2013 Australian Grand Prix Thread - Race SUN 0700 CET

Post by **Londoner** » 17 Mar 2013, 07:33

And Raikkonen wins. :mrgreen:

Ben Purse · Post by **Ben Purse** » 17 Mar 2013, 07:33

lolrakkionenwins

the Masked Lapwing · Post by **the Masked Lapwing** » 17 Mar 2013, 07:35

KIMIWINSLOL

If he keeps it up maybe this won't be such a bad year after all...

F1000X · Post by **F1000X** » 17 Mar 2013, 07:36

Great race. Looks like this won't be a Vettel walkover just yet. Goodnight folks.

Rusujuur · Post by **Rusujuur** » 17 Mar 2013, 07:38

the Masked Lapwing wrote:KIMIWINSLOL

If he keeps it up maybe this won't be such a bad year after all...

Nice, but Grosjean only 10th or was he even 11th?

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 17 Mar 2013, 07:41

Rusujuur wrote:
the Masked Lapwing wrote:KIMIWINSLOL

If he keeps it up maybe this won't be such a bad year after all...

Nice, but Grosjean only 10th or was he even 11th?

He was 10th, amongst the likes of Vergne and the hapless McLarens

Post by **Londoner** » 17 Mar 2013, 07:44

Raikkonen drinks the champagne before spraying it. :lol:

Shizuka · Post by **Shizuka** » 17 Mar 2013, 07:45

And they still keep doing the podium interviews...? At least Brundle is a good choice.

QuickYoda41 · Post by **QuickYoda41** » 17 Mar 2013, 07:49

Well, it might be early for this, but we have this year's all three title contenders on the podium IMO.

Gerudo Dragon · Post by **Gerudo Dragon** » 17 Mar 2013, 07:57

Commentary from the chatroom

Post by **Londoner** » 17 Mar 2013, 08:23

Oh dear, here we go. :roll:

Ben Purse · Post by **Ben Purse** » 17 Mar 2013, 08:26

Oh wow why is he still in F1?

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 17 Mar 2013, 08:26

East Londoner wrote:Oh dear, here we go.

I'd probably say that's 4 Di Restas on the scale. :lol:

Shadaza · Post by **Shadaza** » 17 Mar 2013, 08:30

The supersoft really screwed up a lot of peoples races, those at the back of the top 10 were quickly overwhelmed by the cars on the Medium tire and either had to sink without a trace or pit way too early. This is what happened to Webber, Grosjean, Button and di Resta. With Suti getting the return job at the end of the race.

East Londoner wrote:Oh dear, here we go.

Complaining that he couldn't mug his team mate then whining he was stuck behind Button (I believe the term is "racing"). What a tool.

johnnyCarwash · Post by **johnnyCarwash** » 17 Mar 2013, 10:06

The best part of the podium interviews was the prior announcement made to the drivers reminding them of language and that they are on live TV. FOM don't want a repeat of Kimi's last interview do do they :lol:

eytl · Post by **eytl** » 17 Mar 2013, 10:09

Wow, that was an interesting race ...

Actually, there weren't too many surprises. A lot of trends that were apparent either in testing or in free practice were confirmed. Lotus are good over long runs. Ferrari has a strong all-round car. Mercedes could challenge but are a bit fragile. McLaren have a lot of work to do. Sauber, Toro Rosso, Marussia and Caterham are about where we expected.

Force India were a pleasant surprise - the opposite of Williams, if you like. For a team talking up their progress, that was a dire performance all round by the Grove team, although maybe some of their recent dramas may have had an effect. And while Adrian Sutil may have been a dreadfully dull choice, my word Force India management have been vindicated. That was a 10/10 drive from him in the race.

By the way, on the topic of talking the talk but not delivering, step forward Daniel Ricciardo ... I know he had car problems in the race but JEV had it all over him in Q2 and the race.

But onto the theme I find really fascinating: Red Bull's race performance. Mark Webber's poor start - apart from being predictable - was a self-fulfilling prophecy. He said in interviews that they had not practised starts enough over the winter. Did I hear that he had a KERS issue during the race itself as well? Not to mention the dodgy first pit stop when there were problems with the front jack. And what was Vettel's race all about? Couldn't get past Sutil, stupid strategy call pitting him at the same time as the Force India, allowing Alonso to get the jump on him, then dropping right off as the race progressed.

