The Official 2016 Austrian Grand Prix Thread **Spoilers**
Discussion
DeltonaS said:
You're cherry picking a bit....
Plus Senna, Prost and Schumi for instance, always had very strong competition from a rival team.
Schumacher had no competition at all for most of the years he won a WDC. Even in 94 he was driving a car which had certain "advantages" over the others. hora said:
In addition Senna wasnt in a dog of a car when he won titles was he? None of the Champions were.
True, but an easy 0.8 but mostly a 1 to 1.3 seconds gap in qualy for almost 2 1/2 years now is unprecedented.Plus Senna, Prost and Schumi for instance, always had very strong competition from a rival team.
hora said:
Funny that - you need THE driver and THE car. Eddie Irvine, etc etc all had great cars but couldn't..
DeltonaS said:
Irvine and Barrichello were the designated 2nd drivers for Ferrari.
In that respect we must be very thankful to Mercedes that they let their drivers race each other.
And guess what, Hamilton doesn't always win, far from, even when he "only" has Rosberg as competition...
As was Webber at Red Bull, who very nearly won the WDC despite being "not bad for a number 2 driver" - the status alone doesn't stop you from winning. In that respect we must be very thankful to Mercedes that they let their drivers race each other.
And guess what, Hamilton doesn't always win, far from, even when he "only" has Rosberg as competition...
But Alonso couldn't win in the McLaren, neither could Coulthard. While Fisichella was nowhere in the Renault when Alonso was winning the WDC.
DeltonaS said:
Drivers input in a cars performance is in the final tenths/hundreds/thousands of a lap, ON track and in the pitbox, setting up a car, not at the factory.
With this one statement, you've lost every ounce of credibility in your F1 knowledge.If you don't understand the role that a driver plays in developing a car, then you should probably start watching something more simple.
hora said:
When LH joined Mercedes they had won one(?) race in 3years.
Maybe LH is part of the development you know.
In addition Senna wasnt in a dog of a car when he won titles was he? None of the Champions were. Funny that - you need THE driver and THE car. Eddie Irvine, etc etc all had great cars but couldn't..
Is that because MS broke his leg too late in the season?Maybe LH is part of the development you know.
In addition Senna wasnt in a dog of a car when he won titles was he? None of the Champions were. Funny that - you need THE driver and THE car. Eddie Irvine, etc etc all had great cars but couldn't..
I'll just leave this here:
A few observations:
Rosberg didn't try to run Hamilton off track in the braking zone--no squeezing.
Rosberg's line suggests he intended to close Hamilton out mid corner/exit.
Hamilton's line was not ideal for a switch back which is what he was trying to do, but his turn in was also awfully late, because he out braked Rosberg too much to modulate for the switch back, I think? Or have I got this the other way around?
ETA: Hard to believe the blind spot suggestion too, as you often see racers give space to each other in similar positions in the 1st corner.
A few observations:
Rosberg didn't try to run Hamilton off track in the braking zone--no squeezing.
Rosberg's line suggests he intended to close Hamilton out mid corner/exit.
Hamilton's line was not ideal for a switch back which is what he was trying to do, but his turn in was also awfully late, because he out braked Rosberg too much to modulate for the switch back, I think? Or have I got this the other way around?
ETA: Hard to believe the blind spot suggestion too, as you often see racers give space to each other in similar positions in the 1st corner.
Edited by Dr Z on Thursday 7th July 13:17
DeltonaS said:
Irvine and Barrichello were the designated 2nd drivers for Ferrari.
In that respect we must be very thankful to Mercedes that they let their drivers race each other.
And guess what, Hamilton doesn't always win, far from, even when he "only" has Rosberg as competition...
Well that's one of the most glowing tributes to Hamilton's 2 WDCs at Merc I've read in a long time.In that respect we must be very thankful to Mercedes that they let their drivers race each other.
And guess what, Hamilton doesn't always win, far from, even when he "only" has Rosberg as competition...
Probably not was intended, but very true.
Almost all recent WDCs have been with very much a Number 2 driver to help keep rivals from taking too many points from the golden boy in car 1.
Dr Z said:
I'll just leave this here:
A few observations:
Rosberg didn't try to run Hamilton off track in the braking zone--no squeezing.
Rosberg's line suggests he intended to close Hamilton out mid corner/exit.
Hamilton's line was not ideal for a switch back which is what he was trying to do, but his turn in was also awfully late, because he out braked Rosberg too much to modulate for the switch back, I think? Or have I got this the other way around?
ETA: Hard to believe the blind spot suggestion too, as you often see racers give space to each other in similar positions in the 1st corner.
