Is Mclaren having problem with tyres?

[Chatters]

Originally Posted by Greenback

because human are generally bias and some are even more so than others.

And you're definately the most unbiased and fairest person this forum has ever seen aren't you...

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Greenback

No, I think comparison statistic is more accurate and reliable than listening thousands of "expert" opinion, because human are generally bias and some are even more so than others.

Damn right, you see it all the time. However misunderstanding of numbers is often used for the bias. Fortunately, as Chatters has noticed, we have people like yourself who campaign for objective reasoning.
As for watching the races, no. I've already watched them, watching something twice isn't going to bring me to your opinion on this - unless this is some form of torture to brainwash me.

It appears to me that Ferrari are the ones that are ahead in this aspect, rather than McLaren being behind the others. BMW aren't at Ferrari's level in terrms of looking after their tyres. Although it isn't night and day for any of them. This is my main point.

As for the relative performance of BMW and McLaren. It strikes me that the situation can be simply explained by BMW being faster than McLaren. Radical, I know.
Indeed the main reason Ferrari pulls away over a stint is that the car is quicker. The durability of the tyres is minor in comparison with that.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Greenback

I really doubt Mclaren can afford to be complacent just because of their success during Feb08 Barcelona testing. If we compare the best lap time of Lewis and Massa between Feb and Apr08 testing, you will see that Ferrari and Massa have both made a huge improvement in terms of timing.

Lewis
Best lap time in Feb08 : 1.21.234
Best lap time in Apr08 : 1.20.452
Time gained : 0.782 sec

Massa
Best lap time in Feb08 : 1.22.512
Best lap time in Apr08 : 1.20.283
Time gained : 2.229 sec

From Autosport.com testing centre:

Feb

Date	1st	2nd	3rd	19th	20th	21st	22nd	25th	26th	27th
FM	-	-	-	-	1:30.673	1:22.213	1:20.508	-	1:22.513	1:22.286
LH	1:22.263	1:22.135	1:22.459	-	-	-	-	1:22.276	1:21.234	1:22.011

Apr

Date	14th	15th	16th	17th
FM	1:18.339	1:20.283	-	-
LH	-	1:20.452	1:20.591	-

Massa's time on the 18th April was set on slicks.
So using different numbers we have:
LH improvement: 0.782s
FM improvement: 0.225s
So by your simple logic McLaren have made the bigger step!

However, these numbers aren't directly comparable. They were set on different days and even a superficial glance shows that conditions weren't the same on each day and each team was running different programmes each day. You did at least use times from days they were both running, although this wasn't explained in your analysis. However reports from these days show immediately that the programmes for each driver was different. For instance your choice of fastest time for Massa was set on a day he was doing a race distance and spun in the middle of it causing a red flag. I am also uncomfortable in using only one driver's time.

Mark Hughes-esque, except I've never doubted he started from the right numbers.

IMHO best testing times are only vaguely indicative, and can not be relied upon. Certainly not to three decimal places. I wouldn't compare FL of two drivers and be confident either was representative to 1s. Especially if sampled as above. So what this post has done is use the same logic to show something different by using all the available data and, most importantly, comment on the poor reliability of this reasoning. Thus poo pooing my own conclusions too! [Vic Reeves voice] We just can't tell [/Vic Reeves voice] from what is available to us!

Finally, the thread is about how the tyres are lasting over a race stint; FLs are the largely irrelevant to this!

[Greenback]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Damn right, you see it all the time. However misunderstanding of numbers is often used for the bias. Fortunately, as Chatters has noticed, we have people like yourself who campaign for objective reasoning.
As for watching the races, no. I've already watched them, watching something twice isn't going to bring me to your opinion on this - unless this is some form of torture to brainwash me.

It appears to me that Ferrari are the ones that are ahead in this aspect, rather than McLaren being behind the others. BMW aren't at Ferrari's level in terrms of looking after their tyres. Although it isn't night and day for any of them. This is my main point.

As for the relative performance of BMW and McLaren. It strikes me that the situation can be simply explained by BMW being faster than McLaren. Radical, I know.
Indeed the main reason Ferrari pulls away over a stint is that the car is quicker. The durability of the tyres is minor in comparison with that.

I am still waiting for Chatter to provide more information as to why he is so sure that Mclaren is not having any problem with tyres. you are not thinking that I will just take 'NO' for an answer do you?

Adam, what exactly are trying to say when you say that the way I am comparing numbers (lap times) is bias and at the same time saying that Ferrari are ahead of the rest?

