the straights even with DRS open he stuck behind Kimi ...
as if both using same engine and same power unit it should have been no big deal to pass him on the straight when he was in the DRS usage zone ...).

and according to the statistics from official FIA page Alonso was in terms of top speed always faster than Kimi ... in all three sections (intermediate 1, 2 & finish line)

Most likely. Alonsos driving style is supposedly very different.
But its strange that you say that alonso was faster than kimi on the straights. It didnt seem like it. I agree he was getting out of and negotiating corners much better than kimi. Could just be driving style though.

[Senna4Ever]

But its strange that you say that alonso was faster than kimi on the straights. It didnt seem like it.

I don't say ... just passing official information
Timing_RaceSpeedTrap_V01.pdf
Timing_RaceMaximumSpeeds_V01.pdf

but then indeed ... why was it then impossible to overtake same car with DRS activ ???

One thing to mention: Alonso Race Speed Trap was nearly at the end of the race while Kimis was in the middle with more fuel .... ... hä????????

[Senna4Ever]

... I think the basis of the car is good ...
ei ei ei ...

[Meiga]

The logical assumption is you cannot say that tyre degradation is irrelevant in Formula 1 and especially in this era and still claim that you got idea about tyres and how they work .
Raikkonen could not push on the last stint for the same reason Alonso couldn't go further than 17 laps on hards, heck in the last 3 laps before he pit he was already losing time to raikkonen on 1 and was equal on the last two ,compared to Raikkonen that was nursing them so his engineer saw that and brought him on mediums.
If Raikkonen would have pushed the tyres he would have had the same thing that happen to him China 2012 where we saw a huge and instant performance loss as the tyre provided no grip.
I wasn't insulting anyone, i was making assumptions on what people say . There are plenty of people that watch F1 without knowing anything or barely anything about the tyres and the details that we do.

But I do. Tyre degradation is irrelevant when the car behind you is so far behind that it cannot take advantage of it. As simple as that.

If you are 30 secs ahead from the car behind and lappint at the same pace, it is totally irrelevant if you hit a cliff with five laps to go and suddenly start lapping 3 secs per lap slower. Totally irrelevant, because you will lose 15 secs which will still give you a healthy 15 secs of advantage on your competitor by the time you reach the checkered flag. And in those circumstances, if you have the chance to gain a position by pushing and you decide to nurse your tyres instead, you are simply gifting that position by giving up the fight.

Now, in Raikkonen's case (as per the discussion in the Autosport thread that I understand people were referring to here), Grosjean was not an issue plus he had Alonso on track on the same tyres but some 8 laps older. That meant that he could push, as Alonso was doing, and he would know 8 laps in advance when tyres were hitting any type of cliff, so he would have had plenty of time to react. Obviously he lost that reference when Alonso pitted, but that was with 13 laps to go, so Raikkonen only had to worry about what would happen in the last five laps as he knew that Alonso's tyres had not hit the cliff.

By the way, Alonso did not pit because he was losing time to Raikkonen; he pitted to cover Vettel. He was more than 16 seconds ahead of Raikkonen with 13 laps to go, had Vettel stayed on track he would have taken the gamble and stayed out too - but Vettel was on very old softs, so he couldn't go till the end.

Edit: I have just checked, and Alonso was in fact faster than Raikkonen in the two laps prior to him taking his third pit stop. So definitely he was not reacting to his tyres giving up.
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?p...nando%20Alonso

[LivingHitokiri]

But I do. Tyre degradation is irrelevant when the car behind you is so far behind that it cannot take advantage of it. As simple as that.

If you are 30 secs ahead from the car behind and lappint at the same pace, it is totally irrelevant if you hit a cliff with five laps to go and suddenly start lapping 3 secs per lap slower. Totally irrelevant, because you will lose 15 secs which will still give you a healthy 15 secs of advantage on your competitor by the time you reach the checkered flag. And in those circumstances, if you have the chance to gain a position by pushing and you decide to nurse your tyres instead, you are simply gifting that position by giving up the fight.

