Rosberg calls Hamilton lucky before podium ceremony

[Jasandjules]

Crafty_ said:

Either way there was a fairly fundamental difference in setup between the two cars.

Yep.

And if Lewis continues to race at 0.3s or so faster in Quali and 0.5s faster in the race, I suspect that I am correct and that one of the punishments handed out to Nico is to not get Lewis' data for setting up etc.

[Crafty_]

Quite possibly correct on the data sharing thing, I doubt if that (or the setup difference) is the whole answeer though - its likely to be a mixture of the two or maybe even some other things we have no idea of.

I'm interested to see exactly how this whole radio assistance thing works out and who it helps. My theory is that those drivers who can adapt and work around problems in the car will be at an advantage.

In the short term I'm not sure there is much the teams will be able to do to make up for it, in the long term I suspect they will equip the cars with data analytics that take data from the DA systems, do some processing and a bit of reasoning and then route info to the drivers LCD screen or potentially even change car settings on the fly. I don't believe that breaks any current rules.

However, those systems will take time to develop and I think will be too late for this years championship.

[MGJohn]

REALIST123 said:

MGJohn said:

REALIST123 said:

No John, you are wrong.

At the factory debrief last week, the very topic was raised and dismissed as a ludicrous idea. As it was explained, when you think of the consequences of a serious lock up at one of the chicanes, in terms of a likely extra pitstop in a marginal one stop race, it's quite easy to see why a run through the chicane was preferable to attempting the corner, as happened with Rosberg and others.

Just think about it.

Ludicrous idea. Very predictable response.

A very experienced driver makes the same 'mistake' at precisely the same location twice. Even Maldonado on a bad day is rarely guilty of that...

Think about it. I have and have said my bit about "behind closed doors". My stance will not change unless that full content becomes open source which is unlikely..

OK, have it your way, believe what you want to. It's your problem, and I mean that most sincerely.

I shall continue to do that ...

Haha .... "most sincerely". You're the late Hughie Green and ICMFP...

It's Motor Racing and differing opinions. Never a problem for me and not to be taken too seriously ... although some appear to do so.

[MGJohn]

IainT said:

MGJohn said:

IainT said:

What evidence do you have of a conspiracy? Please use real evidence, not conspiracy tin-foil hattery.

None whatsoever.

What evidence do you have that there wasn't one?

You're making an extraordinary claim, provide extraordinary evidence or just admin to being a partisan troll.

No claim made by me. I simply am not ready to believe the subsequent Corporate glossing over all things considered. Particularly in view of Lauda and Wolf's initial outbursts at the time.

I'm reserving judgement and am prepared to admit I'm wrong about it all if ever the WHOLE content is accurately revealed.

Rosberg's subsequent demeanour and behaviour is like a chastised child instructed to Button it. Hey nearly a pun .. Who appears to be just itching to spill the beans. Who knows ? ... you do not and I do not. Still a possibility though.

Anyway, enough of all this. Think I'll have a few quid again on Hamilton for the next race if I can get a decent price.

Edited by MGJohn on Sunday 14th September 19:50

[Derek Smith]

MGJohn said:

I shall continue to do that ...

Haha .... "most sincerely". You're the late Hughie Green and ICMFP...

It's Motor Racing and differing opinions. Never a problem for me and not to be taken too seriously ... although some appear to do so.

Please feel reassured that I don't take your opinions seriously.

[MGJohn]

Derek Smith said:

MGJohn said:

I shall continue to do that ...

Haha .... "most sincerely". You're the late Hughie Green and ICMFP...

It's Motor Racing and differing opinions. Never a problem for me and not to be taken too seriously ... although some appear to do so.

Please feel reassured that I don't take your opinions seriously.

Your reassurance I find most reassuring. Gives one a warm glow inside.

As Mr. Green would have it Mr. Smith ..



Friends, I mean that most sincerely.

[Mojocvh]

You know, sometimes it's best just to STFU and move on.

[MGJohn]

Mojocvh said:

You know, sometimes it's best just to STFU and move on.

Good advice. So, moving swiftly on...

[IainT]

Jasandjules said:

Yep.

And if Lewis continues to race at 0.3s or so faster in Quali and 0.5s faster in the race, I suspect that I am correct and that one of the punishments handed out to Nico is to not get Lewis' data for setting up etc.