A sneaking suspicion has occurred to me, one which I will keep an eye on over the next few races, and which may become an article if I find more proof to back up my theory. My theory is this: everyone says Adrian Newey is a genius, and he may be, but has Red Bull let Newey's brilliance go to their collective heads, so that they've lost sight of what's really important in 2013? Their focus permanently seems to be building the fastest car in theory, especially the fastest to go around corners. That's got Newey written all over it. But this assumes they can just clear out at the start of a race and win it from there. Well, I'm sorry, it's not as simple as that. You can't still have a substandard KERS system after several seasons. You can't keep making poor strategic calls. You can't not solve Webber's starts. I'm just getting a feeling that aero alone isn't going to win the title this year. You need racing street-smarts. Today Lotus and Ferrari gave Red Bull a lesson in that.

Shadaza · Post by **Shadaza** » 17 Mar 2013, 10:29

eytl wrote:
But onto the theme I find really fascinating: Red Bull's race performance. Mark Webber's poor start - apart from being predictable - was a self-fulfilling prophecy. He said in interviews that they had not practised starts enough over the winter. Did I hear that he had a KERS issue during the race itself as well? Not to mention the dodgy first pit stop when there were problems with the front jack. And what was Vettel's race all about? Couldn't get past Sutil, stupid strategy call pitting him at the same time as the Force India, allowing Alonso to get the jump on him, then dropping right off as the race progressed.

So during testing Red Bull didn't do any low fuel runs, long race sims, many practice starts and don't seem to have the pit stops perfect. What exactly were Red Bull doing during testing?!?

girry · Post by **girry** » 17 Mar 2013, 10:38

I think RB were mainly concentrating on hiding their true pace, which they then did :geek:

Post by **mario** » 17 Mar 2013, 10:40

Yes, not for the first time Webber's KERS unit malfunctioned during the first third of the race and probably helped compound his problems at the start. That wasn't the only problem he had either - Red Bull had problems accessing his telemetry feed on the grid, with both the KERS and telemetry problems linked to problems with the ECU software.
[Incidentally, it sounds as if McLaren Electronic Systems has been getting a lot of criticism in the off season and in Melbourne - their 2013 spec ECU that they have introduced is rumoured to be suffering from a lot of problems, and it looks like that was the reason why the FIA had so many telemetry and DRS related problems this weekend. The worrying thing is that this is supposed to be an improved version of their ECU, so goodness knows what it was like in testing...]

As for Vettel and his performance during the race, their behaviour during off season testing might explain some of that - Red Bull avoided doing long stints in Barcelona to hide their pace, but it also seems to have compromised them in terms of maintaining the tyre performance over the length of a stint (both Lotus and Ferrari seemed to manage their tyres more effectively over a stint, and Vettel has admitted that they were simply too hard on their tyres today). It was brilliant for their single lap performance in qualifying - Vettel was already 0.4s clear of Webber and 0.6s clear of the fastest non Red Bull runner, and could have opened up that gap even more if he hadn't abandoned his final qualifying lap - but that performance seems to be coming at a price.

Overall, whilst things may not be looking disastrous for Red Bull, they're not quite as rosy as perhaps they were - for a start, Massa looks to be starting this season off with the form he had at the end of 2012, being able to pressurise Vettel a bit in the earlier stages of the race and finishing in a very solid 4th place. If Massa can keep this sort of form up over the season, then he could be more of a thorn in Red Bull's side than he was last year and may be in a position to disrupt Vettel more often than Webber can disrupt Alonso.
Of course, we need to take things with a little pinch of salt, as it were - after the first race in 2012, most would have expected McLaren to easily take both titles but they struggled to maintain that form in the subsequent races. Equally, in a long term development race I wouldn't bet against Red Bull coming out on top - Lotus may have upgraded their resources, but they are not quite on the level of Red Bull or Ferrari and might, as happened in 2012, find themselves drifting away at the end of the season.

Ferrim · Post by **Ferrim** » 17 Mar 2013, 12:25

It seems that the F1 gods have punished me for missing the race. I only know the final results, but that's more than enough to see that I shouldn't have missed it.

Pedestrian · Post by **Pedestrian** » 17 Mar 2013, 12:34

I had a bad dream a few days ago, that after 4 years of relative stability, Formula 1 was still dominated by a fizzy drinks manufacturer. Good thing it was just a bad dream, and when I woke up today, the reality was different.

