British GP 2010 - Silverstone

[WhiteBlue]

So can you please quote the actual radio call please?

Also I'm pretty sure Webber pitted on lap 17 so Vettel breathed easier then. So your 27 laps thing is misleading.

I'm not really interested enough in these things. The facts are clear. Vettel drove a damaged car passing six back markers and crucially avoided to be lapped by the leaders. He got 45 or 50 s back by the safety car which helped him to catch another 7 cars on track. Nobody else did this this season. That is good enough for me to call it an excellent recovery. You guys may have different criteria. So be it.

Myurr, I'm not going off topic with you. Silverstone race here!

theres so much wrong in this statement its unreal.
first off, vetel had next to no damage...i rememver them saying "just a few minor scratchnings to the bodywork."
the only reason he passed that force india is because sutil was on an alternative strategy, he'd been out on the soft tyres for a long time.
oh and no vetel did not come out 10 seconds ahead of webber, it was whitlled down to 10 seconds after about 15 laps...so really get youre facts right.

Well what is the bodywork next to the tyres? I would call it diffusor and it isn't exactly unimportant.

Re the gap and the lap times I'll give you the figures. Here you go.



How about providing us with the facts by making a nice graphic of the gap and the lap times. Why should I always do the leg work? If I had a wrong memory I have no problem to agree to a mistake if you make your point clear in numbers.

[ISLAMATRON]

Here you go
http://www.f1matrix.it/gp_2010_eng/10/pc.html

SV was only faster than MW on 6 laps... 2 from when MW pitted, 3 from the SC and the last lap

[zenithbeach]

im sorry if this has been posted before (i just couldnt be bothered to read through all the bickerin in this thread) but here's an article that could be of some interest to the ones involved in the alonso dispute

Ferrari have been highly critical of the fact that it took the stewards nine laps to hand out their punishment on Alonso for going off the track to pass Kubica.

[...]

Speaking after the race team principal Stefano Domenicali expressed his unhappiness at the steward's decision.

"You can have a situation where immediately there is a possibility to give position back to a driver if you feel there is really an advantage to be gained, but we felt that was not the case, otherwise we would have done it," Domenicali exlpained

"As soon as we received the information that in the opinion of the stewards Fernando should have given back position to Robert, he was already very far behind and was really slowing down because he had a problem.

"We feel [the penalty] is very harsh," he added.

But Whiting has now contradicted the Italian's claims, indicating that Ferrari were immediately informed to allow Kubica to pass and at that stage the Pole was still in a position to do so, although he later slowed as a result of mechanical troubles that caused him to retire.

"We told Ferrari three times that in my opinion they should give the position back to Kubica," Whiting told Autosprint magazine.

"And we told them that immediately, right after the overtaking manoeuvre. On the radio, I suggested to them that if they exchange position again, there would be no need for the stewards to intervene.

"But they didn't do that and on the third communication they said that Kubica was by then too far back to let him regain the position.

"It's not true at all that the stewards took too long to decide. For us the facts were clear immediately: Alonso had gained an advantage by cutting the track," he added.

http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/62587 ... bica-pass-

believe what you want, but in my opinion, if alonso and his team did not see any advantage gained by that maneuver, then im sorry to say that they didnt deserve it any other way.

[Just_a_fan]

If, as Charlie says, Ferrari were told immediately to give the place back then they have no one to blame but themselves.

[strad]

Hold it...Is WhiteBlue having a fit cause someone called his boy a punk? Jeez,,,what else would you call him and his immature actions. Punk would be a perfectly acceptable definition of him here in the states. We also don't cotton to cats who get too big for their driving suit without anything to back it up.. I once thought young Vettel would be a real talent and world champ...I'm thinkin we've seen his best and he comes up short. And before you have a fit Mr WhiteBlue, I'm entitled to my opinion as are you and as are others..Your opinion isn't worth one penny more than anyone elses.

[ell66]

theres so much wrong in this statement its unreal.
first off, vetel had next to no damage...i rememver them saying "just a few minor scratchnings to the bodywork."
the only reason he passed that force india is because sutil was on an alternative strategy, he'd been out on the soft tyres for a long time.
oh and no vetel did not come out 10 seconds ahead of webber, it was whitlled down to 10 seconds after about 15 laps...so really get youre facts right.

Well what is the bodywork next to the tyres? I would call it diffusor and it isn't exactly unimportant.

Re the gap and the lap times I'll give you the figures. Here you go.

