Principessa wrote:I think it's not good that Kubica would already race....I suffered a concussion myself once and I had to stay in the dark for a week and even after that week, I got such a headache coming into the light. And what about the psychological shock. I can't believe that he can just forget about that crash. It must have been horrible, being in that car... we'll know today if he gets the all clear of the FIA doctors to race.
DaveKillens wrote:Usually, whatever the teams bring to Canada they also use at the USGP. I doubt if anyone has any serious upgrades planned for the USGP. So the relative pace should remain unchanged...
DaveKillens wrote:Usually, whatever the teams bring to Canada they also use at the USGP. I doubt if anyone has any serious upgrades planned for the USGP. So the relative pace should remain unchanged, with McLaren holding a noticeable performance advantage over Ferrari.
modbaraban wrote:PS: predictins: big mess in the 1st corner -> Davidson for podium
Damn shame Michelin isn't around this year.
I'm not usually into
this prediction game, but it's an interesting grid (for this season) so one can't help but speculate, just a bit:
1. MS - If there's something Ferrari is good at, it's protecting a dominating position. Also it seems that Michelin hasn't taken as competitive an approach to the race as they suggested. With their straight line speed and grip, it shouldn't be a problem. Chances of winning 90%, 10% proviso for the team having decided on a three stop strategy which would be scr3wed up by a SC or some other incident, the pit lane at Indy is pretty long.
2. FM - Had an understeer problem through the infield. Should drive a conservative race for a chance to remain a solid second, but being pushed could bring out the propensity for unforced errors. The team can't construct a Schumi only strategy race by race as they need others between him and Alonso, almost each race. Massa actually has to race this one. Chances of finishing 2nd 30%, 3rd 20%, DNF or outside podium 50%.
3. GF - An erratic starter and I'd be surprised if he didn't block Barrichello from the start letting FA through to challenge Massa. His role is pretty clear within the team in this situation. If the circumstances remain slippery, though, his strengths will be highlighted, easily keeping up with his team mate, not being allowed to challenge him. 3rd 40%, 4th 40%, lower 20%.
4. RB - can't see him beating the Renaults with any strategy, and will fade through the race anyway. 50% chance ending in the lowest points, 50% chance outside points.
5. FA - see [3. GF], Renault will play into his hands. 60% chance 2nd, 20% chance 3rd, 20% chance fading into more insignificant positions. The last option because the abrasive surface doesn't suit either his tyres or general driving style, so surprising problems (a la Monaco, Canada, US, Hungary) 2005 are a possibility, too.
6. JV - BMW has run with a conservative strategy without fail, usually costing the Canadian a couple of placings. Michelins can be a stumbling block and JV more error prone of the team's two drivers. Slipping a couple of positions 50%, DNF 50%.
7. JB - Decent speed, but continued weakness in both challenging for position and defending it. On a track that actually enables overtaking, not a good combination. Add Honda's strategy woes and he's lucky to finish in points - 40%, outside points 60%.
8. RS - A dark horse; has he the fortitude to put the two previous horrid visits to Indy behind him and take advantage of Bridgestones? Could be. Most teams' aero performance is compromised on this track anyway, and Toyota has its engine going for them. More than one point - 70%, current position or outside points 30%.
9. KR - A real struggle in the quali and I doubt even with a heavy fuel load he'll be in a position to improve his standings much. With an engine that's already gone through another mostly full throttle circuit, a tech DNF looms large indeed. A harder tyre compound could pay off towards the ends of the stints and make devising a strategy easier for the team. If he keeps his head down, a slightly improved result for the race 60%, tech DNF 40%.
10. NH - Very ambiguous position to be in. Midfield, the last driver not being able to make after quali fuel decisions. Could be a frustrating race for him, though BMW's very conservative strategies have benefited the ever elusive "invisible Nick" far more often than JV. Tough call. Apart from RS, another dark horse candidate.
