Sunny-Day Melbourne
Sunday, March 27, 2011 at 02:20PM
So finally the sun came out in Melbourne, in time for the 5 pm start and to shine in driver's eyes. Vettel made sure there were no problems this year and as predicted by the qualifying times waltzed away with it. Pirelli Boss said it was a "thrilling race," but I found it just like last year. The tires did not "mix things up," even when Webber took the softs and was behind Alonso on the hard compound he could not get by despite the predictions that passing would be easy in these situations. The DRS, or movable wing, system, did not generate much passing either, there still needs to be a large performance gap before it works, and no, Bob Varsha, the car in front cannot use it. Bob got no better in the off season and clearly had not done his homework on the rules.
Great race by Petrov, following on from his Abu Dhabi performance. Where would Kubica have been in that car? Heidfeld was a big disappointment, and Barrichello drove like a novice. Button finally found the "killer instinct" to get by Massa near the end after failing badly at the start of the race. Who knows what is going on with Massa, and Alonso made the best of what he had. Webber apparently had a problem with his chassis which explained his lack of speed. Sad that Perez's good finish was taken away by the Saubers being disqualified due to a problem with the design of the rear wing. How do you get that wrong?
Hamilton drove an excellent race, especially with his floor dragging on the ground for half of it, but who knows, maybe that helped? Surprising really that the FIA took no action on that, but McLaren have done well to recover from the bad start during testing. Neither Mercedes finished due to being hit by other cars, but neither did they show that they would worry the front runners.
So, the answer to the KERS puzzle on the Red Bull, they did not have it on the car in any form. They decided they did not need it and could save the weight and reliability problems. What does that tell us about KERS as a green technology? The extra weight is not worth the performance, and at what cost. Now logically it makes sense to use the waste energy from cars, but this does not show the way. Perhaps if the teams were allowed to use it all the time, and not just in limited bursts? Of course Red Bull were in a situation where they had a large performance advantage anyway so could afford the luxury of racing without it.
As expected the race was run from six or more seconds a lap slower than qualifying, even when the fuel load went down. Lotus said they were happier with their race pace, beating the Virgins, and of course HRT did not start. Now, not to be nice to this joke of a team, but judging them on the 107% rule from qualifying is not really fair, as they would probably be doing the same lap times in the race as they achieved in qualifying, so actually not much slower than the race pace of the top teams, relatively.
The rookies did a good job, Di Resta leading his much more experienced team mate for most of the race, and Perez obviously putting in a stellar performance with only one stop, how did he manage that? Maldanado did nothing special, but not much wrong either. So on to Malaysia and perhaps mother nature's sprinkler system will spice things up.
At Donnington it was the Melandri and Checa show. Mad Max Biaggi will be even madder after being disqualified from race two, and the BMWs again failed to produce the goods.
Great race by Petrov, following on from his Abu Dhabi performance. Where would Kubica have been in that car? Heidfeld was a big disappointment, and Barrichello drove like a novice. Button finally found the "killer instinct" to get by Massa near the end after failing badly at the start of the race. Who knows what is going on with Massa, and Alonso made the best of what he had. Webber apparently had a problem with his chassis which explained his lack of speed. Sad that Perez's good finish was taken away by the Saubers being disqualified due to a problem with the design of the rear wing. How do you get that wrong?
Hamilton drove an excellent race, especially with his floor dragging on the ground for half of it, but who knows, maybe that helped? Surprising really that the FIA took no action on that, but McLaren have done well to recover from the bad start during testing. Neither Mercedes finished due to being hit by other cars, but neither did they show that they would worry the front runners.
So, the answer to the KERS puzzle on the Red Bull, they did not have it on the car in any form. They decided they did not need it and could save the weight and reliability problems. What does that tell us about KERS as a green technology? The extra weight is not worth the performance, and at what cost. Now logically it makes sense to use the waste energy from cars, but this does not show the way. Perhaps if the teams were allowed to use it all the time, and not just in limited bursts? Of course Red Bull were in a situation where they had a large performance advantage anyway so could afford the luxury of racing without it.
As expected the race was run from six or more seconds a lap slower than qualifying, even when the fuel load went down. Lotus said they were happier with their race pace, beating the Virgins, and of course HRT did not start. Now, not to be nice to this joke of a team, but judging them on the 107% rule from qualifying is not really fair, as they would probably be doing the same lap times in the race as they achieved in qualifying, so actually not much slower than the race pace of the top teams, relatively.
The rookies did a good job, Di Resta leading his much more experienced team mate for most of the race, and Perez obviously putting in a stellar performance with only one stop, how did he manage that? Maldanado did nothing special, but not much wrong either. So on to Malaysia and perhaps mother nature's sprinkler system will spice things up.
At Donnington it was the Melandri and Checa show. Mad Max Biaggi will be even madder after being disqualified from race two, and the BMWs again failed to produce the goods.
Reader Comments