I just can't see the team enacting a punishment that would jeopardise the team result. Merc want to utterly dominate and ensure that they win the WCC by a mahoosive margin. They'd have liked to win all the races this season and would like to win the rest.

They could have given Lewis pit stop priority no matter if he were in front or behind but they didn't. They stuck with their normal rule of lead driver coming in first.

[Europa1]

[quote=MGJohn]One thing is most certain. Something obviously was arranged. To what full extent it's unlikely those outside that privvy circle will never know.

Why was something "obviously" arranged?

Please do share your thoughts on who shot JFK, the moon landings and who was behind 9/11...

Oh, and it's spelt "privy".

[VladD]

garycat said:

Crafty_ said:

garycat said:

More wing should have given him better braking... I would have thought

yes and more drag on the straight, which leads to lower speed through the traps...

So if he was going slower, and had better braking, why did he go straight on twice?

It's simple really. If you're carrying more wing and your terminal speed is lower, you have a later breaking point. You can still miss that breaking point, especially if you're pushing on to try and open a gap (first instance) or you're being closed down from behind and you get flustered (second instance).

[Gary C]

Crafty_ said:

Quite possibly correct on the data sharing thing, I doubt if that (or the setup difference) is the whole answeer though - its likely to be a mixture of the two or maybe even some other things we have no idea of.

I'm interested to see exactly how this whole radio assistance thing works out and who it helps. My theory is that those drivers who can adapt and work around problems in the car will be at an advantage.

In the short term I'm not sure there is much the teams will be able to do to make up for it, in the long term I suspect they will equip the cars with data analytics that take data from the DA systems, do some processing and a bit of reasoning and then route info to the drivers LCD screen or potentially even change car settings on the fly. I don't believe that breaks any current rules.

However, those systems will take time to develop and I think will be too late for this years championship.

I believe there has been a ban since the early 90's on changing the car settings from the pits while on track ?

Edit

Found it

8.5.2 Pit to car telemetry is prohibited.

Edited by Gary C on Monday 15th September 09:30

[Crafty_]

Correct, but there is nothing to say you can't run stuff on board the car itself that does the same thing, which is what i was talking about.

[London424]

The reason I don't think it had any chance of being arranged (and especially not by going down that escape road twice) is that anything could have happened down there.

Hit the polystyrene board things and get it lodged somewhere, break a bit of bodywork...or more likely get a puncture from all the crap that ends up there. Rosberg would then have a full lap to get round for a new tyre.

So many other options from the team to choose if they wanted to 'fix' a result.

[MGJohn]

Europa1 said:

MGJohn said:

One thing is most certain. Something obviously was arranged. To what full extent it's unlikely those outside that privvy circle will never know.

Why was something "obviously" arranged?

Please do share your thoughts on who shot JFK, the moon landings and who was behind 9/11...

Oh, and it's spelt "privy".

Yes, course it is ... many thanks for that help. In helpful return, I've tidied up your lack of [quote] enclosures... that's much better.... isn't it ...

[LDN]

MGJohn said:

Europa1 said:

MGJohn said:

One thing is most certain. Something obviously was arranged. To what full extent it's unlikely those outside that privvy circle will never know.

Why was something "obviously" arranged?

Please do share your thoughts on who shot JFK, the moon landings and who was behind 9/11...

Oh, and it's spelt "privy".

Yes, course it is ... many thanks for that help. In helpful return, I've tidied up your lack of [quote] enclosures... that's much better.... isn't it ...

Troll; go away.

[MGJohn]

LDN said:

Troll; go away.

No. So there ..

[VladD]

MGJohn said:

LDN said:

Troll; go away.

No. So there ..

evidente troll è evidente.

[vonuber]

A difference of opinion is not trolling.
I know it seems that at times we have to take the Hamilton party line on this forum, but there is no need to hound those who dare to disagree.
Opinions are opinions, and without them there would be no debate.

[VladD]

vonuber said:

A difference of opinion is not trolling.
I know it seems that at times we have to take the Hamilton party line on this forum, but there is no need to hound those who dare to disagree.
Opinions are opinions, and without them there would be no debate.

A fair point, but there are those who debate for genuine reasons and those who do it just to cause controversy. Those who take a converse position or manner of speech purely to get a reaction are called trolls. I guess it's up to the individual to make their mind up about who does it for what ever reasons, but you can quite often see a trend appearing.

Edited by VladD on Monday 15th September 14:33