The Official 2016 Spanish Grand Prix Thread **Spoilers**
Discussion
allegerita said:
Thanks for the in-depth analysis. It still surprises me that Raikkonen never attempted 1 single attack in the last stint.
Too risky with the tyres getting old at a guess and not quite enough pace difference - do a Riccardo lunge, bugger the tyres, they drop off and you end up 4th instead...
allegerita said:
Thanks for the in-depth analysis. It still surprises me that Raikkonen never attempted 1 single attack in the last stint.
I know, right! I think it follows from the kind of racer he is. He rarely goes for marginal moves, but will be hard but fair when he does go for it. I like these type of racers more than the instinct driven ones like Ricciardo/Verstappen/Hamilton etc...although I do love watching the latter group race. You won't be surprised to learn that I'm a fan of Button. 
From what I could see in the data, I'd say Raikkonen had five half-chances that an instinct driven racer would have been tempted to have a lunge at. It happened in laps 50, 53, 54, 58 and 61 when the gap was around 0.6-0.7s but it was just that little bit too far. But, you'd be a bit more circumspect when challenging for the lead of a race than say challenging for a podium spot, wouldn't you?
However, there is no doubt in my mind that he was absolutely on the limit for the whole stint and was trying his best to get his car to be within DRS range to launch a proper attack. I think we saw something special from both Verstappen and Raikkonen in the last stint.
Credit to Pirelli also that Raikkonen was able to stay within DRS range for the majority of the last stint. If this was a couple of years back, we'd have seen him taken a run at it for once or may be twice and spend the remainder of the stint nursing his tyres home.
I agree about Raikkonnen but I will add that he is now outscoring his much more fancied young hotshot team mate by more than 25%. On Sunday he found himself exceeding his expectations and those of the team in 2nd place ahead of Vettel. A distant lunge at Verstappen could've been on the cards but it'll have been unlikely to succeed. Max in the Red Bull is an unknown quantity.
Dr Z said:
hairyben said:
Dr Z said:
As for the incident between Rosberg and Hamilton, I'll have to call racing incident. Time and again I have seen Hamilton aggressively close the door on Rosberg like that in the first few corners, so I have no sympathy when the shoe is on the other foot. However, I think the way Mercedes let them "race" with no freedom on strategy, especially with the lead driver never being allowed to be undercut by the driver behind, Hamilton might as well have settled for P2 after being overtaken round the outside at the first corner. I also think that Hamilton had such as big speed differential to Rosberg that he had to commit early and couldn't back out of it.
^Thats in the same vien as my comment on the previous page; mercedes can make all the stink they like with the "don't try to win on the first corner" cliche but thats precisely what their driver/race management style compels their drivers to do.Take - was it mexico (?) last year where rosberg out front towards the end wanted a tyre stop thus hamilton following him was "forced" to make the same tyre stop despite not wanting one, to maintain position? And that was with both titles already in the bag anyway so not really much "risk".
I was also not impressed at the Abu Dhabi race last year when Hamilton was pleading with the team to give him some freedom on strategy, but no, he vas told to obey ze orders. After both WCC and WDC had been decided!
I note after the present race, Toto came out saying, 'oh but we must continue to allow them to race for the good of the sport' or something like that. The cheek. I prefer teams that have a clear No.1/No.2 or no driver is above the team/WCC points trumps WDC points policy.
Also I found lauda's laying straight into lewis, when he couldn't have had time to see any playbacks, a little off and I wonder whats behind that. lauda speaks his mind but is normally quite astute and that was a prang that left me and many other people going "need replays on that and a little time to digest"
I wonder how much merc would very much like 2 champions in their team; perhaps this would make the aura of success feel more about the car than any 1 driver. I'm not saying they're doing anything specifically "wrong" with a mind to achieving this but I wonder if theres some resentment that a chap from stevenage hasn't read the master plan thats affecting how decisions are made.
I agree that the team strategy has produced some neutered results, but Hamilton also benefitted from the pick of the pitstops when he was on his run of good form from the end of 2014 through to 15.
Ultimately I guess Merc only care about themselves and sometimes this will give one driver or the other an advantage. It's still infinitely preferable to being ordered to give away your race victory ala Schumacher/Barrichello though.
I wonder how it will play out if Hamilton/Vettel's luck doesn't improve and it becomes neccesary to favour Raikonnen? He didn't seem to upset playing second fiddle when he was adrift in the championship, I'm not sure if "tough luck" Vettel will be as supportive of Raikonnen should their positions be reversed.
Ultimately I guess Merc only care about themselves and sometimes this will give one driver or the other an advantage. It's still infinitely preferable to being ordered to give away your race victory ala Schumacher/Barrichello though.
I wonder how it will play out if Hamilton/Vettel's luck doesn't improve and it becomes neccesary to favour Raikonnen? He didn't seem to upset playing second fiddle when he was adrift in the championship, I'm not sure if "tough luck" Vettel will be as supportive of Raikonnen should their positions be reversed.
HustleRussell said:
I don’t think Hamilton has done that. 100 internet points to anybody who can show that he has.
