What are the odds of Alonso losing it?

[alogoc]

Well if you look at this logically the truth of the matter is that RB is at least 1/2 second in front of Ferrari, probably more if they really try. Vettles pole lap was like he was driving in the park. He wasn't even trying that hard as the car was smooth as a school teachers leg. RB will continue to develop so that margin will only increase.

At the same time Ferrari have not been able to match the pace of the RB development so the choice really comes down to if you just count on RB having a DNF, or do you risk a go with something which may or may not yield the result you want.

IMO, it seems more logical to risk as I doubt a HUGE change like this will put them back another second, and if it did, what does it matter if RB finshes the race in 1st place anyway? It may put them back 1/2 second but maybe it gives them 1/2 second improvement. Either way a DNF would work for either scenario. By risking the radical change they up their potential to win DNF or otherwise as the current iteration clearly is not a match for the RB.

I say give it a go. What have they to lose? The case currently is that they cannot match so why just hope for a DNF when maybe you can challenge with a radical change? Worse case they finish lower down but if RB win anyway, what does it matter if your 10 seconds behind or 1 second behind? Both are first or second loser. Its just a matter of time at that point, and that won't work.

I say just go all in and hope for the best. They really have nothing to lose as this current car just is not going to get it done. It's a slow death to just go for it I say.

If RB would try more they would kill tires in 5 laps! F2012 is not that far off at all!

[raymondu999]

RB doesn't have much more, but they have enough. Mark Webber could pull out a 4s gap at his command, and never looked threatened from Alonso. I remember from watching live timing Webber kept Alonso at 1.2 for a while, and once Alonso gained a tenth on Webber (to go 1.1s behind after Sector 1), he got blitzed by Webber, who opened 4 tenths on him in the last sector alone.

Maybe if the RBs went flat out the whole way they would kill the tyres in 10 laps. But they don't need to - keeping Alonso just 1.2s behind like that is enough, for all intents and purposes.

Look at Hockenheim this year. Alonso didn't need to go flat out - he just had to push on traction out of Turn 2, and he could cruise everywhere else, and with clean air helping his tyres to last even longer. Whenever the guy in P2 pitted, Alonso just used his still-alive tyres on a stonking inlap and got out ahead of the guy.

That 2 or 3 tenths of race pace is the crucial bit. Have that, and you don't NEED to go full-bore.

[bhall]

Alonso deserves it more than vettle. I like vettle but find hes only good when the car is the best i have never seen him battle though the field like Alonso. He gets pole and usally runs away never see much of the raw talent

Repeating this stereotype time and again will not make it any more true. Seb has shown that he can compete with the best when it comes to dragging a car higher than it's qualifying position. You need to re run a couple of this years races if your memory is so short. On balance Vettel did not have a more competitive car than Alonso. They are quite comparable actually this year in terms of making points with a competitive but not superior car.

[...]

Really? Some people think Vettel needs a car that's pretty well sorted out to win.

14 APR 2012

My view is that Vettel made a wrong decision against the advise of Adrian Newey. The McLaren style wide solution will have more performance potential in the future. Vettel will have to adapt to that style of driving because Webber shows it can be done.

Red Bull internally are technically putting the bench mark on the fastest driver. This is obviously Mark Webber at the moment. No wishful thinking can change results.

[...]

23 APR 2012

The performance advantage that Mark Webber had all season in qualifying until the Bahrain race was turned on it's head by the use of the newest exhaust system with blocked tunnels by Seb. To read everything on the exhaust situation go to the RB8 thread.

The technical analysis - mainly provided on Scarbs blog by the way - has lead me to make a prediction:

With a predictable downforce Seb is back at dominating Webber. Now that Newey has found the stability and a bit of performance Seb will be back to his old self. I predict the Vettel superiority over Webber to continue for the rest of the season. It may not be as distinct as last year but it will be there most of the time IMHO.

[...]

All you have to do is compare the difference between Vettel and Webber to the difference between Alonso and Massa to see that Alonso is head and shoulders above Vettel when it comes to getting the most out of the car.

[raymondu999]

I don't think Seb needs a quick car - I think he needs a car that is balanced to his liking, sort of like Button in a waym though with a different preference in terms of balance, and probably with a wider operating window. In that sense I personally don't think that he can outdo someone in a tricky car that needs to be driven in a specific way - or a car that has a different balance to his liking. He can probably drive around it if it weren't too bad - like how he was struggling with understeer in his Hungary and Suzuka pole laps in 2011.

Generally though I think his issues are more easily balanced through setup - ie as long as the car doesn't have any trick/funky aerodynamics (such as the sidepod tunnels of the RB8 that were reportedly stalling at certain speeds earlier in the year) he can dial it to his liking through setup.

Personally I think Vettel is able to drive around some (not all) deficiencies, which makes it tricky to judge. Mark said in 2010 for example that the 2009 Red Bull at times had a bit of lateral instability at the rear, and Seb could live with that while Mark couldn't. At the same time it was reported earlier in the year that Mark could handle high-speed understeer, Seb couldn't.

But when the car is to his liking IMO he's probably top 1 or 2 quickest guy on the grid.

Again, we obviously don't have much insight, and all we have is an outside perspective, so my take on this is probably as good as yours. All of this is very difficult to judge because some malhandling cars are not visibly struggling, and may just look slow.

To quote one of the more respected ex-members of the forum,

Please also keep in mind, that it is difficult to "see" a car understeering if the understeer is small.
A good driver will just "know" that this is the limit, and don´t drive faster.
So it (the understeer) becomes the "limiting factor", but you can´t really "see" it from the outside or from onboard videos.
The car/driver is just slow(er), then some others.
You can only "see" understeer in more extreme form, when the driver keeps trying/pushing despite the understeer, making the US worse in the process. IMO

[WhiteBlue]

All you have to do is compare the difference between Vettel and Webber to the difference between Alonso and Massa to see that Alonso is head and shoulders above Vettel when it comes to getting the most out of the car.

That doesn't make sense to me. Webber is obviously not the same individual as Massa. Massa and Webber have not even been team mates at any time. So how can we use them to compare Vettel and Alonso if we have no information how they stack up against each other. I'm afraid that isn't going to advance us in the discussion of the odds of Alonso loosing the WDC.

[bhall]

Well, like you...

[...]
I wanted to put the record straight on that point.

Beyond that, Alonso has already lost it, which means the conversation is moot anyway.

There's no need for a head-to-head comparison between Webber and Massa to judge their relative worth. Webber is a nine-time race winner who's been a serious contender for the World Championship (2010). Massa is an 11-time race winner who's been a very serious contender for the World Championship (2008). What one lacks in outright pace (Webber), the other lacks in adaptability (Massa). Accordingly, I'm comfortable giving both similar marks.

Now look at the results of the season so far. If the totals alone aren't enough for you, note that Alonso's wins came on days when he was the only driver to score points for his team. That's not true of Vettel. As you've noted, there have been times this year when Vettel wasn't even the best driver on his own team. That's not true of Alonso.

If we take the average difference between teammates as an estimation of a car's overall strength, the RB8 has been better than the F2012 all year long.

I only mention these things because I don't think we should be so dismissive of what has been derisively termed a "stereotype."

[Gerhard Berger]

Isn't it something like 9-7 between him and Webber in qualifying this year? and that's not even taking into account the problems Webber had at Barcelona and Valencia in qualifying. No doubt he has had some outstanding qualifyings this year such as Valencia or Monza, but i don't think he's some qualifying master as some make him out to be. Alonso and Hamilton are at least as good in this respect.

With all due respect, you are obviously not aware of the facts. Webber had 11 poles from 194 F1 races. Vettel has 34 poles from 97 races. Considering that they had equal equipment for almost all of Vettel's career the figures speak a very clear language. Webber has a 5.% pole ratio to his races and Vettel has 35%. Some people would conclude that Vettel is something like 7 times better at driving a qualifying lap. One could try to just consider their time at Re Bull together but that would not yield very different data I would bet. Perhaps the ratio would drop to five times in favour of Vettel. But what difference it would make to the bottom line. Vettel is a much more superior qualifier than Webber and that doesn't take into account how difficult it has lately been for Webber to convert poles into race leading laps. Vettel is brilliant in that regard. If you give him half a chance he will usually take it by the neck and wring it to the last drop.
Alonso has different skills. He also qualifies well but he is superior in reading a race and using his vast experience and race craft to exploit opportunities without making mistakes. Both contenders have a lot going for them. I think the development departments will make the difference in this championship race.

I was only referring to Webber and Vettel's head to head qualifying from this year (since that is what i thought we were talking about), rather than their entire careers.

I do agree with your last paragraph.

[raymondu999]

If we take the average difference between teammates as an estimation of a car's overall strength, the RB8 has been better than the F2012 all year long.

I don't understand what you mean with this sentence. Could you please clarify? Why is the average difference equal to the strength? IMO taking all of the quickest laptimes of said car would be a better indication - ie Webber's Korea pole time is a better indication of what the RB8 was capable off, compared to Seb's P2 qualifying time.

I only mention these things because I don't we should be so dismissive of what has been derisively termed a "stereotype."

Stereotypes are tricky. While you are correct that stereotypes shouldn't be stereotyped as a fallacy (which stereotypes can tend to be stereotyped to) but at the same time, stereotypes CAN be a fallacy. Personally I think it's better to just judge each situation as they come along.

I was only referring to Webber and Vettel's head to head qualifying from this year

Why not include past years? 2009-2011 I mean. They were in the same machinery those years as well. What is differentiating 2012 from this?

Also I don't believe that the sheer numbers of the qualifying head-to-head tells the full story. The opposition needs to be looked at as well. For example if you had Driver A, who has a 20-0 record of outqualifying Karthikeyan, versus Driver B, who has a 7-13 record of qualifying against Hamilton, I'd say Driver B is a better qualifier.

[bhall]

I don't understand what you mean with this sentence. Could you please clarify? Why is the average difference equal to the strength? IMO taking all of the quickest laptimes of said car would be a better indication - ie Webber's Korea pole time is a better indication of what the RB8 was capable off, compared to Seb's P2 qualifying time.

I think laptimes are tricky, because a fast lap is often reliant upon factors a driver cannot control. It's better to look at the whole picture.

How about this? Let's say the ease of extracting potential from a car is best ascertained by the difference between the drivers who drive that car. If the difference is small, then it's safe to assume that drivability is less of an issue than is the case where that difference is large.

Make sense now?

[raymondu999]

Yes it makes sense now, thanks.

I think the choice of word "strength" is a bit clumsy there - I think the drivability is a better word, as you chose in this latest post. If the two HRTs qualified 0.001s apart, into slots 23 and 24, I'd call the car drivable but not very strong...

[WhiteBlue]

As I have already pointed out I see no merit to involve Massa or Webber in the discussion of the WDC race. It allows us no valid conclusions. Even if there were any similarity between Massa and Webber you also have to consider that Massa is almost never racing because when it counts he isn't allowed to. It really is a pointless exercise.

I do agree with your last paragraph.

Nice to see some agreement there. I consider all is said until we get new aspects to discuss in India.

[bhall]

You may not see validity. But, that doesn't mean it's not there.

"Maintain the gap."

[raymondu999]

"Maintain the gap."

Isn't this applicable to both Alonso AND Vettel though? Felipe Massa was told the exact same words in Korea.

[JimClarkFan]

I don't think Seb needs a quick car - I think he needs a car that is balanced to his liking, sort of like Button in a waym though with a different preference in terms of balance, and probably with a wider operating window. In that sense I personally don't think that he can outdo someone in a tricky car that needs to be driven in a specific way - or a car that has a different balance to his liking. He can probably drive around it if it weren't too bad - like how he was struggling with understeer in his Hungary and Suzuka pole laps in 2011.

Generally though I think his issues are more easily balanced through setup - ie as long as the car doesn't have any trick/funky aerodynamics (such as the sidepod tunnels of the RB8 that were reportedly stalling at certain speeds earlier in the year) he can dial it to his liking through setup.

Personally I think Vettel is able to drive around some (not all) deficiencies, which makes it tricky to judge. Mark said in 2010 for example that the 2009 Red Bull at times had a bit of lateral instability at the rear, and Seb could live with that while Mark couldn't. At the same time it was reported earlier in the year that Mark could handle high-speed understeer, Seb couldn't.

But when the car is to his liking IMO he's probably top 1 or 2 quickest guy on the grid.

That is pretty much my thinking on the issue as well. I think in a good car, he is very very fast. However I think he is much less adaptable in his driving than an Alonso or Lewis both of whom have shown they can qualify and race a crap car in a placement much higher than it otherwise should be.

Hypothetically if you put Alonso, Ham and Vettel in a theoretically perfectly balanced car I believe they will be very evenly matched. Put them in a car that is poorly balanced with unpredictable under and/or oversteer and it will be Alonso and Hamilton setting the fast times. I just don't think Seb can handle a car like that, anywhere near as much as Alonso and Ham.

That is the biggest thing missing from Seb, I don't think he as adaptable as the aforementioned.

[bhall]

"Maintain the gap."

Isn't this applicable to both Alonso AND Vettel though? Felipe Massa was told the exact same words in Korea.

It was more than just an allusion to team orders. It seems like some of us maintain a gap of understanding of things that don't fit neatly within predefined narratives, and that's how stereotypes start in the first place.