Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
The China one is a puzzle unless it was said at the time that Hamilton pitted because his wets were worn so I reasoned he pitted because of the tyres rather than the fuel but I take on board this needs to be altered now.
Alonso carrying more fuel is a generalisation of the season were Hughes states that the official stats that have Hamilton ahead are wrong because it doesn't take into account fuel adjusted times.
I do have a list of tracks with the time lost per lap of fuel so I can make the calculations, at the time I made the fuel adjustment calculation I didn't have the list so I averaged out 1 lap of fuel equals 0.1s, I think I actually obtained the list a year later were I saw that the overall average is more like 0.08s.
My average had Hamilton 0.069s ahead whereas Hughes has Alonso 0.016s ahead which is quite a big difference, also I have seen other people making these calculations which are very similar to mine which is why I questioned Hughes figures in the first place.
I will work all this out and I will post it perhaps tomorrow when I should have the time to do it.
For China-I thought you said they never pit while still carrying fuel when talking to Exediron?
Alonso carrying more fuel is your own generalisation, Hughes is talking about the official results as in 10-7 to Lewis doesn't take into account fuel correction rather than any official avg. gap not taking it into account. There is no "official" avg. gap as far as I know but officially Lewis won 10-7. (His fuel adjusted score being 7-7).
An avg fuel penalty across the year of only 0.08 sounds way way to low. One of the links I shared shows Bahrain as being worth 0.035 per kg with fuel consumption being 2.6kg per lap in 2009 (BBC) . This F1 fanatic one for 2016 cars shows time penalty of 0.054 at 1.7kg per lap.
https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-informat ... nformation We really need 2007/8 era estimates and I can't find any unfortunately.
Like I said James Allen also had Alonso marginally quicker at the time on his ITV forum (No idea if it was as a % though, last time I looked for it there was only a dead link) so Hughes isn't saying anything new. I'd bet my last buck there is just a difference in fuel correction calculations between you and I'd trust theirs more tbh as he states...
Mark Hughes wrote:
A mix of all of those, Anthony. For fuel effect calculations, my own data from the time, collected from the teams.
Comments section.
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... statisticsRegarding China this was over 10 years ago so I can't remember why I did it, I didn't make notes because it was just for my own personal use, so I'm guessing it was because his wet tyres were badly worn which can lose performance faster than dry tyres which hardly degraded, and he got brought in early, you yourself mentioned that Dennis said Alonso lost 2 tenths in qualifying which equates to 2 laps of fuel but Hamilton came in 3 laps before Alonso so it sounds like he did come in early which basically might have threw me out then?
For what it's worth here are the fuel correction figures.
Effect of 10kg of fuel on laptimes (per lap)
Spa 0.48s = 0.168
Melbourne 0.46s = 0.115
Sepang 0.44s = 0.111
Shanghai 0.44s = 0.113
Hungaroring 0.43s = 0.086
Sakhir 0.4s = 0.098
Catalunya 0.42s = 0.093
Magny-Cours 0.42s = 0.087
Nurburgring 0.39s = 0.091
Silverstone 0.35s = 0.084
Interlagos 0.34s = 0.063
Monza 0.33s = 0.088
Istanbul Park 0.32s = 0.082
Fuji 0.32s = 0.075
Montreal 0.31s = 0.063
Monte Carlo 0.3s = 0.048
Indianapolis 0.27s = 0.052
Fuel burnt per lap (in kg.)
Spa 3.50
Monza 2.66
Shanghai 2.57
Istanbul Park 2.55
Sepang 2.53
Melbourne 2.5
Sakhir 2.45
Silverstone 2.39
Fuji 2.35
Nurburgring 2.33
Catalunya 2.22
Magny-Cours 2.08
Montreal 2.04
Hungaroring 2
Indianapolis 1.93
Interlagos 1.85
Monte Carlo 1.59
The number after the equals signs is the lap time per lap of fuel calculated by dividing the top number by 10 and then multiplying by the bottom number, the average is 0.085s so yes it is that low.
I've gone through it all and the more accurate fuel calculation plus using % differences for track lengths alters very little it just makes Hamilton 0.007s quicker than my initial calculations.
The only difference is leaving out the 3 races which Hughes did which benefited Hamilton 2-1 and the China readjustment which gives Alonso an extra 0.334s, then I have it as Hamilton being 0.034s quicker overall as opposed to Hughes having Alonso 0.016s quicker.
Apart from that am I lead to believe that for some reason Hamilton ran his car lower on fuel in the races than Alonso because Alonso has 8 laps of fuel not used which basically equates to over 20 seconds of lost performance in the races which just wasn't the way to go racing.
I could reveal all the data, the qualifying times are easy to check, when the drivers stopped for their first pit stops perhaps not as easy but I feel it's sort of wasting my time because Hughes will be very much the one to be right despite him not actually supplying any hard data.
With China I'm just highlighting why talking in absolutes doesn't work. In the post I mentioned it's possible for strat reasons to stop earlier you replied nobody stopped earlier but then you mentioned China and assuming stopping was tyre related instead. You see how frustrating that is? You yourself had an example of what you thought was someone stopping while still carrying fuel yet you have to tell everyone in absolutes that nobody did it. (I got the Ron quote from here..
Anyway I do appreciate you showing your figures but it raises a couple of questions, they don't match the BBC one from 09 so are they from 07/8 cars,yeah? Also you mention it might not be easy to provide when they first stopped so can I ask how you worked it out then? Can I assume you haven't double checked the others after being out in China by 3 laps but correct about Brazil from your own notes? Small differences could lie there perhaps. To find the China and Brazil one I googled F1 China(Or Brazil) 2007,BBC as it happened,for what it's worth.
Either way I still think it will be a small difference in the calculations rather than assuming one was carrying more or less fuel to that extent. It doesn't take much to be out to get a 0.050s swing does it. As Exediron mentions, it just highlights how close they were really but yes I'd obviously favour Hughes's figures as they are from data from the teams. He also mentions only using comparable laps not necessarily their last in Q3 so there could also be something there where you're using different gaps but yeah without his info there's not a lot else to say as without it I can only guess where the differences lay.
He does answer questions in his comments section though.