 |
|
5 Mar 2004, 12:24
|
#31
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
|
Location:
|
neither here nor there |
Posts: 679
|
i don't think they were running light....i just think it's a matter of them being blindingly quick out of the box...i never put much emphasis on friday practice, but watching yesterday's session left me shaking my head....either the ferraris are that good, or everyone else is that bad or sandbagging....i do not recall recently such a disparity right from the git go....shades of 2002?.....
|
|
__________________
"Drinking makes such fools of people, and people are such fools to begin with that it's compounding a felony." Robert Benchley
|
|
5 Mar 2004, 12:39
|
#32
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,942
|
Re: Anyone running light.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AdamAshmore
[B]1 1 Michael Schumacher Ferrari 1:24.718
2 2 Rubens Barrichello Ferrari 1:24.826
3 7 Jarno Trulli Renault 1:25.757
4 9 Jenson Button BAR-Honda 1:25.786
5 8 Fernando Alonso Renault 1:25.853
6 4 Ralf Schumacher Williams-BMW 1:25.882
7 3 Juan Pablo Montoya Williams-BMW 1:26.206
8 5 David Coulthard McLaren-Mercedes 1:26.215
9 14 Mark Webber Jaguar-Cosworth 1:26.312
10 6 Kimi Räikkönen McLaren-Mercedes 1:26.579
11 11 Giancarlo Fisichella Sauber-Petronas 1:26.601
12 10 Takuma Sato BAR-Honda 1:26.967
13 12 Felipe Massa Sauber-Petronas 1:26.969
16 16 Cristiano da Matta Toyota 1:27.710
17 15 Christian Klien Jaguar-Cosworth 1:27.724
18 17 Olivier Panis Toyota 1:27.807
19 18 Nick Heidfeld Jordan-Ford 1:27.826
21 20 Gianmaria Bruni Minardi-Cosworth 1:28.991
22 21 Zsolt Baumgartner Minardi-Cosworth 1:29.708
23 19 Giorgio Pantano Jordan-Ford 1:30.061
Where are you number 24 ?????!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
5 Mar 2004, 13:23
|
#33
|
|
Racer
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 320
|
Yeah it's a bit daft for people to be calling off the betting after Friday practice, at least wait for qually! Schumy was fastest in practice in Oz last season but struggled a bit on race day. Here's hoping for a repeat performance. Am I Schumie bashing? You're damn right folks!
|
|
|
__________________
Boogity Boogity Boogity Lets go racin'Damn its a full coarse yellow!
|
|
5 Mar 2004, 13:26
|
#34
|
|
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
20KPINAL
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 28,252
|
You should try it ralfy. Some of the other forums are bloody hilarious.....so much as mention Schuey in a positive way and everyone starts bashing him with Jerez 1997.....even the so called moderators! Needless to say, I haven't signed up to these forums!;laugh:
Quote:
Originally posted by Garcon
It's ok ralf - we've always known knowlesy knows we know knowlesy can't stay faithful to us. It's the fact he keeps coming back that concerns us...
|
Garcon, it is for you I come back! 
|
|
|
__________________
Once there were mountains on mountains,
and once there were sun birds to soar with,
and once I could never be down.
|
|
5 Mar 2004, 13:46
|
#35
|
|
Incorrect voter.
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 27,787
|
Re: Re: Anyone running light.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rennen
Where are you number 24 ?????!!!!!!
|
Don't know how that copyand paste didn't work! I didn't look too closely afterwards. I bet Micheal's Dad would have sent the lawers round!  Not sure how that happened as it was a full cut and paste. I like the new F1-live screens too.
14. 38 ZONTA Toyota 1'27"165
15. 35 DAVIDSON BAR Honda 1'27"516
...