Still desperately trying to prove it was hamilton's fault despite world opinion A few observations:
Rosberg didn't try to run Hamilton off track in the braking zone--no squeezing.
Rosberg's line suggests he intended to close Hamilton out mid corner/exit.
Hamilton's line was not ideal for a switch back which is what he was trying to do, but his turn in was also awfully late, because he out braked Rosberg too much to modulate for the switch back, I think? Or have I got this the other way around?
ETA: Hard to believe the blind spot suggestion too, as you often see racers give space to each other in similar positions in the 1st corner.
No...not Hamilton's fault but trying to see the intricacies of the incident! Dr Z said:
I'll just leave this here:
A few observations:
Rosberg didn't try to run Hamilton off track in the braking zone--no squeezing.
Rosberg's line suggests he intended to close Hamilton out mid corner/exit.
Hamilton's line was not ideal for a switch back which is what he was trying to do, but his turn in was also awfully late, because he out braked Rosberg too much to modulate for the switch back, I think? Or have I got this the other way around?
ETA: Hard to believe the blind spot suggestion too, as you often see racers give space to each other in similar positions in the 1st corner.
Maybe you should present that to the team that deemed it was Nicos fault and applied penalties to him. I am sure your CV is much better than theirs and you have access to all the information they do from your sofa. A few observations:
Rosberg didn't try to run Hamilton off track in the braking zone--no squeezing.
Rosberg's line suggests he intended to close Hamilton out mid corner/exit.
Hamilton's line was not ideal for a switch back which is what he was trying to do, but his turn in was also awfully late, because he out braked Rosberg too much to modulate for the switch back, I think? Or have I got this the other way around?
ETA: Hard to believe the blind spot suggestion too, as you often see racers give space to each other in similar positions in the 1st corner.
Edited by Dr Z on Thursday 7th July 13:17
Dr Z said:
I'll just leave this here:
A few observations:
Rosberg didn't try to run Hamilton off track in the braking zone--no squeezing.
Rosberg's line suggests he intended to close Hamilton out mid corner/exit.
Hamilton's line was not ideal for a switch back which is what he was trying to do, but his turn in was also awfully late, because he out braked Rosberg too much to modulate for the switch back, I think? Or have I got this the other way around?
ETA: Hard to believe the blind spot suggestion too, as you often see racers give space to each other in similar positions in the 1st corner.
As far as I'm aware, Hamilton hasn't indicated he was going for a switch back, that's just conjecture? I would suggest he was simply going to use his better grip to drive around the outside of the corner, then better traction + DRS would see him heading first into T3.A few observations:
Rosberg didn't try to run Hamilton off track in the braking zone--no squeezing.
Rosberg's line suggests he intended to close Hamilton out mid corner/exit.
Hamilton's line was not ideal for a switch back which is what he was trying to do, but his turn in was also awfully late, because he out braked Rosberg too much to modulate for the switch back, I think? Or have I got this the other way around?
ETA: Hard to believe the blind spot suggestion too, as you often see racers give space to each other in similar positions in the 1st corner.
Edited by Dr Z on Thursday 7th July 13:17
Pics also make clear that LH was ahead going into the corner, and left a huge amount of room for Rosberg on the inside.
Not a lot of point going over it again though, it's clear who's at fault hence the stewards issuing a penalty!
rsbmw said:
As far as I'm aware, Hamilton hasn't indicated he was going for a switch back, that's just conjecture? I would suggest he was simply going to use his better grip to drive around the outside of the corner, then better traction + DRS would see him heading first into T3.
Pics also make clear that LH was ahead going into the corner, and left a huge amount of room for Rosberg on the inside.
Not a lot of point going over it again though, it's clear who's at fault hence the stewards issuing a penalty!
Cool, yeah I assumed that's what Hamilton was trying to do (a la Bahrain). The incident is an interesting one.Pics also make clear that LH was ahead going into the corner, and left a huge amount of room for Rosberg on the inside.
Not a lot of point going over it again though, it's clear who's at fault hence the stewards issuing a penalty!
Hamilton said he was looking to turn late and hard to get the car straightened up as quick as possible to get on the gas hard and early... Square the corner off on a wide line. He (apparently) never had trying to cut to the inside as part of this attempted pass.
Biggest issue here - Nico didn't have the line / positioning was confused. This really is the bit he struggles with in racecraft. He could have even eased off his (Failing?) brakes a little to ensure he was fully along side - then Lewis couldn't have turned in even if Nico was going to run out over the curb. And if Lewis did turn in, he'd bump wheels (not a disaster) or run up Nico's wheel (very bad for Lewis)... Nico needs to be calmer about these situations and position his car to protect it better.
