planetf1.com

Yes. Indeed. One of his remarkable observations:



And no, he doesn't use extra observational knowledge. From the very start of the number crunching article:


He says, in black and white, he can sketch a rough image of the competitive order based on the sheets of the lap times.



Like I said before, I don't question that he's merely trying to sketch a rough image and that he doesn't impose it as the truth. Where am I "vehemently" trying to "ridicule" him? I just consider it a bit of a failed attempt because he didn't take an important factor into account. It's other posters who "vehemently" defend him because he's Gary Anderson and therefore seems to be untouchable or unable to make mistakes.

You can all say what you want, but the only way of "producing a list that reflects pretty well the true competitive order of the new cars" (like he tsays) would be to factor in the tires and THEN say something about the competitive order. Honestly, is there anybody here who disagrees that tires play a big role in lap times? Especially when we're comparing lap times.

My bet is nobody will disagree with that. Then how can a list reflect the true competitive order pretty well when this is not taken into account?

Honestly, I respect him and he is a profoundly interesting guy to follow (there's a lot to be learned from him), but he kind of dropped the ball here.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

Sarcasm... Nice!

I would like to point out 2 'remarkable observations' you might have missed when I first read the article. Firstly it was written by Andrew Benson not Gary Anderson. Secondly it listed Lewis Hamilton as McLaren

Now who knows what Gary actually told him but I do know it would have been longer than what is there that's for sure. Now that you now know who wrote the article could it be that he has, intentionally or otherwise, missed details out what Gary might have said or would have felt important if he wrote the article? Could it be that Gary forgot to mention it to him during the interview?

Get in touch with one of them and find out. Until then you are dealing in chinese whispers my friend




I disregarded you opinion because you forgot to take the above into account. Here is my real argument....

"because it's NOT Gary Anderson !!1!!11!"

Strange post there. First (in your previous post) you argue the opinion of others don't hold ground because Gary Anderson is more knowledgeable, now you're saying he might have been misquoted? And where exactly does the article place Hamilton at Mclaren?

Now even if Anderson was misquoted or information was left out, it's still pretty obvious tires were not taken into account for composing the list, hence the list can never be "a list that reflects pretty well the true competitive order of the new cars".

I was asking for arguments relating to the contents, not to the form. The article is what it is, we're discussing that, not what might have been left out or what might have been quoted wrong.


edit: by the way, I didn't put the downforce quote there to be sarcastic. I put it there because that statement for me pretty much indicates the RBR looked pretty strong on track and that would contradict the argument that "he know because he was at the track unlike us".

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

Even Gary Anderson would not be stupid enough to not consider tire compounds. I think he considered them in his calcs but just did not mention them in the article.

No, they are not considered in the calcs. The methodic used is described in the article.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

Some find the article helpful, others don't. Either way, no point in jamming your view down others' throats.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

Speaking for myself, I'm not trying to force my opinion on others. But when I'm being mocked without arguments for expressing my opinion, I will answer to that...

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

Trust me, my friends, I'm not perturbed. Yes, I did attack Anderson. I never disagreed with his conclusions, but rather the quality of his journalism. But the poor guy is contracted to write articles for news services that emphasize personalities rather than dry facts. In the world of Formula One, the car and technology is what determines the outcome, not some romantic notion that the hero in his magnificent steed overcomes villains and obstacles to put in a heroic performance to grasp victory despite overwhelming odds.

If the news services, tabloids, BBC, Sky, and anyone else involved just printed what is truly relevant in performance and outcome, it would be very dry reading, and they would lose readership. What sells papers is things like twittergate, driver lifestyle, and all the imaginary soap opera created just to juice up the sales figures. Personally I consider it hack journalism, with journalists asking stupid questions to elicit emotional responses in order to garner readership.

Mr Anderson probably had no choice, if he discussed the true and relevant details it would be dry reading, and definitely would not have attracted attention and viewership compared to the tried and tested method of dragging out the perpetual argument of which driver is better than another, or the pecking order.

To be honest I'm saddened and somewhat distressed when some forum members dismiss or even attack an other person's position just because they are not directly connected to Formula One. But many intelligent insights and concepts come from those outside the sport, and are accurate and relevant. For instance a friend of mine put forth a technical concept about ducting the air from underneath the nose to a position on top. One year later, Ferrari came out with their F2008 with that very same feature.

