The Official Canadian GP Thread 2014***SPOILERS***

[NRS]

Finlandese said:

According to Toto Wolf both drivers were told what settings to use and both complied with the instructions. Both had the initial failure at the same time and Hamilton´s brake failure came ten laps later. Lewis had the choice of continuing to fight for the lead with a damaged car against a team mate with a damaged car, or concentrate on nursing the car to the finish. Considering that Nico´s situation was probably marginally better due driving in clean air and with the benefit of the hindsight he might have made the wrong decision.

As far as the lap times go, nothing sorted itself out in either car. According to Nico, the lap time improvment came from re-learning the circuit with reduced top speeds (different braking points, etc.). Just like with Schumacher in a Benetton stuck in 5th gear, it was suprising how fast he could go after adjusting to new circumstances.

You could equally argue that if Hamilton had got past he would have had clean air which would have helped him survive the race as there was still quite a long way to go. It's basically impossible to know, and either points were equally valid at the time.

MGJohn said:

AreOut said:

NRS said:

And yes, Nico did well. But obviously something sorted itself out at some point, as he and Hamilton were doing 1.21's and 1.22's when the problem became apparent. I do think he did well to adapt, but there is no way he improved to 1.19's just by adapting his driving.

if course, it was also by adapting brake bias (also he has asked via radio what brake bias is LH running...)

Yes I heard him ask that well before us TV viewers were aware of any braking problems. May not be the whole story though as possibly we are only allowed to hear some of the pit-driver exchanges on a need to know basis. Suspect we rarely get the full story.

That radio message sounded much more along the lines of him being stressed Hamilton was catching and wondering what he could do to try and gain any advantage.

stephen300o said:

All the drivers are more privileged than ourselves, so that argument is wrong.
Drivers who are there mostly on pay to drive contracts their whole careers never have had much admiration, no matter where they were born, be they Taki Inoue, Alex Yoong or Delatraz..

REALIST123 said:

It's supposed to be the world's leading single seat racing series, with the best drivers in the world. Max will never be seen as that and as long as his ilk is there the sport will be degraded.

Bring back the good old days. People like Lauda will never be respected,

[coppice]

It is perverse how so many people bemoan the fact that XYZ was such a lost talent, never got the breaks he deserved etc and yet when somebody does get the break , through patronage or bank loan(as in Lauda's case) then they are stigmatised for having so benefitted.

Judge a driver by what he does in what he drives , not who is paying for it ; by those criteria young Chilton is doing a perfectly adequate job. A far more interesting debate and one unfuelled by envy or bhiness is to reflect on those drivers who were so obviously going to be fantastically good Grand Prix drivers on the strength of their career in the junior formulae but who just never made the grade in F1. Dave Walker,Jan Magnussen , Michael Andretti, Reine Wissell and JJ Lehto to name but five.

[NRS]

coppice said:

It is perverse how so many people bemoan the fact that XYZ was such a lost talent, never got the breaks he deserved etc and yet when somebody does get the break , through patronage or bank loan(as in Lauda's case) then they are stigmatised for having so benefitted.

Judge a driver by what he does in what he drives , not who is paying for it ; by those criteria young Chilton is doing a perfectly adequate job. A far more interesting debate and one unfuelled by envy or bhiness is to reflect on those drivers who were so obviously going to be fantastically good Grand Prix drivers on the strength of their career in the junior formulae but who just never made the grade in F1. Dave Walker,Jan Magnussen , Michael Andretti, Reine Wissell and JJ Lehto to name but five.

That's what I think. F1 was made up of people paying for their own personal toys, and those who had more money would have had better cars and so would well appear "better" drivers. So Max with his family money is actually the normal type of person in a lot of the years of F1, particularly the early days.

I do agree though, the bad thing about it is those who don't get the money that could do very well (or those unlucky enough in the smaller teams who were never be in the right place for the "big break" with a major team). But it's the same problem in all motor racing - how many people would be amazing racing drivers but can't afford to race at all? Or can only afford carting? And so on up the racing ladder to the super expensive one of F1.

[AreOut]

maybe 1%, unlike in, say, ball sports where almost everyone can afford training and competing

[mollytherocker]

NRS said:

That's what I think. F1 was made up of people paying for their own personal toys, and those who had more money would have had better cars and so would well appear "better" drivers. So Max with his family money is actually the normal type of person in a lot of the years of F1, particularly the early days.

I do agree though, the bad thing about it is those who don't get the money that could do very well (or those unlucky enough in the smaller teams who were never be in the right place for the "big break" with a major team). But it's the same problem in all motor racing - how many people would be amazing racing drivers but can't afford to race at all? Or can only afford carting? And so on up the racing ladder to the super expensive one of F1.

Motor racing has always been about money. Lets be realistic shall we?