How about providing us with the facts by making a nice graphic of the gap and the lap times. Why should I always do the leg work? If I had a wrong memory I have no problem to agree to a mistake if you make your point clear in numbers.[/quote]

if it was diffuser damage they would of said that. instead the exact words were "minor body work" we both know it would of made no difference.
as for the graph, what are you trying to prove? im talking about the gap...not laptimes. you said as soon as vettel came out of the pits he was only 10 seconds ahead of webber, which is completely untrue AGAIN.
I specifically remember martin brundle saying after about 10-15 laps. "webbers closing the gap by a second a lap its now 10 secs.."

fan boys will be fan boys..............

[myurr]

Here you go
http://www.f1matrix.it/gp_2010_eng/10/pc.html

SV was only faster than MW on 6 laps... 2 from when MW pitted, 3 from the SC and the last lap

To be fair to Vettel he was also faster on the very last lap, so that's 7 in total.

And on this 'great comeback drive' he was only faster than Hamilton on 7 laps as well, despite the car advantage.

[myurr]

Here you go
http://www.f1matrix.it/gp_2010_eng/10/pc.html

SV was only faster than MW on 6 laps... 2 from when MW pitted, 3 from the SC and the last lap

To be fair to Vettel he was also faster on the very last lap, so that's 7 in total.

And on this 'great comeback drive' he was only faster than Hamilton on 7 laps as well, despite the car advantage.

In fact from lap 3 to 16 despite running in clear air, Vettel lost a further 10 seconds to Webber before he pitted for tyres.

[vall]

Here you go
http://www.f1matrix.it/gp_2010_eng/10/pc.html

SV was only faster than MW on 6 laps... 2 from when MW pitted, 3 from the SC and the last lap

To be fair to Vettel he was also faster on the very last lap, so that's 7 in total.

And on this 'great comeback drive' he was only faster than Hamilton on 7 laps as well, despite the car advantage.

In fact from lap 3 to 16 despite running in clear air, Vettel lost a further 10 seconds to Webber before he pitted for tyres.

They were on different tires.

[vall]

If, as Charlie says, Ferrari were told immediately to give the place back then they have no one to blame but themselves.

indeed! It was plain stupid if they did not give the place

[Pup]

Geesh, at one point, his team even had to get on the radio to tell him to stop pouting and get on with his job - how can you even begin to call that an impressive drive?

Really? Got a link for that please?

I don't unfortunately, and I've erased the race off the dvr already, so I can't give you the exact quote. I do remember that it was right when the safety car came out and Vettel was complaining about the car in front not closing the gap to the field fast enough.

[Pup]

I'm not really interested enough in these things. The facts are clear. Vettel drove a damaged car passing six back markers and crucially avoided to be lapped by the leaders. He got 45 or 50 s back by the safety car which helped him to catch another 7 cars on track.

Again, he didn't pass anyone up to the safety car - they all pitted or dropped out. And of the 7 he passed after, he was over two seconds faster than 4 of those in qualifying, and over 1.5 seconds faster than the rest. That isn't impressive; it is expected, especially of a driver vying for the championship.

And his car wasn't damaged.

[myurr]

In fact from lap 3 to 16 despite running in clear air, Vettel lost a further 10 seconds to Webber before he pitted for tyres.

They were on different tires.

Yeah sure that explains it. If that's the only reason then why did he lose another 7.3 seconds over the subsequent 7 - 8 laps after the pit stops before the safety car was deployed?

[ISLAMATRON]

Here you go
http://www.f1matrix.it/gp_2010_eng/10/pc.html

SV was only faster than MW on 6 laps... 2 from when MW pitted, 3 from the SC and the last lap

To be fair to Vettel he was also faster on the very last lap, so that's 7 in total.

And on this 'great comeback drive' he was only faster than Hamilton on 7 laps as well, despite the car advantage.

I counted that one(see bold), the correct number is 6

also Vettel gained more like 75 seconds to Webber due to the SC, not 45

[l4mbch0ps]

I don't know how anyone can admit that there was damage to Vettel's car and then turn around and - in the same sentence - claim that it would not make a difference. Have you even been paying attention to how much work is put into the aerodynamics of these cars? Teams will make modifications that equate to millimeters of change to some parts of the car seeking a performance gain. How can you claim that damage to these parts will not cause a reduction in performance?

I'm not saying that a cracked barge board will cause a reduction of 2 seconds/lap, but to say there's no difference is willful ignorance.