That concept did not originate from Maranello, but instead from a very intelligent and socially responsible person who had just survived the cruelty of war. And there are numerous examples, the journalist who discovered the third pedal in the McLaren, the journalist who figured out that Mercedes were running a DDRS, others such as Scarbs, and even POB.

I could ramble on and on, but instead will submit my own article.

Number crunching with Blinky McSquinty

Nope, I already gave my reasons in the first post. I do not know what more you want from me but just to be clear. Knowledge, experience and actually being there are the main factors. Also I have not seen your adjusted time sheet

The second was just to point out the fact you failed to see a key point not related to my first. To highlight the fact that you don't know the facts. Also I think your under the impression that the adjusted times are synonymous with all his conclusions.

Oh and Lewis' team name has since been pointed out and fixed.

Finally, you only have yourself to blame for being mocked. It was you who posted the !!1!!11!!'s insinuating that I have not thought my first post through or just blindly posted it out of a love for Gary, then followed it up with sarcasm.

jay, you can say whatever you want, I have still not seen any substantial argument why my opinion should be disregarded. Not any.

I repeat:


and



and:


Don't bother to reply if you're not going to tell me why I'm wrong instead of saying something that comes down to "you weren't there" or "where is your own list anyway". Both are besides the point for reasons well explained above.

Also, once again: I didn't post that quote out of sarcasm. It was a to-the-point remark about his own observations which seem to directly contradict the nature of the article we're discussing.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

OK no problem ...




JB set his time on day 1, SV day 4. Is there not a fairly big factor you missed in your adjustments?


Edit: Regarding the sarcasm remark I must apologize as I thought the he in your statement was aimed at me, but it does throw up another interesting point... 10% more down force in corners does not necessarily make it a better car as carrying more down force adds more drag as I am sure you are aware.

No. I never said Vettels time was more impressive than Buttons. I'm only saying that list can't "reflect the true competitive order very well" if tires are not taken into account.
And even then, like you say, track conditions play a big role too, but that's a big unknown so I understand why you couldn't put a certain number on it. But you would still have to approach the fuel- and tire-corrected list with the knowledge that Button did it on day 1 and so his time would probably be the most impressive.



Yep, but that has been RBR's game plan for the past years, hasn't it? Lots of downforce, low top speed.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

You know what the funniest thing is... In the case you keep putting forward don't need to take tires into account. Your gripe was how can Anderson say the Bulls were lacking in Jerez without taking tires into account....



Remember writing that page on 1? That was your opinion which I disregarded before you got all offended and posted....



To be honest I still find your original statement very hard to understand and your second deepens my confusion

Combined times
Seb Vettel / 1.18.565 / Hard / Day 4
Jenson Button / 1.18.861 / Hard / Day 1
Sergio Pérez / 1.18.944 / Medium / Day 4
Mark Webber / 1.19.338 / Medium / Day 2

Andersons fully adjusted times (which is fine as you say above)
Sergio Pérez / 1:17.315 / Medium / Day 4
Jenson Button / 1:17.857 / Hard / Day 1
Seb Vettel / 1:18.045 / Hard / Day 4
Mark Webber / 1:18.953 / Medium / Day 2

First thing to notice is the tires, we have 2 on hards 2 on mediums so there is no need to take tires into equation here. Now looking at that I would say it's fairly apparent that the Bulls were not as fast as Mclaren. I would also like to add that even if you did add tires (assuming they have not been already) McLaren would still be ahead 1-2.

Now assuming that Gary was basing his opinion solely on that time sheet, it is legitimate to say Red Bull has work to do. Every car slower than the fastest has work to do. Whether they have already done that work ready to bolt on in the next test is irrelevant.

I don't see this "major fail by Anderson" but a fail by you, hence my dismissal of your original post.

As I said above, I never said Vettels time was more impressive than Buttons (taking track conditions into account).



If they're not sandbagging, ofcourse. And if you really want that statement to be correct, every team has work to do. Even the fastest, as everybody will be packing upgrades for the next test and the order might well be reversed.

But he posted that statement as an indication of how fast everybody is, hence the statement "list that reflects the true competitive order pretty well". And yes, you would still need to take tires into account to even begin to constitute that kind of list. Massa, Rosberg, Grosjean, Raikkonen, Bianchi all put their best times on softs, Button and Vettel on hards, which skews that list to begin with.