So far, it looks like Red Bull tried again their old trick of building a car that is optimised for one lap speed (qualy) rather than for race pace, and it didn't work. This time. But we must wait and see what the season brings in terms of developpment. Allso, there was a big gap in performance between their two cars, but this may be just Webber suffering from the curse of the home race.
Such a gap however is even more evident in the case of Lotus. I believe and hope that Kimi has the car to fight for the championship this year, and I am overjoyed to see him win again, but I don't know if his team can fight for the constructors title. Now I am a big Kimi fan and I think he is a genius of racing and would dominate any teammate, but the gap to Grosjean still looks too big. Ar Lotus back to being a one-car team? Is the second seat "poisoned" as it was in the ays of Alonso and his luckless teammates? Or is it simply that Grosjean is not good enough. If the gap is his fault, then maybe Lotus should have kept Senna or Petrov and let them develop and polish their skills and by now I think they would have done better than Grosjean.
Mercedes allso looked like a "one car team" as in they may have only one car finishing each race. The worries about reliability were justified. So far I don't know how fast they are as they had a bizzare strategy and practically ran in a race of their own today so it was difficult to compare them to the opposition.
Paradoxically, at this point the team that is best placed in the constructor's hierarchy is the archetipal one-car-team: Ferrari. Of the frontrunners, Ferrari had the best overall performance, wit the best balance between teammates. Another pre-season speculation that was confirmed is Massa's return to form. He was eventually beaten by Alonso today, but not dominated. So far, things are looking good for the red cars. Who will rise to challenge them?
Certainly not McLaren. How bad are they? It's true that Button (barely) reached the points, but he's supposed to be good at this track, so this may be a case of the driver making a difference. I fear that Perez is the true indicator of the car's actuall performance.
I am a fan of Sutil so I am not at all surprised by his good race today, but his teammate wasn't that far behind, so this may point to the fact that their car is good in general. They are definitely best of the rest. Everyone else will be struggling to make it to the points this year.

Pedestrian · Post by **Pedestrian** » 17 Mar 2013, 12:38

eytl wrote:A sneaking suspicion has occurred to me, one which I will keep an eye on over the next few races, and which may become an article if I find more proof to back up my theory. My theory is this: everyone says Adrian Newey is a genius, and he may be, but has Red Bull let Newey's brilliance go to their collective heads, so that they've lost sight of what's really important in 2013?

I don't understand why everyone thinks Newey is some kind of a genius. Remember, he's the guy that ran McLaren into the ground some years ago. Yes he got lucky these past few seasons, but that doesn't mean he can't make mistakes any more.

Post by **DemocalypseNow** » 17 Mar 2013, 13:08

Last season's problems of the Lotus only being good in hot temperatures has clearly gone. A commanding performance by Raikkonen. TO THE CHAMPIONSHIP!

JJMonty · Post by **JJMonty** » 17 Mar 2013, 13:13

Was that race worth getting up to see? Yeah, it was!

A nice start to the season, nothing crazy, nothing unpredictable, but a good season opener with a good crowd and atmosphere to boot

It was nice to see Raikkonen win, but I still think Ferrari and RedBull will be the more serious contenders for the season - the Lotus will be the underdog, not the fastest, but ready to capitalise on any mistakes the faster cars make (Ala Jordan 1999 style).

I'm not quite sure how so many people can critisize Adrian Newey and RedBull just yet! It is only the first race of the season! At a street circuit! It is only after Malaysia, Bahrain and China that we will have a better idea of who will be the class of the field because those circuits are more the common style of a F1 circuit.

Sorry Etyl but I have to disagree with you, it is always better to have a fast car with problems, than a slow but reliable car, it is easier to improve reliability in a fast car, than try and improve the pace by a second in a slower car. RedBull have a quick car again, fact. They have problems with their car again, yes - notibly the KERS system and with how heavy they are on their tyres. At circuits where the Super-Softs aren't going to be used, I don't think they will have any issues, but the fact is the car is fast, so it is going to be more of a case of setup work to optimise race pace + tyre usage. There is nothing wrong with the pace of the car so I don't think Newey should be critasized for that, Red Bull just didn't focus on race setup in the testing so their setups are probably too stiff and too aggresive on the tyres (the short gearing and almost kart style of driving would suggest this is the case). Setup work is the key for RedBull, if their car is quick, they will be fighting for the win. They were a second faster in Qualifying than anyone else, so they can afford to lose some of the quali pace, focus on a race setup and put them in a better situation for the race. Just remember how they and Ferrari recovered last year! Anything is possible.

