Wow thanks Forza, I presumed he had a brand new lighter chassis not a heavy old referb. Kudos to mark for getting that to a pole position too!
Wow thanks Forza, I presumed he had a brand new lighter chassis not a heavy old referb. Kudos to mark for getting that to a pole position too!
The cars would have weighed exactly the same, all having a alightly heavier chassis means is that you have slightly less ballast to move around which may, or may not, change the handling characteristics.
Dhel: as Miggins says (below), the cars would indeed weigh almost exactly the same on the grid. I'd also like to point out that the claimed 0.4sec difference for every 10kg of fuel sounds like a somewhat spurious journalistic argument and should not be compared with chassis weight, since differences are compensated for in order to reach the minimum weight requirement of 642kg. However, despite what I've just said, you've asked an interesting question, since the differences between chassis were indeed significant, as I will attempt to outline below. I agree. Especially with the first part of your sentence. However, 22kg, if correct, is substantial (a difference far greater than normal) and would certainly have compromised handling due to a raised centre of mass, relative to a new (and necessarily lighter) chassis. And this is before taking any account of reduced torsional rigidity. We should bear in mind that despite design efforts, every chassis is unique, and that differences increase rather than diminish over time, due to repeated loadings (stresses). That said, there is another, even more significant factor between old and new. Repairs make any chassis weaker and heavier, and its pretty obvious that an older chassis is likely to have had significantly more repair. The result: In a nutshell, a higher CM increases body roll. This can be offset to some extent through stiffer set-up (especially stronger/heavier anti-roll bars) but the net result is essentially increased tyre wear unless the car is driven more slowly to compensate. It should be clear that the further one strays from the optimum, the greater will be the adverse effect. However, I must admit that at the time I was not aware of such a difference between the burned out chassis and that used for Suzuka. Slightly off-topic but nonetheless worth mentioning: As an aside, Webber's physique is such that, relative to the diminutive Vettel*, he has always had a higher centre of mass – which of course, also increases body roll and tyre wear. This simply has to be accepted by those of less-favoured (for F1) physique. The likes of Bulkenberg, Blundell, Mansell and countless others (including Miggins!) know that failing decapitation, this is something they can do very little about, especially as upper body strength is very important in F1. It can also account for some of the differences between drivers at different ages and stages of their careers; for example: when comparing relative performances in junior formulae to F1. Indeed, this may explain some of the claimed difference between diResta and Vettel prior to F1! *For anyone interested, I've just had it confirmed that Webber's weight is indeed 75kg, whilst Vettel is even lighter than I'd previously thought, weighing in at just 58kg! To put it another way, Webber weighs about 30% more than Vettel!
Good question, Bando. I've just asked around and lucky to find an expert on the matter who reckons Ricciardo's quite a bit lighter: 64kg as opposed to Webber's 75kg. Nonetheless, the new Ozzie on the block is still more than 10% heavier than Vettel. Incidentally, referring back to the discussion of Webber's Suzuka chassis, if the claims of 22kg are correct, he would have been at a total disadvantage of a whopping 39kg when his own weight is factored in, even before taking account of his chassis' reduced torsional rigidity! And actually, I have to say that achieving Pole position with that sort of surplus, and going so well in the race despite a compromised strategy, is quite an achievement! Apologies to Miggins; but if these figures are correct, I think you might concede some admiration, despite your personal dislike.
Hahaha… Well, I'd put him as odds on favourite in the boxing ring, if that's what you mean! However, all else being equal, in F1 his weight has been, is, and always will be a permanent disadvantage. That's just the way it is.
So Cosi, do your friends have access to every drivers weight? It would be interesting to see a table of them all. It would be interesting to see and compare weight with success. I can imagine Alonso is quite low too after his intensive winter training. though that kind of weight is borderline crazy
I would if I didn't suspect the Webber propaganda dept of releasing the information so it would appear Webber was massively hindered. I'm sure if you go back far enough, (but still post GB 2010 which is when I actively started to dislike him as a person) you'll find that I've given him DoD in Sporty Dans ratings on more than one occasion (Schumacher too). I do try and be as objective as possible, but I tend to find most reports that include Webber are massively biased towards him.
No, I just immensley dislike like people who go around knowingly spreading lies to make other people look bad. Then there's his chronic hypocrisy.
Do you hold the same view on positive propaganda (sorry PR) that over inflate a drivers results, ability etc?
It depends who'd spouting it, when I hear Vettel on the podium going on about all his records and bragging about how good his statistics are and it must mean he's the best I'll probably go off him. I won't go off him because he celebrates winning a race the same way Stuart Pearce celebrated scoring goals, that's for sure. And if he stood on the podium whingeing and whining and crying about 'multi 2-1' because his team-mate did to him what he's tried and failed to do numerous times, maybe I'll go off him for that too.