Now, in Raikkonen's case (as per the discussion in the Autosport thread that I understand people were referring to here), Grosjean was not an issue plus he had Alonso on track on the same tyres but some 8 laps older. That meant that he could push, as Alonso was doing, and he would know 8 laps in advance when tyres were hitting any type of cliff, so he would have had plenty of time to react. Obviously he lost that reference when Alonso pitted, but that was with 13 laps to go, so Raikkonen only had to worry about what would happen in the last five laps as he knew that Alonso's tyres had not hit the cliff.

By the way, Alonso did not pit because he was losing time to Raikkonen; he pitted to cover Vettel. He was more than 16 seconds ahead of Raikkonen with 13 laps to go, had Vettel stayed on track he would have taken the gamble and stayed out too - but Vettel was on very old softs, so he couldn't go till the end.

Edit: I have just checked, and Alonso was in fact faster than Raikkonen in the two laps prior to him taking his third pit stop. So definitely he was not reacting to his tyres giving up.
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?p...nando%20Alonso

How exactly the car behind were 30 seconds behind when both Alonso and Vettel were near him ?

Tyre degradation is never irrelevant, especially not when you're doing a stint of 22 laps on used tyres. Raikkonen was never ahead of Alonso for with 15 seconds advantage he pit for second time, he was only 5 seconds ahead as Alonso finished with his last pit stop.No matter how twist it or suggar coat it losing over 2 seconds per lap is not ideal for any strategy, you simply will lose time for no reason.

Grosjean wasnt an issue after Raikkonen and ALonso got passed to him and after that Raikkonen had to to do a longer stint of 8 laps on medium dead tyres unlike Alonso that pit. As you could see the problem with Raikkonen was evident as not only he was losing 2 seconds per lap on HARD compound that Alonso had . Until that time if you check up the times he was he was holding a stable pace until Alonso pitted and the Raikkonens pace dropped over 6 tenths in the next lap and around 8 tenths in the following one so it was evident that the tyres werent holding up quite well as he couldn't even get pass Ericson at that point. So raikkonen not only had a huge drop in his pace in order to make longer stint with the tyres but he was also losing 2 seconds per lap from Alonso that was having tyre issues during the whole race. The wrong strategy couldnt be more obvious in here.

Alonso strategy changed in the second pit stop , not 3rd. Alonso was having tyre issues ( big degradation ) and was asking if they could sooner, which happen and they changed strategy for that and to cover Vettel.Vettels 3 stop strategy was obvious from the beginning , he stopped way to early for it to not be, despise Vettel running on fresh sets of Mediums he couldn't go further as he would be losing too much time so his team correctly reacted and put him another fresh set of mediums to finish.

So now that we know that Raikkonen was using used set for tyres the my point about him not being able to push go an even stronger base. Raikkonen had to do 22 laps on used Hard tyres when Alonso did 17 on new set of tyres and was even losing time in the last 3 laps . So ALonso was flying on hard for 14 laps before the performance dropped an he pitted.

Alonso indeed lost time. If you check before the 50th lap Alonso was doing mid 1:30. then on lap 50th he did 1:31.374 and lost 0.340 tents over Raikkonen . In the next two laps their pace was similar, Alonso was doing 1:31.0 on lap 51 and 52 and gained on 51 0.164 and 0.044 on 52. The team reacted to that and pitted him on mediums which was the best decision.


So yes, tyre degradation plays a MAJOR role in the race, Alonso's pace was compromised because of it and we had plenty of examples and how it works and how it can easily change the results of a race.

[LivingHitokiri]

For race compound, it's common to use scrubbed tires as they are more consistent after an outer layer of the tire is gone.

http://www.vivaf1.com/glossary_s.php

I would totally agree on this if Raikkonen had a small stint and would be pushing the tyres to limit like Vettel did on used hard tyres for 11 Laps bit not for a long stint of 22 laps, thats simply doesn't make sense.