Newey's designs may not be liked by everyone - but they do work, otherwise how would Williams have been so quick during the 90's? The McLaren Mercedes package has only had one constructors championship - that was Newey's car. It is unfair to say he ruined McLaren because McLaren are good at doing that themselves! Just look at their slump in form last year, their inability to tame Alonso & Hamilton, or even how their "evolved winning car" left 2012 as winners and is now starting 2013 struggling to even make Q3!. Or even in 2005 when they couldn't overcome the reliability issues - RedBull have managed to overcome them, so why couldn't McLaren do it?

Anyways, enough brown nosing of Newey! It is too early to call the shots yet, all I can say is - it was nice to not see a Red Bull win for a change and also nice to see Sutil return and be fighting up the front straight away!

Pedestrian · Post by **Pedestrian** » 17 Mar 2013, 13:48

JJMonty wrote:
Newey's designs may not be liked by everyone - but they do work, otherwise how would Williams have been so quick during the 90's? The McLaren Mercedes package has only had one constructors championship - that was Newey's car. It is unfair to say he ruined McLaren because McLaren are good at doing that themselves!

Well, let's look at the facts:
Adrian Newey worked for McLaren between 1998 and 2006. When he joined McLaren, they were a dominant team, who scored a 1-2 win in the first race and went on to win the world campionship. In 2006 when he left, they were a pathetic midfield team unable to win a race all year! No season since then has been that bad.
Another fact: The McLaren cars of 1998-2000 (the ones that were actually good) were all evolutions of the 1997 car. The first McLaren car thatNewey designed from the ground up was in 2001. Incidentally, it allso marked a drop in perfomance from which the team never recovered as long as Newey stayed there. And he was allso responsible for such abominations as the MP4/18 and the other "shrew nose" designs, which were disappointing even by McLaren standards. (The one exception was 2005, when the the car was "only" unreliable*. Interestign to note is that 2005 was a one of a kind season in terms of regluations - and this was visible in the design of the car, which may lend some credibility to the ideea that Newey is particularly good at seizing opportunities when the rules change)

* BTW: the fact that I saw McLaren loose so many times due to poor relaiability is why I laugh at the ideea that it's better to have a fast but unreliable car rather than a reliable but slow one. To finish first, one must first finish.

FullMetalJack · Post by **FullMetalJack** » 17 Mar 2013, 13:57

Stramala [kostas22] wrote:Last season's problems of the Lotus only being good in hot temperatures has clearly gone. A commanding performance by Raikkonen. TO THE CHAMPIONSHIP!

I'd have no complaints if he won the championship again. One of my happiest moments in the 9 and a bit years i've been watching Formula 1 was when Kimi Raikkonen announced his return back at the end of 2011.

JJMonty · Post by **JJMonty** » 17 Mar 2013, 14:18

Pedestrian wrote:
JJMonty wrote:
Newey's designs may not be liked by everyone - but they do work, otherwise how would Williams have been so quick during the 90's? The McLaren Mercedes package has only had one constructors championship - that was Newey's car. It is unfair to say he ruined McLaren because McLaren are good at doing that themselves!

Well, let's look at the facts:
Adrian Newey worked for McLaren between 1998 and 2006. When he joined McLaren, they were a dominant team, who scored a 1-2 win in the first race and went on to win the world campionship. In 2006 when he left, they were a pathetic midfield team unable to win a race all year! No season since then has been that bad.
Another fact: The McLaren cars of 1998-2000 (the ones that were actually good) were all evolutions of the 1997 car. The first McLaren car thatNewey designed from the ground up was in 2001. Incidentally, it allso marked a drop in perfomance from which the team never recovered as long as Newey stayed there. And he was allso responsible for such abominations as the MP4/18 and the other "shrew nose" designs, which were disappointing even by McLaren standards. (The one exception was 2005, when the the car was "only" unreliable*. Interestign to note is that 2005 was a one of a kind season in terms of regluations - and this was visible in the design of the car, which may lend some credibility to the ideea that Newey is particularly good at seizing opportunities when the rules change)

* BTW: the fact that I saw McLaren loose so many times due to poor relaiability is why I laugh at the ideea that it's better to have a fast but unreliable car rather than a reliable but slow one. To finish first, one must first finish.

