The Official 2019 Australian Grand Prix Thread **SPOILERS**

[The Moose]

The Vambo said:

swisstoni said:

Just like pre-season testing is no real indicator of actual race pace, so the first race is no real indicator of a season.

That platitude just isn't true, virtually every team that wins the Australian GP wins the constructors championship.

It happens so regularly that it has to absolutely be considered an indicator of the season

I think they said that whenever a constructor had a 1-2 in Oz, they go on to win both constructors and drivers (At least, that’s what I thought I heard).

[rdjohn]

Vaud said:

Bottas is driving for his seat, he is out of contract at the end of the year. He can only go down the grid in terms of car performance and I don't see any good alternatives right now - so he has nothing to lose in going ultra aggressive vs Hamilton.

What's the worse that happens? He gets suspended by the team for a race if he takes Hamilton out too many times...

I thought Ocon’s lukewarm applause at the Bottas win spoke volumes yesterday morning.

[anonymous-user]

The Moose said:

The Vambo said:

swisstoni said:

Just like pre-season testing is no real indicator of actual race pace, so the first race is no real indicator of a season.

That platitude just isn't true, virtually every team that wins the Australian GP wins the constructors championship.

It happens so regularly that it has to absolutely be considered an indicator of the season

I think they said that whenever a constructor had a 1-2 in Oz, they go on to win both constructors and drivers (At least, that’s what I thought I heard).

Oh well, that's it then; give it to Mercedes now!

Let me guess who said that? Croft?

[Derek Smith]

thegreenhell said:

Derek Smith said:

Was Bottas aware of the gap to second place? If so, why not slow?

I think he wanted to keep a pitstop in hand. At one point he was asking to stop for fresh tyres to go for fastest lap.

Thanks for that.

[TheDeuce]

REALIST123 said:

The Moose said:

The Vambo said:

swisstoni said:

Just like pre-season testing is no real indicator of actual race pace, so the first race is no real indicator of a season.

That platitude just isn't true, virtually every team that wins the Australian GP wins the constructors championship.

It happens so regularly that it has to absolutely be considered an indicator of the season

I think they said that whenever a constructor had a 1-2 in Oz, they go on to win both constructors and drivers (At least, that’s what I thought I heard).

Oh well, that's it then; give it to Mercedes now!

Let me guess who said that? Croft?

It's the kind of thing he does come out with a lot.

However, this is true. Never has a team had 1-2 and not won WCC that season. When you think about it achieving a 1-2 is quite a feat and a strong indicator that you cars are pretty well sorted.

[Stan the Bat]

Vaud said:

Bottas is driving for his seat, he is out of contract at the end of the year. He can only go down the grid in terms of car performance and I don't see any good alternatives right now - so he has nothing to lose in going ultra aggressive vs Hamilton.

What's the worse that happens? He gets suspended by the team for a race if he takes Hamilton out too many times...

Remember what Rosberg said about having to keep the mental pressure up for a whole year and which caused his retirement.

Personally I don't think Bottas will be capable of sustaining it for the whole season.

[paulw123]

I’m not sure he’s capable of sustaining it for more than one race. Felt sorry for him last season but he’s not in the same league as ham/vet/max

[paulw123]

I’m not sure he’s capable of sustaining it for more than one race. Felt sorry for him last season but he’s not in the same league as ham/vet/max

[Stan the Bat]

I don't think Vet is capable any more either.

[kambites]

paulguitar said:

There 's an article on Autosport with details and photos of the floor damage on Hamilton's car. A relief for Lewis to have it confirmed, I would imagine.

Ah yes, the very tail end of the floor on the LHS is gone. Curious piece to lose without also damaging the tyre. Almost seems like it must have just fallen apart under aerodynamic load.

[TheDeuce]

kambites said:

Ah yes, the very tail end of the floor on the LHS is gone. Curious piece to lose without also damaging the tyre. Almost seems like it must have just fallen apart under aerodynamic load.

Bear in mind that whilst aerodynamic load is possible, by the same mechanic it is an area where the aero will pull in debris and fire it back out potentially against that part. And of course, that part would also have been loaded up with aero force, so the impact of anything hitting it would be an additional force it had to deal with.

I think just a freak occurrence, but it's Mercedes so they will certainly have a team looking into it and analysing it at a forensic level. They have to burn through their immense budget somehow.

