Quick sport guru question. Are the 2 early guru points given because you make picks before qualifying?

Yes

Really enjoyed the Chinese GP today, I'm warming to the DRS/KERS debate slowly - it certainly seems to inject some action into the races.

A shame Button mucked up his 1st pitstop, he could have won this one if he'd kept his head together. I find it hard to believe that you could "look down" when you're hurtling towards your pit crew at 50mph, I'm sure his team took the p!ss relentlessly after the race, poor lad! Still, good to see Lewis win his first race of the season, he fully deserved it. And Webber did a fantastic job to grab 3rd place from 18th - I hope he can start giving Vettel a run for his money soon.

Don’t think Jenson would have won the race yesterday tbh with or without the pit stop confusion. Both Lewis and Mark demonstrated what can happen if you have new option tires in reserve. With all the sets Mark had tucked up his sleeve after only running in Q3 once he had got his prime's out of the way in the race he just thundered through the grid on multiply new options.

Does make me wonder if we are going to start seeing more of what Lewis did in qualifying over the next few races with other teams…..”Tactical Qualifying”

Awesome race yesterday. I found the Aussie GP a bit dull and due to an error with the HDD Recorder, the Japanese GP didn't start recording on time and by the time I'd seen the race, I already knew that Vettel had won.

Yesterday's was so much better and although I had to leave for kids footie at 9.30. I diligently avoided the radio until I got back. I shouted out loud when Lewis got past Vettel- exciting stuff- and it still wasn't clear what the podium positions would be right until the end.

It's a shame that all races aren't like this one.

Last year, I started watching again after they banned refuelling, but I thought that enforced tyre stops was a joke, still. At the end of the season, I was still of that opinion, but it certainly made a difference yesterday and yet there was still plenty of racing on the track as well.

From Martin Brundles' little technical bit, I was interested in the fact that those teams that don't run KERS still have to ballast their cars. I would have thought that the choice is to save weight or add horse power. Apart from the cost, if you have to ballast the car, you might as well run KERS. You are no worse off if it breaks down and much better off if it works. (unless failure causes major problems, perhaps.)

I saw that but then I thought that surely if you don't have KERS you can put the 40kg elsewhere into the car.

i.e. have heavier front suspension in order to improve mechanical grip at low speed (etc, etc, etc...)

Does it have to go into the car as "wasted" ballast?

Surely as long as the weight is above the minimum and the front/rear weight distribution is correct then it should be ok?

Yep, the key point is that you can put that extra ballast anywhere that you choose, to improve the balance of the car - whereas the KERS system is more or less in a fixed position in everyone's car - i.e. much higher up - so it can affect the mechanical grip. The lower you can put that ballast - or move it towards the front or back - can make for a better handling package.

All cars - regardless of whether running KERS or not - must weigh roughly the same, and certainly not below the minimum weight at the end of the race (driver and car weights combined).

At least, that's the way I understand the regulations.

Yep, I think the minimum limit of car and driver after the race is something like 600kg.

They also have a front/rear distribution limit that they have to be within 1% of but I'm not entirely sure what that distribution is.

I just wasn't sure if they had to put the ballast where the KERS would have been. Makes sense for them to be able to distribute it as they see fit (within the rules).

Here you go...

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules ... 1/fia.html

Love that website

Fundamentally the Red Bull has a problem with KERS due to lack of interest in the system by Adrian Newey. He has done another fantastic job on the car but has restricted the fundamentals for KERS and its systems hence their unreliability problems with it during racing.

They have to carry the weight so gain nothing by not using KERS apart from aero advantages which at the moment on the faster tracks is proving to be a possible Achilles Heel.

I gather that KERS messes up the brake balance a bit too, when harvesting energy from the rear wheels.

It's a concern that Red Bull are still competitive even when their KERS isn't working fully.

I'm not entirely convinced by DRS. It does mean more overtaking, but it doesn't make it all that exciting if they can just drift past on the straight. Obviously, there are more things to consider on a tactical front - the idea that a driver may hold off on an overtaking move, if he thinks he wont pull out more than a second before he gets to the start/finish straight, because the overtakee could just regain the place under DRS.

I prefer KERS and I think I could happily live without DRS, especially if it means that teams have adopt KERS to remain competitive. At least you can choose when to deploy it on the lap.

These high-deg tyres are making a huge difference to the racing though - I love the uncertainty they bring, and the effect they are having on team strategies.

The problem with only having KERS is that everyone has KERS whenever they want it (up to 6 seconds per lap).

If you are closely following a car you will save your KERS to get a big boost oon the long straight. However, if you are being followed by a car that looks like it's going to overtake you will save your KERS for the long straight so you end up with a zero effect overall.

With DRS it is not always the case that they can just sale past. There were a couple of points in the race where this did happen but for the most part the DRS only allowed them to get side by side at best (Alonso overtaking Schumacher springs to mind).

The DRS still requires the driver skill of being able to make an overtaking manoeuvre stick.

And with the ability to alter the activation point over the season it gives the FIA a better handle on how much effect it can have during each race.

I understand your point but If you can put the guy in front under enough pressure, that he needs to use KERS elsewhere on the lap, then he will lose some or all of the advantage it brings on the long straights. In other words, it remains a tactical tool and it keeps control in the hands of the drivers.


I don't see that as a plus for the sport - it feels far too contrived.

Again though, it is like DC said about DRS and KERS when someone mentioned about it being "just a tool for overtaking". The whole sport and all the rules are set up and the car is set up to try and make a good race with good overtaking. The last couple of years, most of the changes to the cars have purely been put in place to try and improve overtaking. It improves the race for the spectators and (I would imagine) improves the race for the drivers also.

If the results of that work, plus DRS and KERS allow for races like Sunday's then I'm happy for it to be there.

Wouldn't you agree that the vast majority of the action on Sunday would have still taken place, just through KERS and tyre degradation?