No.... he was at RedBull in 2006, so his last year was 2005. Besides, just as much of McLaren's problems over the years have come from the Engine. In 2006, it was the Engine that was unreliable and needed a lot of development to bring them up to Renault/Ferrari's pace - however they were matching their pace come season end as Raikkonen took pole position 3 times and should have won at Hungary had he not crashed! I wouldn't call 3rd position a pathetic Midfield team either! They were a lot stronger than say... at the start of this year. 2005 - how many times did Raikkonen have to take a 10 place grid penelty because of an Engine change? Too many times!

The McLarens were evolutions of the 1997 car? I think you need to check your facts again, the rules were re-written in 1998! The cars were narrower, they had new tyres - both supplier and design. 1998 was a Newey designed car because he joined McLaren in 1997, the car had already been designed by Neil Oatley. Newey spent that year maximising the car's potential whilst doing research for the next year because of the new regs. Besides, the 1998 car looks nothing like the 1997 one! Again, half of McLaren's problems came from the Engine - when Ilmor made the new engine (which by the way, is the best sounding V10

) It was either down on power or badly unreliable. 1999 they almost lost the drivers championship because of Reliability. 2001, the car wasn't that bad, the engine let them down, as it did in 2002, it was down on power and made the car a sitting duck at the faster circuits. 2003 was a fail season as their car couldn't pass the safety tests, but considering they were using a year old car - I think it was impressive that Raikkonen was in with a shot of the title up until the last race (even then, he finished only 1 point behind Schuy).

As I said, Newey is a good designer and I will agree - he is good at implementing the rules and maximising the cars performance, he did it with McLaren in 1998 and again with RedBull in 2009. But McLaren caused half of their own problems without Newey's influence - as we have also seen from 2007 to present. "To finish first, first you must finish" - Agreed, but you don't win championships by scraping in a couple of points every race either.

James1978 · Post by **James1978** » 17 Mar 2013, 14:33

Well after yesterday's false start, that was great!! I'd love to see Kimi as a proper title contender. Only thing was I missed the first 10 or so laps because my Sky Box lost signal. So I'll have to watch the BBC highlights on iplayer.

But I thought we were in for typical 2011 fare when I saw the front row was a Red Bull lockout and it was dry!!

Also regarding Marussia, it makes you wonder what they could have done with the 10th place constructors' money, and also if they'd held on to Glock as a result. Since Caterham seem to have well and truly squandered it.

Pedestrian · Post by **Pedestrian** » 17 Mar 2013, 15:32

JJMonty wrote:No.... he was at RedBull in 2006, so his last year was 2005.
The McLarens were evolutions of the 1997 car? I think you need to check your facts again, the rules were re-written in 1998!

I remember that back in 2001 I read somewhere that the MP 4/16 was the first McLaren car that was designed 100% by Newey. Unfortunately I can't find the reference any more.
But you are right about 2005 being his last season at McLaren, I made a mistake there. (However, he would have had some input in the design for 2006, and that car did look very similar to the MP4/18 and MP4/19, so I allways assumed it was just an evolution of those designs)

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 17 Mar 2013, 15:50

One thing I learnt from running Foxdale in F1RWRS is that I would rather have the fastest, most unreliable car on the grid than just an anonymous midfield, averagely reliable car. It must be easier for the team and marketing departments to sell the concept of having the fastest car, and just need to make the car a bit more reliable (already getting plenty of screentime) than having a reliable midfield car that needs a bit more speed (not so much screentime...).

DonTirri · Post by **DonTirri** » 17 Mar 2013, 15:50

Räikkönen wins!

What better way to start a season eh?

rachel1990 · Post by **rachel1990** » 17 Mar 2013, 15:52

James1978 wrote:Well after yesterday's false start, that was great!! I'd love to see Kimi as a proper title contender. Only thing was I missed the first 10 or so laps because my Sky Box lost signal. So I'll have to watch the BBC highlights on iplayer.

But I thought we were in for typical 2011 fare when I saw the front row was a Red Bull lockout and it was dry!!