24 39 GLOCK Jordan Ford B 1'30"291 + 0'05"573
It is a shame thatMinardi didn't get a third driver, because I reckon his number would be 310!
|
|
|
|
|
5 Mar 2004, 13:49
|
#36
|
|
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
20KPINAL
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 28,252
|
Anyone seen the new race display for TV? Just seen it on the news and it looks great! It seems that finally those yellow blocks with black numbers are gone! Hurrah!
|
|
|
__________________
Once there were mountains on mountains,
and once there were sun birds to soar with,
and once I could never be down.
|
|
5 Mar 2004, 14:43
|
#37
|
|
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,091
|
Tyres tyres tyres. Bridgestone worked hard to avoid the embarassment of last year, and it shows. Now Michelin will up their game, and things will level out - I hope. In the meantime, FORZA FERRARI!
|
|
|
__________________
"Recourse to the opinion of an expert is the weakest form of argument." - Thomas Aquinas
|
|
5 Mar 2004, 15:42
|
#38
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,177
|
I just called Mark and he confirmed that his Jag had 200 litres on board, old tyres and he wore his heavy runners. AND he was restricting it to 12000rpm to save the donk. He conservatively estimates a 1.19 today.
Go you good thing!
|
|
|
__________________
"You can get lucky and win one championship but not two ..." Jamie Whincup. I wonder which person with the initials RK he was referring to.
|
|
5 Mar 2004, 15:55
|
#39
|
|
Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 24
|
1.24 ish? Comparing that with last year's pole time suggests either they were running very light or Ferrari have found around 3 seconds per lap since last year... 
I guess they might have been running a little light!
|
|
|
|
|
5 Mar 2004, 15:56
|
#40
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,000
|
All teams during a Grand Prix weekend have to abide by the minimum weight limit for car and driver. There is no chance that Ferrrari where running under this limit, as some teams do during winter testing.
|
|
|
|
|
5 Mar 2004, 15:57
|
#41
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2000
|
Location:
|
Bucharest, Romania |
Posts: 5,818
|
'I just called Mike, and he confirmed his rev limiter was initially set at 5k rpm. He couldn't have his engine started, then the crew raised it to 6krpms. Tomorrow, his target is under 1 minute
|
|
|
__________________
It's similar to whether you think footballers involved in Shrewsbury 5 - Telford United 6 are better than those involved in Chelsea 0 - Barcelona 0, simply because on the face of it it's more entertaining.
|
|
5 Mar 2004, 16:14
|
#42
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,598
|
Quote:
Originally posted by chris42
1.24 ish? Comparing that with last year's pole time suggests either they were running very light or Ferrari have found around 3 seconds per lap since last year...
|
That isn't as far fetched as it first appears - last year they were using the old F2002 for this race, and even when the F2003GA came along it was run all year with serious weight distribution problems which they never full came to terms with. If the F2004 is an improved F2003GA with this essential flaw ironed-out we could be seeing what was promised last year, ie a car which is even more of a step than the seminal F2002. Add-in improved Bridgestone tyres and three seconds might not be beyond credibility, especially since (as has been pointed out) the car might have been lightly fuelled, but it would not be under the weight limit.
|
|
|
|
|
5 Mar 2004, 21:26
|
#43
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 581
|
All i gotta say is i hope they were running on fumes. 
We shall find out in a few hours i guess eh?
|
|
|
__________________
"And the Williams-BMW took a 1-2 victory at Canada in 2004 until they were DQ'd." CBS 2005 Canadian GP. What we have to deal with here in the states w/ CBS coverage.
BMW Power!!!
|
|
6 Mar 2004, 15:34
|
#44
|
|
Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 24
|
Quote:
Originally posted by chris42
1.24 ish? Comparing that with last year's pole time suggests either they were running very light or Ferrari have found around 3 seconds per lap since last year...
I guess they might have been running a little light!
|
Well... I'll eat my schus!!! At this rate, in about 10 years we can look forward to sub 60 second laps
|
|
|
|
|
6 Mar 2004, 15:38
|
#45
|
|
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
20KPINAL
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 28,252
|
It's not that surprising the Ferrari is 3 seconds quicker than last years Ferrari at Melbourne.....think about it, they're running a car this year that's two years in advance of what it was at Oz last year.
|
|
|
__________________
Once there were mountains on mountains,
and once there were sun birds to soar with,
and once I could never be down.
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