[Katu]

good god, you still can't let go? will we hear how Ferrari screws Kimi until Monaco or will you finally shut up?

[Stormsearcher]

good god, you still can't let go? will we hear how Ferrari screws Kimi until Monaco or will you finally shut up?

I believe you have underestimated our friend here. This will go on till his driver wins a team-mate battle. Which might be never for all we know.

[LivingHitokiri]

good god, you still can't let go? will we hear how Ferrari screws Kimi until Monaco or will you finally shut up?

I am having a discussion to the people that are replying to my post so i m naturally replying back, i honestly got no clue what are you on about here.
I guess you never seen people debate/argue before did you ?

Also it seems you're putting words into my mouth as i never claimed that Ferrari screws Kimi or favors Fernando , i was saying that all along since the race but i guess your reading comprehension doesnt allow you see that.

[Ed Harley]

"Thou shalt not discuss race strategies."

[Meiga]

How exactly the car behind were 30 seconds behind when both Alonso and Vettel were near him ?

Both Alonso and Vettel were ahead of Raikkonen when he fitted his hard tyres. They only dropped behind when they took their third pit stop.
The driver who was behind Raikkonen at the time of his last pit stop was Grosjean: 26.6 seconds before the stop, 3.7 secs after it, on hard tyres that were 10 laps older than Raikkonen's. And as you say below, he wasn't an issue even if Raikkonen had pushed and later lost performance because of that.

Tyre degradation is never irrelevant, especially not when you're doing a stint of 22 laps on used tyres.

It is totally irrelevant as long as it does not put you at risk of losing your position beacuse of it. And as we have already agreed, Raikkonen was not in such risk.

Raikkonen was never ahead of Alonso for with 15 seconds advantage he pit for second time, he was only 5 seconds ahead as Alonso finished with his last pit stop.No matter how twist it or suggar coat it losing over 2 seconds per lap is not ideal for any strategy, you simply will lose time for no reason.

Precisely, that was his mistake. Had he pushed the gap would have been larger, Alonso would not have recovered time on him so quickly, and he would have had a chance to defend his position. And he never lost two seconds per lap while he was on hards and Alonso was on his last stint; the most he lost was 1.269. Now, do the following calculation: Alonso overtook Raikkonen on lap 63, with just four laps to go. Could Raikkonen have extracted 5 more secs from his hard tyres in a 22-laps stint? Let's say in a 20 laps stint, to make it easier: could he have gone 0.25 secs per lap faster? Because if he had, he would have had a very good chance of ending ahead of Alonso.

Grosjean wasnt an issue after Raikkonen and ALonso got passed to him and after that Raikkonen had to to do a longer stint of 8 laps on medium dead tyres unlike Alonso that pit.

I coulnt't agree more. So, why nurse tyres?

As you could see the problem with Raikkonen was evident as not only he was losing 2 seconds per lap on HARD compound that Alonso had .

Again, please check the times: Raikkonen never lost 2 secs per lap to Alonso while he (Raikkonen) was on hards, not when Alonso was on hards and not when Alonso switched to the medium for his final stint either. He only lost 2 secs per lap in the final laps of his 2nd stint, while he was on used mediums and Alonso on hards. http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?p...nando%20Alonso

Until that time if you check up the times he was he was holding a stable pace until Alonso pitted and the Raikkonens pace dropped over 6 tenths in the next lap and around 8 tenths in the following one so it was evident that the tyres werent holding up quite well as he couldn't even get pass Ericson at that point. So raikkonen not only had a huge drop in his pace in order to make longer stint with the tyres but he was also losing 2 seconds per lap from Alonso that was having tyre issues during the whole race. The wrong strategy couldnt be more obvious in here.

Again, either you are referring to the last few laps of Raikkonen's second stint or you are incorrect about the 2 secs per lap loss. And the point that we are discussing is whether there was a need to nurse the hard tyres, so times on mediums are not really a factor here.