Also regarding Marussia, it makes you wonder what they could have done with the 10th place constructors' money, and also if they'd held on to Glock as a result. Since Caterham seem to have well and truly squandered it.

It could be a blessing in disguise dropping Glock and in the end having Jules Bianchi.

Dj_bereta · Post by **Dj_bereta** » 17 Mar 2013, 16:57

Glad to not see this race live (3:00am here). I hope for rain in next race.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 17 Mar 2013, 19:09

eytl wrote:A sneaking suspicion has occurred to me, one which I will keep an eye on over the next few races, and which may become an article if I find more proof to back up my theory. My theory is this: everyone says Adrian Newey is a genius, and he may be, but has Red Bull let Newey's brilliance go to their collective heads, so that they've lost sight of what's really important in 2013? Their focus permanently seems to be building the fastest car in theory, especially the fastest to go around corners. That's got Newey written all over it. But this assumes they can just clear out at the start of a race and win it from there. Well, I'm sorry, it's not as simple as that. You can't still have a substandard KERS system after several seasons. You can't keep making poor strategic calls. You can't not solve Webber's starts. I'm just getting a feeling that aero alone isn't going to win the title this year. You need racing street-smarts. Today Lotus and Ferrari gave Red Bull a lesson in that.

A number of good reflections, and it's well worth speculating what's gone wrong in Red Bull, but I fear we may be getting ahead of ourselves. Albert Park is a strange circuit: not permanent, very fast (third fastest in the championship, I believe), rather bumpy. To make matters worse, Pirelli came up with a set of supersoft tyres made from the same compound as the second rate stuff I use on my bicycle. All this might have exacerbated the fragilities in the Red Bull car. Let's see what happens in Malaysia, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Vettel controlling that race.

I'll also be very curious to check out the progress in Williams and McLaren. Their problems seem to be around the respective cars' rides (did you guys see Checo's car? It was awful. The thing was throwing its nose around the place like a small puppy the first time you take it for a walk in the woods). Could a better tyre combo, a smoother surface and a more aero-dependent track bring out the best in the McLaren and the Williams? They both seemed to have genuine pace in testing. If it doesn't rain in Malaysia the two teams should have some time to focus.

What should scare McLaren the most should be the gap in qualifying. Despite being on the right tyre at the right time in Q3, Button was 3 seconds off pole, and over a second away from the car in front. That's shocking.

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » 17 Mar 2013, 19:20

giraurd wrote:I think RB were mainly concentrating on hiding their true pace, which they then did

Me and a friend kept ourselves amused through the pre-season tests by insisting that Red Bull were playing their cards so close to the chest, that they're not actually going to show the full pace of the car until Brazil. I wonder if that's actually true...

Post by **mario** » 17 Mar 2013, 20:30

JJMonty wrote:Again, half of McLaren's problems came from the Engine - when Ilmor made the new engine (which by the way, is the best sounding V10 ) It was either down on power or badly unreliable. 1999 they almost lost the drivers championship because of Reliability. 2001, the car wasn't that bad, the engine let them down, as it did in 2002, it was down on power and made the car a sitting duck at the faster circuits. 2003 was a fail season as their car couldn't pass the safety tests, but considering they were using a year old car - I think it was impressive that Raikkonen was in with a shot of the title up until the last race (even then, he finished only 1 point behind Schuy).

The prolonged dip in form of the Ilmor-Mercedes engine package came on the back of the ban on beryllium alloys in 2000 (which had been announced in late 1999) - using beryllium meant that Ilmor could design an engine with a longer stroke than Ferrari's engine, which optimised its performance at high rpm, yet could rev slightly higher than Ferrari's shorter stroke engine and therefore deliver slightly more power.
The banning of beryllium, as you rightly point out, cost the team dearly in terms of peak power - Newey was complaining in 2001 that the car had the same amount of power as in 1998 (if the official figures are to be believed, then it suggests that Ilmor-Mercedes lost about 35bhp, from a claimed 815bhp in 2000 to 780bhp, at a time when most of their rivals were claiming power figures in excess of 800bhp), and it took Ilmor a good few years to finally make up the power difference.

CarlosFerreira wrote:I'll also be very curious to check out the progress in Williams and McLaren. Their problems seem to be around the respective cars' rides (did you guys see Checo's car? It was awful. The thing was throwing its nose around the place like a small puppy the first time you take it for a walk in the woods). Could a better tyre combo, a smoother surface and a more aero-dependent track bring out the best in the McLaren and the Williams? They both seemed to have genuine pace in testing. If it doesn't rain in Malaysia the two teams should have some time to focus.

What should scare McLaren the most should be the gap in qualifying. Despite being on the right tyre at the right time in Q3, Button was 3 seconds off pole, and over a second away from the car in front. That's shocking.

If you are referring to McLaren's performance in Jerez, the worrying thing is that that performance seems to have come when the car was in an abnormal configuration. According to Whitmarsh, a mechanic installed a suspension component incorrectly - it is suggested that it was installed the wrong way round - which resulted in a car that was very quick but could not run in that configuration at bumpy tracks (McLaren did try running the car in a similar configuration in Melbourne but couldn't get it to work). http://adamcooperf1.com/2013/03/16/how- ... erez-test/

Perhaps, at a much smoother track, McLaren might be able to make the car work more effectively, so they should stand a chance of being better in Malaysia - overall, though, this doesn't sound good for venues like Singapore or Monaco, for example, which are even bumpier than Melbourne is.

James1978 · Post by **James1978** » 17 Mar 2013, 21:57

I also missed up some of the build-up due to loss of singal on my Sky Box - does anyone know if there was an episode of McLaren's Tooned (presumably featuring Perez)? There certainly wasn't one after the race!! (Then again I think McLaren have more important matters to attend to than making cartoons)!!

eytl · Post by **eytl** » 17 Mar 2013, 22:11

JJMonty wrote:Sorry Etyl but I have to disagree with you, it is always better to have a fast car with problems, than a slow but reliable car, it is easier to improve reliability in a fast car, than try and improve the pace by a second in a slower car

Just to be clear, I'm not quite saying that Red Bull have fallen into the trap of building a a fast, unreliable car. I'm simply speculating whether, because they have Newey who is in particular an aerodynamics guru, they have focussed particularly on aero at the expense of some other aspects of the package that go into making a car an all-round package. Their KERS has been a problem for several seasons, both in terms of effectiveness and reliability. (I do get the impression that they've kind of snubbed their noses at KERS, thinking that it's just a silly device that adds componentry/weight and gets in the way of effective aero. That kind of thinking will prove problematic come 2014!) Their strategic calls often leave a lot to be desired. They have not been the best at tyre preservation. They and Webber should have solved their perennial start problem by now. I'm just wondering if Red Bull have taken an "eggs in one basket" approach and were shown up by Lotus and Ferrari who have been more all-round. But having said that ...

CarlosFerreira wrote:A number of good reflections, and it's well worth speculating what's gone wrong in Red Bull, but I fear we may be getting ahead of ourselves. Albert Park is a strange circuit: not permanent, very fast (third fastest in the championship, I believe), rather bumpy. To make matters worse, Pirelli came up with a set of supersoft tyres made from the same compound as the second rate stuff I use on my bicycle. All this might have exacerbated the fragilities in the Red Bull car. Let's see what happens in Malaysia, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Vettel controlling that race.

I agree. That's why I'm only raising a theory at this stage and waiting for the next few races before seeing if there's any further evidence to back it up, or if Melbourne was simply an aberration.

PT8475 · Post by **PT8475** » 17 Mar 2013, 22:13

I'll wait until after Malaysia to draw any conclusions, but if Lotus's tyre wear is that much better than everyone else's in rather cool conditions in Albert Park and in the hot weather in Malaysia, they'll take a lot of beating. Red Bull looked ominously fast in the sun on friday, though.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 18 Mar 2013, 08:29

mario wrote:If you are referring to McLaren's performance in Jerez, the worrying thing is that that performance seems to have come when the car was in an abnormal configuration. According to Whitmarsh, a mechanic installed a suspension component incorrectly - it is suggested that it was installed the wrong way round - which resulted in a car that was very quick but could not run in that configuration at bumpy tracks (McLaren did try running the car in a similar configuration in Melbourne but couldn't get it to work). http://adamcooperf1.com/2013/03/16/how- ... erez-test/

The awkward moment when your multi-million pound car runs better when someone accidentally assembles the suspension the wrong way around... Dear me, that's not promising, is it?