[glazbagun]

paulw123 said:

I’m not sure he’s capable of sustaining it for more than one race. Felt sorry for him last season but he’s not in the same league as ham/vet/max

Sponsor loss, likely loss of his seat next year. If he's like Kimi this is around about the time he'll start showing up.

I also wonder if Rosberg was already undermotivated pre-capgate- marriage, kids, WDC Dad to equal, hence his one herculean effort before jacking it in.

If Bottas still views himself as a young driver with a long career ahead of him, he may have a totally different mindset. I still don't think he can beat Lewis over a season, but I'd love to see him try.

[paulw123]

glazbagun said:

paulw123 said:

I’m not sure he’s capable of sustaining it for more than one race. Felt sorry for him last season but he’s not in the same league as ham/vet/max

Sponsor loss, likely loss of his seat next year. If he's like Kimi this is around about the time he'll start showing up.

I also wonder if Rosberg was already undermotivated pre-capgate- marriage, kids, WDC Dad to equal, hence his one herculean effort before jacking it in.

If Bottas still views himself as a young driver with a long career ahead of him, he may have a totally different mindset. I still don't think he can beat Lewis over a season, but I'd love to see him try.

Bet he won’t cheat like rosburg so at least it will be a fair fight. His best bet is to be as good as possible and hope Hamilton suffers one more DNF than him.

[Vaud]

glazbagun said:

If Bottas still views himself as a young driver with a long career ahead of him, he may have a totally different mindset. I still don't think he can beat Lewis over a season, but I'd love to see him try.

The problem for him is, a long career where? If Ocon is in for 2020, and Lewis stays until the end of 2020, where does he go next year? Commit to someone like Haas for 2 years, or take a year out and return to replace Hamilton, assuming Vettel hasn't taken that seat...

[swisstoni]

TheDeuce said:

REALIST123 said:

The Moose said:

The Vambo said:

swisstoni said:

Just like pre-season testing is no real indicator of actual race pace, so the first race is no real indicator of a season.

That platitude just isn't true, virtually every team that wins the Australian GP wins the constructors championship.

It happens so regularly that it has to absolutely be considered an indicator of the season

I think they said that whenever a constructor had a 1-2 in Oz, they go on to win both constructors and drivers (At least, that’s what I thought I heard).

Oh well, that's it then; give it to Mercedes now!

Let me guess who said that? Croft?

It's the kind of thing he does come out with a lot.

However, this is true. Never has a team had 1-2 and not won WCC that season. When you think about it achieving a 1-2 is quite a feat and a strong indicator that you cars are pretty well sorted.

If my original post had been quoted entirely, that’s what I said in the first place!
You can get strong indications from the first race but to take it as an inevitable indicator of the season winners is a bit simple.

[Vaud]

swisstoni said:

If my original post had been quoted entirely, that’s what I said in the first place!
You can get strong indications from the first race but to take it as an inevitable indicator of the season winners is a bit simple.

Agreed, too many variables in F1 to attach correlation after one race.

[TheDeuce]

swisstoni said:

TheDeuce said:

REALIST123 said:

The Moose said:

The Vambo said:

swisstoni said:

Just like pre-season testing is no real indicator of actual race pace, so the first race is no real indicator of a season.

That platitude just isn't true, virtually every team that wins the Australian GP wins the constructors championship.

It happens so regularly that it has to absolutely be considered an indicator of the season

I think they said that whenever a constructor had a 1-2 in Oz, they go on to win both constructors and drivers (At least, that’s what I thought I heard).

Oh well, that's it then; give it to Mercedes now!

Let me guess who said that? Croft?

It's the kind of thing he does come out with a lot.

However, this is true. Never has a team had 1-2 and not won WCC that season. When you think about it achieving a 1-2 is quite a feat and a strong indicator that you cars are pretty well sorted.

If my original post had been quoted entirely, that’s what I said in the first place!
You can get strong indications from the first race but to take it as an inevitable indicator of the season winners is a bit simple.

In your first post, you said the first race is 'no real indicator' of a season. And now you agree you can get 'strong indications' from the first race.

Not one has said it's inevitable that they will win based on this. But the Melbourne stats are not sheer coincidence. When history repeats itself that many times it means there is a correlation between a team that comes out of pre season in good enough shape to 1-2 in the first race, and what it takes to win a WCC.

It's like a doctor telling someone they're 95% confident it's time for an operation.. and that person then deciding to wait a while to see how it goes...

In general I agree with you perspective, people do jump to conclusions far too early on, based on a single aspect of one race/quali. Melbourne is just an exception to that wisdom.

[Car-Matt]

TheDeuce said:

swisstoni said:

TheDeuce said:

REALIST123 said:

The Moose said:

The Vambo said:

swisstoni said:

Just like pre-season testing is no real indicator of actual race pace, so the first race is no real indicator of a season.

That platitude just isn't true, virtually every team that wins the Australian GP wins the constructors championship.

It happens so regularly that it has to absolutely be considered an indicator of the season

I think they said that whenever a constructor had a 1-2 in Oz, they go on to win both constructors and drivers (At least, that’s what I thought I heard).

Oh well, that's it then; give it to Mercedes now!

Let me guess who said that? Croft?

It's the kind of thing he does come out with a lot.

However, this is true. Never has a team had 1-2 and not won WCC that season. When you think about it achieving a 1-2 is quite a feat and a strong indicator that you cars are pretty well sorted.

If my original post had been quoted entirely, that’s what I said in the first place!
You can get strong indications from the first race but to take it as an inevitable indicator of the season winners is a bit simple.

In your first post, you said the first race is 'no real indicator' of a season. And now you agree you can get 'strong indications' from the first race.

Not one has said it's inevitable that they will win based on this. But the Melbourne stats are not sheer coincidence. When history repeats itself that many times it means there is a correlation between a team that comes out of pre season in good enough shape to 1-2 in the first race, and what it takes to win a WCC.

It's like a doctor telling someone they're 95% confident it's time for an operation.. and that person then deciding to wait a while to see how it goes...

In general I agree with you perspective, people do jump to conclusions far too early on, based on a single aspect of one race/quali. Melbourne is just an exception to that wisdom.

Rather simplistically you're assuming only one variable. So your hypothesis and postulation about who may or may not win what is deeply deeply flawed

[TheDeuce]

Car-Matt said:

TheDeuce said:

swisstoni said:

TheDeuce said:

REALIST123 said:

The Moose said:

The Vambo said:

swisstoni said:

Just like pre-season testing is no real indicator of actual race pace, so the first race is no real indicator of a season.

That platitude just isn't true, virtually every team that wins the Australian GP wins the constructors championship.

It happens so regularly that it has to absolutely be considered an indicator of the season

I think they said that whenever a constructor had a 1-2 in Oz, they go on to win both constructors and drivers (At least, that’s what I thought I heard).

Oh well, that's it then; give it to Mercedes now!

Let me guess who said that? Croft?

It's the kind of thing he does come out with a lot.

However, this is true. Never has a team had 1-2 and not won WCC that season. When you think about it achieving a 1-2 is quite a feat and a strong indicator that you cars are pretty well sorted.

If my original post had been quoted entirely, that’s what I said in the first place!
You can get strong indications from the first race but to take it as an inevitable indicator of the season winners is a bit simple.

In your first post, you said the first race is 'no real indicator' of a season. And now you agree you can get 'strong indications' from the first race.

Not one has said it's inevitable that they will win based on this. But the Melbourne stats are not sheer coincidence. When history repeats itself that many times it means there is a correlation between a team that comes out of pre season in good enough shape to 1-2 in the first race, and what it takes to win a WCC.

It's like a doctor telling someone they're 95% confident it's time for an operation.. and that person then deciding to wait a while to see how it goes...

In general I agree with you perspective, people do jump to conclusions far too early on, based on a single aspect of one race/quali. Melbourne is just an exception to that wisdom.

Rather simplistically you're assuming only one variable. So your hypothesis and postulation about who may or may not win what is deeply deeply flawed

It's no more flawed than any other prediction, in as much as anything can happen. all I'm claiming is that there is a strong correlation between a team that enters the season with a 1-2 finish, and a team that has the potential to go on and win the WCC.. The Melbourne stats demonstrate that to be usually correct. So far, we could say 100% correct, but I'm not a fool - I'm well aware that in the fullness of time the stats will fail and it won't happen.

If something happens 7 out of 7 times, it's not unreasonable to start to accept it's a good indicator of what may happen again, and then look at why the two events seem to occur hand in hand so reliably.

[Drive Blind]

Anybody else think the shots of T. Wolff and Ocon look really creepy and false ?