I am surprise that you didnt notice lewis was struggling with his front left tyres at Sepang and Heikki struggling with the softer compound tyres at Bahrain before setting the fastest lap with hard compound tyres.

So Adam, care to give some of your expert opinion on this week Barcelona test? What do you reckon Mclaren guys were doing? good?

[Adam43]

What am I trying to say?
1) Ferrari are treating their tyres better than McLaren. My point being that Ferrari should get credit rather than McLaren are having problems. Although the situation is just relative. We're probably in agreement here, just a perspective thing. Just because we may almost think a similar thing, doesn't mean I can't think that your evidence to back it up is rubbish. Or that the emphasis you give it isn't flawed. (There having problems so they aren't introducing any major changes?).
2) Your testing time analysis was flawed (2.2s gain, please), is irrelevant to this thread (one lap, not a stint), and doesn't mean much anyway (it is testing).

Those points are included in my replies already, as are the answers to your other questions. And finally, my only expertise here is recognising what I can't read into testing rather than being able to read something into it!

As the only possible direction that this can have is to go off on another irrelevant tangent, I'll let you sum up and leave it there.

[RaiseYourFist]

I think that the Ferrari was even a bit too light on its tires which is why Massa could only qualify 4th in Melbourne, while the McLaren of Heikki atleast was very rough on its tires in Bahrain. We will find out who has found the perfect setup in the coming races.

[Adam43]

That is an interesting point. Last year we had the situation where Ferrari struggled (relatively) in Q and performed better in the race. Perhaps things are similar to last year!

[Greenback]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

What am I trying to say?
1) Ferrari are treating their tyres better than McLaren. My point being that Ferrari should get credit rather than McLaren are having problems. Although the situation is just relative. We're probably in agreement here, just a perspective thing. Just because we may almost think a similar thing, doesn't mean I can't think that your evidence to back it up is rubbish. Or that the emphasis you give it isn't flawed. (There having problems so they aren't introducing any major changes?).
2) Your testing time analysis was flawed (2.2s gain, please), is irrelevant to this thread (one lap, not a stint), and doesn't mean much anyway (it is testing).

Those points are included in my replies already, as are the answers to your other questions. And finally, my only expertise here is recognising what I can't read into testing rather than being able to read something into it!

As the only possible direction that this can have is to go off on another irrelevant tangent, I'll let you sum up and leave it there.

Reason why I didnt use Massa timing set on 22Feb is because, Ferrari is the only team on track, and Ferrari technical director Aldo Costa claim that "We've used the track alone today so we don't have realistic lap times"

[RotorFan]

Originally Posted by climb

Fantastic: the typical way to speak alot and say nothing

Dennis-speak has rubbed off onto him

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

It appears to me that Ferrari are the ones that are ahead in this aspect, rather than McLaren being behind the others. BMW aren't at Ferrari's level in terrms of looking after their tyres.

Why do you say that? Wasn't it BMW setting fastest laps towards the end of the last couple races?

[Adam43]

I don't think you can pay too much attention to laps at the end of the race. At that point the Ferrari drivers had it wrapped up. This is just a measure of who had back off more.

However it isn't 100% clear. The dominant aspect in lap times during a stint is the overall performance of the car. The durability of the tyres is a secondary effect.

I think that no team is having serious problems with the tyres, or are head and shoulders above the rest. If BMW or McLaren find 0.5s they will be ahead of Ferrari even if their tyre durability stays the same. If they keep the same ultimate pace and improve their durability by any realistic measure they will still be behind Ferrari.

Which is sort of my point in the thread. I don't think the effect is that great at the moment. As such it is actually difficult to judge who is ahead or behind.

[Gt_R]

I believe the only difference is how teams chose their strategic direction when designing their car.

Last year, with spec tyres, Ferrari took to a long wheelbase + aero-dependent route while Mclaren opted for a shortwheel base + mechanical wheelbase route. The difference is very distinct.

Ferrari excels in long-distance running with good tyre wear, and high speed corners.They were struggling on getting heat into their tyres for qualifying, however.

Mclaren took quite an opposite. They were fast in qualifying, getting the best from tyres in the 1 lap. However, they wear the tyres faster and hence found it more marginal over race distances.

This year, Mclaren extended their wheelbase abit and Ferrari shortened theirs. This is to counter and correct the "problems" last year - "problem" as in relative to their nearest competitor.

But from the first 3 races, it seems as if there is still a hint of the traits. Ferrari is aero-dependent and has good long-distance tyre-wear management. Mclaren has better grip/traction and getting the best from tyres faster.