I'm not here trying to criticise Nico - he drove an excellent race until an error cost him 2 or 3 positions on track. But I am 100% convinced that his judgment in these wheel to wheel moments is clouded by this belief that he has to be "aggressive".
Biggest issue here - Nico didn't have the line / positioning was confused. This really is the bit he struggles with in racecraft. He could have even eased off his (Failing?) brakes a little to ensure he was fully along side - then Lewis couldn't have turned in even if Nico was going to run out over the curb. And if Lewis did turn in, he'd bump wheels (not a disaster) or run up Nico's wheel (very bad for Lewis)... Nico needs to be calmer about these situations and position his car to protect it better.
I'm not here trying to criticise Nico - he drove an excellent race until an error cost him 2 or 3 positions on track. But I am 100% convinced that his judgment in these wheel to wheel moments is clouded by this belief that he has to be "aggressive".
Hungrymc said:
But I am 100% convinced that his judgment in these wheel to wheel moments is clouded by this belief that he has to be "aggressive".
Agree completely, I've said similar on other posts before. He was always the one to wuss out first in 'wheel to wheel' racing, then the latter part of last year through this year he's gone too far the other way which seems to be an attempt at not being the victim. I think he could grasp 'hard but fair' he would be a more complete driver, right now I expect a lot on the grid can't trust him, which is a big problem.rsbmw said:
Hungrymc said:
But I am 100% convinced that his judgment in these wheel to wheel moments is clouded by this belief that he has to be "aggressive".
Agree completely, I've said similar on other posts before. He was always the one to wuss out first in 'wheel to wheel' racing, then the latter part of last year through this year he's gone too far the other way which seems to be an attempt at not being the victim. I think he could grasp 'hard but fair' he would be a more complete driver, right now I expect a lot on the grid can't trust him, which is a big problem.Imho, Rosberg is desperately trying to play Lewis at his own game but as it is not really natural to him, it comes over false/clumsy. But he is, after all, just a guy trying to win the greatest prize in motorsport against the current top driver. Its gonna get messy.
I'm convinced Rosberg's intention was to run Hamilton as wide as it took to screw his chances of getting a run on him after the corner.
As Hamilton had already decided to go round the outside, they collided in a very unlikely place, miles from the apex.
Rosberg was simply staying with Hamilton and looked like he wanted to dump him outside the track.
'The dump' seems to be his go-to move when threatened.
As Hamilton had already decided to go round the outside, they collided in a very unlikely place, miles from the apex.
Rosberg was simply staying with Hamilton and looked like he wanted to dump him outside the track.
'The dump' seems to be his go-to move when threatened.
Dr Z said:
I'll just leave this here:
A few observations:
Rosberg didn't try to run Hamilton off track in the braking zone--no squeezing.
Rosberg's line suggests he intended to close Hamilton out mid corner/exit.
Hamilton's line was not ideal for a switch back which is what he was trying to do, but his turn in was also awfully late, because he out braked Rosberg too much to modulate for the switch back, I think? Or have I got this the other way around?
ETA: Hard to believe the blind spot suggestion too, as you often see racers give space to each other in similar positions in the 1st corner.
Hamilton was not going for the switch back. A few observations:
Rosberg didn't try to run Hamilton off track in the braking zone--no squeezing.
Rosberg's line suggests he intended to close Hamilton out mid corner/exit.
Hamilton's line was not ideal for a switch back which is what he was trying to do, but his turn in was also awfully late, because he out braked Rosberg too much to modulate for the switch back, I think? Or have I got this the other way around?
ETA: Hard to believe the blind spot suggestion too, as you often see racers give space to each other in similar positions in the 1st corner.
Hamilton was going to humiliate Rosberg by overtaking him around the outside at turn two. No driver wants to be overtaken, but being overtaken around the outside is doubly humiliating. And by your team mate? Being overtaken around the outside means that the guy passing you is not only faster and more confident than you, but he is also assuming you will be subservient enough to let him do it. Of course, if he has track position at the apex there’s not a damn thing you can do about it either- if he’s ahead, you can’t just tough him off the track on the exit like a Formula 1 driver usually would. And then of course you can’t use that last car’s width of track on the exit which means your competitor will have a higher exit speed too.
Such circumstances often cause spur of the moment decisions. It’s a matter of pride.
Judging by how much of Hamilton’s car is ahead of Rosberg’s at the normal turn-in point, and the relative health of Hamilton’s tyres, I think he would’ve pulled it off- just so long as Rosberg didn’t do anything untoward.
However, Rosberg didn’t turn in- and for all intents and purposes looked as though he wouldn’t until he was practically on the white line. He went several car lengths beyond a normal turn in point. A game of chicken ensued. Rosberg knew that to stay on the track Hamilton would have to turn in- but surely he wouldn’t while Rosberg was there?