Alonso strategy changed in the second pit stop , not 3rd. Alonso was having tyre issues ( big degradation ) and was asking if they could sooner, which happen and they changed strategy for that and to cover Vettel.Vettels 3 stop strategy was obvious from the beginning , he stopped way to early for it to not be, despise Vettel running on fresh sets of Mediums he couldn't go further as he would be losing too much time so his team correctly reacted and put him another fresh set of mediums to finish.

So now that we know that Raikkonen was using used set for tyres the my point about him not being able to push go an even stronger base. Raikkonen had to do 22 laps on used Hard tyres when Alonso did 17 on new set of tyres and was even losing time in the last 3 laps . So ALonso was flying on hard for 14 laps before the performance dropped an he pitted.

Alonso indeed lost time. If you check before the 50th lap Alonso was doing mid 1:30. then on lap 50th he did 1:31.374 and lost 0.340 tents over Raikkonen . In the next two laps their pace was similar, Alonso was doing 1:31.0 on lap 51 and 52 and gained on 51 0.164 and 0.044 on 52. The team reacted to that and pitted him on mediums which was the best decision.

So yes, tyre degradation plays a MAJOR role in the race, Alonso's pace was compromised because of it and we had plenty of examples and how it works and how it can easily change the results of a race.

Alonso's pace was not compromised; obvioulsy his tyres were losing some preformance after 17 laps, but he was still bettering Raikkonen's time on tyres that were 8 laps older. That is not a cliff. And by the way, Raikkonen's tyres were used, so were Alonso's mediums on his last stint. But what we don't know is what "used" means, beacuse they could have had just one lap on them. Didn't Raikkonen do a one-lap attempt with hards in Q1 before Grosjean's accident? I am quite convinced that Alonso's "used" mediums only had one or two laps on them.

Alonso was covering Vettel; that is why he stopped for his pit stop on the next lap to Vettel stopping.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113909
"They said Vettel was on three so if we stopped now, we covered him. And I said 'we do it'.
"I tried to protect the position from Vettel and it was not possible. The intention was just to keep Vettel behind once we'd changed strategy. We didn't manage it and it was a shame."
The last sentence has to refer to his third pit stop, as Vettel only overtook him on that last pit stop.

In summary: Raikkonen had nothing to lose and all to gain from pushing during his last stint on hards. I am convinced that he did, but if I am wrong and he did indeed nurse the tyres, then he made a major mistake because he gave up his only chance to fight for position with Alonso.

[Senna4Ever]

For those who want to read all the article should use google translate ...

even the german author of this is happy like a little child with his new toy that Kimi beat Alonso by 0,036 ... oh my what a world ... he still manages to output following sentence despite his disgusting against Alonso

Räikkönen had a bad mood after the race. His first suspect may be that Ferrari had put his cards on Alonso. In the cool-down lap, he demanded over radio reconnaissance on the strategy decision.

The truth was much worse. Alonso had tricked him as a learner. The same Raikkonen was already at GP Australia happened when Alonso a Safety Car period used to shake his teammates out of the slipstream.

Raikkonen could drop his honesty on the head. His opponent is ruthless. There is no out boiling lower driver in the field than Alonso. "Fernando has at any time the total overview," marveled the new Ferrari race director Marco Mattiacci after the Chinese GP.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de

well ... but as we know from last time: Leave me alone I know what I'm doing ...

[Katu]

I am having a discussion to the people that are replying to my post so i m naturally replying back, i honestly got no clue what are you on about here.
I guess you never seen people debate/argue before did you ?

Also it seems you're putting words into my mouth as i never claimed that Ferrari screws Kimi or favors Fernando , i was saying that all along since the race but i guess your reading comprehension doesnt allow you see that.

you come here and start to insult people that they don't know about racing and can't read? wow how classy. and i don't see any discussion here, only you defending your precious Kimi although everything is more than clear. but do carry on, it's quite an entertainment. like in autosport forum.

