That sounds like a prophecy right now

are you talking for a collective (or why else do you use we)?

there is a guy who posted another calculation in this thread, which says that even fuel corrected (nothing really worth looking, especially in monaco) alonso was ON THAT ONE LAP faster.
but as i said, alonso was on all three days fastest, drove faster in race, and deserved the win.

any suggestions that alonso just won because he was lighter is unfair, coz in other days and sessions he was faster too! (and the better strategy was always given to the faster guy in mclaren 2007, as alonso was faster he got the better strategy, if we are saying that there is a zero sum game regarding the strategies!)
So dont try to belittle alonsos achievement in monaco 2007 (that is trolling!)!

http://mclaren.com/home

Check out the Silverstone training video. Lewis looks to be irritated by losing to Button, holding up his car and not shaking hands initially.
I bet this is what annoyed Alonso when he beat him fairly and Hamilton turned into a petulant child like that.

I know i'd have trouble working professionally with someone with that kind of attitude.

I guess you mean this post: http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=4428570 ?

It contains 2 errors, I believe:

1. It states 1 lap of fuel at Monaco is worth 0.025s - this is incorrect, it is 1kg of fuel is worth 0.025s.

2. It credits Hamilton with only 2 laps of fuel more than Alonso in qualifying (based on what happened in the race), whereas from the FIA report we know that it was 5 laps of fuel in qualy.

Seriously is that what you actually see in that video? What I see is 2 drivers having a laugh and taking the mickey with each other. It does seem that no matter what some do someone will try and fidn something negative about it, and when all else fails twist the event to suit.

i am not sure why do you want to discuss those uncertain fuel load informations?
is that any "curcial" statistics!

how much fuel had lewis with him? can you give me that stat

P.S.: i am not sure if that was that guy!

5 laps more fuel as confirmed by the FIA. http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/press_relea.../300507-01.html

i am not asking that, i am asking about his fuel load in kg!

Well The FIA CONFIRMED it is 5 more - so what difference does it make how much they had?

HAHAHAHAHA

The fuel load information comes from the FIA. In 07 the FIA knew the amount of fuel in each car in Q3. I think the 5 laps of extra fuel stat is therefore pretty certain.

The other two have some element of uncertainty. The fuel used per lap comes from Williams and is for 09. I doubt that, especially with engine homologation, that it would be much different from McLaren in 07. The time cost per kilo is an ITV estimate also for 09 - I don't know what source they had to base that on, but think it's reasonable to assume it would be reliable and, again, I don't see a reason for there to be a vast difference between 07 and 09.

I would also note that the figure from the calculations based on the above is 1.65x the amount Hamilton needed to be on pole. So the "uncertain" figures would need to be more than 40% out for the conclusion to be incorrect. I think the assumptions are safe enough within a 40% error margin.


If you are going to criticise the calculation I produced, and fully sourced, on the basis of someone having done a different one, you might have the decency to have checked that other calculation ...

it allows us to calculate!

Multiply the Williams data on kg of fuel used per lap around Monaco (2.58kg) by 5 to get your figure (12.9kg difference). I linked to all this in my original post and set it out quite clearly.

1. and again, if this stats are so unreliable why do we use them here!
2. are those stats crucial (and if yes, to say what?)

It's about 13KG more which is about 0.32 time difference..

You lot do realise that the 2007 Monaco Grand Prix happened over three years ago?

Just lol at your summation. Can I ask, did you watch that video with the intention of bashing Lewis? Because all I saw when I watched it was two current team-mates joking about playing with a scaletrix set. And by the way, why did you post it in the Alonso thread, really relevant isn't it ?

I am not saying they are unreliable. I am pointing out that even if they are a little unreliable it makes no difference to the conclusion, they would have to be very unreliable for that to happen.

As examples, on the basis of a 0.180 difference being needed:

1. Assuming the time cost per kilo of 0.023s is spot on - there would have to be 7.826kg of fuel extra in Hamilton's car. Dividing that by the 5 laps we knew he had gives 1.56kg per lap. The Williams figure for 09 is 2.58kg per lap. Do you really think that the 09 Williams took 2.58kg of fuel to lap around Monaco whereas the 07 McLaren only took 1.55kg?

2. Assuming the kg per lap is spot on, we get a 12.9kg difference. With 0.180 needed that would mean a minimum of 0.014s per lap. The ITV estimate was 0.023s. Do you think their estimate (I assume based on discussions with team insiders) was nearly double the reality?


What do you mean by crucial?

I have only presented them because abc was derided for his statement that, on the same strategy, Hamilton could have beaten Alonso. Given the statistics I've presented, I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion to come to.