11. JPM - Here's another "two engine rule" paradox. Because of his DNF in Canada during the race, a new spec Merc engine with no penalty installed. The logic befuddles me. Anyway, with his new engine, a softer compound and ability to change strategy after the quali he should beat his team mate for 6th or 7th just by strategy alone. Then again, in practice Monty inexplicably was 3 tenths slower with new, softer tyres and his new engine. Add to this his proneness for incidents and it doesn't look too rosy. Low points 50%, DNF or very low in standings 50%.
12. MW - Looking at Williams, they just seemed incompatible with the track, even with Bridgestones. A really tough call, but I wouldn't name him a dark horse. If he improves by anything else than DNFs in front of him, it'll be a surprise.
13. SS - Much better than team mate in quali, so good for him. Will push and have incidents. 90% chance for high drama and colourful statements, but results-wise ... eh ... 10% chance of shining, high motivation, so a cautious "gallant fight outside points" dark horse nomination for him anyway. That'd be very American.
14. CA - Midland with a conservative strategy and their tyres can improve from this. Not messing up with team mate will make the team's day, and the performance to remember for Midland, whom we'll propably know as "Lost Boys F1" or something next year. But anyway, Toyota stands to have a good overall race.
15. TM - See CA. Higher motivation, perhaps, than team mate, though. This might be the one chance to really make his mark towards being hired to race with a team next season, too. Could be seen challenging positions all the way to 11th (or higher with some unforeseen drama), with a bit of lady luck giving a hand. Dark horse candidate.
16. CK - A struggle with Michelins and potential for more frustration with JT and NR possibly coming through. A fight for 16. - 18. with your team mate doesn't really light anyone's fire. An extended testing session for RBR.
17. DC - See before.
18. TS - Fired up as ever, could hang on to a higher position than 21st. Won't see much of him during the race, though, unless being lapped or crashing.
19. JT - The ever calm Italian was clarly irked by the susp failure at quali. Pole last year implies he might be the surprise ticket of the race with clearly the dominating tyres. Making up for the disappointment and avoiding incidents could well see him in decent points - and the "other" story of the weekend beyond Schumi's WDC chase. Here's hoping that cool heads prevail. Dark horse candidate no. 1.
20. FM - without DNFs, 22nd.
21. NR - will most likely be the most frustrating race for him yet, even more so after the disappointment in Canada. If he makes the most of it, he could just edge out RBRs - that'll be tough, though. But NR has already established himself as an overtaker and on this track there are chances of doing so. But mostly looking forward to coming back to Europe ...
22. VL - New engine, but with Michelins will be left to wreak havoc for the other drivers aspiring to rise in the standings.
With all the parameters one has to consider, I'm satisfied if the above is proven to be at least 10% accurate .
Well, to higlight the
“incredible lightness of predicting”, I took time to do a tongue-in-cheek review of my “performance” with no specific standards, Top Gear style, one might call it. I’ll adopt some Clarksonesquely blatant, but good natured, conceitedness here. Seems clear enough I can forget about fiddling around with a chrystal ball as a career. Pure intuition feebly based in reality, and a few side notes on team performances whenever I deem it fit:
1. (1.) MS – Pretty accurate, but also the most straightforward extrapolation to make. I was surprised to see Massa beat Schumy to the first corner given the overall situation, but I guess given Renault’s awesome starts, both Ferrari drivers were instructed to risk nothing and give their all in the start no matter what happens – on hindsight perfectly logical. Accuracy – 80%.
2. (2.) FM – Underestimated Felipe’s capabilities somewhat. On the other hand, leading through the first stint effectively relieved him of all potential pressures from Renault – there’s the slimmest of chances it might’ve even been purposeful. Anyway, he delivered and I pretty much didn’t, accuracy – 25%.
3. (3.) GF – Did block Barrichello and let FA through, IMHO. Finished on the podium, but not as a result of FA getting 2nd as I thought would be the case in this scenario. Was surprised to see the team draw conclusions as fast as they did about their drivers’ speed differences and letting GF pass FA. Only even they missed the mark by around ten laps. GF got 3rd back at lap 14, had they just decided to face up to reality sooner, the Italian could’ve put real pressure on FM – and been safe from the advancements of both Toyotas throughout. Accuracy – 20%.