[LivingHitokiri]

Both Alonso and Vettel were ahead of Raikkonen when he fitted his hard tyres. They only dropped behind when they took their third pit stop.
The driver who was behind Raikkonen at the time of his last pit stop was Grosjean: 26.6 seconds before the stop, 3.7 secs after it, on hard tyres that were 10 laps older than Raikkonen's. And as you say below, he wasn't an issue even if Raikkonen had pushed and later lost performance because of that.

Yes because the mistake already happen by that time, Raikkonen lost a huge lead he got from the 1 less pit stop, he only gained 5 seconds instead of 22 that he was suppose to have. After that his strategy got compromise and he couldn't change it to 3 because he would lose even more time as there were only 22 laps left to go and Raikkonen nowhere would cover 1 pit stop gap in just 22 laps so it was already all over by then.

It is totally irrelevant as long as it does not put you at risk of losing your position beacuse of it. And as we have already agreed, Raikkonen was not in such risk.

He already lost the position to Alonso and Vettel and lost the change to go after Bottas, how exactly he didnt lost, Raikkonen clearly lost huge time with the strategy he was following despite having better tyre situation than Alonso. I explained already that if Alonso wasnt hindered by his problems the margin between him and Raikkonen would be huge.
Even in that Case it is not irrelevant at all, in theory you can do this race with 1 pit stop but its not only ideal but it increases the risks and chance to not finish the race plus the huge time you have lost in the progress doesnt make up for the time you would made on fresher tyres.Refer to Australia 2013 or better Raikkonen in Chinese GP 2012 as how in 2 laps he lost the second place and finished 14 because of the tyres. In Asutralia 2013 because of the tyre degradation the cars that were so much faster than lotus couldnt even catch up with them because of the tyre degradation.

Precisely, that was his mistake. Had he pushed the gap would have been larger, Alonso would not have recovered time on him so quickly, and he would have had a chance to defend his position. And he never lost two seconds per lap while he was on hards and Alonso was on his last stint; the most he lost was 1.269. Now, do the following calculation: Alonso overtook Raikkonen on lap 63, with just four laps to go. Could Raikkonen have extracted 5 more secs from his hard tyres in a 22-laps stint? Let's say in a 20 laps stint, to make it easier: could he have gone 0.25 secs per lap faster? Because if he had, he would have had a very good chance of ending ahead of Alonso.

This is were you're mistaken, it wasnt Raikkonen mistake for the wrong strategy and thats the reason why he was mad at his race engineer, it cannot be more obvious. Raikkonen simply couldn't not push on used sets for 22 laps when Alonso was already done after 17 on NEW sets of hard tyres.

I will quote Alonso on this once more, i have no clue why this is getting ignored.

“I had been behind him for 35 laps and then I overtook him thanks to the strategy,” he pointed out, “I had newer tyres and I was on the softer tyre when Kimi was on the hard tyre. I had to compromise the overtake a little bit as I had to save fuel with ten laps to go, so I did that then attacked with four laps to the end.

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/204359/...-priority.html

So not only Alonso was having tyre issues during whole over the race but he had also to compromise due to fuel saving and he wasnt pushing at maximum. he even blatantly states that he overtook Raikkonen thanks to the strategy.

I coulnt't agree more. So, why nurse tyres?

because like i explained many times before, tyre degradation sudden drop in performance and risk to not finish the race, also read above for the examples i gave.

Again, please check the times: Raikkonen never lost 2 secs per lap to Alonso while he (Raikkonen) was on hards, not when Alonso was on hards and not when Alonso switched to the medium for his final stint either. He only lost 2 secs per lap in the final laps of his 2nd stint, while he was on used mediums and Alonso on hards. http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?p...nando%20Alonso

here we go again. From LAP 36 until LAP 44 Kimi Raikkonen from the gap of of -22.541 that he had when Alonso pitted went down to -5.487 to when Raikkonen pitted. Can you please do the calculation and tell me how much Raikkonen lost per average in those laps, il give you the 2.130 seconds per lap average. Are you still insist that was the right choice to take ?

