GG06MR

iTrader: (9)

True. Maybe if they signed Danica Patrick they could come up with enough money for a real car though.

KPerez

Well apparently the FIA has banned the listing of fuel weights for the '10' season for no apparent reason other than to keep fans in the dark. Why is this important U ask? If they had listed same we would have been able to determine the fuel consumption for each teams car thereby enabling us to know which car had lower fuel consumption than another. This information would provide some more insight into team strategies given there will be no fuel stops. The question arises as to why the FIA made this rule change? They do provide similar race information elsewhere. For example, they require designation of the tire compound vis, prime, intermediate, etc. to be visible during each race. The FIA says they want to involve fans more in F1 so why hide information that will make the race more interesting?....but I digress....again!

Later, Ken

GG06MR

iTrader: (9)

Actually, I would think that there's no point in knowing weights anymore. For instance, minimum chassis weight is X amount, but that includes fuel. So...Car 1 gets Y fuel mileage and Car 2 gets Z fuel mileage, where Car 2 requires 5 additional gallons of fuel to complete the race compared to Car 1. Assuming all other weights are equal, then Car 2 removes roughly 30 pounds of weight/ballast from their car, so they finish the race at the same minimum weight as Car 1. Obviously it would be better to have that 30 lbs. in ballast where you want the weight, but I don't think that chassis weight is going to be as much of an indicator of how much fuel is onboard like it was last year. Unless I'm missing something.

Billy@EnglishRacing

iTrader: (18)

Day 3 times

Unofficial Times
1. J. Alguersuari Toro Rosso STR5 1:19.919 76 laps
2. P. de la Rosa Sauber C29 1:20.736 +0.817 58 laps
3. A. Sutil Force India VJM-03 1:21.428 +1.509 48 laps
4. F. Massa Ferrari F10 1:21.603 +1.684 72 laps
5. S. Vettel Red Bull Racing RB6 1:21.783 +1.864 59 laps
6. V. Petrov Renault R30 1:22.000 +2.081 68 laps
7. N. Rosberg Mercedes GP W01 1:22.820 +2.901 53 laps
8. R. Barrichello Williams FW32 1:23.217 +3.298 120 laps
9. L. Hamilton McLaren MP4-25 1:23.985 +4.066 68 laps
10. L. Di Grassi Virgin Racing VR-01 1:37.107 +17.188 8 laps

KPerez

I believe one can calculate the actual fuel economy of each car if U knew the weight of fuel each was carrying at the beginning of the race. W/O the weight of fuel at the onset with the assoicated number of laps/distance it is not possible to estimate the fuel used /lap.

Later, Ken

Billy@EnglishRacing

iTrader: (18)

Im sure we will all have a good idea of the mpg after the first 2 races, the media will be supplied with enough info to give us a clear picture.

GG06MR

iTrader: (9)

I only remember them posting vehicle weights last year, and not fuel weights, i.e. Car 1 at the front of the grid was 6XX kg, Car 2 was 2nd at 6XX kg, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong on that though. It was easy then to see what each car was holding in fuel, assuming they pitted when everyone else would pit on low fuel. Now with all of the cars filled up, you won't be able to tell for sure how much of that is fuel, since they'll all have to finish the race at the same minimum weight.

KPerez

The media will have what we have, no data forcing a lot of guessing due to the confounding of the fuel consumption with tire rotation making it very difficult to come up with reasonable estimates. My only point was, what is the FIA keeping this a secret for? Why not post them, they did last year. Why is the year any different than last in this regard?....perhaps they do not want us to see the mileage improving over the races since this would mean the teams are violating the current ban on engine tuning to improve performance....ahhh but I forgot...they are allowed to adjust the engine to "improve the reliability" which could "indirectly" improve fuel consumption and power...indirectly or inadvertently, of course. I realize there needs to be rule changes but at least provide some rational so that we can all experience the wisdom and fairness of the FIA...sure hope Todt is going to be more open than Mosley.

Later, Ken

GG06MR

iTrader: (9)

Any chance that the lower mileage engine suppliers don't want that out in the media/public? As if they don't even want to answer why their engine sucks mileage wise compared to the competition, i.e. image issue.

KPerez

All the teams want to fill their cars up with the minimum amount of fuel to make it to the end...no more, no less. The team that carrys the lowest fuel load will be faster (everything else equal). To achieve the optimal fuel load each team will have to consider how hard to push each car during the various sectors of the race relative to grip/tire wear; if fuel becomes an issue i.e., not enough because of high fuel consumption, the driver will have to slow down and lean the car out (recall Massa had to do that last year just to cross the finish line) just to finish the race. In short, high fuel economy and low tire wear will be the most critical elements to winning this year. We will see the tire wear per compound by the length of stints which could be two OR three stoppers but we will not know the delicate fuel balancing act each team has employed in each race. What we need to calculate the latter is the initial and final fuel weights in each car.

Later, Ken
Edit: Each track will have its own inherent fuel consumption and tire wear to complicate this even further

KPerez

If you are talking about fuel consumption for production cars, this is a non-issue since the guy who buys a Ferrari doesnt give a dam how much fuel he uses on a Sunday afternoon relative to a McLaren. What they do care about is minimizing fuel consumption thereby reducing the amount of fuel they have to carry to make it to the end of the race. Recall when BMW ran their first LMP car at LeMans; they were not the fastest car but their relative fuel consumption enabled them to win the race.

Later, Ken

KPerez

Well here are the results which I stole elsewhere:
1. Lewis Hamilton, McLaren, 1:19.583
2. Jaime Alguersuari, Toro Rosso, 1:19.919
3. Kamui Kobayashi, BMW Sauber, 1:19.950
4. Sebastien Buemi, Toro Rosso, 1:20.026
5. Adrian Sutil, Force India, 1:20.180
6. Rubens Barrichello, Williams, 1:20.341
7. Robert Kubica, Renault, 1:20.358, 86 Laps
8. Michael Schumacher, Mercedes GP, 1:20.613
9. Jenson Button, McLaren, 1:20.618
10. Nico Hulkenberg, Williams, 1:20.629
11. Pedro de la Rosa, BMW Sauber, 1:20.736
12. Vitantonio Liuzzi, Force India, 1:20.754
13. Nico Rosberg, Mercedes GP, 1:20.927
14. Sebastian Vettel, Red Bull, 1:21.203
15. Fernando Alonso, Ferrari, 1:21.424
16. Felipe Massa, Ferrari, 1:21.486
17. Vitaly Petrov, Renault, 1:22.000
18. Mark Webber, Red Bull, 1:22.043
19. Lucas di Grassi, Virgin, 1:22.912
20. Timo Glock, Virgin, 1:29.964

Whats intereting is to hear Schumi and Vettel say, of late, that there cars are one of the top four despite the fact that they came in 8th and 14 th, respectively. Perhaps they have been sandbagging for that appears to be the only explaination for their currents results. I think they are both in for a surprize as to their predictions of the top four teams.

Later, Ken

Ludikraut

iTrader: (17)

Wow, looks like USF1 is going to be an epic fail. Oh well. At this point I'm rooting for Kobayashi to finish on the podium...

l8r)

Ludikraut

iTrader: (17)

Even if they signed Danica, and even if they had the best car on the grid, they'd still finish last, since she can't drive well on anything other than ovals.

l8r)

GG06MR

iTrader: (9)

That's why they have 2 drivers. Danica to bring in the money, so they can build a competitive car, and then the other driver to actually do some damage with it.....other than wreck it in a turn to enable their teammate to win the race.