4. (22./Pit) JT – I don’t care what anyone says about how the first corner mess affected this result in all sorts of random ways with no correlation whatsoever with my deductions. Tyres, avoiding incidents, dark horse no. 1, everything there was just as accurate as it could’ve possibly been. A strong overall showing from the Italian, and a bit of a thorn in the side of his former team mate, too, as towards the end of the race his position prevented FA “overtaking” GF for an extra point. Had Trulli gotten 3rd, it would have made headlines, now, I’ll be perfectly happy with an accuracy of – 75%.
5. (5.) FA – Well, I did foresee the kind of trouble he found himself in. Still, in light of his recent form with Renault, it was hard to give it a very big share of the propability pie, and it landed on my face – 20%.
6. (4.) RB – Didn’t beat the Renaults and faded, but ever so slightly to my (positive) surprise. A decent, and admittedly an easy, prediction to make. A pat on the back and accuracy ... oh, well, around – 40%.
7. (17.) DC – Boy, did I ever misjudge this gentleman. “An extended testing session”, indeed!? An inhuman fuel load, well over 40 laps! Had I thought of that, I’d be calling myself “madame Fragránce” or something just as preposterous and be charging you for the privilege of reading my insights on the future for better measure. Congratulations to the team, a playful approach and being rewarded with points for it, too. What can I say ... oh, yes: Accuracy – 0%.
8. (19.) VL – OK, a milder version of what happened with DC applies here. Did manage to torpedoe Rosberg’s bid, so I can claim an accuracy of – 2%.
9. (21.) NR – Poor Jr. The only driver to finish without points to show for it – in a way it would’ve been more merciful, but not fortunate, if he’d had a tech DNF. But it was a character growing excercise, if anything. One has to wonder what has happened to Cossie’s power output, their straight line speed was lacking? Perhaps nothing, since word is that Williams has thus far ruled out designing anything “flexi”. And the rear wing aperture is hardly the only thing that can bend. A misjudgement from the team, perhaps, and certainly from me. The accuracy has to reflect VL’s, so here, too – 2%.
10./DNF (8.) RS – Was well on the way to complementing JT’s strong showing. I gave him credit and while the equipment lasted, he was worth it. While it is almost certain that tech DNFs happen in a race, predicting those with any meaningful accuracy is another matter. Just to console myself – 5%.
11./DNF (14.) CA – The point about technology applies here, too. Just because he retired later on, and from a better position than where he started from, accuracy – 5%.
12./DNF (6.) JV – Had good pace, I’ll give him that – and my sympathies, too. The brand new BMW engine should’ve survived the strains easily. Another near impossible call to make in advance, but I got even the details wrong, so less sympathy in the accuracy department for myself – 0%.
13./DNF (15.) TM – Perhaps I misjudged his appreciation for the situation he was in. A needless conflict with an inferior car piloted by a notoriously stubborn and wildly optimistic (to say the least) driver. And, it turns out, a wildly optimistic appraisal on my part. Accuracy – 0%.
14./DNF (18.) TS – Well, it was almost too easy to predict him locking wings with someone, now, wasn’t it? Don’t need much credit for such a nondescript “prediction”, accuracy – 20%.
15./DNF (7.) JB – Limped away from the accident and kept on limping into the stalls. Perhaps telling of the nature of the first corner accident that even his smoothness couldn’t escape unscathed. What’s there to add? What possible relevance any prediction (apart from the madame Fragránce kind) could have with an incident like this? You tell me. Accuracy, nonetheless – 0%.
16./DNF (20.) FMo – He wasn’t the first driver who obviously had to retire, I’ll give him that, so there goes any semblance of accuracy, too – 0%.
17./DNF (16.) CK – Would’ve been nice to see if they were on similar strategy with DC. Accuracy impossible to deem at anything else than – 0%.
