marcush. wrote:747heavy wrote:the estimate of 2.6kg/lap is reasonable - IMHO, I would probably say it´s a bit higher under full dry conditions. ~160kg/52 laps = ~3kg/lap, it´s a quick and dirty calc, but as an order of magnitude I would say it´s reasonable.
the 0.3 sec/kg seems way too high IMHO, it´s closer to 0.3sec/10kg or 0.03sec/kg.
You find this value mentioned in the McLaren paper I posted and it was mentioned often during the KERS debate in 2009.
Again, it´s just an estimate, it´s not set in stone, and will depend on the track. On a track with many acceleration/braking sections (Monaco etc.) it will be higher then on a flowing track with higher, more constant average speed.
Sorry, but I don´t think that they underfueld him by just 1kg, if this is the case,
then Button would have had the same problem.
Due to his pitstop mishap, we will never know.
I would say (but that´s just my opinion) they where ~10kg short of fuel.
there you go ...so it´s 3tenths of car speed won at the xpense of having to cruise for 20 laps.
counting it up that would amount to 9 seconds less elapsed time till they had to
ask him to nurse the engine...there are better ways to find 9 seconds in race elapsed time-for example a fresh set of soft tyres or an excellent pit call on changeable conditions.
In effect that´s only shifting the car potential from the end of the race bringing it a bit forward.
I think you have put the cart before the horse, marcush. Remember... the strategy did not work... They miscalculated. Putting in 10kg less fuel had made the car not faster but slower over the race distance as evidently seen... An extreme exaggeration is like putting in 30kg (ala 2009) to run the whole race...it just aint gonna happen. So, it was not a strategy but a miscalculation on the conditions of the race and occurrence of a safety car.