Fantastic resource! ThanksISLAMATRON wrote:Here you go
http://www.f1matrix.it/gp_2010_eng/10/pc.html
Fantastic resource! ThanksISLAMATRON wrote:Here you go
http://www.f1matrix.it/gp_2010_eng/10/pc.html
I wish they would update quicker, but then again I'm not the one doing all the work.richard_leeds wrote:Fantastic resource! ThanksISLAMATRON wrote:Here you go
http://www.f1matrix.it/gp_2010_eng/10/pc.html
And how many times have we seen them lose a barge board or wing end or even have a wing dangling and still run quicker? MANY MANY times!!!l4mbch0ps wrote: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.
HAHAHAHAHA!zenithbeach wrote: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
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.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-
There was damage to Hamilton's car too, his front wing that touched Vettel's tire. So your point is meaningless. What matters is the degree of damage, and Vettel showed his car was fine (he even did a very fast lap at the end). He was just unmotivated and gave up at the first 27 laps. Then he tried a bit harder.l4mbch0ps wrote: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.
I think you are making that up all on your own. How do you know what went on in Vettel's head? Are you a mind reader?komninosm wrote:Vettel showed his car was fine (he even did a very fast lap at the end). He was just unmotivated and gave up at the first 27 laps.
WhiteBlue wrote: These type of biased comments only contribute to controversy,
On the BBC feed Ted said that he got a good look at Vettel's car when it was in it's pit box and there was no damage beyond a few scratches and scuff marks. Nothing that would significantly affect the lap times.komninosm wrote:There was damage to Hamilton's car too, his front wing that touched Vettel's tire. So your point is meaningless. What matters is the degree of damage, and Vettel showed his car was fine (he even did a very fast lap at the end). He was just unmotivated and gave up at the first 27 laps. Then he tried a bit harder.