There must be a training camp in Germany where they learn the ‘Schumacher chop’.
Yes, I hated it when Vettel used to do it in the run to the first corner during his Red Bull years. Hamilton is a master of exploiting the grey area of leaving room in the corners when his team mate is next to him trying to pass, though.There must be a training camp in Germany where they learn the ‘Schumacher chop’.
hairyben said:
Dr Z said:
hairyben said:
Dr Z said:
I think the way Mercedes let them "race" with no freedom on strategy, especially with the lead driver never being allowed to be undercut by the driver behind, Hamilton might as well have settled for P2 after being overtaken round the outside at the first corner.
^Thats in the same vien as my comment on the previous page; mercedes can make all the stink they like with the "don't try to win on the first corner" cliche but thats precisely what their driver/race management style compels their drivers to do.Take - was it mexico (?) last year where rosberg out front towards the end wanted a tyre stop thus hamilton following him was "forced" to make the same tyre stop despite not wanting one, to maintain position? And that was with both titles already in the bag anyway so not really much "risk".
I was also not impressed at the Abu Dhabi race last year when Hamilton was pleading with the team to give him some freedom on strategy, but no, he vas told to obey ze orders. After both WCC and WDC had been decided!
I note after the present race, Toto came out saying, 'oh but we must continue to allow them to race for the good of the sport' or something like that. The cheek. I prefer teams that have a clear No.1/No.2 or no driver is above the team/WCC points trumps WDC points policy.
Also I found lauda's laying straight into lewis, when he couldn't have had time to see any playbacks, a little off and I wonder whats behind that. lauda speaks his mind but is normally quite astute and that was a prang that left me and many other people going "need replays on that and a little time to digest"
I wonder how much merc would very much like 2 champions in their team; perhaps this would make the aura of success feel more about the car than any 1 driver. I'm not saying they're doing anything specifically "wrong" with a mind to achieving this but I wonder if theres some resentment that a chap from stevenage hasn't read the master plan thats affecting how decisions are made.
I firmly believe Mercedes could have given more freedom in strategy to both drivers because clearly, they weren't racing anyone else for wins in 2014. There were some headaches in 2015 but they had a driver in top form and another who was not far behind at all, despite being low on confidence, so race wins were rarely in doubt.
If Mercedes don't give us the PR waffle about how they let their drivers race, then I can stomach it. I'd prefer a more straightforward approach of, we're here to win the Constructor's Championship and get race wins, so first and foremost our job is to get a Mercedes driver to win, and next is to make sure it was a 1-2. So every race we'll approach it as such.
But relax it a bit on strategy, so we'll get a proper race between the drivers instead of, he got a microsecond better reaction time to the lights so got to the first corner first, so he gets the optimum strategy, and therefore wins the race...not sure Hamilton likes to win races like that. It reduces the full depth of what racing is all about.
I liked what Red Bull did this race. The lead driver is too slow, we'll sacrifice him for a Red Bull win by putting him on a sub optimal strategy. He is not above the team. Great stuff! Ferrari were also like this last year, the Bahrain GP comes to mind. But teams tend to change their whole approach to racing once they start to dominate, which is quite sad.
Dr Z said:
Yes, I hated it when Vettel used to do it in the run to the first corner during his Red Bull years. Hamilton is a master of exploiting the grey area of leaving room in the corners when his team mate is next to him trying to pass, though.
you might hate it, but it's allowed & it's a key part of race craft.If it wasn't, you may as well divvy out the points on Saturdays
angrymoby said:
Dr Z said:
Yes, I hated it when Vettel used to do it in the run to the first corner during his Red Bull years. Hamilton is a master of exploiting the grey area of leaving room in the corners when his team mate is next to him trying to pass, though.
you might hate it, but it's allowed & it's a key part of race craft.If it wasn't, you may as well divvy out the points on Saturdays
Dr Z said:
Let's face it, even if Rosberg never won anything in the Merc, nobody is going to believe that it wasn't the car that gave Hamilton his chance to equal his idol Senna. In any case, his talents will never be in question even if he never went near a Mercedes race car.
.
Yes, but having several pilots take titles in one car creates an aura about them, newey williams being the best most recent example, wheras other brilliant cars that at their time just had one geezer delivering the goods never seems quite so special, perhaps newey red bulls..
Dr Z said:
I firmly believe Mercedes could have given more freedom in strategy to both drivers because clearly, they weren't racing anyone else for wins in 2014. There were some headaches in 2015 but they had a driver in top form and another who was not far behind at all, despite being low on confidence, so race wins were rarely in doubt.
If Mercedes don't give us the PR waffle about how they let their drivers race, then I can stomach it. I'd prefer a more straightforward approach of, we're here to win the Constructor's Championship and get race wins, so first and foremost our job is to get a Mercedes driver to win, and next is to make sure it was a 1-2. So every race we'll approach it as such.
But relax it a bit on strategy, so we'll get a proper race between the drivers instead of, he got a microsecond better reaction time to the lights so got to the first corner first, so he gets the optimum strategy, and therefore wins the race...not sure Hamilton likes to win races like that. It reduces the full depth of what racing is all about.
I liked what Red Bull did this race. The lead driver is too slow, we'll sacrifice him for a Red Bull win by putting him on a sub optimal strategy. He is not above the team. Great stuff! Ferrari were also like this last year, the Bahrain GP comes to mind. But teams tend to change their whole approach to racing once they start to dominate, which is quite sad.
Well, we've seen time and again how roughly equal team mates can be so chummy in a non-leading car -even one with outside championship contention- but how it allways goes tits as soon as they have *the* car and the only person in the way is your team mate. The teams management of the situation I guess is only a symptom of that. (but yes, you're right, merc are getting pretty boring)If Mercedes don't give us the PR waffle about how they let their drivers race, then I can stomach it. I'd prefer a more straightforward approach of, we're here to win the Constructor's Championship and get race wins, so first and foremost our job is to get a Mercedes driver to win, and next is to make sure it was a 1-2. So every race we'll approach it as such.
But relax it a bit on strategy, so we'll get a proper race between the drivers instead of, he got a microsecond better reaction time to the lights so got to the first corner first, so he gets the optimum strategy, and therefore wins the race...not sure Hamilton likes to win races like that. It reduces the full depth of what racing is all about.
I liked what Red Bull did this race. The lead driver is too slow, we'll sacrifice him for a Red Bull win by putting him on a sub optimal strategy. He is not above the team. Great stuff! Ferrari were also like this last year, the Bahrain GP comes to mind. But teams tend to change their whole approach to racing once they start to dominate, which is quite sad.
hairyben said:
Flooble said:
I'm surprised that people aren't discussing how Hamilton came to have to attempt the overtake in the first place. For the third race this season he gave away his pole position. Not as badly as in the first two, but still he would not have been punted off the track had he managed to actually stay in first place ...
He got off the line okay.. it was after that rosberg seemed to have a massive power advantage wasn't it? Either used up all his KERS in one go or (tin foil hat time) the "mode" he was in was a bit naughty and not half as innocent mistake as we've been led to believe hence him distracting himself getting out of it.
Dr Z said:
I liked what Red Bull did this race. The lead driver is too slow, we'll sacrifice him for a Red Bull win by putting him on a sub optimal strategy. He is not above the team. Great stuff! Ferrari were also like this last year, the Bahrain GP comes to mind. But teams tend to change their whole approach to racing once they start to dominate, which is quite sad.
I know you qualified this statement with ‘this race’, but I must say Red Bull has historically not been a shining example of how to allow a leading team’s drivers to race and I find Mercedes’ way about it less objectionable. Sure, I’d rather the drivers fully unleashed but to do so would conflict somewhat with the ‘win first and foremost, then ensure it’s a 1-2’ strategy.
hairyben said:
Dr Z said:
Let's face it, even if Rosberg never won anything in the Merc, nobody is going to believe that it wasn't the car that gave Hamilton his chance to equal his idol Senna. In any case, his talents will never be in question even if he never went near a Mercedes race car.
Yes, but having several pilots take titles in one car creates an aura about them, newey williams being the best most recent example, wheras other brilliant cars that at their time just had one geezer delivering the goods never seems quite so special, perhaps newey red bulls.HustleRussell said:
Dr Z said:
I liked what Red Bull did this race. The lead driver is too slow, we'll sacrifice him for a Red Bull win by putting him on a sub optimal strategy. He is not above the team. Great stuff! Ferrari were also like this last year, the Bahrain GP comes to mind. But teams tend to change their whole approach to racing once they start to dominate, which is quite sad.
I know you qualified this statement with ‘this race’, but I must say Red Bull has historically not been a shining example of how to allow a leading team’s drivers to race and I find Mercedes’ way about it less objectionable. Sure, I’d rather the drivers fully unleashed but to do so would conflict somewhat with the ‘win first and foremost, then ensure it’s a 1-2’ strategy.
They also put the driver behind on the same tyre choice, so the driver behind has to wait till the final stint to have a chance to do something about challenging the lead driver. Unless there is any outside threat to a 1-2 (which is not very often), the driver behind does not get the alternate strategy, so he can be the faster man at the end of the race to catch the leader and overtake. So final stint, same tyres as the leader. Few seconds or more behind. Leader manages the gap to you. The end. I do agree that pre-Spa 2014 they had more freedom on this front though (Bahrain 2014 being the classic example).
I agree that the 2010-2013 RBR championships aren't good examples of driver equality, but then for a majority of those years, RBR were fighting with other teams, so I would contend that they were actually more authentic races at the front.
swisstoni said:
Something is going on with the Mercs off the line. I think they have been iffy all season, Hamilton especially so.
I see that being addressed.before the next race start.
With the car or with the drivers?I see that being addressed.before the next race start.
I hear Hamilton has said in the past that he'd prefer the cars to be more analogue, but does he know what he's wishing for? I often wonder which one of the top drivers would still be top if they had to do more in the car like manual gear changes and no contact at all other than a pit board.
I imagine Hamilton would still be one of the top ones, but you never know.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff