+++ The Official Italian (Monza) Grand Prix Thread 2015 +++

[Vaud]

Scuffers said:

listen harder then, plenty have said just that.

Last race even Brundel commented that in years gone by, parabolica was a hang-on-for-grim-death corner, these days they are making steering wheel switch adjustments mid-corner...

What's the main factor in that ?

Consistent power delivery?
Balanced aero?
Advanced Adjustable systems / eg diff?

[London424]

Le TVR said:

NRS said:

However my point was we didn't KNOW what happened with the measurements and so they could have been done at the correct temperatures and so on.

Interestingly it was confirmed that the tyre temperatures were also measured at the same time to see if they were below the limit of 110° but this was not mentioned by the stewards as (they thought) it was not related to the tyre pressure infringement.
It was commented that the temperatures were well below the required limit.

Edited by Le TVR on Tuesday 8th September 08:18

Rosbergs had dropped into the 80s. Much cooler than 'normal'

[Scuffers]

Vaud said:

Scuffers said:

listen harder then, plenty have said just that.

Last race even Brundel commented that in years gone by, parabolica was a hang-on-for-grim-death corner, these days they are making steering wheel switch adjustments mid-corner...

What's the main factor in that ?

Consistent power delivery?
Balanced aero?
Advanced Adjustable systems / eg diff?

simpler than that - Cars are basically slower - some 5 seconds a lap slower

[Derek Smith]

REALIST123 said:

Perhaps you know better but not according to several of the drivers their not. Button, Alonso, Vettel, even Massa have all said the cars aren't difficult enough to drive, which is why we have inexperienced kids making a fist of it.

Maybe they're hard to drive when they're on the limit for a few laps of qualifying but not for most of the race. It's still a tyre management exercise, remember, more than ever before.

Even I have to admit that the drivers probably know a bit more than me on what it is like to drive these cars so I'll accept I'm wrong. I'm only drawing conclusions on what I've seen. The image of Alonso of full opposite lock at speed, glorious though it was, indicated that care has to be taken on the throttle out of a corner like never before. The there's the technical side of the Kers, DRS and more. They've got more buttons than NASA.

We've had the lead driver cruising for years: Schumacher, Vettel (when Webber wasn't having a go) and now Hamilton.

I've been thinking about the somewhat terse instructions to Hamilton. He had no idea what he had to do other than go faster. How much faster? What risks? Qually risks or more? What was he trying to do?

My assumption was that he was going to have to stop for a sort of 'splash and dash', perhaps resetting something. Then I thought they might be about to switch something off. "Lewis, we're shutting the engine down, you've got just battery for the last laps."

I've made the assumption that telling him what the problem was was banned under the radio communication limits. If not, then why not tell him to "build a 25 second gap in case there's a time penalty." That would allow him to judge what speed to go at to balance risks of a non-finish against 2nd place points.

[Eric Mc]

It kind of reminded me of John Glenn's situation when he made the US's first orbital flight in 1962. Ground control had an indication that his heat shield was loose but refused to tell Glenn exactly what their indicators were showing. They told him to keep the retention straps on all through re-entry (they should have been jettisoned). When he asked "Why?", all they said was "This is the decision of Cape Flight".

Like Hamilton, he was not happy but kept his thoughts under control over the airwaves.

[monamimate]

Hungrymc said:

monamimate said:

I don't think one needs to be Sherlock to realise that had they announced to all and sundry that they needed a 25 second gap to win, Vettel and Ferrari would have immediately responded.

Even though everyone was speculating they needed 25 seconds for a pit stop. So Ferrari will have been questioning this and presumably responding as best they could anyway. A different cause but the same result?

Sherlock deduced the correct result anyway but for the wrong reasons.

Edited by Hungrymc on Tuesday 8th September 06:26

Huh? Mercedes were the ONLY ones who knew the real reason. As you say, all the rest were just speculating. Therefore Sherlock's point is correct both in its conclusion and in its reasoning: Mercedes were right to tell Lewis nothing so that no-one else would know what the best defensive action was to take.

[andy-xr]

Derek Smith said:

I've made the assumption that telling him what the problem was was banned under the radio communication limits. If not, then why not tell him to "build a 25 second gap in case there's a time penalty." That would allow him to judge what speed to go at to balance risks of a non-finish against 2nd place points.

I think it was more to do with not giving away the problem to other teams and Hamilton, the fix of going faster will put more time and distance between P2, with an upside of a few psi from some hot laps to even things out a bit

[Derek Smith]

monamimate said:

Hungrymc said:

monamimate said:

I don't think one needs to be Sherlock to realise that had they announced to all and sundry that they needed a 25 second gap to win, Vettel and Ferrari would have immediately responded.

Even though everyone was speculating they needed 25 seconds for a pit stop. So Ferrari will have been questioning this and presumably responding as best they could anyway. A different cause but the same result?

Sherlock deduced the correct result anyway but for the wrong reasons.

Edited by Hungrymc on Tuesday 8th September 06:26

Huh? Mercedes were the ONLY ones who knew the real reason. As you say, all the rest were just speculating. Therefore Sherlock's point is correct both in its conclusion and in its reasoning: Mercedes were right to tell Lewis nothing so that no-one else would know what the best defensive action was to take.

I seem to remember that at that time Vettel had his hands full, or rather his mirror, with the attack from Rosberg. There was no way he would be able to go faster. First was out of reach of him.

Ferrari knew of the tyre pressure issue. They had their cars tested as well. I assume they would have not so much guessed what the call was about, but had worked it out. But Vettel was, on his worn tyres, going as fast as he could yet he was being reeled in. It might well have been a great battle for second, and I was getting a bit excited. I feel certain that had they told Vettel to put the hammer down he'd have replied that he already had.

[TTmonkey]

Scuffers said:

Vaud said:

Scuffers said:

listen harder then, plenty have said just that.

Last race even Brundel commented that in years gone by, parabolica was a hang-on-for-grim-death corner, these days they are making steering wheel switch adjustments mid-corner...

What's the main factor in that ?

Consistent power delivery?
Balanced aero?
Advanced Adjustable systems / eg diff?

simpler than that - Cars are basically slower - some 5 seconds a lap slower

I cant see how that relates. Even if the cars are 5 seconds a lap slower they should still be on their limits through the corner. Either the cars have a lot more grip through there or they don't. Doesn't matter if they are travelling at 170mph or 175mph (or whatever). They still attack the corner with maximum possible power. They aren't coasting through the corner, they are going as fast as possible.

I'm sure there are cars that go through there a lot slower than F1 cars and they still fall off the corner.

[NRS]

Scuffers said:

Vaud said:

Scuffers said:

listen harder then, plenty have said just that.

Last race even Brundel commented that in years gone by, parabolica was a hang-on-for-grim-death corner, these days they are making steering wheel switch adjustments mid-corner...

What's the main factor in that ?

Consistent power delivery?
Balanced aero?
Advanced Adjustable systems / eg diff?

simpler than that - Cars are basically slower - some 5 seconds a lap slower

Not compared to some of the days that are referred to (80s for example).

[rdjohn]

Genuine question. What is the position with Nico's new engine? - not the race one. I thought that units were sealed by the FIA and so repairs are not possible, but everyone talks about it being repaired.

What is permissible?

[Vaud]

rdjohn said:

Genuine question. What is the position with Nico's new engine? - not the race one. I thought that units were sealed by the FIA and so repairs are not possible, but everyone talks about it being repaired.

What is permissible?

5.22 Replacing power unit parts :
Refer to the table in Appendix 2 of these regulations.
The parts listed as “EXC” in the table referred to above may be changed without incurring a penalty under Article 28.4 of the F1 Sporting Regulations. If changing any of these parts involves breaking a seal this may be done but must be carried out under FIA supervision. Any parts changed may only be replaced by parts homologated in accordance with Appendix 4 of the F1 Sporting Regulations.

Big list

http://www.fia.com/file/22782/download?token=0yN48...

[Scuffers]

TTmonkey said:

I cant see how that relates. Even if the cars are 5 seconds a lap slower they should still be on their limits through the corner. Either the cars have a lot more grip through there or they don't. Doesn't matter if they are travelling at 170mph or 175mph (or whatever). They still attack the corner with maximum possible power. They aren't coasting through the corner, they are going as fast as possible.

I'm sure there are cars that go through there a lot slower than F1 cars and they still fall off the corner.

easy the 5 sec's slower is IN THE CORNERS.

straight line speeds if anything, are higher now than they used to be.

and it's actually 5.5 seconds, (FL 1:21.046 Barrichello, Ferrari, 2004)

[rdjohn]

Vaud said:

5.22 Replacing power unit parts :
Refer to the table in Appendix 2 of these regulations.
The parts listed as “EXC” in the table referred to above may be changed without incurring a penalty under Article 28.4 of the F1 Sporting Regulations. If changing any of these parts involves breaking a seal this may be done but must be carried out under FIA supervision. Any parts changed may only be replaced by parts homologated in accordance with Appendix 4 of the F1 Sporting Regulations.

Big list

http://www.fia.com/file/22782/download?token=0yN48...

Thanks for that. So it looks like you could virtually rebuild the engine under supervision. I had thought that it was just oil water and borescope checks.


All Engine sub-assemblies sealed according to Article 28 of the F1 Sporting Regulations (e.g. engine components within cam-covers, cylinder heads, crankcase, any gear case)

[S0 What]

El Guapo said:

Vaud said:

Moominator said:

Lewis was perplexed why he was asked to peg it with just a few laps to go with NO explanation. I was confused too. He knew he was miles ahead so why risk it? Afterall at that point he had 'earned/done his job 22times (secs) ahead of a 4time world champion.

His words? 'That wasnt cool'.

Indeed. But also sometimes you need to trust your team principal and know that they have access to more information than you. Risk was Ferrari picking up on the exact number and the "why"?

Exactly - do what you have been asked to do, then discuss later during the debrief.

Yeah that's exactly what he did in China 07 and that lost him a championship, non of the great drivers just do as they are told, that's rookie stuff.
Being able to drive at 9/10s AND still have the mental capacity to think about other peoples responsabilitys in the team is the sign of a truely great driver, MS did it, Senna did it, Alonso, Vetal ect ect

[S0 What]

andy-xr said:

Derek Smith said:

I've made the assumption that telling him what the problem was was banned under the radio communication limits. If not, then why not tell him to "build a 25 second gap in case there's a time penalty." That would allow him to judge what speed to go at to balance risks of a non-finish against 2nd place points.

I think it was more to do with not giving away the problem to other teams and Hamilton, the fix of going faster will put more time and distance between P2, with an upside of a few psi from some hot laps to even things out a bit

TBH i thought they were expecting Nicos car to pop and they were giving lewis a decent buffer in case of a Virtual safty car, we have seen how postion on the track matters when the VSC is cancled, Nico made up a couple of seconds on Lewis at the end of the last VSC simply cos he was exiting a corner and lewis was entering when it was cancled.
Appart from the obv, Lewis was on a differant set of tyres by the time the call came ! so that extra few PSI is meaninless.

[Vaud]

S0 What said:

Yeah that's exactly what he did in China 07 and that lost him a championship, non of the great drivers just do as they are told, that's rookie stuff.
Being able to drive at 9/10s AND still have the mental capacity to think about other peoples responsabilitys in the team is the sign of a truely great driver, MS did it, Senna did it, Alonso, Vetal ect ect

Note I said "sometimes you need to trust your team principal". MSC, ALO and VET have also followed directions.

Look at MSC in Hungary 98 for example. Ross told him "I need 19 quali laps from you". MSC didn't say "why"? He got on with it and delivered.

They all have massive mental capacity. MSC probably had the most. SEN was just fast and political. VET - we'll see, he seems to be like MSC. HAM - I think - is just plain fast, I don't think he has the psychological side complete yet. 3 titles might really complete his approach.

[Hungrymc]

Vaud, I wouldn't disagree with Lewis still having room for improvement.

He didn't refuse the radio request, he asked for clarity as the messages were slightly confused - 19 qualifying laps is clear, it means balls out.

Lewis was told to push hard but don't take risks, he asked what that meant as he was taking risks. The team then said carry on as you are (ie to push hard AND take risks - which wasn't what they were saying originally and I'm still my sure is what they really meant).

Where does the idea that he challenged the instruction come from? He said on the slow down lap the last few laps weren't cool.... After he had executed them, hardly a rant. And the team agreed.

[andyps]

Vaud said:

Note I said "sometimes you need to trust your team principal". MSC, ALO and VET have also followed directions.

Look at MSC in Hungary 98 for example. Ross told him "I need 19 quali laps from you". MSC didn't say "why"? He got on with it and delivered.

They all have massive mental capacity. MSC probably had the most. SEN was just fast and political. VET - we'll see, he seems to be like MSC. HAM - I think - is just plain fast, I don't think he has the psychological side complete yet. 3 titles might really complete his approach.

I think the difference between the Schumacher example and Hamilton on Sunday is that the situation between Brawn and Schumacher would have been discussed in principle before the race so would not have come as a surprise for the driver and didn't need an explanation because the reasons were understood. On Sunday Hamilton was asked to do something which was unusual to say the least as it opposed normal instruction for that part of the race and situation, and no explanation was given. In addition to the psychological aspect of driving at 100% at the end of a race there would have been the natural consideration of why? We've all said we were thinking it, surely Hamilton would also have been doing so, considering possibilities and trying to use all senses to understand if it was a potential car problem - pretty tough I would imagine!

[Hungrymc]

Scuffers said:

simpler than that - Cars are basically slower - some 5 seconds a lap slower

Plenty looked difficult at Spa.

The Mclaren looked a handful throug the Parabolica.

A well balanced car is going to have minimal steering inputs because it is by definition stable at its limit.

Tyres and fuel conservation are pulling the drivers back from driving at 100%. You can make the cars much faster through the corners (you want faster cornering?) and then they will be even more aero dependant, won't be able to follow closely and we will see even less wheel to wheel racing. They can go for higher mechanical grip but that won't replace aero based grip in high speed corners.

I could be wrong - this is just my opinion.