Quote:
|
Originally Posted by strider
Silly me. I should have realised that you were comparing Jarvis's worst session time with Kerr's best session time. I didn't realise that was how it should be done.  Strangely enough, nor did the guy at Autosport.com: You'd better send him an e-mail to point out his error! |
Please allow me to correct you further ...
The way it is done by people who know a little about these things is to compare times which are a/ set at the most similar time of the day (not really possible), b/ set when the track is in about the same state (i.e. not with an extra hour of running on it), c/ set when the car is unlikely to have been further tweaked (i.e. right at the beginning of Kerr's practice session and at the end of Jarvis') and d/ set on tyres in roughly the same condition ... again not with 1hrs less or extra running on them.
The only reason it would be wrong to compare Jarvis' SECOND session times with that set by Kerr at the beginning of his practice (on lap 4/5 Kerr did a 1m15.2 I believe) would be if a/ they gave Kerr new tyres (to my knowledge they don't get new tyres) or b/ the fuel loads were dramatically different. As countries like USA did not improve on their time from 1st rookie session I'd say there were no new tyres available to the teams today, except maybe at the start of the day. Jarvis set his fastest lap on 15 out of 15 in sesh 1 - hence autosports 'old tyres' comment. Kerr set his time on lap 14 ... at least 22 laps later on what is fair to assume were the same tyres.
The person at Autosport did not speculate why Jarvis had set a quicker time earlier in the day - it could be down to something a simple as air & track temperature!
I would suggest that patronising people who make educated & considered comments and not reading their posts properly is not the most amicable thing to do in a public forum.