So my question to you: how can he then say he constituted a list "that reflects the true competitive order pretty well"?
Surely you can't think Massa's and Rosberg's times are more impressive than Buttons? Or the Lotus' and Bianchi's times more impressive than Vettels?

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

Just as an exercise I went back to testing times for the first 7 testing days in 2011, the year Red Bull displayed overwhelming dominance in the hands of Vettel. I listed the date and venue, and the pecking order of the teams.

1 Feb 2011 Circuit Ricardo Tormo : Red Bull, FI, McLaren, Ferrari, Sauber, Virgin, Renault, Mercedes, STR, Williams, HRT
2 Feb 2011 Circuit Ricardo Tormo : Ferrari, Red Bull, FI, McLaren, Renault, Mercedes, Virgin, Williams, Sauber, STR, HRT, Lotus
3 Feb 2011 Circuit Ricardo Tormo : Renault, FI, McLaren, Red Bull, Ferrari, Virgin, Williams, Sauber, Mercedes, STR, HRT, Lotus
10 Feb 2011 Jerez : Ferrari, Sauber, Red Bull, STR, McLaren, FI, Renault, Mercedes, Lotus, Virgin, Williams
11 Feb 2011 Jerez : Mercedes, Ferrari, McLaren, STR, Red Bull, FI, Sauber, Virgin, Renault, Williams, Lotus
12 Feb 2011 Jerez : Renault, Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Sauber, Red Bull, STR, Lotus, Williams, FI, Virgin
13 Feb 2011 Jerez : Williams, Sauber, Ferrari, STR, Renault, Lotus, Mercedes, Red Bull, McLaren, Virgin, FI.

The WCC standings at end of 2011 season : Red Bull, McLaren, Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault, FI, Sauber, STR, Williams, Lotus, HRT, Virgin.

Some teams improve, some teams sandbag. Just look at Red Bull, and their standngs for each test day. !, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6, 8

So I beg to ask why anyone would waste any time attempting to determine the pecking order from testing since it is obvious that nothing is relevant until the cars meet in Melbourne?

Apart from the obvious answer that the news services need to post something attractive to keep up viewership.

I don't know if your post is aimed at me Blinky because I am not saying that the adjusted time sheet is relevant to anything other than the few days in Jerez. I have a couple of questions though.

1. Did you do what Gary said he does to determine the order?

2. If not then I think you have the pecking order wrong for Jerez 2011

3. If you did would you please send me a link to all the data you worked with.

I agree that Anderson's article was not all-encompassing and that it provided simplified data and focused on times rather than providing other observations, but I don't think it was as poor journalism as you seem to be making out.

There was more analysis in Anderson's article than what you have provided there. He assessed the fastest times based on fuel loads and comparative to long runs as a check, he didn't just cut and paste the fastest times by each driver.

Of course it was written in such a way as to have appeal to a more casual viewer, but it still IMO provided useful information for more involved fans. The process by which he arrived at the times is useful for assessing data as testing further unfolds and the provision of the fuel penalty per lap is also useful. Most significantly IMO it gave a reference point for comparison.

The other thing I'd note is that whilst I get the impression that you don't have particular allegiances and are interested in the bigger picture of Formula 1, most people - even the more involved fans - do have allegiances, and wanting to have a rough idea of what to look for, even if not a clear idea of where there team/driver stands, is and important part of the sport.

I also agree that it's not possible to make any sort of clear judgement about the pecking order until Melbourne, or generally even then, but testing does provide some insight into relative performance and a car's strengths and weaknesses. Over the years analysts have identified key things that have turned out to be accurate and a few of them are consistently right.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek

http://formulaoneanalysis.blogspot.co.u ... 22013.html

This is how I think Anderson should have handled the Jerez number crunching too, specifically the adjusted times chart.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

McLaren have supposedly gone a bit wayward but I simply don't believe they're 5th in the pecking order.

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God

I rely on Prost



FA#14

Who believes that Mercedes are better than Mclaren and Red Bull in terms of tyre wear?

There's still the possibility for sandbagging. The author also says the following about the Mclaren:


And this:


You can have the fastest car over one lap, but if tyre degradation is enormous, you won't win many races with it.

Anyway, if you really want to try and read something into testing, this is the way you'll have to go about it. My opinion remains that Anderson did not do a great job with it and the author of above article did, for all the reasons I mentioned before this article even came out.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!