Hamilton was either going to go off the track and be forced to concede the win or attempt to spook Rosberg into turning and risk potential damage in by turning in first. So that was that. Hamilton basically called his bluff.
The most damning features for Rosberg were that he was clearly not going to allow Hamilton to stay on the track had Hamilton not turned in when he did, forcing the issue. This was re-enforced on the way out when the slowing Rosberg wouldn’t let him back on. Secondly he was a long way from his normal line and there was no lock-up or understeer to make it appear accidental.
HustleRussell said:
Hamilton was not going for the switch back.
Hamilton was going to humiliate Rosberg by overtaking him around the outside at turn two. No driver wants to be overtaken, but being overtaken around the outside is doubly humiliating. And by your team mate? Being overtaken around the outside means that the guy passing you is not only faster and more confident than you, but he is also assuming you will be subservient enough to let him do it. Of course, if he has track position at the apex there’s not a damn thing you can do about it either- if he’s ahead, you can’t just tough him off the track on the exit like a Formula 1 driver usually would. And then of course you can’t use that last car’s width of track on the exit which means your competitor will have a higher exit speed too.
Such circumstances often cause spur of the moment decisions. It’s a matter of pride.
Judging by how much of Hamilton’s car is ahead of Rosberg’s at the normal turn-in point, and the relative health of Hamilton’s tyres, I think he would’ve pulled it off- just so long as Rosberg didn’t do anything untoward.
However, Rosberg didn’t turn in- and for all intents and purposes looked as though he wouldn’t until he was practically on the white line. He went several car lengths beyond a normal turn in point. A game of chicken ensued. Rosberg knew that to stay on the track Hamilton would have to turn in- but surely he wouldn’t while Rosberg was there?
Hamilton was either going to go off the track and be forced to concede the win or attempt to spook Rosberg into turning and risk potential damage in by turning in first. So that was that. Hamilton basically called his bluff.
The most damning features for Rosberg were that he was clearly not going to allow Hamilton to stay on the track had Hamilton not turned in when he did, forcing the issue. This was re-enforced on the way out when the slowing Rosberg wouldn’t let him back on. Secondly he was a long way from his normal line and there was no lock-up or understeer to make it appear accidental.
Great post, this is pretty much how I imagined the thought processes behind that incident between the two drivers--a sense of immovable object meeting unstoppable force.Hamilton was going to humiliate Rosberg by overtaking him around the outside at turn two. No driver wants to be overtaken, but being overtaken around the outside is doubly humiliating. And by your team mate? Being overtaken around the outside means that the guy passing you is not only faster and more confident than you, but he is also assuming you will be subservient enough to let him do it. Of course, if he has track position at the apex there’s not a damn thing you can do about it either- if he’s ahead, you can’t just tough him off the track on the exit like a Formula 1 driver usually would. And then of course you can’t use that last car’s width of track on the exit which means your competitor will have a higher exit speed too.
Such circumstances often cause spur of the moment decisions. It’s a matter of pride.
Judging by how much of Hamilton’s car is ahead of Rosberg’s at the normal turn-in point, and the relative health of Hamilton’s tyres, I think he would’ve pulled it off- just so long as Rosberg didn’t do anything untoward.
However, Rosberg didn’t turn in- and for all intents and purposes looked as though he wouldn’t until he was practically on the white line. He went several car lengths beyond a normal turn in point. A game of chicken ensued. Rosberg knew that to stay on the track Hamilton would have to turn in- but surely he wouldn’t while Rosberg was there?
Hamilton was either going to go off the track and be forced to concede the win or attempt to spook Rosberg into turning and risk potential damage in by turning in first. So that was that. Hamilton basically called his bluff.
The most damning features for Rosberg were that he was clearly not going to allow Hamilton to stay on the track had Hamilton not turned in when he did, forcing the issue. This was re-enforced on the way out when the slowing Rosberg wouldn’t let him back on. Secondly he was a long way from his normal line and there was no lock-up or understeer to make it appear accidental.
Hungrymc said:
I'm not here trying to criticise Nico - he drove an excellent race until an error cost him 2 or 3 positions on track. But I am 100% convinced that his judgment in these wheel to wheel moments is clouded by this belief that he has to be "aggressive".
Two slightly slow pit stops, strange strategy and Hamilton error at t2 on his out lap lead to it, it seems. in the stint before the last pitstop Nico maintained the lead from Hamilton, on the same but older tyres, but I'm not sure if that was because Hamilton believed he was not stopping again?
If we forget the last lap incident, if Nico had won, would he have deserved it ?
Anyway, almost time to switch thread !
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff