The Official 2016 Russian Grand Prix Thread **Spoilers**
Discussion
vonuber said:
You can see where the tinfoil brigade get their ideas from:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/may/02/lewis...
I don't really get all Hamilton's huffing and puffing about this. Adhering to the guidance/rule was a simple matter, and since non-compliance may yet contribute to a future 10 place penalty, Hamilton was just plain daft not to comply. He didn't benefit, but similarly it would have cost him nothing to keep left.http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/may/02/lewis...
deadslow said:
I don't really get all Hamilton's huffing and puffing about this. Adhering to the guidance/rule was a simple matter, and since non-compliance may yet contribute to a future 10 place penalty, Hamilton was just plain daft not to comply. He didn't benefit, but similarly it would have cost him nothing to keep left.
It seems quite petty particularly the reversing incident. Thats not to say he's beyond blame, he obviously doesn't have the encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules the likes of vettel etc do but it'd be a shame if a grid penalty for such petty things became a championships decider. Not that the stiffs who make these decisions mind such controversy, one wonders if they get a power kick from it.hairyben said:
It seems quite petty particularly the reversing incident. Thats not to say he's beyond blame, he obviously doesn't have the encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules the likes of vettel etc do but it'd be a shame if a grid penalty for such petty things became a championships decider. Not that the stiffs who make these decisions mind such controversy, one wonders if they get a power kick from it.
yes, I agree it would be unfortunate if the title were to be decided by penalties, but it is daft beyond belief to be in a pinnacle sport and not know the rules inside out. F1 is a set of rules.
Mr_Thyroid said:
Dr Z said:
I really don’t think he had the pace to win as he likes to point out.
Surely this is meaningless in the context of yesterday's race. We've seen time and again that the Mercedes who leads the first lap is the Mercedes that wins. Yesterday, despite doing a good first lap, Hamilton got another shabby start. So the relevant question to me is less to do with overall pace but does Hamilton have the ability to pull away well enough to win?I think Hamilton's start this race wasn't too bad, and he gained 5 places by the end of the first lap and having an undamaged car, mostly by taking the escape route at Turn 3. Him coming out at the end and saying he had the pace to win is not substantiated by the data. We know that he was pushing hard to catch Rosberg, as he was released in clear air from lap 19 on, but his pace wasn't ballistic.
In fact, Rosberg was setting a conservative pace at the front, lap 37 and the lap record set at lap 52 are really good markers of the pace Rosberg had in hand to respond to a potential challenge, I think. Even assuming Rosberg was only capable of doing around 1m41s from lap 35 to the end, it would have taken another 10-12 laps for Hamilton to come on to the back of Rosberg with the pace he was setting. It would have been thrilling but by then I doubt he'd have the tyres to actually challenge for the lead.
I don't have a reason to believe that Hamilton's water pressure issue was a code to hold station, but I also think that because Rosberg was possibly managing an issue during lap 30-36 Mercedes took the safe option here.
Edited by Dr Z on Monday 2nd May 17:48
Dr Z said:
Post Spa 2014, I think Mercedes laid down strict rules of engagement designed to minimise on track tussles, especially at the later stages of a race when often the only real competition for race wins have been between the Mercedes cars. Whilst this nets the team a good number of points, it prevents a fight back from the driver who've been put on the back foot at the start. There have been a few exceptions to this, but I don't remember Rosberg ever forcing a mistake from Hamilton by pressuring him in the later stage of the race?
I think Hamilton's start this race wasn't too bad, and he gained 5 places by the end of the first lap and having an undamaged car, mostly by taking the escape route at Turn 2. Him coming out at the end and saying he had the pace to win is not substantiated by the data. We know that he was pushing hard to catch Rosberg, as he was released in clear air from lap 19 on, but his pace wasn't ballistic.
In fact, Rosberg was setting a conservative pace at the front, lap 37 and the lap record set at lap 52 are really good markers of the pace Rosberg had in hand to respond to a potential challenge, I think. Even assuming Rosberg was only capable of doing around 1m41s from lap 35 to the end, it would have taken another 10-12 laps for Hamilton to come on to the back of Rosberg with the pace he was setting. It would have been thrilling but by then I doubt he'd have the tyres to actually challenge for the lead.
I don't have a reason to believe that Hamilton's water pressure issue was a code to hold station, but I also think that because Rosberg was possibly managing an issue during lap 30-36 Mercedes took the safe option here.
To be fair Hamilton had halved the gap to 7 secs at a rate that would have seen him right up rosbergs gearbox with 20 laps still to go; Rosberg *might* have resisted the challenge, he *might* have upped his pace and maintained the gap or he *might* have succumbed, or a whole load of other *mights*. A number of people seem to be declaring it as proven fact that he had the pace and hamilton couldn't have won but we'll never know. It's as flawed as me stating it as a fact that as hamilton appeared to have time and speed to catch rosberg he'd have definitely won.I think Hamilton's start this race wasn't too bad, and he gained 5 places by the end of the first lap and having an undamaged car, mostly by taking the escape route at Turn 2. Him coming out at the end and saying he had the pace to win is not substantiated by the data. We know that he was pushing hard to catch Rosberg, as he was released in clear air from lap 19 on, but his pace wasn't ballistic.
In fact, Rosberg was setting a conservative pace at the front, lap 37 and the lap record set at lap 52 are really good markers of the pace Rosberg had in hand to respond to a potential challenge, I think. Even assuming Rosberg was only capable of doing around 1m41s from lap 35 to the end, it would have taken another 10-12 laps for Hamilton to come on to the back of Rosberg with the pace he was setting. It would have been thrilling but by then I doubt he'd have the tyres to actually challenge for the lead.
I don't have a reason to believe that Hamilton's water pressure issue was a code to hold station, but I also think that because Rosberg was possibly managing an issue during lap 30-36 Mercedes took the safe option here.
I can understand why merc would want to instruct drivers to hold station but this favours rosberg's style a bit in my opinion; Hamiltons a driver who can be a little messier at the edges but good at making it up by roughing it out and fighting for places, whereas rosberg wins tend to be clean and unpressurised. If this water pressure is a fudge for hold station (my jurys out ATM) then hamilton needs to tell then where to stick it frankly.
hairyben said:
To be fair Hamilton had halved the gap to 7 secs at a rate that would have seen him right up rosbergs gearbox with 20 laps still to go; Rosberg *might* have resisted the challenge, he *might* have upped his pace and maintained the gap or he *might* have succumbed, or a whole load of other *mights*. A number of people seem to be declaring it as proven fact that he had the pace and hamilton couldn't have won but we'll never know. It's as flawed as me stating it as a fact that as hamilton appeared to have time and speed to catch rosberg he'd have definitely won.
I can understand why merc would want to instruct drivers to hold station but this favours rosberg's style a bit in my opinion; Hamiltons a driver who can be a little messier at the edges but good at making it up by roughing it out and fighting for places, whereas rosberg wins tend to be clean and unpressurised. If this water pressure is a fudge for hold station (my jurys out ATM) then hamilton needs to tell then where to stick it frankly.
He closed the gap but we'll never know how much of that was catching traffic in the wrong place for Rosberg & maybe being overly cautious or how much Rosberg was holding back, before Rosberg caught the traffic there were tenths in it.I can understand why merc would want to instruct drivers to hold station but this favours rosberg's style a bit in my opinion; Hamiltons a driver who can be a little messier at the edges but good at making it up by roughing it out and fighting for places, whereas rosberg wins tend to be clean and unpressurised. If this water pressure is a fudge for hold station (my jurys out ATM) then hamilton needs to tell then where to stick it frankly.
The only facts are that Mercedes had no competition so again Hamilton has had a result, as I said before when others have a bad day they either DNS DNF or finish out of the points Hamilton's bad luck has been on circuits where you can pass & he's finished in the points despite his problems, imagine if he started 10th at Monaco.
So I say that Lewis will win the championship because when Nico's bit of bad luck comes to bite him it'll probably bite him hard
Edited by ZX10R NIN on Monday 2nd May 18:30
IMHO there really was a problem with Hamilton's car for the following reasons;
When a teammate is told hold station and they still think they have a chance, they usually react by doing everything but overtake the other car and probably throw in a fastest lap for good measure. Hamilton didn't do any of that.
Hamilton was more hacked off by this result than he's been all year. I think this stems from what he perceives as a preventable issue with his car.
When a teammate is told hold station and they still think they have a chance, they usually react by doing everything but overtake the other car and probably throw in a fastest lap for good measure. Hamilton didn't do any of that.
Hamilton was more hacked off by this result than he's been all year. I think this stems from what he perceives as a preventable issue with his car.
hairyben said:
To be fair Hamilton had halved the gap to 7 secs at a rate that would have seen him right up rosbergs gearbox with 20 laps still to go; Rosberg *might* have resisted the challenge, he *might* have upped his pace and maintained the gap or he *might* have succumbed, or a whole load of other *mights*. A number of people seem to be declaring it as proven fact that he had the pace and hamilton couldn't have won but we'll never know. It's as flawed as me stating it as a fact that as hamilton appeared to have time and speed to catch rosberg he'd have definitely won.
It's fun to speculate, so let's take the best laps by Hamilton as a reference point in the early part of the stint when he had fresher tyres. For Rosberg, let's take the fast laps he put in after he cleared the traffic, not forgetting that he had 4 lap fresher tyres than Hamilton for the final stint. This is what we get:
Not a chance. All Rosberg needed to do is match Hamilton in the early part of the stint to not give him a sniff and this is exactly what he was doing until he hit trouble. Even so, he recovered and started pushing. The gradient of Hamilton's final stint was not enough to realistically challenge Rosberg. IMO.
It didn't look to me like he should have 'kept left' of the foam bollard - it looked like he would've had to have dived left! That could have been more dangerous surely! It wasn't as if he missed the corner by miles and the bollard was immediately ahead it looked to me far off to the left.
Also that type of rule is to stop people gaining advantage ie in the race so what was the point in qualy when he gained no advantage? Pointless.
Also that type of rule is to stop people gaining advantage ie in the race so what was the point in qualy when he gained no advantage? Pointless.
CoolHands said:
It didn't look to me like he should have 'kept left' of the foam bollard - it looked like he would've had to have dived left! That could have been more dangerous surely! It wasn't as if he missed the corner by miles and the bollard was immediately ahead it looked to me far off to the left.
Also that type of rule is to stop people gaining advantage ie in the race so what was the point in qualy when he gained no advantage? Pointless.
Must admit - that's how I read it.Also that type of rule is to stop people gaining advantage ie in the race so what was the point in qualy when he gained no advantage? Pointless.
hairyben said:
It seems quite petty particularly the reversing incident. Thats not to say he's beyond blame, he obviously doesn't have the encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules the likes of vettel etc do but it'd be a shame if a grid penalty for such petty things became a championships decider. Not that the stiffs who make these decisions mind such controversy, one wonders if they get a power kick from it.
Other drivers suffer the same penalties if they are daft enough to flout the rules, I am failing to see the issue. If Hamilton gets enough penalties to get a grid penalty then that is his failing, and no-one else's. The same applies if it ultimately affects the championship - again his failing.Thee exact same thing applies to Rosberg (and all the other drivers) too - it's not like he is being singled out is it?
Quite simple - know the rules, obey the Stewards and there is no issue. I notice no-one is complaining about the Stewards having a power kick or deliberately singling out Sainz for example.
andy_s said:
CoolHands said:
It didn't look to me like he should have 'kept left' of the foam bollard - it looked like he would've had to have dived left! That could have been more dangerous surely! It wasn't as if he missed the corner by miles and the bollard was immediately ahead it looked to me far off to the left.
Also that type of rule is to stop people gaining advantage ie in the race so what was the point in qualy when he gained no advantage? Pointless.
Must admit - that's how I read it.Also that type of rule is to stop people gaining advantage ie in the race so what was the point in qualy when he gained no advantage? Pointless.
These penalties are similar to speed cameras: 4 or 10 miles over the limit, all get 3 points. No consequence is taken for mitigating factors.
None is taken for the spectators either.
Yesterday we had an enjoyable race, but not for the top spot. Had LH's engine not let go, for the second time this season, there's every chance we'd have had two races, one for the front, one for the rest.
Many people watch F1 with only the consideration of who wins, as we can see on these threads.
Looking at the plot of Alonso's times shows how fast the McHonda might be if it could maintain full electrical power (and not destroy it's tyres), but even when he was "recovering" after his fast stint his plots don't seem too far off Button's, anyway.
Might it be an efficient use of energy/laptime to have one banzai lap followed by two cooler ones to recharge? I guess that possibility has already been tested to death in the simulator or they'd be doing it already.
Might it be an efficient use of energy/laptime to have one banzai lap followed by two cooler ones to recharge? I guess that possibility has already been tested to death in the simulator or they'd be doing it already.
swisstoni said:
rsole said:
What is the matter with the legend that is LH?.
Nothing. Bad luck aside.vonuber said:
Other drivers suffer the same penalties if they are daft enough to flout the rules, I am failing to see the issue. If Hamilton gets enough penalties to get a grid penalty then that is his failing, and no-one else's. The same applies if it ultimately affects the championship - again his failing.
Thee exact same thing applies to Rosberg (and all the other drivers) too - it's not like he is being singled out is it?
Quite simple - know the rules, obey the Stewards and there is no issue. I notice no-one is complaining about the Stewards having a power kick or deliberately singling out Sainz for example.
I'd have to see a replay, I recall sainz move being hard but palmer trying to cling on to a corner/place already gone. Or perhaps valiantly defending it? Depends on your view. Not like he ran him into a wall or anything. Seems a very quick definative judgement on a move that a lot of astute people would want time to consider IMO.Thee exact same thing applies to Rosberg (and all the other drivers) too - it's not like he is being singled out is it?
Quite simple - know the rules, obey the Stewards and there is no issue. I notice no-one is complaining about the Stewards having a power kick or deliberately singling out Sainz for example.
The only good thing I can say about todays F1 stewarding is it's nowhere near as bad as F1 stewarding has been in the past. But I worry about hamiltons comments, they're reminiscent of the bit of a victim complex he had in the spygate aftermath/witch-hunt era
Hamilton said:
I’m just aware there’s most likely going to be one 10-place grid penalty because I’ve got one more reprimand to go
All he has to do is not break the rules, shirley? Much like everyone else is managing to do. Why would he say that he is going to break the rules? Such a weird reaction.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff