Turkish GP 2010 - Istanbul Park

[Paul Oz]

lol looks like some people on here still believe f1 is totally fair and every team is playing by the rules. have you not learnt anything from flavio?

Yep... conspiracy and skulduggery enhances the entertainment

[andrew]

He still needed team orders to win though. Pity Button was told to hold station or there might have been some racing, or they would have taken each other off.

Sure.. Button would have ran off with the win and Lewis would not be able to overtake him.

Are you forgetting what happened in turn 1 right after button overtook Hamilton?

Sometimes i wonder if you are purposely being provocative when it comes to Hamilton.

I'm certainly not being purposely provocative but it is starting to look like Hamilton only got the win after the drivers were told to hold station. Not wonder he looked peeved when he got out the car.

And I know what happened at turn 1 - racing. I would rather see that between 2 drivers I don't particularly like that a dull procession governed by team orders.

[ringo]

So you are saying that Button would have caught Hamilton had he not been told to save fuel?
Better yet i think it's best you elaborate how you think Button could have won that race without intervention from the pit crew. It's hard for me to guess at which points in the race you are talking about, becuase you say he got the win after the drivers were told to hold station.
Was this after he overtook Button?

Looking back at that time after button was told to hold station. I honestly don't think he would have survived 8 laps of battling with Hamilton. And from the pit radio, and hamilton's pace in those last laps , it seems Button had less fuel as well.

People are overlooking that fact that following a car closely allows the driver to save fuel. Hamilton's only risk with following webber was dirty air lowering the downforce and icreasing tyre wear. Other than that following a car reduces the drag and thus reduces the fuel consumption, which tends to be very high on the back straights.
By this reasoning Lewis was probably saving more fuel than button, by following Webber and Vettel down the back straight lap after lap.

Button was nowhere behind a redbull t get any tow or fuel savings. He simply was saving fuel by other means. I am not sure how much fuel he could save doing the times he was doing.
So this is why I am interested in which ways Button could have won that race after the redbull's crashed out.

[raymondu999]

Phil Prew told Lewis that Button and Lewis had to both look after fuel. BUT nobody knows for sure that it was told to Button to save fuel. We just know the team told Lewis that. What's to say they weren't lying? I'm not saying they did, but what's to say they didn't?

[ringo]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/84215

So it seems both were told, according to the team. They say Hamilton lost a lot of time in turn 8 as well. But it still shows that Button was taking advantage.
The fact that Hamilton asked about Button, and the team said no. Knowing well that Button was catching him and his engineer did nothing to warn him.

I remember in china button was warned almost every 30 seconds what Hamilton was doing.

Anyway, this is what was revealed about the fuel. There were no specifics and it shows button did not save much more than Hamilton:

Suggestions that orders to save fuel and tyres were being used as codewords for the drivers to hold position have also been dismissed by team sources.

And proof of the need to slow Hamilton down came after the race, when McLaren discovered that he had less than one lap's worth left in his car - while Button had just a little more.

reason being that Hamilton save just as much or more before the overtake, is Hamilton's lap times compared to Button's after he retook p1.
Hamilton increased his consumption drastically after he took back p1 and yet Button only had a little more fuel when button was creeping around in those last laps.

any one has the lap data after the re overtake and also an estimate of how many kg per tenth of lap time?
I hear it's 1% more fuel for every 0.5s per lap and at Istanbul the weight of the fuel for each lap is worth 8/100ths of a second of extra lap time.

[Richard]

any one has the lap data after the re overtake and also an estimate of how many kg per tenth of lap time?
I hear it's 1% more fuel for every 0.5s per lap and at Istanbul the weight of the fuel for each lap is worth 8/100ths of a second of extra lap time.

Here viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8168&view=unread#unread

You can see the gap between Hamilton and Button actually increased on the preceding laps. For some reason Hamilton must have let Button catch up 1 second in half a lap.

[Richard]

Phil Prew told Lewis that Button and Lewis had to both look after fuel. BUT nobody knows for sure that it was told to Button to save fuel. We just know the team told Lewis that. What's to say they weren't lying? I'm not saying they did, but what's to say they didn't?

That sort of thinking belongs in the grassy knoll category.

[aral]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/84215

So it seems both were told, according to the team. They say Hamilton lost a lot of time in turn 8 as well. But it still shows that Button was taking advantage.
The fact that Hamilton asked about Button, and the team said no. Knowing well that Button was catching him and his engineer did nothing to warn him.

I remember in china button was warned almost every 30 seconds what Hamilton was doing.

Anyway, this is what was revealed about the fuel. There were no specifics and it shows button did not save much more than Hamilton:

Suggestions that orders to save fuel and tyres were being used as codewords for the drivers to hold position have also been dismissed by team sources.

And proof of the need to slow Hamilton down came after the race, when McLaren discovered that he had less than one lap's worth left in his car - while Button had just a little more.

reason being that Hamilton save just as much or more before the overtake, is Hamilton's lap times compared to Button's after he retook p1.
Hamilton increased his consumption drastically after he took back p1 and yet Button only had a little more fuel when button was creeping around in those last laps.

any one has the lap data after the re overtake and also an estimate of how many kg per tenth of lap time?
I hear it's 1% more fuel for every 0.5s per lap and at Istanbul the weight of the fuel for each lap is worth 8/100ths of a second of extra lap time.

It now looks as if the Mclarens were short fuelled, in the hope of keeping up with the Bulls! Just as well the Bulls crashed!

[ringo]

49) 1.198s
50) 0.566s
51) 0.411s
52) 0.410s
53) -.101s
54) 0.777s
55) -.012s
56) 0.144s
57) 0.089s
58) -.753s

these are the lap time gaps from button to Hamilton. In net total Hamiton cut down 2.729s over Button. Based on this it's misleading to say one had less than a lap left and the other had a little more fuel.
One was driving and consuming more after the overtaking incident, at 2.8 tenths faster on average per lap.

The only way Mclaren's arguement that Lewis was more critical, is if Hamilton was normally 2.8 tenths faster with the same fuel weight. This is normally the case, but not at turkey.

Assuming Button and Hamilton had equal fuel at the time before the overtake, based on them requiring the same lap time target. And also assuming both of them are equally fast on equal fuel loads; an accurate observation for the turkish GP.
We can then say one had more fuel to waste to achieve quicker lap times and being able to finish.

.5s a lap will use 1% more fuel over the race distance. 1% is 1.5kg. 100% is 150kg for 58 laps. each lap is 2.586kg. 2.729s faster than Button means Lewis burned through (2.729/0.5 x 1.5 kg), 8.187kg more than button in those last 10 laps.


So Mclaren saying that Hamilton had less than a lap left, and Button had a little more, does not really explain everything. It does not reinforce that Hamilton's fuel was more critical than Button's.
Had he cooled off on those final laps equaling button's times he may well have had more than a lap left of fuel., maybe (8.187/2.586), 3 laps more.

If these calcs are off, feel free to correct them. Ie if anyone bothered to read it , sometimes i skip these kinds of posts.

[FLC]

How do we even know anyone from the team said anything? With all due respect, this autosport article is somewhat weird. I'm not saying it isn't true, but why are there no official quotes? Is that even McLaren's official explanation or are they waiting for Canada to give one, if at all?

[komninosm]

Both were told to save fuel and the radio transmissions to both were broadcast during the race coverage. Based on their lap times not really increasing and Hamilton being caught napping I am sure it was a coded message.

You really hate Hamilton don't you? [-X
In what way was Hamilton caught napping? It's not like he was followed by another team's car (like one might say Alonso got caught na napping by Schumacher and be half-right). You are totally wrong. You might say he was lied to, or that Button tried to cheat a place, but you certainly can't say Hamilton was caught napping in this case. :^o

I really hate Hamilton? WTF has that got to do with anything? If he wasn't caught napping explain how Button passed him? Given the team order to hold station I can only assume that he was going to slow and Button had to get past to keep the pace.

Button tried to cheat a place? You really hate Button don't you? [-X You are totally wrong.

It's really simple, even you can understand it. Hamilton was either lied to by his team who told him Button would not pass him, or Button tried to cheat by not following orders, so there is no way Hamilton was caught napping. The team was caught napping, but not Hamilton. [-X

[komninosm]

Phil Prew told Lewis that Button and Lewis had to both look after fuel. BUT nobody knows for sure that it was told to Button to save fuel. We just know the team told Lewis that. What's to say they weren't lying? I'm not saying they did, but what's to say they didn't?

That sort of thinking belongs in the grassy knoll category.

It's not like we've seen cars this year slow down to a crawl in the last laps and get overtaken cause of fuel problems... oh wait DOH!

[komninosm]

49) 1.198s
50) 0.566s
51) 0.411s
52) 0.410s
53) -.101s
54) 0.777s
55) -.012s
56) 0.144s
57) 0.089s
58) -.753s

these are the lap time gaps from button to Hamilton. In net total Hamiton cut down 2.729s over Button. Based on this it's misleading to say one had less than a lap left and the other had a little more fuel.
One was driving and consuming more after the overtaking incident, at 2.8 tenths faster on average per lap.

The only way Mclaren's arguement that Lewis was more critical, is if Hamilton was normally 2.8 tenths faster with the same fuel weight. This is normally the case, but not at turkey.

Assuming Button and Hamilton had equal fuel at the time before the overtake, based on them requiring the same lap time target. And also assuming both of them are equally fast on equal fuel loads; an accurate observation for the turkish GP.
We can then say one had more fuel to waste to achieve quicker lap times and being able to finish.

.5s a lap will use 1% more fuel over the race distance. 1% is 1.5kg. 100% is 150kg for 58 laps. each lap is 2.586kg. 2.729s faster than Button means Lewis burned through (2.729/0.5 x 1.5 kg), 8.187kg more than button in those last 10 laps.


So Mclaren saying that Hamilton had less than a lap left, and Button had a little more, does not really explain everything. It does not reinforce that Hamilton's fuel was more critical than Button's.
Had he cooled off on those final laps equaling button's times he may well have had more than a lap left of fuel., maybe (8.187/2.586), 3 laps more.

If these calcs are off, feel free to correct them. Ie if anyone bothered to read it , sometimes i skip these kinds of posts.

I'm sorry to say you calculations are wrong. You forgot to factor in a 10/58 multiplier.
The other thing is that the premises are very simplistic and illogical so the whole thing doesn't produce accurate results. The 1% per 0.5s thing is very vague.

[feynman]

So anyway, Whitmarsh today publicly throws Phil Prew's professional reputation under the bus as they release today's version of what happened. For those keeping track at home this is version 5, please update all your scoring charts accordingly.

Given the tangled web we've thus far seen, and McLaren managment's unfailing ability to turn any drama into a crisis, anyone think there is any chance at all of them successfully holding this new line through the weekend?
Guess it depends how many old fashioned proper journos booked flights to Canada, versus how many de-bollocked press-release Q&A cut-and-pasters turn-up.


So going forward, that's gonna be a big disadvantage for Hamilton, surely?
Every other driver will be doing short snappy radio messages for situational awareness and relevant race information, now he is going to have to query it and get into a whole big semantic argument trying to get confirmation as to whether what he was just told was fact or instead idle-speculation.

An engineer, a race-engineer, whose whole essence and being is nothing but numbers, facts, scientific comparison and the primacy of empirical data; suddenly takes a brainstorm and starts broadcasting pet theories and wild unsubstantiated personal opinion over team radio. Maybe, I suppose it could happen, but to me, I dunno, the probability seem quite unlikely.

EDIT +++ Link for Richard

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/06/08/h ... sh-admits/

+++

[Richard]

Feynman - how about posting a link and possibly a neat extract from the Whitmarsh comments? That would reinstate the primacy of empirical data. Otherwise the post is mere hearsay.

Ps I subscribe to the human error theory, but that's just too dull for grassy knoll brigade, so they crank up the hysteria to turn a mere cock up into a crisis.