Probably thought there was more chance of finding some like minded bashers here.

no i mean how much in total.

after that source 2.58 x 31 = 79.98 (~80)

1kg/lap costs about 0.023 (itv)


70x 0.023= 1,61s (time difference to car with just fuel for 4 laps)

that means if we take hamiltons 1.15.905 - 1,61 --> ideal time 1.14.3
the fastest lap of qualy was 1.15.431 set by alonso with low fuel, we dont know how much exactly but it was very low!
whether 1kg/lap is to high or there are other explanations why no driver couldnt even achieve a time near or under 1.15!

This is a joke, right?

so your whole explanation is just based on 1 lap
why dont look at whole weekend where hamilton was always (a little bit) slower!

Well, then you probably have an attitude problem yourself.

Those Lewis / Jense videos always look a bit too friendly (not to use the word 'artificial') to me. This one included.

The qualification lap in Moncao is pretty crucial. Passing is quite tough there, I've heard.

I think he's making the point that if hamilton was on the same strategy as Alonso he would've been on pole and as anyone who has watched F1 it is very difficult to overtake the man in front.

but it is impossible to judge just on ONE LAP, why dont we take q2 into account, both on same fuel load, alonso faster!
and as i said the 0.023s/kg are to much especially in monaco!

Why is that funny? Not claiming he would beat him, but they were thereabouts in terms of fuel-corrected speed - it could have happened.

Sadly I think not .

so the faster guy (as proven on friday and in saturday till q3) got the better strategy!

no if we take other fp or q2 into account!

thats from williams in 2009 - it's probably more in 2007 as the 18-000 rev limit wasnt there and the cars were pushinf 21-000 revs!

Where do you get thr 70 from?????

Do you have any sources for bolded part?

All I've heard is that better strategy was switched from race to race (I think that Alonso also said that, not just McLaren guys). I just am not 100% sure if it started after Monaco or straight away into season.

21000 revs in 2007

and isnt there a difference between teams on that stat? (regarding the engine they use and how they car react about having more fuel!)

dennis said the faster guy in q2 gets better strategy!

80kg lewis had

70 kg = (80 kg lewis had - 10 kg lewis need (for 4 laps) in monaco setting an ideal --> fuel corrected time!)

Because it is Q3 that determines grid position. It's all ifs and buts anyway. No one is presenting anything as definitive except for you. I am saying there was a possibility, had they been on the same strategy, that Hamilton would have won. Note: possibility. No one knows anything for sure because it didn't happen like that. But the numbers from Q3 suggest it was a possibility.


From my very first post on this subject:

Point is - he wasn't able to race Alonso due to strategy change, and he obviously didn't like that. And you can't blame him for that because in that short time he gained massive support because most people have seen that he is a better driver then Alonso.

Any sources for that? I know that Hungary incident was triggered because Hamilton took advantage that was supposed to belong to Alonso, and everyone there when explaining the incident claimed that this is switched from race to race.

I am with you, if alonso was slower on that weekend in monaco 2007, hamilton would have had a possibility to win!
But as Alonso was faster, there was no way hamilton could have won!

i will try to find one, but it was decided after q2, no switch!

You are deliberately misrepresenting his post.

No you are not with me as I am saying that if they had the same amount of fuel in Q3 Hamilton would have had a possibility to win. So there was a way he could have won, other than Alonso being slower.

I have no idea how I can spell this out any clearer to you. I am unsure whether you have deliberately misrepresented what I am saying (in which case, it is very poor form) or are incapable of understanding the points I am making (in which case, as they are being spoon fed, ...).

I'm not sure how it worked up to Monaco, but (iirc) from then onwards they both had exactly the same fuel for Q3 regardless of whoever was faster in Q2.

Ferrari ran a system of "fastest in Q2 = first choice of fuel load for Q3" system between Massa and Kimi - at least in 08. You could tell as whoever was quicker in Q2 was lighter in Q3.

hey everything is cool!
the thing is, hamilton was very fast at that weekend, but he was slightly, just slightly slower than alonso.
nothing bad about that!
i find it ridiculous (nothing against you, i mean for others who have published that!) to come up with an irrelevant q3 fuel corrected time-stat to say that lewis would have had a possibility to win if he was on same strategy as alonso was!
look at the whole weekend and you will see, lewis was just slightly slower!

Can you prove he wouldn't have had a possibility to win, then?

i have something different in mind! (i hope i can find those articles, if you are faster, even better!)

i am just judging on the speed both showed the whole weekend (friday, saturday, sunday)! especially also on the long runs!

FP times are not and never will be proof of anything since the drivers have different programs and setups to work with.

Q1 LH was nearly 0.4 seconds quicker than FA

Q2 (which has about as much meaning as Q1) FA was just 0.048 seconds quicker than LH not even a tenth.

So I can't agree with you that FA was quicker over the weekend particularly when Q3 fuel corrected shows LH faster and so do the Q1 and Q2 over all times shows LH as being faster if they show anything at all.

It doesn't warrant ridicule to claim that there was a 'possibility' for Hamilton to win on a different strategy. Especially with some evidential information.

You can no more prove it impossible than others can claim it a certainty.