The very first racers were rich boys looking for kicks. And then one madman decided that an aeroplane Merlin engine would be quite fast in a car.

I am not saying that the 'American Dream' is not possible, but lets live in the real world eh?

[zac510]

NRS said:

That's what I think. F1 was made up of people paying for their own personal toys, and those who had more money would have had better cars and so would well appear "better" drivers. So Max with his family money is actually the normal type of person in a lot of the years of F1, particularly the early days.

I do agree though, the bad thing about it is those who don't get the money that could do very well (or those unlucky enough in the smaller teams who were never be in the right place for the "big break" with a major team). But it's the same problem in all motor racing - how many people would be amazing racing drivers but can't afford to race at all? Or can only afford carting? And so on up the racing ladder to the super expensive one of F1.

The other thing is that if you still had the 24 best drivers in the world then you'd still get some drivers coming first and some drivers coming last every race.
That is of course how the race, timing, order of results etc are all structured; to find out which driver is the fastest and which is the slowest.
The we'll have the same relativity. The standard will have increased, but the drivers coming last will still look poor compared to the drivers coming first.

[g4ry13]

RogerVulva said:

I finally got to watch the race. Awesome job for Dan. I must say top job on the marshals on that last lap crash. Very well handled by the looks of it.

Yep, they were on the scene in seconds. The medical car was there in less than 30 seconds which was impressive. Although being right by the pit lane would partially explain their quick response at arriving on scene.

[NRS]

mollytherocker said:

NRS said:

That's what I think. F1 was made up of people paying for their own personal toys, and those who had more money would have had better cars and so would well appear "better" drivers. So Max with his family money is actually the normal type of person in a lot of the years of F1, particularly the early days.

I do agree though, the bad thing about it is those who don't get the money that could do very well (or those unlucky enough in the smaller teams who were never be in the right place for the "big break" with a major team). But it's the same problem in all motor racing - how many people would be amazing racing drivers but can't afford to race at all? Or can only afford carting? And so on up the racing ladder to the super expensive one of F1.

Motor racing has always been about money. Lets be realistic shall we?

The very first racers were rich boys looking for kicks. And then one madman decided that an aeroplane Merlin engine would be quite fast in a car.

I am not saying that the 'American Dream' is not possible, but lets live in the real world eh?

Em, that was exactly what I was saying (at least I thought so, judging from the replies it seems as if it wasn't clear)!

[oyster]

carinaman said:

Regarding the Massa shunt:
2. Massa had opportunities to pass Perez, to win first you have to finish, and it reminds me of Pastor putting it on the kerb in his first Australian GP for Williams. I don't care whose fault it is, but it was Pastor like to bin it at that stage of the race.

Err no.
That attempted pass by Massa was the first chance he got as Perez had only just been passed by Vettel at the previous corner.

As to your second point - how on earth can you say you don't care whose fault it is yet still tag Massa with blame on binning it at that point.

You obviously have access to much more data and have more top-level racing experience than the stewards.

[coppice]

oyster said:

carinaman said:

Regarding the Massa shunt:
2. Massa had opportunities to pass Perez, to win first you have to finish, and it reminds me of Pastor putting it on the kerb in his first Australian GP for Williams. I don't care whose fault it is, but it was Pastor like to bin it at that stage of the race.

Err no.
That attempted pass by Massa was the first chance he got as Perez had only just been passed by Vettel at the previous corner.

As to your second point - how on earth can you say you don't care whose fault it is yet still tag Massa with blame on binning it at that point.

You obviously have access to much more data and have more top-level racing experience than the stewards.

I sometimes wonder what some F1 fans actually want - safe overtakes , driving for points , no risks being taken and every driver penalised or criticised for moves that didn't work out? Massa took a risk- bloody good for him- it's what drivers do , especially when the race is near its end. I don't care whose 'fault' the incident was- it's one of the things that made the race so memorable . I assume Carinaman(apt name ?) would have preferred the incident hadn't happened at all and Massa take the dull option by holding station? Bet he wasn't a Gilles Villeneuve fan....

[CraigyMc]

Soo:

article on 19th June said:

Force India have lodged an official request for Sergio Perez's five-place grid penalty to be reviewed in the light of "new elements" relating to his last-lap collision with Williams' Felipe Massa at the previous round in Canada.

The FIA stewards at this weekend's Grand Prix in Austria will meet on Friday morning to determine whether the additional evidence warrants further investigation of the incident.

Should they decide it does, a hearing to review the penalty decision will be convened later the same day. Both Perez and Massa would be obliged to attend the secondary meeting.

Montreal stewards deemed that Perez had changed his racing line while defending fourth place from Massa on the final run down to Turn 1 in Canada, causing the impact which pitched both men into the barriers at speed.

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2014/6/1596...