There's a rat in Barrichello's last pit stop...

Yes the world is out to get him (Sarcarsm). Ferrari are the biggest cheaters in the world (Sarcasm).

Good God man! This world has no shartage of conspiracy theorists.

 

23 laps + worth of fuel needed to go into the car. This would have taken more time than the first pitstop.

When the first pit stop occured under the safety car, there was already a huge amount of fuel in the car, so refueling the car did not take as much time. For the first part of the race, the cars drove slowly under the safety car. This consumes much less fuel than while driving at normal F1 pace. So Rubens did not need to take on as much fuel for teh first stop. He already had plenty fuel. When he came on for the second stop he needed to be safer than sorry so the team probably gave him 24 to 25 laps worth of fuel.

Michael had completely differet fuel level in his car so he was not required to take on as much fuel for his final stop as Rubens.

 

Why did Michael have completely different fuel levels?. It looked to me that they were running the same strategy.

Again just questioning ...

Pete

 

No, Michael had a more flexible strategy than Rubens. Michael could have done 3 pit stops or two... depending on how the race progressed. He said this himself at the race conference. Rubens said at the press conference that he was on two pit stops since the beginning. See they were different.

 

Yes but they were running with the same amount of fuel give or take a lap's worth on board since on their first pit stops they came in nose to tail with the same amount of fuel going in (7 seconds worth) As I said on another post, David Hobbs said he only needed 6 seconds worth and they gave him 8 seconds worth. RB could have easily made it to the end on 6 seconds worth of fuel. he came in later than MS, pitted after MS on the first stop, and needed less after MS stopped the first time. Ferrari's is playing games with Rubens.

 

No as I said above if you read the pst race press conference or if you watched it, Michael had a more flexible strategy than Rubens. Michael could have done 3 pit stops or two... depending on how the race progressed. He said this himself at the race conference. Rubens said at the press conference that he was on two pit stops since the beginning. See they were different.

 

Imperial83,

Do honestly believe everything you are told?

Pete

 

He needed 6 seconds of fuel for 23-24 laps. It takes approximately 1 second for the fuel nozzle to seal properly and another half second for the other fuel man to pull the "dead man's handle". It can't be pulled until the nozzle is sealed.

So therefore it should have taken in theory 7.5 seconds, but actually took 7.9.

You conspiracy theorists are arguing over 0.4 seconds. Not enough to make a difference in my opinion. I am sure the "human" tolerance is at least worth a half second with 19 people doing their job.

Regards,

Jon P. Kofod
www.flatoutracing.net

 

No, But do you think Rubens and Michael are both liars? Seems like you are calling them liars?

 

What ever number they give when they say for instance someone needs 5 seconds of fuel. The stop always takes longer then that. It takes time to take out the hose, and clear everyone out from the car. So 5 seconds of fuel may mean a 6.5 or 7 second pit stop. It happens every race. Just listen to what they say they need and watch how long they stay in.

 

Ruben has had an 8 second pit stop every race this season. Sheesh.

 

Yes. Most racing teams and drivers like to keep the truth close to their chest so the other teams do not know what is/was going on.

I never told my competitors 100% the true when I raced ... after spending thousands improving my car and thus lap time, the last thing I want to do is tell them how much faster I am ... then they will go and spend more!!!

Pete

 

MS is the biggest liar out there. Micheal will tell anyone who wants to listen that if Rubens is quicker then Rubens will be winning races. Yeah Riiiiiiiight. Rubens is always going to be hobbled, it's in his contract and he is in the only other car to consistently challenge MS. Far easier to screw the guy over in his contract than to go out and have to beat him on the track. Remember the good old days of qualifying, if Rubens was quicker then Micheal got his car, if MS was quicker then Rubens got jack.

 

Yes I have to agree ...

Pete

 

I saw this too. I'm not an expert but I'll tell you I thought his pit stop was delayed also. I thought this at the last couple secs of the stop, before I saw that MS was even an issue. When I saw MS come around the track and they were talking about it I was thinking "did they do it intentionaly?" If they did, I've got to feel for this guy.

 

Alright, going off in a ramble here...

After all the negative comments, I'm beginning to feel somewhat eremitic in my enjoyment of F1. All this criticism launched at MS, Rubens, F1 in general - I just don't get it. In my eyes, our boys are out there racing well, winning, certainly not doing anything against the rules as is being suggested and making the tifosi happy. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about.

In Indianapolis, I genuinely thought that Michael and Barichello were fighting for the lead throughout the race. I was undoubtedly happy to see the two Ferraris so competitive with each other, but towards the end when Rubens took a stab at Michael they came pretty close to a shunt. At that point I didn't think it was wise for both drivers to continue aggressively fighting for position. I don't understand why others here are so hungry for blood when a great result nonetheless was at stake. Maybe I'm being quixotic when I say I'm just happy to see a Ferrari 1,2, but Michael is a bold defender of his line, and Ruben's car wasn't vastly better than his teammate's, why take chances like that so close to the end of the race?

I don't understand how there can be so many posts extolling Senna for his aggressive racing vigor, but at the same time so much criticism of Schumacher whenever he manifests the same qualities.
All this MS critique at Indy and I have yet to see anyone remark on Panis's wild move against Sato in which he nearly ran the BAR pilot off the road during an overtake: an attack that was much more blatant than anything Schumacher has done all season.

In my eyes this season is the golden era of Ferrari and I guess I'm just surprised at all the polemic. What's wrong with enjoying some much deserved Ferrari dominance? Soon enough it will all be over and we can all go back to the 'exciting' days of F1, when 6th was a good Ferrari result; our pilots were forced to fight each other because neither of them had any points; and a British team was two lap lenghts ahead of everybody else.
Hurra for the good old days!

 

WHY? Even you must realize that Rubens knew full well what his role was/is when he signed his contract.

DL

 

I too thought that his pit time seemed unnaturally "delayed" ...

--Dan

 

I think the increase in conspiracy theories is a conspiracy.

I was watching some of the other pit stops before Rubens came in. Michael's was 10.1, Toyota did a 9.2, BAR around 9.1. Rubens did 7.9.

But Rubens did not get fastest lap of the race just before his pit stop. The race winner usually does. I think Rubens may have been held up in traffic (or debris). Speed TV didn't show Rubens' last few laps before he pitted.

And Rubens did look to be racing with Michael after that pit stop. And he got the full treatment from "Dr. Chop". He'll have to buff that mark out of his visor before the next race -- where Michael slammed the door in his face.

 

Show me this. Or are you a liar too? Or do I want to see this? Am I a liar?

 

How?

 

Which door? The one that RB saw from a mile back at the 1st turn?
As for closing the door. It's legal. Everyone does it.

 

Lap 52 or so, after RB's last pit stop, at turn four. Rubens went down the inside then had to lock up a bit as Michael dove for the apex.
Legal? Michael was in front, while Rubens had the inside line. Of course it was legal. But it's not the kind of thing that just "looks like" you're racing.