Lotus49 wrote: pokerman wrote: Lotus49 wrote: pokerman wrote:
Ask him, I've still no idea what specific weekends you feel there is an issue and I can't be bothered doing your legwork for you. (What race,who won quali,who's turn it was for q preference,what did Mark give,what did you give etc..)
Without all that I don't know what to say and I'm not prepared to work it all out from the list you gave citing just the pit stops. If you want a conversation, for the second time, give the specifics, I'm not doing your work for you. You haven't even said which two they stopped at the same time as if I'm supposed to know immediately what two races are missing from the list from 11 years ago,who actually won the q,who's turn it was for fuel preference..etc
Specifics if you want a convo, I'm not a mind reader and I'm not doing your work for you.
Mark Hughes listed the 14 races that he used so I just assumed that would be obvious.
All the fuel corrected qualifying sessions that have either Alonso on top or Hamilton on top correspond to mine it's just the actual end result that seems to be a lot different.
Looking through his methodology I have to covert my figures to % differences and double check some other things as well, I remember comparing the % difference before and it made only 0.01s difference.
What I need to do will take a fair bit of time including posting on here so I need to make the time available at some point.
I have a feeling that when I've done all this the question I will be asking is what happened to all this extra fuel that Alonso supposedly was carrying?
So if they all correspond but the result then why do you keep insinuating he's favoring Alonso instead of questioning your own work or at the very least take the trouble to convert each result to a % like he does first instead of throwing around bias allegations straight away. Do you use one constant figure to work out the fuel correction or do you have a figure for the differing demands of each track that could influence fuel usage as I'm sure he has?
You mentioned two that they stopped on the same lap and wondered why Hughes ascertains Alonso carried more fuel. This is where the confusion lay as you didn't say what two and I shouldn't have to go back and work out what those two were, it's been pointed out before several times what appalling forum etiquette you have but in the interest of actually getting somewhere I did go and check and I see Brazil was one of the two you couldn't bring yourself to write.
That'll be the Brazil where Lewis changed strategy during the race,won the Q in the session and indeed was given that Q fuel corrected by Hughes anyway (You know, that obvious list you mention)
So what's the problem there? Who did you give it to and why do you seem to think Alonso was carrying more fuel and Hughes is favoring him by thinking so when he gave it to Lewis? Or do you now accept this result considering you are now saying they all correspond?
The other one is China where Ron himself said in amongst the tyre pressure allegations that Alonso carried more fuel but only a couple of tenths worth, but which again Hughes gives to Hamilton fuel corrected anyway. (I don't think he does tyre pressure corrections
Sort your argument out. In case you've forgotten...
pokerman wrote:The other 2 races he uses they stopped on the same lap, I'm curious how Hughes ascertains that Alonso carried more fuel than Hamilton?
...In short, he doesn't.
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 ... statistics
Regarding 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.)
Istanbul Park 2.55
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.