It's not a trouble imho, but rather just a trade-off which the team chose to strategise their race. Mclaren's "trouble" with tyres in race works to their benefit in qualifying. Ferrari's good wear in race stints come with a small compromise with regards to getting heat in tyres during Q. We could easily have termed this tread "is Ferrari having trouble with tyres in qualifying?"

All teams would love to get the max grip from tyres after 2 laps, and maintain that grip for the whole stint of 20 laps. but it's just not possible to have the best of everything. It's just down to who achieving a better compromise. Suspension settings and wings can only go somewhat to help alter the inherent habits within the operational scope of the car.

[Greenback]

Here is a quote from Brundle on ITV website.

"At the moment I believe Ferrari are about two-tenths per lap faster than McLaren, and more importantly they can get the softer tyres to last longer. Better traction and less tyre degradation is a winning recipe."

[RaiseYourFist]

Wow 2 tenths a lap? that seems alot, i think maybe on the softest tires that could be true but in Spain and most of europe really bridgestone use their harder tires which could help McLaren.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by RaiseYourFist

Wow 2 tenths a lap? that seems alot, i think maybe on the softest tires that could be true but in Spain and most of europe really bridgestone use their harder tires which could help McLaren.

Indeed.

I think that in particular,Canada and Monaco use the softer tyres.But McLaren didn't do too badly at those races last season.Barcelona is very hard on tyres and so the medium and hard compounds will be used there.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Indeed.

I think that in particular,Canada and Monaco use the softer tyres.But McLaren didn't do too badly at those races last season.Barcelona is very hard on tyres and so the medium and hard compounds will be used there.

More info.

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2008/...-at-barcelona/

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Greenback

Here is a quote from Brundle on ITV website.

"At the moment I believe Ferrari are about two-tenths per lap faster than McLaren, and more importantly they can get the softer tyres to last longer. Better traction and less tyre degradation is a winning recipe."

That is exactly how I would have phrased it (and have done above). Ferrari are doing a better job in getting their tyres to last.

Although I would put it at a little more than 0.2s inherently.

It is a shame that you would dismiss his view:

Originally Posted by Greenback

No, I think comparison statistic is more accurate and reliable than listening thousands of "expert" opinion, because human are generally bias and some are even more so than others.

(that is a joke).

[Greenback]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

That is exactly how I would have phrased it (and have done above). Ferrari are doing a better job in getting their tyres to last.

Although I would put it at a little more than 0.2s inherently.

It is a shame that you would dismiss his view:
(that is a joke).

I thought you are in agreement with Chatter's NO reply concerning the subject? Mclaren's goal is to win the championship this year, are they not in trouble if they are losing out to Ferrari on tyre wear? or are you in agreement with Alonso when he say that Mclaren only look like a winning team?

[Greenback]

Originally Posted by RaiseYourFist

Wow 2 tenths a lap? that seems alot, i think maybe on the softest tires that could be true but in Spain and most of europe really bridgestone use their harder tires which could help McLaren.

I believe brundle is referring to the softer of the 2 tires not softest. which could be Medium if the tires strategy for the race is medium and hard. I remember seeing LH front left tires wearing out quite badly at Sepang when running the marked medium tires

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Greenback

I thought you are in agreement with Chatter's NO reply concerning the subject? Mclaren's goal is to win the championship this year, are they not in trouble if they are losing out to Ferrari on tyre wear? or are you in agreement with Alonso when he say that Mclaren only look like a winning team?

No, I was agreeing with Chatters about something else.

[Chatters]

Originally Posted by Greenback

I thought you are in agreement with Chatter's NO reply concerning the subject? Mclaren's goal is to win the championship this year, are they not in trouble if they are losing out to Ferrari on tyre wear? or are you in agreement with Alonso when he say that Mclaren only look like a winning team?

The only reason I haven't replied to you is because you're on my Ignore List. It's only through Adam that I've seen what you posted...!

[Greenback]

Originally Posted by Chatters

The only reason I haven't replied to you is because you're on my Ignore List. It's only through Adam that I've seen what you posted...!

Really?...and you really expect to believe you have something concrete to back up your 'NO'?

[Greenback]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

No, I was agreeing with Chatters about something else.

I hope that has got nothing to do with history..

[Chatters]

Why yes, I do expect to believe me.

[Greenback]

Did Lewis said they have problem with the softer compound tyres and thats why they did a 3 stops strategy in Turkey?

[johnw]

I think he said that Bridgestone told them to do three stops, due to the possibility of a failure like last year.