Again, either you are referring to the last few laps of Raikkonen's second stint or you are incorrect about the 2 secs per lap loss. And the point that we are discussing is whether there was a need to nurse the hard tyres, so times on mediums are not really a factor here.

Read above and like ive explained before he had not CHOICE but to nurse as he was following different strategy. Ask your self why Alonso didnt a bigger stint on hard when he was already behind Vettel and was 16 seconds ahead of raikkonen before his final pit, go.

Alonso's pace was not compromised; obvioulsy his tyres were losing some preformance after 17 laps, but he was still bettering Raikkonen's time on tyres that were 8 laps older. That is not a cliff. And by the way, Raikkonen's tyres were used, so were Alonso's mediums on his last stint. But what we don't know is what "used" means, beacuse they could have had just one lap on them. Didn't Raikkonen do a one-lap attempt with hards in Q1 before Grosjean's accident? I am quite convinced that Alonso's "used" mediums only had one or two laps on them.

Alonso was covering Vettel; that is why he stopped for his pit stop on the next lap to Vettel stopping.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113909
"They said Vettel was on three so if we stopped now, we covered him. And I said 'we do it'.
"I tried to protect the position from Vettel and it was not possible. The intention was just to keep Vettel behind once we'd changed strategy. We didn't manage it and it was a shame."
The last sentence has to refer to his third pit stop, as Vettel only overtook him on that last pit stop.

In summary: Raikkonen had nothing to lose and all to gain from pushing during his last stint on hards. I am convinced that he did, but if I am wrong and he did indeed nurse the tyres, then he made a major mistake because he gave up his only chance to fight for position with Alonso.

Conveniently either you didnt read the whole interview or you just choose to quote a part of it.
Alonso was having tyre degradation issues since 3 laps in the race.

"I don't know how the tyres were for Kimi, but for me after two or three laps I had a very difficult rear end so was asking when we could stop," said Alonso.

Evidently you can see from above that Alonso was asking for sooner stop after the first 3 laps and not 17 and way sooner before Vettels strategy was became relevant since that was in the first stint. Il provide even further evidence form the same article you posted.

"When it was time, we stopped. Then I had traffic and because of that I didn't pass Kimi.

"In the second stint I finished the tyres again and asked when we could stop. They said we could keep going or do two stops, or we stop and do three.

Alonso asked once more when could they stop as he was having tyre issues. AFTER all that comes Vettel into play which made the decision of 3 stopper and no brainer.

They said Vettel was on three so if we stopped now, we covered him. And I said 'we do it'.

Finally the moment were Vettel comes into play. This is were i was saying that Alonso got lucky in his misfortunes because his misfortune was the tyre problems but because of Vettels strategy he got lucky as it conclude the change of strategy if there was any doubt at that point. IF Alonso would be doing the same strategy as raikkonen plus the tyre issues he had during whole race then we would've seen a bigger time loss for Fernando by the end of the race.

[PadGeT]

[LivingHitokiri]

you come here and start to insult people that they don't know about racing and can't read? wow how classy. and i don't see any discussion here, only you defending your precious Kimi although everything is more than clear. but do carry on, it's quite an entertainment. like in autosport forum.

I never insulted anyone in here or anywhere, it was assumed that i insulted someone at autosport forums which i explained my position on it, what the hell are you talking about ? Are you so much clouded with hatred when someone justifiably defends something with evidence that you cannot handle it ?

Both of the drivers are precious to me as they get screwed over by team mistakes over and over just now it was Raikkonen time few races ago it was Alonso's when we put him on 2 set of primes.

Again, read before you make comments or accuse someone for something or just simply dont jump into false conclusion.

[Greig]

I think everyone has had their say now and nobody is going to change their stance on the matter, so instead of having another 40 pages of arguing let's just move on