18./DNF (12.) MW – Let’s just say that my suspicions about Williams were proven to some degree from how NR handled the situation. Left room for surprises, the crash he was involved in wasn’t among them. And I had no prediction to speak of about MW to begin with, so accuracy has to be around – 5%.
19./DNF (10.) NH – First of all, I’m happy that he came out of his ungracious and involuntary roll intact. Reduced to looking at JV’s performance for comparison, the weakest of arguments about his potential strength could be claimed to be in general accordance with something that was, admittedly, just a little short of a disclaimer from any responsibility in having predicted anything at all. Just enough accuracy to hit – 1%.
20./DNF (9.) KR – Being where he is in the WDC standings, he could afford to be philosophical about being rearended by his team mate. And sometimes keeping the steam in nonchalantly is more threatening a gesture to the opposing party. Turned out he not only had hardER tyres than Monty, they apparently were the hardEST supplied by Michelin.
That could’ve turned into a significant advantage in the searing heat of Indy – not to mention the potential to consider a one stop tactic, the highest on the grid to do so. So first of all, I underestimated him. And secondly, looking at the people immediately around him in the start, didn’t think a crash was forthcoming. Accuracy – 0%.
21./DNF (11.) JPM – I underestimated the havoc mr. “Big Bang” could instigate, too. And what class to start it all by going in to inspect your team mate’s transmission from a close distance. This is certainly among his best work – almost got the number of cars racing to yesteryear’s abundant levels with one masterful strike. Bernie might be rethinking about supporting his continued career by now. The fans must’ve been thrilled.
But enough with irony. With hindsight, giving a 50% chance of incidents was overly conservative – and yet, from his last eight races, he’s finished four. I don’t know what went wrong, but for a talented driver, he’s been largely a liability for Macca and very likely the balance will remain so throughout his career there. Can’t imagine what’d, in real terms, make up for it all. Never liked the negatives much, but for this, accuracy was around – 35%.
22./DNF (13.) SS – Pushed, yes. Had an incident, yes. But the statements were bland, almost under the radar and so, equally and sadly, was the American’s chance of attracting a larger US fan base: “Gone in sixty seconds” and robbed of a place in the limelight.
Poor rookies, it just wasn’t their day – but Scott did get to spend more time with family, which is a luxury in the life of a F1 driver originating outside Europe. Better luck next time, Bernie willing. Accuracy, in keeping with US grandiosity, a mighty – 40%.
So, where does this effort leave me? For the time being I can only compute my average, highly subjective “success” rate. It comes to 17%, actually. I’ll propably be digesting that number without further forays into predicting for a couple of GPs, at least. Meanwhile, I can still proclaim to be “happy”, since I’m well clear of the 10% margin I set to qualify for that distinction.
wikipedia wrote:Concussion is classified into five grades
The mildest, grade I, involves only confusion.
Grade II involves anterograde amnesia that lasts less than five minutes as well as confusion.
Grade III involves the symptoms above, as well as retrograde amnesia and unconsciousness for less than five minutes.
Grade IV involves all of the above symptoms, as well as unconsciousness that lasts between 5 and 10 minutes.
Grade V is the same as grade IV, with unconsciousness lasting longer than ten minutes.
wikipedia wrote:The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guidelines make it clear that permanent brain injury can occur with either Grade 2 or Grade 3 concussion. Thus, it is clear that subtle brain injury can have permanent consequences if the acute symptoms of the concussion continue for more than 15 minutes.
wikipedia wrote:Each grade of concussion comes with different recommendations for patients who play sports:
In grade I, the patient may return to contact sports in 1 week.
A patient with a second time grade I concussion may return to play contact sports in 2 weeks after being asymptomatic for a week.
In grade II, the patient may return to contact sports in 1 week of being asymptomatic.
A second time grade II may return to play contact sports 1 month after being asymptomatic for a week.
In grade III, the patient may return to contact sports in 1 month.
For a patient with a second time grade III concussion, the season is over.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests